Provider: - Institution: - Data provided by Europeana Collections- Eschatology as a science about the last events includes the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Many Western authors have dealt with the various reasons of relations between the eschatological and historical issue of existence in the last hundred years, but their accounts either give an unclear picture or overlook the role of the Church in saving the world. Their, more often than not, biased use of a critical and historical and narrowly textual interpretation of what is said in the Holy Bible and writings of holy fathers. Considering the new origin of the term eschatology, the Orthodox Christian approach to what is considered under terms eschatology and eschatological, is determined not only from the divine or historical point of view, but primarily from the God-man’s horizon of existence. The core of eschatology is the very Eucharist. Historical existence after the fall, which is characterised by the mortality of the world, cannot be identified with eschatology. God-man’s revelation of the Kingdom Come as a way of the existence of the Church is the ontological response to the issue of one being saved from the death which deals with the both the individual and general human existence. The way of celebrating God that is established by God as an eschatological and historical event par excellence, according to the theological thoughts of Maximus the Confessor and Dionysius Areopagite, shows the graceful presence of God in a community that we call the Church. Shadow and eikon and also the Dionysian expression symbol carry within themselves the features of a mixture of life and death, i.e. the historical limitation of the existence that shall last until the Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the dead. Eschatological and historic dimensions of the existence in the widest sense are hierarchical ways of the existence of the overall creation that are revealed by God. God-man’s way of existence is historically gathered by the Secret of Christ which Dionysius the Aeropagite and Maximus the Confessor see as the synonym for the biblical naming of Christ. Each energy that we can notice in the creation with our senses or mind, pose before us a gnoseological requirement to recognise the agreeing or apostation of the hierarchical way of the existence of the God-revealed, i.e. God-founded world in the secret of Christ. The embodiment of the Son of God and the historical Godfoundation of the Church as the Body of Christ primarily means life in a concrete hierarchical community with others. Eiconic presence of infinity within time is set in the hierarchical structures of the God-servicing symbolism of the Church, without which knowing of God is not possible. That is why the hierarchical koinonia, Eucharist, i.e. the liturgical way of existing is a God-founded response to a being’s deepest need to exist. Dionysius and Maximus see the existence and aim of hierarchy as being similar to unifying with God inasmuch it is possible to each individual being, in accordance with the hierarchical symbolism of the Secret of Christ. Baptism represents the ontological approach to life of the divine likeness in Christ. The death of God and Resurrection were given to the Church not in the critical and historian manners but in a manner of God-servicing and mystagogic way, so that the Resurrection of our Lord is connected in a God-servicing manner with the Resurrection of the Church, and not with the individualised approach to the Secret of Resurrection. That is why the hierarchical approach to knowing of God within the community of hierarchical koinonia, Eucharist, represents the fundaments of Dyonysius’ and Maximus’ theology. Differences are big between the ways Dyonisius and Maximus ponder on the issue. Contrary to Maximus, who in many places speaks of the connection of the Secret of Christ and the Church, one can justify the related Dionysius Aeropagite’s point of view, regardless of the differences in terminology, admitting that in Dionysus’ body of work we cannot find a detailed theological accuracy, which we find in Maximus’ statements. The synthesis of Dionysus’ and Maximus’ approach to salvation is clear from their relation to the God-servicing symbolic manner of existence, without which there is no possibility of the salvation of the world. At the same time, ecclesiastical relations which still imply death as a threat to a being, show in an iconic way the presence of the personality of our Lord Jesus Christ in the God-founded hierarchical manner of existence. The Church in this way is not determined by a location. Instead, the location, as the position of the being is determined with the God-man’s community which can only be considered in that manner as an all-cosmic event.- Eshatologija kao nauka o poslednjim događajima podrazumeva Drugi Dolazak Gospoda i Spasitelja sveta Isusa Hrista. O raznovrsnim rešenjima odnosa eshatološke i istorijske problematike postojanja u poslednjih stotinu godina bavili su se mnogi zapadni autori, ali njihove ekspozicije ili nejasno prikazuju ili prenebregavaju ulogu crkve u spasenju sveta. Njihova neretko pristrasna upotreba kritičko-istorijskog i tekstokratskog tumačenja reči Svetog Pisma i svetootačkih tekstova nastala je prenebregavanjem bogoslužbenog utemeljenja biblijskih i svetootačkih tekstova. S obzirom na novovekovno poreklo termina eshatologija, pravoslavno-hrišćanski pristup onome što se podrazumeva pod pojmovima eshatologijom i eshatološkim, određuje se ne samo iz božanskog ili pak istorijskog ugla saznanja, već najpre iz bogočovečanskog horizonta postojanja. Središte eshatologije jeste sama Evharistija. Poslepadno istorijsko postojanje koje karakteriše smrtnost sveta ne može biti poistovećeno sa eshatologijom. Bogočovečansko Otkrivenje Budućeg Carstva Božijeg kao načina postojanja Crkve jeste ontološki odgovor na problem spasenja od smrti koja problematizuje pojedinačno kao i opšteljudsko postojanje. Bogoustanovljeni način slavljenja Boga kao eshatološko-istorijski događaj po preimućstvu, sudeći po bogoslovskoj misli Maksima Ispovednika i Dionisija Areopagita, projavljuje blagodatno prisustvo Boga u zajednici koju nazivamo Crkva. Senka i ikona, kao i dionisijevski izraz simvol nose obeležja pomešanosti života i smrti, dakle istorijskog ograničenja postojanja koje će trajati do Drugog Hristovog Dolaska i događaja Vaskrsenja mrtvih. Eshatološko-istorijske dimenzije postojanja u najširem smislu jesu bogootkriveni hijerarhijski načini postojanja svekolike tvorevine. Bogočovečanski način postojanja istorijski vozglavljuje tajna Hristova koju Dionisije Areopagit i Maksim Ispovednik sagledavaju kao sinonim za biblijsko bogimenovanje Hrista. Svako dejstvo koje zapažamo u tvorevini čulima ili umom postavlja pred nama gnoseološki zahtev za prepoznavanjem slaganja, ili otpadanja od sveštenog načina postojanja sveta bogootkrivenog, odnosno bogoustanovljenog u tajni Hristovoj. Ovaploćenje Sina Božijeg i istorijsko bogoustanovljenje Crkve kao Tela Hristovog najpre podrazumeva život u konkretnoj jerarhijskoj zajednici sa drugima. Simvolično prisustvo večnosti unutar vremena jeste bogoustanovljeno smešteno u jerarhijske strukture bogoslužbenog simvolizma Crkve, mimo kojih bogopoznanje nije moguće. Zbog toga i svešteno sabranje, evharistija, odnosno liturgijski način postojanja jeste bogoustanovljeni odgovor na najdublju potrebu bića za postojanjem. Dionisije i Maksim sagledavaju postojanje i cilj jerarhije kao usličnjenje i sjedinjenje sa Bogom onoliko koliko je to moguće svakom ponaosob biću, u skladu sa sveštenim simvolizmom tajne Hristove. Krštenje jeste ontološki pristup životu božanskog podobija u Hristu. Gospodnja Smrt i Vaskrsenje predato je Crkvi ne na kritičko-istorijski, već na bogoslužbeno-tajnovodstveni način, tako da se i Vaskrsenje Gospodnje bogoslužbeno povezuje sa Vaskrsenjem Crkve, a ne sa individualizovanim pristupom Tajni Vaskrsenja. Zbog toga i svešteni pristup bogopoznanju unutar zajednice sveštenog sabranja, evharistije, predstavlja temelje Dionisijevog i Maksimovog bogoslovlja. Velike su razlike između načina izražavanja Dionisija i Maksima. Za razliku od Maksima, koji na mnogo mesta govori o svezi Tajne Hristove i Crkve, mogu se opravdati odnosna viđenje Dionisija Areopagita, i pored terminoloških razlika, s priznanjem, da u Dionisijevom korpusu ne možemo naići na detaljniju bogoslovsku akriviju na kakvu nailazimo u Maksimovim iskazima. Sinteza Dionisijevog i Maksimovog pristupa spasenju jasna je iz njihovog odnosa prema bogoslužbeno-simvoličnom načinu postojanja mimo koga ne postoji mogućnost spasenja sveta. Istovremeno, crkveni odnosi koji još podrazumevaju smrt kao pretnju biću ikonično projavljuju prisustvo Ličnosti Gospoda Isusa Hrista u bogoustanovljenom jerarhijskom načinu postojanja. Crkva na taj način nije određena mestom, već se mesto kao položaj bića u tvorevini određuje bogočovečanskom zajednicom koja samo na taj način može biti sagledavana kao svekosmički događaj. AB Eschatology as a science about the last events includes the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Many Western authors have dealt with the various reasons of relations between the eschatological and historical issue of existence in the last hundred years, but their accounts either give an unclear picture or overlook the role of the Church in saving the world. Their, more often than not, biased use of a critical and historical and narrowly textual interpretation of what is said in the Holy Bible and writings of holy fathers. Considering the new origin of the term eschatology, the Orthodox Christian approach to what is considered under terms eschatology and eschatological, is determined not only from the divine or historical point of view, but primarily from the God-man’s horizon of existence. The core of eschatology is the very Eucharist. Historical existence after the fall, which is characterised by the