#0, K'YANA
Posted by StephenSilver on Mar-30-2002 at 01:45 AM
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
#1, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Mar-31-2002 at 01:58 AM
In response to message #0
» Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Mar-31-2002 at 02:04 AM (GMT3)Actually Akhi Stephen I think the problem is that you are viewing KYANA as something concrete that either a human or God has, and that is not true. Youw will not find any Scripture that says God IS a KYANA because God is an example of ONE KIND OF KYANA, as opposed to having or being one.
K'YANA is an abstract concept, like we would talk about a divinity or a human spirit, without substantiating that divinity of spirit. We are ASKING about potentiality, not grounding an identity in hard observation. It would be like me saying, "Can there be brown Grizzly Bears or Black Bears in South Dakota?" without my actually going there to see which one I will find first.
K'YANA, I have found, stands best understood as a question that asks "CAN X have either a human or divine nature?" We cannot penetrate X to see what KIND is there, but rather are asking what the range of possibilities for that K'YANA are.
A RUACH (spirit) is what God IS, but at a pure theoretical level God is an instance of DIVINE K'YANA, not K'YANA being something that God is.
Do you see the difference Akhi?
Now, continuing, when we answer this first question with, "X can have as a possibilitity either a divine or human K'YANA", then we go down the next level, which is to now identify that type, human or divine. When that happens we now have a concretization of that reality. We now know--of these two choices- that this is a REAL SUBSTANCE of either divine or human origins. In other words, we have a QNOMA.
Going another level down, let's say we have identified the QNOMA as human, but we know nothing else. We don't know gender, race, age, ethnicity or anything that makes me different from you, Paul or anyone else. Then we see that separation, and now we have say, a young Jewish man, about 30, 6 feet tall, 250 pounds. Guess what" Those characteristics in the human QNOMA are now the PARSOPA of the individual.
Try not to think though along the lines of RUACH and NEFESH on this exact line of thought because it will cause confusion. Although, those terms also relate to this study in another manner.
Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#2, RE: K'YANA
Posted by ValiantForTruth on Mar-31-2002 at 06:32 AM
In response to message #1
>...Then we see that separation, and now
>we have say, a young
>Jewish man, about 30, 6
>feet tall, 250 pounds.
>Guess what" Those characteristics in
>the human QNOMA are now
>the PARSOPA of the individual. But God does not have "PARSOPA" according to Akhi Paul. Therefore, this chart is unusable, or at best misleading.
>Try not to think though along
>the lines of RUACH and
>NEFESH on this exact line
>of thought because it will
>cause confusion.
That is an understatement.
>Although, those
>terms also relate to this
>study in another manner.
Akhi Andrew, I know we are coming up on a 2-week break for the board, but I would be very interested in knowing how Ruach and Nephesh "fit" in the chart. I am more inclined to follow the definitions of soul and spirit than the chart. But being "valiant for truth" I am willing to hear how this all fits together.
Agape,
Don
VVVVV
#7, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Apr-01-2002 at 03:36 AM
In response to message #2
» Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Apr-01-2002 at 03:54 AM (GMT3)
Hi Akhi Don--
Okay I will try. First thing: Forget the chart for now.
Second thing: Think only of Y'shua Ha Moshiakh. Focus only on who he was, who he is, and what he did and will do.
Now, with that in mind, consider:
"My NAPSHSAH is troubled to the point of death."
"The NAPSHAH that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel)
"And the ROKHA of God ROKHAed (breathed) into Adam and he became a NAPHSHAH KHAYVA (living soul)." (Genesis 2:7)
"...for he who is to be born is OF THE ROKHA D'QADOOSHA..."
"The ROKHA D'QADOOSHA will come upon you and the ppower of the Most High will overshadow you."
"And Y'shua ROKHAed (breathed) the ROKHA D'QADOOSHA (Holy Spirit)upon them."
We see here clearly these two words with different meanings. The ROKHA is the eternal spark given by God--the divine BREATH put into man. The ROKHA returns to God who gave it upon death. Whereas the NAPSHAH is the life force that dies with the body.
Every time therefore that we read that Y'shua is tempted, suffers, weeps and yes-- dies--it is his human life-force NAPSHAH. Why? Because Leviticus teaches us that the NAPSHAH is in the blood and that the blood is given for us to make remission of sin on the altar. The word for "soul" (NEFESH in Hebrew), can also be translated as "life", which is why in Aramaic the word PAROQA (savior)means "life-giver/saver", and that is why Y'shua chides the Perushim for searching the Scriptures for life but not coming to him to have that life.
So, how this all ties together is not the way RUACH/ROKHA and NEFESH/NAPSHAH substitute for KYANA/QNOMA or where it fits on the chart. But these sets of words describe the same fact, that both fully divine and fully human entities/wills are in Y'shua, but that the human part is subject to the divine while being in total agreement with the divine. That is why he said, "Not MY WILL (napshah) but THY WILL (ruach) be done." And when the two alings, "I and my Father are one."
At the same time, because Y'shua has taken on the mantle of flesh and CAN ALLOW HIMSELF TO DIE, he must be less than the Father in Heaven. God did not DIE, never did, cannot and never will. Y'shua, being free from sin, could not die either, EXCEPT BY LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE. HE LAYS IT DOWN SO THAT HE MAY TAKE IT BACK UP AGAIN, as Yochanan says. Nevertheless, even by allowing his own death, his sin free NAPSHAH could not stay dead and so--in just his case and those whom he resurrected-- the NAPSHAH and the ROKHA return and the former is re-animated.
At least, that's how I see it, but I defer to Akhi Paul if I have erred in any of these details.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#3, RE: K'YANA
Posted by StephenSilver on Mar-31-2002 at 06:32 AM
In response to message #1
Sh'lama Akhi Andrew:
Thanks for the response. I would like to respond to your answer.Andrew Roth wrote:
>Actually Akhi Stephen I think the
>problem is that you are
>viewing KYANA as something concrete
>that either a human or
>God has, and that is
>not true.
Stephen Silver wrote:
No. I am defining "k'yana" as 15 passages of text define it. It is understood that "k'yana", is best defined as "nature".
Andrew Roth wrote:
You will
>not find any Scripture that
>says God IS a KYANA
>because God is an example
>of ONE KIND OF KYANA,
>as opposed to having or
>being one.
Stephen Silver wrote:
No. The fact that a "scripture verse" does not define ELOHIM as "k'yana" is because ELOHIM cannot be defined as having a "nature", for He is SPIRIT. Even "false deities" are defined as having "k'yana", because they are demons,(Galatians 4:8). I prefer to use the scriptures in such a way, as not to overlook the "Pashat", "simple, literal" understanding.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>K'YANA is an abstract concept, like
>we would talk about a
>divinity or a human spirit,
>without substantiating that divinity of
>spirit.
Stephen Silver wrote:
The 15 passages in the Peshitta, that use the word, "k'yana" together, in effect, "define the term". It is not an abstract term. It is used in such a way as to show that it has "purpose, is specific to various creatures, and is what distinguishes all living things. Nature is as concrete as "messenger-RNA". Yahshua, because He has DNA from His earthly mother Miryam, has "messenger RNA", and this is what makes Yahshua human. His only "nature" is human. However, He is ELOHIM (in every sense).
Andrew Roth wrote:
We are ASKING
>about potentiality, not grounding an
>identity in hard observation.
>It would be like me
>saying, "Can there be brown
>Grizzly Bears or Black Bears
>in South Dakota?" without my
>actually going there to see
>which one I will find
>first.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Sorry Akhi, asking about "potential" must be done , using "different language", than that which is "properly defined in scripture. If "k'yana" is used "outside of the delineation of the actual use in scripture, it can not be used accurately, either "concretely" or "abstractly". Again, where is the "pashat".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>K'YANA, I have found, stands best
>understood as a question that
>asks "CAN X have either
>a human or divine nature?"
> We cannot penetrate X
>to see what KIND is
>there, but rather are asking
>what the range of possibilities
>for that K'YANA are.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Why complicate it's use, Akhi Andrew. What's wrong with using the Bible text as is, to define the use of various words, if we want to understand things of a spiritual nature.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>A RUACH (spirit) is what God
>IS, but at a pure
>theoretical level God is an
>instance of DIVINE K'YANA, not
>K'YANA being something that God
>is.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I'm not speaking on "the theoretical level". I believe in the "absolute authority and inspiration of scripture, in the original "autograph", and the Peshitta, for the "lion's share", is "the autograph".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Do you see the difference Akhi?
Stephen Silver wrote:
I ask you the same thing, Akhi Andrew.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Now, continuing, when we answer this
>first question with, "X can
>have as a possibilitity either
>a divine or human K'YANA",
>then we go down the
>next level, which is to
>now identify that type, human
>or divine.
Stephen Silver wrote:
Please provide a scripture that in the "pashat" states that ELOHIM has "k'yana", otherwise it is only conjecture. I am not interested in conjecture. I am interested in what the Bible actually says.
Andrew Roth wrote:
When that
>happens we now have a
>concretization of that reality.
>We now know--of these two
>choices- that this is a
>REAL SUBSTANCE of either divine
>or human origins. In other
>words, we have a QNOMA.
Stephen Silver wrote:
It would appear Akhi Andrew, that you have defined "k'yana" as well as "q'noma" by the chart, but not by the actual written and "inspired" text.
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Going another level down, let's say
>we have identified the QNOMA
>as human, but we know
>nothing else. We don't
>know gender, race, age, ethnicity
>or anything that makes me
>different from you, Paul or
>anyone else. Then we
>see that separation, and now
>we have say, a young
>Jewish man, about 30, 6
>feet tall, 250 pounds.
>Guess what" Those characteristics in
>the human QNOMA are now
>the PARSOPA of the individual.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I would prefer to stay on topic, Akhi Andrew. We are discussing "k'yana", not "q'noma or parsopa".
Andrew Roth wrote:
>Try not to think though along
>the lines of RUACH and
>NEFESH on this exact line
>of thought because it will
>cause confusion. Although, those
>terms also relate to this
>study in another manner.
Stephen Silver wrote:
I am not confused, nor is it my intention to confuse you. I only am looking for the Biblical definition of "k'yana", by observing how the word is used in context. I have not added any of my own conjecture, and I am willing to allow the "inspired text" to "speak for itself".
Sh'lama w'Burkate,
Stephen Silver.
#4, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Paul Younan on Mar-31-2002 at 07:25 AM
In response to message #0
Shlama Akhi Stephen,Thanks for your very good questions. I hope I can answer them in a satisfactory way - but if not, keep asking on this thread until Tuesday when the website is turned off.
>Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
> I'm having a recurring
>doubt concerning the "chart". It
>stems from a preliminary study
>of the use of >face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="5"]0nyk
Understood. It's a tough subject.
>There is no occurence where ELOHIM
>is described as having >face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="5"]0nyk .
Sure there is! Especially if you hold to a 27-book canon (and I know you do.) 2 Peter 1:4. It speaks of the "Divine Kyana" in the Peshitto and Greek versions. Check it out.Akhi - a couple of quick notes before we go any further, ok? Bear with me.
First off, the NT is not a dictionary of Aramaic. Aramaic existed for thousands of years before the NT came into existence. Bottom line - just because the NT doesn't use a word in the way you're expecting is not the end-all-be-all. In this case, however, your 27-book canon DOES use Kyana in that manner (as it should!)
Secondly (and more importantly), Kyana comes from an Aramaic root which means "be/exist." If we were to say that God does not have Kyana then that would be equivalent to saying that God doesn't EXIST. EVERYTHING that exists has a Kyana - which in Aramaic is an abstract concept close to the English meaning of "Nature." God EXISTS, therefore by nature he has Kyana (pun intended.
)
Akhi - by saying God has "Kyana" - I'm NOT defining His makeup, which IS Rukha (spirit). I'm simply saying that His nature is divine ("kyana Alahaya" as 2 Peter 1:4 says.)
Now about the infamous chart. The scope of that chart is NATURE (kyana) - that chart has NOTHING to do with whether or not something is spirit, flesh, or whatever. Kyana, Qnoma and Parsopa have nothing to do with Rukha, Nepsha or Neshama.
The scope of that chart is NATURE. Please don't read anything else into it (the chart) that it was not intended to address.
Finally, you said:
>...0nyk is a created thing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Kyana is an abstract, it doesn't even exist on a material level (it's not concrete). It's not "created" - it simply "is."God has divine Kyana. You and I have human Kyana. Meshikha had both - thereby being the PERFECT Mediator between God and man.
Fk^rwbw 0ml4
https://www.peshitta.org">Peshitta.org
#5, I Stand Corrected
Posted by StephenSilver on Mar-31-2002 at 05:43 PM
In response to message #4
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
I stand corrected, on the basis of II Peter 1:4 (d'k'yana Alahya). Thank you for pointing this out to me. I also owe an apology to Akhi Andrew, for being "bull-headed". I'll spend more time "listening", next time.Sh'lama w'Burkate,
Stephen Silver.
#8, RE: I Stand Corrected
Posted by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Apr-01-2002 at 03:46 AM
In response to message #5
Apology accepted Akhi Stephen. And please remember that if you disgree that is okay. We continue to love and respect each other and that is what counts in the eyes of God.Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#6, RE: K'YANA
Posted by ValiantForTruth on Mar-31-2002 at 00:59 AM
In response to message #4
>God has divine Kyana. You
>and I have human Kyana.
>Meshikha had both -
>thereby being the PERFECT Mediator
>between God and man. God has divine Kyana.
UNBELIEVERS have human Kyana.
Meshikha had both.
BELIEVERS have both also, according to 2 Peter 1:4 which says that WE are partakers and share fully of this divine nature. Isn't it called "the new man"? Isn't Meshikha the perfect mediator because he was tempted in all points as we are, and yet did not sin. Thus he can empathize with us. Isn't THAT what makes him the perfect mediator? Having divine kyana does not mean that he was incapable of disobedience. He still had to choose to follow one nature or the other, just like we do.
If having both Kyana made Jesus the perfect mediator BETWEEN God and men, how could he be God? What does BETWEEN mean? Doesn't it mean that something is on either side of him - ie. God and man?
Does having a divine kyana make Meshika God? ...No, otherwise we would be God as well, since we as born-again believers have the divine nature also.
Not all humans have divine kyana - only those who are born-again. The Bible calls those who are not born-again, "natural men" (1Cor.2:14).
An unbeliever is body and soul. A person who is born-again has received the gift of holy spirit, and is now body, soul, and spirit. It is the presence of holy spirit that gives us our divine kyana, or nature - ie. the new man. Body soul and spirit cannot be separated from the understanding of kyana, qnoma and parsopa. Somehow one is a characteristic of the other - ie. parsopa, in a manner of speaking (figurative).
Is this not correct?
Agape,
Don
VVVVV
#9, Where do angels fit in the chart?
Posted by Keith on Apr-01-2002 at 05:30 PM
In response to message #6
Paul, Andrew, Don, Stephen, and anybody else with answers;I don't know how to reproduce your chart yet because I'm still a computer illiterate. I wish I could reproduce it though because I'd like to know where you would place angels in it. Do they have a different "kyana" than humans and God? How about their "qnoma"? What about their "parsopa" since they can, at times, take on human form?
I'm really not ready with all my questions yet, but I wanted to get a few in before the Tuesday deadline. Can we resume this same thread after the two weeks are up?
Do all species have a "qnoma" or just God, angels, and humans? According to Aramaic understanding when we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit is it His "qnoma" that takes up residence within us? Where would spirit (ruach) fit in in this chart (not Spirit just spirit as in our spirit)? How about "nefesh"?
Paul, I may be in the minority here but, I think that chart is a stroke of genuis and has helped me tremendously in my attempt to understand this "qnoma" thing. If you could take the time to add the "ruach" and "nefesh" into the chart in their appropriate places before Tuesday so I can print it off I'd appreciate it. I want something to ruminate on for the next couple of weeks.
By the way I have a meeting Chicago on May 9-10 this year. I'd like to call you if I get a chance while I'm up there. We still pray for your mother, hope she is improving.
In Christ's Love,
Keith
#11, RE: Where do angels fit in the chart?
Posted by Paul Younan on Apr-01-2002 at 09:31 PM
In response to message #9
» Last edited by Paul Younan on Apr-01-2002 at 09:37 PM (GMT3)Shlama Akhi Keith,
Thanks for your prayers. Mom is slowly improving and they are still trying to "wean" her off of the ventilator. Hopefully this most recent attempt will be successful.
I'd love to meet up with you while you're in Chicago. Do you still have my home/cellular number? I'll email you.
>I don't know how to reproduce
>your chart yet because I'm
>still a computer illiterate.
No prob. I've included it below. If you're using Microsoft Windows - just right-click on the image, scroll down and select "Properties" and then make note of the "Address: (URL)" of the image. You can then type this "Address: (URL)" anywhere in the text of your message and it will show up. The URL should begin with https://www.atour.com/media/ followed immediately by 20020302AIM100201.gif

>I wish I could reproduce it
>though because I'd like to
>know where you would place
>angels in it. Do
>they have a different "kyana"
>than humans and God? How
>about their "qnoma"? What about
>their "parsopa" since they can,
>at times, take on human
>form? Yes, they would be a completely different set of Kyana, Qnoma and Parsopa. Another "column", if you will.
> I'm really not ready with
>all my questions yet, but
>I wanted to get a
>few in before the Tuesday
>deadline. Can we resume
>this same thread after the
>two weeks are up?
Yes, hopefully all of our messages will be "intact" after the move.
>Do all species have a "qnoma"
>or just God, angels, and
>humans?
All species have different natures, exactly like in English thought. For instance, the natures of dogs and cats are different. This word, "Kyana", is almost identical in thought to the English "nature."
So as the nature (kyana) of humans is different than the nature (kyana) of God, so too all different species have their own Kyana (nature.) Anything that exists has Nature~Kyana.
Here's the difference, though, between the Aramaic and English. In Aramaic, "nature~kyana" is an abstract. It cannot instantiate a "person~parsopa" since it's an abstract concept.
In contrast, in Western thought there isn't that middle level of "Qnoma". In Western thought we go directly from Nature to Person, the "Person" being the direct instantiation of a given "Nature."
In Aramaic, this is impossible since Nature is thought of in the abstract. A Qnoma, then, is an instantiation or an individuated instance of Nature - a concrete realization of an abstract concept.
>According to Aramaic understanding
>when we are indwelt by
>the Holy Spirit is it
>His "qnoma" that takes up
>residence within us?
Yes, the Qnoma which is known as the Holy Spirit takes up residence within us. The Holy Spirit is one Qnoma of the divine nature. The Holy Spirit Qnoma is God, as the Father and Son Qnome are God. Note that Qnoma does not mean "person~parsopa."
>Where would spirit (ruach) fit in in
>this chart (not Spirit just
>spirit as in our spirit)?
The scope of the chart, as it's currently drawn, is limited to "Nature~Kyana" and how that "Nature~Kyana" manifests itself in a "Person~Parsopa."
Here's some new stuff:
A Qnoma (of any given type of Kyana) has characteristics which are collectively common to all members of that Kyana. One characteristic of the human Qnoma is that all humans have a fleshly body and a spirit. That fleshly body is just dust from the earth. Spirit~Ruach~Rukha is that which animates the body. In it's simplest meaning Rukha literally means "breath." It also has the broader meaning of "spirit" as in the English "spirit."
Think of "flesh" and "spirit" as two characterstics of the human Qnoma.
>How about "nefesh"?
"Nefesh~Napsha" is simply a description for living, breathing and rational "soul." A good English equivalent is "soul". A "soul" is not a "spirit", just a description for our living, breathing rational existence.
>Paul, I may be in the
>minority here but, I think
>that chart is a stroke
>of genuis and has helped
>me tremendously in my attempt
>to understand this "qnoma" thing.
Thanks!
> If you could take
>the time to add the
>"ruach" and "nefesh" into the
>chart in their appropriate places
>before Tuesday so I can
>print it off I'd appreciate
>it.
I'll try to tonight - but if we go offline before I can get to it then I will definitely do it when we come back online.
Fk^rwbw 0ml4
https://www.peshitta.org">Peshitta.org
#10, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Paul Younan on Apr-01-2002 at 06:14 PM
In response to message #6
Shlama Akhi Don,You said:
>God has divine Kyana.Yes.
>UNBELIEVERS have human Kyana.
No - all of us (believers and unbelievers) have human Kyana. If you and I don't have human Kyana (human nature) then you and I don't exist.
>Meshikha had both.
Yes.
>BELIEVERS have both also, according to
>2 Peter 1:4 which says
>that WE are partakers and
>share fully of this divine
>nature. Isn't it called
>"the new man"?
No. Only through Christ do we "partake" of the divine nature. The Aramaic word there is "have fellowship with."
It's not in the same way Christ had divine Kyana. You and I (even being believers) cannot forgive sins or raise the dead.
It is by the fact that Meshikha took our human Kyana, in his own Qnoma, and united His divine Kyana with it, that we are able to say that we have "participation" or "fellowship" or a "partaking" with the divine kyana.
>Isn't Meshikha the perfect mediator because
>he was tempted in all
>points as we are, and
>yet did not sin.
Meshikha isn't the perfect mediator because of what he did - but because of who he is. (Philippians 2:6-11)
>Thus he can empathize with
>us. Isn't THAT what
>makes him the perfect mediator?
No, that isn't what makes Him the perfect mediator - but that is what makes Him the pefect High Priest.
> Having divine kyana does
>not mean that he was
>incapable of disobedience.
In the case of the Parsopa (person) of Christ - His humanity (human kyana) was tempted, of course, just like us. His humanity is no different than ours, except in sin. His humanity did not sin.
His divine nature was preserved in it's own Qnoma. It was not tempted, did not suffer on the Cross, did not die.
>He still had to choose to
>follow one nature or the
>other, just like we do.
We cannot, and are not even able to, follow the path He did. We do not have a divine kyana (nature) like He did. We are not capable of remaining sin-free.
>If having both Kyana made Jesus
>the perfect mediator BETWEEN God
>and men, how could he
>be God?
He is not God at the Parsopa (person) level. In His Parsopa are united two Qnome, one from the divine Kyana and one from the human Kyana.
When we speak of Meshikha as man, we are referring to his human Qnoma/Kyana (Matt. 8:20, 9:6, 12:32, etc.). When we speak of Meshikha as God, we are referring to his divine Qnoma/Kyana (John 1, Philippians 2:6-11, Acts 2:38, etc.).
>What does
>BETWEEN mean? Doesn't it
>mean that something is on
>either side of him -
>ie. God and man?
No. In science, yes. In theology, no. "Between" in Aramaic, and in English, can carry a much broader and more mystical meaning than simply physics.
The Parsopa (person) of Meshikha is a "bridge" between us and God. Because our human Kyana (nature) was taken and united to His divine Kyana (nature), it has been redeemed. We, therefore, who believe are redeemed and are "partakers of", or "have fellowship with" the Divine Kyana. This is the meaning of a "Perfect Mediator."
>Does having a divine kyana make
>Meshika God? ...No, otherwise we
>would be God as well,
>since we as born-again believers
>have the divine nature also.
You and I don't have a divine kyana. Far be it. You and I have a sinful human kyana. Only through the Parsopa (person) of Christ are we able to be redeemed, because His human Qnoma is our human Qnoma, His human Kyana is our Human Kyana. And he, in His Parsopa (person), has redeemed our humanity.
>Not all humans have divine kyana
>- only those who are
>born-again.
No human, apart from the Parsopa of Meshikha, had or has divine kyana.
>The Bible calls
>those who are not born-again,
>"natural men" (1Cor.2:14).
In Aramaic, actually, the verse reads very differently from the Greek you have quoted.
It tells us that "For a son of man, in his Napsha (Nefesh), does not accept spiritual things..."
This is in stark contrast to sons of men who accept things in their Rukha (spirit) (v. 15).
These verse simply teach us that there is a distinction between how different people either accept, or don't accept, the message of the gospel. Those who do it in their Nephesh (v. 14) find the message foolish, but those who do it in their Rukha (v. 15) fully understands.
These verses do not, as you imply, draw a distinction between men (believers and non-believers) who are otherwise identical in Kyana and Qnoma. It merely distinguishes between their actions.
>An unbeliever is body and soul.
> A person who is
>born-again has received the gift
>of holy spirit, and is
>now body, soul, and spirit.
Everyone, believer or non-believer, has body, soul and spirit.
> It is the presence
>of holy spirit that gives
>us our divine kyana, or
>nature - ie. the new
>man.
No - we don't have nor will we ever have divine kyana.
Don't confuse the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers with having "divine kyana." We only have fellowship with God - we can never be God.
>Body soul and
>spirit cannot be separated from
>the understanding of kyana, qnoma
>and parsopa. Somehow one
>is a characteristic of the
>other - ie. parsopa, in
>a manner of speaking (figurative).
>
>
>Is this not correct?
We can get to these other terms, and how they relate to our discussion, after we fully understand the first set of terms.
You're almost there! 
Fk^rwbw 0ml4
https://www.peshitta.org">Peshitta.org
#12, RE: K'YANA
Posted by ValiantForTruth on Apr-02-2002 at 05:39 AM
In response to message #10
Shlama Akhi Pual, You said:
>Only through Christ do
>we "partake" of the divine
>nature. The Aramaic word
>there is "have fellowship with."
>
>It's not in the same way
>Christ had divine Kyana.
>You and I (even being
>believers) cannot forgive sins or
>raise the dead.
I recall that there were other MEN besides Christ who raised people from the dead. How then are they able to do that? As for forgiving sins, I only know that Jesus said that the works that he did WE can do also, and Greater works as well.
>Meshikha isn't the perfect mediator because
>of what he did -
>but because of who he
>is. (Philippians 2:6-11)
Who he is, is definitely part of the requirement. But "what he did" had to be a prerequisite as well, for had he chose to disobey even one time, then he would have been disqualified, just as the first Adam was.
>His humanity (human kyana) was tempted,
>of course, just like us.
>His humanity is no
>different than ours, except in
>sin. His humanity did
>not sin.
>
>His divine nature was preserved in
>it's own Qnoma. It
>was not tempted, did not
>suffer on the Cross, did
>not die.
We do not sin either in our "new man", only in our "old man".
1John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1John 3:8
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
We sin in our "flesh" but cannot sin in our holy spirit or "new man".
>We cannot, and are not even
>able to, follow the
>path He did.
Again, what about John 14:12?
John14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
>In science, yes.
>In theology, no. "Between"
>in Aramaic, and in English,
>can carry a much broader
>and more mystical meaning than
>simply physics.
I can't believe that you are actually saying this. I must be reading this wrong.
>No - we don't have nor
>will we ever have divine
>kyana.
>
>Don't confuse the indwelling of the
>Holy Spirit in believers with
>having "divine kyana." We
>only have fellowship with God
>- we can never be
>God.
That is my point. We can never be God. BUT the gift of holy spirit is God in Christ IN US. God is in us just like God was in Christ. Certainly that is a divine nature. God raised Christ from the dead and he is in his NEW body, a spiritual body. When we are raised from the dead, we will receive our new bodies also - just like the one he now has.
If not, then what does it mean when it says that "we shall be like him"?
1John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Adam was formed, made, and created - body, soul, and spirit. Body from the dust of the ground, soul when God "breathed" into him the breath of life, and spirit (holy spirit, eternal life spirit) which is the image of God. Soul life is breath-life, the life of the flesh, and is in the blood. It is spirit, but not "eternal life spirit". Therefore, it is often referred to as "the spirit of man". The "spirit of man" is always a reference to "soul life", NOT eternal life spirit which is "holy spirit". How does this differ from your understanding of soul and spirit?
Agape,
Don
VVVVV
#13, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Paul Younan on Apr-02-2002 at 09:54 PM
In response to message #12
Shlama Akhi Don,Just as an FYI - your last post and this latest reply from me will not be saved when going to the new server in a few weeks. The data backup was performed last night and any subsequent messages on this forum will not be "carried over." Don't be mad at me - it's not intentional! 
>I recall that there were other
>MEN besides Christ who raised
>people from the dead.
>How then are they able
>to do that? As
>for forgiving sins, I only
>know that Jesus said that
>the works that he did
>WE can do also, and
>Greater works as well.
Are you saying that man can forgive sins?
>>Meshikha isn't the perfect mediator because
>>of what he did -
>>but because of who he
>>is. (Philippians 2:6-11)
>
>Who he is, is definitely part
>of the requirement. But
>"what he did" had to
>be a prerequisite as well,
>for had he chose to
>disobey even one time, then
>he would have been disqualified,
>just as the first Adam
>was.
Of course His humanity was subject to the same sinful temptations that we are subject to. The fact that He did not sin is not a credit to the willpower of His humanity, but of the Qnoma of Divinity that was united in His Person to that humanity.
>>His humanity (human kyana) was tempted,
>>of course, just like us.
>>His humanity is no
>>different than ours, except in
>>sin. His humanity did
>>not sin.
>>
>>His divine nature was preserved in
>>it's own Qnoma. It
>>was not tempted, did not
>>suffer on the Cross, did
>>not die.
>
>We do not sin either in
>our "new man", only in
>our "old man".
We sin constantly every day, "old man" or "new."
>
1John 1:8
>If we say that we have
>no sin, we deceive ourselves,
>and the truth is not
>in us. Absolutely!
>1John 3:8
>Whosoever is born of God doth
>not commit sin; for his
>seed remaineth in him: and
>he cannot sin, because he
>is born of God.
>
>We sin in our "flesh" but
>cannot sin in our holy
>spirit or "new man". We don't have a "holy spirit" apart from the 3rd Qnoma of God. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (God) in believers is our promise from Meshikha and He is our guidance.
But, as you said - we always sin - and Meshikha did not.
I know what you're trying to get at though - that Meshikha is a man that simply had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That couldn't be further from the truth.
>
>>We cannot, and are not even
>>able to, follow the
>>path He did.
>
>Again, what about John 14:12?
>
John14:12
>Verily, verily, I say unto you,
>He that believeth on me,
>the works that I do
>shall he do also; and
>greater works than these shall
>he do; because I go
>unto my Father.
Why are you bringing up a totally irrelevant passage? Meshikha is saying that his followers would be able to perform miracles through the power of God - not that they would be able to forgive sins as only God can.
You're implying that Meshikha is a mere man like us. That's only half true. He's also complete God (as He is complete man.)
No other human being ever had those qualifications - nor ever will.
God has used others to perform miracles. But Moses did not make water come out of the rock - God did.
But the miracles that Meshikha did, he did of His own power and authority. Not that His human Qnoma was responsible for raising the dead or forgiving sins - that was His Divine Qnoma.
>
>>In science, yes.
>>In theology, no. "Between"
>>in Aramaic, and in English,
>>can carry a much broader
>>and more mystical meaning than
>>simply physics.
>
>I can't believe that you are
>actually saying this. I
>must be reading this wrong.
What I'm saying is that we're not talking about space and time. Meshikha isn't literally hanging in between God and humanity.
What I'm saying is that the Parsopa of Meshikha is "between" God and man. But that's at the Parsopa level and no one denies that. At the Qnoma level, He is both God and man. His human Qnoma was taken from the Virgin Mary and united to His divine Qnoma.
Read and re-read Philippians 2:6-11.
>>No - we don't have nor
>>will we ever have divine
>>kyana.
>>
>>Don't confuse the indwelling of the
>>Holy Spirit in believers with
>>having "divine kyana." We
>>only have fellowship with God
>>- we can never be
>>God.
>
>That is my point. We can
>never be God. BUT
>the gift of holy spirit
>is God in Christ IN
>US.
I would word that to say that the gift of the Holy Spirit IS GOD in us, as Christ was God with us ("Emmanuel.")
>God is in
>us just like God was
>in Christ.
No - we have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is one Qnoma of the divine Kyana. He is God "indwelling" in us.
Meshikha did not have God "indwelling" in Him. Meshikha is God in His own divine Qnoma, united with His human Qnoma in one Parsopa.
Please read Philippians 2:6-11 again.
>Certainly that
>is a divine nature.
But you miss the proper scriptural formula.
>God raised Christ from the
>dead and he is in
>his NEW body, a spiritual
>body.
Meshikha raised His human Qnoma from the dead (John 2:19), being God HIMSELF in His divine Qnoma (the 2nd Qnoma of the divine Kyana.) (Philippians 2:6-11, John 1:1)
>When we are
>raised from the dead, we
>will receive our new bodies
>also - just like the
>one he now has.
Yes - his Human Qnoma was raised with a new spiritual body just like our Human Qnoma will be raised with a new spiritual body. That has nothing to do with his Divine Qnoma which was from the beginning (Genesis 1:26, John 1:1)
>If not, then what does it
>mean when it says that
>"we shall be like him"?
>
>
1John 3:2
>Beloved, now are we the sons
>of God, and it doth
>not yet appear what we
>shall be: but we know
>that, when he shall appear,
>we shall be like him;
>for we shall see him
>as he is.
Exactly what you think it means. Our humanity will undergo a change like His did.
His Divinity did not change nor will it ever change.
>Adam was formed, made, and created
>- body, soul, and spirit.
> Body from the dust
>of the ground, soul when
>God "breathed" into him the
>breath of life, and spirit
>(holy spirit, eternal life spirit)
>which is the image of
>God.
>Soul life is
>breath-life, the life of the
>flesh, and is in the
>blood. It is spirit,
>but not "eternal life spirit".
> Therefore, it is often
>referred to as "the spirit
>of man". The "spirit
>of man" is always a
>reference to "soul life", NOT
>eternal life spirit which is
>"holy spirit". How does
>this differ from your understanding
>of soul and spirit?
Very different. Of course I'm using totally different terminology.
A "spirit" we call Rukha, which means at the simplest level "breath/wind" but at the more advanced level it means the spiritual core of our being.
A "soul" we call Napsha, it simply is a description that describes a living, breathing and rational entity.
Fk^rwbw 0ml4
https://www.peshitta.org">Peshitta.org
#14, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Rony on May-11-2003 at 02:53 AM
In response to message #13
ShlamaI am a Chaldean Catholic. I am confused about something that I hope someone here will help explain to me. I understand that Kyana refers to an abstract nature, Qnoma refers to an individual but never personalized concrete nature, and Parsopa refers to a person. According to the chart the Father has a qnoma, the Son has a qnoma, and the Holy Spirit has a qnoma. However, only the Son is a Parsopa. Are we saying that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not persons? Further, are we saying that the Son was not a person prior to His conception?
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on paragraph 253, the catechism confesses God as one God in three persons. Now if the Father, the Son (prior to conception), and the Holy Spirit are not Parsope or persons, then how do I reconcile this with what the catechism is saying?
Thanks for your help.
Rony
#15, RE: K'YANA
Posted by Rony on May-11-2003 at 02:53 AM
In response to message #13
ShlamaI am a Chaldean Catholic. I am confused about something that I hope someone here will help explain to me. I understand that Kyana refers to an abstract nature, Qnoma refers to an individual but never personalized concrete nature, and Parsopa refers to a person. According to the chart the Father has a qnoma, the Son has a qnoma, and the Holy Spirit has a qnoma. However, only the Son is a Parsopa. Are we saying that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not persons? Further, are we saying that the Son was not a person prior to His conception?
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on paragraph 253, the catechism confesses God as one God in three persons. Now if the Father, the Son (prior to conception), and the Holy Spirit are not Parsope or persons, then how do I reconcile this with what the catechism is saying?
Thanks for your help.
Rony