Development of dyophysite Christology was gradual; dyophysite tradition and its complex terminology were finally formulated as a result of the long Christological debates that were constant during the 4th and 5th centuries. Variations of dyophysite Christology steadily emerged in the teachings of
Valentinus,
Paul of Samosata,
Diodore of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others. Dyophysitism stands in opposition to the views of
monophysitism, the doctrine of Jesus having a sole divine nature, and
miaphysitism, the doctrine that Christ is of both divine and human natures fully united into one composite nature. The Chalcedonian definition of dyophysitism holds that the two natures are completely and perfectly united in the one
Person and
hypostasis of Jesus Christ, in union with each other and co-existing without mixture, confusion or change; the Nestorian definition, on the other hand, holds that the two natures are united in a
Prosopic union, as opposed to the
Hypostatic union elaborated upon by
Cyril of Alexandria and upheld by the
Oriental Orthodox Churches. The importance of dyophysitism was often emphasized by prominent representatives of the
Antiochene school in contrast to the
Alexandrian school. The
miaphysites upheld the idea of one nature in Christ based on their understanding of
Cyril of Alexandria's teachings, including his Twelve Anathemas, namely number 4 which states: Dyophysitism was articulated in the
Council of Chalcedon in 451,
Nature (ousia) in the Chalcedonian sense can be understood to be referring to a set of "powers and qualities which constitute a being" whereas
person (prosopon) refers to "a concrete individual acting as subject in its own right." For adherents, the
hypostatic union is the center of Jesus's unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon saw his nature itself as the point of unity. Dyophisitism has also been used to describe some aspects of
Nestorianism, the doctrines ascribed to
Nestorius of Constantinople. It is now generally agreed that some of his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial among churches. This became especially prominent after the discovery of the
Bazaar of Heracleides, which renewed interest in his work. == Acceptance ==