Do Monophysite Christians still exist?

[Spade_01]

Just came across a video that included Ghassanid and Lakhmid empire. One of the major beliefs they held were Monophysite Christianity and Arab Paganism. Do such Christians still exist by this title (or another one; of a sect that encompasses this belief)? On looking into it more, I go the definition of it as:

Monophysite, in Christianity, one who believed that Jesus Christ’s nature remains altogether divine and not human even though he has taken on an earthly and human body with its cycle of birth, life, and death. Monophysitism asserted that the person of Jesus Christ has only one, divine nature rather than the two natures, divine and human, that were established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Yes.

No.

No idea if they exist/ it's for the first time I'm hearing this term.

[NamerOfStars]

I THINK that some sects of the Coptic Orthodox Church might still hold it, but I'm not sure. Monophysitism is a doctrine, not a sect; it's about the nature of Jesus.

See, Christianity began as a Jewish apocalypse cult, expecting that His return (and the accompanying end of the world) was going to happen any day now. Within the Roman empire (which was the heart of where it spread, though not the limits of it; not a LONG way), it was brutally persecuted, and its universalist and proselytizing nature meant that it typically encountered a lot of resistance, and went underground in places ranging from Ireland to India. When emperor Constantine actually went and CONVERTED, things changed- but by then, it'd been two and a half centuries, and there was a LOT of points of dispute over just what being "Christian" meant.

One of the points of dispute was just how human Jesus was, and just how divine. The Council of... I think it was Chalcedon, but I don't have those books any more, decided that Jesus had both a divine nature and a human nature (among a whole bunch of other stuff). Chalcedonian Christianity is pretty much all of it nowadays; the only exceptions left are the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (which still exists, despite the fact that Assyrian hasn't for thousands of years). The opposition to the Chalcedonians (or Dyophyitists, which I may be spelling wrong) on this point were the Monophysites, who held that Jesus had only one nature, which was wholly divine.

Now, you would THINK that this means that they believed Jesus wasn't human; just a god in a human body, but no- their writings make it clear that they held fast to the idea of the Incarnation. If you're hoping for an explanation of how that makes sense, well, so am I- there may well be one, but my knowledge on the subject, while fairly broad, is pretty shallow, and I have neither the linguistic nor the cultural knowledge base to understand the answers even if I did know them.

As the conflict between the two factions of early Christianity grew, a third option emerged: the Miaphysites, who held that Jesus had only one nature, which was both human AND divine. How does that differ from Him having both a divine nature and a human one? No one I've ever talked to really knows. This isn't something Christians really discuss any more; at least not outside of graduate-school-level theology classes. Our more modern (as in, over the past thirteen hundred years or so) disputes are about more temporal matters, like the role of the Church in the secular world, and what exactly qualifies as a sin, and why.

So if there are still Monophysites out there, as there may well be, their sect won't be called "Monophysite".

[Spade_01]

Yes, the Eastern Roman empire crushed their uprising so hard that it didn't make a significant impact on the course of history. They were heretics to the Miaphysites.

However the small kingdoms that I mentioned in the description of the question, namely Ghassanids and Lakhmid empires who acted as the vassal states for the Roman and Sassanid empire had it in popularity. But then again, the Romans crushed the Ghassanids because of this disagreement between the two which led to a not too useful revolt from the Ghassanids.

Again, in my bio I mentioned that 'Monophysitism asserted that the person of Jesus Christ has only one, divine nature rather than the two natures, divine and human, that were established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.'

Yes, I tried to look into how one would be able to explain it but since I'm a Muslim, you might be aware of how I'd look into the matter when it comes to belief regarding Jesus (peace be upon him).

[NamerOfStars]

Yeah, these quibbly points of theology can get VERY particular, and people kind of crazy about them. I've always opted for the "love 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach; it seems safer.

[Spade_01]

I adhere more strictly to Islam. And there's only one argument to it under Islam. And I usually go about 'tell them if they wanna know, or leave it be.'

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I don't see a difference that a human could even comprehend. I was decieved by Christianity for the first 36 years of my life.

Get a Hebrew Bible and read Numbers 23: 19. The first half of the verse says, "God is not a man, that He should Lie, neither the Son of Man, that He should repent."

This means Jesus was a false prophet, since he called himself "The Son of Man" and "The Son of God" at the same time, which is functionally impossible to be true, an he also called himself "God the Father in the flesh" late in JOhn's Gospel, which is also a direct violation of Numbers either way.

That's the first thing a Jewish Rabbi quotes in a debate with a Christian, "God is not a man" so Jesus is not God, never was God, and Never will be God.

[Spade_01]

Christianity has been corrupted by the countless edits and different kings having edits of their own. Jesus (pbuh) was one of the mightiest messengers of God. Even in Bible mentions of verses where he bowed to God like us Muslims do. He always claimed to have a higher power above him and the word 'father' wasn't meant to be the literal father. You are always welcome to the fold of Islam, read the Qur'an yourself and it'll make sense to you. Or you could just simply as me for more direct things.

[Dargil]

Coptic and Ethiopian churches lean that way. I think most Fundamentalist Christians have never addressed it and could be convinced either way.

[strateguy632]

never addressed, what about nicea council? both mono options lost followers and went extinct

[leahzrc]

sounds interesting

[Spade_01]

Indeed. It's for the first time I heard of them.

[LiamJHayden]

Copts and Armenian Orthodox usually are.

[strateguy632]

none