Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have already posted the letter by Jerome, in which he plainly stated that he had modified the original text of Victorinus to remove its millenniarian views. And I also posted two links to the original text of Victorinus.Where is futurism addressed in this? This is pretty much someone talking about Victorinus' writing, as far as I can see. He keeps saying what Victorinus said and not him saying it. Otherwise he has read it and decided what it all means, which misses the whole point in my view.
I do not see the link, sorry. From reading what you posted on the previous page, I have do not know their millenial views. They obviously have one, but what it is I cannot tell. If the author is correct, Jerome modified it which means he did not agree with it, I assume.I have already posted the letter by Jerome, in which he plainly stated that he had modified the original text of Victorinus to remove its millenniarian views. And I also posted two links to the original text of Victorinus.
My first observation is actually a question. Are you a student of the Greek language, and do you actually have a copy of the original Greek, as composed by Irenaeus, or are you simply parroting what someone else said?
You are avoiding the FACT which I PROVED, which is NOT that any of these other writers was correct, but that they did NOT base their accounts on what Irenaeus said, as you and others have claimed.
Do you even imagine, that you, who lives about 1950 years later, know the details of the fall of Jerusalem better than Irenaeus,who is thought to have been born only 60 years after it happened?I do not see the link, sorry. From reading what you posted on the previous page, I have do not know their millenial views. They obviously have one, but what it is I cannot tell. If the author is correct, Jerome modified it which means he did not agree with it, I assume.
Frankly speaking, the content is mostly the man making up what he thinks the details mean independent of the text itself. Not that the points are invalid, but the imagery is to give a certain impression and he finds some spiritual meaning to it all instead of seeing it for what it was, IMHO. So I am not convinced the author being discussed had much insight as to the text. Most certainly nothing from anyone who knew John or knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who heard John talk about it.
I saw nothing futuristic in it because the author obviously being a futurist. I suspect if the subject being discussed really had futuristic views of any weight, they would be posted. Otherwise it sounds pretty much like every Tom, Dick and Harry nowadays telling us who Bablyon is and who the Antichrist is and who the harlot is. Of course, the text itself is often ignored in these guesses.
So my conclusion is the guys centuries ago might also not have figured out the answer. It might be that they knew nothing about the fall of Jerusalem in detail. That information is important in understanding the text same as knowing the details of Jesus conception, birth and so on are important to understand the prophesy of him in the OT. If one never knew he was in Egypt or born in Bethlehem, one would be missing important information.
Did he write about it? Do you know the details of all the events in the world in place far away from you? In your lifetime, not say, WWII which was in the lifetime of your parents? If he did not write about it, he did not know. How would he know?Do you even imagine, that you, who lives about 1950 years later, know the details of the fall of Jerusalem better than Irenaeus,who is thought to have been born only 60 years after it happened?
So basically, what are my qualifications for understanding Greek? Or do I have a degree in Ancient Greek?
No degree in ancient Greek. Just like to study it in my free time.
And yes, I am ‘parroting’. I had to have learned it from somewhere. I don’t claim to be the first to address the translational issues Irenaeus’ statement.
Are you the first person to put together evidence for post 70ad? Or are you ‘paroting’ from someone else’s work?
So we know 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that Victorinus, the acts of John, and Jerome didn’t have any influence from Irenaeus and none of the information they received was influenced by Irenaeus?
Actually, I have personally studied what Josephus, and many other ancient writers, said. (As i noted above, I have devoted approxiatelt 45 years to this study.) And I personally know that the details of what Josephus said do not even come close to matching the details of what the Revelation says.Did he write about it? Do you know the details of all the events in the world in place far away from you? In your lifetime, not say, WWII which was in the lifetime of your parents? If he did not write about it, he did not know. How would he know?
But the details match the descriptions in Daniel and Revelation so much so that it is as amazing as the details of Is 53 matching the life and calling of Christ.
Those who say they do have given examples of what he described and what Revelation says for the reader to judge for themselves. So I am afraid that the passages quoted out of both texts match pretty well.Actually, I have personally studied what Josephus, and many other ancient writers, said. (As i noted above, I have devoted approxiatelt 45 years to this study.) And I personally know that the details of what Josephus said do not even come close to matching the details of what the Revelation says.
I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.Actually, everything I have posted here is something I have personally found in the translated copies of what the ancient teachers actually wrote. I have personally devoted about 45 years to the study of ancient documents, and approximately ten of these years has been in the study of the teachings of ancient Christian writers.
You did not prove anything. Frankly speaking, you bring your whole position into question by not recognizing that you offer no proof at all. Do you know everything Irenaeus wrote including lost documents? Do you realize that people do sometimes make up stuff? Now this, if it occured, releases the other men from getting their stuff from Irenaeus, but the reliabity has not increased by having no supporting documents including Irenaeus.I never claimed that these later writers were not even influenced by Irenaeus. But what I PROVED, beyond any possibliity of rational debate, is that they did not JUST base their opinions on what Irenaeus said.
Those who say they do have given examples of what he described and what Revelation says for the reader to judge for themselves. So I am afraid that the passages quoted out of both texts match pretty well.
With all due respect, Biblewriter. I suspect you might not want to talk to me anymore and I cannot blame you. But I have a question.
Do you think anything Jesus said in Matthew 24 applies to 70 AD Israel? Just wondered.
I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.
You did not prove anything. Frankly speaking, you bring your whole position into question by not recognizing that you offer no proof at all. Do you know everything Irenaeus wrote including lost documents? Do you realize that people do sometimes make up stuff? Now this, if it occured, releases the other men from getting their stuff from Irenaeus, but the reliabity has not increased by having no supporting documents including Irenaeus.
In any case, your whole position rests on what others say. That is it. And some of what they say was way off. It is easy to think men in the past where somehow closer to the truth by living within centures of the events. I am not sure that we would see any old American as totally reliable as to the events in 1776 just because we are living within 300 years of the events and we have better access to information than men did in 300 AD.
You misunderstand me. I was not asking for originals. If you have studied these men, have you only studied what others said about them? Nothing that they originally wrote or then translations, of course, without comment from others about what they wrote? You claim to have studied this stuff for decades. Anyone who has done that ought to be able to give quotes and not cut and paste what others have said who studied these things.No one has the actual ancient documents that any of these men wrote. We only have copies of copies of these documents. some of them are in the original languages, and some of them are translations. The "scholars" whose word you depend upon have not examined these ancient documents, nor has any other living person.
But all you gave me were the extracts published by writesr who advance the view you favor. You offered no cut and paste of translations of the original author. ANd what extracts did I offer you? I cut and pasted a bit out of a post here on the site, what someone else had cut and pasted because it showed the unreliablity of Irenaeus. Was revealing.But a translation of what the oldest and best copies of these ancient documents is all anyone can rely upon. What I was condemning was simply accepting the extracts published by writers who advance views you favor, is not studying the ancient documents. But studying translations into our language is indeed studying what they actually said.
I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.
This is absolutely incorrect. everything I posted was an actual cut and paste from English translations of the ancient documents themselves. Not a single word of it was from an article that anyone else wrote. Every word of itwas my own personal report of what I personally found in these ancient documents.But all you gave me were the extracts published by writesr who advance the view you favor. You offered no cut and paste of translations of the original author. ANd what extracts did I offer you? I cut and pasted a bit out of a post here on the site, what someone else had cut and pasted because it showed the unreliablity of Irenaeus. Was revealing.
The article I cut and pasted about what Victorinus said, was written by Jerome. The reason I posted that was to prove that Jerome had personally admitted that he had changed the words of Victorinus. Then I gave links to the original commentary by Victorinus and the revised version by Jerome.You posted links to Victorius but cut and pasted an article about what some guys claims Vic said. That is not original. Maybe I missed something you posted but that one was what someone said Vic said. Not the man's original work.
I've been hearing this, but I'm not sure where it's coming from. His proper name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.I’ll throw in another problem. One of Nero’s name was close to Domitian, Domitius or something like that.
Yes, I have personally examined the Greek text, and yes, I am sufficiently familiar with the Greek language. Enough to know that a preposition in Greek doesn't determine word relationships. Person, number, gender, and declension determine association.Have you personally examined the Greek text composed by Irenaeus, and are you sufficiently familiar with the Greek language to evaluate this claim, or are you simply relying on what someone else said?
The first pont max was Julius CæsarWhy do you say she was sound? The first pontifux maximus was Constatine who brought into the christian church all the pagan trappings we see today. And
I believe there was a time when the Revelation was meant for the future, until the day that it became a thing of the past.And Futurism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?