It’s more that various heretics over the years attempted to make unauthorized Biblical translations into common languages at the time. More recent examples of this - like Jehovah’s Witnesses “New World Translation” - are illustrative that the concern was and is basically valid. I‘m not even a papist and I can see what the real problem was.
like the Johannine comma?
Of course it’s just as likely imo the “best early manuscripts” survived as long as they did because chunks of the originals got skipped - so they were buried in the architecture rather than manhandled. I cannot say for certain.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Some people might claim that the Ashkenazi Jews writing the Yiddish language in so called Hebrew letters is proof that Ashkenazi Jews ancestors were from ancient Israel
But the Ancient Hebrew language uses a different alphabet than the modern so called Hebrew alphabet
The language of Aramaic used in the liturgy of some middle eastern Christians is closer to ancient Hebrew than Yiddish is
Additionally Arabic is closer to Hebrew
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Israel also known as Jacob was of Syrian or Aramean ancestry according to some translations of Genesis and Deuteroronomy
Syrian Palestinians have a higher percent ancestry from ancient Israel than Ashkenazi Jews
At least some of The liturgy in at least some Churches among the Church of the East is in Syriac
Part of a liturgy
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Mar Babai Church of the East liturgy explaining what he thought of the trinity and the incarnation without using those words at link
word limit
https://web.archive.org/web/20170210080240/http://www.nestorian.org/
Right; I’m not a Nestorean though - and therefore believe in the Hypostatic Union as affirmed at Chalcedon 🥂
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
I can understand the difference between the position of the Oriental Orthodox and some among the Church of the East
But I can not even understand what the rhird position of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that you call hypostatic Union is
But a Roman Catholic Pope wrote a statement of agreement with the Church of the East after the Roman Catholic Church so called infallibly dogmaticly declared them wrong in a council
The Hypostatic Union affirms Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man; that is, two Natures - Human and Divine - united into a single Person.
What occasioned the discussion was the fallout / aftermath of the deposition of Abp. Nestorius, who infamously denied the use of the term “Theotokos” to the Virgin Mary - proposing instead the term “Christotokos“.
This was anathematized at the Third Ecumenical Council, largely due to the work of Abp. Cyril of Alexandria. One of his foundational texts affirmed a “single Nature” of Christ - but that teaching was clarified at Chalcedon with the more accurate term “Person”.
Monophysites are those that rejected the Chalcedonian “update” - insisting that Jesus Christ only has a single Nature; ostensibly on the grounds they think for sure that Abp. Cyril absolutely meant that, literally as stated - not that it was an outgrowth of the enormously complicated difficulties stemming from translating between vastly different languages.
To me, it’s quite obvious that Chalcedon is correct.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
This translation of liturgy by Mar Babai says
"Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught."
It mentions two natures and one person which seems to be the same thing Chalcedon said
So how is Chalcedon supposed to be different than what those members of the Church of the East who believe in that Liturgy believe?
Also does person mean
1 Individual
2 Persona
3 Human
Unclear
From what I see here, it looks basically Orthodox; it even says “Qnumas” is nearest-equivalent to the Greek “hypostasis” which is where that term Hypostatic Union comes in.
I’m not entirely sure but, that if they‘re claiming to be “the Nestorean Church”, that might be part of the “problem“ as Nestorius was deposed and Nestoreanism was anathametized. If they’re arguing it’s wrong to call Mary the “Theotokos”, there‘s the answer. But this brief doesn’t specify that.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Book of Marginatha part 3 chapter 6
http://www.nestorian.org/body_book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap6
Hypostasis is translated as person in Hebrews Chapter 1 the exoress image of his person if I remember correctly & I might not
But person is a very problematic word choice in modern English
If one God is three persons is that one God three individuals, three persona, three hypostasis, three legal entities
This all has different meanings using the word person
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Hypostasis is translated as person one time in Hebrew 1:3 in the king james and is not translated as person any other time in King James according to this link for it's strong concordance number
I would suggest that it is possible linguitically that the original references to the father, son and Holy spirit were referring to hypostasis but not referring to people in the modern sense of the word at all
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Book of Marginatha part 3 chapter 6
In previous links addresses Mary's titles
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
My understanding is that Greek Hypostasis which did not mean the same thing as Persona in all context became etruscan Persona which is not the same as Person in modern English in all context
"One person" when you talk to a normal English speaker who is not a lawyer means One Individual Human Being
If it is not a human it is not a person
Are they claiming there is one God composed of three individuals who are 3 human beings?
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
The word Individual is different than the word Persona
One individual can play multiple personas in a play
Multiple individuals can also play one persona in a play
They distinctly chose the word Person instead of Human, or Individual or Hypostasis or Persona
A person is a very poor word choice when speaking to modern English speakers
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
If God is three human beings who are each different than each other
Then the properties of the Son must be different than the Father which must be different than the Holy Spirit
But if you take a look at the descriptions of each of them mainstream theologians I heard list exactly the same properties except who proceeds from who
But there is no where for a Omnipresent being to travel or proceed to because they are already there
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
As far as I know that is incorrect and ancient Greek would not have called them Person because there is no Greek word that transliterates into Person
They might have been called Persons in later translations into other languages
"Greek Myth is packed with non-human persons; such as Cyclops, Medusa, Nymphs and Sirens etc etc."
I don’t claim to understand why these facts are as they are; but I get the basic gist.
Divine Personhood must necessarily have many things distinguishing it from Human Personhood. Nevertheless, in the Gospel, at the Baptism of Christ, God the Father has a speaking role - as the Voice from Heaven claiming Jesus is ”His beloved Son in Whom I am well-pleased”. Among a few others.
The Personhood of the Holy Spirit is manifest as He Who spake by The Prophets.
And also, in the NT, as the Paraclete - Who was sent into the world as tongues of fire descending upon the Apostles, and rendering all these different languages mutually intelligible. At the Baptism of Christ He descended as a Dove alighting upon Lord Jesus. That specifically isn’t proof of Personhood on its own - but it’s made clear in the broader Biblical context that’s Who He is.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
Can you please Name one property other than procession that the Holy Spirit has that the Father does not have or that the Father has that the Holy Spirit does not have
If there is not at least one property that is different then they can not be different persons
Can I name one other property of the Holy Spirit aside from procession-from The Father ? Is that the question ? I don’t have the least idea how I would even begin to answer that confidently.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from the heavens and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried; and arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; and ascended into the heavens heavens and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end;
and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets;
and in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come.
Amen.
Creedpoasting; I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from either the Father or the Son - not because I can list distinct properties they each possess; but because it’s clearly been the consensus of the Holy Fathers as far back as I care to look 🥂
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
But how can you believe something if you do not know what the something you believe in means in order to understand what you are believing in
How is saying you believe in the Consensus of the "holy fathers" any different than saying you believe in the Consensus of "scientists"
How do you know without a consensus which group of "holy fathers" to get your consensus from?
There are multiple groups claiming infallibke consensus
Things like the distinct properties of the individual Persons of the Holy Trinity are transcendant of what human beings are even capable of knowing. See; Essence/Energies Distinction, articulated by St. Gregory Palamas.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
You can not know the "holy fathers" were moral without a moral standard and if you get your moral standard from the "holy fathers" then that is circular reasoning
That’s where the Gospel comes in; and the Holy Tradition of the Church. What characterizes holiness and sanctity is a life radically transformed in accordance to the Gospel. Holy Saints are taken up into Divine Energies, and made participants in the Life of Jesus Christ - which is Eternal Life - and The Church recognizes and Glorifies the lives of these people in response. God is Glorious in His Saints.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
There are at least four different Roman Catholic Church types
Ultrajectine or Ultramontane
Sedevacantist or not Sedevacantist
Additionally there are
Church of the East
Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox
Each of these claims consensus by a grpup vote but disagrees about who gets to vote
How do you know which is
"The Only Correct" group of voters
Without appealing to group votes because each voted for themselves
No. Just no. These things weren't decided arbitrarily for no reason by nobodies. We've had thousands of years to test them, too. Maybe I'm a simpleton, & that's ironically more in tune with life's complexities than assuming I'll outsmart them.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @caekislove @GoyGirl @JeffGrimesArt @Xenophon
http://www.nestorian.org/body_book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap5
The book of marganitha part 3 Chapter 5 as I understand it explains
That some of the properties of divinity are mutually exclusuve with the properties of mortal humanity
My understanding of how they tried to reconcile it in the document is that
Jesus the human is not divine and Jesus the God is not human but the two are united
The possesion of both mortal and divine seems self contradictory to me
… One person" when you talk to a normal English speaker who is not a lawyer means One Individual Human Being
… If it is not a human it is not a person
Yeah I rather doubt personhood was limited in that way, in a polytheistic society
Are they claiming there is one God composed of three individuals who are 3 human beings?
Nope; only the Son of God has human nature that He received from His mother.
Yeah there’s the answer; they trip out over “Begetter of God”, which is their rendering of “Theotokos”. This was the entire subject matter of the Third Ecumenical Council; and the Fourth Ecumenical Council proved necessary to prevent an extreme reaction.
I’m probably not the guy to ask for help about the meaning of the word “person”; the default Greek term is ”prosopon” which heavily carries the connotation of “Face”. When discussing the Holy Trinity, “hypostases” is used like that. I don’t precisely know why they switched from “prosopon” to “hypostases” when talking about Divine Persons; might have something to do with the Divine Prosopon already being tied to that which “Man cannot look upon and live” - but that’s admittedly a stab in the dark so don’t quote me on that; my point though is that these normal everyday sorts of words tend to already be used in very concrete senses that can be misleading in such lofty philosophy.