OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:29:50 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 63589 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 #270 on: December 31, 2009, 10:36:12 PM »

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE.

Its not a "Jacobite" argument.  It's an Orthodox one, based on the texts the Apostles gave us, in Greek.

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

360 (the latest date of Sinaiticus) doesn't give you that much time, particularly as the Peshitta postdates it.

Quote
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,

No, someone made a mistake in it, and it was corrected.

You have made it rather difficult, as your text has no history that you claim, and hence no corroboration that isn't cherry picked.

Quote
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.

Thereby destroying the "evidence."

I don't recall ever seeing such a claim that books aren't recycled, as I've seen the opposite in ancient manuscripts.  I don't have specifics on the Nestorian case, as I wouldn't have thought, until now, worth noticing.  I'll look around.
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 #271 on: December 31, 2009, 10:54:50 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",

Skimming the list in Aland, no, the earliest have "God."

Quote
if no tampering occured all the Greek mss would say the same thing but they do not.

No.  Textual criticism finds such differences rather standard.  Even in monolingual texts.


Quote
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.
It has one: An Examination and Exegesis of Acts 20:28, Mike Sarkissian (Go Armenia!).
http://sovereigngracecc.org/files/An%20Examination%20and%20Exegesis%20of%20Acts%2020.28.pdf
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
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #272 on: December 31, 2009, 11:08:54 PM »

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken.

The eternal Logos became incarnate without change. We say so at every Divine Liturgy:

"Only-begotten Son and Word of God who art immortal, who for our salvation willed to be incarnate of the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and without change became Man..."

Plus, God lies outside the bounds of time. If something looks like change, it's because we are limited in perspective and trapped in a time-based understanding of the universe.

Some of these things are flat paradoxes in our limited understanding. That's fine. The failure to accept paradoxes instead of limiting God has led to many heresies over the centuries.
Logged
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 #273 on: January 01, 2010, 12:49:18 AM »

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken.
The Logos is an Hypostasis, or what you call a Parsopa, not a Nature.
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 #274 on: January 01, 2010, 12:53:08 AM »

In the Assyrian Church of the East the Logos is a Hypostasis, be careful though, because in the Assyrian Church a Hypostasis is not the same as a parsopa. Again the terminology used is different. Whenever you see the word "Qnome" in Assyrian patristics think Hypostasis, they are the same, or rather it is the best most accurate term I can think to convey Qnome. Again the Diagram:

« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 01:01:16 AM by Rafa999 » 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 #275 on: January 01, 2010, 12:59:04 AM »

Whenever you see the word "Qnome" in Assyrian patristics think Hypostasis, they are the same, or rather it is the best most accurate term I can think to convey Qnome.
I thought Nazarene said they are not and that "Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized". So how can Hypostasis equate to qnome?
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 #276 on: January 01, 2010, 01:05:02 AM »

Qnome: member of a taxonomic class

Mar Babai's definition is correct, sorry for the confusion.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 01:06:08 AM by Rafa999 » 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 #277 on: January 01, 2010, 01:11:16 AM »

Qnome: member of a taxonomic class


Best definition. Mar Babai's is the definition I use as well, sorry.
But then qnome does not mean hypostasis since hypostasis is personalized. Thus the Logos is a single Hypostasis in which there are two natures. Therefore to claim that "the Logos never held blood" means that the Hypostasis of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is a different hypostasis to the pre-eternal Logos-  (i.e. Nestorianism).
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 #278 on: January 01, 2010, 01:27:22 AM »

Look, I am not a fluent Syriac speaker so I am not qualified enough for this, however the definition of Qnome I gave is considered by a Deacon and Syriac/Aramaic translator I know the best he has heard (it is also Sebastian Brock's I believe), Mar Babai's is also an official one, further the COE never believed in "Nestorianism". Read the bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius and you will see so. Read also the common Christological declaration signed by Mar Dinkha with the pope to see that the COE is in essence Chalcedonian.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #279 on: January 01, 2010, 01:44:43 AM »

further the COE never believed in "Nestorianism". Read the bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius and you will see so.

Read reply #5 in this thread for an analysis of some passages from the Bazaar of Heracleides by Fr. Anastasios:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3673.msg48474.html#msg48474

It seems Nestorius did hold to the set of beliefs that is called "Nestorianism" by the OO's and EO's.

When you say "the COE never beleived in 'Nestorianism,'" are you saying the COE condemns the teachings of Nestorius?  Isn't he a saint in the COE?

Note that I realize "Nestorianism" is a bit of a misnomer.  The set of beliefs commonly referred to as Nestorianism is, as I understand it, more properly referred to as "Theodorean Christology," since Theodore was the teacher of Nestorius.  Is that what you mean when you say the COE never believed in Nestorianism?  

I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
  

« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 01:55:00 AM by Salpy » Logged

jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #280 on: January 01, 2010, 01:47:01 AM »

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 ?

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?








ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #281 on: January 01, 2010, 02:09:49 AM »

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...

I could be wrong about this, but I read....on one of the threads in the OO section.....that they asked the COE for help, and that turned into them being under them for a time, then they were under the OO's some time later.

And so, the COE could of changed their readings to be more in line with theirs.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 02:10:31 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #282 on: January 01, 2010, 02:22:44 AM »

Quote
I could be wrong about this, but I read....on one of the threads in the OO section.....that they asked the COE for help, and that turned into them being under them for a time, then they were under the OO's some time later.

And so, the COE could of changed their readings to be more in line with theirs.


The St.Thomas Christians asked the SOC for help by accident. You see, when the Portuguese destabilized the Indian Episcopate of the COE the St.Thomas Christians asked the Bishop of Antioch to appoint them a new Bishop, but then the SOC was in charge of Antioch not the Assyrian Church of the East. So there you go. Now all I want to ask is why the Christians of the Thomasine tradition, 100 percent independent from Rome, Byzantium, the Sassanids, etc. would choose the East Syrian readings of scripture as correct? Theirs is a completely independent tradition.

Happy new Year!

« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 02:23:55 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #283 on: January 01, 2010, 02:42:19 AM »

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.

Reformed Protestantism has a Nestorian wing/tradition. You can see it in some protestant circles.









ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #284 on: January 01, 2010, 03:02:00 AM »

This is not Orthodox:



(Christology I am being confronted with in this thread where God gets a "new" nature and "becomes" something, ie: "becomes" like us)

This is orthodox (my Christology):



Am I a heretic for ascribing to the second position?

« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 03:11:16 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #285 on: January 01, 2010, 03:12:47 AM »

further the COE never believed in "Nestorianism". Read the bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius and you will see so.

Read reply #5 in this thread for an analysis of some passages from the Bazaar of Heracleides by Fr. Anastasios:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3673.msg48474.html#msg48474

It seems Nestorius did hold to the set of beliefs that is called "Nestorianism" by the OO's and EO's.

When you say "the COE never beleived in 'Nestorianism,'" are you saying the COE condemns the teachings of Nestorius?  Isn't he a saint in the COE?

Note that I realize "Nestorianism" is a bit of a misnomer.  The set of beliefs commonly referred to as Nestorianism is, as I understand it, more properly referred to as "Theodorean Christology," since Theodore was the teacher of Nestorius.  Is that what you mean when you say the COE never believed in Nestorianism?  

I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
  



The Assyrians are not "Nestorians" because they do not believe that Christ is two persons.











Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #286 on: January 01, 2010, 03:13:25 AM »

OK, that purple "new nature" thing is not what anyone here believes in.  It's rejected by both the OO's and EO's.  We believe Christ is fully human and fully divine, without separation or division, but also without confusion or mingling.  We do not believe a new nature was formed.  I know it sounds incredible, but that's how God is.  He does things we don't understand.  That's the Incarnation.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #287 on: January 01, 2010, 03:19:25 AM »

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.

By Theopaschite clause I mean inserting the phrase "who was crucified for us" into the Trisagion.   Chalcedonians did not adopt this phrase in the Trisagion.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #288 on: January 01, 2010, 03:23:27 AM »

Thank you Deacon Lance for saying that nobody in the Assyrian Church of the East believes in two persons, that would be "Nestorianism".
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #289 on: January 01, 2010, 03:24:55 AM »

Deacon Lance,

There's more to Nestorianism (Theodorean Christology) than a simple belief in two persons.  In fact, pretty early on in this discussion (reply 70) I acknowledged that the assertion that the Assyrians believe in two persons is a misconception.  The difference in our Christologies is more subtle than that, but it seems there is a real difference.  If you look at what Rafa is saying, it seems the COE speaks of Christ's divinity and humanity as being much more separate from each other than what the OO's and EO's feel comfortable with.  I would think the Catholics would be uncomfortable with that also, but I could be wrong.  
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #290 on: January 01, 2010, 03:31:51 AM »

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.

By Theopaschite clause I mean inserting the phrase "who was crucified for us" into the Trisagion.   Chalcedonians did not adopt this phrase in the Trisagion.

Yes, I know, but as pointed out above, it's because the EO's address the prayer to the Holy Trinity, not only to Christ.  The EO's, however, believe in what the OO's are saying with the Theopaschite clause, because they basically adopted the same sort of phrase in their fifth council.  The Theopaschite formula I keep mentioning is in their fifth council, and it says One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh.  That Theopaschite formula, adopted by the EO's says the same thing as the Theopaschite clause used by the OO's in the Trisagion.

The point I have been trying to make is that the EO's do not reject the concept behind the Theopaschite clause used by the OO's in the Trisagion.  The COE does reject the concept. 
Logged

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

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


« Reply #291 on: January 01, 2010, 03:36:32 AM »

Read this Salpy:

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap5

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap7

in fact read all of the Marganitha (Book of the Pearl) it is a good catechism with very ancient material.

Quote
Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known. And Parsoopa: the Greeks call prosopon: We Easterns, there­fore, profess that M’shikha (Messiah) Our Lord is in two Natures in one person. But the question of the Godhead and humanity is brought into discussion in order so as to distin­guish the natural properties of each Nature, then of necessity we are led to the discussion of Qnuma (the essence or under­lying substance) by which the Nature is distinguished. These facts, therefore, lead us to the indisputable evidence of the existence of two Qnume which are the underlying properties of these (two) Natures, in one person of the Son of God.
taken from Marganitha
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 03:38:28 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #292 on: January 01, 2010, 03:46:51 AM »

I'm afraid Mar Odisho, who wrote the pearl, seems in your first link to be misrepresenting what we believe, just as you have been.  We don't believe that either the human or divine natures were destroyed or corrupted.  If you don't want us to misrepresent your beliefs, it would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting ours.   Smiley
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 03:50:15 AM by Salpy » 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 #293 on: January 01, 2010, 03:47:42 AM »

further the COE never believed in "Nestorianism". Read the bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius and you will see so.

Read reply #5 in this thread for an analysis of some passages from the Bazaar of Heracleides by Fr. Anastasios:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3673.msg48474.html#msg48474

It seems Nestorius did hold to the set of beliefs that is called "Nestorianism" by the OO's and EO's.

When you say "the COE never beleived in 'Nestorianism,'" are you saying the COE condemns the teachings of Nestorius?  Isn't he a saint in the COE?

Note that I realize "Nestorianism" is a bit of a misnomer.  The set of beliefs commonly referred to as Nestorianism is, as I understand it, more properly referred to as "Theodorean Christology," since Theodore was the teacher of Nestorius.  Is that what you mean when you say the COE never believed in Nestorianism?  

I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
  



The Assyrians are not "Nestorians" because they do not believe that Christ is two persons.
But they believe that Christ had blood but the Logos doesn't.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #294 on: January 01, 2010, 04:04:23 AM »

Salpy,

Catholics and Orthodox maintain the impassability of the divine nature, it does not suffer nor does it die, although these things can be said of Christ in this we follow the Tome of St. Leo.  

Canon X of Constantinople II reads:
If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity:  let him be anathema.  

Fr Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #295 on: January 01, 2010, 04:05:11 AM »

The Assyrians are not "Nestorians" because they do not believe that Christ is two persons.
But they believe that Christ had blood but the Logos doesn't.

Yeah, I guess that does sound like two persons.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #296 on: January 01, 2010, 04:13:44 AM »


Catholics and Orthodox maintain the impassability of the divine nature, it does not suffer nor does it die,

Yes, we maintain the impassability of the divine nature, but with St. Cyril, we also hold that:

Quote
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

The Orthodox--both OO and EO--believe in this.  Don't the Catholics also uphold this?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 04:29:04 AM by Salpy » Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #297 on: January 01, 2010, 04:28:22 AM »

The Assyrians are not "Nestorians" because they do not believe that Christ is two persons.
But they believe that Christ had blood but the Logos doesn't.

Yeah, I guess that does sound like two persons.

Or it can sound like they are trying to keep the natures distinct.  Blood is a property of the human nature not the divine.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #298 on: January 01, 2010, 04:33:37 AM »


Catholics and Orthodox maintain the impassability of the divine nature, it does not suffer nor does it die,

Yes, we maintain the impassability of the divine nature, but with St. Cyril, we also hold that:

Quote
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

The Orthodox--both OO and EO--believe in this.  Don't the Catholics also uphold this?


Yes.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,369


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


WWW
« Reply #299 on: January 01, 2010, 04:54:05 AM »

To be quite honest with this discussion, I'm getting two different Christological teachings, where Nazarene seems to try to show the subject of Christ as the same as the Logos, whereas Rafa999 implies a belief in two centers of subjects acting together, the Logos dwelling in the Son of Man, which I find very troubling, and in Byzantine understanding implies two persons.

Perhaps, a more qualified Assyrian church member should discuss these issues with us, like Deacon Paul Younan, who keeps coming back to us in quotes.  I would love to see him clarify some of the teachings of his Church.
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.
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 #300 on: January 01, 2010, 08:21:21 AM »

Quote
Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known.
I think this is where wires are getting crossed. If Qnoma means hypostasis, then according to this diagram, Christ is a union of two separate hypostases, (one human hypostasis + one divine hypostasis) which is Nestorianism:



I really think, "qnoma" means "ousia" ("Essence"), and not "hypostasis".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #301 on: January 01, 2010, 08:30:36 AM »

Quote
Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known.
I think this is where wires are getting crossed. If Qnoma means hypostasis, then according to this diagram, Christ is a union of two separate hypostases, (one human hypostasis + one divine hypostasis) which is Nestorianism:



I really think, "qnoma" means "ousia" ("Essence"), and not "hypostasis".


But according to the diagram, that would make the Father and the Spirit two essences alongside the Son.  All Syriac/Aramaic speaking Christians (Syriac Orthodox, those in submission to the Vatican, Maronites, Assyrians, Mar Thoma Christians, etc.) all agree on using the term "qnoma" for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  That's how we Arab Orthodox got the term.
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
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 #302 on: January 01, 2010, 08:38:27 AM »

Quote
Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known.
I think this is where wires are getting crossed. If Qnoma means hypostasis, then according to this diagram, Christ is a union of two separate hypostases, (one human hypostasis + one divine hypostasis) which is Nestorianism:



I really think, "qnoma" means "ousia" ("Essence"), and not "hypostasis".


But according to the diagram, that would make the Father and the Spirit two essences alongside the Son.  All Syriac/Aramaic speaking Christians (Syriac Orthodox, those in submission to the Vatican, Maronites, Assyrians, Mar Thoma Christians, etc.) all agree on using the term "qnoma" for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  That's how we Arab Orthodox got the term.
So then qnoma is neither hypostasis nor ousia, but something else.
Logged

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

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #303 on: January 01, 2010, 10:42:25 AM »

Salpy,

Catholics and Orthodox maintain the impassability of the divine nature, it does not suffer nor does it die, although these things can be said of Christ in this we follow the Tome of St. Leo.

As do the COE and remember that they approved of the Tome of St. Leo.

Canon X of Constantinople II reads:
If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity:  let him be anathema.  

Fr Deacon Lance

Yip and the COE do confess this, as do the rest of you.


Catholics and Orthodox maintain the impassability of the divine nature, it does not suffer nor does it die,

Yes, we maintain the impassability of the divine nature,

Good, that should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that OOs are not monophysite ala Eutychius. I hope Rafa is paying attention here.

but with St. Cyril, we also hold that:

Quote
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

The Orthodox--both OO and EO--believe in this.  Don't the Catholics also uphold this?

Yes they do, and so do the COE - the key is "in the flesh". Misunderstandings will arise if you say things like "God died" or "God suffered" without clarifying that you mean "in the flesh". As Deacon Lance rightly observed:

The Assyrians are not "Nestorians" because they do not believe that Christ is two persons.
But they believe that Christ had blood but the Logos doesn't.

Yeah, I guess that does sound like two persons.

Or it can sound like they are trying to keep the natures distinct.  Blood is a property of the human nature not the divine.

Yes that is exactly it! For the COE it's important to keep the natures distinct, and this is what EOs and OOs need to assure them of - that your Christologies do the same even though your terminologies differ from theirs. When dialoguing with the COE emphasize that the natures of Messiah are united without confusion or mixture, explain how miaphysitism or the hypostatic union makes this possible - which it does.

As for the COE they need to assure EOs and OOs that the natures of Messiah are united - and they do believe that they are. But they don't get into specifics of how this unity works because they follow Mar Ephrem's advice to not "pry into the mystery" that is Yeshua Meshikha. Is the Incarnation not in fact an ineffable mystery? Hasn't it done us more harm than good to pry deeper into the mystery of the Incarnation than the simple fact Yeshua Meshikha is both God and Man?

When it comes to specifically how the union of Messiah's humanity and divinity works, I have to be honest, I myself refuse to pry into "the mechanics" of this and I'll tell you why:

I am not Messiah, I do not have a divine qnoma or a divine kyana in addition to my human qnoma and human kyana within my parsopa. Therefore I cannot logically explain the parsopa who is Yeshua Meshikha - true God and true Man, no matter how hard I try. No matter what analogy I use, no matter what metaphor or terminology, at the end of the day the Incarnation is an ineffable mystery so my explanation will always fall short. We humans often forget that our knowledge is finite and therefore we often think we know something but the truth is we don't.

I accept that Messiah is God and Man as fact through faith alone not logic because this is what Scripture teaches. Others like the Jews or Muslims may not accept this but I don't care - I'm under no obligation to give a logical explanation for something that really cannot be explained logically. They can choose to accept it through faith like me or not, it's a faith issue end of story.

So then qnoma is neither hypostasis nor ousia, but something else.

That's extactly my point. Qnoma is not abstract like kyana but it's not independently personalized like hypostasis or prosopon. Qnome are not unique, they are clones. Qnome can differ in what they do (eg: the Qnome of the Trinity - the Father is the beggetor, the Son the begotten and the Holy Spirit the proceeding) but they do not differ (at all) in what they are (qnome of the same kyana that is).

Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #304 on: January 01, 2010, 10:56:02 AM »

To be quite honest with this discussion, I'm getting two different Christological teachings, where Nazarene seems to try to show the subject of Christ as the same as the Logos, whereas Rafa999 implies a belief in two centers of subjects acting together, the Logos dwelling in the Son of Man, which I find very troubling, and in Byzantine understanding implies two persons.

Perhaps, a more qualified Assyrian church member should discuss these issues with us, like Deacon Paul Younan, who keeps coming back to us in quotes.  I would love to see him clarify some of the teachings of his Church.

It's important not to be quick to jump to conclusions regarding the COE's Christology because it's not easy to explain. I am certainly no expert on this topic but I am trying my best to explain it by using quotes from those more knowledgable than I, like Shamasha Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth and Prof. Sebastian Brock.

Please note that the Assyrian clergy themselves struggle to explain qnoma, even in their own language:

Quote from: Paul Younan
Prof. Brock is as white as you can get. And he isn't a member of my church, either. But he has a perfect understanding of this concept - more so, I dare say, than most of the priests in the Church of the East whose sermons on this topic I have listened to in frustration.

Also remember that there's always the possibilty that the person doing the explaining has used the wrong choice of word - you'd be surprised how often this happens.

As for inviting Paul Younan to this forum, he can be rearched at his forum's email address.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #305 on: January 01, 2010, 12:13:50 PM »


but with St. Cyril, we also hold that:

Quote
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

The Orthodox--both OO and EO--believe in this.  Don't the Catholics also uphold this?

Yes they do, and so do the COE - the key is "in the flesh". Misunderstandings will arise if you say things like "God died" or "God suffered" without clarifying that you mean "in the flesh"

Are you sure the COE accepts St. Cyril's 12th Anathema?  I thought the COE rejected all of them and considered St. Cyril to be a heretic.  The phrase "in the flesh" makes it possible for the EO's, Catholics, and OO's to say the Word of God suffered, etc.  However, I thought the COE avoided that phrase altogether, preferring to say that Christ suffered.


Logged

Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #306 on: January 01, 2010, 12:21:41 PM »


Er Isa, you got a downloadable pdf or online html explanation handy? Or can you quote something for me?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 12:23:16 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #307 on: January 01, 2010, 12:32:21 PM »


but with St. Cyril, we also hold that:

Quote
12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

The Orthodox--both OO and EO--believe in this.  Don't the Catholics also uphold this?

Yes they do, and so do the COE - the key is "in the flesh". Misunderstandings will arise if you say things like "God died" or "God suffered" without clarifying that you mean "in the flesh"

Are you sure the COE accepts St. Cyril's 12th Anathema?  I thought the COE rejected all of them and considered St. Cyril to be a heretic.  The phrase "in the flesh" makes it possible for the EO's, Catholics, and OO's to say the Word of God suffered, etc.  However, I thought the COE avoided that phrase altogether, preferring to say that Christ suffered.

They rejected St. Cyril's anathemas as a whole but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't agree with certain points he makes.

And "Christ suffered" can be interpreted to mean "God suffered in the flesh" which is what I truely believe they really mean. They have a problem if you say "God suffered" but if you clarify that with "in the flesh" then the response I always get from my Assyrian friends is: "Oh so that's what you meant by 'God suffered', ok then we agree with you."

Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,424


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #308 on: January 01, 2010, 12:38:25 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.
Logged

Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #309 on: January 01, 2010, 12:57:17 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Tell me more.

Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

That's assuming that they do believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God but they insist that they don't. They just don't go into the "mechanics" of the union like you guys do, they simply believe that there is union.
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 #310 on: January 01, 2010, 01:12:57 PM »

So then qnoma is neither hypostasis nor ousia, but something else.

That's extactly my point. Qnoma is not abstract like kyana but it's not independently personalized like hypostasis or prosopon. Qnome are not unique, they are clones. Qnome can differ in what they do (eg: the Qnome of the Trinity - the Father is the beggetor, the Son the begotten and the Holy Spirit the proceeding) but they do not differ (at all) in what they are (qnome of the same kyana that is).

EO's, correct me if I am wrong, but we would say that the Father as begettor is not just what He does, but also what He is.
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
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #311 on: January 01, 2010, 01:19:22 PM »

Now I'm no authority on the issue but it seems to me that The AOC with this diagram doesn't believe in a pre-incarnate Christ or Holy Spirit.
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.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #312 on: January 01, 2010, 01:25:25 PM »

So then qnoma is neither hypostasis nor ousia, but something else.

That's extactly my point. Qnoma is not abstract like kyana but it's not independently personalized like hypostasis or prosopon. Qnome are not unique, they are clones. Qnome can differ in what they do (eg: the Qnome of the Trinity - the Father is the beggetor, the Son the begotten and the Holy Spirit the proceeding) but they do not differ (at all) in what they are (qnome of the same kyana that is).

EO's, correct me if I am wrong, but we would say that the Father as begettor is not just what He does, but also what He is.

My parents begat me, but there is no difference between their qnome and my qnoma except that theirs occured before mine making theirs occurance numbers #___ and #___ while mine is occurance number #___.

From Marganitha regarding the Trinity:

Quote
Everything that exists must be either a material body whose existence is the subject of accidents and changes, and is acted upon by whatever is opposed to it; or not a body, and consequently not the subject of any of these things. Now, we have already proved, that God (glory be to His incomprehensibility) is not a body and therefore is not subject to anything pertaining to materiality, from which He is infinitely removed. Whatever is immaterial, and not subject to anything appertaining to matter, the traditions of the ancients call Mind. And whatever is exclusive of matter, and of what appertains thereto, must be knowing, and must know himself, because himself is ever present and known to him, and it is not dependent on anything but itself. And whatever knows its essence must be living. Therefore God is Wise and Living. Now, he who is wise discerns because of his wisdom; and he who is living is living because he has life. This is the mystery of the Trinity, which the Church confesses of that Adorable Nature, Mind, Wisdom and Life. Three co-essential properties in One, and One who is glorified in three properties. The Mind (the Church) has called Father and Begetter, because He is the Cause of all, and First. The Son (She) has called Wisdom and Begotten, because He is begotten of the Mind, and by Him everything was made and created. The Life (She) has called, the Holy Spirit and Proceeding, because there is no other Holy Spirit but He. He who is Holy is unchangeable, according to the interpretation of received expositors; and this is that which is declared by John the Divine, the son of Zebedee: “In the beginning was the Word;[4]” and, “the Life is the light of men[5]”. Now in the manner of the soul which is possessed of three-fold energy; mind, word, and life, and is one and not three; even so should we conceive of the THREE IN ONE, ONE IN THREE. The sun also, which is one in its disk, radiance, and heat, is another simile adduced by the second Theologus Paul, the chosen[6] vessel: “He is the brightness of His glory, and the Express Image of His being;[7]” and, again: “Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom[8]of God “. Further, everything that exists is either an accident or a substance. But the Self-existent can in no wise be susceptible of accident. Therefore these three properties are consubstantial and are on this account called (Qnume) hypostasis or substance and not accidental powers, nor do they cause change in the nature of the consubstantial nor plurality; for He is the Mind, the Same He is the Wisdom, the Same He is the Life, Who ever begat without cessation, and puts forth (makes to proceed) without removal from Himself. These things (cessation removal) are infinitely removed from Him for there is no real likeness between created natures and the Nature of the eternally existing and a simile does not in everything resemble that which is compared by it; for then the simile and that which is compared by it would be the thing itself, and we (who have just instituted several comparisons) would not be unlike the man who attempts to compare a thing by the self-same thing. The mystery of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Old Testament: “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness;” the occurrence of the letter noon[9]three times in this sentence is an indication of the Trinity. The “Holy” thrice repeated in the seraphic hymn, as mentioned by Isaiah, joined with one “Lord “, attests Three Qnume in One nature. The words of David, also, are of ‘the same import: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth;” and many other like references. Let the heathen, then, and Jews who rail at the truth of the Catholic Church, on account of her faith in the Trinity, be confounded and put to shame. Here endeth the first part.

[4]John 1.1
[5]John 1.4
[6]Acts 9.15
[7]Hebrews 1.3
[8]1. Corinthians 1.24
[9]Neabed Masha Bealman Akh D’Mutan (Gen. 1.26)

Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #313 on: January 01, 2010, 01:28:13 PM »

Now I'm no authority on the issue but it seems to me that The AOC with this diagram doesn't believe in a pre-incarnate Christ or Holy Spirit.

Can you explain how you got this impression?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #314 on: January 01, 2010, 01:28:31 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

5) In the Creed we confess: “ . . . He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate . . .” what is the purpose for this statement?

To show to the believer, that our Lord did indeed and in fact suffered and died, to give evidence of His humanity, contrary to the heresy of one of the early centuries of The Church history, who taught that Jesus Christ was a phantom.  “ . . . know ye that the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God . . . and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God . . . and this that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now is already in the world . .” (I John 4:2,3)

7)   How is it possible to apply suffering and death to our Lord Jesus Christ, since we confess Him as God?

His suffering is not applied to His Godhead, but rather to that of His humanity (manhood), not because He could not have avoided it, but by an act of love and willingly accepted the consequences of humanity and their sin.  It is written, “ . . . My Father doth love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.  No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.  This have I received of My Father . . .”  (John 10:17:18)

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 0.166 seconds with 71 queries.