Excellent source[edit]

Available for free online is a PDF entitled "Truth Triumphant" written by historian Benjamin Wilkinson. Using a huge variety of source material, Wilkinson has done a superlative job in giving a detailed account of the church of the East, as well as the Celtic church, and the Waldensian churches among others. The history of the Assyrian church of the East according to Wilkinson began with Papas in the third century... Not Nestorius. Chapter 9 is the key chapter regarding the topic in hand, but I can't recommend the whole book strongly enough. Brakelite (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslim conquest of Persia[edit]

I have reverted again, because I have found no evidence that the event is called "Arab conquest of Persia" (per the article, might be called "Arab conquest of Iran") but I also know of no reason to obscure the true article title, especially in light of the fact that this article is a religious topic, and so we should address the religious sect in question making the conquest, rather than the ethnic group in question. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern christological declaration[edit]

As part of the ongoing (!) rewrite of this page, I think that the joint declaration of 11 November 1994 between pope John Paul II and patriarch Mar Dinkha IV should have its own section (or subsection), as this seems to me a significant development of historical importance. It would, I think, nicely fit in a historical reading of how the concept of "Nestorianism" (or it's perception by non-Nestorians) has evolved and changed, especially in the 20th century (and not merely as an aside on how this or that term is "discourteous" to this or that group...). Pierdeux (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Please add it. 1.127.106.193 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing phrase in lede[edit]

The final sentence of the lede states "The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nestorianism as 'The doctrine of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (appointed in 428), by which Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons'." (emphases added) Can anyone explain what is meant by "having distinct human and divine persons"? I suspect that the word "persons" is incorrect, and should be "personae". "Persons" is most commonly a term which refers to actual corporeal bodies. If the intent here is to say that Jesus "had distinct human and divine sets of characteristics, identities, qualities, etc.", then "personae" would be correct. Bricology (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote is correct. It is a technical theological definition of "person", given in OED as "Each of the three modes of being of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which together constitute the Trinity." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wilhelm speculations[edit]

Moving[1] here insufficiently sourced speculations (see also: The Secret of the Golden Flower#Wilhelm's speculations).

In his foreword of the English Translation of the Chinese Taoist Classic: the Secret of the Golden Flower by Richard Wilhelm , Carl Jung mentions the possibility of a connection between the Nestorians and the Chin-tan-chiao (Religion of the Golden Elixir of Life) membership.[1] The fact that the author of the Secret of the Golden Flower: Lü Dongbin is said to have been active during the Tang Dynasty also supports this view.

  1. ^ Wilhelm, Richard (1931). The Secret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of Life (Second ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0415-20949-8.

86.186.94.129 (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding: There is also an evident issue of WP:UNDUE in interpolating dated speculations within a narrative account of historical events. 86.177.202.156 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book, however, did indeed raise the idea of a connection, on page 9, regardless of whether or not it was at all correct to do so. A given scholar's claims on a topic are able to inserted, if properly contextualized and attributed.
TypistMonkey (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TypistMonkey: The fact that the notion was positied by a scholarly work from almost a century ago, which "did indeed raise the idea of a connection..., regardless of whether or not it was at all correct to do so", does not (WP:UNDUE) provide editorial justification to insert a dated speculation within an historical narrative of factual events. (To be clear, that does not mean to say that some mention of the purported connection - using more recent secondary (or tertiary) RS - might not potentially be appropriate elsewhere on the page.) 86.144.125.134 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories