A Witness
a Church History that includes six of the seven churches that John wrote to but Eusebius never associates them with the Apocalypse. Victorinus doesn’t even mention them. Is it possible there is a version of the Apocalypse that doesn’t include the seven churches? It could be a reasonable explanation for what we are looking at.
Home 25
A History of the Church
a dog that didn’t bark. Eusebius never associates the churches with the Apocalypse. He does mention six of the seven churches but does not connect them with the Apocalypse. Since Victorinus has the same problem, it suggests that there may have been a version of the Apocalypse that didn’t have the seven churches.
Home 9
A Commentary on the Apocalypse
a dog that didn’t bark. Victorinus didn’t mention the churches. He does mention the seven churches that Paul wrote to. So why not mention the seven churches that John wrote to? It is possible that his version of the Apocalypse didn’t have the seven churches. We need to look at Eusebius to see if he has the same problem.
Home 8
A History
a witness to what no longer exists. What was Victorinus looking at when he wrote his commentary on the Apocalypse? What was Eusebius looking at when he wrote his history of the Church? We can only speculate based on what they wrote and what is reasonable. Can we make sense of it?.
Home 7
A Commentary
a revelation without the churches. An Apocalypse written by John the Baptist would not have the seven churches. A careful reading of Eusebius and Victorinus is consistent with this. The Baptist would use the word lamb about 27 times in his Apocalypse. John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lamb.
A Commentary
by Victorinus on the Apocalypse. He mentions the seven churches that Paul wrote to but not the ones John wrote to. Eusebius has the same problem. He mentions six of the seven churches of the Apocalypse but never associates any of them with the Apocalypse. What was he looking at?
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 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 Strange Beginning
in the Apocalypse. Why is John mentioned three times? Has anyone addressed this in a reasonable way? Could they actually be three different people all named John? Victorinus and Eusebius gives us reason to believe that. Victorinus in his commentary doesn’t mention Antipas or the seven churches. He does mention the seven churches Paul wrote to. Eusebius doesn’t mention Antipas. He does mention six of the seven churches but doesn’t associate them with the Apocalypse. Both may be looking at the first version written by John the Baptist.
Home 14
apocalypse 