Three Chapters, Two Statements and One Ex-bishop's old views

[Christina]

Shlama all,

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

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. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s -->

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.

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?

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:

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:

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!



Mar Bawai Rabba (the Great) wrote:

???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:

???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 -->.

Shlama Akhi Jerzy,

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.

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!

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.

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

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.

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.