db98 pushing the point just a bit further ~~~~~~~~
we arrive again at the same sort of argument that has been advanced for the one like a son of man of Dani'el, namely, that of it is only YHWH who comes riding on clouds, then here too that figure is a divine one. Ezra's Man is divine as well! The Vision concludes:
AFTER THIS I SAW THE SAMEN MAN COME DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN AND CALL TO HIM ANOTHER MULTITUDE WHICH WAS PEACEABLE!
THEN THE FORMS OF MANY PEOPLE CAME TO HIM, SOME OF WHOM WERE JOYFUL AND SOME SORROWFUL; SOME OF THEM WERE BOUND & SOME WERE BRINGING OTHERS AS OFFERINGS.
This bit of text nails down the claim that the Man, the Messiah, is G d, for his eschatological Vision with its offerings is drawn directly from Ye-shayahu/Isaiah 66:20: "AND THEY SHALL BRING ALL YOUR BRETHREN FROM ALL THE NATIONS AS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD"
Those others brought here as offerings then are brought to the Lord, the KURIOS, the Son of Man, the Redeemer: note that the same sort of argument that is used to prove the divinity of Jesus ~ namely, the application of verses to him that are in the Bible predicated of YAH WEH ~ works here as well for the Man: this Man is the Lord. If Jesus is G d, then, by the very same reasoning, so is this Man.
Here too, as in Dani'el 7 itself, we find another witness to a PRE-Christian religious conflict within Israel between those who accepted the very ancient idea of an older-appearing divine figure & a younger one who shares his throne & th whom the older one gives authority and other Jews who rejected this idea as a seeming contradiction of monotheism? This point is supported by a very important observation: the descrip-tion of the Redeemer in chapter 13 that is being presented here is unique within 4th Ezra itself! In all other moments within that text, the Redeemer, while in some sense preexistent, seems to fall much more toward the pole of the human Davidic Messiah tradition than the second divinity that we find in Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4th Ezra 13! Moreover, as also observed sharply, the interpretation of the vision in the second half of chapter 13 suppresses the cosmic divine aspect of the Man. Clear to Mor is the symbolical 'actuality of our stand'!
AFTER THIS I SAW THE SAMEN MAN COME DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN AND CALL TO HIM ANOTHER MULTITUDE WHICH WAS PEACEABLE!
THEN THE FORMS OF MANY PEOPLE CAME TO HIM, SOME OF WHOM WERE JOYFUL AND SOME SORROWFUL; SOME OF THEM WERE BOUND & SOME WERE BRINGING OTHERS AS OFFERINGS.
This bit of text nails down the claim that the Man, the Messiah, is G d, for his eschatological Vision with its offerings is drawn directly from Ye-shayahu/Isaiah 66:20: "AND THEY SHALL BRING ALL YOUR BRETHREN FROM ALL THE NATIONS AS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD"
Those others brought here as offerings then are brought to the Lord, the KURIOS, the Son of Man, the Redeemer: note that the same sort of argument that is used to prove the divinity of Jesus ~ namely, the application of verses to him that are in the Bible predicated of YAH WEH ~ works here as well for the Man: this Man is the Lord. If Jesus is G d, then, by the very same reasoning, so is this Man.
Here too, as in Dani'el 7 itself, we find another witness to a PRE-Christian religious conflict within Israel between those who accepted the very ancient idea of an older-appearing divine figure & a younger one who shares his throne & th whom the older one gives authority and other Jews who rejected this idea as a seeming contradiction of monotheism? This point is supported by a very important observation: the descrip-tion of the Redeemer in chapter 13 that is being presented here is unique within 4th Ezra itself! In all other moments within that text, the Redeemer, while in some sense preexistent, seems to fall much more toward the pole of the human Davidic Messiah tradition than the second divinity that we find in Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4th Ezra 13! Moreover, as also observed sharply, the interpretation of the vision in the second half of chapter 13 suppresses the cosmic divine aspect of the Man. Clear to Mor is the symbolical 'actuality of our stand'!
26 jan 2013 - bewerkt op 27 jan 2013
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 08 dec 2025 50235 58 Tòch valt er wel iets te zeggen voor deze
- O 07 dec 2025 50231 Die uitspraak is ook belangrijk omdat ‘t ons
- O 07 dec 2025 50230 Er is nog een controverse over de vergeving
- O 07 dec 2025 50229 57 Net als in de periode van de man met deze
- O 07 dec 2025 50228 Wellicht waren er omstanders vervuld van
- O 06 dec 2025 50227De verwijzing naar de Farizeeën i/d conclusie
- O 05 dec 2025 50226”Daarom werd er maar één mènsch geschapen i/d
- O 04 dec 2025 5022555Niet alleen gebruikt Yehosjoea zijn kritiek
- O 04 dec 2025 50224 It is not a Serpent that Kills, JUDAISM, 550
- O 04 dec 2025 50223 Zelfs dat punt werd niet eens al te vaak op-
- O 04 dec 2025 5022254 YESJ zou het niet zó gezegd hebben: ‘t was
- O 04 dec 2025 50221Als ‘t klopt dat deze uitspraak belangrijk is
- O 03 dec 2025 50220 ‘n Joodse schrijver uit die tijd had beslist
- O 03 dec 2025 5021953 ‘t Was dan ook heel gewoon dat Yesj in het
- O 03 dec 2025 50218 Zelfs de fanatiekste dorpsfarizeeër van die