In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@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 (1979) 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.