The former represents the formless and intangible essence of life, and the latter represents the longing for clarity, order, and reason, which produces the tension of all great art, even though Nietzsche (and Hitler) end up reducing the strain in their own respective ways by negating the
Apollinarian element and deifying the will to power.
[10] When Deacy considers the redeemers in film, he discounts what he considers to be the prevailing '
Apollinarian' Christologies of many filmic Saviours: Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the anonymous hero in Pale Rider, the character of Jesus in The Greatest Story Ever Told.
(But reconciling the Gospels is an obvious exegetical task; need we think exclusively of opponents?) The remaining examples (8, 10-11, 15, 22), with the exception of the 20th, where the opponents are libertine Gnostics, seem to involve exegetical debates that could easily be found within the confines of "orthodoxy." Even the examples involving theological issues need not always involve Arianizing or
Apollinarian views.
In contrast to the
Apollinarian and Docetist heresies, Christ assumed all of humanity.
To say "Jesus is God/God is Jesus" is a heresy (named
Apollinarian), common in our worship.
When we turn to the use of enhypostatos in the christological controversies, it will become obvious that the term did not acquire any prominence prior to the sixth century, apart from two elusive references in the
Apollinarian treatise Quod unus sit Christus(28) and in the Ps.-Athanasian De Incarnatione contra Apollinarium.(29) It will therefore be essential for our purpose to examine in which way the term enhypostatos was employed in the christological debates from the sixth century onwards.
Three (101-102, 202) importantly analyse the
Apollinarian heresy; no.
Noted Scots theologian Thomas Torrance claims most Christian worship commits the second error: it treats Jesus as simply divine (the "
Apollinarian heresy" -- worshipping Jesus instead of God through Jesus).
Indeed, despite adducing a considerable number of striking parallels between the work and
Apollinarian material in his third chapter, he contents himself in his Foreword with the cautious statement that the question of authorship is worth reopening!
This view has been encouraged by ancient critics of Cyril who also attempted to accuse him of
Apollinarian views.(25) A careful reading of the literature, however, does not support this.
Those who honor Cyril through his
Apollinarian formulas and those who honor Nestorius through Theodore of Mopsuestia live as churches today.