Whoa, indeed, MD! No one is accusing you, although I stand by my statemnent that what Lewis says about the amalgamated nature is pure heresy in the East, and Inwould imagine in the Latin West, but not necessarily in the Protestant communities.
I was responding to your question what I though of Lewis' book, and I told you that I strongly disagreed with what he says. Kolo then simply reinforced my statement by quoting Orthodox doctrine.
I don't think I think that. I don't even think Lewis thinks that.
You can tell us what you think, but what Lewis thinks is spelled out in his work "Why did Jesus have to Die?" Here is a quote from Chapter 4 on Perfect Pentient [my emphasis].
The Ecumenical Councils declared that Christ is one Person, two natures, unmixed , i.e. un-amalgamated, distinct, and without confusion.
I also do not agree with Lewis that God had to beocme man to "understabd" pain. If God is all-knowing then He knows what it's like to be an ant or a human being. Unless you agree with the bible that some things are hidden from God.
That amalgamation stuff seems very very wrong to me. Not that I pretend to understand the Chalcedonian definition, but amalgamation sure doesn't come to my mind as a word to use about the two natures in one person. YEAH, I can appreciate the avoidance of "dividing the person" but that sure sounds like confusing (Literally, that seems to be what 'amalgamate' means - to make a tertium quid by smooshing (a term much loved of the Fathers, I'm sure) up two other things. Wrong-O! (IMHO, of course.)
But Again, I only was referring to, like, the first chapter or so of Mere Christianity not to the entire Lewis corpus, be it never so amalgamated.