Christ is THE God-Man. True God, True Man.But how does hypostatizing the Jesus-God-The-Son union make any real difference? It's just a philosophical game to achieve the result that is conformant to your doctrine.
You will tell me that the hypostatic union (assumption of an impersonalized body/soul) removes the need for any true human person in Jesus, so that Jesus may be regarded as a fully divine person, which then mandates a need for the separate enhypostasis doctrine.
Trinitarians assert that Jesus did not pretend to be human—He possessed real human personhood. They eventually came up with the word enhypostasis to denote this as a "fact." But is it a fact that logically follows from the proposition of "one divine person"? They posit that Jesus was really “in” human nature and was a real human person, by virtue of his divine person being "extended," but why should anyone assume this makes Christ a real human?
For the problem as I see it, is that it becomes unscriptural. Paul in Phil 2:6,7 talks about Christ Jesus' "existence" (i.e. his "nature" in Trinitarian terminology) being emptied, not extended.
For Trinitarians, Christ is a "god man," never a true man. But in the bible, Christ's very hypostasis mutated to become a human. Trinitarians trivialize this by relying on contrived doctrines such as "enhypostasis" and the "hypostatic union."
The rest is endless gibberish.