Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
For Andrew Gabriel Roth
#76
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

As i said, I think you need to look at Qnoma Theory and it will make more sense to you. I think you are confusing Y'shua the man's human office as Messiah and what he was at creation as the pre incarnate Word/Thought. and that per Rev 19:13 he is called the Word again as he ascended into heaven becuase that is the name he has when coming out of heaven . On earth he has manifested as the Son. Within him he has the Divine Qnoma of His Father YHWH that shares the one divine nature. He talks about this clearly in John 5 and 17. The human will is seaprate from the divine will and this creates confusion in the west where people wonder if Y'shua is talking to himself when praying to His Father YHWH.

But he has not manifested as the Father and HS on different days on earth. He was the Word that came from YHWH's mouth pre incarnate, then the Word made flesh into the Son in his first advent, then resurrected in nefesh and ruach three days later, then ascended to the "right hand" of the Father, which means to be next to YHWH in thrones like Dan 7:1-13, after which there is a resurrection of the righteous and wicked (Dan 12) and his second advent, coming from Word and into the Son-ship. But as Y'shua shares two separate natures in him, another COE formulation that I support, the Holy Spirit of his Father YHWH is inside him, and from the perspective of the divine side, he goes from human Messiah to divine Son with his sharing of that one divine nature.

is there another topic you want me to look at? We seem to have really gone over this one throroughly before. It is clear that you have thought more deeply about my view and have a better grasp of it, but not totally, or there wouldn't be these questions which I think I also answered recently before. I am happy to agree to disagree though because again theology issues have created big problems here recently and I don't want to go there now.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#77
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:The human will is seaprate from the divine will

How is this different from Nestorianism? We can talk about another topic, but I don't know whether you've answered this question. I appreciate your answers.
Reply
#78
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

"Nestorianism" is a Catholic term I have little use for. Nestorious believed also in the two natures in Messiah, but he believed it according to the Gospels. Y'shua says clearly, "Not my will, but Your will be done". Nestorius was a Bishop of Constantinople--he had nothing to do with the COE and many in the COE to this day hate that label that has been imposed on them by the West.

We need another topic as I have answered this before. As you also well know, these type of western terms that you like to use are a problem unto themselves. We should use Scripture and proper definitions/metaphors derived from that Semitic framework.ANd once again I maintain this position is a COE one as well.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#79
Nestorianism is the belief that the human will and the divine will are separate and distinct in Christ, rather than united in thought and action. If the human will prayed to the divine will, or hesitated to follow the divine will, that would imply Nestorianism. The Assyrian Church of the East doesn't hold to Nestorianism. I would consider this moving on to a different topic, since Nestorianism is different from what we were discussing before. I do appreciate your answers.
Reply
#80
If Jesus is one incarnate person, then His human nature cannot have conversations with His divine nature.
Reply
#81
Spyridon that is enough! Akhan Paul makes himself very clear in the RULES that this forum is NOT for theological debates! Listen it's fine to ask theological questions BUT such discussions are to remain within the boundaries of the Peshitta and Aramaic language. The primacy of the Aramaic New Testament is the purpose of this forum and we do NOT want to get off track from this again. Both akhay Andrew and Paul HAVE answered you appropriately, i.e. linguistically. The topic has run it's course, so in respect and love I am asking you to back off. Both Andrew and Paul have given you more than enough info for you to do your own research, it is not fair for you to drag this on and on.

There is a lexicon both here and at dukhrana.com for you to look up Qnuma & other Aramaic terminology, and there is a CoE forum where you take your questions regarding their understanding of the Godhead, or Nestorius and his non-existent connection to the CoE. There are also plenty of Nazarene websites for the Nazarene view of the Godhead, granted not all of them genuine (eg: stay away from the Ebionite netzarim.co.il), but we'll be happy to direct you to legitimate ones (eg: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/">http://www.therefinersfire.org/</a><!-- m -->).

Please do not give akhan Paul a reason to permanently shut this site down.
Reply
#82
I already provided some articles from Jews for Judaism. I do not mean to have a theological debate, but to reach a better mutual understanding. I don't believe that Andrew advocates a schizophrenic Christ, so it would be good if this could be explained.

A Messianic Jew Explains the Holy Trinity
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2nAHPpgvI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2nAHPpgvI</a><!-- m -->

MYTHS ABOUT MESSIANIC JUDAISM
Messianic Jews reject the Trinity
While a small number of Messianic Jews do not believe that God is triune, most (including B'rit Hadasha) do. We may opt for variant terminology at times but we do believe in the trinity. We see the doctrine of God's triune nature as a reasonable explanation based on Scripture, not as the authoritative creation of a church council.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.brithadasha.org/myths.html">http://www.brithadasha.org/myths.html</a><!-- m -->

As I said before, I have no problem with Andrew's position, but it does seem to be a minority view, even among Messianic Jews. Logic tells us, however, that being in the minority does not automatically disqualify a belief.
Reply
#83
Spyridon Wrote:I already provided some articles from Jews for Judaism. I do not mean to have a theological debate, but to reach a better mutual understanding.

From Forum Rules:

The focus of the Peshitta.org Forum is to demonstrate the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament. Theological discussions/arguments are not welcome here. If you have a question about the rapture, the antichrist, the Sabbath, why the Church of the East doesn't do this or why the Roman Catholic Church does that (or any other unrelated topic), then your question is best answered on the thousands of forums that are dedicated to theological debates. This is not one of them. That is a waste of our bandwidth, time and resources.

Looks to me that you are bordering on crossing the line here. I'm not trying to be nasty akhi, but if you continue like this you are trying akhan Paul's patience. If you want to continue as a poster here you need to respect the boundaries Shamasha Paul has set, and I really don't think it'll be wise for you to push this argument any further.

Spyridon Wrote:I don't believe that Andrew advocates a schizophrenic Christ, so it would be good if this could be explained.

I don't believe so either, so why do you continue to insinuate that he does instead of looking up the terminology yourself to see if what he presented is based on what the Aramaic really says? He has already explained this quite exhaustively numerous times and I'm sure he explains this quite well in his upcoming translation of the Peshitta. Have you bothered to read any of his previous articles from Ruach Qadim on his site: Aramaic NT Truth? Also he's written quite a few articles on The Refiner's Fire. I can tell from what I know about Andrew is that he does not like to spoon-feed.

Spyridon Wrote:A Messianic Jew Explains the Holy Trinity
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2nAHPpgvI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2nAHPpgvI</a><!-- m -->

MYTHS ABOUT MESSIANIC JUDAISM
Messianic Jews reject the Trinity
While a small number of Messianic Jews do not believe that God is triune, most (including B'rit Hadasha) do. We may opt for variant terminology at times but we do believe in the trinity. We see the doctrine of God's triune nature as a reasonable explanation based on Scripture, not as the authoritative creation of a church council.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.brithadasha.org/myths.html">http://www.brithadasha.org/myths.html</a><!-- m -->

Spyridon, let me explain something to you. We are Aramaic Peshitta primacists, and we teach what the Peshitta says WORD FOR WORD. We are not interested in the Jews for Jesus, the Orthodox, RCC etc. Greek MIS-translational beliefs, okay. Ask your questions but understand that our answers will be based on the Peshitta & Aramaic language - the very words of Mesheikha and His Shlikhaya. We will teach what the Peshitta says, period! We are not concerned and neither are we obliged to make compromises for the Peshitta readings or Aramaic terminology. If you like what the Peshitta says good, if you don't that's your choice, but that is what you are gonna hear from us.
Reply
#84
Spyridon Wrote:If Jesus is one incarnate person, then His human nature cannot have conversations with His divine nature.

Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

I concur with Christina, that we've really delved into theology a bit too much on this thread. Istanbul, the Hagia Sophia Mosque and Islamic Mesopotamia are the end result of this love affair we have with attempting to scientifically dissect the ineffable.

+Shamasha
Reply
#85
Paul Younan Wrote:
Spyridon Wrote:Istanbul, the Hagia Sophia Mosque and Islamic Mesopotamia are the end result of this love affair we have with attempting to scientifically dissect the ineffable.

As are the Schism of Chalcedon and the Great Schism, the two most unfortunate events in Christian history.

Deacon Paul, I understand what you are Christina are suggesting, and if we are to discuss this further, we can through private messages. I'm sorry if I've given the impression of debating, when what I'm trying to accomplish is dialog.
Reply
#86
Spyridon Wrote:Deacon Paul, I understand what you are Christina are suggesting, and if we are to discuss this further, we can through private messages.

Awesome!

BTW - http://www.churchdiscussion.com is a fantastic forum where Qashe ("elders") and Shamashe ("ministers") of the CoE love to discuss theology and the like. They would love to discuss these and other issues and share the patristic heritage of the CoE with you.

+Shamasha

PS - the reason why we have so many different people and backgrounds here is because over the last decade or so I have refused to make this website a pulpit for my own tradition. I could have, but then I would not have been blessed to have all of you here. I wouldn't trade that for anything - not even if I were promised that the CoE would once again become the largest denomination in Christendom.

I'm not interested in that goal, although it would be nice - I would much rather you stay in your own tradition and love it and enrich it with the Aramaic heritage that belongs to you, and to everyone.
Reply
#87
One last thing I'd like to say is that when I confess that God is three persons of one essence, I do not presume to understand what this means or how this is possible.

This is how "person" is commonly understood in reference to the Trinity:
a self-conscious or rational being

Yet this is another, equally valid definition of "person":
A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

Therefore, ultimately, I believe that Andrew and I are both right, as we are both attempting to understand that which is beyond human words. I'm sorry if I've ever given a different impression. I've read Andrew's explanations on his website, and I consider them logically and theologically sound. If, as a miaphysite, I can accept dyophysitism as a valid Christological formula, I can also accept Andrew's understanding of the Godhead.

The diversity within the Trinity implies diversity within the Church, including diverse understandings of the Trinity. It was imperial domination of the Church that insisted all Christians must think and believe the same, and look at the suffering and division this has caused.
Reply
#88
Shlama all--

This topic, more than almost any other I can think of, really shows the limits of human language and human translation between two different language groups. And I think we sort of have a consensus on the matter that perhaps could only come about from painstaking definitions and re-defintions. That process kind of proves my point I think about the challenges of understanding the Brit Chadasha as it was originally intended and the efforts in that direction will never fail to be fruitful.

I am reminded of one of my favorite lines in Proverbs that exhorts all of us to "take hold of the instruction/wisdom, FOR IT IS YOUR VERY LIFE". And that is why things can get a bit heated because we do talk as if our lives depend on it and the fact is, they do depend on it.

What I try to stand for though is, regardless of consensus, a call to do the work. If I can get everyone to look at the Aramaic and yes struggle with it, pant after its wisdom, then I know the world becomes a bit of a better place. We may not get the same details "right" or some may take longer than others to take hold. That is cool. The important thing is that we have the overall Aramaic Primacist discussion and yes theology flows from that to some degree, but we must also recognize where it goes beyond theology and into root meaning, or what the academicians like to call epistemology and philology.

Whether it is a convenient fact or not, it remains the case that the Peshitta NT (and Tanakh too) have been ignored in the West. That has to change. I have been blown away with the high quality work of our forebears like Torrey and Gwynn and Norton and yet it didn't take in the wider world. And since then what I have seen is people kind of laughing behind Lamsa's back. But now they are laughing IN MY FACE, and to my mind, that is a sort of progress. People may get angry me or even hate me, and that may be the price of admission so that they don't ignore my text--OUR TEXT.

You know, without getting into too many details, I had a lovely Yom Teruah (Rosh Hashanna) dinner with my neighbors and their freinds last night. I was, in my way, able to share the Peshitta with them as a way to show continuity between the Jewish and Christian worlds that were originally both embraced by the Aramaic language. What I said to these four conventional Jews was respectful, incisive and I beleive thought provoking. The readings in the Peshitta were able to cast some serious doubts aside that they had on the New Testament as a whole, that it was anti-Jewish and such. Now, I have them thinking that maybe the problem is not the NT but the Greek NT, and this is why I say agreement may be important, but using the Peshitta as a bridge to better understanding is even more important. Agreement can come later, but first we must look in the right direction and study before we can hope to get there.

That is why I think Paul Younan has this forum set up the way it is. The message of the Peshitta is so important and the Aramaic language so precious that the greater mitzvah (good deed) is simply getting it OUT THERE. We will see what the result of that push is later, but one can't happen without the other.

I know I sound like a presidential candidate almost, so I will just close with:

I'm Andrew Gabriel Roth and I approved this message.
Reply
#89
Andrew, who taught you what you believe regarding Scripture and doctrine, and how did you learn to translate Aramaic?
Reply
#90
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

The details of my life story are on my website, <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicnttruth.org">http://www.aramaicnttruth.org</a><!-- w -->, in the article "Learning the Basics". I think I recently copied and pasted that here too if I am not mistaken.

I have been studying Hebrew and Aramaic my whole life is the simplest answer. I learned Hebrew growing up Jewish and going to Hebrew school in NY. I was a bit of a slow learner growing up and I did not speak until about age 4. At that time, when I began learning Hebrew, I believe my language learning skills were at their peak, whereas if I were more "normal" I think that would have been a year or two earlier. It would be much later of course when I learned that within my "Hebrew" liturgy Aramaic lurked and loomed very large. When I became a Nazarene and later when I found the Peshitta, it seemed the missing piece for what I was trying to do in terms of study.

As for who taught me doctrine wise I suppose I am not much different than anyone else. I have learned from many people over the years. I can point to one person who showed me proof of YHWH's existence and another who was a Christian who was most responsible for bringing me to Y'shua. There were others that influenced my walk as a Nazarene and others still into Aramaic Primacy. And today, yes, I continue to learn and be taught by a wide variety of lay people and scholars. In short, I don't have one mentor--I have about two dozen or so and from each one I got a little piece until, with much persistence and prayer, I emerged essentially with what I believe now.

I suppose the thing that has been most helpful though is a burning desire to learn and understand and to never give up on that quest. As you see, I don't settle for anything being a "mystery"--it is simply a question I haven't gotten around to answering yet. I may not always succeed to be sure, but I certainly think it is true that if you shoot for understanding 100% of the time you will come away with more than you need most of the time. My overall attitude is if I can't prove it, I don't say it. Granted that doesn't mean my positions cannot be debated, but I do my best to ground myself in plain meanings probably moreso than many of my brethren. But with the release of Mari my general ban on doing the more esoteric and prophetic analysis is definitely set aside in some instances.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)