Irenaeus and Victorinus
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
the opening post
not everyone will understand this
you are not supposed to
you are not supposed to
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
what they don't say is telling
or
the dog that didn't bark
-the only thing that makes sense
-is
-there was more than one version of the apocalypse
-is
-there was more than one version of the apocalypse
the first version was written by john the baptist
-because
-the time was near
-because
-the time was near
what did they know?
-and
-when did they know it?
-and
-when did they know it?
this is just one piece of the puzzle
Wick Stick
Well-known member
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?
If that is so...
Who wrote the apocryphon that came before the apocalypse?
Wick Stick
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
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
john the baptist
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
-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
what did they know and when did they know it
what didn't they know and why didn't they know it
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.
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.
that is why I started all this
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
-but-
the Lamb is mentioned just like john the baptist did
-and-
the time was indeed near when he prepared the way
the time in near