Re: Orthodoxy (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

From: Dr. Blake Nelson <>
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 11:32:43 EST

--- George Murphy <> wrote:
> D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:35:56 -0500 George Murphy
> <>
> > writes:
> > > Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
> (SNIP)
> & since we're quibbling, let me note that your
> response to Blake's statement,
> "Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Second Person of
> the Trinity, is not a creature,"
> namely that it "Sounds patripassian," is incorrect.
> How it sounds is either docetic
> (that Christ's humanity was only apparent) or
> monophysite (that his humanity was
> swallowed up in divinity). Patripassianism in
> itself doesn't say anything about the
> humanity of Jesus but is a modalistic claim about
> the Trinity - i.e., it was the Father
> who suffered on the cross.
> Whether or not Blake meant his statement in a
> docetic or monophysite sense is
> another matter & something he may want to address.

I was not contemplating such categories and did not
mean it in *either* a docetic or monophysite sense,
which is where, contra Walt, my amatuerish-ness shows
itself. IIRC -- and I apologize since I do not have
the time to go look up the exact context -- I was
trying to respond to what I thought was a
misunderstanding by Dave of what I said. In effect, I
thought he was arguing that I did not take the
divinity of Jesus seriously. I wanted to emphasize
that I did. In doing so, I lurched untintentionally
too far in the other direction without a caveat.
Lacking the proper categories off my head to discuss
it, I meant something to the effecet that there is an
aspect (not the right word) of Jesus of Nazareth that
is pre-existing and not a creature, but Jesus as a
fully human being in the sense that we all do has a
created body, a created human nature.


Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
Received on Thu Jan 1 11:33:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 11:33:01 EST