The Assyrian Church of the East

[ialmisry]

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,

Only the OT: the NT Old Syriac is more archaic and a freer translation of the Greek than the Peshitta, which came later and was a more literal translation.  The Old Syriac does use the Peshitta OT for quotes in the NT, rather than depending on the LXX in the NT.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5IuQ1YXtgQC&pg=PP8&dq=kiraz+Old+Syriac+old+Testament+Peshitto&cd=1#v=onepage&q=kiraz%20Old%20Syriac%20old%20Testament%20Peshitto&f=false
The Syriac New Testament By George Anton Kiraz, James Murdock, Horace L. Hastings

that work is the product of the pen of Rabullah of Edessa,

Its beginnig predates Rabullah (if you are refering to the bishop) by a couple centuries.

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.

You seem to depend on Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? - Edition 1b - Standard Version By Raphael Lataster
http://books.google.com/books?id=hY1lguX6oo8C&pg=PA275&dq=Mar+aphrahat&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Mar%20aphrahat&f=false

The problem is that the Peshitta wasn't fixed as a text until the 5th century, for borrowing a wording found in the 4th century doesn't prove much.

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.

That might explain why the Vulgate agree very well, if Jerome is quoting the Peshitta.

 

[Rafa999]

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...

 

[ialmisry]

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.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.  Even if the original meaning was thus, that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon), if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis, and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.

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.

Actually, He said "destroy this sanctuary."  Somewhat a difference.

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.

Monophysism was never rife in Alexandria, nor was it ever the official creed of the Coptic Orthodox.

 

[ialmisry]

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...

Actually, I have always believed that because of what you say, Islam, Hinduism etc. and even Judaism are limited, whereas Christianity by its nature is universal, but being bound by a single language.  Even if believed in the primacy of the Peshitta, the OT is still in two other languages, Hebrew and Aramaic.  The Church is spared fundamentalism and literalism by the fact that the Lord's words, with few exceptions, survive only in transaltion.  I believe that is why in part I think the Fathers adopted the LXX, opposed a Hebrew text, besides issues of accuracy.  Btw, I think the Peshitta is somewhat on a par with the Greek Patriarchal Text/textus receptus, as being the expression of the Syriac Orthodox Fathers.

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

It is somewhat like needing the autograph: Muslim belief and Jewish belief requires this, but they cannot have this of their respective scripture.  Where does that leave them?  The Church's textus receptus, in contrast, serves just as well according to her beliefs.

 

[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.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.

 

The ancient meaning of qnoma hasn't died out, the COE preserves it.

Even if the original meaning was thus,

Not sure if it was the original (it stems from the root qom which means to "rise up/be established"), but it's the meaning that dates to the time of Messiah. Brock proved it.

that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon),

It does. Brock demonstrated this.

if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis,

It does not, parsopa=prosopon, kyana=ousia, and qnoma=untranslatable word. Yes the meaning of qnoma changed (well in the west that is) and Brock's research which included dialoging with all the Aramaic speaking churches showed that it was the Syrian Orthodox Church who changed it and all this change did was make everything even more complicated. The Syrian Orthodox definition of qnoma does not date to the time of Messiah and that's why I reject it. When I study the books of the Bible, I do so from the author's own language (the form of it which existed in his day) terminology, and mindset and not try to force my own language, termonology and mindset on these writings because they are not mine.

and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.

"God" has blood now? Or is "the Lord" or "the Lord and God"? Hmm...

As for Hebrews 2:9, have you read Origen on the matter:

that he by the grace of God — (Tit_2:11; Tit_3:4). The reading of Origen, “That He without God” (laying aside His Divinity; or, for every being save God: or perhaps alluding to His having been temporarily “forsaken,” as the Sin-bearer, by the Father on the cross), is not supported by the manuscripts...

Well except for the COE's Peshitta text, but they obviously weren't aware of this. And:

Origen, who looked through the manuscripts of the whole Greek Bible in early 3rd century, knew, that in most cases it was written "apart from God" (Hebrew 2;9). At the time of Hieronymus in late 4th /early 5th century the situation was different. Now it read in the majority of the manuscripts: "by God´s grace". ... It is obvious, that the secoundary text reading was introduced for dogmatic reasons ..." - page 207, Jesus, Man or Myth, Carsten P. Thiede, Lion Hudson plc, Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DH England, 2005

This reading, now exclusive to the eastern Peshitta, was also quoted by Ambrose (397 CE), Jerome (420 CE) & Fulgentius (527 CE), so I've been told.

The previous Patriarch of the COE (Mar Eshai Shimon) claimed that the COE has preserved the original Aramaic NT "without change or revision". Quite a claim indeed, so any evidence of "change" or "revision"? My search has come up dry.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Isa, I like you man. You really are a watchman of the Church keeping an eye out for cunningly devised fables, I really respect that. However you cannot truly believe that only the Greek survived. Are you saying to me that the Muslims can read their Quran in Arabic, the Jews their OT in Hebrew (never mind masoretic corruption later on, they can read it in their script and cultural perspective) but we have to settle for a translaton? Are you saying that the angel of the fiery flame Satan did a better job preserving the Quran than God did preserving HIS scripture? That is totally unfeasible. God allow his words to be destroyed but Satan can preserve the Quran, the Vedas, etc.? No we need to talk more on this...

Actually, God has preserved the word of Scripture... in the Holy Tradition of the Body of His Christ, the Church.  Whereas the Scriptures are indeed of prime authority within the Church, our faith does not rest solely on what's preserved in the written text of the Scriptures.  Hence, we don't need to devote ourselves slavishly to preserving any one translation of the Holy Writ as if our faith would fall apart if we didn't.

 

[Nazarene]

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

Syriac and Aramaic are the same language, Syriac is just the Greek name for this language, the Assyrians call their language lishana Aramaya (the Aramaic language). Compare these Bible verses and see for yourself:

{2 Kings 18:26} And Heliakim the son of Chelkias, and Somnas, and Joas, said to Rapsakes, Speak now to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it; and speak not with us in the Judean language: and why dost thou speak in the ears of the people that are on the wall? (LXX)

{2 Kings 18:26} Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, "Please, speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judaic in the hearing of the people on the wall." (Hebrew)

{Daniel 2:4} And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, saying, O king, live forever: do thou tell the dream to thy servants, and we will declare the interpretation. (LXX)

{Daniel 2:4} The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, "O king, live forever! Relate the dream to your servants, and we will tell its meaning." (Hebrew)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the days of Arthasastha, Tabeel wrote peaceably to Mithradates and to the rest of his fellow-servants: the tribute-gatherer wrote to Arthasastha king of the Persians a writing in the Syrian tongue, and the same interpreted. (LXX)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter written in Aramaic and translated. (Hebrew)

I don’t care how modern linguists classify this ancient language and its dialects when I’m discussing it’s ancient speakers. I will use the understanding contemporary to the time demonstrated by ancient historians such as Herodotus and Strabo:

The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians. The Babylonians serve at their rank - Herodotus: The Histories Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1972)

When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrians no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus (Nineveh); and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her husband... Now, the city of Ninus was wiped out immediately after the overthrow of the Syrians. It was much greater than Babylon, and was situated in the plain of Aturia (Assyria). - Strabo, translated by Horace Jones (1917), The Geography of Strabo London : W. Heinemann ; New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons

 

[PeterTheAleut]

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) ...


...

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, just a reminder that you have 24 hours yet to substantiate this accusation.

 

[ialmisry]

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.

The lexicon doesn't account for usage over time, nor claims to.

 

The ancient meaning of qnoma hasn't died out, the COE preserves it.

Even if true, not relevant to the present questions.

On the evidence of the penetration of Greek thought in the Aramaic speaking hinterland:
Evidence of Greek philosophical concepts in the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Volume 580 By Ute Possekel
http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ3gGQuJUS4C&pg=PA74&dq=qnoma&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=qnoma&f=false

There is also the problem that Edessa/Urhoy served as the center of Aramaic/Syriac culture.  It rose to prominence as the capital of the Abgar (Arab Bedouin) Dynasty, in the sphere of the Parthians. The Parthians, however, at the time used Greek in its administration, even their shahs bearing the title "Philhellene."  It was then annexed by the Roman Empire, and then rebuilt by the Emperor Justin.  Greek culture and thought was around, and it shows up in the Syriac.

Even if the original meaning was thus,

Not sure if it was the original (it stems from the root qom which means to "rise up/be established"), but it's the meaning that dates to the time of Messiah. Brock proved it.

I've only seen him arguing about the meaning predatig the establishment of the correspondence qnoma=hypostasis.  That is still a few centuries short of going back to Christ.  I have to admit, I am not sure of the first appearance of Aramaic/Syriac philosophical texts, but I don't think it predates the 3rd century, the 2nd at the earliest.  Still too late.

that might explain a past misunderstanding (as the usage of hypostasis in different Greek speaking areas did at Chalcedon),

It does. Brock demonstrated this.

if it were not that all the Orthodox (EO and OO) are agreed that parsopon=hypostasis,

It does not, parsopa=prosopon,

technically parsopa<prosopon (which raises the issue of Greek influence).

kyana=ousia, and qnoma=untranslatable word.

There is no such thing as an "untranslatable word."  

Yes the meaning of qnoma changed (well in the west that is) and Brock's research which included dialoging with all the Aramaic speaking churches showed that it was the Syrian Orthodox Church who changed it and all this change did was make everything even more complicated.

Complicated how?

The Syrian Orthodox definition of qnoma does not date to the time of Messiah and that's why I reject it.

The term as far as I know doesn't date to the days of Christ, as Syriac as a language barely does (the earliest form of Syriac is a 6 AD inscription).

When I study the books of the Bible, I do so from the author's own language (the form of it which existed in his day) terminology, and mindset and not try to force my own language, termonology and mindset on these writings because they are not mine.

Then again, you are going to have problems with Christ's words, as He didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta isn't going to help you there.

and that God has blood now, as Acts 20:28 tells us.

"God" has blood now?

For about two thousand years now.

Or is "the Lord" or "the Lord and God"? Hmm...

In the verse in question, "God."

As for Hebrews 2:9,

who brought up Hebrews 2:9?

have you read Origen on the matter:

that he by the grace of God — (Tit_2:11; Tit_3:4). The reading of Origen, “That He without God” (laying aside His Divinity; or, for every being save God: or perhaps alluding to His having been temporarily “forsaken,” as the Sin-bearer, by the Father on the cross), is not supported by the manuscripts...

Well except for the COE's Peshitta text, but they obviously weren't aware of this. And:

Origen, who looked through the manuscripts of the whole Greek Bible in early 3rd century, knew, that in most cases it was written "apart from God" (Hebrew 2;9). At the time of Hieronymus in late 4th /early 5th century the situation was different. Now it read in the majority of the manuscripts: "by God´s grace". ... It is obvious, that the secoundary text reading was introduced for dogmatic reasons ..." - page 207, Jesus, Man or Myth, Carsten P. Thiede, Lion Hudson plc, Mayfield House, 256 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DH England, 2005

This reading, now exclusive to the eastern Peshitta, was also quoted by Ambrose (397 CE), Jerome (420 CE) & Fulgentius (527 CE), so I've been told.

I'd have to know specifics, and specifically why this was brought up.

The previous Patriarch of the COE (Mar Eshai Shimon) claimed that the COE has preserved the original Aramaic NT "without change or revision".

Well if the Peshitta was the Aramaic original, someone changed or revised it, because it is in Syriac now.

Quite a claim indeed, so any evidence of "change" or "revision"? My search has come up dry.

Start with the use of the Greek word "euaggelion" for "Gospel" in the Peshitta, along with the Greek terms "bishop" etc.


Then there are all those early (2nd and perhaps 1st century) Greek texts from the NT.

 

[ialmisry]

Christ didn't speak Syriac, so the Peshitta doesn't record His very words.  It gives a valuable witness to those words, but how independent is a question.  And then the issue is that St. Paul wrote Greek, as did all the other NT writers except St. Matthew.

Syriac and Aramaic are the same language, Syriac is just the Greek name for this language,

I read Syriac and Aramaic, and no, they are not the same language. Btw, Suraya etc. is a borrowing into Syriac from Greek.

the Assyrians call their language lishana Aramaya (the Aramaic language). Compare these Bible verses and see for yourself:

{2 Kings 18:26} And Heliakim the son of Chelkias, and Somnas, and Joas, said to Rapsakes, Speak now to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it; and speak not with us in the Judean language: and why dost thou speak in the ears of the people that are on the wall? (LXX)

{2 Kings 18:26} Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah replied to the Rabshakeh, "Please, speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judaic in the hearing of the people on the wall." (Hebrew)

{Daniel 2:4} And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, saying, O king, live forever: do thou tell the dream to thy servants, and we will declare the interpretation. (LXX)

{Daniel 2:4} The Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, "O king, live forever! Relate the dream to your servants, and we will tell its meaning." (Hebrew)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the days of Arthasastha, Tabeel wrote peaceably to Mithradates and to the rest of his fellow-servants: the tribute-gatherer wrote to Arthasastha king of the Persians a writing in the Syrian tongue, and the same interpreted. (LXX)

{Ezra 4:7} And in the time of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter written in Aramaic and translated. (Hebrew)

I don’t care how modern linguists classify this ancient language and its dialects when I’m discussing it’s ancient speakers. I will use the understanding contemporary to the time demonstrated by ancient historians such as Herodotus and Strabo:

The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians. The Babylonians serve at their rank - Herodotus: The Histories Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1972)

When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrians no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus (Nineveh); and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her husband... Now, the city of Ninus was wiped out immediately after the overthrow of the Syrians. It was much greater than Babylon, and was situated in the plain of Aturia (Assyria). - Strabo, translated by Horace Jones (1917), The Geography of Strabo London : W. Heinemann ; New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons

You speak as if something written in the 2nd millenium BC means the same as the 2nd century AD.  To find out that it doesn't try reading something in Old English, just a millenium and a half difference.  Syriac, and Aramaic, are different from Hebrew, which the Greeks (and I can provide the quotes if necessary) subsume under the one term "Hebrew."

 

[Rafa999]

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

having fled to Egypt, Cyril bribed Theodosius' courtiers, and sent a mob lead by Dalmatius, a hermit, to besiege Theodosius' palace, and shout abuse; the Emperor eventually gave in, sending Nestorius into minor exile (Upper Egypt)


Formal Academic Source: Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 47

I also have as a witness Isa saying that Cyril "Did nothing Athanasius didn't do". Therefore I will not recant. Note that I have absolutely nothing against St.Athanasius, but I do have issues with Cyril being termed a Saint. Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...

 

[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

having fled to Egypt, Cyril bribed Theodosius' courtiers, and sent a mob lead by Dalmatius, a hermit, to besiege Theodosius' palace, and shout abuse; the Emperor eventually gave in, sending Nestorius into minor exile (Upper Egypt)


Formal Academic Source: Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 47

What connection is there between this piece of evidence and the accusation I asked you to substantiate?  I didn't ask for evidence to support a general charge that St. Cyril was a depraved rogue, or to support the specific charge that he somehow persuaded the emperor to send Nestorius into exile (which I'm not convinced was even a bad thing).  I asked you to substantiate your specific claim that St. Cyril "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".  What can you provide to substantiate THAT?  You still have until 3 p.m. tomorrow (Pacific Standard Time) to give us this evidence.

I also have as a witness Isa saying that Cyril "Did nothing Athanasius didn't do".

Not disparaging ialmisry's credibility here, but for the purpose of fulfilling my request, he doesn't count as a reputable source.  Can you cite a single work he's written apart from this forum to serve a specifically scholarly goal?

Therefore I will not recant. Note that I have absolutely nothing against St.Athanasius, but I do have issues with Cyril being termed a Saint. Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...

Yes, I've heard this story about St. Cyril's complicity in the murder of Hypatia, but I've also seen enough information to cast into serious doubt your belief that "there is no dispute" that he led mobs to carry out this dastardly deed.

 

[Salpy]

Oh and by the way, there is no dispute that he led mobs to murder Hypatia-by slowly flaying her. This is not a Saint...

Hypatia's death was gruesome and tragic, but there is no contemporary source to support your claim that the mob which killed her was led by St. Cyril.  Mob violence was unfortunately very common in Alexandria at that time, and although she was killed by a mob of Christians, the sources from that time say the mob was led by a guy named Peter.  St. Cyril was not there, and there is no source from the time to support the claim that he instigated the violence.

 

[Rafa999]

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?

1.  Don't call me "Pete."  I HATE seeing that name attached to me. Please address me as either PeterTheAleut or PtA.
2.  Where is the evidence you provided that is so conclusive that "Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled"?  I have not yet seen it.

 

[ialmisry]

Pete, I provided Conclusive Evidence Cyril bribed his way into influence and embezzled. If you want to give me a warning for telling you the truth ("Have I Become your Enemy for telling you the truth...") then its ok, fine. This is supposed to be a forum no?

can you provide something more up to date than Gibbon, himself questionable.

 

[Rafa999]

You want proof? The 96th letter of the corpus of his writings details every single bribe he sent to Constantinople.

Go here to read how he got his church in debt by embezzling:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-NktOwEjYMC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=letters+of+Cyril+of+Alexandria+96+gifts&source=bl&ots=JKbl75E3Rq&sig=wov--iziBT5SIyWA5KAmxr1K0cM&hl=en&ei=AO0yS_zlDpG2lAe8o8ybBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false


"letter" number 96.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

You want proof? The 96th letter of the corpus of his writings details every single bribe he sent to Constantinople.

Thank you.  That's the kind of evidence I was looking for to support (not necessarily prove) your accusations.

Now, regarding the substance of the introductory explanation added by the translator of these letters, John I. McEnerney: I can think of many reasons why one may question his credibility or the credibility of his writings, so I don't necessarily see his translation of St. Cyril's letters as incontrovertible proof of any allegations against the saint.  However, the only thing I could request as a moderator was evidence to, at the minimum, support the idea that your accusation was at least the opinion of a few reputable scholars and not just something you invented to slander the saint's memory.

Now if someone else, just for the sake of debate, wants to hold you to a higher standard of proof, then that's totally up to them, and you have no formal obligation to comply with their request.

 

[Nazarene]

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

In this post I’ll give all the info I can find on these 3 Aramaic words, (all colour coding mine):

First, let’s go back to that diagram:

Here’s Mar Babai the Great’s explanation from his Book of Union:

“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Here is a summary of the COE’s Christology from the Synodicon Oriental:

Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose Godhead does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete God and complete man. When we say of Christ ‘complete God’ we are not naming the Trinity, but one of the qnome of the Trinity, God the Word. Again, when we call Christ ‘complete man’ it is not all men we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Word.

More? From Ruach Qadim: the Path to Life by Andrew Gabriel Roth, pg 138-139:

…Kyanna does not refer to an actual thing but rather to an abstraction of that thing; a theoretical construct. You can talk about “human nature” but have you found its actuality? Kyanna simply asks the question, “Can something be divine, human or animal?” as opposed to, “I have found THIS, and it is human.”

…“For every kyanna of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human kyanna.” (James 3:7)

The nature of something is never seen, and it only exists as a classification searching for an occurrence it has not found yet. John the bird collector, trudging off into the forest to document as many species as possible has already worked out in his mind certain criteria of “birdness” that he will look for. What he is looking for will have feathery wings as opposed to the leather-like appearance of a bat’s, it will have a sharp beak and not a mammalian style mouth, and so on. That criteria or classification scheme is the essence of kyanna…

With me so far? Let’s continue:

…Now let us say that a few minutes after John arrives in the forest, something flies overhead, but it is moving too quickly for him to identify it. All John knows is that some kind of bird, a living example of the classification (kyanna) he held in his mind just went by him. In that case John has just found an individuated instance of that abstract concept – he has found a qnoma, that his kyanna was looking for.

Pause again and think about what is happening here, now let’s continue on:

More time passes, and John wants to make sure he does not make the same mistake twice. He double checks his equipment and makes every effort to ensure that his camera is ready to snap a photograph the instant another bird crosses his path. Then, finally, one does, and this time he is elated because he has captured the image of a rare type of sparrow that he has been looking to add to his species list for years. The bird has all the unique features known only to its kind, along with some odd coloring that would even distinguish him from amongst other members of his species. At that level of detail then, we have found the parsopa of that particular bird.

Shamash Paul Younan sums it up like this:

"Self" would be a horrible definition for Qnoma. "Self" is nearly synonymous with "Person", yet two Qnome from the same Kyana (nature) do not have the necessary amount of differentiating information to be considered two distinct "persons."

Kyana (nature) is abstract. Qnoma is an instantiation, a concrete example, of a Kyana......yet it does not contain enough information to become a different "Person" from a fellow Qnoma of the same Kyana.

The only thing which differentiates one Qnoma from another in the same Kyana is number - by that I mean that each one is distinct, yet not distinct enough to be considered two different "persons."

Here’s a simple illustration on the differences between kyana, qnoma & parsopa:

A day is a 24 hour period – this is kyana
A week is a group of 7 24 hour periods (day 1, day 2, ect.) – this is qnoma
Each day has a name (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) to distinguish it from the other days in the same group (week) – this is parsopa

Perhaps it’ll be easier to understand what a qnoma is, if we first look at what it does. Again I quote Paul Younan:

Orthodox Christianity (all Orthodox Christianity) believes that the subject of the Incarnation was both "God and Man"....not a "God-man." Pagans believed in "god-men." There is a BIG difference between the two.

The way Aramaic-speaking believers understand this revelation (God and Man) is through the concept of "God-Qnoma and Human-Qnoma", and this fits in perfectly with revelation in scripture.

If Meshikha didn't have a Divine Qnoma, then he was a liar. If Meshikha didn't have a Human Qnoma, then the sacrifice is useless and I reject it.

You HAVE to understand that when you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a divine Qnoma, you are saying that he wasn't God. And if you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a human Qnoma, then you are saying that he wasn't born of a woman!

In the Aramaic psyche - you cannot be human, and not have a human Qnoma. You cannot be God, and not have a divine Qnoma. In other words, in the Aramaic psyche you cannot go directly from abstract nature to concrete person. That abstract nature must be *individuated* first. That's where Qnoma comes in.

If you tell an Aramaic-speaking person that a bird flying above does not have a "bird qnoma", that person would look at you like you were insane - because what you are saying, essentially, is that you think the bird is imaginary! That you think that bird doesn't exist!

Qnoma functions as an “ingredient”, or “chemical reaction” or “process” which is needed to transform something abstract into something concrete, but on a conceptual level not a physical level, again from Paul Younan:

Yes, indeed. The word for "resurrection" in Aramaic is "Qeyamtha", which is also derived from the root "Qom."

The reason why Prof. Brock and others have concluded that the CoE definition for Qnoma is the archaic one, is because of the imagery involved with the primitive root meaning "to rise up, stand up, to be established."

"Kyana" means "nature" in an abstract sense, and "Qnoma" means an "individuated kyana", i.e., "something which has arisen, stood up, and become established from an abstract concept."

Think of it this way:

Human Kyana~Abstract Nature: Blueprint - must have 46 chromosomes. Must have a gender of male or female. Must have two eyes, two arms, two legs, etc. The blueprint for everything a human is supposed to be. Abstract, not real.

Human Qnoma~Concrete, Real, Individuated Kyana: This is an individuated (real, concrete) Kyana. There exists billions of them that are identical. All are equal, except in number (i.e., Qnoma number 1 is not Qnoma number 2). They cannot be distinguished except by instance (number).

Human Parsopa~Person: Peter, Paul, Mary. Each one is a different person. Because the Kyana states that a human must have 46 chromosomes, all three people have 46 chromosomes - but each one has different combinations of genes which makes them unique.

Because the Kyana states that a human must have two eyes - Peter, Paul and Mary each have two eyes. However, Paul's eyes are brown while Peter's eyes are green and Mary's eyes are blue. Each one has personal characteristics that make each person unique.

Think of qnoma as a “photocopy” of human nature, like you would make a photocopy of a document – all the copies are identical because it’s the same document, the only thing that distinguishes them is number, again from Paul Younan:

All human Qnome are co-equal (nothing to distinguish them, except for number~name.) This is why the fall of Adam was the fall of all of mankind. We are all collectively called "Adam." Our nature became corrupt, therefore each of our copies of that nature (qnome) are corrupt. Meshikha took a qnoma from Maryam and redeemed our nature by His sacrifice of that human temple.

In like manner, all the Qnome of God are co-equal, one and the same Kyana - one single God. We do not call them by the English word "persons", nor by its Aramaic cognate "parsope".

As human qnome are collectively called "Adam" or "Anasha", these three Divine qnome are collectively called the "Godhead". We make no distinction between them, except for number~name.

As you and I are called "ben-Adam" or "bar-Anasha", Meshikha's humanity is called "bar-Alaha"....the "Son of God." But His Divinity is God Himself.

Paul Younan on parsopa:

No. There is no such thing as a Divine Person. We do not speak of God as a "person", because a "person" means that you are physical.

We speak of the subject of the Incarnation, Meshikha, as a "person" because he had both a human nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) as well as a Divine nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) in one "person" and was born of a woman - he materialized here on earth among us and became a person like us.

But that does not mean that God is a "person" - God is three Qnome and not a "Person."

In the person of Meshikha, one Divine Qnoma (out f three) was joined together with one human qnoma (out of billions) to form a single "person", who was the subject of the Incarnation and the object of our worship.

The Father never became a Parsopa, neither did the Holy Spirit. These two Qnome remained distinct from the Qnoma of the Son which took for itself a body from us as a temple (Yukhanan 1:1), and thus became a "person."
When we speak of the Godhead, we speak of spiritual things and not physical things.

God is God, we are persons. In Aramaic, the word "person" is attributed to a human nature. Human beings are persons. (We don't speak of individual dogs, cats or pet goldfish in a bowl as "persons", either.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "impersonal"? "Impersonal" as an adjective could describe an entity that isn't alive, does not feel emotions, is unknowable, lacks the ability to communicate or lacks "personality." Kind of like a dead or inanimate object, like a rock.

God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are familiar to our human experience. Certainly, we are created in His Image, so we might expect that we have certain things in our individual person that reflect certain aspects of our Creator. Is that what you mean by "personal?"

I do not think of God as a "person" or "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name YHWH in Hebrew.

+Shamasha

Actually, I wanted to add Akha: there is no native Aramaic term that means what the Greek/English "person" means. The Aramaic vocabulary, indeed the Semitic psyche as a whole, lacks the very concept.

The word we use today, "Parsopa", is a loan-word from Greek ("Proposon"). Reason it's a loan word, is that usually when cultures come into contact and there is a concept in one that is absent from the other, borrowing typically occurs (back and forth.)

Really when anyone in the Semitic milieu, Jews, Christians and Muslims, hear the Western formulation of "One God in Three Persons", we become rather confused. Of course both Jewish and Muslim apologists, indeed even fringe groups like the JW's, accuse "Christianity" of being something other than Monotheistic.

While I don't agree with them, of course, one can see how the confusion arises since the terminology is almost contradictory to say the least.

That's really unfortunate, because if one studies the topic carefully the reality is that the Greek "Prosopon" was nearly unavoidable given that no cognate for "Qnuma", the concept, exists in Indo-European languages.

How these understandings of kyana, qnoma & parsopa affect COE Christology:

The Incarnation does NOT mean that God changed into anything. God remained God, and simply took the form of a servant by taking a temple of humanity from Mary. His Divinity dwelled within the humanity with which He clothed Himself.

It is this humanity that was tempted in the wilderness, that urinated, that defecated, that ate food, that drank water, that bled on the Cross and that lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights. God was not involved in any of those things. God is impassible, eternal and in need of none of those things.

…Finally, you ask about atonement. If Meshikha wasn't fully human just as you are fully human, the sacrificial act was worthless and you still remain in your sin. If Meshikha's humanity was "divine" (according to you), then it is not your humanity that was sacrificed, but some freak Frankenstein creature. And therefore you are still lost.

And finally:

No one is saying that Meshikha isn't God. He is. And no one is saying that Meshikha isn't man. He is.
The Divinity did not die on the Cross. The Divinity is impassible. The manhood, which He took from us, bled and died and suffered and was tempted. But not the Divinity.

Do you really understand the Divinity to have suffered and have died? If "God" died, then who raised Him?
Yes, of course Meshikha is called MarYah. He is MarYah. But he is also bnai' nasha (Son of Man) The Hymn above in this thread explains my position perfectly. I'm not adding to it or taking anything away from it, the scriptures it references make it perfectly clear that God did not die and Man did not raise the dead and forgive sins.

Once again, the person of Meshikha is God/Man ..... not God-man. Neither the Divinity was from His mother, nor the humanity from His Father. Each was preserved perfectly in its own Qnuma, in the One Person of Meshikha. Qnuma is an Aramaic word I though you were familiar with, at least conceptually.

It is not possible for Satan to tempt God in the wilderness. What kind of temptation was that, a mockery? A set up? Doomed to fail from the get-go? That is utter blasphemy. It is the humanity of Meshikha that was tempted. What was Satan offering God in the wilderness that He did not already own? What are you thinking? Was Satan really asking God to bow down and worship him? What kind of triumph of will was that? A mockery you have turned the temptation into, that's what. If God, and not our Humanity, triumphed over temptation then it means nothing. Big deal. Woo-hoo. God wasn't interested in all the kingdoms, riches and debauchery that Satan had to offer. Woo-hoo. Great triumph.

Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.

Comments?

 

[Nazarene]

In this post I’ll compare the Orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union with the Christology of the COE:

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις, {"[h]upostasis"}, "hypostasis", sediment, foundation or substance) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John 10:37-38 quotes Jesus as follows: "...that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The Hypostatic union became official at the Council of Ephesus, which stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, "hypostasis") of Christ.[1]

In the COE it works like this:

“the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, “hypostasis”) of Christ, through the preservation of their qnome (divine and human).

Hypostasis had come into use as a technical term prior to the Christological debates of the late fourth and fifth centuries. Before there were Christians, the word was used in Greek philosophy, primarily in Stoicism.[2][3] Hypostasis had some use in the New Testament that reflect the later, technical understanding of the word; especially Hebrews 1:3.[4]

Let’s compare the Byzantine Greek reading of Hebrews 1:3 with the Peshitta reading:

who is the brightness of His glory and the image of His being (hypostasis), sustaining all things by the expression of His power. He Himself has cleansed our sins, [and] sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high. (Byzantine)

who is the radiance of His glory, and the image of His being (aithutha), and almighty by the manifestation of His power. And in His Qnoma He accomplished the cleansing of our sins, and sat down at the right hand of Majesty in the highest place. (Peshitta)

Observations:

*it is the Aramaic word aithutha (substance/essence/being/existence), not qnoma, that is equivalent to the Greek hypostasis

*His Qnoma is obviously referring to Messiah’s Divine Qnoma – the Miltha/God the Son. But this is not necessarily in conflict with the Greek “Himself” by suggesting separatism within the person Yeshua Meshikha. Rather it’s more specific, meaning that the “camera lens” is “zooming in” on the specific mechanism/channel within Meshikha’s parsopa through which He accomplished our salvation. The reason for this, I believe, is to identify “His Qnoma” as the exact same mechanism/channel within YHWH Elohim that is responsible for salvation – His Arm (Isaiah 53).

Although it can be rendered literally as "substance" this has been a cause of some confusion[5] so it is now often translated "subsistence". It denotes an actual, concrete existence, in contrast with abstract categories such as Platonic ideals.

Qnoma is very similar to hypostasis in that it’s an instantation, and therefore an actual existence of a kyana (abstract). The difference is that qnoma doesn’t allow for the same degree of “distinctiveness”, you cannot tell 2 qnome apart, they are identical, “clones” of a nature if you will. Also qnoma never enters the material realm on its own, it can only do so through a parsopa, which the COE associates with the material realm exclusively.

The First Council of Nicaea declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

The COE, who accepts the Nicene Creed, believe that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (spirit) and the same nature (divine), and that they are co-eternal because they are Qnome – individuated instantations of divinity. As “clones” of divinity, they are not separate deities (individuals) but together with the Holy Spirit, are living existences, which perfectly embody all the characteristics of divinity (omniscience, omnipresences, omnibenevolence, omniportence & eternity) eternally united within the Spirit who is YHWH Elohim, functioning as “built in” mechanisms/channels through which YHWH Elohim carries out work and communicates with creation.

Interesting bit from Wikipedia’s article on Miaphysitism:

Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, 'substance'), physis (φύσις, 'nature'), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, 'person'). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis as qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue furthermore. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts.

Brock has pointed out the Syrian Orthodox Church has also at times (after the Christological controversies) associated kyana with hypostasis, and qnoma with prosopon.  But the COE’s Christology is based on the archaic meanings of these words.  Therefore kyana should be translated as ousia, physis is OK but doesn’t capture as much of the imagery of kyana as ousia does. And qnoma, which means “individuated concrete instance of a kyana” not nature, should be explained not translated.

 

[Nazarene]

BUMP

Just noticed an an error in my previous post:

In this post I’ll compare the Orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union with the Christology of the COE:

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις, {"[h]upostasis"}, "hypostasis", sediment, foundation or substance) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John 10:37-38 quotes Jesus as follows: "...that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The Hypostatic union became official at the Council of Ephesus, which stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, "hypostasis") of Christ.[1]

In the COE it works like this:

“the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, “hypostasis”) of Christ, through the preservation of their qnome (divine and human).

What I meant to say is this:

In the COE it works like this:

“the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, “hypostasis”) of Christ, through the preservation of their qnome (divine and human).

Sorry.

 

[ialmisry]

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

In this post I’ll give all the info I can find on these 3 Aramaic words,

parsopa isn't Aramaic: its Greek (πρόσωπον)


[/quote] (all colour coding mine):

First, let’s go back to that diagram:

Here’s Mar Babai the Great’s explanation from his Book of Union:

“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.

Then the qnome of the Holy Trinity should each have their parsopa.

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Such is workable for a hyspostatic union of Christ.

Here is a summary of the COE’s Christology from the Synodicon Oriental:

Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose Godhead does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete God and complete man. When we say of Christ ‘complete God’ we are not naming the Trinity, but one of the qnome of the Trinity, God the Word. Again, when we call Christ ‘complete man’ it is not all men we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Word.

This would be Orthodox (the only issue might come in the issue of the question of a human hypostasis in Christ, an issue we have on the "Jesus Christ the God-Man, A Divine Person, Also a Human Person?" private thread.  A question here would be that the Human and Divine qnome in Christ are united such that remain united in one qnoma, as the body, soul and spirit of a man are one qnoma, even when the soul/spirit is parted from the body (and hence why it will be reunited at the Resurrection).

More? From Ruach Qadim: the Path to Life by Andrew Gabriel Roth, pg 138-139:

…Kyanna does not refer to an actual thing but rather to an abstraction of that thing; a theoretical construct. You can talk about “human nature” but have you found its actuality? Kyanna simply asks the question, “Can something be divine, human or animal?” as opposed to, “I have found THIS, and it is human.”

The question is, when you have found Christ, have you found divine and human nature.

…“For every kyanna of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human kyanna.” (James 3:7)

The problem is if you use Biblical quotes for kyana, you multiply problems (e.g. Galations 2:15 would have the Jews of a different essence than the rest of us ).

The nature of something is never seen, and it only exists as a classification searching for an occurrence it has not found yet. John the bird collector, trudging off into the forest to document as many species as possible has already worked out in his mind certain criteria of “birdness” that he will look for. What he is looking for will have feathery wings as opposed to the leather-like appearance of a bat’s, it will have a sharp beak and not a mammalian style mouth, and so on. That criteria or classification scheme is the essence of kyanna…

With me so far?

More or less.

Let’s continue:

…Now let us say that a few minutes after John arrives in the forest, something flies overhead, but it is moving too quickly for him to identify it. All John knows is that some kind of bird, a living example of the classification (kyanna) he held in his mind just went by him. In that case John has just found an individuated instance of that abstract concept – he has found a qnoma, that his kyanna was looking for.

Pause again and think about what is happening here, now let’s continue on:

How does he know, since it was a blurr, not a bat, or a dragon fly?

More time passes, and John wants to make sure he does not make the same mistake twice. He double checks his equipment and makes every effort to ensure that his camera is ready to snap a photograph the instant another bird crosses his path. Then, finally, one does, and this time he is elated because he has captured the image of a rare type of sparrow that he has been looking to add to his species list for years. The bird has all the unique features known only to its kind, along with some odd coloring that would even distinguish him from amongst other members of his species. At that level of detail then, we have found the parsopa of that particular bird.

What if it is just the female of a species of which the male is already known (such mistakes have happened in taxonomy)?  I'm also not sure how this makes a rigid distinction between qnoma and parsopa that a parsopic, rather than a hypostatic/qnomic, union would require in Christ. At least in a way to keep it Orthodox.

Shamash Paul Younan sums it up like this:

"Self" would be a horrible definition for Qnoma. "Self" is nearly synonymous with "Person", yet two Qnome from the same Kyana (nature) do not have the necessary amount of differentiating information to be considered two distinct "persons."

qnoma is a usual word for "self" in Syriac, and "person."

Kyana (nature) is abstract. Qnoma is an instantiation, a concrete example, of a Kyana......yet it does not contain enough information to become a different "Person" from a fellow Qnoma of the same Kyana.

Why not?

The only thing which differentiates one Qnoma from another in the same Kyana is number - by that I mean that each one is distinct, yet not distinct enough to be considered two different "persons."

This is adding another layer: is it warranted?

Here’s a simple illustration on the differences between kyana, qnoma & parsopa:

A day is a 24 hour period – this is kyana
A week is a group of 7 24 hour periods (day 1, day 2, ect.) – this is qnoma
Each day has a name (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) to distinguish it from the other days in the same group (week) – this is parsopa

This is like saying the Father, Son and Spirit are kyana, and the Trinity qnoma.

Perhaps it’ll be easier to understand what a qnoma is, if we first look at what it does. Again I quote Paul Younan:

Orthodox Christianity (all Orthodox Christianity) believes that the subject of the Incarnation was both "God and Man"....not a "God-man." Pagans believed in "god-men." There is a BIG difference between the two.

Actually, the Hypostaic Union describes a God-man, which has nothing to do with the god-men of the pagans, who were mixture.

The way Aramaic-speaking believers

The Syriac Orthodox are also Aramaic-speaking believers: in fact, they, with those in submission to the Vatican, have the only Aramaic (versus Syriac) speaking believers.  They all believe in the Hypostatic Union.

understand this revelation (God and Man) is through the concept of "God-Qnoma and Human-Qnoma", and this fits in perfectly with revelation in scripture.

So it does.  But then, it also reveals Christ as a qnoma.

If Meshikha didn't have a Divine Qnoma, then he was a liar. If Meshikha didn't have a Human Qnoma, then the sacrifice is useless and I reject it.

I prefer the wording "beign a Divine qnoma" etc.

You HAVE to understand that when you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a divine Qnoma, you are saying that he wasn't God. And if you even suggest that Meshikha didn't have a human Qnoma, then you are saying that he wasn't born of a woman!

In the Aramaic psyche - you cannot be human, and not have a human Qnoma. You cannot be God, and not have a divine Qnoma. In other words, in the Aramaic psyche you cannot go directly from abstract nature to concrete person. That abstract nature must be *individuated* first. That's where Qnoma comes in.

Well, having borrowed the concepts from the Greek psyche (a Greek word, btw), I'm not sure of the point, since it doesn't differ from the Greek terminology on which it is based.

If you tell an Aramaic-speaking person that a bird flying above does not have a "bird qnoma", that person would look at you like you were insane - because what you are saying, essentially, is that you think the bird is imaginary! That you think that bird doesn't exist!

Qnoma functions as an “ingredient”, or “chemical reaction” or “process” which is needed to transform something abstract into something concrete, but on a conceptual level not a physical level, again from Paul Younan:

Being an existentialist, I see the abstract only existing in the particulars, rather than the particulars being derived from an abstract.  But I don't know if that is a sine qua non of Orthodoxy.

Yes, indeed. The word for "resurrection" in Aramaic is "Qeyamtha", which is also derived from the root "Qom."

The reason why Prof. Brock and others have concluded that the CoE definition for Qnoma is the archaic one, is because of the imagery involved with the primitive root meaning "to rise up, stand up, to be established."

"Kyana" means "nature" in an abstract sense, and "Qnoma" means an "individuated kyana", i.e., "something which has arisen, stood up, and become established from an abstract concept."

The use of qnoma for person, self is used in the Peshitta.  Again, I would question if the kyana is not abstracted from qnome.

Think of it this way:

Human Kyana~Abstract Nature: Blueprint - must have 46 chromosomes. Must have a gender of male or female. Must have two eyes, two arms, two legs, etc. The blueprint for everything a human is supposed to be. Abstract, not real.

Human Qnoma~Concrete, Real, Individuated Kyana: This is an individuated (real, concrete) Kyana. There exists billions of them that are identical. All are equal, except in number (i.e., Qnoma number 1 is not Qnoma number 2). They cannot be distinguished except by instance (number).

Human Parsopa~Person: Peter, Paul, Mary. Each one is a different person. Because the Kyana states that a human must have 46 chromosomes, all three people have 46 chromosomes - but each one has different combinations of genes which makes them unique.

Because the Kyana states that a human must have two eyes - Peter, Paul and Mary each have two eyes. However, Paul's eyes are brown while Peter's eyes are green and Mary's eyes are blue. Each one has personal characteristics that make each person unique.

Again, each person is a concrete, real, individuated Kyana.

Think of qnoma as a “photocopy” of human nature, like you would make a photocopy of a document – all the copies are identical because it’s the same document, the only thing that distinguishes them is number, again from Paul Younan:

All human Qnome are co-equal (nothing to distinguish them, except for number~name.) This is why the fall of Adam was the fall of all of mankind. We are all collectively called "Adam." Our nature became corrupt, therefore each of our copies of that nature (qnome) are corrupt. Meshikha took a qnoma from Maryam and redeemed our nature by His sacrifice of that human temple.

This would get into the issue of Christ having an individual human hypostasis.

In like manner, all the Qnome of God are co-equal, one and the same Kyana - one single God. We do not call them by the English word "persons", nor by its Aramaic cognate "parsope".

The word parsopon is a Biblical one:
http://thriceholy.net/prosopon.html

As human qnome are collectively called "Adam" or "Anasha", these three Divine qnome are collectively called the "Godhead". We make no distinction between them, except for number~name.

One is source, one is begotten, one processes.

As you and I are called "ben-Adam" or "bar-Anasha", Meshikha's humanity is called "bar-Alaha"....the "Son of God." But His Divinity is God Himself.

I hope that is a typo: Bar Alaha is His Divinity.

Paul Younan on parsopa:

No. There is no such thing as a Divine Person. We do not speak of God as a "person", because a "person" means that you are physical.

No, it doesn't.

We speak of the subject of the Incarnation, Meshikha, as a "person" because he had both a human nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) as well as a Divine nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) in one "person" and was born of a woman - he materialized here on earth among us and became a person like us.

But that does not mean that God is a "person" - God is three Qnome and not a "Person."

It would seem then, that all of us on the private thread about Christ's human hypostasis would be of one opinion versus the opinion just expressed, as all of us confess that Christ has eternally been a person.

In the person of Meshikha, one Divine Qnoma (out f three) was joined together with one human qnoma (out of billions) to form a single "person", who was the subject of the Incarnation and the object of our worship.

Only if that person was in Hypostatic Union.

The Father never became a Parsopa, neither did the Holy Spirit. These two Qnome remained distinct from the Qnoma of the Son which took for itself a body from us as a temple (Yukhanan 1:1), and thus became a "person."

The Father and Spirit are both Persons, as is the Son, Who became a "sanctuary" as opposed to "temple."

When we speak of the Godhead, we speak of spiritual things and not physical things.

When we speak of the Incarnation, we do. And when we speak of Godhead, we speak of the Three Persons in One Godhead.

God is God, we are persons. In Aramaic, the word "person" is attributed to a human nature. Human beings are persons. (We don't speak of individual dogs, cats or pet goldfish in a bowl as "persons", either.)

Actually, Syriac does use parSopa to speak of the Persons of the Trinity, and, for instance the "parSopa of the earth."

I'm not sure what you mean by "impersonal"? "Impersonal" as an adjective could describe an entity that isn't alive, does not feel emotions, is unknowable, lacks the ability to communicate or lacks "personality." Kind of like a dead or inanimate object, like a rock.

Impersonal as in the deist image of God.  A force, not a Person.

God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

Actually, God is not knowable unless He reveals Himself.

We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are familiar to our human experience.

The former would be His Essence, which we cannot observe, the latter His Energies, through which we know Him.

Certainly, we are created in His Image, so we might expect that we have certain things in our individual person that reflect certain aspects of our Creator. Is that what you mean by "personal?"

I do not think of God as a "person" or "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name YHWH in Hebrew.

The One revealed in the Burning Bush is the same revealed in the Womb of the Virgin.  But through her we have seen God, not like Moses, who couldn't behold His glory.

Actually, I wanted to add Akha: there is no native Aramaic term that means what the Greek/English "person" means. The Aramaic vocabulary, indeed the Semitic psyche as a whole, lacks the very concept.

The word we use today, "Parsopa", is a loan-word from Greek ("Proposon"). Reason it's a loan word, is that usually when cultures come into contact and there is a concept in one that is absent from the other, borrowing typically occurs (back and forth.)

Really when anyone in the Semitic milieu, Jews, Christians and Muslims, hear the Western formulation of "One God in Three Persons", we become rather confused. Of course both Jewish and Muslim apologists, indeed even fringe groups like the JW's, accuse "Christianity" of being something other than Monotheistic.

There are terms for "Person," e.g. "My/your/his/her soul."

And the "One God in Three Persons" is the formulation of the Ecumenical Councils, all of which were held in the East.

While I don't agree with them, of course, one can see how the confusion arises since the terminology is almost contradictory to say the least.

That's really unfortunate, because if one studies the topic carefully the reality is that the Greek "Prosopon" was nearly unavoidable given that no cognate for "Qnuma", the concept, exists in Indo-European languages.

Hypostasis.

How these understandings of kyana, qnoma & parsopa affect COE Christology:

The Incarnation does NOT mean that God changed into anything. God remained God, and simply took the form of a servant by taking a temple of humanity from Mary. His Divinity dwelled within the humanity with which He clothed Himself.

As one is clothed in his own skin.

It is this humanity that was tempted in the wilderness, that urinated, that defecated, that ate food, that drank water, that bled on the Cross and that lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights. God was not involved in any of those things. God is impassible, eternal and in need of none of those things.

Since the Incarnation, God is involved in all those things.

…Finally, you ask about atonement. If Meshikha wasn't fully human just as you are fully human, the sacrificial act was worthless and you still remain in your sin. If Meshikha's humanity was "divine" (according to you), then it is not your humanity that was sacrificed, but some freak Frankenstein creature. And therefore you are still lost.

Saying His humanity was divine would be mixing the natures.

And finally:

No one is saying that Meshikha isn't God. He is. And no one is saying that Meshikha isn't man. He is.
The Divinity did not die on the Cross. The Divinity is impassible. The manhood, which He took from us, bled and died and suffered and was tempted. But not the Divinity.

Do you really understand the Divinity to have suffered and have died? If "God" died, then who raised Him?
Yes, of course Meshikha is called MarYah. He is MarYah. But he is also bnai' nasha (Son of Man) The Hymn above in this thread explains my position perfectly. I'm not adding to it or taking anything away from it, the scriptures it references make it perfectly clear that God did not die and Man did not raise the dead and forgive sins.

Once again, the person of Meshikha is God/Man ..... not God-man. Neither the Divinity was from His mother, nor the humanity from His Father. Each was preserved perfectly in its own Qnuma, in the One Person of Meshikha. Qnuma is an Aramaic word I though you were familiar with, at least conceptually.

It is not possible for Satan to tempt God in the wilderness. What kind of temptation was that, a mockery? A set up? Doomed to fail from the get-go? That is utter blasphemy. It is the humanity of Meshikha that was tempted. What was Satan offering God in the wilderness that He did not already own? What are you thinking? Was Satan really asking God to bow down and worship him? What kind of triumph of will was that? A mockery you have turned the temptation into, that's what. If God, and not our Humanity, triumphed over temptation then it means nothing. Big deal. Woo-hoo. God wasn't interested in all the kingdoms, riches and debauchery that Satan had to offer. Woo-hoo. Great triumph.

Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.

The confines of the Tomb contained Him Whom the Heavens eternally could not contain.

Comments?

See above.

 

[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.

Dear Nazarene,

Severus of Antioch has defined hypostasis as the concrete individuation of nature.  Therefore, if anything, your "qnome" is the Syriac "hypostasis."  Essence(ousia) was an "abstraction" and nature (physis) can either be defined as ousia or hypostasis.  But prosopon was not merely what differentiates hypostases, but that which contains a "self."  A hypostasis being the concrete of an abstract would already be differentiated from other concrete things, and there's no need to add something to differentiate it from others.

For example, "rockness" is ousia.  You can't see "rockness" but you can definitely see a rock or a pebble, each being a hypostasis.  These are the Syriac definitions according to Severus of Antioch.  Prosopon is that which contains self, not that which differentiates.  Just because I can name a rock, doesn't mean it has prosopon.  If the definition of prosopon is just differentiating with names, then it's understandable that the Assyrian Church believes in multiple persons within Christ.  If "parsopa" is in the name, then Theodore of Mopsuestia shows quite sufficiently that he believe in two names acting together in Christ, the Word of God and the son of man.  (Byzantine Christology defines hypostasis as prosopon (as self) while the concretion of ousia is physis).

There's another problem to the definitions you provide for us.  Prosopon to you is considered one that differentiates with names.  You provided the example of the days of the week.  Now, let me apply the strategy of same analogy with the Trinity:

God is uncreated (ousia)
The Trinity is three in One God (hypostases)
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Trinity (persons).

So while you deny any prosopon in the Trinity, yet the Trinity still has prosopa using that analogy of yours.  Is this a self-contradiction?

God bless.

 

[Rafa999]

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

Quote
(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Such is workable for a hyspostatic union of Christ.

Then let's leave it at that Isa. Mar Babai's Christology is that of the Assyrian Church of the East. Everything else is mere exposition.

 

[Nazarene]

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

Quote
(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Such is workable for a hyspostatic union of Christ.

Then let's leave it at that Isa. Mar Babai's Christology is that of the Assyrian Church of the East. Everything else is mere exposition.

Shalom Isa, minasoliman & Rafa,

I was just thinking something while reading your responses. Since the concept of qnoma is exclusive to the Aramaic language perhaps we should just ignore it. There's no English cognate, the concept doesn't exist in English, so it's not needed to explain Christology in English, and we are speaking English right now aren't we?

I don't mind discussing qnoma further, but how about (just for now) we leave the qnoma element out of the picture? What do you think?

 

[Nazarene]

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.

Can someone give me a full explanation of the Hypostatic Union, as well as the ancient pre-Nicene meanings of the Greek words ousia, physis, hypostasis & prosopon?

 

[Deacon Lance]

(Byzantine Christology defines hypostasis as prosopon (as self) while the concretion of ousia is physis).

Disclaimer: I do not consider either Assyrians or Oriental Orthodox heretics.

The Byzantine fathers rejected the term prosopon because they considered it a weak term just as they rejected the term miaphysis.  Prosopon was considered unsuitable because it did not imply the unity of the person stongly enough to them.  Prosopon carried the meaning of personality and was used also of the masks that actors wore.  Miaphysis was rejected because they considered it did not distinguish between the natures strongly enough and could be interpreted as Christ being 50% human 50% divine.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[Rafa999]

Deacon Lance, an important thing you must know is that because the Assyrian Church of the East was in the Persian empire by itself, the meanings of the words and theological expressions changed quickly  (ie: person has a very different connotation today than at Nicea, it took 80 years for the COE to approve Nicea), by the time the Assyrian Church formulated its positions and sent them out to show that they were orthodox, their positions were frequently not understood...which is tragic.

 

[Salpy]

The Byzantine fathers rejected the term prosopon

Are you sure of that?  Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Tome of Leo use that term?

 

[Deacon Lance]

St Leo wrote the Tome in Latin and used the term personam, which I believe the Greeks translated as prosopon (not sure how consistent this was done) but again rejected this term to describe the union.  They described the union as hypostatic not prosoponic.

 

[Deacon Lance]

Deacon Lance, an important thing you must know is that because the Assyrian Church of the East was in the Persian empire by itself, the meanings of the words and theological expressions changed quickly  (ie: person has a very different connotation today than at Nicea, it took 80 years for the COE to approve Nicea), by the time the Assyrian Church formulated its positions and sent them out to show that they were orthodox, their positions were frequently not understood...which is tragic.

Yes, I understand which is why I do not consider Assyrians heretics, nor does my Church.

 

[ialmisry]

Deacon Lance, an important thing you must know is that because the Assyrian Church of the East was in the Persian empire by itself, the meanings of the words and theological expressions changed quickly  (ie: person has a very different connotation today than at Nicea, it took 80 years for the COE to approve Nicea), by the time the Assyrian Church formulated its positions and sent them out to show that they were orthodox, their positions were frequently not understood...which is tragic.

Yes, I understand which is why I do not consider Assyrians heretics, nor does my Church.

So the Vatican doesn't think Christ God has blood nor a mother?

 

[ialmisry]

Mar Babai’s definition of qnoma, again from the Fourth Memra:

Quote
(a) A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized
(b) As a specific exemplar of that which is common to a general classification or species – that which moves from an abstract generalization to a concrete example;
(c) As a set of natural properties (as opposed to distinguishing accidents) as they exist in an individual.

Such is workable for a hyspostatic union of Christ.

Then let's leave it at that Isa. Mar Babai's Christology is that of the Assyrian Church of the East. Everything else is mere exposition.

Shalom Isa, minasoliman & Rafa,

I was just thinking something while reading your responses. Since the concept of qnoma is exclusive to the Aramaic language perhaps we should just ignore it. There's no English cognate, the concept doesn't exist in English, so it's not needed to explain Christology in English, and we are speaking English right now aren't we?

I don't mind discussing qnoma further, but how about (just for now) we leave the qnoma element out of the picture? What do you think?

What the Greeks call hypostasis, the Syriacs call qnoma, and we (Arabs) call 'uqnuum e.g.
The Concept of al-uqnum in Ammar al-Basri's Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12421483

We can use English "subsistence" or "person," but it doesn't eliminate the problem, as the terms are not untranslatable.

 

[Rafa999]

So the Vatican doesn't think Christ God has blood nor a mother?

Where did I say Christ does not have a Mother? Also note your statement "Christ God has blood"- is it Christ which has blood or the invisible spirit the divine father which has blood? Because there is a separation there, he is not a 50% man 50% invisible spirit fusion being with blood. "Your will be done" as he said in Gethsemane. Before you say that I denied God has blood, no, only I think the blood of all beings on the Earth belongs to God (why he asked us not to eat it because it is holy) and the Christ offered his blood as a holy Qurbana.

The Archbishop of Constantinople — Nestorius, having asserted that Mary ought not to be referred to as the "Mother of God" (Theotokos in Greek, literally "God-bearer"),[1] was denounced as a heretic; in combating this assertion of Patriarch Nestorius, Eutyches declared that Christ was "a fusion of human and divine elements",[1] causing his own denunciation as a heretic twenty years after the First Council of Ephesus at the 451 AD Council of Chalcedon.

After his death his doctrines obtained the support of the Empress Eudocia and made considerable progress in Syria. In the sixth century, they received a new impulse from a monk of the name of Jacob Baradaeus, who united the various divisions into which the Eutychians, or Monophysites, had separated into one church, which exists today under the name of the Syriac Orthodox Church. There are also many adherents of the similar miaphysite doctrine in Armenia, Egypt and Ethiopia (also in the Oriental Orthodox communion), who are often erroneously called "Monophysites" even though they do not, and never have, followed Eutyches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches

...and I am a "heretic" ?

 

[ialmisry]

So the Vatican doesn't think Christ God has blood nor a mother?

Where did I say Christ does not have a Mother? Also note your statement "Christ God has blood"- is it Christ which has blood or the invisible spirit the divine father which has blood? Because there is a separation there, he is not a 50% man 50% invisible spirit fusion being with blood. "Your will be done" as he said in Gethsemane. Before you say that I denied God has blood, no, only I think the blood of all beings on the Earth belongs to God (why he asked us not to eat it because it is holy) and the Christ offered his blood as a holy Qurbana.

God purchased the Church with His Blood. Acts 20:28.

The Archbishop of Constantinople — Nestorius, having asserted that Mary ought not to be referred to as the "Mother of God" (Theotokos in Greek, literally "God-bearer"),[1] was denounced as a heretic; in combating this assertion of Patriarch Nestorius, Eutyches declared that Christ was "a fusion of human and divine elements",[1] causing his own denunciation as a heretic twenty years after the First Council of Ephesus at the 451 AD Council of Chalcedon.

After his death his doctrines obtained the support of the Empress Eudocia and made considerable progress in Syria. In the sixth century, they received a new impulse from a monk of the name of Jacob Baradaeus, who united the various divisions into which the Eutychians, or Monophysites, had separated into one church, which exists today under the name of the Syriac Orthodox Church. There are also many adherents of the similar miaphysite doctrine in Armenia, Egypt and Ethiopia (also in the Oriental Orthodox communion), who are often erroneously called "Monophysites" even though they do not, and never have, followed Eutyches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches

...and I am a "heretic" ?

[/quote]

Will you confess Mary Ever Virgin as "yaldath 'alaha"

 

[Rafa999]

God purchased the Church with His Blood. Acts 20:28.

Doctored Jacobite reading. The Messiah did. I confess the Mother of Christ. Alaha has no mother, he is eternal and unbegotten.

 

[Salpy]

So the Vatican doesn't think Christ God has blood nor a mother?

Where did I say Christ does not have a Mother? Also note your statement "Christ God has blood"- is it Christ which has blood or the invisible spirit the divine father which has blood? Because there is a separation there, he is not a 50% man 50% invisible spirit fusion being with blood. "Your will be done" as he said in Gethsemane. Before you say that I denied God has blood, no, only I think the blood of all beings on the Earth belongs to God (why he asked us not to eat it because it is holy) and the Christ offered his blood as a holy Qurbana.

This is the sort of thing that tells me there really is a difference--however subtle--between the Christology of my Church and that of the Church of the East.  All the discussion over words, like qnoma, doesn't mean much to me.  However, the fact that my Church can say God Incarnate has a mother and blood, and the fact that the COE is not comfortable with that, tells me there is a real difference in our beliefs regarding how divinity and humanity were united in the Incarnation. 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

God purchased the Church with His Blood. Acts 20:28.

Doctored Jacobite reading.

Devoid of a cogent argument, you discredit the very Scriptures that instruct our arguments.  Can you prove that the Scripture ialmisry cited was doctored?  I've not seen you do this yet, at least not well enough to convince me.

 

[Rafa999]

The Eastern Syriac Khabouris manuscript I cited  contains "Messiah" instead of God. It's Syriac is older than that of the Orthodox Syriac Church, it is the Eastern script and vowel pointers.

Also...somebody here please tell me if God would have the possibility of succumbing to temptation to satan like this interpretation of Miaphysitism suggests. Are you saying that when satan tempted the Messiah he was tempting God in a pathetic attempt which would assuredly fail? That can't be a true God, now if you were saying he was tempting the human nature of the Messiah that's different.

Your Will, Not Mine! - Mark 14:36

Are you suggesting a schizophrenic Messiah talking to himself? I see here the Son of God appealing to the Divine nature in him somehow separate much like your arm can receive directions from your brain but it can't instruct your brain what to do, doesn't mean you are two people. This is material for infinite homilies and I don't pretend I fully understand it, but its what scripture teaches. Also, how can that Son not know the time of his coming (but the father does?) It's because there's a certain separation, much like the branches of a tree are separate but not different trees.

 

[minasoliman]

Dear Rafa999,

St. Jacob Baradeus was not a Eutychian, but condemned Eutyches.  He wasn't really a "uniter" but more of a "preserver" who with the spirit of St. Paul's bravery preserved the Oriental Orthodox churches and of the ancient Alexandrian tradition of Christology.

Also Acts 20:28 is not a "Jacobite doctoring."  I believe we can go as far back (and I'm sure farther) as St. John Chrysostom, who studied under the guidance of Diodore of Tarsus and with Theodore of Mopsuestia (who taught Nestorius):

So, whereas he seems to be justifying himself, in fact he is terrifying them. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (or, bishops) to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.  Do you mark? he enjoins them two things. Neither success in bringing others right of itself is any gain—for, I fear, he says, “lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away” (1 Cor. ix. 27); nor the being diligent for one’s self alone. For such an one is selfish, and seeks his own good only, and is like to him who buried his talent. “Take heed to yourselves:” this he says, not because our own salvation is more precious than that of the flock, but because, when we take heed to ourselves, then the flock also is a gainer. “In which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God.” See, it is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: then he says, “To feed the Church of the Lord.”  Lo! another obligation: the Church is the Lord’s.  And a third: “which He hath purchased with His own blood.” It shows how precious the concern is; that the peril is about no small matters, seeing that even His own blood He spared not.”

Perhaps, your Eastern Syriac Khabouris is a Nestorian doctoring?

God bless.