I love that story. The thing is there's got to be a murder, or some other catastrophic event of which within the context, a dog that didn't bark matters.
There's no such thing in this enterprise of yours. You're tilting at windmills. It doesn't matter that a dog didn't bark. There was no murder, there was no disaster (such that we need to find the perpetrato)r. "A dog didn't bark."—but we're not looking for any suspect, because there is no crime. A dog that didn't bark is awesome, but there's no crime to explain here. The dog didn't bark because—who cares? It doesn't matter the dog didn't bark—because there's no crime to explain, no mystery to solve. You need itt to demonstrate, to prove, that there's a real problem that you're solving. A dog not barking is great once you can show a crime's been committed.
I love that story, that mystery story. I love that. "A dog that didn't bark."
A Commentary Without The Churches -
A history that doesn't connect the dots.
Victorinus does not mention the seven churches.
Eusebius does not associate the churches with the Apocalypse. They are looking at the original Apocalypse written by John the Baptist. It does not have the seven churches that were later added by John the Apostle. Really. 25
You're interpreting Victorinus and Eusebius in a particular and partisan way, your view isn't even the majority view. You need to prove that it is the right view, not just a popular minority view. We already know it's minority, explain, prove, why we should think otherwise. Then we'll care about a dog that didn't bark. He didn't bark because there was no break-in. If there were a break-in, he would have barked. But there was no break-in. That's what you're saying. So seems to support the majority report, that there's nothing wrong with the book of Revelation, or our genealogical understanding of it. We differ in interpretation of Revelation, but not its original, Revelation is the Word of God.
