Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Peshitta
Hello everyone, last months I have been reading this great Bishop's works and it's obvious why he is called "interpreter par excellence" by Syrian Christians. I want to go over some of his testimonies regarding Peshitta though.

He didn't believe Peshitta and mostly concentrated on Septuagint, which is his only flaw according to scientists. Scientists generally criticize other Church Fathers for many more things...

But still, Theodore often agrees to the reading of Peshitta, for example on Hebrews 2:9, in which he bitterly mocks and criticizes all who write "in God's grace" or "God, in his grace", and favors "Apart from God, tasted death".

When it comes to him being against Peshitta, are these:

1) Richard Biss recently wrote on this forum about Amos 9:11-12 and it's obvious Theodore only knew Septuagint rendering of this text.

2) The second is a bit ironic. He seems to be criticizing Peshitta for putting "their kings" instead of "Malcom" in Zephaniah 1:5 and Amos 1:15, while exalting the importance of Septuagint. But, the real thing is, most of Septuagint manuscripts write "their kings" and Peshitta writes "Malcom". "Big Grin

Also, it seems lot of bishops from Assyrian Church followed Theodore's idea that Song of Songs was just a love poem and didn't symbolize Church and Christ... It's written: "I am black but I am beautiful" - Church understood this as "I am sinner" and they anathematized Theodore for not thinking so. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

But also, do you know how Assyrian Christians understand John 20:28? Theodore wrote that it wasn't applied to Christ but to God, and Thomas praised God for raising Christ(as a separate man, which is called Nestorianism)...
Hi Otherguy....

This is what is Officially taught and believed by The Church of the East...and The Catholic Church...about the Two Natures of Christ, Divine & Human....being their joint Official Christological Statement, given a few years ago, by His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, and John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and is at the Official Vatican Website at the link below.

"The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration. Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity."

Here is a link where this is found.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... f_the_East</a><!-- m -->

And that agrees with this statement.

One Christ ? Two Natures

The Theology of the Church of the East has been stated briefly and clearly in the following ?Hymn of Praise? Composed by Mar Babai the Great in the sixth century A.D., a noted theologian of the Church.

One is Christ, the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Divinity, begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity, born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Divinity is of the nature of the Mother,
Nor His Humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their substances,
In one Person of one Son-ship.
And as The Deity is three substances in one nature,
Likewise, the Son-ship of the Son is in two natures, one Person.
So the Holy Church has taught.


Now, compare what is said in those two statements above, with what Bishop Theodore teaches below...and see if it lines up together. It is long, but it is detailed and you will get the whole picture of what he taught on this matter.

This is Chapter Six of Bishop Theodore's Commentary on the Nicene Creed, in which he goes into detail concerning the teaching about the two natures of Christ.

Chapter VI.

In what we have already said we have explained to your love that which was said by our blessed Fathers concerning the humanity of our Lord in the profession of faith, which they wrote and handed down to us according to the teaching of the Books. We were obliged to use many words so that you might thoroughly understand all the meaning of their sentences, and if it were possible we would have said more in order to confirm the truth and to refute the deceitful words of the heretics, but the measure of what we said was considered by us to be sufficient to all those who possess goodwill in religion, because to those who have an unwilling mind, even a long discourse will be of no avail, while to those who possess a good will a short discourse will suffice for the demonstration of the truth, when (this discourse) is drawn from the testimony of Holy Writ. Let us then embark to-day, by the assistance of the grace of God, on the continuation of that which we said previously.

After having said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man (our blessed Fathers) added: And was bom of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They might have said many things that happened in the meantime such as He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was laid in a manger, was under the law,150 was baptised and made manifest the works of the Gospel and many more things. If they had wished it they would have narrated all that the Sacred Books have taught us about Him and that which was accomplished by Him for our salvation, as He fulfilled thoroughly the law of nature for us, because He was going to reform our nature, and He further observed the law of Moses so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver; and He was baptised so that He might give an emblem to the grace of our baptism; and He showed effectively in Himself the Economy of the Gospel to all men. After all these He went to crucifixion and death so that He might destroy the last enemy, which is death, and make manifest the new and immortal life.

Our Fathers, however, took trouble to say all these things in short terms so that the hearers might learn them with ease, and so that we might also learn thoroughly every one of them from the Sacred Books. They wrote and arranged the Creed in short terms, and this is the reason why they said: Who was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They only said the beginning and the end of the Economy that took place on our behalf, as the beginning of all grace is His birth of Mary, and its end is crucifixion. They called crucifixion the Passion, and all those things which took place in it. They included all of them in one word because from the Cross arose death and from death immortal life, as the blessed Paul said also: "The preaching of the Cross is to them that do not believe foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." He also said: "Though He was crucified through weakness yet He liveth by the power of God." He showed here that the word of the Cross is the power of God to those who are saved because it is with His hand that He destroyed death and made new life manifest.

In their profession of faith our blessed Fathers wrote, therefore, in short terms, at the beginning and at the end, all those things that were done in the interval, in order to extend their knowledge to all those willing to learn the truth. It is obvious that they do not teach that the Divine nature of the Only Begotten was born of a woman, as if it had its beginning in her, because they did not say that the one who was born of His Father before all the worlds and who is eternally from Him and with Him had His beginning from Mary, but they followed the Sacred Books which speak differently of natures while referring (them) to one prosopon on account of the close union that took place between them, so that they might not be believed that they were separating the perfect union between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed. If this union were destroyed the one who was assumed would not be seen more than a mere man like ourselves. The Sacred Books refer the two words as if to one Son, so that they might show in the same faith both the glory of the Only Begotten and the honour of the man whom He assumed.

Indeed, after the blessed Paul had said: "Of whom Christ (came)," he added: "according to the flesh," in order to separate the natures and to show that he is speaking of Christ who is from the Jews according to the flesh and that he is naming neither the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, nor God the Word who was from the beginning with God and who is eternally in the bosom of His Father, but the form of the man which He assumed. And so that by this word and this addition to the effect that the human nature of Christ was taken "from the Jews" the glory of Christ might not be brought low, or that He might be believed that since He is man by nature and is born of children of men, He has nothing more, he added the sentence which follows: "He is God over all" in order to show the glory of Christ, which is from God the Word who assumed Him and united Him to Himself, as He is the cause of all and Lord over all. And because of the close union that this man has with God the Son, He is honoured and worshipped by all the creation.

While the blessed Paul might have said: "In whom is God over all" he did not do so, but said: "He is God over all," because of the close union between the two natures. He did not believe that He who was born of the Jews according to the flesh is God over all by nature, nor did he profess that the human nature is the cause of all and is Lord of all by nature, but he professed that the form of man which He assumed was Christ in the flesh, and Him who assumed that form he called God over all; he, however, mentioned these two things together in order to show the distinction found between the natures. Nobody believes that He who is from the Jews according to the flesh is God by nature, nor that God who is above all is from the Jews by nature; he said the two things together in order to show the close union that took place between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed, and in order that together with the difference in natures the honour and the glory that came to the man who was assumed from his union with God who assumed him, might be known to all.

He wrote something similar to this to the Philippians in saying: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men and was found in the fashion of a man." Here also he clearly made a distinction between the natures and between Him who is in the form of God and Him who is in the form of a servant, between Him who assumed and Him who was assumed, and (he showed) also that He who assumed became in the fashion of a man in Him who was assumed. He who was assumed was truly in the fashion of a man, in whom was found the one who assumed Him; and He who assumed, while not a man, became in His incorporeal and immaterial nature in the form of a servant, which by nature was corporeal and material; and He was a man according to the law of human body. He thus hid Himself at the time in which. He was in the world and conducted Himself with the children of men in such a way that all those who beheld Him in a human way and did not understand anything more, believed Him to be a mere man.

In saying this he made a clear distinction between the natures of the one who is in the form of God and the one who is in the form of a servant, of the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. And he taught us also about the human nature in which our Lord was, as he said congruous things concerning the form of the servant which He assumed: "He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God His Father."

It is not Divine nature that received death, but it is clear that it was that man who was assumed as a temple to God the Word, (a temple) which was dissolved and then raised by the one who had assumed it. And after the Crucifixion it was not Divine nature that was raised but the temple which was assumed, which rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of God; nor is it to Divine nature?the cause of everything?that it was given that every one should worship it and every knee should bow, but worship was granted to the form of a servant which did not in its nature possess (the right to be worshipped). While all these things are clearly and obviously said of human nature he referred them successively to Divine nature so that his sentence might be strengthened and be acceptable to hearers. Indeed, since it is above human nature that it should be worshipped by all, it is with justice that all this has been said as of one, so that the belief in a close union between the natures might be strengthened, because he clearly showed that the one who was assumed did not receive all this great honour except from the Divine nature which assumed Him and dwelt in Him.

Our blessed Fathers wrote in the Creed something that is in harmony with this. They first taught us about the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, that He is from the Father before all the worlds, that He is born of the nature of the Father and not made, and that He is a true God and consubstantial with God because He is born of His Father. After having taught us these things concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten they proceeded to teach us concerning the Economy of His humanity and said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man like us in order to effect salvation for all the human race. And they taught all those things that happened to the human nature: things through which God wished His Economy to be accomplished on our behalf. And He who was assumed for our salvation bore upon Himself all things affecting mankind, and became worthy of perfection and a source of benefits for us through our communion with Him.

They said the above things as of one in conformity with the teaching of the Books; not that human acts were affecting God in His nature, but they referred these human acts to Him because of the close union, so that the high things that happened to Him after the Passion?things that transcend human nature?might be believed, and so that all might accept them when learning that it was Divine nature which put on man and that by its union with Him He received all this honour and glory.

Many things, as we have said, happened to Him according to human law; things which we may learn from the Gospel. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes after He was born and laid in a manger; He was circumcised after the custom of the law and was brought to the temple according to the order of Moses; He was shown before the Lord and endured all things dealing with His increase in stature, wisdom and favour, while He was subject unto His parents; He practised in a right way all (things dealing with) the justification of the law, and then received baptism, from which He gave the New Testament as in a symbol; He endured the temptation of Satan and bore upon Himself the toil of journeys and the offering of prayers with great devotion; and, to shorten my speech, He performed all the work of the Gospel with much labour and sweating, showed much patience with His enemies, and finally drew nigh unto death by crucifixion, through which He abolished death by His resurrection from the dead.

Our blessed Fathers omitted all these and said: And was born of Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, because the beginning of His Economy for us is one thing and its end is another, and they included between both headings, one after another, all those things that the Book of the Gospel taught us. He was born of the Virgin Mary as a man, according to the law of human nature, and was made of a woman. Indeed the Apostle said thus: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." In saying that He was made of a woman He showed that He entered into the world from a woman according to the law of the children of men, and the fact that "He was under the law to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons," happened so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver and procure life for us.

Since He became one of us in nature it is with justice that He paid the debt of His human kinship; on account of His nature which was identical with ours He was bound to do this, and He did it. We were delivered from the yoke of bondage because of the freedom which He gave us in His grace. The fact that He was not born of a man but was only fashioned by the Holy Spirit in the womb of His mother, is beyond the nature of the children of men, and the (Apostle said) that He was made of a woman in order to show us that He was fashioned from the nature of a woman and was born according to the law of nature; and this does not cause any injury to nature, because Eve also was made of Adam, and her birth is different from that of all men since she received her existence from a rib only, without marital intercourse. She had an identical nature with Adam because she received the beginning of her existence from him.

In this way we should also think about Christ our Lord. It was a novel thing to have been fashioned from a woman without marital intercourse, by the power of the Holy Spirit, but He is associated with the human nature by the fact that He is from the nature of Mary, and it is for this that He is said also to be the seed of David and Abraham, as in His Nature He is related to them. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one concerning whom the Book testifies, saying, 'What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the Son of Man that thou visitest him'?" And again: "He took not from the nature of angels but from the seed of Abraham." His words show that our Lord did not take a body from the angels, nor did He make the angels the head and renovator of the future creation which we are expecting, but the man whom He assumed from the seed of Abraham and through whom He performed all this ineffable Economy and whom He first raised from the dead and transferred to immortal and unchangeable life, Him He made the head and renovator of all the creation, so that He was with justice set over the government of the new creation.

As a man He was born of a woman according to the law of nature, and although this happened to Him in a novel way, in the sense that He alone, to the exclusion of the rest of mankind, was fashioned in the womb by the Holy Spirit without any marital intercourse, yet all that which He did for us He did according to the law of our nature, so that He grew little by little, reached full age and performed also carefully the requirements of the law. And because He paid our debt to the law and received victory from the Giver of the law on account of His having put into practice all the requirements of the law, He drew, with His own hand, to all His human race that blessing which the law had promised to all those who keep it.

He was also baptised so that He might perform the Economy of the Gospel according to order, and in this (Economy) He died and abolished death. It was easy and not difficult for God to have made Him at once immortal, incorruptible and immutable as He became after His resurrection, but because it was not He alone whom He wished to make immortal and immutable, but us also who are partakers of His nature, He rightly, and on account of this association, did not so make the firstfruits of us all in order that, as the blessed Paul said, "He might have the pre-eminence in all things." In this way, because of the communion that we have with Him in this world, we will, with justice, be partakers with Him of the future good things. And as after He was born of a woman He increased little by little according to the law of humanity, and grew up fully, and was under the law and acted according to it, so also in the life of the Gospel He became an example as man to man.

Because it was necessary that we who were born later should receive faith concerning the above future good things and that we should believe that our Saviour, our head and the cause of all of them for us, was Christ our Lord, it was imperative that He should also arrange as much as possible our mode of life in this world according to the hope of the future. It is with justice, therefore, that in this also He became our model. He was baptised so that He might give a symbol to our own baptism. In it He was freed from all the obligations of the law. He performed also all the Economy of the Gospel: He chose disciples to Himself, established the teaching of a new law and a new doctrine, promulgated ways of acting congruous to His teaching and different from the teaching of the (old) law, and taught that the ways of acting of us who believe should be in harmony with His new teaching.

We also when we are baptised show (in ourselves) the symbol of the world to come; we die with Him in baptism, and we rise symbolically with Him, and we endeavour to live according to His law in the hope of the future good things which we expect to share with Him at the resurrection from the dead. If Christ our Lord had immediately after His rising from the dead, raised also all men who had previously died, and had bestowed upon them new life fully and immediately, we should have been in no need of doing anything; as, however, He actually performed only on Himself the renewal which is to come and through which He rose from the dead and His body became immortal and His soul immutable, it became necessary that this decrepit and mortal world should last further in order that mankind might believe in Him and receive the hope of communion (with Him) and future life.

It is with justice, therefore, that He paid the debt of the law, received baptism, and showed the new Economy of the Gospel, which is the symbol of the world to come, so that we also, who believed in Christ and became worthy of baptism, through which we received the symbol of the world to come, should live according to His commandments. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." In this he shows that through baptism we have received the teaching of the new Economy which is the symbol of the world to come, and as much as possible we strive to live according to it, while remote from all sin, and so not according to law. Indeed we are baptised as men who die with Him and will rise symbolically with Him, because "so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death and were buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead in the glory of His Father, even so we should walk in newness of life."

After having received the grace of baptism we become strangers to all the observances of the law and we are as in another life: "You are become dead to the law by the body of Jesus Christ." He (Paul) said this because you have attained new life in the baptismal birth and have become part of the body of Christ our Lord; and we hope to have communion with Him now that we are freed from the life of this world and dead to the world and to the law, because the law has power in this world and we become strangers to all this world according to the symbol of baptism.

When Christ our Lord performed all these things for us He drew nigh unto death, which He received by crucifixion, not a secret death, but a death that was conspicuous and witnessed by all because our Lord's resurrection was going to be proclaimed by the blessed Apostles, while the miracles wrought wonderfully by the Holy Spirit were sufficient for the corroboration of their testimony. His death had to be seen by all, as His resurrection meant the abolition of death. Indeed, He loosed the pains of death 182 completely by his resurrection from the dead, ascended unto heaven and sat at the right hand of God, and is for us a true surety 184 by our participation in His resurrection. "You were saved by the grace of Him who raised us with Him and placed us at the right hand in heaven in order that He might show to the future worlds the greatness of the wealth and the sweetness of His mercy which was shed on us abundantly through our Lord Jesus Christ."

And in order that we may believe in the good things which He promised to us, in spite of their greatness and in spite of the fact that they transcend us, He gave us the earnest of the future things, the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit, as the blessed Peter said: "He was exalted by the right hand of God, and He confirmed the promise of the Holy Ghost which He had received, and shed forth this upon us abundantly, as you now see and hear." He calls "the promise of the Holy Ghost" the grace which was given for the confirmation of the future good things by the Holy Ghost. Indeed, these future things are confirmed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. As the blessed Paul said: "It is sown a natural body and it will rise a spiritual body." And in order that we may possess these future good things in a firm faith without doubt, He gave us even in this world the firstfruits of the Spirit which we received as the earnest, of which the blessed Paul said: "In whom ye believed, and ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit (of promise) which is the earnest of our inheritance." And the Economy of the grace of Christ our Lord, for which we receive baptism, is like unto this.

Our blessed Fathers did well, therefore, to hand to us our faith by going to the firstfruits of the faith, and including in them all the necessary things in saying: And was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. I believe, however, that my speech has exceeded the limits as the words (which express) the Economy of the grace of Christ have only been delivered to us (in short terms) as given above. In order, therefore, that you may not receive a teaching which is not perfect and that we may not trouble you with many words, let us, by the permission of God, leave off here the things which will follow what has been said, and be satisfied with what has already been spoken to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now, always, and for ever and ever.?Amen.

Here ends the sixth chapter.

I think its important to realise that the peshitta OT and the peshitta NT are two very different unrelated texts or compilations.
According to the COE, the peshitta NT is the work of early followers of Jesus.
It is thought by the COE that these texts were used and known by early followers of jesus and as a result naturally complied and kept.

The peshitta OT is a very different book, even though it too came to be used by the COE. It's origin in its present form is a bit obscure.

It is likely its origin is in texts of the Hebrew bible,used by Aramaic speaking jews. If so then its entirely possible there was more than one version or different variants of Aramaic translations of the hebrew bible being used in the early centuries.
So it doesn't automatically follow that he must have preferred the LXX
Hello, thanks for the rapid response.

I have read nearly all of Theodore's works and I admire him a lot. He is the only one whom scientists nowadays agree the most out of all Church Fathers.

But you can not deny that he often talks about Jesus as a separate from Word Logos. Sometimes he seems Orthodox, while saying that there is only 1 person of Christ in two natures, but sometimes he clearly teaches two persons.

For example, even from that Commentary, saying that:

"From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly." --- Sounds good so far, but what is Theodore's argument for it?

He continues: "All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart."

See, he clearly states that 2 persons in Christ are like husband and wife, or like members of Trinity, who are figuratively called one. Also, he says that there are no two Christs or Sons not because there is 1 person, but because only one of them is Christ and only one of them is Son of God.

But regarding the difference between OT Peshitta and NT Peshitta - thanks for the answer, that was satisfactory.
Bishop Theodore is 100% right with what He said there. This Brother understood corectly the dynamic that exists between GOD and The Messiah... It is 100% Scriptural what he is teaching there.

He is talking about GOD and Man...and Mankind is not GOD, and GOD is not Mankind...though GOD & Man are united IN One Messiah, Eshu, The Son of GOD, the Son of Man, both born of His Heavenly Father, and born of His Earthly Mother.

Though GOD and Mankind was united in a mysterious way in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, GOD as to His Eternal Being and Infinite Substance and Nature did not originate of or from the humanity of Maryam's finite being and finite substance and nature.

The Two he speaks of there is GOD and Man...and they are One in The Messiah, in unity, but not the same Person, as to their Being. This is why we see The Messiah praying to and worshiping God, The Father --->In His Humanity. God does not worship or pray to we know that they are two, yet One in unity, being distinct in their Persons.

Adam and Eve are a clear picture of The Father and The Word/Son of God... The Word/Son of God was ever in The Father, before He came forth from The Father, to bring about all creation, through Him...He is One with The Father, but not The Father Himself in the distinction of His Personhood...

He is of The Father's own Substance, Consubstancial with Him, yet distinct as to His Personhood. And in the fullness of time, The Word/Son of God, The Father, was joined with Humanity in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, united at conception with the Person of Eshu, The Messiah...The DNA of GOD and the DNA of Mankind producing/bringing forth the One and only GOD/MAN...both Son of GOD, and Son of Man at the same time. Both of the Ininite Substance of His Father, and the Finite Substance of His Mother.

It must be understood, that THE WORD of GOD, IS GOD. Being The Father's own Word, or "the Expression of His Thought", as the Early Church Fathers and Teachers taught us.

"GOD was IN The Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Cor 5:19


Thank you for that response. So Assyrian Church of the East believes that, which I don't say is wrong, but it seems weird that you achieved common Christological definition with Catholic Church - because Catholic Church clearly anathematizes that view.

Also, you said "Father was in Christ", which seems like denying the Trinity, because only Son of God(The Logos) was in Christ.

Bishop Theodore wisely used John 2:19

Yeshua answered and said to them: ?Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.?

Now, there is overwhelming scriptural evidence that God raised Christ. It's everywhere, in Galatians 1:1, In Acts chapter 2 and many more... Thus it means "God raised Christ" and "Divine person in Christ raised the human person in Christ".

But this is being criticized because removes the idea of incarnation. Incarnation and indwelling are different.


It was reached by the Pope and the Catholicos, because the two Branches of the same Church believes and teaches the same things about this matter. It was misunderstood/misinterpreted what Bishop Theodore and Bishop Nestorius was teaching...and the anathemas were politically motivated back then anyway, and their teachings were distorted to mean what they did not teach. The Council of Calcedon overturned the false teaching of the Monophysites, who had corupted the right teaching about the two natures and at the Council of Ephesus had mis-represented that Bishop Nestorius was teaching.

The Catholic Church does not anathematise what is taught there in the Joint Christological Statement...The Pope signed off on it. And he was right to do so, as it is very Scriptural and is always the Apostolic teaching.

Quote:Also, you said "Father was in Christ", which seems like denying the Trinity, because only Son of God(The Logos) was in Christ.

Eshu (Jesus) says it!

?Do you not believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me? The words which I am speaking, I am not speaking from myself, but my Father who dwells within me, he does these works.? John 14:10

?But he who does not love me does not keep my word, and this word which you are hearing is not mine, but The Father's who has sent me.? John 14:24

Quote:Bishop Theodore wisely used John 2:19
Yeshua answered and said to them: ?Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.?

And who is speaking? GOD, The Father THROUGH His Word/Son, IN The Messiah. We know that it was GOD, who raised up The Messiah from the dead, as the Scriptures teach us. The Father is saying there, through His Word/Son, in The Messiah, that if they destory His/GOD's Temple (Christ), He will raise Christ back up in three days.

In my belief YHWH is Yeshua. But in what way is YHWH Yeshua?

In Yochanan 1:1-3 it speaks of Miltha as Elohiim. "And Miltha was Elohiim". In verse 14 the Miltha which is Elohiim manifests as human, which is Yeshua the Messiah dwelling amongs the jewish people or house of Ya'akov. In Tanach every time I read that "D'var YHWH came to this and that prophet" I see D'var as Yeshua in some way. Since YHWHs Word always saves. YHWH always sends His Word to save. Only, people have to believe in this Word or reject it, but the intent of YHWH is always to save(the same with His Word). If someone believed the Word from this and that prophet, and repented, they got savet. If not, they got the curse and judgement over their heads. As with Yeshua, to believe in Him is to believe in YHWH, since Yeshua is His D'var which saves, and there in no salvation in any other name given under heaven.

Yochanan understood this. Trough his entire gospel he focuses on Yeshua as the D'var of YHWH. Only 2 chapters later from chapter one, in 3:16, "the D'var of YHWH which is Elohiim, is also YHWH only begotten Son". This since this D'var(or Miltha) is directly from YHWH, coming forth out of His mouth. And the D'var is always doing 100% the Fathers will which He came from. And the Word of YHWH never returns "emptyhanded"(The Word went back to the Father again, Yeshua returned to the Father)

In Yochanan 12:44-50 Yeshua says: "The one who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sendt me..." In the context here Yeshua talks about himself as YHWH D'var. As with YHWHs Word to the prophets, so also with Yeshua. If you believe Yeshua you get the blessing, if you reject you get the curse. But as Yeshua says, "I didn't come to judge the world, but to save the world". This is exactly what the Word of YHWH always want to do and does if people take notise of The Word. The Word of YHWH have one goal, and that is to teach the instructions of the Father. This again can be seen in Yochanan 7:17 which Yeshua says "My teaching is not my own, but belongs to Him who sent me".

And I now understand what is ment by Revelation 19:13 "... He has a name which noone understands fully, and His name is the Word of Elohiim". Yochanan understood this. What is the name of Yeshua, Yochanan asks, and he answers: "Yeshuas name i the Word of Elohiim"... 100% unity indeed <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Sometimes I ask people: "What is the name of Yeshua?". And they answer me "Are you stupid? You just said his name". I say, "Yes I did, but I didn't". They say, "What are you babbling about?" And then I quote Rev 19:13 and tells them that Yeshuas name is the Word of Elohiim".
Flesh and blood has not revealed that revelation to you Brother John...all glory to our Saviour and our God.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)