Featured Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit

Not exactly. If you are going to use the 1560 Geneva, you have to think in 1560 British English. In 1560, "rejoice" had a gloss meaning of "boast" that it does not have now.

 

God made us to communicate with words. Without words there is no communication. Beyond words there is no communication.

 

Not a big deal, and no real need to discuss it.

It started with my curiosity about your version. But no, I did not exactly say that "rejoice" means the same as "boast." What I was trying to say was that in 16th century England "rejoice" had a wider meaning than it does now and included the meaning of "boast," which meaning it no longer has.

 

"Gloss" is a linguistic term meaning a very short (maybe just one word) definition for a word in another language. So a gloss for the Greek word agape might be just "love," but a fuller meaning would be, "love based on a decision to love." Sorry for the confusion.

 

Quite correct. Context is vital in determining the meaning of a word in a sentence.

 

So did John, that's the point.

Not the point. The point is that the Biblical Record makes it clear that...John was on Patmos when it took place. The writing would have followed the events that took place, that is not really up for debate.

I agree. It is not what Scholars say, it is what Scripture states, and there is better reason to view Revelation as the final Word. And when we look at the other issues that usually cause one to try to force an early date to Revelation, we see much error in not only Exposition of the texts but much that brings conflict in other areas of Scripture.

So Paul knew about the visions of John, and was given a thorn in the flesh so he didn't get proud because he knew.

And that which should not be uttered...was uttered by John to Paul?

Don't be, my friend, it is why we come here, to pick each others brains and perhaps consider the perspective of our brothers and sisters.


God bless.

 

You need to go back and edit it so that your response is not in my quote.

Have very little time as it is and can't afford the time to correct them.


God bless.

 

John speaks in the third person, so why not Paul?

Again...that is not the point. John did not have to write the Revelation of Jesus Christ while on Patmos in order for us to know that John was on Patmos when he received the revelation.

Here is the beginning of the discussion:

The point is not when John wrote...but what he wrote. And he writes in the third person in his Gospel. So I see no relevant point to when John wrote the Revelation, whether while on Patmos, or not.

And I am happy to have my Doctrine tested.

So I see no reason to guess as to whether my views are correct when we can easily test them.

If Paul is not speaking in the third person and refers to another, it could just as easily be Lazarus or any other number of believers who had died and returned or been caught up.

Its pretty simple:



2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


Point one: it is not lawful for a man to utter, yet...John uttered them to Paul? Contradiction.


2 Corinthians 12:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.


Point two: Paul, not John, received the thorn in the flesh. And this that Paul, not John, should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations.

This points to Paul being the one who received the revelations, rather than the idea that John did utter that which was not lawful for him to utter

Don't really have the context for this. I will assume it speaks to the last statement, and still see no reason to interject John into this.

Consider what?

Glad you agree, lol.


God bless.

 

Exactly right.

This is why people tend to think he speaks in third person. It is a matter of humility, which is central to the the theme.

Exactly right.

Hence it is doubtful that the Revelation of Jesus Christ (the revelation given to John) is in view.

He does not speak about what was revealed to John.

What was revealed.

It is directed at Gentiles, and does not breach the topic of Gentile Inclusion.

Funny, but it seems that the context deals with their interaction amongst themselves.

He's not writing to Jews, lol.

But, A for effort, always like to see humor, or...an attempt at humor.

Yes, I see it. Glad to see you are starting to get it as well.

And I quote:

Again I ask you, how is that not lawful to be uttered...uttered to Paul by John.

And...why is it Paul that receives the thorn in the flesh?

Sorry, but no: when, not where...was the question.

It was a matter of the idea that John had left Patmos, told Paul, hence the effort to support an early writing.

And was resurrected. And we have possibly two men to look at: the one raised after four days, and the one in the teaching of Christ in Luke 16.

Only if you negate the possibility that Paul is speaking of himself.

I quite agree that no man entered Heaven until the Cross, however, after the Cross we have several candidates.

Paul being the first in line.

It is quite possible that Paul did die here...


Acts 14:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.


The disciples that carried him away...thought he was dead. This is where many think he went into Heaven. And while we can't prove it, and it remains speculation on our part, what we can say is that the revelations Paul revealed were quite separate from the Revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no real comparison between the two, apart from similar subjects, both themselves being quite distinct in regards to revelation (i.e., the Antichrist, the Rapture, etc.).

We are. In 2 Corinthians 12.

That's a pretty dogmatic statement. It is the conclusion you have drawn because you want an early date for Revelation.

He does, in 2 Corinthians 12.

The "facts" have been pointed out.

Now, show me one similar teaching between Paul's teaching and the revelation we are provided in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Just one.

Show me what John was shown as taught by Paul. You're not going to find it.

Maybe in Acts 14.

There are a number of times when Paul may have been caught up:


2 Corinthians 11:24-27
King James Version (KJV)

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.


But, if we keep in mind that a central theme in 2 Corinthians 12 is humility, we ask of Scripture to contradict itself in asking for an occasion for Paul to speak of being caught up, which...

...he states quite plainly he will not do.

Maybe this...


2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)

12 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.


...?

I quite agree.

Maybe not, but I think it probably did.

Paul makes that very clear here...


Galatians 1:11-12
King James Version (KJV)

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


Now, compare...


2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)

12 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.


You are arguing the opposite of Paul (hence Scripture's) testimony...that he was taught of men.

Yup (spoken in Hillbilly).

To argue that "something in the middle" is irrelevant to the text is rather absurd, don't you think (just nod your head, that will okay)?




God bless.

 

Personally, I think the proof needs to go the other way. Prove that John was not on Patmos when he wrote Revelation. The normal, very obvious conclusion to the average reader of the book is, "Oh, he was on Patmos when he saw it. So that's where he wrote it."

When I hear something important to me I write it down as soon as I can. Humanly speaking, why would John have not done that?

 

I agree with your position, but will offer the example of precedent in Scripture where we are certain events were recorded after taking place, so while I think it more reasonable to understand John as recording the Revelation given him while still in captivity, I don't think we could be dogmatic either way. It is the Spirit of God that guided John in what he wrote, and that would preclude a necessity for John to write "before he forgot," lol (which I am not implying you or anyone else in this thread is saying).


God bless.

 

If you don't quote me - how do i know you have responded - or is that the idea!

Yes they do, unless you believe John disobeyed the Lord, however that is not the point, you have stated that you believe John wrote Revelation long before he was exiled on Patmos!

So what - deal with what I said!

Show me where the text says that!

I find it fascinating that in one parapgraph you assert 'my bible doesn't say' and then a little later you assert that your bible says something that simply ins't there!

ah - so you have more insight then whole of the christain church over the last 2000 years is that what you believe?

So what? Even if you are right you still seem to be missing the point - you asserted that Johnw rote revelation in AD42 - long before he was exiled to the Island of patmos - that is what you need to deal with.

Then show me your thinking - how could John have written revelation in AD42 as you have asserted?

I guess that is what your hoping for!

let me repeat my question - how did John write Revelation in AD42 (ish) as you have inserted?