Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East

[CoptoGeek]

When I was in college I read quite a few books on the Assyrians, a truly remarkable people.

It can be a bit of a misnomer because during the era of the Parthian and Sassanid Persian Empires Aramaean (that of the original people who spoke Aramaic) language and culture was spread throughout the Semitic speaking peoples (of which the Assyrians were one), and even was shared by the Antiochian Church and the Church of the East. Even now the language and culture of the "Assyrians" is predominantly Aramaean, even if maybe their genealogical lineage is Assyrian. Somewhat of a division slowly developed between the West Aramaeans (Syriac Orthodox) and the East Aramaeans (CoE), which is why they are now choosing to identify differently. But a case can be made that their ethnic heritage is still largely the same Aramaic heritage.

[EDIT]: At that, choosing Assyrian to be the common identity of the two (West Syrian and East Syrian) would be far less fitting as the West Syrians are not descendants of the ancient Assyrians genealogically, linguistically, or (mostly) culturally, whereas the East Syrians are at least linguistically and (mostly) culturally Aramaean.

I had understood it was only the West Syrians who claimed Aramaean lineage and then only rather recently to differentiate themselves from the East Syrians, whereas previously both had self identified as Assyrian. Whether that is truly the case, you make a persuasive argument against it.

But, when I stated "Assyrians" above I meant it specifically for members of the Church of the East.

[deusveritasest]

When I was in college I read quite a few books on the Assyrians, a truly remarkable people.

It can be a bit of a misnomer because during the era of the Parthian and Sassanid Persian Empires Aramaean (that of the original people who spoke Aramaic) language and culture was spread throughout the Semitic speaking peoples (of which the Assyrians were one), and even was shared by the Antiochian Church and the Church of the East. Even now the language and culture of the "Assyrians" is predominantly Aramaean, even if maybe their genealogical lineage is Assyrian. Somewhat of a division slowly developed between the West Aramaeans (Syriac Orthodox) and the East Aramaeans (CoE), which is why they are now choosing to identify differently. But a case can be made that their ethnic heritage is still largely the same Aramaic heritage.

[EDIT]: At that, choosing Assyrian to be the common identity of the two (West Syrian and East Syrian) would be far less fitting as the West Syrians are not descendants of the ancient Assyrians genealogically, linguistically, or (mostly) culturally, whereas the East Syrians are at least linguistically and (mostly) culturally Aramaean.

I had understood it was only the West Syrians who claimed Aramaean lineage and then only rather recently to differentiate themselves from the East Syrians, whereas previously both had self identified as Assyrian. Whether that is truly the case, you make a persuasive argument against it.

But, when I stated "Assyrians" above I meant it specifically for members of the Church of the East.

Well, I'm pretty sure the most historically used terminology would be suryoyo.

But I think you're right about Assyrian gaining usage among both Western and Eastern suryoyo at a certain point.

My point was that I think it would actually be less accurate to refer to both as Assyrian than it would be to refer to both as Aramaean.

[Rafa999]

I think in this thread and others a diagram was presented for the Christology of the ACOE. I am not sure if these diagrams were actually drawn correctly, which is why I again give the correct Christology of the ACOE by Babai the Great :

   

The Theology of the Church of the East has been stated briefly and clearly in the following “Hymn of Praise (TESHBOKHTA)?nbsp; Composed by Mar Babai the Great in the sixth century A.D.,
a noted theologian of the Church

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.
   
   

* Qnuma, is an Aramaic word. The nearest equivalent is the Greek “hypostasis? in Latin “substantia?and in English “substance?

Also the exposition of the mysteries of Mar Narsai the Great :

An Exposition of The Mysteries

He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled  Him with their praises, as God.
He offered sacrifices according to the Law,  as Man;
and He received worship from the Persians, as God.
Simeon bore Him  upon his arms, as Man;
and he named Him 'the Mercy' who showth mercy to all,  as God.
He kept the Law completely, as Man;
and He gave His own new Law, as God.

He was baptized in Jordan by John, as Man;
and the heaven was opened in honour of His baptism, as God.
He went in to the marriage-feast of the city of Canna, as Man;
and He changed the water that it became wine, as God.
He fasted in the wilderness forty days, as Man;
and watchers descended to minister unto  Him, as God.
He slept in the boat with His disciples, as Man;
and He rebuked the wind and calmed the sea, as God.

He set out and departed to a desert place, as  Man;
and He multiplied the bread and satisfied thousands, as God.
He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God.
He prayed and watched and gave thanks and  worshipped, as Man;
and He forgave debts and pardoned sins, as God.
He asked water of the Samaritan woman, as Man;
and He revealed and declared her secrets, as God.

He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, as Man;
and He forgave the sinful woman her  sins, as God.
He went up into the mountain of Tabor with His disciples, as Man;
and He revealed His glory in their sight, as God.
He shed tears and  wept over Lazarus, as Man;
and He called him that he came forth by His mighty power, as God.
He rode upon a colt and entered Jerusalem, as Man;
and the  boys applauded Him with their Hosannas, as God.

He drew nigh to the fig-tree and shewed  that He was hungered, as Man;
and His mighty power caused it to wither on a  sudden, as God.
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called  Himself Lord and Master, as God.
He ate the legal passover, as Man;
and He exposed the treachery of Iscariot, as God.
He prayed and sweated at the time  of His passion, as Man;
and He scared and terrified them that took Him, as God.

the  attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore  His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the  destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the  passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as  God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as  Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty  power, as God.

He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with  their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas  to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.
         

[zekarja]

I think in this thread and others a diagram was presented for the Christology of the ACOE. I am not sure if these diagrams were actually drawn correctly, which is why I again give the correct Christology of the ACOE by Babai the Great :

   

The Theology of the Church of the East has been stated briefly and clearly in the following “Hymn of Praise (TESHBOKHTA)?nbsp; Composed by Mar Babai the Great in the sixth century A.D.,
a noted theologian of the Church

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.
   
   

* Qnuma, is an Aramaic word. The nearest equivalent is the Greek “hypostasis? in Latin “substantia?and in English “substance?

Also the exposition of the mysteries of Mar Narsai the Great :

An Exposition of The Mysteries

He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled  Him with their praises, as God.
He offered sacrifices according to the Law,  as Man;
and He received worship from the Persians, as God.
Simeon bore Him  upon his arms, as Man;
and he named Him 'the Mercy' who showth mercy to all,  as God.
He kept the Law completely, as Man;
and He gave His own new Law, as God.

He was baptized in Jordan by John, as Man;
and the heaven was opened in honour of His baptism, as God.
He went in to the marriage-feast of the city of Canna, as Man;
and He changed the water that it became wine, as God.
He fasted in the wilderness forty days, as Man;
and watchers descended to minister unto  Him, as God.
He slept in the boat with His disciples, as Man;
and He rebuked the wind and calmed the sea, as God.

He set out and departed to a desert place, as  Man;
and He multiplied the bread and satisfied thousands, as God.
He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God.
He prayed and watched and gave thanks and  worshipped, as Man;
and He forgave debts and pardoned sins, as God.
He asked water of the Samaritan woman, as Man;
and He revealed and declared her secrets, as God.

He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, as Man;
and He forgave the sinful woman her  sins, as God.
He went up into the mountain of Tabor with His disciples, as Man;
and He revealed His glory in their sight, as God.
He shed tears and  wept over Lazarus, as Man;
and He called him that he came forth by His mighty power, as God.
He rode upon a colt and entered Jerusalem, as Man;
and the  boys applauded Him with their Hosannas, as God.

He drew nigh to the fig-tree and shewed  that He was hungered, as Man;
and His mighty power caused it to wither on a  sudden, as God.
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called  Himself Lord and Master, as God.
He ate the legal passover, as Man;
and He exposed the treachery of Iscariot, as God.
He prayed and sweated at the time  of His passion, as Man;
and He scared and terrified them that took Him, as God.

the  attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore  His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the  destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the  passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as  God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as  Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty  power, as God.

He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with  their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas  to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.
         

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod what you quoted violates some of the EO/OO anathemas against Nestorius: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.i.html

[zekarja]

Here are a few anathemas from my previously posted link:

I
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema.

IV
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

VIII
If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”:  let him be anathema.

XII
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema.

[Rafa999]

I have stated the Christology of Mar Nestorius (who disagrees in nothing from the ACOE). Perhaps a miscomprehension of his system ?

[Rafa999]

I
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema. (Where in scripture do you find this title "Mother of God"? I cannot excommunicate scripture. Further by giving Christ's Divinity a mother, you make the Virgin his Grandmother).

IV
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

VIII
If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”:  let him be anathema. (I believe this- the Aramaic peshitta of the ACOE and SOC, as well as Maroites can read "Flesh became" and "Word...was" so the meaning is obvious to someone who reads Aramaic, namely that the Word did not change his Divinity, and that the Divinity subsided next to the Humanity)

A devout and pious man laboured for many years in prayer to God, that He would disclose to him the meaning of this declaration: A voice from heaven was at length vouchsafed to him, saying:

“Ascribe to the flesh the word?“became?and to the “Word?ascribe “dwelt ? and the meaning was thus preserved.

XII
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema. (Blasphemy to suggest this as Severus in his Trisagion did)

[Rafa999]

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod...

This council was not attended by representatives of the ACOE and as I understood was disagreed upon by the Oriental Orthodox.

[Severian]

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod...

This council was not attended by representatives of the ACOE and as I understood was disagreed upon by the Oriental Orthodox.

No, the OO were staunch defender of Ephesus I (a.k.a. the third ecumenical council). In fact, one of the reasons we rejected Chalcedon is because we felt it undermined Ephesus. However, your Church rejects this council. However, there were East Syrian dissidents to Ephesus I who followed Nestorius. Eventually, however, St Cyril re-entered into communion with them, after which they rejected Chalcedon and became a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

[zekarja]

I
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema. (Where in scripture do you find this title "Mother of God"? I cannot excommunicate scripture. Further by giving Christ's Divinity a mother, you make the Virgin his Grandmother).

IV
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

VIII
If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”:  let him be anathema. (I believe this- the Aramaic peshitta of the ACOE and SOC, as well as Maroites can read "Flesh became" and "Word...was" so the meaning is obvious to someone who reads Aramaic, namely that the Word did not change his Divinity, and that the Divinity subsided next to the Humanity)

A devout and pious man laboured for many years in prayer to God, that He would disclose to him the meaning of this declaration: A voice from heaven was at length vouchsafed to him, saying:

“Ascribe to the flesh the word?“became?and to the “Word?ascribe “dwelt ? and the meaning was thus preserved.

XII
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema. (Blasphemy to suggest this as Severus in his Trisagion did)

Please forgive me. I thought that, in your previous post, you were defending Nestorian Christology as Orthodox. I posted my post to just show that is was un-Orthodox. I see now that you defend the heresiarch Nestorius. I didn't have any intention to debate you. I was just giving the Orthodox view.

[Severian]

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema. (Blasphemy to suggest this as Severus in his Trisagion did)

Actually it wasn't Patr. St Severus who added the words "who was crucified for us" to the Trisagion, it was Peter Fullo, who was a different Patriarch of Antioch.

[Severian]

I
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema. (Where in scripture do you find this title "Mother of God"? I cannot excommunicate scripture. Further by giving Christ's Divinity a mother, you make the Virgin his Grandmother).

Actually, it is found in Scripture:
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord (kyrios) should come to me?"~Luke 1:43

[biro]

We just heard that Gospel in church tonight. 

[Rafa999]

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod...

This council was not attended by representatives of the ACOE and as I understood was disagreed upon by the Oriental Orthodox.

No, the OO were staunch defender of Ephesus I (a.k.a. the third ecumenical council). In fact, one of the reasons we rejected Chalcedon is because we felt it undermined Ephesus. However, your Church rejects this council.

I believe he meant Chalcedon. Regardless, the ACOE went to neither, it just had its door knocked upon by the victors after the flinging of anathemas.  

[Rafa999]

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life:  let him be anathema. (Blasphemy to suggest this as Severus in his Trisagion did)

Actually it wasn't St Severus who added the words "who was crucified for us" to the trisagion, it was Peter Fullo, Patriarch of Antioch.

Could it be Patriarch Severus is more popular for unifying against the emperor the OO then for his ideas ?

[Rafa999]

I
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema. (Where in scripture do you find this title "Mother of God"? I cannot excommunicate scripture. Further by giving Christ's Divinity a mother, you make the Virgin his Grandmother).

Actually, it is found in Scripture:
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord (kyrios) should come to me?"~Luke 1:43

1) Kurios can by used for both a human Lord as well as the actual LORD.

2) I donot follow the Greek, I use Aramaic as the SOC and Maronites and believe in Peshitta primacy as do all in the ACOE.

[Rafa999]

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod...

This council was not attended by representatives of the ACOE and as I understood was disagreed upon by the Oriental Orthodox.

No, the OO were staunch defender of Ephesus I (a.k.a. the third ecumenical council). In fact, one of the reasons we rejected Chalcedon is because we felt it undermined Ephesus. However, your Church rejects this council. However, there were East Syrian dissidents to Ephesus I who followed Nestorius. Eventually, however, St Cyril re-entered into communion with them, after which they rejected Chalcedon and became a part of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The entire Church followed its historical roots. It did not attend the council, nor did it agree with the new doctrines expressed by the council. This is Syriac Orthodox version of what happened: the emperor Justinian funded a schism within the Persian empire, but beyond the steps most of Christendom was ACOE, amounting to more people than in all Western Christendom. And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

[Rafa999]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

[Rafa999]

We just heard that Gospel in church tonight. 

KurioséKyrie can mean anything to a human Lord, to the LORD, to even in greek the false deity zeus. I follow Aramaic as is followed in the tradition of the East as well, and in Aramaic I see no mother of god just the normal word for a human Lord. If I was seeing the word for Divinity I would clearly see MarYah which is always used for the Divine LORD.

[PeterTheAleut]

And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

Just a reminder that you have yet to prove this assertion. Merely repeating it every opportunity you get does not make it any more convincing.

[Brigidsboy]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

Please provide some evidence for this rather sweeping generalization.

[zekarja]

According to the 3rd Ecumenical Synod...

This council was not attended by representatives of the ACOE and as I understood was disagreed upon by the Oriental Orthodox.

No, the OO were staunch defender of Ephesus I (a.k.a. the third ecumenical council). In fact, one of the reasons we rejected Chalcedon is because we felt it undermined Ephesus. However, your Church rejects this council.

I believe he meant Chalcedon. Regardless, the ACOE went to neither, it just had its door knocked upon by the victors after the flinging of anathemas.  

No, I was speaking of Ephesus I. Holy Cyril, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote the anathemas  against Nestorius in Ephesus I.

[Rafa999]

And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

Just a reminder that you have yet to prove this assertion. Merely repeating it every opportunity you get does not make it any more convincing.

Here is one way : the ACOE retains the Estrangela script, the script used for centuries even before Christ in Edessa when Addai (St. Thaddeus) and his disciple Mari delivered it the scriptures. The SOC and the Maronites *changed* this script- we can compare archaelogical records and see the ACOE script is closer to that of the City state of Edessa.

[Rafa999]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

Please provide some evidence for this rather sweeping generalization.

The SOC did not exist prior to Ephesus, try finding any trace of it.

[Rafa999]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

Please provide some evidence for this rather sweeping generalization.

If you seek textual evidence may I please suggest the History of Rabban Hormizd ? Read the other East syriac text enclosed. You will see that the SOC had some very bitter relations with the ACOE who viewed them as being funded as a schism by outsiders. Anyways that was over a 1000 years ago and I personally believethe ACOE would love to be in communion with the SOC.

[Rafa999]

Since this thread deals with relationships between the SOC and ACOE I would like to retire since the ACOE does not regard any branch of the Apostolic church heretical, but rather the fullness of the Body of Christ.

[zekarja]

Since this thread deals with relationships between the SOC and ACOE I would like to retire since the ACOE does not regard any branch of the Apostolic church heretical, but rather the fullness of the Body of Christ.

I have a couple questions if you don't mind...

Nestorius anthamatized the Orthodox Church. How does that fit in with what you are saying here? The EOC and OOC accepts an Ecumenical Council that said some things that you called blasphemous. How can you accuse us of blasphemy if we are not heretical? Your posts seem to contradict each other (to me at least). Either we are blasphemous heretics or we are fullness of the Body of Christ, which one?

[ialmisry]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

Please provide some evidence for this rather sweeping generalization.

The SOC did not exist prior to Ephesus, try finding any trace of it.

Edessa.

[ialmisry]

And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

Just a reminder that you have yet to prove this assertion. Merely repeating it every opportunity you get does not make it any more convincing.

Here is one way : the ACOE retains the Estrangela script, the script used for centuries even before Christ in Edessa when Addai (St. Thaddeus) and his disciple Mari delivered it the scriptures. The SOC and the Maronites *changed* this script- we can compare archaelogical records and see the ACOE script is closer to that of the City state of Edessa.

You stated that the ACOE burns its own manuscripts.  What evidence do you have then?

We don't need to go to that length, though.  The Peshitta is in Syriac, not Aramaic, two related, but distinct, languages.  And it is in standard literary Syriac, a language that doesn't appear until the 3rd century.
The Bible in the Syriac tradition By Sebastian P. Brock
http://books.google.com/books?id=mHewpd0an9IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syriac&hl=en&ei=t3A5Tu6gOIqpsQKvr6El&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Classical Syriac: a basic grammar with a chrestomathy By T. Muraoka
http://books.google.com/books?id=kPLc_CSzZskC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Rafa999]

I am not sure if the Christology of Mar Nestorius is 100% equal to ACOE Christology. I know the ACOE agreed with him when it heard that this Greek Patriarch preached it's Christology recieved by the Apostles.

[Rafa999]

And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

Just a reminder that you have yet to prove this assertion. Merely repeating it every opportunity you get does not make it any more convincing.

Here is one way : the ACOE retains the Estrangela script, the script used for centuries even before Christ in Edessa when Addai (St. Thaddeus) and his disciple Mari delivered it the scriptures. The SOC and the Maronites *changed* this script- we can compare archaelogical records and see the ACOE script is closer to that of the City state of Edessa.

You stated that the ACOE burns its own manuscripts.  What evidence do you have then?

We don't need to go to that length, though.  The Peshitta is in Syriac, not Aramaic, two related, but distinct, languages.  And it is in standard literary Syriac, a language that doesn't appear until the 3rd century.
The Bible in the Syriac tradition By Sebastian P. Brock
http://books.google.com/books?id=mHewpd0an9IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syriac&hl=en&ei=t3A5Tu6gOIqpsQKvr6El&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Classical Syriac: a basic grammar with a chrestomathy By T. Muraoka
http://books.google.com/books?id=kPLc_CSzZskC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Compare the manuscripts:

http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

it is BLATANTLY clear the ACOE retained the pure Estrangela script used in Edessa for centuries compared to others. We have 4th century manuscripts there. The manuscripts are only burned because they are too old to use and there is a fear they can be misread.

[Rafa999]

The SOC are Assyrians who broke away (in small numbers) from the ACOE due to funding by Justinian or whatever other cause. They joined Cyril. In ACOE history this was all viewed as a hostile act by the West. Nestorius had nothing to do with anything except being a poor man roasted by mobs in Ephesus before his party could arrive to defend him. Symbolic that a council affirming a Mother of God (khasli) took place in the city of Ephesus known in antiquity for something somewhat similar...

Please provide some evidence for this rather sweeping generalization.

The SOC did not exist prior to Ephesus, try finding any trace of it.

Edessa.

Show me the script they use in Edessa's archaelogical records. The SOC with Western help expelled the ACOE from Edessa, which is why the great school of Nisibis was founded deep inside Persian territory.

[Rafa999]

Having replied to certain objections I now retire for good. I wish all the best for the SOC, a most ancient and venerable tradition which shares much with the ACOE in my personal opinion. By the way, I am an "inquirer" into the ACOE as my profile shows remember that- I must still go to the Archbishop and speak with him with my friends if I truly wish to be part to the Greatest Church on Earth, that under Mar Dinkha IV Succesor of Peter. It would be better for somebody in the clergy to answer many of these questions. The issue of the script can easily be answered here by my Deacon friend who runs the website:

http://www.peshitta.org/

you will easily verify that the script used by the ACOE is that of Edessa with a few modifications, while the Western changed considerably (along with other things)

[PeterTheAleut]

And...to this day only the ACOE has retained the scriptures in their original state, the See of Seleukia-Ctesphon has.

Just a reminder that you have yet to prove this assertion. Merely repeating it every opportunity you get does not make it any more convincing.

Here is one way : the ACOE retains the Estrangela script, the script used for centuries even before Christ in Edessa when Addai (St. Thaddeus) and his disciple Mari delivered it the scriptures. The SOC and the Maronites *changed* this script- we can compare archaelogical records and see the ACOE script is closer to that of the City state of Edessa.

Just because your church faithfully preserved a non-Scriptural text doesn't prove that your church preserved the original New Testament manuscripts with the same faithful care, or that what you received was the original manuscripts.

[Severian]

The SOC did not exist prior to Ephesus, try finding any trace of it.

Rafa, our Syriac Orthodox brothers would vehemently disagree with you on that one. The Syriac Orthodox Church preserves the original rites of the Church of Antioch. It is true that Saint Jacob Baradeus "revived" the SOC in that he helped restore non-Chalcedonian episcopates in Syria and surrounding areas that were almost completely destroyed due to Chalcedonian persecution, but he did not establish the SOC. The SOC, also known as the Church of Antioch, was established by Apostles Peter and Paul. Do you mind backing up your claims with evidence?

[Severian]

Having replied to certain objections I now retire for good. I wish all the best for the SOC, a most ancient and venerable tradition which shares much with the ACOE in my personal opinion. By the way, I am an "inquirer" into the ACOE as my profile shows remember that- I must still go to the Archbishop and speak with him with my friends if I truly wish to be part to the Greatest Church on Earth, that under Mar Dinkha IV Succesor of Peter. It would be better for somebody in the clergy to answer many of these questions. The issue of the script can easily be answered here by my Deacon friend who runs the website:

http://www.peshitta.org/

you will easily verify that the script used by the ACOE is that of Edessa with a few modifications, while the Western changed considerably (along with other things)

Come on Rafa, don't leave. Stay with us. At least on the private fora.

[Rafa999]

Meaning of parsopa? Well...I'm not sure. I don't think there is anything outside the Western definition. Also, to answer Minas question: the definition of Qnome leaves open many more than three qnome for God. The burning Bush is a Qnome I suppose under the definition. Also, God's Kyana is not as limited as our own (or better, it is unlimited). I was thinking of some Jewish mystical texts(these texts vary in their interpretation and at times oppose scripture so I avoid them) which in turn connect to ancient Christological ideas of the COE and which are repeatedly encountered in the East Syriac Peshitta . In the Mysticism of the Tree of Life, God actually has 10 Qnome, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Upper Three. I don't dwelve too much in this topic though, since it requires absolute mastery of plain scripture:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

John 3:12

A Jewish believer and dear friend pointed that out to me. That was to Nicodemus, a Master of the Land of Israel favored by the Messiah. If he received this message, what hope have we? So I don't think too much beyond the basics.

I am One Thousand Percent positive that the only Church in India before the Portuguese disrupted the COE episcopate was the COE, everybody else came later. The Miaphysites by accident, the Roman Catholics were local Indians converted by the Portuguese (Poor Fishermen who didn't like the caste system), and now protestants.

This is not Orthodox. I was under the sway of a baptized ACOE member involved in the Hebrew roots movement when talking of Qnome in that way. 3 Qnume in 1 Godand 1 God in 3 Qnume is Orthodox.

[Rafa999]

With Certain Knowledge and responsibility comes certain sacrifice. One of the sacrifices I have had to make to prove my allegiance to the Church of the East is to occasionally set my face against other Christians (of diverse backgrounds). It is very sad but it must be done for the good of Christendom. No iconography in the COE. Now for the replies:

"Qnome" was very similar in meaning to Hypostasis.

Could you explain in other words what qnome and hypostasis mean in your tradition? If you can distinguish at all between the two in meaning, that would be helpful, but otherwise just one meaning will be good as well.

OK I will give this a shot. A Kyana is a Nature. The Ant nature for instance. A Qnome is a member of a taxonomic class, an individuated instance of a Kyana which does not contain its totality. Thus we have ant number one, number two, or human number one, human number two,etc. We as human beings have one Qnome for each person. God however is Special: he has THREE Qnome, three individuated instances of his Kyana, but they don't express the Totality of his Divinity by themselves. Thus we have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. The Son, the second Qnome dwelt with the Human nature of the Messiah side by side during the ministry of Jesus, and was bound in one Parsopa. Mar Odisho used the Light, the Warmth and the Yellow color of the sun ray to illustrate how Qnome is not some sort of modalism, rather they are intrinsic properties of the being or object in question, not extrinsic. I recommend you reading his catechism. For those who think this great Patriarch does not represent the mainstream of COE thought think again, his works are read every Qurbana:

http://www.assyrianchurch.org.au/media-e-p.htm

go to the English Sermons.

Were there a lot of Jewish Christians in the early COE? (I'm wondering why you were called Nazarenes)

Several of the COE's patriarchs were Jews. Two were relatives of Jesus (Mar Abris (c. 121-c. 137) was related to the Virgin, and Mar Abraham I (c. 159-c. 171) was a relative of Yosip the Carpenter). The Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene (who built one of Jerusalem's Seven gates) was Jewish and made her subjects convert to this faith before Jesus (many of her subjects were in fact Hebrews who had reverted to paganism because of the diaspora induced by the original Assyrian empire). The exiles of the See of St.James were headed by the COE when that Ancient see met its end during the Bar Kochba revolt. The Assyrians were called Nazarenes in the old days, but the "name" thing is a problem for Assyrians and the last thing I want to introduce is that Assyrians are Jews since that will cause more chaos considering the current schisms with the Chaldean Church and the Ancient Church of the East, plus the "Assyrian vs Aramean" debate . Many people I know who are Jewish chose the COE over other forms of Christianity because it has a common history with Judaism and understands certain things others are not quite aware of. Many ancient laws observed in Judaism are in fact obeyed by older Assyrians- Niddah, prohibition of flesh meat (especially crayfish and o) for Bishops, the custom of sacrificing paschal lambs, etc. The COE is a Catholic Church it has had Patriarchs from China, Persia, Mongolia, and many other places, a very diverse Church.

Are you aware of the so-called "Orthodox Church of the East"?

Maybe the Ancient Church of the East ? They broke up due to issues with the Calendar and the Patriarch a few decades ago. There are many fragmented schismatic groups claiming jurisdiction authority from the COE as well.

It's why the SOC is "rum orthodox" (ie: follow the rum, the Romans).

Are you sure about that? I've only ever heard the Chalcedonians referred to as "rum orthodox".

Actually I meant the Oriental Orthodox Antiochan Patriarchate:

http://www.rum-orthodox.de/

Which substantiates my point that they broke out ahem.

Minas said:

I never thought using the native language to translate the gospels and other writings for people was a heresy to the Assyrian Church.

Hmmm...I don't know if its heresy but the COE does not give its seal of approval to any translation whatsoever. You can translate all you want you just cant say its the original. Failure to obey this means scripture turning into the works of men. It has happened hundreds (thousands ) of times before, why wont it happen again? Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees...

King Abgar spoke Aramaic. The Didache was in Aramaic (our Syriac version=correct). I have proof, Eusebius in his history says he translated the letters and other documents from the Edessene Archive.

Well, if Eusebius said this and you have proof that he did, I'm sure you can post this proof here so we can read it ourselves.  Otherwise, you speak as a person with no credibility.

D'oh!  I forgot.  You guys burn evidence.

here:

The 4th century church historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, records a tradition[5] concerning a correspondence on this occasion, exchanged between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus. Eusebius was convinced that the original letters, written in Syriac, were kept in the archives of Edessa. Eusebius also states that in due course, after Christ's ascension, Thaddeus, namely Addai (called Addaï), or one of the seventy-two Disciples, called Thaddeus of Edessa, was sent by Thomas the Apostle in AD 29. Eusebius copies the two letters into the text of his history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V_of_Edessa#Liturgical_use_of_the_letter_of_Abgar

the passage is in Historia Ecclesiastica, I, xiii

The "Chaldeans" are Assyrians who transferred their allegiance to the Patriarch of Rome instead of the Patriarch of Babylon and also have a few things not allowed in the ACOE like Icons, and a slightly different canon from the ACOE (the last 5 NT books are not in the COE reading cycle but are pious books reccomended for reading and often cited to respect sister churches).

When did your church stop using icons?

The Church ogf the East stopped using icons under pressure of conforming to surrounding Islamic society.  I have forgotten what centuries this was taking place.... anybody have a reference about this?    All that remained in the churches were quite simple crosses.

These days Assyrian faithful have icons in their home, the local Assyrian priest has an entire wall of them, but in the church itself he has only some quite plain wooden crosses.

Well, I hate to be mean but whenever a COE priest starts with this "the muslims made us do it" stuff they are simply kicking around the bush to be diplomatic and polite. I need to say it though: the COE considers Iconography a violation of the second command. Here are the words of the beloved Mar Shimun, the Patriarch before the current holy Mar Dinkha on this matter (will provide link to my text):

From the  Yulapana M'sheekhaya (Messianic Teaching) :

Question 377: "What is an Idol" ?

Answer: Anything which is made of wood, stone, silver, gold or any other thing by Christians or by gentiles or anybody else in the likeness of corruptible man, of bird, of four footed beasts and of creeping things and the like "that they may change the glory of the incorruptible God" is called an 'idol' or 'image' (Rom. 1:23-25).

Question 378: "Can we worship God without idols?"

Answer: The Question whether we could worship God without idols is really deplorable. If we believe that "God is Spirit", it is written that "...God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth" John 4:24

http://marshimun.com/pdfs/Yulpana%20part%20V.pdf

Now Mar Shimun, the previous deceased Patriarch is a Hero of the Assyrian people and a holy martyr to the muslims who murdered him. No self respecting Assyrian will budge on something he considered core. The new Catechism is here, but no change has been made concerning this policy:

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

Mar Shimun's catechism was written when most Assyrians were still secluded in the Hakkari mountains, BUT that is a core COE issue which will never change, the Ten Commandments are.

Important corrections :

1) The discussion on the meaning of Kyane is not right. I am not discussing these terms properly here I believe. The anaology of Mar Odisho can be found in it's proper context in the Book of Marganitha. Read it there
2) Niddah and banning food is not conducted in the ACOE to my knowledge anymore whatsoever. Only prelates refrain from meat and crayfish. What enters the mouth does not make a man unclean as was told me.
3)The details of Assyrian history here are not entirely correct. While logical to say so, I cannot prove that the first converts of the ACOE were of the See of St.James fleeing the siege instead of St. Peter in Seleukia-Ctesphon. I can say many many Jewish converts. Many.
3) Mar Shimun was murdered but I was thinking about the previous Patriarch I believe.
4) Assyrians are Assyrians. This is stressed by the Patriarch.
5) Assyrians don't ban iconography. They just don't have it inside the Sanctuary.

[Rafa999]

Hi. Well Desuveritas, each Qnome shares of the divine essence of the divine Kyana, three in one, one in three. It's worth noting that some ancient texts split the Godhead into even more Qnome and that these are the three main ones only. Isaiah 11 for example supports this views, but that is a very complicated view of Godhead I'm not dwellling on. Lets stick to three qnome. They are individuated instances, you for example are not less human in your human qnome than Minas or Papist or myself. Only God has three and we have only one. So that's it. Hypostasis was a LONG time ago used interchangeably with Qnome during debates held by the COE, but it became outdated  as the meaning changed slightly and started being identified with "person".

As for the Orthodox Church of the East stuff...hmmm...maybe its just Marco Polo confusing things or just another schismatic group? The COE Canons are stuffed with directives for rebellious clergy which suggests (also based on its history) a long tradition of schismatics. Just recently a Bishop was defrocked for trying to have the COE become Roman Catholic (Ashur Soros). So I wouldn't be surprised.

Some incorrect unorthodox information here. Only 3 Qnome for God- Father, Son, Holy Spirit. None more unlike what certain people have been proposing, this sad view of more than 3 Qnome and non-trinitarianism was in part the product of an ACOE member who is involved in the Hebrew roots movement and who I was talking at the moment of this thread. I should have watched myself more closely...

[Rafa999]

They are 3 Qnume. Three in one, but not persons. Can you say with a straight face that God the Father is a person? Would you call a goldfish a person? No that is incorrect. Talk about natures and individuated instances of that nature (Qnome) but the Person thing is foreign to ancient Syriac Christology.

Correction to this post:

An Orthodox definition of Qnume is a Vessel (no direct translation). Forget the definition of an "individuation of a nature" be it correct or not. Another Orthodox definition as given to me by a Deacon: A member of a taxonomic class. I have heard talk of Three Qnume in one person by the way. But never three persons in one.

[Rafa999]

"Qnome" was very similar in meaning to Hypostasis. The COE was referred to as "Nazarenes" within the Persian Empire and by the Muslims and their Caliphs. Later it became simply "Church of the East" and the present Patriarch added the "Assyrian" part to it to reflect that most of the members are currently ethnic Assyrians (ie: of Iraq). The "Chaldeans" are Assyrians who transferred their allegiance to the Patriarch of Rome instead of the Patriarch of Babylon and also have a few things not allowed in the ACOE like Icons, and a slightly different canon from the ACOE (the last 5 NT books are not in the COE reading cycle but are pious books reccomended for reading and often cited to respect sister churches). The Syriac Orthodox Church followed Cyril's teachings (made popular by Jacob Baradeus) and split from the COE. It's why the SOC is "rum orthodox" (ie: follow the rum, the Romans).

Correction:

Qnome is NOT Hypostasis!

also: of course the SOC is not "rum orthodox"...

[Rafa999]

And last: the ACOE has never been subject to any Church. It has always been independent and with a completely seperate parallel history to the entire West. For you to have an idea the Nicean Creed was only approved 80 years later when the Roman Embassador Marutha spresented it! Complete independence. This is what I mean with "Never been in communion with any other Church".  Needless to say, the idea of some that it split from the RCC is gunk, as is the idea that it "left the Church" in Ephesus, a council it didn't even participate in.

[Rafa999]

Concerning "Communion" :

A quote from Deacon friend:


if what is implied by "remained in communion" with the other Churches meant any sort of jurisdictional/ecclesiastical authority...then of course that is simply a fabrication of history. It's hard for the West to imagine that a completely independent (jurisdictional speaking) branch of the Church existed from the Apostolic days. It does not fit in well with how they have written the history of Christianity.

However if what is meant by "remained in communion" is that we considered every other Christian a part of the One Church, then absolutely yes. That remains the case even till today where any baptized Christian, no matter who, is welcomed at the communion meal as part of the CoE himself/herself.

[Rafa999]

Been correcting accidental mistatements. about one year and a half ago I stated on these boards that "God may have more than three Qnume". This is unorthodox and absolutely NOT ACOE doctrine! At the time I was under the sway of a baptized member of the ACOE who was promoting heretical "Hebrew roots" non-Trinitarian theology so he tried teaching in some of his books and conversations with me that God was not a Trinity but could have more than three qnume. This is Heresy- the ACOE believes in Three in One and One in Three! Three Qnume in One God. This is quickly verified by it's catechism. I needed to clarify that to all! Now, to avoid any such mispeaking (it is perfectly feasible other such mistakes were made), I am permanently leaving this forum. I am not supposed to be here as I already said anyways. I might send some private messages concerning salvation matters (not theology) here to some of you, but I will definitely leave.

[Rafa999]

With Certain Knowledge and responsibility comes certain sacrifice. One of the sacrifices I have had to make to prove my allegiance to the Church of the East is to occasionally set my face against other Christians (of diverse backgrounds). It is very sad but it must be done for the good of Christendom. No iconography in the COE. Now for the replies:

"Qnome" was very similar in meaning to Hypostasis.

Could you explain in other words what qnome and hypostasis mean in your tradition? If you can distinguish at all between the two in meaning, that would be helpful, but otherwise just one meaning will be good as well.

OK I will give this a shot. A Kyana is a Nature. The Ant nature for instance. A Qnome is a member of a taxonomic class, an individuated instance of a Kyana which does not contain its totality. Thus we have ant number one, number two, or human number one, human number two,etc. We as human beings have one Qnome for each person. God however is Special: he has THREE Qnome, three individuated instances of his Kyana, but they don't express the Totality of his Divinity by themselves. Thus we have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. The Son, the second Qnome dwelt with the Human nature of the Messiah side by side during the ministry of Jesus, and was bound in one Parsopa. Mar Odisho used the Light, the Warmth and the Yellow color of the sun ray to illustrate how Qnome is not some sort of modalism, rather they are intrinsic properties of the being or object in question, not extrinsic. I recommend you reading his catechism. For those who think this great Patriarch does not represent the mainstream of COE thought think again, his works are read every Qurbana:

http://www.assyrianchurch.org.au/media-e-p.htm

go to the English Sermons.

Were there a lot of Jewish Christians in the early COE? (I'm wondering why you were called Nazarenes)

Several of the COE's patriarchs were Jews. Two were relatives of Jesus (Mar Abris (c. 121-c. 137) was related to the Virgin, and Mar Abraham I (c. 159-c. 171) was a relative of Yosip the Carpenter). The Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene (who built one of Jerusalem's Seven gates) was Jewish and made her subjects convert to this faith before Jesus (many of her subjects were in fact Hebrews who had reverted to paganism because of the diaspora induced by the original Assyrian empire). The exiles of the See of St.James were headed by the COE when that Ancient see met its end during the Bar Kochba revolt. The Assyrians were called Nazarenes in the old days, but the "name" thing is a problem for Assyrians and the last thing I want to introduce is that Assyrians are Jews since that will cause more chaos considering the current schisms with the Chaldean Church and the Ancient Church of the East, plus the "Assyrian vs Aramean" debate . Many people I know who are Jewish chose the COE over other forms of Christianity because it has a common history with Judaism and understands certain things others are not quite aware of. Many ancient laws observed in Judaism are in fact obeyed by older Assyrians- Niddah, prohibition of flesh meat (especially crayfish and o) for Bishops, the custom of sacrificing paschal lambs, etc. The COE is a Catholic Church it has had Patriarchs from China, Persia, Mongolia, and many other places, a very diverse Church.

Are you aware of the so-called "Orthodox Church of the East"?

Maybe the Ancient Church of the East ? They broke up due to issues with the Calendar and the Patriarch a few decades ago. There are many fragmented schismatic groups claiming jurisdiction authority from the COE as well.

It's why the SOC is "rum orthodox" (ie: follow the rum, the Romans).

Are you sure about that? I've only ever heard the Chalcedonians referred to as "rum orthodox".

Actually I meant the Oriental Orthodox Antiochan Patriarchate:

http://www.rum-orthodox.de/

Which substantiates my point that they broke out ahem.

Minas said:

I never thought using the native language to translate the gospels and other writings for people was a heresy to the Assyrian Church.

Hmmm...I don't know if its heresy but the COE does not give its seal of approval to any translation whatsoever. You can translate all you want you just cant say its the original. Failure to obey this means scripture turning into the works of men. It has happened hundreds (thousands ) of times before, why wont it happen again? Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees...

King Abgar spoke Aramaic. The Didache was in Aramaic (our Syriac version=correct). I have proof, Eusebius in his history says he translated the letters and other documents from the Edessene Archive.

Well, if Eusebius said this and you have proof that he did, I'm sure you can post this proof here so we can read it ourselves.  Otherwise, you speak as a person with no credibility.

D'oh!  I forgot.  You guys burn evidence.

here:

The 4th century church historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, records a tradition[5] concerning a correspondence on this occasion, exchanged between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus. Eusebius was convinced that the original letters, written in Syriac, were kept in the archives of Edessa. Eusebius also states that in due course, after Christ's ascension, Thaddeus, namely Addai (called Addaï), or one of the seventy-two Disciples, called Thaddeus of Edessa, was sent by Thomas the Apostle in AD 29. Eusebius copies the two letters into the text of his history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V_of_Edessa#Liturgical_use_of_the_letter_of_Abgar

the passage is in Historia Ecclesiastica, I, xiii

The "Chaldeans" are Assyrians who transferred their allegiance to the Patriarch of Rome instead of the Patriarch of Babylon and also have a few things not allowed in the ACOE like Icons, and a slightly different canon from the ACOE (the last 5 NT books are not in the COE reading cycle but are pious books reccomended for reading and often cited to respect sister churches).

When did your church stop using icons?

The Church ogf the East stopped using icons under pressure of conforming to surrounding Islamic society.  I have forgotten what centuries this was taking place.... anybody have a reference about this?    All that remained in the churches were quite simple crosses.

These days Assyrian faithful have icons in their home, the local Assyrian priest has an entire wall of them, but in the church itself he has only some quite plain wooden crosses.

Well, I hate to be mean but whenever a COE priest starts with this "the muslims made us do it" stuff they are simply kicking around the bush to be diplomatic and polite. I need to say it though: the COE considers Iconography a violation of the second command. Here are the words of the beloved Mar Shimun, the Patriarch before the current holy Mar Dinkha on this matter (will provide link to my text):

From the  Yulapana M'sheekhaya (Messianic Teaching) :

Question 377: "What is an Idol" ?

Answer: Anything which is made of wood, stone, silver, gold or any other thing by Christians or by gentiles or anybody else in the likeness of corruptible man, of bird, of four footed beasts and of creeping things and the like "that they may change the glory of the incorruptible God" is called an 'idol' or 'image' (Rom. 1:23-25).

Question 378: "Can we worship God without idols?"

Answer: The Question whether we could worship God without idols is really deplorable. If we believe that "God is Spirit", it is written that "...God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth" John 4:24

http://marshimun.com/pdfs/Yulpana%20part%20V.pdf

Now Mar Shimun, the previous deceased Patriarch is a Hero of the Assyrian people and a holy martyr to the muslims who murdered him. No self respecting Assyrian will budge on something he considered core. The new Catechism is here, but no change has been made concerning this policy:

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

Mar Shimun's catechism was written when most Assyrians were still secluded in the Hakkari mountains, BUT that is a core COE issue which will never change, the Ten Commandments are.

1) Again this post contains a discussion of "Kyana" which I am unsure of. My understanding of the meaning of Qnome at the time was not truly Orthodox, a Qnome is a "Vessel" (Orthodox definition by a priest friend- NO DIRECT TRANSLATION EXISTS-) Read Mar Odisho's analogy of the Sun,etc. in his own context, the Book of Marganitha.

2) I have misquoted his Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun. The ACOE allows as far as I know people to carry icons and statues OUTSIDE the Sanctuary of the Church, so my quotes are a serious misquotation of his teaching. My apologies to the ACOE and to all here. I say this because I am not aware of the teaching of people with icons or statues being "idolaters" if this was so it would have been revealed to me immediately. I  have misread that passage I quoted and again I ask forgiveness for this serious misrepresentation of the Patriarch's words.

3) I am totally unsure of what happened between those Jews in the See of St. James and the Bishop of Babylon. I know for sure St. Peter converted many Jews in Babylon (Seleukia-Ctesiphon which had thousands of Jews) and these were some of the ACOE's early converts. If the Nazarenes in Jerusalem went to Babylon I donot know. I also linked to a book somewhere here on "Nestorians and the Lost tribes" by Asahel Grant on some interesting links between the Assyrians and the tribes deported by the Assyrian empire, but I know one thing for certain : Assyrians are Assyrians. Not "Chaldeans", not "Jews", not any other name for the nation. This is vital and affirmed repeatedly by the Patriarch.

4) Remember that I am an Inquirer in the ACOE only!