Talk:Nestorianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syriac Christianity. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale. |
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My alterations have been revoked.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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Consistency
There is a major problem with this page: it's thoroughly inconsistent. In the introduction and the section 'The involvement of the Assyrian Church' it clearly states that the Assyrian Church is not Nestorian. Then in 'The spread of "Nestorianism"' and 'Modern Nestorianism', it uses Nestorian and Assyrian interchangeably. Someone needs to sort this out. A good place to start would be clarifying the difference between the theology of Nestorius/Nestorianism and Babai the Great, because as a non-Christian they sound the same to me. KarlM 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Assyrian church does not describe itself as Nestorian, nor does it claim to derive its Christology from Nestorious. But it provided a home for him, did not condemn him, and on the most obvious point it describes Mary, Mother of Jesus as "Mother of Christ" just as he did, not as "Mother of God". And that is why others call the Assyrian church Nestorian. --Henrygb 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modern Nestorianism
The assertion that Oneness Pentecostals are an "extreme" form of Nestorianism is incorrect. The Oneness teach "Sabellianism," or Modal Monarchianism, and "Patripassianism" - not Nestorianism. The Oneness like their historical predecessors view the distinction between the persons of the Trinity as nothing essential, but merely historical manifestations or modes of the one God, i.e. God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testatment, as the Son in the New Testament and as the Holy Spirit since the Day of Pentecost. The Nestorians acknowledged an essential distinction of persons in the Godhead as do orthodox Trinitarians. They did not "blur" the distinction between God the Father, and God the Son. The issue for Nestorians was the relationship of the divine logos, God the Son, to Christ's human nature. For the Oneness, there is no "God the Son" as the second person of the Trinity. There is only the "Son of God" as the human manifestation of the Father. The Oneness concern themselves primarily about the nature of the Godhead, not the nature of the divine/human relationship in Christ. For them, the Godhead is an absolute unity, not a Trinity of eternal persons. Nestorians did not qestion the doctrine of the Trinity, only the relationship of the second person of the Trinity to his human manifestation. This is an important distinction to make.
KStahl, M.Div. M.A. (former "Oneness Pentecostal")
[edit] 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)
