DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And while your at it, consider that the Book of Revelation is disputed too.
"Evaluation of Revelation
The canonicity of Revelation has been questioned by Eusebius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Philastrius, and the Council of Laodicea. Martin Luther was vocal in his judgment against it. And in modern times it has been classed as an inferior book by Harry Emerson Fosdick, primarily because its bloody nature is so unlike that of Christ. It is, like Jude, vindictive and, like Daniel, obscure. But just as Daniel was needed in the Old Testament, so is Revelation needed in the New. The images and symbols may confuse and cause wrangling in the Church, but in a more liberal age these impediments may be overlooked to arrive at the central truth of the book, “Christ shall reign!” To lose this book would be to give up its Hallelujah chorus. And this would be too big a price to pay for just avoiding silly controversies over the Millennium.
Since the Book of Revelation is so controversial, however, a further evaluation, that of Martin Luther, is also worth considering:
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly - more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important - and threatens that if anyone takes away from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, mild.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it: Christ is not taught or known in it. But to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore, I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.
Source
"We do not need to be Greek scholars to look at the text of the Gospel and letters of Apostle John to notice John Patmos contradicts John Apostle at every turn. Those examples are examined in this report. But now we should remember that "Revelation" was doubted in Eastern Christianity and not generally accepted into the New Testament until AD 508. Some ancient Christian branches still do not include it in their Bibles. Therefore discussion and criticism of "Revelation" is not a new and is not a disrespectful activity."
Source
"Eusebius noted that the following books were disputed: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and possibly Revelation."
Source
"During the 1st century CE, Judaism was composed of about 24 separate religious groups. Some of these were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, various groups within the Christian movement, followers of John the Baptist, etc. One which had a strong political agenda was the Zealot party. The Zealots taught that a military-political Messiah would soon appear, as prophesized in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He would conquer the world, and rule for a thousand years from Jerusalem.
This concept of millennialism was promoted during the second century CE, by Montanus, a recent convert to Christianity. He prophesized that the New Jerusalem would shortly descend out of the clouds and land in a town called Phrygia. He set a date for the event, thus becoming one of the first Christians to predict when the end of the world would occur. His teachings were rejected by the rest of the Church. At the Synod of Iconium in 230 CE all baptisms performed by the Montanus sect were declared invalid. The Council of Constantinople in 380 CE went further, and declared millennialism to be a heresy.
Because millennialists had traditionally used Revelation as the main source of their teachings, "the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture." 1 Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. "To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship." 1
Martin Luther downgraded the significance of Revelation. It portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity -- a concept that is today sometimes called "Ambush Theology." Luther concluded that he could not readily harmonize the God described in Revelation with the God to whom Jesus prayed to as Abba. When Luther translated the Bible into the German language, he downgraded Revelation by relegating it to an appendix."
Source
Now I accept it, and it is in the canon of scripture, but that does not mean it wasn't disputed.
God Bless
Till all are one.
"Evaluation of Revelation
The canonicity of Revelation has been questioned by Eusebius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Philastrius, and the Council of Laodicea. Martin Luther was vocal in his judgment against it. And in modern times it has been classed as an inferior book by Harry Emerson Fosdick, primarily because its bloody nature is so unlike that of Christ. It is, like Jude, vindictive and, like Daniel, obscure. But just as Daniel was needed in the Old Testament, so is Revelation needed in the New. The images and symbols may confuse and cause wrangling in the Church, but in a more liberal age these impediments may be overlooked to arrive at the central truth of the book, “Christ shall reign!” To lose this book would be to give up its Hallelujah chorus. And this would be too big a price to pay for just avoiding silly controversies over the Millennium.
Since the Book of Revelation is so controversial, however, a further evaluation, that of Martin Luther, is also worth considering:
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly - more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important - and threatens that if anyone takes away from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, mild.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it: Christ is not taught or known in it. But to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore, I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.
Source
"We do not need to be Greek scholars to look at the text of the Gospel and letters of Apostle John to notice John Patmos contradicts John Apostle at every turn. Those examples are examined in this report. But now we should remember that "Revelation" was doubted in Eastern Christianity and not generally accepted into the New Testament until AD 508. Some ancient Christian branches still do not include it in their Bibles. Therefore discussion and criticism of "Revelation" is not a new and is not a disrespectful activity."
Source
"Eusebius noted that the following books were disputed: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and possibly Revelation."
Source
"During the 1st century CE, Judaism was composed of about 24 separate religious groups. Some of these were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, various groups within the Christian movement, followers of John the Baptist, etc. One which had a strong political agenda was the Zealot party. The Zealots taught that a military-political Messiah would soon appear, as prophesized in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He would conquer the world, and rule for a thousand years from Jerusalem.
This concept of millennialism was promoted during the second century CE, by Montanus, a recent convert to Christianity. He prophesized that the New Jerusalem would shortly descend out of the clouds and land in a town called Phrygia. He set a date for the event, thus becoming one of the first Christians to predict when the end of the world would occur. His teachings were rejected by the rest of the Church. At the Synod of Iconium in 230 CE all baptisms performed by the Montanus sect were declared invalid. The Council of Constantinople in 380 CE went further, and declared millennialism to be a heresy.
Because millennialists had traditionally used Revelation as the main source of their teachings, "the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture." 1 Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. "To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship." 1
Martin Luther downgraded the significance of Revelation. It portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity -- a concept that is today sometimes called "Ambush Theology." Luther concluded that he could not readily harmonize the God described in Revelation with the God to whom Jesus prayed to as Abba. When Luther translated the Bible into the German language, he downgraded Revelation by relegating it to an appendix."
Source
Now I accept it, and it is in the canon of scripture, but that does not mean it wasn't disputed.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
