Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Three Chapters, Two Statements and One Ex-bishop's old views
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I came across <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.britishorthodox.org/assyrian.php">http://www.britishorthodox.org/assyrian.php</a><!-- m -->.

I noticed two things in this Coptic view (see below for the full text copied from BOC site).

Quote:Strangely enough, the same Bishop pretended before us in Egypt in January 1995, that he was ready in the near future to abandon dignifying Nestorius and to expunge his name from the Assyrian liturgy. This statement was registered in the minutes of the sessions verbally and also in writing.

and

Quote:During this time, some members of the Coptic delegation met representatives of the Assyrian Church, in the presence of Metropolitan George Khodr of Lebanon from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. When they were asked about the two dogmas of the Incarnation and Redemption, the Assyrians said, "God cannot be crucified" and, "God does not incarnate". The Coptic delegation understood by this that, in terms of their dogma, the Assyrians definitely remain Nestorians.

Are the two theological statements quoted above officially expressed by the ACOE ?

Jerzy

----

The Assyrian Church, otherwise known as the 'Church of the East', did not attend the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Its members were later assumed into the Persian Empire.

The Assyrian Church believed the teachings of Nestorius, defended him and considered him a teacher and a saint, and still remembers him in its liturgies and celebrates his life in the feast of the Greek teachers. This Church also followed the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Iraq). It considered them like Nestorius, saints and Greek teachers (i.e. those who wrote their teachings in the Greek language). The liturgies of this Church also attack opponents of Nestorius, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Severus of Antioch, and consider them to have been evil men.

This Church rejects the decisions of the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D. as well as the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (that is, the private council of Chalcedonians). It is important to note that the 'Fifth Ecumenical Council' (the second council to be convened in Constantinople, in 553 A.D.) anathematised the Three Chapters which the Council of Chalcedon had not previously anathematised;
1) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
2) the writings of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus against the twelve anathemas of St. Cyril, and
3) the letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, to Maris, the Bishop of [Hardachir in] Persia.

St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote a letter to the Emperor Theodosius after the Council of Ephesus, following the reconciliation with John of Antioch, warning of the teachings of Diodore and Theodore. St. Cyril considered them responsible for the blasphemy of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been excommunicated by the Council and whose teachings had been anathematised, as Nestorius had been raised within the milieux of the teachings of Diodore and Theodore. Nestorius grew up in Antioch, before having been Patriarch of Constantinople: Theodore also grew up in Antioch before he became bishop for the city of Mopsuestia, in the region amidst the two rivers.

Mar Bawai Soro from the Assyrian Church said in the paper which he presented at Vienna in June 1994 that their Church liturgy, without exception, mentions Nestorius with Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia in its prayers. The report exhibits the respect given to the three teachers, and it also provides a list of Western fathers (in relation to the Church of the East) which again includes and emphasises the status of the same three theologians. Thus if we were to ask the question, 'Does the Church of the East dignify Nestorius and continue to use his theological expressions ?' the answer would be clear.

Strangely enough, the same Bishop pretended before us in Egypt in January 1995, that he was ready in the near future to abandon dignifying Nestorius and to expunge his name from the Assyrian liturgy. This statement was registered in the minutes of the sessions verbally and also in writing. Yet following his return, he was to deny strongly this statement at the meeting of members of the Syrian family of churches convened and supervised by the Pro Oriente Commission in February 1996. He even dared, in the paper which he presented in the final session of the dialogue, to require the Coptic Orthodox Church to lift the anathemas from Nestorius, claiming that the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. headed by St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, had misjudged him.

The Assyrian Church asked to join the Middle-East Council of Churches during the Fourth General Assembly in 1986. The Coptic Church noted its objection by a letter addressed to the Co-Chairmen of the Council. The Coptic Church was joined in its objection by five Metropolitans of the Syrian Orthodox Church, each of whom were members of the Church delegation to the General Assembly, and who co-signed the letter. The reason underlying the objection was the refusal of the inclusion of a Nestorian Church in the membership of the Council. During this time, some members of the Coptic delegation met representatives of the Assyrian Church, in the presence of Metropolitan George Khodr of Lebanon from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. When they were asked about the two dogmas of the Incarnation and Redemption, the Assyrians said, "God cannot be crucified" and, "God does not incarnate". The Coptic delegation understood by this that, in terms of their dogma, the Assyrians definitely remain Nestorians.

When the Council requested the Coptic Orthodox Church to share in the Council's on-going dialogue with the theologians of this Church, the Coptic Church did not object as it regarded the opportunity as a chance to witness to the True Faith within the dialogue, and to explain the True Faith to others.

The preparation for, and organisation of, the dialogue continued until November 1994, when His Holiness Pope Shenouda III attended the Sixth General Assembly of the Council at which His Holiness was elected as one of the four presidents of the Council to represent the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox family. At the same time he agreed to invite a delegation from the Assyrian Church to attend a dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox Church which he himself would lead, together with representatives from the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Middle-East Council of Churches.

At the meeting which ensued, the Assyrian delegation presented a written response in the form of a suggested text about Christology, with particular regard to the nature of our Lord Jesus. They promised to abolish whatever was in disagreement with this text in their doctrinal sources and liturgies. By this they meant to delete the anathemas against such saints as Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch and also to delete the names of Nestorius, Diodore and Theodore from the list of saints of their Church, as well as the complete rejection of all Nestorian teachings. They did not mention in their speech the notion that Nestorius had been misjudged, as had been stated by them and the Catholic theologians in the meetings of the Pro Oriente sponsored Syriac Dialogue in Vienna in January 1994, February 1996 and July 1997.

On 11th November 1994 the Roman Catholic Pope had signed a joint agreement about Christology with regard to the nature of our Lord Jesus, with the Assyrian Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV. The Catholic Pro Oriente Commission organized an unofficial dialogue for all Churches of Syrian heritage, which comprised the Catholic Chaldean Church, the Catholic Maronite Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Indian Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Two sessions were convened for this dialogue in Vienna, in June 1994 and February 1996. The Coptic Orthodox Church was invited as an Observer to the second meeting in February 1996. The proceedings, documents and papers of the first dialogue were published in English, then translated into Arabic.

Through the study of the material published about the first dialogue, and that which was presented during the second meeting, it was obvious that there is a Catholic-Assyrian tendency to acquit Nestorius, Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the clear accusation levelled at St. Cyril that his opposition to Nestorius was a matter of jealousy and was based upon wrong personal motives. The Catholics and Assyrians also appear to believe that the Council of Ephesus oppressed Nestorius; and they seem to suggest that this presumed oppression was emphasised by the decision of the second Council of Constantinople in 533 A.D. the 'Fifth Ecumenical Council') to anathematise the Three Chapters. Many Western theologians now try to acquit Nestorius, which makes possible the Western/Assyrian alliance to defend him, his teachings, and his teachers, Diodore and Theodore.

The representative of the Coptic Orthodox Church, during the meeting in Vienna in February 1996, presented a paper in English in order to answer the recent defences of Nestorius presented from Western scholars (the text of which is appended). With regard to the Middle-East Council of Churches, the Catholic Church has accepted the inclusion of the Assyrian Church within the Council's Catholic Family and has requested its admission to Council membership by means of this provisionthis provision, but the Council refused that since it is against its constitution.

We see that the Assyrian dialogue requires a great deal of caution, as there is a clear scheme to acquit Nestorius and to ignore the condemnation of the Three Chapters. In this the Catholic Church plays a role no less than its part in the Council of Chalcedon, during which Pope Leo I (through his legates) absolved Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, well known for their Nestorian tendencies. This is the reason why Pope Dioscorus excommunicated the Catholic Pope Leo I at this time, and had not done so in the Second Ephesian Council in 499 A.D. convened by Imperial decree.

There are attempts now done by the Coptic Orthodox Church to clarify the whole situation to the Roman Catholic Church in order to save the Christological agreement signed between them in Feb. 1988.
enarxe Wrote:
Quote:...(snip) the Assyrians said, "God cannot be crucified" and, "God does not incarnate".

Are the two theological statements quoted above officially expressed by the ACOE ?

Jerzy

Shlama Akhi Jerzy,

Please reference Chapter 10 (concerning the Incarnation) from the official CoE Catechism:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

In particular, see questions 27-30
Rafa Wrote:The COE has a Catechism? I thought there was no official catechism. Is this new Shamasha Paul? Can this catechism be bought somewhere? I'd like to give copies of it to family members, specifically my father.

Shlama Akhi,

Yes, this was a fairly new publication (as of a couple years ago, 2006 I believe it was published.) It can be purchased at various parishes, although the complete text is available online free:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html
Paul Younan Wrote:
enarxe Wrote:
Quote:...(snip) the Assyrians said, "God cannot be crucified" and, "God does not incarnate".

Are the two theological statements quoted above officially expressed by the ACOE ?

Jerzy

Shlama Akhi Jerzy,

Please reference Chapter 10 (concerning the Incarnation) from the official CoE Catechism:

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

In particular, see questions 27-30

Shlama Akhi Paul,

Thank you. A must read. So the Creed says "who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, and became man, and was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary". How then could one say the Creed and at the same time "God does not incarnate?". Would you say that this BOC web page is wrong then in describing what CoE believes? Or is there more to this, something I'm missing? Different understandings of the word "incarnate"?
enarxe Wrote:Would you say that this BOC web page is wrong then in describing what CoE believes?

Well, that's a kind way of putting it, yes....you could say it that way. And it wouldn't be the first time. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

The CoE does accept the Nicene Creed (since the days of the Synod of Mar Isaac, which accepted the creed as it was formulated in Greek in the West.)

As long as by the words "became" we do not mean that God changed essentially into something other than....well, God. The CoE rejects the idea that by the word "became", we mean that God changed by nature into something else and was no longer God. Of course, no one who recites the Creed believes that...it would be absurd....unless, of course, you're a Copt and believe that the very nature of God changed into that of Man.

The Copts believe in a God-Man. We believe in a God/Man. There is a subtle, yet very theologically important, distinction.
I read chapter 10: 27-30 and I haven't a clue what it means. That doesn't mean I'm putting it down.
I just wish I understand what they meant.

Various questions come up. What does it mean to be a man. To have your own human spirit and body combined to make a soul? What does it mean to be God? God is spirit and all powerful.
A human has their own will and God has his own will.
If Christ was perfect human and perfect God, does that mean the human part did not have its own will, but was subservient to the God part?

I was told by someone ages ago that the Church of the east was rejected by the west for painting Jesus as someone with a multiple personal disorder. With a human personality and a God personality. Unstead of united and joint together in Christ as he said it ought to be. At the time I did my best to defend the Church of the east.

I just wish I could understand exactly clearly what the Churches position was.
Sorry I'm struggling with the Catechism.
Shlama Dowidh,

dowidh Wrote:...I just wish I understand what they meant.

The most important part is the quote from Mar Bawai the Great:

Quote:One is Christ, the Son of God, worshiped by all in two natures, in His Godhead, begotten of The Father. Without beginning in the fullness of time, in a united body. In His manhood, born of Mary, in the end of time, in the body which was united. Neither His Godhead was of the nature of the mother, nor His manhood of the nature of the Father. The Natures are preserved in their qnume, in One Person of One Sonship. And as the God head is three qnume, One Essence, likewise the Sonship of the Son, is in two natures, One Person, so the Holy Church has learned to confess the Son who is Christ, we worship, O my Lord, Thy Godhead, and Thy manhood, without division, One is the Power, One the Majesty, One the Will and One the Glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit forever: Amen (Mar Bawai the Great)

That brief statement summarizes the Christology of the CoE.

The term that is most misunderstood, as it has no cognate in any other language, is qnuma (sing.) and qnume (plural).

As for the hopes of ever truly "understanding" the Incarnation, please reference the wise words of Mar Ephrem below....

[Image: MarEphrem.jpg]
Paul, I wanted to thank you again. I had a post ready yesterday saying "It is dificult and I still >>don't get it<< but no wonder as it is one of the great mysteries of our faith", and then I was staring at it for over an hour trying to write sensible question .. decided not to post it and give it more thought. This theological subject possibly belongs to the other forum. Couldn't get my head around the difference between the hyphen and the slash, glad I was not the only one.

I'm now reading this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril ... 1_text.htm</a><!-- m -->
and <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/nestorius_bazaar_1_book1_part1.htm">http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefather ... _part1.htm</a><!-- m -->
and <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/#Nestorius">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/#Nestorius</a><!-- m -->
and <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nestorian.org/the_christological_controversi.html">http://www.nestorian.org/the_christolog ... versi.html</a><!-- m -->
and looking for all the patristic writings on the incarnation. kai logos sarx egeneto, wmeltho besro hwo (hope rendered it ok). Fascinating. Mar Bawai the Great ... where is it ?

... Two natures, one person ...

Akhan Paul, just one more question - what are in your opinion the impliactions of this subtle theological difference? Of course truth matters, but I mean implications for pastoral practice and worship ? Implications on how we view human condition and salvation? I can see one - since there are two natures and human cannot give birth to the heavenly follows rejection of the title theotokos for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as inappropriate.

Side note - what I like in the CoE catechism is how much it quotes the Bible. ("i like" - not meaning that i'm in a position to judge it, no, no, "i like" meaning see appealing, touching).

With peace and blessings, Jerzy
Thanks Akhi Paul.

That helped some. I'll reread it from time to time. I have some idea now, not that I completely get it now. But thanks again.
Shlama Akhi Jerzy,

enarxe Wrote:Akhan Paul, just one more question - what are in your opinion the impliactions of this subtle theological difference?

Pharaoh was a god-man, was he not? In that his actual flesh was divine?

But Meshikha is not like all the other god-men that blessed the land of the Copts with their presence, Akhi. Meshikha is at once both God and Man. His flesh is not Divine, nor His Divinity human.

He is literally God. And His flesh is literally no different than our own. It hungered and suffered and experienced all of the same things that we in our human condition experience. God and Man, at once. Unless it were so, our salvation is null and void...because it would not have been our very humanity that was sacrificed in our place on the Cross.

The Mystery of the Incarnation that Mar Ephrem so eloquently describes in his homily above. A truly ineffable mystery.

enarxe Wrote:I can see one - since there are two natures and human cannot give birth to the heavenly follows rejection of the title theotokos for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as inappropriate.

It's not that the title of Theo-Tokos is inappropriate so much as it is incomplete. For the title literally means "God-Bearer."

Since it is universally understood by all the Orthodox branches of the Church, that by "Meshikha~Christ" we mean God and Man.....wouldn't a more complete title be "Christo-Tokos?"

If we call Maryam "Theo-Tokos", that's just fine...but it's incomplete. She really is "Christo-Tokos", since we mean by "Christos" the Subject of the Incarnation....that is, both God and Man.

When you say "Theo-Tokos" you are leaving out the Man. When you say "Christo-Tokos" you are including both God and Man. So the title is more complete...."Christo-Tokos" would be "Christ-Bearer", or ..... "God/Man-bearer".

Isn't that a more complete title? That's why Nestorius favoured the term "Christo-Tokos" over "Theo-Tokos." Theo-Tokos only tells part of the story. It leaves out the Man.

By calling Maryam "Christo-Tokos" we are not necessarily defining what Meshikha is.....nor are we necessarily defining what Maryam is not. We are simply using what we consider to be a more complete term.

After all, Maryam did not give birth to a god, like Pharaoh's mother. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->
Paul Younan Wrote:After all, Maryam did not give birth to a god, like Pharaoh's mother. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->

That's exactly why I think this title (theotokos) is inappropriate. I think it leads to putting the Blessed Miriam to a position of a godess. I might be overreacting but it is the practice I have seen too many times.

As for the will - I think that part from Bawai the Great says about the same (one) will of God the Father and God the Son, not necessarily about one (the same) will of human and divine natures of Messiah. Although there might be one, it is not the point of that statement. Or is it? "One is the Power, One the Majesty, One the Will and One the Glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit forever: Amen (Mar Bawai the Great)"

What have we got written in the Gospels ?

John 4:34 My food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

When Yeshu'a says "I" or "my" is it the human or divine "I" ? Both at once?

And when Our Lord says "my will", is it the human will or divine will? Both at once? Or there is only one?

I think it is human (see Luke above) and that human will is in perfect union (consensus) with the divine, so effectively there is one, as in a loving husband and wife relationship, to give an imperfect example.

Here is the western view <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm</a><!-- m -->, in case anyone would like to check.

Rafa, I admit that this knowledge is way to high for me and I might be wrong but I still try to share how I understand it. Will be glad to listen more to the expositions from CoE members.
Shlama Akhi Rafa,

Rafa Wrote:Can you explain further the COE position on a single will Shamasha Paul?

Unless I'm mistaken, the phrase "One Will" in Mar Bawai the Great's statement is in reference to the unity of the 3 Qnume of the Godhead. I think it's pretty clear from scripture that Meshikha's human will and his Divine will were at times at odds with each other (cf., His statements in Gethsemane.)

If Meshikha's Divine will overrode His human will, then the temptation in the wilderness by our adversary would have been a farce...would it not? Where would the triumph have been in resisting the tempter? How can Satan have had any hope of tempting God?

Did not God already own the universe? What could Satan have offered Him that God would have been in need of? Riches, Kingdoms......Bread? God? Pffffft. Big deal.

He did not tempt God, he tempted the humanity of Meshikha....our humanity, in which we have triumphed over our adversary, all glory and thanks be to God.
enarxe Wrote:That's exactly why I think this title (theotokos) is inappropriate. I think it leads to putting the Blessed Miriam to a position of a godess. I might be overreacting but it is the practice I have seen too many times.

Yes, it is prone to being misunderstood. And again, it's incomplete....and tells only part of the story.

enarxe Wrote:As for the will - I think that part from Bawai the Great says about the same (one) will of God the Father and God the Son, not necessarily about one (the same) will of human and divine natures of Messiah.

I agree absolutely. I read it to mean the unity of will among the Qnume of the "Trinity."

enarxe Wrote:What have we got written in the Gospels ?

John 4:34 My food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

When Yeshu'a says "I" or "my" is it the human or divine "I" ? Both at once?

And when Our Lord says "my will", is it the human will or divine will? Both at once? Or there is only one?

I think it is human (see Luke above) and that human will is in perfect union (consensus) with the divine, so effectively there is one, as in a loving husband and wife relationship, to give an imperfect example.

Mar Narsai's poem dealt with this ... remember that one? I've got to find the link to it....
Shlama all,

I would like to comment on some of these posts as it's of great interest to me:

Paul Younan Wrote:
enarxe Wrote:Would you say that this BOC web page is wrong then in describing what CoE believes?

Well, that's a kind way of putting it, yes....you could say it that way. And it wouldn't be the first time. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

The CoE does accept the Nicene Creed (since the days of the Synod of Mar Isaac, which accepted the creed as it was formulated in Greek in the West.)

As long as by the words "became" we do not mean that God changed essentially into something other than....well, God. The CoE rejects the idea that by the word "became", we mean that God changed by nature into something else and was no longer God. Of course, no one who recites the Creed believes that...it would be absurd....unless, of course, you're a Copt and believe that the very nature of God changed into that of Man.

The Copts believe in a God-Man. We believe in a God/Man. There is a subtle, yet very theologically important, distinction.

Methinks that this verse condemns Monophysitism:

Malachi 3:6 For I, YHWH, don't change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

If God emphatically states that He does not change His will, then how can anyone assume that He will ever change His nature, because after all a person's will is routed in and stems from their nature - the nature determines the will.

dowidh Wrote:I read chapter 10: 27-30 and I haven't a clue what it means. That doesn't mean I'm putting it down.
I just wish I understand what they meant.

Various questions come up. What does it mean to be a man. To have your own human spirit and body combined to make a soul? What does it mean to be God? God is spirit and all powerful.
A human has their own will and God has his own will.
If Christ was perfect human and perfect God, does that mean the human part did not have its own will, but was subservient to the God part?

Rafa Wrote:
Quote:One the Will

(Mar Bawai the Great)

That statement to me personally is the CRITICAL point. Can you explain further the COE position on a single will Shamasha Paul? This is a major stumbling block for people in the west. How does this work? Does Qnume mean that the spirit and the soul are united in a single will- that of the Messiah ? Are you basically saying that the "flesh is weak but the spirit is willing"- the Divine will is subject to the limitations of the flesh in some mysterious way ? If not how is that wrong (this is the belief of the Jacobites if I am not mistaken) Is this why Qnume is so misunderstood by people who don't know Aramaic?

Mind if I have a go at this akhay?

Yeshua Meshikha's human nature was created sinless, He had a sinless human nature and so His will (to not sin) was rooted in and stemmed from His sinless human nature, and this is why He was able to say "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit", because a person's will is rooted in and stems from their nature. This is not to say that Yeshua was a robot because robots don't have wills of their own, but Yeshua's human nature was created sinless precisely for that reason - that He would willingly choose to be the Lamb who's blood washes away all the sins of the world. Yeshua's human nature was created by His Divine nature, while He is the "first-born of creation" we are also told everything was created "by Him and for Him". I may be oversimplifying this (and Shamasha feel free to correct me as I'm not qualified to teach doctrine) but does this make some sense?

As for the union between the Divine & human natures (actually qnume) of our Saviour & Master:

dowidh Wrote:I was told by someone ages ago that the Church of the east was rejected by the west for painting Jesus as someone with a multiple personal disorder. With a human personality and a God personality. Unstead of united and joint together in Christ as he said it ought to be. At the time I did my best to defend the Church of the east.

I just wish I could understand exactly clearly what the Churches position was.
Sorry I'm struggling with the Catechism.

Here's what the west is misunderstanding: The CoE say that Meshikha is "2 qnume in 1" and they think that qnuma means "person" but it doesn't. I found this very helpful diagram & explanation on the Assyrian Church of Australia's forum, I think when you see this you'll understand what's going on:

Larry Lincoln Wrote:Tov Shlama Akhay,

I picked up the following information a long time ago over at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->. I think it gives a good explanation of the whole Holy Trinity formula that the Church of the East uses!

[Image: kyana_qnoma_parsopa.gif]

Mar Bawai Rabba (the Great) wrote:
Quote:???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.

Synodicon Orientale wrote:
Quote:???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.???

There is an interplay of abstraction/concretization between Keyana (Nature) and Qnoma. Qnoma (concrete) is a individudated exemplar of a keyana (abstract).

Push b'shlama!

Another very good explanation can be found in the downloadable sample of akhan Andrew's book Path to Life, read from around pg. 91: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/ThePathtoLife.pdf">http://www.aramaicnttruth.org/downloads ... toLife.pdf</a><!-- m -->. Also be sure to check out Book 1, Chapter 5 of Marganitha, which is a nice "handbook" on CoE theology: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_i.html#chap5">http://www.nestorian.org/book_of_margan ... html#chap5</a><!-- m -->.

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jerzy,

enarxe Wrote:Akhan Paul, just one more question - what are in your opinion the impliactions of this subtle theological difference?

Pharaoh was a god-man, was he not? In that his actual flesh was divine?

Yeah we can add Hercules, Alex, Gilgamesh, Nero and other examples from both history & mythology to the stock-pile of "demi-gods" too, of course the Bible says they are no more divine than idols made of wood and stone. YHWH sure showed Pharaoh how divine he really was when He dumped the Red Sea waters on him and his army, so much for Pharaoh glorifying his own flesh. This is why Monophysitism is heresy - it glorifies flesh.

Paul Younan Wrote:But Meshikha is not like all the other god-men that blessed the land of the Copts with their presence, Akhi. Meshikha is at once both God and Man. His flesh is not Divine, nor His Divinity human.

Indeed not!

Paul Younan Wrote:He is literally God. And His flesh is literally no different than our own. It hungered and suffered and experienced all of the same things that we in our human condition experience. God and Man, at once. Unless it were so, our salvation is null and void...because it would not have been our very humanity that was sacrificed in our place on the Cross.

Exactly, to suggest that Elohim in His fullness (let's not forget the meaning of echad) died on the cross like Monophysitism teaches is completely contrary to what the Scriptures teach:

Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message? To whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form nor comeliness. When we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of suffering, and acquainted with disease. He was despised as one from whom men hide their face; and we didn't respect him. 4 Surely he has borne our sickness, and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Rafa,

Rafa Wrote:Can you explain further the COE position on a single will Shamasha Paul?

Unless I'm mistaken, the phrase "One Will" in Mar Bawai the Great's statement is in reference to the unity of the 3 Qnume of the Godhead. I think it's pretty clear from scripture that Meshikha's human will and his Divine will were at times at odds with each other (cf., His statements in Gethsemane.)

If Meshikha's Divine will overrode His human will, then the temptation in the wilderness by our adversary would have been a farce...would it not? Where would the triumph have been in resisting the tempter? How can Satan have had any hope of tempting God?

Did not God already own the universe? What could Satan have offered Him that God would have been in need of? Riches, Kingdoms......Bread? God? Pffffft. Big deal.

He did not tempt God, he tempted the humanity of Meshikha....our humanity, in which we have triumphed over our adversary, all glory and thanks be to God.

Yip that's the tough part. I agree with your quote from Mar Ephraim - it's a Mystery, though the doctrine of Ancestral Sin/Original Sin (in the west) might be able to shed some light. If we mere mortals are inclined to sin because of the "stain" we inherited from Adam's & Eve's fall, since Yeshua's human nature was created without this "stain" wouldn't that mean that He was inclined not to sin? This doesn't null free will of course as free will existed before Adam & Eve's fall, otherwise Satan wouldn't have bothered with either Adam, Eve or Yeshua. Again I'm no expert, please feel free to correct me.

Paul Younan Wrote:
enarxe Wrote:That's exactly why I think this title (theotokos) is inappropriate. I think it leads to putting the Blessed Miriam to a position of a godess. I might be overreacting but it is the practice I have seen too many times.

Yes, it is prone to being misunderstood. And again, it's incomplete....and tells only part of the story.

It's not surprising that it's prone to being misunderstood as titles are meant to be self-explanatory and "Theotokos" is not self-explanatory for the exact reason Shamasha Paul states.
shlam lakh akh Paul,

Would you have the quote of Mar Bawai the Great that you quoted earlier in this thread in Syriac?

tawdi,
keefa-morun
Pages: 1 2