Why was monophysitism so popular in Palestine?

Why was monophysitism so popular in Palestine? Palestine had traditionally been Jewish, and one would assume that Jewish Christians would be the once leaning most towards Arianism or Nestorianism, which focused on the human aspects of Jesus.
 
Why was monophysitism so popular in Palestine? Palestine had traditionally been Jewish, and one would assume that Jewish Christians would be the once leaning most towards Arianism or Nestorianism, which focused on the human aspects of Jesus.

It wasn't just Jews there.

Also the Jewish god seems less Human focused and more a Super powerful figure beyond humans. Not very personal.
 
The monophysitism term, according to Wikipedia, is basically meaningless and doesn't set them apart from the main Christian denominations in theology. That and apparently they don't even use it themselves. As for making assumptions on Jewish Christians, are you taking about Judeans from two thousand years ago? There were Jews all over the Roman Empire and as far as India and China. Nestornianism and Jacobism was common in certain areas, though terms changed and some communities ended or were separated long enough to become fully unique. Also, how should Rabbinical and Temple Judaism come into this? Read some suggestions that Judaism split into two groups infact. One Christianity, the other Rabbinical Judaism.
 
It wasn't just Jews there.

Also the Jewish god seems less Human focused and more a Super powerful figure beyond humans. Not very personal.

Many Jews had of course been exiled, but most of the Christians living there were descendants of Jews that had converted to Christianity.
 
Why was monophysitism so popular in Palestine? Palestine had traditionally been Jewish, and one would assume that Jewish Christians would be the once leaning most towards Arianism or Nestorianism, which focused on the human aspects of Jesus.

Ahh...

The way I've heard it explained is that the concept of 'natures' was rendered 'physis' in Greek, and something else in Aramaic (sorry, don't know Aramaic).

The basic meanings of the words were the same, but the connotations just a little different, so Greeks go 'duh, of course Christ has two natures, he's fully God and fully Man', and the Aramaic speakers go 'duh, he's one, indivisible, of course he's got one nature'.

Not REALLY disagreeing on theology, but on linguistics. But, because of the slight twist on translation, it SEEMED like they were disagreeing, and so anathemas were hurled.

If you look at 'monophysite' areas, they are all non-Greek speaking areas. The 'duophysite' were Greek and Latin areas.

So, Palestine leaned monophysite, sure. Because they spoke the same Aramaic as Syria and most of the rest of the Middle East.

You also get the further complication that the further provinces (especially those separated by language), felt isolated from the center of the Empire, and a mild 'heresy' was one way to express outrage with the Capital.

Of course, once you've GOT the split, then theology diverges a bit more, but the core theologies aren't that different, often.

Personally, I think that the 'miaphysite' variant of 'monophysite' is perfectly compatible with my (essentially duophysite) belief, because us humans trying to define what God's 'nature' is is an exercise in hubris as much as it is in theology.
 
Ahh...

The way I've heard it explained is that the concept of 'natures' was rendered 'physis' in Greek, and something else in Aramaic (sorry, don't know Aramaic).

The basic meanings of the words were the same, but the connotations just a little different, so Greeks go 'duh, of course Christ has two natures, he's fully God and fully Man', and the Aramaic speakers go 'duh, he's one, indivisible, of course he's got one nature'.

Not REALLY disagreeing on theology, but on linguistics. But, because of the slight twist on translation, it SEEMED like they were disagreeing, and so anathemas were hurled.

If you look at 'monophysite' areas, they are all non-Greek speaking areas. The 'duophysite' were Greek and Latin areas.

So, Palestine leaned monophysite, sure. Because they spoke the same Aramaic as Syria and most of the rest of the Middle East.

You also get the further complication that the further provinces (especially those separated by language), felt isolated from the center of the Empire, and a mild 'heresy' was one way to express outrage with the Capital.

Of course, once you've GOT the split, then theology diverges a bit more, but the core theologies aren't that different, often.

Personally, I think that the 'miaphysite' variant of 'monophysite' is perfectly compatible with my (essentially duophysite) belief, because us humans trying to define what God's 'nature' is is an exercise in hubris as much as it is in theology.

And then, of course you have the Nestorians. About miaphysite, I do not understand the difference between this and monophysite.
 
I THINK the difference is mostly labelling.

Mia phusis (one nature) a phrase as opposed to monophusis (single nature) a combined word. Same thing, really.

More specifically, it SEEMS to me that miaphysites, while insisting on one nature, accept that that nature is both human and divine. While SOME monophysites insist that single nature is purely divine. (Or were certainly accused of believing that.)

I know that Flocc, who is one (or rather, whose family is), is rather more comfortable with 'miaphysite' than 'monophysite'.
 
Top