Deceive the very elect

[None]

he was the LAST Apostle,

Oh so he was the last Apostle now too? You just keep adding to these claims!

He doesn't even state that he is an apostle in the opening lines of Revelation like most the other epistles do; he says he is a servant of Jesus. Revelation was also written in Hebraic Greek and is very different from the writing style of John's Gospel and the letters of John, so it is generally thought it is a different John who wrote Revelation. It is only tradition that states it's the same John as the Gospel.

Oh dear, it's not tradition that states that John the revelator is the same John who was the apostle, It is scriptual. and he was the last NT apostle, recorded

Just curious, is the reason you hold so highly to this claim in any way related to the claim that God no longer speaks to us the way He did the writers of the Bible? And when John says not to "add or take away" any words from his writings, he meant the 66 books of the Bible?

I apologize if I'm wrong about your intended point. I've heard this argument going in that direction before.

[MrLuke]

he was the LAST Apostle,

Oh so he was the last Apostle now too? You just keep adding to these claims!

He doesn't even state that he is an apostle in the opening lines of Revelation like most the other epistles do; he says he is a servant of Jesus. Revelation was also written in Hebraic Greek and is very different from the writing style of John's Gospel and the letters of John, so it is generally thought it is a different John who wrote Revelation. It is only tradition that states it's the same John as the Gospel.

Oh dear, it's not tradition that states that John the revelator is the same John who was the apostle, It is scriptual. and he was the last NT apostle, recorded

Just curious, is the reason you hold so highly to this claim in any way related to the claim that God no longer speaks to us the way He did the writers of the Bible? And when John says not to "add or take away" any words from his writings, he meant the 66 books of the Bible?

I apologize if I'm wrong about your intended point. I've heard this argument going in that direction before.

I think since John was writing one letter of revelation, he was talking about not adding or taking away from that specific book, rather than the completed canon of Scripture that didn't exist at that time.

And eric, oh dear yourself, since John never states he is an apostle in Revelation. In fact the whole writing style differs greatly from that of the Gospel and letters of John. Also with the style of the Gospel and 1 John, the writer never mentions his name, where the letter of Revelation does quite explicitly - it's not the same and does offer some evidence for the thought that it was written by a well known John the Elder (of churches in the area) rather than the apostle.

Do any reading of the scholars who have studied this long and all their lives.

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

Jhn 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jhn 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

Jhn 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The prophet Jonah was a false prophet [even though he was a true prophet]. The LORD Himself has been a false prophet at times.

Blasphemy you say! Not so. The LORD Himself tell us he [sometimes] changes His Mind, depending on response to Him and/or His prophets. One example:

Jer 18:7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it];

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:9 And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];

Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Jer 18:11

[patricia1]

Jhn 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jhn 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

Jhn 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The prophet Jonah was a false prophet [even though he was a true prophet]. The LORD Himself has been a false prophet at times.

Blasphemy you say! Not so. The LORD Himself tell us he [sometimes] changes His Mind, depending on response to Him and/or His prophets. One example:

Jer 18:7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it];

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:9 And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];

Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Jer 18:11

[Eliyahuw]

he was the LAST Apostle,

Oh so he was the last Apostle now too? You just keep adding to these claims!

He doesn't even state that he is an apostle in the opening lines of Revelation like most the other epistles do; he says he is a servant of Jesus. Revelation was also written in Hebraic Greek and is very different from the writing style of John's Gospel and the letters of John, so it is generally thought it is a different John who wrote Revelation. It is only tradition that states it's the same John as the Gospel.

ITs pretty much accepted that john who wrote revelation is the same john who wrote the book of john. 1,2,3rd johnand revelation

He was the last living apostle. Apostleship is not passed down. What we could call apostle today, is missionary.

Oh here it is. Apostles were during the time of christ. After the handpicked by christ apostles died, it could not be passed down.

Apostles had to have witnessed christs ressurection

Acts 1:22 and Acts 10:40-42

[eric]

MrLuke,

I think since John was writing one letter of revelation, he was talking about not adding or taking away from that specific book, rather than the completed canon of Scripture that didn't exist at that time.

I woudn't argue with that, but I would say you are probably righ in your assumption.

He doesn't even state that he is an apostle in the opening lines of Revelation like most the other epistles do; he says he is a servant of Jesus. Revelation was also written in Hebraic Greek and is very different from the writing style of John's Gospel and the letters of John, so it is generally thought it is a different John who wrote Revelation. It is only tradition that states it's the same John as the Gospel.

He doesn't have to state he is an apostle and we should know that he was a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, the same as the other apostles. He was the last surviving apostle who was exiled to the island of Patmos. read Rev.1:9 In the epistles he was teaching and preaching to live audiences. in rev, he was writing under instruction, and not his own words.

[MrLuke]

What we could call apostle today, is missionary.

Oh here it is. Apostles were during the time of christ. After the handpicked by christ apostles died, it could not be passed down.

Apostles had to have witnessed christs ressurection

Acts 1:22 and Acts 10:40-42

Yes I have heard that argument put forth before, but how does that equate with the list of Church "offices" in Ephesians if Paul is telling us that some are Pastors, Prophets, Apostles, etc? Surely he (and presumably the Holy Spirit who inspired him) would know that all the first actualy eye witnesses would eventually die?

Surely if by the definition of apostle = missionary, then it was the same to call Paul and Peter et al, missionaries too.. because basicially, that's what they were! They went to other countries, preached and planted churches!

I would say apostle = missionary if your call in life is to be a "career missionary" if you have heard the term before (just means someone who is to be out on the mission field as we understand it, permanently their whole life, rather than just nipping off for short term missions ever so often). And I know you can techinically argue that we are all on the 'mission field' in our daily lives, but that isn't a factor when talking "career missionaries".

He doesn't have to state he is an apostle and we should know that he was a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, the same as the other apostles. He was the last surviving apostle who was exiled to the island of Patmos. read Rev.1:9 In the epistles he was teaching and preaching to live audiences. in rev, he was writing under instruction, and not his own words.

I'm not disputing that he wasn't a servant of Jesus or anything of that, I was merely just stating that historically speaking, there is some dispute about whether it's the same John of the Gospel or a different well known 'John' from that time and area.

[eric]

MrLuke,

I'm not disputing that he wasn't a servant of Jesus or anything of that, I was merely just stating that historically speaking, there is some dispute about whether it's the same John of the Gospel or a different well known 'John' from that time and area.

I wasn't saying you were questioing John's servitude, as we are servants to Christ. You are though, questioning the bible about John of the revelation being the same as John the disciple and apostle responsible for writing the epistles.

you are saying that there is some historical dispute over it. Well in over twenty years of bible reading and research I have never heard of such a dispute. Maybe you could enlighten me, because to me, personally, any dispute would be heresy and unproveable.

[Eliyahuw]

Oh here it is. Apostles were during the time of christ. After the handpicked by christ apostles died, it could not be passed down.

Apostles had to have witnessed christs ressurection

Acts 1:22 and Acts 10:40-42

Yes I have heard that argument put forth before, but how does that equate with the list of Church "offices" in Ephesians if Paul is telling us that some are Pastors, Prophets, Apostles, etc? Surely he (and presumably the Holy Spirit who inspired him) would know that all the first actualy eye witnesses would eventually die?

Surely if by the definition of apostle = missionary, then it was the same to call Paul and Peter et al, missionaries too.. because basicially, that's what they were! They went to other countries, preached and planted churches!

I would say apostle = missionary if your call in life is to be a "career missionary" if you have heard the term before (just means someone who is to be out on the mission field as we understand it, permanently their whole life, rather than just nipping off for short term missions ever so often). And I know you can techinically argue that we are all on the 'mission field' in our daily lives, but that isn't a factor when talking "career missionaries".

Yes paul was a missionary, if you notice the historians refer to his missionary journeys.

There were only 12 original apostles, those that could raise the dead, heal the sick, ect ect ect, and they witnessed the resurection of christ. Those apostles are no longer used today. Paul became an apostle/missionary afterwards, he never witnessed christs resurrection, but carried on most of the duties that apostles did. he didn't heal the sick, nor raise the dead nor did he have the power to do so. But aside from those abilities he preformed the same function. that would be a missionary though.

like the usage of prophets in that same verse you use, apostles changed. prophets no longer are foretelling but only those that go forth and using Gods written word call out those in sins, and is a mouthpiece for God but not one that fortells events.

[MrLuke]

I wasn't saying you were questioing John's servitude, as we are servants to Christ. You are though, questioning the bible about John of the revelation being the same as John the disciple and apostle responsible for writing the epistles.

you are saying that there is some historical dispute over it. Well in over twenty years of bible reading and research I have never heard of such a dispute. Maybe you could enlighten me, because to me, personally, any dispute would be heresy and unproveable.

I am not questioning the Bible though at all. I am questioning the tradition that says John of Revelation is the self same John of the Gospel. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter who wrote it because at the end of the day, we still have Revelation and we still know it was written by someone called John.

But I will dig out my books that I looked in earlier to find what I was reading about the dispute of authorship, right now I'm off to church so I'll post it later.

Paul became an apostle/missionary afterwards, he never witnessed christs resurrection, but carried on most of the duties that apostles did. he didn't heal the sick, nor raise the dead nor did he have the power to do so. But aside from those abilities he preformed the same function. that would be a missionary though.

I think you'll find the Bible begs to differ. Have you read Acts lately?

Acts 14: 3

So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

Acts 14: 8 - 10

In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. 9He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed 10and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

Acts 20: 9 - 11

Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.

Act 28: 8

His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him.