I understand that Fr. VC Samuel goes through great lengths talking about it. What is interesting, and I agree with you on that point, is that Fr. VC Samuel exposes (or shows that St. Severus exposes) that Julian did think humanity to be created in "incorruptability," as opposed to "incorruption," which could be quite interesting.
But I want to go further than this. Christ has the freedom to have either "incorruptibality" or "corruptibality," and chose the latter for His humanity. Perhaps, this is what Julian is saying. Also, we can't forget St. Athanasius also believed that Christ was not susceptible to human illness, which seems to agree with Julian somewhat.
I wrote a personal Christological commentary on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation." I'll share it with you. For now, during the year, I did come up with a plausible answer, which agrees beautifully with what you wrote here:
He was not necessarily subject to the corruptability of the humanity that He hypostatically united to Himself in the first place, and thus it was experienced voluntarily in the sense that it did not have dominion over Him.
This is exactly what the conclusion of the discussion I had in monachos.net was:http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1567
Specifically, the 39th post:http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=20200&postcount=39
I think St. Athanasius chose his words very carefully, that Christ submitted to corruptability, but was not victim to it.
I don't get the impression that Julian was a docetist. He believed the sufferings of Christ to be true sufferings, and His death to be true death, He simply didn't believe the humanity of Christ to be naturally susceptible to such experiences.
Now even though I got an answer to myself, and I'm quite happy with the answer that this is the Orthodox opinion, the next question to me is what Julian truly believed. See, it is this last part I bolded that doesn't make sense to me. How can a body that is not susceptible to death die unless He willed it to be susceptible? It is logically impossible, and I still wonder whether the whole issue was either a misunderstanding or a self-contradiction on behalf of Julian (this may also explain why the Armenians were "Julianists" for a while; I still however want to know what happened at the council between the Armenians and Syrians that reached unity).
Christ is the very Image of God.
I was describing the humanity of Christ.
His entire humanity was the post-fall humanity of Adam. One of the faulty premises of Julian of Halicarnassus however, was that the pre-fall Adam was incorruptible. St Athanasius makes it quite clear that the pre-fall Adam was corruptible.
Well, actually, the problem was that whether Christ bore pre-fall or post-fall humanity. Julian believed the pre, and St. Severus the post. To St. Athanasius, both humanities are the same, the former being united with God which results in incorruptability, and the latter being seperated from God which results in corruptability. Christ takes on humanity that is not victim to corruptability, but allows it to be susceptible to corruptability, while still being the Word of God, incorruptable, a new "tropos" as St. Maximus puts it.
The tropos of Maximus' Christology denotes the mode of willing; it's not something that one is born with since it's not a natural trait or characteristic, but rather a personal property.
No, not just the mode of willing, but the state of existence, i.e. corruptability or incorruptability. St. Maximus was very clear that Christ came in an untainted image (that is in the humanity), while living in a corrupt humanity. Christ did not sin (hence why he found it necessary to say that Christ's spirit/human image was incorrupt), but took on Adam's result of his sinning (corrupt body and soul, but not spirit). This can be found in the compilation of some of his works "On the Cosmic Mystery of Christ."
As for the addition of "St.," I understand we don't canonize nor recognize him (heck, he's a dithelete heretic to us if we're super traditionalists). But as you know, not only am I an ecumenist, but I have a deep respect for St. Maximus, not only in his theology (although I along with Fr. VC Samuel question his "disputation" with Pyrrhus), but in his life as a confessor, despite his, dare I say, "innocent" anathema against St. Severus and St. Dioscorus, pillars of faith.
Following in the next post, I will attach my "On the Incarnation" commentary document (who I sent to a friend more than a year ago) and then a question on Julian's Julianism I asked in the OO forum, but never received a lengthy discussion from.