On The Apocalypse: Part I

[alang1216]

Except there is ample research and scholarship to support it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PostmodernProph]

as long as you're willing to buy into some atheist's research.....its the key to the atheistsRus network.......400 websites quote each other and all of a sudden "the majority of scholars agree......."

 

[PostmodernProph]

some folks who thought John the Apostle wrote Revelation.....
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD)
Polycarp AD 69– 155-160's (who by the way was mentored by John the Apostle)
Irenaeus (c. 115–202)
Theophilus (died c. 183)
Tertullian (c. 160–220)

in fact, pretty much everyone until the 1930s when some liberal theologians started denying everything that everyone thought before the 1930s, usually with no apparent reason whatsoever......

 

[PostmodernProph]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

and Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

there are in fact, similarities....

 

[BreezeWood]

The Apocalypse


simple spoken parables passed down over time are a better source for guidance than ascribed written text.

Noah's Arch, spoken as literature is the precursor and guidance for the final day of Judgement.

.

 

[BluePhantom]

Almost everyone considers the gospels to be written by the people they were named after. None of the gospels themselves claim an author and, it is my understanding, that the recognition of Mark, Luke, etc., as the authors did not come into general use until centaries after these people lived and died.

That's absolutely correct. As you accurately point out none of the gospels claim to be written by those authors in their texts. They are not written in the first person (in other words in Matthew it says [paraphrasing] ...and Jesus came upon a tax collector named Matthew sitting in his booth....Jesus said follow me and he did. Well if it was Matthew writing it he would have said ....and Jesus came upon ME while I was sitting in MY booth...he said follow me and I did.)

Additionally as I said before the Apostles (except for Paul) were almost certainly illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic. The odds of them being able to compose letters and books in Greek is virtually zero.

Incorrect.
Matthew was a tax collector and probably was selected for that position because of his ability to communicate or else how would you tax?
Luke was a Physician and there were doctors who were slaves of people who were rich. They're basically rich people whom all the television ads are based on or who else can buy a car for $299 a month?
Israel was basically a trade bridge in the old days giving people contact to several languages.

I also had a friendship with an Orthodox Jew who said that people could speak several languages back then and understand each other.

People back then spoke several languages and it wasn't uncommon for people to know a couple dialects and languages.

The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language.[12][13] Most scholars agree that during the early part of first century Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea.[14] Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[12][13][15][16] Stanley E. Porter concluded: "The linguistic environment of Roman Palestine during the first century was much more complex, and allows for the possibility that Jesus himself may well have spoken Greek on occasion."[17]

Language of the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word koinē (κοιν&#942 is the Greek word for "common", and is here understood as referring to "the common dialect" (κοινὴ διάλεκτο&#962. The word is pronounced /ˈkɔɪneɪ/ or /kɔɪˈneɪ/ in English. Its ancient Greek pronunciation would have been [koiˈneː], Modern Greek [ciˈni]. The term was applied in several different sense by ancient scholars. A school of scholars such as Apollonius Dyscolus and Aelius Herodianus maintained the term Koine to refer to the Proto-Greek language, while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed somewhat from the literary language.[5]

When Koine Greek became a language of literature by the 1st century BC, some people distinguished it into two forms: written (Greek) as the literary post-classical form (which should never be confused with Atticism), and vernacular as the day to day spoken form.[5] Others chose to refer to Koine as the Alexandrian dialect (ἡ Ἀλεξανδρέων διάλεκτο&#962 or the dialect of Alexandria, or even the universal dialect of its time. The former was often used by modern classicists.

Koine Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also in the family fishing business which would have brought them into communicating with different people.
I wanted a job in center city and one of the questions on applications is how many languages you know today.

ok first things first. Let's just toss Wiki as a reliable reference right out the window. It's terribly unreliable. I never allowed my students to use it and I am not going to consider it a valid source of supporting documentation.

Next...yes peasants in Galilee probably spoke a little Greek because they had to communicate with Greek speaking people to some degree. However it would be very similar to today. My current job requires that I communicate with a lot of Spanish speaking workers. I can speak enough Spanish to communicate with them on a very basic level but advanced dialogue is not common.

You also overlook that there is a difference between speaking a language and being able to read and write in it. My wife's father was largely illiterate his entire life but he spoke English just fine. As I mentioned before only about 3% of the population at the time could read of write and they were the rich. John, Peter, the other disciples were not rich. It's doubtful they could read or write in their native language of Aramaic let alone in Greek.

Consider my example with my ability to speak Spanish. I can speak it enough to communicate to my employees but there's no way I could hope to sit down and write an entire book in Spanish....especially in the kind of flowing (sometimes almost poetic) Spanish that many of the New Testament books in Greek were written in.

BTW...just because a person is an Orthodox Jew does not make him an expert in history.

 

[BluePhantom]

Blue, if that is what your relatives were taught, then tell them I said to do their own research.
To quote yourself:

religion loves nothing more than fanatical ignorance.

I would rephrase that to read, the anti religious love nothing more than fanatical ignorance, and bias.

The books contained in the Bible, except for Revelation were written before 70 AD. We know that because none mention the most important event of that time, the fulfilling of the prophesy by Christ that the Temple would be destroyed. Nor do they mention the martyrdom of Peter (AD 65), James (AD 62) or Paul (AD 64).

Again thanks for the dissertation, but your anti religious claims void the impartiality necessary to take your "teachings" seriously.
Oh, and if your grandfather is still using a replacement theology Catholic Bible, you my want to have a discussion with gramps on replacement theology. Buy him a less tampered with Bible.

My grandfather has died but thanks for your suggestion. In regards to the dates you mention....that's incorrect. Scholars are generally in agreement that Mark was written around 65 - 75 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80 - 90 CE, and John around 90 - 100 CE. The undisputed Epistles of Paul are the earliest but the ones that are generally considered pseudepigrahpic are dated a bit later.

Your argument regarding the destruction of the Temple is usually regarded by scholarship as prophetic by those favoring a date closer to 65 CE and as evidence of "prophecy after the fact" by those who favor the later date. There is also the school of thought that Mark 13: 1 - 4 was something added after the fact to demonstrate the prophetic nature of Jesus. The argument for the last one goes like this (BTW I do not NECESSARILY subscribe to this argument although i find it intriguing - this is just the argument that is made):

- Mark originally did not include a prediction of the destruction of the Temple.

- When Matthew and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, a story was added demonstrating Jesus' divinity by having Him predict its destruction.

- Mark was then altered in later copies to include the story after the fact to make the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Mark jive with each other.

Now again I am not saying I ascribe to that. i am just saying that's the argument. personally I favor a later date for Mark (around 71-75 CE).

Regardless your argument that all the books of the New Testament aside from The Apocalypse were written prior to 70 CE could not be more wrong. Some were, some weren't.

One more thing. You are wrong right out of the gate. This is the tell...........

One of the things most often misunderstood about The Revelation is that it is not a book that was unique.

Provide any other work of antiquity Where Jesus addresses the angels of 7 churches. If you can't then the book is indeed unique..........

When I say it was not unique I am not talking about strict literary words and passages. I am talking about the genre of the book when it was written. The Apocalypse of John of Patmos is indeed very unique in a lot of ways (and we will discuss them in time). What I meant was that a book that described why people were suffering, gave them prophetic visions, and assured them that God was in control, and they would find salvation soon (i.e. an Apocalypse) was not at all unique.

The listeners of the book would have found the manner in which John explained things unique, but his overall message and the genre in which he was writing was quite common. Think of going to a karaoke bar and a guy starts to sing a rap song. The listeners may not have heard that exact song, but they would be very familiar with rap and the style and the and the themes it talks about. It would have been the same with John's listeners. It would have been a new version of a very common style. That's what i was getting at.

 

[BluePhantom]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

and Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

there are in fact, similarities....

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

 

[PostmodernProph]

That's absolutely correct. As you accurately point out none of the gospels claim to be written by those authors in their texts. They are not written in the first person (in other words in Matthew it says [paraphrasing] ...and Jesus came upon a tax collector named Matthew sitting in his booth....Jesus said follow me and he did. Well if it was Matthew writing it he would have said ....and Jesus came upon ME while I was sitting in MY booth...he said follow me and I did.)

Additionally as I said before the Apostles (except for Paul) were almost certainly illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic. The odds of them being able to compose letters and books in Greek is virtually zero.

Incorrect.
Matthew was a tax collector and probably was selected for that position because of his ability to communicate or else how would you tax?
Luke was a Physician and there were doctors who were slaves of people who were rich. They're basically rich people whom all the television ads are based on or who else can buy a car for $299 a month?
Israel was basically a trade bridge in the old days giving people contact to several languages.

I also had a friendship with an Orthodox Jew who said that people could speak several languages back then and understand each other.

People back then spoke several languages and it wasn't uncommon for people to know a couple dialects and languages.



Language of the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word koinē (κοιν&#942 is the Greek word for "common", and is here understood as referring to "the common dialect" (κοινὴ διάλεκτο&#962. The word is pronounced /ˈkɔɪneɪ/ or /kɔɪˈneɪ/ in English. Its ancient Greek pronunciation would have been [koiˈneː], Modern Greek [ciˈni]. The term was applied in several different sense by ancient scholars. A school of scholars such as Apollonius Dyscolus and Aelius Herodianus maintained the term Koine to refer to the Proto-Greek language, while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed somewhat from the literary language.[5]

When Koine Greek became a language of literature by the 1st century BC, some people distinguished it into two forms: written (Greek) as the literary post-classical form (which should never be confused with Atticism), and vernacular as the day to day spoken form.[5] Others chose to refer to Koine as the Alexandrian dialect (ἡ Ἀλεξανδρέων διάλεκτο&#962 or the dialect of Alexandria, or even the universal dialect of its time. The former was often used by modern classicists.

Koine Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also in the family fishing business which would have brought them into communicating with different people.
I wanted a job in center city and one of the questions on applications is how many languages you know today.

ok first things first. Let's just toss Wiki as a reliable reference right out the window. It's terribly unreliable. I never allowed my students to use it and I am not going to consider it a valid source of supporting documentation.

Next...yes peasants in Galilee probably spoke a little Greek because they had to communicate with Greek speaking people to some degree. However it would be very similar to today. My current job requires that I communicate with a lot of Spanish speaking workers. I can speak enough Spanish to communicate with them on a very basic level but advanced dialogue is not common.

You also overlook that there is a difference between speaking a language and being able to read and write in it. My wife's father was largely illiterate his entire life but he spoke English just fine. As I mentioned before only about 3% of the population at the time could read of write and they were the rich. John, Peter, the other disciples were not rich. It's doubtful they could read or write in their native language of Aramaic let alone in Greek.

Consider my example with my ability to speak Spanish. I can speak it enough to communicate to my employees but there's no way I could hope to sit down and write an entire book in Spanish....especially in the kind of flowing (sometimes almost poetic) Spanish that many of the New Testament books in Greek were written in.

BTW...just because a person is an Orthodox Jew does not make him an expert in history.

on the other hand, by the time they had been growing the church for ten to twenty years they probably had sufficient funds to hire a scribe, even if they didn't have a dozen or so sitting at their feet as followers

 

[PostmodernProph]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

and Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

there are in fact, similarities....

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

lol...my argument is lacking?......people who knew John said he was the author of Revelation but you know it certainly wasn't him because when he was young he was just a poor fisherman who couldn't write......dude, he mentored Polycarp.....do you think he might have had someone who could take notes for him?.......the style of Greek was different?..........do you think he could have had a DIFFERENT scribe when he dictated the gospel of John as he did when he dictated Revelation?.....for that matter, do you think he could have learned something in the forty years between when both books were written?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

so what you're saying is that God doesn't redecorate often......

 

[PostmodernProph]

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John.

by the way, I didn't notice it the first time I responded.....I have not argued that the author of the gospel of John and Revelation wrote the epistles of John.....

 

[BluePhantom]

on the other hand, by the time they had been growing the church for ten to twenty years they probably had sufficient funds to hire a scribe, even if they didn't have a dozen or so sitting at their feet as followers

Well actually probably not. Scribes were expensive and someone who has an expensive job means they were well off. Perhaps not rich by any means, but a scribe lived a pretty comfy life. In the early church their recruits were the very poor; people who were desperately looking for a message and assurance that their suffering was not in vain. This was the message of Paul and of John of Patmos. A dozen or so scribes? Pfft....Hardly! Furthermore Paul writes in his letters about raising money for a temple in Jerusalem. He is desperate for a collection because that was the deal he struck. He is clear about this. He went to visit the Apostles and they largely blew him off. He came back a few years later and offered them a deal. He said "if you give me authority to preach and convert gentiles and officially recognize me as valid I will gather a collection for a Temple in Jerusalem." In Paul's letters he BEGS the communities he is writing to to come through on that collection to ensure his end of the bargain he struck with the other Apostles. In fact it was such a point of controversy that he was damned near thrown out as the leader of the church in Corinth. Excess money laying around to hire a scribe? Bullshit!

 

[BluePhantom]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1
and Revelation 19


there are in fact, similarities....

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

lol...my argument is lacking?......people who knew John said he was the author of Revelation but you know it certainly wasn't him because when he was young he was just a poor fisherman who couldn't write......dude, he mentored Polycarp.....do you think he might have had someone who could take notes for him?.......the style of Greek was different?..........do you think he could have had a DIFFERENT scribe when he dictated the gospel of John as he did when he dictated Revelation?.....for that matter, do you think he could have learned something in the forty years between when both books were written?......

Scribes took down what you said word for word. John was a peasant from Galilee. He spoke Aramaic. If he knew Greek at all it would have been very basic Greek. The Gospel of John is written in a flowing, poetic Greek. The Apocalypse is written in almost "Greek slang". Both books were written about the same time with the Gospel of John usually accepted as being written first. There is no rational explanation for why John spoke this beautiful Greek and then a couple years later spoke broken Greek. That makes no sense at all.

Furthermore John would not have dictated in Greek. The only reason to dictate in Greek was to appeal to a gentile audience. That was Paul's territory. John had no interest in gentiles. John was a Jew who was interested in converting Jews and Paul makes that undeniably clear in his letters. In fact Paul makes a great show of humiliating the other Apostles and calling them hypocrites because they didn't care about gentiles. The only reason to write or dictate in Greek was to appeal to gentiles that John didn't give a fuck about.

BTW I can GUARANTEE YOU that neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp knew John son of Zebadee. They may have claimed it to give themselves status but the average lifespan of a peasant in those days combined with their recognized dates of birth and death suggests that John would have died when Polycarp was an infant. That is TOTAL bullshit.

 

[PostmodernProph]

on the other hand, by the time they had been growing the church for ten to twenty years they probably had sufficient funds to hire a scribe, even if they didn't have a dozen or so sitting at their feet as followers

Well actually probably not. Scribes were expensive and someone who has an expensive job means they were well off. Perhaps not rich by any means, but a scribe lived a pretty comfy life. In the early church their recruits were the very poor; people who were desperately looking for a message and assurance that their suffering was not in vain. This was the message of Paul and of John of Patmos. A dozen or so scribes? Pfft....Hardly! Furthermore Paul writes in his letters about raising money for a temple in Jerusalem. He is desperate for a collection because that was the deal he struck. He is clear about this. He went to visit the Apostles and they largely blew him off. He came back a few years later and offered them a deal. He said "if you give me authority to preach and convert gentiles and officially recognize me as valid I will gather a collection for a Temple in Jerusalem." In Paul's letters he BEGS the communities he is writing to to come through on that collection to ensure his end of the bargain he struck with the other Apostles. In fact it was such a point of controversy that he was damned near thrown out as the leader of the church in Corinth. Excess money laying around to hire a scribe? Bullshit!

lol....scribes vended their services in the public market, sitting on a rug.....the overhead was extremely low......

 

[PostmodernProph]

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

lol...my argument is lacking?......people who knew John said he was the author of Revelation but you know it certainly wasn't him because when he was young he was just a poor fisherman who couldn't write......dude, he mentored Polycarp.....do you think he might have had someone who could take notes for him?.......the style of Greek was different?..........do you think he could have had a DIFFERENT scribe when he dictated the gospel of John as he did when he dictated Revelation?.....for that matter, do you think he could have learned something in the forty years between when both books were written?......

Scribes took down what you said word for word. John was a peasant from Galilee. He spoke Aramaic. If he knew Greek at all it would have been very basic Greek. The Gospel of John is written in a flowing, poetic Greek. The Apocalypse is written in almost "Greek slang". Both books were written about the same time with the Gospel of John usually accepted as being written first. There is no rational explanation for why John spoke this beautiful Greek and then a couple years later spoke broken Greek. That makes no sense at all.

Furthermore John would not have dictated in Greek. The only reason to dictate in Greek was to appeal to a gentile audience. That was Paul's territory. John had no interest in gentiles. John was a Jew who was interested in converting Jews and Paul makes that undeniably clear in his letters. In fact Paul makes a great show of humiliating the other Apostles and calling them hypocrites because they didn't care about gentiles. The only reason to write or dictate in Greek was to appeal to gentiles that John didn't give a fuck about.

BTW I can GUARANTEE YOU that neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp knew John son of Zebadee. They may have claimed it to give themselves status but the average lifespan of a peasant in those days combined with their recognized dates of birth and death suggests that John would have died when Polycarp was an infant. That is TOTAL bullshit.

interesting....so a person who spoke Aramaic could not have had a disciple who translated what he said into Greek?.....in truth, a different scribe could not have done the translating for Revelation (on Patmos) than the scribe who translated the Gospel (in Ephesus)?.......

as to your guarantee about Polycarp, he was born in 65AD.....John died around 100AD....they both lived in Ephesus.....
Polycarp | Christian History

It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian,[4] that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.[5][6] Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how good are your guarantees?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

In the early church their recruits were the very poor

and yet the Bible speaks of wealthy converts as well....Nicodemus, Lydia.....doctors, lawyers, merchants......

 

[peach174]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

and Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

there are in fact, similarities....

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

The John of Acts was a different John named John Mark

When [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.[Acts 12:12]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.[Acts 12:25]

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.[Acts 13:5]

Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisidia.[Acts 13:13–14]

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.[Acts 15:37–40

John of Patmos also known as John the Apostle wrote Revelation.
He was well educated.

 

[BluePhantom]

lol...my argument is lacking?......people who knew John said he was the author of Revelation but you know it certainly wasn't him because when he was young he was just a poor fisherman who couldn't write......dude, he mentored Polycarp.....do you think he might have had someone who could take notes for him?.......the style of Greek was different?..........do you think he could have had a DIFFERENT scribe when he dictated the gospel of John as he did when he dictated Revelation?.....for that matter, do you think he could have learned something in the forty years between when both books were written?......

Scribes took down what you said word for word. John was a peasant from Galilee. He spoke Aramaic. If he knew Greek at all it would have been very basic Greek. The Gospel of John is written in a flowing, poetic Greek. The Apocalypse is written in almost "Greek slang". Both books were written about the same time with the Gospel of John usually accepted as being written first. There is no rational explanation for why John spoke this beautiful Greek and then a couple years later spoke broken Greek. That makes no sense at all.

Furthermore John would not have dictated in Greek. The only reason to dictate in Greek was to appeal to a gentile audience. That was Paul's territory. John had no interest in gentiles. John was a Jew who was interested in converting Jews and Paul makes that undeniably clear in his letters. In fact Paul makes a great show of humiliating the other Apostles and calling them hypocrites because they didn't care about gentiles. The only reason to write or dictate in Greek was to appeal to gentiles that John didn't give a fuck about.

BTW I can GUARANTEE YOU that neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp knew John son of Zebadee. They may have claimed it to give themselves status but the average lifespan of a peasant in those days combined with their recognized dates of birth and death suggests that John would have died when Polycarp was an infant. That is TOTAL bullshit.

interesting....so a person who spoke Aramaic could not have had a disciple who translated what he said into Greek?.....in truth, a different scribe could not have done the translating for Revelation (on Patmos) than the scribe who translated the Gospel (in Ephesus)?.......

as to your guarantee about Polycarp, he was born in 65AD.....John died around 100AD....they both lived in Ephesus.....
Polycarp | Christian History

It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian,[4] that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.[5][6] Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just how good are your guarantees?.....

John is traditionally said to have died in around 100 CE in order to allow for the possibility of him writing the Apocalypse. John would have been well into his 90s at a time when the average life expectancy was 37. The average life expectancy in the United States today with all our modern technological advancements is only 79. If John had lived to even 65 CE (when Polycarp was born) it would have been an extraordinarily long life and John would have had to have lived even longer to allow for Polycarp to grow up enough to understand what John was talking about.

Now no one can know for sure when John died. There is no record, document, or anything that proves it definitively. So with the lack of any evidence we have to use some reason when we consider these things and ask ourselves which is more likely. Is it more likely that John lived two and a half times longer than the average person at the time (today that would be like someone living to 200 years old) or is it more likely that John died far earlier and the stories about knowing Polycarp and writing the Apocalypse are traditional stories and legends intended to give more validity to the claims of the authors?

The Apocalypse is a bit different because as I have pointed out the author never claims to be John the Apostle. He identifies himself just as "John". So The Apocalypse isn't intentionally pseudepigraphic. It's what is called "pseudepigraphic by attribution". In other words, the author himself doesn't claim to be a person he is not, other people claim that the author is someone he is not.

BTW....no using wiki. I said that before. Anything from wiki gets disregarded as unreliable.

 

[BluePhantom]

there are some that say that the authors must be different Johns, because there is no similarity between them.....yet....
John 1
and Revelation 19


there are in fact, similarities....

John the Apostle, son of Zebadee almost certainly did not write 1 John...he was illiterate. Even Acts says so. Additionally, borrowing descriptions from previous authors was very common. For example (and I will get into more detail later) John of Patmos' description of the throne room that God sits upon is almost an exact description as in Ezekiel (at least at first and the John expands on it).

Additionally the style of Greek used in the Apocalypse is totally and completely different than in 1 John or the Gospel of John.

Your argument is terribly lacking

The John of Acts was a different John named John Mark

When [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.[Acts 12:12]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.[Acts 12:25]

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them.[Acts 13:5]

Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisidia.[Acts 13:13–14]

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.[Acts 15:37–40

John of Patmos also known as John the Apostle wrote Revelation.
He was well educated.

You are referring to much later in the book where other things are going on. The author identified John Mark to distinguish between that John and the Apostle John referred to in Acts 4 where it is written (Acts 4:13) that "...Peter and John...were unlearned and ignorant men...."

Your claim that John was well educated is not only absurd according to the state of education at the time and John's status as a peasant, but it's directly refuted by the Bible. As I pointed out before the Greek word used in Acts 4:13 was "agrammatoi"..."unlettered, illiterate, uneducated".

If the Bible is inerrant why is everyone claiming that John was literate when the Bible itself says he was not?