OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 02, 2014, 04:42:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East  (Read 63747 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #135 on: December 21, 2009, 09:45:35 PM »

I have spoken to Brother Andrew if it is ok for you folks to mail him, you can of course mail him. Father Genard is at the moment a bit overwhelmed, I think it would be best if you mailed him after Christmas. Now...for the "charges" : Rome agrees with us.

You may not have noticed, but since 1054 at the latest, that doesn't mean anything.


Quote
They have never agreed with us on pretty much anything. You know what that means?

nothing.

Quote
It means they know that this is a serious matter and that you better agree with it or else your in some very deep trouble. Do you say to me that God can change? He just said to Malachi that he does not change. You know perfectly well that Miltha is a complicated term which cannot simply be translated into "the word became flesh".

Yes, it can, like it was translated into w'mithla vesra h'wa.

Quote
Cite the Peshitta again to our readers word for word as to what is really in that verse so they see how complicated things really are.

and-Word-the flesh-the was.  simple.

Quote
Third...you just confessed Cyril was a briber and embezzler,

No, I said "if..."  I forgot to put in the "even."  Your point has no point even if he was a briber and embezzler.


Quote
so now we hold thieves and liars as saints?

Pope St. Cyril did nothing that Pope St. Athanasius didn't do.

Quote
Fourth, by your own words in this thread or the other one we discussed on the ACOE, Khabouris is the most ancient semitic NT.

I'd like to have my "own words" quoted, as Khabouris is no such thing.  The Old Syriac is the oldest (only the Gospels), and even it is not the oldest, being preceded by the Diatessaron (it, however, exists only in Persian and Arabic translation, and quotes in Armenian, besides recently discovered Syriac fragments).
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=Kiraz+Old+Syriac&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Kiraz%20Old%20Syriac&f=false


Quote
Good luck in convincing me that a manuscript scribes threw in a trash heap with "Fool and Knave don't change the reading" engraved on it is more reliable than the text Mar Mari and Addai handed to believers in person.

I showed you Sinaiticus, not Vaticanus.  You also don't know who wrote the comment, nor his authority for doing so.  Nor have you said was the reading that was wrong to which the comment is written. I also don't know of Vaticanus being thrown in the trash.

Quote
The oldest Christian liturgy is of the COE as you know as well.

No, it is the Liturgy of St. James, the Brother of God, which the Syriac Orthodox Church preserves, along with the EO.

Quote
Again I am not qualified enough for this subject, however I can say
No, if you are not qualified, you cannot smear the great Philoxenus and Rabbulah, in particular as the Fathers supported him against Ibas, who I know the Nestorian letter attributed to him is condemned by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils as much as the Nestorians praised it.


Quote
that not all syriac is made equal, and that the garbage forged down by Philoxenus of Mabbug and Rabbulah of Edessa is not the Peshitta used by the COE.

No, evidently it has its own Nestorian forged text.


the peculiar property of each nature being preserved

you did not highlight this in the definition of Chalcedon Isa.

Because I don't think you missed that part.  In fact, you latch onto it, and forget the rest.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:48:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #136 on: December 21, 2009, 10:29:05 PM »

We know full well that Rabullah of Edessa was universally considered by all Syriac speaking Christians as "the Devil of Edessa" and as a forger of scriptures. "Old Syriac" Sinaiticus is so well considered by scribes that on the back a story of the "great saint thecla" is scratched on it. I highly doubt manuscripts of high importance are treated this way.Philoxenus of Mabbug's translation was also considered horrendous by Syriac speakers and everybody interested should search the records on this. The Diatesseron is a "harmonization" of the gospels not the four Gospels per se. The Peshitta does not come from the Diatesseron, it is the reverse- the Diatesseron of Tatian is harmonized from the Peshitta. As for the reading on the manuscript which was wrong, it was Hebrews 1:3. I wonder what it was that was being modified, does it have something to do with what we are talking about now  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 10:29:47 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #137 on: December 21, 2009, 10:45:44 PM »

Just to answer any questions regarding how posters should refer to the saints of other traditions in the course of their discussions, I found this post at the top of the public Oriental Orthodox Discussion board.  Granted, Faith Issues is a different board with a different area of focus, but I think we can draw from the precedent set here many of the principles Fr. Anastasios would probably like to see apply to Faith Issues, as well.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3758.0.html
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #138 on: December 22, 2009, 12:36:20 AM »

We know full well that Rabullah of Edessa was universally considered by all Syriac speaking Christians as "the Devil of Edessa" and as a forger of scriptures.

The Fathers at Ephesus knew no such thing, and plenty of Syriac Orthodox Christians were firm supporters of Rabulla, against his unworthy successor Hibas.


Quote
"Old Syriac" Sinaiticus is so well considered by scribes that on the back a story of the "great saint thecla" is scratched on it. I highly doubt manuscripts of high importance are treated this way.

That wasn't the question: you claimed that Khabouris was the oldest Semitic NT, and I was just pointing out that it demonstrably was not.  As for reusing parchment etc., are you familiar with palimpsests?  You would be suprised with what you find: for one, many unical Bibles were reused just for the simple reason that minsucle script had replaced it.  In this case, the Peshitta text supplanted the Old Syriac, which fell into disuse.  And Thekla is a great saint: I was at her shrine at Ma'lula, where they still speak Aramaic (not Syriac) and the sweetest water at the spring in the monastery.  Ambrosia.

Quote
 Philoxenus of Mabbug's translation was also considered horrendous by Syriac speakers and everybody interested should search the records on this.

You can check the work I already linked:The Syriac New Testament By George Anton Kiraz, James Murdock, Horace L. Hastings
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=Kiraz+Old+Syriac&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Kiraz%20Old%20Syriac&f=false
The Catholic Epistles and the Revalation may be from this version (btw, their absence is a problem for Aramaic primacy), which seemed to have been done for theological book rather than devotional use.

Quote
The Diatesseron is a "harmonization" of the gospels not the four Gospels per se. The Peshitta does not come from the Diatesseron, it is the reverse- the Diatesseron of Tatian is harmonized from the Peshitta.
It predates the Peshitta's existence, which replaced it.  It also may have been in Greek, or in Aramaic, i.e. not Syriac.  Btw, you are aware that Tatian was St. Justin's student at Rome: St. Justin himself uses a Gospel harmony which was in Greek.


Quote
As for the reading on the manuscript which was wrong, it was Hebrews 1:3. I wonder what it was that was being modified, does it have something to do with what we are talking about now  Roll Eyes
Well, let's see:
It is this in the Patriarchal text:
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ρήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι' ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents_E_Paulou_Evraious.asp&main=E_Paulou_Evraious&file=3.1.14.1.htm

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

Sinaiticus:οϲ ων απαυγαϲμα τηϲ δοξηϲ και χαρακτηρ τηϲ ϋποϲταϲεωϲ αυτου φερω  τε τα παντα τω ρηματι τηϲ δυναμεωϲ αυτου καθαριϲμο  των αμαρτιων ┬ ποιηϲαμενοϲ εκαθιϲε  εν δεξια τηϲ μεγαλωϲυνηϲ εν υψηλοιϲ
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=46&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=3&zoomSlider=0

It is this in the Peshitta:
ܕܗܘܝܘ ܨܡܚܐ ܕܫܘܒܚܗ ܘܨܠܡܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܗ ܘܐܚܝܕ ܟܠ ܒܚܝܠܐ ܕܡܠܬܗ ܘܗܘ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ ܥܒܕ ܕܘܟܝܐ ܕܚܛܗܝܢ ܘܝܬܒ ܥܠ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܐ ܒܡܪܘܡܐ

which is the same in your Khabouris.
http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/download.php

For the Greek and Aramaically challenged, let's see the difference:in Greek
http://interlinearbible.org/hebrews/1.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fBkW3JcC&pg=PT512&dq=Peshitta+greek+New+testament+Hebrews&lr=&cd=14#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Not an enormous difference.

In Vaticanus, note probably refers to the change of φανερων "shining, manifest" to the standard reading φέρων "upholding" in Heb 1:3.
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html

so I guess the answer to your question is no.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 12:38:44 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #139 on: December 22, 2009, 03:07:50 AM »

Rome agrees with us.

Actually Rome also says they agree with us (EO). And they signed documents that they agree with the Copts (OO). Since we rather clearly do not agree (not to mention you and the OO), Rome's willingness to agree doesn't carry a lot of weight (and while we're at it, do you agree with them on subordination of the Spirit and papal infallibility? if like us, you do not, why would you consider them doctrinal source worth citing?)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #140 on: December 22, 2009, 05:28:17 AM »

Rome agrees with us.

Actually Rome also says they agree with us (EO). And they signed documents that they agree with the Copts (OO). Since we rather clearly do not agree (not to mention you and the OO), Rome's willingness to agree doesn't carry a lot of weight (and while we're at it, do you agree with them on subordination of the Spirit and papal infallibility? if like us, you do not, why would you consider them doctrinal source worth citing?)

Something has just occurred to me on reading this. Perhaps Rafa999 is part of the Assyrian Church of the East which the former Bishop, Mar Bawai Soro led into unity with the Pope?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #141 on: December 22, 2009, 05:47:25 AM »

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #142 on: December 22, 2009, 05:53:58 AM »

OK. I wasn't sure.
Mar Bawai is a personal friend of mine. I attended University with his sister.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #143 on: December 22, 2009, 05:54:22 AM »

Here are a couple of COE documents for those interested:

http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_documents.html

The Nicene creed in Syriac used for threefold immersion is on that website. The COE approved the Nicean creed in 410 under Mar Isaac. Yes, the COE uses the correct formula ("In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"). As for the iconography issue, its sort of tricky, you see the COE was a very potent missionary force in the middle ages. In Asia, as you can see, some cases of local populations using iconography like other Christians occurred. By the way, there are actually Mongolian-Aramaic bibles in existence, the COE had followers all the way to Peking, in fact one of its patriarchs was Chinese. There's a book containing the travels of the Holy St. Bar Saumo which I highly recommend you read at Peshitta.org its called "The Monks of Kublai Khan" by Wallis Budget. Kublai Khan's mother was from the COE.



Thing is that the article that I linked to earlier has several examples from liturgical texts in the COE dating from fairly early (6th-1th cent. maybe) that clearly referred to icons in liturgical use.  Also, these liturgical texts were not composed by recent converts or semi-pagans but one was by the Catholicos of Babylon (I think.  Is that even the right title?
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #144 on: December 22, 2009, 06:04:25 AM »

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.


Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #145 on: December 22, 2009, 11:43:17 AM »

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

Can't you see many people are confused from your Christology.  YOu say you believe in a degree of separation of natures.  To us, both EO and OO, this is heresy.

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #146 on: December 22, 2009, 12:08:11 PM »

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

Can't you see many people are confused from your Christology.  YOu say you believe in a degree of separation of natures.  To us, both EO and OO, this is heresy.

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.


From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations). Jesus wept, Jesus died, Jesus bled, Jesus walked on water, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus reigns in Glory. Jesus is God. Jesus is man. So the God Jesus wept, the God Jesus died, the God Jesus bled and the man Jesus walked on water, the man Jesus rose from the dead, the man Jesus reigns in Glory.

Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips. But as far as the Person, the subject, the actor/experiencer, its always One Person, Jesus the Christ. To intimate that Christ's humanity did anything or experienced anything without continuing and complete union with His divinity (i.e., Christ's human side died but God did not die) is to undercut our whole understanding of the Incarnation in which God made Himself man in order to rejoin humanity to the Divine. If Jesus Christ the man died, but God did not, then death continues to be a separation from the Divine and the Christian message is meaningless other than as a nice set of ethical teachings.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #147 on: December 22, 2009, 02:06:19 PM »

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

Can't you see many people are confused from your Christology.  YOu say you believe in a degree of separation of natures.  To us, both EO and OO, this is heresy.

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.


A separation or a degree of separation to me entails something like that of a union between two persons, like a marriage.  When we talk about the union in Christ, it is like the union of the natures in man.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,449


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #148 on: December 22, 2009, 06:33:24 PM »

Also, as I understood it, "separation" would also mean that Christ was just a man who had the Word of God dwelling in him.  I think the Nestorians in the old days compared this to God dwelling in a temple.  This really would make Christ the same as the saints or prophets, who also had God dwelling in them.  It's not the same as God the Word becoming incarnate.

We also include the words "without confusion or mingling" to show that we don't believe in the other extreme, which Rafa accuses of:  that Christ's divinity and humanity mixed together to form some third nature which was neither fully human or divine.  We don't believe in that either.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #149 on: December 22, 2009, 11:28:19 PM »

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.


Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...

The Sign of the Cross is traditionally done with the three fingers (thumb, index and middle) of the right hand starting at the mouth, then forehead - stomach - right shoulder - left shoulder.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #150 on: December 22, 2009, 11:31:51 PM »

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.


Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...

The Sign of the Cross is traditionally done with the three fingers (thumb, index and middle) of the right hand starting at the mouth, then forehead - stomach - right shoulder - left shoulder.


Thank You ! where almost the same  Grin
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 11:32:39 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #151 on: December 22, 2009, 11:36:04 PM »

I'd say there are bigger differences between the RCC and the Assyrian Church than between the Assyrian Church and Orthodox. The only folks Assyrians have a really hard time with from what I know are protestants who follow things never ever seen in the Apostolic tradition (the rapture anyone? Once saved always saved? These are doctrines of demons). The big issue right now with the RCC is its megalomaniac attempts at absorbing and dissolving the COE, less doctrine from what I understand.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 11:36:23 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #152 on: December 22, 2009, 11:56:30 PM »

I'd say there are bigger differences between the RCC and the Assyrian Church than between the Assyrian Church and Orthodox. The only folks Assyrians have a really hard time with from what I know are protestants who follow things never ever seen in the Apostolic tradition (the rapture anyone? Once saved always saved? These are doctrines of demons). The big issue right now with the RCC is its megalomaniac attempts at absorbing and dissolving the COE, less doctrine from what I understand.

Hopefully by the grace of God , majority of the faithfull SCOE won't allow that to happen to be absorbed or desolved or unite...Patriarchs or what ever the titles are for them in your church, can be replaced if their  the cause of this union with rome that leads to your extinction   .....
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #153 on: December 23, 2009, 12:11:41 AM »

Quote
The Peshitta has a relationship with several other Syriac versions of the NT.  The versions each have their particularities throughout, e.g. the Heraklean translates the Greek slavishly, the Philoxenian merely corrects the Syriac on the Greek, the Old Syriac loose translation, etc.  When we look at the Greek NT, however, we find, not a style in which the whole is in, but each individual book has its own: Luke's Greek is better than Mark's, etc.  We would not expect that disparaty in the Greek NT unless the books were translated at different times by different translators (as is the case in the LXX), which has no evidence in its favor (for one thing, no Aramaic NT show the same distinctions between the books), or the Greek is original.

The sources that are of most interest to me are the Old Syriac (predating the Peshitta), and the the one Nestle-Aland refers to as SyrPal. The Syriac Palestinian version has some affinity with so-called Caesarian variants also found in Armenian and Georgian translations and codices (including Empress Theodora's Codex and Codex Koridethi), and one of the two groups of Greek Lectionaries that underly the Patriarchal version of the New Testament. (The other group of Greek Lectionaries used by Antoniades were closer to the "Lucianic" or Byzantine norm). Odd that most of the main witnesses originated in what was traditional Oriental Orthodox territory.

I read that the Old Syriac (superseded by the Peshitta) has some parallels with the Old Latin (which was superseded by the Vulgate).
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 12:25:05 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #154 on: December 23, 2009, 12:42:01 AM »

You will have to examine the manuscript tradition very carefully, starting at the website I gave (Peshitta.org) you will see that the Peshitta predates old Syriac, that work is the product of the pen of Rabullah of Edessa, we even have his famous "Evangelion d'Mephareshe" wording on old scratch showing that this can be traced down to him. We also have Mar Aphrahat quoting the COE version of the Peshitta before Rabullah's Grandmother was born, so there's no way the Peshitta came from Sinaiticus. I'd say the Peshitta and the Vulgate agree very well, in fact Jerome quoted the Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta reading in the Vulgate if I am correct.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 12:42:42 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #155 on: December 23, 2009, 01:53:07 AM »

I'd say the Peshitta and the Vulgate agree very well, in fact Jerome quoted the Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta reading in the Vulgate if I am correct.

The UBS3 aligns "kariti qeou" against against "kwris theou." Is this what you mean?

http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/hebrews-29-separated-by-grace-part-2/

Quote
What then is the external evidence in favor of each reading? The manuscript evidence in support of χάριτι θεοῦ is very strong. The major manuscripts that favor this reading include P46 א A B C D 33 81 330 614 itar,b, comp, d, v vg copsa, bo, fay, as well as others.1 In addition, Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, and Jerome all testify that the reading exists. Therefore, we have an early reading that is supported by weighty manuscripts spread across several text-types and regions.2  From the B-Text (Alexandrian) there is P46 א B 33, etc.; from the D-Text (Western) there is D, as well as the evidence of the earlier “fathers”;3  and from the A-Text (Byzantine) there is A, as well as a host of unmentioned minuscules.4  The combination of these external criteria typically leads to an “A” rating.

By comparison, the manuscript evidence in favor of χωρὶς θεοῦ is very weak. Aside from 0121b, which is late, there are no uncial manuscripts.5 Additional support for χωρὶς θεοῦ is provided by the cursive 1739,6 a few manuscripts of the Vulgate, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a group known as the Nestorians (according to Pseudo-Oecumenius), Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Vigilius, Fulgentius, and syrp mss.7 Here we have a few late manuscripts and a host of patristic witnesses who have varying opinions on the validity of the reading. In sum, the external evidence in favor of χωρὶς θεοῦ is tenuous at best. Therefore, in terms of external evidence, χάριτι θεοῦ should be preferred to χωρὶς θεοῦ.

The author then presents a defence of the latter reading (separated by Grace), citing Bart Ehrman.

Here's kind of an evangelical retort to Ehrman and company:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/05/brock-on-hebrews-29.html

Quote
S.P. Brock, 'Hebrews 2:9b in Syriac Tradition', Novum Testamentum 27 (1983) 236-44.

As would be expected from this author, we have a thorough review of the Syriac evidence for χωρις θεου vs χαριτι θεου. He considers 31 Peshitta mss from the fifth through to the thirteenth centuries. The data defy brief summary, since there were clearly a number of 'corrections' within mss, though broadly speaking the reading 'apart from God' found favour in the Church of the East ('Nestorians'), while readings with the word 'grace' found favour in the West (Syrian Orthodox and Maronite). Brock argues that 'grace' was the earliest reading of the Peshitta, though his conclusion is not indisputable.

The other thing that he does is to show how the different readings in Hebrews 2:9 were used in Christological controversy during the fifth and sixth centuries.

All the known printed versions of the Vulgate from the past four centuries (including the textual-critical Stuttgart) read "ut gratia Dei." The UBS claims the Peshitta aligns with the Western reading. This other variant seems to be an East Syrian thing.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/05/evidence-in-hebrews-29.html

Quote
It is also claimed in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption (p. 146) and in Metzger's Textual Commentary (2nd edn; p. 594) that Peshitta manuscripts support this reading. I'm wondering why Wallace, Ehrman and Metzger agree that this is the Peshitta's reading. In Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung, II. Die Paulinischen Briefe, Teil 3: 1./2. Thessalonicherbrief, 1./2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief, Philemonbrief und Hebräerbrief (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002, pp. 262-264) there is no record of any Peshitta ms with this reading.

There are, however, readings of Severus of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Babai the Great that appear to support 'without God'
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 02:03:07 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #156 on: December 23, 2009, 02:33:47 AM »

Quote
The UBS3 aligns "kariti qeou" against against "kwris theou." Is this what you mean?

http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/hebrews-29-separated-by-grace-part-2/

Yes, it reads "apart from God" (poor translation on my part note). This was from day one the COE reading, Mar Babai the Great who rebuilt the church after the Sassanid persecutions, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Severus of Antioch did indeed use this reading. There's an entire thread devoted to this at Peshitta.org by the way.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #157 on: December 23, 2009, 11:46:50 AM »

Are the writings of Mar Babai translated and accessible?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 23, 2009, 12:00:41 PM »

I was skimming through this writing by Theodore of Mopsuestia (I should read the whole thing though, which I'll do when I have the time) and I just wanted to give an example of what we as Orthodox find quite objectionable even in the language of Christology:

Quote
Our Fathers rightly thought not to overlook the humanity of our Lord which possesses such an ineffable union with Divine nature, but added: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, as if they had said, 'We believe in one Lord who is of Divine nature, to which the name of Lord and God is truly due.' In speaking of God the Word they said: By whom are all things, as the evangelist said: "All things were made by Him, and nothing was made without Him." It is as if they had said, ' This one we understand to be one Lord who is of the Divine nature of God the Father, who for our salvation put on a man in whom He dwelt and through whom He appeared and became known to mankind. It is this man who was said by the angel that he would be called Jesus, who was anointed with the Holy Ghost in whom He was perfected and justified, as the blessed Paul testifies.' After saying these and showing the Divine nature and the human nature which God put on, they added: The "Only Begotten Son," the "first-born" of all creatures. With these two words they alluded to the two natures, and by the difference between the words they made us understand the difference between the natures. From the fact also that they referred both words to the one person of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures. They did not make use of these words out of their own head but they took them from the teaching of Holy Writ. The blessed Paul said: "Of whom Christ in the flesh, who is God over all," not that He is God by nature from the fact that He is of the House of David in the flesh, but he said "in the flesh" in order to indicate the human nature that was assumed. He said "God over all" in order to indicate the Divine nature which is higher than all, and which is the Lord. He used both words of one person in order to teach the close union of the two natures, and in order to make manifest the majesty and the honour that came to the man who was assumed by God who put Him on.

When you differentiate the natures of Christ to the point you give the human nature a separate pronoun, that to me is troublesome language, two personist if you will, even though Theodore of Mopsuestia says he believes in one person, but continues to say the man was called Jesus, and God the Word assumed Him, not "it" but Him.  Neither is it acknowledged that God the Word IS Jesus, but rather assumed Jesus.

To be honest, the definition Nazerene gives to hypostasis is fine by me, because if anything Severus of Antioch was close to that definition.  But I would say that Severus of Antioch would condemn the way one would talk about Christ as Theodore of Mopsuestia did (let alone the two natures part, which is a separate discussion).  So there's more to it than just different definitions of terms in my opinion.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #159 on: December 23, 2009, 06:24:51 PM »

Shalom witega, minasoliman & Salpy, thank you for answering my question. Now I have a better idea on how to answer questions regarding the COE's Christology:

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations).

The COE is in agreement with this, they confess that Meshikha is one parsopa. And contrary to what Isa posted earlier from Payne Smith's Syriac Lexicon, Prof. Sebastien Brock has proven with his research that this is not the original meaning of qnoma, which was discussed on this page: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html.

Jesus wept, Jesus died, Jesus bled, Jesus walked on water, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus reigns in Glory. Jesus is God. Jesus is man. So the God Jesus wept, the God Jesus died, the God Jesus bled and the man Jesus walked on water, the man Jesus rose from the dead, the man Jesus reigns in Glory.

I'm with you so far, though the COE will object to some of the points above, that is until you get to this bit...

Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical,

If you're gonna say things like "the God Jesus died" or "the God Jesus blead", then please get technical with the COE, cause if you don't it will cause confusion - always.

then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.

This is exactly what the COE believes.

But as far as the Person, the subject, the actor/experiencer, its always One Person, Jesus the Christ.

Yes they believe this too.

To intimate that Christ's humanity did anything or experienced anything without continuing and complete union with His divinity (i.e., Christ's human side died but God did not die) is to undercut our whole understanding of the Incarnation in which God made Himself man in order to rejoin humanity to the Divine. If Jesus Christ the man died, but God did not, then death continues to be a separation from the Divine and the Christian message is meaningless other than as a nice set of ethical teachings.

As long as the EOs & OOs keep "getting technical" with the COE as you did above, I believe future dialogue will be more fruitful than in the past.

A separation or a degree of separation to me entails something like that of a union between two persons, like a marriage.  When we talk about the union in Christ, it is like the union of the natures in man.

God bless.

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Does man (i.e. in general) consist of more than one nature or are you refering to the "body, soul & spirit" combo that a human being consists of?

Also, as I understood it, "separation" would also mean that Christ was just a man who had the Word of God dwelling in him.  I think the Nestorians in the old days compared this to God dwelling in a temple.  This really would make Christ the same as the saints or prophets, who also had God dwelling in them.  It's not the same as God the Word becoming incarnate.

To be fair Messiah did say, concerning His body: "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days". Sure God the Miltha, who was invisible became visible by "clothing" Himself in a "human temple" but this is a gross oversimplication of the Incarnation.

We also include the words "without confusion or mingling" to show that we don't believe in the other extreme, which Rafa accuses of:  that Christ's divinity and humanity mixed together to form some third nature which was neither fully human or divine.  We don't believe in that either.

I think Rafa is assuming that Monophysitism, which was rife in Alexandria and elsewhere at a time eventually became the official creed of the Copts, but this not the case.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 06:27:08 PM by Nazarene » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #160 on: December 23, 2009, 06:54:43 PM »

You will have to examine the manuscript tradition very carefully, starting at the website I gave (Peshitta.org) you will see that the Peshitta predates old Syriac,

Only the OT: the NT Old Syriac is more archaic and a freer translation of the Greek than the Peshitta, which came later and was a more literal translation.  The Old Syriac does use the Peshitta OT for quotes in the NT, rather than depending on the LXX in the NT.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=kiraz+Old+Syriac+old+Testament+Peshitto&cd=1#v=onepage&q=kiraz%20Old%20Syriac%20old%20Testament%20Peshitto&f=false
The Syriac New Testament By George Anton Kiraz, James Murdock, Horace L. Hastings

Quote
that work is the product of the pen of Rabullah of Edessa,

Its beginnig predates Rabullah (if you are refering to the bishop) by a couple centuries.



Quote
we even have his famous "Evangelion d'Mephareshe" wording on old scratch showing that this can be traced down to him. We also have Mar Aphrahat quoting the COE version of the Peshitta before Rabullah's Grandmother was born, so there's no way the Peshitta came from Sinaiticus.

You seem to depend on Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? - Edition 1b - Standard Version By Raphael Lataster
http://books.google.com/books?id=hY1lguX6oo8C&pg=PA275&dq=Mar+aphrahat&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Mar%20aphrahat&f=false

The problem is that the Peshitta wasn't fixed as a text until the 5th century, for borrowing a wording found in the 4th century doesn't prove much.



Quote
I'd say the Peshitta and the Vulgate agree very well, in fact Jerome quoted the Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta reading in the Vulgate if I am correct.
That might explain why the Vulgate agree very well, if Jerome is quoting the Peshitta.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #161 on: December 23, 2009, 07:04:32 PM »

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #162 on: December 23, 2009, 07:27:27 PM »

Shalom witega, minasoliman & Salpy, thank you for answering my question. Now I have a better idea on how to answer questions regarding the COE's Christology:

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations).

The COE is in agreement with this, they confess that Meshikha is one parsopa. And contrary to what Isa posted earlier from Payne Smith's Syriac Lexicon, Prof. Sebastien Brock has proven with his research that this is not the original meaning of qnoma, which was discussed on this page: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.  Even if the original meaning was thus, that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon), if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis, and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.


Quote
Also, as I understood it, "separation" would also mean that Christ was just a man who had the Word of God dwelling in him.  I think the Nestorians in the old days compared this to God dwelling in a temple.  This really would make Christ the same as the saints or prophets, who also had God dwelling in them.  It's not the same as God the Word becoming incarnate.

To be fair Messiah did say, concerning His body: "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days". Sure God the Miltha, who was invisible became visible by "clothing" Himself in a "human temple" but this is a gross oversimplication of the Incarnation.

Actually, He said "destroy this sanctuary."  Somewhat a difference.

Quote
We also include the words "without confusion or mingling" to show that we don't believe in the other extreme, which Rafa accuses of:  that Christ's divinity and humanity mixed together to form some third nature which was neither fully human or divine.  We don't believe in that either.

I think Rafa is assuming that Monophysitism, which was rife in Alexandria and elsewhere at a time eventually became the official creed of the Copts, but this not the case.

Monophysism was never rife in Alexandria, nor was it ever the official creed of the Coptic Orthodox.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #163 on: December 23, 2009, 07:39:09 PM »

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...

Actually, I have always believed that because of what you say, Islam, Hinduism etc. and even Judaism are limited, whereas Christianity by its nature is universal, but being bound by a single language.  Even if believed in the primacy of the Peshitta, the OT is still in two other languages, Hebrew and Aramaic.  The Church is spared fundamentalism and literalism by the fact that the Lord's words, with few exceptions, survive only in transaltion.  I believe that is why in part I think the Fathers adopted the LXX, opposed a Hebrew text, besides issues of accuracy.  Btw, I think the Peshitta is somewhat on a par with the Greek Patriarchal Text/textus receptus, as being the expression of the Syriac Orthodox Fathers.

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

It is somewhat like needing the autograph: Muslim belief and Jewish belief requires this, but they cannot have this of their respective scripture.   Where does that leave them?  The Church's textus receptus, in contrast, serves just as well according to her beliefs.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #164 on: December 23, 2009, 08:16:40 PM »

Shalom witega, minasoliman & Salpy, thank you for answering my question. Now I have a better idea on how to answer questions regarding the COE's Christology:

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations).

The COE is in agreement with this, they confess that Meshikha is one parsopa. And contrary to what Isa posted earlier from Payne Smith's Syriac Lexicon, Prof. Sebastien Brock has proven with his research that this is not the original meaning of qnoma, which was discussed on this page: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.
 

The ancient meaning of qnoma hasn't died out, the COE preserves it.

Even if the original meaning was thus,

Not sure if it was the original (it stems from the root qom which means to "rise up/be established"), but it's the meaning that dates to the time of Messiah. Brock proved it.

that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon),

It does. Brock demonstrated this.

if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis,

It does not, parsopa=prosopon, kyana=ousia, and qnoma=untranslatable word. Yes the meaning of qnoma changed (well in the west that is) and Brock's research which included dialoging with all the Aramaic speaking churches showed that it was the Syrian Orthodox Church who changed it and all this change did was make everything even more complicated. The Syrian Orthodox definition of qnoma does not date to the time of Messiah and that's why I reject it. When I study the books of the Bible, I do so from the author's own language (the form of it which existed in his day) terminology, and mindset and not try to force my own language, termonology and mindset on these writings because they are not mine.

and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.

"God" has blood now? Or is "the Lord" or "the Lord and God"? Hmm...

As for Hebrews 2:9, have you read Origen on the matter:

Quote from: Jameisson, Fausset & Brown Commentary
that he by the grace of God — (Tit_2:11; Tit_3:4). The reading of Origen, “That He without God” (laying aside His Divinity; or, for every being save God: or perhaps alluding to His having been temporarily “forsaken,” as the Sin-bearer, by the Father on the cross), is not supported by the manuscripts...

Well except for the COE's Peshitta text, but they obviously weren't aware of this. And:

Quote
Origen, who looked through the manuscripts of the whole Greek Bible in early 3rd century, knew, that in most cases it was written "apart from God" (Hebrew 2;9). At the time of Hieronymus in late 4th /early 5th century the situation was different. Now it read in the majority of the manuscripts: "by God´s grace". ... It is obvious, that the secoundary text reading was introduced for dogmatic reasons ..." - page 207, Jesus, Man or Myth, Carsten P. Thiede, Lion Hudson plc, Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DH England, 2005

This reading, now exclusive to the eastern Peshitta, was also quoted by Ambrose (397 CE), Jerome (420 CE) & Fulgentius (527 CE), so I've been told.

The previous Patriarch of the COE (Mar Eshai Shimon) claimed that the COE has preserved the original Aramaic NT "without change or revision". Quite a claim indeed, so any evidence of "change" or "revision"? My search has come up dry.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #165 on: December 23, 2009, 08:27:16 PM »

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...
Actually, God has preserved the word of Scripture... in the Holy Tradition of the Body of His Christ, the Church.  Whereas the Scriptures are indeed of prime authority within the Church, our faith does not rest solely on what's preserved in the written text of the Scriptures.  Hence, we don't need to devote ourselves slavishly to preserving any one translation of the Holy Writ as if our faith would fall apart if we didn't.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #166 on: December 23, 2009, 08:31:30 PM »

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

Syriac and Aramaic are the same language, Syriac is just the Greek name for this language, the Assyrians call their language lishana Aramaya (the Aramaic language). Compare these Bible verses and see for yourself:

{2 Kings 18:26} And Heliakim the son of Chelkias, and Somnas, and Joas, said to Rapsakes, Speak now to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it; and speak not with us in the Judean language: and why dost thou speak in the ears of the people that are on the wall? (LXX)

{2 Kings 18:26} Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, "Please, speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judaic in the hearing of the people on the wall." (Hebrew)

{Daniel 2:4} And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, saying, O king, live forever: do thou tell the dream to thy servants, and we will declare the interpretation. (LXX)

{Daniel 2:4} The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, "O king, live forever! Relate the dream to your servants, and we will tell its meaning." (Hebrew)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the days of Arthasastha, Tabeel wrote peaceably to Mithradates and to the rest of his fellow-servants: the tribute-gatherer wrote to Arthasastha king of the Persians a writing in the Syrian tongue, and the same interpreted. (LXX)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter written in Aramaic and translated. (Hebrew)

I don’t care how modern linguists classify this ancient language and its dialects when I’m discussing it’s ancient speakers. I will use the understanding contemporary to the time demonstrated by ancient historians such as Herodotus and Strabo:

Quote
The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians. The Babylonians serve at their rank - Herodotus: The Histories Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1972)

Quote
When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrians no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus (Nineveh); and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her husband... Now, the city of Ninus was wiped out immediately after the overthrow of the Syrians. It was much greater than Babylon, and was situated in the plain of Aturia (Assyria). - Strabo, translated by Horace Jones (1917), The Geography of Strabo London : W. Heinemann ; New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #167 on: December 23, 2009, 09:18:33 PM »

Cyril * epithet removed * who bribed his way out of prison to set up early a robber synod by leaving his church into the equivalent of one million dollars debt (today) ...


...

Regarding the allegations you have made of St. Cyril, you now have 72 hours to back them up with solid evidence from reputable sources or recant them, or they will disappear from your post and you will receive a formal warning for slandering a saint of the EO/OO/RC churches.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator

Rafa999, just a reminder that you have 24 hours yet to substantiate this accusation.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #168 on: December 23, 2009, 10:17:34 PM »

Shalom witega, minasoliman & Salpy, thank you for answering my question. Now I have a better idea on how to answer questions regarding the COE's Christology:

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations).

The COE is in agreement with this, they confess that Meshikha is one parsopa. And contrary to what Isa posted earlier from Payne Smith's Syriac Lexicon, Prof. Sebastien Brock has proven with his research that this is not the original meaning of qnoma, which was discussed on this page: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.
 

The ancient meaning of qnoma hasn't died out, the COE preserves it.

Even if true, not relevant to the present questions.

On the evidence of the penetration of Greek thought in the Aramaic speaking hinterland:
Evidence of Greek philosophical concepts in the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Volume 580 By Ute Possekel
http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ3gGQuJUS4C&pg=PA74&dq=qnoma&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=qnoma&f=false

There is also the problem that Edessa/Urhoy served as the center of Aramaic/Syriac culture.  It rose to prominence as the capital of the Abgar (Arab Bedouin) Dynasty, in the sphere of the Parthians. The Parthians, however, at the time used Greek in its administration, even their shahs bearing the title "Philhellene."  It was then annexed by the Roman Empire, and then rebuilt by the Emperor Justin.  Greek culture and thought was around, and it shows up in the Syriac.

Quote
Even if the original meaning was thus,

Not sure if it was the original (it stems from the root qom which means to "rise up/be established"), but it's the meaning that dates to the time of Messiah. Brock proved it.

I've only seen him arguing about the meaning predatig the establishment of the correspondence qnoma=hypostasis.  That is still a few centuries short of going back to Christ.  I have to admit, I am not sure of the first appearance of Aramaic/Syriac philosophical texts, but I don't think it predates the 3rd century, the 2nd at the earliest.  Still too late.

Quote
that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon),

It does. Brock demonstrated this.

if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis,

It does not, parsopa=prosopon,


technically parsopa<prosopon (which raises the issue of Greek influence).

Quote
kyana=ousia, and qnoma=untranslatable word.

There is no such thing as an "untranslatable word."  

Quote
Yes the meaning of qnoma changed (well in the west that is) and Brock's research which included dialoging with all the Aramaic speaking churches showed that it was the Syrian Orthodox Church who changed it and all this change did was make everything even more complicated.

Complicated how?

Quote
The Syrian Orthodox definition of qnoma does not date to the time of Messiah and that's why I reject it.

The term as far as I know doesn't date to the days of Christ, as Syriac as a language barely does (the earliest form of Syriac is a 6 AD inscription).

Quote
When I study the books of the Bible, I do so from the author's own language (the form of it which existed in his day) terminology, and mindset and not try to force my own language, termonology and mindset on these writings because they are not mine.

Then again, you are going to have problems with Christ's words, as He didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta isn't going to help you there.

Quote
and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.

"God" has blood now?

For about two thousand years now.

Quote
Or is "the Lord" or "the Lord and God"? Hmm...

In the verse in question, "God."

Quote
As for Hebrews 2:9,


who brought up Hebrews 2:9?

Quote
have you read Origen on the matter:

Quote from: Jameisson, Fausset & Brown Commentary
that he by the grace of God — (Tit_2:11; Tit_3:4). The reading of Origen, “That He without God” (laying aside His Divinity; or, for every being save God: or perhaps alluding to His having been temporarily “forsaken,” as the Sin-bearer, by the Father on the cross), is not supported by the manuscripts...

Well except for the COE's Peshitta text, but they obviously weren't aware of this. And:

Quote
Origen, who looked through the manuscripts of the whole Greek Bible in early 3rd century, knew, that in most cases it was written "apart from God" (Hebrew 2;9). At the time of Hieronymus in late 4th /early 5th century the situation was different. Now it read in the majority of the manuscripts: "by God´s grace". ... It is obvious, that the secoundary text reading was introduced for dogmatic reasons ..." - page 207, Jesus, Man or Myth, Carsten P. Thiede, Lion Hudson plc, Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DH England, 2005

This reading, now exclusive to the eastern Peshitta, was also quoted by Ambrose (397 CE), Jerome (420 CE) & Fulgentius (527 CE), so I've been told.

I'd have to know specifics, and specifically why this was brought up.

Quote
The previous Patriarch of the COE (Mar Eshai Shimon) claimed that the COE has preserved the original Aramaic NT "without change or revision".


Well if the Peshitta was the Aramaic original, someone changed or revised it, because it is in Syriac now.

Quote
Quite a claim indeed, so any evidence of "change" or "revision"? My search has come up dry.

Start with the use of the Greek word "euaggelion" for "Gospel" in the Peshitta, along with the Greek terms "bishop" etc.


Then there are all those early (2nd and perhaps 1st century) Greek texts from the NT.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 10:32:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #169 on: December 23, 2009, 10:28:00 PM »

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

Syriac and Aramaic are the same language, Syriac is just the Greek name for this language,

I read Syriac and Aramaic, and no, they are not the same language. Btw, Suraya etc. is a borrowing into Syriac from Greek.

Quote
the Assyrians call their language lishana Aramaya (the Aramaic language). Compare these Bible verses and see for yourself:

{2 Kings 18:26} And Heliakim the son of Chelkias, and Somnas, and Joas, said to Rapsakes, Speak now to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it; and speak not with us in the Judean language: and why dost thou speak in the ears of the people that are on the wall? (LXX)

{2 Kings 18:26} Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, "Please, speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judaic in the hearing of the people on the wall." (Hebrew)

{Daniel 2:4} And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, saying, O king, live forever: do thou tell the dream to thy servants, and we will declare the interpretation. (LXX)

{Daniel 2:4} The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, "O king, live forever! Relate the dream to your servants, and we will tell its meaning." (Hebrew)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the days of Arthasastha, Tabeel wrote peaceably to Mithradates and to the rest of his fellow-servants: the tribute-gatherer wrote to Arthasastha king of the Persians a writing in the Syrian tongue, and the same interpreted. (LXX)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter written in Aramaic and translated. (Hebrew)

I don’t care how modern linguists classify this ancient language and its dialects when I’m discussing it’s ancient speakers. I will use the understanding contemporary to the time demonstrated by ancient historians such as Herodotus and Strabo:

Quote
The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians. The Babylonians serve at their rank - Herodotus: The Histories Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1972)

Quote
When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrians no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus (Nineveh); and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her husband... Now, the city of Ninus was wiped out immediately after the overthrow of the Syrians. It was much greater than Babylon, and was situated in the plain of Aturia (Assyria). - Strabo, translated by Horace Jones (1917), The Geography of Strabo London : W. Heinemann ; New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons


You speak as if something written in the 2nd millenium BC means the same as the 2nd century AD.  To find out that it doesn't try reading something in Old English, just a millenium and a half difference.  Syriac, and Aramaic, are different from Hebrew, which the Greeks (and I can provide the quotes if necessary) subsume under the one term "Hebrew."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #170 on: December 23, 2009, 10:51:19 PM »

Just to answer any questions regarding how posters should refer to the saints of other traditions in the course of their discussions, I found this post at the top of the public Oriental Orthodox Discussion board.  Granted, Faith Issues is a different board with a different area of focus, but I think we can draw from the precedent set here many of the principles Fr. Anastasios would probably like to see apply to Faith Issues, as well.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3758.0.html

having fled to Egypt, Cyril bribed Theodosius' courtiers, and sent a mob lead by Dalmatius, a hermit, to besiege Theodosius' palace, and shout abuse; the Emperor eventually gave in, sending Nestorius into minor exile (Upper Egypt)


Formal Academic Source: Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 47

I also have as a witness Isa saying that Cyril "Did nothing Athanasius didn't do". Therefore I will not recant. Note that I have absolutely nothing against St.Athanasius, but I do have issues with Cyril being termed a Saint. Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 10:58:50 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #171 on: December 23, 2009, 11:52:08 PM »

Just to answer any questions regarding how posters should refer to the saints of other traditions in the course of their discussions, I found this post at the top of the public Oriental Orthodox Discussion board.  Granted, Faith Issues is a different board with a different area of focus, but I think we can draw from the precedent set here many of the principles Fr. Anastasios would probably like to see apply to Faith Issues, as well.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3758.0.html

having fled to Egypt, Cyril bribed Theodosius' courtiers, and sent a mob lead by Dalmatius, a hermit, to besiege Theodosius' palace, and shout abuse; the Emperor eventually gave in, sending Nestorius into minor exile (Upper Egypt)


Formal Academic Source: Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 47
What connection is there between this piece of evidence and the accusation I asked you to substantiate?  I didn't ask for evidence to support a general charge that St. Cyril was a depraved rogue, or to support the specific charge that he somehow persuaded the emperor to send Nestorius into exile (which I'm not convinced was even a bad thing).  I asked you to substantiate your specific claim that St. Cyril "bribed his way out of prison to set up early a robber synod by leaving his church into the equivalent of one million dollars debt".  What can you provide to substantiate THAT?  You still have until 3 p.m. tomorrow (Pacific Standard Time) to give us this evidence.

I also have as a witness Isa saying that Cyril "Did nothing Athanasius didn't do".
Not disparaging ialmisry's credibility here, but for the purpose of fulfilling my request, he doesn't count as a reputable source.  Can you cite a single work he's written apart from this forum to serve a specifically scholarly goal?

Therefore I will not recant. Note that I have absolutely nothing against St.Athanasius, but I do have issues with Cyril being termed a Saint. Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...
Yes, I've heard this story about St. Cyril's complicity in the murder of Hypatia, but I've also seen enough information to cast into serious doubt your belief that "there is no dispute" that he led mobs to carry out this dastardly deed.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,449


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #172 on: December 23, 2009, 11:53:32 PM »

Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...

Hypatia's death was gruesome and tragic, but there is no contemporary source to support your claim that the mob which killed her was led by St. Cyril.  Mob violence was unfortunately very common in Alexandria at that time, and although she was killed by a mob of Christians, the sources from that time say the mob was led by a guy named Peter.  St. Cyril was not there, and there is no source from the time to support the claim that he instigated the violence.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #173 on: December 24, 2009, 12:01:07 AM »

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #174 on: December 24, 2009, 12:06:40 AM »

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?
1.  Don't call me "Pete."  I HATE seeing that name attached to me. Tongue Please address me as either PeterTheAleut or PtA.
2.  Where is the evidence you provided that is so conclusive that "Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled"?  I have not yet seen it.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #175 on: December 24, 2009, 12:17:10 AM »

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?
can you provide something more up to date than Gibbon, himself questionable.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #176 on: December 24, 2009, 12:20:13 AM »

You want proof? The 96th letter of the corpus of his writings details every single bribe he sent to Constantinople.

Go here to read how he got his church in debt by embezzling:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-NktOwEjYMC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=letters+of+Cyril+of+Alexandria+96+gifts&source=bl&ots=JKbl75E3Rq&sig=wov--iziBT5SIyWA5KAmxr1K0cM&hl=en&ei=AO0yS_zlDpG2lAe8o8ybBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false


"letter" number 96.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 12:27:36 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #177 on: December 24, 2009, 12:34:55 AM »

You want proof? The 96th letter of the corpus of his writings details every single bribe he sent to Constantinople.

Thank you.  That's the kind of evidence I was looking for to support (not necessarily prove) your accusations.

Now, regarding the substance of the introductory explanation added by the translator of these letters, John I. McEnerney: I can think of many reasons why one may question his credibility or the credibility of his writings, so I don't necessarily see his translation of St. Cyril's letters as incontrovertible proof of any allegations against the saint.  However, the only thing I could request as a moderator was evidence to, at the minimum, support the idea that your accusation was at least the opinion of a few reputable scholars and not just something you invented to slander the saint's memory.

Now if someone else, just for the sake of debate, wants to hold you to a higher standard of proof, then that's totally up to them, and you have no formal obligation to comply with their request.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 12:37:28 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #178 on: December 25, 2009, 07:07:40 PM »

My question would start with the theological COE definition of kyanah, qnoma, and parsopa.

In this post I’ll give all the info I can find on these 3 Aramaic words, (all colour coding mine):

First, let’s go back to that diagram:



Here’s Mar Babai the Great’s explanation from his Book of Union:

Quote
“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

Quote
(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Here is a summary of the COE’s Christology from the Synodicon Oriental:

Quote
Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose Godhead does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete God and complete man. When we say of Christ ‘complete God’ we are not naming the Trinity, but one of the qnome of the Trinity, God the Word. Again, when we call Christ ‘complete man’ it is not all men we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Word.

More? From Ruach Qadim: the Path to Life by Andrew Gabriel Roth, pg 138-139:

Quote
Kyanna does not refer to an actual thing but rather to an abstraction of that thing; a theoretical construct. You can talk about “human nature” but have you found its actuality? Kyanna simply asks the question, “Can something be divine, human or animal?” as opposed to, “I have found THIS, and it is human.”

…“For every kyanna of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human kyanna.” (James 3:7)

The nature of something is never seen, and it only exists as a classification searching for an occurrence it has not found yet. John the bird collector, trudging off into the forest to document as many species as possible has already worked out in his mind certain criteria of “birdness” that he will look for. What he is looking for will have feathery wings as opposed to the leather-like appearance of a bat’s, it will have a sharp beak and not a mammalian style mouth, and so on. That criteria or classification scheme is the essence of kyanna

With me so far? Let’s continue:

Quote
…Now let us say that a few minutes after John arrives in the forest, something flies overhead, but it is moving too quickly for him to identify it. All John knows is that some kind of bird, a living example of the classification (kyanna) he held in his mind just went by him. In that case John has just found an individuated instance of that abstract concept – he has found a qnoma, that his kyanna was looking for.

Pause again and think about what is happening here, now let’s continue on:

Quote
More time passes, and John wants to make sure he does not make the same mistake twice. He double checks his equipment and makes every effort to ensure that his camera is ready to snap a photograph the instant another bird crosses his path. Then, finally, one does, and this time he is elated because he has captured the image of a rare type of sparrow that he has been looking to add to his species list for years. The bird has all the unique features known only to its kind, along with some odd coloring that would even distinguish him from amongst other members of his species. At that level of detail then, we have found the parsopa of that particular bird.

Shamash Paul Younan sums it up like this:

Quote
"Self" would be a horrible definition for Qnoma. "Self" is nearly synonymous with "Person", yet two Qnome from the same Kyana (nature) do not have the necessary amount of differentiating information to be considered two distinct "persons."

Kyana (nature) is abstract. Qnoma is an instantiation, a concrete example, of a Kyana......yet it does not contain enough information to become a different "Person" from a fellow Qnoma of the same Kyana.

The only thing which differentiates one Qnoma from another in the same Kyana is number - by that I mean that each one is distinct, yet not distinct enough to be considered two different "persons."

Here’s a simple illustration on the differences between kyana, qnoma & parsopa:

A day is a 24 hour period – this is kyana
A week is a group of 7 24 hour periods (day 1, day 2, ect.) – this is qnoma
Each day has a name (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) to distinguish it from the other days in the same group (week) – this is parsopa

Perhaps it’ll be easier to understand what a qnoma is, if we first look at what it does. Again I quote Paul Younan:

Quote
Orthodox Christianity (all Orthodox Christianity) believes that the subject of the Incarnation was both "God and Man"....not a "God-man." Pagans believed in "god-men." There is a BIG difference between the two.

The way Aramaic-speaking believers understand this revelation (God and Man) is through the concept of "God-Qnoma and Human-Qnoma", and this fits in perfectly with revelation in scripture.

If Meshikha didn't have a Divine Qnoma, then he was a liar. If Meshikha didn't have a Human Qnoma, then the sacrifice is useless and I reject it.

You HAVE to understand that when you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a divine Qnoma, you are saying that he wasn't God. And if you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a human Qnoma, then you are saying that he wasn't born of a woman!

In the Aramaic psyche - you cannot be human, and not have a human Qnoma. You cannot be God, and not have a divine Qnoma. In other words, in the Aramaic psyche you cannot go directly from abstract nature to concrete person. That abstract nature must be *individuated* first. That's where Qnoma comes in.

If you tell an Aramaic-speaking person that a bird flying above does not have a "bird qnoma", that person would look at you like you were insane - because what you are saying, essentially, is that you think the bird is imaginary! That you think that bird doesn't exist!

Qnoma functions as an “ingredient”, or “chemical reaction” or “process” which is needed to transform something abstract into something concrete, but on a conceptual level not a physical level, again from Paul Younan:

Quote
Yes, indeed. The word for "resurrection" in Aramaic is "Qeyamtha", which is also derived from the root "Qom."

The reason why Prof. Brock and others have concluded that the CoE definition for Qnoma is the archaic one, is because of the imagery involved with the primitive root meaning "to rise up, stand up, to be established."

"Kyana" means "nature" in an abstract sense, and "Qnoma" means an "individuated kyana", i.e., "something which has arisen, stood up, and become established from an abstract concept."

Quote
Think of it this way:

Human Kyana~Abstract Nature: Blueprint - must have 46 chromosomes. Must have a gender of male or female. Must have two eyes, two arms, two legs, etc. The blueprint for everything a human is supposed to be. Abstract, not real.

Human Qnoma~Concrete, Real, Individuated Kyana: This is an individuated (real, concrete) Kyana. There exists billions of them that are identical. All are equal, except in number (i.e., Qnoma number 1 is not Qnoma number 2). They cannot be distinguished except by instance (number).

Human Parsopa~Person: Peter, Paul, Mary. Each one is a different person. Because the Kyana states that a human must have 46 chromosomes, all three people have 46 chromosomes - but each one has different combinations of genes which makes them unique.

Because the Kyana states that a human must have two eyes - Peter, Paul and Mary each have two eyes. However, Paul's eyes are brown while Peter's eyes are green and Mary's eyes are blue. Each one has personal characteristics that make each person unique.

Think of qnoma as a “photocopy” of human nature, like you would make a photocopy of a document – all the copies are identical because it’s the same document, the only thing that distinguishes them is number, again from Paul Younan:

Quote
All human Qnome are co-equal (nothing to distinguish them, except for number~name.) This is why the fall of Adam was the fall of all of mankind. We are all collectively called "Adam." Our nature became corrupt, therefore each of our copies of that nature (qnome) are corrupt. Meshikha took a qnoma from Maryam and redeemed our nature by His sacrifice of that human temple.

In like manner, all the Qnome of God are co-equal, one and the same Kyana - one single God. We do not call them by the English word "persons", nor by its Aramaic cognate "parsope".

As human qnome are collectively called "Adam" or "Anasha", these three Divine qnome are collectively called the "Godhead". We make no distinction between them, except for number~name.

As you and I are called "ben-Adam" or "bar-Anasha", Meshikha's humanity is called "bar-Alaha"....the "Son of God." But His Divinity is God Himself.

Paul Younan on parsopa:

Quote
No. There is no such thing as a Divine Person. We do not speak of God as a "person", because a "person" means that you are physical.

We speak of the subject of the Incarnation, Meshikha, as a "person" because he had both a human nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) as well as a Divine nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) in one "person" and was born of a woman - he materialized here on earth among us and became a person like us.

But that does not mean that God is a "person" - God is three Qnome and not a "Person."

In the person of Meshikha, one Divine Qnoma (out f three) was joined together with one human qnoma (out of billions) to form a single "person", who was the subject of the Incarnation and the object of our worship.

The Father never became a Parsopa, neither did the Holy Spirit. These two Qnome remained distinct from the Qnoma of the Son which took for itself a body from us as a temple (Yukhanan 1:1), and thus became a "person."
When we speak of the Godhead, we speak of spiritual things and not physical things.

Quote
God is God, we are persons. In Aramaic, the word "person" is attributed to a human nature. Human beings are persons. (We don't speak of individual dogs, cats or pet goldfish in a bowl as "persons", either.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "impersonal"? "Impersonal" as an adjective could describe an entity that isn't alive, does not feel emotions, is unknowable, lacks the ability to communicate or lacks "personality." Kind of like a dead or inanimate object, like a rock.

God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are familiar to our human experience. Certainly, we are created in His Image, so we might expect that we have certain things in our individual person that reflect certain aspects of our Creator. Is that what you mean by "personal?"

I do not think of God as a "person" or "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name YHWH in Hebrew.

+Shamasha

Quote
Actually, I wanted to add Akha: there is no native Aramaic term that means what the Greek/English "person" means. The Aramaic vocabulary, indeed the Semitic psyche as a whole, lacks the very concept.

The word we use today, "Parsopa", is a loan-word from Greek ("Proposon"). Reason it's a loan word, is that usually when cultures come into contact and there is a concept in one that is absent from the other, borrowing typically occurs (back and forth.)

Really when anyone in the Semitic milieu, Jews, Christians and Muslims, hear the Western formulation of "One God in Three Persons", we become rather confused. Of course both Jewish and Muslim apologists, indeed even fringe groups like the JW's, accuse "Christianity" of being something other than Monotheistic.

While I don't agree with them, of course, one can see how the confusion arises since the terminology is almost contradictory to say the least.

That's really unfortunate, because if one studies the topic carefully the reality is that the Greek "Prosopon" was nearly unavoidable given that no cognate for "Qnuma", the concept, exists in Indo-European languages.

How these understandings of kyana, qnoma & parsopa affect COE Christology:

Quote
The Incarnation does NOT mean that God changed into anything. God remained God, and simply took the form of a servant by taking a temple of humanity from Mary. His Divinity dwelled within the humanity with which He clothed Himself.

It is this humanity that was tempted in the wilderness, that urinated, that defecated, that ate food, that drank water, that bled on the Cross and that lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights. God was not involved in any of those things. God is impassible, eternal and in need of none of those things.

…Finally, you ask about atonement. If Meshikha wasn't fully human just as you are fully human, the sacrificial act was worthless and you still remain in your sin. If Meshikha's humanity was "divine" (according to you), then it is not your humanity that was sacrificed, but some freak Frankenstein creature. And therefore you are still lost.

And finally:

Quote
No one is saying that Meshikha isn't God. He is. And no one is saying that Meshikha isn't man. He is.
The Divinity did not die on the Cross. The Divinity is impassible. The manhood, which He took from us, bled and died and suffered and was tempted. But not the Divinity.

Do you really understand the Divinity to have suffered and have died? If "God" died, then who raised Him?
Yes, of course Meshikha is called MarYah. He is MarYah. But he is also bnai' nasha (Son of Man) The Hymn above in this thread explains my position perfectly. I'm not adding to it or taking anything away from it, the scriptures it references make it perfectly clear that God did not die and Man did not raise the dead and forgive sins.

Once again, the person of Meshikha is God/Man ..... not God-man. Neither the Divinity was from His mother, nor the humanity from His Father. Each was preserved perfectly in its own Qnuma, in the One Person of Meshikha. Qnuma is an Aramaic word I though you were familiar with, at least conceptually.

It is not possible for Satan to tempt God in the wilderness. What kind of temptation was that, a mockery? A set up? Doomed to fail from the get-go? That is utter blasphemy. It is the humanity of Meshikha that was tempted. What was Satan offering God in the wilderness that He did not already own? What are you thinking? Was Satan really asking God to bow down and worship him? What kind of triumph of will was that? A mockery you have turned the temptation into, that's what. If God, and not our Humanity, triumphed over temptation then it means nothing. Big deal. Woo-hoo. God wasn't interested in all the kingdoms, riches and debauchery that Satan had to offer. Woo-hoo. Great triumph.

Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.

Comments?
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #179 on: December 26, 2009, 01:43:44 PM »

In this post I’ll compare the Orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union with the Christology of the COE:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις, {"[h]upostasis"}, "hypostasis", sediment, foundation or substance) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John 10:37-38 quotes Jesus as follows: "...that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The Hypostatic union became official at the Council of Ephesus, which stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, "hypostasis") of Christ.[1]

In the COE it works like this:

“the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, “hypostasis”) of Christ, through the preservation of their qnome (divine and human).

Quote from: Wikipedia
Hypostasis had come into use as a technical term prior to the Christological debates of the late fourth and fifth centuries. Before there were Christians, the word was used in Greek philosophy, primarily in Stoicism.[2][3] Hypostasis had some use in the New Testament that reflect the later, technical understanding of the word; especially Hebrews 1:3.[4]

Let’s compare the Byzantine Greek reading of Hebrews 1:3 with the Peshitta reading:

who is the brightness of His glory and the image of His being (hypostasis), sustaining all things by the expression of His power. He Himself has cleansed our sins, [and] sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high. (Byzantine)

who is the radiance of His glory, and the image of His being (aithutha), and almighty by the manifestation of His power. And in His Qnoma He accomplished the cleansing of our sins, and sat down at the right hand of Majesty in the highest place. (Peshitta)

Observations:

*it is the Aramaic word aithutha (substance/essence/being/existence), not qnoma, that is equivalent to the Greek hypostasis

*His Qnoma is obviously referring to Messiah’s Divine Qnoma – the Miltha/God the Son. But this is not necessarily in conflict with the Greek “Himself” by suggesting separatism within the person Yeshua Meshikha. Rather it’s more specific, meaning that the “camera lens” is “zooming in” on the specific mechanism/channel within Meshikha’s parsopa through which He accomplished our salvation. The reason for this, I believe, is to identify “His Qnoma” as the exact same mechanism/channel within YHWH Elohim that is responsible for salvation – His Arm (Isaiah 53).

Quote from: Wikipedia
Although it can be rendered literally as "substance" this has been a cause of some confusion[5] so it is now often translated "subsistence". It denotes an actual, concrete existence, in contrast with abstract categories such as Platonic ideals.

Qnoma is very similar to hypostasis in that it’s an instantation, and therefore an actual existence of a kyana (abstract). The difference is that qnoma doesn’t allow for the same degree of “distinctiveness”, you cannot tell 2 qnome apart, they are identical, “clones” of a nature if you will. Also qnoma never enters the material realm on its own, it can only do so through a parsopa, which the COE associates with the material realm exclusively.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The First Council of Nicaea declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

The COE, who accepts the Nicene Creed, believe that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (spirit) and the same nature (divine), and that they are co-eternal because they are Qnome – individuated instantations of divinity. As “clones” of divinity, they are not separate deities (individuals) but together with the Holy Spirit, are living existences, which perfectly embody all the characteristics of divinity (omniscience, omnipresences, omnibenevolence, omniportence & eternity) eternally united within the Spirit who is YHWH Elohim, functioning as “built in” mechanisms/channels through which YHWH Elohim carries out work and communicates with creation.

Interesting bit from Wikipedia’s article on Miaphysitism:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, 'substance'), physis (φύσις, 'nature'), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, 'person'). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis as qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue furthermore. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts.

Brock has pointed out the Syrian Orthodox Church has also at times (after the Christological controversies) associated kyana with hypostasis, and qnoma with prosopon.  But the COE’s Christology is based on the archaic meanings of these words.  Therefore kyana should be translated as ousia, physis is OK but doesn’t capture as much of the imagery of kyana as ousia does. And qnoma, which means “individuated concrete instance of a kyana” not nature, should be explained not translated.
Logged
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian Aramaic Theodore of Mopsuestia icons Christology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 71 queries.