Confusion on nature christology

I'm heavily invested now in Oriental orthodox beliefs especially regarding theopaschism that Christ suffered in the flesh but not the flesh alone but in the very reality of his one nature that is divine and human.

But I find problem understanding the terminology regarding that the nature's do not mingle. I believe both the orthodox churches say that but if the term isn't redundant doesn't it mean that at no aspect or no point of his did Christ's human nature become divine and at no aspect did his divine nature be human. I fail to see how the usage of the term isn't admitting to a real distinction or tending towards dyophysitism. Can someone help me understand how the no mingling term though i understand it is necessary to believe not speak of dyophysitism, thanks?

I'm having doubts in my head.