Is it John the Apostle?
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
Is it John the Apostle?
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
Is it John the Apostle? Or some other John? The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
It is clear from the book of Revelation that it was circulated in the area of Ephesus, where John the Evangelist lived. It also calls Christ the Word of God, just as John's Gospel does. But, as you said, the style is different from the Gospel of John.No one is entirely sure. It was either John the apostle, or another John, or someone writing in John's name.
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, Ecclesiastical History, c. 325. He quoted some sources that are no longer in existence. He provided details of early church history until Constantine defeated the army of Maxentius at the Milvan Bridge in 312 and became emperor. Constantine then legalized Christianity. Eusebius’ description of the Battle at the Milvan Bridge is used by historians to this day.Is it John the Apostle?
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
This verse had me thinking:Is it John the Apostle?
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
What if its John the Baptist?
I know it's a crazy theory but I suspect if they saw him walking around they would not dare kill him again but rather exile him.Heh. He would have definitely been a candidate for that resurrection.
I wonder if he appeared to Herod... ?
Is it John the Apostle?
Or some other John?
The style of Revelation is different from Gospel John.
This verse had me thinking:
"Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."
What if its John the Baptist?
Just a thought.
Note: I take the early date of writing for Revelation, before 70AD.
I know it's a crazy theory but I suspect if they saw him walking around they would not dare kill him again but rather exile him.
Oh, I dont adhere to that theology.No, not crazy. John the Baptist was certainly one of the ones raised that day. But, not to live again another life on the earth. They only had a short time to walk around while Jesus was talking to Mary. Then, Jesus, and the raised saints that day, were taken to heaven that day. This was the third rapture, after Enoch and Elijah, but the first mass rapture. Later that same day, Jesus came back down to walk with the two on the road to Emmaus. Etc.
Oh, I dont adhere to that theology.
Thanks for engaging!
I equate the rapture to the ressurection of all both in the Body and out of the Body. The Last day. BlessingsOk. Let me ask you a question.
1 Thess 4: 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
God will bring those "who sleep in Jesus" to the rapture. Then, the dead in Christ will rise first. Therefore, those who "sleep in Jesus" cannot be the same the "dead in Christ." If the OT saints were not taken to heaven, who does God bring with Him to the rapture?
No one is entirely sure. It was either John the apostle, or another John, or someone writing in John's name.
The "problem" with both the Gospel of John and Revelation is believing the Apostle John would've had the sophistication in the Greek language or in theological concepts to write either book. John the Elder is the more likely candidate for Revelation.
Regarding the Gospel, there is a fascinating hypothesis called Ur-John that the Gospel differs from the Synoptics because the historical portions were actually the earliest Gospel, either written by the Apostle or using him as an eyewitness source. The Gospel was later reworked (at the later dates to which it is typically attributed) by another (or others, perhaps including John the Elder) to address theological controversies that were brewing. When you see the Ur-John hypothesis demonstrated on a sentence-by-sentence basis, it makes a great deal of sense.
Interesting thought but very little would support that ideaThis verse had me thinking:
"Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."
What if its John the Baptist?
Just a thought.
Note: I take the early date of writing for Revelation, before 70AD.
Yes, John the brother of James wrote the Gospel of John and probably the Epistles of John. It is probable, however, that these writings were later edited by John's disciples.I can't remember when or where this was posted, but another CF member told me the brother of James - not John the Baptist - wrote the Gospel John. Does anyone know if this is true? And what about the three other John books before Jude?
No doubt!Interesting thought but very little would support that idea