The Cloaking Clergy

Edward I. Baba
California

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, there lived a young girl named Romina, and a young boy named Sargon. They lived in a hut across a place not too far from Tijuana. One day they decide to frolic and find a striking forest of beauty and enchantment. As they skip inside, they come across a white building with a golden cross illuminating above the rooftop. An attractive and handsome man stepped out the door and noticed the two kids. When they begged for assistance and direction, the man spoke with great charisma and led them inside the church. As they passed the majestic pews and the fluorescent stained glass, the children became mesmerized by their beauty and failed to notice the man’s transformation into a wicked beast. The man led them through the corridors and into a room filled with chloroform. Hours later, as they woke up dazed, they did not realize that they were now living zombies.

Romina and Sargon are two examples of our lost Assyrian nation. Since the disappearance of heroic, political leadership, the church’s hostile takeover has washed the brains of our nation with Palmolive while dust-busting our money that is stacked up so high, one could go skinny-dipping in it. They built their empire on the tattered shoes of blue-collared workers. Instead of promoting unity like religion is supposed to do, they try to break up the nation even more just like the Mongolians tried to break the Great Wall of China. Divide and conquer: the good ol’ British policy.

“Divide and conquer…?” you ask? Hitherto, rather than valuing the importance of religion only, the Assyrian church has deviated into a local pub and techno club. A wise woman name Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickel and Dimed, once explained that “Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that he can never get a word out of his mouth.” The leaders of modern Christianity have duties ascribed for their own selves, which are simply to mutate Christianity into something it is not and to metaphorically crucify Christ repeatedly in order to prevent the truthful message of Christianity to arise. They’ve scrubbed our skulls so much with Armor Oil wax that we continuously fail to commemorate those who died for our existence and identity, like they did in Turkey in 1915, for if it was not for them and their heroic actions, we would be wiped off the face of this Earth. Rather than taking the incentives emitted by the Armenian public during their march on April 24th of every year to remember those who were killed in Turkey, the Assyrian Church of the East in Los Angeles chooses to dance and sing to a hypnotic beat filled with amalgamated words that simply don’t make sense.

The Assyrian nation is like a slave, they’re just waiting to be beaten by a whip. The only thing missing is a nice, big, summer boorqa and a Bollywood movie with some popcorn and JuJu Beans.

The joint clergymen alongside the Armenian population stormed down the streets of Hollywood Blvd. demanding recognition for the genocide of 1915 by the Turkish Government. While Assyrian clergymen endeavor to discourage the Assyrian population from attending the event by throwing outrageous parties, potlucks, and picnics.

We need a brawny and powerful leadership with an enormous Super Soaker filled with acetone to remove the wax that has been drugging the nation’s minds while saying, “Rise and Shine!” with a cup of Folgers coffee to get them up from the deep sleep they’re in.

Remember: we were born Assyrian, and baptized into Christianity. Thus, we need more schools, cultural centers, etc. than churches because as “Christians” we are allowed to pray in the darkest corner of the smallest room and still have our prayers accepted. We don’t need a millionaire’s mansion for St. Peter to pop open the gates of Heaven with a crowbar.

Ashamed of What My Country Did to Assyrians

Courtesy of Zaterdag
1 May 2004

The well known turkish author Kemal Yalcin, was invited to Amsterdam last week by the Armenian Club “Ararat”, to talk about his recent book "Seninle Guler Yuregim" regarding the Genocide of 1915.

The Assyrian genocide scholar and author, Mr. Sabri Atman, has been in contact with Mr Yalcin for a long time attended this event also.

Mr. Yalcin spoke about why he wrote about the Genocide of 1915 in Turkey.

Many interesting questions were posed to Mr. Yalcin after his speech. One question came from a man whose mother was Assyrian and his father, Armenian. He asked : “ I am half Assyrian and half Armenian. When my Assyrian friends discuss the Genocide in 1915, they mention Assyrians and Armenians and Greeks! But, when I have the same discussion with my Armenian friends, they say that it is an Armenian Genocide. So, Mr Kemal Yalci:n “Do you think the genocide was only against the Armenians”?

Mr Kemal Yalcin’s reply was very clear: “No, no, the Genocide was against all Christians - Assyrians, Armenians and the Greek.” [photo on the right: Kemal Yalcin (R) & Sabri Atman (L)]

At the end of the program Mr. Yalcin commented: “I am ashamed of my nation and of being a Turk. I am shameed for what we did against the Armenians, Assyrians and the Greeks. My Armenian and Assyrian brothers, I apologise to you for the genocide that the racist Ittihat and Terakki did against you in my nation's name. Again, I apologise to you !"

The lecture also included poetry and music from Armenia.

Imperial Comparisons
What can the U.S. learn from Britain's imperial experience in Iraq?

Courtesy of the Mother Jones
May/June 2004 Issue
by Nonna Gorilovskaya

Weary of the persistent back-and-forth about whether Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, another quite different historical analogy has begun to make the rounds. A number of recent editorials and articles contend that the British occupation of Iraq during the early 20th century is the more apt point of comparison to our current predicament in Iraq.

Among the parallels, the British had to confront religious and ethnic divisions; they installed a pro-British puppet government: and they sought the approval of the League of Nations -- the predecessor to the United Nations -- to legitimize their occupation. The British interest in Iraq, moreover, had much to do with oil.

The British invaded Mesopotamia in 1917, ending Ottoman rule in the region. Iraqis were glad to be rid of their old rulers, but the British were not greeted as the “liberators” they portrayed themselves to be. Instead, much like the American and British troops today, they were resented as occupiers. In 1920, 8,450 Iraqis and 2,200 British troops were killed in an unanticipated revolt led by the Shiites. The British successfully put down the revolt, but not before inflicting massive civilian casualties.

For Niall Ferguson, the British historian who popularized the parallel in the American media, the lessons for the United States from the 1920 revolt are that such uprisings should be expected and that they must be put down immediately and "severely" -- a la the British. Then, the United States can work on putting together a friendly government to which it can transfer power to. Those Americans who believe that all this can be done without heavy American casualties, massive expenditures, or that the responsibility should be dumped on the U.N. are mistaken. As Ferguson writes in the New York Times :

"The anti-British revolt began in May, six months after a referendum -- in practice, a round of consultation with tribal leaders -- on the country's future and just after the announcement that Iraq would become a League of Nations 'mandate' under British trusteeship rather than continue under colonial rule. In other words, neither consultation with Iraqis nor the promise of internationalization sufficed to avert an uprising -- a fact that should give pause to those, like Senator John Kerry, who push for a handover to the United Nations…

Then as now, the insurrection had religious origins and leaders, but it soon transcended the country's ancient ethnic and sectarian divisions. The first anti-British demonstrations were in the mosques of Baghdad. But the violence quickly spread to the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where British rule was denounced by Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi -- perhaps the historical counterpart of today's Shiite firebrand, Moktada al-Sadr."

Britain installed a Sunni monarch -- King Faisal -- in 1921, relinquished its mandate of the country in 1932, giving Iraq "limited sovereignty," and did not withdraw all of its troops until 1955. The U.S., in other words, should expect to stay for the long haul, if it wants stability in Iraq.

But is the British approach worth emulating? Joel Rayburn, an Army general who teaches at West Point, shares Ferguson’s view that the U.S. must take a hard line against the insurgents, but also notes that the British occupation left much to be desired. Following King Faisal's death in 1933, ethnic conflict ensued, and the military trampled on the powers of what was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy. As Rayburn argues in the Los Angeles Times:

"Pressured by an economic downturn and warnings of 'imperial overstretch,' the British government withdrew the vast majority of its troops from Iraq, leaving the remainder at a few bases near Iraq's oil fields; the British had concessionary oil rights for 75 years ….

For three years, the majority Shiites of southern Iraq intermittently rebelled against the Sunni-dominated government and each time were crushed by the Sunni-led army. In the north, the army took vengeance on the Assyrian Christians, who had served as British troops under the mandate and were thus viewed by Iraqi nationalists as collaborators.

By 1935, the Iraqi army could dictate the membership of the prime minister's Cabinet, while the prime minister's seat was occupied by one army officer after another. As Iraq's civilian politicians faded from the political scene, the government restricted civil liberties and increased the army's size."

The British eventually returned to try and salvage the constitutional monarchy in 1940, after the Iraqi military began negotiating with the Nazis, but the victory was short lived. In 1958, three years after the British withdrew, the military led a successful coup.

Many of the questions facing the United States are indeed the same ones facing the British last century. Are high civilian casualties the price worth paying for putting down rebellions? Or will such tactics be self-defeating in the end, inflaming public opinion against the occupiers, and bolstering the militants' cause? Should an unpopular but loyal government be installed? Or should the occupying power be prepared to accept the rise of popular figures it finds distasteful? Should it play divide and rule among the various ethnic groups and exploit sectarian divisions?

The British favored the minority Sunnis and the Assyrians, just as the U.S. has been accused of favoring the majority Shiites over Saddam's Sunni brethren. The U.S. reversal on the de-Baathification policy -- which excluded members of Hussein's party from serving in the new government has, however, been seen as a move to co-opt Sunni military officers and soldiers, bureaucrats, and the intellectuals. Favoritism, of course, does not necessarily guarantee loyalty. The British faced opposition from the Shiites as well as the Sunnis and the U.S. is already facing separate Sunni and Shiite insurgencies. If the hate of the occupation prevails over sectarian differences, the U.S. may face yet more serious rebellions ahead.

Ferguson has challenged Americans' resistance to view the United States as a modern-day empire. But what is an empire? Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis defines empire as "...a situation in which a single state shapes the behavior of others, whether directly or indirectly, partially or completely, by means that can range from the outright use of force through intimidation, dependency, inducements, and even inspiration."

Ferguson contends that the United States fits this definition and the recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan only bolster his case. Whether it is military intervention or economic pressure, the United States has lots of power to force other countries to do what it wants them to do. Most importantly, it not only has, but exercises that power. We are comfortable calling ourselves a superpower, but our national myth of being a young democracy spreading democracy elsewhere, makes us cringe at the thought that we are an empire.

Not that Ferguson considers empire to be a dirty word. On the contrary, he argues that empires can be a force for good. According to this view, the U.S. should take cue from Britain in the late 19th century and mold itself into a "liberal empire" -- one that uses its power to impose all sorts of enlightened reforms in Iraq and elsewhere.

Last year, the Guardian gave Ferguson the dubious distinction of being "new-found darling of the American right." But even the neo-cons shudder at the "e" word. As Ferguson laments: "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously told al-Jazeera 'we don't do empire'. But how can you not be an empire and maintain 750 military bases in three-quarters of the countries on earth?" Then again, how can you convince the public to support a war based on bogus intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and a non-existent Hussein-al Qaeda link?

It is Ferguson's observations about U.S. history that make him skeptical that the U.S. will follow the path of the British Empire. For one, the United States has been usually reluctant to get entangled in long-term occupation. Second, the uncharacteristically sharp fall in public support for the Iraqi venture in spite of military losses far lower than those in previous wars, including Vietnam, suggest that politicians will eschew long-term commitments. While the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the absence of the draft distinguish Iraq, as Ferguson rightly notes, from Vietnam, not all the Vietnam comparisons are "facile." The public's increasing questioning of the purpose of the American mission in Iraq and distrust of the White House on the matter, is quite reminiscent of Vietnam.

There's a problem with Ferguson's endorsement of the "liberal empire" model for the United States. The term, in the end, is an oxymoron because there comes a breaking point when liberal reforms threaten the imperial hold. Imperial installations of unpopular governments through the exploitation of sectarian differences and use of brutal force to put down the opposition -- all in the name of liberalism -- are nothing new. But this hardly gives liberalism a good name. As James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute told the Washington Post:

"If anything defines the history of the last century, it's the sense of having lost control . . . This is not about Saddam Hussein. This is about one more time when Western powers are coming in to redefine the Arab region."

Democratization did not fare well during the British occupation of Iraq and any pretense of reform was killed off when they left. That is hardly an imperial example worth following.

A 1930s Lesson in Stillborn Democracy

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times
2 May 2004
by Joel Rayburn

The agreement struck by Marine commanders in Fallouja to allow former retired generals and soldiers of Saddam Hussein's army to police the city may stem from our rising impatience with the security situation in Iraq. For weeks, the standoffs in Fallouja and Najaf seemed to have pushed a growing number of increasingly restive Americans toward one of two conclusions: Either U.S. troops must leave Iraq as soon as possible or, if they remain, the Baathist-dominated army must be reconstituted to help stabilize the country.

Last month, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), invoking Vietnam, embraced the former, while two articles on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times last week favored the latter. Either idea, however, might abort the birth of democracy in Iraq. In the only other instance of nation-building in Iraq's history, the British failure in the 1930s to nurture a viable democracy to maturity had grave consequences for both countries.

In 1932, the British terminated the League of Nations mandate they had undertaken in 1920 and restored Iraqi sovereignty. Pressured by an economic downturn and warnings of "imperial overstretch," the British government withdrew the vast majority of its troops from Iraq, leaving the remainder at a few bases near Iraq's oil fields; the British had concessionary oil rights for 75 years. The British administration in Baghdad gave way to a large embassy, roughly comparable to the one to be headed by John Negroponte after the U.S.-led coalition transfers sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government June 30. By treaty, the Iraqis were expected to consult the British ambassador, who outranked all other foreign diplomats, on foreign policy matters. The treaty obligated the British to help preserve Iraq's constitutional government, even if that required returning British troops to Iraq.

This arrangement failed almost immediately. The British intentionally wrote Iraq's constitution to give sweeping powers to King Faisal, a former ally, hero of the Arab revolt of World War I and expected underwriter of British interests in the country. But Faisal's ill health and untimely death in 1933 left a political void that his young son and successor, Ghazi, could not fill. With the father dead, Iraq splintered along ethnic lines.

For three years, the majority Shiites of southern Iraq intermittently rebelled against the Sunni-dominated government and each time were crushed by the Sunni-led army. In the north, the army took vengeance on the Assyrian Christians, who had served as British troops under the mandate and were thus viewed by Iraqi nationalists as collaborators.

In Baghdad, the British-created parliamentary system began to disintegrate. The brutal but popular expeditions against the Assyrians made heroes of the leading army officers, who used their new stature to meddle in Iraqi politics. By 1935, the Iraqi army could dictate the membership of the prime minister's Cabinet, while the prime minister's seat was occupied by one army officer after another. As Iraq's civilian politicians faded from the political scene, the government restricted civil liberties and increased the army's size.

Despite warnings from its officials in Baghdad and pleas for assistance from more liberal-minded Iraqi politicians, Britain did nothing to preserve its constitutional creation. With their access to Iraq's oil secure, British leaders lost interest in Iraqi politics. Distracted by an outbreak of Arab-Zionist violence in Palestine, they concluded that the British army was stretched too thin to return to Iraq in force. Besides, in their eyes, Iraq's new authoritarian government hardly posed a threat.

But that assessment changed with the approach of World War II, as the Iraqi state became increasingly militaristic and pro-German. By 1940, the Iraqi army had opened back-channel negotiations with Italy and Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. A year later, Iraqi army officers seized the government and threatened to join the Axis powers. Faced with the prospect of an enemy between British Egypt and India, the British army returned to Iraq to reclaim Baghdad once again. As British troops approached the capital, Iraqi thugs, reportedly along with some soldiers and police, went into the streets and slaughtered hundreds of Iraqi Jews. The incident prompted tens of thousands of Jews to flee to what is now Israel.

Seven years of costly and unpopular British military occupation followed, during which Britain again attempted to shore up an Iraqi constitutional monarchy. Its army and air force remained in Iraq until a general British withdrawal from the Middle East in 1947-48, although the British Embassy continued to pull the levers of power in Iraq until 1955. Three years later, the Iraqi army seized power again, ending constitutional government in Iraq for good.

Britain's experience offers some clear lessons for today's U.S.-led coalition. The premature withdrawal of British troops in 1932 set the stage for the Iraqi army's seizure of power and vicious suppression of Shiites and ethnic minorities. Who can say today that, after restoring stability, an army of pardoned Sunni Baathists would not try to follow suit, especially if the U.S. withdrew?

Building an Iraqi army from scratch is maddeningly slow but is probably the only sure way to guarantee an apolitical force in Iraq that would follow civilian orders and respect the constitution. If the Fallouja deal succeeds in restoring peace and quiet, it will set a tempting precedent. But if in the interests of short-term stability more remnants of the Baathist army are tapped to help restore security, who is to say that the U.S. would not in a few years find, as the British painfully did in 1941, that it had sacrificed long-term security by creating a new enemy in a strategically vital region?

In such a case, a U.S. re-invasion would probably be both unavoidable and far more difficult. All this speaks against culling through Saddam Hussein's henchmen in search of Baathist generals with hearts of gold. They aren't there and never were.

[Zinda: Joel Rayburn, an Army major, teaches history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.]

The Luckiest Man in History & the Church of the East

Shooma Bet-Malik
United Kindgom

He was not an Assyrian, he did not speak a word of Assyr ian/Aramaic language; he was not a member of The Church of The East (The Assyrian Church); Furthermore, the Holy Apostolic Church of The East was founded before his great great great great great great great grandfather was born ( It was founded in 33 AD by a few Disciples of Christ and It is the Oldest and the First Church).

Yet this very Church was labeled after his name- 'the Nestorian Church'; his name was 'Nestorius'. And if that is not being "the Luckiest Man in History" , then I don't know what it is. But leaving 'lucky Nestorius' aside, let us ask the fundamental question: How did this ridiculous, unjust, and bizarre state of affair come about? The 'Nestorian Church' means or implies that The Apostolic Church of the East followed the Doctrines or the Teachings of Nestorius. But I have already stated that this man had no link (and was not associated in any shape or form) with the Holy Assyrian Church whatsoever; he was the Patriarch of Antioch (428-431). Moreover, the establishment of the Church of the East dates back, more or less, to the time of Our Lord and Saviour. Then why Nestorian? Where is the relevance of this unjust and unjustifiable and absolutely ludicrous label 'Nestorian'? This 'ridiculous irrelevance' to Nestoianism emerged out of spite and hatred as we shall see later.

By the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th centuries, the 'fever' of Christological Controversies began to strike the Bishops and the heads of the Churches of the East and West. It was specifically centred on the nature of Jesus Christ ---- the interrelation of His Humanity and His Divinity. These controversies mostly began after the Council of Constantinople (381). And the climax of such disputes took place in the Council of Ephesus, a notorious council, which was summoned by the emperor Theodosius ll (408-450). The man who chaired this Council was Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria (well-known for being a ruthless and over-ambitious man). The Church of the East refused to attend the Ephesus Council on 'good grounds and valid reasons'. Cyril and Nestorius, the former the Patriarch of Alexandria and the latter the Patriarch of Antioch, were bitter rivals. Cyril hated Nestorius; but then he could easily hate anyone. In fact, he detested the Church of The East, and he could not stand the Assyrians. But then such detestation of the Assyrians and their Church, more or less, applied also to the rest of them. None of them liked the Assyrians and the Church of the East.

The outspoken Nestotius, inside and outside the Council, made it known where he stood on this theological matter. As a participant member of the Council of Ephesus he started by saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary should not be referred to as the Mother of God but the Mother of Jesus. He maintained that Mary was not Theotokos (God-bearer) but Christotokos (Jesus Christ-bearer). Nestorius held the view that the Lord and Saviour has Two Natures--Divine and Human. And these Two Natures of Complete God and Perfect Human are in Union--------in Union in One Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This all means that Nestorius was a 'Dyophysite'----the belief that Jesus had Two Natures (Divine and Human) united in One Person, Jesus Christ.

Such belief and Christological Doctrine has, in essence, been part of the theological doctrine of the Apostolic Church of The East from the day of its foundation.

The rest of the Churches in the Council of Ephesus took the 'Monophysite' position, which was championed by none other than Cyril himself. (A Monophysite is one who believes that Jesus Christ has only One Nature, Divine Nature.)

Nestorius was accused, by a 'nasty logical distortion' , of believing that Jesus Christ was two persons. His opponents charged him with committing heresy. He denied the charges and the false accusation made against him. And here comes the insidiously unjust part of the story : The term 'Nestorian' was deliberately and wickedly invented and then imposed upon the Apostolic Church of The East, which (they knew) had always held the Dyophysite position as part of its theology. The chief purpose of such 'labeling' was to discredit the Church that they despised so much, and to tarnish the image of the First Apostolic Church.

They publicized 'Nestorianism', and endeavoured to belittle the Holy Church of the East -saying to the world that the Church of the East is unimportant; it is a Church that theologically follows Nestorius, a heretic. This was an orchestrated ploy carried out more or less by all churches chiefly out of cultural envy, ecclesiastical jealousy, doctrinal bigotry, dogmatic arrogance, and theological hatred.

The Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius and later his politically-motivated and powerful opponents (they were not just Bishops) sent him to exile in Egypt .
All these theological disputes gave rise to the popularity of Nestorius followed by his having many 'followers' who later were persecuted, so much so that they fled to Persia. To cut the story short, years later they (re)-joined the Church of the East, and Nestorius too came to the Apostolic Church of the East whose 'Foundation' is Eshoo Msheekha (Jesus Christ), and he felt 'welcomed and at home'.

But this is not the end of the story.

Twenty years after the Council of the Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon (in 451 AD) was summoned by the new emperor, Marcian. The Church of the East gladly took part in it. Things had changed and the participant members were not 'the bully-boys' of the Council of Ephesus. In the Council of Chalcedon all the members (delegates and heads of the Churches) agreed unanimously to the Doctrine of Dyophysitism----that Jesus Christ has Two Natures, Divine and Human, in Union in One Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. This is the Doctrine that was stated by Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, and also held by the Church of The East from the day of Its Foundation.

Nestorius died the same year as the Council of Chalcedon was held, in 451. He Lived 'Just Long Enough' to Receive the news of the doctrinal decision being made unanimously by the Council of Chalcedon! He saw for himself that ultimately SHRARAH (the truth) wins!

But why so much resentment against the Assyrians?

There are 'three main factors' for the seemingly unexplainable resentment that other peoples and nations have had throughout the centuries against the Assyrians. These are: cultural envy, ecclesiastical grudge, and and linguistic jealousy

Assyrians had the greatest Empire in the World. They built 'the Cradle of Civilization'. They generously contributed to the other nations' civilizations, mainly to the Persians and the Greeks. Greeks owe their 'prosperity and civilization' largely to the Assyrians. But the 'ungrateful Greeks' betrayed all the benefits that they received from the Assyrians. Not only that, but also, as Paul Younan puts it, "They claimed credit for everything". They learned everything (almost everything) from Assyrians and also to some extent from the Babylonians. The eminent Assyriologist, Simo Parpola, of Helsinki University in his well-known paper, "Assyrians After Assyria" , says,

"...We know that The Greeks and the Romans from Plato till antiquities kept learning Spirituality and Science from the Assyrians and the Babylonians."

Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that Nestorius was of Persian parents. I am afraid Encyclopedia Britannica on this particular point is wrong. Nestorius was a Greek- of Greek parents but was not born in Greece. The word 'Nestor' in Greek refers to 'an old and wise man'; besides, 'Nestorius' is still today A Greek Name. The world wanted to say that the Assyrian Church of The East follows the teachings of a 'Greek Heretic' called Nestorius!

The Ecclesiastical Grudge - jealousy and grudge are usually interrelated. Even to this day the Churches, mostly Western Churches, cannot stand the fact that the Assyrian Church of the East is the First Apostolic Church which was Founded in 33 AD in Seluqia-Ctesephon, Babylon; and Shimun Keepa (Simon Peter) in his first Epistle makes a mention of it. He writes: "The chosen Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so does my son Marcus." ( 1 Peter, 5:13 )"

Linguistic Jealousy has always been a highly important factor in arousing resentment (among many peoples and nations) against the Assyrians and their Holy Church.

Eshoo Msheekha (Jesus Christ) did not speak Italian or Latin nor did He speak in Greek, and He did not speak in Hebrew. Jesus spoke in Aramaic which is referred to as the linguistic heritage of the Assyrians. Indeed Assyrians 'inherited' Leeshana Aramayah (Aramaic Language) from their 'Cousins' , The Arameans. Aramaic became the first lingua franca, however, ' the heirs' to this precious language are the Assyrians. Christ did all His teachings and preachings in the Aramaic language, and He spoke Aramaic with his Disciples. Jesus, Our Lord and Saviour, spoke that rich version of Aramaic (enriched by the Assyrians) in Galilean accent which by some Aramaic scholars is referred to as ' the Galilean Aramaic' . And who were the Galilean's? The late Doctor George Lamsa and Victor Alexander tell us that Galilean's were originally, Ashuraye or Assyrians. In fact, Lord Jesus spoke Aramayeh d'Ashurayeh.

These inherently cultured and instinctively courageous people, the Assyrians, throughout the centuries have been despised, hated, persecuted and sometimes in large numbers massacred. Yet they have been able to preserve their culture, their precious language, their Christianity, and they have upheld their traditional values and of course have dearly kept their Holy Apostolic Church whose Patriarch ( 120th on the Line of Succession ) is His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who is the only (the true) successor to Shimun Keepa, Simon Peter.

Whether the world likes or not, Assyrians, the builders of civilization, will rise up again - the world needs them once again!