10-01-2003, 09:46 PM
Paul Younan Wrote:judge Wrote:Because it says "...which He purchased with His own blood."
Suddenly, the verse takes on a Monophysite meaning if God had "blood."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/monophysite">http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/monophysite</a><!-- m -->
I'm a little confused. Would the western Aramaic communities that used the Peshitto believe in only one qnoma or one kyana (or both) in Y'shua? I think the Roman Catholic position put in Aramaic terms would be one parsopa, one qnoma (because of the hypostatic union), and one divine kyana and one human kyana. So, why would Roman Catholicism have a problem with Monophysites unless the Monophysites were referring to only one kyana? Also, many of the Christian resources on the web state that "Nestorians" believed in "two persons" in Y'shua, which obviously is a misunderstanding of two qnome. This link below seems to give a much more accurate description of the CoE vis-a-vis RC and Eastern (Greek) Orthodox:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nestorian.org/nestorius_and_the__nestorian_c.html">http://www.nestorian.org/nestorius_and_ ... ian_c.html</a><!-- m -->
But, as far as the Monophysites was the "nature" they refer to in, "...their position that in Christ the divine and human nature become one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and without change," a reference to kyana (it seems to be kyana) or qnoma?
Shlama, Craig