OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2014, 10:42:54 PM *
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 68961 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #225 on: December 31, 2009, 01:32:46 PM »

Docetism.

Nope that's not the COE's view, this is.

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.

The COE likes to "get technical".

Yeah.  That's how Nestorius got in trouble....
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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,815


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #226 on: December 31, 2009, 01:59:54 PM »

Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.

The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council.  The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand.  Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion.  The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity.  I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone.  I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.   Smiley
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 03:17:32 PM by Salpy » Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #227 on: December 31, 2009, 03:14:08 PM »

From Fr. Peter's Farrington's article, The Orthodox Christology of Severus of Antioch:
Quote
We do not refuse to confess the difference, God forbid! But we flee from this, that we should divide the one Christ in a duality of natures after the union. For if he is divided, the properties of each one of the natures are divided at the same time with him, and what is its own will cling to each one of them. But when a hypostatic union is professed, of which the fulfilment is that from two there is one Christ without confusion, one person, one hypostasis, one nature belonging to the Word incarnate. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)

What Severus, and Cyril, strive so hard to prevent is a division of Christ such that there is a human and a God. This is the essence of Nestorianism. In this passage Severus shows the strength of his feeling that we must absolutely confess that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are different things. There is no room for a Eutychian confusion of humanity and Divinity. This recognition of the difference of the nature is not what we object to. What we object to is creating a duality of natures, which does not mean the destruction of the difference between them, rather it means setting up two independent centres of existence, the humanity and the Divinity, and these independent centres of existence destroy the union. It is a hypostatic union that ensures the real union of these different natures. This passage makes clear that firstly, a hypostatic union does not introduce confusion between the humanity and the Divinity; secondly, that 'one nature belonging to the Word incarnate' does not mean either a confused divine/human nature nor does it mean that the humanity is swallowed up by the Divinity; thirdly, the passage makes plain that the union is one in which the different natures have their differences preserved but within one concrete existence, that of the Incarnate Christ, and not preserved independently as the Son of God and a man united in some external manner. The 'duality of natures' which is rejected is not the reality of the humanity and Divinity, but a division between them which destroys the union. What is required is a union which makes One Christ of the two without confusion of either.

It was Cyril, as Severus quotes, who had said that:

The properties of the Word became properties of manhood, and those of manhood, properties of the Word. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)

In other words, hypostatic union means a union between concrete realities (human and divine natures of Christ) without confusion and without separation in one concrete reality of the Logos Incarnate.

God bless.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 03:14:39 PM by minasoliman » 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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #228 on: December 31, 2009, 06:16:39 PM »

Quote
the Eternal Logos, in His Divine nature did not have blood.

That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

Quote
I am the LORD, and I do not change.

Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

Quote
How does the ACOE deal with the verse from the Gospel of John?

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.

There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The  Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans. This is what Isaiah 11 is talking about:

Quote
Isaiah 11

 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Docetism is the position that Christ never had a real body and that the crucifixion was an illusion. I obviously never held to such a position.

Talk to the COE Qashas here:

http://www.assyrianchurch.com/forum/
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 06:18:21 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,988


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #229 on: December 31, 2009, 06:20:59 PM »

Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.

The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council.  The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand.  Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion.  The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity.  I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone.  I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.   Smiley

Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned.  When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #230 on: December 31, 2009, 06:25:39 PM »

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 06:26:37 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,815


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #231 on: December 31, 2009, 06:35:02 PM »

Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned.  When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.

He inserted it with the intention of protecting against Nestorianism, which at that time was kind of the same thing as "bolstering miaphysitism."   Smiley  Later, as I said, the Chalcedonians adopted the Theopaschite formula at Contantinople II, showing that one can believe in "two natures" and still have a Cyriliian Christology.  The COE still rejects it, though.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #232 on: December 31, 2009, 06:54:09 PM »

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?
Our Father among the saints John Chrysostom and the Prophet Isaiah.
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #233 on: December 31, 2009, 06:59:39 PM »

Quote
the Eternal Logos, in His Divine nature did not have blood.

That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

Quote
I am the LORD, and I do not change.

Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

Quote
How does the ACOE deal with the verse from the Gospel of John?

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.

There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The  Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans.

In idiomatic English "The Word was flesh and abided/rested in/by us."  Flesh has blood.  The Word was flesh, so He had blood.
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 #234 on: December 31, 2009, 07:00:52 PM »

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?

Dude--St. John Chrysostom came into the discussion because minisoliman showed that he disagreed with you:
"... to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily XLIV

I don't know if the issue is that St. John had less contact with Theodore than you're assuming, if he misunderstood Theodore on this point, if he forgot that Theodore was wrong on this point, or if you are misundersting Theodore on this point. But St. John quite clearly believed that God had blood.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #235 on: December 31, 2009, 07:07:34 PM »

I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos. Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:09:07 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
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 #236 on: December 31, 2009, 07:09:19 PM »

The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos.

So the Messiah and the Logos are not the same Person?
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #237 on: December 31, 2009, 07:10:23 PM »

The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity. The prophet Isaiah said so. This is not the same as a Saint because the FULL Godhead dwelled within the Messiah, the Seven Spirits of God (Isaiah 11).

By the way, your interpretation counts as human sacrifice by the Torah of the Jews of Jesus's time which he kept, while mine counts as an offering to God of the highest order (A Qurbana or Korban).
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:15:45 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: 32,896


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #238 on: December 31, 2009, 07:14:46 PM »

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).
You're using your predetermined conclusion to prove that our reading of Acts 20:28 must be incorrect.  This is not what I asked for, since your conclusion that the Logos never held blood is itself currently under fire.  If you fail in defending this thesis, then your attack on our reading of Acts 20:28 falls apart as well, since you will have been shown to be basing your attack on a flimsy premise.

What I want to see is original manuscripts that show the "correct" wording of Acts 20:28, manuscripts you have conveniently put out of our reach by asserting that they no longer exist.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:17:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #239 on: December 31, 2009, 07:20:03 PM »

I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos.

Then either it wasn't Christ's to offer, or it was, as God Himself.


Quote
Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.
It was Chrysostom who converted Theodore, not the reverse, and it was Chrysostom who brought Theodore back after this fall, not the the reverse.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.v.ii.html?highlight=theodore#highlight
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,896


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #240 on: December 31, 2009, 07:26:27 PM »

The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity.
Thank you for now revealing your true colors.  There's no way any Orthodox Christian can hold to this Nestorian Christology, since we believe that only God can save but can do so only by becoming fully one of us.  You have essentially deprived us of the means of our salvation.  Mankind is utterly lost in your Christology.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:26:56 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #241 on: December 31, 2009, 07:45:37 PM »

Wrong. God Saves. He accepted the suffering and obedience of the human nature of his son as a sacrifice, he allows us to partake of the divine nature through adoption since we can identify ourselves with his Son who kept his commands. So God does save, only not in the way your teaching.
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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #242 on: December 31, 2009, 07:46:12 PM »

The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity.

Are you saying that the Messiah is a separate "self" from the Logos?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:46:25 PM by minasoliman » 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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #243 on: December 31, 2009, 07:50:34 PM »

The Messiah is the Logos dwelling side by side with the fragile human nature. At no point did the Logos change its essence into anything than it ever was before. The Logos cannot change (Malachi 3:6). we are not Muslims, our beliefs must be consistent, no "progressive revelation" please.
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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #244 on: December 31, 2009, 07:55:57 PM »

The Messiah is the Logos dwelling side by side with the fragile human nature. At no point did the Logos change its essence into anything than it ever was before. The Logos cannot change (Malachi 3:6). we are not Muslims, our beliefs must be consistent, no "progressive revelation" please.

This isn't progressive.  St. John Chrysostom's Bible showed that God having blood was a belief.  No one here, neither Eastern or Oriental Orthodox believes that the human and divine natures of Christ were altered, changed, or absorbed in anyway, but we also ascribe that the Messiah is the Logos, not a person with a Logos dwelling in him.  It is because that the Messiah is precisely the Logos that we say God has blood and the the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos.  If the Messiah is not Logos, but a "person with a Logos dwelling within Him" then that is blasphemy and our salvation is lost.
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.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #245 on: December 31, 2009, 08:00:15 PM »

The Messiah is the Logos, he has a human nature too not a single nature. The Logos did not change into human flesh, he is a spirit:

Quote
John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Please read Isaiah 11 which I posted above. This was the Christology of the First Christians who were also called "Yessians" because they used Isaiah 11 as their Christology ("From the root of Yesse..."). Christians were also called "Nazarenes" which is derived from "Netzer" which means sprout. The Fullness of the Godhead dwelled in the Messiah, the Messiah IS God, but he has two natures just like the Orthodox faith of Chalcedon states.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 08:09:01 PM by Rafa999 » 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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #246 on: December 31, 2009, 08:08:03 PM »

Yes, I agree with you there, but the Messiah is NOT a person with the Logos dwelling in Him.
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.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,896


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #247 on: December 31, 2009, 08:13:00 PM »

The Messiah is the Logos, he has a human nature too not a single nature.
Quit squirming.  Either the Messiah is the Logos or he is a man with the Logos dwelling in him, in which case he is NOT the Logos.  You can't have it both ways.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #248 on: December 31, 2009, 08:20:18 PM »

There's nothing to "squirmish" about- the Prophet Isaiah said the Messiah would have the 7 spirits (attributes) of God in him. The apostle Paul said the same in the book of Colossians :

Quote
Beware, lest any man make you naked by philosophy, and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Messiah, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally.

Colossians 2:9

The Messiah has the fullness of God in his Body. He is God, our point to the infinite one whose essence we cannot know directly except via him. He will judge us when we die, and none can know the Father except him.

Quote
John 14:8-11 (New International Version)

 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

you guys should study a little bit the Jewish Mysticism St. John was familiar with when he wrote Revelation. Read about "Adam Kadmon". Revelation even ends with a vision of the tree of life.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 08:28:54 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #249 on: December 31, 2009, 08:35:33 PM »

Quote
Beware, lest any man make you naked by philosophy, and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Messiah, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally.

Which verse is the above quoting. I would like to compare it to the original.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #250 on: December 31, 2009, 08:45:09 PM »

Peshitta Translation by Murdoch (same one Isa recommended) Colossians 2:9. You can compare with NIV, KJV, the Greek, it will all be the same.

Quote
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

KJV which uses your Greek textus receptus.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 08:49:34 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

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

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #251 on: December 31, 2009, 08:56:11 PM »

(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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
So if anyone can answer the question, I posted earlier I would appreciate it:

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?

The way to Nicaea By John Behr
http://books.google.com/books?id=8xDR2D5mQUEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Way+to+Nicea+Behr&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Nicaea-Formation-Christian-Theology/dp/0881412244

Thank you Isa, will read it tomorrow.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #252 on: December 31, 2009, 08:59:14 PM »

I am here to defend the Orthodox Christology of the COE to all involved note.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 08:59:33 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #253 on: December 31, 2009, 09:02:20 PM »

Peshitta Translation by Murdoch (same one Isa recommended) Colossians 2:9. You can compare with NIV, KJV, the Greek, it will all be the same.

Quote
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

KJV which uses your Greek textus receptus.

In Greek θεοτητος σωματικως means God in the flesh.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #254 on: December 31, 2009, 09:03:37 PM »

Good enough to me despite the limitations of the Greek language to the semitic original. God in the flesh, not God turning into flesh. What are the "Deeds of the Flesh" and the "Deeds of the Spirit" according to St.Paul in Galatians by the way?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 09:06:16 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #255 on: December 31, 2009, 09:06:07 PM »

Peshitta Translation by Murdoch (same one Isa recommended)

I did?  I don't recall that.


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 #256 on: December 31, 2009, 09:12:07 PM »

My apologies actually you didn't "approve" of my Peshitta, you just linked to it if I am correct. The SOC and COE have their own versions. By the way, nobody here has as of yet explained to me why the oldest sect of Christians in India (the St.Thomas Christians) hold to the same readings the COE does. I wonder why...
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 09:14:42 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #257 on: December 31, 2009, 09:13:49 PM »

Good enough to me despite the limitations of the Greek language to the semitic original. God in the flesh, not God turning into flesh. What are the "Deeds of the Flesh" and the "Deeds of the Spirit" according to St.Paul in Galatians by the way?
The Syriac translation isn't going to help.
ܕܒܗ ܥܡܪ ܟܠܗ ܡܘܠܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܓܘܫܡܢܐܝܬ
in-him he-lived/inhabited all-his fullness of-divinity bodily/literally
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 #258 on: December 31, 2009, 09:15:43 PM »

I am here to defend the Orthodox Christology of the COE to all involved note.

Great. And I'm here to explain what I know about it to the best of my ability - that's it. Let everyone else here be clear concerning this.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #259 on: December 31, 2009, 09:20:45 PM »

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the  Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 09:24:59 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

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

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #260 on: December 31, 2009, 09:30:04 PM »

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the  Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

The proof for the COE tampering the reading in Acts 20:28 is silence - i.e. there is no proof. While the evidence that the COE Peshitta reading for Acts 20:28 is the original reading is lacking, such is not the case for the COE Peshitta reading of Hebrews 2:9.

There is no proof that the COE ever altered any of their texts, when it comes to scribal work the COE's slate is clean, the same cannot be said for the other textual transmissions.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #261 on: December 31, 2009, 09:32:45 PM »

St.Irenaus of Lyons (an Assyrian just like Tatian and Justin Martyr) cited Eastern Syriac. Look at all his quotations in "Against all Heresies" and you will see it reflects more the COE tradition than the SOC. Jerome cites Hebrews 2:9 of COE Peshitta as well. Comments?

Nobody has also given to me an answer on the issue of a degree of separation in the Messiah between his Divinity and his humanity:

Quote
Your Will, Not Mine! Mark 14:36

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 09:45:03 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #262 on: December 31, 2009, 09:54:11 PM »

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.

As someone already said, the Son was speaking to the Father. I think your Sabellian understanding of the Trinity is part of the reason why you seem unable or unwilling to understand our view of Christ.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #263 on: December 31, 2009, 09:54:47 PM »

St.Irenaus of Lyons (an Assyrian just like Tatian and Justin Martyr) cited Eastern Syriac. Look at all his quotations in "Against all Heresies" and you will see it reflects more the COE tradition than the SOC. Jerome cites Hebrews 2:9 of COE Peshitta as well. Comments?

St. Irenaeus was Greek, and wrote in Greek, to his Greek speaking Diocese.


Quote
Nobody has also given to me an answer on the issue of a degree of separation in the Messiah between his Divinity and his humanity:

Quote
Your Will, Not Mine! Mark 14:36

St. Maximos did.

Quote
You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right?

We don't.  It's "Himself," btw.

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 #264 on: December 31, 2009, 10:11:02 PM »

This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument.

I don't know what you mean by 'won the argument'? The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches do not accept the Nestorianism you have been espousing here, so the COE did not 'win the argument' in the sense of convincing anybody else (except, apparently, modern Rome?) that Nestorianism was correct.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #265 on: December 31, 2009, 10:14:02 PM »

I'm actually not sure on Irenaus but many of the early patristic fathers were Assyrian. Isa, like I said before- I like you man. However how can you say the entire trinity died? I am not Sabellian either, only in the COE the Logos and Holy spirit are the same with the Holy spirit the power of God. By the way, Ambrose agreed with my reading of Acts 20:28. That with Jerome citing Peshitta Hebrews 2:9 is sufficient to convince all Roman Catholics here that I am right. Two pillars agreed with me on this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 10:15:47 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #266 on: December 31, 2009, 10:17:27 PM »

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the  Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

The proof for the COE tampering the reading in Acts 20:28 is silence - i.e. there is no proof. While the evidence that the COE Peshitta reading for Acts 20:28 is the original reading is lacking, such is not the case for the COE Peshitta reading of Hebrews 2:9.

There is no proof that the COE ever altered any of their texts, when it comes to scribal work the COE's slate is clean, the same cannot be said for the other textual transmissions.


Now THAT's an argument from silence.

We have the evidence that the reading was "God," which PHYSICALLY (i.e. not dependent on later, literary evidence) shows the reading "God."  Showing a 11th century text, and claiming it shows the original text doesn't trump that.

I didn't get to look over the post on Hebrews 2:9.
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 #267 on: December 31, 2009, 10:22:44 PM »

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.

As someone already said, the Son was speaking to the Father. I think your Sabellian understanding of the Trinity is part of the reason why you seem unable or unwilling to understand our view of Christ.

Some sources for COE theology:

On God, including the Trinity (from Marganitha): http://www.nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_i.html
On Christ, including the Incarantion (from Marganitha): http://www.nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html
On Christ, from a Muslim-Christian dialogue: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm
Catechism: http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #268 on: December 31, 2009, 10:28:11 PM »

I'm actually not sure on Irenaus but many of the early patristic fathers were Assyrian.

You mean Aramaic speakers or of the Assyrian nationality?  Both are true, but I am not sure what that has to do with anything.  Assyrian as in theology, i.e. Nestorian? No.

Quote
Isa, like I said before- I like you man. However how can you say the entire trinity died?

St. Paul says so in Phillipians.

Quote
I am not Sabellian either, only in the COE the Logos and Holy spirit are the same with the Holy spirit the power of God. By the way, Ambrose agreed with my reading of Acts 20:28. That with Jerome citing Peshitta Hebrews 2:9 is sufficient to convince all Roman Catholics here that I am right. Two pillars agreed with me on this.

LOL.  Jerome overturned the boundary mark the Fathers had set up, translated from a Hebrew text (and NOT, btw, a Syriac text: we have plenty of information from Jerome on that), rather than the LXX.  He accepted ordination from a supposed patriarch of Antioch, whose line died out and it not claimed by any of the 4 patriarchs the Vatican claims for Antioch.  He was also one of the very few who agreed with the deposition of St. John Chrysostom, from which the guilty repented.

Watch out about leaning on "pillars."

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/vt/vt20/p_samson.jpg

Btw, what the Vatican says doesn't interest us, OO or EO.  Though Rome was right in condemning Nestorius at the Third Ecumenical Council.
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 #269 on: December 31, 2009, 10:32:02 PM »

Now THAT's an argument from silence.

We have the evidence that the reading was "God," which PHYSICALLY (i.e. not dependent on later, literary evidence) shows the reading "God."  Showing a 11th century text, and claiming it shows the original text doesn't trump that.

Actually the earliest Greek mss say "the Lord" not "God", if no tampering occured all the Greek mss would say the same thing but they do not. The fact is the Greek mss vary between "the Lord" or "God" or "the Lord and God" in that verse, and this demands an explanation.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 10:33:52 PM by Nazarene » 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 0.153 seconds with 71 queries.