The COE views the Father, Son, and Ruach as qnome of the same kyana, rather than as hypostases sharing the same homoousious. It is much more intuitive than the Greek. It is ancient semitic based terminology used by the Messiah. What's good for the Messiah, Abraham, and the Prophets is good for me.
Well this semite of the seed of Abraham and the same Hebrew stock as the Messiah prays in Arabic and got his advanced degree in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at the U of C (tops in the field), taking Syriac as his second language exam for the PhD, having roamed from Harran in the North to the Brook of Egypt. Sorry, the hoary Semitic mumbo-jumbo won't impress me.
So, when and where did the Messiah say qnome or kyana?
Second, I dont believe the New Testament was written in Greek despite all Western "scholarly" claims to the contrary (like Bruce Metzger knows more than the Patriarch of Babylon on the origin of these holy texts.Sure...)
Even the Peshitta wasn't written in Babylon, so I don't know why the Patriarch of Babylon could make any special claim.
The Chaldean Catholic Church supposedly even had an autograph written by Mar Mari and Addai with them showing that the original was Aramaic. Go here: http://www.peshitta.org/ to read In Estrangelo (Eastern Syriac) the Peshitta.
You must have a different Bible, as we don't have the Gospel according to Mari nor the Epistles of Addai.
Further, we know Papias said that because of persecution most of the originals were lost in the Western world as people "translated best they could". This is too profound a topic and should be reserved for another time though.
Papias says that the Gospel AND ONLY the Gospel of Matthew was translated as best they could (btw., my working theory is that the Aramaic logia of Matthew is analogous to the postulated "Q", which was later translated by him into Greek).
And we have plenty of fragments in Greek going back to the second century AT THE LATEST.
Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.
We have the threads here already.
Third, you mentioned Acts 20:28. Ancient COE manuscripts expressly show that unscrupulous Monophysite scribes altered Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 from the original readings right after the Nestorius controversy. Here is the original reading of Acts 20:28 (see links, one is to the Khabouris Codex):
1) you first have to prove, not assume, Syriac primacy.
2) you have to find an early example, not a second millenium Codex like the Khabouris.http://www.melikiancollection.com/Selections/Biblical-Manuscripts/6798442_WYAw9
3) You have to prove that the Nestorians aren't the only who made the change.
the MESSIAH purchased the Church with his own blood. God does not have blood (though he owns all the blood in the world and accepted the blood of his precious son as a most holy Qurbana, ie: sin offering of the highest order), it is blasphemy to suggest that an invisible spirit fused with a human nature to produce blood and that the creator "died" ceased to exist and left the universe in disrepair. This simply cannot happen. It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.
Salpy, Ekhristosanesti, Minasuliman and any OO I have forgotten: this is why I say we are the same Faith, because I take it you find this blasphemous as I hope the EO do.
There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered.
That's an assertion. Any proof.
Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) it doesn't depend on what you say. Your proof?
The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do.
The Persian Empire had plenty of EO and OO, and the consort of the Shah, Shirin, famously favored them over the Nestorians. And yes, she had the Shah tell the Nestorians what to do. Further, Justinian sponsored the OO in the Sassanid empire, and Heracleus occupied it.
So its manuscript tradition is more reliable than that of the Syriac Orthodox Church which was influenced by the Byzantine sphere and "robber synods" like that of Ephesus.
Doesn't even work well in theory, let alone in fact. Fact is that we have the Greek of Acts 20:28 predating the ECUMENICAL Council of Ephesushttp://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=51&chapter=20&lid=en&side=r&verse=28&zoomSlider=0
That's the Codex Sinaiticus, written 325-360. You can look at the verse, written before the birth of Nestorius or Theodoret, and perhaps even Theodore of Mospsuestia, or even Diodore of Tarsus. To compare, here's the EO received text:
προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ῞Αγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος
I've boldfaced "His Own Blood." I'd boldface Christ/Messiah, but it's not in the text.
Again, what good are they without an English translation that I and most any poster on this forum can read?.
I usually take one post at a time, but I noticed this one, and I thought it apropos to answer here.
As I posted the Syriac text before
We believe that God purchased the Church with His Own Blood. Acts 20:28.
ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܝ ܕܩܢܗ ܒܕܡܗ
Let me parse to make a point:it reads "To-Church-his of-
This could have been phrased "to-church God-the which He=purchased-her by-Blood-his." The bold faced parts are pleonism that become increasingly common and regular from the standardization of Syriac, i.e. after the 3-4th century AD. Btw, Syriac comes from Eastern Aramaic, Our Lord spoke Western Aramaic. The Peshitta is Eastern Aramaic. This itself shows that the text, i.e. the translation, is not from 1st century Palestine, or 1st century Asia Minor, but centuries later and hundreds of miles away from where Our Lord taught.
Btw, for the Aramaically challenged, the MSS he has posted matches the printed text I posted above exactly, except where the MSS. has chnaged "God" to "Christ."
Anyways, I just want to say that the COE is actually very similar to the Orthodox Church but uses different terminology overall. The two pivotal differences I already gave you - Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28 have different readings in Eastern Syriac, further the COE does not accept the canonicity of the last five NT books and the pericope adultera (story of the adultress in the Gospel of John).
For those who want to check out the terminology:A Compendious Syriac Dictionary by Robert Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon 1903) is the standard (well, there is a larger standard, but it is in Latin).http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/PayneSmith/
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:
That's nice. I like a clear picture.
As for Qnome in Eastern Syriac, just read the NT at http://www.peshitta.org/ for countless instances.
If the instances are so countless, it shouldn't be quite a problem for you to cite one. How about kyana?