|WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
In the New Testament there are two sets of teachings: those which distinguish the Human and the Divine, and those which unite them. If it is understood that the more distiguishable two things are, the more perfectly they make one, then these teachings make one doctrine, just as the Father and Son, the Divine and the Human make one God, who is Divinely Human, and Humanly Divine.
That this is the case can be seen clearly in several statements by the Lord Jesus, such as, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." And "I and My Father are One."
Also the allusion to the burning bramble when the Lord said, "Before Abraham was I am." We can see that the Divine and the Human are the same essence and being and will and the same God because He first says "I AM who [is] I AM", twice as a name, and then simply "I AM".
The words "Divine Human" convey to us, not Jesus as He hung on the cross, before the Human was fully glorified, and the Holy Spirit was not yet (John 7:39), but the Lord glorified, who breathed on them the Holy Spirit, His own breath. As he says, "I will send you another Comforter, I will come to you". The Holy Spirit is another comforter, not because it is a separate person, but because the presence of the Son of Man before glorification was one comforter, and His presence glorified, the Son of God, was the full comforter, the Holy Spirit. But the son of God glorified is the Human glorified, which is as Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." For in Jesus Christ dwells the fulness of the Divinity bodily"
Besides, the purpose of separating the Human nature from the Divine nature was much more political than it was theological, not just because Rome held one view, and Byzantine the other, but because by means of this doctrine the Pope could become the vicar of Christ, for no one could be vicar of the Divine nature, but if the human nature was not Divine, then this function could be passed on to Peter, and thus to the Popes, while Christ keeps only His Divine nature after glorification. But then how is it that the Son of Man is glorified, what is glorified, the Divine nature was already in full glory, and Abraham beheld this glory.
As always the simplest answer rings true. The Lord Jesus Christ is the one God of heaven and earth, He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Creator from eternity, the Redeemer in time, and the Savior to eternity, and this is the gospel to be preached.
your brother, Andrew James
"miaphysitism" needs its own article
As I have tried to make clear in rewriting this article, "monophysitism" and "miaphysitism" are two separate positions, and the latter needs its own article, instead of being a redirect to "monophysitism." Would someone pleace help with this? I am still learning the ropes when it comes certain functions - --Midnite Critic 6 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
- The technical point: When viewing the article, click on "What links here" on the left column toolbox. Scroll down and locate the entry "Miaphysitism (redirect page)". Click the link and you see the actual redirect page. You can edit that page and replace the redirect with an article.
- The factual point: Isn't "monophysitism" a inherently point of view term? Do you really think that it can be safely divided in two articles?
- Pjacobi July 7, 2005 18:59 (UTC)
Thanks for the technical information. Following your instructions, I have created a separate article regarding miaphysitism and, I THINK, have managed to present a NPOV. Any feedback is welcome. --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
Miaphysistism would generally be considered to be a subset of Monophysitism, I think. So it's okay to have it in its own article, as long as we still discuss it on this page, as well. john k 8 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
- Miaphysitism is not a subset of monophysitism, as any Orthodox oriental Christian would tell you clearly.
- Nrgdocadams 21:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
Monophyisitism and Islam
I just read an article in the Times Literary Supplement (Nov 28, 2008), raising the issue that the monophysite split in the Christian church prepared the ground for the Islamic takeover in the eastern Mediterranean, as Syria and the Levant were the main monophysite bases. I wonder whether this historical circumstance and its possible implications for the early history of Islam (given the obvious paralells between monophysitism and the Islamic concept of God) deserves some mention. There must be scholars who have studied this in much more depth than me - and wikipedians who are better prepared to tackle the matter, with the proper "ifs" and "buts". Aussiesta (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should probably be included in the article. Part of the problem is that many Oriental heretics had difficulties understanding what the expression ”body and blood of Christ“ means. To them, the question of the incarnation was difficult to understand, and the crucifixion and resurrection even more so. It was difficult to imagine how the incarnated Lord Jesus could even have a living human nature at all, so from their perspective it was like saying ”body and blood of Allah“, something that still sounds a bit strange today. There is another primitive heresy called docetism which also denies the body of Christ. It was from this particular context that the early Muslims were able to quickly spread their religion. ADM (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, okay, except that the so-called "monophysite" Churches are not in fact "monophysite" as the agreed statements between the Oriental Churches and the RCC, on the one hand, and the EO Churches, on the other, cleary demonstrate. Further, saying "the body and blood of God" is a perfectly understandable statement from any orthodox Christological perspective. The human, Jesus Christ, is God. Full stop. Finally, the Christology of Islam is closest to Nestorianism, sort of a strange combination of that and docetism, and Nestorianism is, of course, the polar opposite real, Eutychian monophysitism. The "particular context" in which Islam overtook areas of the Middle East dominated by the Oriental Orthodox (as well as the Assyrian "nestorian" Church) was largely one of political, social, cultural, and ethnic issues, not theological ones (i.e., given Romano-Byzantine chalcedonian oppression, the OO initially perceived the Muslims as liberators; that didn't work out so well, of course). Christologically, Islam has about as much in common with any historic, extant, trinitarian form of Christianity as does Judaism. --Midnite Critic (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Mother of Allah
It would be interesting if we could historically attest the use of the expression Mother of Allah by monophysites and other Eastern Christians in order to name the Theotokos. Since for them, mother of Christ = mother of God, and God = Allah, then logically they would have no problem in talking about the mother of Allah. ADM (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deusveritasest has repeatedly inserted the phrase "by some" into the hatnote at the top of the page. As I pointed out several times, these are weasel words and should be avoided. He seems to think that the wording somehow improves neutrality, but it's just vague equivocation. Many sources refer to what Wikipedia calls Oriental Orthodoxy as "Monophysite", without any judgment and with full understanding of the theological differences, for instance Britannica here, which specifically says that the churches typically labeled "Monophysite" did not all follow the doctrine advanced by Eutyches, and that their Christology is generally accepted as orthodox by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches.--Cúchullain t/c 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what matters. What matters is that there are various historical sources (primarily the OO themselves) who have refused to refer to the OO as Monophysites, and thus to generally say "they have historically been referred to as Monophysites", with no qualification that this was not by everybody and was not generally agreed upon, is wholly inaccurate. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- For the fourth time, what really matters is conveying actual information in our writing. "By some" does not convey the information you seem to want it to convey, nor does it improve neutrality. It's pointless waffling. The "by some" is already implicit; the hatnote does not indicate that this was a universal term only that it has been used (by some), which is undeniable. Come up with something that follows the guidelines and we can talk, but this doesn't work and will have to be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)