Logos for Jews not just a voice on the air, but a creative power and highly effective. Word is not just stating something, but implementing something.
With the Word was God created the universe (Genesis 1:2,6,9,11,14,20,24,26; Psalm 33:6,9 cf Colossians 1:16, where it is said that in Him (Jesus Christ), all things made, whether visible or invisible). This title is related to the existence of the pre-incarnate Jesus and His transcendence. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1,3,14; cf 17:8).
In the Targum, which is a popular interpretation or paraphrases of the Old Testament, Logos called Dabar in Hebrew, which in Aramaic Targums called Memra. The Memra proceeds from God, and is His Messenger in Nature and History. In Psalm 33:6 also says "by the Word He made the universe." (By Yahweh's word, the heavens Were Made. - Webster)
In the language of the Peshitta, the Logos is called Miltha. Logos, in some parts of the NT is called rhema. Rhema is a "word" in Itself Considered, while the Logos is a spoken word, which is generally associated with what is in the minds of those who spoke.
Council of Nicea in 325 was not mentioned about Jesus as the Logos or Word, but Jesus called the Son, because the council wanted to affirm that He was not created but born. Not made of that does not exist, but are born of one substance with the Father. It is also to show that His sonship is not a metaphorical or adaptive, but real.
Showing posts with label the Word. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Word. Show all posts
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Filioque, a problem for the Eastern and Western Church (3)
Oneness of God, as a result of the insertion "Filioque", became nonidentical with hypostasis of the Father, but identical in essence or substance of the one God. Thus, the unity of God was no longer to-One's Personal, but the One who is not an impersonal. Herein lies the problem. Meanwhile, the Eastern churches in accordance with the Scriptures affirm that God is one, because the Father are one. Thus, the unity of God in the teachings of the Eastern Churches is the One of a personal nature. Only God is the one Personal God; that teaching from the Bible and that is also teaching the Eastern churches. Whereas in the Western Church of the One God is the essence of God is one. It is Greek philosophy, and that evidence of Hellenization that occurred in the Western Church. The Bible teaches God is personal and not the absolute existence (essence) that without the personal.
Eastern churches teach that salvation has been the result of merging with the Divine Human in Personal the Christ that one, by the Incarnation. So humans are called to "take part in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Take part in the divine nature or "theosis" occurs because the alliance between the human person with a Personal God through the work of Jesus Christ. If the unity of God is the essence, the human community and God is no longer an alliance between the private individual, but the alliance or united with the essence of God, allied with the Essence-nature of God. Because only God himself who has Essence-nature of God or the essence of God, the man who allied themselves with God's essence and then have the essence of God and that means people become God himself. It became like teaching "pure Pantheism", a form of mysticism that can not be accepted by the Eastern Churches.
Western Church (Roman Catholic and Protestant) are often accused the eastern churches which teach mysticism pantheistic essence of God and the human essence melt into one as a result of rejection filioque inserts. Yet strangely, it was such a mystic, which disrupt the essence of God with the human essence, does not occur in the Eastern Churches, but occurred in the West for example in the case of Meister Eckhard, the Quakers (Society of Friends), Anabaptis, Black-Pentecostalism other. Rejection of the insertion of the word Filioque in the Nicene Creed by the Eastern Church precisely to prevent the entry of a false spiritualism mysticism as in the case of the groups mentioned above.
READING LIST
- Lukas Vischer (editor); Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ (Geneva, 1981)
- Philip Sherard; Church, Papacy and Schism (London, 1978)
- Ronald Robertson CSP, The Eastern Christian Churches (Rome, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 1999)
- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Penguin, 1993)
Eastern churches teach that salvation has been the result of merging with the Divine Human in Personal the Christ that one, by the Incarnation. So humans are called to "take part in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Take part in the divine nature or "theosis" occurs because the alliance between the human person with a Personal God through the work of Jesus Christ. If the unity of God is the essence, the human community and God is no longer an alliance between the private individual, but the alliance or united with the essence of God, allied with the Essence-nature of God. Because only God himself who has Essence-nature of God or the essence of God, the man who allied themselves with God's essence and then have the essence of God and that means people become God himself. It became like teaching "pure Pantheism", a form of mysticism that can not be accepted by the Eastern Churches.
Western Church (Roman Catholic and Protestant) are often accused the eastern churches which teach mysticism pantheistic essence of God and the human essence melt into one as a result of rejection filioque inserts. Yet strangely, it was such a mystic, which disrupt the essence of God with the human essence, does not occur in the Eastern Churches, but occurred in the West for example in the case of Meister Eckhard, the Quakers (Society of Friends), Anabaptis, Black-Pentecostalism other. Rejection of the insertion of the word Filioque in the Nicene Creed by the Eastern Church precisely to prevent the entry of a false spiritualism mysticism as in the case of the groups mentioned above.
READING LIST
- Lukas Vischer (editor); Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ (Geneva, 1981)
- Philip Sherard; Church, Papacy and Schism (London, 1978)
- Ronald Robertson CSP, The Eastern Christian Churches (Rome, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 1999)
- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Penguin, 1993)
Filioque, a problem for the Eastern and Western Church (2)
Addition of "filioque" seen as being dangerous by the Eastern churches. A document often referred to as "pseudo-Athanasius" (Latin: Quicunque Vult); that in the East rejected completely, both the content and origin of the St. Athanasius; contains the following: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus; nec creatus; nec genitus (est); sed procedens "The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made neither created, not begotten, but proceeding."
From the sentence above, has clearly presupposes the existence of more than "one source of divinity". Inserting the word "Filioque", implies that the Holy Spirit that came out not only from the Father but also from the Son. If so then the Holy Spirit has two sources of origin: Father and Son. And we know that God is One God and Father (1 Corinthians 8:6). Father was only one and the "origin of all things", meaning there is only one source and there is only one point in the One God.
When the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Word) and then where lies the unity of God? Addition of "filioque" also causes characteristic of each hypostasis of the one God had become fuzzy or vague. If the Son / Word of God is begotten by the Father is also the source of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father, the Son therefore also have characteristic hypostasis of the Father, then He must also have the characteristic function of the divine source of "begetting the Word" and "proceeding the Holy Spirit ". Thus it will not make the Son / Word of God is not only "proceeding the Holy Spirit" but also "begat the Word"? Is not this leads to another word from the Word? Another word that is also then have the same nature with the nature of "word" has "begat Him", which is a source of the Holy Spirit and also begat another word, too, so there are continuously ad infinitum. As a result of this interpolation, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes a puzzle that strange, that can not be explained.
Formulation of Pseudo-Athanasius, that the three divine hypostasis is: et in hac trinitate nihil prius, aut posterius: nihil majus aut minus. Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales "and in this Trinity none is before or after another: no greater or less another, but the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal" completely unnecessary. Because such assertion was originated from trinity framework that seems to separate from one another, so they require comparisons: great, less, or first, then. Concretely, if we understand in the context of His unity, it is not relevant to question Which is higher among the form of God, His Word or His Spirit? Thus, talking about the divine Logos and the Divine Life (Holy Spirit) in the Divine Substance, without causing counted The Eternal (Father) only confirms the aspects of the unity of God itself.
From the sentence above, has clearly presupposes the existence of more than "one source of divinity". Inserting the word "Filioque", implies that the Holy Spirit that came out not only from the Father but also from the Son. If so then the Holy Spirit has two sources of origin: Father and Son. And we know that God is One God and Father (1 Corinthians 8:6). Father was only one and the "origin of all things", meaning there is only one source and there is only one point in the One God.
When the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Word) and then where lies the unity of God? Addition of "filioque" also causes characteristic of each hypostasis of the one God had become fuzzy or vague. If the Son / Word of God is begotten by the Father is also the source of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father, the Son therefore also have characteristic hypostasis of the Father, then He must also have the characteristic function of the divine source of "begetting the Word" and "proceeding the Holy Spirit ". Thus it will not make the Son / Word of God is not only "proceeding the Holy Spirit" but also "begat the Word"? Is not this leads to another word from the Word? Another word that is also then have the same nature with the nature of "word" has "begat Him", which is a source of the Holy Spirit and also begat another word, too, so there are continuously ad infinitum. As a result of this interpolation, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes a puzzle that strange, that can not be explained.
Formulation of Pseudo-Athanasius, that the three divine hypostasis is: et in hac trinitate nihil prius, aut posterius: nihil majus aut minus. Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales "and in this Trinity none is before or after another: no greater or less another, but the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal" completely unnecessary. Because such assertion was originated from trinity framework that seems to separate from one another, so they require comparisons: great, less, or first, then. Concretely, if we understand in the context of His unity, it is not relevant to question Which is higher among the form of God, His Word or His Spirit? Thus, talking about the divine Logos and the Divine Life (Holy Spirit) in the Divine Substance, without causing counted The Eternal (Father) only confirms the aspects of the unity of God itself.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Miltha, The Word
Analysis of Peshitta verse John 1:1
ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Translations
Dr. John Wesley Etheridge (Etheridge)
John 1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, [Meltho.] and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
Dr. James Murdock (Murdock)
John 1:1 In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
King James Version (KJV)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha.
mlt` - ܡܠܬܐ
Dengan vokal ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ, dibaca miltho (Syria Barat) atau miltha (Syria Timur), merupakan Noun (kata benda) mempunyai arti word, case, cause, matter. Dengan begitu, dalam Peshitta kata Firman (Miltha) dimengerti sebagai tidak hanya Firman (word), melainkan juga dapat dimengerti sebagai Cause (sebab, penyebab, alasan, maksud, perkara). Jika dikaitkan dengan Kol 1:16-17 maka Sang Firman adalah Penyebab utama dalam proses Penciptaan. Dan jika kita setia pada pemahaman bahwa segala sesuatu adalah dari Allah, oleh Allah dan kepada Allah (Roma 11:36) maka sudah barang tentu Firman Allah ini dari Allah, oleh Allah dan kepada Allah. Firman itu dari Allah karena keluar dari “mulut” Allah (Yes 45:23), oleh Allah karena tidak ada yang berhak memberikan Firman kepada alam semesta dan segala isinya selain Allah karena Ia PenciptaNya (Mzm 33:9, Yes 44:24), dan kepada Allah karena Firman itu kembali kepada Allah setelah berhasil melaksanakan Kehendak Allah (Yes 55:11). Oleh karena itu Allah sama sekali tidak perlu pendamping dalam proses Penciptaan, tidak perlu sekutu dalam Penciptaan karena Allah Maha Kuasa, Maha Kuat, Maha Sempurna dan Maha segalanya. Allah tinggal berfirman, maka semuanya jadi (dan memang Allah menciptakan segala sesuatu dengan firman-Nya (Kej 1:2), mengapa harus memerlukan Malaikat (meskipun itu Penghulu Malaikat) kalau hanya untuk menciptakan Manusia? Padahal kita manusia-lah yang akan menghakimi malaikat-malaikat (1 Kor 6:3). Janganlah kamu biarkan kemenanganmu digagalkan oleh orang-orang yang berpura-pura merendahkan diri dan beribadah kepada malaikat, sedang ia tidak berpegang teguh kepada Kepala (Kol 2:18-19). Sebab aku yakin, bahwa baik maut, maupun hidup, baik malaikat-malaikat, ... , atau kuasa-kuasa, baik yang di atas, maupun yang di bawah, ataupun sesuatu makhluk lain, tidak akan dapat memisahkan kita dari kasih Allah, yang ada dalam Kristus Yesus, Tuhan kita. (Rm 8:38-39). Semua penulis kitab-kitab PB sepakat membedakan atau setidaknya tidak melihat adanya persamaan pribadi antara Yesus, guru dan Tuhan mereka, dengan sesosok malaikat pun (termasuk Mikhael, Gabriel, Raphael atau bahkan Satanael). Yesus adalah inkarnasi dari Sang Firman, yang telah keluar dari “mulut” Allah, sebagaimana kata Sang Guru dari Galilea tersebut, “... , sebab Aku keluar dan datang dari Allah ...” (Yoh 8:42) sebab Sang Firman itu telah menjadi manusia (Yoh 1:14).Firman itu juga telah kembali kepada Allah, dan akan datang kembali kelak untuk menghakimi bangsa-bangsa, karena Ia adalah Sang Penunggang Kuda Putih, Yang Setia dan Yang Benar, nama-Nya ialah “Firman Allah” (Why 19:11,13).
ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Translations
Dr. John Wesley Etheridge (Etheridge)
John 1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, [Meltho.] and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
Dr. James Murdock (Murdock)
John 1:1 In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
King James Version (KJV)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha.
mlt` - ܡܠܬܐ
Dengan vokal ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ, dibaca miltho (Syria Barat) atau miltha (Syria Timur), merupakan Noun (kata benda) mempunyai arti word, case, cause, matter. Dengan begitu, dalam Peshitta kata Firman (Miltha) dimengerti sebagai tidak hanya Firman (word), melainkan juga dapat dimengerti sebagai Cause (sebab, penyebab, alasan, maksud, perkara). Jika dikaitkan dengan Kol 1:16-17 maka Sang Firman adalah Penyebab utama dalam proses Penciptaan. Dan jika kita setia pada pemahaman bahwa segala sesuatu adalah dari Allah, oleh Allah dan kepada Allah (Roma 11:36) maka sudah barang tentu Firman Allah ini dari Allah, oleh Allah dan kepada Allah. Firman itu dari Allah karena keluar dari “mulut” Allah (Yes 45:23), oleh Allah karena tidak ada yang berhak memberikan Firman kepada alam semesta dan segala isinya selain Allah karena Ia PenciptaNya (Mzm 33:9, Yes 44:24), dan kepada Allah karena Firman itu kembali kepada Allah setelah berhasil melaksanakan Kehendak Allah (Yes 55:11). Oleh karena itu Allah sama sekali tidak perlu pendamping dalam proses Penciptaan, tidak perlu sekutu dalam Penciptaan karena Allah Maha Kuasa, Maha Kuat, Maha Sempurna dan Maha segalanya. Allah tinggal berfirman, maka semuanya jadi (dan memang Allah menciptakan segala sesuatu dengan firman-Nya (Kej 1:2), mengapa harus memerlukan Malaikat (meskipun itu Penghulu Malaikat) kalau hanya untuk menciptakan Manusia? Padahal kita manusia-lah yang akan menghakimi malaikat-malaikat (1 Kor 6:3). Janganlah kamu biarkan kemenanganmu digagalkan oleh orang-orang yang berpura-pura merendahkan diri dan beribadah kepada malaikat, sedang ia tidak berpegang teguh kepada Kepala (Kol 2:18-19). Sebab aku yakin, bahwa baik maut, maupun hidup, baik malaikat-malaikat, ... , atau kuasa-kuasa, baik yang di atas, maupun yang di bawah, ataupun sesuatu makhluk lain, tidak akan dapat memisahkan kita dari kasih Allah, yang ada dalam Kristus Yesus, Tuhan kita. (Rm 8:38-39). Semua penulis kitab-kitab PB sepakat membedakan atau setidaknya tidak melihat adanya persamaan pribadi antara Yesus, guru dan Tuhan mereka, dengan sesosok malaikat pun (termasuk Mikhael, Gabriel, Raphael atau bahkan Satanael). Yesus adalah inkarnasi dari Sang Firman, yang telah keluar dari “mulut” Allah, sebagaimana kata Sang Guru dari Galilea tersebut, “... , sebab Aku keluar dan datang dari Allah ...” (Yoh 8:42) sebab Sang Firman itu telah menjadi manusia (Yoh 1:14).Firman itu juga telah kembali kepada Allah, dan akan datang kembali kelak untuk menghakimi bangsa-bangsa, karena Ia adalah Sang Penunggang Kuda Putih, Yang Setia dan Yang Benar, nama-Nya ialah “Firman Allah” (Why 19:11,13).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)