Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is Rev. David Bauscher?
Rafa Wrote:To Akhi spydron: I am not the COE expert, but Akhi Paul is the Church of the East Clergyman here. From what I have so far understood the COE doctrine is : 2 natures, one parsopa, the two natures are seperate. Ask Akhi Paul if he believes in co-existent divine personalities or if he is monophysite, and for tradition of the church and it's doctors. I am not the COE expert.

Akhay Rafa and Spiridon,

The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", we never apply the term "person" to God. Our official formulation is 3 "qnume" in one Nature. "Parsopa" ("person") is never used. We do not speak of God as a "person" or a grouping of "persons", as we do not believe either is true.

The second issue relates to Christology, where "Parsopa" ("person") is used to reference the real Person of Meshikha. There again, we confess 2 "qnume" (no English cognate) in one Parsopa ("person").

But again, in the context of the "Trinity" - we never refer to God by any terminology that utilizes the word "person."

Wise, Christina.

"If I shall speak with every human and Angelic language and have no love in me, I shall be clanging brass or a noise-making cymbal." [1 Cor. 13:1] is unambiguous.

Something one may hear, say, Juanita Bynum speak in, I would consider subjective and ambiguous; something to be tested (test all things; prove to be true; prove to be false).

And don't forget the New Agers who speak in tongues, and the harcore satanists who do the same, but each tongue sounds differently. Frankly, I lean towards the view that the disciples were speaking each in a separate dialect - human languages (Acts 2:1-12). Read carefully, and not through Pentecostal eyes alone. Verse 4 says that "they were going out speaking in various languages/tongues, according to whatever The Spirit was giving them to speak."

But what exactly was The Spirit giving them to speak? Glossolalia? Human languages? Verse 5:
"But there were men dwelling in Jerusalem who were worshipers of God, Jews from every nation unders heaven."

6. "And when that noise occurred, the entire populace gathered and was agitated, because each one of them heard that they were speaking in their dialects."

Pretty straightforward and unambiuous.

8. "How are we hearing, everyone, his own dialect in which we were born?"

Human languages.

Now, this explains that scenario (not that my Pentecostal collegues will be delighted), but it surely DOES NOT explain Shaul's reference to human beings possessing the real ability to speak in an Angelic language(s)!

So .........

I admonish more people to consider more wisely, like kathan Christina, what Scripture may be open to saying, other than what our own past experiences and prejudices would concur. And no, this isn't the only verse to be referenced in the NT - I just need to go now.


Rafa Wrote:Sorry about that Akhi Paul. I was just reading Nestoriu's "Bazaar" and I mixed up the Greek with the semitic. Bad idea that was(persona is indeed used very often to mean person, not neccesarily but very often). Qnoma is much better like you said.

No prob, just wanted to clarify. This is an area that gets very complicated because of the differences in terminology between Greek and Aramaic.

Paul Younan Wrote:The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", we never apply the term "person" to God.

Why is this? Please elaborate. And while you might use different terminology, you do believe that God is Triune?
From <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

The Theology of the Church of the East has been stated briefly and clearly in the following ???Hymn of Praise (TESHBOKHTA)??? Composed by Mar Babai the Great in the sixth century A.D., a noted theologian of the Church

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.

*Qnuma, is an Aramaic word. The nearest equivalent is the Greek ???hypostasis???, in Latin ???substantia??? and in English ???substance???.

Akhan Paul can elaborate further.
Spyridon Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:The CoE does not speak of the "Trinity" is terms of "person", we never apply the term "person" to God.

Why is this? Please elaborate. And while you might use different terminology, you do believe that God is Triune?

It's essentially a cultural and linguistic issue. In the Semitic milieu (which includes Judaism, Messianity and Islam) God is not regarded as a "person" in the sense that human beings are "persons."

As for "Tri-unity", yes in the sense that we believe in 3 Qnume (no English equivalent) in one Keyana ("nature"). The formulation is similar to the Western, except for the usage of the term "person."

We do not believe there are three "Persons" in One God.

Thanks for posting that, Christina.

You'll notice that the word "person" is used for the Christological portion of Mar Babai's creed, but is absent when describing the Tri-Une Nature of God.

If God is not a person, does that mean He is impersonal?
Hey Spyridon you may wanna read this: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Spyridon Wrote:If God is not a person, does that mean He is impersonal?

God is God, we are persons. In Aramaic, the word "person" is attributed to a human nature. Human beings are persons. (We don't speak of individual dogs, cats or pet goldfish in a bowl as "persons", either.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "impersonal"? "Impersonal" as an adjective could describe an entity that isn't alive, does not feel emotions, is unknowable, lacks the ability to communicate or lacks "personality." Kind of like a dead or inanimate object, like a rock.

God lives, God is and God is knowable. God loves. God creates. God heals. God speaks. God saves.

We can certainly observe things within God's Nature, certain aspects of His Being that are familiar to our human experience. Certainly, we are created in His Image, so we might expect that we have certain things in our individual person that reflect certain aspects of our Creator. Is that what you mean by "personal?"

I do not think of God as a "person" or "three persons", but if I were forced to assign a label in English I would utilize a word like Being - that is the essence of the name YHWH in Hebrew.

Man we gotta get rid of the Greek & Latin terminology. <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->
Being rather than person? That sounds like Paul Tillich. He's one of my favorites.
Spyridon Wrote:Being rather than person? That sounds like Paul Tillich. He's one of my favorites.

Actually, I wanted to add Akha: there is no native Aramaic term that means what the Greek/English "person" means. The Aramaic vocabulary, indeed the Semitic psyche as a whole, lacks the very concept.

The word we use today, "Parsopa", is a loan-word from Greek ("Proposon"). Reason it's a loan word, is that usually when cultures come into contact and there is a concept in one that is absent from the other, borrowing typically occurs (back and forth.)

Really when anyone in the Semitic milieu, Jews, Christians and Muslims, hear the Western formulation of "One God in Three Persons", we become rather confused. Of course both Jewish and Muslim apologists, indeed even fringe groups like the JW's, accuse "Christianity" of being something other than Monotheistic.

While I don't agree with them, of course, one can see how the confusion arises since the terminology is almost contradictory to say the least.

That's really unfortunate, because if one studies the topic carefully the reality is that the Greek "Prosopon" was nearly unavoidable given that no cognate for "Qnuma", the concept, exists in Indo-European languages.

So there you have it - at times it can be quite a mess. <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->

Simply, the scriptures support xenoglossy not glossolalia. Acts 2:3-11. These are known languages. When I look back on my own Christian life and my times of prayer in "tongues" it's with joy, not grief or shame. I was sincere in my prayers and fellowship. The Spirit of God groaned within me. I was there!! I enjoyed the fellowship and the love of the family of God and the presence of God's Spirit. However, glossolalia is not sound doctrine. There is no plain scriptural support for it. God's spiritual presence was with us when we were in prayer and praise because we loved His Presence and one another, but not because we practiced glossolalia.
Paul in I Corinthians 12-14 is speaking about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one of those gifts is xenoglossy. Xenoglossy and prophesy were used in the early church as were all of the gifts of the Rukha d'Kadusha. The gifts of the Spirit have been consistently manifested throughout Church history, but the Pentecostal Church and the Charismatic movement in general has not taught xenoglossy. Some will mention it in passing but the main doctrinal teaching is glossolalia or "speaking in unintelligible languages". This is what must be addressed and not whether the gifts of the Spirit of God are valid today. The gifts of the Holy Spirit most certainly are valid and needed in every Christian congregation.
An interpretation, to make any sense at all must be of an intelligible language with nouns, verbs and parts of speech that can be learned and codified in writing. Paul was immensely concerned with misinterpretations of scripture from the Hebrew T"NK and that's why he wrote his epistles. Paul was particularly gifted in his articulation of scriptural concepts. The content of Paul's epistles is clarification of the Messianic fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures and the revelation of our LORD and Saviour Yeshua Meshikha. Can you imagine travelling to Corinth and attempting to explain the Jewish concept of Alaha (singular) from Elohim (quasi-pleural) to former Greek idolators with traditions steeped in pantheism and demon worship. (I Corinthians 12:1-2) This is why the Rukha D'Kadusha equipped Paul with xenoglossy. This is precisely what he is addressing in I Corinthians 12-14. Thank Alaha that my eyes were opened. I have gained a correct understanding of the gifts of the Rukha d'Kadusha. Why is I Corinthians 13 all about love? It's because the love of Alaha and the love of one's brothers and sisters is the very reason that we have been gifted spiritually. Let the Body of Meshikha be edified in love.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

If you look closer here, these Tongues are not known human languages at all that is being talk about here.... As the Apostle Paul said...Tongues of Men and of Angels.

The Scripture clearly says that there are various types of Spiritually gifted Tongues.

The Tongues here refer to Spiritually gifted languages or words given to a person for there own personal edification.

Look at the verse that says that NO man understands them, and that the person's own understanding is Unfruitful regarding them.

These Tongues are for the individual???s OWN edification, not the rest of the Congregation.... And this is why the Apostle Paul says that in a group setting (in Church) he does not use his personal edifying gift, because his focus is on the edification of others around him in a group setting.

He says that though he uses his personal edifying gift of Tongues in his personal prayer life more than anyone else, he chooses rather to keep that between him and God in a group setting...

If this counsel were headed today, there would be little confusion.

I'll post the references if needed.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)