the three johns

[chrysostom]

the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus?

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

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three

see boismard


back to
the apocalypse

 

[chrysostom]

here are the earliest commentaries on the apocalypse


Irenaeus and Victorinus

irenaeus mentions 'ancient copies [of the Apocalypse]'
and
'recapitulations'

 

[chrysostom]

would you believe this?

one of the more interesting books on the apocalypse is by

R.H. Charles
1913

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE
being lectures delivered before the University of London

Charles has the following:

Ramsay writes with regard to Dr. Lepsius
theory that " the astronomical method, while it
is a useful servant, must not be taken as a
master and director" (p. 506); but in these
articles his practice has not perhaps been as
wise as his counsel ; for he seems to have
unduly committed himself to it.

Another work that has adopted this method
was by a Russian, Nicolaus Morosow, published
in 1907, and translated into German in 1912
under the title, Die Offenbarung Johannis eine
astronomish-historische Untersucliung . The
Introduction is furnished by Dr. Drews of
Karlsruhe, whose credulity in regard to the
fanciful and absurd varies in direct ratio to his
scepticism in things historical.

Morosow claims to have established not only
the year of the vision of the writer of the
Apocalypse, but even the actual day and hour
in th? year 395 A.D. \ The writer was John
Chrysostom.


later on I will show another connection to chrysostom

 

[Robert Pate]

You are consumed with details.

The sole purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well.

Remember the Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men.

God never has and never will do a perfect work through men.

The Bible is not a perfect book. But the witness of Christ and his Gospel is there and that is perfect.

 

[chrysostom]

You are consumed with details.

The sole purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, which it does very well.

Remember the Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men.

God never has and never will do a perfect work through men.

The Bible is not a perfect book. But the witness of Christ and his Gospel is there and that is perfect.

what do you think the purpose of the apocalypse is?
and
how do you go about understanding it?

 

[chrysostom]

jerome 347-420 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
augustine 354-430 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
chrysostom 347-407 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

they were major players at the beginning of the 5th century
jerome was busy translating the bible to latin at the request of the pope
augustine had finished his confessions and would soon start city of God
chrysostom was in ephesus replacing exactly seven corrupt bishops

augustine knew about jerome translating the bible
and
they communicated

some thought chrysostom, the patriarch of constantinople to be be the most powerful church leader
but
chrysostom recognized the pope in rome to be that person
chrysostom would soon be banished
the bishop of alexandria thought he was in charge
the east and the west would never get over this

 

[chrysostom]

we don't know what the bible looked like in the 4th century
primarily due to the apocalypse
we know jerome was translating it to latin
but
we don't know
if
he was finished
we do know chrysostom was in ephesus replacing seven bishops
we do know augustine didn't start his 'city of God' until the 5th century
and
didn't really address the apocalypse until book 20
and
not until chapter 7 of book 20 of his 'city of God'
so
it is well into the 5th century before we can be sure what the apocalypse looked like at that time

 

[chrysostom]

one more thing points to chyrsostom
if
you accept the seven heads
are
the seven dynasties of the roman empire

chyrsostom in his time can say

five have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come 17:10

 

[False Prophet]

The content of the Gospel of John; the content of the epistles of John; and the content of the Apocalypse are different; therefore the writers of the three must be different. So there must be three different John authors in the New Testament. I guess that is your logic.

We would need to examine the original manuscripts to see whether the handwriting of the documents is the same or different to really know if the same John was the author of the Gospel of John; the epistles of John, and the Apocalypse.

 

[chrysostom]

The content of the Gospel of John; the content of the epistles of John; and the content of the Apocalypse are different; therefore the writers of the three must be different. So there must be three different John authors in the New Testament. I guess that is your logic.

We would need to examine the original manuscripts to see whether the handwriting of the documents is the same or different to really know if the same John was the author of the Gospel of John; the epistles of John, and the Apocalypse.

not exactly
we of course do not have the originals
so
they cannot be examined
but
we do have experts who know hebrew and greek
and
they can tell
if
it was written originally in greek or hebrew
and
they say it was originally written in hebrew unlike the rest of the new testament
and
later translated into greek

 

[chrysostom]

this is john the baptist
who
knew the Lamb of God
and
bare record

Revelation 1:2 King James Version (KJV)

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

John 1:29 King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 1:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

this is john the apostle
who
added the churches, antipas,
and
the name of Jesus

Revelation 1:4 King James Version (KJV)

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;

this is john chrysostom
who
was in ephesus at the beginning of the 4th century
and
he replaced exactly seven corrupt bishops

Revelation 1:9 King James Version (KJV)

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.

 

[chrysostom]

I am not the first one to suggest John the Baptist was the original writer of the apocalypse. Many have suggested that it is the work of more than one writer. It was Charles who insisted that it was originally written in hebrew and later translated into greek. It makes sense.

 

[chrysostom]

would you believe this?

one of the more interesting books on the apocalypse is by

R.H. Charles
1913

STUDIES IN THE APOCALYPSE
being lectures delivered before the University of London

Charles has the following:

Ramsay writes with regard to Dr. Lepsius
theory that " the astronomical method, while it
is a useful servant, must not be taken as a
master and director" (p. 506); but in these
articles his practice has not perhaps been as
wise as his counsel ; for he seems to have
unduly committed himself to it.

Another work that has adopted this method
was by a Russian, Nicolaus Morosow, published
in 1907, and translated into German in 1912
under the title, Die Offenbarung Johannis eine
astronomish-historische Untersucliung . The
Introduction is furnished by Dr. Drews of
Karlsruhe, whose credulity in regard to the
fanciful and absurd varies in direct ratio to his
scepticism in things historical.

Morosow claims to have established not only
the year of the vision of the writer of the
Apocalypse, but even the actual day and hour
in th? year 395 A.D. \ The writer was John
Chrysostom.


later on I will show another connection to chrysostom

just quoting this so I can link it properly

 

[False Prophet]

This is john 1:

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1

Most of the posters on TOL will say that this John the Beloved Apostle. Some critics say that this was written around AD 100, and that the Beloved Apostle of Jesus Christ who was John would have been dead or a hundred years old at the time of the writing of this letter to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

9I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Rev 1

Let's call this John of Patmos. He dispatched this letter to the seven churches in Asia Minor, and it has come down to us as the book of Revelation at the end of the Bible.

 

[Krsto]

some thought chrysostom, the patriarch of constantinople to be be the most powerful church leader
but
chrysostom recognized the pope in rome to be that person

I think it quite possible Rev. had several authors or was cobbled together by one or more authors, or even that if written before 70 AD (my position) that parts were added later. It's purpose was to encourage the Christians under persecution who would see God move on their behalf at the destruction of Jerusalem and the priesthood in 70 AD.

I appreciate your ability to do some independent thinking on this.

What I don't appreciate is your tendency to swallow hook, line and sinker the Catholic propaganda that there was a pope in Rome that others saw as the head of the church. NOBODY outside of Rome has EVER though of the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Christian church, including your boy Chrysostom. Many considered him to be influential, some even more influential than the Bishop of Alexandria (apparently the Bishop of Alexandria was one of them), but this perceived importance was based on the importance of the city itself in the scheme of world affairs plus the personal qualities of the bishops, not on anything to do with apostolic succession as your church tries to cram down the throats of anyone gullible enough to buy it, like you.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I think it quite possible Rev. had several authors or was cobbled together by one or more authors, or even that if written before 70 AD (my position) that parts were added later. It's purpose was to encourage the Christians under persecution who would see God move on their behalf at the destruction of Jerusalem and the priesthood in 70 AD.

I appreciate your ability to do some independent thinking on this.

What I don't appreciate is your tendency to swallow hook, line and sinker the Catholic propaganda that there was a pope in Rome that others saw as the head of the church. NOBODY outside of Rome has EVER though of the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Christian church, including your boy Chrysostom. Many considered him to be influential, some even more influential than the Bishop of Alexandria (apparently the Bishop of Alexandria was one of them), but this perceived importance was based on the importance of the city itself in the scheme of world affairs plus the personal qualities of the bishops, not on anything to do with apostolic succession as your church tries to cram down the throats of anyone gullible enough to buy it, like you.

I had thought this too but I read scholar after scholar, the language experts etc and they all say with one accord that Revs is the work of one writer....I do not believe it is apostolic.

 

[chrysostom]

I had thought this too but I read scholar after scholar, the language experts etc and they all say with one accord that Revs is the work of one writer....I do not believe it is apostolic.

somebody thought it was apostolic or it wouldn't be in the bible
and
how do you go about addressing these questions raised in the opening post?

the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

why is the name of Jesus not mentioned in chapters 4 thru 11?

why are the churches not mentioned in the commentary by Victorinus?

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

why doesn't Eusebius mention the martyr Antipas?

why did they mention ancient copies of the apocalypse?

why didn't they agree on whether the apocalypse was written by the apostle?

the only answer for all of these questions
is
there was more than one version of the apocalypse

possibly three


back to
the apocalypse

 

[Timotheos]

I no longer believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. I believe that John was leading his church until he died and never went to Patmos. I believe that some other guy named John wrote an apocalypse and it was mistakenly attributed to the Apostle. For me, this removes the Book of Revelation from the Canon of Scripture.

 

[Timotheos]

the three johns

why does john mention his name three times in the first chapter?

The first "John" was added to the scroll. The scroll was rolled up, and the first three verses were added by a scribe in order to identify the contents of the scroll.

The second "John" is identifying the author. Other letters of the time start this way too. (See the first verse of Paul's letters)
The letter actually starts at verse 4.

I don't know the reason for the third "John". It just seems incidental. I am your friend Tim, and I am sitting here this morning writing to you.

It is interesting to me that John calls himself "John". This is one of the reasons that I don't believe it was written by the real apostle John. In the Gospel of John, John never calls himself "John". The real Apostle wouldn't have said he was "John".

Tim

 

[chrysostom]

I no longer believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. I believe that John was leading his church until he died and never went to Patmos. I believe that some other guy named John wrote an apocalypse and it was mistakenly attributed to the Apostle. For me, this removes the Book of Revelation from the Canon of Scripture.

whoa!
how do you know any of the other books were written by the apostles?
you don't want to remove anything from the bible
there is a reason why it is in there