Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Qnoma

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #923
Help Print Share

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

Qnoma

Mar-03-2002 at 10:02 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shlama Akhi Don (w'Kulkhon),

I would like to start this thread by pretending that we've invented a new English word - Qnoma. This word does not have any synonyms nor does it exist in any other language.

In fact, this new word even defines a thought that previously was non-existant in English. It's truly a new concept.

In order to begin to define this new word - I'd like to define what it's not in very concise and precise terminology. For this I will use two words in the English language that are closest to Qnoma in meaning, and which have been erroneously substituted for Qnoma in the past.

Those two words are Nature and Person.

Qnoma vs. Nature

Nature is abstract, general and universal - but Qnoma is specific.

"Humanity" and "Divinity" are examples of the abstract and generic concept of Nature. Thus, "Divinity" is the Nature of God and "Humanity" the Nature of man.

A Qnoma refers to an individuated (though not necessarily self-existent) manifestation of a generic Nature. Nature is an abstract thought. Qnoma is a concrete reality - it is incommunicable. Qnoma cannot be divided. Once divided it ceases to be that Qnoma.

When you speak of Nature - the mind encompasses all. When you speak of Qnoma - the mind embraces only one.

Therefore you and I, both being humans, have human Qnome that are indistinguishable (except in number) from one another.

Qnoma vs. Person

Therefore Qnoma is not Person. Qnoma is never Person.

Person is that by which those Qnome (yours and mine) are distinguished - by which our common Qnome are individualized.

Any questions before I go on?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

  • RE: Qnoma, StephenSilver, Mar-03-2002 at 05:22 PM, (1)
    • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-03-2002 at 05:51 PM, (2)
      • RE: Qnoma, StephenSilver, Mar-04-2002 at 07:20 AM, (3)
        • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-04-2002 at 07:38 AM, (4)
          • RE: Qnoma, StephenSilver, Mar-04-2002 at 10:00 AM, (5)
            • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-04-2002 at 07:47 PM, (11)
            • RE: Qnoma, StephenSilver, Mar-27-2002 at 08:53 AM, (38)
              • RE: Qnoma, StephenSilver, Mar-27-2002 at 06:13 PM, (39)
          • RE: Qnoma, John Marucci, Mar-04-2002 at 10:11 AM, (7)
            • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-04-2002 at 06:01 PM, (8)
            • Maronites, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-04-2002 at 07:14 PM, (10)
  • RE: Qnoma, John Marucci, Mar-04-2002 at 10:00 AM, (6)
    • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-04-2002 at 06:46 PM, (9)
      • RE: Qnoma, Keith, Mar-10-2002 at 04:55 PM, (15)
        • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-10-2002 at 10:10 PM, (17)
  • RE: Qnoma, ValiantForTruth, Mar-09-2002 at 09:33 AM, (14)
    • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-10-2002 at 05:30 PM, (16)
    • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-10-2002 at 10:43 PM, (18)
      • RE: Qnoma, ValiantForTruth, Mar-12-2002 at 06:41 AM, (19)
        • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-12-2002 at 08:31 AM, (20)
          • RE: Qnoma, Iakov, Mar-12-2002 at 08:55 PM, (21)
          • RE: Qnoma, ValiantForTruth, Mar-14-2002 at 10:41 AM, (22)
            • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-14-2002 at 07:36 PM, (23)
            • John 3:13, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-14-2002 at 10:15 PM, (24)
              • RE: John 3:13, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-14-2002 at 10:19 PM, (25)
              • RE: Qnoma, ValiantForTruth, Mar-19-2002 at 05:28 PM, (36)
                • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-19-2002 at 05:42 PM, (37)
            • Obedience, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-15-2002 at 01:39 AM, (26)
  • RE: Qnoma, jaza, Mar-17-2002 at 06:33 PM, (34)
    • RE: Qnoma, Paul Younanmoderator, Mar-19-2002 at 01:48 AM, (35)
 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: Qnoma

Mar-03-2002 at 05:22 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
The Lexical Concordance defines the word, "q'noma", as "person, individual, substance". However, it does not use the word "existence". Now, I'm hearing you, and I agree with you that "q'noma" cannot mean "person". So the Lexical Concordance is "wrong". Am I correct to preclude this? "Partzopa" means "person", and the Lexical Concordance shows this to be the case. How am I doing so far?

Sh'lama w'Burkate,
Stephen Silver.

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

2. RE: Qnoma

Mar-03-2002 at 05:51 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Mar-03-2002 at 06:37 PM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

You are absolutely correct - the Lexicon is wrong. However, it's not mine and I cannot change it. Dr. Kiraz has explicitly stated that it may be used as long as no change is made to its contents. For your information, Dr. Kiraz is an adherent of the SOC which in part explains why the Lexicon contains the definition of "Person" for Qnoma. You see, for the SOC the meaning changed after prolonged time in the Byzantine Empire, where Qnoma became a synonym of the Greek 'hypostasis.' But in the East this word retained its archaic definition and never changed. As you can tell, my hands are "tied" and I can't do anything about the Lexicon except to tell you here.

In Aramaic the word for "Person" is 0pwsrp (Parsopa).

The Aramaic word for "Nature" is 0nyk ("Keyana.")

The Aramaic word 0mwnq ("Qnoma") has no direct Greek or English equivalent and should therefore not be translated, but only transliterated and understood within the Aramaic context I've explained in the above post.

We never equate Qnoma with Parsopa - NEVER. In the Godhead there are 3 Qnome, but we do not define those 3 as "persons!" God is One.

Likewise, in the Incarnation of the Messiah there are two Qnome - one of Alaha and one of Mankind. The mystery of the Incarnation is in the unity of these 2 Qnome in the one Parsopa of Meshikha. But it's no mystery that He is two Qnome (divine and human) in one Parsopa.

We never ascribe suffering or death to the divine Qnoma of the Incarnation. Neither do we ascribe the ability to forgive sins to the human Qnoma of the Incarnation.

As Mar Bawai explains, each Kyana (nature) is preserved in its own Qnuma (not translated), united mysteriously in one Parsopa whom we call Meshikha.

Hebrews 1:3, when read with this deep undestanding of Aramaic terminology, is sublime and awe-inspiring.

Paul says "b'Qnumeh" - in His (human) Qnoma. This is not describing God being "seated" at the right of God. There's no literal "seating" happening. "Seated at the right side" is understood idiomatically in Semitic thought as - "Having found favor." Our human Qnoma, taken by the Messiah, has found favor with God after the sacrificial act.

It is the human Qnoma, which God took from our own, which is presented to Him and "seated at His right side." It is the human Qnoma which has sacrificially purified our sins. It is the human Qnoma with which He has redeemed our Nature (kyana) from its fallen state in the Garden of Eden. He made a habitation among us. The Miltha of Alaha became flesh and dwelt among us.

"Let, therefore, Sebalius be ashamed and let Arius be confounded."

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 07:20 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Considering that a definition or "translation" of Q'NOMA is not forthcoming, is it possible to draw a "parallel understanding" (much like a cognate) with EH'YEH ASHER EH'YEH, (Exodus 3:14), roughly translated as "I AM THAT/WHO I AM"?

In "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary", it would appear that the same problem arises with the definition of Q'NOMA, being rendered as,
Mwnq (singular) or 0mwnq (pleural)
a) "hypostasis, substance, actual existence",
b) "a person, individual, the individual self".

This seems to follow the same "reasoning" as the Lexical Concordance, by George Kiraz, of the SOC.

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver.

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 07:38 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

> Considering that a definition
>or "translation" of Q'NOMA is
>not forthcoming, is it possible
>to draw a "parallel understanding"
>(much like a cognate) with
>EH'YEH ASHER EH'YEH, (Exodus 3:14),
>roughly translated as "I AM
>THAT/WHO I AM"?

In an abstract type of way, it is possible to equate the two thoughts.

>
>In "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary", it
>would appear that the same
>problem arises with the definition
>of Q'NOMA, being rendered as,
>
>Mwnq (singular) or >face="Estrangelo (V1.1)"size="5"]0mwnq (pleural)
>a) "hypostasis, substance, actual existence",
>b) "a person, individual, the individual
>self".
>
>This seems to follow the same
>"reasoning" as the Lexical Concordance,
>by George Kiraz, of the
>SOC.
>

Did the Serto script in the Compendious Dictionary (used exclusively by the SOC) tip you off?

I know - it's lamentable that more sources from the eastern tradition are not as readily available as ones from the western tradition are.

We can credit the massacres, that happened on average every 50 years, for that.

It's not easy to carry a library when running from the sword of fanatical mullahs.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 10:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Excellent! This is beginning to gel!


>Shlama Akhi Stephen,
>
>> Considering that a definition
>>or "translation" of Q'NOMA is
>>not forthcoming, is it possible
>>to draw a "parallel understanding"
>>(much like a cognate) with
>>EH'YEH ASHER EH'YEH, (Exodus 3:14),
>>roughly translated as "I AM
>>THAT/WHO I AM"?
>
>In an abstract type of way,
>it is possible to equate
>the two thoughts.
>

Stephen Silver wrote:
This is all that I was hoping for. Now, this opens up a way to link the appropriate understanding of Q'NOMA with the TaNaK, without relying upon a "translation", which as you have pointed out is not appropriate with such a word as Q'NOMA.

>>
>>In "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary", it
>>would appear that the same
>>problem arises with the definition
>>of Q'NOMA, being rendered as,
>>
>>Mwnq (singular) or >>face="Estrangelo (V1.1)"size="5"]0mwnq (pleural)
>>a) "hypostasis, substance, actual existence",
>>b) "a person, individual, the individual
>>self".
>>
>>This seems to follow the same
>>"reasoning" as the Lexical Concordance,
>>by George Kiraz, of the
>>SOC.
>>
>
>Did the Serto script in the
>Compendious Dictionary (used exclusively by
>the SOC) tip you off?
>

Stephen Silver wrote:
No. I didn't know that the Serto Script was used exclusively by the SOC. I can't imagine anyone "favouring" that "squiggly script".


>I know - it's lamentable that
>more sources from the eastern
>tradition are not as readily
>available as ones from the
>western tradition are.
>
>We can credit the massacres, that
>happened on average every 50
>years, for that.
>
>It's not easy to carry a
>library when running from the
>sword of fanatical mullahs.

Stephen Silver wrote:
How about a "PALM PILOT", and a special rate on long-distance, just to keep in touch. Just a thought!

>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org

Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

11. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 07:47 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

> This is all that
>I was hoping for. Now,
>this opens up a way
>to link the appropriate understanding
>of Q'NOMA with the TaNaK,
>without relying upon a "translation",
>which as you have pointed
>out is not appropriate with
>such a word as Q'NOMA.

Very little in Hebrew or Aramaic has a direct cognate in Greek or English. Sometimes we make the best of it we can while translating - but there are some words in Aramaic for which even a comparable thought is completely missing in English. Not only we can't define it with an English word - we have to introduce a completely new thought.

It's the same way in reverse. There are words and thoughts in English that simply have no direct cognate in any of the Semitic languages.

That's why translations are imperfect.

>Stephen Silver wrote:
> No. I didn't know
>that the Serto Script was
>used exclusively by the SOC.
>I can't imagine anyone "favouring"
>that "squiggly script".

"Serto" literally means "scatch." It's purposeful in that it's easy to write in hand-writing style. Horrible on the eyes though - and in the east it never took hold.

Our modern eastern script is called "Swadaya" ("contemporary") and looks a lot more like Estrangelo than Serto does. Only 5 Swadaya letters are slightly different from the Estrangelo.


>How about a "PALM PILOT", and
>a special rate on long-distance,
>just to keep in touch.
>Just a thought!

I wish.

Computer technology came along about 2,000 years too late to save all our stuff.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

38. RE: Qnoma

Mar-27-2002 at 08:53 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Sh'lama Kulkon:
Here is the list of the 15 known uses of 0mwnq in the Peshitta. A careful study of the use of the word, in all it's forms, gives us a better understanding of it's intrinsic meaning.

LUKE 11:17 hmwnq
YUKHANAN 5:26 hmwnqb , 5:26 hmwnqb , 6:53 Jwkmwnqb
ROMANS 1:27 Jwhmwnqb , 9:3 Ymwnq
I CORINTHIANS 6:7 Jwkmwnq , 9:27 Ymwnq
II CORINTHIANS 12:15 Ymwnq
EPHESIANS 2:15 hmwnqb
COLOSSIANS 2:15 hmwnqb
I THESSALONIANS 4:9 Jwkmwnq
HEBREWS 1:3 hmwnqb , 9:28 hmwnqbw , 10:1 0mwnq

Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

Print Top
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

39. RE: Qnoma

Mar-27-2002 at 06:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #38
 
Sh'lama Kulkon:
Here are the first five,known uses of 0mwnq in the Peshitta. A careful study of the use of the word, in all it's forms, gives us a better understanding of it's intrinsic meaning.

LUKE 11:17 hmwnq
Yahshua uses "gezara sheva/equivalence of expression" in this verse, between;
1)a kingdom that is divided against it's "naphshah/soul".
2)a house separated from it's "q'numah/underlying substance/foundation".

YUKHANAN 5:26 hmwnqb , 5:26 hmwnqb ;
Here is a "double use" of "q'numah", to show a "parallel existence", that exists between Father and Son.

YUKHANAN 6:53 Jwkmwnqb
If we follow the same "pattern of use", Yahshua makes a direct connection between "His body and blood", and "life in q'numa". This could be understood as an "extension" of Yukhanan 5:26. In otherwords, 6:53 is a progressive thought, built upon the orderly use of the word, in Luke 11:17, and Yukhanan 5:26.

ROMANS 1:27 Jwhmwnqb ,
Paul elucidates on what happens when "the foundation" is not right. The result is "receiving (in their q'numa) righteous recompence". Using the symbolism of "foundation/underlying substance", there is a clear parallel to, "a house built upon sand",(Matthew 7:24-28).

I will stop here and invite comments.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>Stephen Silver


Print Top
John Marucci
 
Send email to John MarucciSend private message to John MarucciAdd John Marucci to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 10:11 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Akhi Paul,

Actually, Serto is also used by the Maronites and Syrian Catholics. The Maronites believe they have been a distinct group since the 5th century, and were never SOC. (Some Western scholars dispute this.) So, it would be more true to say Serto is a Western script.

John

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

8. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 06:01 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi John,

I realized both other groups (Maronites and Syrian Catholics) use that script too - but Syrian Catholics have direct SOC lineage before their union with Rome.

I also seem to remember that the SOC claims the Maronites were part of their church too, before their union with Rome. I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, you are correct in that it's more accurate to say it's a Western script - in which case the point still stands that the Compendious dictionary is slanted towards the Western definitions of things like Qnoma.

"Western" being west of Persia, where "Qnoma" became more and more synonymous with "Hypostasis."

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

10. Maronites

Mar-04-2002 at 07:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi John,

This is where (right or wrong) I got my info about the Maronites being part of the SOC before uniting with Rome:

http://sor.cua.edu/FAQ/

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
John Marucci
 
Send email to John MarucciSend private message to John MarucciAdd John Marucci to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: Maronites

Mar-04-2002 at 11:29 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 

Akhi Paul,

Since all the ancient churches were united in one body before the controversies and schisms of the 5th century, it is common for each modern branch to claim to be that original unchanged body from which all others broke off. Such is the SOC faq you refer to. Even you and your church do this.

In the case of the Maronites, they claim that they were never part of the "Monophysite," or anti-Chalcadonian movement. To support this claim, they produce documents such as the link below which show that their ancestors where persecuted by the "monophysites" during the 5th century. So, yes, they are Western Aramaic Christians, but there was a Western Aramaic Christian tradition prior to the Christological schisms of the 5th century.

http://www.mari.org/JMS/october97/The_Correspondence_Between.htm

Shlama,
John

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

13. RE: Maronites

Mar-04-2002 at 11:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Thanks for clearing that up and presenting the Maronite point of view.

You can understand my confusion. The SOC website is hosted by the Catholic University of America, so perhaps they should be notified of this historical inaccuracy.

Please also keep in mind that the original point about Serto and the definition of Qnoma did not hinge upon successionalist loyalty - but that the term Qnoma in the "West" (of Euphrates) became, over time, influenced by the Greek 'Hypostasis.'

To me, it matters little whether the Maronites were ever part of the SOC. Being to the West, their definition of Qnoma evolved over time (like the SOC) while in the East the term retained its archaic definition.

The script also matters little to the original point - the Compendious dictionary is written in Serto because the compilers where more familiar with that script, as well as Western definitions of terms like Qnoma.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
John Marucci
 
Send email to John MarucciSend private message to John MarucciAdd John Marucci to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

6. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 10:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Akhi Paul,

So, would it be fair to say that the C OE understanding of 0mwnq is demonstrated by its use in Luke 11:17?

.Brxt h4pn L9 Glpttd wklm Lk
.Lpn Glptm hmwnq L9d 0tybw

Here our Lord couples, or contrasts, the 0mwnq of the house with the04pn, "the animating principle or soul," of the kingdom. Clearly, this context requires us to understand 0mwnq as either literally, the collective sum of the various material elements which go into the construction of a house, or figuratively, as the sum of the individuals which comprise that household.

Is this a good example of 0mwnq in its general meaning? Would you comment on the use of 04pn here, and how it compares/contrasts with 0mwnq.

Shlama,
John

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

9. RE: Qnoma

Mar-04-2002 at 06:46 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Excellent question. And yes, this is a fantastic example of the archaic meaning of Qnoma.

But first off, the meaning of this teaching needs to be discussed in view of the fact that it's highly figurative. A kingdom, of course, does not literally have a 04pn nor does a house literally have a 0mwnq.

To over-exaggerate while give ridiculous examples is a common feature of Semitic prose intended to further solidify the main point of the teaching by capturing ones attention.

Rather than equating Qnoma with the sum of the parts of the house or its members - Christ is actually teaching that both 04pn and 0mwnq are indivisible and once either concept is divided - Glp - it is utterly destroyed and useless.

The two terms are not synonyms. Qnoma has already been defined in detail. Nephsha is a living, animated soul. Both concepts are indivisible and not comprised of parts.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Keith
 
Send email to KeithSend private message to KeithAdd Keith to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

15. RE: Qnoma

Mar-10-2002 at 04:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Akhi Paul,

OK brother- tell me if I am on the right track here with "qnoma". Can the qnoma be understood like we, euphamistically, understand "heart"?

In Christ's Love,
Keith

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

17. RE: Qnoma

Mar-10-2002 at 10:10 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
Shlama Akhi Keith,

This is a tricky subject. Part of the problem is that when you have a term like Qnoma which has no direct English cognate - it can be thought of in many ways in English.

Sometime you might run across a reference where it seems very familiar in meaning to 'nature' - other times it may sound contextually just like 'person' - and still at other times it may render a meaning close to 'heart' or 'substance' or 'self.'

But if you limit it in that way - then you have the same dangerous potential that occured at the council of Ephesus.

The best way to approach this type of problem, where the word you're trying to translate has no direct cognate in the receiving langauge, is to not translate it at all - rather it should be adopted as a loan-word and spoken outright. In order to adopt it as a loan-word, the term must be understood within the native context in which it is used.

The illustration below is the best way I can think of to help "visualize" what someone means when they say 'Qnoma.' The color-coding is very important. Other things to keep in mind is that the other two terms have direct cognates in English. 'Kyana' is what you would understand in English as 'Nature.' 'Parsopa' in English is 'Person/Self.'

When you look at the Qnoma section of this diagram - keep in mind that, although you and I each have our own Qnoma, we cannot distinguish between your Qnoma and my Qnoma. They are identical, except for number. The way we distinguish between your Qnoma and my Qnoma is by our Parsopa (person) - which is a collection of unique characteristics which make you and I different.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

14. RE: Qnoma

Mar-09-2002 at 09:33 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Akhi Paul,

In an attempt to get a feel for what is meant by 'qnoma' and 'parsopa' and how they are understood, I would like to ask you some questions based on some previous statements (or quotes).

"Again, 'parsopa' is the collective characteristics of a 'qnoma' which distinguish it from other (qnome of the same species)."
And..."The 'qnoma' of Paul is not that of Peter, even though the nature and 'qnoma' (of both of them) is the same."

How can the 'qnoma' of Paul and the 'qnoma' of Peter be 'different' even though they are the 'same'?

"Each of them (Peter and Paul) possesses a body and soul and is living, rational, and fleshly (that is, they are each a hypostatized nature), yet through their 'parsope' they are distinguished from one another by that which is unique to each of them - stature, for instance, or form, or temperament, or wisdom, or authority, or fatherhood, or sonship, or masculinity, or femininity, or in whatever way."

"A unique characteristic distinguishes and indicates that this (man) is not that (man), and that (one) is not this (one), even if this and that are of the same nature. Because of the unique property (or parsopa) which a certain qnoma possesses, one (qnoma) is not the other one."

You say that Peter and Paul each have their own 'qnoma'. And that the 'qnoma' of Peter is different from the 'qnoma' of Paul because of 'parsopa' (which are characteristics that are unique to each). Since there are characteristics that are unique to Jesus and others to God, why then wouldn't the 'parsopa' of Jesus, and the 'parsopa' of God make them DIFFERENT like Peter and Paul are different?

Also, according to your statement above, unique characteristics (or 'parsopa') include "fatherhood" and "sonship". Wouldn't this mean that the 'qnoma' of Jesus is different from the 'qnoma' of God - father and son?

How then does 'qnoma' relate to Paul and his father and his mother? Does Paul have or share the 'qnoma' of his father and mother? Is 'qnoma' passed on to your progeny?

It would seem that Paul would not possess 3 'qnoma' because fatherhood and motherhood and sonship are all considered unique characteristics of the 'parsopa' of each. How many 'qnoma' does Paul have?

You say that Jesus had 2 'qnoma' - his own, and God his Father. But if the 'parsopa' of each are different, how can they be the same?

Also, how is it that you know that God is a 3 'qnoma' being? Is it because of a suffix used with the root word for God? Could you elaborate a little more on this, or show me the link where you have already explained it?

And one more question - How is it that "the Father" 'qnoma' of God is different from "the Holy Spirit" 'qnoma' of God, or are they different? If they are different, then did Jesus become a 3'qnoma' individual when the spirit of God (ie. the Holy Spirit) descended upon him after he was baptized? And if they are not different, then is God only a 2 'qnoma' being?

With this clarification, it is possible to follow what Paul is telling us in Hebrew 1:3.

Hebrews 1:1-3
{I have highlighted what I believe to be references to God in blue, and references to Jesus Christ in red, and my comments in gray.}

1) God (who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets)
2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son {Jesus Christ}, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds {aion, the ages periods of time, not a place};
3) Who being the brightness of his glory {a 'parsopa' of Jesus}, and { another 'parsopa' of Jesus was that he was} the express image {a mental picture or representation in words, of the resemblance} of his person { Gods 'qnome'}, and {another 'parsopa' of Jesus was his} upholding all things by the word of his power, when he {Jesus} had by himself {by his choice to obey God} purged our sins, {then the 'qnoma' of Jesus} sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high {the 'qnoma' of God}.

Agape,
Don

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

16. RE: Qnoma

Mar-10-2002 at 05:30 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

I can't answer in detail now because we have to rush off to church (I'll answer each question when I get back) - I've created a simple diagram to use in this discussion to make things easier:

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
StephenSilver
 
Send email to StephenSilverSend private message to StephenSilverAdd StephenSilver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

40. RE: Qnoma / K'yana

Mar-27-2002 at 11:32 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
I'm having a recurring doubt concerning the "chart". It stems from a preliminary study of the use of 0nyk

Paul wrote:
I've created a simple diagram to use in this discussion to make things easier:

Stephen Silver wrote:
There are 15 occurences of 0nyk in the Peshitta. Here they are.

JAMES 1:21 Nnykb , 3:7 0nyk , 3:7 0nykl
ROMANS 1:26 Nyhnykd , 1:27 0nykd , 2:14 Jwhnyk , 2:27 hnyk ,
11:21 Nyhnyk , 11:24 Knykbd , 11:24 Knykb , 11:24 Jwhnykd
I CORINTHIANS 11:14 0nyk , 15:38 hnykd
GALATIANS 2:15 Nnyk , 4:8 Jwhnyk

There is no occurence where ELOHIM is described as having 0nyk . Rather, all living things both in heaven and on earth, and under the earth have 0nyk . The CREATOR is SPIRIT, without 0nyk , for 0nyk is a created thing. Therefore, I have to disagree with the chart, Akhi Paul.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

18. RE: Qnoma

Mar-10-2002 at 10:43 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

OK - I'm back from church.

>In an attempt to get a
>feel for what is meant
>by 'qnoma' and 'parsopa' and
>how they are understood,
> I would like to
>ask you some questions based
>on some previous statements (or
>quotes).

Sure. I will be using the chart as a visual helper in each of my responses. It may be redundant, but it should prevent you from needing to scroll upwards each time.

>How can the 'qnoma' of Paul
>and the 'qnoma' of Peter
>be 'different' even though they
>are the 'same'?

Take a close look at the "Qnoma Plane" of the diagram. Notice how each Qnoma looks exactly the same? They are, in fact, exactly the same except for number. What I mean by number is that yours is yours and mine is mine. But otherwise by simply looking at my Qnoma and your Qnoma you cannot tell them apart:


>You say that Peter and Paul
>each have their own 'qnoma'.

Yes.

> And that the 'qnoma'
>of Peter is different from
>the 'qnoma' of Paul because
>of 'parsopa' (which are characteristics
>that are unique to each).

No. Their Qnome are identical, except for number.

What I'm saying is that it is by the Parsopa of Paul and Peter that we are able to distinguish between their identical Qnome. Here's the chart again, notice Paul and Peter's Parsopa colors are different, but their Qnome are identical:


> Since there are characteristics
>that are unique to Jesus
>and others to God, why
>then wouldn't the 'parsopa' of
>Jesus, and the 'parsopa' of
>God make them DIFFERENT like
>Peter and Paul are different?

Absolutely!

Akhi - nobody but the strictist Monophysite or Eutychian would say that Meshikha, at the Parsopa level, is the same as God.

At the Parsopa level - Meshikha is both God (a God Qnoma) and Man (a human Qnoma.)

Of course the Parsopa of Meshikha is not the same as God!

Is this what you thought orthodox Christian Christology teaches?

If you did - then you misunderstood what orthodox Christian teaching on this subject is. And that's partly due to the evolution of the terms 'Hypostasis' in Greek and 'Qnoma' in Aramaic.

The original, archaic meaning behind Qnoma should make things a lot clearer to you.

>Also, according to your statement above,
>unique characteristics (or 'parsopa') include
>"fatherhood" and "sonship".

No, no, no. A unique characteristic is not a Parsopa.

A Parsopa is a collection of unique characteristics which, when combined, comprise the whole of the Parsopa.

"Fatherhood", "Sonship", "Obesity", "Blonde Hair", "Blue Eyes", etc., are all unique characteristics which, when combined, form a distinct Parsopa.

It is by that Parsopa that your Qnoma is distinguished from my Qnoma, which are otherwise identical except for number.

>Wouldn't
>this mean that the 'qnoma'
>of Jesus is different from
>the 'qnoma' of God -
>father and son?

No - that statement is based on your misundstanding what I said.

>How then does 'qnoma' relate to
>Paul and his father and
>his mother? Does Paul have
>or share the 'qnoma' of
>his father and mother?
>Is 'qnoma' passed on to
>your progeny?

No. Look at the chart again:

>It would seem that Paul would
>not possess 3 'qnoma' because
>fatherhood and motherhood and sonship
>are all considered unique characteristics
>of the 'parsopa' of each.

Nope. I hope that's cleared up now.

> How many 'qnoma' does
>Paul have?

One.

>You say that Jesus had 2
>'qnoma'

Yes - in the plural it's "Qnome." Jesus had two Qnome.

>- his own, and
>God his Father.

No. Look at the chart again.

>But
>if the 'parsopa' of each
>are different, how can they
>be the same?

Look at the chart. Your Qnoma and my Qnoma are identical, except for number. We are both, at the Qnoma level, identical. We are human.

In the same way - Meshikha's divine Qnoma is identical to the Father's and to the Spirit's. In fact, all three Qnome of the Godhead make up the one God. They are identical, except for number.

>Also, how is it that you
>know that God is a
>3 'qnoma' being? Is
>it because of a suffix
>used with the root word
>for God? Could you elaborate
>a little more on this,
>or show me the link
>where you have already explained
>it?

Many, many passages in the scriptures allude to this. Do you really want me to list them all?

>And one more question - How
>is it that "the Father"
>'qnoma' of God is different
>from "the Holy Spirit" 'qnoma'
>of God, or are they
>different?

They are not different, except for in number.

>If they are
>different, then did Jesus become
>a 3'qnoma' individual when the
>spirit of God (ie. the
>Holy Spirit) descended upon him
>after he was baptized?

No. When we speak of two Qnome in the one Parsopa of Jesus, we are speaking of the Incarnation. The Qnome are not added or subtracted during an event.


>And
>if they are not different,
>then is God only a
>2 'qnoma' being?

No - God is One and in that One being is three Qnome - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The chart again:

>Hebrews 1:1-3
>{I have highlighted what I
>believe to be references to
>God in blue, and references
>to Jesus Christ in red,
>and my comments in gray.
}

I'll start a new thread on Hebrews 1:3 so that we don't confuse it with this issue.

First, it is of utmost importance that you understand the differences between Kyana, Qnoma and Parsopa.

Then, we could begin studying how these Aramaic terms are used in the scriptures and how the scriptures make much more sense when read with this original contextual meaning preserved.

Any further questions on Kyana, Qnoma and Parsopa?
Did I fail to explain something satisfactorily?

I don't want to move on until we've completely understood these three crucial terms.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

19. RE: Qnoma

Mar-12-2002 at 06:41 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
Ahki Paul,

>if the Messiah was not
>at one and the same
>time
both God and Man,
>we have no salvation and
>no hope.

Here you lose me. Where does it say that our salvation is dependent on Jesus being God? Isn't it dependent upon the second Adam not making the same mistake as the first Adam (1Cor.15:21-23,45; and Rom.5:17-18)?

What happened to the first Adam? ...he sinned!
Now what will God do????

Make another one!!!

Jesus was the second and "last Adam". Had he sinned also, then salvation would not be available to us today. Had he sinned, he would not have qualified to be "the lamb of God".

On the chart, the first Adam fits in the same place as Jesus.

Adam is the father of all mankind. Jesus is "another" Adam - a second bloodline (pure, sinless blood - just like the first Adam before he sinned).

Why is Jesus (the last Adam) considered God, and the first Adam is not? Either they are both God, or neither is God - according to the chart.

Agape,
Don

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

20. RE: Qnoma

Mar-12-2002 at 08:31 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

"Jesus was the second and "last Adam".....

On the chart, the first Adam fits in the same place as Jesus....

Jesus is "another" Adam..... "

Akhi - Jesus is not merely another, or second, Adam.

God could raise up infinite Adams from the dust of the ground and have all of them nailed to crosses and not a single one of them would be your Saviour.

God Himself is your Saviour. It is He who lowered Himself of His own will into the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6-11). It was for the salvation of our broken nature - the same kyana that had grown old and worn through the acts of sin.

It is He who took for Himself a perfect temple for the dwelling of His Divinity (John 2:19) and personally promised to raise it up again. In Him the oldness of our nature is renewed - and in the robe of our humanity, with which He clothed Himself (Hebrews 10:5), the debt of our race was repaid.

God Himself received the abuses of our own punishment (2 Corinthians 8:9) in the temple of His own body fashioned from our Qnoma.

Our Lord Himself indicates the sublimity of the mystery of His wealthy estate and subsequent descent into our poverty (John 3:13).

If the Messiah is not God, Akhi, then we are lost and without hope. If the Messiah is not man, then the sacrifical act is senseless because it would not redeem our Kyana. This is the core of our faith.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

21. RE: Qnoma

Mar-12-2002 at 08:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

>God Himself is your Saviour.
>It is He who lowered
>Himself of His own will
>into the form of a
>servant (Philippians 2:6-11).

Exactly. Very well said. In fact akhi Paul I see no better way to introduce Qnoma. When he divested himself it did not change his essence. He took on human essence so he could be redeem humanity.


>It
>was for the salvation of
>our broken nature - the
>same kyana that had grown
>old and worn through the
>acts of sin.
>
>It is He who took for
>Himself a perfect temple for
>the dwelling of His Divinity
>(John 2:19) and personally promised
>to raise it up again.
> In Him the oldness
>of our nature is renewed
>- and in the robe
>of our humanity, with which
>He clothed Himself (Hebrews 10:5),
>the debt of our race
>was repaid.
>
>God Himself received the abuses of
>our own punishment (2 Corinthians
>8:9) in the temple of
>His own body fashioned from
>our Qnoma.
>
>Our Lord Himself indicates the sublimity
>of the mystery of His
>wealthy estate and subsequent descent
>into our poverty (John 3:13).
>
>
>If the Messiah is not God,
>Akhi, then we are lost
>and without hope. If
>the Messiah is not man,
>then the sacrifical act is
>senseless because it would not
>redeem our Kyana. This
>is the core of our
>faith.
>..

Yes, completely God completely man.
The pinnacle of human pride is that mankind can redeem itself. God, who is long suffering, allowed humanity to demonstrate its inability to rescue itself. God retained a promised remannt, a seed.

Yisrael struggled ways but still maintained a remnant for Messiah to come through. Messiah had to be God as humanity demonstrated it could not redeem itself. Yet only a human could redeem humanity and act as mediator.

Well said akhi Paul.

bwq9y 0ml4

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

22. RE: Qnoma

Mar-14-2002 at 10:41 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Akhi Paul,

"Jesus is not merely another, or second, Adam."

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

I did not say that he was merely another or second Adam. I said he was the second and last Adam (that is what 1 Corinthians 15 says).

YOU said merely implying that when God created man in the beginning, He somehow made a mistake; that Adam was made with a flaw. I do not believe the Bible teaches that. I believe that God made man exactly the way He intended to make him, complete with freedom of will freedom to make his own choices. The first Adam was a masterpiece! The problem is that this first Adam made a bad choice - he disobeyed God, and death became his legacy.

God could raise up infinite Adams from the dust of the ground

Sure He could. But He didnt have to, because the second Adam did the job that needed to be done, and there was therefore no need for another one.

and (God could) have all of them nailed to crosses and not a single one of them would be your Saviour."

That is simply not true Paul.
Romans tells us that we were made righteous by the OBEDIENCE of Jesus Christ. Had Jesus NOT been obedient, he would not have been without spot or blemish, and then would not have been a worthy sacrifice.

Romans 5:19
19) For as by one mans disobedience (the first Adam) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus Christ, the last Adam) shall many be made righteous.

Also, because of his obedience, God was able (and required legally) to raise this same Jesus from the dead because he always did God's will. The resurrection is the core of Christianity.

"God Himself is your Saviour. It is He who lowered Himself of His own will into the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6-11). It was for the salvation of our broken nature - the same kyana that had grown old and worn through the acts of sin."

God is our Saviour because He sent Jesus to be the Saviour of the world (1John4:14). God limited Himself, legally, to the accomplishments of Jesus (the last Adam).

"It is He who took for Himself a perfect temple for the dwelling of His Divinity (John 2:19) and personally promised to raise it up again."

His perfect temple was provided by the perfect seed that was planted in the womb of Mary by God. When he died, he was dead. There is no knowledge in the grave. How would he know he needed raised? Being dead he was powerless to do anything - he was dead! Only God could raise him from the dead. Jesus made the statement in John 2:19 because he knew that if he always did his Father's will, then he would be raised from the dead. Therefore, it was in his power to determine if he would be raised or not. That is why he could say that he would raise it up, by his actions before he dies.

But the perfection was not only in the physical, it was in his blood - it was clean, pure, and sinless.

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers (share fully) of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part (not all) of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

Which part did he take? ...He took the flesh - the physical - part, not the blood. He did not share the same blood as the rest of us do. The source of his blood was from God's seed in Mary, not from Joseph's seed, which would have been from the sinful bloodline of Adam. NO MAN of the bloodline of Adam could have been a worthy sacrifice because we are all of the bloodline of Adam whose blood is contaminated by sin (Acts 17:26).

"If the Messiah is not God, Akhi, then we are lost and without hope."

If the Messiah is God, then we are lost and without hope. Only another Adam could repair what the first Adam broke.

"If the Messiah is not man, then the sacrifical act is senseless.."

Absolutely! It would not be a sacrifice at all.

"...because it would not redeem our Kyana. This is the core of our faith."

If our 'kyana' has been redeemed, then salvation is automatic and EVERYONE (without exception) is saved already. And if THAT is true, then Romans 10:9 is not necessary.

The 'kyana' of man has not been redeemed, only those 'parsopa' (I hope I'm using it correctly here, meaning each and every unique individual) who confess Romans 10:9 will be saved - salvation is "conditional" - Jesus is the way to God.

1Corinthians 15:1
14) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15) Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that HE (God)raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall *all be made alive.

*All those who do Romans 10:9.


The resurrection is the "core" of Christianity and our faith!!

==================================

I have 2 questions...

1) Where is the first occurrence of 'qnoma' in the scriptures?

2) How often does it occur in the scriptures? (NT,OT)

Thank you.


Agape,
Don

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

23. RE: Qnoma

Mar-14-2002 at 07:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #22
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

This is the meaning of "The Second Adam:"


Without this understanding, Akha - you have no explanation for Philippians 2:6-11, which is the perfect explanation for this concept of Qnoma.

The Peshitta reading of Hebrews 10:5 states very clearly that He "put on a garment of flesh." Without the above chart, you cannot understand that. Neither the first nor the bizzilionth Adam ever "put on a garment of flesh." They are flesh, period.

2 Corinthians 8:9 tells us that He was rich but, for our sake, He became poor. Can you tell me at what point in Jesus' life, a carpenter the son of a carpenter, that He was ever rich? How do you understand the meaning of that verse?

Our Lord Himself tells you where He came from in John 3:13.

Without understanding the terms used on this chart:


You will not understand the meaning of the Incarnation and what it means for us and our salvation.

On to your questions:

1) Where is the first occurrence of 'qnoma' in the scriptures?

2) How often does it occur in the scriptures? (NT,OT)

Qnoma is a purely Aramaic term with no Hebrew cognate. Therefore, the word occurs only in the Aramaic New Testament.

Do a lexeme search on the text: 0mwnq


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

24. John 3:13

Mar-14-2002 at 10:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #22
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Mar-15-2002 at 01:21 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhi Don,

You asked:

>When he died, he was dead.
> There is no knowledge
>in the grave. How
>would he know he needed
>raised? Being dead he
>was powerless to do anything
>- he was dead!

Wow. Look at what Meshikha said in John 2:19 - "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."

Look at the chart again:



What is meant by "this temple" other than His body fashioned from our human Qnoma (John 2:21)? What do you think died, the humanity - the divinity - both? Of course, the human Qnoma of Meshikha died, not the Divine!

Does John 2:19 make a little more sense now, how He could have raised His human Qnoma after it died?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

25. RE: John 3:13

Mar-14-2002 at 10:19 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #24
 
Shlama All,

Sorry - I meant John 2:19-21. :P

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

36. RE: Qnoma

Mar-19-2002 at 05:28 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #24
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

You said...

Take a close look at the "Qnoma Plane" of the diagram. Notice how each Qnoma looks exactly the same? They are, in fact, exactly the same except for number.

OK, so you and I (on the 'qnoma' level) we are identical.

What I mean by number is that yours is yours and mine is mine. But otherwise by simply looking at my Qnoma and your Qnoma you cannot tell them apart.

You are saying that Peter and Paul each have their own 'qnoma'.

Yes. Their Qnome are identical, except for number. What I'm saying is that it is by the Parsopa of Paul and Peter that we are able to distinguish between their identical Qnome.

Their Qnome are the same (identical), but their Parsopa are different.

A Parsopa is a collection of unique characteristics which, when combined, comprise the whole of the Parsopa. "Fatherhood", "Sonship", "Obesity", "Blonde Hair", "Blue Eyes", etc., are all unique characteristics which, when combined, form a distinct Parsopa.

Meshikha has a Parsopa. God also has a Parsopa. The Parsopa of Meshikha is different from that of God. Therefore, God and Meshikha are different in the same way that Peter and Paul are different Parsopa.

Absolutely! Akhi - nobody but the strictist Monophysite or Eutychian would say that Meshikha, at the Parsopa level, is the same as God.

Just like Peter and Paul (at the Parsopa level) are not the same.

At the Parsopa level - Meshikha is both God (a God Qnoma) and Man (a human Qnoma).

That is not possible, because their Parsopa are different! Jesus was not God, but God was with him.

When we are born again, we also have the 'qnoma' of God (Holy Spirit) dwelling within us. At the Parsopa level then Peter is both God (a God Qnoma) and Man (a human Qnoma). Same with Paul, and you, and me, and every born again spirit filled believer. However, those who are NOT born-again do not have the 'qnoma' of God within.

We know Peter and Paul by their Parsopa. We know Jesus and God by their Parsopa. It is the Parsopa of each that allows us to identify one from the other. If you are going to "compare" Jesus and God, then you must do it on the Parsopa level. Otherwise you only have flesh and spirit (so to speak), nothing specific, no way to distinguish God form angels or even the Devil - who is also a spirit being.

WE (the born again Sons of God) are all full of the presence of God too. We have a human Qnoma and a God Qnoma. Angels also have Qnoma, and it is the same as the Holy Spirit, identical in fact, except in number. And yet Angels are not God how do we know this? by their Parsopa. People are not God. Jesus is not God. Why? Because God was WITH Jesus. Jesus was God surrounded by flesh. We ALSO are God surrounded by flesh. We have this treasure in earthen vessels (2Cor.2:7).

Look at the chart. Your Qnoma and my Qnoma are identical, except for number. We are both, at the Qnoma level, identical. We are human.

But we are born-again humans!!! We have holy spirit within us just like Jesus did!!!

2Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

Ephesians 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:19
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Colossians 2:9
For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 2:9 does not say that Jesus WAS the Godhead, or even a part of the Godhead. Only that whatever the Godhead is, all the fullness of it DWELLED in him.

When did the fullness of the Godhead begin dwelling in him? Only John the Baptist was had holy spirit from the womb (Luke 1:15). Jesus did not receive holy spirit until he was baptized.

If God is ONE, then He can have only ONE Parsopa, not 2 or 3 or more. But Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are THREE (more than one) different Parsopa.

Is "the Father" 'qnoma' of God different from "the Holy Spirit" 'qnoma' of God? No, but your Qnoma and mine are not different either. And yet you are not me. Just because you and I have identical qnome does not make us identical. We are different because of who we are as recognized by our Parsopa. God is recognized as who He is by His Parsopa as well.

When we speak of two Qnome in the one Parsopa of Jesus, we are speaking of the Incarnation.

Then God must be "incarnated" within each born-again believer ALSO.

This chart is incomplete there are no Parsopa shown for God or the Holy Spirit.

Also, On the Kyana level, SPIRIT should be where it says God. God is spirit (John 4:24), we are flesh humanity at the kyana level.

On the Qnoma level you should also include the Angels, and the Devil, and Devil spirits. They all have identical Qnome.

On the Parsopa level, you should include God, and the Holy Spirit, and each of all the angels, and the Devil, and all the devil spirits. They all may have identical Qnome, but they are all different, just like you are not me, and I am not you, and Jesus is not God, and Angels are not God, and devil spirits are not Holy Spirit. WHY? because of their Parsopa. That is the ONLY way we know this.

We know Jesus on the Parsopa level. We know God on the Parsopa level. We recognize the Devil on the Parsopa level, etc. The Parsopa level is specific. The 'qnoma' and 'kyana' levels are general only. As you move from the kyana level to the Parsopa level, things become more specific, as more detail become known.

Agape,
Don


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

37. RE: Qnoma

Mar-19-2002 at 05:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #36
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

I am very happy. Extremely happy. I can tell that you have begun to understand these terms almost perfectly. Everything in your post up to one point is perfect. There's still one crucial piece missing - and that's when you said:

>Meshikha has a Parsopa. God
>also has a Parsopa.
>The Parsopa of Meshikha is
>different from that of God.
> Therefore, God and Meshikha
>are different in the same
>way that Peter and Paul
>are different Parsopa.

The Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a Parsopa. We never refer to those Qnome as having a Parsopa. A Parsopa refers to something in our physical realm. The Father and the Holy Spirit were never Incarnated. Please study very thoroughly my previous post here:

http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/forums/board.cgi?az=read_count&om=940&forum=peshitta&omm=0

It appears you have understood Kyana and Qnoma 100%. I'm going to temporarily ignore the other statements in your post until we straighten out Parsopa, since most of the comments are based on an incomplete understanding of that term.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

26. Obedience

Mar-15-2002 at 01:39 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #22
 
Shlama Akhi Rob,

You said:

>Romans tells us that we were
>made righteous by the OBEDIENCE
>of Jesus Christ. Had
>Jesus NOT been obedient, he
>would not have been without
>spot or blemish, and then
>would not have been a
>worthy sacrifice.

RIGHT - and Philippians 2:8 tells us all about that obedience:

"Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. "

Does the phrase "Being found in appearance as a man..." ring a Qnoma-bell?

Are you and I men "in appearance"?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

27. who? me?

Mar-15-2002 at 05:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #26
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I'm hearin' ya loud n'clear, but did you mean to address me?

-I don't recall the post you attributed to me...


Shlama,
Rob

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

28. RE: who? me?

Mar-15-2002 at 05:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #27
 
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Sorry! I meant "Shlama Akhi DON" - heheheh. :P

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

29. Thank you

Mar-15-2002 at 06:43 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #28
 
No problem, Akhi!

BTW, I justed noticed the Hebrew font under "Software Req." --- Thanks!

wvlw ,yytw txa ]xvb ]xvb

hnyxb hz

This gets funner every day!


hvhy ,wb ,vlw

Br

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

30. Help Me Too!

Mar-15-2002 at 07:31 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #29
 
Akhi Paul,

Just a reminder on the Greek SIL font. When you have some time.


vnyl(vgv vnyxysmh (vsy ,sb ,vlw

bwq9y

Print Top
Dean
 
Send email to DeanSend private message to DeanAdd Dean to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

31. RE: Help Me Too!

Mar-15-2002 at 10:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #30
 
Akhi Iakov,

You might want to modify your signature in the Estrangela to display the "final" Bet (its an uppercase "B" ) like this ...

Bwq9y

Shlama,

-Dean


Print Top
Rob
 
Send email to RobSend private message to RobAdd Rob to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

32. Oops!

Mar-15-2002 at 11:23 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #30
 
Last edited by Rob on Mar-15-2002 at 11:40 PM (GMT3)

Last edited by Rob on Mar-15-2002 at 11:36 PM (GMT3)

Shalom Akhay,

---Bwq9y

Since we're helpin each other out, remember there's no definite article when we use a pronominal suffix. I think this is what you may have meant:

vnylavgv vnyxywm ivwy ,wb ,vlw


The verb lig means "to loathe" ! (I know that's not the case here!)

Also, we need to watch the w's and s 's . I guess that all this, as well as typing backwards, takes some practice!

ivwyb
Br


Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

33. RE: Oops!

Mar-16-2002 at 04:54 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #32
 
Oops is right,

Todah guys.

Rob, I was trying to go by memory. Of course I meant redeemer.

Thanks for catching that.

Yaqub

Print Top
jaza
 
Send email to jazaSend private message to jazaAdd jaza to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

34. RE: Qnoma

Mar-17-2002 at 06:33 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Not so fast...stranger

<<Qnoma has already been defined in detail....>> (?)

<In order to begin to define this new word - I'd like to define what it's not in very concise and precise terminology. For this I will use two words in the English language that are closest to Qnoma in meaning, and which have been erroneously substituted for Qnoma in the past.
Those two words are Nature and Person.>

Well, Paul, that is one approach, but if you want to interpolate a meaning, it would be better to end it with a possitive definition. So far we have on one extreme of the "pendulum" a dry, monosyllabic "lexicon", and on the other, definitions like "to define what it's not in a very concise and precise (?) terminology...."

Let me suggest a "dictionary" possitive format, and dare to ask you for an extra effort of synthesis, to avoid the risk of digressions into related concepts.
E.g.:
"Person: 1. A human being, whether man, woman, or child: "Four persons saw him" 2. A human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 3. Philos: A self conscious or rational being. 4. Gram. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance, and ..." etc.

The problem with an essay definition, is that of one of those "Kantian" definitions, of 2nd or third degree of phylosophical obscurity and complexity, which is not the case. From what you started to explain, I am sure the Eastern concept of "qnoma" is more a subject of anthropology and psychology, than that of an obscure phylosophy.

Having said that, (I apologize for the RUDE format of my question), I once again congratulate you for yet another brilliant, 'fresh', and ground-breaking statement of a "millenium size" issue:

<<"We never equate Qnoma with Parsopa - NEVER. In the Godhead there are 3 Qnome, but we do not define those 3 as "persons!" God is One.
Likewise, in the Incarnation of the Messiah there are two Qnome - one of Alaha and one of Mankind. The mystery of the Incarnation is in the unity of these 2 Qnome in the one Parsopa of Meshikha. But it's no mystery that He is two Qnome (divine and human) in one Parsopa.">>
...
<<Hebrews 1:3, when read with this deep undestanding of Aramaic terminology, is sublime and awe-inspiring.

Paul says "b'Qnumeh" - in His (human) Qnoma. This is not describing God being "seated" at the right of God. There's no literal "seating" happening. "Seated at the right side" is understood idiomatically in Semitic thought as - "Having found favor." Our human Qnoma, taken by the Messiah, has found favor with God after the sacrificial act.>>

Excellent!. Yet, this poses a difficulty with something you said before about 'qnoma':

<<"Therefore you and I, both being humans, have human Qnome that are indistinguishable (except in number) from one another.>>
(??..number would be the only common thing between the individual 'qnoma' of different persons) But, that is not the difficulty: if you are defining qnoma as indistinguishable from one another, when applied to the Trinity of God, we DO have three distinguishable "Qnoma"s...

By the way, wouldn't it be awesome if there was a cyberspace "re-match" and debate on those old "byzantine discussions"? From what you say, it seems like those debates were between a group of "Athens" people discussing concepts from "Jerusalem" (as in Tertullian's "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?")


Best regards,

jaza

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

35. RE: Qnoma

Mar-19-2002 at 01:48 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #34
 
Shlama Akhi Javier!,

>
>Not so fast...stranger
>

Hey - you are not allowed to disappear for months and then make surprise posts like this!

>Well, Paul, that is one approach,
>but if you want to
>interpolate a meaning, it would
>be better to end it
>with a possitive definition.
>So far we have on
>one extreme of the "pendulum"
>a dry, monosyllabic "lexicon",
>and on the other,
>definitions like "to define what
>it's not in a very
>concise and precise (?) terminology...."

It's tough. I didn't know of another way to define something that has no cognate thought in English.

>Let me suggest a "dictionary" possitive
>format, and dare to ask
>you for an extra effort
>of synthesis, to avoid the
>risk of digressions into related
>concepts.
>E.g.:
>"Person: 1. A human being,
>whether man, woman, or child:
>"Four persons saw him"
> 2. A human being
>as distinguished from an animal
>or a thing. 3.
> Philos: A self conscious
>or rational being. 4. Gram.
>a category found in many
>languages that is used to
>distinguish between the speaker of
>an utterance, and ..."
> etc.

I can't. I can't think of a way to better define it than the chart.

>The problem with an essay definition,
>is that of one of
>those "Kantian" definitions, of 2nd
>or third degree of phylosophical
>obscurity and complexity, which
>is not the case. From
>what you started to explain,
> I am sure the
>Eastern concept of "qnoma" is
>more a subject of
>anthropology and psychology, than that
>of an obscure phylosophy.

Somewhat - but how to put it into words without allowing the English definition to artifically limit the original meaning - I don't know.

>
>Having said that, (I apologize for
>the RUDE format of my
>question), I once again
>congratulate you for yet another
>brilliant, 'fresh', and ground-breaking
>statement of a "millenium size"
>issue:
>

Thanks!

>
>Excellent!. Yet, this poses a
>difficulty with something you said
>before about 'qnoma':
>
><<"Therefore you and I, both being humans, have human Qnome that are indistinguishable (except in number) from one another.>>
>(??..number would be the only common
>thing between the individual 'qnoma'
>of different persons) But, that
>is not the difficulty: if
>you are defining qnoma as
>indistinguishable from one another,
>when applied to the Trinity
>of God, we DO
>have three distinguishable "Qnoma"s...

By "distinguishable" I do not refer to the observation of their actions or properties, but the very substance of their being. That is undeniably indistinguishable.

>
>By the way, wouldn't it be
>awesome if there was a
>cyberspace "re-match" and debate on
>those old "byzantine discussions"? From
>what you say, it seems
>like those debates were between
>a group of "Athens" people
>discussing concepts from "Jerusalem"
>(as in Tertullian's "What does
>Athens have to do with
>Jerusalem?")
>

I think they'd eventually come to the conclusion that they were both trying to get to the same place with different terminology.

I happen to feel that the Semitic-based terminology makes more sense.

Calling a Qnoma a 'Person' can have disastrously confusing effects (as Akhan Drywood can tell you. )


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service