Talk:Miaphysitism

Well, here it is. What do ya think? --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting this going. I'll add a little more about the theology, linguistics and politics behind the stance when I can. --Gareth Hughes 00:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Syriac text showing up as ???
Hi. Why does the Syriac text show up as something else (pre-Aramaic script Hebrew?) rather than Syriac? I tried to edit it (I have the Syriac keyboard on my computer) but it didn't make any difference. I've seen Syriac script show up elsewhere on Wikipedia, so why doesn't it work here?

Mark Dickens

Excellent article; but where is the bibliography?
132.66.234.191 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mega-Huh!

 * Miaphysitism: Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.
 * Dyophysitism: Christ is one person in two natures, but emphasizes that the natures are "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".

Is this the schism? 1 nature here and 2 nature there, and the whole googleplex of it yet having exactly identical qualities. Am I stupid, or ... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rursus, this schism was and is a complex mix of conflict involving theology, language, personalities, politics, and culture. The supporters of Chalcedon tended to be members of the dominant Greco-Roman social and political elements, while those who rejected it were mostly from culturally and politically marginal groups, the rural Syrians, the Copts, the Armenians. --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Miaphysitism in Greek
I think there is a need to write full sentence(s) on the etymology of the word, Miaphysitism for better understanding. --Komitsuki (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The section on "History" starts with "The term "miaphysitism" arose as a response to Nestorianism" but then discusses the concept, not the term. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miaphysitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Category%3ACoptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829144612/http://britishorthodox.org/2church.php to http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The article conflates Miaphysitism with Monophysitism
Miaphysitism is Orthodox, it is not Monophysitism. Monophysite Churches are not Miaphysite. The article is almost complete rubbish as a result of this confusion. It looks more like a work of propaganda to defend the Monophysites as misunderstood which is far from the historical truth. 94.197.120.81 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

--BloatedPotato (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC) This is not correct, the two are the same (as has been cited in the newly merged article).

As a theologian, the distinction between Monophysitism and Miaphysitism is an important one: in Roman Catholic theology, Monophysitism, so named, stands in contrast to the Chalcedon definition, and thus is considered a historical heresy. Miaphysitism, as a currently held doctrine by later oriental churches, is distinct from historical Monophysitism if only in separating current oriental belief from the historical controversy. These concepts need to revert to separate articles so as to not confuse the natures of the two articles... ShaziDaoren (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I get what you are saying; the ways the terms have been used historically is distinct, but both refer to the same christological position. There is no difference in the content of miaphysitism and monophysitism. The only difference comes through connotation; you are quite right to say that Roman Catholicism has historically refered to miaphysitism as monophysitism, but this has always been in a derogatory way. You are also quite right to say that these 'later oriental churches' have used the term miaphysitism, and so, because the latter is void of negative connotation, it is the form that should be used. There should be a 'history of the usage' section on the current miaphysitism article, but since the two terms refer to the same theological concept, the articles must remain conflated to avoid the implication that the two terms refer to different concepts, which would be a false implication. The current belief and the historical belief are the same. --BloatedPotato (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miaphysitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126005953/http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id21.html to http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
The current tone of this article is heavily biased towards the Chalcedonian POV. The classical Monophysite position is that Cyril of Alexandria did not countenance the idea that two natures were united in Jesus Christ but that he was simply using natural linguistic the feminine form of "one" instead of the masculine form monos of single because of the grammatical context as in simple common speech with no deep philosophical nuance intended. The position is that Cyril intended to say that Jesus Christ's humanity was only divine alone in origin. The simple commonsense linguistic point of view of the Monophysites is completely ignored by the article. Chouvrtou (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Cyril of Alexandria did not use the term Miaphysite. Who in history was the first perso to coin the phrase Miaphysite? I believe it only appeaeed in the 20th century am I correct? Chouvrtou (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Blog or free web host
Would someone please identify the "blog or free web host" that was automatically detected in the text, so that it can be removed? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - you can spot many blogs by searching their hostname for "wordpress.com". Unfortunately it was the Eastern Orthodox joint statement thing. Hopefully can find a reliably-published version of it all. Elizium23 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy. Thanks. And apologies for not having put a better edit summary on my correction. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)