He was responsible for the claim (concerning the Chalcedonian Definition) that "Christian doctrines were not conformed to the mould of already existing terminologies, but terms already available were adopted into Christian discourse and given new meanings."
Emphasizing the humanity or divinity at the expense of the other is what Lecture 12 has depicted as this.
Gregory of Nazianzen
He is responsible for the following statement: "If anyone has put his trust in Him [Jesus] as a man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He [the Son] has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only hald of Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."
This believes that Christ did not join himself to physical reality/body. He only appeared to be flesh. For Christ to remain pure/holy, he had to remain at a distance from matter, which was thought to be evil.
This individual states the following: "we do not let God sit idly by in heaven among the angels, but we find him here below, lying in the manger and on his Mother's lap. We summarize and say: 'Wherever we encounter this person, there we surely encounter the Divine Majesty.'"
This Chalcedonian Definition does NOT require us to reject this.
The Antiochene tradition (Word-Man Christology) affirms the full, undiminished human nature of Jesus, to the degree to which they refuse this language.
This tradition is fundamentally unitive, insisting upon the true unity of the two natures.
Cyril of Alexandria and the Chalcedonian Definition
These teach us that the human nature that the Son assumes to his person is the substance of all other human persons, not that it is simply his own unique humanity.