It was THE John and was written most believe about 90 or so AD or about 50-60 years after Jesus's ministry. John was an elderly man by that time.

Bryce

It has hundreds of OT references in it. It's really irrelevant wether it not "who" or "what" accepted it. When you compare it with the rest of the Bible, it is just another piece of the picture.

I have read the Book of Revelation several times. I have also read the scholars opinion on who may have written that Book. Many of the scholars think that the so called different writing styles suggest that it was written by different authors. I disagree, and also believe these "so called scholars" did not have a grasp on what the OT was really saying. In order to understand Revelation, one must have a firm grasp on the OT and its teachings. Most IMO struggle with Revelation because they don't understand the OT.

I think that John may have been the half brother of Jesus Christ. Much of his gospel is written in the first person; as though he witnessed it; and I believe that he did.

If one has a firm foundation on the OT, then the Book of Revelation flows so easily that it makes perfect sense. My opinion. Chancey

When do the non-trappers come on the trapping site and tell trappers how/what/why?
Makes about as much sense as unbelievers telling believers about Christian faith because Scripture is sheer foolishness to the unbeliever.

As far as challenges to what was handed once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3) and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all (the earliest centuries dogma to guard against that era's heretics), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the argument against what is considered orthodox (right thinking).

We live in a time where anyone can say whatever they deem true, but it does not make it so.
Scholars concur that the Bible was canonized in the first centuries but......
the most important translation from any Bible isn't from the original languages into English, but from the printed pages into someone's life.

Blessings,
Mark

Spot on brother Chancey,
One of the best of the best as far as OT history and timelines is the 500+ page book by Eugene Merrill.

^^ Amen. The Word of our God will stand forever.

Thank you Mark,
I was unaware of that book; and will certainly get it and read it. As believers, we will never be without awe of the Creator's plan. I cherish new insights. Chancey

From one of the world's leading historical theologians, John Hannah;

The earliest collection of books that we have is called the Muratorian Canon, named for the 18th century Italian archeologist who found the document in Milan. It is clear that by the time of its original composition, the late 2nd- century, the writings of the apostles were elevated to the level of the Old Testament. However, this list did not include 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews and James (the later two books perhaps because of the influence of Marcionism).



Perhaps because oral tradition was the normal means of communication during these times, and people passed information word-of-mouth, putting together a formal "book" was not the critical project we think of today with immediate communication at our fingertips. The printing press would be invented 1,000 years after the canonical books were decided.

You may criticize non-believers for commenting their beliefs on a religious thread, but as a believer I can promise you I got more from Danny's post than from yours or foxpaws or several others. I know Jesus often spoke in parables but is there some unwritten law that his followers must as well? Can none of you just say what you mean?

You attacked Danny for stating his opinion on who the author of Revelation was, but yet you never offered yours? Or I guess maybe you did, if we can wade through enough of the rhetoric to decipher that since you're critical of danny's post, you must disagree with him?

Aren't you in seminary now? Would it not be more befitting for you to offer up, in plain english, your opinion of who wrote Revelation as opposed to hoping the brighter among us might infer it based on your bashing of an atheist?

Are we not supposed to SHOW our religion as opposed to using our words to forever run people off of it?

Angela, I believe with all my heart that John wrote the Book of Revelation. If I offended you or Danny, I am sorry; it was certainly not my intention; and I appreciate you both very much contributing to this thread as well as other topics on this site. Chancey

Chancey.... I don't know your real name so excuse me for that... but I was NOT talking to you AT ALL. I believe John the apostle wrote the book of Revelations too. I think Danny's wrong. BUT I'm not going to attack him the way Mark did just because I don't agree with him.... and I'm not even in training to become a preacher!

Mark was rather dismissive of Danny, but it's a stretch to say that his post was "bashing" Danny.

I do agree that Danny's post merits a serious, non-dismissive response. Mark's answers are frequently ambiguous to me. But I've assumed that's because he's talking about a religion with lots of gray areas and loopholes.


Jim

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that preachers/pastors/ministers/priests/brothers or whatever Mark's denomination might refer to themselves as main purpose was to reach out and bring more people to Jesus. NOT to lecture other believers because they believe a bit different than he does. And certainly not to... dismiss.... someone that is a proclaimed atheist but yet seems to have a much better grasp of Scripture than Mark himself does.

Yes, Danny, like you James... is a loudly proclaimed atheist, but it's MY hope that someone can make y'all change your mind before it's too late. And I'm 1000% sure Mark WON'T be that person.... and considering his future position, that's sad.

I'm not an atheist, let alone loudly proclaimed. I'm an agnostic. The evidence isn't in, so far as I'm concerned.

I can see making a case either way, that there is or is not a creator. I guess I'd claim to be a deist, if pushed to choose. There is a creator, but He or She doesn't concern themself much with humans or our affairs.

Other interpretations leave the Creator a lot to account for to the sentient beings who were created.

Jim

I agree you seem more open to religious possibilities than danny does, so I'm sorry if lumping you into the atheist category offends you, but to me an "atheist" is anyone who doesn't believe Christ died for your sins.... perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that's your stance? Or more likely I'm wrong... and the term I should be using is Christian.... which neither you nor danny are. And here we are back to arguing semantics again.

I agree I'm not a Christian, but it's not just semantics.

I'm a cultural Christian. I was raised to believe, but have grown up to become a skeptic.

Similarly, my wife is a cultural Buddhist, like most Japanese. She doesn't literally believe in Buddhist scripture, but did find comfort in the rituals when her mother died.

Jim

As the agnostic said to the atheist "I admire your faith".

Bryce

So then what IS the term, James, for someone who was raised a Christian, turned away from it, and then never grew enough to come back to it? Is that term simply Agnostic?

I have no idea what a "cultural Christian" is although I guess I once was one? I was raised to believe.... then "grew up" to become a skeptic. Then realized I was a moron and that no educated person could doubt the Truth of Christ.

Why is that?

Why is what?

Jim