The Assyrian Church of the East

[choirfiend]

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

Yes. Go to PA, OH, or MO, and be Amish

And while you're there, give up any modern mediciene, contract a simple cold, and die from it. Because that's what you would have done in the first century.

 

[Aristocles]

Yes. Go to PA, OH, or MO, and be Amish

And while you're there, give up any modern mediciene, contract a simple cold, and die from it. Because that's what you would have done in the first century.

And, of course, your computer and the Internet  ;D

 

[Anastasios]

While you're in India hanging out, make sure to drink some cow urine mixed with ghee (clarified butter). It's what those noble poor people do to get those special divine blessings.

Anastasios

 

[Matthew777]

And while you're there, give up any modern mediciene, contract a simple cold, and die from it. Because that's what you would have done in the first century.

What is so wrong with death? Isn't it nothing more than the passage into another life?

 

[Matthew777]

If one doesn't use the word Trinity, and refuses that there is One God in three persons, they they are not a Trinitarian. What Lamsa was: a user of slick sophistry to sell his own Protestant ideology. Not for nothing his works and considered cultic.

Lamsa probably was a Trinitarian, even though he disliked the word "Trinity." To dislike a word does not mean that one disagrees with the concept behind the word. St. Augustine disliked the word "persons" when speaking of the Trinity...

Peace.

 

[Elisha]

Lamsa probably was a Trinitarian, even though he disliked the word "Trinity." To dislike a word does not mean that one disagrees with the concept behind the word. St. Augustine disliked the word "persons" when speaking of the Trinity. He thought it was too easy to misunderstand the word and think of it as meaning separate individuals, therefore destroying the divine unity of the Godhead.

Probably?  Probably?  Riiiiiiiight.  C'mon Matthew, you're just trying interpret Lamsa how you want to because you like him.  "Probably" doesn't cut it.

 

[Matthew777]

Probably? Probably? Riiiiiiiight. C'mon Matthew, you're just trying interpret Lamsa how you want to because you like him. "Probably" doesn't cut it.

I read his books. Had he been a Unitarian, Lamsa would have denied the deity of Christ. Had he been a modalist, he would have denied that the Father and the Son are distinct from each other. This leads one to conclude that, although he disliked Trinitarian language, he believed in Trinitarian doctrine.
You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

 

[Aristibule]

That is pretty ignorant to say of St. Augustine - first, as 'person' is an English word, and secondly as St. Augustine uses the Latin term properly translated as 'person' without fault throughout his "On the Trinity". In the same work he praises St. Hilary ( for his work also titled "On the Trinity") regarding the attributes of each person of the Godhead (noting thereby that where St. Hilary and St. Augustine are in agreement is the Orthodox position - the Blessed Trinity, One God in Three Persons, each having attributes (not *being* three attributes.)

But, you're still not admitting the truth about George Lamsa - he left his Eastern Church and adopted Western language, culture, identity, *and religion*. Calvary Missionary Church. Calvary Missionary Church. Calvary Missionary Church. (In case you missed it) - not "Mar ........ Assyrian Church of the East" - but Calvary Missionary Church. Consider also that that the last of his life was as a teacher in the Unity School of Christianity in Lee's Summit Missouri (Unitarian Protestant "Theosophical" leaning organization in the oh-so Semitic land of Missouri.)  The history of George Lamsa's schooling is also that of Western Protestant formation - at least, claiming to have studied at Anglican and Episcopalian schools (and a Jewish school) both abroad and in the USA. Those who have attempted to verify his biography, however, have not been successful in uncovering any evidence of most of his claimed schooling.

His text isn't any more Eastern than the Septuagint (which Christ did have, being Palestinian Jewish and not Babylonian Jewish), he might have been raised as a child in an Eastern church but by choice and product was fully Western (just unorthodox Western.) And his "Eastern mind"? Not evident at all.

Refusing the language is refusing the dogma (and, I note your attempt to lower unchangeable dogma to the level of mutable doctrine - doctrine is simply teaching - which only need be sound. The tripartite persons of the Holy Trinity, however, is a matter of *dogma*. Refusal of language is refusal of the dogma - same with those who refuse Theotokos for other terms.) There is nothing Orthodox or particularly Eastern about Lamsa or his work.

 

[vasilisl]

You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

There are bibles out there translated in english certified by the Orthodox Patrirachates. Go to an Orthodox church and get one... You cant get more authentic copy of the bible than those..

 

[Matthew777]

But, you're still not admitting the truth about George Lamsa - he left his Eastern Church and adopted Western language, culture, identity, *and religion*.

If that is true, was that before or after he translated the Aramaic Bible into English?

 

[Elisha]

This leads one to conclude that, although he disliked Trinitarian language, he believed in Trinitarian doctrine.
You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

No, it leads YOU to conclude what you do.  Stop saying Lamsa has an "Eastern Mind" when he really left his faith. :

 

[Aristibule]

If that is true, was that before or after he translated the Aramaic Bible into English?

After. That doesn't even take into account the issues with a singular translator for something as important as Holy Scripture.

George Lamsa -

born 1892 in the period when the Assyrians were dependents of either Anglicans/Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Russian Orthodox.

claims rededicated to God with blood from a sacrificed bull, 1904 - leaves for Istanbul shortly after

claims to have received an A.B. from the Abp. of Canterbury's College 1907 (15 years of age.)

claims to have received a PhD equivalant from the same in 1908 (16 years of age.)

left for the West in 1915 (claims while studying at 'Imperial University of Constantinople' - goes to South America, then in British Merchant Marine, then USA

claims to have studied at PECUSA Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia and Dropise College in Pennsylvania (first Jewish college in USA, now U. of Penn Center for Judaic Studies.)

founded the syncretist "Christian Mohammedan Society" in 1921 (to spread a hybridization of the two religions.)

publishes article "The Secret of the Near East" in magazine Orientalia 1923 (in which it is claimed Islam has achieved Lamsa's "New World Order"

coauthors "The Oldest Christian People" in 1926.

publishes "My Neighbour Jesus" in 1932.

publishes "Gospel Light" in 1936.

second edition "Gospel Light" in 1939.

founded "Aramaic Bible Society" in 1943

publishes "New Testament Commentary" in 1945.

founded "Calvary Missionary Church" in 1947, publishes "New Testament Origin"

publishes "The Short Koran" in 1949

publishes "Holy Bible: from the ancient Eastern text" in 1957

publishes "Old Testament Light" 1964

begins close association with disciple Rocco Errico 1965.

begins publishing through the Unity School of Christianity, Lee's Summit, MO  in 1966 (where Lamsa kept his office the remainder of his life.)

publishes "More Light on the Gospel" 1968.

his disciple Rocco Errico founds "Noohra Foundation" in 1970 to carry on Lamsa's work.

publishes "Idioms in the Bible Explained" 1971.

coauthors and publishes "The Life of George M. Lamsa Translator" autobiography - no date known for publication.

passed away in 1975, California.

....

I don't have the date for when he began to involve himself with the Association for Research and Enlightenment (Edgar Cayce Institute), or for the involvement with The Way International.

 

[Matthew777]

From what I have seen, Lamsa's version is the best complete English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta available. If there is a better one, please show me so that I may search for it.
In the mean time, I consider the Lamsa Bible to be the most accurate Bible I have ever read, and it has rekindled my interest in reading Scripture. Ultimately, the best translation is the one you will actually read, because taking in the Word of God is what really matters.
Heady theological and historical arguments aside, that is what really matters.

Though he may have left the Assyrian Church from which he was raised, he still was in the unique position to undersand the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles, given his upbringing in such a similar cultural background.

Peace.

 

[Elisha]

Though he may have left the Assyrian Church from which he was raised, he still was in the unique position to undersand the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles, given his upbringing in such a similar cultural background.

M777, that is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard.  No one during that time really understood "the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles".  It was not cryogenically frozen for 1900 years.  Even then, he was 15 when left!  15!

Did you know that Benny Hinn is Lebanese and grew up Orthodox?  Why don't you buy whatever he sells then?  Just because he apostacized doesn't mean that his works aren't authentic. :

 

[Aristocles]

Benny Hinn - great... : Snake oil salesman.

Just got satelite TV and viewed this guy for the first time. Now I know what you folks have been talking about...sheesh.

 

[Aristibule]

Matthew - if you are truly interested in Scripture in a Semitic context, you'll need to dump the Lamsa and learn Syriac. You can get a copy of the Scriptures here: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/Books/bookstore.htm - a Holy Bible in Syriac is about $25 USD - get a Syriac grammar (not too difficult to find, use Amazon.)

The fact about translation into English of the Scriptures is that the English are not Asians. God in his Providence sets the times and places of man's habitation - and for the English, this has meant the Scriptures used in English would be based upon LXX and Latin Vulgate for the most part. The Orthodox Church uses a number of authoritative translations without finding much fault (full King James 1611, Douay-Rheims, Revised Standard Version - often in the Oxford Annotated printing, Nelson's LXX-corrected NKJV "Orthodox Study Bible", even the Buena Vista new translation.) If one is in English speaking culture, this is the Scripture as we've received it (and, Lamsa isn't a part of that - scholars don't use his Bible, but who does is instructive: Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, and a number of other cults.)

If you really desire to be part of Eastern culture, then you'll have to make the break with English now - quit using a translation and learn the Syriac (and, since you're in a Malankara parish, maybe even Malayalam.) I'm not sure about your chances for marrying in - Indian families have high standards - both in family background, education, and career success. But, using an English idiomatic translation isn't going to help you develop any sense of Semitic Christianity like a Semitic language does. (That, and Syriac isn't that hard - I can read much of it just from my Hebrew - though as Eastern Orthodox, I just happen to have access to both the Liturgical Tradition and Scriptures in Hebrew - both translated in the 19th c. from the authoritative LXX and Byzantine texts, and thus holding to the superior Old Hebrew readings, the texts preserved in the Levant,and the liturgical use of Palestine's monasteries.) The Lamsa agenda doesn't really help - neither for becoming Orthodox, nor for how it might reflect on the Malankara Archdiocese (I've yet to see that Archbishop H.E. Mor Titus Yeldho Pathickal supports Lamsa's teaching - might be important for the Patriarch and other Orthodox to know?)

 

[Ebor]

Yes. Go to PA, OH, or MO, and be Amish

To be fair to the Amish they aren't living in "first Century" conditions and they do use some modern medicine.  There is actually some fascinating information about genetic diseases in small populations that has come from them letting doctors do research in helping them.  I read about it recently in, I think, Scientific American.

If Matthew777 wants to help people who are need it there are the intinerant farmworkers who travel around harvesting.  That can be pretty bad in terms of living.  There are people in his own area, I'll wager

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

See Bauer & Trudgill, Language Myths (Penguin, 1999)

Thank you for the link.  That book looks fascinating.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

What is so wrong with death? Isn't it nothing more than the passage into another life?

Would you be able to say that to a woman whose child is dying for want of a vaccination or a few cents worth of medicine or nutrients? Or to one dying of "Child bed fever" that could be cured with antibiotics or prevented with some cleanliness so that she will leave a motherless newborn?  We all will die, but God gave us the intelligence and ability to help others with illness or malnutrition or injury.  Declaring that "modern technology" is to be avoided begs the question of "Which technology?  Why?"

Ebor

 

[Matthew777]

Matthew - if you are truly interested in Scripture in a Semitic context, you'll need to dump the Lamsa and learn Syriac.

What I am asking you is whether there is a better English translation of the Aramaic Bible than George Lamsa's. James Murdock's translation of the Western Peshitto is available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971598681/ref=sr_11_1/102-6334926-0472955?ie=UTF8

Would you consider that a more accurate translation than the Lamsa Bible?

 

[Aristibule]

Yes - that translation is more trustworthy (I can't vouch for it being 'perfect' - I'm not on that level.) Note it is sold by the Syriac Orthodox Church. Dr. George Kiraz does have a good reputation that I know of - interesting that http://gorgiaspress.com/ doesn't carry Lamsa, eh? More importantly, through the same press you can get the tools to learn Syriac, and study the Scriptures in Syriac.

 

[Aristocles]

Just some side comments here.

While rummaging through my deceased mother's-in-law cellar yesterday I found a copy of Lamsa's bible - seventh edition. A surprising coincidence to me.

Perusing it I was immediately struck that it exactly followed the canon as presented in the protestant KJV  ???.  That seemed most odd.
This morning I spent some time comparing Lamsa's translation to a couple other Peshitta translations (partial) as I have been able to gather off the Internet over the years. Seems there are numerous differences between these... a lot of them.

I'll just stick with the Orthodox Church's recognized bible, thanks.

 

[Matthew777]

I'll just stick with the Orthodox Church's recognized bible, thanks.

Which one is that? As far as I can recall, there is not yet a complete English translation of the Orthodox Bible.

 

[Aristocles]

Which one is that? As far as I can recall, there is not yet a complete English translation of the Orthodox Bible.

Where did I say Orthodox 'translation'?

Learn Greek, then form an opinion, if you must.

 

[Matthew777]

Learn Greek, then form an opinion, if you must.

Aaahhhh... Too bad I dropped out of Greek school...

 

[Romans13x10]

I don't believe the Assyrian Church of the East even teaches the heretical "trinitarian" theology of Lamsa.  They accept the council of Nicea.  I think they even consider Sts Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil, as saints if I remember correctly?

 

[Rafa999]

The Best existing interlinear (not translation- these are frowned upon by the COE) is that of Deacon Paul Younan of Peshitta.org

Unfortunately it is incomplete. Some time is needed to complete the epistles. You must learn Syriac/Aramaic to be able to read the Peshitta in its original. As a strong believer in Aramaic primacy of the New Testament (a position which I hope won't get me stoned here in an Orthodox church forum) you can only read the original in its original language. The COE is trinitarian, but it does not accept the terminology of the Western Church in its creeds. It believes in Christ having two natures bound in one person, but not the "Nestorian" thing the Copts and others say they do.

 

[Salpy]

It believes in Christ having two natures bound in one person, but not the "Nestorian" thing the Copts and others say they do.

I'm aware that--contrary to popular belief--the COE doesn't teach "two persons."  However, I would like your explanation of something which was touched on in another thread (starting at reply 92):

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.msg356711.html#msg356711

In that thread, I brought up something I saw in a catechism of the COE:


"35)   In what sense can we recognize or acknowledge certain theological terminology used by our beloved sister apostolic churches who will address The Ever Virgin Mary as “The Mother of God”??

The Orthodox position will declare this: The Blessed Mother did not give birth to His Godhead, which is from eternal; but rather she had given birth to His manhood, at the end of time, still it is right to be called “the Mother of God,” why?  Because He who is born of her is at once God and Man. By way of example: The mother of the President of the United States did not give birth to his presidency, she gave birth to the man; and indeed we call her the mother of the President; and again, the Catholicos Patriarch of the East received his office from The Church, and not from his mother who bore him, and we do call her the mother of the Patriarch."


This is from Chapter 10, section 35, of the catechism:

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

What struck me was the language which seemed to be comparing the relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity to the relationship between the President and his presidency, or the Patriarch and his office.

I'm pretty sure the OO's would never use language like the above.  It seems to express too loose of a union between Christ's divinity and humanity.  I don't think the EO's would be comfortable with it either (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Could you shed some light on this?  I guess I am trying to understand your church better.

 

[Rafa999]

    I am not fluent in Syriac but I assure you that the COE is not Arian or the "Nestorian" parody people have claimed for centuries. We are talking about perhaps the most ancient semitic church (one of the most ancient for sure), which stresses a clear distinction between the divine nature of the Messiah and his human nature. "Your will be done, not mine" to paraphrase Jesus's famous words in the Garden of Gethsemane. The COE, being a very conservative body which does not want the scriptures to become the opinions and works of man, does not use language which is non-semitic based when describing its Christology. The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate. To refuse to acknowledge the difference is to worship a Man-God in the Greek pagan tradition. Man/God=scriptural, Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so. Of course some people like the Copts believe in this absurdity, but well, most folks are Orthodox and not Monophysite like them.

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

 

[Salpy]

Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so.

I think both OO's and EO's would agree with that.

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

That is definitely the case.  I have Assyrian friends and relatives, although none of them belong to the COE.

I've mentioned in other threads how there is a lot of intermarriage between Armenians and Assyrians and how Armenians and Assyrians often do go to each other's churches.  Both nations suffered greatly during the Genocide of 1915 and relations are very warm between us.

That's one reason I don't want you to think I am being polemical or unfriendly in asking questions about your Church.  I really am just trying to understand better.

 

[Salpy]

     Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate.

Again, I think my Church would be uncomfortable with this language.

Of course some people like the Copts believe in this absurdity, but well, most folks are Orthodox and not Monophysite like them.

The Copts are not really Monophysites.  That is a misconception, similar to the misconception that Assyrians believe in two persons. 

 

[Papist]

    I am not fluent in Syriac but I assure you that the COE is not Arian or the "Nestorian" parody people have claimed for centuries. We are talking about perhaps the most ancient semitic church (one of the most ancient for sure), which stresses a clear distinction between the divine nature of the Messiah and his human nature. "Your will be done, not mine" to paraphrase Jesus's famous words in the Garden of Gethsemane. The COE, being a very conservative body which does not want the scriptures to become the opinions and works of man, does not use language which is non-semitic based when describing its Christology. The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate. To refuse to acknowledge the difference is to worship a Man-God in the Greek pagan tradition. Man/God=scriptural, Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so. Of course some people like the Copts believe in this absurdity, but well, most folks are Orthodox and not Monophysite like them.

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

You have to be very careful with the bolded statement above. It can be dangerous to say that the humanity and divinity are separate. They are truely distinct BUT they are not separated because they are united in one person. They do not mix and form a hybrid nature, but but "the word became flesh". As for the Theotokos, is not Christ God? If he is then Mary must be the Theotokos.

 

[ialmisry]

I'm pretty sure the OO's would never use language like the above.  It seems to express too loose of a union between Christ's divinity and humanity.  I don't think the EO's would be comfortable with it either (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.)

No, you are not wrong: the EO wouldn't.  As St. Cyril points out, the ideas expressed here would mean that God did not empty Himself out (kenosis) as St. Paul claims in Phillippians, but rather God raised a man to His level.

 

[Rafa999]

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him  be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

 

[minasoliman]

I think the dialogue between the Assyrians and the OO's that went on need to be thrown out and start all over.  The Coptic Church felt that they were defrauded not once, but many times in the dialogues.  Perhaps one can get a sense of understanding in these dialogues when one finds out NOW that the leader of these dialogues Metropolitan Mar Bawai Soro, has now left the Assyrian Church and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps Mar Bawai was being dishonest in his talks with the OO's.  I don't know.  But one thing for sure, one of the things our Metropolitan His Emminence (HE) Bishoy was quite annoyed by was when Mar Bawai wanted to give an analogy of understanding of Assyrian Christology with that of Cyrillian Christology:

I was an observer in the dialogue and discussed with Metropolitan Bawai Soro the concept of the persons in Christ distinct in thought alone. He said “as you (the Oriental Orthodox) accept that two natures were united in one incarnate nature of God the Logos and the two distinct in thought alone, we also consider two persons forming one person of the union and distinct in thought alone”. At this stage I told him since we do not dissolve the two natures after the union you cannot dissolve the persons in one after the union and the two persons will continue to exist in the union even if they are distinct in thought alone. Consequently we are going to have four persons in heaven instead of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Assyrians/siteassyr.doc

If this is true, even though the Assyrians may say that they don't believe in "two persons," Mar Bawai gave the Coptic Church that impression.

 

[Papist]

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him  be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

So is Christ one person or two?

 

[Papist]

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him  be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

We are pretty certain that almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

 

[ialmisry]

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions.

I do read Aramaic, but I think you mean Syriac (which I also read).  Since, however, Theodoret and of course Nestorius expressed himself in Greek also, we can't chalk this up to faulty translation.  Further, the Syriac Orthodox read the New Testament in Aramaic/Syriac, and they are in full agreement with the Copts, and I would say, us EO, in upholding St. Cyril's teaching and objections on the matter.

The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died???

We believe that God purchased the Church with His Own Blood. Acts 20:28.

ܐܙܕܗܪܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܒܢܦܫܟܘܢ ܘܒܟܠܗ ܡܪܥܝܬܐ ܗܝ ܕܐܩܝܡܟܘܢ ܒܗ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܐܦܤܩܘܦܐ ܕܬܪܥܘܢ ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܝ ܕܩܢܗ ܒܕܡܗ

The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism).

Both God and Man in One Christ, with co-mingling, confusion, admixture or seperation.

The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic

Actually, no.  The COE uses Syriac, which the Syriac Orthodox Church also uses.  I've been to Ma'lula, where the Orthodox there still speak Aramaic (not Syriac).  And to give credit where credit is do, there are also, for instance, some Maronite towns where Aramaic is still used, and the Maronites as a whole still use it alongside Arabic.

which is the language of the Messiah,

But the language of the NT is Greek.

and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him  be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons.

Where does the Aramaic (or the Syriac) NT say Qnome?

Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome.

I'll reserve comment here.

Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

The Orthodox care quite a lot.  And the Copts aren't Monophysite.

 

[simplygermain]

Funny - I didn't know you knew most Protestants, at least they haven't mentioned you.

What I am speaking of is Protestant Biblical scholars, most taking for granted that the Greek is the original text. That depends on who you read, so "most" is subjective.

The Nestorians are seen a sort of 'proto-Protestants' by many as many of the things Protestants hate Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy for are lacking with the Nestorians

The Assyrian Church of the East to which George Lamsa belonged is not Nestorian in its Christology, that is a strawmen often made against them, and Lamsa himself. However, I would be open to contrary evidence.

In discussion with an Assembly of God minister about just this subject during the first week of July, I made the suggestion that learning Western Syriac and reading the Peshitto would be more reliable (note, not the Nestorian Peshitta.)

with no car, and I'll tell you, living in a canvas Yurt a mile from your nearest neighbor and 5 miles from the General Store, is no cup of tea. I chopped my wood every morning for my wood stove, even in the snow, went potty in an outhouse, and my water came from the creek next to the Yurt. I will be the first to admit that it was some of the best time in my life (while I was single) , but also a very hard way to live. I would not have wanted to do it for the rest of my life, since becoming a monk was distracted by my wife, and kids were becoming the new topic. I could not have put my family through it. Maybe you could think for a minute, about trying out some of that lifestyle in the States before running into a much harder scenario. I have known people who did what you propose and fell to all sorts of dangers and distractions.

I felt the same way as you when I was newly converting from Rasta, and may have some insights into what you are seeking which the others do not. If you wish to PM me, we can talk.



Fixed quote tags...  - PtA

 

[PeterTheAleut]

You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions.

Did not the Disciples who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost speak in many different tongues?  Was not the New Testament written by those so enlightened at Pentecost and compiled by the Church that was born of this Pentecost event?  How, then, can you so limit the revelation of God to just one language, especially when it can be shown that this one language you tout wasn't even the majority language of the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles?