Conceptul de reforma

[simpllu]

Cătă, arată-mi şi mie unde la Daniel 7 apare Duhul Sfânt în chip de porumbel?

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de simpllu

Cătă, arată-mi şi mie unde la Daniel 7 apare Duhul Sfânt în chip de porumbel?

In primul rand icoanele sfinilor nu reprezinta neaparat scene biblice sau din viata sfantului, sunt portrete ale sfinilor. La fel, icoana Sfintei Treimi infatiseaza Sfanta Treime.
In al doilea rand vezi ce spune cantarea din slujba Miezonopticii, evident ca si Duhul Sfant era prezent in viziune. Iar Duhul Sfant este reprezentat asa cum S-a aratat, sub forma de porumbel, in istorie. Doar tatal si Fiul ar fi dus mai repede spre Filioque decat aceasat reprezentare.
Dar intre timp am dat ce spune Sf. Nicodim Aghioritul. Citeste tot citatul, explica si ce inseamna "nimeni nu L-a vazut pe Tatal" si cum S-a aratat oamenilor.

[simpllu]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

In primul rand icoanele sfinilor nu reprezinta neaparat scene biblice sau din viata sfantului, sunt portrete ale sfinilor. La fel, icoana Sfintei Treimi infatiseaza Sfanta Treime.
In al doilea rand vezi ce spune cantarea din slujba Miezonopticii, evident ca si Duhul Sfant era prezent in viziune.

:)) Nu am negat şi nu neg prezenţa Duhului Sfânt. Vezi în câte cântări regăsim "Cel vechi de zile" cu referire clară la Fiul.

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Iar Duhul Sfant este reprezentat asa cum S-a aratat, sub forma de porumbel, in istorie.

Şi cum S-a arătat Duhul Sfânt? De ce nu este pictat în chip de nor luminos, limbi de foc sau înger? De ce tocmai în porumbel?

[catalin2]

În prealabil postat de simpllu

:)) Nu am negat şi nu neg prezenţa Duhului Sfânt. Vezi în câte cântări regăsim "Cel vechi de zile" cu referire clară la Fiul.

Le vad demult, pentru ca in link-ul dat sunt citatele din cele 3 cantari la inceput. Plus citatele din sfinti care se refera la Dumnezeu (adica Sfanta Treime) si la Iisus cu "Cel Vechi de Zile". Abia apoi sunt citatele din sfintii care talcuiesc Daniel 7. Am citit ca sunt si refereriri la Sfantul Duh cu acest nume, dar nu am gasit citate.
Iisus este pictat cu parul alb pentru ca asa apare in viziunea din Apocalipsa, e un pasaj acolo. Iar Dumnezeu tatal pentur ca asa apare in viziunea lui Daniel.

În prealabil postat de simpllu

Şi cum S-a arătat Duhul Sfânt? De ce nu este pictat în chip de nor luminos, limbi de foc sau înger? De ce tocmai în porumbel?

Pentru ca, probabil, aceasta e cea mai cunoscuta/uzuala reprezentare.

[catalin2]

Tot citatul din Sfantul Nicodim, daca cineva nu reuseste sa il gaseasca in link

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (c. 1749 – 1809 A.D.)

“We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days. Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Concilliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father out not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible” (The Rudder, pp 420-421)

[oitza ratacita]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Tot citatul din Sfantul Nicodim, daca cineva nu reuseste sa il gaseasca in link

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (c. 1749 – 1809 A.D.)

“We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days. Even though it be admitted as a fact that Pope Gregory in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (p. 712 of the second volume of the Concilliar Records) says that we do not blazon the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet it must be noted that he said this not simply, but in the sense that we do not paint Him in accordance with the divine nature; since it is impossible, he says, to blazon or paint God’s nature. That is what the present council is doing, and the entire Catholic Church; and not that we do not paint Him as He appeared to the Prophet. For if we did not paint Him at all or portray Him in any manner at all to the eye, why should we be painting the Father as well as the Holy Spirit in the shape of Angels, of young men, just as they appeared to Abraham? Besides even if it be supposed that Gregory does say this, yet the opinion of a single Ecumenical Council attended and represented by a large number of individual men is to be preferred to the opinion of a single individual man. Then again, if it be considered that even the Holy Spirit ought to be painted in the shape of a dove, just as it actually appeared, we say that, in view of the fact that a certain Persian by the name of Xanaeus used to assert, among other things, that it is a matter of infantile knowledge (i.e., that it is a piece of infantile mentality or an act of childishness) for the Holy Spirit to be painted in a picture just as It appeared in the semblance of a dove, whereas, on the other hand, the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council (Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) anathematized him along with other iconomachs from this it may be concluded as a logical inference that according to the Seventh Ecum. Council It ought to be painted or depicted in icons and other pictures in the shape of a dove, as it appeared… As for the fact that the Holy Spirit is to be painted in the shape of a dove, that is proven even by this, to wit, the fact that the Fathers of this Council admitted the doves hung over baptismal founts and sacrificial altars to be all right to serve as a type of the Holy Spirit (Act 5, p. 830). As for the assertion made in the Sacred Trumpet (in the Enconium of the Three Hierarchs) to the effect that the Father out not to be depicted in paintings and like, according to Acts 4, 5, and 6 of the 7th Ecum. Council, we have read these particular Acts searchingly, but have found nothing of the kind, except only the statement that the nature of the Holy Trinity cannot be exhibited pictorially because of its being shapeless and invisible” (The Rudder, pp 420-421)

The itsy-bitsy spider
Climbed up the water spout
Down came the rain
And washed the spider out
Out came the sun
And dried up all the rain
And the itsy-bitsy spider
Climbed up the spout again.

[simpllu]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Abia apoi sunt citatele din sfintii care talcuiesc Daniel 7. Am citit ca sunt si refereriri la Sfantul Duh cu acest nume, dar nu am gasit citate.

Mai caută, sigur vei găsi un site care sa-ţi susţină convingerile.