07-10-2008, 01:29 AM
Shlama Akhi Albion,
It's not a matter of having a Semitic mind or soul to understand the problem, it's more a matter of the very concept of God having "blood" or "flesh", that is a pagan concept.
The theological implications of the difference in this verse between these two textual traditions is immense and cannot be understated.
One has a bleeding God, and the other has a bleeding Messiah. One supports the view taken by the Monophysites during the council of Ephesus, the other supports the view taken by the Dyophysites during the council of Ephesus.
One was tampered with. Which one is up to your viewpoint.
Any Jew will confirm to you that the concept of God bleeding, or crying, or sleeping, or eating, or urinating, or defecating, or dying or any such matter is utterly a reprehensible thought in the Semitic psyche.
In the Dyophysite Christology, it is the Manhood of the Messiah which endured these human realities, and not His Deity. Monophysites, on the other hand, believe in a bleeding, dying God.
So therefore the difference between these two versions in this one verse is very important, because it defines exactly who Messiah is at a very fundamental level.
+Shamasha
Quote:Perhaps this takes a Semitic mind or soul to understand, or comprehend, neither of which I have, I'm afraid.
It's not a matter of having a Semitic mind or soul to understand the problem, it's more a matter of the very concept of God having "blood" or "flesh", that is a pagan concept.
The theological implications of the difference in this verse between these two textual traditions is immense and cannot be understated.
One has a bleeding God, and the other has a bleeding Messiah. One supports the view taken by the Monophysites during the council of Ephesus, the other supports the view taken by the Dyophysites during the council of Ephesus.
One was tampered with. Which one is up to your viewpoint.
Any Jew will confirm to you that the concept of God bleeding, or crying, or sleeping, or eating, or urinating, or defecating, or dying or any such matter is utterly a reprehensible thought in the Semitic psyche.
In the Dyophysite Christology, it is the Manhood of the Messiah which endured these human realities, and not His Deity. Monophysites, on the other hand, believe in a bleeding, dying God.
So therefore the difference between these two versions in this one verse is very important, because it defines exactly who Messiah is at a very fundamental level.
+Shamasha