|
Severian
|
 |
« on: October 20, 2012, 11:55:16 PM » |
|
God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Christ is risen! !المسيح قام Χριστός ἀνέστη! ⲠⲓⲬⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲧⲱⲛϥ! Christus resurrexit! Come and join OCnet's new book club! |
|
|
Achronos
Miami's Theme Song (Spongebob): Who lives in Miami right by the sea? LeBron James! Absorbent and bald and selfish is he. LeBron James! If not being clutch be somethin' ya wish. LeBron James! Then drop on the floor and flop like a fish.
Site Supporter
Warned
Stratopedarches
 Online
Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Taekwondo Church
Posts: 10,008
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2012, 12:56:08 AM » |
|
I know you want an OO perspective, but just for me, what part of Daniel is this (I haven't read the book yet)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It would be helpful if you were born with an OFF switch.
|
|
|
|
minasoliman
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2012, 03:52:25 AM » |
|
Daniel Chapter 7.
From an OO perspective, I would expect the Ancient of Days is the Father, but I have no patristic proof to offer. It would only make sense though since saying the Ancient of Days being Christ would sound Nestorian to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)
If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
|
|
|
|
Alpo
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2012, 07:27:27 AM » |
|
From an OO perspective, I would expect the Ancient of Days is the Father, but I have no patristic proof to offer.
Here Irish Hermit lists some Fathers who claim that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Just a little reminder: this forum is not called OrthodoxChristianityUSA.net   |
|
|
|
minasoliman
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2012, 08:41:29 AM » |
|
From an OO perspective, I would expect the Ancient of Days is the Father, but I have no patristic proof to offer.
Here Irish Hermit lists some Fathers who claim that. The quote claims that the fathers in the list believe that it was referring to God the Father. Where are the Church fathers that refer to any person of the Trinity? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)
If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
|
|
|
|
akimori makoto
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2012, 04:13:33 PM » |
|
It would only make sense though since saying the Ancient of Days being Christ would sound Nestorian to me. How so? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
|
|
|
|
Orthodox11
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2012, 04:16:57 PM » |
|
How so?
I suppose if you assume that Son of Man and Ancient of Days represent Christ's two natures, then you could assume that the separate apperitions in Daniel suggest some kind of Nestorianism. I think you have to be on the lookout for Nestorianism to draw such a conclusion though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
minasoliman
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2012, 04:57:23 PM » |
|
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. If the Ancient of Days here refers to Christ's divine nature here, it sounds like the human nature was led into the presence of the divine nature, rather than the Logos being present fully in the human nature from the beginning of His incarnation. It sounds adoptionist if anything. Correct me if I'm wrong here. But to say that the Ancient of Days is the Father would make more sense here. I don't mind calling Christ the Ancient of Days given His divinity. But within the context of the verse, and what seems to be a patristic consensus of the interpretation, sounds like the Father to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)
If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2012, 05:08:44 PM » |
|
^I think that makes sense. Is it possible that the Ancient of Days according to the Prophet Daniel is the Father, while the Ancient of Days in the Apocalypse is Christ? The reason I ask is because St. John's description of Christ in the Apocalypse is very similar to the Prophet's description of the Ancient of Days in the book of Daniel.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 05:09:14 PM by Severian »
|
Logged
|
Christ is risen! !المسيح قام Χριστός ἀνέστη! ⲠⲓⲬⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲧⲱⲛϥ! Christus resurrexit! Come and join OCnet's new book club! |
|
|
|
Orthodox11
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2012, 06:10:12 PM » |
|
But to say that the Ancient of Days is the Father would make more sense here. I don't mind calling Christ the Ancient of Days given His divinity. But within the context of the verse, and what seems to be a patristic consensus of the interpretation, sounds like the Father to me.
The patristic evidence certainly seems to favour such an interpretation, even if they consider it a reference to the Son elsewhere. However, in the context of what is rather abstract imagery, I don't necessarily think one has to view the vision in adoptionist terms were one to understand both as refering to the Son. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Orthodox11
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2012, 07:06:08 PM » |
|
Is it possible that the Ancient of Days according to the Prophet Daniel is the Father, while the Ancient of Days in the Apocalypse is Christ? The reason I ask is because St. John's description of Christ in the Apocalypse is very similar to the Prophet's description of the Ancient of Days in the book of Daniel.
If one understands "Ancient of Days" to simply mean "Eternal" or "Pre-existing", then that's certainly possible. I wonder if it can't be both at the same time. If one takes as a starting point John 1:18, perhaps it is possible that both the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days in Daniel is an apparition of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but that the one is nonetheless an image of the Father (cf. Col. 1:15). Thus, while it is the Son alone who appears, the vision is still one of the Son ascending to the Father.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
minasoliman
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2012, 08:27:10 PM » |
|
But to say that the Ancient of Days is the Father would make more sense here. I don't mind calling Christ the Ancient of Days given His divinity. But within the context of the verse, and what seems to be a patristic consensus of the interpretation, sounds like the Father to me.
The patristic evidence certainly seems to favour such an interpretation, even if they consider it a reference to the Son elsewhere. However, in the context of what is rather abstract imagery, I don't necessarily think one has to view the vision in adoptionist terms were one to understand both as refering to the Son. I don't know. Perhaps my views are anachronistic. Revelations is interesting. I would add that we should keep in mind that Revelations is unfulfilled yet, although rich with spiritual imagery for our lives today. Therefore, it's okay to consider a certain mystery into the image of Christ as the Ancient of Days, and quite more vivid than the picture given by the book of Daniel. The Ancient of Days seems to be a description of something more eternal, like "Pantocrator." In the Creed, Pantocrator is referred specifically to the Father, even though elsewhere we say the Son is also Pantocrator. So context should be important. Nevertheless all good questions, and would be interesting to read more about. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 08:28:02 PM by minasoliman »
|
Logged
|
Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)
If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
|
|
|
|
