Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SoothingDave
What Pelayo is emphasising is the divine part of Jesus. If Jesus was God, then there is no way that God could sin, do harm. That is true.

Docetism may be the denial of the reality of Jesus' humanity. And I do not think Pelayo has strayed to that point. Perhaps, a truncation of Jesus' humanity is a better way of characterizing the view which seems to be expressed. If Jesus could not sin, then what was acted out on earth was a divine farce. Now, one could say that there is no possibility that Jesus would sin and that would make all the difference. But to say that He could not sin removes him from the realm of humanity (even the initial form of humanity expressed by Adam and Eve, before the fall).

Pelayo's view seems to fit under the category of Apollinarianism (the friend of Athanasius, Apollinarius) which emphasized the deity of Jesus to the effective suppression of his humanity. It was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

164 posted on 10/11/2001 10:11:11 AM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]


To: the808bass
Pelayo's view seems to fit under the category of Apollinarianism (the friend of Athanasius, Apollinarius) which emphasized the deity of Jesus to the effective suppression of his humanity.

I don't think Pelayo was empasizing Jesus's diety to that extent. I certainly see much more effort here to suppress Jesus' divinity. Do you not admit with me that there is an essential paradox inherent in the Incarnation? That, as I said, Jesus had to be able to freely choose to sin, and yet could not possibly have ended up doing so?

SD

172 posted on 10/11/2001 10:38:41 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson