Neo-monophysitism

Actually it should be called "Neo-Arianism," but this carries unpleasant homophonic associations with national socialism. Poor Arius should have chosen a different name.

Monophysites were an early Christian splinter group who did not buy into the self-contradictory notion that Jesus was some kind of man-god, preferring to believe he was of one nature (that's what monophysite means, one nature), which they believed was divine. Arianism was the opposite. Arius, who founded this splinter group, believed Jesus was a man.

BTW this whole controversy eventually led to the expression "one tiny iota,"(*) but I digress.

Christians have been forced by the gathering, overpowering evidence of reality to re-evaluate the validity of the Bible. they've been doing this piecemeal for many years. For instance, outside creationists, no Christians believe the Hebrew myth of creation in Genesis is literally true. I suppose none, or few, believe Noah actually gathered two of every last land animal on Earth inside an ark somewhere in the Middle East, or that the world actually flooded the way the Hebrew myth has it. Or that they literally believe the story of the Tower of Babel.

Eventually they'll keep chipping away at their myths, admitting they're not literally true. It's inevitable.

So to spare a prediction on how this long progression will go, which I'll certainly get wrong in detail, let us cut to the chase:

Eventually Christians will have to admit the myth of Jesus is not literally true.

It may start with the secondary players. You know, like maybe Mary wasn't a virgin, but rather a woman of high virtue. A spiritual "virgin," if you will, unsullied by bad actions or even bad thoughts, very devoted to "God."

The end result will be the admission that Jesus was of one nature: a man.

The miracles? Worked by "God" though Jesus (like "God" worked allegedly through Moses before). Or they were metaphors.
Son of "God"? Yes! We're all "God's" children, and so was Jesus.
Sacrificed to redeem humanity? I'll let the Christians sort this out by themselves (I don't understand the plot-point or the character's motivation).

When this happens, we'll also be told the belief has not changed, and it's the same it was 2,000 years ago, because we're at war with Eastasia and we've always been at war with Eastasia. We'll also be told it's the message that matters, oppression is love, and not the specifics of it.

It would almost be worth it to set up a church to preach this.

Almost.



(*) Discussion about the nature of Jesus, I forget how, involved a Greek phrase something like "homo usio," meaning "same substance," juxtaposed with "homoi usio," meaning "similar substance." The difference in belief was huge, but on paper it boiled down the Greek letter for "I," the (in)famous tiny iota.

Quote: Nareed

Eventually Christians will have to admit the myth of Jesus is not literally true.
.

Of course. Buddhists know the Buddha is
a myth, it doesn't matter. It's the message
that counts.

Monophysites were more of a middle ground between the Arianists and the Gnostics. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus was God but not really human and Arius claimed that Jesus was man but not really God. The monophysites took a middle position that made Jesus more of a mixture of the two, a unique being who was not fully God and not fully human. I think monophysites really represent an attempt to return to paganism or look at Jesus like a Hercules.

The problem with your other argument is many of the Church fathers and even many Jewish Rabbis and scholars recognized that Genesis was not literal account of creation. Fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the creation stories (notice plural) is actually a fairly recent invention.

I believe C.S. Lewis' trilemma makes it impossible for any Christian to whittle away at the nature and reality of Jesus and who He is. It is one of the unique aspects of Christianity is that it is so frustratingly real and historical. While myths and fables preceded the ultimate hopes of mankind that God would be intimate and one of us Jesus Christ a real person who continues to have real effects on the lives of billions of people makes the idea that we could ignore the past and present Divine reality of Christ impossible. There is too much water under the bridge and still too much current flowing that makes the idea that Jesus was just a man a laughable impossibility. I acknowledge this is a hope of atheists and other secularists who have set up many churches to try to preach this idea of a secular non divine Jesus, it is really just a watered down version of Arius. Even Arius, who believed in the supernatural and the unmistakable miracles and uniqueness of Jesus would be embarrassed by these attempts.

Quote: FrGamble

The problem with your other argument is many of the Church fathers and even many Jewish Rabbis and scholars recognized that Genesis was not literal account of creation. Fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the creation stories (notice plural) is actually a fairly recent invention.

That's hard to take seriously when a short time ago you brought up Eve and her husband as though they were real people.

Another thing the Church Fathers and early Christians were able to do is discern from the stories of Genesis the parts that did teach important truths. Remember the Bible has never been a scientific textbook, it is meant to bestow religious truths necessary for salvation and the revelation of who God is. Through prayer discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the text, the Church has been able to recognize the truths revealed in the non-historical genres of writings.

Quote: FrGamble

Through prayer discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, .

Isn't this the same HS that guided your church, thru
prayer and discernment, into the The Crusades and
the lovely Inquisitions? That had you burning witches
at the stake? I don't think I'd put much stock is what
guidance you get from such a faulty source. Of course
the Church did profit mightily at the horrific expense
of others, so I guess it worked out for them.

Quote: FrGamble

Monophysites were more of a middle ground between the Arianists and the Gnostics.

That sounds like 5th Century CE Orthodox propaganda. The gnostics, as far as I know, regarded Jesus as some sort of apparition, like a spirit or ghost without any actual physical form, though he could be seen and heard.

If anyone fit in between Arianism and monophysitism, it was the followers of the Nicaean creed, though it seems more accurate to say Nicaea found the compromise between the two positions.

Monophysistes thrived under Muslim rule in the former Eastern lands of the Byzantine empire, and in Egypt as well. Muslims drew little distinction between the splinters of Christianity.

Quote:

The problem with your other argument is many of the Church fathers and even many Jewish Rabbis and scholars recognized that Genesis was not literal account of creation. Fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the creation stories (notice plural) is actually a fairly recent invention.

I'd bet the US GDP for the next million years that the myths in Genesis were believed as literal truth for centuries or millennia. Many still believe the Exodus myth literally.

Myths are nice things, or can be. Eventually, though, the value, if any, of a myth lies in its language, structure, style, content, etc. rather than in its perceived reality.

Quote: Nareed

I'd bet the US GDP for the next million years that the myths in Genesis were believed as literal truth for centuries or millennia.

Read the Power of Myth, by Joe Campbell.
He studied and taught the concepts of myth
all his life. He's the expert on showing what
myths added to the Jesus myth, which itself
is taken as fact today by millions. Nothing
about the Jesus myth is original, it's a
conglomeration of myths everyone was already
telling thru the ages.

All myths were at one time believed to be
true stories.

Quote: Nareed

Monophysistes thrived under Muslim rule in the former Eastern lands of the Byzantine empire, and in Egypt as well. Muslims drew little distinction between the splinters of Christianity.

There is an interesting theory that Islam is really an Arian heresy with its own prophet. They believe Jesus was a great prophet of word and deed, preforming all manner of miracles.

Quote:

I'd bet the US GDP for the next million years that the myths in Genesis were believed as literal truth for centuries or millennia.

Read the Church Fathers and I will send you the address as to where you can send the check.

Quote: FrGamble

There is an interesting theory that Islam is really an Arian heresy with its own prophet.

I've a theory about improper cultural appropriation.

Quote:

Read the Church Fathers and I will send you the address as to where you can send the check.

You may be shocked to hear Genesis was around, read and believed long, long, long before the church fathers' time.

Do you know the line about pride and falls?

I'll settle for one month's worth of Texas' GDP.