Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East

[minasoliman]

Wow...this is quite a loaded post.  So many new questions now arise in my mind.

1.  Mar Odisho--one will:  What did Mar Odisho, or what does the Assyrian Church mean when they say "one will?"  Or what does the word "will" mean or entail??

2.  hostage/hymara:  That is an interesting concept.  I never seen the union referred like that.  Did Brock talk about other "non-Nestorian" authors that may have used a similar concept?  What did he conclude its origins to be?

3.  Rabban bar Sawma--two persons (kenomin)-one parsopa:  This one is new.  What is the difference between "kenomin" and "parsopa."  The translation here brings them both to persons.  Did he really mean two persons in one person?

4.  Mar Yahbh Allaha III--called Jesus God:  This is interesting.  This is the closest thing to a confession of "Theotokos" I ever got, because he not only called Jesus "our God" but also alluded to "His Mother."  But other confessions seem to shun such language.

5.  Mar Babai/Mar Narsai--did they believe in the communicato idiomatum:  Both of them while may be using "one who" seem to still keep apart the natures of Christ.  Did they believe in the communication of idioms?  In other words, were the properties of the Godhead shared with humanity and vice versa?

God bless.

[Nazarene]

Shalom minasoliman nice to have you back...

Wow...this is quite a loaded post.  So many new questions now arise in my mind.

1.  Mar Odisho--one will:  What did Mar Odisho, or what does the Assyrian Church mean when they say "one will?"  Or what does the word "will" mean or entail??

Yes the COE does teach "one will" and apparently so do the Maronites. Though "one" might not mean one in the exclusive singluar sense. The common Aramaic word for "one" is khad which is the cognate of the Hebrew ekhad which can have a compound meaning. So perhaps "one will" should really be understood as two wills which work together as "one" (i.e. in harmony) in the parsopa, but I don't know which Aramaic word Mar Odisho used here. I'll do some more research and ask around then get back to you.

2.  hostage/hymara:  That is an interesting concept.  I never seen the union referred like that.  Did Brock talk about other "non-Nestorian" authors that may have used a similar concept?  What did he conclude its origins to be?

That quote is Brock's book Fire from Heaven which I haven't read but google books has it here, if you wanna check it out. Go to Chapter 4: Christ "The Hostage": A Theme in the East Syriac Liturgical Tradition and it's Origins. Brock did say that COE understanding of the word hymara corresponds to it's archaic meaning so I'm guessing that the Syrian Orthodox understanding will differ somewhat.

And yes this word hymara occurs in the Peshitta, and the writings of both the East Syrian (Aphrahat & Narsai) and West Syrian (Ephrem & Jacob of Serug) Fathers.

3.  Rabban bar Sawma--two persons (kenomin)-one parsopa:  This one is new.  What is the difference between "kenomin" and "parsopa."  The translation here brings them both to persons.  Did he really mean two persons in one person?

No kenomin is a corruption of qnome, so what Rabban bar Sawma really means is 2 qnome in 1 parsopa (person).

4.  Mar Yahbh Allaha III--called Jesus God:  This is interesting.  This is the closest thing to a confession of "Theotokos" I ever got, because he not only called Jesus "our God" but also alluded to "His Mother."  But other confessions seem to shun such language.

For those who can read Latin here's the original Latin text:

Confitemur etiam quod in fine saeculorum una persona de tribus divinis, illa scilicet quam assimilavimus radio solari vel Verbo Dei, induit perfectam humanitatem de virgine Maria, propter salutem hominum et ut ostenderet nobis lucem veritatis, et fuit unita divinitas humanitati et humanitas divinitati inseparabiliter et sine fine. Et ista est fides nostra in Dominum nostrum, Jesus Christum, Deum nostrum, qui completus est Deus et completus homo in una persona, totus apud Patrem et totus in Matre. Et ab illa hora qua, per Gabrielem archangelum, ex parte Dei virgini Mariae annunciatio facta de filio nascituro, et dictum est ei: Ave gyatia plena, Dominus tecum, etc. [Luke i. 28] ex tunc. divinitas non dimisit humanitatem, nec in cruce nec in sepulchro: ita tamen quod divinitas pati non potuit, nec mori, nec aliquam poenalitatem sustinere.

Source.

5.  Mar Babai/Mar Narsai--did they believe in the communicato idiomatum:  Both of them while may be using "one who" seem to still keep apart the natures of Christ.  Did they believe in the communication of idioms?  In other words, were the properties of the Godhead shared with humanity and vice versa?

God bless.

I don't know about them but for the COE, while I can't personally answer this one (I don't have something in writing by them concerning this), I don't see anything in the doctrine of communicato idiomatum that conflicts with their Christology. I doubt that they'll adopt this doctrine for explaining their Christology, but this is not necessarily because they object to it but because they really don't like "prying into Messiah", as Mar Ehpriam puts its. For the Assyrians they are happy to believe that the natures are united but prefer to keep the means of how they are united in the realm of mystery.

God bless.

[Nazarene]

Some quotes from COE liturgical texts:

From the Khudra:

One is the Christ, adored by all in two Natures, Who, as touching His Godhead, is begotten of the Father, without beginning, and before all ages; and, as touching His Manhood, was born of Mary, in the fulfilment of time, a body of union. His Godhead is not from the substance of His mother, neither His Manhood from the substance of His Father; but the Natures and Persons* subsist in the one Parsopa of this one Filiation. And as there are in the Godhead three Persons*, One Selfexistent, so the Filiation of the Son is of two Natures and one Parsopa. Thus doth the Holy Church teach us to Confess of the Son, Who is the Messiah. Therefore, O Lord, we worship Thy Divinity and Thy Humanity, without dividing them.

And the Gazza:

O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons* also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.

*once again qnome got mistranslated as persons

Source.

[Rafa999]

the Aramaic/Semitic speakers in Palestine and Syria had no problem with Yaldath Alaha, nor did the Armenians, Georgians, Nubians, Ethiopians and Yeminites (the last two also Semites), who lived outside of Rome's control.

That is bogus. Yaldath Alaha sounds very very harsh to a semitic ear, it implies an actual origin of the divinity in Mary unlike the innocent sounding "Theotokos". Also Mother of God is not forbidden in the COE, only its viewed as incomplete unlike "Christotokos" which is complete. The fact of the matter is that everybody in the Middle East believed like the COE (including the Armenians Salpy, we have proof that more Armenians were under the COE Jurisdiction than under any other for the middle ages, Armenia was part of the Persian empire) before a mob of monks managed to curry favor with the Romans, institute two fake councils, and split Antiochan Christianity into two halves.

[Papist]

A final note on overthinking--it certainly seems possible here. Working through several languages with what are abstract philosophical categories can easily get that way. That's why going all the way back to St. Cyril and Nestorius, the focus always came back to the concrete implications. "Did or did not the Logos dies for us?" "Was the Virgin the Theotokos?" "Did the Son of God have blood?" Unlike hypostatis or kyana, those are concrete questions that don't slip and slide nearly do much depending on what language you're using or the presuppositions of your translator.

Good point. If the COE cannot confess that Mary is that theotokos or that God died and rose for our sins then there is still Nestorianism there. It may be a hidden Nestorianism but it is Nestorianism none the less.

[Rafa999]

Your "Nestorianism" is my Orthodoxy, your "orthodoxy" is my monophysitism. But I win because History shows my belief is more ancient unlike yours, especially in the Middle East which is the cradle of the scriptures and civilization. I can show an unbroken chain to my belief up to the Prophet Isaiah who espoused it in Isaiah 11.

[Papist]

Your "Nestorianism" is my Orthodoxy, your orthodoxy is my monophysitism. But I win because History shows my belief is more ancient unlike yours, especially in the Middle East which is the cradle of the scriptures and civilization. I can show an unbroken chain to my belief up to the Prophet Isaiah who espoused it in Isaiah 11.

First of all this is not about winning, its about following Christ our God. Second, if you can prove it then do it. Really, I don't know how anyone can read the scritpures in the original Greek (not some aramaic translation) and conclude anything other than the Catholic/Orthodox position.

[Rafa999]

Oh but I can, because all manuscripts before the fourth century show Messiah not God in Acts 20:28, I have the latin, Antiochan, Greek and Egyptian church fathers quoting my rendering of the scriptures "mysteriously" up to the big Christological controversies post Nicea, and I have a completely independent tradition (that of Indian Christianity, the St.Thomas Christians who were not under Rome or Persia, and who received their teaching from the apostle Thomas directly) citing my rendering of scriptures. I don't need to be an Aramaic primacist to win this argument.

[Papist]

Oh but I can, because all manuscripts before the fourth century show Messiah not God in Acts 20:28, I have the latin, Antiochan, Greek and Egyptian church fathers quoting my rendering of the scriptures "mysteriously" up to the big Christological controversies post Nicea, and I have a completely independent tradition (that of Indian Christianity, the St.Thomas Christians who were not under Rome or Persia, and who received their teaching from the apostle Thomas directly) citing my rendering of scriptures.

Isa, can you respond to this?

[Rafa999]

Oh, and Further, the Patriarchs of Constantinople (Chysostom) and of Rome ( Pope Evaristus (107), Anicetus (168), John V (687) ) to name just a few were often trained by Church of the East Theologians. Should I respect the Masters or the students? Should I mix the new wine into the good old wine, accept spurious new teachings over ancient ones ?

[Papist]

Oh, and Further, the Patriarchs of Constantinople (Chysostom) and of Rome ( Pope Evaristus (107), Anicetus (168), John V (687) ) to name just a few were often trained by Church of the East Theologians. Should I respect the masters or the students? Should I mix the new wine into the good old wine, accept spurious new teachings over ancient ones ?

Not important. What is important is the Orthodoxy of their confessions. Who speaks the truth?

[Papist]

"The word became fleshs and dwelt among us." -The Gospel of John

[Rafa999]

The older teaching always speaks the truth:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Galatians 1:8

[Papist]

Rafa, do you believe that Jesus is God?

[Papist]

The older teaching always speaks the truth:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Galatians 1:8

The older teaching does indeed. But there is no reason for me to believe that your Church teaches the older teaching. St. Ignatius of Antioch referrs to Christ enough times for me to be convinced that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach the truth on this matter.

[Rafa999]

the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us

Citing Isa. The word DWELT with us, he did not become us. BIG difference. Of course I believe Jesus is God, I just dont believe his divinity was destroyed, corrupted, or changed. St.Ignatius would support my Christology.

[minasoliman]

O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons* also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.

Okay.  Understanding that the word "persons" is a mistranslation, this is still an example of "two who's," no?  The Holy Spirit "found Him in thee" and the Word "dwelt in Him."  This isn't the Word "becoming man" or "incarnate," this is the Word sharing a life with someone else by the help of the Holy Spirit "finding Him."  This "other-than-Word Him" is what is troublesome.  I mean what happened to this particular liturgical rendering of what was born from the Virgin can happen practically to anyone.  Indeed, the Holy Spirit has found many saints, and the Word continually dwells in us through the Eucharist.

Tell me the word "Him" is also a mistranslation.

[Papist]

the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us

Citing Isa. The word DWELT with us, he did not become us. BIG difference. Of course I believe Jesus is God, I just dont believe his divinity was destroyed, corrupted, or changed.

First don't give me an aramaic translation. Give me the original koine greek in which the gospel of John was written. Second I am not emphasizing his dwelling with us. I am emphasizing that the word became flesh. Third, none of us belives that the Divinity was destroyed, corrupted, or changed so stop with the straw-man arguements.
Finally, did not human nature belong to the Divine person who is God? If so, then everything done by Christ is done by the person of the Logos and yet the Logos remains unchanged.

[Papist]

O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons* also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.

Okay...this is an example of "two who's."

Very disturbing.

[Rafa999]

The Koine Greek has "Logos" instead of "Miltha"....an equally heavy word! Further Koine Greek is not the original, Papias says the Gospels were written in Hebrew, and knowing that Aramaic and Hebrew both use Ktav Ashurri (Assyrian script) and that Jesus spoke Aramaic as did his audience, I believe he mixed it up with Aramaic (Eusebius the historian made the same mistake, several Church fathers did). So your not finding a way out on this.

[Papist]

The Koine Greek has "Logos" instead of "Miltha"....an equally heavy word! Further Koine Greek is not the original, Papias says the Gospels were written in Hebrew, and knowing that Aramaic and Hebrew both use Ktav Ashurri (Assyrian script) and that Jesus spoke Aramaic as did his audience, I believe he mixed it up with Aramaic. So your not finding a way out on this.

No, Papia says that Matthew was written in the language of the Jews. One gospel and it is not clear if he is referring to Hebrew or Aramaic.
Now does the greek say that the Logos became flesh? Once again, I am asking about the word "became".

[Rafa999]

So you believe satan preserved the quran but that God was unable to preserve his Words?

[minasoliman]

O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons* also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.

Okay...this is an example of "two who's."

Very disturbing.

Sorry Papist, I wrote more than that....I'm addicted to the modify button...lol....but nevertheless, yes, I agree.

[Papist]

So you believe satan preserved the quran but that God was unable to preserve his Words?

Firstly, I hight doubt that there is a perfectly accurate manuscript of the Koran lying around anywhere. Second, what does that have to do with the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not aramaic?

[Papist]

O Virgin, the Holy Spirit found Him in thee, and the Word dwelt in Him by union, without conversion or confusion, the Natures continuing to subsist unchanged, and the Persons* also, by their essential attributes,the Divinity and Humanity subsisting in one Parsopa of Filiation.

Okay...this is an example of "two who's."

Very disturbing.

Sorry Papist, I wrote more than that....I'm addicted to the modify button...lol....but nevertheless, yes, I agree.

Its really frightening because if the COE really accepts two "whos" in Christ, then I am not sure how they can be considered Christians This theology completely destroys Christ's uniqueness.

[Rafa999]

Firstly, I hight doubt that there is a perfectly accurate manuscript lying around anywhere. Second, what does that have to do with the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not aramaic?

Because it wasn't written in Greek. Papias says that at a minimum one of the Gospels was written in Hebrew (Ktav Ashurri script). So you are saying we lost the scriptures. Satan preserved the quran while God lost his scriptures, satan is more powerful than God more generous to his servants. I cannot believe that.

The COE does not believe in two "whos" we will meet Jesus Christ on judgement day, what else do you want me to confess?

[Papist]

Firstly, I hight doubt that there is a perfectly accurate manuscript lying around anywhere. Second, what does that have to do with the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not aramaic?

Because it wasn't written in Greek. Papias says that at a minimum one of the Gospels was written in Hebrew (Ktav Ashurri script). So you are saying we lost the scriptures. Satan preserved the quran while God lost his scriptures, satan is more powerful than God more generous to his servants. I cannot believe that.

One book was written in Hebrew. Just one. That does not mean that scriptures are not preserved and the Koran is. You reasoning is a bit loopy.

[Rafa999]

So we lost the original Hebrew/Aramaic scripture? Are you saying God allowed this treasure to be lost while the quran and vedas are preserved in Arabic/Sanscrit?

[Papist]

So we lost the original Hebrew/Aramaic scripture? Are you saying God allowed this treasure to be lost while the quran and vedas are preserved in Arabic/Sanscrit?

Regardless of what language the scriptures were written in there are not perfect manuscripts of either the Bible or the Koran in existence. I am not sure why you think that this means the word of God was lost.

[Papist]

How do we even know that Papias was right about the Gospel of Matthew?

[Rafa999]

Because Papias knew the Apostles and their associates directly. He is ancient and apostolic beyond all shadow of a doubt. Further his testimony is corroborated by Hegesippus, Origen, and others.

[Papist]

Because Papias knew the Apostles and their associates directly. He is ancient and apostolic beyond all shadow of a doubt.

So he says that one gospel was written in Aramaic. There is nooooooo historical or texual reason to believe that the Gospel of John was written in Aramaic.

[Papist]

Again, does the Greek say that the word became flesh?

[Rafa999]

It says "Logos" which cannot be rendered as such.

[minasoliman]

The COE does not believe in two "whos" we will meet Jesus Christ on judgement day, what else do you want me to confess?

Then how do you explain your own church's liturgical text Nazarene quoted?  What other "Him" was born of the Virgin that the Holy Spirit found and the Word dwelt in since it wasn't the Word Himself?

[Papist]

It says "Logos" which cannot be rendered as such.

what about "became"? Is that word in the text?

[Rafa999]

Then how do you explain your own church's liturgical text Nazarene quoted?  What other "Him" was born of the Virgin that the Holy Spirit found and the Word dwelt in since it wasn't the Word Himself?

The Divine nature, the pre-incarnate word crafted from the Virgin a Temple to dwell in. The Messiah was one unified "Parsopa" but the divinity never suffered or was begotten just like Pope Leo said in his Tome. That's all. If at any one moment you say that the Word changed you agree with Eutyches and that is another gospel. Period.

[minasoliman]

Then how do you explain your own church's liturgical text Nazarene quoted?  What other "Him" was born of the Virgin that the Holy Spirit found and the Word dwelt in since it wasn't the Word Himself?

The Divine nature, the pre-incarnate word crafted from the Virgin a Temple to dwell in. The Messiah was one unified "Parsopa" but the divinity never suffered just like Pope Leo said in his Tome. That's all. If at any one moment you say that the Word changed you agree with Eutyches and that is another gospel. Period.

You didn't answer the question.  The Temple had a pronoun, a separate "who" from the Word.  The Word dwelt in "Him," not in "it" or "human nature" or "temple" but Him.  Doesn't that even bother you personally, you who doesn't believe in two who's?

[Papist]

Then how do you explain your own church's liturgical text Nazarene quoted?  What other "Him" was born of the Virgin that the Holy Spirit found and the Word dwelt in since it wasn't the Word Himself?

The Divine nature, the pre-incarnate word crafted from the Virgin a Temple to dwell in. The Messiah was one unified "Parsopa" but the divinity never suffered or was begotten just like Pope Leo said in his Tome. That's all. If at any one moment you say that the Word changed you agree with Eutyches and that is another gospel. Period.

No one said that the Divine Nature was every changed.

[ozgeorge]

Then how do you explain your own church's liturgical text Nazarene quoted?  What other "Him" was born of the Virgin that the Holy Spirit found and the Word dwelt in since it wasn't the Word Himself?

The Divine nature, the pre-incarnate word crafted from the Virgin a Temple to dwell in. The Messiah was one unified "Parsopa" but the divinity never suffered just like Pope Leo said in his Tome. That's all. If at any one moment you say that the Word changed you agree with Eutyches and that is another gospel. Period.

You didn't answer the question.  The Temple had a pronoun, a separate "who" from the Word.  The Word dwelt in "Him," not in "it" or "human nature" or "temple" but Him.  Doesn't that even bother you personally, you who doesn't believe in two who's?

Do you understand what Minasoliman is asking Rafa999? The Word (Logos) is a person- ie, He is a "Him". If you say that the Messiah is "one unified Parsopa", then what is it that you are saying has been united in this Parsopa? Is it the Human and Divine Natures? If so, then the Two Natures are united in Him. He (The Parsopa of Christ) does not "dwell in" the Natures, rather, the Natures are united in Him- ie in His Parsopa.

[Rafa999]

everything done by Christ is done by the person of the Logos and yet the Logos remains unchanged.

You said that. This is the Orthodox belief of the COE, the person (COE does not say person, only for your understanding) of the Logos, the human nature offered itself as a Qurbana on the cross to the Father, while the divinity dwelling within the Messiah did not change at any instant. The Prophet Malachi says God cannot change (Malachiu 3:6, see also Psalm 102:25, 90:2, and Micah 5:2, James 1:17). We are not Muslims therefore we must accept plain scripture instead of kicking around the bush. The Messiah was resurrected by the Holy Spirit, and he in his glorified form as the ascended Logos is about to judge all humanity. God NEVER "became" anything, that is Eutychianism.

If you say that the Messiah is "one unified Parsopa", then what is it that you are saying has been united in this Parsopa? Is it the Human and Divine Natures? If so, then the Two Natures are united in Him. He (The Parsopa of Christ) does not "dwell in" the Natures, rather, the Natures are united in Him- ie in His Parsopa

Yes, two natures united in one parsopa but 100% seperate. God is not a person much like a goldfish isn't one. God Lives, God Exists, God Saves... That I agree with. No mingling of the two natures at any point. The COE does not like this "prosopic union" idea espoused by Greeks (by poor Nestorius who tried defending Semitic belief in Constantinople the best he could), better to talk about Qnome. There is a reason not that much of Theodore and Babai's writings haven't been translated, you simply need to learn Syriac.

Do you understand now? Maybe this is the problem, that the COE considers the idea of a "prosopic" union somewhat inexact. You cannot talk of the "Person of God". You can talk about the nature (Kyana) of God, or the individuated instance of a nature (Qnome) but not the person of God.

[ozgeorge]

Yes, united in one parsopa but 100% seperate. That I agree with. No mingling of the two natures at any point. The COE does not like this "prosoponic union" idea espoused by Greeks (by poor Nestorius who tried defending Semitic belief in Constantinople the best he could), better to talk about Qnome.

You missed the point. The point is that you are saying that the Logos (Word) "dwelt in" the Human Nature, but this in incorrect since the Natures are united IN Him. You seem to be identifying the Logos (Word) with the Divine Nature, as though the Divine Nature somehow "dwelt in" a human body. The instant you start talking about the Person of the Word "dwelling in" something you are committing the fallacy of the homunculus, that you somehow "dwell inside" your body. A Human Person is a unified whole- Body, soul, mind, will etc. A Divine Person is also a Unified Whole. Jesus of Nazareth was one Person Who is both Divine and Human, not  "a Divine Person dwelling in a human person", nor "a Divine Person dwelling in a human body", as though His Human body was simply a vehicle.

[Rafa999]

Read above. I did not say the divinity was ever a person.

[ozgeorge]

Read above. I did not say the divinity was ever a person.

So there is no such thing as a Divine Person in your Church?

[Rafa999]

Again I invoke diagram:



God/Man = Holy Messiah of Israel, the Branch, the Root of David of Isaiah 11.

God-Man = Hercules of Greeks, Pharaoh of ancient Coptic Egypt, Gilgamesh of ancient Assyrians.

Divine/Person= ok

Divine-Person= pagan