Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Qnoma?...definition
#31
Shlomo oh David,

I don't mean to barge in, but the quote "They shall gaze upon Me Whom they have pierced..." is a figurative speach. The "pierced" means those that have "hurt him", not in a physicall way, but by comiting sin.

We say it all the time, and there are equivalent english expressions:
ex:
You've hurt me ....
You've wounded me ...

As you know these expressions don't mean it in a physicall sense all the time, but in a figurative sense.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon


gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Paul,

You admit that even Aramaic speaking Christians differ widely on the meaning of "qnoma", as they differ widely in their theologies.
we wrote:
Quote:gbausc wrote:

The "two qnomas of Christ" bothers me , because I cannot find it in The Peshitta.


Sure you can - you can even find it in the English. When Meshikha forgave sins, that was the Divine Qnoma. When He was tempted by Satan, that was the Human Qnoma.

Do you need it to explicitly say "Meshikha had two qnome, one Divine and one Human?" What we are talking about is the mystery of the Incarnation - something that is, essentially, ineffable.

I don't wish to split hairs with you. We've argued about this for 15 centuries.

Come now, Paul , we haven't argued quite that long yet ! :D

Seriously, I should expect to find something more definitive in scripture, if only two verses- one stating Jesus has a human qnoma , and another somewhere stating He has a divine qnoma. Any verse that states He has two qnome (which, you must admit, is rather unusual), would clear this up.And given the uniqueness of this supposed phenomenon of two qnome in one Person, I should expect such a statement in scripture before I accept it as church doctrine.That would clinch the matter. As it is, there are no such statements.

I do not accept any division in Meshikha; Personally, I believe His Deity is human and His Humanity Divine- one nature , one qnoma , one person , and that those three are One ! (Talk about oneness !)
I find it strange that some (not yourself) believe in God's absolute unity (singularity,really) and yet put Yeshua Meshikha on a disection board and separate Him into 2 keyana , 2 qnome and a parsopa - 5 parts !

This kind of attitude should embarass anyone , at the very least, who claims to know, love and worship The LORD Meshikha. Personally, I find it impertinent and arrogant in the extreme. The gnostics engaged in "Christ splitting", dividing His human and Divine natures and going so far as to say that Yeshua was a mere man and The Meshikha was a Divine emanation who dwelt in Yeshua.

As you know, John wrote his major epistle to refute this heresy. "This is He that came through water and blood, Yeshua Meshikha" There was no part of Him untouched by the events of baptism and crucifixion.

Can Jehovah not suffer ? "They shall gaze upon Me Whom they have pierced..." , saith Jehovah.

Will God judge me for believing this ? Far be it ! I would rather fear that I should take part in piercing Him again by my ignorance and impassiveness toward His suffering.


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

Dave B
Reply
#32
Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Surely you know that this text is quoted in John 19:37 concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. The crucifixion was hardly figurative !

Dave B
Reply
#33
shlomo,

The Old Testament in regards to God is one thing, and in the case of the Crucifixion is another. Like I said it could figurative, or real.

When I was a kid and I told my cousin that you pierced me, I surely wasn't saying it in the real sense of the word, but I was using a figurative speach.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Surely you know that this text is quoted in John 19:37 concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. The crucifixion was hardly figurative !

Dave B
Reply
#34
Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:You admit that even Aramaic speaking Christians differ widely on the meaning of "qnoma", as they differ widely in their theologies.

Admit? What was there to admit? The matter is public record for the last 15 centuries! That you are personally discovering it now is an altogether different matter!

I also quoted the world's pre-eminent Aramaic scholar, who demonstrated (in front of the delegates of the SOC) that their understanding of Qnoma changed, while the understanding of the CoE remained the original, archaic meaning.

Do you have any proof contradicting Prof. Brock's testimony? If so, I would love to see it....since apparently, you know more about Aramaic than native speakers or professors who have studied it their entire career!

You could have been useful to the delegates of the SoC at Pro-Oriente, because they had nothing to say when Prof. Brock presented his solid evidence!

gbausc Wrote:Come now, Paul , we haven't argued quite that long yet ! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

<!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

gbausc Wrote:Seriously, I should expect to find something more definitive in scripture, if only two verses- one stating Jesus has a human qnoma , and another somewhere stating He has a divine qnoma. Any verse that states He has two qnome (which, you must admit, is rather unusual), would clear this up.And given the uniqueness of this supposed phenomenon of two qnome in one Person, I should expect such a statement in scripture before I accept it as church doctrine.That would clinch the matter. As it is, there are no such statements.

You didn't read my explanation about psyche. You also mention the "uniqueness of this supposed phenomenon of two qnome in one Person" - yet you fail to realize that the Incarnation is a unique phenomenon, indeed. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

gbausc Wrote:I do not accept any division in Meshikha; Personally, I believe His Deity is human and His Humanity Divine- one nature , one qnoma , one person , and that those three are One ! (Talk about oneness !)

Then you believe in the Eutychian heresy condemned by the council of Chalcedon.

gbausc Wrote:I find it strange that some (not yourself) believe in God's absolute unity (singularity,really) and yet put Yeshua Meshikha on a disection board and separate Him into 2 keyana , 2 qnome and a parsopa - 5 parts !

And I find it strange that you (yourself) believe in three "persons" in God! That you have disected God and made Him into three different "persons" (in the English sense, of course!)

gbausc Wrote:As you know, John wrote his major epistle to refute this heresy. "This is He that came through water and blood, Yeshua Meshikha" There was no part of Him untouched by the events of baptism and crucifixion.

Then you apparently believed that God was dead for three days. Oh my.

gbausc Wrote:Can Jehovah not suffer ? "They shall gaze upon Me Whom they have pierced..." , saith Jehovah.

That they pierced the object of the Incarnation means that Jehova suffered? Aren't you stretching things a tad bit?

gbausc Wrote:Will God judge me for believing this ? Far be it ! I would rather fear that I should take part in piercing Him again by my ignorance and impassiveness toward His suffering.

Whether or not God will judge you is up to him, to me you are a fellow brother in Meshikha who is unfortunately unwilling to allow the Aramaic language to be itself.

As for the Eutychian heresy, the CoE condemned it in rather wise words:

Synodicon Oriental Wrote:???The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally.???

As did the Western Church during the council of Chalcedon:

Council of Chalcedon Wrote:Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

And scholars think there are no more Eutychians left in the world! You should write to them and let them know the movement is still around!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#35
Akhi Dave,

Just curious - how exactly did the universe hold up for those 3 days while, according to you, God was dead?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#36
shlama habr Paul,

what did you thing about my understanding which I gave in my earlier post concerning qnoma, etc...?

bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#37
Shlama Lakh Khabibi Abudar,

abudar2000 Wrote:Your definitions have intrigued me, so let see if I fully understand this:

Human kyana (Nature) -> Nature in this case being Abstract and generic to a group of the same type.

Yes, "nature" is by definition an abstract concept (it doesn't physically exist.) I.e., the "nature of man", the "nature of God", the "nature of fish", etc.

abudar2000 Wrote:Qnoma -> An individual nature, which is distinct from others of the same nature.

Yes, but distinct only in number. It has no distinguishing characteristics that make up a "person." Other than number, it is exactly the same as other qnomas in the same Kyana. (therefore, all three Qnome of Alaha are the same)

abudar2000 Wrote:Naphsha -> The actual spirit of this qnoma (more than one qnoma can exit in one soul), entering the person and animating this person. Each soul is unique to one person.

Yes, the Napsha is the "life-breath" which animates the body. So Alaha "breathed" into Adam and he became a "Napsha" (Genesis)

abudar2000 Wrote:Parsupha -> The actual person which contains this animated soul. As such the soul gives the final shape/form of the person.
Each person is unique.

Yes, a "parsopa" contains all the distinguishing characteristics which makes you and I different.

abudar2000 Wrote:So when God said that he knew Daniel before he was born, then God is saying that he knew his naphsha (soul), which consisted of his qnoma (qnoma being his individuated nature, from the rest of the human nature). As such when when the animated soul entered Daniel's person, it animated his person based on Daniel's soul image.

Yes, that is a good way of explaining it.

abudar2000 Wrote:I guess the same would apply to Adam, when God said that He brought him to life by breading through his nostral, knowing that the word naphsha originaly meant breadth.

Absolutely. That is why "napsha" can not be the cognate of the English "self", because the English words does not contain all the same "word imagery" as does the original Aramiac term.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#38
Shlama Akhi George,

george Wrote:So in the Aramaic psyche I can or "must" go:

1. From abstract human nature to/through "individuated" human Qnoma to concrete human Person, and

Yes.

george Wrote:2. From abstract divine nature to/through "individuated" divine Qnoma to concrete divine Person.

No. There is no such thing as a Divine Person. We do not speak of God as a "person", because a "person" means that you are physical.

We speak of the subject of the Incarnation, Meshikha, as a "person" because he had both a human nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) as well as a Divine nature(abstract)-qnoma(concrete) in one "person" and was born of a woman - he materialized here on earth among us and became a person like us.

But that does not mean that God is a "person" - God is three Qnome and not a "Person."

In the person of Meshikha, one Divine Qnoma (out f three) was joined together with one human qnoma (out of billions) to form a single "person", who was the subject of the Incarnation and the object of our worship.

The Father never became a Parsopa, neither did the Holy Spirit. These two Qnome remained distinct from the Qnoma of the Son which took for itself a body from us as a temple (Yukhanan 1:1), and thus became a "person."

When we speak of the Godhead, we speak of spiritual things and not physical things.

george Wrote:Appreciate your confirmation, and thereafter most probably I would raise a question.

No problem, raise away!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#39
shlomo oh Paul,

abudar2000 Wrote:Qnoma -> An individual nature, which is distinct from others of the same nature.

Paul Wrote:Yes, but distinct only in number. It has no distinguishing characteristics that make up a "person." Other than number, it is exactly the same as other qnomas in the same Kyana. (therefore, all three Qnome of Alaha are the same)

So the individuated qnoma in this case is a reserved section of the abstract human nature, which is reserved so that it can be animated in the naphsha of a unique person.

shlome wiqore malpon,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#40
shlomo habr Paul,

So we've determined that in the abstract human nature there are individuated qnoma.

But in the case of God the Divine nature which has three qnoma (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) all three qnoma are not individuated, but function as one, and have manifested in these three different ways of interacting with humanity.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#41
abudar2000 Wrote:shlomo habr Paul,

So we've determined that in the abstract human nature there are individuated qnoma.

But in the case of God the Divine nature which has three qnoma (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) all three qnoma are not individuated, but function as one, and have manifested in these three different ways of interacting with humanity.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Think of it this way:

Human Kyana~Abstract Nature: Blueprint - must have 46 chromosomes. Must have a gender of male or female. Must have two eyes, two arms, two legs, etc. The blueprint for everything a human is supposed to be. Abstract, not real.

Human Qnoma~Concrete, Real, Individuated Kyana: This is an individuated (real, concrete) Kyana. There exists billions of them that are identical. All are equal, except in number (i.e., Qnoma number 1 is not Qnoma number 2). They cannot be distinguished except by instance (number).

Human Parsopa~Person: Peter, Paul, Mary. Each one is a different person. Because the Kyana states that a human must have 46 chromosomes, all three people have 46 chromosomes - but each one has different combinations of genes which makes them unique.

Because the Kyana states that a human must have two eyes - Peter, Paul and Mary each have two eyes. However, Paul's eyes are brown while Peter's eyes are green and Mary's eyes are blue. Each one has personal characteristics that make each person unique.

Think of it also this way:

Here is the human Kyana:

(1) not real, only abstract (so no image)
(2) a human must have two arms,
(3) a human must have two legs,
(4) a human must have 46 chromosomes,
(5) etc.

Here is my family's human Qnomas:
[Image: cookiecutter.bmp][Image: cookiecutter.bmp][Image: cookiecutter.bmp]

Here are our human Parsopas:
[Image: younanfamily.jpg]
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#42
shlomo oh Paul,

Tawdi Saggi!

So the persons "ithutho" is then made from the genetic material contributed by the mother and the father, and this "ithutho" is shaped by a genetic mix from the mother and father, and also by the animated "naphsha" which gives form and life to the "parsupo".

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#43
Akhi Paul,

I never said God was dead for three days. His death was eternal.
Reply
#44
gbausc Wrote:Akhi Paul,

I never said God was dead for three days. His death was eternal.

Oh. How exactly did the universe hold up for all of eternity while, according to you, God was dead?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#45
shlomo oh Paul,

In a previous post I stated:

keefa-moroon Wrote:But in the case of God the Divine nature which has three qnoma (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) all three qnoma are not individuated, but function as one, and have manifested in these three different ways of interacting with humanity.

Does this work for the Divine?

bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)