The Assyrian Church of the East

[ialmisry]

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

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

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

 

[Crucifer]

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

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

 

[Andrew21091]

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

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

Indeed. Surely, they would be able to have the Model T by now right?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

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

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

Are you expecting a response, or are you just asking a rhetorical question?  Matthew777 is currently banned from posting anything here.

 

[Nazarene]

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

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

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

The Fathers identify the hypostasis with the prosopon.

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

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

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

that they borrow a Greek term

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

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

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

Oh btw, here are Peshitta NT verses for qnoma:

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

and for kyana:

Romans 2:27, Romans 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:14, Galatians 2:15, Galatians 4:8, James 1:21, James 3:7

 

[Nazarene]

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

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

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

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

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

God bless,

Rony

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

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

 

[ialmisry]

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

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

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

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

The Fathers identify the hypostasis with the prosopon.

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

LOL.  Except taking the Greek term prosopon ("parsopa").

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

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

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

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

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

that they borrow a Greek term

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

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

The Hebrew is paniym:

06440 paniym paw-neem’ pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused noun

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://thriceholy.net/prosopon.html

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

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

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

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

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

Oh btw, here are Peshitta NT verses for qnoma:

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

 

[ialmisry]

This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

That's nice. I like a clear picture.

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

The diagram is about the Incarnation not the Trinity.

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

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

God bless,

Rony

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

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

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

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

 

[Rafa999]

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

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

For I am the LORD, I change not

Malachi 3:6

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

[green]Personal email address removed for security reasons[/green]

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



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

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

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator

 

[Rafa999]

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

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

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



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

- PeterTheAleut

 

[minasoliman]

oh boy...here we go...

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.

 

[ialmisry]

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

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

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

The end of the story is that your position Isa entails that God change.

No, it does not.

God does not change:

For I am the LORD, I change not

Malachi 3:6

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

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

Neither the miaphysite nor I believe any such thing.  

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

The Definition of Chalcedon:

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

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html

Anyways, this belief is on the wane- the Roman Catholic Church has re-declared since 1994 the Chalcedon decision in conjunction with the ACOE (the Common Christological Declaration).

This is why I disagree with learned and irenic Ryondish, quoted above, for whom I've had a great deal of respect and admiration since my days on Catholic Answers: the terminology that the Chaldeans use, but with a Catholic explanation, is the same that the Nestorians would use for their beliefs.  It is because of this confusion, common among the "unions" in submission to the Vatican, that we reject such unions: either the Vatican and the Chaldeans believe Ephesus with us, or they reject it with the COE.

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

[green]Personal email address removed for security reasons[/green]

Does he know you are posting his email address?

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

How's his Greek?

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

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

Please contact him anybody interested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets also not mix issues- I consider the LXX more reliable than the MT, but this is another issue entirely.

I'lll agree with you there.



Personal email address removed from quote box for security reasons...  - PtA

 

[ialmisry]

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

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

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

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


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



Personal email address removed from quote box for security reasons  - PtA

 

[ialmisry]

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

I fear that we are NOT confused.

 

[Rafa999]

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


the peculiar property of each nature being preserved

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

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

I heard the COE lifted all of its anathemas Mina, I will have to verify this actually, if Cyril has stopped being referred to as a heretic.

 

[ialmisry]

I have spoken to Brother Andrew if it is ok for you folks to mail him, you can of course mail him. Father Genard is at the moment a bit overwhelmed, I think it would be best if you mailed him after Christmas. Now...for the "charges" : Rome agrees with us.

You may not have noticed, but since 1054 at the latest, that doesn't mean anything.

They have never agreed with us on pretty much anything. You know what that means?

nothing.

It means they know that this is a serious matter and that you better agree with it or else your in some very deep trouble. Do you say to me that God can change? He just said to Malachi that he does not change. You know perfectly well that Miltha is a complicated term which cannot simply be translated into "the word became flesh".

Yes, it can, like it was translated into w'mithla vesra h'wa.

Cite the Peshitta again to our readers word for word as to what is really in that verse so they see how complicated things really are.

and-Word-the flesh-the was.  simple.

Third...you just confessed Cyril was a briber and embezzler,

No, I said "if..."  I forgot to put in the "even."  Your point has no point even if he was a briber and embezzler.

so now we hold thieves and liars as saints?

Pope St. Cyril did nothing that Pope St. Athanasius didn't do.

Fourth, by your own words in this thread or the other one we discussed on the ACOE, Khabouris is the most ancient semitic NT.

I'd like to have my "own words" quoted, as Khabouris is no such thing.  The Old Syriac is the oldest (only the Gospels), and even it is not the oldest, being preceded by the Diatessaron (it, however, exists only in Persian and Arabic translation, and quotes in Armenian, besides recently discovered Syriac fragments).
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=Kiraz+Old+Syriac&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Kiraz%20Old%20Syriac&f=false

Good luck in convincing me that a manuscript scribes threw in a trash heap with "Fool and Knave don't change the reading" engraved on it is more reliable than the text Mar Mari and Addai handed to believers in person.

I showed you Sinaiticus, not Vaticanus.  You also don't know who wrote the comment, nor his authority for doing so.  Nor have you said was the reading that was wrong to which the comment is written. I also don't know of Vaticanus being thrown in the trash.

The oldest Christian liturgy is of the COE as you know as well.

No, it is the Liturgy of St. James, the Brother of God, which the Syriac Orthodox Church preserves, along with the EO.

Again I am not qualified enough for this subject, however I can say

No, if you are not qualified, you cannot smear the great Philoxenus and Rabbulah, in particular as the Fathers supported him against Ibas, who I know the Nestorian letter attributed to him is condemned by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils as much as the Nestorians praised it.

that not all syriac is made equal, and that the garbage forged down by Philoxenus of Mabbug and Rabbulah of Edessa is not the Peshitta used by the COE.

No, evidently it has its own Nestorian forged text.

the peculiar property of each nature being preserved

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

Because I don't think you missed that part.  In fact, you latch onto it, and forget the rest.

 

[Rafa999]

We know full well that Rabullah of Edessa was universally considered by all Syriac speaking Christians as "the Devil of Edessa" and as a forger of scriptures. "Old Syriac" Sinaiticus is so well considered by scribes that on the back a story of the "great saint thecla" is scratched on it. I highly doubt manuscripts of high importance are treated this way.Philoxenus of Mabbug's translation was also considered horrendous by Syriac speakers and everybody interested should search the records on this. The Diatesseron is a "harmonization" of the gospels not the four Gospels per se. The Peshitta does not come from the Diatesseron, it is the reverse- the Diatesseron of Tatian is harmonized from the Peshitta. As for the reading on the manuscript which was wrong, it was Hebrews 1:3. I wonder what it was that was being modified, does it have something to do with what we are talking about now  :

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Just to answer any questions regarding how posters should refer to the saints of other traditions in the course of their discussions, I found this post at the top of the public Oriental Orthodox Discussion board.  Granted, Faith Issues is a different board with a different area of focus, but I think we can draw from the precedent set here many of the principles Fr. Anastasios would probably like to see apply to Faith Issues, as well.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3758.0.html

 

[ialmisry]

We know full well that Rabullah of Edessa was universally considered by all Syriac speaking Christians as "the Devil of Edessa" and as a forger of scriptures.

The Fathers at Ephesus knew no such thing, and plenty of Syriac Orthodox Christians were firm supporters of Rabulla, against his unworthy successor Hibas.

"Old Syriac" Sinaiticus is so well considered by scribes that on the back a story of the "great saint thecla" is scratched on it. I highly doubt manuscripts of high importance are treated this way.

That wasn't the question: you claimed that Khabouris was the oldest Semitic NT, and I was just pointing out that it demonstrably was not.  As for reusing parchment etc., are you familiar with palimpsests?  You would be suprised with what you find: for one, many unical Bibles were reused just for the simple reason that minsucle script had replaced it.  In this case, the Peshitta text supplanted the Old Syriac, which fell into disuse.  And Thekla is a great saint: I was at her shrine at Ma'lula, where they still speak Aramaic (not Syriac) and the sweetest water at the spring in the monastery.  Ambrosia.

 Philoxenus of Mabbug's translation was also considered horrendous by Syriac speakers and everybody interested should search the records on this.

You can check the work I already linked:The Syriac New Testament By George Anton Kiraz, James Murdock, Horace L. Hastings
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=Kiraz+Old+Syriac&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Kiraz%20Old%20Syriac&f=false
The Catholic Epistles and the Revalation may be from this version (btw, their absence is a problem for Aramaic primacy), which seemed to have been done for theological book rather than devotional use.

The Diatesseron is a "harmonization" of the gospels not the four Gospels per se. The Peshitta does not come from the Diatesseron, it is the reverse- the Diatesseron of Tatian is harmonized from the Peshitta.

It predates the Peshitta's existence, which replaced it.  It also may have been in Greek, or in Aramaic, i.e. not Syriac.  Btw, you are aware that Tatian was St. Justin's student at Rome: St. Justin himself uses a Gospel harmony which was in Greek.

As for the reading on the manuscript which was wrong, it was Hebrews 1:3. I wonder what it was that was being modified, does it have something to do with what we are talking about now  :

Well, let's see:
It is this in the Patriarchal text:
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ρήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι' ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents_E_Paulou_Evraious.asp&main=E_Paulou_Evraious&file=3.1.14.1.htm

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

Sinaiticus:οϲ ων απαυγαϲμα τηϲ δοξηϲ και χαρακτηρ τηϲ ϋποϲταϲεωϲ αυτου φερω  τε τα παντα τω ρηματι τηϲ δυναμεωϲ αυτου καθαριϲμο  των αμαρτιων ┬ ποιηϲαμενοϲ εκαθιϲε  εν δεξια τηϲ μεγαλωϲυνηϲ εν υψηλοιϲ
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=46&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=3&zoomSlider=0

It is this in the Peshitta:
ܕܗܘܝܘ ܨܡܚܐ ܕܫܘܒܚܗ ܘܨܠܡܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܬܗ ܘܐܚܝܕ ܟܠ ܒܚܝܠܐ ܕܡܠܬܗ ܘܗܘ ܒܩܢܘܡܗ ܥܒܕ ܕܘܟܝܐ ܕܚܛܗܝܢ ܘܝܬܒ ܥܠ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܪܒܘܬܐ ܒܡܪܘܡܐ

which is the same in your Khabouris.
http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/download.php

For the Greek and Aramaically challenged, let's see the difference:in Greek
http://interlinearbible.org/hebrews/1.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fBkW3JcC&pg=PT512&dq=Peshitta+greek+New+testament+Hebrews&lr=&cd=14#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Not an enormous difference.

In Vaticanus, note probably refers to the change of φανερων "shining, manifest" to the standard reading φέρων "upholding" in Heb 1:3.
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html

so I guess the answer to your question is no.

 

[witega]

Rome agrees with us.

Actually Rome also says they agree with us (EO). And they signed documents that they agree with the Copts (OO). Since we rather clearly do not agree (not to mention you and the OO), Rome's willingness to agree doesn't carry a lot of weight (and while we're at it, do you agree with them on subordination of the Spirit and papal infallibility? if like us, you do not, why would you consider them doctrinal source worth citing?)

 

[ozgeorge]

Rome agrees with us.

Actually Rome also says they agree with us (EO). And they signed documents that they agree with the Copts (OO). Since we rather clearly do not agree (not to mention you and the OO), Rome's willingness to agree doesn't carry a lot of weight (and while we're at it, do you agree with them on subordination of the Spirit and papal infallibility? if like us, you do not, why would you consider them doctrinal source worth citing?)

Something has just occurred to me on reading this. Perhaps Rafa999 is part of the Assyrian Church of the East which the former Bishop, Mar Bawai Soro led into unity with the Pope?

 

[Rafa999]

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.

 

[ozgeorge]

OK. I wasn't sure.
Mar Bawai is a personal friend of mine. I attended University with his sister.

 

[GregoryLA]

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.

Thing is that the article that I linked to earlier has several examples from liturgical texts in the COE dating from fairly early (6th-1th cent. maybe) that clearly referred to icons in liturgical use.  Also, these liturgical texts were not composed by recent converts or semi-pagans but one was by the Catholicos of Babylon (I think.  Is that even the right title?

 

[stashko]

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.

Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...

 

[Nazarene]

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

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

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.

 

[witega]

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

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

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations). Jesus wept, Jesus died, Jesus bled, Jesus walked on water, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus reigns in Glory. Jesus is God. Jesus is man. So the God Jesus wept, the God Jesus died, the God Jesus bled and the man Jesus walked on water, the man Jesus rose from the dead, the man Jesus reigns in Glory.

Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips. But as far as the Person, the subject, the actor/experiencer, its always One Person, Jesus the Christ. To intimate that Christ's humanity did anything or experienced anything without continuing and complete union with His divinity (i.e., Christ's human side died but God did not die) is to undercut our whole understanding of the Incarnation in which God made Himself man in order to rejoin humanity to the Divine. If Jesus Christ the man died, but God did not, then death continues to be a separation from the Divine and the Christian message is meaningless other than as a nice set of ethical teachings.

 

[minasoliman]

Rafa,

The Copts are not Monophysite they are Miaphysite and there's a huge difference between these 2 doctrines, explained by a Copt here. Read what this guy says, it's in broken English but it helped me understand what they really believe.

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

I've tried to explain it a bit before here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.90.html (it's not easy). "Separation" seems to be major a concern for you guys, may ask why that is? What would "separation" between the natures of Messiah imply in your understanding? I have a feeling the COE's understanding of "separation" differs to yours. Or perhaps "separation" is the wrong choice of word, that's why I need you to answer this question.

A separation or a degree of separation to me entails something like that of a union between two persons, like a marriage.  When we talk about the union in Christ, it is like the union of the natures in man.

God bless.

 

[Salpy]

Also, as I understood it, "separation" would also mean that Christ was just a man who had the Word of God dwelling in him.  I think the Nestorians in the old days compared this to God dwelling in a temple.  This really would make Christ the same as the saints or prophets, who also had God dwelling in them.  It's not the same as God the Word becoming incarnate.

We also include the words "without confusion or mingling" to show that we don't believe in the other extreme, which Rafa accuses of:  that Christ's divinity and humanity mixed together to form some third nature which was neither fully human or divine.  We don't believe in that either.

 

[Rafa999]

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.

Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...

The Sign of the Cross is traditionally done with the three fingers (thumb, index and middle) of the right hand starting at the mouth, then forehead - stomach - right shoulder - left shoulder.

 

[stashko]

No my friend, I have nothing to do with Ashur Soros, he tried to force the COE into submitting to papal authority, to dissolve the COE into Rome, something which earned him a defrocking. Relations with the RCC are improving again though from what I hear, the pope just gave a calculated speech asking for further dialogues and trying to "cover up" this recent trouble. I think it will be reciprocated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha or his successor God willing.

Hello ..Question Do You Cross your selfs like we eastern orthodox do.....Right to left...

The Sign of the Cross is traditionally done with the three fingers (thumb, index and middle) of the right hand starting at the mouth, then forehead - stomach - right shoulder - left shoulder.

Thank You ! where almost the same  ;D

 

[Rafa999]

I'd say there are bigger differences between the RCC and the Assyrian Church than between the Assyrian Church and Orthodox. The only folks Assyrians have a really hard time with from what I know are protestants who follow things never ever seen in the Apostolic tradition (the rapture anyone? Once saved always saved? These are doctrines of demons). The big issue right now with the RCC is its megalomaniac attempts at absorbing and dissolving the COE, less doctrine from what I understand.

 

[stashko]

I'd say there are bigger differences between the RCC and the Assyrian Church than between the Assyrian Church and Orthodox. The only folks Assyrians have a really hard time with from what I know are protestants who follow things never ever seen in the Apostolic tradition (the rapture anyone? Once saved always saved? These are doctrines of demons). The big issue right now with the RCC is its megalomaniac attempts at absorbing and dissolving the COE, less doctrine from what I understand.

Hopefully by the grace of God , majority of the faithfull SCOE won't allow that to happen to be absorbed or desolved or unite...Patriarchs or what ever the titles are for them in your church, can be replaced if their  the cause of this union with rome that leads to your extinction  .....

 

[John Larocque]

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

The sources that are of most interest to me are the Old Syriac (predating the Peshitta), and the the one Nestle-Aland refers to as SyrPal. The Syriac Palestinian version has some affinity with so-called Caesarian variants also found in Armenian and Georgian translations and codices (including Empress Theodora's Codex and Codex Koridethi), and one of the two groups of Greek Lectionaries that underly the Patriarchal version of the New Testament. (The other group of Greek Lectionaries used by Antoniades were closer to the "Lucianic" or Byzantine norm). Odd that most of the main witnesses originated in what was traditional Oriental Orthodox territory.

I read that the Old Syriac (superseded by the Peshitta) has some parallels with the Old Latin (which was superseded by the Vulgate).

 

[Rafa999]

You will have to examine the manuscript tradition very carefully, starting at the website I gave (Peshitta.org) you will see that the Peshitta predates old Syriac, that work is the product of the pen of Rabullah of Edessa, we even have his famous "Evangelion d'Mephareshe" wording on old scratch showing that this can be traced down to him. We also have Mar Aphrahat quoting the COE version of the Peshitta before Rabullah's Grandmother was born, so there's no way the Peshitta came from Sinaiticus. I'd say the Peshitta and the Vulgate agree very well, in fact Jerome quoted the Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta reading in the Vulgate if I am correct.

 

[John Larocque]

I'd say the Peshitta and the Vulgate agree very well, in fact Jerome quoted the Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta reading in the Vulgate if I am correct.

The UBS3 aligns "kariti qeou" against against "kwris theou." Is this what you mean?

http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/hebrews-29-separated-by-grace-part-2/

What then is the external evidence in favor of each reading? The manuscript evidence in support of χάριτι θεοῦ is very strong. The major manuscripts that favor this reading include P46 א A B C D 33 81 330 614 itar,b, comp, d, v vg copsa, bo, fay, as well as others.1 In addition, Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, and Jerome all testify that the reading exists. Therefore, we have an early reading that is supported by weighty manuscripts spread across several text-types and regions.2  From the B-Text (Alexandrian) there is P46 א B 33, etc.; from the D-Text (Western) there is D, as well as the evidence of the earlier “fathers”;3  and from the A-Text (Byzantine) there is A, as well as a host of unmentioned minuscules.4  The combination of these external criteria typically leads to an “A” rating.

By comparison, the manuscript evidence in favor of χωρὶς θεοῦ is very weak. Aside from 0121b, which is late, there are no uncial manuscripts.5 Additional support for χωρὶς θεοῦ is provided by the cursive 1739,6 a few manuscripts of the Vulgate, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a group known as the Nestorians (according to Pseudo-Oecumenius), Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Vigilius, Fulgentius, and syrp mss.7 Here we have a few late manuscripts and a host of patristic witnesses who have varying opinions on the validity of the reading. In sum, the external evidence in favor of χωρὶς θεοῦ is tenuous at best. Therefore, in terms of external evidence, χάριτι θεοῦ should be preferred to χωρὶς θεοῦ.

The author then presents a defence of the latter reading (separated by Grace), citing Bart Ehrman.

Here's kind of an evangelical retort to Ehrman and company:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/05/brock-on-hebrews-29.html

S.P. Brock, 'Hebrews 2:9b in Syriac Tradition', Novum Testamentum 27 (1983) 236-44.

As would be expected from this author, we have a thorough review of the Syriac evidence for χωρις θεου vs χαριτι θεου. He considers 31 Peshitta mss from the fifth through to the thirteenth centuries. The data defy brief summary, since there were clearly a number of 'corrections' within mss, though broadly speaking the reading 'apart from God' found favour in the Church of the East ('Nestorians'), while readings with the word 'grace' found favour in the West (Syrian Orthodox and Maronite). Brock argues that 'grace' was the earliest reading of the Peshitta, though his conclusion is not indisputable.

The other thing that he does is to show how the different readings in Hebrews 2:9 were used in Christological controversy during the fifth and sixth centuries.

All the known printed versions of the Vulgate from the past four centuries (including the textual-critical Stuttgart) read "ut gratia Dei." The UBS claims the Peshitta aligns with the Western reading. This other variant seems to be an East Syrian thing.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/05/evidence-in-hebrews-29.html

It is also claimed in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption (p. 146) and in Metzger's Textual Commentary (2nd edn; p. 594) that Peshitta manuscripts support this reading. I'm wondering why Wallace, Ehrman and Metzger agree that this is the Peshitta's reading. In Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel, Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung, II. Die Paulinischen Briefe, Teil 3: 1./2. Thessalonicherbrief, 1./2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief, Philemonbrief und Hebräerbrief (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002, pp. 262-264) there is no record of any Peshitta ms with this reading.

There are, however, readings of Severus of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Babai the Great that appear to support 'without God'

 

[Rafa999]

The UBS3 aligns "kariti qeou" against against "kwris theou." Is this what you mean?

http://www.witheringfig.com/new-testament/hebrews-29-separated-by-grace-part-2/

Yes, it reads "apart from God" (poor translation on my part note). This was from day one the COE reading, Mar Babai the Great who rebuilt the church after the Sassanid persecutions, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Severus of Antioch did indeed use this reading. There's an entire thread devoted to this at Peshitta.org by the way.

 

[minasoliman]

Are the writings of Mar Babai translated and accessible?

 

[minasoliman]

I was skimming through this writing by Theodore of Mopsuestia (I should read the whole thing though, which I'll do when I have the time) and I just wanted to give an example of what we as Orthodox find quite objectionable even in the language of Christology:

Our Fathers rightly thought not to overlook the humanity of our Lord which possesses such an ineffable union with Divine nature, but added: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, as if they had said, 'We believe in one Lord who is of Divine nature, to which the name of Lord and God is truly due.' In speaking of God the Word they said: By whom are all things, as the evangelist said: "All things were made by Him, and nothing was made without Him." It is as if they had said, ' This one we understand to be one Lord who is of the Divine nature of God the Father, who for our salvation put on a man in whom He dwelt and through whom He appeared and became known to mankind. It is this man who was said by the angel that he would be called Jesus, who was anointed with the Holy Ghost in whom He was perfected and justified, as the blessed Paul testifies.' After saying these and showing the Divine nature and the human nature which God put on, they added: The "Only Begotten Son," the "first-born" of all creatures. With these two words they alluded to the two natures, and by the difference between the words they made us understand the difference between the natures. From the fact also that they referred both words to the one person of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures. They did not make use of these words out of their own head but they took them from the teaching of Holy Writ. The blessed Paul said: "Of whom Christ in the flesh, who is God over all," not that He is God by nature from the fact that He is of the House of David in the flesh, but he said "in the flesh" in order to indicate the human nature that was assumed. He said "God over all" in order to indicate the Divine nature which is higher than all, and which is the Lord. He used both words of one person in order to teach the close union of the two natures, and in order to make manifest the majesty and the honour that came to the man who was assumed by God who put Him on.

When you differentiate the natures of Christ to the point you give the human nature a separate pronoun, that to me is troublesome language, two personist if you will, even though Theodore of Mopsuestia says he believes in one person, but continues to say the man was called Jesus, and God the Word assumed Him, not "it" but Him.  Neither is it acknowledged that God the Word IS Jesus, but rather assumed Jesus.

To be honest, the definition Nazerene gives to hypostasis is fine by me, because if anything Severus of Antioch was close to that definition.  But I would say that Severus of Antioch would condemn the way one would talk about Christ as Theodore of Mopsuestia did (let alone the two natures part, which is a separate discussion).  So there's more to it than just different definitions of terms in my opinion.

 

[Nazarene]

Shalom witega, minasoliman & Salpy, thank you for answering my question. Now I have a better idea on how to answer questions regarding the COE's Christology:

From the moment of Incarnation, there was One Person. Meaning there was one actor (or experiencer in passive situations).

The COE is in agreement with this, they confess that Meshikha is one parsopa. And contrary to what Isa posted earlier from Payne Smith's Syriac Lexicon, Prof. Sebastien Brock has proven with his research that this is not the original meaning of qnoma, which was discussed on this page: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20533.45.html.

Jesus wept, Jesus died, Jesus bled, Jesus walked on water, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus reigns in Glory. Jesus is God. Jesus is man. So the God Jesus wept, the God Jesus died, the God Jesus bled and the man Jesus walked on water, the man Jesus rose from the dead, the man Jesus reigns in Glory.

I'm with you so far, though the COE will object to some of the points above, that is until you get to this bit...

Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical,

If you're gonna say things like "the God Jesus died" or "the God Jesus blead", then please get technical with the COE, cause if you don't it will cause confusion - always.

then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.

This is exactly what the COE believes.

But as far as the Person, the subject, the actor/experiencer, its always One Person, Jesus the Christ.

Yes they believe this too.

To intimate that Christ's humanity did anything or experienced anything without continuing and complete union with His divinity (i.e., Christ's human side died but God did not die) is to undercut our whole understanding of the Incarnation in which God made Himself man in order to rejoin humanity to the Divine. If Jesus Christ the man died, but God did not, then death continues to be a separation from the Divine and the Christian message is meaningless other than as a nice set of ethical teachings.

As long as the EOs & OOs keep "getting technical" with the COE as you did above, I believe future dialogue will be more fruitful than in the past.

A separation or a degree of separation to me entails something like that of a union between two persons, like a marriage.  When we talk about the union in Christ, it is like the union of the natures in man.

God bless.

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Does man (i.e. in general) consist of more than one nature or are you refering to the "body, soul & spirit" combo that a human being consists of?

Also, as I understood it, "separation" would also mean that Christ was just a man who had the Word of God dwelling in him.  I think the Nestorians in the old days compared this to God dwelling in a temple.  This really would make Christ the same as the saints or prophets, who also had God dwelling in them.  It's not the same as God the Word becoming incarnate.

To be fair Messiah did say, concerning His body: "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days". Sure God the Miltha, who was invisible became visible by "clothing" Himself in a "human temple" but this is a gross oversimplication of the Incarnation.

We also include the words "without confusion or mingling" to show that we don't believe in the other extreme, which Rafa accuses of:  that Christ's divinity and humanity mixed together to form some third nature which was neither fully human or divine.  We don't believe in that either.

I think Rafa is assuming that Monophysitism, which was rife in Alexandria and elsewhere at a time eventually became the official creed of the Copts, but this not the case.