Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a4597cdb4b9111f8

Jump to content

Talk:Theopaschism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Deusveritasest in topic Classical Augustinian theology?

[Untitled]

[edit]

From the article "a split in the Church between those that accepted theopaschism (the Church) and those that didn't ("non-Chalcedonian", monophysite oriental orthodox churches)."

This looks POV - calling the Chalcedonians "the Church". But I wonder if it is correct - how could monophysites doubt it?--Henrygb 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clearly POV, but also incorrect. This is an issue with Nestorianism, not Monophysitism. Changing. Lxx 04:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Classical Augustinian theology?

[edit]

The article in part reads: "Classicial Augustinian theology, on the contrary, maintains that the man Jesus suffered to a much greater extent, in order to avoid to charges of modalism and patripassionism."

Maintains that "the Man Jesus" suffered more than who? The Word? Aren't the Word and the Man Jesus supposed to be the same? This quote sounds Nestorian to me. Can we get a citation on this? Deusveritasest (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply