Friday, May 17, 2019

With whom did the Old Testament figures speak?

This article, entitled “The depiction of the three persons of the Holy Trinity” is quite interesting reading. It's being posted in multiple parts, but I'll reformat a bit for the blog. I did not adjust some of the colorful translation word choice. Enjoy!

(Pemptousia) - The subject of the iconic approach of the Holy Trinity has especially preoccupied me here. And specifically the question whether, religiously wise, the depiction of the Holy Spirit in the classic icon of the Holy Trinity (in the past 350 years), as a pigeon, is correct or at least not harmful, that is the symbolic depiction of the non-built actions of HIM (as in the icon of Baptism) and not, of course, the existential depiction of the Embodied Son. (Besides from the non-built actions of HIM The Father as THE OLD OF DAYS is portrayed in the vision of DANIEL. Also the question arises, whether it is more correct the labeling of the Byzantine Icon of the three angels as “the hospitality of Abraham’’ rather than as “THE HOLY TRINITY”, again from an ecclesiastical point of view given that we have not declined that the holy icons remain the books of the illiterate or perhaps of the half educated brothers of ours. “Daniel is initiated in the unique ownership, having seen Christ heading towards Father and the Spirit indicating the vision (from Triadic Canon of Sunday’s Midnight sound an indirect).


The dominant opinion among “theological” circles and the majority of hagiographists is that the unruled Father does not appear in the Old Testament and he is totally absent. This right, they claim, is something which only the Son possesses and it is HE who converses with the prophets of the Old Testament. To prove what they claim they use certain hymns of the monthlies from celebrations of prophets and some views of saints spread within the THE GREEK FATHERLY RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

Initially the whole issue, that is, which of the three or the three of the persons of the Holy Trinity altogether appeared in the Old Testament did not preoccupy the Holy Apostles, who lived beside Christ, so as to enact a rule on this.

The same also occurred with the Ecumenical Synods. But in the first two of them, which composed the Symbol of Creed, it is shown that all the persons of the Holy Trinity make themselves felt in the Old Testament.

In the first article of the CREED it says about the ungoverned FATHER and it presents him in the middle of the GENESIS of the cosmos as the Creator of all visible and invisible. “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty Creator of heaven and earth ,and of all things visible and invisible ”and for not anybody to suppose that the Son is inferior to the Father, the subsequent article of the Creed presents the Son as the co-creator of the whole Cosmos, precisely as the Father, so as “ the of the one essence and one value” between the two existences and the Holy Trinity to be founded. “And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the father before all ages. Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made”.

Subsequently the Creed states the presence of the one essence and one value Holy Spirit.

“In the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets”.

So if the Highly Holy Spirit is that which converses through the codified, secretive speech with the prophets of the Old Testament, under which logic has the Son the exclusiveness of appearance in the Old Testament and the exclusiveness of conversation with the prophets?

DOES the “we create” man resembling our picture and likeness according to the book of GENESIS not indicate precisely this of the same value participation and cooperation of the Triadic Lord in the creation of Adam?

Does the “Said the Lord to my Lord sit on my right until I put your enemies under your feet” (Psalm 109) not portray concurrently the Father and the Son and not found the of the same value between them as all the Holy commentators of this psalm of David interpret?

And how many other Psalms, half indicate the presence of the, without being dictated to, Father, which are explained by remarkable saints and other interpreters of this God inspired book of the Old Testament?

But let us approach the most characteristic appearance of the Father whom Prophet Daniel regards Him as having a human face and on the Throne giving the Son the authority of doomsday.

It is the first and unique time that “the without being dictated to” father has taken a specific form, a fact which leads us to the conclusion that beyond our right given to us by the VII Ecumenical Synod to depict the vision of the Prophets, the Father himself, according to his not interpreted wish, wanted the human kind to have a specific knowledge of his form.

To Daniel himself he could appear in whatever form he wanted.

The desiring man was invested with a prophetic charisma and a high level of saintliness, and in whatever way he regarded him, according to the measures of his acceptance, he could see and write everything that the highly Holy Spirit would say “The said by the Prophets”.
However, the form, in which the leaderless Father appears, is mainly for us. “I was regarding until the thrones were placed and The Old Of Days was seated and his attire resembling white snow and the hair of his head resembling pure wool, His throne like flame of fire, His wheels like burning fire”.

And I was regarding in the vision of the night and THERE He was with the clouds of the sky as the Son of Man coming up to the Old of Days arriving and in front of him was taken and the authority was given to Him and the honour and the reign and all the people and races and tongues serving Him.

His authority will be eternal which will not end and his reign will not be corrupted.

The interpretation of the above extract of Daniel is given in an authentic and excellent way by the Holy Chrysostomos who says: “what is the old of days? Being old what did he regard? Owing to the needs of things through which it is shown as himself indicating that in order to believe these criteria are needed and look he says, he is comin as the Son of Man and up to the Old of Days he arrived.

Look also at and the equivalent of honour. In front of him he was taken so as when you see the reign given to him not as a human being think of what he was given.

Regard also the criterion that he received it. In order not to think that this is a matter of time which will not go by and the reign will not be corrupted but it stood and remained.

If you do not believe be convinced by things. Did you see him having the same honour as the Father? Because of appearing after the father for this you say that he came together with clouds.

And the honour was offered to him, which he had, in that way. And the peoples, races, tongues will serve Him. He had the authority from above and then He received it which he had.

In the same way you conceive on the Father the hair and the rest in this way you conceive the rest as well.

My spirit was astonished; I Daniel in my habit, and the visions of my head startled me. Similarly under the appearance of what is seen. Father and son he the first and the only one sees as in appearance.

Three things I think that are of more interest from Chrysostomos's interpretation of Daniel`s vision:

a) It stresses the attention of those who will study Daniel and see that the hair of the head of the ungoverned father are like “clear lamb wool” and is trying to persuade them not to take him as an old man regarding the age.

b) The golden orator justifies the horror that possessed Daniel due to the fact that he is the first and unique Prophet that sees the countenance of the Father and the Son and

c) The fact that the Son acquires the appearance of the Son of Man as Daniel describes it, is regarded as given and it is this very appearance which was going to be taken from Virgin Mary. The fact that in a very exceptional way the interest is centered upon the countenance of the ungoverned Father shows precisely this will of the Triadic God, so as the human kind, because with human criteria, is depicted in the countenances, possesses the specific face of the Father in the vision of Daniel.

Approximately the same line of thought as Chrysostomos Saint Kyrillos Bishop of Jerusalem has, who stresses: The Son comes to the Father according to, in a saintly way read, scripture, the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven, drawing a river of fire testing men. If somebody regards deeds as gold, he becomes brighter, if somebody has the deed as having been made of cane and unsubstantiated; it is burned down by the fire. And the Father is seated, having his attire white resembling snow, and the hair of his head as pure lamb wool. This is humanly said what for? Because a king is somebody who is not infected by sins. Whiten your sins so as to look as snow and lamb wool which is for forgiveness of sins or an indication of absence of sins (see Kyrillos the saved volume 2, page 177, published Jerusalem 1868 and Migne 33 page 900 and Apostolic Ministry 39, page 195 and EΠE, volume 2 page 150).

And Ioannis Kolitsaras in Daniel`s translation points out that “on the throne the eternal God and Father is seated”.

Each person of the Holy Trinity, as being of the same essence among them of the same dogma, of the same strength, of the same time etc has the same qualities of names that is of the all mightiness, being all mighty.

Therefore the Old of Days is not only the Son but also the other two persons of the Holy Trinity.

The only distinction among the three persons of the Holy Trinity is the Unborn Father, the Born Son and the from the Father born Holy Spirit. All the rest are common among them. For all the congregation of devout Christians, those which are interpreted through the vision of Daniel by the saints Ioannis Chrysostomos and Kyrillos of Jerusalem, are not only satisfactory but also absolutely in accordance with all those which are cited in the relevant book of the Old Testament.

The final conclusion, according to what has been said above, is that the Ungoverned Father can be described precisely as Daniel describes Him according to the relevant resolution of the VII Ecumenical Synod (II Synodic Volume page 905).

Therefore having as given the countenance of the ungoverned Father, the Son and the Holy spirit in no way are we limited in depicting the three persons of the Holy Trinity and to pay respects to them and only (if we hesitate in an worshipful manner) to enable those who are not able to go deeper into the Triadic Dogma to have an initial, simple and accessible picture.

The countenance of the ungoverned Father as Daniel saw it and of the Holy Spirit resembling a pigeon in the Baptism of our Lord ,are pictures which are formed by the non made actions of His Lordship, while that of the Son the physical countenance is existential.

The vision of Daniel in which the prophet sees the Father being formed and painted (white attire, head hair resembling wool) through the non-made actions, and the Son of Man in his existential countenance, in other words in this which would have taken from Virgin Mary, assisted by the Holy Spirit.

The “as the Son of Man” which prophet Daniel refers to is exactly the same appellation which Christ used many a time for Himself while talking to his disciples and Daniel notes that with remarkable precision so as to show that the coming on the nebulae to the Father is the Son who will take over the authority from Him for the Doomsday as it is made sure by the Evangelist: “Father does not judge anyone in any way but all judgement is delegated to the Son” (Ioannis V 22).

Also the same happens in the one and the only icon of the Baptism in which Christ is depicted existentially (that is in His body) and the Holy Spirit non-existentially in the form of a pigeon taking a form and being co-formed for the human weakness and naturally through the non-made actions of His Lordship. Relation on the other hand exists, to a great degree, between the vision of Daniel and the Creed from the point: ‘‘….and ascended into the heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father and He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”.

When, now, an icon painter portrays the vision of Daniel and depicts in the same picture itself the Father taking form through non-made actions and the Son in his existential countenance, heresy will he fall into from those that some dissenters name?

Once It is given that the Holy Spirit depicts in the Hegemonic of Daniel the countenances of the Father and the Son and they co-exist where then is the illogical? And even Mitrophanis himself (poet of the Triadic Canons which are chanted in the eighth Sound of Midnight of each Sunday. In Daniel`s vision this is going along with the Scriptures) Bishop of Smyrna in the Triadic Canon of the midnight in sound indirect a stresses: Daniel is initiated in the one domain having faced Christ the Judge toward His Father and his Father showing the vision” (view Paraklitiki-book with hymns).

Consequently ,when the two of the three persons of the Holy Trinity co-exist in the one and the same icon ,the one of them taking form through non-made actions and the other existentially ,without even the least contradiction whatsoever, for what reason do we have so many reactions, when the third person is painted ,taking the form of a pigeon and in this way we have all the three persons in one icon?

The Holy icon of the Holy Trinity started and still continues a course of about 350 years throughout Greece, Jerusalem, Sinai, Russia, the Slavic Patriarchates, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Mountain. It was taken by the hands and it was paid respects to by saintly existences with a high sense of belief and fatherly-traditional and anti-papal knowledge of an enviable degree.

For a saint to do wrong or to make mistakes however great he may be it is without doubt.

But for so many saints to be wrong for about 3 ½ centuries and for them to pay respects to an Icon full of heresies and even Franco-Latin ,as some claim, it is impossible.

Nothing then dogmatic, in my opinion, nor even ecclesiastical problem is created from giving an account or paying respects to the Icon of the Holy Trinity.

Take an example:

A very beautiful Icon of the Holy Trinity exists on the island of Aegina placed in the winged altarpiece of the namesake church, which was inaugurated by Saint Nectarios in 1906. In front of this Holy Icon the miracle making Saint “took time” before commencing liturgy spreading incense daily and honouring it in many and various ways.

Also another extremely Holy Icon of the Holy Trinity embellishes the winged altarpiece of Kyriako (central church) saint-martyr scete of Kausokalyvia on the Holy Mountain. With this Icon hundreds of confessors and neo-martyrs of our dogma have been spiritually brought up.
To be continued...

No comments:

Post a Comment