Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit

[John of Japan]

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

That's an interesting speculation, but there is no evidence for it. However, there is historical evidence that John wrote the book on Patmos. "According to early tradition, the sacred text of the book of Revelation was given to St. John and set down while he was in the cave that is now known as the cave of the Apocalypse" (Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William McBirnie, p. 110).

 

[Genevanpreacher]

That's an interesting speculation, but there is no evidence for it. However, there is historical evidence that John wrote the book on Patmos. "According to early tradition, the sacred text of the book of Revelation was given to St. John and set down while he was in the cave that is now known as the cave of the Apocalypse" (Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William McBirnie, p. 110).

That's interesting. Every site I found on the internet, that I looked up, and that looked 'official', never said he wrote the book of Revelation there, but did say the gospel of John was wrote there. In fact the only references for the writing of Revelation was that it was done by Prochuras, a disciple of John.

 

[John of Japan]

That's interesting. Every site I found on the internet, that I looked up, and that looked 'official', never said he wrote the book of Revelation there, but did say the gospel of John was wrote there. In fact the only references for the writing of Revelation was that it was done by Prochuras, a disciple of John.

McBirnie's book is an excellent resource. I require it as reading for a course in the History of Missions. McBirnie actually traveled to many of the Mid-East countries to track down history and tradition about the apostles.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you read the text closely you will notice that Paul starts out speaking about himself, but then compares himself to another man whom he knew. Then returns to himself as the subject.

Unfortunately your entire argument lives or dies on "2 Corinthians 12:3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise". There are some things you seem to be missing out on ,whether by design or ignorance I cannot tell. It appears part of what Paul was addressing in this Epistle was in response to accusations that he was prideful or thought too much of himself or his ministry. Throughout the Epistle Paul speaks of not glorying in any great successes in his ministry but glorying in the suffering he experienced because of his preaching of Christ and Him crucified.

In verse three it is clear Paul is speaking of himself in the third person. This was a common practice in their day in fact John in his gospel account only speaks of himself in the third person. This speaking of himself in this way, as has been pointed out to you already, is also confirmed in v.7. Paul says specifically that "in order to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations". So these revelations are clearly tied to Paul and no one else just by v.7 alone. Paul goes on to say " Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." So we have Paul's own words both before and after he speaks of just who received these revelations all pointing to Paul.

In order to clearly understand these few verses it is important to read the Epistle as a whole and see the context of it in that fashion.

You seem to be tying your misunderstanding of Paul's reference to who received these visions to the date of Revelation's writing. Why do you feel that is important?

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Unfortunately your entire argument lives or dies on "2 Corinthians 12:3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise". There are some things you seem to be missing out on ,whether by design or ignorance I cannot tell. It appears part of what Paul was addressing in this Epistle was in response to accusations that he was prideful or thought too much of himself or his ministry. Throughout the Epistle Paul speaks of not glorying in any great successes in his ministry but glorying in the suffering he experienced because of his preaching of Christ and Him crucified.

In verse three it is clear Paul is speaking of himself in the third person. This was a common practice in their day in fact John in his gospel account only speaks of himself in the third person. This speaking of himself in this way, as has been pointed out to you already, is also confirmed in v.7. Paul says specifically that "in order to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations". So these revelations are clearly tied to Paul and no one else just by v.7 alone. Paul goes on to say " Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." So we have Paul's own words both before and after he speaks of just who received these revelations all pointing to Paul.

In order to clearly understand these few verses it is important to read the Epistle as a whole and see the context of it in that fashion.

You seem to be tying your misunderstanding of Paul's reference to who received these visions to the date of Revelation's writing. Why do you feel that is important?

As you state - these things have already been said to me.

But as to why I am tying this to the date of Revelation - if Paul was not speaking of himself then he can only be referring to John, as per my previous statements, and if that be so then maybe the timing of the Patmos experience happened earlier than some think.

As for the idea that Paul was speaking in the third person - that is usually very obvious in other situations - but not here.

Paul himself said he was speaking of another man.

 

[Revmitchell]

As you state - these things have already been said to me.

But as to why I am tying this to the date of Revelation - if Paul was not speaking of himself then he can only be referring to John, as per my previous statements, and if that be so then maybe the timing of the Patmos experience happened earlier than some think.

As for the idea that Paul was speaking in the third person - that is usually very obvious in other situations - but not here.

Paul himself said he was speaking of another man.

What is your eschatological view?

 

[reformed_baptist]

As you state - these things have already been said to me.

Yet there is no meaningful interaction with them - why is that?

But as to why I am tying this to the date of Revelation - if Paul was not speaking of himself then he can only be referring to John, as per my previous statements, and if that be so then maybe the timing of the Patmos experience happened earlier than some think.

3 quick points:

1) Paul is speaking about himself (as 2 cor 12:7 makes clear)

2) If Paul is not speaking about himself - it is your assumption that he must be speaking about John (nothing more). You haven't been able to link the experience Paul records to the one John experienced on Patmos - on what grounds have you ruled our Peter (who received a vision in Acts 10:9-17) or possibly Agabus (Acts 11:28)?

3) To date John's exile to Patmos as circa AD42 puts his exile before the death of James. At the time when the church was primarily a Judean thing - tell me who exiled him to Patmos for the cause of the gospel?

As for the idea that Paul was speaking in the third person - that is usually very obvious in other situations - but not here.

It is clear to me, and many others, it make be more accurate to say that 'you don't see it'

Bearing in mind that it is the Geneva bible you insist on using, I wonder if Calvin's opinion might be worth noting:

"2. I knew a man in Christ As he was desirous to restrain himself within bounds, he merely singles out one instance, and that, too, he handles in such a way as to show, that it is not from inclination that he brings it forward; for why does he speak in the person of another rather than in his own? It is as though he had said, "I should have preferred to be silent, I should have preferred to keep the whole matter suppressed within my own mind, but those persons [880] will not allow me. I shall mention it, therefore, as it were in a stammering way, that it may be seen that I speak through constraint." Some think that the clause in Christ is introduced for the purpose of confirming what he says. I view it rather as referring to the disposition, so as to intimate that Paul has not here an eye to himself, but looks to Christ exclusively.

When he confesses, that he does not know whether he was in the body, or out of the body, he expresses thereby the more distinctly the greatness of the revelation. For he means, that God dealt with him in such a way, [881] that he did not himself understand the manner of it. Nor should this appear to us incredible, inasmuch as he sometimes manifests himself to us in such a way, that the manner of his doing so is, nevertheless, hid from our view. [882] At the same time, this does not, in any degree, detract from the assurance of faith, which rests simply on this single point -- that we are aware that God speaks to us. Nay more, let us learn from this, that we must seek the knowledge of those things only that are necessary to be known, and leave other things to God. (Deuteronomy 29:29.) He says, then, that he does not know, whether he was wholly taken up -- soul and body -- into heaven, or whether it was his soul only, that was caught up."

Paul himself said he was speaking of another man.

So you keep saying

 

[Darrell C]

As you state - these things have already been said to me.

But as to why I am tying this to the date of Revelation - if Paul was not speaking of himself then he can only be referring to John, as per my previous statements, and if that be so then maybe the timing of the Patmos experience happened earlier than some think.

As for the idea that Paul was speaking in the third person - that is usually very obvious in other situations - but not here.

Paul himself said he was speaking of another man.

So how would you address John uttering that which was not lawful to utter, and why, if John violated this principle...was it not JOhn that received the thorn in the flesh?

Consider:


Revelation 1:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.


It doesn't say take it to them, but send it. Now, if the revelation in view is that of John, then what we can reasonably conclude is that John wrote it down (which he did in regards to the Revelation of Jesus Christ), and that knowledge was not just something Paul was privy to, but everyone who received it, which makes moot the issue of what is uttered to begin with.

In other words, if everyone received it, then why would Paul glory? This establishes that the revelation in view was not common knowledge, and the point you have raised is that John was caught up to Heaven...

...which everyone knows.

Which begs the question, why would Paul be opposed to expressing that which was common knowledge (that it was John caught up, who did in fact expose the revelation he received).


God bless.

 

[banana]

How is Paul talking about himself if in verse 5 he states he isn't talking about himself

 

[Darrell C]

How is Paul talking about himself if in verse 5 he states he isn't talking about himself

Where does he say "I am not talking about myself?"

That he says "I knew a man" is, in my view, Paul speaking in the third person. Everything else we read pertains to Paul himself.

Some pretty good arguments have presented in the thread, and it has been interesting. I would recommend a review of what has been stated. Well worth it, in my opinion.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

As you state - these things have already been said to me.

But as to why I am tying this to the date of Revelation - if Paul was not speaking of himself then he can only be referring to John, as per my previous statements, and if that be so then maybe the timing of the Patmos experience happened earlier than some think.

As for the idea that Paul was speaking in the third person - that is usually very obvious in other situations - but not here.

Paul himself said he was speaking of another man.

I just wanted to point out that there is another indicator that could be examined:


2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)

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

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.


I think a case could be made that Paul's experience happened before he rebuked John for hypocrisy (Galatians 2:9).

Just something to think about.


God bless.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Geneavenpreacher,

I am still hoping for some meaningful response to the following:

1) The issue of timing - how could John be on Patmos and in Jerusalem at the same time?

2) Your exegesis that demonstrates that John experience fits with what Paul described

3) Your evidence by which you ruled out the other prophets and apostles

I look forward to your response

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Geneavenpreacher,

I am still hoping for some meaningful response to the following:

1) The issue of timing - how could John be on Patmos and in Jerusalem at the same time?

2) Your exegesis that demonstrates that John experience fits with what Paul described

3) Your evidence by which you ruled out the other prophets and apostles

I look forward to your response

1. He couldn't.
2. You can see yourself in comparing the words - John was caught up in Rev. 4. That's the third heaven. John's experience is a singular event by him only. No one else has ever been described as going there. Thus -
3. Peter, Agabus, and the other prophets never claimed to go to heaven and see things that should not be uttered by men. Never.

Seems so obvious.
Am I making it difficult?

 

[Darrell C]

John's experience is a singular event by him only. No one else has ever been described as going there. Thus -

We can only take that position if we discount the view that Paul is speaking in the third person.

Again, Paul seems to indicate the catching away took place fourteen years prior to his writing of 2 Corinthians, which makes it unlikely John had been exiled to Patmos, written down the Revelation, returned, and then uttered to Paul that which is not lawful to utter.

2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)

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

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.


God bless.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

2 Corinthians - written about 56 ad. - Paul states in 12:2-5 his knowledge of Johns visions from the book of Revelation. This dates Revelation about 42 a.d. - is this plausible? And if not plausible, why not?

A correction - my Bible states that 2 Corinthians was written in 61 AD, and 14 years before was 47 AD, when Acts 14 was occurring, when Paul was stoned etc., which was after the martyrdom of James, and chapter 15 was good timing for Johns experience and discussion with Paul, as him and Barnabas were meeting with the Apostles, which could've been when John shared what happened, and before John wrote it out for public 'consumption'.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

because...he was privy to "that which was not lawfulo to be uttered (which would place John in a bad light, if, in fact...he uttered those things to Paul, lol).

Your Bible may say that, but mine says different.

Can't get my phone to copy and paste right now, but reread my text above.

It says - "

and heard words which can not be spoken, which are not possible for man to utter.

Hah! There it is!

Its not that they 'shouldn't be spoken', but in Paul's opinon, cannot be clearly expressed in words - without amazement!

Much different than 'not lawful' for man to speak.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

So... No response means...?

No response, I guess...

Yay! I win!

 

[agedman]

John states,

9I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

​

John was not taken off the island until the death of the emperor Domitian in 96-97AD.

Therefore the Revelation was written in the (approx.) two years he spent on the island. Somewhere near 94-95AD.

This is Historically accurate, and that some would attempt to dispute the facts is really displaying ignorance on the topic.

Btw, John is the ONLY Apostle that one can actually visit his grave in Ephesus. He was a remarkable man who I will cherish time to get to know far better, soon.

The point being, the date of John on Patmos completely disqualifies him from being the man Paul mentioned.

Patmos was after Paul was long dead.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

John states,

9I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

​

John was not taken off the island until the death of the emperor Domitian in 96-97AD.

Therefore the Revelation was written in the (approx.) two years he spent on the island. Somewhere near 94-95AD.

This is Historically accurate, and that some would attempt to dispute the facts is really displaying ignorance on the topic.

Btw, John is the ONLY Apostle that one can actually visit his grave in Ephesus. He was a remarkable man who I will cherish time to get to know far better, soon.

The point being, the date of John on Patmos completely disqualifies him from being the man Paul mentioned.

Patmos was after Paul was long dead.

Is the word "was" not past tense?

That says he is telling the story after he was NOT on the Island anymore.

See? I win again!

 

[Reformed]

Paul states in 12:2-5 his knowledge of Johns visions from the book of Revelation.

This is not a given. Many theologians disagree that Paul was writing about John's vision.