Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question regarding Qnume and Kyana.
#1
Shlama Akhim,

From my reading on Qnume and Kyana in both this forum and in "The Pearl" I have come to understand that Kyana means "nature" or "the substance that makes something what it is" and a Qnuma is an individualized occurrence of a kyana. In the literature it says that there is only one divine kyana just like there is only one human kyana. The question then I have is in respect to the realm of Qnume. In the literature it compares the 3 Qnume of the one Divine Kyana with the multiple(roughly 6 billion today) Qnume of the human Kyana. So my question is this. How does the Assyrian church disquish itself from either Modalism (the belief in one God who is one person but with multiple manifestation (3 in particular, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit0? And how would you separate yourselves from polytheism. I ask this is because 6 billian Qnume of the one human kyana translates into 6 billion humans, then why wouldn't we say the same about the divine, where 3 Qnume translates into 3 gods. ? Thanks in advance for helping making any corrections to things I may got wrong and for clarrifications of terms, and the answers.

+Matthew
Reply
#2
Hi Matthew.

Well, first "Qnuma" is not a manifestation. In fact there is no direct English cognate to Qnuma. Actually there is no cognate in any other known language. The attempt to equate it to Greek terms is what caused the Christological controversies to begin with. As tempting as it might be, just don't go there. Don't do it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->.

Second, we don't speak of God in the term of "person." Person is relevant only to humans. God is not a person. The Incarnation of the Messiah is a person, a unity of His Divinity and His Humanity. But that personhood isn't extended to the divine kyana.

So both moralism and polytheism are shamed by the orthodox confession.

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Matthew.

Well, first "Qnuma" is not a manifestation. In fact there is no direct English cognate to Qnuma. Actually there is no cognate in any other known language. The attempt to equate it to Greek terms is what caused the Christological controversies to begin with. As tempting as it might be, just don't go there. Don't do it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->.

Second, we don't speak of God in the term of "person." Person is relevant only to humans. God is not a person. The Incarnation of the Messiah is a person, a unity of His Divinity and His Humanity. But that personhood isn't extended to the divine kyana.

So both moralism and polytheism are shamed by the orthodox confession.

+Shamasha

Shlama, Thanks for the reply. While it is easy see how it caused the Christological controversies by Cyril and Nestorius. I'm still confused as to how one would distinguish rule out polytheism or modalism, except for just declaring it so. Unless you are really saying that if polytheism is true, then there would be more than one type of divine kyana. . Hopefully I don't read like I am being confrontational, I don't mean to be. I just am trying to understand how the Church of the East makes these distinctions (and hence meaningfully condemn a belief system as heretical or orthodox).

+Matthew
Reply
#4
Hi again Akh,

Let me state it a different way. In our English language, we have nature and person. Therefore each person is representative of the human nature, but individual. There are six billion people alive today, hence there are six billion persons which all are concrete examples of the human nature. There aren't six billion human natures, only one.

With me so far?

In Aramaic, we would say that the above statement means there is one human Kyana and six billion Parsope (persons).

However, in Aramaic we have a concept called Qnuma - which is an instance of a Kyana (abstract) that is real. But it is not a person, because your Qnuma and my Qnuma is the same exact Qnuma, not in number, but in characteristics.

What Qnuma does is make something that is abstract (Kyana) into something that is actual. It is an individuat-ed, not individu-al, instance of a Kyana. Qnuma is an individuat-ed Kyana. Parsopa is an individu-al Qnuma.

Our parsopa, yours and mine, is distinct and makes us unique. It makes you Matthew and it makes me Paul.

But if you were to somehow be able to view our Qnume, they would be indistinguishable in everything except for number. Yours is yours, and mine is mine. But other than that, they are 100% identical. You cannot tell them apart. They are both representative of one Kyana, our human Kyana. They are the real instances of our human blueprint.

So, to answer your question. When we speak of God, first and foremost we never say the word parsopa. That is blasphemy. God is not a person. If we say such a thing, then we reduce God to a mere human being.

When we speak of the divine nature of God, we speak of His Kyana (nature.) When we speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - we are speaking of Qnume. Which again, besides number, are identical and indistinguishable. The Qnume are three and at the same time, one. This makes sense only in Aramaic, not in Greek or English or Arabic or even Hebrew.

The only time we speak of parsopa is when we describe the subject of the Incarnation, meaning specifically the union of the Divine Qnuma and the human Qnuma in the one person of Messiah.

So there is no modalism, nor polytheism when you understand the Aramaic terms and not translate them into another language which lacks the middle layer of Qnuma.

In Aramaic, "I and the Father are one" makes perfect sense. It is heresy to the Jews and Muslims because in Hebrew and Arabic there is no concept or term for Qnuma. There isn't in Greek, Latin either. They then went on to craft their statement of faith as best they could, which was to substitute the word "person" for Qnuma. Which then led to the Christological wars. This is part of the problems you encounter when something is translated into a completely different language and milieu.

Take care.

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul, do we say then that the West {Greeks/Latins} got it wrong only in their term, such as Prosopon "Persons", but not in their concept, and teaching, such as their belief that there is only One God, One Eternal, not 3 Gods, 3 Eternals; as the Athanasian Creed makes very clear on the subject?

Because, it is truly anathema to Western Christian Apostolic churches or Protestant churches (excluding Mormons), to say that there is more than One God only, no matter the term they might use i. e. "Persons", which, though a flawed terminology, does not equate to there being said to be 3 individual eternal and divine Beings, but only ONE Eternal and Divine Being, who is GOD=The Father/The Word/The Holy Spirit...these being ONE, and not three which make up one. And The Son of God, God The Word was incarnate in the Person of The Messiah, who is at once God and Man, in one Son-ship. By which God has reconciled Himself with Mankind.

Some seem to think that The Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox Christians are polytheistic in their doctrine of the Godhead, whether they RCC/ORTH think so or not. I say it does not amount to that, but only that they have a bad way of explaining it, which can cause some to confuse it with polytheism.
Reply
#6
To make it clear, they are correct in concept but absolutely horrible in terminology. This problem caused Ephesus, and afterwards even more problems with other groups like Jews and Muslims.

+Shamasha
Reply
#7
I ascribe to the Oneness theology but I have no problem with using the term "Trinity" in order to describe God's primary way of revealing Himself to mankind. My problem is with the term "persons" being used to describe God, which lends itself to paganism despite Western Trinitarians being very monotheistic. I see no problem with using "Person" to describe God, as "persons" are not necessarily "humans". A person is an individual being with personality and intelligence. God is only a human being within the incarnation, but even during the incarnation He has not ceased being the infinite, eternal, disembodied Spirit that He has been from eternity.
Reply
#8
Aramaic Wrote:Some seem to think that The Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox Christians are polytheistic in their doctrine of the Godhead, whether they RCC/ORTH think so or not. I say it does not amount to that, but only that they have a bad way of explaining it, which can cause some to confuse it with polytheism.

They certainly are *not* polytheistic, but unfortunately their languages (Greek and Latin) are woefully inadequate in spiritual terminology (especially when compared to Aramaic), and that is the handicap which has resulted in so much confusion, persecution and even bloodshed.

I wish that they would just have simply absorbed a loan-word from Aramaic (Qnuma), like they did with so many other Semitic words, instead of trying to formulate a sensible creed around the disastrous "prosopon."

If this most unfortunate choice of words caused a rift with us, their (Semitic) brethren in the same Faith, how can you blame outsiders like Jews and Muslims (and even some other more recent Christian denominations) for being taken aback by "Three Persons = One Person?"

It seems as if the Greeks prefer to confuse intentionally with ridiculous terms like "First among Equals" to describe the Patriarch of Constantinople's relationship to other Patriarchs in their hierarchy, as if to distance themselves from "Papal Primacy." How is "First among Equals" different from "Primacy?" Just because they added the terms " ... among Equals?" I admit, I'm not keen on Greek logic - but, if you can explain to me how someone can be "First", "...among Equals", I would really appreciate it. Because, to a simpleton like myself - if they truly are "Equals", then there is no "First", "Middle" or "Last" - only "Equals."

I said that to expand the thought that, while their terminology stinks - sometimes they don't do themselves any favors by continuing their relentless drive of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)