Was John really "banished" to Patmos? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Richard Amiel McGough

02-23-2010, 09:59 PM

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-24-2010, 12:13 AM

There is a catholic? tradition that John was taken to be killed like some of the other apostles under Nero, but that in the Arena, he was put in a pot of boiling oil, but came out unharmed. The people left the arena in a mass conversion of faith. Nero (and the empire) could not afford something like this again, so they sent him to the prison island of Patmos. I have heard an application that the phrase: harm not the oil nor the wine, was indirectly associated with John as being the beloved of the Spirit (oil and wine), but this would also be an extended application to the remnant within Judea at that time.

So, like the other apostles, he was supposed to be 'killed' (beheaded) and thus the association in the two verses.

I tried to do some research as to if and when Patmos was begun to be used as a prison island. I was hoping to confirm perhaps that it was during Nero but not Domitian. But, if I remember correctly, it was used for such as far back as the Greek empire, with various levels of re-usage from time to time.

Wikipedia article.

According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that all in the entire Colosseum audience were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle.

There is a tale of the Roman soldiers during the wars of Judea; in one city boiling alive some of those remaining in the city in oil as they confessed that their military and civil losses were due to their having failed to believe in Jesus; the coming of the Messiah. This would have been a method of death during Nero then obviously, but could it also have existed during Domitian. Domitians persecustions were thought to be nothing like Nero's, in fact some historians struggle to find evidence of a true persecution and death, but rather only imprisonments and beatings during Domitians reign.

TheForgiven

02-24-2010, 04:23 AM

This kind of ties into the Dating of Revelation debate. One of the main arguments used by late daters (AD95) is that John was "banished" to Patmos by Domitian. (Mainly based on Iraneaus' arguably criptic quote.) The early daters (pre-AD70) say he was banished there by Nero.

But if he wasn't banished at all, just there spreading the Gospel, it seems that would place him there as a "younger" man, not one who was in his mid to late 90's.

Check out these to verses:

Rev 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then [I saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received [his] mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The beheaded souls were not banished - just martyred for preaching the Gospel. If John uses essentially the same words to describe his reason for being on Patmos, why is it said he was banished by either Domitian or Nero? Don't these parallel verses suggest he was not there against his will?

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Peace to you,
Dave

Greetings brother Dave! It's been a while, and I'm glad to see you.

This is a great point you've brought up. I could see where it makes sense. And while it is possible St. John chose to go to Patmos for the spreading of the word, I'd say he was more than likely banished. At the same time, you would think that John would have said, "I John was sent to the Island called Patmos because of my testimony of the Word of God...." Instead all he says is he was "on the island of Patmos...", thus indicating that it was by his choice or motivation, and not banishment.

This is interesting indeed.

You also correctly state that the first to write of John's banishment by Domitian was Iranaeus. What's VERY interesting is the amount of hear-say that his groups were entangled with. Nearly everything Iranaeus and his camp used to persuade their audience was direct communication with the Apostles; they tried to usurp apostolic connection in order to strengthen their testimony. To date, I've found no other Church father prior to him that suggested John was banished to Patmos by Domitian. Now later Church Fathers, to include St. Eusebius of the 3rd century, copied Iranaeus's story of John's banishment by Domitian. Tertullian, on the other hand, claimed John was banished by Nero Caesar. The problem is Tertullian, in another portion of his writing, claimed that Domitian reigned 15 total years, and was also the one who set St. John free from the island. [I don't have the source of his writings, but I got this information from another website. As soon as I locate the source, I'll post the link]

So how St. John could be banished by Nero Caesar, and then set free nearly 20+ years later by Domitian, is a bit difficult to chew. Obviously, more research is required on this. Other than that, there isn't much solidity with the claim that John was banished by Nero Caesar. The only source comes from Tertullian. Unfortunately, like Iranaeus, Tertullian was not without error in his writings as well.

SO, as we can see, it all comes down to Hear-Say; the early church did it, and here we are 2000+ years later still relying on Hear-Say. :lol:

What a wretched group we are....Naaaaa, not really.

God bless you all!

Joe

Screaming Eagle

02-24-2010, 09:19 AM

I'd come to understand that John was in Ephesus as something of an overseer over that whole region. The verse in chap 1 indicates to me that he was testifying of Jesus (maybe the last remaining live witness) and the 'word' of God. I'll have to look up what 'word' is used for 'word' there. Is it rhema or logos?

The Rev 20 passage that he received revelation of 'in the day of the Lord' (not a Saturday regular Sabbath?) is of what was to be or maybe had begun at that time. It's like he was 'seeing' into the future from where he was at that time in history. AND it was also of Christ Who indeed is the end of all things.

Just to add to the discussion, I read one tradition (who knows how valid it is) that once released from Patmos, John went back to Ephesus, prophesied and the temple of Diana came crashing down around him. It still essentially lays in rubble to this day as far as I know.

gregoryfl

02-24-2010, 10:42 AM

Greetings brother Dave! It's been a while, and I'm glad to see you.

This is a great point you've brought up. I could see where it makes sense. And while it is possible St. John chose to go to Patmos for the spreading of the word, I'd say he was more than likely banished. At the same time, you would think that John would have said, "I John was sent to the Island called Patmos because of my testimony of the Word of God...." Instead all he says is he was "on the island of Patmos...", thus indicating that it was by his choice or motivation, and not banishment.

This is interesting indeed.

God bless you all!

JoeWell, actually that is precisely what John was communicating. :) First of all, the phrase "for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ" DOES mean "because of" in this instance. Notice the same usage a little later on, where believers are slain 'dia' "because of the Word of God and because of the testimony which they held." They were not slain so that they could be in heaven under the altar spreading the Word of God and their testimony. They were slain because of it, just as John was on Patmos because of the same reasons.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-24-2010, 11:29 AM

So how St. John could be banished by Nero Caesar, and then set free nearly 20+ years later by Domitian, is a bit difficult to chew. Other than that, there isn't much solidity with the claim that John was banished by Nero Caesar. The only source comes from Tertullian. Unfortunately, like Iranaeus, Tertullian was not without error in his writings as well.

SO, as we can see, it all comes down to Hear-Say; the early church did it, and here we are 2000+ years later still relying on Hear-Say. :lol:

What a wretched group we are....Naaaaa, not really.

God bless you all!

Joe
One thought is that there was a second imprisonment during Domitian, which when it involved John, became so unpopular that Domitian almost had to release him. There is alot of early date evidence presented here. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html

From the heading of the book of Syriac Peshitta which parts are dated anywhere from 100 to 600 AD. http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock_apocalypse.htm

The Apocalypse.
The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in
the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.

I agree that some of what the modern church has established as 'doctrine' and accepted as truth may come from "heresay" of what some of the early writers recorded. And as you noted, many things are not in agreement between them. I think Ireneous is especially questionable.. :winking0071:

gregoryfl

02-24-2010, 12:58 PM

basilfo

02-24-2010, 03:37 PM

Good comments guys. The point is that I don't find "banishment" anywhere in Scripture - in fact, exegesis involving Rev 20:4 seems to indicate the opposite.

Rose

02-24-2010, 05:46 PM

What if the Domitian who is said to have banished John was actually Nero? I remember reading somewhere that that was one of the legal names Nero was called. This is not widely known, which is probably the reason for the confusion as to WHICH Domitian is referred to.

Ron

Here's a Link (http://www.the-colosseum.net/history/imperatores.htm)to a site that gives Nero's full name as Nero Lucius Domitius, so it stands to reason that he could have been referred to by "Domitius" which is very close to "Domitian" hence the possible confusion.

Rose

TheForgiven

02-24-2010, 07:55 PM

Here's a story posted on the web from a forum but the poster failed to provide a link. I'll post the entire story of St. John's banishment by Nero Caesar, and the link where I obtained this story. If I'm not mistaken, this story is taken from a Catholic encyclopedia.

Enjoy reading it....sounds very compelling and quite true.

The Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian was the son of Zebedee and Salomia -- a daughter of Saint Joseph the Betrothed. Together at the same time with his elder brother James, he was called by our Lord Jesus Christ to be numbered amongst His Apostles, which took place at Lake Gennesareth (i.e. the Sea of Galilee). Leaving behind their father, both brothers followed the Lord.

The Apostle John was especially beloved by the Saviour for his sacrificial love and his virginal purity. After his calling, the Apostle John did not part from the Lord, and he was one of the three apostles, who were particularly close to Him. Saint John the Theologian was present when the Lord resuscitated to life the daughter of Jairus, and he was a witness to the Transfiguration of the Lord on Mount Tabor. During the time of the Last Supper, he reclined next to the Lord, and at a gesture from the Apostle Peter, he pressed nigh to the bosom of the Saviour and asked the name of the betrayer. The Apostle John followed after the Lord, when they led Him bound from the Garden of Gethsemane to the court of the iniquitous high-priests Annas and Caiphas. He was there in the courtyard of the high-priest during the interrogations of his Divine Teacher and he resolutely followed after him on the way of the Cross, grieving with all his heart. At the foot of the Cross he went together with the Mother of God and heard addressed to Her from atop the Cross the words of the Crucified Lord: "Woman, behold Thy son" and to him "Behold thy Mother" (Jn 19:26-27). And from that moment the Apostle John, like a loving son, concerned himself over the MostHoly Virgin Mary, and he served Her until Her Dormition ["Falling-Asleep" or "Uspenie"], never leaving Jerusalem. After the Dormition of the Mother of God the Apostle John, in accord with the lot that had befallen him, set off to Ephesus and other cities of Asia Minor to preach the Gospel, taking with him his own disciple Prokhoros. They set off upon their on a ship, which floundered during the time of a terrible tempest. All the travellers were cast up upon dry ground, and only the Apostle John remained in the depths of the sea. Prokhoros wept bitterly, bereft of his spiritual father and guide, and he went on towards Ephesus alone. On the fourteenth day of his journey he stood at the shore of the sea and beheld, that the waves had cast ashore a man. Going up to him, he recognised the Apostle John, whom the Lord had preserved alive for fourteen days in the deeps of the sea. Teacher and student set off to Ephesus, where the Apostle John preached incessantly to the pagans about Christ. His preaching was accompanied by numerous and great miracles, such that the number of believers increased with each day. During this time there had begun a persecution against Christians under the emperor Nero (56-68). They took away the Apostle John for trial at Rome. The Apostle John was sentenced to death for his confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but the Lord preserved His chosen one. The apostle drank out of a cup prepared for him with deadly poison but he remained alive, and later he emerged unharmed from a cauldron of boiling oil, into which he had been thrown on orders from the torturer. After this, they sent the Apostle John off to imprisonment to the island of Patmos, where he spent many years. Proceeding along on his way to the place of exile, the Apostle John worked many miracles. On the island of Patmos, his preaching accompanied by miracles attracted to him all the inhabitants of the island, and he enlightened them with the light of the Gospel. He cast out many a devil from the pagan-idol temples, and he healed a great multitude of the sick. Sorcerer-magicians with diverse demonic powers showed great hostility to the preaching of the holy apostle. He gave especial fright to the chief sorcerer of them all, named Kinops, who boasted that they would destroy the apostle. But the great John -- the Son of Thunder, as the Lord Himself had named him, and by the grace of God acting through him -- destroyed all the demonic artifices to which Kinops resorted, and the haughty sorcerer perished exhausted in the depths of the sea.

The Apostle John withdrew with his disciple Prokhoros to a desolate height, where he imposed upon himself a three-day fast. During the time of the Apostle John's prayer the earth quaked and thunder boomed. Prokhoros in fright fell to the ground. The Apostle John lifted him up and bid him to write down, that which he was to speak. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord, Which is and Which was and Which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8) -- proclaimed the Spirit of God through the Apostle John. Thus in about the year 67 was written the Book of Revelation ["Otkrovenie", known also as the "Apocalypse"] of the holy Apostle John the Theologian. In this Book was a revealing of the tribulations of the Church and of the end of the world.

After his prolonged exile, the Apostle John received his freedom and returned to Ephesus, where he continued with his activity, instructing Christians to guard against false-teachers and their false-teachings. In about the year 95, the Apostle John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus. He called for all Christians to love the Lord and one another, and by this to fulfill the commands of Christ. The Church entitles Saint John the "Apostle of Love", since he constantly taught, that without love man cannot come nigh to God. In his three Epistles, written by the Apostle John, he speaks about the significance of love for God and for neighbour. Already in his old age, and having learned of a youth who had strayed from the true path to begin following the leader of a band of robbers, the Apostle John went out into the wilderness to seek him. Catching sight of the holy elder, the culprit tried to hide himself, but the Apostle John ran after him and besought him to stop, and promising to take the sins of the youth upon himself, if only he should but repent and not bring ruination upon his soul. Shaken by the intense love of the holy elder, the youth actually did repent and turn his life around.

The holy Apostle John died at more than an hundred years old. he far out-lived the other remaining eye-witnesses of the Lord, and for a long time he remained the sole remaining eye-witness of the earthly paths of the Saviour.

Link: http://www.biblemaster.com/qanda/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=15&TopicID=8641&ReturnPage=Thread&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1

I hope it's not laced with spyware or anything, so brother Richard please ensure that the link is a clean link.

Thanks.

Joe

CWH

02-25-2010, 05:22 AM

Let's look ay another view so as to be less bias which I found from an internet side, Happy reading:

The writing of the Revelation of Jesus Christ has been traditionally assigned to around AD 96. Because this date does not fit into their theological scheme, Full Preterists, who claim that all of Bible prophesy was fulfilled in AD 70, argue for an earlier dating of the book, prior to AD 70.

However, the testimony of the Church Fathers is that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written by John near the end of the reign of Domitian in AD 96. According to them, John was banished by Domitian to the lonely Isle of Patmos, a desolate Greek island in the Aegean Sea only 11 square miles in area. Victorinus, in his Commentary on the Apocolypse of the Blessed John, recorded that John labored in the mines of Patmos.

Domitian was a particularly cruel and ostentatious Roman emperor, who reigned from AD 81 - 96. He regularly arrested, imprisoned, and executed his enemies, even Roman noblemen and senators, and confiscated their properties for his own use. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The years 93-96 were regarded as a period of terror hitherto unsurpassed."

The Britannica also informs us that 'A grave source of offense was his insistence on being addressed as dominus et deus (‘master and god’).' Perhaps this aroused in Domitian a hatred of faithful Christians, who would have refused him this demand. Domitian did in fact launch a persecution of Christians. In Book three, chapter 17 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes,

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.

Justin Martyr (b.100 AD, d.165 AD) is an early Christian writer who also testifies to this persecution. However, according to Justin, Domitian was somewhat more restrained than Nero had been in his persecution of Christians. In his Apology, Justin wrote:

Domitian, too, a man of Nero's type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution, but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.

According to the Church fathers, the Apostle John was not among those released, but even if he had been, the fact that Domitian's reign did not begin until AD 81 means that the Revelation must have been written after that date.

Domitian was so hated for his excesses that own wife participated in the plot to assassinate him. Upon his death, his successor, Nerva, reversed many of the cruel judgments of Domitian, and John was subsequently released. Domitian’s reign ended in AD 96, and this has provided the traditional means for dating the writing of the book of Revelation.

Direct References to the Date:

Although there are many indirect references to John being banished to Patmos under Domitian in the Church Fathers, there are also direct references to John’s banishment under Domitian. The earliest of these is that of Irenaeus (c. 130-202). He was bishop of Lyons in Gaul. In Against Heresies (A.D. 180-199), Book V, Chapter 30, we read:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; 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 reign.

The church historian Eusebius Pamphili was born about 260 and died before 341. Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, he is known as the "Father of Church History." Eusebius confirms the authenticity of the testimony of Irenaeus. In chapter 18, Book 3 of his Church History, we read:

It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: a "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."

Regarding the reliability of the testimony of Irenaeus, in Barnes Notes on the New Testament we read:

It will be recollected that he [Irenaeus] was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John. He had, therefore, every opportunity of obtaining correct information, and doubtless expresses the common sentiment of his age on the subject. His character is unexceptionable, and he had no inducement to bear any false or perverted testimony in the case. His testimony is plain and positive that the book was written near the close of the reign of Domitian, and the testimony should be regarded as decisive unless it can be set aside. His language in regard to the book of Revelation is: "It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian."—Lardner, ii. 181. Or, as the passage is translated by Prof. Stuart: "The Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign." There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning of the passage, or as to the time when Irenaeus believed the book to have been written. Domitian was put to death A.D. 96, and consequently, according to Irenaeus, the Apocalypse must have been written not far from this time.

Writing around AD 236, Hippolytis, in chapter one, verse 3 of On the Twelve Apostles, penned:

John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.

About AD 270, Victorinus, In the Tenth Chapter of his Commentary on the Apocolypse of the Blessed John, wrote

...when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.

Jerome was born about 340. He died at Bethlehem, 30 September, 420. Jerome wrote in the Ninth Chapter of Illustrious Men,

In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian, having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax(1) and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

In Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Jerome also wrote:

"John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future."

Sulpitius Severus was an ecclesiastical writer who was born in Aquitaine in 360. He died about 420-25. In chapter 31 of Book 2 of his Sacred History, we read:

THEN, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos.

Conclusion:

The testimony of these ancient witnesses indicates that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written around AD 96. This leads us to the reasonable conclusion that many of the events prophesied in it must occur later than the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. When any interpretation of scripture flatly contradicts multiple historical witnesses, especially scholarly, respected and reliable Christian witnesses who lived much closer to the time of writing than us, this should be cause to carefully reconsider that interpretation as possibly being in error.

Many Blessings.

Screaming Eagle

02-25-2010, 06:30 AM

In my heart, I've wondered at the great Truths revealed in the Gospel of John. I've wondered if he wrote the Gospel of John even after he wrote Revelation simply because of what he/He reports there and because it is so very different in character from the other 3 Gospel accounts.

Screaming Eagle

02-25-2010, 07:12 AM

Forgiven wrote: If I'm not mistaken, this story is taken from a Catholic encyclopedia.

It sounds to me like you're wanting to use something of Catholic doctrine as your source of truth?

Edward Goodie

02-25-2010, 08:11 AM

Forgiven wrote: If I'm not mistaken, this story is taken from a Catholic encyclopedia.

It sounds to me like you're wanting to use something of Catholic doctrine as your source of truth?

As long as it does not out and out contradict Scripture, anything might be used as a source. And of course, whatever we hear via hearsay or tradition, is always subject to THE TRUTH...

Richard Amiel McGough

02-25-2010, 08:58 AM

Forgiven wrote: If I'm not mistaken, this story is taken from a Catholic encyclopedia.

It sounds to me like you're wanting to use something of Catholic doctrine as your source of truth?
To reject a statement as false based only on its source is a logical error known as the "Genetic Fallacy" and as such, it does not help us determine the truth.

I believe, of course, that many things the RCC asserts are false, but I also believe that many things they say are true, so we must take the statements on a case by case basis.

And we must also remember that accepting a statement as true based only on its source is also an example of the Genetic Fallacy.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-25-2010, 09:11 AM

Let's look ay another view so as to be less bias which I found from an internet side, Happy reading:

Thanks for the quote Cheow. It is very important that we look at all the evidence to avoid bias. But I find it quite ironic that the info you quoted is extremely biased, as seen in the opening paragraph:
The writing of the Revelation of Jesus Christ has been traditionally assigned to around AD 96. Because this date does not fit into their theological scheme, Full Preterists, who claim that all of Bible prophesy was fulfilled in AD 70, argue for an earlier dating of the book, prior to AD 70.
The words in red indicate the source is biased in the extreme. Obviously, the author was trying to bias his readers against Full Preterism by using the word "scheme." I am quite certain that the author would never use that word when discussing his own beliefs. He is obviously biased, and seeking to bias the reader before they even get a chance to evaluate his argument! This is an unrighteous rhetorical technique called "poisoning the well."

Following the author's "logic" we could just as well say that futurists argue for a late date not because of the evidence, but because an early date "does not fit into their theological scheme."

All the very best,

Richard

TheForgiven

02-26-2010, 10:47 AM

Thanks for the quote Cheow. It is very important that we look at all the evidence to avoid bias. But I find it quite ironic that the info you quoted is extremely biased, as seen in the opening paragraph:
The writing of the Revelation of Jesus Christ has been traditionally assigned to around AD 96. Because this date does not fit into their theological scheme, Full Preterists, who claim that all of Bible prophesy was fulfilled in AD 70, argue for an earlier dating of the book, prior to AD 70.

My thoughts exactly brother Richard. The author of this article apparently doesn't understand that the later Church fathers were merely copying from the writing of Iranaeus.

So if Iranaeus was wrong, then everyone else who copied him was wrong as well. The assumption of course is that Iranaeus was right, but this cannot be proved considering he was not present during the days of John.

Another point is in the translation of what Iranaeus said. Perhaps he wasn't stating that John seen the vision almost in his day, near the reign of Domitian. Perhaps He was stating that the John was seen almost in his day, but the vision itself could have been seen earlier. Thus, Iranaeus was possibly stating that John, having been seen almost in His day, did not have to explain the 666 (or 616) number because it wasn't important, otherwise he would have explained it. On the other hand, how do we know that John didn't explain it? After all, Christians all throughout Asia minor believed Nero Caesar to be the Beast; thus, they were looking for a character who looked like Nero, to return. Hence the popular first century myth, "Nero Redivivus". Where do we suppose this theory came from? An outer band group of Christians that were not part of the main-stream? I'm sure the Futurist's would love to suggest this, as though Iranaeus were part of the main-stream.

It's all hear-say folks. You can't take hear-say as solid fact. Just because Iranaeus stated that John may have seen the vision (or himself) near the end of Domitian's reign doesn't make this true. And just because later Church fathers copied Iranaeus doesn't make them true either.

The truth is we have no solid facts to know when Revelation was written. But we do have indicators, and as Preterist correctly and effectively point out through internal and external indicator's, Revelation was more than likely written in the late 60's AD.

The late date theory stems from a comment made by a single person, and that person is Iranaeus, who has quite a few errors in his writings, and thus the 666 comments he made could be another list of his errors. Keep in mind folks that Iranaeus was not a historian.

Joe

Screaming Eagle

02-26-2010, 10:51 AM

RAM wrote:
I believe, of course, that many things the RCC asserts are false, but I also believe that many things they say are true, so we must take the statements on a case by case basis.

And we must also remember that accepting a statement as true based only on its source is also an example of the Genetic Fallacy.
__________________

So, what other sources are there that point to an early date that are not of RCC origin?

Richard Amiel McGough

02-26-2010, 11:04 AM

So, what other sources are there that point to an early date that are not of RCC origin?
I'm not sure what you mean by "RCC origin." The RCC claims Irenaeus as one of their own, and he is the original source of the late date for Revelation (and it appears that all others are dependent upon him).

Is there any source other than the RCC for western Christianity prior to the Reformation? Pretty much everything Christian was classed under the RCC before that time, except heretical movements (and splinter groups that ultimately became the Reformers). Remember, even Luther and Calvin were originally Catholics.

TheForgiven

02-28-2010, 10:45 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-28-2010, 12:01 PM

I keep forgetting that most Protestant's are unfamiliar with Church history. They seem to forget that their was only one branch of Church prior to the 10th Century. It was called "One Holy Catholic Church", divided into east and west. Some were Alexandrian, and others were Byzantine.

In the 10th Century, the Church became divided due to the Crusades. The establishment of a Pope made things much worse. The Greeks and the Romans became split. The RCC really had no significance until that time frame.

A few centuries later, the RCC became divided, and thus the birth of the Protestants came. The very word "Protestant" is nothing to proud of anyways. For Christians are not to engage in Protests anyways; they are to be quiet and submissive lights shining to the world. Unfortunately, most (or all) of us have been raised Protestant.

I'm not saying that Protestants are bad. But sometimes they need to learn to silence themselves because they tend to talk too much. :lol: As St. James would state, taming the tongue proves to be very difficult. :D

Iranaeus was more Roman than Greek. I find it quite odd that he traveled to Rome while the church in Lyon was being persecuted. Then he just conveniently became the next bishop of Lyon after the Bishop was killed. :eek:

Something just doesn't sound right here.

Joe
Excellent points Joe.

I have a very strong sense that the exceedingly high esteem of the ECFs (Early Church Fathers) is a grave error. Sure, their writings are very important and informative, but most folks have been taught that their opinions have more weight because they were closer to the source. I see no reason to believe that. They were not inspired apostles! They were fallible like any other non-apostolic man. And they were political, and striving for political power within their congregations. And what do people do when they strive for political power? The lie about their origins and associations with the Apostles so that they can assume the mantle of apostolic authority. I don't know if Irenaeus's testimony of his association with Polycarp is true or not. Do we have any testimony outside of his own on this matter?

Richard

TheForgiven

02-28-2010, 06:14 PM

Excellent points Joe.

I have a very strong sense that the exceedingly high esteem of the ECFs (Early Church Fathers) is a grave error. Sure, their writings are very important and informative, but most folks have been taught that their opinions have more weight because they were closer to the source. I see no reason to believe that. They were not inspired apostles! They were fallible like any other non-apostolic man. And they were political, and striving for political power within their congregations. And what do people do when they strive for political power? The lie about their origins and associations with the Apostles so that they can assume the mantle of apostolic authority. I don't know if Irenaeus's testimony of his association with Polycarp is true or not. Do we have any testimony outside of his own on this matter?

Richard

I'd say you are correct. The early church fathers were much like us, living mostly in fleshly wisdom, as is only natural I suppose. For we are not without error, any less than the each church fathers are. You might even say that the many errors in eschatology were caused by them; for even in the 2nd century there were mixed ideas of a type of Futurism, and a type of Preterism, although neither were called that during those days. The only advantage they had over us is the fact that their generation was much closer to the age of the Apostles.

When I thought of this, I thought of past President's of our country. How many could actually claim today, that they knew Abraham Lincoln? We have some of his speeches, and writings, but do we actually know him? Probably not, any less than Iranaeus could claim to know St. John, especially as a supposed little boy who happen to see him passing by with St. Polycarp....if that account of his (Iranaeus) was even true. Even so, how much could a little boy retain being so young in age, and hearing an Apostle speak of God's kingdom?

For this reason, I chose not to put too much emphasis on the Early Church Fathers, although I would quote passages from them that I tend to agree with....I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. But one thing is for certain. You'll never hear me quote an early church father as though his words were divine, and directly inspired by God. Well in a way they may have been but then not directly. For most of their inspiration came from what was already written; the letters composing the Bible (some or most anyways).

Thus, like them, we read God's word (they had letters) and we try to interpret, hoping that God would reveal His truths in us. The only problem with that is that there are many people who claim that God speaks to them, and yet their events NEVER, and I mean NEVER, come to pass. That's what kills me about modern day Futurist's; they have centuries upon centuries of failed expectation (and predictions) and yet like a pour marksmen, they keep missing the target. :confused: How many wolf cries does it take? The world may never know.

Joe

alec cotton

04-23-2010, 12:40 PM

All right fellas, let's try a bit of arrhythmatic. I am not so hot on Math's but I can count up to a hundred and that is all we need.Of course we will need a bit of imagination to go with it..we will try to squeeze the known events into the smallest space possible. The event at pentecost was in the year 34 A.D. By the year 40 the church was established and the Kibbutz like system had been set up Stephen was serving at tables. Now if we assume that he was stoned to death in that year and Paul was a young man ,we have a tentative starting point. It could not be any earlier. Now if we imagine that Paul made a meteoric rise to power and authority and was wreaking havoc amongst the Christians five years later,then it would be about 46 A.D. When Paul was converted . He went to Arabia for three years and came back. That brings us to 50 A.D. Add to that the times which are recorded which he spent in arguments and preaching ; a minimum of four years. It is now 54 A.D. Now considering that he was on a slow boat and on foot and he stayed for long periods preaching on his missionary journeys it is only logical to assume that it took at least seven years. 61 A.D
John accompanied him on some if not all. If we now assume that John was either exiled to Patmos or went there voluntarily it would be between 62 an 64 when he got there. If he had servants to gather wood and keep him warm and cook his food so that he could devote all his time to writing then it would have taken him a minimum of threeyears to write it. . Remember that we have compressed the events into the shortest time imaginable. It is 67 A.D. If the preterists are right then the events predicted would be history before the first letter was read in the first church. That is prepoterous I have been told that I must use scripture and not hearsay This is not conjecture but observation from the written word.
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough

04-23-2010, 12:47 PM

CWH

04-24-2010, 02:33 PM

Hi Alec,

Your time-line seems pretty reasonable, but there are a couple details we need to think about more.

1) Many scholars put the crucifixion at 29 AD. I need to study it more, but I'm not convinced that 33 AD is necessarily correct.

2) What makes you think that it took God three years to reveal the book of Revelation to John? It has only 404 verses. It seems to me that it could easily be seen and written in a matter of days.

Richard

If I could read your mind RAM, you believe that the crucifixion of Christ occurred in AD 30 so that it fits the preterist's eschatology of the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later in AD 70. I came into this conclusion in the view that you doubt the crucifixion occurred in AD 29 and AD 33, so it must somewhere in between. Am I right? If not what is your current view of the date of Christ's crucifixion?

I do agree that it doesn't need to take 3 years to write the book of Revelation of 404 verses. Even if Apostle John took one day to write one verse, it only requires about a little more than a year to complete the book of Revelation. I believe it took Apostle John a week or two to write the Book of Revelation taking into consideration that he was imprisoned in the island of Patmos at that time and probably doing some hard labor there. In fact, there are indications in the Book of Revelation that Apostle John was writing (probably scribbling) the book of Revelation at the same time that the visions were revealed to him:

Revelation 1:11
which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

Revelation 1:19
"Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.

Revelation 2:1
[ To the church in Ephesus ] "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:

Revelation 2:8
[ To the Church in Smyrna ] "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Revelation 2:12
[ To the Church in Pergamum ] "To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.

Revelation 2:18
[ To the Church in Thyatira ] "To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Revelation 3:1
[ To the Church in Sardis ] "To the angel of the church in Sardis write:These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

Revelation 3:7
[ To the Church in Philadelphia ] "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Revelation 3:14
[ To the Church in Laodicea ] "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

Revelation 10:4
And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

Revelation 14:13
Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."

Revelation 19:9
Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!' " And he added, "These are the true words of God."

Revelation 21:5
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

Many Blessings.

Gil

04-25-2010, 08:19 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-25-2010, 08:53 AM

Howdy,

I don't believe John wrote Revelation to begin with.
Think it was Paul, it has his signature (salutation),
and his fingerprints are all over it.
Paul wrote and sent it to John.
Good by post AD70 date.

Gil
That's a new one!

How do you understand the fact that John said he is the one who had the vision?

Revelation 22:8 ¶ And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Richard

basilfo

04-26-2010, 11:41 AM

I can't be sure, but the last page of this thread might set a record for greatest number of speculations in a forum. John went with Paul on all 4 journeys, John pasted his name on Paul's Revelation, Paul didn't start traveling to the preach the Gospel to the Gentiles until 54AD, etc.?

I started this thread to see if there was any solid historical, extra-Biblical "evidence" to support the popular theory that John was "banished" to Patmos - since his own words ("for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ") suggest the contrary. One of the main reasons the eschatological landscape is so cluttered is sound Biblical hermeneutics has been replaced by "well, I think it could mean.....". What's the difference between that and radio sports talk shows that roll out an endless supply of reasons why a team won or lost? One man's guess is as good as another.

alec cotton

04-26-2010, 01:09 PM

Hi Alec,

Your time-line seems pretty reasonable, but there are a couple details we need to think about more.

1) Many scholars put the crucifixion at 29 AD. I need to study it more, but I'm not convinced that 33 AD is necessarily correct.

2) What makes you think that it took God three years to reveal the book of Revelation to John? It has only 404 verses. It seems to me that it could easily be seen and written in a matter of days.

Richard

Preterism doesn't count
When I write on this forum it has been made clear they I am expected to draw solely on the written word and bring two or three witnesses and yet here is Richard making the vague statement that some scholars say that the crucifixion was in 29 A.D. In my view, such nit picking smells of defeatism. Would you like to step out of cloud cuckoo land and into the real world for a moment. I know is is nasty and smelly and uncomfortable but you can always go back to your perfumed feather bed afterwards. I have news for you. God did not write the book of revelation. John did. Have you ever tried to write with a quill pen? . First you take a goose feather and with a small sharp knife called a pen knife , you slice the tip off at an angle . It takes practice skill and dexterity. You dip the point into the ink well with care. You do not scribble. If you tried that you would make a big blot which would ruin the whole page. In John's case ,the whole ,very expensive scroll. You carefully wipe the surplus ink on the side of the well and then if you are lucky you can write one word. Then you dip in and do it again. It is a long and painstaking process. Now let us do a bit of number crunching.We have a span of seventy years to work with. For easy reckoning we can safely put the event of penecost towards the end of 34 A.D. Six years later the church was fairly well established. Stephen was alive and well at that time We can therefore assume that Stephen was stoned to death no earlier than 41 A.D. And that a young man called Saul from Tarsus stood guard over the jackets of the men who did the stoning. If this insignificant young man rose to such heights of power and authority in five years then that would be surprising. Let us assume that it happened. These estimates are very conservative. The next event is when saul is on the damascus road and is converted. .46A.D. At that time he went to Arabia for three years . Plus the journey and the short time spent in Jerusalem we can safely estimate a total of four years It is now 50 A.D. At that time he went to Corinth and was there one year and six months working as a tent maker with A quilla and Priscilla who had been thrown out of Rome on the orders of Claudius (41-54A.D.)Add to that one year in Antioch plus two years the first time in Ephesus and three years the second time . That accounts for 57years and 6 months of the 70 years=12 years left to accomplish the following The missionary journeys to Damascus,Ceasarea,Tarsus
Paphos,Pergia,Iconium,Derbe and Troas. At the end of that his long journey to rome interrupted by shipwreck and after a period of preaching to to caesar's household ; imprisonment and death. All in the space of ten years to make it fit preterism. Come on , Get real. By the way: Paul travelled at least half the distance on foot. He stopped at various places for long period preaching , worked hard to earn a crust and managed to do a lot of writing. Think a bit and preterism becomes like dust in a hurricane
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough

04-26-2010, 02:11 PM

Preterism doesn't count
When I write on this forum it has been made clear they I am expected to draw solely on the written word and bring two or three witnesses and yet here is Richard making the vague statement that some scholars say that the crucifixion was in 29 A.D. In my view, such nit picking smells of defeatism.

Hey there Alec,

I don't understand why you are so upset. I've never said that you have to have "two or three witness" for things that are not written in Scripture, such as the historical year that Christ was crucified. And for that matter, I've never said that you have to have two or three witnesses for points drawn from Scripture. My point has always been that nothing should be accepted as doctrine if not supported by two or three clear an unambiguous witnesses. I don't understand why you continue to misunderstand me on this point.

Furthermore, I have never insisted that you or anybody "draw solely on the written word." On the contrary, I have always encouraged folks to draw from all sources of knowledge available, such as extra-biblical historical sources like Josephus and the early church fathers.

I have no idea what you mean by "defeatism" in this context.

Would you like to step out of cloud cuckoo land and into the real world for a moment. I know is is nasty and smelly and uncomfortable but you can always go back to your perfumed feather bed afterwards. I have news for you. God did not write the book of revelation. John did. Have you ever tried to write with a quill pen? . First you take a goose feather and with a small sharp knife called a pen knife , you slice the tip off at an angle . It takes practice skill and dexterity. You dip the point into the ink well with care. You do not scribble. If you tried that you would make a big blot which would ruin the whole page. In John's case ,the whole ,very expensive scroll. You carefully wipe the surplus ink on the side of the well and then if you are lucky you can write one word. Then you dip in and do it again. It is a long and painstaking process.

I agree that writing on scrolls with quill pens was a slow and painstaking process. So let's do a a bit of number crunching.

How many letters in Revelation? That depends on which Greek text we choose. The NA27 has 46,599 letters, and the TR has 46,943. So I'll round this up to 47,000 for simplicity.

How long to write a single letter? Let's be extravagant and say ten seconds.

This means it would take a sluggish scribe writing six letters per minute 470,000 seconds to write out the entire book of Revelation.

That's 470,000 seconds x 1 hour/3600 seconds = 130 hours = 5.4 days total. Of course, we have no reason to think John was writing continuously without sleep for five and a half days, so let's just put him on a standard 40 hour week with two days off every weekend (just like us modern enjoy). In this scenario, it would have taken him slightly over a month.

Now lets double that for problems relating to getting ink, parchment, feathers and all that. I conclude that a very slow scribe with lots of problems could almost certainly finish the entire scroll of Revelation in under two months.

If this number seems too small, let's double everything again and assume that it takes 20 seconds to write a single letter, and give John two months for problems with ink and all that. The answer is still just over four months. Not even half a year.

Now let us do a bit of number crunching. We have a span of seventy years to work with. For easy reckoning we can safely put the event of penecost towards the end of 34 A.D.

We don't know the date. Most scholars now put it between 26-29 AD. And there is good Biblical reason for this. Christ was born before Herod's death, which means 4 BC at the latest. And he was about 33 when crucified, so 30 AD is the latest possible if these dates are correct.

But neither you nor I know the real date with certainty, so we should not try to build a case on it.

Six years later the church was fairly well established. Stephen was alive and well at that time We can therefore assume that Stephen was stoned to death no earlier than 41 A.D.

Where did you get "six years" between Pentecost and the stoning of Stephen? The margin in my old KJV lists it as 34 AD, a year after its date for Pentecost. But if Pentecost was really in 30 AD, then we are back to 31 AD, ten years earlier than the time-line you are suggesting. A quick google shows that many folks agree with this time-line. E.g. this (http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/actstime.html) one gives 33 AD for the stoning of Stephen. This (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm) one give 35 AD. This (http://www.centralcal.com/crist1.htm) one gives 33 AD. And this (http://www.5loaves2fishes.net/node/216?size=_original) one gives 32 AD. And those are just the first four that I checked.

Can you cite any source that gives 41 AD for the death of Stephen?

There's no need to review the rest of your chronology until we settle the question of when Stephen died since the rest depends upon that date.

All the very best my friend. I hope you don't stay angry. I am enjoying this discussion. I'm sure we have a lot to learn (I know I do!).

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-26-2010, 02:27 PM

That accounts for 57years and 6 months of the 70 years=12 years left to accomplish the following The missionary journeys to Damascus,Ceasarea,Tarsus
Paphos,Pergia,Iconium,Derbe and Troas. At the end of that his long journey to rome interrupted by shipwreck and after a period of preaching to to caesar's household ; imprisonment and death. All in the space of ten years to make it fit preterism. Come on , Get real. By the way: Paul travelled at least half the distance on foot. He stopped at various places for long period preaching , worked hard to earn a crust and managed to do a lot of writing. Think a bit and preterism becomes like dust in a hurricane
Alec
You totally lost me on this point Alec. Are you suggesting that Paul lived past 70 AD?

Edward Goodie

04-27-2010, 08:26 AM

Would you like to step out of cloud cuckoo land and into the real world for a moment. I know is is nasty and smelly and uncomfortable but you can always go back to your perfumed feather bed afterwards.

Statements such as the quote above concern me, Alec. This is NOT the manner of behavior between two Christian believers...

Please refuse to entertain this kind of unchristian interaction.

alec cotton

04-27-2010, 09:38 AM

Statements such as the quote above concern me, Alec. This is NOT the manner of behavior between two Christian believers...

Please refuse to entertain this kind of unchristian interaction.

Sorry. Black my face and repent in sack cloth and ashes

Alec.

Edward Goodie

04-27-2010, 10:03 AM

Sorry. Black my face and repent in sack cloth and ashes

Alec.

I'm afraid that your apology to me is unwarranted. You spoke those things not towards me, but to RAM. And your method of "repentance" in sack cloth and ashes is an outdated testament long past. We will know of your repentance only as time reveals your change in interaction...

Again, your comments were not directed at me. Therefore, the apology should be directed to RAM and in public in accordance with the offense.

There is no doubt that disagreement in doctrine does stir passion but it should not be so much as to cause us to defy the very One who redeemed ALL PARTIES involved...

alec cotton

04-27-2010, 12:21 PM

Hey there Alec,

.

We don't know the date. Most scholars now put it between 26-29 AD. And there is good Biblical reason for this. Christ was born before Herod's death, which means 4 BC at the latest. And he was about 33 when crucified, so 30 AD is the latest possible if these dates are correct.

But neither you nor I know the real date with certainty, so we should not try to build a case on it.

.

Can you cite any source that gives 41 AD for the death of Stephen?

There's no need to review the rest of your chronology until we settle the question of when Stephen died since the rest depends upon that date.

All the very best my friend. I hope you don't stay angry. I am enjoying this discussion. I'm sure we have a lot to learn (I know I do!).

Richard

Can you cite any source that gives 41 AD for the death of Stephen?

There's no need to review the rest of your chronology until we settle the question of when Stephen died since the rest depends upon that date.

Hello Richard
Do not think for an instant that I am angry with you. If you had not created this site I would be infinitely poorer. It and you have greatly enriched my life. There are so few people in this world with whom you can have a serious debate. I am not angry. I might be disappointed at times ,Frustrated maybe.I might even get the impression that you are pigheaded at times but not angry?: never. I read your links with some dismay. Are these the 'some scholars ' that you spoke about ?
They should be shot. They seem to pluck the numbers out of the air. Juggling with the date of the birth of Jesus only muddies the waters. If he was born in 2 B.C then 70A.D is 68 C.E .It doesn't seem right to me I associate the number seven with divinity. There seems to be a pattern to me. Half of 70 is thirty two and a half. 'He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week messiah will be cut off. Half of seven is three and a half. Jesus taught for three and a half years. When folk start to shift things around ,that delicate symmetry seems to disappear.

Can you cite any source that gives 41 AD for the death of Stephen?

There's no need to review the rest of your chronology until we settle the question of when Stephen died since the rest depends upon that date.

My only source of information is the Bible. You see I never had what you might call a formal education. Started school at 5 years and left at 14 yrs. Spent the rest of my life ( almost half a century )working at menial low paid jobs. I can only observe and deduct. This is how I came to the conclusion that Stephen was killed in 41 A.D assuming the birth of Jesus to be in the year one.
Jesus lived 33 and ½ years . Now I do not know what equivalent month passover was in but assume it was fairly late in the year. Say August. Pentecost is 50 days later. Let's say October. It is unimaginable that the 'church' would be organised and the event of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira and the kibbutz system would be established in the next twelve months, Then of course Peter' vision and the invitation to the gentiles and the complaints of the greek (Gentile) women
and the solution . It is my understanding which drives me to the conclusion that the stoning of Stephen could not have been any earlier than 41 A.D.
Highest regards to you my dear brother in Christ
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough

04-27-2010, 03:27 PM

Hello Richard
Do not think for an instant that I am angry with you. If you had not created this site I would be infinitely poorer. It and you have greatly enriched my life. There are so few people in this world with whom you can have a serious debate. I am not angry. I might be disappointed at times ,Frustrated maybe.I might even get the impression that you are pigheaded at times but not angry?: never.

I read your links with some dismay. Are these the 'some scholars ' that you spoke about ?
They should be shot. They seem to pluck the numbers out of the air. Juggling with the date of the birth of Jesus only muddies the waters. If he was born in 2 B.C then 70A.D is 68 C.E .It doesn't seem right to me I associate the number seven with divinity. There seems to be a pattern to me. Half of 70 is thirty two and a half. 'He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week messiah will be cut off. Half of seven is three and a half. Jesus taught for three and a half years. When folk start to shift things around ,that delicate symmetry seems to disappear.

Hello their my friend! :yo:

I knew you were just frustrated. That's why I didn't get upset by your comment that seemed rude. Believe me, I understand how frustrating it can be when someone doesn't seem to understand.

As for the "scholars" - I have often been dismayed by the outrageous ignorance, arrogance, and worthless commentaries of some of them. But that does not mean "they" are always wrong about everything. And when it comes to the dates of history, we have nothing else to go on. The calendar we use is not given in the Bible so we are forced to review all the (often contradictory) information collected by the scholars and do our best to determine the truth. There is solid evidence that the men who invented the modern calendar made a mistake when they linked it to the birth of Christ in 1 AD. When we look at all the historical records, the evidence indicates that Christ was born around 4 BC. The mistake was in the calendar, not the Bible.

My only source of information is the Bible. You see I never had what you might call a formal education. Started school at 5 years and left at 14 yrs. Spent the rest of my life ( almost half a century )working at menial low paid jobs. I can only observe and deduct. This is how I came to the conclusion that Stephen was killed in 41 A.D assuming the birth of Jesus to be in the year one.
Jesus lived 33 and ½ years . Now I do not know what equivalent month passover was in but assume it was fairly late in the year. Say August. Pentecost is 50 days later. Let's say October. It is unimaginable that the 'church' would be organised and the event of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira and the kibbutz system would be established in the next twelve months, Then of course Peter' vision and the invitation to the gentiles and the complaints of the greek (Gentile) women
and the solution . It is my understanding which drives me to the conclusion that the stoning of Stephen could not have been any earlier than 41 A.D.
Highest regards to you my dear brother in Christ
Alec
Peter's vision happened after the stoning of Stephen. Perhaps this caused you to add more years than necessary?

It is not just the "scholars" that place the stoning of Stephen about a year after Pentecost. All the sources I looked (mostly just standard Bible believing sites) put the date near that time.

I understand that you think there are problems with Preterism, but I don't think it can be refuted by this line of reasoning. I have shown evidence that John could have written the Revelation in less than six months, and so I see no problem with it being written and distributed around 64-66 AD. Remember the traditional date of Paul's death was around 68 AD.

All the very best to you my good friend. I hope you don't get too frustrated with me. I really enjoy our conversations.

Richard

alec cotton

04-28-2010, 10:47 AM

It is not just the "scholars" that place the stoning of Stephen about a year after Pentecost. All the sources I looked (mostly just standard Bible believing sites) put the date near that time.

Sorry Richard but the sources are plainly and obviously wrong. . If Stephen had been stoned the year after pentecost then he could not have served at tables I was giving you credit for having more intelligence than that. The chronology must emphatically go like this.

Tentative dates

Passover 33

Pentecost, 33

Formation of assembly which we call church. 34

The church coalesces and forms a commune or kibbutz (All jews. No gentiles) 35

Annanias and Saphira drop dead in front of Peter 35

Peter has a vision and the first gentiles are invited in 36

The church has swollen to such proportions that the Gentile 38
widows alone need seven men to wait at tables for them.

Stephen is chosen and in his spare time does many mighty works. 38

Stephen is stoned to death. 40

To attempt to condense these events into any shorter time defies reason and logic . It even flies in the face of common sense. I have never seen the inside of a Bible college or any other for that matter but I can read
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough

04-28-2010, 10:56 AM

Sorry Richard but the sources are plainly and obviously wrong. . If Stephen had been stoned the year after pentecost then he could not have served at tables I was giving you credit for having more intelligence than that. The chronology must emphatically go like this.

Tentative dates

Passover 33

Pentecost, 33

Formation of assembly which we call church. 34

The church coalesces and forms a commune or kibbutz (All jews. No gentiles) 35

Annanias and Saphira drop dead in front of Peter 35

Peter has a vision and the first gentiles are invited in 36

The church has swollen to such proportions that the Gentile 38
widows alone need seven men to wait at tables for them.

Stephen is chosen and in his spare time does many mighty works. 38

Stephen is stoned to death. 40

To attempt to condense these events into any shorter time defies reason and logic . It even flies in the face of common sense. I have never seen the inside of a Bible college or any other for that matter but I can read
Alec
Hey there Alec,

How is it that you say Stephen was stoned to death after Peter's vision?

Stephen was stoned in Acts 7.

Peter had his vision in Acts 10.

Are you saying that Acts 7 happened after Acts 10?

Richard

Edward Goodie

04-28-2010, 08:19 PM

Alec said,
"I have never seen the inside of a Bible college or any other for that matter but I can read."

Richard said,
"Peter's vision happened after the stoning of Stephen. Perhaps this caused you to add more years than necessary?"

Alec said,
"Peter has a vision and the first gentiles are invited in 36

The church has swollen to such proportions that the Gentile 38
widows alone need seven men to wait at tables for them.

Stephen is chosen and in his spare time does many mighty works. 38

Stephen is stoned to death. 40"

Richard says again,
"How is it that you say Stephen was stoned to death after Peter's vision?

Stephen was stoned in Acts 7.

Peter had his vision in Acts 10.

Are you saying that Acts 7 happened after Acts 10?"

I hope Alec will finally "see" what you have being asking him for two posts now. I would like to hear his response.

basilfo

04-29-2010, 04:50 AM

"How is it that you say Stephen was stoned to death after Peter's vision?
Stephen was stoned in Acts 7.

Peter had his vision in Acts 10.

Are you saying that Acts 7 happened after Acts 10?"

It's called

eisegesis: (ahy-si-jee-sis) - an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

We must let the text speak for itself and allow our viewpoints, positions to flow from the text. The fancy word for that is

exegesis: (ek-si-jee-sis) critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

Alec is trying to disprove preterism, so he made a timeline which would do so. But it requires importing his bias into the text (Acts 10 would have to preceed Acts 7) rather than allow the text to drive his timeline.

I don't mean to pick on Alec, we are all very susceptible to clinging to our pre-conceived notions, many of which don't hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. The truth will set you free.

Peace to you,
Dave

Edward Goodie

04-29-2010, 06:21 AM

It's called

eisegesis: (ahy-si-jee-sis) - an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

We must let the text speak for itself and allow our viewpoints, positions to flow from the text. The fancy word for that is

exegesis: (ek-si-jee-sis) critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

Alec is trying to disprove preterism, so he made a timeline which would do so. But it requires importing his bias into the text (Acts 10 would have to preceed Acts 7) rather than allow the text to drive his timeline.

I don't mean to pick on Alec, we are all very susceptible to clinging to our pre-conceived notions, many of which don't hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. The truth will set you free.

Peace to you,
Dave

Hi Dave,

I don't think I would classify this as eisegesis at all. I think it is just a reiteration of something that was learned incorrectly. I'm sure he will come back and say something like, "Man, I don't know where I got that idea from!" We still have many of these things existing in our own structure. It takes a long time to get rid of them. And when we "think" we are rid of them, POOF! up pops another one. A most common one is the falsehood that Lucifer from Isaiah 14 is satan or the devil. A simple examination of the context (Isaiah 13-14) easily shows that the human king of Babylon is the intended target for the name Lucifer...but, even knowing this, some will not let go with tradition...

Tradition is a very powerful influence...and according to Christ, is something that can make the very Word of God to have no effect (Mark 7:13)! Kind of like the FACT that Elijah had already come via the personage of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:12-13).

alec cotton

04-29-2010, 11:33 AM

Hey there Alec,

How is it that you say Stephen was stoned to death after Peter's vision?

Stephen was stoned in Acts 7.

Peter had his vision in Acts 10.

Are you saying that Acts 7 happened after Acts 10?

Richard
Yes you are right Richard. Everybody else is right too. The Bible is an unreliable witness. I was striding out with the utmost confidence until your posts caused me to scrutinise the book of acts. It seems to indicate that Stephen was stoned shortly after pentecost and before the 'church' was fully formed . He could not therefore have served at tables. Before anyone objects and says that the Greeks mentioned were not gentiles but Greek Hebrews . Let it be clear that Greek meant non Jews. Read mark 7.26. The woman was a Greek . A syrophonecian by nation. She had probably never set foot on Greek soil.. I am greatly saddened and deeply discouraged.
Alec

basilfo

04-29-2010, 11:51 AM

Brother Les

04-30-2010, 08:00 AM

Screaming Eagle
In my heart, I've wondered at the great Truths revealed in the Gospel of John. I've wondered if he wrote the Gospel of John even after he wrote Revelation simply because of what he/He reports there and because it is so very different in character from the other 3 Gospel accounts.
__________________

To any reader of 'the Gospels', it should be quickly evident that 'John' is very very different in styl and content than the other 3 'accounts'. 'John' is the New Testement book of Genisis, the New Creation. Is the author of 'John' and 'Revelation', the unlearn and rough edged 'fisherman' or is this a highly educated member of the Sanhedren, who may be a known Sadducce or Pharesee?

YLT
John21:
19and this he said, signifying by what death he shall glorify God; and having said this, he saith to him, `Be following me.'

20And Peter having turned about doth see the disciple whom Jesus was loving following, (who also reclined in the supper on his breast, and said, `Sir, who is he who is delivering thee up?')

21Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?'

22Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die,

23yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'

24this is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things, and he wrote these things, and we have known that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen.

I do not believe that the "Apostle" John, wrote the 'book' named 'John' (or 1,2,3 John or Revelation), but was written by Lazarus (and 'Scribed' by a person called by 'John the Elder'.

((John 11:3therefore sent the sisters unto him, saying, `Sir, lo, he whom thou dost love is ailing;

'35Jesus wept.

36The Jews, therefore, said, `Lo, how he was loving him!' ))

From the Sermon "Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel"

Now consider that Matthew was probably an eyewitness to the raising of Lazarus. This was surely a powerful and unforgettable experience, yet Matthew left this out when he wrote his Gospel. Lazarus was big news! So why is it that the other Gospels fail to mention any of this?

Strangely enough, it turns out that there is another prominent figure in the life of Jesus who is also nowhere to be found in the first three Gospels. The person is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Is this simply a coincidence?

How did the fourth Gospel ever come to be attributed to John? A man named John, not the son of Zebedee, could very well have edited this book. Although the Beloved Disciple is claimed as the Source of the book, that does not necessarily mean that he is its actual writer. Most scholars are in agreement that John 21 makes clear that while the Beloved Disciple is said to have written down some Gospel traditions, he is no longer alive when at least the end of this chapter was written:

This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. (John 21:24 NASB)
The "we know his witness is true" is a dead give away that someone other than the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" put this Gospel into its final form and added this appendix. This also explains something else. Whoever put the memoirs of the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" together is probably the one who insisted on calling him that. In other words, the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" is called such by his final editor, and this is not a self designation. If the writer was a close colleague and follower of the source, it is quite understandable that he would refer to his master by using the honorific title: "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

My position at the present time is that Lazarus also wrote the Epistles, which explains their similarities with the Gospel. They also were edited by John the elder.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/disciple_jesus_loved.htm

http://disciplewhomjesusloved.com/

Edward Goodie

04-30-2010, 08:12 PM

To any reader of 'the Gospels', it should be quickly evident that 'John' is very very different in styl and content than the other 3 'accounts'. 'John' is the New Testement book of Genisis, the New Creation. Is the author of 'John' and 'Revelation', the unlearn and rough edged 'fisherman' or is this a highly educated member of the Sanhedren, who may be a known Sadducce or Pharesee?

YLT
John21:
19and this he said, signifying by what death he shall glorify God; and having said this, he saith to him, `Be following me.'

20And Peter having turned about doth see the disciple whom Jesus was loving following, (who also reclined in the supper on his breast, and said, `Sir, who is he who is delivering thee up?')

21Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?'

22Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die,

23yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'

24this is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things, and he wrote these things, and we have known that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen.

I do not believe that the "Apostle" John, wrote the 'book' named 'John' (or 1,2,3 John or Revelation), but was written by Lazarus (and 'Scribed' by a person called by 'John the Elder'.

((John 11:3therefore sent the sisters unto him, saying, `Sir, lo, he whom thou dost love is ailing;

'35Jesus wept.

36The Jews, therefore, said, `Lo, how he was loving him!' ))

From the Sermon "Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel"

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/disciple_jesus_loved.htm

http://disciplewhomjesusloved.com/

I'm with you on the Lazarus thingy... I personally believe Revelation is Lazarus' enlarged Olivet Discourse (since the fourth Gospel account does not contain one...)

alec cotton

05-01-2010, 01:12 AM

Alec,
Forgive me for possibly missing your sarcasm (or for thinking your response is sarcastic). Sometimes it's hard to tell on these forums. Could you clarify your position?

1. "The Bible is an unreliable witness"?

2. Do you stick with your timeline, or have you revised it?

Just say what you mean with respect to the date of Stephen's stoning and ultimately your timeline.

Thanks,
Dave

(Stand by TS....)
Hello Dave
I hate being long winded but in this case I might have no choice,we will see how it goes. To your first point : No sarcasm was intended no ill feeling ,no disparagement. I was dismayed , disappointed,discouraged. My faith in the integrity of the whole bible had been shattered. I am reminded of the words from the poem 'If'. If you can bear to see the things you gave your life to broken, and stoop and build em up with worn out tools The thread drew my attention to the book of acts. I had been arranging my ideas about the sequence of events when the question arose as to the stoning of Stephen. This is where the book of acts is seen to be so seriously wrong. This is where my confidence was shattered. It relates in great detail how Stephen came to serve gentile widows in the assembly when in fact the first gentile was not converted until long after his death The book of acts relates the account of Paul. It states that paul was right away in Jerusalem with Peter and other apostles ,when paul himself, writes that upon conversion he did not go to Jerusalem and meet with the others but went to Arabia for three years. At that point I was so despondent that I was ready to discard the whole bible. It was then that I recalled the early days when for years I strove to find and understand the meaning of numbers in scripture. I stumbled across a booklet called 'The shorter works of Ivan pannin'.I thought that I had found the holy grail. I devoured it avidly and then I discovered an error which demolished the whole structure .For years I forsook the concept of what I now know as gematria. Recalling those things I thought ' Why should I dismiss the whole bible just because one book is seen to be in error . It just draws my attention to the fact that it is incumbent on me to try all things, prove all things and hold fast that which is good..
Alec

CWH

05-01-2010, 06:19 AM

Hello Dave
I hate being long winded but in this case I might have no choice,we will see how it goes. To your first point : No sarcasm was intended no ill feeling ,no disparagement. I was dismayed , disappointed,discouraged. My faith in the integrity of the whole bible had been shattered. I am reminded of the words from the poem 'If'. If you can bear to see the things you gave your life to broken, and stoop and build em up with worn out tools The thread drew my attention to the book of acts. I had been arranging my ideas about the sequence of events when the question arose as to the stoning of Stephen. This is where the book of acts is seen to be so seriously wrong. This is where my confidence was shattered. It relates in great detail how Stephen came to serve gentile widows in the assembly when in fact the first gentile was not converted until long after his death The book of acts relates the account of Paul. It states that paul was right away in Jerusalem with Peter and other apostles ,when paul himself, writes that upon conversion he did not go to Jerusalem and meet with the others but went to Arabia for three years. At that point I was so despondent that I was ready to discard the whole bible. It was then that I recalled the early days when for years I strove to find and understand the meaning of numbers in scripture. I stumbled across a booklet called 'The shorter works of Ivan pannin'.I thought that I had found the holy grail. I devoured it avidly and then I discovered an error which demolished the whole structure .For years I forsook the concept of what I now know as gematria. Recalling those things I thought ' Why should I dismiss the whole bible just because one book is seen to be in error . It just draws my attention to the fact that it is incumbent on me to try all things, prove all things and hold fast that which is good..
Alec

Hi Alec,

I do understand your frustrations but please do not be despair. I am impressed by your new approach using timing to gain deeper insights into the truth of the scriptures.:thumb: But I feel such approach using timing is subjected to some errors and assumptions. Your post reminds me some months ago in which RAM used to time the records of events of Revelation chronologically from AD 67 to AD 70 which I find is full of assumptions. The main reason is because there are no dates written in Acts or Revelation to confirm the dates so it is at best just assumptions.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2010, 08:09 AM

Hello Dave
I hate being long winded but in this case I might have no choice,we will see how it goes. To your first point : No sarcasm was intended no ill feeling ,no disparagement. I was dismayed , disappointed,discouraged. My faith in the integrity of the whole bible had been shattered. I am reminded of the words from the poem 'If'. If you can bear to see the things you gave your life to broken, and stoop and build em up with worn out tools The thread drew my attention to the book of acts. I had been arranging my ideas about the sequence of events when the question arose as to the stoning of Stephen. This is where the book of acts is seen to be so seriously wrong. This is where my confidence was shattered. It relates in great detail how Stephen came to serve gentile widows in the assembly when in fact the first gentile was not converted until long after his death The book of acts relates the account of Paul. It states that paul was right away in Jerusalem with Peter and other apostles ,when paul himself, writes that upon conversion he did not go to Jerusalem and meet with the others but went to Arabia for three years. At that point I was so despondent that I was ready to discard the whole bible. It was then that I recalled the early days when for years I strove to find and understand the meaning of numbers in scripture. I stumbled across a booklet called 'The shorter works of Ivan pannin'.I thought that I had found the holy grail. I devoured it avidly and then I discovered an error which demolished the whole structure .For years I forsook the concept of what I now know as gematria. Recalling those things I thought ' Why should I dismiss the whole bible just because one book is seen to be in error . It just draws my attention to the fact that it is incumbent on me to try all things, prove all things and hold fast that which is good..
Alec
Alec,

Are those statements in red an accurate representation of what you really believe about the Book of Acts and the Bible as a whole?

Do you really believe that it contains serious historical errors?

Richard

alec cotton

05-01-2010, 12:26 PM

Alec,

Are those statements in red an accurate representation of what you really believe about the Book of Acts and the Bible as a whole?

Do you really believe that it contains serious historical errors?

Richard
The short answer is yes! According to acts ,Cornelius must have been converted long before Stephen was stoned and yet Saul was a young man at that time.In galations 1. Paul said emphatically that he did not confer with flesh and blood but went to arabia. Then back to damascus. After three years he went to live with peter for three weeks . The clear indication is that paul was saying that he was not influenced by the 'bretheren ' but after a period of three years assosciated with them. The book of acts indicates that he mixed with them right away These conflicting views cast long shadows,
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2010, 12:29 PM

The short answer is yes! According to acts ,Cornelius must have been converted long before Stephen was stoned and yet Saul was a young man at that time.In galations 1. Paul said emphatically that he did not confer with flesh and blood but went to arabia. Then back to damascus. After three years he went to live with peter for three weeks . The clear indication is that paul was saying that he was not influenced by the “bretheren “ but after a period of three years assosciated with them. The book of acts indicates that he mixed with them right away These conflicting views cast long shadows,
Alec
OK - so if the Bible is false on these plain statements of fact, why do you believe any of it? Why do you believe it is correct when it says Jesus was crucified?

GotScripture

05-01-2010, 06:10 PM

http://disciplewhomjesusloved.com/

Brother Les, There was a LOT of additional evidence on the disciple whom Jesus loved, that wasn't included in the previous editions of the free eBook The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved (http://thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/beloved-disciple-fourth-gospel-author/), so much so that a revised 4th edition of the book has been posted at TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com (which just like the prior editions cites nothing but the facts in the plain text of scripture).

I trust you will find the additional biblical evidence that is presented in this updated version to be profitable for correction, as scripture always is.

Rose

05-01-2010, 06:39 PM

I'm with you on the Lazarus thingy... I personally believe Revelation is Lazarus' enlarged Olivet Discourse (since the fourth Gospel account does not contain one...)

Hi TS,

I like that! Revelation is an expanded Olivet Discourse, since the Gospel of John doesn't record it. I disagree though that Lazarus wrote those books.

Here is a link to a thread dedicated to just some of the unique words and phrases found only in the Johannine Corpus (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1424) (John, 1,2,3,John, Rev.) giving strong evidence they were written by the same person (which I think was the Apostle John).

Rose

alec cotton

05-02-2010, 01:02 PM

OK - so if the Bible is false on these plain statements of fact, why do you believe any of it? Why do you believe it is correct when it says Jesus was crucified?

Plain statements of fact cannot be contradictory. If the case was presented in any court in the world it would be dismissed out of hand for lack of reliable witnesses. Why do I believe that Christ was crucified ? . Because of the overwhelming weight of evidence. Why do I believe that God is?. To answer that I must start with the observable fact that ,in the heart of every sentient being there is an awareness of the supreme being which we call God. This awareness finds expression in many and various ways because the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Let us start at the lower end ,or what we consider to be the lowest form of life . A bacterium is not even a cell . It can only be described as a packet of protein. It has observable direction determination and purpose. These are the product of a mind. Bacteria cannot have a mind so the only possible conclusion is that they are directed by a mind . Scoffers will say 'That is nature' . That begs the question 'what is nature'. Nature is a universal ,intelligent , invisible force. Exactly. God inspired man to record his directions for mankind in writing. The Bible is a witness to itself. Psalm 19:2
Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night uttereth knowledge. Gaze up into the night sky and you cannot help being impressed by the beauty the order and the balance . And then of course there is the zodiac and the meanings and the history. The word states 'ask the beasts of the fields and they will testify of me. '. That does not mean ask a cow a question . If you walk up to a cow and say ' which way to heaven?' It will stop chewing for a moment and look at you with those lovely gentle eyes and the look on its face will clearly say ' Who is this stupid moron asking silly questions' It means ,Observe the way they live and behave and you will recognise my influence there. On the other hand there is the beauty, the elegance and the rightness of the word . The literature is magnificent ,The logic insurpassable and of course it bears the signature of the spirit of God which cannot be denied. I drop my hands here but I do not rest my case I reserve the right defend the reputation of my lord throughout eternity
Alec.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-03-2010, 08:44 AM

Plain statements of fact cannot be contradictory. If the case was presented in any court in the world it would be dismissed out of hand for lack of reliable witnesses. Why do I believe that Christ was crucified ? . Because of the overwhelming weight of evidence.

Your conclusion does not make any sense. Your rejection of the veracity of Acts is based on your interpretation of "Greeks" in Acts 6:1 as "Gentiles" versus "Greek Jews." This is nothing in comparison with the number of apparent contradictions in the four Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. If you reject the veracity of Acts because of one word, you must reject the veracity of the crucifixion accounts.

Brother Les

05-03-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1959
I'm with you on the Lazarus thingy... I personally believe Revelation is Lazarus' enlarged Olivet Discourse (since the fourth Gospel account does not contain one...) Hi TS,

I like that! Revelation is an expanded Olivet Discourse, since the Gospel of John doesn't record it. I disagree though that Lazarus wrote those books.

Here is a link to a thread dedicated to just some of the unique words and phrases found only in the Johannine Corpus (John, 1,2,3,John, Rev.) giving strong evidence they were written by the same person (which I think was the Apostle John).

Rose

Yes, ...'John', and 1,2,3 John, and Revelation were written by the same 'person'...... "Lazarus", a possiable Sadducee. With 'Paul' as a Pharasee and the other Gospels authored by Apostles, and there is 'James', it would 'round' the NT out very well to have a Sadducee/Priest view point added.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-03-2010, 12:44 PM

Rose

05-03-2010, 01:30 PM

Yes, ...'John', and 1,2,3 John, and Revelation were written by the same 'person'...... "Lazarus", a possiable Sadducee. With 'Paul' as a Pharasee and the other Gospels authored by Apostles, and there is 'James', it would 'round' the NT out very well to have a Sadducee/Priest view point added.

Hi Brother Les,

As you know from previous conversations, I have a problem with Lazarus being the Disciple whom Jesus loved, thus being the person who wrote: John, 1,2,3 John, and Revelation. Here are some of my reasons.

First, we know that John the son of Zebedee was one of the original 12 Disciples of Jesus. Even though Lazarus was a follower of Jesus, hence a disciple...he is not named among the Twelve who Jesus specifically called His Disciples and ordained as those who would be with Him.
.
Matt.10:2- Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
.
Secondly, in the below account of Jesus showing Himself to His Disciples, it is clearly written that the sons of Zebedee of whom John was one entered into the boat with Peter and was among the Disciples who did not recognize Jesus when He appeared to them in the morning. Later that same day after Jesus tells Peter to "feed His sheep", Peter turns to the Disciple whom Jesus loved and asked Jesus "what shall this man do". Now we know from the story that John is one of the Disciples who was in the boat with Peter and whom Jesus showed Himself to, whereas there is no direct evidence that a man named Lazarus was there, only that two other of Jesus' Disciples were there besides the ones who were named.

The passage closes with the disciple whom Jesus loved referring to himself as The Disciple (inferring that he is one of the twelve) who wrote these words.
.
John 21:1-4 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.....20) Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
.
.
Thirdly, if a Scribe such as John the Elder penned the book of Revelation, he would in no way identify himself as being the one who received the vision.
.

Rev.1:4 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;

God Bless,
Rose

Brother Les

05-04-2010, 10:30 AM

by Ram

Originally Posted by Brother Les
Yes, ...'John', and 1,2,3 John, and Revelation were written by the same 'person'...... "Lazarus", a possiable Sadducee. With 'Paul' as a Pharasee and the other Gospels authored by Apostles, and there is 'James', it would 'round' the NT out very well to have a Sadducee/Priest view point added.
Two problems:

1.The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. It seems a little unlikely that one of them quoted Christ as saying "I am the Resurrection," etc..

2.The Vision of Revelation was seen by someone named "John" - a mere scribe would never put his name in the text as if he were the person composing the work.
I think these facts unambiguously refute the Lazarus theory.

Richard

Hello Friends Richard and Rose.
On your point 1. Richard, I will allow that, yes, the Sadducess as 'tradition' states that "The Sadducess" were sad because 'they' (as tradition) did not believed in the 'Resurrection' ('bodily', Spiritual, National???) but that 'tradition' would never bind the 'Elect' of God or 'one' that WAS 'raised' from "The Dead'

On your point 2. , read down what I have pasted and focus in on the 'blue and red' highlight.

Thank-you

Blessings to you Both
Brother Les

From the Sermon "Betrayed By a Kiss" by David Curtis
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/mark/14_43-52.htm

They had all said they would never leave Him:

But Peter kept saying insistently, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And they all were saying the same thing, too. (Mark 14:31 NAB)
But now they all forsake Him and flee for their lives*Scripture is fulfilled.

Only in Mark do we find the following story:

And a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 51 But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked. (Mark 14:51-52 NAB)
One commentator writes, "All the scholars agree that this is Mark himself. This is Mark's way of saying, 'I was there.'" In order to make such a statement, he would have to have read every scholar, which I doubt he did. Many do say this is Mark himself. In our first study of Mark I said this:

Many scholars have suggested that this was Mark, for he would have been a "young man" at that time. Perhaps, because of his fascination with Jesus, he had been hanging around hoping to learn more, had gotten into this trap unknowingly, and had to flee for his life leaving his garment behind. The fact that Mark is the only one who mentions this incident is highly suggestive that this, indeed, was Mark himself.

You know what's coming next right? If you're thinking that I'm going to present a different answer as to who this young man was, you're right! We can only speculate regarding the identity of this otherwise unidentified "follower" of Jesus. So let's do that, let's speculate; our text says, "And a certain young man was following Him..." The word "following" is the Greek word akoloutheo, which means: "to be in the same way with, i.e. to accompany (specifically as a disciple)." I think that it's safe to assume that this man was a disciple of Jesus; that is why he is there in the first place.

Notice what happens to this disciple, "they seized him." The word "seized" is the Greek word krateo, it is the same word used in verse 46 of what they did to Jesus. Why did they "seize" him when they had let the other disciples go free? Remember Jesus pressed them as to who they wanted to arrest, and He told them to, "Let these go their way." So why would they seek to arrest this man? Maybe they knew him, maybe they had also wanted to arrest him:

But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also; (John 12:10 NAB)
Maybe, just maybe, this man with the "linen sheet" was Lazarus*the beloved disciple. We can understand him following Jesus after they all had fled. He had risen from the dead and wasn't afraid of any of the religious leaders. You might say, "But this "young man" then fled too. So how was his behavior any different from the others who 'forsook" Jesus in Mark 14:50?" The difference, I believe, is in his motive for fleeing.

When the others "left him and fled." the clear implication is that they did so out of fear for their own safety. Yet, it seems that this man fled. not because of fear, but shame or embarrassment:

But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked. (Mark 14:52 NAB)
What would you do if a crowd pulled your clothes off? I bet you would run! If this was Lazarus, then after quickly getting something else to wear, he returned and followed Jesus into the court of the high priest.

And a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 51 But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked. (Mark 14:51-52 NAB)
The word translated as "linen sheet" appears only one other time in Mark's gospel:

And Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. (Mark 15:46 NAB)
Joseph of Arimathaea buys a "linen cloth" to serve as a shroud for the body of Jesus, then wraps the body in it before laying it in a rock-hewn tomb. This Greek word sindon is only used 9 times in the New Testament; it is only used of the "linen cloth" that Joseph used to wrap Jesus in and of this un-named man in Mark. This word "sindon" is always used for the cloth covering a corpse, except for its use with the un-named man in Mark. Why would this un-named man in Mark be wearing a material that was used to cover a corps? If this was Lazarus. maybe he was wearing this material as a reminder to himself and others that he had been raised from the dead.

In a letter that Clement wrote to Theodore, he stated that there was more testimony attached to Mark than was presently available. Within this original Gospel was a discussion of the young man John Eleazar (Eleazar being the Hebrew of the Greek Lazarus), who after Yahshua raised him from the tomb, went to the Garden of Getthsemane clothed in a fine white linen garment over his naked body" (Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible, The Secret Gospel of Mark, p.342). I know this is just history, I know that it is not inspired, but it is interesting. It means that others saw this un-named man in Mark as Lazarus.

The one person left in Getthsemane when everyone else had fled may have been Lazarus*the disciple whom Jesus loved. He loves his Lord and is seeking to stay with Him until he is attacked; they grab his linen garment and there's a struggle. He twists and pulls away, and all they have is the garment, and he runs off naked into the darkness of the night; only to get some clothes and quickly return to the court of the high priest. You have to admit it's possible!

Richard Amiel McGough

05-04-2010, 10:54 AM

Hello Friends Richard and Rose.
On your point 1. Richard, I will allow that, yes, the Sadducess as 'tradition' states that "The Sadducess" were sad because 'they' (as tradition) did not believed in the 'Resurrection' ('bodily', Spiritual, National???) but that 'tradition' would never bind the 'Elect' of God or 'one' that WAS 'raised' from "The Dead'

Hey there my friend,

I agree that a Sadducee could be saved just like anyone else, and that a saved Sadducee would certainly believe in the resurrection contrary to the tradition he came from. I acknowledge your point as valid.

On your point 2. , read down what I have pasted and focus in on the 'blue and red' highlight.

Thank-you

Blessings to you Both
Brother Les

In a letter that Clement wrote to Theodore, he stated that there was more testimony attached to Mark than was presently available. Within this original Gospel was a discussion of the young man John Eleazar (Eleazar being the Hebrew of the Greek Lazarus), who after Yahshua raised him from the tomb, went to the Garden of Getthsemane clothed in a fine white linen garment over his naked body" (Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible, The Secret Gospel of Mark, p.342). I know this is just history, I know that it is not inspired, but it is interesting. It means that others saw this un-named man in Mark as Lazarus.

Very interesting. A man named both "John" and "Lazarus." Are you suggesting that the "John" of Revelation was really "John Lazarus?" If so, I see no problem with that idea, though I need to research this more.

The real issue is that we are ignorant of which "John" wrote which books of the Johannine corpus. The only book that bears his name is Revelation. But when I look at Revelation I see many words and phrases that ring with the sound of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine letters. For example, his salutation:
Revelation 1:9 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.
The word "testimony" (marturia) is distinctly Johannine. Of the 33 NT verses that contain that word, 26 are found in the Johannine corpus. That's 78% and they are found in four out of the five books - John's Gospel, 1,3 John, and Revelation. This seems quite significant to me.

Richard

Brother Les

05-04-2010, 02:05 PM

Ram
Very interesting. A man named both "John" and "Lazarus." Are you suggesting that the "John" of Revelation was really "John Lazarus?" If so, I see no problem with that idea, though I need to research this more.

John 'Eleazar' (Hebrew), John 'Lazarus' (Greek). I do very little 'research', I only read a lot. (and pray for wisdom) I think that we can agree that the same person wrote (or transcribed) John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Also that these 5 'letters' are all very different than any of the others in the NT. From what I know of David Curtis ( http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/home.php ) he stays long and goes deep into the Word and farther beyond that in his research. He believes that it is likely that 'John' Eleazar (Lazarus) wrote or transcribed all of the books above.

The real issue is that we are ignorant of which "John" wrote which books of the Johannine corpus. The only book that bears his name is Revelation. But when I look at Revelation I see many words and phrases that ring with the sound of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine letters. For example, his salutation:
Revelation 1:9 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.

The word "testimony" (marturia) is distinctly Johannine. Of the 33 NT verses that contain that word, 26 are found in the Johannine corpus. That's 78% and they are found in four out of the five books - John's Gospel, 1,3 John, and Revelation. This seems quite significant to me.

Richard

The name 'John' as also, I am have read of the name 'Jesus'... was a very common name in the First Century and before. If 'Lazarus' was 'the disciple' who Jesus loved and he was he (Lazarus) who wrote/transcribed 'John'. We can see that he (Lazarus) stepped back and made himself into the 'background' and pushed Jesus to the forground. When we read 'John' and 'insert' John as 'The disciple Who Jesus Love', "We" (modern readers) think that 'John the Aposple is in reality pushing himself 'forward' and one of 'more' importance. John/Lazarus is doing the same thing with Revelation. Humbling himself and pushing forward events that are soon to take place.

Blessings to All
Brother Les