Peshitta Forum

Full Version: For Andrew Gabriel Roth
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Andrew, are you suggesting that you believe in modalism or adoptionism? Are you suggesting that, when Jesus prayed, it was His human nature speaking to His divine nature?
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

Y'shua wasn't talking to himself when he prayed to Father YHWH. It was as you say, his human nature/will talking to the divine nature/will. I do not have a scizoophrenic Messiah, and also I really don't like the way you just anwered me and I will tell you why.

I just said, I don't use English terms. Don't throw those things my way. Please read my post fully and consult the more detailed presentation I gave if that post was not sufficient. I believe in the one-ness of YHWH because that is Scriptural and the full humanity and divinity (not 50% each, 100% each) of Messiah is also Scriptural. Engage me there if that is at issue. But my belief cannot be reduced to a cute label. I have given throug Scripture my definition and Easterners use definitions and metaphors to explain this stuff--NOT one word terms.

If you have questions or issues on the SCRIPTURE I gave either here or on the website, just tell me. If it is a linguistic issue not apparent in normal translations you may be comfortable with, I will try to explain. But I will not allow you to dismiss the breadth of what I said in such a casual and dare I say it, lazy manner. I have NO PATIENCE (which is why I do not do first contact) for simply being told that Christian tradition or a pastor or church by laws prove me wrong without Scripture to back those up. If I am wrong it is by Sola Scriptura, but you have to show me from Aramaic or Hebrew why.

I have done the work. Now it is your turn. I beg you to do it well or not at all.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
When Jesus prayed, was His human nature speaking to His divine nature? To whom or what was He praying?
What do you think Brother Spyridon?

He says whom he is addressing: Our Father, who is in heaven. HOLY is YOUR NAME.

And then in Matti when tempted: Worship YHWH and Him only shall you serve.

Like I said, you are not reading the Scripture I gave. I just showed you Y'shua quoting Deut 6:4--it doesn't get plainer than that.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
When Jesus says baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is that not a reference to God being triune? Do you believe that Jesus was fully divine and fully human from the moment of conception? Since the Godhead is itself a mystery, I don't expect us to agree concerning Trinitarian doctrine.
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

Now THAT is a good question, and to tell you the truth I anticipated it. Let us see this from the Aramaic in literal word order, Matti 28:19:

zelo hakil talmideh kulhon amma w'aimadaw anon

Go therefore and make disciples of all peoples/nations and immersing them

B"SHEM Abba w'bara w'rukha d'qudsha

IN THE NAME (SINGULAR) Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit

The Aramaic doesn't even have an OF between these terms and the NAME is SINGULAR. But you raise a valid question. Could it really mean "name of the Father PLUS the name of the Son PLUS the name of the Holy Spirit?" Well, in a word: NO. All three concepts are brought under one name. That is how it literally reads.

It is also worth pointing out that Y'shua is referencing information known to his disciples from their previous traditions. In other words, from Tanakh for one, and from his own previous teaching for the other. Let us see why:

7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity. 10 Create in me a pure heart, O Elohim, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you.

Psalm 51:7-13

This is a Christian translation BTW (NIV) except that I put "Elohim" where "God" was. Do you see this? The "Holy Spirit" is simply another TITLE for YHWH, like El Shaddai, El Elyon, etc. Let's see this in another place:

Isaiah 63:7-10
7 I will tell of the kindnesses of YHWH, the deeds for which he is to be praised, according to all YHWH has done for us-- yes, the many good things he has done for the house of Israel, according to his compassion and many kindnesses. 8 He said, "Surely they are my people, sons who will not be false to me"; and so he became their Savior. 9 In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. 10 Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Now come on my brother. Do you think Isaiah and David were talking about another member of the Trinity??? I doubt that, and neither was Y'shua. Messiah was simply using previous titles and terminology for His Father, the ONE Elohim.

But what about the Son, you ask? Surely that refers to Y'shua the Man, not the Word? Surely it is the name of the separated being that is referenced????

Not a chance! Here is why:

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Y'shua, because he will save his people from their sins."

Matti 1:21

Who are "his people"? YHWH's of course. And what does "Yeshua" mean==YHWH is salvation! So the very name of the Son is an affirmation of the saving power of the Father--another TITLE through which Messiah's power from YHWH manifests! Don't believe me? Here it is again:

11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:11

I think that's pretty clear. There is YAH (YHWH) in Y'shua, both grammatically and LITERALLY. Y'shua has just said IT IS THE SAME NAME and THEY ARE ONE, meaning on the divine side. for again Y'shua has his human will as I have said, and this is why he says "My teaching is not my own" and "I can do NOTHING without my Father in heaven".

So if the name is the same is three ways to address the same one Deity. And Tanakh has dozens of other ways IN HEBREW NOT ENGLISH, to do this. Many titles, but ONE NAME, YAH and one PROMISE, SHUA, YAH IS SALVATION.

You really don't think all these Jews performed mikveh (ritual cleansing with water--see Ezekiel 36:24-27) to witness to three separate divine persons, do you?

As for when Y'shua's being divine from before birth, John chapters 1 and 17 make it clear that he was the Word (or even Thought) from the beginning. Whether Y'shua as an infant was aware is an interesting question. The Passover story at age 12 seems to show a growing boy who later "submitted" to his parents, but gifted with great knowledge. And let's not even start on the bad rep Y'shua had in books that didn't make it into canon, which shows at least an ancient idea that he still had to develop as a human baby to appreciate the life he would later give up and for us to appreciate that he was able to live without sin.

I have not come to these conclusions lightly my brother. I'm here for a reason.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew, why is it that the ancient churches of the East, including the Assyrian Church, hold to Trinitarian doctrine, albeit using different terminology?
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

You know I am answering all these questions for you throughly I believe and you never seem to respond to my points but just move on to another question, so why are you doing that? Would you like it if someone did that to you? I have yet to get a single "thank you" for all this effort, even if you disagree. Would you do that to an Orthodox Rabbi or a minister? Is my time not valuable when I am the focus of all your inquiry? I am trying to help but this is getting a bit much.

Qnoma theory is not trinity. The COE, as I understand it, is NOT trinitarian, but they are not unitarian either. I think you are thinking in too rigid terms. As I tried to explain earlier today, the divinity of Y'shua is not questioned by either the Nazarenes or the COE. We have a high Christology. We are not JW's nor Arians and we do not call YHWH 3 SEPARATE PERSONS. Paul Younan tried to explain this to you as well. Why are you not hearing us? Three divine persons is IDOLATRY, and is a position CONDEMNED from Matti to Rev. I showed this to you. I showed you Y'shua saying "YHWH is one" over and over again. How much more do you need that you keep asking the same thing that I have already answered.

Trinity is NOT an original faith position in ANY apostolic assembly. It is a corruption of Rome continued by Protestants and by some ancient bodies that later became aligned with Rome.

Man you are trying my patience.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:You know I am answering all these questions for you throughly I believe and you never seem to respond to my points but just move on to another question, so why are you doing that?

Once I already understand your post, I can move on to a different question, if you do not mind.

Paul Younan Wrote:
Spyridon Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", we never apply the term "person" to God.

Why is this? Please elaborate. And while you might use different terminology, you do believe that God is Triune?

It's essentially a cultural and linguistic issue. In the Semitic milieu (which includes Judaism, Messianity and Islam) God is not regarded as a "person" in the sense that human beings are "persons."

As for "Tri-unity", yes in the sense that we believe in 3 Qnume (no English equivalent) in one Keyana ("nature"). The formulation is similar to the Western, except for the usage of the term "person."

What you seem to be suggesting is that there are three manifestations of a unitary being, one being the incarnation of Jesus Christ. What Deacon Paul seems to be suggesting is there are three substances of one nature, albeit without using the term "person." Please forgive me if I'm mistaken.

My church, the Indian Orthodox Church, was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle in 52 A.D. We confess that God is three persons of one essence. And, as Deacon Paul wrote eariler, we share the same Trinitarian belief, albeit with different terminology.
I agree with akh Andrew, this is getting a bit much. Spyridon this is not the Spanish Inquisition. You will gain more respect on this forum if you do some research on the CoE & Nazarenes before you come with your questions. Also this forum, as stated in the "rules" thread is not for theological debates but for Aramaic primacy & textual study, please respect that. If you continue with this akhan Paul will start locking the threads.
This is not an inquisition, and neither do I intend it to be. I'm sorry if I've given a different impression. Taking logic class teaches one to not take things personally. We can have honest, socratic discussion regarding points of doctrine in a careful way. As I said before, there is room for disagreement.

I don't expect us to believe the same things, yet it's good to understand why we believe differently. I am well acquainted with the theological position that Andrew is advocating, and I wouldn't desire to change his mind. I don't believe it is the same position that the Assyrian Church shares, which I've attempted to show by quoting Deacon Paul directly. Please forgive me if I've misquoted him.

Paul Younan Wrote:
Spyridon Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", we never apply the term "person" to God.

Why is this? Please elaborate. And while you might use different terminology, you do believe that God is Triune?

It's essentially a cultural and linguistic issue. In the Semitic milieu (which includes Judaism, Messianity and Islam) God is not regarded as a "person" in the sense that human beings are "persons."

As for "Tri-unity", yes in the sense that we believe in 3 Qnume (no English equivalent) in one Keyana ("nature"). The formulation is similar to the Western, except for the usage of the term "person."

If I'm not mistaken, Deacon Paul is saying that Assyrians hold to Trinitarian doctrine, albeit without using the term "person."

The Indian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. are most definitely Apostolic assemblies, tracing themselves to the original Christian communities, and all hold to Trinitarian doctrine. They are not Roman and are most definitely not Protestant. What Andrew seems to be advocating is revisionist history.

If I am testing Andrew's patience, then he may not be suited to advocate his positions in an academic setting. Then again, I've met tenured professors who, simply because of their status, are incapable of having rational conversation with those who don't already agree with their point of view. That is not to say they are irrational, they are simply unapproachable.

The rules of logic are immutable: A is A. We can use them on this forum dispassionately and carefully.

It doesn't take an inquisition to recognize this as a false statement:

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Trinity is NOT an original faith position in ANY apostolic assembly. It is a corruption of Rome continued by Protestants and by some ancient bodies that later became aligned with Rome.

It simply takes the rules of logic and a cursory understanding of church history.
Ahki Andrew, your patience throughout this thread, has been obvious, and consequently, for me ... your answers to Spyridon have provided much learning.
I deeply appreciate your generosity of time and knowledge ... our lives are richer for it.

I personally think that Spyridon's understanding of "the immutable laws of logic" have taken this thread to places it should never have gone.

it would appear that " For Andrew Gabriel Roth" has morphed into "Against Andrew Gabriel Roth" and if this thread is 'all down hill' from here, ... thank you for the glimpse from the summit.

ahava chesed and shalom
I have no intention of being "against" Andrew, and I'm sorry if I've given that impression. A person can disagree with an assertion without being "against" the person. While I consider Andrew's understanding of the Godhead a legitimate one, it is not shared by historical Eastern churches. I don't understand why stating the obvious should cause such offense. We can be loving as Christians while recognizing real disagreements and real history. Do you know what it means to have dispassionate conversation? If we can't have it, then it's best we show our love through other means.
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

I am convinced that you are simply choosing not to hear either me or others here. I have been nothing but both respectful and logical with you. I agree the laws of logic are immutble but it is you, not I, who have not followed those laws. But allow me to in all respect and peace explain because I dialogue with Christians and academicians from all over the world and want to show you what I mean with concrete examples. I ask with extreme humility and sincerity that you take the time and effort to read what I am saying to you. Can you please do that? These are my points back to you:

1) You keep saying the COE is trinitarian except they don't call YHWH "persons". If that is so, then I too am trinitarian! For me "persons" of YHWH is the whole point that the Nazarenes and the COE are against and Western Christianity in its Greek translations at least are for. I say this because of the mss record. Aramaic says qnumeh, Greek PROSOPON and Latin PERSONNA. The Greek and Latin terms mean PERSON the Aramaic qnumeh means an individuated instance of a nature or kyanna, and if that sounds strange to you, frankly I am not surprised because you have glossed by this distinction without understanding from me or from Paul at least 6 times. To say a trinitarian position is the same but for PERSONS is kind of like saying bacon is kosher except for the pork.

2) As for triunity it is also not a good term. I can count for example 7 spirits of YHWH in Isaiah 11:1-2 so why don't you hear Jews and Nazarenes and yes some very sharp Christians talk about "sept-unity" or some such thing? What if I find five more attributes of YHWH, or spirits, in 1 Chronicles? Is there now a penta-unity? See to me that is ridiculous and un productive because from Genesis to Revelation there is ONE ELOHIM, YHWH. And yes YHWH has attributes but that is not the same thiing as PERSONS. Are we clear yet?

3) You are acting like you have understood my positions all along but I am doubtful. You have also not offered a single linguistic or scriptural counterpoint or even shown me that you acknowledge the point. Just making a blanket statement now after all this dialogue is disingenous sir, to say the least. Where is YOUR SCRIPTURE? Why don't you be a Berean and prove everything as I have? If you can prove me wrong are you really only going to refer to some "Christian tradition" and leave it at that? To me that is lazy and it is not a Christian problem I am having with you. It is a methodology problem. I have many Christian friends in dozens of countries around the world sir. But they, unlike you, at least do the work. I have dialogued with people of every faith and with no faith at all and I have been willing as Yah is my witness to always admit when i am wrong IN PUBLIC if the offense was in public. Just ask anyone here who knows me. They may not always like my style but they know I speak the truth.

4) When others like Christina or Ryan point out to you the most basic flaw, like not understanding Oral Law, you don't even acknowledge it. I don't know everything but I guess you do because you can be abrupt and just move on to your next question. That is just rude okay? What are you like 16? And you have the nerve to then turn around and talk about academic discussion and about how I can't stand disagreement? You must be joking. I have been both patient and thorough with you and kept the focus on Scripture. You want to talk to me about the laws of logic being immutable? Guess what, so are the laws of COURTESY and you better learn them fast.

5) You had also better learn to go point for point as I do. I break up posts and analyze each part one at a time. Again your answer is another question and you express no gratitdue for the effort. Again, don't bring academia up to me because you will lose that argument. In academia a student raises his hand and listens to the answer. And while I don't aspire to be your professor I have answered dozens of your questions without the roles being reversed even once. I can disagree with you all day Spyridon but I will not tolerate your disrespect while doing so. Am I clear? It is YOUR style, NOT I repeat NOT your faith, that is troubling to me. Believe what you will because I am not an evangelist but I don't back down from the truth as I see it WHEN ASKED.

It's a shame because some of your questions, like the one before last, are truly excellent opportunities for discussion as Gordon said. I don't mind answering them--but your manners sir must change immediately. Don't force my hand for more detail than that because you don't want to go there. To push me without apology or grattude from here would be most unwise. You would do very well to take what I say at face value for I give you good advice and not turn it into my resisting the cross. Those who know me, who saw me baptized, know better. You know what? The best Christians I know also don't go out of their way to offend others and they apologize when they do even if they are not sure why. If I have to show this Scripture too, then you are lost.

I have nothing further to say. Change and we can continue a fruitful discussion. Remain as you are and we are done.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew, as I stated before, I respect your understanding of the Godhead, and you have a right to it. It's a mystery that human terminology can never do total justice. At one point of my life, I shared the same belief that you have, so I understand the arguments involved. I'm also able to appreciate it as a legitimate expression of Gospel truth.

Please do not, however, make false statements concerning what Eastern Christians believe. The vast majority of them, from the beginning of the faith, have held to Trinitarian doctrine. It is not a Latin innovation. It is you who has made this unsubstantiated claim. I'm not the kind of person to hold a man's theology against him, unless he's a satanist or an atheist, which you are neither. You deserve the respect befitting of a fellow Christian, and I'm sorry if I have not given it to you.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7