View Single Post
  #275  
Vechi 19.02.2014, 15:01:24
catalin2 catalin2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Data înregistrării: 26.12.2007
Locație: Brasov
Religia: Ortodox
Mesaje: 9.688
Implicit

Citat:
În prealabil postat de ovidiu b. Vezi mesajul
Negi interperetare Sf Hipolit prin simplul fapt că nu o aprobi. Toate interpretările Sfinților Părinți le faci una cu pământul.
Hai să vedem unde ai răspuns celor două articole despre Sfântul Andrei Rubliov și Sfânta Treime în iconografie.
Cum am intuit, citatul din Sfantul Ipolit este gresit, am gasit acum citatul complet, si de ce s-a facut acea greseala: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ancient_of_Days
Tot aici sunt citate ale multor sfinti, care arata ca toti sfintii au inteles exact ce spun si eu din acel pasaj.

Despre Sfantul Ipolit:
"In “The Ancient of Days: Patristic and Modern views of Daniel 7:9-14, by Wilfred Sophrony Royer, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45:2 (2001), p 139 we read:
“One of the earliest patristic commentators on the Book of Daniel, Hippolytus (ca. 170 – 236) writes that the Ancient of Days “is for Daniel, nothing more than the Lord, God and Master of all, the Father of Christ himself.”
This citation differs from the reading found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series, which reads:
"And came to the Ancient of days." By the Ancient of days he means none other than the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself, who maketh the days old, and yet becometh not old Himself by times and days. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion." The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son, both things in heaven and things on earth, showed Him forth by all as the first-begotten of God, in order that, along with the Father, He might be approved the Son of God before angels, and be manifested as the Lord also of angels." (From: St. Hippolytus, Fragments of Commentaries, ANF vol. 5, p. 189)
There is a footnote in the article, which explains this discrepancy:
“Hippolytus, Fragmenta in Danielem (PG 10:684); critical edition in G.N> Bonwetsch, Hippolytus Werke, vol. I: Die Kommentaire zu Daniel and zum Hohenliede (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897), 212. The text found in J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca is based on a pre-critical edition that mistakenly omitted the important word pater (“Father”) from Hippolytus’ statement.
J.P.Migne a fost un preot catolic care a publicat scrierile sfintilor, dar cu mai multe erori de traducere. Se pare ca in cartea in care se incerca validarea conceptiei ca Cel Vechi de zile este Iisus autorul s-a facut ca nu stie acest lucru si a dat citatul gresit. Lectorul in schimb stia aceste lucruri, de aceea a scris ca toti sfintii au spus ca in acele pasaje e vorba de Dumnezeu Tatal si Fiul.
Sper ca s-a inteles.
Reply With Quote