Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: nestorius.jpg (34KB, 200x333px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 200x333px
Why was Nestorius and Nestorianism antathemized by the West and the Monophysites? He did not preach any new doctrine, but only upheld what his Antiochine mentors taught. These very mentors, such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were universally respected in their own lifetimes, and none dared to call them unorthodox; it was only after their deaths, did cowards seek to undermine their legacy. And considering how many fallacies and absolute falsehoods they were charged with, and how Nestorius was so unfairly treated, anybody with a brain should see that it was his opposition who were heretics.
>>
>>2503100
Religion dude.
>>
>>2503205
This.
/his/ has exhausted my interest in Christianity, and even religion in general.
I'm done with it at this point.
>>
>>2503732
And it was all for nothing. The ecumenical reunification only began well over a millennia, since the council, and at the precise time secular rulers stopped caring about Holy Sees. Was it worth it, heretics?
I would also like to call to attention, that the Apocalypse of John is a forgery, which the superstitious heretics have time and time again (wrongly) used to defamate individuals and institutions, and has lead to such heresies as the Rapture, Millenarianism, etc. It has no place in the bible canon, and the earliest of the Fathers make no mention of any such book.
>>
>>2503732
>your idiots
>your
>idiots
what about my idiots?
>>
>>2503100
Nestorius was a heretic who taught Christ was two persons. Read the twelve anathemas of Cyril.
>>
>>2504336
This seems like something that should have been included in the OP, for context.
>>
>>2503732
>incorrect use of you're
Low-quality insult disregarded.
>>
>>2504336
Cyril was a facetious man who opposed Nestorius for his own benefit. This is evidenced by the fact that he convened a council to anathemize him before he even was able to arrive and defend himself. And this is a lie, Nestorius preached that there was one prosopon of Christ, which was the hypostasis of two qanuma(natures), one of divinity and one of humanity; and the logos had become one with the human Jesus. However, in recognizing these natures, there are essential characteristics which cannot be deprived from them, and they cannot be deprived from their characteristics. Not everything that is true of Jesus's human nature is true of his divine nature, and certainly not of his human nature to the godhead. In the same way that each member of the godhead has it's own reality which distinguishes it from another, so to do the natures of Jesus (otherwise, it would be true that the father suffered crucifixion). His divinity did not suffer and die, and his humanity is not eternal in the sense of pre-existence. With all this said, the nature of the divine dwelt within his human form, and sanctified his actions (all done by his own will) so that they could save humanity.
Cyril also mistranslated and omitted critical aspects of Theodore and Deodore's work when he criticized them, but I will need to look up the sources for citation.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1