Talk:Nestorianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Problems

We seem to have a problem with this page. Admitedly religious subjects are tricky. None is unbiased. I am however not a nestorian myself. But if you look in the history you will see a revision as of 19:39, 25 Feb 2004 by 217.209.70.209. (That's me forgetting to log in.) I tried to remove "the winner writes the history"-mindset from the article, letting the nestorians speak more for themselves, even though I do not share their beliefs.

My alterations have been revoked. "63.164.145.161" has gone back to letting the orthodox critics portrayal of the nestorians dominate again. This is a pity. This opinion comes trough in sentences like: Actually what Nestorius said sounds like it differs little from orthodox christianity. Yet it has far reaching consequences that show marked differences in (for example) soteriology and the theology of the Eucharist, so that during the Protestant Reformation, when the Radicals denied the Real Presence, they were accused of reviving the error of Nestorius. (emphasis added)

Nestorius does not deny the trinity, Jesus' humanity, the incarnation, resurrection or the atonement. He explains how Jesus is both divine and human in slightly different way than his opponents. And he was banned not only for theological reasons. He was very much a victim of power struggles as well.

What "far reaching" consequences does his ideas have? And why should an article such as this one presume that Real Presence is the correct view? And even if the Radicals were accused of reviving nestorianism is that not a critique coming from people whose grasp of what Nestorius really said is flawed as well?

Do not let the winner write the history unopposed!

--itpastorn 22:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Those consequences eventually reach into Scripture (and oppose it). Nestorianism invokes a hairsplit that states Jesus the God and Jesus the Man are not the same and are actually separate. This logically can lead to Jesus the Man died while Jesus the God did not. This could lead to Jesus the Man stayed dead while Jesus the God destroyed the body and appeared to people as "risen". This suggest that Jesus the Man did not rise from the Grave and Jesus the God never died. This is in turn is in opposition to a statement by Paul the Apostle in an Epistle (My notes aren't with me) stating that If Christ is not risen from the grave our faith is in vain, meaning that if Jesus did not both Die and Rise, Christianity is bunk.
This is why Orthodox Christianity opposed it. I (personally) consider that to be far reaching.
--Osprey 18:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strangely enough, Nestorius doesn't conflict with Paul, except by selective interpretation. If Jesus the God had rose from the dead Jesus the Man's body, then he he had... risen. There is no conflict with Paul on either side of the debate, except in so far as one wants to create an artificial one. June, 2006

I don't understand why nestorianism should be called a heresy. there are still nestorian christians nowadays. Should catholics and protestants regard eachother as heretics? This world is plagued by islamic fundamentalist terrorist atacks. We should start loving instead of hating. --Daanschr 13:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Responding to Osprey, the Nestorians (if the Assyrian Church of the East is indeed 'Nestorian') do NOT state that 'Jesus the God and Jesus the Man are not the same and are actually separate.' The Tome of Leo gives a fairly good picture of the Nestorian position, though Pope Leo didn't consider himself Nestorian. The Nestorians believe(d) that Jesus is/was ONE person with two distinct natures. (They also believe in the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist) The Church of the East is Dyophysite and Monothelite, but it is NOT Dyprosopite (it believes in One Son of God, Jesus Christ, who as the Son of God, the eternal Word of God, is God, and who as the son of Mary is man/human). The Nestorian (and thus I guess originally the Antiochean) position is that qnome' (hypostases?) are unmixable, and thus that the human qnoma of Jesus is not mixable with the divine qnoma. One Parsopa, two Qnome. One Person, two natures.

I am not myself a Nestorian, and philosophically prefer more of a semi-Chalcedonian position, as this stuff about hypostases and qnome seems to me to exceed what we humans CAN at present understand about the universe. All of the ancient churches hold that Jesus is both God and man, one person. They disagree in how they understand the relationship between the divinity and the humanity of Jesus. BobGriffin-Nukraya 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

'Personal Note: I attended service at St. George's in Chicago - the head of the Assyrian Church - on Christmas Eve, 2004 and spoke with one of the priests there who claims that a Chinese parish still exists, and was not discovered until "the past few years." - Justin (koavf@aol.com)*' Originally appeared under 'The spread of "Nestorianism"', moved from the article by Jill St. Crux 23:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nestorianism: the Spread: Church in Barus, North Sumatra

From the account of ancient travellers, the spread of the Nestorian Church between the 5-8 century included places such as Barus, North Sumatra. Barus/Fanshur/Pashur was even mentioned in the diaries of some Greek travellers. The exact date of the beginning of Nestorian Church ministry in Barus is debatable, but the year of 637 has been selected as the time. Further information: just google

Sources: In a book written in the year of 1050 in Egypt, Syeh Abu Salih Al-Armini listed all churches and monastries of the Nasathariah (Nestorian)Christians. In that list, there are 707 churches and 181 monastries almost in all Asia, including Indoneesia.

Also, there is another writing of Abd’Isha, a Metropolis of the East Syriac Church, he listed the bishops of the far away islands and remotest places during the 13th centuries. In the writing, he mentioned Dabhagh (which is another name for Java and Sumatra), Sin and Masin (Cina).

Also Bishop Joa de Merignolli OFM, emmisaries of Pope Clement VI visited CHina and also Sumatera in 1346, where he met Christians at those places...

Rev. Robby I Chandra (not a Nestorian)

Nestorianism: Historical Impact: Church in Ancient China

Nestorian Christians had a significant impact on the formation and governance of China. Many of the emperors' wives were Nestorian, and the Nestorian clergy possessed strong influence in Chinese imperial courts. For historical reasons I recommend keeping Nestorianism as a separate topic in Wikipedia.

Mark Ragar Schneider (Not a Nestorian)

Nestorian Orthodox Reconciliation?

I heard that the Armenian Church and Constantinople had reunited in communion again. Weren't the Armenians Nestorians and does that mean anything for a reconciliation between Nestorians and Orthodoxy or was it simply that the Armenian church has changed its mind? Gschadow 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, no, the Armenian Church and the Byzantine Church have not entered into full communion. The Armenian Church, however, is in communion with the rest of what is called the "Oriental Orthodox" churches, them being the Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Malankara churches. Also, no, the Armenian church never was Nestorian. As a matter of fact, the position that the Armenian Church historically adopted is a strict Miaphysitism (one composite nature) that led to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon which appeared to be Nestorianizing. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Protestants and Nestorianism

Deleting the following paragraph: "Some Protestant and Reformed church organizations are accused at times of Nestorianism. However, it should be noted that Protestants join Roman Catholics and the Eastern Church in affirming the decisions of Chalcedon, which repudiate both Nestorian theology and monophysite theology."

It has so many problems it seems beyond salvage. The first assertion is weasel-wording. It is probably true, but without any sources it is not helpful here. The second sentence is false: some Protestants affirm Chalcedon; some don't. And corrected, it is not relevant; the initial statement was that some protestants are accused of Nestorianism; pointing out that some affirm Chalcedon is only tangentially relevant.

It would be very helpful to (a) document specific cases of credible sourced accusations of Nestorianism against specific Protestant bodies, and (b) provide documentation of which Protestant bodies specifically affirm Chalcedon. But the paragraph as it stood was no good. Mrhsj 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is repetition in the explanation of Nestorian doctrine in terms of son of God vs son of christ. Suggest it be clubbed together Booleana 06:19, 6 Juin 2007 (CET)

"confusion"

According to some interpretations, the origin of this confusion is mostly historical and linguistic

This line's is basically saying (without even crediting these vague "some interpretations", just as a solid fact) that Nestorian doctrine is "confusion". This is extremely POV, so I have substituted the word "belief". Some sources would be nice for the "some interpretations", too. --Lode Runner 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's what it is saying. The topic of the paragraph is that western churches call the Assyrian churches "Nestorian" but the Assyrian churches do not consider themselves "Nestorian". The sentence you changed attributed this problem to difficulties in translation. I saw "confusion" as rather neutral between the parties - there is confusion about whether the Assyrian churches are Nestorian or not. As changed, it now says that origin of some belief is a linguistic problem with translation. What belief has such an origin? If it's the beliefs of the Assyrians that's referred to, then the new version still implies those beliefs are wrong. I would suggest something like "dispute" instead of either "confusion" or "belief". Mrhsj 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but if so I think that the entire section needs a rewrite:

The Church of the East does not regard its doctrine as truly Nestorian, but rather teaches the view of Babai the Great, that Christ has two qnome (essences) which are unmingled and eternally united in one parsopa (personality). According to some interpretations, the origin of this confusion is mostly historical and linguistic: for example, the Greeks had two words for 'person', which translated poorly into Syriac, and the meanings of these terms were not even quite settled during Nestorius's lifetime.

My first instinct was to view the "confusion" as referring to the Syrian's religion--implying that the entire basis for their dogma was due to a Greek mistranslation. If, as you say, it refers to whether the Assyrian Church of the East should be classified as Nestorian... well, the article says that the Assyrian Church "refused to drop support for Nestorius and denounce him as a heretic" (unlike other churches) and the Assyrian Church's teachings (regardless of their origins) are extremely similar to Nestorius' ideas. This seems less like actual confusion and more an issue of semantics. Many religious groups call themselves by a different name than what they are commonly known by, especially at first. Mormons didn't originally call themselves mormons; moonies didn't call themselves moonies; Wahhabists still prefer to call themselves Salafis. The Assyrian Church associated itself with Nestorius by refusing to condemn his teachings, so I fail to see why the label "Nestorian" would be improper as a simple descriptor.

If "confusion" refers to the origin of the Church's dogma, I don't think that the passage makes sense: According to some interpretations, the origin of this confusion is mostly historical and linguistic: and then goes on to describe the Greek translation issues. But the Greek translation issue theory doesn't describe "the origin of the confusion"; it merely describes an alternate theory for the origin of the Assyrian beliefs (the others being Nestorius himself and Babai.) The article is clear that it was the *Syrian's* confusion, since the Syrian language didn't have an equivalent to the two Greek words for "person". Therefore, I do read the sentence as saying that the Assyrian Church's beliefs are "confusion". My version states this as well, but it doesn't explicitly refer to their beliefs "confusion"--it merely says that some people believe that their beliefs are based on a translation error. It's ok for us to include scholar's opinions (it really should be cited, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now); it's not ok to refer to the Assyrian Church's belief as "confusion".

Could you explain why you think that "confusion" refers to the origin/label debate? To me, the passage clearly presents a new, *third* theory for the origin of their beliefs, and the "confusion" can therefore only refer to the belief itself. --Lode Runner 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

image:mumnestorian.jpg

This image should be removed. It is from an unreliable website which offers only pictures and no accompanying properly sourced text, and based on descriptions of Church of the East Assyrian women from the period of the 18th and 19th centuries (as told by several authors from the 19th century), this pictorial representation is questionable. Furthermore, there are no nuns in the Church of the East. I will upload a proper picture from an 1876 book I have recently purchased. --Šarukinu 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The site it was found on is really irrelevant, the text (from 1779) on the image states that it is a "Religieuse", which means nun in French, but remove the word nun if you want, and write "religiouse Nestorian female" or something like that. Funkynusayri 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Apparently I was mistaken, there were nuns in the Church of the East. I guess the picture is fine (the website is still unreliable, which is quite a relevant issue). I was just shocked as the outfit strongly resembles a burqa commonly worn by many Muslim women nowadays. --Šarukinu 15:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Why is the site unreliable? It resembles a niqab, not burqa, by the way.Funkynusayri 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Merge Nestorianism and Diophysitum. They are the same thing. 76.105.40.151 02:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Diophysitum is an aspect of Nestorianism. But while Diophysitum is just a theological concept, Nestorianism is a noteworthy (though large historical) christian sect(or church if you prefere that term). Therefore Diophysitum may be included in Nestorianism as a subsection and the origical Diophysitum page pointed to Nestorianism. Under no circumstances should the Nestorianism page itself be moved to a different keyword. Although Nestorianism is not a very precise term is commonly used in the historical literature.

Roeschter 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Diophysitum and Nestorianism are not the same thing nor is Diophysitum just an aspect of Nestorianism. The term is also used for the anti-monophysite position proposed by pope Leo which was adopted as orthodox by council of Chalcedon. Leo and the bishops at the council would have considered Nestorius a heretic. For examples of this use of the term Diophysite see www.answers.com/topic/st-leo-i-1. The two terms are different so the articles should not be merged. Ahig (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge

• I feel that this page should not be merged with Diophysitum because Nestorianism, whether they are the same thing or not, is a historical term that people specifically search for. Mention could be made of Diophysitum and the similiarities, but it is important for Nestorianism to have it's own page. Evangelistmatt (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Gryffindor 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Me too Mrhsj (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• No merge. -- SECisek (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would be against merging. If the Assyrian Church of the East says that its doctrine differs from Nestorianism, then we have two topics that meet the threshold of notability. Arguments for their being the same thing would violate NOR. RJC ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)