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

The Assyrian Church of the East

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Chrysostom studied with the presumed "heretic" Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is titled "the interpreter" in the COE. Perhaps you can all respect the great St.John Chrysostom and confess to be wrong and that his master was right, and that St.Chrysostom's canon even agrees with that of the COE (he never used the last five books of the Western canon...just like the COE).
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Rafa999 said:
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.
Can a person appeal to a nature?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
NJ
Rafa999 said:
Chrysostom studied with the presumed "heretic" Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is titled "the interpreter" in the COE. Perhaps you can all respect the great St.John Chrysostom and confess to be wrong and that his master was right, and that St.Chrysostom's canon even agrees with that of the COE (he never used the last five books of the Western canon...just like the COE).
He also hasn't interpreted Luke and Mark.  Do you honestly believe that if he hasn't wrote any homilies on any book that he didn't accept it?

Where's your proof?

Also, you haven't addressed how Acts 20:28 was a Jacobite forgery when it fact St. John Chrysostom also quoted that God had blood.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'll trust the theologian who taught one of your greatest Saints on this matter of the correct reading and on who is right thankyou  ;)

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
NJ
Rafa999 said:
I'll trust the theologian who taught one of your greatest Saints on this matter of the correct reading and on who is right thankyou  ;)
So you think Diodore of Tarsus also believed the verse also alluded to the blood of God?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Rafa999 said:
I'll trust the theologian who taught one of your greatest Saints on this matter of the correct reading and on who is right thankyou  ;)
It's nice that you trust the guy.  But what about us?  Why should we trust him?
 

Orthodox11

Archon
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
Also note your statement "Christ God has blood"- is it Christ which has blood or the invisible spirit the divine father which has blood?
You seem to be suggesting that the divinity of Christ is God the Father. Are you a Sabellian too?

The invisible God assumed a complete humanity, blood included. God the Son is a Person. His humanity belongs to His divine Person. Therefore God has blood, and offers it to us in the divine Eucharist.
 

Nazarene

High Elder
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
520
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Africa
ialmisry said:
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
I'm going to quote Brock again:

"First of all (and this goes without saying), we need to try to understand what writers actually meant by the technical terms they use, rather than rely on what their opponents claimed they meant.....in this context, both the Syriac (Aramaic) terminology, and the understanding of that terminology, in the Church of the East can be described as both archaic and conservative."

"I conclude by looking at two sets of specific example....both are cases where the language used by the Church of the East could best be described as archaic.....we are dealing with imagery which was once widespread and which is still preserved in the Church of the East after it had been for the most part dropped by everyone else in the course of the fifth century controversies."

"It is essentially this (the archaic) understanding of kyana that is retained in the Church of the East.....by contrast, later fifth- and sixth-century Syrian Orthodox writers understand kyana as virtually a synonym with hypostasis.....significantly, in Syriac Orthodox translations of the later fifth and of the sixth century, the older rendering...is replaced by various other translations, thus removing the (now archaic) association of kyana with ousia."

"At the outset I would suggest that....it is important to retain the Syriac term (Qnoma), and not retrovert it into hypostasis (let alone translate it as "person", as has occasionally been done)."

"In many cases...the tradition of the Church of the East will be found to have preserved images and metaphors of the incarnation which were once widely current, but which writers in other Syriac traditions had subsequently dropped, either on grounds of their perceived inadequacy, or because they were thought to lend support to the position of their theological opponents."

"The 4th century texts seem to understand kyana very much with ousia....This meaning was kept unchanged in the East. In the 6th and 7th centuries however the Syrian Orthodox moved with the times and their understanding came close to the Western/Greek development of hypostasis/prosopon. This gave rise to most of the problems."

"The Church of the East in the Sasanian Persian Empire up to the Sixth Century and it's absence from the Councils in the Roman Empire", by Prof. Sebastian Brock, Oxford University, June 25th, 1994, Vienna Austria - presented at the First Syriac Dialogue, hosted by Pro Oriente. ISBN: 3-901188-05-3
Brock advises that we don't "retrovert qnoma into hypostasis" and I'm going to follow his advice. Qnoma does NOT mean hypostasis which Brock, the world's leading authority on the Aramaic language stresses very clearly. Qnoma is very similar to hypostasis but it's not an exact match. Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized". Qnoma means "individuation" it NEVER means "individual", I know that it sounds like the same thing in English but it's not.

ialmisry said:
We can use English "subsistence" or "person," but it doesn't eliminate the problem, as the terms are not untranslatable.
We can use English "subsistance" or "person" for hypostasis NOT for qnoma. And BTW the Greek word hypostasis has changed in meaning over the centuries as well, before the Christological contraversies began hypostasis wasn't closely interwind with prosopon.

That's why I want to go back to the time before the first Council of Nicaea - to what these Greek words use to mean because the COE's understanding of the Aramaic words in their terminology (which is older than the other Aramaic churches) seems to correspond a lot more closely with the older meanings of the Greek words, but I need to make sure.

So if anyone can answer the question, I posted earlier I would appreciate it:

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

 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,134
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
wilderness
Ah, The mystery of prosopon. Only known to the greatest of theologians. I believe it's some kind of code sent from god.  "not serious at all" :laugh:
 

Nazarene

High Elder
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
520
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Africa
ozgeorge said:
Docetism.
Nope that's not the COE's view, this is.

witega said:
Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.
The COE likes to "get technical".
 

Orthodox11

Archon
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nazarene said:
witega said:
Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.
The COE likes to "get technical".
The difference is that when we 'get technical', we still affirm that it was God Incarnate who wept, died, bled, hungered by virtue of His humanity, and that it was God Incarnate who rose from the dead and reigns in glory by virtue of His divinity.

Our problem with what you're saying is that you refuse to attribute the properties of humanity to the divine Person: God Incarnate.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
ozgeorge said:
Nazarene said:
Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.
Comments?
Docetism.
Docetism is where someone believes Christ's body was not real.  Rafa believes Christ's body was very real.  He just doesn't believe the union between Christ's humanity and divinity was close enough that one can say God did all those things he listed.  

It seems to me he thinks of Christ as only a human person who had God dwelling in him.  I think several posts ago, I asked what the difference is between this and a prophet or saint.  I think one of the allegations that has historically been made against the Nestorians is that their Christology basically made Christ no more than a saint or prophet, except that they seemed to believe that God's indwelling in Christ was of a more permanent nature.

This is why I keep saying in all these Christological debates that terminology is not so important as what is meant by the terminology.  Both the COE and the EO's say "two natures," but it is obvious you believe different things about how those two natures come together in Christ.  EO's and OO's, on the other hand, use different terminology, but we seem to believe the same thing.  
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
God purchased the Church with His Blood. Acts 20:28.
Doctored Jacobite reading.
I've already shown you the original Greek, which predates Nestorius and Jacob Baradaeus.

I'm looking at the Aland, and the overwhelming evidence is with the Greek Received Text, including St. Epiphanius (an Aramaic speaker from Palestine).  The reading "Christ" is supported only by Ambrose (who also says "Lord"), an Itala, Athanasius (who also says "Lord") and Theodoret, Sinaiticus predating them all.

The Messiah did. I confess the Mother of Christ. Alaha has no mother, he is eternal and unbegotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhlas
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Salpy said:
ozgeorge said:
Nazarene said:
Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.
Comments?
Docetism.
Docetism is where someone believes Christ's body was not real.  Rafa believes Christ's body was very real.  He just doesn't believe the union between Christ's humanity and divinity was close enough that one can say God did all those things he listed.  

It seems to me he thinks of Christ as only a human person who had God dwelling in him.  I think several posts ago, I asked what the difference is between this and a prophet or saint.  I think one of the allegations that has historically been made against the Nestorians is that their Christology basically made Christ no more than a saint or prophet, except that they seemed to believe that God's indwelling in Christ was of a more permanent nature.

This is why I keep saying in all these Christological debates that terminology is not so important as what is meant by the terminology.  Both the COE and the EO's say "two natures," but it is obvious you believe different things about how those two natures come together in Christ.  EO's and OO's, on the other hand, use different terminology, but we seem to believe the same thing.  
Amen.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
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.
Which dates it to considerably later, post 6th century.
The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac By J. B. Segal p. 24.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VsDbyjUqXFEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Diacritical+Point+and+the+accents+in+Syriac&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The Khabouris itself dates over 5 centuries later.

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?
So you are defending Satan's intelligence? :-[


That can't be a true God, now if you were saying he was tempting the human nature of the Messiah that's different.
Only if you seperate the two natures.

Your Will, Not Mine! - Mark 14:36
Are you suggesting a schizophrenic Messiah talking to himself?
The text shows plainly (at least in the original Greek ::)) that the Son was talking to the Father.

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.
St. Maximos might dispute that.


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.
I'll leave it to St. John Chrysostom (you do recognize him, no?) et alia to explain.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
ialmisry said:
Deacon Lance said:
Rafa999 said:
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?
Of course it does.  We don't think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics either but we don't use the term miaphysis.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Nazarene said:
ozgeorge said:
Docetism.
Nope that's not the COE's view, this is.

witega said:
Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.
The COE likes to "get technical".
The difference presented by rafa999 goes well beyond the technical. Yes, 'technically', the Eternal Logos, in His Divine nature did not have blood. But the Incarnate God most certainly did and shed it for us. For rafa999 however, that idea is so contrary to his beliefs that he has to posit a change to Scripture in order to avoid it. He also apparently rejects the identification of the Virgin as "Thetokos", "She who gave birth to God." (If I followed that exchange between him and ialmisry correctly). Debating shades of meaning between qnoma and hypostatis in this case is rather missing the forest for the trees.

(and yes, altar server, assuming rafa999 is correctly portraying the faith of his Church, the Roman Catholics would seem to have some explaining to do).
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Deacon Lance said:
ialmisry said:
Deacon Lance said:
Rafa999 said:
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?
Of course it does.  We don't think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics either but we don't use the term miaphysis.
But I can say that the term 'miaphysis', as explained by the OO I have spoken too is not in contradiction, to the Faith I have received in the EO church. How do you possibly explain rafa999's statements as not in contradiction with the dogma of Council of Ephesus (and Constaninople VI, just to name the top hitters)?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
ozgeorge said:
Nazarene said:
Likewise, it is not possible that God bleeds or urinates or defecates or dies or lays in a grave. That is paganism.
Comments?
Docetism.
This is not Docetism, as they are not denying the reality of the body.  They are trying to protect the impassibilty of the Divine nature.  Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
witega said:
Deacon Lance said:
ialmisry said:
Deacon Lance said:
Rafa999 said:
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?
Of course it does.  We don't think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics either but we don't use the term miaphysis.
But I can say that the term 'miaphysis', as explained by the OO I have spoken too is not in contradiction, to the Faith I have received in the EO church. How do you possibly explain rafa999's statements as not in contradiction with the dogma of Council of Ephesus (and Constaninople VI, just to name the top hitters)?
See above.  They do not believe that Jesus Christ is two persons any more than Oriental Orthodox believe in Monophysitism.  From a Chalcedonian perspective their terminology may be flawed but so is the Orientals.
 

Orthodox11

Archon
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.
Because the Trisagion refers to the Holy Trinity. The Father and Holy Spirit were not crucified, and so to add such a clause would be an unspeakable blasphemy.

The OO's refer the Trisagion to Christ alone, thus avoiding this problem.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Deacon Lance said:
witega said:
Deacon Lance said:
ialmisry said:
Deacon Lance said:
Rafa999 said:
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?
Of course it does.  We don't think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics either but we don't use the term miaphysis.
But I can say that the term 'miaphysis', as explained by the OO I have spoken too is not in contradiction, to the Faith I have received in the EO church. How do you possibly explain rafa999's statements as not in contradiction with the dogma of Council of Ephesus (and Constaninople VI, just to name the top hitters)?
See above.  They do not believe that Jesus Christ is two persons any more than Oriental Orthodox believe in Monophysitism.  From a Chalcedonian perspective their terminology may be flawed but so is the Orientals.
You avoided the question. I didn't ask (and at this point don't care--it's like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic) how you reconcile the COE's terminology of qnoma, etc with Chalcedon. I want to know how you can agree that 'God did not have blood.'?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Nazarene said:
ialmisry said:
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
I'm going to quote Brock again:

"First of all (and this goes without saying), we need to try to understand what writers actually meant by the technical terms they use, rather than rely on what their opponents claimed they meant.....in this context, both the Syriac (Aramaic) terminology, and the understanding of that terminology, in the Church of the East can be described as both archaic and conservative."

"I conclude by looking at two sets of specific example....both are cases where the language used by the Church of the East could best be described as archaic.....we are dealing with imagery which was once widespread and which is still preserved in the Church of the East after it had been for the most part dropped by everyone else in the course of the fifth century controversies."

"It is essentially this (the archaic) understanding of kyana that is retained in the Church of the East.....by contrast, later fifth- and sixth-century Syrian Orthodox writers understand kyana as virtually a synonym with hypostasis.....significantly, in Syriac Orthodox translations of the later fifth and of the sixth century, the older rendering...is replaced by various other translations, thus removing the (now archaic) association of kyana with ousia."

"At the outset I would suggest that....it is important to retain the Syriac term (Qnoma), and not retrovert it into hypostasis (let alone translate it as "person", as has occasionally been done)."

"In many cases...the tradition of the Church of the East will be found to have preserved images and metaphors of the incarnation which were once widely current, but which writers in other Syriac traditions had subsequently dropped, either on grounds of their perceived inadequacy, or because they were thought to lend support to the position of their theological opponents."

"The 4th century texts seem to understand kyana very much with ousia....This meaning was kept unchanged in the East. In the 6th and 7th centuries however the Syrian Orthodox moved with the times and their understanding came close to the Western/Greek development of hypostasis/prosopon. This gave rise to most of the problems."

"The Church of the East in the Sasanian Persian Empire up to the Sixth Century and it's absence from the Councils in the Roman Empire", by Prof. Sebastian Brock, Oxford University, June 25th, 1994, Vienna Austria - presented at the First Syriac Dialogue, hosted by Pro Oriente. ISBN: 3-901188-05-3
Brock advises that we don't "retrovert qnoma into hypostasis" and I'm going to follow his advice.
Brock is a linguist, not a theologian. Don't take your shoes to the baker to get fixed.

Diodore of Tarsus, Theodoret of Cyrhus, and of course Nestorius wrote and debated in Greek, in which language the debates Prof. Brock alludes took place.  Btw, the archaism of the terminology of the Nestorians in 5th and 6th century doesn't date their theology.

Qnoma does NOT mean hypostasis which Brock, the world's leading authority on the Aramaic language stresses very clearly.
He is the leading authority on the Syriac language, which is not the same as Aramaic. And he admits that the Syriac speaking Orthodox use it for "hypostasis."

Qnoma is very similar to hypostasis but it's not an exact match.
The way the Nestorians used it no.  But that's a question of theological terminology, not linguistic etymology.

[/quote]Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized". Qnoma means "individuation" it NEVER means "individual", I know that it sounds like the same thing in English but it's not.[/quote]

qnoma d'malka "the person of the king," baqnoma "in person," qnom nafsheh "a certain person," 'ana qnomi "myself."  And d'ma dhaqnomeh "his own blood"  q'nomay alahotha meant "Persons of the Godhead" i.e. the Persons of the Trinity, when we borrowed it.

ialmisry said:
We can use English "subsistence" or "person," but it doesn't eliminate the problem, as the terms are not untranslatable.
We can use English "subsistance" or "person" for hypostasis NOT for qnoma.
The Syriac Orthodox do all the time.

And BTW the Greek word hypostasis has changed in meaning over the centuries as well, before the Christological contraversies began hypostasis wasn't closely interwind with prosopon.
I'm aware of that, and Prof. Brock alludes to it.

That's why I want to go back to the time before the first Council of Nicaea - to what these Greek words use to mean because the COE's understanding of the Aramaic words in their terminology (which is older than the other Aramaic churches) seems to correspond a lot more closely with the older meanings of the Greek words, but I need to make sure.
Be careful, as the older meanings were condemned as heretical, e.g. homoousios.

So if anyone can answer the question, I posted earlier I would appreciate it:

Can someone please give me a full explanation of the Hypostatic Union, as well as the older (pre-Nicene) meanings of the Greek words ousia, physis, hypostasis & prosopon?
The way to Nicaea By John Behr
http://books.google.com/books?id=8xDR2D5mQUEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Way+to+Nicea+Behr&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Nicaea-Formation-Christian-Theology/dp/0881412244
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Nazarene said:
ozgeorge said:
Docetism.
Nope that's not the COE's view, this is.

witega said:
Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.
The COE likes to "get technical".
Yeah.  That's how Nestorius got in trouble....
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Deacon Lance said:
Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.
The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council.  The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand.  Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion.  The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity.  I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone.  I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.  :)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
NJ
From Fr. Peter's Farrington's article, The Orthodox Christology of Severus of Antioch:
We do not refuse to confess the difference, God forbid! But we flee from this, that we should divide the one Christ in a duality of natures after the union. For if he is divided, the properties of each one of the natures are divided at the same time with him, and what is its own will cling to each one of them. But when a hypostatic union is professed, of which the fulfilment is that from two there is one Christ without confusion, one person, one hypostasis, one nature belonging to the Word incarnate. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)

What Severus, and Cyril, strive so hard to prevent is a division of Christ such that there is a human and a God. This is the essence of Nestorianism. In this passage Severus shows the strength of his feeling that we must absolutely confess that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are different things. There is no room for a Eutychian confusion of humanity and Divinity. This recognition of the difference of the nature is not what we object to. What we object to is creating a duality of natures, which does not mean the destruction of the difference between them, rather it means setting up two independent centres of existence, the humanity and the Divinity, and these independent centres of existence destroy the union. It is a hypostatic union that ensures the real union of these different natures. This passage makes clear that firstly, a hypostatic union does not introduce confusion between the humanity and the Divinity; secondly, that 'one nature belonging to the Word incarnate' does not mean either a confused divine/human nature nor does it mean that the humanity is swallowed up by the Divinity; thirdly, the passage makes plain that the union is one in which the different natures have their differences preserved but within one concrete existence, that of the Incarnate Christ, and not preserved independently as the Son of God and a man united in some external manner. The 'duality of natures' which is rejected is not the reality of the humanity and Divinity, but a division between them which destroys the union. What is required is a union which makes One Christ of the two without confusion of either.

It was Cyril, as Severus quotes, who had said that:

The properties of the Word became properties of manhood, and those of manhood, properties of the Word. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)
In other words, hypostatic union means a union between concrete realities (human and divine natures of Christ) without confusion and without separation in one concrete reality of the Logos Incarnate.

God bless.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the Eternal Logos, in His Divine nature did not have blood.
That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

I am the LORD, and I do not change.
Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

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

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

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.
There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The  Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans. This is what Isaiah 11 is talking about:

Isaiah 11

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Docetism is the position that Christ never had a real body and that the crucifixion was an illusion. I obviously never held to such a position.

Talk to the COE Qashas here:

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

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,218
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Salpy said:
Deacon Lance said:
Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.
The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council.  The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand.  Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion.  The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity.  I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone.  I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.   :)
Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned.  When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,498
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Deacon Lance said:
Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned.  When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.
He inserted it with the intention of protecting against Nestorianism, which at that time was kind of the same thing as "bolstering miaphysitism."  :)  Later, as I said, the Chalcedonians adopted the Theopaschite formula at Contantinople II, showing that one can believe in "two natures" and still have a Cyriliian Christology.  The COE still rejects it, though.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?
Our Father among the saints John Chrysostom and the Prophet Isaiah.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
the Eternal Logos, in His Divine nature did not have blood.
That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

I am the LORD, and I do not change.
Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

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

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

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.
There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The  Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans.
In idiomatic English "The Word was flesh and abided/rested in/by us."  Flesh has blood.  The Word was flesh, so He had blood.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Rafa999 said:
So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?
Dude--St. John Chrysostom came into the discussion because minisoliman showed that he disagreed with you:
"... to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily XLIV

I don't know if the issue is that St. John had less contact with Theodore than you're assuming, if he misunderstood Theodore on this point, if he forgot that Theodore was wrong on this point, or if you are misundersting Theodore on this point. But St. John quite clearly believed that God had blood.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos. Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Rafa999 said:
The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos.
So the Messiah and the Logos are not the same Person?
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity. The prophet Isaiah said so. This is not the same as a Saint because the FULL Godhead dwelled within the Messiah, the Seven Spirits of God (Isaiah 11).

By the way, your interpretation counts as human sacrifice by the Torah of the Jews of Jesus's time which he kept, while mine counts as an offering to God of the highest order (A Qurbana or Korban).
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Rafa999 said:
If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).
You're using your predetermined conclusion to prove that our reading of Acts 20:28 must be incorrect.  This is not what I asked for, since your conclusion that the Logos never held blood is itself currently under fire.  If you fail in defending this thesis, then your attack on our reading of Acts 20:28 falls apart as well, since you will have been shown to be basing your attack on a flimsy premise.

What I want to see is original manuscripts that show the "correct" wording of Acts 20:28, manuscripts you have conveniently put out of our reach by asserting that they no longer exist.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,812
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Rafa999 said:
I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos.
Then either it wasn't Christ's to offer, or it was, as God Himself.


Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.
It was Chrysostom who converted Theodore, not the reverse, and it was Chrysostom who brought Theodore back after this fall, not the the reverse.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.v.ii.html?highlight=theodore#highlight
 
Top