Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit

[John of Japan]

Sorry you disagree - but the men who wrote the 1560 Geneva Bible thought it did. Which is the Bible I quoted.

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.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

I understood the textual meaning, beyond just the word, as such.

 

[John of Japan]

I understood the textual meaning, beyond just the word, as such.

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

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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

So what is your point?

You stated the word rejoice was not in the Greek.
Then you say the word rejoice meant the same as boast?

Which is it? And why are we discussing this?

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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

Also - from the surrounding words in the text you can understand the word rejoice means the same as a boasting attitude.

 

[John of Japan]

So what is your point?

You stated the word rejoice was not in the Greek.
Then you say the word rejoice meant the same as boast?

Which is it? And why are we discussing this?

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.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting that there is a "gloss meaning"?

I understand that the gloss is the area around a text that has notes or references in a Bible. Are you saying it is in a gloss of a Bible in this reference somewhere?

It is not in my 1560 edition, nor my 1599 edition. You did use the year 1560 three times in the above statement kinda stressing it was there.

 

[John of Japan]

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting that there is a "gloss meaning"?

I understand that the gloss is the area around a text that has notes or references in a Bible. Are you saying it is in a gloss of a Bible in this reference somewhere?

It is not in my 1560 edition, nor my 1599 edition. You did use the year 1560 three times in the above statement kinda stressing it was there.

"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.

 

[John of Japan]

Also - from the surrounding words in the text you can understand the word rejoice means the same as a boasting attitude.

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

 

[Darrell C]

Yes I am aware of John, and that could be the reason Paul didn't name the man he was referring to, and his anonymity in his NT book. Does not negate the fact that Paul mentioned another man in 2 Cor. 12.

So did John, that's the point.

I do not see your view that John wrote the book of Revelation while on Patmos. He COULD have, but there is no scriptural proof he DID.

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.

Just because some 'bible scholars' say Paul was speaking of himself, there is no proof at all he was, but the wording of this section of scriptures clearly shows Paul referring to another man.

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.

I just can't see the wording saying what almost every response here says.

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?

Sorry.

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.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

1. Huh?

2. You state 'not the point' yet the point was that it is not stated in the Bible that John wrote his Revelation book while on Patmos. If it was, that's fine, but you cannnot show a verse that states John wrote the book while on Patmos.

3. Only if your interpretation is correct. If your interpretation is incorrect you may have to change it if Paul was speaking of John. That only makes sense, and may add some understanding to other things that some Christians are missing in their understanding of end times.

4. You are mixing up verses to get that conception. Understand that Paul in verse 1 is speaking about himself. THEN he compares himself with another man and that man's experience from verses 2-5a. After that he is referring to himself again and explaining why HE has a thorn in the flesh, etc.

5. At the time of Paul's writing of 2 Corinthians Paul evidently thought so.

6. Then consider.

7. Ditto!

 

[Darrell C]

Ditto!

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.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

Gotchya! Done did!

 

[Darrell C]

So did John, that's the point.

1. Huh?

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

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.

2. You state 'not the point' yet the point was that it is not stated in the Bible that John wrote his Revelation book while on Patmos. If it was, that's fine, but you cannnot show a verse that states John wrote the book while on Patmos.

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:

Genevanpreacher said: ↑
And - I just cannot fathom that thoughtline - that Paul would refer to himself in two different ways in a single conversation in a book in the Bible.

John does so:


John 21:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

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.

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.

3. Only if your interpretation is correct. If your interpretation is incorrect you may have to change it if Paul was speaking of John. That only makes sense, and may add some understanding to other things that some Christians are missing in their understanding of end times.

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.

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?

4. You are mixing up verses to get that conception. Understand that Paul in verse 1 is speaking about himself. THEN he compares himself with another man and that man's experience from verses 2-5a. After that he is referring to himself again and explaining why HE has a thorn in the flesh, etc.

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

5. At the time of Paul's writing of 2 Corinthians Paul evidently thought so.

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.

6. Then consider.

Consider what?

7. Ditto!

Glad you agree, lol.


God bless.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

"And lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, because I should not be exalted out of measure." (verse 7)

Speaks of this:

"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." (verse 1)

These "revelations" were what the Lord was revealing to Paul (or what would be revealed to Paul) about the mystery that the gospel was for both Jew and Gentile people. You know, the Gospel Paul preached? It was an hard thing to reveal these things to people who were use to separation of the two, which now are made one in Christ. There can be no other meaning like 'Hey! Paul musta been ta heaven, 'cause he dun said sumtin' about dis here feller dat went ta heaven #3, and dun left out da name o'dat dare feller!" (spoken in hillbilly

Plain and simple to me, yet you can't see it? Really confusing why you can't.

Paul states the revelations in verse one, that he mentions getting the "prick" in the flesh for, in verse 7. Mentioning another man in between does not change the facts.

BTW - the whole question on whether John wrote the book while on Patmos WAS the subject in discussion, when looking about the timing of Johns book of Revelation.

And as for Lazarus? He died. John is the only man mentioned in the scriptures that was "taken up" into heaven (and returned!).
Don't you think we would've been told about another?

No, Paul never went to heaven, or the third heaven as this section speaks it, and he never claimed to have gone there, whether in body or not. Seeing Paul speaking in the third person is just not seeing the facts in front of your eyes. If it were true, would not Paul have experienced it in the NT somewhere? And if he did, just what would've been the purpose? There is ALWAYS a purpose. But there wasn't. None. So guess it didn't quite happen did it?

Nope.

 

[Darrell C]

"And lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, because I should not be exalted out of measure." (verse 7)

Speaks of this:

"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." (verse 1)

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.

These "revelations" were what the Lord was revealing to Paul

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.

"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." (verse 1)

(or what would be revealed to Paul)

What was revealed.

about the mystery that the gospel was for both Jew and Gentile people.

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

You know, the Gospel Paul preached?

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

It was an hard thing to reveal these things to people who were use to separation of the two, which now are made one in Christ. There can be no other meaning like 'Hey! Paul musta been ta heaven, 'cause he dun said sumtin' about dis here feller dat went ta heaven #3, and dun left out da name o'dat dare feller!" (spoken in hillbilly

He's not writing to Jews, lol.

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

Plain and simple to me, yet you can't see it? Really confusing why you can't.

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

And I quote:

"And lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, because I should not be exalted out of measure." (verse 7)

Speaks of this:

"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." (verse 1)

Paul states the revelations in verse one, that he mentions getting the "prick" in the flesh for, in verse 7. Mentioning another man in between does not change the facts.

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?

BTW - the whole question on whether John wrote the book while on Patmos WAS the subject in discussion, when looking about the timing of Johns book of Revelation.

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 as for Lazarus? He died.

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.

John is the only man mentioned in the scriptures that was "taken up" into heaven (and returned!).

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.).

Don't you think we would've been told about another?

We are. In 2 Corinthians 12.

No, Paul never went to heaven, or the third heaven as this section speaks it,

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

and he never claimed to have gone there, whether in body or not.

He does, in 2 Corinthians 12.

Seeing Paul speaking in the third person is just not seeing the facts in front of your eyes.

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.

If it were true, would not Paul have experienced it in the NT somewhere?

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.

And if he did, just what would've been the purpose?

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.


...?

There is ALWAYS a purpose.

I quite agree.

But there wasn't. None. So guess it didn't quite happen did it?

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.

Nope.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

2. You state 'not the point' yet the point was that it is not stated in the Bible that John wrote his Revelation book while on Patmos. If it was, that's fine, but you cannnot show a verse that states John wrote the book while on Patmos.

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?

 

[Darrell C]

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.

 

[reformed_baptist]

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

First off - I never said John didn't write Revelation while ON Patmos - the scriptures just do not say he did.

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!

Second - the 1560 Geneva Bible I use does not state that Paul was speaking of himself in the 12 chapter of 2 Corinthians in any of the notes - although the note for "in Christ" in verse 2 says "That is, a Christian" - pointing out that the man Paul was speaking of was a Christian, confirming what I think, that Paul was indeed speaking of another man and not himself. Even the 1599 Tomson NT of the Geneva Bible calls verse 1 a "preface" verse to Pauls statement.

So what - deal with what I said!

Thirdly - Paul was comparing the great thing one man had been blessed by God to experience, with what he was going to experience in the future, to which God gave him that "prick" to keep him humble. Nothing else.

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!

As for ALL the commentators opinions that Paul was speaking of himself as the one who went to the third heaven, and ALL the brethren on BB that also think that?

I can only wonder why. I have read the scriptures for 30 years this past January 11th, and I still read them the same when it comes to this verse. Paul was speaking of himself in verse 1, and in verses 2-5a he was speaking of some other man who had a different 'mission' than Paul, and verses 5b-10 Paul returned to speaking about himself.

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

As for the timing of John and his writing of Revelation - in the Dickson Analytical Study Bible where the book of John starts, there is an interesting history on John.

"In the reign of Domitian John was banished to Patmos and afterwards returned to Ephesus. He lived in that city to an extreme old age, the last of the twelve Apostles. It is generally held that he wrote his gospel in that city and not long before his death, and as indicated by Clement, at the request of Christian friends."

Notice "afterwards...to an extreme old age"?

He had plenty of time after Patmos to still write about what happened on Patmos, and still does not indicate disobedience in doing what God told him to do in writing Revelation.

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.

I like to think fellas, not just go along with the crowd of teachers who all say the same thing.

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

You all know this - if someone says something ENOUGH times, it becomes 'truth'. We are human that way.

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?

 

[Genevanpreacher]

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?

Maybe because they didn't happen to leave him writing material when they exiled him?