PDA

View Full Version : Irenaeus and Victorinus



chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 04:12 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

HisServant
May 18th, 2012, 04:24 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

It has long been debated as to whether Revelations 3 obvious sections where written by 3 separate authors and later put together.

Which puts the entire book under suspicion, it also puts the canon committee under suspicion for accepting it into the bible. (There was much debate also about including the Apocalypse of Peter).

No other book in the bible has divided Christianity as Revelation has.

chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 04:27 AM
It has long been debated as to whether Revelations 3 obvious sections where written by 3 separate authors and later put together.

Which puts the entire book under suspicion, it also puts the canon committee under suspicion for accepting it into the bible. (There was much debate also about including the Apocalypse of Peter).

No other book in the bible has divided Christianity as Revelation has.

Christianity is divided
but
you can't blame it on Revelation

HisServant
May 18th, 2012, 04:36 AM
Christianity is divided
but
you can't blame it on Revelation

You can on the Protestant side... Dispensationalists are the ban of protestantism and it wasn't even a topic that the reformers debated.

chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 04:41 AM
You can on the Protestant side... Dispensationalists are the ban of protestantism and it wasn't even a topic that the reformers debated.

why do you think it is not debated more here?

HisServant
May 18th, 2012, 04:44 AM
why do you think it is not debated more here?

Because they are in the majority... and they have been so ingrained with their eschatology it's usually futile. When people grow up in a particular denomination whether it be a protestant or catholic sect, its very hard to break out of and see the truth.

And there has been quite a few topics on dispensationalism here in the past.

chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 04:50 AM
Because they are in the majority... and they have been so ingrained with their eschatology it's usually futile. When people grow up in a particular denomination whether it be a protestant or catholic sect, its very hard to break out of and see the truth.

And there has been quite a few topics on dispensationalism here in the past.

I really have not noticed your views on Revelation

HisServant
May 18th, 2012, 04:57 AM
I really have not noticed your views on Revelation

You would have to know the world view of a 1st century christian, as I am sure all the imagery and symbolism in Revelation would be plain as day to them.

My personal opinion is that the book is about the end of Judaism and not about the end of the world.

chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 05:03 AM
You would have to know the world view of a 1st century christian, as I am sure all the imagery and symbolism in Revelation would be plain as day to them.

My personal opinion is that the book is about the end of Judaism and not about the end of the world.

it has been suggested that John the Baptist wrote the first version
and
looking at chapters 4 thru 11 it does makes sense
and
others have reason to believe that it was first written in Hebrew
and
later translated into Greek

chrysostom
May 18th, 2012, 08:19 AM
this points to John the Baptist

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.

Revelation 5:6

King James Version (KJV)

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
February 27th, 2014, 06:23 AM
don't want to lose this thread

Desert Reign
February 27th, 2014, 08:57 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

I read the link to Irenaeus in reference to the 'ancient copies'. However, further on he mentions the following:


We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm); for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm) reign.So it seems the word 'ancient' is not as ancient as may appear.

Edit. Now had a look at Victorinus, though I am a little confused because the translation is only partial. It seems to be just selected examples of Victorinus' commentary. Clearly the editor didn't think it useful to include those verses where he is just commenting on factual details of the seven churches. But judging from the rest of the verses that are included, they are clearly there.


3. Victorinus of Pettau (260)
Commentarii in Apocalypsin [Commentaries on the Apocalypse]. This commentary was written about 260 by Victorinus of Pettau (Ptuj, Yugoslavia), who died in the Diocletian persecution around 304. ANF 7:344-60. English; Iohannes Haussleiter, ed. Victorini episcopi Petavionensis opera. CSEL 49. Leipzig, 1916. Latin edition that includes Victorinus’s commentary and Jerome’s recension in parallel; Reprinted in PLS I:102-72; Martine Dulaey, ed. Victorin de Poetovio. Sur l’Apocalypse. SC 423. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1997. Latin with French translation; PL 5:317-44. Latin. In 1994, Dulaey was working on a new critical edition of the commentary for the Corpus Christianorum series. Notice of it is in the booklet “Corpus Christianorum: Volumes in Progress.” Turnhout: Brepols, 1994, 11. By January 2008, William Weinrich of the Luther Academy in Latvia had completed and submitted an English translation of Victorinus’ Apocalypse commentary to InterVarsity Press for a new series of patristic biblical commentaries in translation. This new series will differ from their Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture in that it will provide translations of entire commentaries, not simply excerpts.Link (http://www.kerux.com/doc/2302A5.asp).

In other words, it seems you are simply looking at an incomplete translation of Victorinus' commentary.

I did also manage to track down an English translation (http://www.bombaxo.com/victapoc.html)of the whole commentary (which is quite brief) and the following comment on Revelation 1:7 appears conclusive.


7 The seven churches, each of which He calls by name, to whom the letters were composed, which are not the only or the principal churches. But what He says to one, He says to all. It makes no difference; whether a military troop of a small number of soldiers, or by it the whole army is indicated. Finally, as in Asia, so in the whole world: seven churches as all. Paul taught that the seven named are the one Catholic Church. Indeed, at first, so he might keep this (rule), he did not exceed the number of seven churches, but wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Galatians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians. Afterwards he wrote to individual people, but did not exceed the number of seven churches, as he summarized in brief in his preaching to Timothy: so that you will know how you must behave in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God.oI hope this helps and you are not too disappointed but the issue seems to revolve solely around incomplete information.

chrysostom
February 28th, 2014, 06:10 AM
I hope this helps and you are not too disappointed but the issue seems to revolve solely around incomplete information.


I am a little disappointed in that you completely ignore the fact that both Eusebius and Victorinus do not specifically name any of he churches that John wrote to in Revelation

can you explain this?

Desert Reign
February 28th, 2014, 06:54 AM
I am a little disappointed in that you completely ignore the fact that both Eusebius and Victorinus do not specifically name any of he churches that John wrote to in Revelation

can you explain this?

Victorinus' reason for not mentioning the churches by name is explained by himself in the quote above. However he certainly does allude to seven names. This is logical when you think how short the overall commentary is. The specific names were just not important to him.
As to Eusebius, if you can provide a link I will have a look.

Timotheos
February 28th, 2014, 07:02 AM
This may be off topic, but I don't think it is probable that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse of John. The book claims to have been written in Patmos, and John was in Ephesus.

I wouldn't have included it in the Canon, but I hesitate to say so now. It wasn't written by an apostle so it has no more authority than the false Apocalypse of "Peter".

chrysostom
March 1st, 2014, 04:30 AM
This may be off topic, but I don't think it is probable that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse of John. The book claims to have been written in Patmos, and John was in Ephesus.

I wouldn't have included it in the Canon, but I hesitate to say so now. It wasn't written by an apostle so it has no more authority than the false Apocalypse of "Peter".

what if it was written by John the Baptist?

musterion
March 1st, 2014, 09:49 PM
Don't know about the other guy but Victorinus makes some really cool knives.

resodko
March 26th, 2015, 07:44 AM
don't want to lose this thread

:noid:

dialm
March 26th, 2015, 05:41 PM
Tradition
Popes
Councils

In the Roman system the above were at least equal to scripture. It was up to Rome to decide what was and what was not. If you look at the first Reformer and the Pope who opposed him you might find that the two agreed that the book of Revelation was inferior, (all be it on different grounds).

chrysostom
March 26th, 2015, 06:08 PM
Tradition
Popes
Councils

In the Roman system the above were at least equal to scripture. It was up to Rome to decide what was and what was not. If you look at the first Reformer and the Pope who opposed him you might find that the two agreed that the book of Revelation was inferior, (all be it on different grounds).

many do not understand it
but
are inspired by it

it could be the most significant book in the bible

wordsponge
March 26th, 2015, 09:17 PM
Anything from the Prophets and the Apostles??

dialm
March 27th, 2015, 12:39 AM
many do not understand it
but
are inspired by it

it could be the most significant book in the bible

One of the problems with the book is that it is circular. It doesn't really go anywhere. Sure it was fun at first to walk around in the wilderness having shoes that never wore out. But after about forty years of eating dust it got kind of boring.

chrysostom
March 27th, 2015, 03:13 AM
One of the problems with the book is that it is circular. .

it does repeat itself
but
that is a necessary learning tool

Caino
March 27th, 2015, 05:20 AM
falls on deaf ears I'm sure but for what it's worth this is from my religion the Urantia revelation:




"Several years after the martyrdom of James, John married his brother’s widow. The last twenty years of his life he was cared for by a loving granddaughter.

John was in prison several times and was banished to the Isle of Patmos for a period of four years until another emperor came to power in Rome. Had not John been tactful and sagacious, he would undoubtedly have been killed as was his more outspoken brother James. As the years passed, John, together with James the Lord’s brother, learned to practice wise conciliation when they appeared before the civil magistrates. They found that a “soft answer turns away wrath.” They also learned to represent the church as a “spiritual brotherhood devoted to the social service of mankind” rather than as “the kingdom of heaven.” They taught loving service rather than ruling power — kingdom and king.

When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John’s writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.

John traveled much, labored incessantly, and after becoming bishop of the Asia churches, settled down at Ephesus. He directed his associate, Nathan, in the writing of the so-called “Gospel according to John,” at Ephesus, when he was ninety-nine years old. Of all the twelve apostles, John Zebedee eventually became the outstanding theologian. He died a natural death at Ephesus in A.D. 103 when he was one hundred and one years of age."

dialm
March 28th, 2015, 04:01 AM
it does repeat itself
but
that is a necessary learning tool

Wouldn't it be great if we could all go to The Middle East and find a pack of poorly dressed tent people walking aimlessly in circles out in the desert eating stale bread and threading the original population of the area?

What a learning experience!

Maybe we could call it the University of the Intellectually Deficient.

What do you think?

Timotheos
March 28th, 2015, 04:19 AM
what if it was written by John the Baptist?

Sorry for the long delay in answering, I forgot about this thread. :doh:

If it were written by John the Baptist, then I would include it for the reason that Jesus had respect for John. But how could John the Baptist have written it? When was he ever in Patmos?

The Apocalypse of John is an interesting book, but I wouldn't include it as inspired by God. It is a letter written by one of the early Christians, so it is worth reading, but doctrines shouldn't be based solely on the Apocalypse. Caution is necessary.

chrysostom
March 28th, 2015, 05:28 AM
Sorry for the long delay in answering, I forgot about this thread. :doh:

If it were written by John the Baptist, then I would include it for the reason that Jesus had respect for John. But how could John the Baptist have written it? When was he ever in Patmos?

The Apocalypse of John is an interesting book, but I wouldn't include it as inspired by God. It is a letter written by one of the early Christians, so it is worth reading, but doctrines shouldn't be based solely on the Apocalypse. Caution is necessary.

no one is saying john the baptist was in patmos
but
it has been suggested that he wrote the first version
and
it was later redacted by another john

this would explain the ancient copies referred to by irenaeus
and
why victorinus didn't know about the churches

I have another thread about this

the three johns (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3967530#post3967530)

chrysostom
June 1st, 2015, 06:36 AM
Commentary on the Apocalypse (Victorinus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)

he mentions the seven churches of paul
but
not the ones in the apocalypse

his version didn't have them

chrysostom
June 17th, 2015, 03:58 AM
victorinus does not mention antipas

northwye
June 17th, 2015, 07:06 AM
There have been a number of recent threads on the issues of dispensationalism on TOL. Nang, a woman, recently got booted out and she was critical of dispensationalism from the point of view of traditional Calvinism. I am not sure what she wrote that got her booted out. But it would seem that more attention here is paid to critical points made against dispensationalism when the writer is coming from within the Church and not from outside the Church.

On the issue that the Book of Revelation adds new doctrines not in other books of the Bible, most of the doctrines in Revelation are not entirely new but Revelation adds important doctrines to other New Testament doctrines. For example, II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 and Luke 13: 18-21, plus some verses in I and II Timothy (II Timothy 3: 4,-5,7-8, 4: 3, for example) predict a falling away from sound doctrine. Revelation 18: 23 adds that the voices of Christ and those who are his are no longer heard, and Revelation 18: 2 describes the multitude who claim to be Christians, after this falling away, as Babylon, saying it is inhabited by devils and foul spirits, and Revelation 18: 4 calls those who belong to Christ out of Babylon, lest they be partakers of Babylon's judgment.

A big reason why Revelation is not liked is because so much of it is written in the language of metaphor, and many in the churches have been taught that all scripture must be interpreted literally and not "spiritualized."

In addition, the doctrine on the remnant is found in Revelation (Revelation 7:1-8, 14: 1-5, and Revelation 12: 17. The remnant is found in Romans 9: 27 and in Romans 11: 1-5, but there the remnant is from Isaiah 10: 20-22, and can be seen as the remnant of Old Covenant Israel. Although the principle of the remnant in Old Covenant Israel is the same as in New Covenant Israel, the two references in Revelation are to a remnant in the end time, during the era of the New Covenant. Revelation 7: 1-8 and 14: 1-5 are called the 144,000 but it is a remnant in the end times of the period of the New Covenant. The 144,000 is not a timeless allegory to all saved people of all times.

The Church has not taught the principle of the remnant, that God has at several times, used a remnant to began again his plan of redemption when the multitude has fallen into false doctrines and false practices. Though I do not know exactly where he is coming from, Frank McEleny in May 2015 published a book, The Fall of Christendom and the Separation of the Remnant: Are You A Part of God's Remnant?

chrysostom
June 17th, 2015, 07:19 AM
the internet is bringing the good news to all nations
in every language
it may not look the way you want it to look
but
it is there for everyone to see and hear
there will be no excuses

northwye
June 17th, 2015, 07:48 AM
Yes, the Open Source movement within the Internet brings with it freedom of speech. All kinds of false Christian doctrines can be promoted on Internet sites as well as the truth from scripture and the Holy Spirit. As McEleny's 2015 book title says there is a separation of the remnant and that remnant is using the Internet now to communicate, not only with others, but with itself, that is, remnant people scattered communicate with one another on the Internet.

But there is now a reaction against the Open Source movement and against freedom of speech on the Internet. It is likely to become harder and harder to find free blog sites or free social media sites that will allow posting of any Bible studies, whether remnant or Church-centered.

chrysostom
October 8th, 2015, 05:41 AM
Yes, the Open Source movement within the Internet brings with it freedom of speech. All kinds of false Christian doctrines can be promoted on Internet sites as well as the truth from scripture and the Holy Spirit.

your job is to promote your truth while you still can

fzappa13
October 8th, 2015, 07:33 AM
On the issue that the Book of Revelation adds new doctrines not in other books of the Bible, most of the doctrines in Revelation are not entirely new but Revelation adds important doctrines to other New Testament doctrines.

There is precious little in Revelation that cannot be found in the Old Testament. For this reason alone I can understand its inclusion in accepted cannon.

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 04:02 AM
There is precious little in Revelation that cannot be found in the Old Testament. For this reason alone I can understand its inclusion in accepted cannon.

it is in
and
that is all you have to understand

more are moved by it
than
by the rest of the bible

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 04:28 AM
this points to John the Baptist

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.

Revelation 5:6

King James Version (KJV)

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.

One is Amnos and one is Arnion: know and understand the difference according to the scripture writings and you will know why the Son of God has only one faithful witness among men, (and it was not the "Antipas" of 92CE from your other thread). :chuckle:

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 04:36 AM
One is Amnos and one is Arnion: know and understand the difference according to the scripture writings and you will know why the Son of God has only one faithful witness among men

john the baptist

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 05:14 AM
john the baptist

Like this:

John 1:29
29. The next day Yochanan sees Yeshua coming unto him, and says, Behold the Amnos of Elohim, which takes up-away the sin of the world.

Acts 8:32 (Isaiah 53:7 LXX-Septuagint)
32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like an amnos dumb before the shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

John 21:15
15. When therefore they had supped, Yeshua said unto Shimon Peter, Shimon, son of Yochanan, love you me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Master, you know that I love you. He says unto him, Pasture my arnia.

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 05:20 AM
Like this:

John 1:29
29. The next day Yochanan sees Yeshua coming unto him, and says, Behold the Amnos of Elohim, which takes up-away the sin of the world.

Acts 8:32 (Isaiah 53:7 LXX-Septuagint)
32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like an amnos dumb before the shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

John 21:15
15. When therefore they had supped, Yeshua said unto Shimon Peter, Shimon, son of Yochanan, love you me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Master, you know that I love you. He says unto him, Pasture my arnia.

just search the bible for lamb

27 out of 33 are from the apocalypse

john the baptist is the only one who refers to Jesus as the lamb of God

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 05:31 AM
just search the bible for lamb

27 out of 33 are from the apocalypse

john the baptist is the only one who refers to Jesus as the lamb of God

EVERY instance in the apocalypse is arnion. :crackup:
He that has the bride is the groom. :)

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 05:36 AM
EVERY instance in the apocalypse is arnion. :crackup:
He that has the bride is the groom. :)

what does john the baptist mean when he says lamb of God?

dialm
October 29th, 2015, 06:48 AM
your job is to promote your truth while you still can

More job offers from Rome.

Shall we discuss some more truth promotion the roman way?
Yes we should.

The Roman church promotes marriage at the same time it destroys marriage.

The Roman church feeds the poor at the same time it denies food to the poor.

The Roman church promotes brotherly love especially for its priests.

What other truth promo's should we discuss at the job interview.

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 07:10 AM
what does john the baptist mean when he says lamb of God?

If you mean the statements from John 1:29 and John 1:36 the word is Amnos which is meant in a feminine sense because the Hebrew from Isaiah 53:7 is RACHEL, (essentially the same as the name Rachel and therefore related prophetically speaking). Yeshua likens the soul and the flesh in the feminine gender in many instances throughout his allegories, parables, idioms, and sayings, and the same is true throughout the prophets as "the flesh" is always spoken of in the feminine gender, whether for the good, or whether for the evil, (like Egypt, "great of flesh", and signifies "the flesh" which Paul speaks much about). However Arnion is masculine, like as is every son of Elohim, those having been born of Elohim into the kingdom of Elohim. Messiah Yeshua the Son of Elohim has one totally faithful and true witness as the first among men, that is, the man Yeshua who became one with Messiah the Son of God at the immersion under Yochanan. Thus there was Yeshua a son of Elohim, and Yeshua the Son of Elohim, and now they are one. But you must realize that, when reading the book of the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua, you are reading the Revelation of the one who was slain from the foundation of the world, that is, the Memra-Logos-Word of Elohim. If therefore we have and hold the full Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness we then become one with him, as brethren, and he is one with Messiah, and Messiah the Memra-Logos is one with the Father.

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 07:14 AM
If you mean the statements from John 1:29 and John 1:36 the word is Amnos which is meant in a feminine sense because the Hebrew from Isaiah 53:7 is RACHEL, (essentially the same as the name Rachel and therefore related prophetically speaking). Yeshua likens the soul and the flesh in the feminine gender in many instances throughout his allegories, parables, idioms, and sayings, and the same is true throughout the prophets as "the flesh" is always spoken of in the feminine gender, whether for the good, or whether for the evil, (like Egypt, "great of flesh", and signifies "the flesh" which Paul speaks much about). However Arnion is masculine, like as is every son of Elohim, those having been born of Elohim into the kingdom of Elohim. Messiah Yeshua the Son of Elohim has one totally faithful and true witness as the first among men, that is, the man Yeshua who became one with Messiah the Son of God at the immersion under Yochanan. Thus there was Yeshua a son of Elohim, and Yeshua the Son of Elohim, and now they are one. But you must realize that, when reading the book of the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua, you are reading the Revelation of the one who was slain from the foundation of the world, that is, the Memra-Logos-Word of Elohim. If therefore we have and hold the full Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness we then become one with him, as brethren, and he is one with Messiah, and Messiah the Memra-Logos is one with the Father.

was Jesus the lamb of God?

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 08:51 AM
was Jesus the lamb of God?

Yes, of course, according to the scripture! :confused:

Here is one example of the soul being reckoned in the feminine gender:

John 10:17-18
17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, [psuchen - feminine] that I might receive her [auten - feminine] again.
18. No one takes her [auten - feminine] from me, but I lay her [auten - feminine] down of myself: I have authority to lay her [auten - feminine] down, and I have authority to receive her [auten - feminine] again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Here is another directed at all disciples of Yeshua:

Matthew 16:23-27
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any 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-destroy her: and whosoever will 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 each one according to his works.

Perhaps there is a little more to "rightly dividing" than most would care to understand? :)

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 09:03 AM
Yes, of course, according to the scripture! :confused:


why didn't you just say that when I asked?

instead of a long post that is not clear

fzappa13
October 29th, 2015, 09:07 AM
it is in
and
that is all you have to understand

more are moved by it
than
by the rest of the bible

In my experience I think more have been befuddled by it and tend to avoid it. It's one of the reasons documenting its O.T. origins and parallels became something of a hobby for me. I mean, Daniel is a no brainer but most of the rest of it is there in the O.T. as well ... it's just gathered and presented in a different and unique way.

chrysostom
October 29th, 2015, 09:11 AM
In my experience I think more have been befuddled by it and tend to avoid it. It's one of the reasons documenting its O.T. origins and parallels became something of a hobby for me. I mean, Daniel is a no brainer but most of the rest of it is there in the O.T. as well ... it's just gathered and presented in a different and unique way.

do you have any idea how many books on the apocalypse have been written and sold?

fzappa13
October 29th, 2015, 09:16 AM
do you have any idea how many books on the apocalypse have been written and sold?

Nope.

daqq
October 29th, 2015, 09:33 AM
why didn't you just say that when I asked?

instead of a long post that is not clear

As far as I have seen that was the first time you asked that question and I answered it in the post you have now quoted. However you did not specify whether you meant AMNOS or ARNION so the answer that time was, of course, yes. But as already stated; knowing the difference between the two is one of the great keys to understanding what you appear to be seeking. Without it, this thread can go on for a thousand years and you will not receive your answer. Have a nice thread. :)

chrysostom
November 11th, 2015, 08:58 AM
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse

SaulToPaul
November 11th, 2015, 10:39 AM
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse

:chuckle:

:doh:

Wick Stick
November 25th, 2015, 02:08 PM
Yes, of course, according to the scripture! :confused:

Here is one example of the soul being reckoned in the feminine gender:

John 10:17-18
17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, [psuchen - feminine] that I might receive her [auten - feminine] again.
18. No one takes her [auten - feminine] from me, but I lay her [auten - feminine] down of myself: I have authority to lay her [auten - feminine] down, and I have authority to receive her [auten - feminine] again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Here is another directed at all disciples of Yeshua:

Matthew 16:23-27
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any 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-destroy her: and whosoever will 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 each one according to his works.

Perhaps there is a little more to "rightly dividing" than most would care to understand? :)
You're not wrong, but it's probably not the point Jesus was making in that verse, either.

There is the form and there is the substance. All words pertaining to the form are cased as masculine in Greek, Hebrew, and all other Semitic languages. Likewise, all pertaining to the substance are feminine. It is no coincidence that the root of the word material is mater (mother).

Jarrod

daqq
November 25th, 2015, 03:51 PM
You're not wrong, but it's probably not the point Jesus was making in that verse, either.

There is the form and there is the substance. All words pertaining to the form are cased as masculine in Greek, Hebrew, and all other Semitic languages. Likewise, all pertaining to the substance are feminine. It is no coincidence that the root of the word material is mater (mother).

Jarrod

No saying has a single point: there be seven messengers in every word and therefore we do not despise the brother who on the surface may appear to disagree because we now know it is a test to see who loves and who hates. :)

chrysostom
December 16th, 2015, 05:27 AM
No saying has a single point: there be seven messengers in every word and therefore we do not despise the brother who on the surface may appear to disagree because we now know it is a test to see who loves and who hates. :)

it is a test

is that word in your bible?

daqq
December 16th, 2015, 05:47 AM
it is a test

is that word in your bible?

If you mean English it depends on the translation one might choose:

1 John 4:1 RSV (Revised Standard Version)
1. BELOVED, DO not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1 John 4:1 NIV (New International Version)
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1 John 4:1 ESV (English Standard Version)
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Strong's Ref. #1381
Romanized dokimazo
Pronounced dok-im-ad'-zo
from GSN1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication, to approve:
KJV--allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-)prove, try.

chrysostom
December 16th, 2015, 05:55 AM
If you mean English it depends on the translation one might choose:

I chose the nab (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PSX.HTM)
and
it is the only place you will find this:

10

Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it.

daqq
December 16th, 2015, 06:07 AM
Here is an example of what I meant in the post you quoted:

Matthew 16:5-12 KJV
5. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9. Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Mark 8:13-16 KJV
13. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.
14. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
15. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

Both of the above portions relate the exact same occasion but Matthew-Levi hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees", while Mark-Peter hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod". Is one of them wrong? Absolutely not but rather each of them heard what the Spirit had prepared for him to hear at that time. Therefore beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the leaven of the Sadducees, and the leaven of Herod, for the kingdom of the heavens is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. :crackup:

daqq
December 16th, 2015, 06:28 AM
I chose the nab (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PSX.HTM)
and
it is the only place you will find this:

10

Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it.

In the Old Greek Septuagint, (not Theodotion which I did not check) I see a form of GSN#3985 peirazo, πειρασθωσι, (peirasthosi) which is used extensively throughout the Apostolic Writings, (not the form but the same word) and several places in the Revelation, (i.e. of Smyrna in Rev 2:10). It seems more like a temptation kind of trial or test but, except for that, pretty much holds the same meaning as dokimazo:

Daniel 12:10 LXX (Old Greek)
πειρασθωσι και αγιασθωσι πολλοι και αμαρτωσιν οι αμαρτωλοι και ου μη διανοηθωσι παντες οι αμαρτωλοι και οι διανοουμενοι προσεξουσιν
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/27_012.htm

Strong's Ref. #3985
Romanized peirazo
Pronounced pi-rad'-zo
from GSN3984; to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline:
KJV--assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.

SabathMoon
December 16th, 2015, 06:35 AM
there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect thisThere really aren't any reasons to suspect it. really...

chrysostom
December 16th, 2015, 06:41 AM
There really aren't any reasons to suspect it. really...

the reasons are in the opening post

did you read it?

chrysostom
January 7th, 2016, 04:48 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

the opening post

chrysostom
January 28th, 2016, 04:36 AM
not everyone will understand this

you are not supposed to

chrysostom
February 19th, 2016, 05:13 AM
this is one of the more interesting things we can learn from history

what they don't say is telling
or
the dog that didn't bark

chrysostom
March 17th, 2016, 04:34 AM
-the only thing that makes sense
-is
-there was more than one version of the apocalypse

chrysostom
March 30th, 2016, 02:52 AM
the first version was written by john the baptist
-because
-the time was near

chrysostom
April 19th, 2016, 03:59 AM
what did they know?
-and
-when did they know it?

chrysostom
May 17th, 2016, 03:59 AM
this is just one piece of the puzzle

Wick Stick
May 17th, 2016, 08:50 AM
In history, it is usual to find that someone has written an apocryphon (gr: hidden) first, and then later either the same author or a student of his versed in the meaning of the apocryphon annotates the former work with notes illuminating the meaning, which is called an apocalypse (gr: revealed).

If that is so...

Who wrote the apocryphon that came before the apocalypse?

Wick Stick
May 17th, 2016, 08:55 AM
You would have to know the world view of a 1st century christian, as I am sure all the imagery and symbolism in Revelation would be plain as day to them.

My personal opinion is that the book is about the end of Judaism and not about the end of the world.
Actually, you would need to be a first century Jew. Almost all of the imagery is pulled from either the Old Testament, or other Jewish literature.

Jarrod

Danoh
May 17th, 2016, 11:58 AM
In history, it is usual to find that someone has written an apocryphon (gr: hidden) first, and then later either the same author or a student of his versed in the meaning of the apocryphon annotates the former work with notes illuminating the meaning, which is called an apocalypse (gr: revealed).

If that is so...

Who wrote the apocryphon that came before the apocalypse?

That's an interesting question.

Daniel is its answer.

But this even as he was opening up Jeremiah's.

Itself based on Deuteronomy.

Which went back to...

Wick Stick
May 17th, 2016, 12:27 PM
That's an interesting question.

Daniel is its answer.

But this even as he was opening up Jeremiah's.

Itself based on Deuteronomy.

Which went back to...
That's an interesting answer. :)

I think Daniel makes a good answer, if we are talking about the middle section of the book.

The first part of Revelation, containing the epistles to the churches, appears to build off an original vision, though. I don't remember stars and candlesticks in Daniel.

And even in the main body, there are allusions to Isaiah (e.g. 6 winged seraphs) and others, as you already mentioned, as well as what appears to be original material that extends Daniel (e.g. the prominently featured bottomless pit).

The final few chapters also seem to build on original material.

Jarrod

chrysostom
June 15th, 2016, 04:42 AM
In history, it is usual to find that someone has written an apocryphon (gr: hidden) first, and then later either the same author or a student of his versed in the meaning of the apocryphon annotates the former work with notes illuminating the meaning, which is called an apocalypse (gr: revealed).

If that is so...

Who wrote the apocryphon that came before the apocalypse?

john the baptist

chrysostom
July 5th, 2016, 04:17 AM
history is all we have
-many are trying to rewrite it
-others just ignore it
-we can learn from it
-we can preserve it
-it comes down to who you trust

chrysostom
July 26th, 2016, 04:31 AM
what did they know and when did they know it

chrysostom
August 13th, 2016, 03:26 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

what didn't they know and why didn't they know it

Crucible
August 13th, 2016, 12:25 PM
Reformed doctrine is not eschatological, it is an explanation of general theology contrary to the Catholic Church.

There was little need to bring up Revelation, except perhaps to point out that the Catholic Church resembles an incredible amount of what John details as the Whore of Babylon.

But that was after the fact- Luther and Calvin had already propagated their beliefs before any mention that the Pope was a son of perdition.

chrysostom
September 22nd, 2016, 09:42 AM
There was little need to bring up Revelation, except perhaps to point out that the Catholic Church resembles an incredible amount of what John details as the Whore of Babylon.


that is why I started all this

chrysostom
October 1st, 2016, 01:37 AM
chapters 4 through 11 do not mention the name Jesus
-but-
the Lamb is mentioned just like john the baptist did
-and-
the time was indeed near when he prepared the way

chrysostom
October 13th, 2016, 10:07 AM
the time in near

chrysostom
October 24th, 2016, 03:49 AM
when john the baptist first wrote the apocalypse -
the time was near

chrysostom
October 31st, 2016, 06:56 AM
irenaeus, victorinus, and eusebius only saw the apocalypse written by john the baptist

chrysostom
November 9th, 2016, 11:38 AM
what did they know?
-and-
when did they know it?

chrysostom
November 22nd, 2016, 05:39 AM
the ancient copies (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm) spoken of by irenaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) were written by john the baptist

SaulToPaul
November 23rd, 2016, 11:23 AM
the ancient copies (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm) spoken of by irenaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) were written by john the baptist

:chuckle:

chrysostom
December 8th, 2016, 06:37 AM
:chuckle:

thanks for watching

chrysostom
December 16th, 2016, 05:48 AM
the only history some people look at is the old testament

chrysostom
December 28th, 2016, 04:40 AM
history is the key to understanding the apocalypse

chrysostom
January 11th, 2017, 05:34 AM
the dog that didn't bark
-
what they don't say can be significant

chrysostom
January 30th, 2017, 06:38 AM
so what were they looking at?
-
the first version of the apocalypse -
written by john the baptist to prepare the way for the Lamb

chrysostom
March 4th, 2017, 05:55 AM
the time was near (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A3&version=NKJV) when john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse

chrysostom
April 1st, 2017, 04:55 AM
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm)
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

it was written originally in hebrew and later translated to greek

chrysostom
May 9th, 2017, 04:00 AM
what did they know and when did they know it?
-and-
why?

patrick jane
May 9th, 2017, 04:08 AM
what did they know and when did they know it?
-and-
why?Yes, that is interesting

chrysostom
June 5th, 2017, 05:53 AM
jerome and victorinus (https://apocalypse2blog.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/jerome-and-victorinus/)

patrick jane
June 5th, 2017, 07:09 AM
Chrys is inextricably stuck in a fantasy world

chrysostom
July 12th, 2017, 03:36 AM
thanks for watching

chrysostom
August 14th, 2017, 02:45 AM
the fathers of the church (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html) -
a valuable source of what they wrote

chrysostom
September 7th, 2017, 03:58 AM
"ancient copies" were written by john the baptist