A Jewish Original
according to the German scholar Vischer. The original was Hebrew and later translated into Greek by John the Apostle who added the churches, Antipas, and Jesus. The original must have been written by John the Baptist who knew the Lamb of God.
Home 9
A Missing Martyr
with Eusebius and Victorinus. Antipas can not be found in the Church History of Eusebius or in the Commentary of Victorinus. The missing stuff is adding up. Can it be explained? Has any one tried to? There is reasonable explanation. They were both looking at copy of the Apocalypse that didn’t have Antipas, the churches, or Jesus. They just had the Lamb.
A Problem
with the Victorinus commentary on the Apocalypse. The seven churches Victorinus mentions in his commentary on the Apocalypse are the ones Paul wrote to. The letters are to seven spirits not seven churches. Eusebius mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse. Could it be their copy of John’s Apocalypse did not mention them?
Home 8
A Clue
as to what they didn’t know. What the Fathers of the Church wrote has been thoroughly studied but what they left out has not. Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalypse fails to mention the seven churches. He does mention the seven churches that Paul wrote to. This by itself should concern no one but when combined with other similar omissions, it demands your attention.
A Famous Clue
that often goes unnoticed. What the early fathers of the Church wrote has been extensively studied but what has been overlooked is what the early fathers overlooked. A good example of this is Eusebius who was obsessed with martyrs didn’t mention Antipas in Chuch History. Martyrs from Pergamus are not missing, Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice are mentioned as martyrs in Pergamus but not Antipas. Who has tried to explain this?
Home 7
A Reason
to suspect another writer of the Apocalypse. Not just a different John but a second John. Few would dare to consider it. Most couldn’t believe it was possible even though there were reasons to suspect it. Once considered there were additional signs to be found that would support this theory.
A Little Book
that John ate and was told to prophesy again. These passages alone strongly suggest there were at least two versions of the Apocalypse. There are other reasons to believe this. You just have to look for them. It will improve your understanding as to why and when it was written along with who it was written by. Many didn’t think it belonged in the bible but somehow it made it.
Home 6
A Folly
according to Newton. What is your interpretation based on? The bible? Which translation? There are 59 different English translations plus revisions. They don’t agree. The differences are significant. Many are uncomfortable with the word interpretation because somehow they understand the original intent of the written word. Who or what can you believe?
A Thousand Years
but it happens just like Constantinople is missed. It’s a mystery that can be found no more at all. Preconceived interpretations have led to major errors. The biggest is the “reign of Christ” which cannot be found in the bible. Still many look for the return of Christ before looking for a thousand years. More can’t look past Rome to Constantinople which is a better fit for Babylon the Great.
Home 5
A Number
or I should say the word number. Found it in Daniel and it referred to years. I then searched history to find out what happened in the year 666. Nothing. I did find Islam was getting ready to attack Constantinople the capital of a Christian empire that would last a thousand years where they reigned with Christ. Not a bad start.
apocalypse 