Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

cupid dave · May 4, 2015

Giftedone said: ↑

That's nice, but what does this have to do with the fact that your claim that the passage in Rev 3 supports the Trinity is false ?
Click to expand...

Nothing.
It only has to do with your erroneous comment that "Revelations was not even considered Canon until centuries after Christianity was established."

This attempt to diminish the writing ad unauthoritative is just wrong.

Giftedone · May 5, 2015

cupid dave said: ↑

Nothing.
It only has to do with your erroneous comment that "Revelations was not even considered Canon until centuries after Christianity was established."

This attempt to diminish the writing ad unauthoritative is just wrong.
Click to expand...

My comment is not "erroneous" .. once again you have not done your homework and have no clue what you are talking about.

*In the 250s, Alexandrian Bishop Dionysius wrote a brilliant critical analysis of John’s Revelation that showed just how thoroughly many Christians of his time rejected the work: “Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a Revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity.” Indeed, those critics blamed the work on the arch-heretic Cerinthus. Dionysius rejected such charges. Admitting the work’s obscurity, he was prepared to believe that it contained exalted mysteries that lay beyond his comprehension. He did however show that it certainly was not the work of the author who wrote the Gospel and Epistles attributed to John.
Click to expand...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/07/approving-revelation/

*In the early fourth century, Eusebius listed both Revelations of John and Peter among the spurious texts, alongside the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Confusingly though, he did add that while some rejected the Revelation of John, others included it in the approved canon. On balance he seems to think the book canonical, but he is far from certain
Click to expand...

In the mid-fifth century, church historian Sozomen wrote that “the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, which was esteemed as entirely spurious by the ancients, we have discovered to be read in certain churches of Palestine up to the present day, once a year, on the day of preparation, during which the people most religiously fast in commemoration of the Savior’s Passion” [Good Friday]. Even in the thirteenth century, the Armenian scholar Mkhitan knew Rev. Peter, and included it as a disputed or apocryphal New Testament work.

Opposition to John also remained. As late as 633, the Spanish Council of Toledo remarked how many people still opposed the use of John’s Revelation, and commanded that it must be read in church liturgies, under heavy penalty.

Non-Western communities remained dubious about John. In the ninth century, the Eastern Stichometry of Nicephorus rejected both Rev. John and Rev. Peter as apocryphal, placing them alongside the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas. Greek-speaking churches long favored a standard canonical list of “the Sixty,” namely 34 books in the Old Testament and 26 in the New, excluding both Revelations. Rev. John was eventually included, but with some reluctance. Still today, it is not read in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...

dairyair · May 5, 2015

cupid dave said: ↑

Nothing.
It only has to do with your erroneous comment that "Revelations was not even considered Canon until centuries after Christianity was established."

This attempt to diminish the writing ad unauthoritative is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why did you claim the new names give to God and Jesus means it is/will be, trinity?
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403039&p=1064976202#post1064976202

Log in or Sign up

Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

cupid dave Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

dairyair Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

cupid dave Well-Known Member

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

dairyair Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches