I think that there was some defect or weakness in his Greek, and that John's Gospel has been edited by later editors. This is a common view by scholars. It appears that both Revelation and the Gospel were originally in Aramaic or at least written in Greek by an Aramaic writer. How do you know that "in his gospel he used scribes", as opposed to scribes editing it decades after he wrote it?
Usually its considered that the greek in the gospel of John is refined while the greek in Revelation is more crudely put together. But I see no way that either was written in aramic. The term 'logos' would really make no sense amongst aramaic cultures. Also the fact that Philip and Andrew plays a prominent role in the gospel of John (more than Peter), because these apostles held a very high esteem amongst the christians of Asia Minior (especially Philip), coupled with the fact that Jesus indirectly praises the greek visitors all suggest this was written for greek speakers of Asia Minor:
"Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; 21these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus. 23And Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.."(John 12.20-23)
Likewise in Revelation Jesus says he is the 'Alpha and the Omega', all 7 churches were greek speaking, the identification of one angel having both a hebrew and greek name etc (Rev 9.11) suggests a greek origin.
It's also an interesting parallel that you point out to Paul's claim about a man caught up in heaven. I don't know how we could backdate John's vision in Rev. 4 to before St. Paul's letter, unless John in Patmos was recounting a past experience. So it seems they would be talking about two different experiences. How do we know Paul was talking about his own experience in Paradise?
John was written in aproximately 95AD. Yes Paul and John are two different experiences- their own. But true experiences are usually labeled as visions nonetheless. Whether it was Daniel's vision or St Siloaun, we say vision but the athonite saint describes it as a 'visitation' as well- a material physical manifestation of Christ not just a mere vision of him. As far as Revelation we believe something phenomenal occured, that it is not just a text composed by pseudonymous writers. Other than that we do not know the finer details.
OK, so in your view, the symbolic things were his way of describing things that he literally saw, like calling planes "birds". When he said that he saw a man with a sword coming out of his mouth, I understand how the sword could symbolize the power of Jesus' message, the gospel. however, taken at face value, John says that he has a vision where he sees a sword coming out of Jesus' mouth. To interpret this as purely a metaphor for the gospel, rather than an actual sword vision, would call into question how many other parts of Revelation were only metaphors, rather than actual visions.
Apocalyptic literature was popular at the time, so many themes were understood in the same way. So when 13.11 speaks of a beast coming out of the earth with two horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon, no one thought it was describing a literal reptile or giant insect.
First, by saying that Jude is the seventh NT book, doesn't it exclude other NT books besides Revelation, like the other Epistles (James', Paul's, Acts, James', John's Epistles)?
He mentions those later. I didnt paste the entire quote. He mentions the books in their order.
f Revelation was excluded from the Bible by St. Gregory, and other works like Revelation are "not genuine" for St. Gregory, then it's confusing why he would quote from Revelations like you said.
But more importantly, even if the Bible's divinely inspired writings ended either at Revelations or at the books listed by St. Gregory, what is to say that there would not be further divine visions? Just because miracles and visions occurred after those books were composed doesn't mean they didn't happen.
The book of Revelation is excluded from all eastern fathers except for St Athanasios. The list of books are simply those read in Liturgy, St Athansios also says this, there may have been a tradition at that time in Alexandria where a portion of Revelation was read. Its excluded from St Basil of Jerusalem's list, excluded from canons 59&60 of Laodicea, and St Amphilocius of Iconium claims its disputed with the majority excluding it. This is why Revelation is excluded from being read in the Byzantine Church. Its relegated to the second tier.
I don't know of similar extraordinary revelatory visions after St. John's, and it's true that the Church rejected the Montanists' teachings. But I don't know why this means that nothing similar actually happened after the time of the Montanists.
I reject the vision of Theodora on the toll houses. Even those that accept it usually accept the cleaned up sanitized version not the longer original.
I don't believe in Vassoula's visions and think she made them up, because eg. her handwriting and spelling mistakes are the same as that allegedly performed by the spirits. It's very weird though that a woman would intentionally invent vision stories to try to deceive millions of people. I have trouble understanding the thinking of such a deceiver. Doesn't the deceiver really believe in God, and she does, why would she knowingly deceive people so intensely about this? Maybe she herself was delusional? Perhaps she intentionally tried to confuse herself mentally like the Pentecostals prompt themselves to perform glossolalia
The thing is Revelation, the Montanists, and Vasoula took years to either accept (as in Revelation) or to completely reject. Tertullian was never ousted for embracing Montanism because in the African Church they were still open minded that it may have been legitimate. Tertullian was basically an apologist for them within his local church. The Asia Minor churches where Montanism originated rejected them quickly . Likewise Vasoula up until recently was still communing with the Patriarch of Alexandria years after she was condemned by the Church of Greece, it was only recently that she was officially cast out by the EP after decades of claiming visions.
Irenaous accepted chiliasm basing it on Rev 20, most rejected chiliasm as they did not accept the book of Revelation because they never recieved a tradition of millenialism.. This is what St Gregory meant. Dont accept dogma (specifically chiliasm) outside of the officially read books of the church. Once chiliasm died out the book of Revelation gradually was recieved in the East, took till about 500AD.
Edited by Kosta, 28 October 2015 - 04:30 AM.