the Son of God

Ahki All,

I am curious... The phrase "the son of" occurs over 1000 times in the scriptures. And more than 40 times in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as "the son of God". When Jesus is referred to as "the son of God", is the usage of words different somehow from when others who are referred to as "the son of someone"?

Also, in John 3:16, does it say something different in the Aramaic than what is written in English?

And one more, in Matthew 27:43 it says, "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God."

What does that mean? If Jesus truly is God, then why doesn't Matthew just write that Jesus said "I am God"? Any thoughts? It seems to be a contradiction from a grammar point of view.

Agape,
Don

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

The very questions you have asked are all resolved when we consult the reasons behind the Christological controversies of the 5th century, namely the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

This is a huge topic with many volumes of books written about it.

In other words, the main question is "How is Jesus both God and Man at the same time?"

If you answer that question satisfactorily - then the other questions you've asked just fall into place - like "What does 'Son of Man' mean"? Or "What does 'Son of God' mean"? Or "Why does Jesus call God 'My God' if he himself is God?"

I personally believe that because the Western Church used Greek terminology to define the mystery of the Incarnation of the Messiah - that certain errors crept in.

This eventually led to the separation of the Church of the East from the rest of Christendom - because the Church of the East continued to use terminology based in the Aramaic revelation rather than Greek formulas.

If Akhi Drywood understood the Aramaic behind the formulas we, and the Peshitta NT, uses to describe the mystery of the Incarnation - then none of these things would be an issue anymore. Not even the "Trinity" would be an issue anymore and nobody would ever again ask the question:

"How can God be one if there are three Persons in the Godhead?"

To begin with - please read the following articles:

https://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html

You will no doubt have questions about some of the transliterated Aramaic words in those articles.

We can then proceed with your questions about what those words mean and how they answer all of the questions you have posed.

In the meantime - please realize that Akhi Drywood would not be making the statements he is making about John 20:17 if he really understood the Mystery of the Incarnation of Christ according to the Aramaic terminology.

The Greek has totally messed this topic up - and I hope that you read that article so we can begin discussing how the Aramaic clears up all these hard questions.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 

Ahki Paul,
can I download that article for future discussions or is this secured or coprighted or something. Oh yes in passing. Just a reminder of a slip in your interlinear English at Matthew 15:9. I think it should read “they teach” because the lexeme word 26050 is Nyplm malpiyn. Also why does the lexicon show first person where there are more examples for “they”.
Shlama, jdrywood

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Thanks for catching the typo in Mattai 15:9 - just missing a "y" - I'll be sure to correct that immediately.

I'm not sure why the lexicon is showing first person - I'll research this and Ask Dr. Kiraz who created it.

My initial assumption is that the first-person plural is the same pattern as the third-person plural - in which case the lexicon is simply missing an identical entry for third-person.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #3
 

Ahki Paul,
I've been slow getting back to anyone especially our good moderator. I'm checking all the posts to actually see what got the IRON HOT and Ahki Andrew has every right to be "ROTH". I admit he has not slanted me whatsoever and those who have no longer address me as brother or aahki but drywood or wood. I'm use to that. I'll have them know that my name is in the bible at Isaiah 56:3 and I'm no eunuch. I have no disrepect for Andrew or Jews or Nazarenes which I believe died out sometime after 2nd century as a group. If andrew has some infor that they did not I would be interested because my view of the Nazarenes goes back earlier than CE with men like Philo who had some funny ideas about 'logos' that some posts on kabbala and the books I have on en soph seem to make him aliened some how. Mohmandas was a kabbala expert but he never put it above the Hebrew scriptures. I am secptical though and not easliy convinced if kabala has a place for bible students. I think the gnostics were kabalist in there day which becoming believers corrupted the meaning of the god-head and person of Jesus which John called "the anti-christ" or more Aramaic 'false christs'or 'false brethren'. Is is in this context that I related to Andrew being self proclaimed kabbalist and a post that said kabalists believe in God-mother, mother God. As a Christadelphian I would not even call marium, Jesus mother, mother of God. You guys do not know what a Christadelphian brother in Christ is. I assure you we believe in ONE deity God, the man Jesus Christ his son, and the power of the highest. Unlike you we do not have a formulae of three sum. A better definition would be found on any web site that links to Christadelphians Birmingham England where you can fine a statement of the Faith. You have a statement and so do we. They are different. My personal reasons in viewing your site is to get a better feel for Aramaic and the consequences of the semite tradition which caused divisions whither by langinutics or theology or just plain subborness. Did the people of Jesus day take him for a walking God, Well, the woman of Matt 15:25 revered him not as such by using the word lord, mari. She saw him as a saviour, her head whose head is deity. I would like to address this issue of mari or mrya in Tanakh (andrew) and PNT yourself providing we can stick to the meaning of the words in context to what is recorded. You have touched upon a sensitive subject as the posts indicate and I am slow to analysize things. I agree that theology is a mess but the truth will prevail regardless of traditions and creeds. Ahky jdrywood Shlama

In reply to message #4
 
» Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Feb-23-2002 at 08:13 PM (GMT3)

>
>Ahki Paul,
> I've been
>slow getting back to anyone
>especially our good moderator. I'm
>checking all the posts to
>actually see what got the
>IRON HOT and Ahki Andrew
>has every right to be
>"ROTH".

SHLAMA AKHI JDRYWOOD. I AM SURE PAUL WILL RESPOND TO WHAT YOU HAD ADDRESSED TO HIM. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS INVOLVES ME AS WELL, ALLOW ME PLEASE TO SAY A FEW THINGS.

I AM NOT HOLDING ANYTHING AGAINST YOU AS A PERSON, BUT I AM VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE PESHITTA TEXT. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

I admit he has
>not slanted me whatsoever

TODAH RABBAH...AND YET FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU SEEM TO HAVE QUESTIONED MY FAITH OR AT LEAST DOWNPLAYED IT ("A NAZARENE JEW OR SOMETHING"?)

and
>those who have no longer
>address me as brother or
>aahki but drywood or wood.
>I'm use to that.

THAT IS UNFORTUNATE. I THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ 1 CORINTHIANS 13:1-13 AGAIN AND AGAIN BEFORE JUDGING, LET ALONE MATTI 7:1. IN THE END THIS FORUM IS NOT ABOUT THEOLOGY, BUT ABOUT WHAT THE PESHITTA TEXT SAYS.

I'll
>have them know that my
>name is in the bible
>at Isaiah 56:3 and I'm
>no eunuch. I have no
>disrepect for Andrew or Jews
>or Nazarenes which I believe
>died out sometime after 2nd
>century as a group. If
>andrew has some infor that
>they did not I would
>be interested because my view
>of the Nazarenes goes back
>earlier than CE with men
>like Philo who had some
>funny ideas about 'logos'....

BACK UP A BIT PLEASE. THERE ARE MANY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THEIR PROPER TURN. FIRST, READ ACTS 24:12-14, AND SEE THAT DESCRIBES WHAT IS A NAZARENE. A NAZARENE IS THE PROPER IDENTIFIER OF ANY JEWISH PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN MESHIKHA. I REPEAT, ANY JEW, WHO BELIEVES IN Y'SHUA HA MOSHIACK, IS, BY DEFINITION A NAZARENE. THIS DEFINITION CAME EXTREMELY EARLY, AND AT AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT GENTILES WHO FOLLOWED APOSTOLIC TEACHINGS IN ANTIOCH WERE CALLED "CHRISTIANS".

NOW, AS TO YOUR SECOND POINT, YOU ARE I BELIEVE REFERRING TO THE YEAR 135, WHEN THE LAST JEWISH HEAD OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH STEPPED DOWN AND A GENTILE BISHOP NAMED MARKUS REPLACED HIM. THAT MOST CERTAINLY DID REFLECT A KIND OF SEMITIC PURGING FROM THE "JESUS MOVEMENT".

HOWEVER, AGAIN, FROM THAT TIME ONWARDS, THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SMALL POCKETS OF JEWS WHO ACCEPTED THEIR TRUE HERITAGE AS MESSIANIC BELIEVERS. I AM ONE OF THOSE. THIS IS A PART OF PROPHECY, AS I AM SURE YOU AWARE, BECAUSE REGARDING THE ADVENT OF MESHIKHA EVEN THE PROPHET ISAIAH, WRITING UNDER DIVINE GUIDANCE SAID IN HIS 53RD CHAPTER, "WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF YHWH BEEN REVEALED?" ISAIAH KNEW, ABSOLUTELY, THAT ALMOST ALL OF HIS PEOPLE WOULD REJECT THE TRUE MESSIAH, AND THAT WHOEVER ISRAEL ACCEPTED AS MESSIAH (BAR KOCHBA? SHABBATAI SVI?) WAS THE WRONG GUY.

that
>some posts on kabbala and
>the books I have on
>en soph seem to make
>him aliened some how. Mohmandas
>was a kabbala expert but
>he never put it above
>the Hebrew scriptures.

I ASSUME YOU REFER TO PHILO SAYING THAT IT WAS NOT RIGHT FOR THE DIVINE MYSTERIES TO BE MADE PUBLIC (QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS IV). MOHAMMED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN KABBALLAH AT ALL, BUT I COULD BE WRONG THERE.

BUT THIS BRINGS UP A RELATED TOPIC. YOU CALLED ME A "KABBALIST" AND A "GNOSTIC". THAT WAS WAY INACCURATE. A "GNOSTIC" IS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT DEITY CANNOT UNITE WITH FLESH AND THAT MESHIKHA IS NOT DIVINE--AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE I DON'T SHARE THOSE VIEWS.

AS FOR "KABBALIST", I REFERRED TO KABBALAH...I NEVER SAID I PUT IT ABOVE SCRIPTURE DID I? I AM NOT THAT EITHER. I REFER TO MYSTICAL WRITINGS TO SHOW JEWISH INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE THROUGHOUT THE AGES, NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SCRIPTURE ITSELF. ASK ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME AND MY REFRAIN IS THAT KABBALLLAH CAN NEVER OVERTURN PSHAT (THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT).

HOWEVER BY YOUR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, IF I QUOTED FROM THE KORAN TO SHOW SOME COMPARISON WITH THE BIBLE, AM I NOW A MUSLIM TOO?

NAZARENES FROM THE SECOND CENTURY WERE NOT KABBALISTS OR GNOSTICS EITHER. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW.

I am
>secptical though and not easliy
>convinced if kabala has a
>place for bible students. I
>think the gnostics were kabalist
>in there day which becoming
>believers corrupted the meaning of
>the god-head

AND THE GNOSTICS, LIKE YOURSELF, DO NOT BELIEVE YSHUA IS YHWH...

and person of
>Jesus which John called "the
>anti-christ" or more Aramaic 'false
>christs'or 'false brethren'. Is is
>in this context that I
>related to Andrew being self
>proclaimed kabbalist and a post
>that said kabalists believe in
>God-mother, mother God.

AGAIN, I AM NOT A KABBALIST, BUT I REFERRED TO MYSTICAL TEACHINGS FROM A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORK. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT MY BELIEFS ARE, WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO ASK THAN TO SIMPLY ASSUME?

As a
>Christadelphian I would not even
>call marium, Jesus mother, mother
>of God. You guys do
>not know what a Christadelphian
>brother in Christ is. I
>assure you we believe in
>ONE deity God, the man
>Jesus Christ his son, and
>the power of the highest.
>Unlike you we do not
>have a formulae of three
>sum. A better definition would
>be found on any web
>site that links to Christadelphians
>Birmingham England where you can
>fine a statement of the
>Faith. You have a
>statement and so do we.
>They are different. My personal
>reasons in viewing your site
>is to get a better
>feel for Aramaic and the
>consequences of the semite tradition
>which caused divisions whither by
>langinutics or theology or just
>plain subborness.

BE CAREFUL HERE. THE SEMITC TRADITION IS THE ORIGNAL VESSEL OF THE REVELATION...EVEN IN THE GNT. MESHIKHA AND ALL HIS FOLLOWERS WERE NATIVE ARAMAIC SPEAKERS. IT WAS THE MISTRANSLATIONS INTO GREEK ("AS BEST THEY COULD") THAT CREATED THE DIVISIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. LOOK UP THE COUNCILS OF EPHESUS AND CHALCIDON AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.

Did the people
>of Jesus day take him
>for a walking God, Well,
>the woman of Matt 15:25
>revered him not as such
>by using the word lord,
>mari. She saw him as
>a saviour, her head whose
>head is deity. I would
>like to address this issue
>of mari or mrya in
>Tanakh (andrew) and PNT yourself
>providing we can stick to
>the meaning of the words
>in context to what is
>recorded.

WE HAVE. MARYAH=YHWH. YHWH APPEARED BEFORE ABRAHAM IN GENESIS 18:1. ISAIAH 53:1 CALLS MESHIKHA THE ARM OF YHWH/MARYAH.

You have touched upon
>a sensitive subject as the
>posts indicate and I am
>slow to analysize things.

AND QUICK TO ANGER AND TO ACCUSE, AND MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT NOT JUST ME, BUT ALL OF US. REALLY YOU SHOULD STRIVE TO DO BETTER, OR ALL THAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT ONLY PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH WILL BE ABLE TO TALK WITH YOU. THAT WILL BE UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE I CAN SEE YOU SINCERELY SEEK THE ANSWERS ON THESE THINGS AND HAVE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME STUDYING THEM CAREFULLY. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS BUT NOT WITH YOUR INTENTIONS. ANY SINCERE SEEKER DESERVES SERIOUS ATTENTION, BUT NOT WHEN THAT PERSON, WHO IS NEW TO A GIVEN FIELD OF INQUIRY LIKE THE PESHITTA TEXT, RECORDS HIS DISAGREEMENT VIA INSULTS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. IF YOU CAN CURB THAT THOUGH I WOULD LIKE YOU TO STAY HERE AND CONTRIBUTE.

I
>agree that theology is a
>mess but the truth will
>prevail regardless of traditions and
>creeds. Ahky jdrywood Shlama

EXACTLY...WHICH IS WHY THIS FORUM IS CALLED PESHITTA.ORG, NOT COE.ORG, NAZARENE.ORG OR CHRISTADELPHIAN.ORG. NU?

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH

In reply to message #5
 

ahki Andrew,
all is forgiven and forgotten. love prevails. The Canucks will prevail in tomorrows game. should be a good one. ahki jdrywood shlama

In reply to message #1
 
>Shlama Akhi Don,
>
>The very questions you have asked
>are all resolved when we
>consult the reasons behind the
>Christological controversies of the 5th
>century, namely the councils of
>Ephesus and Chalcedon.
>
>This is a huge topic with
>many volumes of books written
>about it.

Akhi Paul,

Many people have written many books “about” God’s Word. BUT we must be very, VERY careful not to “elevate” these works (or their authors) to a point where they take precedence, or are considered more sacred, than the written word of God itself.

John 5:39 does NOT say to "search what the holy Father’s say", but rather “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

>In other words, the main question
>is "How is Jesus both
>God and Man at the
>same time?"

The answer is in the SCRIPTURES, not in the declarations made at synods and counsels.

>If you answer that question satisfactorily
>- then the other questions
>you've asked just fall into
>place - like "What does
>'Son of Man' mean"?
>Or "What does 'Son of
>God' mean"? Or "Why
>does Jesus call God 'My
>God' if he himself is
>God?"

This entire argument is based on the “assumption” that Jesus is God (everyone agrees that he was a man). At the synods and counsels, they skipped over this and moved on from there (this is the Greek Mythology influence - all Greek Gods came to earth and cohabited with mankind). Therefore they are jumping ahead with many questions left unanswered - Jesus is God and Man “at the same time” is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

The Bible clearly states that God is not a man, and that Jesus is a man. In an act to "unify", they say "everyone is right - he was both". This is political correctness, not truth.

We must search the scriptures - not synods and counsels - for truth! In other words, if we FIRST understand what the Bible says and means when it uses words like “son of man” and “son of God”, then we can begin to learn why Jesus calls God “your God and my God”. Then we can begin to learn just who Jesus is and what he did for us. If Jesus is God, then the cross was "no big deal". But if Jesus was a man, with the freedom to choose right or wrong. Then what he did is absolutely worthy of the acolades bestowed upon him by God.

>I personally believe that because the
>Western Church used Greek terminology
>to define the mystery of
>the Incarnation of the Messiah
>- that certain errors crept
>in.
>
>This eventually led to the separation
>of the Church of the
>East from the rest of
>Christendom - because the Church
>of the East continued to
>use terminology based in the
>Aramaic revelation rather than Greek
>formulas.

All of the Greek Gods were part God and part human. The trinity is a blending of truth with Greek "mythology". And separating the myth part from the logos part is what no one seems to care to do. We must be valiant for truth, not myth.

>If (people) understood the Aramaic
>behind the formulas we, and
>the Peshitta NT, uses to
>describe the mystery of the
>Incarnation - then none of
>these things would be an
>issue anymore.

Those who attended the synods and wrote the declarations at the counsels all disagree with that statement. THEY say that the trinity cannot be "understood".

>Not even the "Trinity" would be an
>issue anymore and nobody would
>ever again ask the question:
>
>"How can God be one if
>there are three Persons in
>the Godhead?"

3 persons in the Godhead would be more easily agreed to if it did not involve 2 different "wills" - Jesus said, "not MY will, but THINE be done." Now either Jesus is NOT God, or God is "schizophrenic". And according to my Bible, God is NOT schizophrenic according to James 1:17.

>To begin with - please read
>the following articles:
>
>https://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
>
>You will no doubt have questions
>about some of the transliterated
>Aramaic words in those articles.
>
>
>We can then proceed with your
>questions about what those words
>mean and how they answer
>all of the questions you
>have posed.

I read the link you supplied.

>In the meantime - please realize
>that Akhi Drywood would not
>be making the statements he
>is making about John 20:17
>if he really understood the
>Mystery of the Incarnation of
>Christ according to the Aramaic
>terminology.

Then the Aramaic must disagree with the Fathers (at these synods and counsels) because they say that this CANNOT be understood. If it cannot be understood, then HOW can it be the foundation of it all? It can't. In contrast, TRUTH "can be" understood, and is easily entreated.

The hard questions are not "understood", only "explained" thinking that their explanation is satisfactory enough, and that you are "anathema" if you think otherwise. This is not being valiant for truth.

Agape,
Don

In reply to message #7
 
Just to clarify,
My reference to Philo was not to ‘the mysteries’ though that is also a good point but to what was being taught in the Academy at Alexandria. It was there that the belief of the incarnation originated and pre-dates the birth of Jesus Christ. Philo of Alexandria, selections: ‘God had intercource with his knowledge’ writes: “The craftsman who made this universe was at the same time the father of what was begotten while the mother was the knowledge of its creator. With his knowledge God had intercourse, not in human fashion, and begat created being. Knowledge received the divine seed and with birth-throes bearing perfect fruit bore the only beloved and sense-perceptible Son, this world.” Philo visited Rome about 40 CE and his books were widely read and studied by the Pagan Philosophers. The above quote when read in context is his views of what he calls “the divine logos” in forming the universe. Such language of man’s thinking is picked up by the church fathers in explaining the ‘incarnation’ a word never found in scripture then some of the fathers, particularly, Eusebius of Caesarea adopts the very phrase Philo used, “the divine logos”. Such language as this disturbs me and Christians should be warned. Its what I have formerly referred to as Gentilism that tarnished the apostolic teachings that are not found in the Aramaic, Greek or early italic texts. The relationship between deity , his son, and the power from on high can be viewed in ways consistent with OT teaching. John 20:17 can be explained by OT linguistics which is why POT and PNT are so important in finding a common thread if there is one. Ahki jdrywood shlama

In reply to message #8
 
Shlama Akhi John,

>Its what I have formerly
>referred to as Gentilism that
>tarnished the apostolic teachings that
>are not found in the
>Aramaic, Greek or early italic
>texts.

The Aramaic text very strongly supports the reality of the divinity of the Messiah.

You're making blanket statements without even understanding the Aramaic.

Bottom line is that the Apostles called Yeshua "Mar-Ya." In order to be a believer in Him and have the same faith as the Apostles - you must, as well, call Him "Mar-Ya."

Finally, if you are going to call Him "Mar-Ya" - you should at least understand what the term means.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #7
 
Hi guys!...while we are on this topic, I might as well bring up another query regarding an aramaic word. At Victor Alexanders site he writes of an ancient Aramaic word for which he suggests is related to the concept of a 'trinity'....It can be found here

https://www.v-a.com/bible/bible.html

Is this word found in the scriptures? And Paul can you tell us what you know of this word? How ancient is it, where is it used and what does it mean?

thanks ..............Michael

In reply to message #9
 
Shlama Akhi Michael,

Qnuma (alternately spelled 'Qnoma') is one of the key theological terms in Aramaic which are crucial to understanding the CoE's position of the "Trinity" and the Incarnation of Christ.

According to Mar Bawai the Great (6-7th centuries) in his "Book of the Union", the definition of Qnoma is as follows:

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one (numerically) among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome (only) by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `parsopa'. With rational creatures this (uniqueness) may consist of various (external and internal) accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures (as also with the rational) the combination of various contrasting features. (Through the parsopa we distinguish that) Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole (but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.)."

Here Babai sets forth his understanding of qnoma as being a representative exemplar of a general species. It is the essence of a given nature in concrete, realized form. It is the essential substratum upon which a "parsopa" is based. It is nature undifferentiated in any way from exemplary qnome of the same nature except for number, but differentiated both in number and essence from exemplary qnome of other natures. This substratum of nature is further individualized only by the addition of accidents, phenomena which are not of the essence of a given nature, but which make it possible to distinguish one qnoma from another. Nature is general and descriptive: qnoma is specific and exemplary. When Babai speaks of Christ as "God and man", he insists on specificity: a divine qnoma (not the Holy Trinity) and a human qnoma (not mankind in general).

Qnuma is used on several occasions in the Peshitta New Testament. Do a "root" search in the lexicon using Mnq and check out the passages where it's used.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #11
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

>"A singular essence is called a
>`qnoma'...does not encompass the nature
>as a whole (but exemplifies
>what is common to the
>nature, such as, in a
>human qnoma, body, soul, mind,
>etc.)."

Great stuff. Excellent example of a triune entity.

It is the essence
>of a given nature in
>concrete, realized form. It is
>the essential substratum upon which
>a "parsopa" is based.

Parsopa?

>Qnuma is used on several occasions
>in the Peshitta New Testament.
> Do a "root" search
>in the lexicon using Mnq
>and check out the passages
>where it's used.

It appears 'idios' may be similar in Gr.
However is there any significance of its use in John 5:26 as both the Father and Son have life in
hnwmqb?

bwq9y 0ml4

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

>
> It is the essence
>>of a given nature in
>>concrete, realized form. It is
>>the essential substratum upon which
>>a "parsopa" is based.
>
>Parsopa?
>

More from this article: https://www.cired.org/east/nest.html

On the subject of parsopa Babai has this to say:

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

Here that which is not of the essence of an exemplary nature but a property possessed by it which distinguishes it from others of its kind, in combination with other such characteristics, comprises the parsopa of a given nature. Here Paul becomes Paul and not just "man" and is distinguished from Peter, whose qnoma does not otherwise differ from Paul's except in numerical distinction. Paul not only looks different from Peter (hair color, height, weight, complexion, etc.) but acts differently, reflecting underlying differences in abilities, talents, interests, etc.-the characteristics of his parsopa. Paul becomes a subject of interest on his own, not just as a specimen of "manhood". And the integrity of his identity is bound up in the fact that his parsopa is uniquely his and not another's, whereas the integrity of his qnoma lies in its faithful reflection, in exemplary form, of the exact nature of any other ordinary man.

>
>>Qnuma is used on several occasions
>>in the Peshitta New Testament.
>> Do a "root" search
>>in the lexicon using Mnq
>>and check out the passages
>>where it's used.
>
>
>It appears 'idios' may be similar
>in Gr.
>However is there any significance of
>its use in John 5:26
>as both the Father and
>Son have life in
>hnwmqb?
>

Absolutely. In fact, verse 25 makes more sense when you consider that verse 26 is telling us that the giving "life" is at the very core, or "substance" 0mwnq, of God.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life...." (John 14:6)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #15
 
hi there,
when I read John 5:26 it is saying to me without fancy words that deity is a being separate from the being of his son and both beings have life. Now my natural father has being and as his son I have being and both of us beings have life. what's wrong with this. grace to you. ahki jdrywood

In reply to message #16
 
» Last edited by Paul Younan on Feb-26-2002 at 09:46 PM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhi John,

It won't seem like a big deal at all unless you get rid of the pre-conceived notions and have an open mind.

Allow the Aramaic to speak to you without putting God in the proverbial box.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #15
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Excellent stuff.

Are there instance of
0mwnq where the term is used to describe anything other than an entity. e.g. group, pantheon, etc?

Shlama,
Yaqub

In reply to message #17
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

>Are there instance of
>0mwnq where the
>term is used to describe
>anything other than an entity.
>e.g. group, pantheon, etc?

I don't think so - I've never seen such usage, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.

Usually the word means strictly an "underlying substance" or "attribute" - although there is no real English equivalent.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #19
 
Akhi Paul,

PLease don't chuckle at that last effort.
Let me try again.

'That is to say he is the radiance of his glory and the image of his substance maintaining everything with his mighty word and he in himself made purification for our sins and sat upon the right of high greatness'

Is that better?

Yaqub

In reply to message #22
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov!

No that was wonderful - that's exactly the way I had hoped you would translate it - because it shows exactly the problem of how the Greeks translated it - here I've color-coded the problem:

'That is to say he is the radiance of his glory and the image of his substance maintaining everything with his mighty word and he in himself made purification for our sins and sat upon the right of high greatness'

The phrase "in himself" is incorrect - the Aramaic word 0mwnq never means "person/itself/himself" like the Greek word that usually translates it (autos).

There is no exact equivalent in Greek or in English to the Aramaic 0mwnq - this is why I appealed to patristic writings and synods which preserved the original meaning.

The best way to understand "Qnoma" is that it's an "underlying substance", a "concrete nature" and an "attribute." This is important for reasons that are not readily apparent right now but that I will get into in subsequent posts.

The term is best left untranslated as I've done below:

'That is to say he is the radiance of his glory and the image of his substance maintaining everything with his mighty word and he in his Qnoma made purification for our sins and sat upon the right of high greatness'

Now, why is this important? Well, let's further define the Aramaic understanding of the Incarnation - how Christ can be both "God and Man" at one and the same time.

If you would allow me to bring in a non-biblical witness here, I quote from Mar Bawai (6th century) in his "Book of the Union" where he helps us to further understand what exactly "Qnoma" means:

0hl0d 0rb 0xy4m wh dx
(One is Mshikha, the Son of God)
Nynyk Nyrtb fk Nm dygs
(Woshipped by all in two Natures Nynyk)
0b0 Nm dyly htwhl0bd
(In His Godhead begotten of the Father)
0nbz Nm L9l 0yrw4 fd
(Without beginning, before all time)
Myrm Nm dyly htw4n0bd
(In His humanity, born of Maryam)
0dyxm 0rgpb 0nbz Mlw4b
(In the fullness of time, in a body united)
0m0 Nyk Nm htwhl0 f
(Neither His Godhead <was> from the nature Nyk of the mother)
0b0 Nyk Nm htw4n0 fw
(Nor His humanity <was> from the nature Nyk of the Father)
Jwhymwnqb 0n^yk Nyry=n
(Preserved <are> the Natures 0n^yk in their own Qnumeh Jwhymwnq)
Fwrb 0dxd 0pwcrp dxb
(In one Person 0pwcrp of one Sonship)
Fwhl0 hyty0d Nky0w
(And as the Godhead is)
Fwty0 0dx 0m^wnq Flt
(Three Qnumeh 0m^wnq, One Essence Fwty0)
0rbd htwrb hyty0 Nkh
(Likewise the Sonship of the Son)
0pwcrp dx Nynyk Nyrtb
(Is in two Natures Nynyk one Person 0pwcrp)

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

If Qnoma is not "person" but "underlying substance/concrete nature" and if two "qnome" preserve each of the natures ("kyane") of Christ (Divine and Human) - then the meaning of the passage is clear.

It is not Christ's Eternal Godhead which was seated at the right hand - but His Humanity, the same Humanity which Paul tells us "made purification for our sins."

Along the same line of reasoning - in Aramaic we never say that the "Trinity" is "three persons."

God is one - with three "Qnome" which represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Likewise, Christ is one - with two "Qnome" - his Divine Qnoma which is eternal and his human Qnoma which he took from us.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

This thread started by you asking about whether or not certain Aramaic phrases had nuances which could explain certain things that seemed contradictory or poorly explained.

I then attempted to start an explanation into some of those topics by referring you to documents which have helped to define some key terms used in this discussion, particularly in the Aramaic New Testament.

What I got was basically a lecture on "sola-scriptura."

If you would like for me to explain certain things about Aramaic, then you must allow me to do it from my own understanding.

For a little background on my own understanding of this language and the meaning behind certain key Aramaic words that have everything to do with your initial inquiry - here's the story:

I wasn't born with a miraculous knowledge of Aramaic. My parents taught me this language, with help from our culture and even the church. Their parents taught them this language, with help from our culture and even the church. You know where this is going....

A language is defined and preserved by many different things - one of which is a culture in which it is nourished. From this culture arises dictionaries, stories, songs and even things like church councils which define theology and theological terms.

If you're looking to understand Aramaic theological terms simply by reading one book, be it the New Testament even - I'm afraid I can't help you there. My experience with Aramaic is not just based on the way a word is used in one book.

In fact, based on my experience - the way a word is used in one book is greatly clarified when evidence from other areas is introduced. I have discovered, like many before me, that the Aramaic of the New Testament didn't (and doesn't) exist in a vacuum.

I'm presuming that if I had offered my suggested reading from a fictional work rather than from councils of the CoE that I would not have touched the nerve that I did.

Be that as it may - I understand your concern for letting the scriptures speak for themselves - but be forewarned that my understanding of key theological terms in Aramaic is based, among many other things, partly in things like church councils and patriarchal literature.

And many times, it is simply impossible to properly understand a word without referencing prior, contemporary or subsequent works which use it.

This is one of those cases.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #10
 
>Shlama Akhi Don,
>
>This thread started by you asking
>about whether or not certain
>Aramaic phrases had nuances which
>could explain certain things that
>seemed contradictory or poorly explained.
>
>I then attempted to start an
>explanation into some of those
>topics by referring you to
>documents which have helped to
>define some key terms used
>in this discussion, particularly in
>the Aramaic New Testament.
>
>What I got was basically a
>lecture on "sola-scriptura."

Ahki Paul,

I respect and appreciate what you are doing, and what you were trying to do for me. In my limited Biblical training, one of the fundamentals I learned in order to understand the scriptures, is to learn how God uses various words in His written word. In this way we can then know what He intended to mean, rather than on what we think He means. However, often times there may not be more than one or two usages of a given word in the scriptures. THEN, in order to get a better understanding of that word and its meaning, we check secular sources for examples of it use.

With all due respect, it seemed to me that this fundamental process (fundamental to me anyways) was being mis-used, in that these counsels were giving their definitions of what they thought were the meanings of certain words, rather than how the word(s) are actually used in the literature of the day.

>If you would like for me
>to explain certain things about
>Aramaic, then you must allow
>me to do it from
>my own understanding.

I understand that.

But do you see my point? The gentlemen at the counsels are giving THEIR definitions of words and phrases, based on THEIR understanding of the scriptures, and then using THEIR definitions to prove that THEIR understanding of those same scriptures is correct. Do you not see something wrong with that?

>For a little background on my
>own understanding of this language
>and the meaning behind certain
>key Aramaic words that have
>everything to do with your
>initial inquiry - here's the
>story:
>
>I wasn't born with a miraculous
>knowledge of Aramaic. My
>parents taught me this language,
>with help from our culture
>and even the church.
>Their parents taught them this
>language, with help from our
>culture and even the church.
>You know where this is going....

...yes (and I'm thankful for your parents! They sound like "good people".)

>A language is defined and preserved
>by many different things -
>one of which is a
>culture in which it is
>nourished. From this culture
>arises dictionaries, stories, songs and
>even things like church councils
>which define theology and theological
>terms.

If (for example) the phrase "you are my beloved son" is used in everyday language the same way as it is used in these counsels, then that would make sense to me. My question then is why would that phrase take on a different meaning when it comes time to define theology or theological terms?

>If you're looking to understand Aramaic
>theological terms simply by reading
>one book, be it the
>New Testament even - I'm
>afraid I can't help you
>there. My experience with
>Aramaic is not just based
>on the way a word
>is used in one book.

I guess I'm more interested in a pure understanding of the meaning of the (in this case Aramaic) words, rather than what theologians "think" they mean.

>In fact, based on my experience
>- the way a word
>is used in one book
>is greatly clarified when evidence
>from other areas is introduced.

I agree.

>I have discovered, like
>many before me, that the
>Aramaic of the New Testament
>didn't (and doesn't) exist in
>a vacuum.
>
>I'm presuming that if I had
>offered my suggested reading from
>a fictional work rather than
>from councils of the CoE
>that I would not have
>touched the nerve that I
>did.

Fictional or secular works, now that might tell us something about how certain words were used by "regular" people to "communicate" - it was the "common" language of the people, right? And I agree that Idioms, Figures of speech, customs of the time, all are necessary ingredients in understanding the meanings of words and phrases.

>Be that as it may -
>I understand your concern for
>letting the scriptures speak for
>themselves - but be forewarned
>that my understanding of key
>theological terms in Aramaic is
>based, among many other things,
>partly in things like church
>councils and patriarchal literature.
>
>And many times, it is simply
>impossible to properly understand a
>word without referencing prior, contemporary
>or subsequent works which use
>it. This is one of those cases.

I agree ...to a point. In other words, the definition and usage must be based on its definition and usage "at the time the scriptures were written". Definitions, customs, and phrases take on different meanings as time moves on (if they didn't, this would be much easier).

When God called Jesus "his only begotten son", it seems obvious that that is what he meant. Is this phrase ever used any other way in the Aramaic language?

Agape,
Don

In reply to message #13
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

Please allow me to get to the bottom line here:

The phrase "his only begotten son" has a meaning no more special in Aramaic than in Greek or in English.

What I was attempting to do was to get to the core issue of how the Aramaic words 0mwnq and 0nyk were translated imperfectly into Greek and how this has affected what I believe is the scriptural message concerning the Incarnation and the Trinity.

If these terms are understood properly in their native context - many of the issues surrounding controversial topics like the duality of the Incarnation and "how three can be one" are resolved.

The usage of these crucial words is limited in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament usage is at best ambigious and woefully lacking when comparing it to a dictionary. The New Testament is not a dictionary.

More important than the question of what "his only begotten son" means - what does Hebrews 1:3 mean to you ?

It uses one of these words - and there is an ocean of difference between the Aramaic and the Greek.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #20
 
Akhay,

laVnm(
is the Heb compound word transliterated in both PNT & GNT from Matt. 1:23 and literally translates to 'with us (is) God'.

If is name was to be called
(Vwy because he will save his people then why are we told his name will be called "God with us"?

>More important than the question of
>what "his only begotten son"
>means - what does Hebrews
>1:3 mean to you ?

hnwmq whw 0tlmd
...by the word and his essence...?
Is that close?
I don't have a Lamsa.

>Aramaic and the Greek.

You are correct if I was close as Gr. uses 'Dunamis'-POWER.

This is great stuff.

bwq9y 0ml4

In reply to message #21
 
Boker Tov (good morning), Ya'acov,

Lets remember that the Emanu El/Amanu El reference (they are basically spelled the same in Hebrew and Aramaic in the MT, POT & PNT -so I wouldn’t call it a transliteration) in Mat 1:23 is Matthew's hint (midrash) from the OT of a virgin birth.

But we have to be careful with this one because contextually, Isa 7 has very little to do with messianic prophecy since the "Sign" was clearly meant to comfort Ahaz with the prediction of the breakdown of the Aramean-Israelite confederacy brewing in the north.

Additionally, the Hebrew "Almah" does not exclusively mean "Virgin", rather it has the broader meaning of "young woman".

So at best, the Emanu El name or title applies to the Isaiah 7:14 passage which had its primary fulfillment in the days if Ahaz and a secondary fulfillment in the days of Yosip & Maryam with the birth of Yeshua.

Having said that, I certainly see how this passage is faithfully applicable to a Messianic/New Testament fulfillment. But we should be cautious in our insistence that Isaiah (and subsequently, Matthew) had only Yeshua in mind. Otherwise we could be accused of ripping a verse out of context.

-Dean

In reply to message #23
 

Ahkay,
Lamsa: For he is the brightness of his glory
And the express image of his being
Upholding all by the power of his word
And when he had through his person cleansed our sins
Sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.
hxbw4d 0xmc wywhd
glory the radiance of (he is) that is to say

htwty0d 0mlcw
substance the image of and

htlmd fyxb Lk dyx0w
matter the mighty work of every (he) closed of and

Nyh=xd 0ykwd db9 hmwnqb whw
our sins the purification of the acted (on behalf of) person in he

0nymy L9 Btyw
right Enters he Sat he and

0mwrmb Fwbrd
heights of in thousand the

In my poor attempt to interlinear so as to see what matches up literally, I don’t see how Qnuma = person of Jesus is equated with ‘his person/ being’ of deity when Jesus is the image. If Jesus was the image of deity he can not be very deity. The object is not the source even in a photograph. A photograph does not absorb essence. Jesus was not very deity in essence but represented deity in the matter of mighty works and his character of love, mercy and truth. We see in my poor arrangement (if it came out right) how different the PNT looks from the GNT where the King James ‘the express image of his person’ or ‘being’ as Lamsa has it. In Greek literally “the express charachte (character) of his hupostaseus (substance)’. We are not very deity because we are in the likeness of elohim nor are we of the same Qnuma (body, soul, mind) as the angels or deity or Jesus because we are all made different. Deity does not stamp out robots but individuals are made who in the process of their development learn character, love, mercy, etc required in the formation of ‘sons of deity’ in a pluralist sense. Second century theology and terminology is what they claim it to be ‘a mystery’. I’m glad I am not baffled by their mystery and have a respectable King James translation in my hands that makes good common sense. Does Qnuma occur in POT? Grace and peace in a troubled world.

jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4

In reply to message #24
 
Shlama Yukhanan,

>I don’t
>see how Qnuma =
>person of Jesus is equated
>with ‘his person/ being’ of
>deity when Jesus is the
>image. If Jesus was the
>image of deity he can
>not be very deity.

So, (you left it out of your interlinear), the 3rd person singular pronoun endings, especially the hnwmqb 'in his person (singular I might add isn't it as every other time refering to the 'great one on high'?

The radiance of HIS glory...
Image of HIS substance...
The power of HIS word...
He through HIS person cleansed our sins.

Wow that's awesome.

>how different the PNT looks
>from the GNT where the
>King James ‘the express image
>of his person’ or ‘being’
>as Lamsa has it. In
>Greek literally “the express charachte
>(character)

Actually can also mean a reproduction.

>of his hupostaseus (substance)’.

Yes 'huspostasis' is nominative form ref. Heb 11:1 (the substance of things..)

This could be big akhay as usually 'eis eateau' usually translates "in himself". P46 has a variant "di' 'eatou", 'through himself' and appears in NKJV as 'He had by himself...'.

Thus a mark for the PNT as 'eatou' mistranslates 'qmunh', which as shown has the 3 person possesive ending.

bwq9y 0ml4

In reply to message #23
 
Erev Tov Akhi Dean,

>Lets remember that the Emanu El/Amanu
>El reference (they are basically
>spelled the same in Hebrew
>and Aramaic in the MT,
> POT & PNT -so
>I wouldn’t call it a
>transliteration) in Mat 1:23 is
>Matthew's hint (midrash) from the
>OT of a virgin birth.

The reason why I called it a transliteration is because PNT translates it into Aramaic from Heb.

>But we have to be careful
>with this one because contextually,
>Isa 7 has very little
>to do with messianic prophecy
>since the "Sign" was clearly
>meant to comfort Ahaz with
>the prediction of the breakdown
>of the Aramean-Israelite confederacy brewing
>in the north.
>Additionally, the Hebrew "Almah" does not
>exclusively mean "Virgin", rather it
>has the broader meaning of
>"young woman".

Yes as the Gr Parthenos can also mean young woman.
However Matthai did introduce the Is text.Never the less 'his name shall be called Imanu-el' is what I am emphasizing here not just the idea of virgin birth, although that is a bonus.

>
>So at best, the Emanu El
>name or title applies to
>the Isaiah 7:14 passage which
>had its primary fulfillment in
>the days if Ahaz and
>a secondary fulfillment in the
>days of Yosip & Maryam
>with the birth of Yeshua.

I agree. Some scholars say there are no double entendres.

>Having said that, I certainly see
>how this passage is faithfully
>applicable to a Messianic/New Testament
>fulfillment. But we should
>be cautious in our insistence
>that Isaiah (and subsequently, Matthew)
>had only Yeshua in mind.

Double entendre all the way.

> Otherwise we could be
>accused of ripping a verse
>out of context.
>

L'hiyra'ot
Shlama,
Iakov

In reply to message #20
 
Akhi Paul,

I have read over these many posts in an attempt to get a feel for what is meant by 'qnoma' and 'parsopa' and how they are understood together. You have previously said (or quoted) these things about them...

"Again, 'parsopa' is the collective characteristics of a 'qnoma' which distinguish it from other (qnome of the same species)."
"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."

OK, Peter and Paul each have their own 'qnoma'. But the 'qnoma' of Peter is different from the 'qnoma' of Paul because of 'parsopa' which are characteristics that are unique to each? Is that correct? If so, then it sure is easy to see how 'qnoma' or 'parsopa' would be translated 'person'.

Also, according to your statement (or quote) above, unique characteristics (or 'parsopa') include "fatherhood" and "sonship". How then does this affect Paul as he relates to his father and mother? Does Paul have or share the 'qnoma' of his father and mother - total of 3 'qnoma'? Or is Paul's 'qnoma' a combination somehow of the 'qnoma' of each parent - 2 'qnoma'? Or is Paul's 'qnoma' unique and separate from the 'qnoma' of his father and of his mother - 1 'qnoma'? 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. Either Paul has 3 'qnoma' or two, or one. I think you are saying that he has one. However, in the case of Jesus Christ he has 2 - why?

Also, if the 'qnoma' of God is together with Jesus making Jesus a 2 'qnoma' individual, then did he become a 3'qnoma' individual when the spirit of God descended upon him after he was baptised? If not, why not?

Also, how is it that you know that God is 3 'qnoma'? 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?

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

OK, let's give it a go...

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 {God’s '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

In reply to message #35
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

I've started a new thread on this topic - hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take a different approach this time (the one that should have been taken in Ephesus.)

Please respond to that one.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #13
 
Shalom,

This is definitely a place where understanding the Hebrew context is essential.

The term 'only begotten Son' is our best rendering of a Hebrew idea coming from Genesis 22.

One of the main points of the Gospel of Yokhanan is presenting Yeshua as the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world, and The Only begotten Son.

'The Only Begotten Son' points to Isaac.

In 22:2 Abraham is told,
"qakh-na et binkha (Take now your SON)
et yekhidkha asher ahavta (your ONLY that you love)
et yitzkhaq (Issac)
...and sacrifice him..."

see also verses 12 and 16

'The Lamb of God' points to the question begged in Genesis 22:7-8.
Abraham says to Isaac in response to his question about a missing lamb, "yir'eh lo ha-seh" (Lit., (God) will see to him, to the lamb)

But in verse 13, we see that A LAMB WAS NOT PROVIDED! It says a ram ('ayil)was caught in the thicket...

Any observant child will at this point says, "Hey, where's the lamb?"

"Good question!" was the response of Yeshayahu ha-navi...

Who takes away the sin of the world is sure enough Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 53. Here is the Lamb (Heb. ha-seh) that God would see, who takes away the sin of the world.

So you can see these were not new ideas, but an ancient story hidden within a story...

b'Yeshua,
Rob

In reply to message #26
 
Shlama Akhi Rob,

>
>This is definitely a place where
>understanding the Hebrew context is
>essential.
>
>The term 'only begotten Son' is
>our best rendering of a
>Hebrew idea coming from Genesis
>22.
>
>One of the main points of
>the Gospel of Yokhanan is
>presenting Yeshua as the Lamb
>of God, Who takes away
>the sin of the world,
>and The Only begotten Son.
>
>
>'The Only Begotten Son' points to
>Isaac.
>
>In 22:2 Abraham is told,
>"qakh-na et binkha (Take now your
>SON)
>et yekhidkha asher ahavta (your ONLY
>that you love)
>et yitzkhaq (Issac)
>...and sacrifice him..."

Interestingly, the same word for "Only-Begotten" "Yakhidaia" - is reflected in the Aramaic of Yukhanan 1:14.

Could Yukhanan be "midrashing" here?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #29
 
Ahkay,
Jesus is called ‘an only one’ in margin of Psalms 35:17 ‘my darling’. A select term I think and the Jews at his coming will recognize him in Zechariah 12:10 ‘as one that mourns for his only son’. I say this is god-manifestation not very deity in flesh with the marks of crucifixion. Consider also the possibility that ‘elohim’ translated singular and plural in Genesis 3:5 not only applies to Moses, rulers, Jesus but ‘the immortalized saints in glory’ who will be with ‘the only son’ at his coming. Notice he is still called ‘the son’ and can still bear deities name. Also,
Like elohim can the plural achadim mean ‘ones’ in Execkiel 38:19 ‘they shall become ones in your hand’? I think this Hebrew word is feminine, a plurality like Christ’s bride. Grace to you.

jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4

In reply to message #30
 
Shlama Akhi John,

I say this is god-manifestation not very deity in flesh with the marks of crucifixion.

0mwnq

Study it!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #31
 

Ahkay,
I checked out all the references in Kiraz’s lexicon to qnoma and its compounds and I found every case reflexive to self i.e. themselves, himself, yourselves, itself, myself and a few ‘in his (own) person/self’ as here. I used Lamsa, a native speaker, and I have no problem with qnoma to mean my own self. You translate:
'That is to say he is the radiance of his glory and the image of his substance maintaining everything with his mighty word and he in his Qnoma made purification for our sins and sat upon the right of high greatness'
So in Hebrew 1:3 just to clarify, this word hmwnqb ‘in his (own) self’ seems to apply to Jesus. Would we not be guilty of midrashing if we interpret ‘in his Qnoma’ to deities Qnoma and not to Jesus’ Qnoma. Jesus required no outside help as a sin bearer, indeed his Father’s Qnoma would not be present since he too is self existing. In my overlooking the possessive ‘his’ I would not venture the idea that deity bore sins. Grace to you
jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4

In reply to message #32
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Lamsa, being a native speaker, translated Acts 2:24 erroneously, too. Keep in mind that nobody is infallible.

Qnoma does not mean "person" or "self" - and I have quoted sources from the 4th century through the 6th century that define for us exactly what Qnoma means.

If you'd like - I can even quote from Mar Ephraem (303-373.) He happens to be a little older and more respected than Lamsa.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #33
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Quotes from the Pro-Oriente Syriac Dialogues (which can be found on https://www.pro-oriente.at)

"In Christology, as expressed in the synodical and liturgical sources of the Church of the East, the term qnoma does not mean hypostasis as understood in Alexandrine Tradition, but instead, individuated nature. Accordingly, the human nature which the Holy Spirit fashioned and the Logos assumed and united to Himself without any separation, was personalized in the Person of the Son of God. When we speak of the two natures and their qnome, we understand this very much in the same sense as two natures and their particular properties (dilayatha)."

"It has also become very clear from our two Consultations that it is always essential to realize that, in the context of Christology (as opposed to the situation in Trinitarian theology), there is a clear and important difference between the understanding in the Church of the East of the term qnoma (i.e. individuated, but not personalized nature) and that of other Syriac Churches where qnoma is regularly understood as the equivalent of hypostasis in the sense of "person"."

In other words, what the last quote says is that the CoE maintains a consistent translation of Qnoma with regards to both the Trinity and the Incarnation - whereas the other Aramaic-based churches sometimes base the definition according to the Greek 'hypostasis' (in the case of the Incarnation) and sometimes according to the original meaning (in the case of the Trinity.)

You cannot flip-flop like this. Either Qnoma means "person" all the time, or never.

This very word "Qnoma" was at the very root of the problem in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - two councils which tore the church apart permanently, but at which the CoE had no participation since we were in the Persian, not in the Roman, empire.

To us in the CoE - this word has never changed from its archaic meaning - "underlying substance/concrete nature" - and it never, ever means "person." The other groups altered the meaning of Qnoma to more closely resemble the Greek 'hypostasis' because of imperial and ecclesial pressure within the Byzantine court.

It's this same misunderstanding which prompted the enemies of the CoE to falsely claim that we teach "two persons" in Christ. We absolutely do not!

If you read the Aramaic New Testament with the archaic meaning of Qnoma as reference - then many, many problems are solved and things begin to make much more sense.

You wouldn't have a problem with the truth of the Diety of the Messiah or the plural Qnome of God if you understood what the true, archaic meaning of "Qnoma" is.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #34
 
Shlama Paul,
Even if this topic seems to be interrupted and canalized into new topics I´m curious, whether Don´s understanting of pronouns (references) in Heb 1:1-3 is correct.

"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 {God’s '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}."

Thanks for being patient…

Laco

In reply to message #37
 
Shlama Laco,

It's no problem - I just want to be sure we have our definitions correct before we go into the translation of Hebrews 1:3.

I'll be posting the translation in a new thread shortly - it will be titled "Hebrews 1:3". Please read that and let me know if you have any questions.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org