Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Acts 20:28
#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


Messages In This Thread
Acts 20:28 - by judge - 09-30-2003, 09:47 PM
Re: Acts 20:28 - by Paul Younan - 09-30-2003, 11:42 PM
Re: Acts 20:28 - by Craig - 10-01-2003, 09:46 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 10-02-2003, 12:32 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 04-05-2004, 06:45 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 04-05-2004, 08:42 PM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 04-06-2004, 12:07 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 04-06-2004, 05:15 PM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 04-07-2004, 12:23 AM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 04-07-2004, 02:28 AM
Hey Akhi Dave... - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 04-07-2004, 03:45 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 04-07-2004, 02:21 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 04-07-2004, 04:02 PM
Now you've done it - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 04-07-2004, 09:23 PM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 04-08-2004, 12:37 AM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 04-08-2004, 02:32 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)