Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
For Andrew Gabriel Roth
#91
This is from the Book of the Pearl, written by Mar Abd Yeshua of the Assyrian Church of the East:

Quote:CHAPTER V. -- Of the Trinity.

Everything that exists must be either a material body whose existence is the subject of accidents and changes, and is acted upon by whatever is opposed to it; or not a body, and consequently not the subject of any of these things. Now, we have already proved, that God, (glory be to His incomprehensibility,) is not a body, and therefore is not subject to anything pertaining to materiality, from which He is infinitely removed.

Whatever is immaterial, and not subject to anything appertaining to matter, the traditions of the ancients call Mind. |386 And whatever is exclusive of matter, and of what appertains thereto, must be knowing, and must know himself, because himself is ever present and known to him, and he is not dependent on anything but himself. And whatever knows himself must be living. Therefore God is Wise and Living.

Now, he who is wise is wise because of his wisdom; and he who is living is living because he has life. This is the mystery of the Trinity, which the Church confesses of the Adorable Essence: The Mind, Wisdom, and Life, Three co-essential proprieties in One, and One who is glorified in three proprieties. [The Church] has called the Mind, Father and Begetter, because He is the Cause of all, and First. [She] has called the Son, Wisdom and Begotten, because He is begotten of the Mind, and by Him everything was made and created. [She] has called Life the Holy Ghost, and Proceeding, because there is no other Holy Ghost but He. He who is Holy is unchangeable, according to the expositions of received expositors; and this is that which is declared by John the Divine, the son of Zebedee: "In the beginning was the Word;" and, "the Light is the life of man."

Now, as the reasonable soul has a three-fold energy, mind, word, and life, and is one and not three; even so should we conceive of the Three in One, and One in Three. The sun also, which is one in its disk, radiance, and heat, is another simile adduced by the second Theologus Paul, the chosen vessel: "He is the brightness of His glory, and the Express Image of His Person;" and, again: "Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

Further, every thing that exists is either an accident or a substance. But the Self-existent can in no wise be susceptible of accidents. Therefore these three proprieties must be essential, and are on this account called persons, and not accidental powers, and do not cause any change or plurality in the essence of the Self-existent; for He is the Mind, the Same He is the Wisdom, the Same He is the Life, Who ever begat without cessation, and puts forth [makes to proceed] without distance [i.e. without removal from Himself.] These things [cessation and distance] are infinitely removed from Him, and appertain to bodies. |387

Now, there is no real likeness between created natures and the Nature of the Self-existent, and a simile does not in every thing resemble that which is compared by it; for then the simile and that which is compared by it would be the thing itself, and we [who have just instituted several comparisons] should not be unlike the man who attempts to compare a thing by the self-same thing.

The mystery of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Old Testament: "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness; "the occurrence of the letter noon three times in this sentence is an indication of the Trinity. The "Holy" thrice repeated in the seraphic hymn, as mentioned by Isaiah, joined with one "Lord," attests Three Persons in One Essence. The words of David, also, are of the same import: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth;" and many other like references. Let the heathen, then, and Jews who rail at the truth of the Catholic Church, on account of her faith in the Trinity, be confounded and put to shame. Here endeth the first part.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abdisho_bar_brika_jewel_01_text.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abdis ... 1_text.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#92
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

As Paul Younan told you, the COE defintion does not have YHWH as "persons" and neither does the Jewish mystical tradition employ such terminology as you asked on the Nazarene forum. They talk somewhat about a tri-unity, but you have many places in Tanakh where the unity of a whole is made up of parts that are not independent, as the Zohar talks about breath and water and word, but one uttterance. You keep saying that you don't want a debate on this, but you keep posting stuff attached to my name so you obviously are not willing to move on after understanding what I believe and why.

I maintain that the "person" terminology is the difference between Western Trinitiarian doctrine and Eastern Christian Godhead or Jewish mystical formulations. I have shown you how I parse the Nicene Creed and that's it okay? Again, as I also showed, I can count 7 spirits of YHWH in Isaiah 11:1-2 but these are ATTRIBUTES and not separated divinnities, or what we could call SEFIROTH in Zohar, Kaballah, etc.

I am going to say this one more time: You know my position. I know yours. I do not want to talk about this anymore. It is not as if I have shied away from the discussion but I think I have done it justice and sense from you a determination to "win" me over or prove me wrong and that is not what this forum is about. We have at peshitta.org MANY FAITH TRADITIONS and these are RESPECTED, but we are UNITED in studying the Aramaic NT. You don't seem to want to look at those things, at least not to a great deal. You want to turn this into a theological only discussion and I am not going to allow that to happen--neither will Paul Younan because I talked with him about this.

If you have further questions, I suggest you go on more theologically oriented forums to answer them. I cannot keep this discussion going on endlessly. I have answered you. Pick another topic for a while as I asked you nicely to do before. Are you going to tell me you have nothing else that needs elucidation from the perspective of the Aramaic NT except discussing Trinity with me?

It would be one thing if I didn't answer you, but I have, and I am telliing you straight, I am not going back and forth on this again. It's like you are obsessive on this topic and can't let it go, but I don't have to be the sounding board on it forever. My position is clear. The position in Mari is also clear. Use it or not as you will.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#93
Shlama Akhi Spyridon,

Spyridon Wrote:The mystery of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Old Testament: "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness; "the occurrence of the letter noon three times in this sentence is an indication of the Trinity. The "Holy" thrice repeated in the seraphic hymn, as mentioned by Isaiah, joined with one "Lord," attests Three Persons in One Essence. The words of David, also, are of the same import: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth;" and many other like references. Let the heathen, then, and Jews who rail at the truth of the Catholic Church, on account of her faith in the Trinity, be confounded and put to shame. Here endeth the first part.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abdisho_bar_brika_jewel_01_text.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/abdis ... 1_text.htm</a><!-- m -->

I wanted to alert you to the fact that the above translation from the tertullian.org website is incorrect, and mistranslates the original Aramaic "Qnuma" as "Person" - here is a better English translation:

<!-- 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 -->

Quote:Therefore these three properties are consubstantial and are on this account called (Qnume) hypostasis or substance and not accidental powers, nor do they cause change in the nature of the consubstantial nor plurality; for He is the Mind, the Same He is the Wisdom, the Same He is the Life, Who ever begat without cessation, and puts forth (makes to proceed) without removal from Himself. These things (cessation removal) are infinitely removed from Him for there is no real likeness between created natures and the Nature of the eternally existing and a simile does not in everything resemble that which is compared by it; for then the simile and that which is compared by it would be the thing itself, and we (who have just instituted several comparisons) would not be unlike the man who attempts to compare a thing by the self-same thing. The mystery of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Old Testament: ???Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness;??? the occurrence of the letter noon[9]three times in this sentence is an indication of the Trinity. The ???Holy??? thrice repeated in the seraphic hymn, as mentioned by Isaiah, joined with one ???Lord ???, attests Three Qnume in One nature. The words of David, also, are of ???the same import: ???By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth;??? and many other like references. Let the heathen, then, and Jews who rail at the truth of the Catholic Church, on account of her faith in the Trinity, be confounded and put to shame. Here endeth the first part.

Remember that Qnoma is never equal to Person. It is better left untranslated, as above.

Akhi Andrew - we need to talk on the phone about a couple of points regarding Qnoma - I'll give you a buzz later today before Sabbath.

+Shamasha
Reply
#94
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Call me anytime before Shabbat.

My main point for today you have made for me: QNOMA never means "person".

You should also know that in most cases in Mari I have left Qnoma untranslated as well.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#95
Man I'm getting really tempted to do my first thread lock. Spyridon this is your last warning, if you continue to ignore what Andrew and Paul have written and carry on posting "Trinity" stuff on this thread I will lock it. And if you create more threads to purposefully push your "3 Persons in 1 God" doctrine and Miaphysite Christology, you will end up on my "foe" list and I will ban you from this forum until you "get the message". Now let it go and move on.
Reply
#96
Christina Wrote:Man I'm getting really tempted to do my first thread lock. Spyridon this is your last warning, if you continue to ignore what Andrew and Paul have written and carry on posting "Trinity" stuff on this thread I will lock it. And if you create more threads to purposefully push your "3 Persons in 1 God" doctrine and Miaphysite Christology, you will end up on my "foe" list and I will ban you from this forum until you "get the message". Now let it go and move on.

Shlama Khati Christina:
Please resist the temptation to lock the thread. It's too important of a discussion to curtail honest questions and comments. Of course q'noma doesn't mean person. However, in exploring translational definitions it's sometimes difficult to wrap one's head around the difficulty in equating hypostasis and q'noma. Greek, as you know doesn't share any of its roots with Hebrew/Aramaic and Akhi Spyridon is exploring all of this in a forthright manner. His questions and comments are poignant and necessary. When they are on topic and not bordering on doctrine and theology we all breathe a sigh but is it practical to ask questions and make comments about Aramaic Primacy vis-a-vis Greek Primacy without straddling the borders. I think not. To attempt to explore the necessary relationship between Aramaic Primacy and Greek Primacy, without mentioning theology is like walking a tightrope with both hands tied behind your back.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#97
Shlama Stephen,

It's okay I won't lock this thread just yet and I hope I won't have to, but Spyridon has to tone it down a bit. Do you know if we can unlock threads once they're locked? I'm gonna go try it out now...
Reply
#98
...Turns out we can after all, so even if I do lock this thread I can always unlock it. But of course I won't do anything if you, Paul or the other moderators object. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#99
Ultimately, I believe that any disagreement we've had in this thread is a difference of terminology, not doctrine. It isn't worth arguing over.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)