Talk:Council of Ephesus

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Papal legates not present 

message: I have removed the following sentence:
The [mostly anti-Nestorian] western delegates arrived first, and locked out the later Eastern [mostly Nestorian] arrivalsRussell, Hisory of Western Philosophy, . 
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)
thread_title:  Latecomers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No human soul? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Later events

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logos? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical account vs. theological exposition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104205725/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing the repetitive "McGuckin"