Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mary

Expand Messages
  • David Trapero
    ... I don t have trouble with the God-given part or the prophetic part. However, there is general consensus that the book jumps around from past to present to
    Message 1 of 48 , Nov 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > Firstly, the idea that the Revelation preceded events about which
      > it speaks is not a problem if one accepts that it was God-given
      > (as per Rev 1:1 – given by God to Jesus and by Jesus to John)
      > `to show…what must soon take place'. That is, the Revelation
      > was a prophetic vision rather than someone's creative reflection
      > on past and/or current events.

      I don't have trouble with the God-given part or the prophetic part.
      However, there is general consensus that the book jumps around from
      past to present to future and back and forth again and again. "Write
      what you have seen, WHAT IS and what is to take place after this."
      1:19 It is extremely difficult to ascertain when it is speaking
      literally of the future or when it is merely using future tense for
      dramatic effect. It could very well be describing events that
      recently had taken place or were currently taking place and then
      giving its own unique interpretation to these events.
      >
      > Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation that the two witnesses of
      > Rev 11 refer to Peter and Paul. As the city in which both of them
      > die – the holy city where the temple was (11:2)

      The two witnesses are not located in/around the temple in verse two.
      There is a transition in verse three where the two witnesses are first
      introduced with "And I will grant my two witnesses..."

      and `where there
      > Lord was crucified' (11:8)– seems to refer to Jerusalem,

      I don't think so. In verses 7 and 8 we find... "their dead bodies
      will lie in the street of THE GREAT CITY (this is always Rome in
      Revelation, see especially chapters 17,18) that is prophetically
      called Sodom and Egypt (how can this be Jerusalem?), where also their
      Lord was crucified." This last phrase alone "where also their Lord
      was crucified" would seem to indicate Jerusalem but upon closer
      scrutiny, Jesus was in a very real sense crucified in Rome, i.e. by
      Roman edict under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate functioning as
      the official representative of Rome, under Roman jurisdiction. Though
      geographically situated in Palestine, Jesus was most assuredly
      crucified "in Rome" i.e. "by Rome." This cryptic, convoluted way of
      referring to Rome is distinctly "Revelation-esque".

      I am not
      > convinced that these two enigmatic characters are Peter and
      > Paul, both of whom died in Rome.

      Now that (hopefully) you're more comfortable with Rome being the
      location for our two witnesses, if they are not Peter and Paul, who
      might they be? In the early to mid sixties, in Rome, what other
      prophetic figures would merit such accolades, such deep reverence?
      >
      > I suspect the circumstances of the 60s of the first century provide
      > many solutions to questions about the text – particularly of
      > Johannine writings – and the inter-relations between these and
      > other NT books which the modern tendency to opt for later dates
      > and non-apostolic authorships prevent us from seeing.

      Agreed. For the record, I feel the case for apostolic authorship of
      John is very strong. I highly recommend "The Priority of John" by
      John A. T. Robinson, a tour de force, challenging many conventional
      assumptions about John and the synoptics. As far as I know, nobody
      has ever refuted his arguements, though many contemporary scholars are
      quite adept at ignoring them.

      Just curious, why and how do you date Revelation to 62 A.D.?
      Personally, I'd date it during the height of the Neronian persecution
      in 64/65 A.D. and the second/final edition of the Gospel of John I'd
      date around 66/67 A.D. I think the first edition of John (minus the
      prologue, chapters 6, 14-17 and 21) came out around 62/63 A.D.

      Regards,

      David
      >
      David Traper
    • geomelick@AOL.com
      Frank: F. C. Grant saw no problem in a combination of figurative and literal meanings in 1 Peter 5:13. In his article on Mark in the Encyclopedia Americana he
      Message 48 of 48 , Dec 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Frank:

        F. C. Grant saw no problem in a combination of figurative and literal
        meanings in 1 Peter 5:13. In his article on Mark in the Encyclopedia Americana he
        wrote: "Further, the intimate reference in 1 Peter, joining Mark's greeting
        with Peter's and those of the church in 'Babylon' (Rome?), would be more natural
        if the relationship was physical as well as spiritual." According to Swete,
        huios does not involve a spiritual relationship which in the Pauline Epistles
        is expressed by teknon.

        I have argued previously that Mark was forbidden by Jesus to accompany Peter
        during the Galilean ministry. This did not preclude him from being a disciple
        of John the Baptist. (Mathetes means learner or pupil.) J. E. Bruns wrote
        two articles about the confusion between John and John Mark. In one he quotes
        a document which claims Mark was with the servants at Cana. According to Mark
        6:31, the trip which ended in the feeding of the five thousand was supposed
        to be for a rest and there was no reason to make Mark stay home. Mark could
        have been present when his grandmother was healed, in the fishing boat, and with
        Peter when he went to Jerusalem for the Passover.

        Mark's limited contact with Jesus explains why we have just these relatively
        few stories about Jesus. There were many other things which Jesus did. Could
        John 21:24f be Mark's ending to his notes?

        George Melick, Drexel University (Retired)
        9 Attleboro Court
        Red Bank, NJ 07701
        http://georgemelick.tripod.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.