Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
For Andrew Gabriel Roth
#46
Well that's good news at least, but look at your exidence and try to listen to it:


Paul Younan wrote:
The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", [b]we never apply the term "person" to God.[/b]

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

Do you understand yet that this is not your Western view? This is not equivalent to trinity,

When Paul talks about triunity it is in a limited sense that the divine aspects are in unity with their Master and this is what I have said also.

You show me one verse with trinity in it and I will change my mind. If you try, watch out for those late additions in 2 John.

I believe in one YHWH....AND LOOK AT THE COE:

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."

See I agree with that. Three aspects in the one Nature. Not separated natures. that makes a huge difference. Did you also notice Paul said "no English equivalent"? That should have been a clue that it is not trinity AT ALL. And the use or disuse of person is for me the entire point that makes these separate theologies.
Reply
#47
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Do you understand yet that this is not your Western view? This is not equivalent to trinity,

Please stop referring to it as a Western view. It appears that you are misunderstanding this:

Spyridon Wrote: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.

Again, I hold to the understanding shared by most Eastern Christians from the beginning of the faith. The Assyrian Church of the East, regardless of what it teaches, represents a small minority of Eastern Christians. You have a right to your position, but please don't misrepresent church history. I am not trying to change your mind regarding doctrine, since I certainly don't have a right to it.

The position you've advocated is what I consider to be the only legitimate alternative to Trinitarian doctrine. More traditionalist members of my church would find it scandalous, but I do not. The Godhead is too much a mystery to so quickly dismiss your understanding as heretical.
Reply
#48
Andrew, I am not trying to have a debate with you. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I merely wanted to better understand your position and why you believe it, as it helps to better appreciate the work of your translation. That was my original intention. I'm surprised that you are unaware of Trinitarianism being a traditional Eastern doctrine, rather than a Latin innovation.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14]

To God???s elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].

For the kingdom of God, is not food and drink; but is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who is in these things a servant of Messiah, is pleasing to God, and approved before men. [Romans 14:17-18]

Here are some more verses of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 2:2-5; 6:11; 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8; 1Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6

Jews for Jesus is one of the premier organizations for Messianic Judaism. They are decidedly Trinitarian in doctrine:

Jewishness and the Trinity
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish">http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish</a><!-- m -->

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity">http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/is ... _8/trinity</a><!-- m -->

I see that you've deleted the post this was in response to. You have a right to that also.
Reply
#49
Spyridon Wrote: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: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.
I'm not up on this thread, but I'd like to adress this post quickly.
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.
Reply
#50
Spyridon Wrote:...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...

Spyridon Wrote:
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Do you understand yet that this is not your Western view? This is not equivalent to trinity,

Please stop referring to it as a Western view. It appears that you are misunderstanding this:

Spyridon Wrote: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.

Again, I hold to the understanding shared by most Eastern Christians from the beginning of the faith. The Assyrian Church of the East, regardless of what it teaches, represents a small minority of Eastern Christians. You have a right to your position, but please don't misrepresent church history...

Spyridon, boy do you have much to learn! The problem is you ARE looking at Church history from a WESTERN perspective, let me explain:

The ???Eastern Othodox Church??? is a misomeaner, this church is NOT an eastern church, and I'll tell you why:

???Eastern??? in this sense means the eastern portion of the Roman empire, which is why it's also called the Church of Constantinople or the Byzantine Rite. But it's STILL the Roman empire which means it's really a WESTERN church. Same goes for the Copts & Ethiopians ??? they are churches of the Roman empire ??? they are WESTERN churches, NOT eastern churches. The true Eastern Church is that which was OUTSIDE the Roman empire, the church of the Persian empire ??? the Church of the East!

As for your church ??? the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, I believe that akhan Paul told you what happened there:

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Spyridon,

Your ancestors were once members of the CoE, but when the Portuguese conquered India and forced Roman Catholicism on the native CoE there, many refused and instead looked to Antioch (the SOC) for help and established ties with the Antiochian branch of the Church. The reason is that after Tamerlane devastated the CoE, it went into seclusion in the mountains of Hakkari in Turkey and we could not make contact.

The SOC and CoE are really unrelated. We have some common Patristic writers (like Ephrem), but that was before the split in 431 AD.

+Shamasha

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

http://www.indianchristianity.org/assyrian.html

...Before 1665, from Apostolic times, the believers in India were of the Church of the East. They were under the leadership of the Catholicos of Babylon. Tamerlane, who slaughtered the Church of the East mercilessly, interrupted our communication, but you were safe in India. You accepted the authority of Antioch in 1665 because it was close to your native Christian heritage (Aramaic/Semitic), and you didn't want Roman rule brought by the Portuguese...

Unfortunately the Portuguese were successful in forcing the vast majority of Indian believers into Roman Catholicism, and the SOC was another church who came in as an alternative, while the CoE was weak and in exile in the mountains of Hakkari in Turkey. The latter is the Church you now refer to as the "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church."...

Notice that akhan Paul said that the Persian Church (COE) only split into COE & SOC in AD 431 ??? prior to this date NO eastern church held the trinity doctrine! Your statement:

Spyridon Wrote: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,

Is incorrect because:

a) the Ethiopians, Copts, Greek Orthodox are NOT eastern churches, they can call themselves ???eastern??? all they want ??? the truth is they have NO right to do so.
b) the Indian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox are NOT Apostolic churches ??? they broke off from the COE, same with the Maronites & Chaldeans who also broke off from the COE and joined with Rome much, much later.

Akhan Paul is much more versed in this and can go into much more detail, but the point is the Eastern Church ??? the true Eastern Church has NEVER held the unScriptural ???3 persons in 1 God??? doctrine ??? that is fact!
Reply
#51
Quote:the true Eastern Church has NEVER held the unScriptural ???3 persons in 1 God??? doctrine ??? that is fact!

If this is true, then I thank God that this Truth has been preserved along with the True New Covenant Scriptures.

1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Cor 8:6-7
But to us there is but One God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: ....

Eph 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Reply
#52
Christina, what you are giving is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. First, you take for granted that anyone who believes in Trinitarianism is a Westerner, and then conclude that no true Easterner would hold to such a doctrine. What you ignore is the record we have in the church fathers, who wrote for centuries before the Council of Nicaea took place, and before the Byzantine Empire even existed.

Constantine the Great moved the seat of the empire from Rome to Byzantium. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, this happened after his death. What Constantine did was give the Apostolic Church enough freedom to openly meet in council. The Council of Nicaea did not simply invent doctrine out of nothingness, as historical revisionists claim. The church fathers present, including eastern church fathers, merely articulated what the Church had taught from the beginning, in opposition to the heresy of Arius.

To think of Trinitarianism as a "Roman" doctrine, simply because it was articulated by a council that reaffirmed what the Church had always taught, is illogical. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was definitely not a Westerner. Do you know who that is? If not, then I don't know whether we can have real discussion on church history. The Assyrian Church of the East accepts the Council of Nicaea.

The Oriental Orthodox Church, which comprises the historical churches of India, Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Jerusalem, rejected the Council of Chalcedon which, by that time, had been conducted under imperial control. The fathers of my church rejected this council, as its doctrine appeared to support Nestorianism. They were quite willing to suffer the consequence of preserving their historic faith. Whether they were right or wrong, they rejected this council because it disagreed with what their churches had previously taught. If the Council of Nicaea disagreed with their historic teaching, they would have done the same there also.

As I've noted before, the Assyrian Church of the East represents a small minority of Eastern Christians. To claim that the Near and Far East isn't Eastern, and that Christian communities that have existed there from the beginning of the faith are somehow not Eastern, is absurd. If the best one can say about the ecumenical councils is what you may have read in the Da Vinci Code, then it's best we move on to a different topic. I do not mean to cause you harm or offense, but the claims you advocate are unsupported by early church history. Please don't think you can school me regarding church history, unless you're able to substantiate your claims. I mean no lack of charity in saying this.


Please read the following carefully, along with the verses of Scripture I've already provided:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle' (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.' And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).

"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213).

"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I.' In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being a little lower than the angels.' Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.??? Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 9 (post A.D. 213).

If you actually want to learn what Eastern Christians believe, instead of what charlatans like George Lamsa might tell you, I recommend asking on this forum:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net">http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net</a><!-- m -->

You will find clergymen and others who are more than willing to answer your questions. There's even an Indian Orthodox deacon there, who would be quite bewildered by your claim that he is, in fact, a "Roman" or "Western" deacon. Christina, are you an Assyrian Christian or a Messianic Jew? From whose teaching are you writing? Deacon Paul Younan is more than capable of explaining what the Assyrian Church teaches, and he knows which councils are accepted by his church and why.
Reply
#53
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.
Reply
#54
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

If you think the Jews for Jesus folks are "premiere Messianics" then you don't know anything at all about the real Nazarenes. No wonder you are confused.

You have now forced my hand. Let me speak plainly. You have compelled me to go into places I did not want to and speak in a way that I normally do my very best to avoid here. As I said, I have no choice.

I don't give a rip if you think you can prove what the "early churches" believed. I don't even care if you think you can prove the COE believed in Trinity or does believe in Trinity. Let's just say for the sake of argument you are right there--IT DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT TO ME. And you still don't get it: Without the statment of PERSONS for YHWH, there is no trinity by my definition. Akhan Paul has said the COE does not call YHWH parsopa-prosopon-personna-person. As long as that is the case, NO TRINITY. I stand on that.

With divine PERSONS, it is IDOLATRY, and a violation of the First Commandment that Y'shua and all the NT writers respected, so think on that. I care about tradition only when it is truthful. And no lie, regardless as to where it comes from, gets a free pass.

I am a NAZARENE. My faith is older than yours. My faith is more original than yours (Acts 24:12-14). And guess what the original name of the COE was too before they made a lot of these changes--Nazarenes! Look it up. My assembly fathers are the actual apostles and my Rabbi is Y'shua Himself, okay? I know YHWH is no respecter of persons, Jewish or Gentile, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my beliefs and that doesn't mean I tolerate disrespect from people who will not discuss from a level playing field. Are you hearing me? You keep saying you don't mean disrespect but I think you do. You have not engaged me fairly. You have not acknowledged my points or shown Scripture for your points. You have not done the work nor have you accepted my work. That will not do. As long as you persist in your METHODS, your protestations to the contrary are worthless.

Please don't think that by your repeated re-statement of things that I will ignore what is really going on. I am not fooled--nor is anyone else here.

My job is to scrub 2000 years of GENTILE cutlural accretions off of the True Word and RESTORE it from perversion. I don't care WHERE that perversion comes from. I have rebuked it from Rabbinic, Gnostic, Christian, Pagan, Manacheistic, and any other thing you can think of for more than 20 years. I will challenge the COE, the RCC the SOC, the Protestants, the Catholics, the atheists, the secular humanists, whomever and wherever I need to. That's what I do, and if you don't like it, that's just too bad. I am not selling to you nor do I want a thing from you. You obviously have no interest in any theology other than your own, so you know what, stick with your KJV.

I think you are gravely mistaken about Trinity in MIDDLE EASTERN ancient assemblies. I am aware of early WESTERN beliefs in Trinity from Tertullian and such but just because its early doesn't make it right, and I still say those individual beliefs do not form a codified catechism until the Council of Nicea. But again, let's be generous and say again you are right and this "true trinitarian belief" goes back to within the first generations of the faithful. The difference between us may be one of semantics and not ignorance. I can accept that possibility.

But, such acceptance doesn't impact this discussion. Gnosticism was an early perversion too as was pagan "god man" ideology and BOTH were rebuked by Y'shua and his talmidim IN WRITING in the NT.

So just drop this. You believe what you want about Trinity. I will continue to say that: I DON'T CARE WHERE TRINITY CAME FROM IT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Murder is ancient and rebuked in Scripture too.

And finally, as I have said many times, I don't care about "converting" you. I don't care that there are 1.7 billion Catholics or however many Greek or other Western Orthodox. I don't care that your church fathers have said this or that since the late first century. It is not Scripture. It is NOT what Y'shua and the NT writers taught:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Messiah and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Messiah. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of Elohim? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Messiah.

Galatians 1:6-10

1 I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Messiah, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Messiah. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Y'shua other than the Y'shua we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough...10 As surely as the truth of Messsiah is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? Elohim knows I do! 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Messiah. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 10-15

If you don't know about me as a translator, I submit you never will. The first rule of translating is to stay faithful to the text. This I have tried to do but I have also been extremely honest and transparent about where that comes from. I don't let Origen, or Jerome or even a great Eastern saint like Mar Ephraim or Hillel or Shammai, dictate the way I read that Aramaic. Again, you don't like that, it's too bad.

I will close with this idea. You probably have no problem with rebuking ancient RABBINIC opinions that you feel are outside of Holy Writ right? Truth be told, as I said, neither do I. So does the fact that a great rabbi OUTSIDE of Scripture said this or that make it right if it doesn't line up with the Word? Think carefully before you answer me. Was it right, for example, for the rabbis to say that their word be taken over 1000 prophets of the stature of Elijah? In my view, this is also perversion. I am consistent.

My question is, are you also conistent? Is it only the rabbis who can be at fault or can the "early church" also have error whether it be eastern, western or whatever? This is the bottom line for me. I oppose ERROR and if it is wrapped in any tradition I don't care. Appeal to your saints all you want it won't move me, any more than appealing to Eruvin 21b or Rambam will move me if I feel they are wrong.

What's true for one, is true FOR ALL:

10 "When you tell these people all this and they ask you, 'Why has YHWH decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against YHWH our Elohim?' 11 then say to them, 'It is because your fathers forsook me,' declares YHWH, 'and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law. 12 But you have behaved more wickedly than your fathers. See how each of you is following the stubbornness of his evil heart instead of obeying me. 13 So I will throw you out of this land into a land neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you will serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor.'

14 "However, the days are coming," declares YHWH, "when men will no longer say, 'As surely as YHWH lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 15 but they will say, 'As surely as YHWH lives, who brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' For I will restore them to the land I gave their forefathers. 16 "But now I will send for many fishermen," declares YHWH, "and they will catch them. After that I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them down on every mountain and hill and from the crevices of the rocks. 17 My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes. 18 I will repay them double for their wickedness and their sin, because they have defiled my land with the lifeless forms of their vile images and have filled my inheritance with their detestable idols.19. O YHWH, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Jeremiah 16:14-19

And lest you also forget:

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Matthew 7:21-27

How's THAT for translation?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#55
Shlama Akhi Rafa,

Thanks for your support.

I am weary now--maybe I should go away for a bit at least until I can give a word on Mari back to all of you. (Yes, we are still moving forward, but that is all I can say until Baruch gives me permission.)

As for Jeremiah 16, let's just say that was wrong then is wrong now. YHWH does not change; Y'shua is the same yesterday, today and forever. There will never be a time, nor has there been, when idolatry is okay.

Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#56
Rafa Wrote:The COE never accepted the council of Nicea, they weren't even invited (because they were in Persia, not the Roman empire). Belief in co-existing persons (as in OUR modern sense, not the probable original sense some of these guys were discussing the term "personna") is the definition of polytheism. I also stand by Akhi Andrew. Persons is the whole debate. Why use this terrible term for the deity? Stick to Aramaic concepts and it will all click. Just make the effort.

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

A couple of points:

(a) the CoE was not a participant in Nicaea (nor at any "western" council, for that matter). So that part is true, however....

(b) the CoE held a council, the Council of Mar Isaac, in 410ad at Seleucia-Ctesiphon (Babylon). At this synod Marutha, a representative from the Roman Emperor, brought to the assembled bishops at Babylon the canons and creed of the Council of Nicea, and they were officially approved and received by the Church of the East. Note that this was many decades after the council of Nicea was held in the Western empire.

© the terminology of "persons" is not present in the Creed, therefore we have no objection to it. Had it contained that terminology, the council of Mar Isaac would have declined Marutha's request that the CoE accept it.

Akhi Spyridon, as with most other things (Christology included), the beliefs of the CoE and the "Western" Churches are substantially the same. The difference is, and most of the problems have occurred as a result of, terminology.

When one side formulates in Greek, and the other side formulates in Aramaic there are going to be key areas that, although substantially identical, yet the terminology is going to differ and each side is going to prefer to use their own wording.

The CoE is "Trinitarian" as long as you take care to note that the terminology is not identical. The "person" term, while we understand what you mean by it, can be problematic. And you have already seen the effects of the misunderstanding/confusion created by this term - not only when speaking of God, but also Christologically. I agree with the previous post in which someone said, I think it was Rafa, that the Aramaic is really a much simpler concept. I really feel that's because Greek is far a more suitable language for scientific terminology, whereas Semitic languages in general convey religious meanings in a better way.

This is our official position on the matter:

Quote:The teaching of the Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching. The church believes in One Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also believes and teaches that the Only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, became incarnate for us men and for our salvation and became man. The same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was begotten of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity, in a body of flesh, with a rational, intelligent, and immortal soul which he took from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and united to himself, making it his very own at the moment of conception. The humanity which he took for his own was assumed by God the Word, who was, thenceforth and for ever, the personal subject of the divine and human natures. His divine and human natures retain their own properties, faculties, and operations unconfusedly, immutably, undividedly, and inseparably.

Therefore, because the divinity and humanity are united in the Person of the same and only Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of the East rejects any teaching which suggests that Christ is an "ordinary man" whom God the Word inhabited, like the righteous men and the prophets of old. The Church of the East further rejects any teaching that explicitly or implicitly suggests that there are two Sons, or two Lords, or two Christs in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The same, through his passion, death, burial, and resurrection, redeemed humanity from the bondage of sin and death, and secured the hope of resurrection and new life for all who put their faith in him, to whom, with his Father and the Holy Spirit, belongs confession, worship, and adoration unto ages of ages. Amen.

Note, again, that the use of the word "person" is avoided until we speak about the Person of Meshikha, Who is of course the Subject of the Incarnation. We never refer to God as a "person" or "persons."

+Shamasha
Reply
#57
Andrew you have my support too akh. I'm not gonna tell anyone what to do regarding tradition that's their affair. Even though I'm not "Solas Scripture" I am a Scripture prioritist, Scripture supercedes tradition and if a tradition conflicts with Scripture I toss it out, no questions asked. My Greek Orthodox brethren may not like that but that's too bad because I only have one Rabbi - Yeshua.
Reply
#58
So does anyone then think that 410 CE is the apostolic age?
Reply
#59
Great question! Let me think...hmm...NOT!
Reply
#60
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:So does anyone then think that 410 CE is the apostolic age?

Of course not, but we did officially approve the Nicene Creed (decades after the council was held) because there's nothing in there that went against the faith we already held. No, it wasn't the apostolic age, but the idea did not originate with the participants at Nicaea either. The wording is orthodox in our opinion, as there is nothing in there speaking of "persons" in God.

Is there anything in the Creed, Akhi, that you do not agree with?

+Shamasha

PS - 410ad was the date of the Council of Mar Isaac, not of Nicaea. That happened about 325.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)