Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 14 votes

Daniel 7:13: Is Christ the Son of Man AND the Ancient of Days?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:54 AM

From what I see both depictions are of Christ. They both have the same cross  in the halo. The Ancient of Days is labeled just that with no reference to the Father.

 

If both the bearded figures in the above image are intended to be of the Son, then how can it be Trinitarian? If both figures are supposed to be Christ, then it is depicting a duumvirate, not a trinity. It is just as confused in its expression of theology as the Koumbelidiki fresco posted earlier.



#62 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:52 AM

Because these images are nonsense and jumbled. If you look at the koumbelidiki icon it is the ancient of days icon that is labeled by the IC XC inscription not the Christ in the bosom.  Just read the quote of Gregory of Nyssa that I provided pretty much explains it, 



#63 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:58 AM

It baffles me why, if an icon of the Holy Trinity is wanted, St Andrei Rublev's model is not followed.


Edited by Reader Andreas, 20 January 2015 - 09:59 AM.


#64 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:59 AM

Kosta, the Koumbelidiki image is just as confused, for the reasons I gave in an earlier post:

 

As for the Koumbelidiki fresco, it is indeed a Paternity image, not one of Christ as Ancient of Days and at a younger age. If it were, then what is the purpose of the dove in the medallion in Christ's hands?

 

Looking forward to your answer to this.



#65 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 January 2015 - 10:34 AM

It baffles me why, if an icon of the Holy Trinity is wanted, St Andrei Rublev's model is not followed.


It was followed. In Turkey there are absolutely no images of God the Father in any of the ancient churches or monasteries, from the church of Chora to the caves of Goreme. You will find icons of Abraham's hospitality though.

The uncanonical images in the greek sphere went from Moscow to Mt Athos and from their into mainstreamGreece. The process actually took over 200 years, thats how recent they are in the greek-byzantine world. Any icon on mt sinai depicting God the Father is post-1750. The earliest reference to them from Greece comes from 1740.

The reason why they are so pervasive is because the bishops dont speak out about them. Anyone who has ever seen the dreadful trinity painting at saint Sophia Greek Orthodox church in Los Angeles Can attest to how lax the rules are applied

#66 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:54 PM

Kosta, 

 

you are right in most of your positions, but always there were problems with the iconography. Iconomachy started because of problems in paintings and in proper usage of icons.



#67 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 02:17 AM

Im sure there is alot to the equation to make it add up. What I would like to know is what was going on in Moscow to have arisen these images, the various types of halos etc. A cross in the halo was always a telltale sign that the image is of Christ only.

How about the other "headgear" designs that were used interchangeably? Except for the western triangle which was always exclusive to a God the Father depiction, but as you can see from my previous post, even that has been breached and is used as a halo for Christ in atleast one church in canada.

Moscow at the time had much contact with the Latins, the renaissance influence in art is part of the answer. The Ottomons closed off byzantine influence, but was there some kind of further art awakening in Moscow that allowed so many unusual motifs? I believe outside of Moscow, Romania were the first to recieve God the Father images was their latin contact with them in the very early 1500s or did it come from Moscow?

Edited by Kosta, 21 January 2015 - 02:19 AM.


#68 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 21 January 2015 - 02:55 AM

Im sure there is alot to the equation to make it add up.

 

 

Kosta, you defended the Koumbelidiki fresco as an acceptable icon of the "two ages" of Christ. The presence of the dove shows it is intended to be a trinitarian image. Please explain why you find this fresco canonically acceptable.



#69 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 03:58 AM

I dont find it acceptable unless someone scrubs out the dove. But it shows that originally the image did not start off as a depiction of the Father. If you read some of my other posts I make it clear that its impossible to venerate any depiction of the Father. This is made clear by reading St John of Damascus. In fact Most of the debates during the iconoclast controversy has a starting point on what all sides agreed on, that depicting the divinity is impossible. Hence the emphasis on depicting He who was incarnate in the Child of Mary.

#70 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 10:31 AM

Kosta, you defended the Koumbelidiki fresco as an acceptable icon of the "two ages" of Christ. The presence of the dove shows it is intended to be a trinitarian image. Please explain why you find this fresco canonically acceptable.

 

 

I was able to find some interesting information. First I still believe both depiction of the koubembelidiki icon are representations of Christ in 'two ages' . I simply dont believe the artist thought through the theological implications that such a depiction can imply Sabelianism (and/or nestorianism). The Christ ancient of days still being symbolic enough to convey the Father (based on Philip's request for Christ to show him the Father in the gospel of John).   The writings of St. Dionysios Areopagite on the divine names is another piece of patristic evidence that I would like to add together with the quotes from Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose:

 

Wherefore in the Sacred Theophanies revealed in mystic Visions He is described as Ancient and yet as Young: the former title signifying that He is the Primal Being, existent from the beginning, and the latter that He grows not old. Or both titles together teach that He goes forth from the Beginning through the entire process of the world unto the End. Or, as the Divine Initiator  tells us, either term implies the Primal Being of God: the term “Ancient” signifying that He is First in point of Time, and the term “Young” that He possesses the Primacy in point of Number, since Unity and the properties of Unity have a primacy over the more advanced numbers. (on the divine names  Ch 10.2)

 

 

Now back to the info I found on the web, according to the study its no coincidence that their exists two seperate Trinity images from the same time period both from the bishopric of Kastoria of the mid 13th century (Koumbelidiki and omorphoekklesia). At that time Kastoria was under the archbishopric of Ochrid. The study concludes that since Kastoria was in favor of the Union of Lyons in 1274 that these images were indeed introduced from the west and that the placement of the dove had something to do with the fillioque controversy.  

 

The One Trinitarian image I cant find online but Its found in the Trinity Church of Omorfoekklesia in the vicinity of Kastoria. It depicts a triple headed Trinity Icon. Basically the Ancient of Days icon with the face of a young child to the right and the depiction of a dove to the left. The entire image is labeled with IC XC.  (see figures 9 and 10 and page 154 of the link for a description)

 

Pretty interesting read:

 

 

The Holy Trinity in the diocese of the archbishopric of Ohrid in the second half of the 13th century | Saska Bogevska-Capuano - Academia.edu

 

 

The same article from another address:

 

www.kalamus.com.mk/pdf_spisanija/patrimonium_5/010 = 021_3 Patrimonium Saska 2012.pdf


Edited by Kosta, 23 January 2015 - 10:41 AM.


#71 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:25 PM

The historical information you provided is interesting, but it supports the Koumbelidiki fresco as being trinitarian in intent. You might "believe both depiction of the koubembelidiki icon are representations of Christ in 'two ages' ", but the elephant in the room is the presence of the dove.



#72 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:58 AM

You are correct about the dove. If you go back and re-read my post #24 from two years ago, I mention the first depiction of a Trinity icon coming from an illuminated manuscript, the article shows that icon is from the codex Vienna (the article also has a photo of it).  I also think my theory is bolstered in that tricephalos icon also being labeled IC XC 

 

Also in my post from 2 years ago I mentioned about a similiar depiction as Koumbelidiki that omits the dove which is in George Gabriel's book. I havent read the Gabriel book in years and unfortunately have misplaced it. I maybe off on some of the details as Im going by memory. George Gabriel did make mention that its unknown why the dove began appearing.  If the hypothesis in the article is accurate that it was placed there to explain the difference between the Orthodox and the west's understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit at a time when that territory was seeking to re-establish communion with Rome that would answer Gabriel's question.

 

If I come across his book again I will make sure to upload the image. Meanwhile I would like post another patristic quotation from St John of Damascus on his Exposition of the Orthodox faith concerning the two ages and how Christ as Ancient of Days is symbolic enough to allude to the Father whose divinity is uncircumscribeable:

 

 "Likewise also when He is called Man and Son of Man, He still keeps the properties and glories of the divine nature, a child before the ages, and man who knew no beginning; it is not however, as child or man but as God that He is before the ages and became a child in the end. And this is the manner of the mutual communication, either nature giving in exchange to the other its own properties through the identity of the hypostasis and the interpenetrationof the parts with one another. Accordingly we can say of Christ: This our God was seen upon earth and lived amongst men, and this man is uncreated and impassible and uncircumscribed." 

Edited by Kosta, 24 January 2015 - 07:07 AM.


#73 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,827 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:26 AM

I also think my theory is bolstered in that tricephalos icon also being labeled IC XC

 

Which would make such an image completely unacceptable for veneration. Christ is not three Persons.



#74 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:50 AM

No argument there.



#75 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 14 April 2015 - 08:08 PM

I want to quote the commentary of the Koumbelidiki image provided by George Gabriel in his book I mentioned earlier:

 

"The Incarnate Word is depicted as both the Ancient of Days and as the mature Christ. This mid-13th century fresco is in the transverse vault of the esonarthex of Panagia Koumbelidiki Church in Kastoria northern Greece.Formerly illegible, the inscribed title was assumed to consist of the names of the three persons of the Trinity. The cleaning and restoration of that cities byzantine antiquities in 1998 , however, revealed the original inscription: Jesus Christ, Ancient of Days". The title was verified and catalogued by Greece's Ministry of Antiquities" (pg 172)

 

The oldest perhaps 'ground zero' image which the koumbelidiki image and all subsequent paternity icons is based on, is found in an 11-12th century illuminated manuscript in the Dionysiou Library. The thumbnail scan is the one in the bottom: The importance in the image below is that it depicts No dove. This is the oldest version of Paternity icon we have and both figures are of Christ. see below

 

 

It seems this theme of the different ages of Christ was prominent in Kastoria. The following fresco from Kastoria St Stephen shows three seperate images of Christ holding a scroll. The top is a young beardless incarnate Christ, the middle is Chriist as the Ancient of Days and the bottom damaged image is Christ as Pantocrator:

Pantokrator from the north aisle, St. Stephanos, Kastoria, April 2006 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Attached Files


Edited by Kosta, 14 April 2015 - 08:15 PM.


#76 Loucas

Loucas

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 April 2015 - 04:31 PM

According to the teachings of the Church the verse is refering to the second coming of Christ, the  Son Of Man in Glory

There has been confusion as to the persons, and has led to a misinterpret of the Trinity, writing and Icon showing and old man, the Lord, a dove....but the correct Icon is the Hospitality of Abraham as we do not depict the Father at all, the son because he has taken flesh and the Holy Spirit because it desended as a dove..but the hospitality of Abraham is the Holy Trinity Icon and the Son of Man coming on the Ancient of Times is our Lord's second coming in Glory.


Edited by Loucas, 16 April 2015 - 04:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users