Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Acts 20:28
#1
Apparently the western peshitto; the aramaic scriptures of the western church was edited in acts 20:28 to read "church of God " instead of "Church of Christ".

Why would the western monophysite church have preferred acts 20:28 to read church of God rather than Church of Christ?

What is the big deal about it?
Reply
#2
judge Wrote:Apparently the western peshitto; the aramaic scriptures of the western church was edited in acts 20:28 to read "church of God " instead of "Church of Christ".

Why would the western monophysite church have preferred acts 20:28 to read church of God rather than Church of Christ?

What is the big deal about it?

Shlama Akhi Michael,

Because it says "...which He purchased with His own blood."

Suddenly, the verse takes on a Monophysite meaning if God had "blood."
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
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
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi Criag,

Craig Amanyahu Wrote: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?

Here are some quotes of interest:

Quote:"First of all (and this goes without saying), we need to try to understand what writers actually meant by the technical terms they use, rather than rely on what their opponents claimed they meant.....in this context, both the Syriac (Aramaic) terminology, and the understanding of that terminology, in the Church of the East can be described as both archaic and conservative."

"I conclude by looking at two sets of specific example....both are cases where the language used by the Church of the East could best be described as archaic.....we are dealing with imagery which was once widespread and which is still preserved in the Church of the East after it had been for the most part dropped by everyone else in the course of the fifth century controversies."

"It is essentially this (the archaic) understanding of kyana that is retained in the Church of the East.....by contrast, later fifth- and sixth-century Syrian Orthodox writers understand kyana as virtually a synonym with hypostasis.....significantly, in Syriac Orthodox translations of the later fifth and of the sixth century, the older rendering...is replaced by various other translations, thus removing the (now archaic) association of kyana with ousia."

"At the outset I would suggest that....it is important to retain the Syriac term (Qnoma), and not retrovert it into hypostasis (let alone translate it as "person", as has occasionally been done)."

"In many cases...the tradition of the Church of the East will be found to have preserved images and metaphors of the incarnation which were once widely current, but which writers in other Syriac traditions had subsequently dropped, either on grounds of their perceived inadequacy, or because they were thought to lend support to the position of their theological opponents."

"The 4th century texts seem to understand kyana very much with ousia....This meaning was kept unchanged in the East. In the 6th and 7th centuries however the Syrian Orthodox moved with the times and their understanding came close to the Western/Greek development of hypostasis/prosopon. This gave rise to most of the problems."

"The Church of the East in the Sasanian Persian Empire up to the Sixth Century and it's absence from the Councils in the Roman Empire", by Prof. Sebastian Brock, Oxford University, June 25th, 1994, Vienna Austria - presented at the First Syriac Dialogue, hosted by Pro Oriente. ISBN: 3-901188-05-3


Craig Amanyahu Wrote: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?

Precisely because they were referring to only one kyana. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Craig Amanyahu Wrote: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.

Exactly. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> (see above for reference to the CoE's archaic usage and understanding of these terms)

Craig Amanyahu Wrote: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?

The Monophysite creed is 1 Kyana, 1 Qnoma and 1 Parsopa. They believe all these things "fused" together inseparably during the Incarnation.

Not only did they change the meaning of Qnoma because they found it to be too accomodating to their opponent's theology position (see above quotes by Prof. Brock) - they also changed their scripture (Peshitto Acts 20:28 ) in this case to give God "blood" - something a true Semite would never even dare to think.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Who cares what a Semite would or would not believe ? Our faith is to come from God's word.
If God is said in scripture to have eyes, hands, feet,arms,face,back- all of which are figures of speech, why should he not also have blood- a word which conveys his life essence ?

Why does no Greek ms. have "blood of Christ" in Acts 20:28 ? All of them have either "Blood of the Lord" or "blood of God" . The latter is the majority reading.
It would appear reasonable that the original reading would be attested by most of the Greek mss. I believe this is the case here.

Shlama ,

Dave B
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Dave,

I care what a Semite would believe - they wrote the bible. I can't imagine any Semite saying that "God purchased the church with His blood." Besides, technically God did not have blood - the subject of the Incarnation, the Messiah, had blood because of the Human temple (his human Qnoma) with which He clothed Himself.

This all boils down to whether or not the Godhead suffered on the Cross, bled, was tempted or went to the bathroom. Conversely, it also ultimately has to deal with whether or not the Humanity could forgive sins.

I believe that the Godhead does not have any blood, it does not suffer, it is never tempted, it does not use the bathroom, etc. I also believe that the Humanity did not have the capacity to forgive sins.

The fact that the Greek versions can't make up their mind between "Lord" and "God" speaks volumes. But it is evident that the Messiah is meant, which is more consistent with the rest of God's revealed word (i.e., Keepa 1:18-19; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Did not a Semite write Zechariah 12:1-10 ? :
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him
v10- 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

According to this Semite, God would be pierced.

As to the blood of God, did not a Semite write:
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]hrgplw 0yrmd hmdl wh byxm[/font]
He is guilty of the blood of Yahweh , and of His body ?
1 Cor 11:27

Why protest the Jacobite text of Acts 20:28, when 1 Cor. confirms it ?

What do you think ? Did God become man or not ? If He did, "then He emptied Himself" of His glory and Divine form (Phillip. 2:5-11)and "became lower than the angels for a time for the suffering of death" ...

If He bacame a man, surely He did it ,not to watch someone else suffer and die; He did it to suffer and die Himself. No man's blood, however sinless, could atone for the sins of the world; no archangel could do it; only the Deity, Jehovah Himself could atone for all mankind.

If Paul did not mean that Yahweh shed His blood, why did he write it ?

A Semite like Paul had to contend with other Semites who would never think such things; he gave his life for thinking ,writing and preaching such things; but then, so did a Semite named "Yeshua Netsari".

I await your response; this should be interesting.

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs[/font]

Dave B
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:As to the blood of God, did not a Semite write:
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]hrgplw 0yrmd hmdl wh byxm[/font]
He is guilty of the blood of Yahweh , and of His body ?
1 Cor 11:27

Well, weren't you looking for a verse in scripture which affirmed that Meshikha has a Divine Qnoma?

Well, I don't think you need me anymore! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Ahki Paul,

No I was not looking for a verse that taught that Christ has a Divine qnoma. I was looking for any scripture that teaches He has a human qnoma and a Divine qnoma. There are no such verses.
You have ignored the point of my last post to you.
<!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->




[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb[/font]


Dave B
Reply
#10
Akhi Dave,

You are confusing me.

If I show a verse which proves that Meshikha is human, and another verse which proves that Meshikha is Divine, then I reason that I have shown that Meshikha has both a human Qnoma and a Divine Qnoma.

Because if he is Human then he must have a Human Qnoma. If he is Divine, then he must have a Divine Qnoma.

Otherwise, he is neither human nor Divine, but some freak Frankenstein kind of monster that Eutyches created after the Greek "god-men" his ancestors, and apparently he, worshipped.

I will ask a different way:

There is no single passage in George Washington's biography that states that he was both WHITE and MALE. That being said, there are passages about him being WHITE. And there are yet other passages about him being a MALE.

Does that count as proof that he was both WHITE and MALE? Or, do we have to go by your criteria and insist that in order for George Washintong to have been a WHITE MALE - that a single passage must make the declaration that he was both WHITE and MALE?

Is it reasonable to conclude that he was WHITE and a MALE based on this evidence, or not? Do the two distinct passages count, or not?

As to ignoring the point of your previous post, it is directly related to this point which is far more important. I will come back to what is meant by 1Cor. 11:27 when the basis for my reply is established during this current exchange.

I see no point in explaining 1Cor. 11:27 to someone who doesn't grasp the concept, the meaning, of "Emmanu-el".
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
...there's no need to be sad. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding us.

Let's take these one at a time.

1) Verses that say Y'shua has a divine qnoma and a human qnoma.

First off, it should hardly be necessary to prove he has a human qnoma, since he was human. The issue is whether he also had a divine qnoma, sitting seaprately and side by side with his human qnoma.

The answer: John 5:26, which I quoted earlier for you and will do so again now:

"Just as the Father has life in his qnoma, so He has granted the son to have life in his (the Son's) qnoma..."

Now I stop here for a moment to say this: What follows is proof that the qnoma being referenced is not human but divine:

"...and He has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man."

Now drash with me (I mean compare) these two verses:

See I am sending my angel (same word in Hebrew means "messenger") ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and do what he says. Do not rebel against him, he will not forgive your rebellion, for My NAME is in him.

Exodus 23:20-22

So, to be given YHWH's personal name imparts YHWH's power, which creates an occurrence of his divine nature, or divine qnoma.

This is the ONLY ANGEL/MESSENGER with the Name YHWH attached to him. All other angels are called EL--this one is called YAH--which is why the the Son of Man's name is superior to the angels. Here is the second verse:

Father, keep them by the power of YOUR NAME, THE SAME NAME YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, that they may be one, even as we are one.

John 17:11

Once again also I refer to you to John 4 and the living water teaching. He who drinks the physical water will thirst again. But he who dirinks of the water Messiah has will have a spring welling up for eternal life. That spring/living water, is the occurrence of the divine nature, which is confirmed here:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may PARTAKE OF THE DIVINE KYANNA (NATURE) AND ESCAPE THE CORRUPTION IN THE WORLD CAUSED BY EVIL DESIRES.

2 Peter 1:3-4

Even though 2 Peter is not preserved or canonized by the Church of the East, they refer to it as a pious work free of doctrinal error. I believe this work is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not canonical. In this case, the Aramaic--even though it may be translational though I hope a semitic original may still be out there somewhere--makes it very clear that through Y'shua we partake of the divine nature--and this is also solid NT doctrine. And since you believe it is canonical, its words to you Dave are in fact binding and fit for reproof and correction.

2) "YHWH's blood"...

Here is what I think you miss Akhi. YHWH has blood, but that blood is not His own. Bear with me. These verses are from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crosswalk.com">http://www.crosswalk.com</a><!-- m --> and show my point:

Ex 9:29 - Show Context
And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD'S.

De 10:14 - Show Context
Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Ps 24:1 - Show Context
The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

1Co 10:26 - Show Context
For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof

So everything and everyone in the earth is YHWH's including, our lives, and our blood. Do you understand? If not, look here:

Le 17:11 - Show Context
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is what we call a QORBANA, or offering. Since all belongs to YHWH, this blood also belongs to YHWH, but YHWH does not have blood flowing through His veins! Re-read 1 Corinthians 11:27 in this light and see if it does not make more sense.

3) Zechariah 12:10

First thing, is to compare it to this verse:

A shoot will come up fromt he stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit. The spirit of YHWH will rest on him: The spirit of wisdom and insight, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH, and he will delight in the fear of YHWH.

Isaiah 11:1-2

This "Spirit of YHWH" is also called "The Holy Spirit" in Tanakh (Isaiah 63:1-11, Psalm 51:1-11) and the "spirit of truth" and "Holy Spirit" in the NT. YHWH is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is what begats Messiah--more proof that the divine qnoma is in him--since he breaths the Holy Spirit back out on to his disciples (John 20:22)!

Now, getting into Zechariah 12:10 YHWH is pierced because the divine qnoma is draped in Messiah's flesh and the flesh is pierced. (et asher dakaru-they shall look upon Me, whom they have pierced), but the next phrase proves my point: "and they shall mourn for HIM as if he were a YACHID son."

If YHWH is pierced, why are they mourning for a man? Answer: Because the man was the one who was really pierced and he dies because of it (Isaiah 53:8). YHWH is pierced only in the sense of the proximity to the divine qnoma, and metaphorically, YHWH often uses images of pain to describe how He feels, including that of a mother giving birth, (Isaiah 66:12-13). YHWH cannot bleed because YHWH cannot die!

Furthermore YACHID is an exclusive singularity in Hebrew that has no compund unity context. So YACHID means "utterly unique; once for all time and never again", etc. That means, further, that Messiah is the only human who ever has, did or will have an occurrence of the divine nature in him. The rest of us have to approach the divine nature through him to be reconciled. More than any other verse, this one was respionsible for making me believe in Y'shua, and I have looked at it for almost 30 years and know what the Hebrew really says.

Therefore Acts 20:28 as "blood of Elohim" is incorrect. YHWH has blood from His creation, but He himself does not bleed.

Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#12
Akha Paul & Andrew,

Nice try, but I'm not biting on this.

First of all, you both beg the question by assuming that a reference to our Lord's humanity indicates its own qnoma , and then his Deity indicates its own separate and distinct qnoma , so that this Person (and at least we can agree that Yeshua Meshiaka is a Person) has two qnomas.

To you, a qnoma is an occurrence of a nature , therefore, you interpret any mention of a person's nature to have it's qnoma. I do not see a qnoma as anything less than "self", whether animate or inanimate (himself, itself, herself). If in reference to a person, then that self would be a center of consciousness- a mind or a spirit; That would be the person himself.

Two qnome would be two persons; Our Lord never said that He has two qnome; He only refers to one in John 5:26.
(How do you know which qnoma He refers to here? I would think the Divine qnoma already had life in it by its very nature.)

The incarnation means "God became human". In so doing He had to change His form (Greek has "schemata', from which English derives "schematic") from The Divine to the mortal Human servant. Philippians 2 says that "He divested Himself"; Hebrews 2 says "He became lower than the angels" for the suffering of death. Neither text says that He put on humanity as a cloak.

By the way, if The Son (The Divine qnoma)became lower than the angels for the suffering of death, then that Divine qnoma came to die.
John says "God became flesh", flesh signifying humanity.

He no longer was in The Divine form; His identity was still the same, but no longer was He omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. If we were to believe that He retained all these attributes, then we would have to believe that from infancy, there would have been two centers of consciousness in Him, one that knew all things, and one that knew practically nothing.
That is unthinkable, and is tantamount to saying there were two persons in one body with the same name.

The Council of Chalcedon states
Quote:there is no division between His Natures,
yet I hear and read so much that indicates Christians believe otherwise, including you both.
To say that Jesus suffered in His humanity but not in His Divine being sounds like Multiple Personality Disorder , at the very least. Perhaps it is sheer Gnosticism, which teaches that "He" really is "They".

Prove to me that every living qnoma is not either a "He" or a "She" , and I will listen further to what you have to say on this matter.

As to 1 Cor. 11:27, Andrew, your explanation is just another example of your sophistry, as I expected. I suppose swine's blood would have done as well for the "Blood of Jehovah" , according to your way of interpreting this passage .
Quote:"All blood is therefore God's blood."

That is an outrage. This does not strike me as the teaching of God's Spirit.

Shelikha Paul is discussing the blood and body of God and those who partake of the bread and wine unworthily , thus eating and drinking damnation , not discerning Jehovah's body , and you have the audacity to say that the "blood of Jehovah" simply means all blood is His blood, because He has no blood of His own ?

Here is a passage that says "Jehovah's blood" , and we are to believe you when you flatly contradict the word of God ? If Paul meant that Jehovah had no blood, he had one hell of a way of saying it !

Surely he could have used the phrase , "The Blood of Yeshua" , or "the blood of Meshika", so as not to confuse the unlearned.

He wrote ,"The blood of Jehovah".That means what it says. Jehovah shed His blood for the sins of the world, is the message of the Lord's supper.

You are really struggling to defend the indefensible here.

God Himself , in The Person of Marya Yeshua, made the sacrifice for sin with His own blood and His own death for all mankind.That is what the gospel is.Nothing less would avail for the atonement of the sins of the world- Glory to His Name, Hallelu-JAH !


If that is Paul's meaning in Cor. , what's the problem with "God's blood" in Acts 20:28 ? Is not all blood God's blood in Acts as in 1 Cor. 11:27 ?

And please do not compare Jesus with "the Angel of The LORD" in the OT. Jehovah's Name is not in Him or on Him-
He is Jehovah ! He sent the angel of Jehovah and put His Name on the angel ! All angels are His and he sends them, and they worship Him !There are so many passages that show this.

Hebrews 1 asks the question: To which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son... ?"
The Son created the angels !
Yeshua is Jehovah, therefore it is proper to say that what Yeshua did, Jehovah did. This is not complicated. "Jesus died" is the same as saying "God died".

Theologians like to complicate things to justify their existence; frankly , we don't need theologians; we need disciples who believe in our LORD Jesus and obey His words.


Andrew,you should practice law or start selling bridges.You would be great at both !

Sorry, I would have to give up so much faith and life to believe what you do that it would require a death on my part. I have been through much in my 51 years- 27 years an ordained minister , husband of a beautiful and wonderful woman,and father of twelve beautiful and wonderful children and Grandfather of two.
I have paid a price for my beliefs and been rejected by several churches after preaching the word for a time. My position has been hammered out on the anvil of trial and opposition and forged in heaven. I cannot deny what God has revealed to me and proven in the lab of life. I have seen Him and heard his voice. I cannot go back.

I still do not understand what your views of the atonement are. What was the atoning work whose merits satisfied the requirements for removing the sins of the world ?


[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb[/font]
Reply
#13
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Firstly, "Burkate" is spelled with a Kaph, not a Khet! <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> Secondly, you have no place telling anyone what Qnoma means if you can't even spell an Aramaic word properly!

Thirdly, it does not come as that big of a surprise to me that you've been rejected by several churches. No Orthodox Christian would tolerate your Eutychian sympathies. This heresy is condemned by all churches that I know of (including the CoE, SOC and RCC.)

My friend, you have a brilliant mind for mathematics and I remain a devoted fan of your research, despite your unorthodox views on the Incarnation of the Word of God.

You stated that the "Incarnation means that God became man" - that's pure heresy, condemned at Chalcedon and other synods in the Eastern Church as well. This matter was settled a long time ago.

The Incarnation does NOT mean that God changed into anything. God remained God, and simply took the form of a servant by taking a temple of humanity from Mary. His Divinity dwelled within the humanity with which He clothed Himself.

It is this humanity that was tempted in the wilderness, that urinated, that defecated, that ate food, that drank water, that bled on the Cross and that lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights. God was not involved in any of those things. God is impassible, eternal and in need of none of those things.

You, sir, worship a "god-man" in the Greek pagan tradition. Orthodox Christianity worships a "God and Man" - there is a BIG difference between the two.

That is the Orthodox definition of the Incarnation - anything else is heresy (and should be kicked out of any church!)

Finally, you ask about atonement. If Meshikha wasn't fully human just as you are fully human, the sacrificial act was worthless and you still remain in your sin. If Meshikha's humanity was "divine" (according to you), then it is not your humanity that was sacrificed, but some freak Frankenstein creature. And therefore you are still lost.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
gbausc Wrote:Akha Paul & Andrew,

Nice try, but I'm not biting on this.

First of all, you both beg the question by assuming that a reference to our Lord's humanity indicates its own qnoma , and then his Deity indicates its own separate and distinct qnoma , so that this Person (and at least we can agree that Yeshua Meshiaka is a Person) has two qnomas.

To you, a qnoma is an occurrence of a nature , therefore, you interpret any mention of a person's nature to have it's qnoma. I do not see a qnoma as anything less than "self", whether animate or inanimate (himself, itself, herself). If in reference to a person, then that self would be a center of consciousness- a mind or a spirit; That would be the person himself.

OKAY AKHI DAVE, NOW YOU'VE DONE IT AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET WHAT'S COMING TO YOU. I HAVE TRIED TO BE GENTLE AND KIND AND YOU HAVE REPAYED ME WITH INSULTS. I ONLY HAVE TWO CHEEKS, AND IT IS ONLY SINCERE REPENTANCE THAT MERITS 70X7. OTHERWISE, AFTER TWO OR THREE ATTEMPTS, WE SHAKE OFF OUR SANDALS.

FIRST OF ALL YOU HAVE SOME MAJOR CHUTZPAH TO GET ON THIS FORUM AND DICTATE TO PAUL AND MYSELF WHAT WORDS IN OUR NATIVE LANGUAGES CAN AND CANNOT MEAN. SECONDLY, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF THAT AS A MINISTER YOU WOULD INSULT ME IN THE MANNER THAT YOU HAVE. ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT? YOU CAME HERE AND ASKED US, AND BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LIKE OUR ANSWER HAVE ACTED EXACTLY LIKE A PAGAN. THIRDLY, YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED THE SCRIPTURE I HAVE POSTED. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO LEARN AND CANNOT DEBATE WITHOUT NAME CALLING, THEN YOU DON'T BELONG HERE.

gbausc Wrote:Two qnome would be two persons; Our Lord never said that He has two qnome; He only refers to one in John 5:26.
(How do you know which qnoma He refers to here? I would think the Divine qnoma already had life in it by its very nature.)

FINE. BUT I DID NOT REALIZE YOU WERE IN A HERETICAL POSITION WHEN I WROTE THIS--THAT YOU WOULD NEED PROOF ON SOMETHING SO BASIC AS TO Y'SHUA'S HUMANITY. THE HUMAN QNOMA OF Y'SHUA IS, AS I HAVE SAID, TAUGHT SYMBOLICALLY IN JOHN 4, LIVING WATER AND PHYSCIAL WATER. ANOTHER PLACE IT APPEARS IS "NOT MY WILL, BUT YOUR WILL FATHER." IF THE HUMAN SIDE OF Y'SHUA IS JUST WINDOW DRESSING, HOW IS IT HE HAS A SEPARATE WILL FROM HIS FATHER AND YET IS ONE WITH HIS FATHER (JOHN 17:11)??? THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT YSHUA IS ONE WITH HIS FATHER YHWH THROUGH THE DIVINE NATURE THAT THEY SHARE, BUT ALSO HE HAS A HUMAN WILL AND A HUMAN QNOMA THAT IS CLEARLY SUBSERVIENT TO THE DIVINE SIDE. ARE YOU A TEACHER OF GENTILES AND UNDERSTAND NOT THESE THINGS?

gbausc Wrote:The incarnation means "God became human". In so doing He had to change His form (Greek has "schemata', from which English derives "schematic") from The Divine to the mortal Human servant. Philippians 2 says that "He divested Himself"; Hebrews 2 says "He became lower than the angels" for the suffering of death. Neither text says that He put on humanity as a cloak.

By the way, if The Son (The Divine qnoma)became lower than the angels for the suffering of death, then that Divine qnoma came to die.
John says "God became flesh", flesh signifying humanity.

He no longer was in The Divine form; His identity was still the same, but no longer was He omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. If we were to believe that He retained all these attributes, then we would have to believe that from infancy, there would have been two centers of consciousness in Him, one that knew all things, and one that knew practically nothing.
That is unthinkable, and is tantamount to saying there were two persons in one body with the same name.

The Council of Chalcedon states
Quote:there is no division between His Natures,
yet I hear and read so much that indicates Christians believe otherwise, including you both.
To say that Jesus suffered in His humanity but not in His Divine being sounds like Multiple Personality Disorder , at the very least. Perhaps it is sheer Gnosticism, which teaches that "He" really is "They".

CHALCIDON WAS A SHAM--YOU KNOW YOU ARE TALKING TO THOSE OF US WHO REJECTED IT RIGHT? THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS WAS ALSO A SHAM, SO DON'T BRING THAT UP EITHER. I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR PEOPLE TO DRAINED THE ORIGINAL SEMITIC VISION OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES AND PUT A GREEK COUNTERFEIT IN ITS PLACE, UNLESS THEY ARE WILLING TO AT LEAST HEAR THINGS OUT. YOUR KIND OF BACKBITING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED THOUGH, I ASSURE YOU.

gbausc Wrote:Prove to me that every living qnoma is not either a "He" or a "She" , and I will listen further to what you have to say on this matter.

PROVE TO US YOU UNDERSTAND ARAMAIC. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL ARCHAIC DEFINTION OF QNOMA AND IF YOU REJECT THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING ARAMAIC SCHOLARS THEN CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR LEARNING HAS EXCEEDED ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER. NOW ALL YOU NEED IS A BUNCH OF CULTIC FOLLOWERS AND A COMPOUND IN THE JUNGLE. YOU TELL US YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF CHURCHES? PERHAPS IT WAS BECAUSE YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE MESSAGE OF 1 CORINTHIANS 13:1-13.

gbausc Wrote:As to 1 Cor. 11:27, Andrew, your explanation is just another example of your sophistry, as I expected. I suppose swine's blood would have done as well for the "Blood of Jehovah" , according to your way of interpreting this passage .
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:"All blood is therefore God's blood."

EXCUSE ME, BUT DID YOU READ MY POST? IS SWINE BLOOD FIT FOR A QORBANA? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I SAID THAT WHAT WAS OFFERED TO YHWH WAS OFFERED BECAUSE IT BELONGED TO YHWH AND WAS SET APART FOR SACRED USE. THE BLOOK OF LAMBS WITH BLEMISHES BELONGS TO YHWH TO, BUT THEY DON'T MAKE AN ACCEPTABLE QORBANA. AND IF YOU THINK THAT THERE IS ONE DROP OF BLOOD OR CENTIMETER OF LAND OR GRAM OF FLESH ON THIS EARTH OR ANYTHING IN HEAVEN THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YHWH, THEN YOU ARE IN SERIOUS ERROR. THAT IS SOPHISTRY, AND A LOT WORSE.

gbausc Wrote:That is an outrage. This does not strike me as the teaching of God's Spirit.

Shelikha Paul is discussing the blood and body of God and those who partake of the bread and wine unworthily , thus eating and drinking damnation , not discerning Jehovah's body , and you have the audacity to say that the "blood of Jehovah" simply means all blood is His blood, because He has no blood of His own ?

EXCUSE ME AGAIN, BUT DO YOU KNOW A SEMITIC IDIOM WHEN YOU READ IT? CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT BLOOD AND WINE AND OTHER THINGS ARE METAPHORIC IN SUCH A CASE? IS LIVING WATER A LITERAL REFERENCE OR IS IT SYMBOLIC OF ETERNAL LIFE? WHY THEN CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE BLOOD OF YHWH IS SYMBOLIC OF THE DIVNE NATURE THAT GIVES ETERNAL LIFE? YOU THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN READ AND HIGHLIGHT A LITTLE ESTRANGELA THAT SUCH A THING PROVES TO US YOU ARE AN ARAMAIC SCHOLAR? IF YOU CAN'T GET THE IDIOMS DOWN, PLEASE DON'T COMPOUND IT WITH THE AUDACITY TO LECTURE US. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THE WINE AT THE LAST SUPPER IS LITERAL BLOOD, WHEN Y'SHUA SIMPLY SAYS, "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."

IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC, THEN WHY HAVE YOU NOT PLUCKED OUT YOUR EYE WHEN YOU SINNED LAST? WHY DID YOU NOT HANDLE SNAKES AND DRINK DEADLY POISON AS IT SUGGESTS IN MARK 16? IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE SELECTIVE AT WHAT YOU SEE AS IDIOMATIC AND WHAT YOU DO NOT, AND THE FIRST MISTAKE ANY NOVICE AT ARAMAIC MAKES IS OVER-LITERALISM. GET BEYOND THE DICTIONARIES AND SEE THE TRUTH.

gbausc Wrote:Here is a passage that says "Jehovah's blood" , and we are to believe you when you flatly contradict the word of God ? If Paul meant that Jehovah had no blood, he had one hell of a way of saying it !

WHO IS JEHOVAH? I KNOW YHWH, AND THAT "JEHOVAH" IS SIMPLY A BAD MANGLING OF YHWH'S CONSONANTS WITH THE VOWELS OF ADONAI. WHY DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

gbausc Wrote:Surely he could have used the phrase , "The Blood of Yeshua" , or "the blood of Meshika", so as not to confuse the unlearned.

AND SURELY YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED. I SAY IT AGAIN, WHEN ANYTHING BECOMES A QORBANA--AND I MEAN THAT WHICH IS WORTHY TO BE SO--THAT BEING AND THAT BLOOD BELONGS TO YHWH. WHY IS THIS NOT CLEAR? DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT WHEN YHWH DEDICATED A CITY FOR DESTRUCTION IT WAS GIVEN COMPLETELY TO HIM AS A QORBANA. THE LAMB'S BLOOD BELONGS TO YHWH. THE BLOOD OF MESSIAH BELONGS TO YHWH. IF IT IS QORBANA, IT BELONGS TO YHWH. MAYBE IF I REPEAT MYSELF TEN TIMES ON THE MATTER YOU WILL GET IT. I TRIED BEING PATIENT WITH YOU AND ALL I GOT WAS INSULTS.

gbausc Wrote:He wrote ,"The blood of Jehovah".That means what it says. Jehovah shed His blood for the sins of the world, is the message of the Lord's supper.

JEHOVAH DID NOTHING (JOSHUA 23:7, ISAIAH 42:8). YHWH ALLOWED HIS SON TO SACRIFICE HIMSELF. IF YHWH DIED FOR THREE DAYS THEN THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE STOPPED RUNNING. THE MESSAGE OF THE TORAH AND THE NT IS THAT SIN IS WORTHY OF DEATH AND WE NEED A PERFECT SACRIFICE TO DIE IN OUR PLACE. YHWH DOES NOT EVER DIE--NOT FOR A MOMENT. HIS VERY NAME MEANS "THE ETERNAL", BUT I SUPPOSE YOU IN YOUR MINSTERIAL STUDIES FORGOT THAT TOO.

gbausc Wrote:You are really struggling to defend the indefensible here.

God Himself , in The Person of Marya Yeshua, made the sacrifice for sin with His own blood and His own death for all mankind.That is what the gospel is.Nothing less would avail for the atonement of the sins of the world- Glory to His Name, Hallelu-JAH !


If that is Paul's meaning in Cor. , what's the problem with "God's blood" in Acts 20:28 ? Is not all blood God's blood in Acts as in 1 Cor. 11:27 ?

NO, NO, NO AND NO, RESPECTIVELY. KNOW WHEN BLOOD IS LITERAL AND WHEN IT IS NOT AND MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE TO SAY.

gbausc Wrote:And please do not compare Jesus with "the Angel of The LORD" in the OT. Jehovah's Name is not in Him or on Him-
He is Jehovah ! He sent the angel of Jehovah and put His Name on the angel ! All angels are His and he sends them, and they worship Him !There are so many passages that show this.

YOU STILL SHOW THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT QNOMA IS. THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME, AND THAT IS YHWH, AND HE GAVE IT TO HIS SON. OTHERWISE, I GUESS YOUR BIBLE HAS THE PASSAGE OF JOHN 17:11 AND HEBREWS 1:3 TORN OUT.

gbausc Wrote:Hebrews 1 asks the question: To which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son... ?"
The Son created the angels !

FIRSTBORN OF CREATION. DO YOU KNOW THE WORD ALSO MEANS "MESSENGER"?

gbausc Wrote:Yeshua is Jehovah, therefore it is proper to say that what Yeshua did, Jehovah did. This is not complicated. "Jesus died" is the same as saying "God died".

ONLY IN THAT THEY SHARED THE SAME NATURE. Y'SHUA THE MAN HAD TO DIE. MEN DIE, NOT YHWH.

gbausc Wrote:Theologians like to complicate things to justify their existence; frankly , we don't need theologians; we need disciples who believe in our LORD Jesus and obey His words.

WE DON'T NEED MINISTERS WHO INSULT PEOPLE AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY.

gbausc Wrote:Andrew,you should practice law or start selling bridges.You would be great at both !

I'M NOT LAUGHING.

gbausc Wrote:Sorry, I would have to give up so much faith and life to believe what you do that it would require a death on my part. I have been through much in my 51 years- 27 years an ordained minister , husband of a beautiful and wonderful woman,and father of twelve beautiful and wonderful children and Grandfather of two.

DON'T BELIEVE ME. YOU ARE STUBBORN AND STIFFNECKED AND TOO SET IN YOUR WAYS TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE NO WISH TO CONVERT YOU TO A SINGLE POINT. GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE AND LEAVE IT BE.

gbausc Wrote:I have paid a price for my beliefs and been rejected by several churches after preaching the word for a time. My position has been hammered out on the anvil of trial and opposition and forged in heaven. I cannot deny what God has revealed to me and proven in the lab of life. I have seen Him and heard his voice. I cannot go back.

I SEE, SO YOU DO WISH TO BE A CULTIC LEADER. ONLY YOUR REVELATION IS CORRECT. THANKS FOR COMING THEN TO ENLIGHTEN US. DON'T LET THE SCREEN DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT.

gbausc Wrote:I still do not understand what your views of the atonement are. What was the atoning work whose merits satisfied the requirements for removing the sins of the world ?

Y'SHUA WAS THE FULL EMBODIMENT OF THE GODHEAD, THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE ELOHIM, THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF YHWH'S NATURE. BUT HE WAS ALSO THE SON OF MAN. HIS DIVINE SIDE WAS SEPARATE WHOLLY FROM HIS HUMAN ONE, RESULTING IN SEPARATE WILLS AND SEPARATE WATERS. ONLY BY HIS HUMAN SIDE VOLUNTARILY LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE (JOHN 10) AND KEEPING HIS FATHER'S COMMANDS TO ABIDE PERFECTLY IN YHWH'S LOVE COULD THE ATONEMENT BE MADE. IF YHWH IS SIMPLY KILLING HIMSELF, THEN THERE IS NO SUCH VOLUNTARY COMPONENT AND YOUR FAITH IS WORTHLESS. WE HERE AT PESHITTA.ORG BELIEVE THAT A MAN WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD BY THE POWER OF YHWH TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS MESSIAH AND YHWH HIMSELF.

TAKE A SHVITZ DAVE.

ZIL GEMOR! (LOOK IT UP)
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#15
Akha Paul,

Thankyou for correcting my spelling; I hate incorrect spelling in any language; I admit I am not an expert in Aramaic; I am quite good at NT Greek and French; Hebrew to a lesser extent.

Yes , I am a heretic, by most Church Council standards; I hope to die a heretic. I would very disappointed in myself if I don't. I want to follow Him who said, "Take up your cross and follow Me." "If the world hated me , it will hate you also." "Woe to you when all speak well of you; blessed are ye when men shall hate you, persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you, falsely for my sake..."

All I have done was to express my position and now I am told, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Andrew seems a bit sensitive and thin skinned. That's OK, I can take banishment; I would rejoice all the more for Christ's sake.

I may be mistaken about some things; I have been wrong before; I am honest about what I believe and constantly ask The Father for His guidance and wisdom, and implicitly believe in His word.

I have found that many who profess faith in Christ and God have never known either in a personal sense. Doctrine and works of righteousness which we have done can never save us- only being born of the Spirit from above can do that.

I say you are ignorant of God; I say Andrew is ignorant of God. I will trust your future salvation to Him. He has made provision for it and for all men in His own time.

I wish you well; I will not post any more; You may remove my forum and posts if you wish. I do not sense any liberty with you guys; I sense a sectarian legalism and censorship of speech and ideas. God's spirit cannot abide in such a mind.

You would persecute The Son of Man if he were in the flesh on earth today; indeed , He is in the flesh on earth today and you do persecute Him as did the Scribes and Pharisees of the first century.
Yes , you persecute Him for telling you the truth of God and challenging your false doctrine.

I know you will ridicule me even more for writing these words and mock me for them.

You might take pause before you do so, if you believe the words, "He that receives him that I send receives me; He that rejects him that I send, rejects Me also."

All the best followers of Christ are heretics and fools; They are His representatives , as He died as a heretic and fool.
Beware what you do to us; If Satan has his way, you will let your hate possess you and go on a full fledged attack against God in the name of your religion, as did Saul of Tarsus.

Perhaps that is the best way; perhaps you will meet him on the road to Damascus when He knocks you off your high horse and gives you the blinding light of His presence and truth.


Of course, I may be crazy, as you think; but what if I am right ? Jesus was thought to be crazy by His brothers; Paul was thought mad by Festus.I also have the Spirit of God;

If you believe I am a heretic and deceiver, say out loud that I am a child of Satan, and see what happens to you.

Amen & Amen


Dave B
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)