re monophysites and mike walker in article may geneva rutgers edu db n andrew cmu edu d andrew byler writes mike walker if you are using the standard formula of fully god and fully human that i m not sure why you object to saying that jesus was human i think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic definition of humanity it s a consequence of the fall jesus is human but not a fallen human clh i differ with our moderator on this i thought the whole idea of god coming down to earth to live as one of us subject to sin and death as one of the consecration prayers in the book of common prayer puts it was that jesus was tempted but did not succumb if sin is not part of the basic definition of humanity then jesus fully human nicea would not be subject to sin but then the resurrection loses some of its meaning because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin to distinguish between human and fallen human makes jesus less like one of us at the time we need him most these issues get mighty subtle when you see people saying different things it s often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously different things or whether they are using different terminology i don t think there s any question that there is a problem with nestorius and i would agree that the saying christ had a human form without a real human nature or will is heretical but i d like to be a bit wary about the copts armenians etc recent discussions suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from orthodoxy as many had thought nestorius was an extreme representative of one of the two major schools of thought more moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox e g theodore of mopsuestia my impression is that the modern monophysite groups inherit the entire tradition not just nestorius version and that some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as orthodox clh first the monophysites inherited none of nestorius s version they were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him second the historical record suggests that the positions attributed to nestorius were not as extreme as his successful opponents who wrote the conventional history claimed mainly nestorius opposed the term theotokos for mary arguing i think correctly that a human could not be called mother of god i mean in the athanasian creed we talk about the son uncreate surely even arians would concede that jesus existed long before mary anyway nestorius s opponents claimed that by saying mary was not theotokos that he claimed that she only gave birth to the human nature of jesus which would require two seperate and distinct natures the argument fails though because mary simply gave birth to jesus who preexisted her either divinely if you accept nestorianism as commonly defined or both natures intertwined a la chalcedon second i am not sure that nestorianism is not a better alternative than the orthodox view after all i find it hard to believe that pre incarnation that jesus s human nature was in heaven likewise post ascension i think rather that god came to earth and took our nature upon him it was a seperate nature capable of being tempted as in gethsemane since i believe the divine nature could never be tempted but in its moments of weakness the divine nature prevailed comments on the above warmly appreciated jason albert there may be differences in what we mean by subject to sin the original complaint was from someone who didn t see how we could call jesus fully human because he didn t sin i completely agree that jesus was subject to temptation i simply object to the idea that by not succumbing he is thereby not fully human i believe that you do not have to sin in order to be human i again apologize for confusing nestorianism and monophysitism i agree with you and have said elsewhere that there s reason to think that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in fact heretical there are scholars who maintain that nestorius was not nestorian i have to confess that the first time i read some of the correspondence between nestorius and his opponents i thought he got the better of them however most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to chalcedon was an advance and that nestorius was at the very least rash and dogmatic as the editor of the christological controversy refers to him in rejecting all approaches other than his own as regular usenet readers know narrowness can be just as much an impediment as being wrong furthermore he did say some things that i think are problematical he responds to a rather mild letter from cyril with a flame worthy of usenet in it he says to attribute also to the logos in the name of the incarnation the characteristics of the flesh that has been conjoined with him is my brother either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of arius and apollinaris and the others those who are thus carried away with the idea of this association are bound because of it to make the divine logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his fearfulness these things are taken falsely when they are put off on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us who perpetrate the falsehood it s all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between humanity and divinity but the whole concept of incarnation is based on exactly the idea that the divine logos does in fact have to some degree a part in being born growing up and dying of course it must be understood that there s a certain indirectness in the logos participation in these things but there must be some sort of identification between the divine and human or we don t have an incarnation at all nestorius seemed to think in black and white terms and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this area you say i find it hard to believe that pre incarnation that jesus s human nature was in heaven i don t think that s required by orthodox doctrine it s the divine logos that is eternal clh
