the three johns

[chrysostom]

three johns
three versions
it is the only reasonable explanation

 

[chrysostom]

why would john introduce himself three times?
-he didn't

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

why would john introduce himself three times?
-he didn't

:chuckle:

 

[TulipBee]

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?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius?

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

"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]

john the baptist was the first to write the apocalypse
-the time was near
-and
-he had to prepare the way

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

john the baptist was the first to write the apocalypse

:jawdrop:

 

[chrysostom]

the time is near

 

[chrysostom]

when john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-the time was near

 

[HisServant]

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?

why aren't the churches acknowledge in the church history written by Eusebius?

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

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

 

[patrick jane]

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]

My favorite Johns are the chocolate long johns from my local bakery

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

]when john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
-the time was near

:chuckle:

 

[chrysostom]

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]

-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]

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

 

[chrysostom]

this is just another piece of the puzzle
-but it fits

 

[chrysostom]

john doesn't introduce himself three times
-there are three johns

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

john doesn't introduce himself three times
-there are three johns

:chuckle:

 

[chrysostom]

:chuckle:

how many johns do you think there are?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

how many johns do you think there are?

One that wrote Revelation.