PDA

View Full Version : the three johns



chrysostom
July 13th, 2014, 09:26 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

chrysostom
July 13th, 2014, 09:53 AM
here are the earliest commentaries on the apocalypse


Irenaeus and Victorinus (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83066)

irenaeus mentions 'ancient copies [of the Apocalypse]'
and
'recapitulations'

chrysostom
July 14th, 2014, 08:51 AM
would you believe this?

one of the more interesting books on the apocalypse is by

R.H. Charles
1913

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_charles_apocalypse.html)
being lectures delivered before the University of London

Charles has the following:

Ramsay writes with regard to Dr. Lepsius
theory that " the astronomical method, while it
is a useful servant, must not be taken as a
master and director" (p. 506); but in these
articles his practice has not perhaps been as
wise as his counsel ; for he seems to have
unduly committed himself to it.

Another work that has adopted this method
was by a Russian, Nicolaus Morosow, published
in 1907, and translated into German in 1912
under the title, Die Offenbarung Johannis eine
astronomish-historische Untersucliung . The
Introduction is furnished by Dr. Drews of
Karlsruhe, whose credulity in regard to the
fanciful and absurd varies in direct ratio to his
scepticism in things historical.

Morosow claims to have established not only
the year of the vision of the writer of the
Apocalypse, but even the actual day and hour
in th? year 395 A.D. \ The writer was John
Chrysostom.


later on I will show another connection to chrysostom

Robert Pate
July 14th, 2014, 09:03 AM
You are consumed with details.

The sole purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well.

Remember the Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men.

God never has and never will do a perfect work through men.

The Bible is not a perfect book. But the witness of Christ and his Gospel is there and that is perfect.

chrysostom
July 14th, 2014, 09:13 AM
You are consumed with details.

The sole purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well.

Remember the Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men.

God never has and never will do a perfect work through men.

The Bible is not a perfect book. But the witness of Christ and his Gospel is there and that is perfect.

what do you think the purpose of the apocalypse is?
and
how do you go about understanding it?

chrysostom
July 18th, 2014, 02:18 PM
jerome 347-420 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
augustine 354-430 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
chrysostom 347-407 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

they were major players at the beginning of the 5th century
jerome was busy translating the bible to latin at the request of the pope
augustine had finished his confessions and would soon start city of God
chrysostom was in ephesus replacing exactly seven corrupt bishops

augustine knew about jerome translating the bible
and
they communicated

some thought chrysostom, the patriarch of constantinople to be be the most powerful church leader
but
chrysostom recognized the pope in rome to be that person
chrysostom would soon be banished
the bishop of alexandria thought he was in charge
the east and the west would never get over this

chrysostom
July 21st, 2014, 07:07 AM
we don't know what the bible looked like in the 4th century
primarily due to the apocalypse
we know jerome was translating it to latin
but
we don't know
if
he was finished
we do know chrysostom was in ephesus replacing seven bishops
we do know augustine didn't start his 'city of God' until the 5th century
and
didn't really address the apocalypse until book 20
and
not until chapter 7 of book 20 of his 'city of God'
so
it is well into the 5th century before we can be sure what the apocalypse looked like at that time

chrysostom
July 30th, 2014, 04:06 AM
one more thing points to chyrsostom
if
you accept the seven heads (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77340)
are
the seven dynasties of the roman empire

chyrsostom in his time can say

five have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come 17:10 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+17%3A10&version=KJV)

False Prophet
July 30th, 2014, 07:53 AM
The content of the Gospel of John; the content of the epistles of John; and the content of the Apocalypse are different; therefore the writers of the three must be different. So there must be three different John authors in the New Testament. I guess that is your logic.

We would need to examine the original manuscripts to see whether the handwriting of the documents is the same or different to really know if the same John was the author of the Gospel of John; the epistles of John, and the Apocalypse.

chrysostom
July 30th, 2014, 11:02 AM
The content of the Gospel of John; the content of the epistles of John; and the content of the Apocalypse are different; therefore the writers of the three must be different. So there must be three different John authors in the New Testament. I guess that is your logic.

We would need to examine the original manuscripts to see whether the handwriting of the documents is the same or different to really know if the same John was the author of the Gospel of John; the epistles of John, and the Apocalypse.

not exactly
we of course do not have the originals
so
they cannot be examined
but
we do have experts who know hebrew and greek
and
they can tell
if
it was written originally in greek or hebrew
and
they say it was originally written in hebrew unlike the rest of the new testament
and
later translated into greek

chrysostom
July 31st, 2014, 04:06 AM
this is john the baptist
who
knew the Lamb of God
and
bare record

Revelation 1:2 King James Version (KJV)

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

John 1:29 King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 1:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

this is john the apostle
who
added the churches, antipas,
and
the name of Jesus

Revelation 1:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

this is john chrysostom
who
was in ephesus at the beginning of the 4th century
and
he replaced exactly seven corrupt bishops

Revelation 1:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

chrysostom
August 7th, 2014, 03:44 AM
I am not the first one to suggest John the Baptist was the original writer of the apocalypse. Many have suggested that it is the work of more than one writer. It was Charles (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_charles_apocalypse.html) who insisted that it was originally written in hebrew and later translated into greek. It makes sense.

chrysostom
August 18th, 2014, 12:22 PM
would you believe this?

one of the more interesting books on the apocalypse is by

R.H. Charles
1913

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_charles_apocalypse.html)
being lectures delivered before the University of London

Charles has the following:

Ramsay writes with regard to Dr. Lepsius
theory that " the astronomical method, while it
is a useful servant, must not be taken as a
master and director" (p. 506); but in these
articles his practice has not perhaps been as
wise as his counsel ; for he seems to have
unduly committed himself to it.

Another work that has adopted this method
was by a Russian, Nicolaus Morosow, published
in 1907, and translated into German in 1912
under the title, Die Offenbarung Johannis eine
astronomish-historische Untersucliung . The
Introduction is furnished by Dr. Drews of
Karlsruhe, whose credulity in regard to the
fanciful and absurd varies in direct ratio to his
scepticism in things historical.

Morosow claims to have established not only
the year of the vision of the writer of the
Apocalypse, but even the actual day and hour
in th? year 395 A.D. \ The writer was John
Chrysostom.


later on I will show another connection to chrysostom

just quoting this so I can link it properly

False Prophet
August 18th, 2014, 12:44 PM
This is john 1:

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1

Most of the posters on TOL will say that this John the Beloved Apostle. Some critics say that this was written around AD 100, and that the Beloved Apostle of Jesus Christ who was John would have been dead or a hundred years old at the time of the writing of this letter to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

9I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Rev 1

Let's call this John of Patmos. He dispatched this letter to the seven churches in Asia Minor, and it has come down to us as the book of Revelation at the end of the Bible.

Krsto
August 18th, 2014, 04:24 PM
some thought chrysostom, the patriarch of constantinople to be be the most powerful church leader
but
chrysostom recognized the pope in rome to be that person

I think it quite possible Rev. had several authors or was cobbled together by one or more authors, or even that if written before 70 AD (my position) that parts were added later. It's purpose was to encourage the Christians under persecution who would see God move on their behalf at the destruction of Jerusalem and the priesthood in 70 AD.

I appreciate your ability to do some independent thinking on this.

What I don't appreciate is your tendency to swallow hook, line and sinker the Catholic propaganda that there was a pope in Rome that others saw as the head of the church. NOBODY outside of Rome has EVER though of the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Christian church, including your boy Chrysostom. Many considered him to be influential, some even more influential than the Bishop of Alexandria (apparently the Bishop of Alexandria was one of them), but this perceived importance was based on the importance of the city itself in the scheme of world affairs plus the personal qualities of the bishops, not on anything to do with apostolic succession as your church tries to cram down the throats of anyone gullible enough to buy it, like you.

Totton Linnet
August 18th, 2014, 04:32 PM
I think it quite possible Rev. had several authors or was cobbled together by one or more authors, or even that if written before 70 AD (my position) that parts were added later. It's purpose was to encourage the Christians under persecution who would see God move on their behalf at the destruction of Jerusalem and the priesthood in 70 AD.

I appreciate your ability to do some independent thinking on this.

What I don't appreciate is your tendency to swallow hook, line and sinker the Catholic propaganda that there was a pope in Rome that others saw as the head of the church. NOBODY outside of Rome has EVER though of the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Christian church, including your boy Chrysostom. Many considered him to be influential, some even more influential than the Bishop of Alexandria (apparently the Bishop of Alexandria was one of them), but this perceived importance was based on the importance of the city itself in the scheme of world affairs plus the personal qualities of the bishops, not on anything to do with apostolic succession as your church tries to cram down the throats of anyone gullible enough to buy it, like you.

I had thought this too but I read scholar after scholar, the language experts etc and they all say with one accord that Revs is the work of one writer....I do not believe it is apostolic.

chrysostom
August 18th, 2014, 04:58 PM
I had thought this too but I read scholar after scholar, the language experts etc and they all say with one accord that Revs is the work of one writer....I do not believe it is apostolic.

somebody thought it was apostolic or it wouldn't be in the bible
and
how do you go about addressing these questions raised in the opening post?


the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

Timotheos
August 19th, 2014, 06:06 AM
I no longer believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. I believe that John was leading his church until he died and never went to Patmos. I believe that some other guy named John wrote an apocalypse and it was mistakenly attributed to the Apostle. For me, this removes the Book of Revelation from the Canon of Scripture.

Timotheos
August 19th, 2014, 06:16 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?


The first "John" was added to the scroll. The scroll was rolled up, and the first three verses were added by a scribe in order to identify the contents of the scroll.

The second "John" is identifying the author. Other letters of the time start this way too. (See the first verse of Paul's letters)
The letter actually starts at verse 4.

I don't know the reason for the third "John". It just seems incidental. I am your friend Tim, and I am sitting here this morning writing to you.

It is interesting to me that John calls himself "John". This is one of the reasons that I don't believe it was written by the real apostle John. In the Gospel of John, John never calls himself "John". The real Apostle wouldn't have said he was "John".

Tim

chrysostom
August 19th, 2014, 07:06 AM
I no longer believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. I believe that John was leading his church until he died and never went to Patmos. I believe that some other guy named John wrote an apocalypse and it was mistakenly attributed to the Apostle. For me, this removes the Book of Revelation from the Canon of Scripture.

whoa!
how do you know any of the other books were written by the apostles?
you don't want to remove anything from the bible
there is a reason why it is in there

Caino
August 19th, 2014, 07:57 AM
The Book of Revelation was the last and most controversial book added to the cannon. Although he later changed his mind many agreed with Martin Luther "Christ is not found within it."


Apocalyptic writers of such books as "The Book of Enoch" had an influence on many failed end times predictions.

Those who do not believe that the original gospel will eventually subdue mankind are more disposed to sit back and wait for an apocalypse.

HisServant
August 19th, 2014, 08:05 AM
The prevalent wisdom on the book of Revelation at this point is that it was written by three different authors, or a single author wrote it in three sections many years apart.

I personally believe that Revelation has very little to give to the church or reader because the symbolism is so obscure that it cannot be understood without the western world view... it is specifically Jewish and needs to be researched and understood from that point of view.

There was also an apocalyptic book by Peter that was deemed non-canonical.

IMNSHO, no other book in the scriptures has caused so much division within the body then Revelation

HisServant
August 19th, 2014, 08:07 AM
The Book of Revelation was the last and most controversial book added to the cannon. Although he later changed his mind many agreed with Martin Luther "Christ is not found within it."


Apocalyptic writers of such books as "The Book of Enoch" had an influence on many failed end times predictions.

Those who do not believe that the original gospel will eventually subdue mankind are more disposed to sit back and wait for an apocalypse.

Yea.. Spurgeon pretty much said the same thing about futurists (they were preoccupied with looking to the sky for their ticket to escape rather then doing God's work). There was a good article I read the other day how futurism has made the physical church of no earthly good.

chrysostom
August 19th, 2014, 08:28 AM
I personally believe that Revelation has very little to give to the church or reader because the symbolism is so obscure that it cannot be understood without the western world view...

I think it has inspired more people than any other book of the bible

HisServant
August 19th, 2014, 08:36 AM
I think it has inspired more people than any other book of the bible

Division is what it has inspired... and has bred a futurists eschatology which has neutered most Christians when it comes to doing what Jesus commanded us.

chrysostom
August 19th, 2014, 08:49 AM
Division is what it has inspired... and has bred a futurists eschatology which has neutered most Christians when it comes to doing what Jesus commanded us.

true but you must know how small their numbers are

most never heard about them before coming to tol

HisServant
August 19th, 2014, 08:57 AM
true but you must know how small their numbers are

most never heard about them before coming to tol

Some claim that dispensationalism is the largest group of Christians in the USA.... so its not as small as you think.

Then you have JW's, Mormon's and a whole boat load of other denominations based on futurism.

chrysostom
August 19th, 2014, 11:50 AM
Some claim that dispensationalism is the largest group of Christians in the USA.... so its not as small as you think.

Then you have JW's, Mormon's and a whole boat load of other denominations based on futurism.

okay say their numbers are greater than I think
so
how are they hurting us?

chrysostom
September 2nd, 2014, 05:18 AM
NOBODY outside of Rome has EVER though of the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Christian church, including your boy Chrysostom.

have you ever read

chrysostom's correspondence with the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm)

chrysostom
September 25th, 2014, 05:55 AM
Revelation 1:2King James Version (KJV)

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.


John 5:33King James Version (KJV)

33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.


the first john of the apocalypse
who bare record
sounds like
the baptist
who bare witness

who also knew the Lamb of God

John 1:36
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Revelation 5:6
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.

chrysostom
October 11th, 2014, 04:45 AM
the second john added the seven churches
and
the martyr antipas
and
the name of Jesus

chrysostom
October 26th, 2014, 04:04 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

so why the third john?

chrysostom
November 14th, 2014, 04:42 AM
so why the third john?

during the 4th century
the bible was taking shape
there was a good chance the apocalypse would be left out
the only real question
was it written by the apostle?
something convinced jerome and others that it was
at that time chysostom was in ephesus

OCTOBER23
November 14th, 2014, 04:44 AM
Why am I sitting on the John thinking about Eusebiuis' attempt at a commentary on the Scriptures and his errors..............


'But even if the case were not such as our argument has
now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little
use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young
for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told
more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do
everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems,
however, not easy to persuade men of it.'
d PLATO
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also
thousands of such passages concerning God as though
He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any
other human passions, which passages are adopted for the
benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
p. 608
As you can see, the 'quotation' appears nowhere in the work, which is cast in the form of a discussion quoting passages from the philosophers and discussing their relationship with the Hebrew scriptures (The quote from Plato is from the Laws II, 663 d 6 - e 4). History, as such, is not under discussion in the work at all. In this passage, a piece of Plato is discussed, and the way in which the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge the inability of most men to reason (and how, unlike the philosophers, they don't exclude that class of men) and embody it as part of their message is outlined.

Clearly the reference we started with is quite wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR09kxJWoTY&list=PL61206A1D5F9190D3

OCTOBER23
November 14th, 2014, 05:06 AM
Chris said,

what do you think the purpose of the apocalypse is?
and
how do you go about understanding it?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Youtube and type in any subject you want.

The Apocalypse is the time of Testing of the world seeking

who is for JESUS and who is for Satan in the form of Islam and Catholicism

and all other anti-christ religions.

chrysostom
November 14th, 2014, 05:45 AM
Why am I sitting on the John thinking about Eusebiuis' attempt at a commentary on the Scriptures and his errors..............

Eusebius is a very valuable source of information (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)

oatmeal
November 14th, 2014, 07:25 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

That is so intriguing, but what are you talking about?

The gospel of John? the epistles of John or the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John?

God authored scripture, there fore scripture is as perfect as God is.

How perfect do you say God is? Perfect or less than perfect?

God's word is perfect.

I am not writing about a book in your hand that is rightfully called a version. But that which God authored when holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21

God is the only author of genuine scripture, therefore our job is to learn what genuine scripture said

chrysostom
November 14th, 2014, 07:46 AM
That is so intriguing, but what are you talking about?

The gospel of John? the epistles of John or the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John?

there was a time when the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John was referred to as the apocalypse

sorry for the confusion

Origen
November 19th, 2014, 11:49 AM
It was Charles who insisted that it was originally written in hebrew and later translated into greek.I do not see where Charles made such a claim. He does say that the style is Hebraic but no where could I find that he claimed it was written in Hebrew.


How, then, are we to explain the unbridled licence of his Greek constructions? The reason clearly is that, while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression. (p.82)

Before laying out his evidence, Charles he goes on to say:

Even this evidence will, I hope, be sufficient to produce a conviction that the style is Hebraic in character. (p. 83)
Clearly Charles does not think Revelation was originally written in Hebrew but wrote in Greek in a Hebraic style.

Now Charles does refer to others who make such claims but obviously, given the above quotes, he does not agree. Charles calls into question their most basic assumptions and evidence in order to refute their claims.

chrysostom
November 20th, 2014, 07:44 AM
I do not see where Charles made such a claim. He does say that the style is Hebraic but no where could I find that he claimed it was written in Hebrew.



Before laying out his evidence, Charles he goes on to say:

Clearly Charles does not think Revelation was originally written in Hebrew but wrote in Greek in a Hebraic style.

Now Charles does refer to others who make such a claims but obviously, given the above quotes, he does not agree. Charles calls into question their most basic assumptions and evidence in order to refute their calims.

thank you for this

I will revisit it

Origen
November 20th, 2014, 08:27 AM
thank you for this

I will revisit itI see that you think Revelation has three authors.

1. John the Baptist
2. John the Apostle
3. John Chrysostom

And you think that it was John Chrysostom who wrote the section with the seven letters. Is that correct? I want to make sure that I understand your view.

oatmeal
November 20th, 2014, 08:36 AM
there was a time when the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John was referred to as the apocalypse

sorry for the confusion

Well, of course, the book of Revelation would be referred to as the apocalypse, that is what the Greek means, it means revelation or appearing, ie, a revealing.

God authored scripture and in the case of the book of Revelation, the apocalypse, He had John write it down.

So we must ask ourselves, what does it say that applies to us?

And if it does apply to us, how so?

does it apply completely or partially?

Who is the book written to? Are we who it is written to?

If it is not written to us then it is not information at applies directly to us, although it does contain information that is important to us.

Why did God have John write the words he did? Because that is what God wanted John to write down

chrysostom
November 20th, 2014, 08:51 AM
I see that you think Revelation has three authors.

1. John the Baptist
2. John the Apostle
3. John Chrysostom

And you think that it was John Chrysostom who wrote the section with the seven letters. Is that correct?

no
chrysostom added very little
but
somehow made sure it got into the bible

tertullian mentions the seven churches
so
we know they were added before his time

chrysostom
November 20th, 2014, 08:59 AM
Who is the book written to?

I believe the baptist was writing to the jews to prepare them for the first coming

the apostle wrote to the christians in asia minor to prepare them for some very difficult times
christianity no longer exists in that area
completely replaced by islam

chrysostom was in ephesus at the beginning of the fifth century
and
I believe he was asked to prophesy again to all nations
i.e. get the book into the bible

Origen
November 20th, 2014, 12:01 PM
no
chrysostom added very little
but
somehow made sure it got into the bible

tertullian mentions the seven churches
so
we know they were added before his timeSo, may I ask, what do you think Chrysostom added?

chrysostom
November 20th, 2014, 12:25 PM
So, may I ask, what do you think Chrysostom added?

the only reason it is in the bible is because somebody important like jerome, who was translating the bible at the time, thought the apostle was the author
so
all chrysostom had to do was make it look that way
and
chrysostom was the only john who could say

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

if you buy into my dynasties theory of the seven kings

chrysostom
November 20th, 2014, 12:32 PM
I do not see where Charles made such a claim. He does say that the style is Hebraic but no where could I find that he claimed it was written in Hebrew.


you're right
but
correct me
if
you think I am wrong about this

charles finds all the arguments compelling that it was first written in hebrew
but
he is convinced by all the unity arguments which trumps the hebrew arguments

for some reason he cannot accept more than one author

Origen
November 20th, 2014, 02:25 PM
charles finds all the arguments compelling that it was first written in HebrewI am not sure I can agree with that.

Charles names only two persons as thinking the sources of Revelation were written specifically in Hebrew and they are Kohler (p. 64) and Vischer (p. 68). Yet Charles rejects both views.

Of Kohler's hypothesis he says:

I have given Kohler's hypothesis longer consideration than it deserves, because it comes from a Jewish source. Kohler's hypothesis throws no fresh light on the problem, while it fails to apprehend the general unity of thought and style that characterise the book. (p. 64)

Of Vischer's hypothesis he say:

This clever hypothesis found a wide acceptance at the time; but, as Bousset urges, it cannot be regarded as satisfactory; for Vischer, in the first place, has not succeeded in proving the Jewish character of xi.-xii., nor justified his fundamental thesis as to the unity of the book. (p. 62)

Some of the scholars Charles addresses do not claims the sources were written in Hebrew but simply call them Jewish sources, for example Volter.

Of Volter's hypothesis he says:

It is unnecessary here to enter further into the details of Volter's hypothesis, as it has failed to gain the suffrages of critical scholars, in fact, as a whole it has been rejected on every hand. (p. 60)

Then Charles states, as to the methodologies used:

It is on the ground of this general unity of style in diction and construction that we are obliged to reject all such violent hypotheses as those of Spitta, Yischer, J. Weiss, Von Soden and the like. The problem of the Apocalypse cannot be solved either by the Redaction Hypothesis, or by the Sources Hypothesis, or by a combination of the two. (p. 72)


he is convinced by all the unity arguments which trumps the hebrew argumentsYes he does hold to the unity argument but it is more than just that. He just does not think that the evidence is there. For example there is no need to postulate a Hebrew text behind the Greek. As Chrales points out: "How, then, are we to explain the unbridled licence of his Greek constructions? The reason clearly is that, while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression." That is perfectly normal for someone writing in language which is not their own. Moreover Charles says "He never mastered Greek idiomatically even the Greek of his own period."


For more information check Charles' A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Revelation Of St. John (1920)
https://archive.org/details/acriticalandexeg01charuoft

Origen
November 20th, 2014, 03:07 PM
the only reason it is in the bible is because somebody important like jerome, who was translating the bible at the time, thought the apostle was the authorI am not sure that is quite right.

Revelation is found in Codex Sinaiticus and it is dated between 330 and 360. Revelation was important enough to make it into a collection of the Scriptures. Jerome was born around 347 so he would have had no impact upon that.

In his 39th Festal Letter Athanasius (A.D. 367) states in regard to the canon:


Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John.

That was 15 years before Jerome first began his preliminary work on the Vulgate in 382. I would not want to say that Jerome played no role as to the canon but Athanasius was much more important. Yet the most important point here is that Revelation was considered part of the canon before Jerome started his work on the Vulgate.

chrysostom
November 21st, 2014, 12:08 PM
In his 39th Festal Letter Athanasius (A.D. 367) states in regard to the canon:



That was 15 years before Jerome first began his preliminary work on the Vulgate in 382. I would not want to say that Jerome played no role as to the canon but Athanasius was much more important. Yet the most important point here is that Revelation was considered part of the canon before Jerome started his work on the Vulgate.

I have no doubt that he wanted it in
but
others did not
and
that may have included chrysostom who was patriarch of the most powerful empire
and
a trip to ephesus at the beginning of the 5th century may have changed his mind

Origen
November 21st, 2014, 12:41 PM
I have no doubt that he wanted it in
but
others did not
and
that may have included chrysostom who was patriarch of the most powerful empire
and
a trip to ephesus at the beginning of the 5th century may have changed his mindI agree there were some who did not want it or like it but that was not really my point. My point was that Codex Sinaiticus predates Jerome and that codex contains all 27 books of the N.T. So while Jerome may have played some part in the canon, Revelation could already be found in a Greek language codex.

As for Athanasius, my point was he was the first to list the 27 books of the N.T. just as we have it now (without any other additions) and he used the word "canon" to describe them. Again I do not wish to say that Jerome played no part in the canon, but Athanasius was ahead of Jerome by 15 years in regard to the canon and Athanasius was not some nobody.

chrysostom
May 30th, 2015, 02:35 PM
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

Anto9us
May 30th, 2015, 03:35 PM
I find all of this fascinating -- and must agree that Athanasius was not "just some nobody" and listed the first list of just the 27 books of NT

That Revelation is Hebraic in style is clear -- but if written as LATE as suggested in some places -- why would a scholar the level of Charles say it was written IN HEBREW? I am lost on much of this -- I do not DISMISS IT -- its just some stuff I never heard of before -- but I am glad these threads were revived

chrysostom
May 30th, 2015, 03:49 PM
I find all of this fascinating -- and must agree that Athanasius was not "just some nobody" and listed the first list of just the 27 books of NT

That Revelation is Hebraic in style is clear -- but if written as LATE as suggested in some places -- why would a scholar the level of Charles say it was written IN HEBREW? I am lost on much of this -- I do not DISMISS IT -- its just some stuff I never heard of before -- but I am glad these threads were revived

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE
being lectures delivered before the University of London

R.H. Charles
1913 (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_charles_apocalypse.html)

this is one of the most interesting books you will ever read on the apocalypse

chrysostom
June 13th, 2015, 03:51 AM
search the bible for the word lamb

27 hits in the apocalypse

only one person in the bible mentions
the Lamb of God

that is john the baptist

when the apocalypse was first written it did not include the name of Jesus

Jesus is the Lamb of God

John 1:32King James Version (KJV)

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Revelation 1:2King James Version (KJV)

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

John 1:1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

chrysostom
October 5th, 2015, 03:39 AM
three johns makes more sense

chrysostom
October 24th, 2015, 06:59 AM
can you believe three different versions by three different johns?

False Prophet
October 24th, 2015, 08:12 AM
The Apocalypse has kept the Bible alive with interpretations throughout history after its inception into the scriptures in the second century.

chrysostom
October 24th, 2015, 08:17 AM
The Apocalypse has kept the Bible alive with interpretations throughout history after its inception into the scriptures in the second century.

it was not an official part of the bible in the second century

chrysostom
November 7th, 2015, 05:04 AM
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse

dialm
November 9th, 2015, 07:25 AM
what do you think the purpose of the apocalypse is?
and
how do you go about understanding it?

You cannot expect a straight answer because he is locked in his room and cannot come out. If he does step out he will be arrested for spiritual drunk driving.

chrysostom
November 25th, 2015, 06:53 AM
three johns wrote the apocalypse

the first one
was
john the baptist

Wick Stick
November 25th, 2015, 01:49 PM
John the Baptist? I haven't followed your threads on the Apocalypse until recently, but it seems to me that chronology would make that... difficult.

Did you have something besides the shared use of "lamb?" The identification of a lamb in Revelation is (my opinion) based on astronomy, which the book seems to use a lot of. The constellation we call Ursa Minor was anciently interpreted as a lamb in some places (presumably bears were not prevalent in Palestine). Nearby is the constellation Cepheus, which is a king seated on his throne. A lamb in front of a throne, literally in the heavens. But enough of the digression...

Multiple authorship is a good guess. You can't have an Apocalypse, without first having an Apocryphon.

Next questions - who wrote the original apocryphon? who wrote the revealing (apocalupto!) thereof?

chrysostom
November 25th, 2015, 01:51 PM
Multiple authorship is a good guess.

not just a guess

it is a requirement

Wick Stick
November 25th, 2015, 03:47 PM
So why three?

One to write the apocryphon.
One to write the apocalypse thereof.

What's the third John do? Cheerleader?

chrysostom
December 15th, 2015, 04:31 AM
So why three?

One to write the apocryphon.
One to write the apocalypse thereof.

What's the third John do? Cheerleader?

there are three johns mentioned in the first chapter

john the baptist wrote the first to prepare the way
john the apostle may have added the seven churches
john chrysostom added something to make sure it was included in the bible

daqq
December 15th, 2015, 05:10 AM
there are three johns mentioned in the first chapter

john the baptist wrote the first to prepare the way
john the apostle may have added the seven churches
john chrysostom added something to make sure it was included in the bible

This is somewhat perplexing. So you do not think John Chrysostom would have minded having the plagues written in the book added unto himself for adding to the book? Or is that one of the portions you think he may have added? No Chrysostom, no Apostle, only the Immerser, (and it is a body-temple template: if your right eye offends you, remove his luchnion-lamp) for Yochanan was the luchnos burning and shining, (John 5:35). :)

chrysostom
December 15th, 2015, 05:28 AM
This is somewhat perplexing. So you do not think John Chrysostom would have minded having the plagues written in the book added unto himself for adding to the book?


Revelation 22:18King James Version (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


this is for people like you and me
but
not for john chrysostom

only a few are great
only a few are elected
and
the least we can do is recognize them

daqq
December 15th, 2015, 05:54 AM
Revelation 22:18King James Version (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


this is for people like you and me
but
not for john chrysostom

only a few are great
only a few are elected
and
the least we can do is recognize them

How is it you speak for John Chrysostom so knowingly? I can only speak for myself and what is written as it is written. Once the seven pleges-strokes are poured out nothing can kill you anymore. :)

chrysostom
December 15th, 2015, 06:11 AM
How is it you speak for John Chrysostom so knowingly? I can only speak for myself and what is written as it is written. Once the seven pleges-strokes are poured out nothing can kill you anymore. :)

I have read about john chrysostom
at the end of the fourth century
he was in ephesus for about three months
replacing exactly seven corrupt bishops
he had plenty of time to go over the existing apocalypse
just prior to jerome's latin translation

I know what is written
the second death can kill you
it is the death of your soul

daqq
December 15th, 2015, 06:40 AM
I know what is written
the second death can kill you
it is the death of your soul

Matthew 16:24-28
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his stake, and follow me.
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destoy her: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find her.
26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

And the Son of man casts out devils by the Finger of Elohim when he comes:

Luke 11:20
20. But if I with the Finger of Elohim cast out daimonia: no doubt the kingdom of Elohim is come upon you!

For the same reason the Son of Elohim and High Priest after the order of Melki-Tzedek has in his right hand the seven stars which are the seven angels:

Leviticus 16:14-17
14. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, [Rev 15:8] until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

Those dying the second death are not cleansed, (Lev 16, Rev 15 & 16).
Every man has a temple of the tabernacle of the testimony, (Lev 16:16-17, Rev 15:5-8).

1Mind1Spirit
December 16th, 2015, 06:23 PM
Matthew 16:24-28
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his stake, and follow me.
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destoy her: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find her.
26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

And the Son of man casts out devils by the Finger of Elohim when he comes:

Luke 11:20
20. But if I with the Finger of Elohim cast out daimonia: no doubt the kingdom of Elohim is come upon you!

For the same reason the Son of Elohim and High Priest after the order of Melki-Tzedek has in his right hand the seven stars which are the seven angels:

Leviticus 16:14-17
14. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, [Rev 15:8] until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

Those dying the second death are not cleansed, (Lev 16, Rev 15 & 16).
Every man has a temple of the tabernacle of the testimony, (Lev 16:16-17, Rev 15:5-8).

As the temple was still standing, I wonder if this is why Paul could not speak of the mercy seat.

Or maybe he knew nobody get's it until it happens.

Just like now, only those who have been there can truly be a comfort to one another.

daqq
December 16th, 2015, 06:34 PM
As the temple was still standing, I wonder if this is why Paul could not speak of the mercy seat.

The Mercy Seat was not in the second Temple because Jeremiah hid it in the grotto, under Olivet, in the sides of the north, (Lev 1:11, Eze 8:3-6, Eze 40:2, Heb 13:10-13). :)

chrysostom
January 8th, 2016, 05:20 AM
for john the baptist
the time was near
he was preparing the way

bybee
January 8th, 2016, 06:42 AM
for john the baptist
the time was near
he was preparing the way

We shall begin to study John's Gospel next Wednesday at Church. I'm looking forward to gain some insights! We have a retired Canadian Episcopal Priest as our leader. So far he has been a font of knowledge.

chrysostom
January 8th, 2016, 07:01 AM
We shall begin to study John's Gospel next Wednesday at Church. I'm looking forward to gain some insights! We have a retired Canadian Episcopal Priest as our leader. So far he has been a font of knowledge.

pay attention to john the baptist
who
knew the Lamb of God was coming
but
didn't know it was Jesus
and
pay attention to the use of the word lamb in rev 5

chrysostom
January 8th, 2016, 07:41 AM
notice who 'bore witness'


John 1:15New King James Version (NKJV) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A15&version=NKJV)

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”


Revelation 1:2New King James Version (NKJV) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+1%3A2&version=NKJV)

2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

chrysostom
January 8th, 2016, 07:55 AM
the first john (third person) bore witness

rev 1:2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+1%3A2&version=NKJV)

the second john (third person) to the seven churches

rev 1:4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+1%3A4&version=NKJV)

the third john (first person)
I, John, both your brother and companion

rev 1:9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+1%3A9&version=NKJV)

SaulToPaul
January 8th, 2016, 10:02 AM
:chuckle:

chrysostom
January 29th, 2016, 07:18 AM
he was john

all three of them

chrysostom
February 20th, 2016, 05:11 AM
three johns
three versions
it is the only reasonable explanation

chrysostom
March 18th, 2016, 04:41 AM
why would john introduce himself three times?
-he didn't

SaulToPaul
March 18th, 2016, 06:39 AM
why would john introduce himself three times?
-he didn't

:chuckle:

TulipBee
March 18th, 2016, 06:56 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)
"Why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?"

Ivan panin scientifically proven the apocalypse wasn't written by the apostle.
Apocalypse wasn't even inspired by God as the proofs has shown.
There are no dishonest apostles.
This debunks RCC, scientifically.
Bye bye RCC !
.
.
.

chrysostom
March 31st, 2016, 05:24 AM
john the baptist was the first to write the apocalypse
-the time was near
-and
-he had to prepare the way

SaulToPaul
March 31st, 2016, 05:51 AM
john the baptist was the first to write the apocalypse


:jawdrop:

chrysostom
April 23rd, 2016, 05:57 AM
the time is near

chrysostom
May 23rd, 2016, 05:18 AM
when john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-the time was near

HisServant
May 23rd, 2016, 05:28 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

You are asking us to get into the minds of chronic liars....no wonder it is confusing for you.

patrick jane
May 23rd, 2016, 05:33 AM
the time is near
It's not even close. The world will continue for another 1,000 years at least. Sorry, the end is not slated for your measly lifetime

patrick jane
May 23rd, 2016, 05:36 AM
My favorite Johns are the chocolate long johns from my local bakery

SaulToPaul
May 23rd, 2016, 06:02 AM
]when john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-the time was near

:chuckle:

chrysostom
May 23rd, 2016, 06:58 AM
You are asking us to get into the minds of chronic liars....no wonder it is confusing for you.

-it is just a theory
-speculation
-something to consider
-no need to start calling others liars

HisServant
May 23rd, 2016, 07:47 AM
-it is just a theory
-speculation
-something to consider
-no need to start calling others liars

We know that Eusebius was a liar... he even admitted it himself.

We also know Victorinus was prone to the same problem since history contradicts some of his writing.

I'm just stating the truth.

chrysostom
June 20th, 2016, 04:15 AM
He created a new hypothesis concerned to the Synoptic problem, the question of Acts, the two texts of the Book of Revelation, and about origin of the Codex Bezae.

Boismard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-%C3%89mile_Boismard)

chrysostom
July 9th, 2016, 01:27 AM
this is just another piece of the puzzle
-but it fits

chrysostom
July 28th, 2016, 06:04 PM
john doesn't introduce himself three times
-there are three johns

SaulToPaul
July 29th, 2016, 06:05 AM
john doesn't introduce himself three times
-there are three johns

:chuckle:

chrysostom
September 2nd, 2016, 10:04 AM
:chuckle:

how many johns do you think there are?

SaulToPaul
September 2nd, 2016, 10:07 AM
how many johns do you think there are?

One that wrote Revelation.

Flaminggg
September 2nd, 2016, 09:44 PM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?



http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/Nguyen%20Van%20Lem%20Zodiac%20Killer_zps957q0b46.j pg
First Resurrection - Nguyen Van Lem was revealed as the Antichrist in the Account of the "Zodiac Killer"
LUKE 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/Nguyen%20Van%20Lem%20-%20Falling%20Man_zps26ikjrwv.jpg
Second Resurrection - Falling Man of 9/11/2001 was revealed as a Fallen Angel
LUKE 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/Nguyen%20Van%20Lem%20Roswell_zpsi6l857pg.jpg
Third Resurrection - Express Image of Jesus, Gathers the Remnants of the Nations for 5 Months
JOHN 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

(Genetic Dan is not Euthanized so the 5 Months of Revelation or Eighth Day Sabbath when the Lamb Slain a picture of Jesus Reigns cannot take place, which is a description of when Star Wormwood takes place for 5 months. Chapters 4 to 11 is 11 - 4 or "Eight", Four Genetic Lines of Genetic Dan are a Reference to the Lamb that is not Slain or Jesus's Body or Temple is in Heaven and not given to the Earth.




why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse


God did not send the Antichrist to Confirm the Covenant, and to satisfy the basis of Conviction for the Tribe of Aaron, when some of those conclusions were formed...............The Antichrist is Resurrected Three Times, First Resolved is Genetic Dan, Second is Aaron, and Third is the Remnant of Judah or whats left of the Nations. Aaron or the Church is counted as deceased, but we need to satisfy the conviction, in part this is resolved. Second, your legal right to a Sign of Divorce or a Sign of Divorce beyond the City of Philadelphia is disputed, and that will be resolved soon as a Point of Discernment. There are Prophecies, such as Allen C. Martin and Saint Malachy which predict assassinations of men. God does not seem to allow the death of the Antichrist to satisfy the Events of Revelation, and God is not taken out of the way until Revelation is completed so "Antipas or End of Pharaoh" is underplayed as a snare if that is what you mean. (False Utopian Society by the Higgs Boson discoveries, possibly) (Suicide by Antichrist according to Revelation 11, will be resolved soon as a Point of Discernment, Terrorism and Suicide by Cop Campaigns are something that parallels the Antichrist as a result of the Generation of Sin, not all of mankind largely Genetic Dan).

chrysostom
September 28th, 2016, 04:44 AM
it's not proof -
it's a reasonable explanation for what we observe -
it's something that might fit

Wick Stick
September 28th, 2016, 02:32 PM
I only see 2 Johns, but I've heard that when you're desperate, just about anywhere starts to look like a John.

http://www.asburysseptictank.com/images/1130/camera_pics_1280-24388.450.315.jpg

chrysostom
October 12th, 2016, 04:45 AM
the bible has 3 john

Flaminggg
October 12th, 2016, 10:04 PM
the bible has 3 john

1st Contradiction::The Gospel's Law is Written in Our Heart, so we are convicted by our own souls (Ahasuerus and Mordecai claim the same Provinces::Ahasuerus's Contradiction of Conscious)
ESTHER 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this [is] Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, [over] an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)
ESTHER 8:9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that [is], the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth [day] thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which [are] from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language.
ESTHER 8:10 And he wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed [it] with the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, [and] riders on mules, camels, [and] young dromedaries:

2nd Contradiction::Jesus limits his payment for sin regardless of the walk of faith for certain races and peoples (Solomon's Stalls Contradiction of the Four Genetic Lines)

3rd Contradiction::God has designed a form of godliness into creation to mitigate sin, a more forgiving creation, which God reveals from time to time, however, mercy does not circumvent the gospel's program, so God also takes away his mercies (Jehoiachin's Contradiction of the Eighth Day Sabbath, in which God illustrates his payment for sin)

Okay that is Three Contradictions, so What about John?

1st Contradiction (Jesus uses John to represent his Judgment)
MATTHEW 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
MATTHEW 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

2nd Contradiction (Jesus uses John to proclaim that he does not pay for the sins of all men/peoples/races)
LUKE 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;
LUKE 9:8 And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.

3rd Contradiction (Jesus uses John to reveal the mercies of God)
JOHN 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
JOHN 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
............
............
Three Resurrections for John, same for the Antichrist. That is why some say the Antichrist will return and proclaim his resurrection, shortly before the return of the Lord, and the day of judgment. This event will usher in a new age shortly before the earth reaches its conclusion. The gospel defines one generation as about 70 Years, following this conclusion. If we are indeed at the end of time, the Antichrist must of had at least one maybe two resurrections already, one more step away from the elimination of billions of lives. Many believe that the 9/11/2001 Falling Man or the Event itself was one of these resurrections. So we are indeed at the end of time. Love and Blessings. (Quite a few people, Jesus proclaimed euthanasia for using force against them, it follows that John was one of these people, so it follows, Genetic Dan is not terminated, so they must continually end their lives using force by whatever means against the Antichrist. So where ever he is, there are also many people witnesses of these facts) (I read about the storm that is going to euthanize a great deal of people, now if you continue to use force against me, then, the storm may very well hurt the usa instead, like what just happened, the quickest method without giving me any attention from the police and news agencies is simply to use a projectile at a distance, then, we'll see what is necessary).

Flaminggg
October 13th, 2016, 09:23 PM
I only see 2 Johns, but I've heard that when you're desperate, just about anywhere starts to look like a John.

http://www.asburysseptictank.com/images/1130/camera_pics_1280-24388.450.315.jpg

1. Ahasuerus's Contradiction of Conscious = Difference Between Living and Dead Matter, some say the Human Body weights anywhere from 14 to 27 Grams less after death.
2. Solomon's Stalls Contradiction of Genetic Material = Radiation interactions between whites and the four genetic lines relating to Genetic Dan and Skin Color (scientists proved, darker skinned races could impregnate mountain apes)
3. Jehoiachin's Contradiction of the Eighth Day Sabbath = Doppelganger Higgs Boson was discovered by the processes of "Intelligent Design" (illustration of undetectable forces with predictable impact on the scientific processes), however no meaningful interactions to impact quantum theory

(non-whites cannot survive the short exposure in space, without considerably more health effects, even though the international space station is relatively close to the earth, ethnic suicide by using force against me, regardless of the damage I may suffer, ethnics are driven away or killed this is guaranteed, and many are simply fascinated by these results, but they are missing some understanding...............so its not racism or lives don't matter campaigns supporting ethnic suicide, it is simply a fact of nature, these races do not have a future, and the only humane response is euthanasia, so we have to reach these levels soon) (non-white or any person with genetic material from genetic dan's four genetic lines, will not survive a trip to mars with some degree of exposure ... if you give an ethnic, http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/stateID.jpg, a knife or a gun, or just tell them to use their hands ... then you need to conceal the bodies, so I see this often, news articles omitted, back to topic)

1. (What the Hebrews called "INRI", Inc***/Rape/Murde*, as a method of euthanasia to identify the sons of man, so this is very popular, until the Sign of Divorce)
2. Animals used as weapons are often pacified, sometimes turning on their owners, this is not as commonly used today as a proof of a son of man
3. Lethal Circumstances, such as explosives, vehicles, drops from high distances, projectiles ....... that don't involve people directly, not commonly used today because the association of authority is clear cut with the public and authorities about the sons of man

(2 Kings 9:1-8, Euthanasia of Genetic Dan all of their races in any and all areas of effect for the Sign of Divorce (open vision)..............You have instructions to kill Genetic Dan, in all areas of the City of Philadelphia, regardless of the number. Right now, we're closer to settling this score of suicide by antichrist, when your sign of divorce is taken away, and the death of all persons in the usa is guaranteed, you will either choose to die, or choose to kill and suffer by a mighty hand, that by your own hand, when you do as I say, so we'll see what becomes necessary, as I have stated, no evidence at this level of any more of a resolve to settle this score, so we'll just have to wait, my birthday is 10/18/2016, so we'll see, maybe sooner than expected, so keep watch, keep these non-whites on the attack also, don't get soft on me) (sometimes a non-white/ethnic person instructed to use force against me, goes way, or dies for different reasons, so you have to do your homework, now when the reality of whats necessary becomes apparent, then you will not need to look any further than this truth for all solutions)

Wick Stick
October 14th, 2016, 01:01 PM
I was just making a little joke. But, um, did you just claim to have a revelation from God in which He commissioned you to commit genocide as a form of ethnic cleansing?


You have instructions to kill Genetic Dan, in all areas of the City of Philadelphia, regardless of the number.

I really wish your post was a joke, too.

Flaminggg
October 14th, 2016, 08:24 PM
I was just making a little joke. But, um, did you just claim to have a revelation from God in which He commissioned you to commit genocide as a form of ethnic cleansing?

I really wish your post was a joke, too.

(Gospel's Law is Written in Our Hearts) EZRA 4:19 And I commanded, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and [that] rebellion and sedition have been made therein.
(God does not use Jesus to Pay for the Sins of all Races/Ethnics)EZRA 4:20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all [countries] beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.
(Euthanasia of Genetic Dan as a point of Discernment for God's Mercy) EZRA 4:21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until [another] commandment shall be given from me.

The Gospel/Bible is a Revelation from God, have I been commissioned to populate the Global Census Reports with Rap* and Murde*, or to Kill Police Officers, or to commit Terrorism, or to bare false witness about the gospel? Global Census Bureau Reports ............ EDIT............ is the Gospel a false witnesses as a book of prophecies, the answer is no. Actually, Ahaziah's Reign Contradiction of 22+1 to 42+1 (2Kings8:26/2Chronicles 22:2) is the correct response with Ahasuerus as a parallel, so you got me there::

Jesus = Fig Tree (God)
Jesus = Winepress (Holy Spirit)
Jesus = Lamb Slain (Payment for Sin)

Three Resurrections for John as a picture of the "Express Image" of Jesus, to give the Revelation (according to ezekiel)
Three Resurrections for the Antichrist as a picture of the "Express Image" of Jesus, to confirm the covenant (according to daniel)

(http://6abc.com/news/memorial-picnic-marks-anniversary-of-deadly-tioga-carjacking-crash/880998/) Once in a while Suicide by Antichrist, reaches the News when they kill themselves exceedingly. Do I believe that Terrorism or Cop Killing is a Commandment from God, the answer is No. 100% of the people that Kill Police Officers in the Lives Don't Matter Campaigns do, and 100% of the people committing terrorism do. So that is a reason for that, Jesus does not pay for their sin, and that is a work no man can perform, so we'll just have to keep watch, so soon. (http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/stateID.jpg, no actually the question came up because I did not include any public safety messages in sometime, but as we come closer to the Sign of Divorce, this safety measure becomes less important, you can contact the civil servants like the department of homeland security, all of not several usa embassies and the police departments I've contacted, and ask them about the suicides we discussed however briefly, but if they choose not to talk or report the suicides to the media or public based on the force used entirely against me alone, then you just have to wait to settle this core, unless you can get them to use enough force against me) (the expression of Joseph is not great enough at this level to cause, predictable suicide at a ground level in a a relative radius of a few miles from me, but its enough to cause periodic killings by their kinds soliciting suicide, at best we have nightly walks from time to time, and a few bodies, if you want, you can ask the police to follow me undercover and watch them die, but their lethal force usage is not predictable more so than it is periodic, your choice to remain silent and keep silent, or speak, and address this problem directly and the solution I provide)

(your choice, once I voice an argument like this, "Stop Hurting Me, and the Euthanasia will Stop For Now", once you give me national or international attention, you will have to deal with this problem until we reach the next level, and I cannot be killed or caused a certain level of suffering and pain if God does not want that to happen, best thing to do, keep them on the attack, and turn our head in the other direction, if you do not want to involve the media and the authorities in education of the public threat) (One Phrase: "Stop Hurting Me", that all its takes, false witnessing and suicide is not satisfaction of the gospel's law, we'll settle this score at a later time, but we will, soon).

chrysostom
October 27th, 2016, 04:27 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

three johns is the only explanation that makes sense

chrysostom
November 3rd, 2016, 06:32 AM
the time was near
-when-
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-
he was preparing the way

SaulToPaul
November 3rd, 2016, 07:09 AM
the time was near
-when-
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-
he was preparing the way

:chuckle:

chrysostom
November 14th, 2016, 05:35 AM
:chuckle:

good post

SaulToPaul
November 14th, 2016, 09:54 AM
good post

It's comical you believe JTB wrote scripture.

Rivers
November 16th, 2016, 02:29 PM
Why would John have to mention his name at all? Many of the biblical books don't name the author.

chrysostom
December 2nd, 2016, 06:15 AM
Why would John have to mention his name at all? Many of the biblical books don't name the author.

this is the first question anyone should ask
-
we can only speculate
-and-
the only thing that makes sense to me
-is-
the last john wanted to give due credit to the first two johns

Rivers
December 2nd, 2016, 07:40 AM
this is the first question anyone should ask
-
we can only speculate
-and-
the only thing that makes sense to me
-is-
the last john wanted to give due credit to the first two johns

Why do you think this idea makes any more sense that the fact that someone named "John" received the Revelation visions (Revelation 1:1-3) and the 4th Gospel and the 3 letters are anonymous?

Moreover, John the apostle could not have written the 4th Gospel based upon the internal evidence.

chrysostom
December 10th, 2016, 09:33 AM
Why do you think this idea makes any more sense that the fact that someone named "John" received the Revelation visions (Revelation 1:1-3) and the 4th Gospel and the 3 letters are anonymous?

Moreover, John the apostle could not have written the 4th Gospel based upon the internal evidence.

I am more interested in what john said in the his gospel
-
john the baptist talked about the Lamb
-in the gospel
-in the apocalypse
-it's a clue

Rivers
December 11th, 2016, 08:31 AM
I am more interested in what john said in the his gospel
-
john the baptist talked about the Lamb
-in the gospel
-in the apocalypse
-it's a clue

John the baptizer was dead before 98% of the historical events happened in those books. That's means there's no "clue."

chrysostom
December 20th, 2016, 07:12 AM
John the baptizer was dead before 98% of the historical events happened in those books. That's means there's no "clue."

here is a clue
-
john predicted all those historical events before he died

chrysostom
December 31st, 2016, 06:08 AM
john the baptist was preparing the way for the Lamb

chrysostom
January 14th, 2017, 08:28 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

john the baptist was the greatest of all prophets
-so-
why aren't his prophecies in the bible?

chrysostom
February 2nd, 2017, 04:20 AM
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse to prepare the way for the Lamb
-
john the apostle later added the churches and antipas

chrysostom
March 10th, 2017, 05:10 AM
the apostle was called to prophesy again -
there were baptist followers in ephesus who had not accepted Jesus

chrysostom
April 7th, 2017, 06:25 AM
Who bare record - baptist
John to the seven churches - apostle
I John, who also am your brother - chrysostom

SaulToPaul
April 7th, 2017, 06:33 AM
Who bare record - baptist
John to the seven churches - apostle
I John, who also am your brother - chrysostom

:chuckle:

Thanks for watching.

chrysostom
May 16th, 2017, 05:50 AM
:chuckle:

Thanks for watching.

great post

SaulToPaul
May 16th, 2017, 06:27 AM
great post

Thanks using my posts to bump threads.

chrysostom
June 7th, 2017, 04:01 AM
just search the apocalypse for the word church (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=church&begin=73&end=73) and you will find it 18 times in the first three chapters and only once in the last 19 chapters
-if-
john the baptist wrote the first version of the apocalypse, he would not have used the word church which would be added later by the apostle

granpa
June 7th, 2017, 04:14 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

The vision of Revelation was given on the Mount of transfiguration to Peter, Andrew and John and possibly also too James. Each one gave an account and all of those accounts were combined to create the Book of Revelation

chrysostom
June 7th, 2017, 05:01 AM
The vision of Revelation was given on the Mount of transfiguration to Peter, Andrew and John and possibly also too James. Each one gave an account and all of those accounts were combined to create the Book of Revelation

so why would john introduce himself three times?

granpa
June 7th, 2017, 05:11 AM
so why would john introduce himself three times?

The first two occurrences appear to have been added by the redactor.

granpa
June 7th, 2017, 05:12 AM
Here: http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/Revelation

granpa
June 20th, 2017, 07:40 AM
Glad to help

chrysostom
August 2nd, 2017, 04:18 AM
the time is near -
this is john the baptist not the apostle -
talking about the first coming not the second

oatmeal
August 2nd, 2017, 04:45 AM
the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus (https://www.google.com/search?q=Victorinus+of+Pettau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius (https://www.google.com/search?q=eusebius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)?

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)


God authored all scripture. If you have questions, why not go to scripture to find out the answers?

God answered all questions pertaining to life and godliness in scripture. II Peter 1:3-4

Anything outside of life and godliness, well.

Why isn't God mentioned in Esther?

Do you want to know scripture or opinions about scripture?

If you want to learn scripture read scripture. Find an apostle or a prophet or an evangelist or pastor or teacher who is functioning as one and learn from them or someone who has learned from one of them.

Why didn't Jesus write a book in scripture? Because God had other things for him to do. Like redeeming man and making the gift of salvation available to everyone.

chrysostom
August 25th, 2017, 03:58 AM
Do you want to know scripture or opinions about scripture?


thank you for your opinion