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

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.