Changes

'''AphthartodocetismAphtharto[[docetism]]''' (Greek ἄφθαρτος ''aphthartos'' "incorruptible" + δόκησις ''dokisis'' "[mere] appearance") also known as '''Julianism, “incorruptible”) ''' is a [[heresy]] formulated by the [[non-Chalcedonian]] bishop [[Julian of Halicarnassus |Julian ]] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halicarnassus Halicarnassus] in the sixth 6th century that added an extreme position to the heresy . It is a form of [[Monophysitism]], claiming that the body of argues [[Christ]] 's body was divinealways impassible, a doctrine which Julian believed was necessary for Christ's suffering and therefore death to have been voluntary. Julian's Aphthartodocetist Christology forced him to reject [[Cyril of Alexandria | St. Cyril]]'s teaching<ref>"Even after the resurrection [Christ's] same body which had suffered continued to exist, although it no longer contained any human weakness. We maintain that it was no longer susceptible to hunger or weariness or anything like this, but was thereafter incorruptible, imperishableand not only that but life-giving as well since it is the body of Life, that is the body of the Only Begotten. Now it is radiant with divine glory and is seen to be the body of God. So, even if someone should call it ‘divine’ just as one might call a man’s body ‘human’, such a fitting thought would not be mistaken. In my opinion this is what the most-wise Paul said: ‘Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, nonetheless we know him so no longer’ (2 Cor.5.16)." from ''The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus'', in Fr. John A. McGuckin, ''St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and free Texts'' (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004) 352-358, Orthodox Joint Commission, accessed August 8th, 2015, https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/first-letter-of-cyril-to will his sufferings -succensus/</ref> that Christ's body changed after the [[Resurrection]].<ref>Zachariah of Mitylene, ''Syriac Chronicle'' Book 9 Chapter 10, trans. F. J. Hamilton and death voluntarily as he didE. W. Brooks (Essex: Methuen & Company, 1899), 260, Tertullian.org, accessed July 21st, 2015, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zachariah09. htm </ref> This heresy was opposed by [[Eutychius of Constantinople | St. Eutychius of Constantinople]]^{''citation&nbsp;needed''} and [[Severus of Antioch]].

The doctrine of aphthartodocetism was originated by the Monophysite [[Bishop]] [[Julian of Halicarnassus]], present day Bodrum in Turkey. The Monophysite [[patriarch]] of Antioch [[==Severus of Antioch|Severus]] to be strongly challenged Julian on the ground that the doctrine 's condemnation of salvation was meaningless unless Christ’s body was truly human. Their two parties emerged into a [[schism]] that lasted until the following, seventh, century.Aphthartodocetism==

Concerning the often asserted claim that the emperor The Non-Chalcedonian bishop [[JustinianSeverus of Antioch]] supported aphthartodocetism, it is noted that Justiniancondemned Julian's supposed decree imposing aphthartodocetism is not preservedAphthartodocetist Christology. The only source concerning such Their two parties emerged into a decree contemporary to [[schism]] that lasted until the time is the testimony of the historian Evagrius. Frfollowing 7th century. Asterios Gerostergios notes in his book ^{''Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saintcitation&nbsp;needed'' that other parties involved at the time the decree was alleged to have been issued make no mention} A relevant excerpt from one of the act. Severus's letters reads:

:This foolish man, who confesses the passions with his lips only, hiding his impiety, wrote thus: 'Incorruptibility was always attached to the body of our Lord, which was passible of His own will for the sake of others.' And in brotherly love I wrote and asked him : 'What do you mean by "incorruptible," and "suffered of His own will for the sake of others," and "was attached to the body of our Lord," if without any falsehood you confess it to be by nature passible? For,if by the incorruptibility possessed by it you mean holiness without sin, we all confess this with you, that the holy body from the womb which He united to Himself originally by the Holy Spirit of the pure Virgin, the Theotokos, was conceived and born in the flesh without sin and conversed with us men, because "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," according to the testimony of the Scriptures. But, if you call impassibility and immortality incorruptibility, and say that the body which suffered in the flesh on our behalf was not one that was capable of suffering with voluntary passions and dying in the flesh, you reduce the saving passions on our behalf to a phantasy; for a thing which does not suffer also does not die, and it is a thing incapable of suffering.' And upon receiving such remarks as these from me he openly refused to call the holy body of Emmanuel passible in respect of voluntary passions; and therefore he did not hesitate to write thus, without shame and openly: 'We do not call Him of our nature in respect of passions, but in respect of essence. Therefore, even if He is impassible, and even if He is incorruptible, yet He is of our nature in respect of nature.'<ref>''Syriac Chronicle'' Book 9 Chapter 16</ref> ==Emperor Justinian and Aphthartodocetism== Some have claimed^{''citation&nbsp;needed''} that the emperor [[Justinian]] imposed Aphthartodocetism. However, Justinian's supposed decree imposing Aphthartodocetism is not preserved. The only source concerning such a decree is the testimony of the historian Evagrius.^{''citation&nbsp;needed''} Fr. Asterios Gerostergios notes in his book ''Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint''^{''citation&nbsp;needed''} that other parties involved at the time the decree was alleged to have been issued make no mention of the act. ===Footnotes==={{reflist}} ===Sources===