Two Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Excelency
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Excelency

Guest
  1. I have seen some programs on the notoriously inaccurate and sometimes sensational History Channel as well as some articles that suggests that John of Patmos, AKA St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle. I had always thought he was. Anybody have any info on that? If St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle, then does the Revelation still carry Apostolic authority or was is given to John of Patmos directly by God? I’m not a Biblical scholar so please forgive me if the question sounds naieve.
  2. Mohammed claims in the Koran that it was the Angel Gabriel whom appeared to him. This makes me question the Devine nature of Islam. I simply do not understand where the Angel Gabriel would have gotten the authority to come to Earth and tell man to start a new religion where Jesus is not God. Can someone enlighten me please?
 
  1. The History Channel probably doesn’t stay focused on one perspective. Their goal is to inform and entertain viewers of all beliefs. While some shows relate more to Catholics, other relate more to Protestants. Biases from each group may influence the ideas and presentation of the show. With that said, i can offer this: Perhaps The History Channel wasn’t questioning the identify of the Apostle John, but rather the author of the works attributed to him. Much the same way we don’t know exactly who wrote what.
  2. The question is if you believe the Koran to be a divinely inspired book…let alone a divine religion. As a Catholic, the only divine religion is Catholicism. However, what religion doesn’t claim a divine foundation? In my opinion, Islam is no different than any Protestant “church”. While it has some truth to it, it’s not the entire truth.
 
Excelency said:
  1. I have seen some programs on the notoriously inaccurate and sometimes sensational History Channel as well as some articles that suggests that John of Patmos, AKA St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle. I had always thought he was. Anybody have any info on that? If St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle, then does the Revelation still carry Apostolic authority or was is given to John of Patmos directly by God? I’m not a Biblical scholar so please forgive me if the question sounds naieve.
Click to expand...
Most believe Revelations to be written between 70-90AD which would require the Apostle John to be 90-120 years old at the time. Additionally that would be 10-60 years after his Gospel. So many believe John of Patmos to be a different John. The Catholic Church believes his vision were authentic so his writing is included into scripture
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Most believe Revelations to be written between 70-90AD which would require the Apostle John to be 90-120 years old at the time. Additionally that would be 10-60 years after his Gospel. So many believe John of Patmos to be a different John. The Catholic Church believes his vision were authentic so his writing is included into scripture
Click to expand...
Do I understand your post that there are some who believe Revelation was written by someone OTHER than the APOSTLE John?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Do I understand your post that there are some who believe Revelation was written by someone OTHER than the APOSTLE John?
Click to expand...
Yes

No one truly knows when, where, or who. For example here a the time line posted at biblestudy.org/beginner/ntbook-dates.html

30 A.D. - Jesus is Crucified, Dies and is Resurrected
35 A.D. - Gospel of Matthew

40 to 41 A.D. - Book of James
42 A.D. - Gospel of Mark
42 A.D. - Gospel of John (main body of Gospel)
(the prologue/epilogue to Gospel not completed until after 95 A.D.)

50 A.D. - Book of 1Thessalonians
51 A.D. - Book of 2Thessalonians
53 A.D. (Spring) - Book of Galatians
56 A.D. (Late Winter) - Book of 1Corinthians
57 A.D. (Late Summer)- Book of 2Corinthians
57 A.D. (Winter)- Book of Romans
59 A.D. - Book of Luke

61 to 63 A.D. - Books of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Hebrews
63 A.D. - Books of Acts, 1Timothy and Titus
63 to 64 A.D. - Books of 1John, 2John and 3John
64 to 65 A.D. - Book of 1Peter
65 to 66 A.D. - Book of 2Peter
66 to 67 A.D. - Book of Jude
67 A.D. - Book of 2Timothy

95 A.D. - Book of Revelation
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Most believe Revelations to be written between 70-90AD which would require the Apostle John to be 90-120 years old at the time. Additionally that would be 10-60 years after his Gospel. So many believe John of Patmos to be a different John. The Catholic Church believes his vision were authentic so his writing is included into scripture
Click to expand...
:confused:

John is traditionally shown as a young man. His youthful features in DaVinci’s last supper are part of that whole DaVinci code nonsense. He is portrayed there as a teenager at most. (I know DaVinci wasn’t an eye wittness)
But if he were 20 (?) at the crucifixion 33AD he would have been 82 in 95 AD

That’s fairly old but not 90 to120.

If he was 120 in 95AD that would make him older than Jesus and possibly Mary.
 
And one more thing: Please see the book “Before Jerusalem Fell” by Kenneth Gentry, in which he argues (rather convincingly, I think) that Revelation was probably written somewhere around A.D. 68.

The later dating of Revelation is often given for doctrinal reasons related to the futurist rapture-oriented position. The early dating is, I think, more likely, and would also make it more likely that Revelation was written by John the Apostle.
 
Excelency said:
  1. I have seen some programs on the notoriously inaccurate and sometimes sensational History Channel as well as some articles that suggests that John of Patmos, AKA St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle. I had always thought he was. Anybody have any info on that? If St. John the Devine is not John the Apostle, then does the Revelation still carry Apostolic authority or was is given to John of Patmos directly by God? I’m not a Biblical scholar so please forgive me if the question sounds naieve.
  2. Mohammed claims in the Koran that it was the Angel Gabriel whom appeared to him. This makes me question the Devine nature of Islam. I simply do not understand where the Angel Gabriel would have gotten the authority to come to Earth and tell man to start a new religion where Jesus is not God. Can someone enlighten me please?
Click to expand...
  1. Scholars today, of all strides (both liberal and conservative) debate whether or not the author of the Apocalypse is the same as St. John the Apostle. While many arguments go back and forth on this issue, our Tradition has always maintained that St. John the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse. St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian are among the many early Fathers who believed St. John the Apostle was the author. Even if the author was not St. John the Apostle, it would only mean that God inspired another John to write the book, which God could have certainly done. However, I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the Apostle as being the author. Others also make this argument based on the similarities in tone between the Gospel and the book of the Apocalypse.
  2. Even though Islam claims its faith is rooted in the angel Gabriel revealing information to Muhammed, there are a few points to consider.
    A. It is entirely possible that an angel did appear to Muhammed. As St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:14, Satan can even masquerade as an “angel of light.” So I would not be surprised at all if Muhammed did in fact see an angel, but I would contend it was not the archangel Gabriel, but rather the “father of lies” himself. This corresponds with an allegedly true story in which Muhammed initially told his wife he feared it was Satan deceiving him with this new revelation. St. Paul also says in Galatians 1 that an angel could deliver a false gospel.
    B. There is no point in new revelation coming, since it is part of Tradition that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Muslims do not believe Jesus is God, and therefore since He was only a prophet in their eyes, then it is possible for more revelation to come. But since Jesus IS God, no new public revelation is needed since His Word would be the climax and grand finale.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I don’t see the conclusion of the timeline? As well, John identifies himself as the apostle who witnessed Christ in the opening sentences. I think the people who deny that this was the Apostle John are just trying to come up with something original.
Click to expand...
I think that is the Prologue not the Scripture
steveandersen said:
:confused:

John is traditionally shown as a young man. His youthful features in DaVinci’s last supper are part of that whole DaVinci code nonsense. He is portrayed there as a teenager at most. (I know DaVinci wasn’t an eye wittness)
But if he were 20 (?) at the crucifixion 33AD he would have been 82 in 95 AD

That’s fairly old but not 90 to120.

If he was 120 in 95AD that would make him older than Jesus and possibly Mary.
Click to expand...
If 82 makes you feel better then go with it. The 120 is because some believe the book may have been written after 95 AD. It is likely many of the writings were handed down orally before being scribed later by unknown authors which is a big problem for accuracy
cpayne said:
And one more thing: Please see the book “Before Jerusalem Fell” by Kenneth Gentry, in which he argues (rather convincingly, I think) that Revelation was probably written somewhere around A.D. 68.

The later dating of Revelation is often given for doctrinal reasons related to the futurist rapture-oriented position. The early dating is, I think, more likely, and would also make it more likely that Revelation was written by John the Apostle.
Click to expand...
Of course the problem is nobody knows when it was written, so 68 AD can not be dismissed. However for me it is simple. I find the Gospel of John as some of the best writing in the Bible, and consider Revelations the worst. So it is a bias I have of these two writtings being by the same person. Additionally, the lack of documented writing by Apostles is to me very problematic. My guess: outside of Paul little was scribed by the Apostles most was preached and scribed later. These are of course opinions of mine.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Most believe Revelations to be written between 70-90AD which would require the Apostle John to be 90-120 years old at the time. Additionally that would be 10-60 years after his Gospel. So many believe John of Patmos to be a different John. The Catholic Church believes his vision were authentic so his writing is included into scripture
Click to expand...
James and John could not have been more than 16 years old when they became disciples of Christ, since they were still living with their father when Christ first approached them. If James was older than John, this makes John to be 15 years old or less, at the time. Since he is portrayed as a beardless boy in traditional Christian art (a tradition that goes back to the Catacombs), it’s unlikely that he had even reached puberty yet, which means that he could have been as young as 12 or 13.

This puts him in his late 70s or early 80s at the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation, which is certainly plausible - remember, the “dark ages” had not yet occurred, and the knowledge of medicine and healthy living had not yet been lost.
 
jmcrae said:
James and John could not have been more than 16 years old when they became disciples of Christ, since they were still living with their father when Christ first approached them. If James was older than John, this makes John to be 15 years old or less, at the time. Since he is portrayed as a beardless boy in traditional Christian art (a tradition that goes back to the Catacombs), it’s unlikely that he had even reached puberty yet, which means that he could have been as young as 12 or 13.

This puts him in his late 70s or early 80s at the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation, which is certainly plausible - remember, the “dark ages” had not yet occurred, and the knowledge of medicine and healthy living had not yet been lost.
Click to expand...
could you document this please -thanks
 
MarcoPolo said:
I don’t see the conclusion of the timeline? As well, John identifies himself as the apostle who witnessed Christ in the opening sentences. I think the people who deny that this was the Apostle John are just trying to come up with something original.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh! The answer I was hoping for. Many thanks MarcoPolo.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top