02-01-2005, 11:59 PM
Hi Akhi Michael,
Not at all. "Syrian Church" implies, naturally enough, the Church in "Syria".
The Church of the East was, of course, NOT in Syria - but in Mesopotamia....in an altogether different empire.....under an altogether different leadership.....always independent and always different from any other group west of the great border between the two empires. (No, Rome did not "rule the world!") <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
If, by chance, he meant by "Syrian" the greater body of Aramaic-speaking Christians no matter what empire they found themselves in - then he is doing everyone a great disservice by implying that they were, prior to 431 AD, "united" in any sense of the term.
Not at all. "Syrian Church" implies, naturally enough, the Church in "Syria".
The Church of the East was, of course, NOT in Syria - but in Mesopotamia....in an altogether different empire.....under an altogether different leadership.....always independent and always different from any other group west of the great border between the two empires. (No, Rome did not "rule the world!") <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->If, by chance, he meant by "Syrian" the greater body of Aramaic-speaking Christians no matter what empire they found themselves in - then he is doing everyone a great disservice by implying that they were, prior to 431 AD, "united" in any sense of the term.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)