Nieuwsgierigheid v/d zwe(r)ver kent geen tijd ~~~~

(DB) In the biblical religion, in order to form a more perfect monotheism, two (kinds of) divinities have merged into one, but not quite seamlessly. The Israelites were part of an ancient Canaanite community, differentiated to some extent by different ideas about G d that they developed through their historical existence, but the idea of a duality within G d was not easily escaped, however much certain lea-ders sought to enforce it. A G d that is very far away generates ~ almost inevitably ~ a need for a G d who is closer; a "G d" who judges us requires thus a G d who will fight for us & defend us (as long as the second G d is completely subordinate to the first, the principle is not violated)!

The unreconstructed relic of Israel's past (if not her present as well) that we can find in the two-thrones theophany of Da-niel 7 was no doubt disturbing to at least some Jews in antiquity, such as the author of Daniel himself in the second century B.C. So we know that other Jews adopted wholeheartedly, or simply inherited, the doubleness of Israel's G d, the old Ancient of Days & the young human- appearing rider on the clouds. These became the progenitors of the Judaism of Yeshua & his followers. The two-thrones apoca-lypse in Daniel calls up a very ancient strand in Israel's religion, one in which, it would seem, the 'El-like sky god of justice & the youn-ger rider on the clouds, storm god of war, have not really been merged as they are for most of the Bible. I (DB) find it plausible that this highly significant passage is a sign of the religious traditions that gave rise to the notion of a Father divinity & a Son divinity that we find in the Gospels.

Taking the two-throne vision OUT of the context of Daniel 7 as a whole, we find several crucial elements: (1) so there are two thrones; (2) there are two divine figures, one apparently old & one apparently young; (3) the young figure is to be the Re-deemer & eternal ruler of the world. It would certainly not be wrong to suggest, I think, that even if the actual notion of the Messiah (or Christ) is not yet present here, the notion of a divinely appointed divine king over earth is, & that this has great potential for understan-ding the development of the Messiah/Christ notion in later Judaism (including Christianity, of course)! The second-G d Redeemer figure thus comes, on my view, out of the earlier history of Israel's religion. Once the messiah had been combined with the younger divine figure that we have found in Daniel 7, then it became natural to ascribe to him also the term "Son of G d!" The occupant of one throne was an ancient, the occupant of the other a young figure in human form. The older one invests the younger one with His own authority on earth forever & ever, passing the scepter to him ~~~ And SO the story goes: we inherited those conceptions through 2000 years ~~