Nestorian Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coeurpieux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coeurpieux

Guest
Hello eveyone!
I first read about Nestorianism a few years ago and was extremely fascinated by it, especially after I was told that it is a form of Christianity acceptable in Islam since it denies the divinity of Christ.
But the more I read about it the more I’ve come to believe that it doesnt truly deny the divinity of Christ, it only emphasizes the separation of his divine and human natures. And also, I believe Nestorianism is deeply misunderstood and that the council of Ephesus was quick to condemn Nestorius and his teachings ( Even though neither he nor the bishops supporting him were present, and he thus had no chance to defend his teachings). I read somewhere that he never meant to deny the divinity of Jesus in his teachings. I feel that this doctrine was not subjected to fair evaluation and that the examination of Nestorius 's doctrine was extremely biased and unfair and I also feel that the Alexandrians misrepresented ( probably purposely) his ideas and Christology simply because his catechetical school rivalled their own.
Something is just not right and it bothers me how the man was condemned while he was not present and could not properly explain his views. My own examination of his doctrines find them to be a sort of “middle ground” between the two extreme ends of the Alexandrian and Antiochene catechetical schools.
I read somewhere that years after his death, a doctrine similar to Nestorius 's doctrine and Christology was adopted by the Church ( i believe during the Council of Chalcedon) and this led the Oriental Orthodox Church to reject the council and break communion.
What are your thoughts?
Is there something i’m missing in my understanding of Nestorian doctrine??
And can someone please tell me if it’s true that the Church has adopted a doctrine similar to Nestorianism? If so, why is the man still
condemned?
Please understand, i am not a Nestorian and i do not subscribe to that doctrine… I am a Catholic, and i believe Jesus Christ is God)
 
Last edited:
Basically Nestorius was against believing that Jesus Christ was one person with two natures. That being, human and divine.
Nestorius maintained that Jesus Christ was born as two persons. Do you see the problem?
 
Last edited:
Coeurpieux said:
In the historical novel “Azazeel” by Youssef Zeidan, which is set during the Nestorian Schism, the main character tells the reader about the many crimes of the Coptic Church against the pagan and Jewish populations of Alexandria and about how they murdered the bishop of their city for agreeing with Nestorius.
Click to expand...
Ummmm so it is fiction…
 
I would add that Nestorius concluded that it was not God who suffered and died on the cross, but only the
man Jesus.
 
That’s not completely right. There was a joint declaration of faith between the Church and the current day Nestorian Church over the hypostatic union some years back. I can’t find it right now but if I do I’ll post the link.

Basically Nestorius emphasized the humanity of Christ over his divinity. Due to this, he denied the Blessed Virgin the title “Theotokos” (“God-Bearer” or “Mother of God”) which at the time looked like he was dividing Christ into two persons, Jesus and God the Son, but this doesn’t seem to have been his intent. Nestorians happily profess Christ to be one person, the Son, in two natures, human and divine. Some Protestants today could even be considered semi-Nestorians because they deny Mary the proper title of Theotokos.

Islam probably did take a lot of inspiration from Nestorian Christianity’s focus on the humanity of Christ. The Qur’an often calls Jesus “Isa ibn Maryam” [Jesus the son of Mary] which was a popular title for Jesus among Arabian Nestorians.
 
Last edited:
Nestorianism is alive and well among many non denominational christians in the US.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
That’s not completely right. There was a joint declaration of faith between the Church and the current day Nestorian Church over the hypostatic union some years back. I can’t find it right now but if I do I’ll post the link.
Click to expand...
It was yet another case of prelates talking past one another and instead of listening to one another. They were in violent agreement, and it took until this recent joint statement for the West to realize what the Orient was saying (it wasn’t even close to what they were condemned for saying [which they never said]). It didn’t help that they couldn’t make it to the council on time, and the early bishops wouldn’t discuss what was decided in their absence (ahh, charity . . .)

Today, the OO are probably fare closer to communion with Catholicism than the EO.

hawk
 
Last edited:
Ah.
So he was splitting Christ? I know about a Gnostic sect that believes in a human Jesus and a divine Christ. Separate people. They believe that the human Jesus took advice from the divine Christ and was crucified when he disobeyed the divine Christ.
And no, its not fiction. Its a historical novel based on historical events.
 
Nestorianism does not deserve to be in non-denominational, Protestant Christianity. It deserves to be among apostolic Christians.
I understand the Assyrian Church holds Nestorian doctrine. But they consider the term “Nestorian” offensive.
 
Last edited:
The main character of the novel never existed. But the events happened as they are. Unless you mean the Council of Ephesus and the Nestorian Schism never happened?
 
Historical novels are still fictional. The author has to insert personalities and other characterizatioms that often reflect their sympathies or what they think would be a good story, have to invent conversations, have to adapt historical events for narrative purposes, have to fill in the gaps or questions with theories, etc…

I’ve read historical novels in which Richard III was a horrible, hedonist tyrant and others in which he’s a noble but tragic hero. Novels where the Boys in the Tower were killed by Richard III and others where he had no knowledge of it and it was done by people under him or was done by Margaret Beaufort instead. And that’s only scratching the surface.
 
Last edited:
Instead of blaspheming saints of God by accusing them of deception and murder on a public forum, I suggest you instead try to learn why they did what they did.

St. Spyridon, thou Holy Father and destroyer of heresy, pray for us
St. Cyril, thou defender of Orthodoxy, pray for us
Holy Mary, the Queen who destroys and stomps out all heresy, pray for us

www.johnsanidopoulos.com

Hypatia's Murder and the Innocence of Saint Cyril

www.johnsanidopoulos.com www.johnsanidopoulos.com
 
Last edited:
Coeurpieux said:
Did or did not the Roman Catholic Church adopt doctrines similar to Nestorianism which led to the Oriental Orthodox breaking communion?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is one person who has two natures, thus it is proper to refer to Jesus Christ as God and not distinguish between the person who is the Son of Mary and the person of the Son in the Trinity. Such a distinction is used by people who promote adoptionism and also deny that Mary is the Mother of God, both of which are declared heretical ideas.
 
Coeurpieux said:
Did or did not the Roman Catholic Church adopt doctrines similar to Nestorianism which led to the Oriental Orthodox breaking communion?
Click to expand...
Many of the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon suspected the Tome of St. Leo of Nestorian tendencies or sympathies. Ultimately, it was accepted by the Council. However, a number of bishops were unable to reconcile the teachings of Chalcedon with the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which led to a schism of the Oriental Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top