WOW - Colossians 2:9-10

Shlama Akhay,

Wow - look at how the Apostle in Colossians 2:9-10 demonstrates that in the Parsopa of Meshikha are two Qnome, one Divine and one human:

"For in Him all the fullness of Divinity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete.

A breakdown:

"For in Him (Parsopa level, Meshikha) all the fullness of Divinity (Qnoma level, Divine) dwells in bodily form (Qnoma level, human) , and in Him (Parsopa level, Meshikha) you (Qnoma level, human) have been made complete.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Paul,

Thanks for all your explanations!
1. May I ask you to translate Philippians 2, 5-11 and point out where kyana and qnoma are used in Peshitta?
2. Could you tell me what a status has in COE the book of Revelation (I think it is deeply Aramaic)?
Laco

In reply to message #1
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Mar-26-2002 at 00:35 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Laco,

>Thanks for all your explanations!
No problem - I'm so sorry I missed your post.

>1. May I ask you to
>translate Philippians 2, 5-11

Sure, here it is from verse 6:

0hl0d Fwmdb Yhwty0 dkd wh

(He who, while He existed in the very form of God, )

0hl0d 0mxp Yhwty0d 0dh hb4x 0ypw=x 0wh f

(this thought is not robberous (blasphemous) - that He is the equal of God,)

Bsn 0db9d Fwmdw Qrs h4pn f0

(rather that He emptied Himself, and the image of a servant He took)

04nynbd Fwmdb 0whw

(and became in the image of sons of men)

04nrb Ky0 Xkt40 0mks0bw

(and found in form like a man)

0pyqzd Nyd Fwm Fwml 0md9 (mt40w h4pn Kkmw

(and He humbled Himself, and became obedient up to the point of death - the death of the cross)

hmrmr Ygs0 0hl0 P0 0nh L=m

(for this reason also God exalted Him)

Nyhm4 Lk Nm rtymd 0m4 hl Bhyw

(and gave Him a name greater than all names)

Pwkt <wrb Lk (w4yd hm4bd

(that by the name of Eshoa every knee will bow)

09r0 Nm txtldw 09r0bw 0ym4bd

(of those that are in Heaven and on earth and under the earth)

0xy4m (w4y wh 0yrmd 0dwn N4l Lkw

(and every tongue will confess that MAR-YAH(*) is Eshoa Meshikha)

Yhwb0 0hl0d 0xbw4l

(to the glory of God His Father.)

(*) - MarYah is a title reserved for God alone.

>and point out where kyana and
>qnoma are used in Peshitta?

Sure - do a Lexicon search on both 0mwnq and 0nyk (be sure to have the 'lexeme' button checked.)

>2. Could you tell me what
>a status has in COE
>the book of Revelation (I
>think it is deeply Aramaic)?

I do too, but it is not regarded by the CoE as an apostolic work. It never made it into our official canon. It is not used in service or liturgy.

It is considered a 'pious book' and the private study of it is encouraged.

It has only survived, or come down to us, in Greek (the Aramaic versions are merely translations.)

Hope this helps!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I know you have more involving discussions than this one. Being not too skilled in English I have to pay attention to be understood properly, so I look so stingy with the words...

How do you understand �while He existed in the very form of God�? Is this form something concrete (deeds) or abstract (nature)? Eshoa �existed in the very form of God� as human being or �exists� regardless of the time and human nature? What a help gives you Aramaic? What an image (imagery) could you find behind this �form� conotating something imaginable? I�d expect here to find words kyana or qnoma instead of "form" but I didn�t...

Thanks!
Laco

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Laco,

>How do you understand �while He
>existed in the very form
>of God�?

This is understood in Aramaic as describing a divine Qnoma.

> Is this form
>something concrete (deeds) or abstract
>(nature)?

Concrete, as opposed to Kyana (abstract.)

That's all a Qnoma is - a concrete Kyana. An instantiation of Kyana. An individuated Kyana. Kyana is abstract. Qnoma is a Kyana, but a specific individuation. A real instantiation.

>Eshoa �existed in the
>very form of God� as
>human being or �exists� regardless
>of the time and human
>nature?

The latter. In other words, the very form of Eshoa is God. This is only understood in the "middle level" of the chart (Qnoma.) This "middle level" is missing in the Indo-European linguistic psychology.

This problem has led to multiple interpretations of what exactly is meant when Meshikha says something like "I and the Father are One." In Aramaic, this is not only possible but a natural part of the linguistic psyche.

>What a help gives
>you Aramaic?

Aramaic is of immense help - without it it's impossible to properly understand these things which seem so contradictory to us who are in a different lingual psyche.

>What an image
>(imagery) could you find behind
>this �form� conotating something imaginable?

These terms are hard to relate to physical objects - they are really dealing with non-material conceptual things.

I'm a programmer so I can find a direct relation in computer programming. If you are a programmer you will (hopefully) understand what I'm saying.

In Java (or any other Onject-Oriented programming language) programs are made up of classes. There are classes that are referred to as abstract classes. They don't really do anything except to define the abstract functionality of any given problem.

When you instantiate one of these classes, then you have moved from the abstract realm into the concrete realm. Now your class that has inherited from the abstract class implements features of that abstract class in real, concrete code that actually performs some logical work.

Think of Kyana as the "abstract class" in Java. Think of Qnoma as an Object (real) that has inherited from the "abstract class". The Qnoma is real.

When you look at the differences among the various programs that have inherited from the "abstract class" then you are talking about Parsopa (Person.)

I hope that was somewhat clear. I know that I lost many of you, but that's the example I can think of in the computer programming realm.

Anyway, Akhi - these things belong on the conceptual and immaterial level. It's very hard to explain them on the physical level. They just don't belong there.

It's a way of "thinking" and not "measuring" or "touching."

>I�d expect here to
>find words kyana or qnoma
>instead of "form" but I
>didn�t...

The Apostle Paul uses the word a few verses down in verse 15. I'll post about that soon....

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

It�s nice to find your answer quite soon...
I�ve many many questions but I should be consequent so only one of them�
I understood �qnoma� as connectedness or sameness of members of one clan or tribe. If one of its members would be offended by some enemy it is seen and felt as whichever of them have been offended. So this connectedness is perceived on the qnoma�s level and it is real in the fullest sense (as social and human reality) because individual reality doesn�t exist. Individual human being out of his/her tribe (excommunicated) is dead (out of social reality). So the term qnoma reflect (express) the real (existential) connectedness of everything (on the level of its own �species�) what is seen as separate. If I�m right then behind all tribal conflicts as well as behind all tribal (familial) fests we can perceive the reality of �qnoma� (connectedness). Perhaps our greek mind doesn�t take this connectedness (qnoma) seriously and that�s why our communities are falling down�

Laco