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 Clue
that there is more than one writer of the Apocalypse. John is told to eat the little book and then is told he must prophesy again. It could be John the Apostle eating the little book written by John the Baptist. The Apostle would add Jesus, Antipas, and the seven churches.
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
A Strange Introduction
that doesn’t get enough attention. Combine this with John being told to “prophesy again” after eating the little book. Is there a record of him prophesying again? Yes but the record of John prophesying the first time is missing except for a few clues. The dog that didn’t bark. Eusebius and Victorinus did not mention Antipas or the seven churches. Were they looking at the first Apocalypse written by John the Baptist?
A Glaring Omission
in the History of the Church by Eusebius that has not been addressed by people who should know. Eusebius doesn’t mention Antipas in his Church History but the word ‘martyr’ can be found 355 times. He does mention Carpus and Papylus, two martyrs of Pergamus but he does not mention Antipas. He mentions six of the seven churches but never associates them with the Apocalypse.
Watch for more pieces that fit. Blessed is the one who looks.
Home
A Second John
to the seven churches. He ate the book and was told he must prophesy again. John the Apostle knew the followers of John the Baptist in Ephesus from Acts 19. He added the seven churches and Antipas. Jesus is the Lamb of the Apocalypse and the followers of the Baptist needed to know that.
Watch for more pieces that fit. Blessed is the one who looks.
Home
A Reasonable Explanation
for Eusebius and Victorinus not knowing about Antipas and the seven churches of the Apocalypse. They were looking at the first version of the Apocalypse written by John the Baptist. Seriously.
Watch for more pieces that fit. Blessed is the one who looks.
Home
A Valuable Source
for writings of the Church Fathers. It includes Victorinus whose commentary does not include Antipas and the seven churches of the Apocalypse. Since Eusebius has the same problem, this needs to be addressed but so far hasn’t been.
Watch for more pieces that fit. Blessed is the one who looks.
Home
apocalypse 