• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Assyrian Church of the East

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.

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

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

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.

There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered. Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right. The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do. 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.

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). This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:



As for Qnome in Eastern Syriac, just read the NT at http://www.peshitta.org/ for countless instances.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Rafa999 said:
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.
You need to realize that neither the Eastern Orthodox (EO) nor the Oriental Orthodox (OO), including the Coptic Church believe anything like that.  When we say that the Incarnate Word of God suffered in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh (See St. Cyril's 12th anathema and the EO's Fifth Council,) we are expressing the reality of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation.  We don't believe that God the Word ever ceased to exist. 

You don't seem to understand our beliefs.  Perhaps it is good that you are here, then, so that we can understand each other better.  :)


It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.
Are you saying that Christ had to rely on the Holy Spirit to be raised from the dead; that He did not have the power Himself to do so?  How would that make Christ's Resurrection different from that of Lazarus?
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Rafa999 said:
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...)
It more likely that the Epistles were written in Greek. St. Paul's letters were written mainly to the Gentile Churches who spoke Greek. Why would Paul write to them in Aramaic? At Pentecost, the Apostles were given the gift of toungues in order to preach the Gospel to all nations in their own language. The Church decided that the Gentiles did not have to become Jewish before they could be Christian so I don't think that they would have to learn Aramaic to read the letters St. Paul wrote. St. Luke the Evangelist was a Greek as well so I don't see why he would write his Gospel in Aramaic. It seems unlikely that the Epistles were written in Aramaic.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Rafa999 said:
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.
But what about the Apostles?  Do you ignore the fact that the Messiah commissioned them to preach His Gospel to all the nations (Matthew 28:18-20)?  Do you ignore the fact that, after the Holy Spirit descended upon them in accordance with the Messiah's promise in John 14:25-26, the Apostles did preach and the people who embraced their faith devoted themselves to their teaching (Acts 2:42)?

Rafa999 said:
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...)
What makes the Patriarch of Babylon a more trustworthy authority than Bruce Metzger on this question?

Rafa999 said:
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.
What good does that do me?  I can't read Aramaic.

What good would an Aramaic New Testament have accomplished with an audience that largely spoke and read Greek?

Rafa999 said:
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".
Can you post a link to any source that documents Papias saying this?

Rafa999 said:
This is too profound a topic and should be reserved for another time though. Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.

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.
So where are these "ancient manuscripts"?  Can you point us to them so we can read them for ourselves and not blindly take your word on what they say?

Rafa999 said:
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
Again, what good are they without an English translation that I and most any poster on this forum can read?

Rafa999 said:
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.
Do you honestly think we believe that garbage? ???

Rafa999 said:
This simply cannot happen. It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.

There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered. Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right. The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do. 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.

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). This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:



As for Qnome in Eastern Syriac, just read the NT at http://www.peshitta.org/ for countless instances.
Again, can the faith be confined to mere words?  It seems to me from your arguments on this thread that you think so.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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. 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.

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, 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.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Rafa999 said:
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.
CORRECTION:  According to the source you just referenced, Papias said this only of the Gospel of Matthew.

"Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (from Fragment 6)

Rafa999 said:
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. 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.

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, 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.
But you don't trust the Holy Spirit, who gave the gift of foreign tongues to the Apostles, to properly oversee the translation of sacred texts so those untrained in Syriac can understand them?
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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). 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.
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Rafa999 said:
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.

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.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
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?



Second, I dont believe the New Testament was written in Greek despite all Western "scholarly" claims to the contrary (like Bruce Metzger knows more than the Patriarch of Babylon on the origin of these holy texts.Sure...)
Even the Peshitta wasn't written in Babylon, so I don't know why the Patriarch of Babylon could make any special claim.

 The Chaldean Catholic Church supposedly even had an autograph written by Mar Mari and Addai with them showing that the original was Aramaic. Go here: http://www.peshitta.org/ to read In Estrangelo (Eastern Syriac) the Peshitta.
You must have a different Bible, as we don't have the Gospel according to Mari nor the Epistles of Addai.

Further, we know Papias said that because of persecution most of the originals were lost in the Western world as people "translated best they could". This is too profound a topic and should be reserved for another time though.
Papias says that the Gospel AND ONLY the Gospel of Matthew was translated as best they could (btw., my working theory is that the Aramaic logia of Matthew is analogous to the postulated "Q", which was later translated by him into Greek).

And we have plenty of fragments in Greek going back to the second century AT THE LATEST.

Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.
We have the threads here already.

Third, you mentioned Acts 20:28. Ancient COE manuscripts expressly show that unscrupulous Monophysite scribes altered Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 from the original readings right after the Nestorius controversy. Here is the original reading of Acts 20:28 (see links, one is to the Khabouris Codex):

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.

the MESSIAH purchased the Church with his own blood. God does not have blood (though he owns all the blood in the world and accepted the blood of his precious son as a most holy Qurbana, ie: sin offering of the highest order), it is blasphemy to suggest that an invisible spirit fused with a human nature to produce blood and that the creator "died" ceased to exist and left the universe in disrepair. This simply cannot happen. It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.
Salpy, Ekhristosanesti, Minasuliman and any OO I have forgotten: this is why I say we are the same Faith, because I take it you find this blasphemous as I hope the EO do.

There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered.
That's an assertion.  Any proof.

Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) it doesn't depend on what you say.  Your proof?

The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do.
The Persian Empire had plenty of EO and OO, and the consort of the Shah, Shirin, famously favored them over the Nestorians.  And yes, she had the Shah tell the Nestorians what to do.  Further, Justinian sponsored the OO in the Sassanid empire, and Heracleus occupied it.

So its manuscript tradition is more reliable than that of the Syriac Orthodox Church which was influenced by the Byzantine sphere and "robber synods" like that of Ephesus.
Doesn't even work well in theory, let alone in fact.  Fact is that we have the Greek of Acts 20:28 predating the ECUMENICAL Council of 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.

PeterTheAleut said:
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
ialmisry said:
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."

Anyways, I just want to say that the COE is actually very similar to the Orthodox Church but uses different terminology overall. The two pivotal differences I already gave you - Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28 have different readings in Eastern Syriac, further the COE does not accept the canonicity of the last five NT books and the pericope adultera (story of the adultress in the Gospel of John).
For those who want to check out the terminology:A Compendious Syriac Dictionary by Robert Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon 1903) is the standard (well, there is a larger standard, but it is in Latin).
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/PayneSmith/

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

As for Qnome in Eastern Syriac, just read the NT at http://www.peshitta.org/ for countless instances.
If the instances are so countless, it shouldn't be quite a problem for you to cite one.  How about kyana?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
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.


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. ::)

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


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

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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
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).

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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Andrew21091 said:
Rafa999 said:
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.

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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
"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.

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"
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Rafa, welcome to the forum!  :)

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!
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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).
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Rafa999 said:
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.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
GregoryLA said:
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.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Rafa999 said:
"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:
Fr. Anastasios said:
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.
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Rafa999 said:
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!
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
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.



 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Salpy said:
GregoryLA said:
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!
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Rafa999 said:
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.  :D
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
GregoryLA said:
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.  :)
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Andrew21091 said:
Rafa999 said:
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.  :D
I hope to get this book soon!
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
GregoryLA said:
Andrew21091 said:
Rafa999 said:
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.  :D
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.
 

SamB

High Elder
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
787
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
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


 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.

 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Andrew21091 said:
GregoryLA said:
Andrew21091 said:
Rafa999 said:
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.  :D
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! :D

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. ???
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
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.

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).

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.
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.

The Messiah has blood and offered it as a Qurbana on the cross.
That He did.

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.


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.

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.

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?
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
Rafa999 said:
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?

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
NJ
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?

 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
6
Points
38
GregoryLA said:
Rafa999 said:
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.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
SamB said:
ialmisry said:
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
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
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
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
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.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
NJ
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
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"?
 

SamB

High Elder
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
787
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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
 
Top