OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 03:23:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East  (Read 64927 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #90 on: December 17, 2009, 11:18:03 PM »

To answer:

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?



Quote
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.

Quote
 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.

We have the threads here already.

Quote
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):

http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=1&id=312
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=2&id=312

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered.

That's an assertion.  Any proof.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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 Ephesus
http://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.
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents_praxeis.asp&main=praxeis&file=2.20.htm

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-God-the she which-He-purchased-her by-Blood-his.

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."

Quote
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/

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

Quote
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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #91 on: December 17, 2009, 11:36:43 PM »

Phew, lots of questions. Well let me start with a reference to Mar Papia's work:

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/191-papias-fragments

go to fragment 6 of this translation of what is left of his Exposition of the Oracles of our Lord and you will see that he believed the Gospels were originally written in "Hebrew" and people did the best they could to translate. It was very common for the Western Fathers not fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic to confuse the two languages. Eusebius did this several times. We also know Hegesippus was acquainted with the Syriac text of the Peshitta.

Not unless he was a prophet since he predates it.


Quote
Anyways, Aramaic primacy/Peshitta primacy is a heavy subject and it is best if you go to peshitta.org to read by yourselves on this since it is very draining for a person not fully qualified to teach on these texts (such as myself) to be the sole authority you guys can access on their history. Please speak to the site mantainer, the Deacon Paul Younan, read his interlinear.

Somebody asked why so few Peshitta translations. There are actually several translations, but it is the opinion of the COE that God does not put his blessing on translating the text since every time this happens something goes wrong (witness Lamsa, monophysites altering scripture, judaizing movements, Roman Catholics altering readings, etc.) So the COE never authorizes any translation, you must learn syriac.

Now we know how Muslims got there idea on the Arabic of the Qur'an. Roll Eyes

At Pentacost, they weren't all speaking Syriac, or even Aramaic.


Quote
Also why is the Patriarch of Babylon (Seleukia-Ctesiphon) more reliable than Bruce Metzger? Well you guys already know the answer- because of laying on of hands ,apostolic succession,  because he has the proper chain of transmission of these sacred doctrines while protestants weren't there 2000 years ago hearing St.Peter talk in Babylon,

Yes, I'm familar with the Assyrain claim of St. Peter being in Babylon (based on I Peter 5:13), but that was written in Rome, at a time when the city of Babylon in Mesopotamia had been abandoned for over two centuries.

And you are comparing apples and oranges.  Bruce Metzger is a scholar, the Patriarch or rather Catholicos of Seleukia-Ctesiphon (now in Chicago) is a primate, which doesn't require scholarship (especially given the occurance of ordaining children in the COE to that post).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Marshimun.jpg

Quote
nor did Bruce Metzger receive the priesthood from the 2 disciples Addai and Mar Mari. These offices are given by God himself and stipulate that the COE is an apostolic church with apostolic founders while Metzger talks of himself.
Well, the problem is that you claim to be an Apostolic Church, we EO make the same claim, as do the OO, and the Vatican.  But yet we do not teach the same thing.  Ordinarily Apostolic claims would trump Protestantism, but when it comes to MSS studies, it doesn't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #92 on: December 17, 2009, 11:41:17 PM »

Well guys, its just the opinion of the COE that these texts are in danger of becoming the works of men, thus it is better to "targum" the text in peoples language, but not cannot allow translations to ever substitute the original (giving authorization to a translation would be part of that process).

So we should stick with the original Greek (and the Peshitta itself shows it is a translation)?  And for the Hebrew, Septuagint or Hebrew (which, as you pointed out, is not identical even to Aramaic, let alone Syriac).

Quote
I believe there's nothing wrong in reading the Gospel in your own tongue and that as long as a translation is not deliberately deceptive like that of a JW or a Mormon its ok, but there's that danger of the text becoming "standardized" into the mold some group wants it to be in. There are nuances in the Aramaic which cannot be translated to full fidelity in any language. Take words like "Miltha" or "Qnome"...better leave untranslated. Think about the number of revisions the King James bible has undergone and you will see that no translation can ever live up to the original.
Any translation that is understood is superior to a text that is not.

So we should leave λόγος untranslated?  I'm reserving comment on qnome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2009, 11:44:14 PM »

Take words like "Miltha" or "Qnome"...better leave untranslated. Think about the number of revisions the King James bible has undergone and you will see that no translation can ever live up to the original.

I think I understand what you mean. "Miltha" is "Logos" in Greek which is a pretty complex word which has been translated as "Word" in most Bibles. I don't like "Word" since "Logos" is much more complex as I'm sure "Miltha" is a as well. The New Testament I have which is printed by a Greek monastery decided not to translate it which I think is the best idea. I think with "Word" many Protestants think that it is talking about the Scripture and that the Scripture is in some way divine or something. I can see your point how a lot can be mistranslated and taken out of context.

That unfortunately is only a problem in the Protestant English world.  I don't think it is, for instance, in Ireland.  Leave a lot untranslated, and it starts to read like jargon.  A language has to be baptized, too.  Every language.

Quote
Though, our views differ since I believe that the New Testament was originally Greek with the exception of St. Matthews Gospel which was clearly written to Jewish readers whom he pointed out was the Messiah that the Prophets wrote about and that Christ fulfilled the Law and Prophets. It seems though that the rest was written in Greek.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2009, 11:56:22 PM »

Quote
"Miltha" is "Logos" in Greek which is a pretty complex word which has been translated as "Word" in most Bibles. I don't like "Word" since "Logos" is much more complex as I'm sure "Miltha" is a as well.

Exactly. Don't you get annoyed when you see Oral Boyle or Pat Robertson going "The wooordddd did so forth and so forth" not even knowing how this refers to a complex New Testament concept which has roots going all the way to thousands of years ago, all the way back to important ancient Jewish mystical doctrines which require years of study to properly comprehend? So sometimes it is better to leave the text untranslated. I even have a friend who (from a Jewish background) converted to the COE many years ago and who says that the one thing he "can't forgive" is how people translated the text improperly, sometimes deliberately (Monophysites deliberately altered the text, the COE has extensive proof they did this, particularly in Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28).

let's see some of it. I've already given the proof that the EO and OO reading is correct.

Quote
Even Codex Vaticanus has a note on the margins with one of the scribes writing "you fool, why can't you leave the original reading alone". I'm not joking, its here:

http://www.peshitta.org/images/vaticanus.jpg

on the margin of Hebrews 1:3. We must prevent scripture from becoming the works of men.
What, pray tell, were they correcting in Hebrews 1:3?  Btw, it says "Fool and knave, leave the old  and do not correct!" — "ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει"
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 11:58:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2009, 11:58:29 PM »

Rafa, welcome to the forum!  Smiley

Sorry to interrupt the current discussion, but I have some questions for you or for anyway else who might know (and I'm thinking ialmisry might). 

1) Ialmisry posted a link to an article a while back talking about how the COE once had icons but has since done away with them.  I've also read else where that the COE considers iconography idolatrous.  Is this last statement true? Have you heard this about your church once having iconography?  Do you (or anyone else) have any idea when it was done away with?  Was there an "iconoclastic controversy" in the history of the COE? 

2) I understand that the COE allows all baptized Christians from "apostolic" churches (defined as RC, OO, EO, Anglican, Scandinavian Lutherans) to partake of their communion.  How long has open commmunion been the practice?

3) What sort of liturgical reforms caused the recent split between the Assyrian Church of the East (COE) and the Ancient Church of the East?

4) Salpy mentioned that Armenians and Assyrians often intermarry.  Do Armenians allow Assyrians to commune in their churches?

5) Does the COE practice baptizism by threefold immersion?

I did not realize the COE doesn't consider the last five books of the NT canonical.  That's very interesting.  Can you cite a source for that?

Thanks for entertaining all my questions!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:00:59 AM by GregoryLA » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2009, 12:09:39 AM »

Well iamisry, you know your stuff, however there are several problems. First, you did not prove Papias wrong. Papias was an apostolic man per excellence, he knew the apostles firsthand and says that the Hebrew (or rather Aramaic since both Hebrew and Aramaic use the same Ktav Ashurri script) is the original. I am a Peshitta primacist but I'm not here to convince anybody on this since others have spent their entire lives doing research on the Peshitta and are more qualified than me to defend this position.

You compared the COE to the Muslims on this. You are right- the COE is no different than the Muslims and the Jews on this subject. In fact Mohammed knew a COE monk by the name of Bahira. Islam has origins in Syriac Christianity believe it or not (not the fault of Assyrians that he became a heretic though).

It is not an "assertion" that a Western version of the Peshitta exists versus an Eastern version. The Chaldean Roman Catholics and Orthodox uses its version which includes the disputed 5 books and the disputed renderings, and the COE uses a different version which is practically identical to the Khabouris codex and the Mingana Peshitta. Also, how can you say I blaspheme for saying God does not have (literally) blood?  No semite would say that with a straight face that God has literal blood. The Messiah has blood and offered it as a Qurbana on the cross. Babylon was full of people in the first century, it was Seleukia-Ctesiphon, major city of the Seleukid empire and later the Parthians. Also I never said the COE has any "gospel of Addai or Mari" I was saying that they hand delivered, according to legend, the NT autographs to the early believers, and that the Chaldean church supposedly had a copy of the autographs copied down by one of these disciples friends. Also, you just confessed Justinian told the OO what to believe in, that's exactly my point. I am attempting to convince a COE Qasha to answer your questions, I simply am not sufficiently qualified (ie: not fluent in Syriac) to answer many of them.

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this. The Chaldeans who are Assyrians who transferred their loyalty to the Patriarch of Rome are less strict on this. Point 2 is correct, the COE allows communion with other apostolic churches and has lifted all its anathemas (something which was not reciprocated). The key point is believing in a trinitarian formula for baptism as you said in point five. Well, as for source for the COE not considering these books canonical, they just didn't reach the Assyrians until the late 19th century (British protestant missionaries). The COE only includes the first 22 books in its reading cycle if I am correct but refers to the last 5 as pious books. They have a different chain of transmission than the 22 Peshitta books, I believe in the last five books canonicity though (but its my opinion only). Assyrians welcome Armenians in their churches and often go to Armenian churches for communion (even though the Armenian church canons forbid this practice I believe- strong ties between the two peoples).
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:18:08 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

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

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2009, 12:20:17 AM »

Well iamisry, you know your stuff, however there are several problems. First, you did not prove Papias wrong. Papias was an apostolic man per excellence, he knew the apostles firsthand and says that the Hebrew (or rather Aramaic since both Hebrew and Aramaic use the same Ktav Ashurri script) is the original.

I don't think Isa (iamisry) said Papias was wrong.  All he said was that Papias only claimed that Matthew was written in Hebrew and not the whole NT.  I think, on the other hand, your claim is that the whole NT was written in Aramaic and you cite Papias in support of this.  I believe because of this Isa's point was that your source does not support your conclusion as you would like it to.

Sorry to interfere, I just thought I would clarify things.  I know Isa could've answered for himself.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #98 on: December 18, 2009, 12:28:49 AM »

4) Salpy mentioned that Armenians and Assyrians often intermarry.  Do Armenians allow Assyrians to commune in their churches?


Technically I don't think it's proper, but it happens sometimes out of "pastoral sensitivity."  If an Armenian parishioner brings his Assyrian relatives to church with him, it's not unheard of for the priest to commune the Assyrian relatives.

You also have to put this in the context of what happened to both the Armenians and Assyrians during the Genocide of 1915.  It's often called the "Armenian Genocide," but the Assyrians who lived in what is today Eastern Turkey were also slaughtered.  Many of those who survived went into diaspora, just as the Armenians did, and I think that is one of the reasons why there has been so much intermarriage.  The Armenian Church was badly affected by the Genocide, with over 90% of her clergy martyred by the Turks, and I am assuming the COE was similarly affected, although Rafa could probably tell us about this in more detail.

Given these facts it should not be surprising that intermarriage occurs, or that Armenians and Assyrians sometimes attend each other's churches.  When you suffer together such a cataclysmic event and survive, and you find that most of your Church's clergy has been wiped out, you are not going to care so much about obscure theological issues.

An example was my grandfather's cousin.  After the Genocide, he lived in the Fresno area of California.  This was back in the days when matchmaking was an actual profession, and when it came time for him to marry, a matchmaker found him a young Assyrian girl who was on the East Coast.  He travelled by train across the country to meet her, marry her, and bring her back with him.  I think my cousins told me she was very young, in her mid-teens.  I think she had lost much of her family during the Genocide and I guess this was her way of finding a new family.  The poor thing was so shy and traditional, she could barely speak to her new husband, and for a long time she would not even eat in front of him.

Anyway, I am only bringing this up to point out that in real life, especially when one considers the events of 1915, the last thing people are going to bring up is theology, Christology, councils that were held 1500 years ago, etc.  Things just become more basic.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: December 18, 2009, 12:29:20 AM »

Quote
"Miltha" is "Logos" in Greek which is a pretty complex word which has been translated as "Word" in most Bibles. I don't like "Word" since "Logos" is much more complex as I'm sure "Miltha" is a as well.

Exactly. Don't you get annoyed when you see Oral Boyle or Pat Robertson going "The wooordddd did so forth and so forth" not even knowing how this refers to a complex New Testament concept which has roots going all the way to thousands of years ago, all the way back to important ancient Jewish mystical doctrines which require years of study to properly comprehend? So sometimes it is better to leave the text untranslated. I even have a friend who (from a Jewish background) converted to the COE many years ago and who says that the one thing he "can't forgive" is how people translated the text improperly, sometimes deliberately (Monophysites deliberately altered the text, the COE has extensive proof they did this, particularly in Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28). Even Codex Vaticanus has a note on the margins with one of the scribes writing "you fool, why can't you leave the original reading alone". I'm not joking, its here:

http://www.peshitta.org/images/vaticanus.jpg

on the margin of Hebrews 1:3. We must prevent scripture from becoming the works of men.

Speaking as a moderator, I need to know whom you're calling Monophysites.  If you're referring to the Oriental Orthodox, specifically the Coptic Orthodox, with that name, I must ask you to stop and choose some more respectful label, since the Oriental Orthodox who frequent this forum find "Monophysite" quite insulting.  For specific citation of administrative policy on this, please read this directive from site founder, Fr. Anastasios:
Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be prejorative by other members of this forum:

Uniate: please use Eastern Catholic.
Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.

Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology in dialog on this forum.
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #100 on: December 18, 2009, 12:33:17 AM »

Well iamisry, you know your stuff, however there are several problems. First, you did not prove Papias wrong. Papias was an apostolic man per excellence, he knew the apostles firsthand and says that the Hebrew (or rather Aramaic since both Hebrew and Aramaic use the same Ktav Ashurri script) is the original. I am a Peshitta primacist but I'm not here to convince anybody on this since others have spent their entire lives doing research on the Peshitta and are more qualified than me to defend this position.

You compared the COE to the Muslims on this. You are right- the COE is no different than the Muslims and the Jews on this subject. In fact Mohammed knew a COE monk by the name of Bahira. Islam has origins in Syriac Christianity believe it or not (not the fault of Assyrians that he became a heretic though).

It is not an "assertion" that a Western version of the Peshitta exists versus an Eastern version. The Chaldean Roman Catholics and Orthodox uses its version which includes the disputed 5 books and the disputed renderings, and the COE uses a different version which is practically identical to the Khabouris codex and the Mingana Peshitta. Also, how can you say I blaspheme for saying God does not have (literally) blood?  No semite would say that with a straight face that God has literal blood. The Messiah has blood and offered it as a Qurbana on the cross. Babylon was full of people in the first century, it was Seleukia-Ctesiphon, major city of the Seleukid empire and later the Parthians. Also I never said the COE has any "gospel of Addai or Mari" I was saying that they hand delivered, according to legend, the NT autographs to the early believers, and that the Chaldean church supposedly had a copy of the autographs copied down by one of these disciples friends. Also, you just confessed Justinian told the OO what to believe in, that's exactly my point. I am attempting to convince a COE Qasha to answer your questions, I simply am not sufficiently qualified (ie: not fluent in Syriac) to answer many of them.

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this. The Chaldeans who are Assyrians who transferred their loyalty to the Patriarch of Rome are less strict on this. Point 2 is correct, the COE allows communion with other apostolic churches and has lifted all its anathemas (something which was not reciprocated). The key point is believing in a trinitarian formula for baptism as you said in point five. Well, as for source for the COE not considering these books canonical, they just didn't reach the Assyrians until the late 19th century (British protestant missionaries). The COE only includes the first 22 books in its reading cycle if I am correct but refers to the last 5 as pious books. They have a different chain of transmission than the 22 Peshitta books, I believe in the last five books canonicity though (but its my opinion only). Assyrians welcome Armenians in their churches and often go to Armenian churches for communion (even though the Armenian church canons forbid this practice I believe- strong ties between the two peoples).

So the COE baptizes by threeforld immersion?  I couldn't make a clear answer to that question in your post.  You mentioned a "trinitarian formula" by all trinitarian Christians practice this- not all baptize by threefold immersion- some sprinkle or immerse only once. 

Also, what were the liturgical reforms inacted in the 1970s by the Assyrian Church of the East which caused some traditionalists to form the Ancient Church of the East?

Also, here is the link to the book on early iconography in the COE, it's written by a professor of Eastern Christian studies at a university in the Netherlands, I believe.

http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/9783110204155.3.324

Here's a review of said article...
http://www.thevoiceoforthodoxy.com/book_reviews.html

Also, archaeology seems to support the existence of iconography in the early years of the COE...

http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Zayton.htm

Also, I'd like to add I'm not trying to be accusatory.  I just think it's fairly obvious that the Assyrian Church of the East at one point was not (at least in its entirety) opposed to images and this changed at some point.  I'm wondering when this change occurred, if the Assyrian Church's hierarchy acknowledges it happening and under what circumstances it happened.

Thanks again!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:39:44 AM by GregoryLA » Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #101 on: December 18, 2009, 12:34:21 AM »

Also, how can you say I blaspheme for saying God does not have (literally) blood? ...The Messiah has blood and offered it as a Qurbana on the cross.

A demonstration of why we regard such a sentiment blasphemy, by way of a simple syllogism:

Your first premise: God does not have blood.
Your second premise: The Messiah has blood.
The conclusion that logically follows: Therefore, the Messiah is not God.



Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #102 on: December 18, 2009, 12:36:58 AM »

4) Salpy mentioned that Armenians and Assyrians often intermarry.  Do Armenians allow Assyrians to commune in their churches?


Technically I don't think it's proper, but it happens sometimes out of "pastoral sensitivity."  If an Armenian parishioner brings his Assyrian relatives to church with him, it's not unheard of for the priest to commune the Assyrian relatives.

You also have to put this in the context of what happened to both the Armenians and Assyrians during the Genocide of 1915.  It's often called the "Armenian Genocide," but the Assyrians who lived in what is today Eastern Turkey were also slaughtered.  Many of those who survived went into diaspora, just as the Armenians did, and I think that is one of the reasons why there has been so much intermarriage.  The Armenian Church was badly affected by the Genocide, with over 90% of her clergy martyred by the Turks, and I am assuming the COE was similarly affected, although Rafa could probably tell us about this in more detail.

Given these facts it should not be surprising that intermarriage occurs, or that Armenians and Assyrians sometimes attend each other's churches.  When you suffer together such a cataclysmic event and survive, and you find that most of your Church's clergy has been wiped out, you are not going to care so much about obscure theological issues.

An example was my grandfather's cousin.  After the Genocide, he lived in the Fresno area of California.  This was back in the days when matchmaking was an actual profession, and when it came time for him to marry, a matchmaker found him a young Assyrian girl who was on the East Coast.  He travelled by train across the country to meet her, marry her, and bring her back with him.  I think my cousins told me she was very young, in her mid-teens.  I think she had lost much of her family during the Genocide and I guess this was her way of finding a new family.  The poor thing was so shy and traditional, she could barely speak to her new husband, and for a long time she would not even eat in front of him.

Anyway, I am only bringing this up to point out that in real life, especially when one considers the events of 1915, the last thing people are going to bring up is theology, Christology, councils that were held 1500 years ago, etc.  Things just become more basic.

That's definitely a difficult and heartbreaking situation.  I didn't mean in judgment in my question and if I came across that way or if I harbored that unknowingly, I'm sorry. 

Thank you for your answer!
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #103 on: December 18, 2009, 12:38:15 AM »

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this.

Did they once have iconography in the ancient days [EDIT](It would seem that this is a yes based of Gregory's post? Is the COE's prohibition come from Islamic influence? I do not wish to go into iconography here, if you want we can do another thread, but if it goes against the Ten Commandments, then I say God broke that one when He commanded two Cherubim images on the Ark of the Covenant and there were images in the Temple. On another note, if iconography is against the commandments, then it doesn't seem to make sense that the COE would allow EO, OO, and Catholics to partake of communion when they use icons in their worship. I actually don't have to defend iconography since St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite did this pretty well a long time ago.

It is nice though having a member of the COE around and I appreciate the information you have provided since I have to admit, my knowledge of the COE is pretty limited (read a little info in An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity which I didn't have the time to read much of). Thanks for the information. Hope the questions and what not aren't too much.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:43:26 AM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #104 on: December 18, 2009, 12:40:13 AM »

I didn't mean in judgment in my question and if I came across that way or if I harbored that unknowingly, I'm sorry. 

I did not perceive anything judgmental about your tone.  It's a legitimate question and I am happy to answer it.   Smiley
Logged

GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2009, 12:42:32 AM »

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this.

Did they once have iconography in the ancient days or is it a newer idea influenced by Islam? I do not wish to go into iconography here, if you want we can do another thread, but if it goes against the Ten Commandments, then I say God broke that one when He commanded two Cherubim images on the Ark of the Covenant and there were images in the Temple. On another note, if iconography is against the commandments, then it doesn't seem to make sense that the COE would allow EO, OO, and Catholics to partake of communion when they use icons in their worship. I actually don't have to defend iconography since St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite did this pretty well a long time ago.

It is nice though having a member of the COE around and I appreciate the information you have provided since I have to admit, my knowledge of the COE is pretty limited (read a little info in An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity which I didn't have the time to read much of). Thanks for the information. Hope the questions and what not aren't too much.  Cheesy

I hope to get this book soon!
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2009, 12:45:48 AM »

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this.

Did they once have iconography in the ancient days or is it a newer idea influenced by Islam? I do not wish to go into iconography here, if you want we can do another thread, but if it goes against the Ten Commandments, then I say God broke that one when He commanded two Cherubim images on the Ark of the Covenant and there were images in the Temple. On another note, if iconography is against the commandments, then it doesn't seem to make sense that the COE would allow EO, OO, and Catholics to partake of communion when they use icons in their worship. I actually don't have to defend iconography since St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite did this pretty well a long time ago.

It is nice though having a member of the COE around and I appreciate the information you have provided since I have to admit, my knowledge of the COE is pretty limited (read a little info in An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity which I didn't have the time to read much of). Thanks for the information. Hope the questions and what not aren't too much.  Cheesy

I hope to get this book soon!

The photography in it is beautiful and some of the info I read from it was useful. I was able to find it at a University library and I borrowed it but didn’t get to read it in depth as much as I wanted to but I’ll probably borrow it again.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:46:10 AM by Andrew21091 » Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #107 on: December 18, 2009, 12:58:18 AM »

I do read Aramaic, but I think you mean Syriac (which I also read).  

ܩܪܐ ܐܢܬ ܠܐܪܡܝܐ ܥܬܕܩܐ ܕܗܘ ܩܕܡ ܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ؟ ܬܒ ܫܦܝܪ. ܡܨܐ ܐܢܬ ܟܝ ܕܬܣܬܟܠ ܘܕܬܡܠܠ ܒܠܫܢܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܝܟ ܛܘܪܝܐ ܬܘܒ ܐܘ  ܒܠܚܘܕ ܩܪܐ ܐܢܬ ܠܟܬܒܢܝܐ؟

ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ ܐܡܪܬ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܕܡ ܘܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ ܡܕܡ ܐܚܪܝܢ.  ܥܡܐ ܕܩܪܝܬ ܡܥܠܘܠܐ ܡܡܠܠ ܒܐܪܡܝܐ ܘܠܘ ܒܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܒܗܝ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܪܡܝܐ ܡܥܪܒܝܐ ܘܠܘ ܡܕܢܚܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ

Ialmisry,
ܫܘܐܠܐ ܠܟ̣

ܣܢܝܩ ܐܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܬܘܪܨ ܡܡܠܠܐ.  ܐܪܐ ܝܕܥ ܐܢܬ ܚܕ؟

اذا فيك تنصحني بواحد ممتاز بكون ممنون الك


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

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


« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2009, 01:06:46 AM »

Here are a couple of COE documents for those interested:

http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_documents.html

The Nicene creed in Syriac used for threefold immersion is on that website. The COE approved the Nicean creed in 410 under Mar Isaac. Yes, the COE uses the correct formula ("In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"). As for the iconography issue, its sort of tricky, you see the COE was a very potent missionary force in the middle ages. In Asia, as you can see, some cases of local populations using iconography like other Christians occurred. By the way, there are actually Mongolian-Aramaic bibles in existence, the COE had followers all the way to Peking, in fact one of its patriarchs was Chinese. There's a book containing the travels of the Holy St. Bar Saumo which I highly recommend you read at Peshitta.org its called "The Monks of Kublai Khan" by Wallis Budget. Kublai Khan's mother was from the COE.

Logged

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

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2009, 01:07:38 AM »

As for your questions Gregory, the COE believes that iconography is a violation of the ten commandments and are somewhat strict on this.

Did they once have iconography in the ancient days or is it a newer idea influenced by Islam? I do not wish to go into iconography here, if you want we can do another thread, but if it goes against the Ten Commandments, then I say God broke that one when He commanded two Cherubim images on the Ark of the Covenant and there were images in the Temple. On another note, if iconography is against the commandments, then it doesn't seem to make sense that the COE would allow EO, OO, and Catholics to partake of communion when they use icons in their worship. I actually don't have to defend iconography since St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite did this pretty well a long time ago.

It is nice though having a member of the COE around and I appreciate the information you have provided since I have to admit, my knowledge of the COE is pretty limited (read a little info in An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity which I didn't have the time to read much of). Thanks for the information. Hope the questions and what not aren't too much.  Cheesy

I hope to get this book soon!

The photography in it is beautiful and some of the info I read from it was useful. I was able to find it at a University library and I borrowed it but didn’t get to read it in depth as much as I wanted to but I’ll probably borrow it again.


Oh, to have access to a university library again! Cheesy

Problem is, I was always too busy with either classes or my social life to really take full advantage of it.  I've realized recently that I've only really learned how to study and enjoy it now- three and a half years after I finished school. Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #110 on: December 18, 2009, 01:12:04 AM »

Well iamisry, you know your stuff, however there are several problems. First, you did not prove Papias wrong. Papias was an apostolic man per excellence, he knew the apostles firsthand and says that the Hebrew (or rather Aramaic since both Hebrew and Aramaic use the same Ktav Ashurri script) is the original. I am a Peshitta primacist but I'm not here to convince anybody on this since others have spent their entire lives doing research on the Peshitta and are more qualified than me to defend this position.

I didn't try to prove Papias wrong because I believe he is correct.  He, as someone has already pointed out, is only speaking of the Gospel of Matthew.

Quote
You compared the COE to the Muslims on this. You are right- the COE is no different than the Muslims and the Jews on this subject. In fact Mohammed knew a COE monk by the name of Bahira. Islam has origins in Syriac Christianity believe it or not (not the fault of Assyrians that he became a heretic though).

I once cornered a group of Muslims in Egypt into having to admit if the Qur'an can only be in Arabic, then Islam is only a religion for Arabs (not this Arab).

Quote
It is not an "assertion" that a Western version of the Peshitta exists versus an Eastern version. The Chaldean Roman Catholics and Orthodox uses its version which includes the disputed 5 books and the disputed renderings, and the COE uses a different version which is practically identical to the Khabouris codex and the Mingana Peshitta.



Quote
Also, how can you say I blaspheme for saying God does not have (literally) blood?  No semite would say that with a straight face that God has literal blood.


This Semite does.  And this Semite did: "My Blood is Drink Indeed." ܘܕܡܝ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܫܬܝܐ

I assure you, my face is quite straight, as was His.

Quote
The Messiah has blood and offered it as a Qurbana on the cross.

That He did.

Quote
Babylon was full of people in the first century, it was Seleukia-Ctesiphon, major city of the Seleukid empire and later the Parthians.

Seleucia-Ctesiphon was a major city on the Tigris, to which, as a tablet records at the time of 275 B.C., the population of Babylon, which was on the Euphrates, was moved wholescale.


Quote
Also I never said the COE has any "gospel of Addai or Mari" I was saying that they hand delivered, according to legend, the NT autographs to the early believers, and that the Chaldean church supposedly had a copy of the autographs copied down by one of these disciples friends.

Then that's odd, because the Peshitta is in Northeast Syriac, and the early believers, i.e. Christ and the Apostles, spoke South-West Aramaic.

Quote
Also, you just confessed Justinian told the OO what to believe in, that's exactly my point.


You claimed that the Sassanids protected the COE from Orthodox influence and my point is that it did not.

Quote
I am attempting to convince a COE Qasha to answer your questions, I simply am not sufficiently qualified (ie: not fluent in Syriac) to answer many of them.

We'll do a simple one, with the verse we just spoke of.  The scene in Acts 20 is in Western Asia, where no one spoke Aramaic, and everyone by the first century spoke Greek.  In the text you linked:
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=1&id=312
third line from the bottom, in the middle, you see the word "apesqope"
ܐܦܤܩܘܦܐ
this is not the same as the word used in, say I Timothy 3:2, where the old word "elder" "qishshiisha" ܩܫܝܫܐ is used, as it is in Acts 20:17 (for Greek πρεσβυτερος).

The word is an obvious borrowing from the Greek "επισκοπος."  Why would they use a foreign term (and the word stands out as foreign as zdrovie does in English) if they had a perfectly good Aramaic one available, as used in Acts 20:17?  And why does the difference in terms dove tail both in the Greek and Syriac of Acts 20?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2009, 01:14:54 AM »

Here are a couple of COE documents for those interested:

http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_documents.html

The Nicene creed in Syriac used for threefold immersion is on that website. The COE approved the Nicean creed in 410 under Mar Isaac. Yes, the COE uses the correct formula ("In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"). As for the iconography issue, its sort of tricky, you see the COE was a very potent missionary force in the middle ages. In Asia, as you can see, some cases of local populations using iconography like other Christians occurred. By the way, there are actually Mongolian-Aramaic bibles in existence, the COE had followers all the way to Peking, in fact one of its patriarchs was Chinese. There's a book containing the travels of the Holy St. Bar Saumo which I highly recommend you read at Peshitta.org its called "The Monks of Kublai Khan" by Wallis Budget. Kublai Khan's mother was from the COE.



Sorry to be persistent, but I don't think you've understood my question.  Or if you have, I don't fully understand your answer. Haha. 

I'm not asking do you baptize "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  I assumed you do.  What I'm asking is do you actually submerge the person being bapized three seperate times under the water, as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do. 

Most western churches that I'm aware of do it like this...

"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
*dunk you under the water once*

The EO and OO do it like this...

"In the name of the Father"
*dunk you the first time*
"And the Son"
*dunk you the second time*
"And the Holy Spirit"
*dunk you the third and final time*

Of course, in some cases pouring over the head is also allowed but I think it's always three times.

So which practice is held by the COE?

« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 01:18:08 AM by GregoryLA » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #112 on: December 18, 2009, 04:56:55 AM »

I was wondering who are the "Monophysites" and if you can, please show how these "Monophysites" changed some verses in the Bible?

I also want to point out as Peter did earlier, Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, etc. don't like to be referred to as "Monophysite", since they consider it a heresy as well.

Also, your Christology is odd.  We base our terminology and beliefs on the foundation of St. John's gospel, where he states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."  And further more, it is recorded by the evangelist that St. John the Forerunner spoke of "After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me."  St. John not only says that there is a Man who comes before Him, but existed before he existed.  The same pronoun used on Christ is the same pronoun used in His divinity.  Therefore, if you deny God had blood, you deny, in our understanding, Christ's divinity, and therefore turning Christ into two persons.  If St. John the Forerunner can say that this Man was pre-existent, why do you deny the blood of God incarnate?

« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 05:19:42 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #113 on: December 18, 2009, 05:17:42 AM »

Here are a couple of COE documents for those interested:

http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_documents.html

The Nicene creed in Syriac used for threefold immersion is on that website. The COE approved the Nicean creed in 410 under Mar Isaac. Yes, the COE uses the correct formula ("In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"). As for the iconography issue, its sort of tricky, you see the COE was a very potent missionary force in the middle ages. In Asia, as you can see, some cases of local populations using iconography like other Christians occurred. By the way, there are actually Mongolian-Aramaic bibles in existence, the COE had followers all the way to Peking, in fact one of its patriarchs was Chinese. There's a book containing the travels of the Holy St. Bar Saumo which I highly recommend you read at Peshitta.org its called "The Monks of Kublai Khan" by Wallis Budget. Kublai Khan's mother was from the COE.



Sorry to be persistent, but I don't think you've understood my question.  Or if you have, I don't fully understand your answer. Haha. 

I'm not asking do you baptize "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  I assumed you do.  What I'm asking is do you actually submerge the person being bapized three seperate times under the water, as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do. 

Most western churches that I'm aware of do it like this...

"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
*dunk you under the water once*

The EO and OO do it like this...

"In the name of the Father"
*dunk you the first time*
"And the Son"
*dunk you the second time*
"And the Holy Spirit"
*dunk you the third and final time*

Of course, in some cases pouring over the head is also allowed but I think it's always three times.

So which practice is held by the COE?


The Assyrians baptize by threefold immersion, just like all other eastern churches; they also have other ceremonies and rites of baptism similar or identical with those of the Orthodox, such as the anointing and the chrismation immediately following baptism.
I have the book containing the order of baptism of their church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #114 on: December 18, 2009, 12:14:37 PM »

I do read Aramaic, but I think you mean Syriac (which I also read).  

ܩܪܐ ܐܢܬ ܠܐܪܡܝܐ ܥܬܕܩܐ ܕܗܘ ܩܕܡ ܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ؟ ܬܒ ܫܦܝܪ. ܡܨܐ ܐܢܬ ܟܝ ܕܬܣܬܟܠ ܘܕܬܡܠܠ ܒܠܫܢܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܝܟ ܛܘܪܝܐ ܬܘܒ ܐܘ  ܒܠܚܘܕ ܩܪܐ ܐܢܬ ܠܟܬܒܢܝܐ؟

ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ ܐܡܪܬ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܕܡ ܘܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ ܡܕܡ ܐܚܪܝܢ.  ܥܡܐ ܕܩܪܝܬ ܡܥܠܘܠܐ ܡܡܠܠ ܒܐܪܡܝܐ ܘܠܘ ܒܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܒܗܝ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܪܡܝܐ ܡܥܪܒܝܐ ܘܠܘ ܡܕܢܚܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ

Ialmisry,
ܫܘܐܠܐ ܠܟ̣

ܣܢܝܩ ܐܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܬܘܪܨ ܡܡܠܠܐ.  ܐܪܐ ܝܕܥ ܐܢܬ ܚܕ؟

اذا فيك تنصحني بواحد ممتاز بكون ممنون الك



For those not blessed enough, the discussion is about the forms of Aramaic, which stretches back past the first millenium BC.  Labad, as the story of him chasing Jacob shows, spoke Aramaic.Genesis 31:47.  The language is treated as all one languages, like Hebrew is treated, or it is atomized into its various varieties, like Latin and the Romance languages.

For the interested, a good grammar for most needs, but not without its faults, is Wheeler Thackston's Introduction to Syriac: an elementary grammar with readings from Syriac
http://books.google.com/books?id=KBtjAAAAMAAJ&q=syriac+grammar+Thackston&dq=syriac+grammar+Thackston&lr=&cd=1


The standard is Compendious Syriac grammar By Theodor Nöldeke
http://books.google.com/books?id=VP_PP9VW-hUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syriac+grammar&cd=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false
which is beyond most needs.

For dictionaries, nothing compares overall with Payne Smith's Compendious Thesaurus.
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/PayneSmith/.

The Deacon (?) Kiraz has put out a lot of good things on Syriac, like a concordance:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xOs9zhQAa7QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:ISBN9004097317#v=onepage&q=&f=false

and his very excellent Lexical tools to the Syriac New Testament By George Anton Kíraz
http://books.google.com/books?id=zOATA-dVfPgC&pg=PP1&dq=syriac+Kiraz+lexical&lr=&cd=3#v=onepage&q=syriac%20Kiraz%20lexical&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: December 18, 2009, 12:36:09 PM »

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #116 on: December 18, 2009, 01:20:57 PM »

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

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

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

If you look at the MSS. that Rafa has cited (third line from the top, go from the right to the large dot after the second word, which is the end of John 1:13.  The rest of the line is what is what I have posted above) you can see that it is the same text.
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=1&id=195
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 01:24:54 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #117 on: December 18, 2009, 01:25:58 PM »

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

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

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

If you look at the MSS. that Rafa has cited (third line from the top, go from the right to the large dot after the second word, which is the end of John 1:13.  The rest of the line is what is what I have posted above) you can see that it is the same text.
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=1&id=195
They should have stuck with the original Greek.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2009, 01:54:57 PM »

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

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

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

If you look at the MSS. that Rafa has cited (third line from the top, go from the right to the large dot after the second word, which is the end of John 1:13.  The rest of the line is what is what I have posted above) you can see that it is the same text.
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=1&id=195

So, in other words, it's "The Word was flesh, and abided in/by us"?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #119 on: December 18, 2009, 11:48:44 PM »

ܬܘܕܝ ܣܓܝ ܠܟ ܚܒܪܐ

I'll make good use of your recommendations.  I am intrigued to see how such English-written grammars describe the Semitic system.  I am certainly interested also in Arabic-written Syriac grammars if you know of any.  Already knowing one Semitic tongue obviously is a strong advantage when working on another.

So are you familiar ialmasri with Ma`loulli, Surith, Turoyo, and other spoken dialects, and as for literary non-Syriac Aramaic, perhaps Targumic, Mandaean, etc.?  Not many really study Aramaic in its many varieties.  Bravo `aleik.

By the way you might like this, Temani (Yemenite) traditional Jewish chanting from the Hebrew (proper Hebrew, thank God), Aramaic Targum, and Arabic Tafseer:

http://www.youtube.com/user/JubanTeyman24
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 11:52:48 PM by SamB » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #120 on: December 20, 2009, 08:10:55 PM »

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with this picture, and then it popped up to me that the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not have parsope.  That's the problem.

The Fathers identify the hypostasis with the prosopon.  It is odd that whereas it is claimed that we cannot translate Kyana and qnome, that they borrow a Greek term to split the person from the subsistence, making a prosoponic union instead of a hypostatic union.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,594



WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 20, 2009, 10:44:54 PM »

Is there any place where we can give up modern technology and live like the first-century Christians?

Become a Shaker or Amish. But I've always wondered what "modern" technology is. Is it ok to use a gramaphone, rahter than a CD player?
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #122 on: December 20, 2009, 11:31:48 PM »

Is there any place where we can give up modern technology and live like the first-century Christians?

Become a Shaker or Amish. But I've always wondered what "modern" technology is. Is it ok to use a gramaphone, rahter than a CD player?

Indeed. Surely, they would be able to have the Model T by now right?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #123 on: December 21, 2009, 03:05:39 AM »

Is there any place where we can give up modern technology and live like the first-century Christians?

Become a Shaker or Amish. But I've always wondered what "modern" technology is. Is it ok to use a gramaphone, rahter than a CD player?
Are you expecting a response, or are you just asking a rhetorical question?  Matthew777 is currently banned from posting anything here.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #124 on: December 21, 2009, 07:39:25 AM »

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with this picture, and then it popped up to me that the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not have parsope.  That's the problem.

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

The Fathers identify the hypostasis with the prosopon.

Which means nothing to the COE who's language and terminology is completely different, and had practically zero influence from the Greek philosophers.

It is odd that whereas it is claimed that we cannot translate Kyana and qnome,

Actually we can translate kyana, it means nature/ousia, but no we cannot translate qnoma - not even into Hebrew, Aramaic's closest sister language. The COE is not picking on anyone, the concept just doesn't exist in any language but Aramaic.

that they borrow a Greek term

Cause it doesn't exist in their language, or in ancient Hebrew either btw. Try find a Hebrew cognate for prosopon in the Tanakh.

to split the person from the subsistence, making a prosoponic union instead of a hypostatic union.

Huh? Prosoponic union, hypostatic union? Again you're dealing with the COE here which means you gotta throw all of that out the window. Can't you see that the 2 kyane are united in the parposa - through the qnome?

Oh btw, here are Peshitta NT verses for qnoma:

Luke 11:17, John 5:26, Romans 1:27, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 1:3 & Hebrews 10:1

and for kyana:

Romans 2:27, Romans 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 2:15, Galatians 4:8, James 1:21, James 3:7
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 07:43:20 AM by Nazarene » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #125 on: December 21, 2009, 10:53:18 AM »

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with this picture, and then it popped up to me that the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not have parsope.  That's the problem.

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

My bad took a 2nd look at this and I see the connection to the Holy Trinity you're referring to. No the qnome of the Trinity do not have parsope, except for the Son and an Assyrian Catholic on this forum explained why (emphasis mine):

It is ok in English to do this (Second Person of the Holy Trinity) because there is no English term directly equivalent to Qnoma (as this term is understood in the Church of the East), and so this is the best that can be done in English for the Trinity.  In Aramaic, however, which is much more theologically important for us as Aramaic Christians, we do not use the specific Aramaic term of Parsopa in the Trinity, because for us Parsopa exists in the Material realm.  We do not say three Parsope, because the Father and the Holy Spirit were not incarnated in the Material realm and did not assume Matter, but the Son didThe Son assumed Matter, a Human Body, that was fashioned from the Virgin Mary, a Body that was animated by a rational Human Soul, and was united to Him.  The Son, in the incarnation, has entered the Material realm, and so this is how we understand Parsopa, the Union of the Son and Man.

God bless,

Rony

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html

That's why you only see a parsopa for the Son, because the other two members of the Trinity did not incarnate - they did not enter the material realm, only the Son did.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #126 on: December 21, 2009, 12:57:58 PM »

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with this picture, and then it popped up to me that the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not have parsope.  That's the problem.

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

Putting aside the obvious problem that the Incarnation involves the Trinity, note how on the left the hypstasises of Peter and Paul have prosopa, but the Hypostasis of the Father and Spirit do not.

The Fathers identify the hypostasis with the prosopon.

Which means nothing to the COE who's language and terminology is completely different, and had practically zero influence from the Greek philosophers.
LOL.  Except taking the Greek term prosopon ("parsopa").

The Syriac scholars, including members of the COE read and worked on the Greek philosophers, and example being Hunein b. Ishaq, whose translations of Greek works via Syriac into Arabic were in turn translated into Latin (which calls him "Johannitius").  He is far from the only one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunayn_ibn_Ishaq

It is odd that whereas it is claimed that we cannot translate Kyana and qnome,

Actually we can translate kyana, it means nature/ousia, but no we cannot translate qnoma - not even into Hebrew, Aramaic's closest sister language. The COE is not picking on anyone, the concept just doesn't exist in any language but Aramaic.

Then it is pretty useless as a term describing universal Truth then.

It can be translated. Actually, it is itself a translation in this use.
http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/index.php
search: qnwm' p. 509, bottom right.

that they borrow a Greek term

Cause it doesn't exist in their language, or in ancient Hebrew either btw. Try find a Hebrew cognate for prosopon in the Tanakh.

I'm not the one claiming that some eternal truth is accessible in Syriac, and no other language.

The Hebrew is paniym:
Quote
06440 paniym paw-neem’ pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused noun

AV-before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40, countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, ...me 18, against 17, ...him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195; 2109

1) face
1a) face, faces
1b) presence, person
1c) face (of seraphim or cherubim)
1d) face (of animals)
1e) face, surface (of ground)
1f) as adv of loc/temp
1f1) before and behind, toward, in front of, forward, formerly, from beforetime, before
1g) with prep
1g1) in front of, before, to the front of, in the presence of, in the face of, at the face or front of, from the presence of, from before, from before the face of
(Online Bible Dictionary)...


But while he cannot claim originality for the term, Tertullian was a careful writer mindful of the Latin word's meaning. 'Persona' was a term with legal implications. Legal consequences had built up upon the base of the word's literal foundation of a 'mask' distinguishing a character in a drama, thus, a person:

"persona, a mask, esp. as worn by actors in Greek and Roman drama.

TRANSF., (1) role, part, character, person represented by an actor...(2) in gen., the part which anyone plays...(3) a personality, individuality, character." (Cassell's Latin Dictionary)
These legal implications clustered around the idea that a 'person' is one competent to give legal testimony. Is this implication accurate when talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Most emphatically!: Three Witnesses....

Bible-believers dislike using extra-biblical terminology: "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (1 Peter 4:11). When Hippolytus wrote, in Greek, of 'one God in three persons,' the accusation he was using extra-biblical terminology would have been incomprehensible. As we've seen, the Bible freely applies 'prosopon' to God. 'Prosopon' means what 'person' means...and then some...

There is no one-word English translation for 'prosopon' suited for all instances. English translators are obliged to render this one word by a variety of English words: 'face,' 'presence,' 'person.' So 'one God in three persons' may appear to an English reader as unbiblical. How it appears to readers of Tagalog or Lithuanian I couldn't say; the New Testament, after all, is written in Greek, and the early church argued in Greek. Nevertheless, if one must have an alternative which 'works' in English translation, may I suggest the catch-phrase 'one God in three witnesses'? Father and Son are corroborating witnesses:

"It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me." (John 8:17-18).
The Holy Spirit corroborates their testimony:

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father...He will testify of Me." (John 15:26);
"And we are His witnesses to theses things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him." (Acts 5:32)...

It might seem to some readers that this word and its correlate 'prosopon' combine such heterogeneous meanings that no conclusion can be drawn from their use. God does not speak to man by concocting a divine Esperanto, but employs existing human languages. Still, God does not select the words He uses at random, nor are these meanings unconnected by a common thread. Believers are commanded to seek God's face: "...if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face ['paniym'] and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14). To turn one's back is to reject, to turn one's face to enter into relation: "For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble they will say, ‘Arise and save us.’" (Jeremiah 2:27). God-seekers pray for God's face to turn their way: "Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face ['paniym'] to shine; and we shall be saved." (Psalm 80:7). If the concept of God's "face" is so ridiculous as to earn the raucous mockery of the 'Oneness' Pentecostals, why then do believers pray for these things?

In Southeast Asia where villagers are menaced by man-eating tigers, they draw a little face on the back of a farmer's shirt. A tiger will not attack a man who is looking at him, whereas a man whose back is turned is easy prey. A crude sketch with two eyes, a nose, and smile is sufficient to convince the tiger, or so the villagers think. Those who thought this is what was in view when the Bible speaks of the face of God wandered into error: "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:22-23). The children of Israel encountered the word of God face to face: "The LORD talked with you face to face ['paniym'] in the mount out of the midst of the fire..." (Deuteronomy 5:4), but not the villagers' smiley-face: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:..." (Deuteronomy 4:15).

To be 'in your face' is to be in your presence. The people of God travel in His company: "And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight ['paniym'] with his mighty power out of Egypt;..." (Deuteronomy 4:37). But not only do the people meet God face to face, there are face to face interactions within God: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence ['prosopon'] of God for us:..." (Hebrews 9:24). There is thus a relation or interface within God, as well as between God and His people. Since the Bible says so, in so many words, what is the problem in believing it?
http://thriceholy.net/prosopon.html

to split the person from the subsistence, making a prosoponic union instead of a hypostatic union.

Huh? Prosoponic union, hypostatic union? Again you're dealing with the COE here which means you gotta throw all of that out the window.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church threw the COE out the window at Ephesus.

Quote
Can't you see that the 2 kyane are united in the parposa - through the qnome?

The she who gave birth to the parposa of Christ gave birth to the qnoma of the Son.

Quote
Oh btw, here are Peshitta NT verses for qnoma:

Interesting, I'll have to return to it when I have time.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #127 on: December 21, 2009, 01:01:00 PM »

Quote
This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:


That's nice. I like a clear picture.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with this picture, and then it popped up to me that the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not have parsope.  That's the problem.

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

My bad took a 2nd look at this and I see the connection to the Holy Trinity you're referring to. No the qnome of the Trinity do not have parsope, except for the Son and an Assyrian Catholic on this forum explained why (emphasis mine):

It is ok in English to do this (Second Person of the Holy Trinity) because there is no English term directly equivalent to Qnoma (as this term is understood in the Church of the East), and so this is the best that can be done in English for the Trinity.  In Aramaic, however, which is much more theologically important for us as Aramaic Christians, we do not use the specific Aramaic term of Parsopa in the Trinity, because for us Parsopa exists in the Material realm.  We do not say three Parsope, because the Father and the Holy Spirit were not incarnated in the Material realm and did not assume Matter, but the Son didThe Son assumed Matter, a Human Body, that was fashioned from the Virgin Mary, a Body that was animated by a rational Human Soul, and was united to Him.  The Son, in the incarnation, has entered the Material realm, and so this is how we understand Parsopa, the Union of the Son and Man.

God bless,

Rony

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html

That's why you only see a parsopa for the Son, because the other two members of the Trinity did not incarnate - they did not enter the material realm, only the Son did.




See above the use of prosopon in the LXX on this issue.

Do you have a theological definition of kyana, qnoma and parsopa handy, so I know what you are saying?  The idea of prosopon existing only in the material world isn't in its orginal (or Biblical) meaning.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #128 on: December 21, 2009, 07:03:59 PM »

Quote
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church threw the COE out the window at Ephesus.

Wrong. Cyril * epithet removed * who bribed his way out of prison to set up early a robber synod by leaving his church into the equivalent of one million dollars debt (today) set up a council before Nestorius and his partisans could reach it to defend themselves and the Eastern Church. The end of the story is that your position Isa entails that God change. God does not change:

For I am the LORD, I change not

Malachi 3:6

End of story. Either you believe that God changed his very substance in some sort of "miaphysite" union like an Oriental Orthodox  believes (not saying you are of such a position), or you believe that the Messiah has two natures with a certain degree of separation like the Orthodox Ecumenical council of Chalcedon which excommunicated the pagan belief I referred to. Anyways, this belief is on the wane- the Roman Catholic Church has re-declared since 1994 the Chalcedon decision in conjunction with the ACOE (the Common Christological Declaration). Further, as promised, here is the email of someone I believe is more qualified than myself to discuss the matter of Aramaic primacy:

Personal email address removed for security reasons

He is a reviser of the Aramaic texts, a first rate textual critic, knows Hebrew and Syriac inside out, an accomplished author, and baptised in the COE (but holds a few notable theological differences with it note you). Please contact him anybody interested so that you can see how Acts 20:28 was a non-Chalcedonian doctored reading from before Ephesus (third century) and how the ACOE was not influenced by Byzantine sphere like the EO and OO. By the way, the manuscript I have used to support all my views here is the oldest complete New Testament in existence (minus the last 5 books not considered by the COE part of canon). The Peshitta contains loan words precisely because it is the original and it was written in a vibrant Mediterranean culture where Greek was not read widely by Jews but some expressions abided within their language from the Greek. Lets also not mix issues- I consider the LXX more reliable than the MT, but this is another issue entirely.



Rafa999, in light of the moderatorial directive I posted HERE, I still need you to tell me whom you're calling "Monophysites".  So far, the only information I have from you, which predates my request, is that you're attaching this epithet to the Coptic Orthodox, so this is the only information I have to work with.  Therefore, if I see you continue to use the derogatory label "Monophysite" without identifying whom the "Monophysites" are, I will modify every use of the term out of your posts and issue you a formal warning for ignoring my directive.  (For the record, I edited your multiple uses of the forbidden word out of this post and replaced them with something more acceptable.  Please see THIS POST for reference to administrative precedent.)

Additionally, even though your church may condemn St. Cyril of Alexandria as a heretic, he is revered very highly by almost all the members of this forum, whether they be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox.  Feel free to express disagreement with his doctrine, but do not disparage his memory by calling him a heretic or accusing him of crimes without providing any evidence to substantiate your charges.  Regarding the allegations you have made of St. Cyril, you now have 72 hours to back them up with solid evidence from reputable sources or recant them, or they will disappear from your post and you will receive a formal warning for slandering a saint of the EO/OO/RC churches.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 10:05:04 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #129 on: December 21, 2009, 07:43:47 PM »

I am also pleased to have the email of someone who can act as an official spokesperson for the ACOE at hand. Please mail the Reverend Father Qasha Genard Lazar after Christmas so you can speak to him about whatever issues you have: personal email address removed to protect account owner from Internet attacks

I highly suggest going to the Assyrian Church of the East Forum itself since a single priest is sometimes overwhelmed (ACOE priests are very very active, simply building, working, and instructing all day long non-stop, maybe it is better at the forum):

Link to competing forum removed pursuant to this point of forum policy:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg186146.html#msg186146



Please do not post personal email addresses on this forum.  Doing so exposes the email accounts to spambots, spiders, web crawlers, and other Internet security threats for which the administrators and moderators of this OC.net discussion forum don't want to be held responsible.  If you wish to share a personal email address via private message with someone who requests it, that is acceptable.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:25:36 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 21, 2009, 07:48:18 PM »

oh boy...here we go...

Rafa, I'm sure we can learn a lot from you.  But your condescending tone only puts you in a bad position.  Calling us Monophysites and Cyril a heretic can put you at odds.  Instead, you can say you disagree with Cyril and the non-Chalcedonians.

Can't you see many people are confused from your Christology.  YOu say you believe in a degree of separation of natures.  To us, both EO and OO, this is heresy.

Second, have you even asked these people if it's okay to post their emails?  Thirdly, some of us might rather ask you here in the forums, or if you can't, if you know other people from your church who can join us in oc.net and have discussions with us.  Maybe we can make a new section for the ACOE, and maybe we can even make an extra private forums if more of your church group joins this site and we can have open debates on each other's Church traditions.

I have many many questions that I'd like to ask.

For instance, it strikes me as interesting that you hail St. Cyril as a heretic and yet you also say that your church lifted all anathemas against all our churches.  If that's so, does that mean officially St. Cyril is no longer considered a heretic by your church?

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #131 on: December 21, 2009, 08:39:22 PM »

Quote
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church threw the COE out the window at Ephesus.

Wrong. Cyril the heretic who bribed his way out of prison to set up early a robber synod by leaving his church into the equivalent of one million dollars debt (today) set up a council before Nestorius and his partisans could reach it to defend themselves and the Eastern Church.

Well, if St. Cyril was a briber and embelizer, he was a briber and embelizer who taught the Truth, though, since St. Cyril was never imprisoned, I am not sure what you are talking about.  Are you?


Quote
The end of the story is that your position Isa entails that God change.
No, it does not.


Quote
God does not change:

For I am the LORD, I change not

Malachi 3:6

The Word became flesh dwellt among us.  St. John.

Quote
End of story. Either you believe that God changed his very substance in some sort of "miaphysite" union like a Monophysite believes (not saying you are of such a position),


Neither the miaphysite nor I believe any such thing.  

Quote
or you believe that the Messiah has two natures with a certain degree of separation like the Orthodox Ecumenical council of Chalcedon which excommunicated the pagan belief I referred to.

The Definition of Chalcedon:
Quote
....on account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation [i.e. the Incarnation] and who shamelessly pretend that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardour for a knowledge of the saving symbol....For it opposes those who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a Duad of SonsFollowing the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood.  This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html


 
Quote
Anyways, this belief is on the wane- the Roman Catholic Church has re-declared since 1994 the Chalcedon decision in conjunction with the ACOE (the Common Christological Declaration).
This is why I disagree with learned and irenic Ryondish, quoted above, for whom I've had a great deal of respect and admiration since my days on Catholic Answers: the terminology that the Chaldeans use, but with a Catholic explanation, is the same that the Nestorians would use for their beliefs.  It is because of this confusion, common among the "unions" in submission to the Vatican, that we reject such unions: either the Vatican and the Chaldeans believe Ephesus with us, or they reject it with the COE.

Quote
Further, as promised, here is the email of someone I believe is more qualified than myself to discuss the matter of Aramaic primacy:

Personal email address removed for security reasons

Does he know you are posting his email address?

Quote
He is a reviser of the Aramaic texts, a first rate textual critic, knows Hebrew and Syriac inside out,

How's his Greek?

Quote
an accomplished author, and baptised in the COE (but holds a few notable theological differences with it note you).

Then why was he baptized by it? You say notable: that would strike me as meaing "important enough to not to be in communion with."

 
Quote
Please contact him anybody interested


why don't you first contact him and make sure your are extending invitations he agrees with?

Quote
so that you can see how Acts 20:28 was a monophysite doctored reading from before Ephesus (third century)

I have already shown you the actual text from a Bible predating Ephesus.

Quote
and how the ACOE was not influenced by Byzantine sphere like the EO and OO.


Byzantine sphere, like Jerusalem? Bethlehem?  Nazareth? Galilee? Damascus?  Antioch?  Rome?  Corinth? Thessalonica? Colosae? Ephesus? Phillippi?...

Quote
By the way, the manuscript I have used to support all my views here is the oldest complete New Testament in existence (minus the last 5 books not considered by the COE part of canon).

No, it is not the oldest, which can be shown by the text itself, and the dating of the codex and writing.

Quote
The Peshitta contains loan words precisely because it is the original and it was written in a vibrant Mediterranean culture where Greek was not read widely by Jews but some expressions abided within their language from the Greek.

The Peshitta has a relationship with several other Syriac versions of the NT.  The versions each have their particularities throughout, e.g. the Heraklean translates the Greek slavishly, the Philoxenian merely corrects the Syriac on the Greek, the Old Syriac loose translation, etc.  When we look at the Greek NT, however, we find, not a style in which the whole is in, but each individual book has its own: Luke's Greek is better than Mark's, etc.  We would not expect that disparaty in the Greek NT unless the books were translated at different times by different translators (as is the case in the LXX), which has no evidence in its favor (for one thing, no Aramaic NT show the same distinctions between the books), or the Greek is original.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PR4&dq=Syriac+versions+Kiraz&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Philoxenian&f=false


Quote
Lets also not mix issues- I consider the LXX more reliable than the MT, but this is another issue entirely.
I'lll agree with you there.



Personal email address removed from quote box for security reasons...  - PtA
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:07:52 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #132 on: December 21, 2009, 08:45:53 PM »

I am also pleased to have the email of someone who can act as an official spokesperson for the ACOE at hand. Please mail the Reverend Father Qasha Genard Lazar after Christmas so you can speak to him about whatever issues you have: personal email address removed to protect account owner from Internet attacks

I highly suggest going to the Assyrian Church of the East Forum itself since a single priest is sometimes overwhelmed (ACOE priests are very very active, simply building, working, and instructing all day long non-stop, maybe it is better at the forum):

http://www.assyrianchurch.com/forum/

Again, I should think that you should first speak to Fr. Lazar before inviting us.


My question would start with the theological COE definition of kyanah, qnoma, and parsopa.



Personal email address removed from quote box for security reasons  - PtA
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:06:20 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #133 on: December 21, 2009, 08:47:40 PM »



Can't you see many people are confused from your Christology.  

I fear that we are NOT confused.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #134 on: December 21, 2009, 09:11:01 PM »

I have spoken to Brother Andrew if it is ok for you folks to mail him, you can of course mail him. Father Genard is at the moment a bit overwhelmed, I think it would be best if you mailed him after Christmas. Now...for the "charges" : Rome agrees with us. They have never agreed with us on pretty much anything. You know what that means? It means they know that this is a serious matter and that you better agree with it or else your in some very deep trouble. Do you say to me that God can change? He just said to Malachi that he does not change. You know perfectly well that Miltha is a complicated term which cannot simply be translated into "the word became flesh". Cite the Peshitta again to our readers word for word as to what is really in that verse so they see how complicated things really are. Third...you just confessed Cyril was a briber and embezzler, so now we hold thieves and liars as saints? Fourth, by your own words in this thread or the other one we discussed on the ACOE, Khabouris is the most ancient semitic NT. Good luck in convincing me that a manuscript scribes threw in a trash heap with "Fool and Knave don't change the reading" engraved on it is more reliable than the text Mar Mari and Addai handed to believers in person. The oldest Christian liturgy is of the COE as you know as well. Again I am not qualified enough for this subject, however I can say that not all syriac is made equal, and that the garbage forged down by Philoxenus of Mabbug and Rabbulah of Edessa is not the Peshitta used by the COE. Please mail me in private for the emails I handed down (this is a large forum after all).


the peculiar property of each nature being preserved

you did not highlight this in the definition of Chalcedon Isa.

Quote
does that mean officially St. Cyril is no longer considered a heretic by your church

I heard the COE lifted all of its anathemas Mina, I will have to verify this actually, if Cyril has stopped being referred to as a heretic.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:27:42 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian Aramaic Theodore of Mopsuestia icons Christology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.236 seconds with 71 queries.