[Kolokotronis]

"The hypostatic union did not making him into a different person,"

No, it did not.

" so trying to speculate from which "nature" he spoke is disingenuous given it's still one and the same Person speaking, without confusion."

Read what +John Chrysostomos wrote, Kosta. He isn't speculating about which nature spoke with the young man. He is writing about who the young man thought he was talking to.

"But older manuscripts of Matthew 19:17 don't mention God."

I know, Kosta. There is some not so interesting commentary on that. Frankly, I don't know that the mention of God adds or detracts much of anything to the verse when read in context.

"Nice. How does this square with

πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν? (John 20:17)"

Here's what +John Chrysostomos says:

""Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God." Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then says He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departs into the heavens. But the, "To My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God," belongs to the Dispensation, since the "ascending" also belongs to His Flesh. For He speaks these words to one who had no high thoughts. "Is then the Father His in one way, and ours in another?" Assuredly then He is. For if He is God of the righteous in a manner different from that in which He is God of other men, much more in the case of the Son and us. For because He had said, "Say to the brethren," in order that they might not imagine any equality from this, He showed the difference. He was about to sit on His Father's throne, but they to stand by. So that albeit in His Subsistence according to the Flesh He became our Brother, yet in Honor He greatly differed from us, it cannot even be told how much." Homily LXXXVI on John.

[kosta50]

Here's what +John Chrysostomos says...But the, "To My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God," belongs to the Dispensation, since the "ascending" also belongs to His Flesh"

Flesh or no flesh, Kolo mou, he was sent (didn't come on his own) to become flesh; in all this the Father is greater than he, the Father is obeyed, the father's will is done, and the Father is his God. Remember it's not about flesh but about the person. If to this person, the Father is his God, then that person is no God, or so it seems to me.

[kosta50]

There is some not so interesting commentary on that. Frankly, I don't know that the mention of God adds or detracts much of anything to the verse when read in context.

No it doesn't, if by context you mean that Jesus clearly states that he is not the one who is Good.