My replies weren't unfriendly...just statements of facts. I do apologise if you took them and inferred some kind of animosity. There wasn't any. Incredulability yes, animosity no.
I asked a question pertinent to the discussion and you gave no answer but claimed yourself victorious (as if this was a contest) in that your theological positions were unchallenged.
And you losing your proper Christian demeanor (increasing your pride) over this when we are trying to have a conversation about a theological position that is far outside the norm is what we are finding incredulous.
Pride in self-made scholars is the norm even from agnostics and Atheists who study the scriptures.
I can't even begin to count the numbers of strangers coming into this forum with unheard of theologies and theories...but if I had a nickel for each one I could retire a wealthy man.
So,
From your life-long involvement in studying the transformative scriptures I kinda expected that you would behave a bit better when the question I posited is directly related to the proposal you made. I want to know why a fairly standard Hebrew literary device was not employed by a New Testament writer who was known for employing many of them and even borrowing some new ones from the Greeks.
(Which is the basis of your proposal)
As well as you have yet to define how the other descriptive names we associate with the Antichrist are not descriptive of the final Antichrist/False Prophet.
JohnDB,
In reading back through this thread, I think I have done something that I never intended to do, namely to challenge what appears to be a dearly held certain belief of the good Christian folks here at cf.net. That was the very last thing I wanted to do. I thought that there would be several posters here that would agree with the proposition in my Opening Post and that the discussion would be strictly academic without any comments on the spiritual qualities of the various posters, for example I don't have any problem with pride, and because I don't, I think I ought to just let this subject go for the sake of peace and quiet. I do not have any desire to "win" the argument. I do not mind you good folks here being the victors on this subject.
Before I end my part in this thread, I am going to see if the following makes any sense to you? (or to anybody else here)
I am going to take a close look at 1 John 2: 18-19
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. ___ 1 John 2:18-19
Note the particulars from 1 John 2:18-19
(1) "this is the last hour" That compellingly refers ONLY to the time of the first century.
It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an incorrect interpretation.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.
It could not refer to the year 950 A.D.
Or to the year 1200 A.D.
Or to the year 1880 A.D.
Or to the year 2018 A.D.
It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.
Could the people who lived say 200 years ago, have correctly said "this is the last hour" refers to our time period? No of course not.
`
(2) "even NOW many antichrists have come"
The "NOW" refers to the time of the first century.
It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an incorrect interpretation.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.
It could not refer to the year 450 A.D.
Or to the year 1100 A.D.
Or to the year 1680 A.D.
Or to the year 1760 A.D.
It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.
Could the people who lived say 300 years ago, have correctly said that "even NOW many antichrists have come"? No, of course not.
(3) "MANY antichrists have come."
"Many is plural. There were many antichrists that had ALREADY come in the
time of the first century.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.
It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an incorrect interpretation.
Just as it could not refer to the year 450 A.D.
Or to the year 1000 A.D.
Or to the year 1480 A.D.
Or to the year 1260 A.D.
It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.
"Many antichrists have come" (they were living THEN at the time John wrote this verse.)
(4) "They went out from us. but they did not belong to us"
This compellingly is a reference to the first century, when John wrote 1 John.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.
It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an incorrect interpretation.
Just as it could not refer to the year 450 A.D.
Or to the year 850 A.D.
Or to the year 1380 A.D.
Or to the year 1860 A.D.
It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.
"They went out from us" means they went out from the Apostles who wrote that. It cannot be interpreted to refer to a future time.
______________
Does any of that up there make any sense to you?
