From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Lines: 45

>		- 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]

The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.  It believes
that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is
correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had
only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the
orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two
energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect
harmony).  That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus
came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human
will.  In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to
original sin.
It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this
conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but
not two wills or two energies.  It also was condemned, at a late council
in Constantinople I believe.

Andy Byler

[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]
