I am now reading “The Bazaar of Heracleides” to see what Nestorius says about his own beliefs.
So far… It confirms what beaglelady says,
Nestorius says the two natures are distinct not in nature but in schema. In other words, they are only separable conceptually. But although he says this, I am not so sure that he really sticks to it. And I think what really nailed him was that he says Cyril’s teaching is unsatisfactory and it is pretty clear that Cyril had control of the meeting which condemned him. He also defends his rejection of Theotokos by saying that only the nature that was human was born of Mary. But I see nowhere that Nestorius speaks against the doctrine of the Trinity or the agreement of Nicea but only that he argues from them against Cyril and Theotokos.
In conclusion, I have to say that my position is closer to that of Cyril with regard the the divine and human natures in Christ even though I object to Theotokos as does Nestorius. The reason is because I deny this incompatibility between the two natures that Nestorius is bent upon emphasizing.
My religious identification is Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.
People who believe like Nestorius and follow Jesus and people who don’t believe like Nestorius and follow Jesus are both my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Aren’t they yours?
Should people be thrown out of the church for agreeing with Nestorius? Would you vote for their excommunication from the church?
The Bazaar of Heracleides was written by Nestorius. Anybody reading this cannot mistake this for something written by an opponent because of all the accusations leveled at these opponents including the claim that Cyril used bribery to get the council to condemn Nestorius. You really need to stop making things up like this! Every time you do so, you lose more credibility!
The claim that you believe like Nestorius is no longer credible since you have demonstrated that you don’t even know what Nestorius has written. I am beginning to wonder if you read that there were few surviving works by Nestorius and thought you could just attribute whatever you want to him.
I think you’re beginning to waste my time here. As I repeatedly explained earlier, the specific word is utterly irrelevant, as the definition of the word “person” is exactly what the Bible describes Christ, the Father, etc, as being. And that definition has been carefully explained to you several times by several people over the course of this conversation.
No, it was you that was and are still denying that God is personal, not apparently being able to distinguish between human persons from any other kind, hence my use of ‘personal entity’.
Because using one word to summarize a description is how language works. Gosh, why do you keep saying the word “Trinity”? You know that’s not in the Bible, right? Neither is the word “omniscient”, “omnipresent”, “religion”, etc. Keep up.
That was you, denying the doctrine of the Trinity, was it not?
Those fairly explicitly suggest that God is not a person. Persons are personal, in the normal use of the language. It is a reasonable inference from those to say that you don’t believe that he is.
This seems to pretty explicitly state that God is not three Persons, i.e., the Three are not Personal. Either that or it shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of the language.
Hard to do when you don’t even know what he wrote.
You kept running to Him in defense of rejecting Trinitarian doctrine. It didn’t really make much sense since Nestorius didn’t do this. But when we explained this, you started making up things to deny this. So the discussion became a meaningless wild goose chase.
How are we supposed to communicate with words which are not defined? A definition doesn’t have to tell us everything about what it refers to but only point in sufficient direction that people have some idea what you are talking about. But in any case, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a definition of God but a belief about God. It just happens to be the belief by which the first ecumenical council of Christianity defined their religion.
Right on. To use an earlier metaphor, the label ‘breathing’ in no way limits anyone’s breathing. Defining is not diminishing, it is enabling communication. Why is it not hubristic to insist that the way you (@03Cobra) are using and defining a word is the only way to use it (or similarly declaring a word illegitimate), especially when no one else does?
So claimingv that hte Bible doesnt hold all truth is like saying that the Quran which is literally a book that copies Judeo-Christian principles does hold a truth to God? Or even the Hindus texts speaking of multiple Gods? I mean thats really confusing to me .