(Byzantine Christology defines hypostasis as prosopon (as self) while the concretion of ousia is physis).
Disclaimer: I do not consider either Assyrians or Oriental Orthodox heretics.
Neither do I, or EOs or RCs for that matter. What matters is to me is this conclusion - that the person Yeshua the Messiah is 100% divine and at the same time 100% human, and ALL these churches (from what I can see) do come to this conclusion ultimately. How you get to this conclusion is interesting but IMO not as important as the conclusion itself.
The Byzantine fathers rejected the term prosopon because they considered it a weak term just as they rejected the term miaphysis. Prosopon was considered unsuitable because it did not imply the unity of the person stongly enough to them.
Interesting. It seems that the Byzantines and OOs are especially concerned with how
Messiah's humanity and divinity are united, while the COE is not concerned with this, they just believe that they are united but don't go into the specifics of how
they are united. But they are very concerned with the divinity and humanity not being "mixed together" or the divine nature not being confused with the human nature and vice versa.
Prosopon carried the meaning of personality and was used also of the masks that actors wore.
2 personalities, yip I can see why they wouldn't like a "prosoponic union", but qnoma (according to the COE) does not mean personality.
Miaphysis was rejected because they considered it did not distinguish between the natures strongly enough and could be interpreted as Christ being 50% human 50% divine.
Fr. Deacon Lance
For those who don't know the difference between mia and monos yes Miapysitism can be grossly misinterpreted, and it wasn't until a Copt of Peshitta.org compared monos with yakhid and mia with ekhad that I was able to see this crucial difference. I've told Salpy before on a another thread that the distinction between the divinity and humanity that Miaphysitism makes is not clear enough to my own liking but it's still clear enough for me to see that it's there.
The difference is that when we 'get technical', we still affirm that it was God Incarnate who wept, died, bled, hungered by virtue of His humanity, and that it was God Incarnate who rose from the dead and reigns in glory by virtue of His divinity.
I personally have no problem with the above whatsoever.
Our problem with what you're saying is that you refuse to attribute the properties of humanity to the divine Person: God Incarnate.
Let me be clear about something. What I've been trying to present on this thread is what I've learnt about the Christology of the COE - NOT the Christology that I personally hold. The Christology I personally hold is similar to that of the COE (from what I know about theirs) but I don't know enough about their Christology to declare mine identical to theirs. This thread is about the COE not about me, when I'm talking about the COE I'm talking about them not me.
Brock is a linguist, not a theologian. Don't take your shoes to the baker to get fixed.
Don't underestimate the importance of linguistics with regard to theology. We all say "this Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic word means ___". So I am going to take linguistics into consideration.
Diodore of Tarsus, Theodoret of Cyrhus, and of course Nestorius wrote and debated in Greek, in which language the debates Prof. Brock alludes took place.
Which is why I'm exploring the possibilities of mistranslation, misinterpretation and misunderstaning.
Btw, the archaism of the terminology of the Nestorians in 5th and 6th century doesn't date their theology.
I'm not going to make any conclusions or any assumptions until I look at EVERYTHING from EVERY angel.
Qnoma does NOT mean hypostasis which Brock, the world's leading authority on the Aramaic language stresses very clearly.He is the leading authority on the Syriac language, which is not the same as Aramaic. And he admits that the Syriac speaking Orthodox use it for "hypostasis."
And that the COE do not, this thread is about the COE remember?
Qnoma is very similar to hypostasis but it's not an exact match.
The way the Nestorians used it no. But that's a question of theological terminology, not linguistic etymology.
Let's look at it linguistically then to see if that's really the case, we won't know unless we do.
Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
". Qnoma means "individuation" it NEVER means "individual", I know that it sounds like the same thing in English but it's not.[/quote]
qnoma d'malka "the person of the king," baqnoma "in person," qnom nafsheh "a certain person," 'ana qnomi "myself." And d'ma dhaqnomeh "his own blood" q'nomay alahotha meant "Persons of the Godhead" i.e. the Persons of the Trinity, when we borrowed it.[/quote]
Well I'm concerned with the meaning of qnoma before the Syrian Orthodox Church started trying to bring it into line with some Greek word. Because the COE didn't do that, and again this thread is about them.
We can use English "subsistence" or "person," but it doesn't eliminate the problem, as the terms are not untranslatable.
We can use English "subsistance" or "person" for hypostasis NOT for qnoma.
The Syriac Orthodox do all the time.
Which is later, and again the COE do not and this thread is about them
which is why what the Syrian Orthodox Church does doesn't concern me.
And BTW the Greek word hypostasis has changed in meaning over the centuries as well, before the Christological contraversies began hypostasis wasn't closely interwind with prosopon.
I'm aware of that, and Prof. Brock alludes to it.
Good, then give me the meaning of hypostasis pre-Nicaea please.
That's why I want to go back to the time before the first Council of Nicaea - to what these Greek words use to mean because the COE's understanding of the Aramaic words in their terminology (which is older than the other Aramaic churches) seems to correspond a lot more closely with the older meanings of the Greek words, but I need to make sure.
Be careful, as the older meanings were condemned as heretical, e.g. homoousios.
I've heard that about homoousios too. OK then give me the older meanings and state which ones were considered heretical and why. I'll follow your advice concerning this.
So if anyone can answer the question, I posted earlier I would appreciate it:The way to Nicaea By John Behr
Can someone please give me a full explanation of the Hypostatic Union, as well as the older (pre-Nicene) meanings of the Greek words ousia, physis, hypostasis & prosopon?
Thank you Isa, will read it tomorrow.