Christians and the Tribulation

[Rhema]

Can I ask why there is an assumption that the one withholding is the Holy Spirit?

That's a very popular view in the Evangelical world of Eschatology. There was a whole cottage industry of "Prophecy Conferences" back in the 70's and 80' (maybe there still is) where people hear it from others and the assumption takes on a life of its own. It sells books.

But I just don't see it as I read the Greek. Not to beat a dead horse, but the it's the Day of the Lord that is being withheld (it's not here yet - why?), and Paul is saying that they now know why, because the Son of Perdition has not yet come-into-being.

Since KingJ asked for my "interpretation" I threw caution to the wind.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

I await your reply with interest.

Had I seen this earlier, I may have not spent all that time on the "Heaven and the Dead" thread.

Give me a bit of time. I'll get back to you.

Thank you,
Rhema

(Still in the middle of that Trinity info.)

 

[KingJ]

11 Truthful statements from my perspective.


You mean removing me? But I'd still be here on the Earth. So... obviously things can be removed or taken away while still remaining on Earth.


(How aggressive...)

Adding in words to create a theological fantasy is not wise. Even IF some restraint of the Holy Spirit is removed from Lawlessness, or the working of Lawlessness, it does not mean that the Holy Spirit is taken away from the Earth. I had hoped that you could at least agree that the word Earth is not in the text. ( It isn't. ) Nor is the Holy Spirit mentioned at all.

That still doesn't change the fact that there is no "taking" or "removing" of anything in 2 Thessalonians 2:7


You mean if YOU decide I am one ?? ... . One would think that you'd treat non-Christians better, ( if we are to do good to our enemy). Unfortunately this is the type of bickering that Nick warned against, so I'd rather that we stick to the topic.

For better or worse, this is the text of verse 7

FOR THE MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS ALREADY OPERATES : ONLY THE ONE RESTRAINING JUST NOW UNTIL OUT OF (the) MIDDLE IT MIGHT COME-INTO-BEING.


And in many passages of the Bible, all of the translations are wrong. As an example, the word LORD isn't in the Hebrew text in Leviticus 1:1. Find me one English translation that is accurate. And no, translators don't put this in to "help you out." They change the words to push their own theological agenda.

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of YHWH is with us," when, in fact, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? (Jeremiah 8:8)​

50 years ago, I discovered that neither the KJV nor the NIV accurately followed the Greek text. That's when I decided to learn the language for myself. At times, the NRSV is even worse, not to mention the innumerable recent attempts (NLV, NHE, EST... MOUSE) But if you decide that that makes you (how did you say) "silly" That's on YOU. I provided an accurate rendition, and if you don't like it, go learn the language for yourself. You are quite welcome to put me on ignore.


Upon reflection I ought to have provided a better word order for English. Sorry about that. Sometimes I think in English words with Greek grammar.

Verse 7: And now ye know what withholdeth / holds back (the day of the Lord) that he (the Son of Perdition) might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness already operates, only restrained (held back) just now until he (the Son of Perdition) "out of middle" might-come-into-being. (Greek with annotation)​

So let me set some background, which you likely already know....

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 KJV)​

To be honest, there are books written on this passage of Paul, although I have no desire to walk over to my seminary's library and try to count them. The key phrase is the "DAY OF THE LORD," which is found in OT prophecy 23 times, from Isaiah on through Malachi. It's a rather important phrase, but can mean different things, like the prophecy about Islam in Ezekiel 30.

Obviously, the concern of the congregation to whom Paul writes is "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him." This is a direct reference to Matthew 24, and it would seem that this church had even received some type of letter saying that such had already happened. Paul assures them that it cannot happen until the "man of sin, ... the Son of Perdition" (as opposed to the Son of God) be revealed. After listing some characteristics about this Son of Perdition, Paul refers to things that he taught in person. Unfortunately, these are not things that have been written down. ... Anywhere.

So now we arrive at the passage that is badly translated.

(2 Thessalonians 2:6-10 KJV) And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (added words have been removed), until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, (added words have been removed) whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.​

Please take some time reading the above passage. I removed the words that the KJV added because they shouldn't be there. Period. But it seems strange, this one segment, "... with the brightness of his coming whose coming is after the working of Satan..." That's because the word "after" is the wrong gloss for KATA (G2596), which means against. The Lord's coming is against the working of Satan... Now allow me to provide a better word order than I gave before, with clarification of the pronouns:

And now ye know what withholdeth / holds back (the day of the Lord) that he (the Son of Perdition) might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness already operates, only restrained (held back) just now until he (the Son of Perdition) might "out of middle" come-into-being. (Greek with annotation)​

It would seem that the "Son of Perdition" had not yet been born (come into being), so the church need not worry. While lawlessness already operates, the mystery is that the Day of the Lord is held back until the Son of Perdition is born comes-into-being. Truth be told, the "out of middle" has me a bit perplexed. The text does not say middle of what. While I am not inclined to speculate, maybe "out of midair"? An event for which most people are unaware.

The final truth is that neither the word Earth nor the Holy Spirit are actually present in this entire passage, and that was my point - Not to base your eschatology on the Holy Spirit disappearing from the planet.


Okie dokie.... (but put on your seat belt and strap in) ...

DNA is the Law of life. It is also the Law of Death, since death is encoded in your DNA (e.g. telomeres). Law-Less-Ness is the genetic manipulation of DNA by men (possibly this Son of Perdition), the purpose of which is to create a human body that will live forever - and Not Die. Your Second Coming will occur when genetic research produces a human (who also might be this Son of Perdition) that cannot die. At that point, the active ingredient of "Tree of Life" can be synthesized in the lab so ALL humans could no longer age and die. (There's a reason for this.)

Now if the Tuft's University Perseus website was working, I could link you into the definition of "mystery" which shows the Greek word to indicate QUOTE object used in magical rites UNQUOTE, and I see no reason why this could not refer to the equipment used in biochemistry.

And THAT's why the Day of the Lord is almost at hand... No other reason.

God bless,
Rhema


Oh spare me... . How many "vast majority of scholars" have you met or read? It would be greatly beneficial if you could drop the hyperbole.

Troll like reply, straw man counters and many rabbit trails. I am happy to discuss with you on another site where we can have a formal debate and all your rabbit trails can be called out. You are all over the show.

 

[KingJ]

So then you believe that Peter preached an incomplete gospel, and those 3,000 were not saved?

Separate matter (aka rabbit trail).

Don't know, couldn't care less. Revelation is not in our canon. Nor was it in your canon until 367 AD. In 325 AD half the bishops at Nicaea thought it was trash, and I am inclined to agree. The Apocalypse of John belongs with the Apocalypse of Peter. I have never found anything good to come out of that book.

You don't acknowledge Revelations? It is trash?

But why do you refuse to accept the fact that Rev 2:10 was written to the Church in Smyrna, and therefore has nothing to do with any time period after Laodicia? I hope you get unstuck on that issue.

Have you read Rev 2:10? Do you think that if this was said to them it would not apply to others?

Hmmm... Are you Jehovah's Witness by the way?

Mods have warned you and you still type like this?

No it's not. Rom 14:5 is about sabbaths and festivals.

You are missing the point.

 

[Rhema]

You don't acknowledge Revelations?

Neither did the Apostle Thomas. As I have often mentioned, the Apocalypse of John is not in the canon of the Church of the East (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) that was established by Thomas in the Parthian Empire. Nor was it considered canon by half the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.

From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, in. xxv. 4.

(4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)​

It didn't officially become canon (of the Catholic Church) until the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (A.D. 393). Well after all the Apostles were dead.

I am much more inclined to believe Thomas rather than the Catholic Church.

As a side note, most well known textual scholars (e.g. Daniel Wallace, Bart Ehrman) have firmly established that the number of the Beast is 616. They have traced the scribal error of 666 back to its source, but it would be up to you whether to study that further or not.

Have you read Rev 2:10? Do you think that if this was said to them it would not apply to others?

If, as you have postulated a number of times, Rev 2:10 is a basis for a salvation apart from that taught by Paul, then "Pauline Salvation" would have ended right after the first section of the Church Age (Ephesus). Unless you are suggesting that the Church Age on from Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea had TWO paths to salvation? Pauline and Johannine, both at the same time?

(Revelation 2:10 KJV) Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.​

But wasn't this written to believers already? How did those in Smyrna become believers to begin with? Perhaps I misunderstand, but it would seem to be that you think being given this "Crown of Life" means the same thing as being saved, and so these believers weren't actually saved since they had to be given this Crown of Life first, and that required them to suffer certain tribulation?

Furthermore, wouldn't that tribulation be during the age of Smyrna? And if during the age of Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, isn't that ALL before this "Rapture"?

I ASK because despite your protests, your views have not been clearly expressed.

God bless,
Rhema

You are missing the point.

I rather think not.

 

[hopefulson]

What's the point then? I think you guys are over my head. Or to make my own stupid point you are splitting hairs I cannot even see. This is one of my favorite topics but my approach is to take my cue from the character and nature of God. His perspective on all matters compels me to make adjustments to my point of view. I try in every regard to follow that rule knowing He is Holy and I am not but His directive is that I become so.

 

[Christ4Ever]

KingJ: You don't acknowledge Revelations?

Neither did the Apostle Thomas. As I have often mentioned, the Apocalypse of John is not in the canon of the Church of the East (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) that was established by Thomas in the Parthian Empire. Nor was it considered canon by half the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.

Could it be that Timothy met his demise before the document was composed, or so close in time (same year possibly) that he never had the chance to read it before his passing?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. Thanks for adding this tidbit on the canon of the Church of the East and its exclusion of what is now called Revelation.

 

[Rhema]

What's the point then?

Sometimes I think there is no point to discussing end time eschatology. But when one does, I feel we should't be creating fictional fantasies. That's how we got the Hollywood version of Hell, - from the Catholic fantasies.

The claim that the Holy Spirit leaves the earth based on the verse 2 Th. 2:7 can cause all kinds of disquiet, which is the exact thing that Paul was trying to dispell, these rumors that the Day of the Lord had already happened.

From my perspective, it becomes problematic when I encounter a translation that states, "taken out of the way" when I directly read "come into being."

This is one of my favorite topics ...

Which is okay, but what about when people damage their lives by acting on the religious fiction of popular preachers?

Harold Camping comes to mind, since he predicted an exact date for the Day of the Lord, or more specifically the Rapture, which was to occur on May 21, 2011. MANY people went into creditcard debt, left their jobs, and ultimately destroyed their lives because of this. At least he had the courage to admit on camera in a documentary that he was wrong. Didn't matter, though, as the damage was already done.

And it's not just a modern thing, as one should become acquainted with the Millerites who gathered on a hill in upstate New York on October 22, 1844. (LINK)

Or to make my own stupid point you are splitting hairs I cannot even see.

My apologies then, but is there hair you can see that you'd like split?

Blessings,
Rhema

 

[hopefulson]

I suppose there is. There is no way I can spend the time needed to cover all the ground right now so let me offer this. Jesus is with a gathering in a home with 2 sisters present. One was running to and fro and serving those who were guests. The other sister sat at Jesus feet attentively. Which one was more intelligent and why would you think so? The sister that sat at Jesus's feet wanted to be with Him and share in His perspective. What does Jesus remark concerning the one in service that was worried about many things? His remark was something akin to there is only one thing necessary and that thing is the better part. Now what does that have to do with us? The union with Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for a right perspective or to perceive the truth. That is inferred by the fact That Jesus Christ is the truth's author. So that is the way I judge my own view point and my own character. God Bless you for being here and spending the time.

 

[Rhema]

Timothy

Uh.... Thomas? (Not to worry.)

P.S. Thanks for adding this tidbit on the canon of the Church of the East and its exclusion of what is now called Revelation.

Not that I expect you to read every post I write ( ) But you should.

I once more provide a link to the New Testament scriptures of the Church of the East, most of which were translated into Aramaic (the language of the Parthian Empire) by Thomas. Not only Revelation, but also 2nd Peter, and 2nd, 3rd John were excluded. One is invited to compare the table of contents.

TheAramaicScriptures.com

The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.

www.thearamaicscriptures.com

Could it be that Timothy met his demise before the document was composed, or so close in time (same year possibly) that he never had the chance to read it before his passing?

Given that most all origins of New Testament texts are based on Tradition rather than evidence, anything might be possible. Such tradition holds that Thomas was martyred in AD 72, and the Apocalypse of John of Patmos is commonly dated to about AD 95. However.... substantive clues within the text, such as the beast with seven heads and the number 666 seem to allude directly to the emperor Nero who reigned AD 54–68. Of course that would only give four years for its dissemination into India.

All that said, the controversy surrounding Revelation in the Roman Empire, even to the point where it was accepted almost a century after Christianity became the state religion, should rightly give one great pause. There was no "true" canon in the Roman Empire until 393 AD, and from what I understand, the Church of the East closed the canon with the death of Thomas, and rightly so. As such, it's the only canon established by an Apostle.

(Eusebius, Church History VII.25). (LINK)

1. Afterward he (Dionysius; bishop of Alexandria and disciple of Origen - AD 248), speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John. Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent.​

​

2. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.​

So even back in 325 AD it was essentially "ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice."

I am not comfortable with that.

Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

Given that most all origins of New Testament texts are based on Tradition rather than evidence, anything might be possible. Such tradition holds that Thomas was martyred in AD 72, and the Apocalypse of John of Patmos is commonly dated to about AD 95. However.... substantive clues within the text, such as the beast with seven heads and the number 666 seem to allude directly to the emperor Nero who reigned AD 54–68. Of course that would only give four years for its dissemination into India.

All that said, the controversy surrounding Revelation in the Roman Empire, even to the point where it was accepted almost a century after Christianity became the state religion, should rightly give one great pause. There was no "true" canon in the Roman Empire until 393 AD, and from what I understand, the Church of the East closed the canon with the death of Thomas, and rightly so. As such, it's the only canon established by an Apostle.

Church of the East closing the canon with the death of Thomas makes no sense, when you still have John alive, and writing and by more than 20 years! The only way it would make sense is if they did not get the Revelation till much later after John's death and had question to its authenticity. Yet, when confirmed it should have been accepted, if not necessarily understood. Unless they believed the Apostle John was lying. Anyway, shoot, the Revelation is still not understood completely!!! lol Then again that isn't the only book not accepted, is it? What other books are not seen as canon by the Church of the East? If it is the Peshitta that you are referencing, then there are a few others not included. Correct?

You added above a comment about those contents as alluding directly to the emperor Nero, but so what? Many things in Revelation have alluded to different historical characters/events over the years and shown not to be true!!! Our interpretation does not invalidate the writing! You know this type of thinking is wrong just on face value. Otherwise, why keep Daniel or for that matter any book that contains prophecy that is either not understood or accepted by all?

The only problem I foresee in this is thinking these books as being lesser and that being used as an excuse if as a whole it would make context of a certain doctrine appear different than what is currently accepted in the church. You would know better than I if this were ever the case.

Prophecy of course is always a curve ball to anything set in stone because it would have to happen before one would know for a surety of its authencity. Like the nation of Israel becoming an official nation again in 1948 after being scattered in 70AD. In reading Revelation, no one would from 70AD or 97AD when Revelation was written, through to 1940's believed that it would happen!!! All kinds of interpretations were tossed out there for what it meant! Yet, what it meant is what it meant! Clearly, they would be in the land originally given to them by God, when/before certain prophecies would happen!!! Of course, scholars and even leaders of the early church would be scratching their heads in trying to make sense of it, and so question it!!! lol Makes me giddy like a child thinking of it!!! Thankfully the OT/Torah was not tossed away because Daniel talked of Greece that did not even exist at that time or any other prophetic writings were not understood!!! Yikes what a mess/pickle we'd have on our hands if that had happened! But God gracefully, mercifully did not allow it to happen! Alleluia!!!

Sorry, for going so far afield! Your introduction to the Church of the East and the Bible it uses makes it interesting to me! Interesting to say the least! Thank-you for sharing your knowledge and for having consideration for my curiosity.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. These old eyes saw Timothy instead of Thomas!!! lol

 

[Rhema]

Church of the East closing the canon with the death of Thomas makes no sense

Why? It makes perfect sense to me. The founder (and Original Apostle) presents a canon of scripture as he establishes the church, oversees any additions as Paul's epistles are published, and then when he is martyred, the community stays true to the Apostle's decisions without any Acts 15 or Acts 21 controversies. Since the Apostle is no longer there to approve additions, the church was actually spared the inundation of innumerable texts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Acts of Barnabas, the Epistle of Barnabas, even the Gospel of Thomas... the list is pretty extensive). All that chaos over in the Roman Empire didn't toss this church too and fro. No lions for Christians to be fed to.

It's a clean canon (sort of) without all that Bishop Synod nonsense where they excommunicate each other and then the Emperor takes over the church.

I realize that the Church established by Thomas is rather obscure to the West, but ... I have a friend who decided that he should be Eastern Orthodox since that was the first church. (Little does he know, ... and I guess that's the point.)

when you still have John alive

Which John? Look at the histories. Revelation is Not written by the Apostle John, but rather by someone who self-identifies as John of Patmos, and 2nd and 3rd John are self-claimed to be written by John the Elder (but not 1st John). There's absolutely no way for the believers in India to prove any claim that any document was written by anyone let alone that the Apostle John wrote Revelation. So we have John the Elder, John of Patmos, and yet the Gospel named John doesn't even self-identify as being written by any John. (Not sure if I ever posted anything here about the fact that I can readily show that the Gospel named John was written by Lazarus, but I don't want to toss too many rabbits into the stew.)

The Church of the East adopted a very wise policy, saying Let it Be, and so the Church was protected from those such as Miller, David Koresh, Harold Camping and the rest. Personally, I've never found anything good to come out the Apocalypse of John, but I am open to valid testimony...

Yet, when confirmed it should have been accepted, if not necessarily understood.

Accepted BY WHOM ?!?!? It wasn't even accepted by the Roman Church itself until 393 AD. If the Council of Nicaea in the Roman Empire couldn't figure it out, why place a charge against the believers in India that they should?

Nick, have you even read my posts? Or just skimmed over them? The purity of the Canon of the Church of the East is that Thomas established it - period. And nobody else effed around with it.

Unless they believed the Apostle John was lying.

There would be no need to even try and verify that it was the Apostle John. Not even the church in Rome knows wiether it was penned by the Apostle John or not, and I'm fairly confident in my view that the Gospel named John was written by Lazarus. (ALTHOUGH, I have no problem if someone wants to believe that Lazarus was a pseudonym for John. (Nome de Plume?)

What other books are not seen as canon by the Church of the East? If it is the Peshitta that you are referencing, then there are a few others not included. Correct?

I gave you a link, and invite you to compare the table of contents. Check it out.

TheAramaicScriptures.com

The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.

www.thearamaicscriptures.com

Our interpretation does not invalidate the writing!

Never said it did. I pointed to the chaos it causes, and the historical FACT that even the Roman Church had considerable debates and concerns that lasted more than a century. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS, Nick. By that time there would be no way to verify its provenance.

You know this type of thinking is wrong just on face value.

That it's wrong to judge a book by it contents? History shows that there were hundreds of Bishops who couldn't accept Revelation until it was finally rammed down their throat politically. But... why do you reject the Gospel of Phillip if not for its contents? Why is the Gospel of Mary not in your Bible? Likely because some Bishop didn't like the content.

Otherwise, why keep Daniel or for that matter any book that contains prophecy that is either not understood or accepted by all?

Well that's a Strawman statement, Nick. I don't recall ever posting any claim that Revelation should be burned at the stake because of its contents. And as far as books not accepted by all ?? I would encourage you to get a copy of The Canon of the New Testament by Dr. Bruce Metzger. It speaks at length about the acceptance process. Best one throughout all history right now.

LINK - The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Dr. Bruce Metzger

I once took a course on the book of Revelation taught by Dr. Metzger of Princeton Theological. It was quite eye opening.

thinking these books as being lesser

We don't think Revelation is "lesser." We just don't think about it at ALL with regards to our own Doctrines. It's a null set. Like with the absence of the Apocalypse of Peter in your Bible. You don't think it "lesser," it's just not there.

it would make context of a certain doctrine appear different than what is currently accepted in the church.

I can pretty well imagine that there would be some type of impact on any system of Eschatology given the removal of Revelation.

All kinds of interpretations were tossed out there for what it meant!

And don't forget the film scripts.

Your introduction to the Church of the East and the Bible it uses makes it interesting to me! Interesting to say the least! Thank-you for sharing your knowledge and for having consideration for my curiosity.

You are quite welcome. Now I don't know if Dr. Bruce Metger's lecture series on the Book of Revelation is online or not. And I hope you have the wherewithal to track down read his book on the canon (as linked above).

(Hope I haven't missed anything, and yes, I do recall a post on translation that I need to address.)

Rhema

 

[KingJ]

Neither did the Apostle Thomas. As I have often mentioned, the Apocalypse of John is not in the canon of the Church of the East (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) that was established by Thomas in the Parthian Empire. Nor was it considered canon by half the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.

From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, in. xxv. 4.

(4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)​

It didn't officially become canon (of the Catholic Church) until the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (A.D. 393). Well after all the Apostles were dead.

I am much more inclined to believe Thomas rather than the Catholic Church.

As a side note, most well known textual scholars (e.g. Daniel Wallace, Bart Ehrman) have firmly established that the number of the Beast is 616. They have traced the scribal error of 666 back to its source, but it would be up to you whether to study that further or not.



If, as you have postulated a number of times, Rev 2:10 is a basis for a salvation apart from that taught by Paul, then "Pauline Salvation" would have ended right after the first section of the Church Age (Ephesus). Unless you are suggesting that the Church Age on from Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea had TWO paths to salvation? Pauline and Johannine, both at the same time?

(Revelation 2:10 KJV) Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.​

But wasn't this written to believers already? How did those in Smyrna become believers to begin with? Perhaps I misunderstand, but it would seem to be that you think being given this "Crown of Life" means the same thing as being saved, and so these believers weren't actually saved since they had to be given this Crown of Life first, and that required them to suffer certain tribulation?

Furthermore, wouldn't that tribulation be during the age of Smyrna? And if during the age of Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, isn't that ALL before this "Rapture"?

I ASK because despite your protests, your views have not been clearly expressed.

God bless,
Rhema


I rather think not.

I am discussing Revelations with someone who believes it is all trash. You must do more research on why it is included.

--------------------------

The whole of Revelations is a revelation given to John. Chapter 1 to the end.

In Rev 1:19 we read 'Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter'.

In his vision, he sees seven letters sent to the churches in Asia Rev 2 & 3. Now, you need to sit back and meditate on this. The rapture date is an unknown date. So we could speculate as to whether the letters take place before or after the rapture. Both could be true. Exhortations to come right with God or explanations as to why they missed the rapture.

With regards to Rev 2:10 specifically, we see that it has to be post rapture as it is the devil himself that sends people to prison.

''behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison''.

Throughout history it has almost been a given that if you bow the knee to any leader, you should not expect to get into heaven. This is why in my post here I draw a parallel to faith in Jesus being on par with martyrdom What is a Christian and how do you become one?.

But Rev 2:10 is not a ''should be able to'' verse. It is a ''must'' verse. Just as Rev 14:9-10 is '' If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God''.

Now, even if it was as you say '''a specific letter to a specific church prior to the great tribulation'' you still have to explain:

1. Why the instruction to come to God / get a crown differs completely to Gal 2:16. ''know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ''

2. Since God is not a man that changes His mind Num 23:19 and is impartial Acts 10:34, why would He expect only that specific church to follow Rev 2:10, literally to the letter?

When you sit back, relax and digest all of scripture on the topic, you will see the same picture I see. Gal 2:16 clashes 100% with Rev 2:10 and Rev 14:9-10. It is literal insanity to suggest it doesn't. As bad as 1 + 1 = 3.

 

[KingJ]

@B-A-C , @Brad Huber, @Butch5

All those who don't believe in a rapture event, please can you explain this verse to me:

1 Thess 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

How can this speak to the second coming of Jesus at the end of the great tribulation? There is nothing '''thief in the night''' about that. It is a known date in time. Seven years before the end of the sixth day. All we need to do is look at our calendar to know when the seven years are up. Or watch Armageddon taking place on satellite television?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Why?

I do believe I answered this following the quote of mine that you used.

Which John? Look at the histories. Revelation is Not written by the Apostle John, but rather by someone who self-identifies as John of Patmos, and 2nd and 3rd John are self-claimed to be written by John the Elder (but not 1st John). There's absolutely no way for the believers in India to prove any claim that any document was written by anyone let alone that the Apostle John wrote Revelation. So we have John the Elder, John of Patmos, and yet the Gospel named John doesn't even self-identify as being written by any John. (Not sure if I ever posted anything here about the fact that I can readily show that the Gospel named John was written by Lazarus, but I don't want to toss too many rabbits into the stew.)

The Church of the East adopted a very wise policy, saying Let it Be, and so the Church was protected from those such as Miller, David Koresh, Harold Camping and the rest. Personally, I've never found anything good to come out the Apocalypse of John, but I am open to valid testimony...

Look at why John of Patmos was sent to Patmos. Keeping this in mind [Mar 3:24 KJV] And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Though you and others do not accept it, but there is another side of coin that others do. Ignorance or lack of understanding of what it contains should not be the reason for rejecting it as canon.

Accepted BY WHOM ?!?!? It wasn't even accepted by the Roman Church itself until 393 AD. If the Council of Nicaea in the Roman Empire couldn't figure it out, why place a charge against the believers in India that they should?

Nick, have you even read my posts? Or just skimmed over them? The purity of the Canon of the Church of the East is that Thomas established it - period. And nobody else effed around with it.

And Peshitta was accepted around 400 or more AD? Hummmm...is time the deciding factor or looking to see if it is God Breathed?
Won't one have an even purer canon then Peshitta if one only held to the 4 Gospels alone as some do????
I hope you understand that I do not condemn this canon, because they did not allow for this or that book. Just understand that you can't argue against what others believe is canon, though you do, and expect to be understood or believed in what you see is doctrinally relevant to a particular discussion that includes what you do not accept as canon. You can't help but see it as lesser, because whether you want to or not in your mind it is lesser or maybe even heretical or it would have been included in the Peshitta. Which is a logical consideration when dealing with weighty matters of what is the Word of God and what is not.
"effed"? I think I hit a sensitive spot.

Never said it did. I pointed to the chaos it causes, and the historical FACT that even the Roman Church had considerable debates and concerns that lasted more than a century. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS, Nick. By that time there would be no way to verify its provenance.

Again, when was the Peshitta finalized??? 400AD or more??? Again, time, or is it God Breathed of more import? Keeping in mind that the Peshitta falls to its own criticism you present here when you emphasize time.

You never said it did but alluded to it by the use of Nero as an example! I stated that lack of understanding should not affect the validity of acceptance of what is clearly prophetic in nature. Because throughout time others were also identified as being the one mentioned in Revelation because they were tyrants, even to a time closer to us, and he was Hitler! Chaos, it causes, like whenever something of God's meets man's frailties of understanding especially when interpreting prophecies. Should not be a reason to exclude it as canon.

However, the time aspect that you are affirming as a standard, I would say to that, it is better to be sure, then to neglect or toss aside what God has given for us to know no matter how long it takes us. Our God is patient! \o/

That it's wrong to judge a book by it contents? History shows that there were hundreds of Bishops who couldn't accept Revelation until it was finally rammed down their throat politically. But... why do you reject the Gospel of Phillip if not for its contents? Why is the Gospel of Mary not in your Bible? Likely because some Bishop didn't like the content.

You say politically, I say lack of understanding of its contents!!! As I've said before lack of understanding of its contents does not mean it should be excluded. Some scholars say up to 70% alludes to the OT!!! By mentioning the Gospel of Mary...who is using a Strawman argument now which you accuse me of in the following...lol

Well that's a Strawman statement, Nick. I don't recall ever posting any claim that Revelation should be burned at the stake because of its contents. And as far as books not accepted by all ?? I would encourage you to get a copy of The Canon of the New Testament by Dr. Bruce Metzger. It speaks at length about the acceptance process. Best one throughout all history right now.

LINK - The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Dr. Bruce Metzger

I once took a course on the book of Revelation taught by Dr. Metzger of Princeton Theological. It was quite eye opening.

As I've said here earlier, you can't help but see it as lesser or you'd have to accept that it should have been added to your canon!

We don't think Revelation is "lesser." We just don't think about it at ALL with regards to our own Doctrines. It's a null set. Like with the absence of the Apocalypse of Peter in your Bible. You don't think it "lesser," it's just not there.

Exactly!!! You don't think about it at all, except to dismiss it when others who do see it as canon bring it up!!! At least you are kind enough to not being overt about it!!!!

I can pretty well imagine that there would be some type of impact on any system of Eschatology given the removal of Revelation.

Exactly. Sadly, it works both ways and makes unity very difficult to have.

And don't forget the film scripts.

Was it necessary for me to breakdown all the mediums of communication when I said "All kinds of interpretations were tossed out there for what it meant!"? I hope not, but I do agree film scripts etc. as well! lol

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

Church of the East closing the canon with the death of Thomas makes no sense, when you still have John alive,

Yet even Paul warned the churches he had established and was overseeing that forgeries would be circulated in his name.

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 KJV) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.​

The distances and times apart from these two communities (say the church at Rome, or even at Jerusalem and that in India) is just staggering - 162 days from Nicaea; 168 from Patmos. And this doesn't include any time for scribes to make copies for circulation, let alone provide verified provenance.

So a letter arrives. The person claims "new scripture" from some "John." Would this be from trusted people known to the community? Paul's letters were circulated by his "support staff," people known to his churches. Even with that, we don't have the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Nor do we have any valid record of Paul's "end." Acts just stops with no record of the resolution of Paul's legal case in Rome. (Should someone other than the author have "filled in the blanks"?)

With the founder of their community dead, who should take it upon themselves to be the new "Pope of India" to add in or subtract from the writings deemed authoritative by Thomas? No one. And no one should. And that perfectly describes the difference between the Catholics (there was no separate Roman or Eastern Orthodox at the time) and the Saint Thomas Christians.

The Catholics would convene synods and argue and bicker and excommunicate each other all over various doctrines and rites. One need only point to Nicaea to see theological evolution over a 300 year period that had no real impact on the Church of the East until the ^#%$ Portuguese arrived in the early 1500s. Why? Because Thomas was the apostle providing guidance, and his disciples were spared the damage done by the Empire's Orthodox Bishops infighting. You should already be aware of Paul's writings where he marked out his territory, and yet state that the same position held by the Saint Thomas Christians "makes no sense"?

(Romans 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: ​

I've already pointed out that the opinion of those Bishops over the validity of Revelation was split even after Nicaea. And this was centuries later. And if it wasn't for the Dark Ages, the controversy might have ended differently. You think it makes sense to close the canon when the Apostle Thomas died? Or... let anything in and then argue over it like the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Acts of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, (where the last two had been "in" but were then removed).

As mentioned, since we don't know what really happened to Paul, how would those in India KNOW what happened to John? (Which ever John it may be.) Heck, y'all don't really know who wrote the book of Hebrews. So there is no reason to charge the Church in India with negligence (making no sense) for avoiding the chaos brought about by the inclusion of Revelation. A chaos that has created and abetted numerous Christian cults (Adventists, Christadelphians, Christian Science, JWs, Mormons) to some extent.

(I'll address the rest shortly, no wanting to go on and on.)
Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

Yet even Paul warned the churches he had established and was overseeing that forgeries would be circulated in his name.

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 KJV) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Very true, but 1st the Book of Revelation was not from him, but a Revelation from Jesus. Secondly, if you were to consider this for that book, what about all the others written after 2nd Thessalonians? Won't that invalidate them, probably even more since some were actually from Paul?

Just because you can associate a verse to a certain condition, it doesn't mean that it actually was either meant to be applied as such or should be. Such speculation could cast doubt on the validity of more than one book or verse.

So a letter arrives. The person claims "new scripture" from some "John."

Considering the John in question was sent to Rome, and only after the failure of killing him by boiling in oil was, he was then sent to Patmos, and later released. I don't think it from just some "John" with little or no affiliation to the church of the day.

The distances and times apart from these two communities (say the church at Rome, or even at Jerusalem and that in India) is just staggering - 162 days from Nicaea; 168 from Patmos. And this doesn't include any time for scribes to make copies for circulation, let alone provide verified provenance.

So a letter arrives. The person claims "new scripture" from some "John." Would this be from trusted people known to the community? Paul's letters were circulated by his "support staff," people known to his churches. Even with that, we don't have the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Nor do we have any valid record of Paul's "end." Acts just stops with no record of the resolution of Paul's legal case in Rome. (Should someone other than the author have "filled in the blanks"?)

With the founder of their community dead, who should take it upon themselves to be the new "Pope of India" to add in or subtract from the writings deemed authoritative by Thomas? No one. And no one should. And that perfectly describes the difference between the Catholics (there was no separate Roman or Eastern Orthodox at the time) and the Saint Thomas Christians.

The Catholics would convene synods and argue and bicker and excommunicate each other all over various doctrines and rites. One need only point to Nicaea to see theological evolution over a 300 year period that had no real impact on the Church of the East until the ^#%$ Portuguese arrived in the early 1500s. Why? Because Thomas was the apostle providing guidance, and his disciples were spared the damage done by the Empire's Orthodox Bishops infighting. You should already be aware of Paul's writings where he marked out his territory, and yet state that the same position held by the Saint Thomas Christians "makes no sense"?

When did Thomas die, and when were the other books of the NT written? If it is accurate that he died 72AD, according to you, you'd have to consider anything written afterwards as being invalid or unacceptable as canon. The majority of the NT would then not fit within that criteria. Meaning, it might make you believe you are safe from deceptive writings, but it would not provide you the knowledge of what some of the actual Apostles had written concerning Jesus and what God through them wanted us to know.

More importantly, a conservative estimate for this canon you find acceptable as is, would only include 1 Gospel, and that would be Mark.
The 3 other Gospels were written between 80-100CE or AD whichever dating you'd prefer to use. Making them invalid for inclusion as canon by the standard requiring the confirmation by Thomas.

You can go through the dating of the other books of the NT as well and know that some that you consider canon, should not be because of the date of their writings.

The Church of the East has its own history of division to content with, but you would that. The only church I believe that has not had that issue, is the one true church, with the head of it being Christ Jesus, and the congregation being the Body of Christ.

I wrote a one pager for a Jehovah Witness who worked at my doctor's office once, to show her "Church" in the NT and how it is seen, especially by Paul. I stopped going there so I don't know how she took to it. I do believe I also posted it here in some thread, but it has been years since I wrote/posted it. Maybe in your search for the church I attend, you might come across it!

I've already pointed out that the opinion of those Bishops over the validity of Revelation was split even after Nicaea.

I have pointed out why, even today, the Book of Revelation remains misunderstood, providing ample reason for its rejection when, in fact, it should not be dismissed as it was. If they had understood it, surely it would have been accepted, but they did not. The Word of God does not require our comprehension to remain the Word of God.

You think it makes sense to close the canon when the Apostle Thomas died? Or... let anything in and then argue over it like the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Acts of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, (where the last two had been "in" but were then removed).

It does make sense. Maybe not to you, though it should consider the dates involved (death of Thomas/dates written), and the acceptance of certain books and not others by the Church of the East.

You would think that you'd have no problem with maybe at times heated discussions. Still, these were Holy Spirit filled men of God who were making these decisions. Not always playing nice, but Scripture shows, man, and even men of God, did not always play nice with each other.

A chaos that has created and abetted numerous Christian cults (Adventists, Christadelphians, Christian Science, JWs, Mormons) to some extent.

(I'll address the rest shortly, no wanting to go on and on.)

The blame is on humanity, and the devil of course had nothing to do with helping it along...
I'm certain that, aside from the Church of the East to which you adhere, all others have their issues, whether deemed cults or generally accepted as Christian.

I would concur with you, but for complete agreement, the Church of the East must be included as well.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

Though you and others do not accept it, but there is another side of coin that others do. Ignorance or lack of understanding of what it contains should not be the reason for rejecting it as canon.

And the other side of that coin is Protestants just flat out accept the Catholic canon without reason or consideration. And that makes no sense to me. Indeed Luther wanted to get rid of both Revelation and James, but couldn't, since he set up the Catholic Canon as the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Reformation, in essence shooting himself in the foot.

So... "others" accept it? Why? Out of their ignorance of church history, and their need for a rather simplistic emotional need for a Holy Book.

And LOOK at all the nonsense and chaos coming out of various interpretations of Revelation. Given all that, there IS NO "understanding of what it contains." ALL interpretations (and I've been to plenty of "Prophecy Conferences" given by various denominations) are eisegetical at best. One might decide to know what it contains, but one cannot understand what it contains.

God has seven Spirits?

Really? You want to go with that one? Are all these seven holy? Are all these seven separate persons?

One can make up excuses, but that's all it is. It is not understanding, but personal fabrication.

The reason for rejecting it as canon is that it's not included in the only canon approved by an Apostle - the one established by Thomas. An Apostle, Nick... an Apostle. And the only reason that Revelation IS in the canon, is due to one man, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria who stuffed it in his list in 367 AD. (Are you sure you want to listen to him?)

So why do others accept it as canon? Because Athanasius put it there, the Dark Ages kept it there, and the Reformation cemented it in, so they could reject the Pope, and people are now bullied into keeping it.

So why did Athanasius accept it? You'll have to ask him, but make sure you know who and what he was.

I stated that lack of understanding should not affect the validity of acceptance of what is clearly prophetic in nature.

So why don't you accept the Apocalypse of Peter? Which is also clearly prophetic in nature. Maybe because the Catholics told you not to? Why? It's listed in the Muratorian Canon, the oldest known list of New Testament texts (c. 170–200). Why do you accept one, yet reject the other? And not to be condescending, but have you taken the time to figure out why? Or do you accept the canon as presented to you, just because it was presented that way to you? I ask, because I don't know, but with other Christians with whom I've talked, they just take it for granted (along with whatever else their church teaches) as a matter of tradition. (When they really should be listening to Martin Luther - see below.)

Look at why John of Patmos was sent to Patmos. Keeping this in mind [Mar 3:24 KJV] And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

It's a bit disingenuous to take Jesus' words that spoke directly to the casting out of demons, and apply that to, well, ANY other topic, especially the canon, since there was no official canon of the Church until 397 AD. Was "the kingdom" divided up until then? And it's been 500 years since the Kingdom of Christians has been divided against itself over Soteriology, but I doubt that you'll be taking Mass at any Catholic church soon. Right?

So why was John in Patmos?
According to his own words...

δια τον λογον του θεου και δια την μαρτυριαν ιησου χριστου​

In short, to evangelize.

But nothing in the text says that he was "sent" there. Why? Are you accepting the rumors and traditions of others? Selecting certain things Tertulian says, but rejecting other things? (Who's the Pope now, eh? )

But c'mon, he has Jesus wearing a golden bra.

(Revelation 1:13 KJV) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.​

I can't wait for that to come back in style ... Toga! Toga! ... OKAY... Princeton Theological turns it all into a "spiritualization" anyway since, after all, it was a Vision.

So if you can accept the tradition of Tertulian, I can at least quote Martin Luther about the book of Revelation:

I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. ... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. ... My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do;​

- The 1522 “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” in Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Pages 398-399 in Luther’s Works Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I (ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960) LINK​

Of course Martin Luther had no clue about the Christians of Thomas in India.

As I've said here earlier, you can't help but see it as lesser or you'd have to accept that it should have been added to your canon!

And yet Martin Luther DID see it as "lesser." (From the above)

Moreover he (the author) seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.​

But you seem to have this habit of telling me what I believe regardless of what I say. So... Do you consider the Book of Pinkwaddle lesser? Of course not. Because it's not there in your world. There's no there, there to consider it lesser or not. The book of Revelation is just as irrelevant to me as Pinkwaddle is to you. And yet, a more relevant example might be the Book of Enoch. I keep running into Christians (and Evangelicals at that) who are putting the Book of Enoch back into their canon. Now if one has not heard of the book of Enoch, do you consider it lesser? Or irrelevant?

However, the time aspect that you are affirming as a standard, I would say to that, it is better to be sure, then to neglect or toss aside what God has given for us to know no matter how long it takes us. Our God is patient! \o/

Exactly. Exactly what the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church say about the book of Enoch, since it IS in their canon.

But I doubt that you'll be converting to either soon.

Oh dear, I'm running on and on again, so I think I'll break here, and go have a drink before tackling the rest.
Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

And the other side of that coin is Protestants just flat out accept the Catholic canon without reason or consideration. And that makes no sense to me. Indeed Luther wanted to get rid of both Revelation and James, but couldn't, since he set up the Catholic Canon as the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Reformation, in essence shooting himself in the foot.

As a Christian I am not governed in Christ Jesus by Luther, but the Holy Spirit sent and given me by my Lord and Savior Jesus. Now you might consider yourself governed by man, like the Catholics, but that's another story for another time. I guess you and Luther will have much to talk about then.

So... "others" accept it? Why? Out of their ignorance of church history, and their need for a rather simplistic emotional need for a Holy Book.

And "others" don't accept it? I do believe I've talked this one up before, but your sake, I'd help you by asking you to just flip the coin to the other side.

And LOOK at all the nonsense and chaos coming out of various interpretations of Revelation. Given all that, there IS NO "understanding of what it contains." ALL interpretations (and I've been to plenty of "Prophecy Conferences" given by various denominations) are eisegetical at best. One might decide to know what it contains, but one cannot understand what it contains.

lol - again depending on the age in question you will find as many interpretations as possible that man can come up with! Once more, the fact that one may question the contents associated with it or interpret it through their own understanding due to a lack of comprehension that you've experienced, does not invalidate its status as a Revelation given to John.

So why don't you accept the Apocalypse of Peter? Which is also clearly prophetic in nature. Maybe because the Catholics told you not to? Why? It's listed in the Muratorian Canon, the oldest known list of New Testament texts (c. 170–200). Why do you accept one, yet reject the other? And not to be condescending, but have you taken the time to figure out why? Or do you accept the canon as presented to you, just because it was presented that way to you? I ask, because I don't know, but with other Christians with whom I've talked, they just take it for granted (along with whatever else their church teaches) as a matter of tradition. (When they really should be listening to Martin Luther - see below.)

Nope. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm a simple man. Personally, I have not read the AoP. Since you apparently have, do you believe it should be canon?

It's a bit disingenuous to take Jesus' words that spoke directly to the casting out of demons, and apply that to, well, ANY other topic, especially the canon, since there was no official canon of the Church until 397 AD.

Not really. It is either of God or it is not. If not, then whose words are we talking about?

Returning to the issue of dates, I see. I'm intrigued by how you will address Thomas's death with the subsequent writings in the New Testament and why some texts are deemed canonical, considering he was not alive to endorse them.

I will not engage in a discussion about your subsequent input, as it appears to be disparaging rather than respectful towards the Word of God, which you evidently do not accept or regard as truth.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

Very true, but 1st the Book of Revelation was not from him, but a Revelation from Jesus.

Ahgghhhh... you didn't wait.

"a revelation from Jesus" ??? Oh no, no, no ... αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου - (a) revelation OF Jesus Christ.

The text does not say FROM.

And yet what does Paul say of his Gospel? That his teaching was FROM Jesus by means of a revelation.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by (DIA - by means of) the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)​

​

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

(Ephesians 3:3 KJV)​

The Apocalypse of John records a vision OF Jesus. No doubt you'll accuse me of nitpicking, but words matter. (Unless you think they don't.)

In that Paul's caution was in a passage that directly dealt with the Day of the Coming of the Lord, it would be fascinating to know what Paul might have thought about "Revelation" and whether that book could be seen as "by means of spirit" or "by means of word." But I doubt he ever even heard of the text.

And I've run across at least one person's interpretation stating that Revelation directly rejects Paul, calling him a false Apostle (cf. Rev 2:2). But who knows. And that's kind of the point. There is no way TO know. (But I do like Jesus' 144,000 vestal virgins.)

Such speculation could cast doubt on the validity of more than one book or verse.

Sometimes it's not speculation. (He that hath an ear, let him hear.)

I might offhandedly mention Jeremiah 8:8 (NRSV), but there's absolutely no way I'm going to discuss it here on this forum.

Considering the John in question was sent to Rome,

Source? Questionable.

and only after the failure of killing him by boiling in oil

Source? Questionable.

he was then sent to Patmos, and later released

Source? Questionable.

I don't think it from just some "John" with little or no affiliation to the church of the day.

Source? Questionable.

From those who have spent much more time on that topic than you or I ...

The majority view of modern Bible scholars is that John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation is not the same person as John the Apostle or John the Evangelist. LINK​

Since one of your major arguments is that 'John (the Apostle) was the author and alive at the time of Thomas' I would politely request that you question your sources. Then again, I don't believe that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel named John either.

Now I actually already dealt with the source of those traditions about John as our posts here crossed paths. So I'll move on.

When did Thomas die, and when were the other books of the NT written?

I'll be honest. Nobody really knows. But we have more credible sources about the date of the death of Thomas than we do about the death of Paul. And at this point I'm fairly convinced that Paul did go to Spain, but we have yet to find records. Of course we could go round and around and around about Vatican tradition (myth?) but I doubt that would serve either of us.

I've given you credible reasons why the Book of Revelation should not be in the canon (and why it's not in mine), but you are free to acknowledge them, reject them, or play Pinkwaddle with them (there's a rule book, though )

If it is accurate that he died 72AD, according to you, you'd have to consider anything written afterwards as being invalid or unacceptable as canon. The majority of the NT would then not fit within that criteria.

That's only if we accept your dating speculations. There are four books that would fall into this category, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, and the Apocalypse of John. With the canon closed, one might say these arrived too late to the party. BUT... what are the duties of the believer?

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Can those be accomplished without those four books? Of course. Is the preaching of the Gospel damaged by any of these four. YES. Without a doubt. There are numerous examples where the Gospel of Jesus is damaged by the book of Revelation, and one need look no further than Waco Texas with the Branch Davidians. Now, can you name one good thing that has come out of that book? I'll consider it. I really will. Just one...

Meaning, it might make you believe you are safe from deceptive writings, but it would not provide you the knowledge of what some of the actual Apostles had written concerning Jesus and what God through them wanted us to know.

And one could say the exact same thing about the Epistle of Barnabas (as it is in Codex Sinaiticus. But God didn't establish the canon, Nick. The Catholic Church did. However, YOU (yes you) don't accept their Doctrine of Soteriology. Now if these very same Catholic Bishops had no clue about how one is saved (and the Reformation believers say this without reservation) then how can you expect them to make accurate decisions about the selection of the canon? As if GOD was more interested in putting together a book than in saving souls. (He is not.) So don't impute some divine guidance to the Bishops that put together your canon, when you don't believe they knew how one is to be saved.

Now I know it's a bit expensive, but this book is a requirement for serious studies:

LINK - The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger​

(Heck, PM me your address, and I'll even buy you one. Or you buy it and I'll Venmo(?) the cost....)

The Church of the East has its own history of division to content with, but you would that. The only church I believe that has not had that issue, is the one true church, with the head of it being Christ Jesus, and the congregation being the Body of Christ.

I think you've made a pretty big assumption here. I am NOT advocating the Church of the East as some sole source of salvation as the Roman Rite does of itself. And I addressed some of the division in my previous post. By now, though, I'd be considered a heretic.

But Please... no division in the "one true church"? Saved people disagree with each other all the time. Even Acts 15 records a division in this "one true church" and even then there were three opinions, Paul, Peter, and James. Did they divide? I've already given scriptural proof of this, but what the hey....

(Romans 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: ​

​

(Romans 2:16 KJV) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

​

(Romans 16:25 KJV) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

(2 Timothy 2:8 KJV) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:​

​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

​

(Acts 21:18-20 KJV) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:​

The "one true church"?? I think that's a bit beyond the scope of the canonicity of the book of Revelation.

You would think that you'd have no problem with maybe at times heated discussions.

??? I wasn't aware that we were having a heated discussion. Oh well, I thought things were going pretty good.

I have pointed out why, even today, the Book of Revelation remains misunderstood, providing ample reason for its rejection when, in fact, it should not be dismissed as it was

Well, you can tell that to Martin Luther, who basically said what good is a book that can't be understood. I hold that it shouldn't have been accepted to begin with... for all the points I've made, and shall await your comments on.

The Word of God does not require our comprehension to remain the Word of God.

Rhema? or Logos?

Still, these were Holy Spirit filled men of God who were making these decisions.

Who? The Catholic Bishops who had no clue about how one is to be saved? Delve more into the history of the Christian Church and you will see a marathon of the blind leading the blind.

The blame is on humanity, and the devil of course had nothing to do with helping it along...

I'll take that last phrase as bon mot , but yes, I can agree that the canonization of the book of Revelation can be blamed on both.

I'm certain that, aside from the Church of the East to which you adhere, ....

My apologies, but you seem to think that I am a current adherent (congregant?) or member of the Church of the East. I had not meant to give that impression. The technical term would be that I am not in communion with them, (or at this point any other ... ?group?), although I think there's a Lutheran church somewhere that might have me on their membership list, also some Fundamentalist Baptist church, and maybe even a Charismatic Congregation (none of that stuff holds any interest for me) and I've been visiting an Armstrong gathering when I can, which has been both fun and interesting, as it has given me a very different perspective on baptism.

And while their(our?) their? canon may have a better pedigree, they embraced the rejection of Arius and had fallen into the Trinitarian trap as far back as Nicaea (there were representatives there), and I bring this to light ONLY as an example to show that they would consider me just as much a heretic now as most of the rest of Christendom.

Then again they(we?)they? did not renounce Nestorius, and so certainly fell into the wrath of Rome, as is the United States with this current immigrant situation.

Now if persecution is a measure of theological accuracy, well, I think I've received more death threats (credible ones) than anybody else on this forum, or even of those you know. I wonder if I should start The Church of the Heretic.

I would concur with you, but for complete agreement, the Church of the East must be included as well.

The Church of the East has no chaos with regard to the book of Revelation.

all others have their issues, whether deemed cults or generally accepted as Christian.

There is only one thing Christian.

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached are brothers.

Rhema
(And yes, I am way behind here and not sure I can catch up this week as my daughter's wedding is Saturday.)
Good thing I can touch type.