![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is quite wrong with its treatment of Nestor. The article says:
"Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous. Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus, not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the "Bearer of God". Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the "Mother of Christ" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "Mother of God." Hence, the name, Christological controversies. It is also of historical value to point out that Ephesus was the city of Artemis, see also Acts 19:28."
This is not at all what Nestorius either claimed or taught, this is rather what his monophysite opponents accused him of.
The above statement is quite right. And the statement of the article: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall".
This statement, at least from my studies, is not a question Nestorius asked. I still need to do more study however.
This article lacks enough citations. If we can get some citations, it would be nice. Grailknighthero ( talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Pope Celestine I presided through legates. Unfortunately for this piece of Catholic mythology, the legates didn't make it to Ephesus until after the Council was over. Jhobson1 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)-- No: the papal legates arrived in time for the session of 10 July, and the council was not dissolved till October. But it is true that they did not preside at any of the sessions (RP).
I have removed the following sentence:
The [mostly anti-Nestorian] western delegates arrived first, and locked out the later Eastern [mostly Nestorian] arrivals [1].
I do not think that this fairly represents Russell, nor Russell's source, Gibbon.
In addition, the council actually waited for some time for John of Antioch to arrive. While Cyril is often blamed for indecent haste, the first reponse of the Emperor was actually to rebuke John of Antioch for his tardiness. Even sympathetic ancient historians were not satisfied with John's excuses. So I don't think the sentence I removed adds anything to the article except for misconceptions.
John H Percival ( talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
True, however, they did bar them (those who deposed Cyril) from the Churches of Ephesus. Grailknighthero ( talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
When speaking about the nature of Nestorianism, the article includes these statements: "The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less"." I find this characterization less than convincing. Last time I checked depriving Christ of a human soul and replacing it with the Logos was part of the error of Apollinaris. Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, was one of the primary opponents of Apollinaris and stressed the fullness of all aspects of human nature within Christ. How could it thus make any sense to attribute the same error to Theodore's student? Deusveritasest ( talk) 00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean Apollinaris made an error, what do the Apostolic Fathers talk about on the soul of Christ? 174.4.163.53 ( talk) 09:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning things like the 1994 Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, which suggests to me that, at least for those two churches, the issue at Ephesus is no longer a particularly meaningful dispute? -- Rumping ( talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In the 2nd ¶ under the heading "History," I've changed "No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was 'more' human for having the Logos and not 'less'" to "No, Nestorius answered, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall. Jesus was 'more' human for having the Logos and not 'less'." This only renders the statement in somewhat better English. I wish somebody knowledgeable would clarify or correct the content here. The latter part, especially, seems theologically misleading. I may be missing something the author intends, but I'm confident the Church has always spoken of Christ as being the Logos (Jn. 1:1-14, etc.), not as merely "having the Logos." pdbowman 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) pdbowman 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Council of Ephesus was both a historical event as well as a turning point in the development of Christological theology.
Up to now, the article has focused on the theological aspect. However, McGuckin covers the historical context leading up to the Council. In particular, he describes Nestorius campaigns to reduce the power of the monks, attack the Arians and his opposition to "independent women" such as Pulcheria, the sister of Emperor Theodosius II. McGuckin cites these as political reasons that weakened Nestorius' power.(McGuckin, pp. 23-26)
I would like to include these points in the article but I figured I'd check with other editors before proceeding. Anybody have thoughts on whether the article should cover these points?
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 06:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Some suggestions for revision (RP): The account of Nestorianism is desperately inaccurate (esp., as has been pointed out, in confusing Nestorianism with Apollinarianism -- its polar opposite). Pulcheria did not turn against Nestorius till well after the council -- despite (as Cyril's agent there lamented) receiving lavish bribes from Cyril (see Studies in Church History 39, 2004, pp. 32-4). The Council did not formally declare Mary 'Theotokos', for two reasons: first, by the time of the council not even Nestorius rejected the title (see his sermon of 7 December 430, Codex Casinensis 78); secondly, at the council both the Cyrillian and Antiochenes stressed that they had no wish to add anything to the Nicene Creed. The most contentious doctrinal issue at the council was not Nestorius' teaching, but the orthodoxy or otherwise of Cyril's Twelve Chapters; Cyril was on trial at the council just as much as Nestorius. The '7 sessions' is a modern numeration, without support in the Acts: the latter are so incomplete as a record of the meetings that we do not know how often the Cyrillian council met. The Council did not issue '8 canons' as such: these are a Byzantine compilation on the basis of some of the decisions recorded in various sections of the the Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.7 ( talk) 10:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this recent title change. "First Council of Ephesus" has some use in the sources, and is suitable natural disambiguation, which is usually preferred to a title using parentheses. In this case, the proposed title was also very unwieldy: "Council of Ephesus (Ecumenical council of 431)". As the title is challenged, it should be put up for a community discussion through WP:RM.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, more than a week has passed and no one has objected to the name "Council of Ephesus" nor has anyone supported the claim that it is ambiguous with any evidence. Does it mean that we have consensus in favour of that name, or does it merely mean that the ones who object didn't notice the "challenge"..? -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 10:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First Council of Ephesus → Council of Ephesus – See conclusion of previous section, Talk:First Council of Ephesus#Name Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly false to say simply that Protestants accept the Council of Ephesus. The many who reject the description of Mary as Mother of God include eminent ones such as Philip Schaff. See what he wrote on The Exaltation of the Virgin: Mariology. See also Protestant views on Mary#Mother of God, which says use of the term "Mother of God"among Protestants has been controversial. You can perhaps say it is accepted by Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, but not simply by "Protestants". Esoglou ( talk) 08:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is why Christians should not have a religious denomination, so they aren't accepting the Roman Empire councils or any other cult doctrines. 174.4.163.53 ( talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Council of Ephesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
McGuckin's work is cited in the article, isn't that already enough? This name currently appears almost every other sentence in the article, McGuckin said this, McGuckin stated that, McGuckin theorized, etc. Is that truly necessary? Latin Beau 18:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is quite wrong with its treatment of Nestor. The article says:
"Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous. Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus, not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the "Bearer of God". Consequently, Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the "Mother of Christ" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "Mother of God." Hence, the name, Christological controversies. It is also of historical value to point out that Ephesus was the city of Artemis, see also Acts 19:28."
This is not at all what Nestorius either claimed or taught, this is rather what his monophysite opponents accused him of.
The above statement is quite right. And the statement of the article: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall".
This statement, at least from my studies, is not a question Nestorius asked. I still need to do more study however.
This article lacks enough citations. If we can get some citations, it would be nice. Grailknighthero ( talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Pope Celestine I presided through legates. Unfortunately for this piece of Catholic mythology, the legates didn't make it to Ephesus until after the Council was over. Jhobson1 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)-- No: the papal legates arrived in time for the session of 10 July, and the council was not dissolved till October. But it is true that they did not preside at any of the sessions (RP).
I have removed the following sentence:
The [mostly anti-Nestorian] western delegates arrived first, and locked out the later Eastern [mostly Nestorian] arrivals [1].
I do not think that this fairly represents Russell, nor Russell's source, Gibbon.
In addition, the council actually waited for some time for John of Antioch to arrive. While Cyril is often blamed for indecent haste, the first reponse of the Emperor was actually to rebuke John of Antioch for his tardiness. Even sympathetic ancient historians were not satisfied with John's excuses. So I don't think the sentence I removed adds anything to the article except for misconceptions.
John H Percival ( talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
True, however, they did bar them (those who deposed Cyril) from the Churches of Ephesus. Grailknighthero ( talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
When speaking about the nature of Nestorianism, the article includes these statements: "The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less"." I find this characterization less than convincing. Last time I checked depriving Christ of a human soul and replacing it with the Logos was part of the error of Apollinaris. Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, was one of the primary opponents of Apollinaris and stressed the fullness of all aspects of human nature within Christ. How could it thus make any sense to attribute the same error to Theodore's student? Deusveritasest ( talk) 00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean Apollinaris made an error, what do the Apostolic Fathers talk about on the soul of Christ? 174.4.163.53 ( talk) 09:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning things like the 1994 Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, which suggests to me that, at least for those two churches, the issue at Ephesus is no longer a particularly meaningful dispute? -- Rumping ( talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In the 2nd ¶ under the heading "History," I've changed "No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was 'more' human for having the Logos and not 'less'" to "No, Nestorius answered, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall. Jesus was 'more' human for having the Logos and not 'less'." This only renders the statement in somewhat better English. I wish somebody knowledgeable would clarify or correct the content here. The latter part, especially, seems theologically misleading. I may be missing something the author intends, but I'm confident the Church has always spoken of Christ as being the Logos (Jn. 1:1-14, etc.), not as merely "having the Logos." pdbowman 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) pdbowman 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Council of Ephesus was both a historical event as well as a turning point in the development of Christological theology.
Up to now, the article has focused on the theological aspect. However, McGuckin covers the historical context leading up to the Council. In particular, he describes Nestorius campaigns to reduce the power of the monks, attack the Arians and his opposition to "independent women" such as Pulcheria, the sister of Emperor Theodosius II. McGuckin cites these as political reasons that weakened Nestorius' power.(McGuckin, pp. 23-26)
I would like to include these points in the article but I figured I'd check with other editors before proceeding. Anybody have thoughts on whether the article should cover these points?
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 06:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Some suggestions for revision (RP): The account of Nestorianism is desperately inaccurate (esp., as has been pointed out, in confusing Nestorianism with Apollinarianism -- its polar opposite). Pulcheria did not turn against Nestorius till well after the council -- despite (as Cyril's agent there lamented) receiving lavish bribes from Cyril (see Studies in Church History 39, 2004, pp. 32-4). The Council did not formally declare Mary 'Theotokos', for two reasons: first, by the time of the council not even Nestorius rejected the title (see his sermon of 7 December 430, Codex Casinensis 78); secondly, at the council both the Cyrillian and Antiochenes stressed that they had no wish to add anything to the Nicene Creed. The most contentious doctrinal issue at the council was not Nestorius' teaching, but the orthodoxy or otherwise of Cyril's Twelve Chapters; Cyril was on trial at the council just as much as Nestorius. The '7 sessions' is a modern numeration, without support in the Acts: the latter are so incomplete as a record of the meetings that we do not know how often the Cyrillian council met. The Council did not issue '8 canons' as such: these are a Byzantine compilation on the basis of some of the decisions recorded in various sections of the the Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.7 ( talk) 10:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this recent title change. "First Council of Ephesus" has some use in the sources, and is suitable natural disambiguation, which is usually preferred to a title using parentheses. In this case, the proposed title was also very unwieldy: "Council of Ephesus (Ecumenical council of 431)". As the title is challenged, it should be put up for a community discussion through WP:RM.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, more than a week has passed and no one has objected to the name "Council of Ephesus" nor has anyone supported the claim that it is ambiguous with any evidence. Does it mean that we have consensus in favour of that name, or does it merely mean that the ones who object didn't notice the "challenge"..? -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 10:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First Council of Ephesus → Council of Ephesus – See conclusion of previous section, Talk:First Council of Ephesus#Name Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is certainly false to say simply that Protestants accept the Council of Ephesus. The many who reject the description of Mary as Mother of God include eminent ones such as Philip Schaff. See what he wrote on The Exaltation of the Virgin: Mariology. See also Protestant views on Mary#Mother of God, which says use of the term "Mother of God"among Protestants has been controversial. You can perhaps say it is accepted by Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, but not simply by "Protestants". Esoglou ( talk) 08:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is why Christians should not have a religious denomination, so they aren't accepting the Roman Empire councils or any other cult doctrines. 174.4.163.53 ( talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Council of Ephesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
McGuckin's work is cited in the article, isn't that already enough? This name currently appears almost every other sentence in the article, McGuckin said this, McGuckin stated that, McGuckin theorized, etc. Is that truly necessary? Latin Beau 18:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)