Peshitta Forum
For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: For Andrew Gabriel Roth (/showthread.php?tid=1762)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Paul Younan - 09-22-2008

Here is the Creed we recite, Akhi Andrew:

Quote:We believe in one God, the Father Almighty: Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, the First Born of all created. Begotten of His Father before all worlds and not made:
Very God of very God: of one essence with His Father, by Whom the worlds were established and everything was created. 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: He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. He was buried and Rose again on the third day as it is written and ascended into Heaven and sat down on the right hand of His Father: And He shall come again to judge the dead and the living. And, in one Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth: who proceedeth from the Father, the Life-giving Spirit: And in one Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. And, we confess one baptism for the remission of sin. And, the resurrection of our bodies, and life for ever and ever: Amen

Is there anything in there that you object to on a theological level?

+Shamasha


The Nazarene Creed - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-22-2008

Shlama Akhi Khabiba Paul,

To clarify first, I know Nicea was 325. My point was that COE didn't accept this officially until 410, whereas Spyridon was trying to suggest it had been official all along. I understand though your view that the main points pre-existed long before codification. My challenge has simply been against what I view as pagan degradation FROM that point.

Suprisingly, I don't have too much of a problem with any major point of the Nicene Creed--isn't it interesting this was not asked of me until now? Really, to my mind I think rather highly of it. I have to because I have high Christology and an Orthodox view. I also really liked the language of the COE affirmation, again for the most part.

My problem is not theological really but a semantical one as well as a historical one in the way that Creed has been taken over the centuries. You know where I am going in particular with respect to "one Catholic and apostolic church", which I think you of all people can understand why. If though the meaning of that is not the RCC per se but one body of Jewish and Gentile believers who are called to truth in Messiah across the world, then no problem there either. As you pointed out though, bad terminology can create problems even with the best of intentions and sometimes though, the intentions have not been stellar either. I do wonder though how Protestants and Eastern Orthodox deal with that line--is it just them who are the one faith?

So, to be clear, here is how I would word the Nicene Creed if I could write it, and then I will leave it to others including Spryridon to judge my concordance with it or no. I don't think I am really that far away from it, but here goes:

The Nazarene Version of the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one Elohim the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Master, Y'shua the Messiah, the only-begotten Son of Elohim, begotten of the Father before all worlds, El of El, Light of Light, Very Elohim of Very Elohim, begotten, not made, being of one substance (Qnoma) with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Ruach ha Kodesh of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in (YHWH's) Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:1-11, Isaiah 63:1-11), the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son (Zechariah 12:10), who with the Father and the Son (in their Qnomeh--John 5:25-26) together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy universal and apostolic knooshta/adat. I acknowledge one immersion (Ezekiel 36:24-27) for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come (Daniel 12:1-2) . Amen.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Christina - 09-22-2008

I love it <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> see what I mean, we must get rid of all the Greek & Latin terminology.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Paul Younan - 09-22-2008

Quote:If though the meaning of that is not the RCC per se but one body of Jewish and Gentile believers who are called to truth in Messiah across the world, then no problem there either.

Of course!

Why would the CoE have approved of a document in the hands of Marutha that claimed to believe in one Holy, Apostolic Roman Catholic Church? They would have kicked him in the proverbial you-know-where and told him to go to the proverbial you-know-where.

The Latin rite centered in the Vatican does NOT have a monopoly on the term "universal." The word "catholic" is Greek meaning "universal" - not just of one ethnic group.

How much more "universal/catholic" can the CoE have been at the time with bishops attending Mar Isaac's Council from Tibet, India and China....and all places in-between?

I personally like your re-wording of the Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, it was a western council not an eastern - otherwise, the wording would probably have been in Aramaic and we could have included terminology like Qnuma.

But again, that's my point to Spyridon - the concepts are the same, but the terminology (and, consequently the word-imagery) is different.

+Shamasha


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 09-22-2008

Shlama Akhi Khabiba Paul,

In which case, sign me up for YOUR Nicene Creed! I was hoping you would answer "catholic" as you did and was expecting such, but I wanted you to say it for the benefit of others. You know why I could not just let that stand as written without comment.

One thing I am sure you saw that I did was put "YHWH's Holy Spirit" to clarify, because otherwise you see where that could lead, back to PERSONal stuff again.

We are not that far apart...

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Paul Younan - 09-22-2008

Khati Khabibta (beloved sister) Christina,

Christina Wrote:I love it <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> see what I mean, we must get rid of all the Greek & Latin terminology.

I wish the Church had one language. Only someone multi-lingual can truly understand the phenomenon at play here. It is nearly impossible to have two languages as different as Greek and Aramaic are convey the same word-imagery. Especially in cases where a cognate term does not exist on one side. That goes both ways.

As the saying goes .... they are speaking "two different languages."

But, if only it were a matter simply of just terms. Where one side could then borrow a loan-word (like we did with "parsopa"). Sometimes a whole concept is not conveyed properly by simply trying to find a cognate. That's the reason why Ephesus was such a tragedy. Both sides were really saying the same thing, but neither understood the other. I fear they still don't.

+Shamasha


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Christina - 09-22-2008

Akhan Andrew about "catholicism" in Eastern Orthodoxy:

This definition can sound identical with that of ???Universal Church???. For instance, the Catechism of the Orthodox Church contains this question and answer:

Q. Why is the Church called Catholic, or which is the same thing, Universal?
A. Because she is not limited to any place, time, or people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

In this sense, both concepts are identical, even though the early Church use of ???catholic Church??? was usually reserved for the manifestation of the pre-eternal Church in space and time. The problem is that ???Universal / Catholic Church??? is mainly used to refer to all believers now alive on earth. This is especially usual in Roman Catholic terminology (and theology), both for ???Catholic Church??? and ???Universal Church???.

Hence, the mystery of the Church is the mystery of Christ himself and the Eucharistic gathering is what constitutes and manifests the Church. In the Eucharist, we experience an intersection of the eternal ???lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world??? and our temporal present. The very institution of the Eucharist makes the connection, indeed the identity Eucharist-Church obvious: ???this is my body??? refers to both interchangeably.

In 1 Corinthians 11, a chapter entirely dedicated to the Eucharistic life of ???the Church of God that is at Corinthb???, we find this
significant expression: ???when you come together as [a] Church???. In other words, it is the gathering of the people of God to celebrate the Lord???s Supper that makes the Church be ??? in the sense of a manifestation of the eschatological Church and Lamb. It is the same Holy Spirit who is called upon to manifest the Christ, both in the waters of Jordan and in the Eucharistic assembly.

In the liturgy of St. Basil, we pray:

That thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these gifts here set forth, and bless them and hallow them and show this bread to be itself the precious Body of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and this cup to be itself the precious Blood of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ???

We now understand why St. Paul uses the expression ???the whole Church??? (o[lhj th/j evkklhsi,aj) to refer to the local Church. The local Church is the whole Church, and Paul always uses the singular (???to the Church of God that is in Corinth???) when he mentions the local Church. By contrast, Churches (plural) refers to regional or organizational groups. In other words, 1 ???whole Church??? + 1 ???whole Church??? + 1 ???whole Church??? = the ???whole Church??? in 3 places or 3 ???Churches???. Paul does not say ???the Church in Galatia??? or ???the Church of Achaia (Greece)??? because it is improper terminology! There is no one Eucharist in Galatia or in Achaia and therefore we cannot consider all the Christians in those areas ???in bulk??? and call them ???a Church???. ???Exiles??? and ???saints??? in Asia or Galatiaa certainly, but not as Church.

The same can be said of our modern use of ???Church??? (as in Orthodox Church) to refer to a worldwide communion of local catholic Churches, what we call ???the universal Church???. As in the case of regional Churches, there is no ???universal Eucharist??? and because of this, the term ???universal Church??? is convenient but at best improper and often misleading. To summarize, the Church, strictly speaking, is the Body of Christ, the eschatological unity of all those who have been united to Christ???s life in all times and places. This is the foundational use of ???Church??? in the New Testament.

The other proper use for ???Church???, in a way that connects with our realm, is in reference to the gathering of Christians from a specific area to celebrate the Eucharist. If in Matthew 16:18, the meaning of Church is uncertain, Matthew 18 undoubtedly uses the same word to describe the local community. This ???whole Church??? is the manifestation of the eschatological Church in our world, in our town. Beyond that, we have ???Churches???.

There is a great risk of equating (and confusing) the eschatological Church with the sum of all the local Churches in existence on earth at one particular point in time, i.e. the so-called ???universal Church???. The idea that all Christians alive on earth form a universal organism or society called Church is for instance at the heart of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. According to this view, the Church, the ???whole Church??? is first and foremost ???the faithful everywhere???. Hence, the unity of the Church depends on all the local Churches being joined to their ontological head (in this case the Roman Church), to form a single worldwide body called ???the Catholic Church???.


APPENDIX B: CHURCH AND APOSTLES, THE EASTERN / GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE (EOB)


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Christina - 09-22-2008

Paul Younan Wrote:Khati Khabibta (beloved sister) Christina,

Christina Wrote:I love it <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> see what I mean, we must get rid of all the Greek & Latin terminology.

I wish the Church had one language. Only someone multi-lingual can truly understand the phenomenon at play here. It is nearly impossible to have two languages as different as Greek and Aramaic are convey the same word-imagery. Especially in cases where a cognate term does not exist on one side. That goes both ways.

As the saying goes .... they are speaking "two different languages."

But, if only it were a matter simply of just terms. Where one side could then borrow a loan-word (like we did with "parsopa"). Sometimes a whole concept is not conveyed properly by simply trying to find a cognate. That's the reason why Ephesus was such a tragedy. Both sides were really saying the same thing, but neither understood the other. I fear they still don't.

+Shamasha

I hear you akhan Paul it is sad indeed, but what is sadder still is when people just refuse to even make an effort to try to understand, and unfortunately where the Greco-Roman church for the most part is concerned, they are guilty of this very thing and are without excuse. But we shouldn't let that discourage us, we must still speak the truth.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Dawid - 09-23-2008

Spyridon Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I think that you're applying your logic classes too liberally. I took logic, too. I love it, but we have to realise that Semitic religions are not always logical. Paul is saying something that Calvin would never have understood. He is not defining his terms because they are purposefully undefined. They're not called persons because they're not exactly persons. What are they? You would have to either be a native Aramaic speaker, or do a lot of research on the use and meaning of qnume.
Now, he is advocating a relative of trinitarianism, but not the doctrine itself perse.
Just my rather random thoughts.

The nature of the Godhead is beyond logic, and I'm not claiming that Andrew's theology is illogical. His claims concerning church history, however, are unsubstantiated and illogical, which I've demonstrated. Telling the truth, widely known and widely available truth, concerning known historical fact, does not show a lack of love and Christian good will.
Not so much unsubstantiated, my friend. The only historians who say that the "apostolic" churches are actually apostolic are from the "apostolic" churches. They're a little bit biased. From my reading of the history, these churches are late first century at the best (like 90s C.E.) and most are later than that. We have no evidence that the Nazarenes believed in the Trinity anywhere. I'm familiar with every reference to them from the first century through the beginning of the fifth, and there is simply no such evidence. I'm sorry. Not in Talmud, the church fathers, or anywhere else. The secular historians are also agreed that there is no such evidence, and that the Apostolic churches are not Apostolic.
I would like to beg to differ with the term "historical fact." There is no such thing. It's like "scientific fact" or "scientific proof." We're talking about things that happened 2,000 years ago. Honest historians admit that that long ago, we're really just guessing. Now, as far as the inspired text goes, we know. But then half the time there's so much dispute as to what these texts mean we're back in the realm of guessing. We know it's true, we just don't know for sure what the heck it actually meant.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Thirdwoe - 09-24-2008

Thank God that these Scriptures applies to us today, just as it did to them long ago....


John 14:26
But The Comforter, which is The Holy Spirit, whom The Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:10
...God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

I John 2:20
...you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

I John 2:27
...The Anointing which you have received of Him abides in you, and you don???t need any man to teach you: but as the same Anointing teaches you of all things, and is Truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Spyridon - 10-01-2008

Deacon Paul, thank you for providing some clarity to this thread. I greatly appreciate it.

Andrew, is your position on the Godhead similar to that of Oneness Pentecostals, that Jesus is the Father incarnate and that the Holy Spirit is the spiritual power of God? As I said before, I believe there is room for disagreement, since the Godhead is something that human minds can never fully understand, and that human language can never do full justice.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 10-01-2008

Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

While I don't want to get too much into theology here I think my short answer is yes--that is a pretty good description Godhead as I see it. It is not a position that I think has to be attributed to one denomination or another but really a matter of parsing Scripture correctly and a for a quick description that one isn't too bad.

I do want to elaborate on things slightly. I think that many folks are caught up in the whole "Godhead is a mystery beyond words" idea unnecessarily. I certainly agree with you that this issue, more than most others, has created massive confusion, but to me Godhead is not a mystery at all and I maintain that through the wisdom of the Aramaic NT, it never has been.

There are many cases where Scripture teaches that YHWH does not change and that He is NOT the author of confusion, so I think the last thing that believers in Him and His Son should be wrangling over is His exact Being. YHWH is Spirit but the NT teaches "His attributes are CLEARLY seen" so if there is a problem NOW it is a WESTERN one.

Suffice to say that I believe I can understand Godhead very well to the extent that Scripture allows me to but that even I have difficulty WHEN I LEAVE THE SEMITIC VESSELS OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC TO EXPLAIN IT ENGLISH. It is therefore easier for me to say "yes this defintion is pretty good" or "no that's not it" than it is for me to really say it in a way that is immediately apparent to most, but I think I am getting better at it on the English side and I think Mari does a really good job here--but it took YEARS to get it there.

The Ruach HaKodesh is to me another title for YHWH, as I have shown from Psalm 51:1-11 and Isaiah 63:1-11. YHWH is ALL POWERFUL so I kind of resist the idea in this definition slightly that there is a delineation between power and not within the YHWH construct, but at the same time, I know exactly what you mean. I should point out that the second attribute of Godhead is the Word or Son and that per Psalm 33:6 and John 1 that attribute was directly the force behind creation, so to me there is not place in YHWH that is not powerful indeed.

For me the most succint understanding of this idea is Isaiah 53:1 compared with Zechariah 12:10, but I don't want to run excessively on this matter to anyone else's consternation.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Spyridon - 10-01-2008

Andrew, then it should be clear that your position is different from what the Assyrian Church of the East teaches, not that it is necessarily wrong. I've read what you've written on your website concerning your understanding, and I find your understanding well thought.


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 10-01-2008

Shlama Akhi Spyridon.

Let's not get into those deep waters again. To do so is to get into Qnoma Theory which is the COE and which I support. I think the difference of opinion largely comes from what is held as western equivalents (if any) to Qnoma, but I don't want that discussion right now. You have seen my version of the Nicene Creed and I will leave it at that. I inserted Qnoma there and think I got agreement from our brother Paul Younan on that score, but to "translate" that back into and English parsing will not be helpful.

I appreciate very much that you are open to my view. Just know that my appraisement of my view is that it is in line with Eastern Orthodox understanding from the Aramaic traditions of the COE. There are other places where the COE and I respectfully part company but this is not one of them.

I would suggest then that you might want to look over the long Qnoma threads that we have done here in the past or maybe ask Paul privately if he has time to explain his side to you. But whatever the case may be, whether you feel it lines up with A or B is your considered opinion for you and that is fine. For me the important thing is it lines up with the Word, and I can't say more on that than I already have.

As I wrote yesterday, we need to get back to the root mission here which is Aramaic NT primacy. I know you think this is a way of "vetting" me as a translator but I also think you know pretty well where I stand especially on this issue.

Be well!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: For Andrew Gabriel Roth - Spyridon - 10-01-2008

If Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, how can He be manifested as the Father one day, the Son the next day, and the Holy Spirit the day afterward? If Jesus is the Son, isn't He always the Son and not the Father?