|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2008 0:52:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 14, 2008 5:45:23 GMT -5
tribulation------- the rapture folk talk about 7 years following a gap of undetermined time according to the book of Daniel
the word "seven" in Daniel is shavium in Hebrew which requires a multiplier and can't stand alone as just seven---it is my belief that the last week of Daniel's prophecy which will be covered in revelation is much longer than seven years in it's physical application (it has a spiritual application too) but that it started at the cross and continues through out history.
according to catholic belief did John die in Ephesus? That is where I believe the revelation was written some 26 years after John was feed from exile or about 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem thus his use of "was' when writing it down.
tag
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2008 11:53:48 GMT -5
tribulation------- the rapture folk talk about 7 years following a gap of undetermined time according to the book of Daniel Yep. One of their catch words/phrases. But, here's what it means (definitely, John was talking in the present tense about what he and the other Apostles were going through at the time): trib·u·la·tion 1. grievous trouble; severe trial or suffering.
2. an instance of this; an affliction, trouble, etc. I don't know...let me google, brb! Yes, according to Wiki, yes. www.ccel.org/ Christian Classics Ethereal Library says it was written in Patmos (as I've always heard), but that contradicts what John wrote when I believe he wrote that he "was" in Patmos. Maybe he was still there when he wrote Revelation just not "in" jail at the time? Know of any references that suggest Esephus by any chance? Most that I've found say Patmos. Will be back with next verse.  |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 14, 2008 12:02:29 GMT -5
I wonder if Mary was in exile with him....
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 14, 2008 12:22:35 GMT -5
The conditions of exile would have been quite harsh,basically John would have been dropped on the island with just the clothes on his back living in a cave and fending for himself.That is why I believe it was written after his return to Ephesus,of course God could have found a way to get him paper and ink so it is possible it was written on the island.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2008 13:43:35 GMT -5
I wonder if Mary was in exile with him.... Supposedly, yes. He took care of her because Jesus had no brothers for Him to hand her care to as was the tradition for those of the Davidic line. All the "so-called" brothers of Jesus were only called brothers to Him, but were never called the sons of Mary (speculation, Joseph's children from a previous marriage being that Joseph was thought to be significantly older than Mary). I believe the tradition is that Mary was cared for by John and The Church for the rest of her life. Scripture (in Rev 12) suggests that she may have passed on while she was in exile and was assumpted to Heaven). But I guess we'll discuss that when we get there. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2008 14:09:12 GMT -5
The conditions of exile would have been quite harsh,basically John would have been dropped on the island with just the clothes on his back living in a cave and fending for himself.That is why I believe it was written after his return to Ephesus,of course God could have found a way to get him paper and ink so it is possible it was written on the island....... One theory I heard is that he was never "officially" arrested, but was just being held there. He was definitely the last of The Apostles and was the only to "not" die a martyr (just like Peter spoke of when he asked Jesus "what about this disciple" and Jesus answered him that if He wanted him to live until His return, what of it? Which Gospel? Coincidentally, John 21!). John 2121 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.
23 This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. This was right after Jesus told Peter to be the shepherd to the Apostles (the Lambs who would also go on to be slaughtered) and the Disciples (the Sheep who follow Him...the "flock"). This is one of the undeniable proofs of Peter's leadership appointment by Christ making him the prime Apostle and Peter is shown to have information that the others didn't again (like he did in Matt 16:18 when Jesus told him He'd build His Church upon him and changed his name from Simon to "rock" [Cepha...Petras/tros...Piedra....Peter]). Without being told or without it being mentioned, Peter knew that John would "not" be martyred as Jesus just finished telling Peter he would be martyred just before these verses. The Bible is soooooo Catholic it scares me sometimes, but most non-Catholics don't "read" it enough to see it. I used to read scripture and not understand it until He opened it up to me because I came to Him with a completely humbled heart. Now, I see things most others don't (hence, my being told I have a charism for understand & discerning scripture by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews). A Protestant would never be able to tie John 21 to his "not" being martyred and to Peter's seemingly unimportant and out of place question. But when something looks odd, there's a reason for it and it usually has a tremendous meaning. I remember discussing scripture with a great non-Catholic Christian buddy of mine (who you remind me of sooooo much). As we went through the scriptures and discussed what it meant to us, he stopped (almost angrily) and said, why is it that you see The Catholic Church in every verse? Why is it that you have an explanation for every verse and it always has something to do with The Church? I replied to him, "The real question is why is it that you "don't" see The Catholic Church in every verse?" He would take one passage and have 10 different meanings for it, breaking up each verse and giving it a different explaination without any of them being able to be tied to each other. I would take a passage and completely connect each verse. He said he couldn't study with me anymore. He said that I was testing his faith. I told him that The Catholic Church has nothing to do with his faith in Christ. Being wrong about The Church would'nt make him wrong about Jesus. He couldn't divest himself of his "non-belief" in The Catholic Church being the historic Church from his faith in Christ. He attached that non-belief in The Church with Christ feeling that if I proved to him The Church's origins in scripture that it would somehow make him less of a Christian because he came to believe that The Church is "The" Church. This, from a person who supposedly put Christ first in his life. Yet in this case, his ego came first. He'd rather "not" know truth, than to be found wrong on his non-Catholic beliefs. When in reality, he could've remained a non-believer in The Church, while still being a great Christian. He attached "his" limits of understanding to his faith. Wrong. I'm not a Christian because I became Catholic. I became a Christian first, then became a Catholic. Sorry bro. I digress... I would love to do another scriptural study of a very Catholic belief with a non-Catholic who completely disagreed with me. But just on one passage (like Matthew 16:18 or Revelation 12 or Luke 1, etc...). You know? Just hammer it out in detail. Take Jesus calling Peter The Rock for example. Some believe He was referring to Himself or to Peter's Confession. Boy do I have a shocker for those who believe that! ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 15, 2008 6:06:21 GMT -5
Hi Cepha--------------
When Nero declared war on Christians in 65 ad he sought to make torture an art form--- he fed many to the lions in the coliseum he covered others with tar as lit them on fire along the road ways "to light the path to Rome" but he wanted to see the apostles beg for their lives to make sport of them.
When Peter was told he was going to be crucified "just like your leader" Pete replied "I am not worthy........the faith got stronger
Paul was to be beheaded,he laid his own head upon the block...still more folks came to Jesus
so when Nero finally had John he wanted a very gruesome death he wanted begging and screaming they dropped John in a vat of boiling oil and when it had no more effect than a warm bath a real bonafide miracle Nero's hope of stopping Christianity was done
I believe John was exiled after wards cause Nero was scared and starting to believe.....
folks are funny like that sometimes --a proof will be undeniable but instead of facing it they run away
next verse?
Tag
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 16, 2008 20:01:59 GMT -5
Revelation 1:10-11
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet
11 saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
"In the Spirit"...I read that and I immediately think deep contemplation or meditation; a state of total communication by God brought on "by" God.
The voice he hears most likely is the voice of an angel or of either God or Jesus (there are several instances of angels speaking being compared to unhuman sounds [like trumpets or thunder, etc...]).
The voices instructions? To document the following revelation and to distribute them to the religious leaders of these very specific Churches that seemed to be the only Churches graced with these revelations.
tag
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 17, 2008 0:32:50 GMT -5
so its the old testament being sent right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 17, 2008 1:10:24 GMT -5
No. The OT wasn't completed as of that writing and wouldn't be completed for another 300 years. What was being talked about there was literally the Book of Revelations John was about to write. |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 17, 2008 8:07:55 GMT -5
Hi all------------
pretty good Cepha,but again the seven are the whole church and the letter is personal
In the Spirit is the open communication between us and God --- as for it being brought on by God.... God says plainly draw close to Him and He will draw close to us
much love--------------knuckle
PS-----------TAG
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 17, 2008 9:37:57 GMT -5
Hi all------------ pretty good Cepha,but again the seven are the whole church and the letter is personal In the Spirit is the open communication between us and God --- as for it being brought on by God.... God says plainly draw close to Him and He will draw close to us much love--------------knuckle PS-----------TAG At that time, the 7 Churches was the whole Church. And that was it. Only those 7 Churches received this revelation. No other Churches were included in that list of God/Jesus'. So, if we take the Bible "as" written, it is what it is. Only those Churches received this revelation. Proof? They were literally named. They literally existed. There were no other legitimate Churches but those 7 when this was written. And, again, Paul was writing this book (at least that's what God calls it "in" His instructions to Paul, a book) to The Church's Leaders. And again, it literally states the geographical locations of these Churches (which are historially located in said areas). Revelation 1: 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. Here's were it starts to get tricky...Supposedly, 7 golden candlesticks were the source of the voice. Among the candlesticks, he saw Jesus. What do the candlesticks represent? The Churches? Jesus is known for saying that one doesn't light a lamp and place it under a cover. Perhaps, these lights that the candlesticks produce are the light that is Christ as He is The Light/Gospel of John 1 (again, 7 specific Churches historically confirmed to be the first Christian Churches at that time). Just a couple of verses ago, God literally called this to be placed in a "book" (not in a letter) and to be sent to 7 literal Churches in 7 specific geographical locations that are known to have historically existed. 11 saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_churches_of_Asia tag |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 17, 2008 12:21:16 GMT -5
Why read it today?
If this was only to those seven churches at that point in time why read it now?
because it is still relevant we are still to keep the prophecy of the book---IS WAS AND IS TO COME
much love----------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 17, 2008 13:02:08 GMT -5
Why read it today? If this was only to those seven churches at that point in time why read it now? much love----------knuckle I never said that it was only for those Churches. I said that they were the only ones that God chose to have the Book of Revelations given to. I never mentioned anything about them being the only ones who could read it. It was given to those 7 Churches only for them to give them to us. That's who God chose to reveal The Book of Revelation to bring to us. Those are the only true Churches which were part of universal Church. 7 Churches that all were under one leadership and under one doctrine and under one guidance (The Holy Spirit). Again, there were other Christian sects, but they weren't chosen to receive The Book of Revelations for some reason and weren't named among the 7. These were His instructions to John to whom he revealed The Book of Revelations to: 1. John was to write the book. 2. John was to give it to The 7 Churches. The 7 Churches then disseminated it to the world. Which by the way is exactly how it happend. |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 17, 2008 13:44:28 GMT -5
the churches are addressed specifically because of their short comings the "some what against thee" that is in every Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 17, 2008 18:46:42 GMT -5
If the seven churches were Catholic Churches, then that alone shows that it is the one true Church of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 17, 2008 19:25:31 GMT -5
In the beginning there was just "the church" so whether one believes that to be ana-baptist,catholic or which ever until about 300 there was no differentiating.
Peter,Paul,John they all warned about evil men ,wolves in sheeps clothing coming into the church this is addressing that very thing.
2000 years down the line we can debate which doctrines have been polluted but Christ is addressing concepts in the revelation that are still here still causing the church (the whole of Christianity both protestant and catholic) to stumble,Why?because these issues are not doctrinal they are in the heart of the believer.
Ephesus,Sardis,Smyra,etc etc----they are us the knuckles and cephas and marcies and every one of us who hold the testimony of Jesus Christ,we are them and they are us.....
much love---------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 17, 2008 20:25:35 GMT -5
If the seven churches were Catholic Churches, then that alone shows that it is the one true Church of God. To some, catholic doesn't mean catholic or universal or all. To some, The Catholic Church then is not the same Catholic Church of today. Somehow along the way, The Catholic Church of then became "uncatholic". But that's another thread. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 18, 2008 5:34:16 GMT -5
that was my point---------------today we are so divided by denominational separation,I have asked folks about specifics on church history and it is like oh knuckle I didn't know you were roman catholic.... I quoted Origen to a Baptist once you would have thought I was reading from Hitler's Diary from the look I got--- I thought it funny at the time but it is sad how ignorant some are of the early church (I am sure R -1 would agree that seems to be his pet peeve) I often use the "catholic" commentaries along side Henry or Scofield to get a feel for others views. A lot of the "Sola Scriptura" are big fans of Matthew Henry but I haven't figured out if he is NT or OT yet  much love------------knuckle |
|
