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

[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".

[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".

[pelathais]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[Michael The Disciple]

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?"

Good proof that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

[Esther]

thanks for the incredible post.

[Sam]

Thank you, Pelathais, for those good words.

:grampa

[Michael The Disciple]

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".

Amen Esther.

The coming of the Ancient of Days is at the end of the great tribulation/beast period.

Daniel 7:21-22

[21] I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
[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.

The coming of the Son of man is the same time frame. After the beast persecutes the Saints.

29] Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
[30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
[31] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matt. 24:29-31

The coming of the Son Of Man is the coming of the Ancient Of Days.

[mfblume]

Dan 7 agrees with Rev 5. The lamb goes to the one on the throne. In Dan 7, the Son of man goes to the Ancient of Days. The point is that this is symbolic, and not visibly actual. It shows atonement principle as the high priest going into the holiest, where Son is high priest ministering before Deity.

Forget the WHEN this occurred. The issue is about atonement principle, which we can apply to any situation we ever experience.

[Michael The Disciple]

Dan 7 agrees with Rev 5. The lamb goes to the one on the throne. In Dan 7, the Son of man goes to the Ancient of Days. The point is that this is symbolic, and not visibly actual. It shows atonement principle as the high priest going into the holiest, where Son is high priest ministering before Deity.

Forget the WHEN this occurred. The issue is about atonement principle, which we can apply to any situation we ever experience.

I will not forget the when. It happens immediately after the tribulation in both cases. Its inspired to show the second coming of the Son of Man is the same event as the coming of the Ancient of Days spoken by Daniel the Prophet.

[pelathais]

I will not forget the when. It happens immediately after the tribulation in both cases. Its inspired to show the second coming of the Son of Man is the same event as the coming of the Ancient of Days spoken by Daniel the Prophet.

I think that what Mike was saying is that "WHEN" doesn't affect the "WHAT."

We have two subjects appearing simultaneously and being described in a fashion the doesn't really make any sense literally. The "Lamb" is simultaneously "in the midst of the elders" and "in the midst of the throne" when He approaches the throne.

That doesn't make any sense as a "visual actuality," as Mike puts it. It does make perfect sense as a word picture though. The "Lamb" is both human and Divine. The Lamb approaches the throne to do something, interacting with the One Who sits on the throne. Yet, the Lamb Himself is simultaneously identified as that One sitting on the throne.

It's an incredible word picture.

[Sam]

I will not forget the when. It happens immediately after the tribulation in both cases. Its inspired to show the second coming of the Son of Man is the same event as the coming of the Ancient of Days spoken by Daniel the Prophet.

I'm not smart enough to argue about that kind of thing so this is just a statement, not an invitation to debate.

Revelation 4 is seen by some dispensationalists as a pre-tribulation rapture of the church.
Daniel 7 is seen as the post-tribulation second coming of Christ to the earth to set up His kingdom on earth per Revelation 19:11-21; 20:1-6; Jude 14; Zechariah 14:1-21

Also, some see the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 as Jesus and the one like the son of man (Daniel 7:13) being the church who is glorified and like Him (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49)

It's been a long time (over half a century) but I think that's the way Bro. Norris taught it at ABI.

Like I said, I'm not arguing, just presenting a different opinion.

[Michael The Disciple]

I think that what Mike was saying is that "WHEN" doesn't affect the "WHAT."

We have two subjects appearing simultaneously and being described in a fashion the doesn't really make any sense literally. The "Lamb" is simultaneously "in the midst of the elders" and "in the midst of the throne" when He approaches the throne.

That doesn't make any sense as a "visual actuality," as Mike puts it. It does make perfect sense as a word picture though. The "Lamb" is both human and Divine. The Lamb approaches the throne to do something, interacting with the One Who sits on the throne. Yet, the Lamb Himself is simultaneously identified as that One sitting on the throne.

It's an incredible word picture.

Yes exactly right.

[Michael The Disciple]

I'm not smart enough to argue about that kind of thing so this is just a statement, not an invitation to debate.

Revelation 4 is seen by some dispensationalists as a pre-tribulation rapture of the church.
Daniel 7 is seen as the post-tribulation second coming of Christ to the earth to set up His kingdom on earth per Revelation 19:11-21; 20:1-6; Jude 14; Zechariah 14:1-21

Also, some see the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 as Jesus and the one like the son of man (Daniel 7:13) being the church who is glorified and like Him (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49)

It's been a long time (over half a century) but I think that's the way Bro. Norris taught it at ABI.

Like I said, I'm not arguing, just presenting a different opinion.

Well my point was actually that the scriptures show that the same event in both situations is the coming of Jesus and that he must be both Son of Man and Ancient of Days.

[mfblume]

I will not forget the when. It happens immediately after the tribulation in both cases. Its inspired to show the second coming of the Son of Man is the same event as the coming of the Ancient of Days spoken by Daniel the Prophet.

I never said the WHEN is not important. The point is the issue of Oneness. WHEN has nothing to do with that point.

[mfblume]

I think that what Mike was saying is that "WHEN" doesn't affect the "WHAT."

We have two subjects appearing simultaneously and being described in a fashion the doesn't really make any sense literally. The "Lamb" is simultaneously "in the midst of the elders" and "in the midst of the throne" when He approaches the throne.

That doesn't make any sense as a "visual actuality," as Mike puts it. It does make perfect sense as a word picture though. The "Lamb" is both human and Divine. The Lamb approaches the throne to do something, interacting with the One Who sits on the throne. Yet, the Lamb Himself is simultaneously identified as that One sitting on the throne.

It's an incredible word picture.

Right, and thanks.

[OneAccord]

In Dan 7, two entities are spoken of: The Ancient of Days (AOD) and "one likened unto the Son of Man." The AOD is given the same description of Jesus in Revelation so we know the AOD is Jesus. Who then is the Son of Man here? But note: it doesn't say "the Son of Man", but, rather "one likened to the Son of Man". Who is likened unto the Son of Man in the Scriptures? John wrote: " Beloved, now are we the Sons of God, and it doeth not yet appear what we shall be, but, when He (Jesus) shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM". Those LIKE HIM are His people. The saints are those "likened unto the Son of Man". Dan. 7 bears this out in verses 13 and 14, then again in verse 18, where the SAINTS are specifically referred to as 1) "one like the Son of Man" ( v. 13) , 2) is given dominion over the earth (the NEW EARTH) -where the Book of Revelation refers to Gods people as Kings and priests) (v. 14), and 3. The SAINTS take possession of the earth for all eternity (v. 18) Does not the Bible tell us over and over again that Gods people will inherit the earth?

Psa 25:13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.

Psa 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

Psa 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Psa 37:22 For [such as be] blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and [they that be] cursed of him shall be cut off.
Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Remember Jacobs dream, how angels traversed between earth and heaven? This was a revelation of the heavenly age, when the righteous will have access to the NEW HEAVEN (God's throne) and the NEW EARTH and will, in fact, reign and rule over the earth.

The saints are given dominion to reign on earth just as God intended for Adam to reign over the Garden of Eden.

So yes, the AOD is Jesus, who is the expressed (revealed) image of God, and the "one likened unto the Son of Man" is His saints. Read Dan. 7 again, particularly verses 9- 18. Think of "one likened the Son of Man" as the saints of God and see if this doesn't make sense and "jive" with what is written through the Bible, especially with Rev 21 and 22.

[OneAccord]

The verses in question (Dan. 7), I believe, refers to the coming Kingdom Age when Christ will riegn over the heavens for all eternity and the saints of God are given dominion over the earth for all of eternity, just as Goid intended with Adam and the human race in Genesis 1. I know some here do not believe in the 1000 year reign with Christ but, nonetheless, there it is in Revelation 20, where it says the righteous reign with Christ for 1000 years. That 1000 year reign, which I believe will be in Jerusalem (Zach 14), will be extended for all of eternity after the conclusion of the final conflict between Satan and the "camp of the saints" (Rev, 21:9). During the Kingdom Age, the saints will have dominion over the earth just as Dan. 7 clearly spells out.

As I see it, and with respect to those who may see another point of view, I don't see Dan. 7 as having anything to do with a Oneness veiw of the Godhead. In fact, if this were the case, it would seem to be a little problematic for the Oneness veiw of the Godhead, wouldn't it?

" 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." would read: I saw in the night visions, and, behold, JESUS came with the clouds of heaven, and came to JESUS, and they brought him near before him. To me that just make no sense. It doesn't "jive" with verse 18 which clearly says SAINTS.

Again, the term "one likened unto the Son of Man", IMO, can't be Jesus. He IS the Son of Man, not LIKE Him.

[mfblume]

Here is my view. I see the kingdom here now, and only becoming exponentially greater after the second coming. The picture of the Lord going to the throne to obtain the sealed book and obtain dominion in Rev 5 and Dan 7 is the picture of atonement. The High Priest alone could enter there. The lamb did not stay on the altar for 2000 years and looks forward still to standing as if he HAD BEEN (past tense) slain. He stood up the third day and entered the holiest of holies and obtained eternal life for us along with dominion. Rev 5:9-10 says that he made us kings and priests. PAST TENSE. We are already kings and priests. Rev 1:5-6 says the same blood that washed us also made us kings and priests. It is a done deal already.

The saints were made kings and priests by the Lamb's retrieval of the book according to Rev 5:10, and the saints had dominion and took away the dominion of the fourth beast because the Lord was given dominion from the Ancient of Days in Dan 7. Both pictures show vicarious sacrifice and taking of dominion for the saints.

Putting all this in a future millennium is never mentioned in those terms anywhere in scripture. That conclusion is based upon deriving conclusions. The fact is that if we look to the making of the saints into kings and priests in both Dan 7 and Rev 5 with power and dominion, and compare what the rest of the epistles teach about seating with Christ, we realize this has already been accomplished. And Paul prayed the eyes of our understanding be opened to see how the same power that put Christ ALREADY on the throne is towards us and made us sit together on THE THRONE in heavenly places already. Eph 1:18-22; 2:5-6.

The 1000 year reign is representative of the church age now. :) I am already seated with Christ over everything IN THIS WORLD and the WORLD TO COME. If Jesus is not already on the throne of David, then He does not yet have ALL POWER in heaven AND EARTH,

THE KINGDOM HAS COME! :woohoo

These views are not things we should divide over, though. Whew. I was amazed people make this a point of fellowship!!! It's just that some will enjoy KINGDOM LIVING NOW and others won't. :)

My thoughts, anyway. :thumbsup

[Praxeas]

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, this is a good example of taking a verse out of context. If you read the entire text Daniel asks for an interpretation, not being a Trinitarian he does not automatically understand this to be 2 Divine persons...

In the explanation Daniel is told that this depicts the saints of the most high God, not God the Son.

Dan 7:15 "As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me.
Dan 7:16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things.
Dan 7:17 'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth.
Dan 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.'
Dan 7:19 "Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet,
Dan 7:20 and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions.
Dan 7:21 As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them,
Dan 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.

[Praxeas]

BTW, considering that this "son of man" is symbolic for the saints of God, this should serve as an example as to the high symbology of the visions GOd gives men, such as revelation

[Esther]

Thanks for all the great post.

She has never been to this site, but I am going to direct her to this thread.

You all have made some wonderful contributions.

[Praxeas]

Thanks for all the great post.

She has never been to this site, but I am going to direct her to this thread.

You all have made some wonderful contributions.
Esther, do you see the context shows "son of man" does not refer to Jesus?

[pelathais]

Here is my view. ...
THE KINGDOM HAS COME! :woohoo

These views are not things we should divide over, though. Whew. I was amazed people make this a point of fellowship!!! It's just that some will enjoy KINGDOM LIVING NOW and others won't. :)

My thoughts, anyway. :thumbsup

I agree Mike - in the basic outline. However, Esther's question was just about two "subjects" appearing at the throne. And I use the word "subject" in the grammatical sense - as in the subject of a sentence is a noun.

The fact that two subjects appeared doesn't necessarily mean that two distinct "beings" (or Beings) are in view.

[Esther]

Esther, do you see the context shows "son of man" does not refer to Jesus?

Yes, OA did a wonderful job of explaining and showing scripture to back it up.

I think this will be clear to her as well.

[Praxeas]

BTW it does not say THE son of man but A son of man

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

[Esther]

BTW it does not say THE son of man but A son of man

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

True.

[mfblume]

I agree Mike - in the basic outline. However, Esther's question was just about two "subjects" appearing at the throne. And I use the word "subject" in the grammatical sense - as in the subject of a sentence is a noun.

The fact that two subjects appeared doesn't necessarily mean that two distinct "beings" (or Beings) are in view.

Precisely.

[mfblume]

Esther, this is a good example of taking a verse out of context. If you read the entire text Daniel asks for an interpretation, not being a Trinitarian he does not automatically understand this to be 2 Divine persons...

In the explanation Daniel is told that this depicts the saints of the most high God, not God the Son.

However, the Son of God is Jesus in this text and stands just in the same position as the Lamb in Rev 5. It is vicarious standing and obtaining of dominion. Both accounts show Christ's taking of something associated with dominion and the saints having the same provision. The reason the saints are mentioned is because Christ stood as High Priest in place of the saints.

Gordon Magee, in his famous debate with Toddy, tries to say this was not Jesus in Daniel 7. I strongly disagree. It is Jesus as much as Rev 5's Lamb is Jesus.

[Sam]

In Ephesians 2:15 and 16 the church is called "one new man" and "one body." That may be one of the reasons Bro. Norris taught that the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 was the church.

[mfblume]

Dan 7 and Rev 5 are parallel visions.

Daniel 7:13-14 KJV 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. (14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Revelation 5:6-7 KJV And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (7) And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.


When we read the interpretation of that aspect of Daniel quoted above we read the same thing we find after the account of Rev 5:6-7.

Daniel 7:18 KJV But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Revelation 5:9-10 KJV And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

When anything in the Old Testament parallels something in the New, we will not see the details of the cross that the New will show, because the work of the cross was not known in the days of the Old Covenant. That is the reason the one like the son of man is not said to be a Lamb, since the concept of Lamb signifies sacrifice of Christ. It was not know in OT days how redemption would come about by the cross, but just that a new covenant would come. For this same reason we read the Lamb is as it had been slain and is seen standing. That is resurrection. Daniel did not see that detail.

But Daniel did see the vicarious work that John saw in Revelation. Daniel saw Jesus Christ take dominion as John saw the Lamb take the sealed book. And when Daniel was given an interpretation he was told the saints shall take dominion. John saw the same truth when he wrote the saints were made kings and priests although the Lamb took the book. Daniel said the son of man was given dominion and the saints therefore had dominion. This is the basic concept of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

Daniel and John both saw the true Holiest of Holies into which Christ as High Priest alone could enter. And as a result of that entrance, atonement was made and the Kingdom was provided for the saints.

So it is indeed Jesus in both Dan 7 and Rev 5 and the saints sharing that grasping of dominion since the High Priest stood for the rest of the people as mediator for that attainment in both prophecies of the same event. It all focuses on the work of the cross.

[mfblume]

In Ephesians 2:15 and 16 the church is called "one new man" and "one body." That may be one of the reasons Bro. Norris taught that the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 was the church.

Amen... in the sense that the ONE BODY is the BODY OF CHRIST. When Christ is said to have obtained something, those IN HIM are said to have obtained it vicariously. He is the head and we are the body. I do not think it is saying Jesus is not literally in view here as though only the church members are considered one body like they were that son of man, though. That son of man is indeed Jesus, and the church Is His ONE BODY. The Body of Christ.

The words given to Daniel about the saints taking the dominion are saying that while CHRIST did it, the saints benefited from it as though they did it. Again, that is the whole concept of vicarious atonement.

[mfblume]

Back to the point, the reason people have trouble with Oneness in Dan 7 and Rev 5 is because they do not realize these visions are SYMBOLIC. God is omnipresent. If you could SEE God, you would see no further than the surface of your eyeballs. That is how we know that a vision of God sitting on a throne and Christ approaching Him is symbolic.

[Praxeas]

However, the Son of God is Jesus in this text and stands just in the same position as the Lamb in Rev 5. It is vicarious standing and obtaining of dominion. Both accounts show Christ's taking of something associated with dominion and the saints having the same provision. The reason the saints are mentioned is because Christ stood as High Priest in place of the saints.

Gordon Magee, in his famous debate with Toddy, tries to say this was not Jesus in Daniel 7. I strongly disagree. It is Jesus as much as Rev 5's Lamb is Jesus.
No Mike.First of all it does not say "the Son" it says "a son"

Second, as explained already, the text self interpreting and says this refers to the saints of the most high God

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Now watch, the angel explains who receves this dominion

Dan 7:16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things.
Dan 7:17 'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth.
Dan 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.'

Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.'

[mfblume]

No Mike.First of all it does not say "the Son" it says "a son"

I heard this before, bro. But can we actually deny this is a parallel vision of Revelation 5? I mean we are talking about Daniel and Revelation. They are loaded with references to each other. And Daniel would not have recognized a vision of Christ going to God as any thing other than what he wrote and said. He had no idea that incarnation would ever occur in his future. How else would he describe this?

Seeing Christ, Whom he would not know was God incarnated, would be simply seeing a man go to God.

Both accounts speak of the church getting DOMINION. Both accounts show this in reference to the beast system that both books dealt with in detail.

Otherwise, we have to say there are parallels between Daniel and Revelation everywhere, but the two accounts of one going to the throne and acquiring dominion in which the saints are said in both places to therefore obtain dominion are not parallel visions.

Second, as explained already, the text self interpreting and says this refers to the saints of the most high God

We both know what the text continues to read. But can you not see this explanation as an interpretation of the EFFECTS of Christ going to the throne as in Rev 5? What is so offkey about saying the vision is of Jesus, and Christ's approach to the throne and His reception of dominion meant that the saints, who are one body with Him, received that dominion? It screams about vicarious atonement all over the two chapters.

I already stated:

And when Daniel was given an interpretation he was told the saints shall take dominion. John saw the same truth when he wrote the saints were made kings and priests although the Lamb took the book. Daniel said the son of man was given dominion and the saints therefore had dominion. This is the basic concept of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

Ezekiel definitely saw Christ and simply called him a man.

Ezekiel 1:26-28 KJV And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. (27) And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. (28) As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.


What is it about Dan 7 that prohibits us from saying it is one and the same event that John also saw in varying visionary emblems? Just because we read the saints take dominion, can that not mean Christ took it and HIS BODY, united to Him in Atonement, therefore took it? In vicarious concepts, is not Christ's position interpreted as the saints' position, anyway?

[Praxeas]

I heard this before, bro. But can we actually deny this is a parallel vision of Revelation 5? I mean we are talking about Daniel and Revelation. They are loaded with references to each other. And Daniel would not have recognized a vision of Christ going to God as any thing other than what he wrote and said. He had no idea that incarnation would ever occur in his future. How else would he describe this?

Seeing Christ, Whom he would not know was God incarnated, would be simply seeing a man go to God.

Both accounts speak of the church getting DOMINION. Both accounts show this in reference to the beast system that both books dealt with in detail.

Otherwise, we have to say there are parallels between Daniel and Revelation everywhere, but the two accounts of one going to the throne and acquiring dominion in which the saints are said in both places to therefore obtain dominion are not parallel visions.



We both know what the text continues to read. But can you not see this explanation as an interpretation of the EFFECTS of Christ going to the throne as in Rev 5? What is so offkey about saying the vision is of Jesus, and Christ's approach to the throne and His reception of dominion meant that the saints, who are one body with Him, received that dominion? It screams about vicarious atonement all over the two chapters.

I already stated:
And when Daniel was given an interpretation he was told the saints shall take dominion. John saw the same truth when he wrote the saints were made kings and priests although the Lamb took the book. Daniel said the son of man was given dominion and the saints therefore had dominion. This is the basic concept of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.
Ezekiel definitely saw Christ and simply called him a man.
Ezekiel 1:26-28 KJV And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. (27) And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. (28) As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
What is it about Dan 7 that prohibits us from saying it is one and the same event that John also saw in varying visionary emblems? Just because we read the saints take dominion, can that not mean Christ took it and HIS BODY, united to Him in Atonement, therefore took it? In vicarious concepts, is not Christ's position interpreted as the saints' position, anyway?
The text interprets itself.

[mfblume]

The text interprets itself.

...as well as comparing Rev 5 with Dan 7. That is bible interpreting Bible.

Is there something about your view of prophecy that prohibits the view I propose in your mind? I ask this because it seems obvious, otherwise. It fits so perfectly.

[mfblume]

Daniel 7:13 KJV 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.


Coming in clouds is always associated with Christ as well.

[Praxeas]

...as well as comparing Rev 5 with Dan 7. That is bible interpreting Bible.

Is there something about your view of prophecy that prohibits the view I propose in your mind? I ask this because it seems obvious, otherwise. It fits so perfectly.
Scripture inteprets scripture. Rev 5 does not say "and daniel saw..."

The angel interprets it for us. In this case we have an intepretation given to us,why look elsewhere? Are you saying the angel was wrong? Or are you saying this verse was meant to have two different interpretations?

I

[mfblume]

Scripture inteprets scripture. Rev 5 does not say "and daniel saw..."

The angel interprets it for us. In this case we have an intepretation given to us,why look elsewhere? Are you saying the angel was wrong? Or are you saying this verse was meant to have two different interpretations?

I

That is just it. The interpretation given in Daniel coincides exactly with the intended interpretation of Rev 5. The angel was not wrong. There are not two interpretations. Christ going to the throne is spiritually interpreted as the church gaining dominion. It's like saying, "What does it mean for Christ to gain dominion? The answer is it means the SAINTS have dominion, since they're His body."