??? Daniel chapter 7 "Oneness"???

Esther · #1 07-09-2010, 06:46 AM

Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

A friend wants to know how can this be "one".

Esther · #2 07-09-2010, 06:49 AM

Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

In studying a little further I discovered that the Ancient of days is only referred to in this one chapter, as "The Ancient of Days".

pelathais · #3 07-09-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esther

Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

A friend wants to know how can this be "one".

"One" what? There are two subjects here, but One God.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son is described in Luke 15:17, with these words:

"And when he came to himself..." This phrase also has two subjects, but both subjects refer to just the one person.

Psalm 42:5 and Psalm 42:11 (and many other verses as well) both have the Psalmist saying of his own soul, "Thou...within me..." Here we have two personal pronouns linked together with a preposition indicating the simultaneous existence of two ... "persons?"

*** Cal Bisner in that (in)famous televised debate with Bob Sabin and Nathaniel Urshan emphasized repeatedly that this situation - 2 pronouns linked together with a preposition - represented a "Law of Language" demanding that we see "Two Persons" in every occurrence of such wording. Luke 15, and the Psalmist are just two examples where Dr. Bisner is mistaken.

Walter Martin can be seen discretely trying to "shush" Bisner when he makes this point. Neither Sabin nor Urshan jumped on the thing that I was screaming at the TV screen... er! Monitor screen.

The fact of the matter is: God is a complex Being. With particular regard to His incarnation (the Son of Man) there exists many conditions which require language containing two or more subjects ("nouns") to describe what God is doing in the text.

Consider also Revelation 5:5-7, the "Lamb" that approaches the throne and "takes the book" from the One sitting on the throne is described as simultaneously "standing in the midst of the throne" when He approaches it.

How can this make any sense in a literal way? It simply doesn't. However, John's vision is intended to show the many different aspects and characteristics possessed by God and the Lamb. The Lamb is God - because He's in the midst of the throne; while simultaneously He is a human being - because He is in the midst of the "24 elders" (representatives of the saints from both covenants).

pelathais · #4 07-09-2010, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esther

Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

In studying a little further I discovered that the Ancient of days is only referred to in this one chapter, as "The Ancient of Days".

The idea of the "Ancient of Days" is an apocalyptic theme carried forth into Revelation.

Ask your friend, "If the Ancient of Days is Jesus Christ (compare Daniel 7:9, with Revelation 1:14-15) who then is the "Son of Man?"

pelathais · #5 07-09-2010, 07:18 AM

Revelation 1:18 clearly describes this "Ancient of Days" as being Jesus Christ... "was dead, and, behold, I am alive forevermore..."

The "Son of God" in Revelation 2, (Revelation 2:18, for example) is repeatedly described with the same words that describe the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, and Revelation 1.

John very clearly intends for us to understand that Daniel's "Ancient of Days" is Jesus Christ.

God is a complex Being. To describe His activity and attributes we need to use language at times that employs multiple subjects and nouns. This is in no way intended to be understood that God exists as "multiple Beings" - even the Nicean Creed denies that when it says that Jesus Christ is, "one in being with the Father." This means: "One Being."

Esther · #6 07-09-2010, 07:24 AM

She is oneness also, but couldn't understand how to explain this scripture.

I had never noticed it as seemingly being two until she pointed it out.

We KNOW there is only ONE GOD, but couldn't figure out how to defend it with this verse.

I promised her I would post it here for comment.

Thanks for responding.

pelathais · #7 07-09-2010, 08:07 AM

np Esther.

We should remember, the apocalyptic visions don't necessarily reveal "a reality," they reveal a truth!

For example, the visions in Revelation are not intended to "reveal the fact" that Jesus Christ is some sort of weirdly mutant caprinae ovis (sheep) with seven eyes walking around on four hooves. In fact, it would be insulting, to say nothing of misleading, if someone were to assert this idea just because of the words in Revelation 5:6.

We should also be wary of not falling for the less obvious pitfalls in interpreting this visions. Jesus Christ and God the Father are "two" in some senses of the word - see for example John 8:17-18:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

Someone might come away from reading just this passage and have the idea that the Father and Jesus are "two men" because of the words in verse 17. They would have a contradiction however when considering these verses:

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.

The point Jesus is making in John 8, is that there are "two witnesses" - the Father in heaven and the Son of God standing there right in front of the people at that time.

However, being "two witnesses" is not the same as being two Beings or even Two Persons (see for example 1 Corinthians 13:1, where Paul all by himself constituted "three witnesses").

Digging4Truth · #8 07-09-2010, 08:47 AM

Jesus is an advocate FOR the father.
To wit... God was IN Christ.

2Cr 1:3 Blessed [be] God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

In these very, very few examples there appears, to me, to be a clear difference expressed in scripture. But these verses are filtered through doctrinal presuppositions and one doesn't generally find substantive discussion on this issue easily.

Standards · #9 07-09-2010, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

"One" what? There are two subjects here, but One God.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son is described in Luke 15:17, with these words:

"And when he came to himself..." This phrase also has two subjects, but both subjects refer to just the one person.

Psalm 42:5 and Psalm 42:11 (and many other verses as well) both have the Psalmist saying of his own soul, "Thou...within me..." Here we have two personal pronouns linked together with a preposition indicating the simultaneous existence of two ... "persons?"

*** Cal Bisner in that (in)famous televised debate with Bob Sabin and Nathaniel Urshan emphasized repeatedly that this situation - 2 pronouns linked together with a preposition - represented a "Law of Language" demanding that we see "Two Persons" in every occurrence of such wording. Luke 15, and the Psalmist are just two examples where Dr. Bisner is mistaken.

Walter Martin can be seen discretely trying to "shush" Bisner when he makes this point. Neither Sabin nor Urshan jumped on the thing that I was screaming at the TV screen... er! Monitor screen.

The fact of the matter is: God is a complex Being. With particular regard to His incarnation (the Son of Man) there exists many conditions which require language containing two or more subjects ("nouns") to describe what God is doing in the text.

Consider also Revelation 5:5-7, the "Lamb" that approaches the throne and "takes the book" from the One sitting on the throne is described as simultaneously "standing in the midst of the throne" when He approaches it.

How can this make any sense in a literal way? It simply doesn't. However, John's vision is intended to show the many different aspects and characteristics possessed by God and the Lamb. The Lamb is God - because He's in the midst of the throne; while simultaneously He is a human being - because He is in the midst of the "24 elders" (representatives of the saints from both covenants).

Incredible post. I couldn't agree more.

Michael The Disciple · #10 07-09-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

np Esther.

We should remember, the apocalyptic visions don't necessarily reveal "a reality," they reveal a truth!

For example, the visions in Revelation are not intended to "reveal the fact" that Jesus Christ is some sort of weirdly mutant caprinae ovis (sheep) with seven eyes walking around on four hooves. In fact, it would be insulting, to say nothing of misleading, if someone were to assert this idea just because of the words in Revelation 5:6.

We should also be wary of not falling for the less obvious pitfalls in interpreting this visions. Jesus Christ and God the Father are "two" in some senses of the word - see for example John 8:17-18:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

Someone might come away from reading just this passage and have the idea that the Father and Jesus are "two men" because of the words in verse 17. They would have a contradiction however when considering these verses:

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.

The point Jesus is making in John 8, is that there are "two witnesses" - the Father in heaven and the Son of God standing there right in front of the people at that time.

However, being "two witnesses" is not the same as being two Beings or even Two Persons (see for example 1 Corinthians 13:1, where Paul all by himself constituted "three witnesses").

Good post.