Approaches to Eschatology

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But all of them start with an assumption that they do not really mean what they actually say.
Not so. It's all about interpretation. Even Dispensationalists interpret figuratively and allegorically when needed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Profoundly true.

An excerpt from Isaiah 65:9 in the ancient Hebrew:
"...My servants My chosen shall inherit it".

God's servants are His chosen (elect).

The faithful and obedient are His servants.

The unfaithful and disobedient are not His servants.

Both groups were found within Israel.
The chosen are the elect. And they do not become elect after they have been faithful and obedient, but when God chooses them.

He has plainly declared that He will do as He did with the Apostle Paul, take resolute enemies and transform them into faithful and obedient persons.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not so. It's all about interpretation. Even Dispensationalists interpret figuratively and allegorically when needed.
All the other systems of interpretation cannot even possibly be maintained without assuming that most of the prophecies in the Bible simply do not mean what they explicitly say.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The prophetic scriptures could not be more clear in explicitly stating that in a coming day most of that rebellious nation will be killed, and that all the rest of them will repent and turn to God with their whole heart. Those that will repent are the elect.

Dispensationally, in Zechariah 12:10, the nation repents and receives salvation, in its entirety.

Dispensationally, in Zechariah 13:8, two thirds are slain.

Zechariah 12 precedes Zechariah 13. Therefore those who are slain have already received salvation.

That includes Judas, Caiaphas, et al ("...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...").

Dispensationally, we'll see 'em in heaven.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Dispensationally, in Zechariah 12:10, the nation repents and receives salvation, in its entirety.

Dispensationally, in Zechariah 13:8, two thirds are slain.

Zechariah 12 precedes Zechariah 13. Therefore those who are slain have already received salvation.

That includes Judas, Caiaphas, et al ("...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...").

Dispensationally, we'll see 'em in heaven.
This is nothing short of nonsense. It is not only a willful wresting of what Dispensationalists teach, it is a willful wresting of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is nothing short of nonsense. It is not only a willful wresting of what Dispensationalists teach, it is a willful wresting of scripture.

It is a plain description of dispensationalism's inevitably illogical conclusions.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
It is a plain description of dispensationalism's inevitably illogical conclusions.
It does not even approximately resemble anything ever taught by any Dispensationalist. Nor is it a logical conclusion from anything any Dispensationalist ever taught. It is 100% pure fiction.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It does not even approximately resemble anything ever taught by any Dispensationalist. Nor is it a logical conclusion from anything any Dispensationalist ever taught. It is 100% pure fiction.

You're invited to attempt to dispensationally disprove it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The chosen are the elect. And they do not become elect after they have been faithful and obedient, but when God chooses them.

He has plainly declared that He will do as He did with the Apostle Paul, take resolute enemies and transform them into faithful and obedient persons.

God chose Saul in the Old Testament. He began as God's elect. But he eventually responded with unfaithfulness and disobedience, and ultimately experienced a tragic end.

God chose Saul in the New Testament. He began as God's elect. He responded with continuing faith and obedience, and ultimately experienced a triumphant end.

Which Saul finished as elect, and why?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You appear to be correct about Sennacherib (at least most likely) entering Judea along the northwest border instead of the southwest border, as I had said. But we know from scripture that he went to Lachish before he sent his troops to Jerusalem, and while his troops were there, he moved to Libnah.

I agree. We know this from scripture.

But as far as the path he took to conquer the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah, we do not know. From biblical records all we have is that he conquered all the cities of the kingdom of Judah. From secular record all we have is that he conquered 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Hezekiah's kingdom. We are not given the details of the path.

This most certainly makes it absolutely ridiculous to assume that before he went to Jerusalem he went north to Aiath and then from there proceeded south to Jerusalem, stopping at Michmash, Geba, and Nob. This theory not only lacke even the slightest historical basis, it is totally unreasonable.

It's ridiculous that Sennacherib split up his armies to conquer the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah? I disagree, as we see him doing that with Jerusalem, Lachish, and Libnah.

But you are correct that this is a theory. I do not claim that it is a fact. It cannot be proven 100%, as there are no secular or biblical accounts that detail the path taken by Sennacherib to conquer all/46 fortified cities and un numbered villages WITHIN the kingdom of Judah

Evidence based on written histories:

1.) Sennacherib's account of conquering 46 cities and un numbered villages in Hezekiah's kingdom
2.) All (whether absolute or not) the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah from the Bible
3.) Josephus' account of Sennacherib taking the cities in the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN.

Based on this evidence, I do not find it unreasonable that Sennacherib sent armies over to Aiath, Ramah, Geba, stopping at Nob, etc.....

You would be hard pressed for any printed source for a claim that nothing has ever been found, anywhere.

I absolutely agree

My source for my archeologiccal argument was a personal interview with Dr Ibrim E'phal, the head of the Department of Antiquities at the Hebrew University in Jerusalam, whom a curator at the Oriental Institute in Chicago personally told me was "the world's leading authority on the archeology of the Holy Land."

Does he have any books on the archeological presence of Assyria in Judah? The only evidence, at least that I have seen or read about, shows Sennacherib at Lachish and Jerusalem. There doesn't seem to be much more archeological evidence for cities outside of those 2.

And again the secular historians, who have no horse in this race, are decided in declaring that Sennacherib simply did not follow the route defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to make an educated guess based on available evidence. BUT that does not make it a fact, for history does not currently detail the path that sennacherib's army took WITHIN the kingdom of Judah.

And the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who would have known their own history, clearly said that Isaiah 10:28-32 refers to a time in their own distant future.

From what I have read about the commentaries of the Qumran, the belief was that the OT prophets prophesied in a code that could only be understood when the teacher of righteous came on the scene to interpret the prophecy. The language was in context for the author's present situation, but the meaning was for the future, end times. This is applied to most if not all OT prophecies about oppressing gentile nations. Assyria, Gog, Babylon, etc... are believed to mostly referred to as the Kittim, the future oppressing gentile power, in these commentaries.

For example, Habakkuk is using language in the context of his own time about the coming of the Babylonian empire, but the commentaries from the Qumran on Habakkuk state that this is actually about the kittim, and not babylon.
Habakkuk 1:6 For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own.

My point is, is that even if they knew the history, they wouldn't apply it to author's time, but to the future end times gentile world power.

So your claim that my "theory cannot be proven as fact based on current evidence" is simply incorrect. What I have proved is that a very significant amount of evidence clearly shows that Sennacherib did not invade Judea by following this path.

What you cannot prove is that Sennacherib did not send his armies into cities of the tribe of Benjamin after entering the kingdom of Judah. You are absolutely entitled to believe that evidence supports your opinion, just as everyone else on this forum, but that doesn't make it a fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The term antichrist is only associated with a man once and it's not used in the OT!

Correct, it is not used in the OT.

It's used in 4 verses in the NT. And it's not associated with 1 man, but anyone who denies the Father and son and the coming of Christ in the flesh. Thus, there could be no Antichrist prior to the coming of Christ in the flesh.


1 John 2:22 is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and is already in the world at this time.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist

Isaiah 14 also speaks about the Assyrian antichrist. Isaiah 14 is the only place the name Lucifer is used and the Assyrian is likened to him and he's also called, "the king of Babylon."

Assyria is no longer an empire, nor has it been for the last couple thousand years. Assyria was long gone before Christ came in the flesh. Therefore how can the antichrist come from an empire that doesn't exist?

Some of the most neglected of all end-time prophecies are Isaiah 10, 14, 30, Micah 5, Job 41, and the book of Habakkuk.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. For example, Micah 5:

Micah 5:2 was fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel

Matthew 2:5-6 In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah,
for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of My people Israel

And according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus appeared at the end of the ages. So yes, I would agree that parts of Micah 5 are in regards to the end of the ages.
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

The Assyrian Isaiah mentions in ch. 10 and 14 are examples. There are several things in ch. 10 & 14 that haven't occurred and even impossible to have occurred, and some will only occur during the Millennial kingdom. A commentary of Isaiah 10 could indeed be long. So to cover a few things...

V. 3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

Assyria is not mentioned in the first 4 verses of Isaiah 10

What's the day of visitation? Peter mentions it, "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation" (I Peter 2:12).

Jesus mentions it too:
Luke 19:44 They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”


V. 6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
That would be Israel.

V. 7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
The Assyrian may not even know he's the antichrist.


What we see here is God using Assyria as a weapon to punish nations

Isaiah 10:5-6 Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him,

Notice what Assyria says:
Isaiah 10:8 for he says:

"I have done" is qal perfect: meaning it is a completed action. "do" is qal imperfect: meaning its action is not yet complete.
Isaiah 10:11 and as I have done to Samaria and its idols, will I not also do to Jerusalem and her idols?”

So What Assyria had done (completed action) to Samaria, they were going to do (non completed action) to Jerusalem.
2 kings 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria, and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

So I would argue this is about the Assyrian empire already having conquered Samaria and attempting to conquer Jerusalem in Isaiah's day.


It's the voice of the Lord that beats down the Assyrian. Not another army. The Assyrian is destroyed in Israel.

The angel of the Lord killed 185,000 Assyrians causing them to depart.
2 kings 19:35-36 And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh

Isaiah 30:31 For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.

Isaiah 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

Daniel says that the little horn (anti-Christ) will not be destroyed by human hands, and that's in accord with Isaiah 14:25 about the Assyrian.

The Assyrian army was destroyed by the angel of the Lord, not human hands.

Isaiah 10:24 says "be not afraid of the Assyrian." This is future because of "the anointing" an the Lord puts an end to the Assyrian antichrist' indignation upon Israel decreed by God who destroys him and his cohorts.

V. 24-25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.

Those in zion (Jerusalem) were not to be afraid when Assyria attacked them.

Isaiah 10:24 Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Assyria when he shall strike with the rod and lift up his staff against you as the Egyptians did.

Isaiah 37:5 When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, 6Isaiah said to them, “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You're invited to attempt to dispensationally disprove it.
There is zero reason to disprove false claims about what we never even so much as suggested. But the scriptures very explicitly say that this promised universal repentance will apply to those that have survived the coming time.

“ ‘And it shall come to pass in all the land,’
Says the LORD,
‘That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it:
I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, “This is My people”;
And each one will say, “The LORD is my God.” ’ ”
(Zechariah 13:8-9)

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves.” (Zechariah 12:10-14)

“And it shall come to pass that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy--everyone who is recorded among the living in Jerusalem. When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning,” (Isaiah 4:3-4)

So the Holy Spirit has made it very clear that, after a time of great trouble, He will finally bring absolutely all of “the house of Israel” back to their ancient homeland, and will cause (also absolutely) all of them that are still living to turn back to Himself “with their whole heart,” with the result that “they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.”

This is not a "dispensational" understanding. It is what God said.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
God chose Saul in the Old Testament. He began as God's elect. But he eventually responded with unfaithfulness and disobedience, and ultimately experienced a tragic end.

God chose Saul in the New Testament. He began as God's elect. He responded with continuing faith and obedience, and ultimately experienced a triumphant end.

Which Saul finished as elect, and why?

God chose the first Saul to be a king, not for salvation. God chose the second Saul for salvation.

But I am not going to get into an argument with you on election. I believe in it and you do not. end of story.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
will cause (also absolutely) all of them that are still living to turn back to Himself

That is nowhere to be seen in the passages.

What is seen is "...they will look on Me whom they pierced."

That includes Judas and Caiaphas.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God chose the first Saul to be a king, not for salvation. God chose the second Saul for salvation.

But I am not going to get into an argument with you on election. I believe in it and you do not. end of story.

So the first Saul was a chosen elect, but never saved?

You believe a hollowed racialized caricature of the Scriptural election which characterizes every true believer in Christ. (Ephesians 1:4)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
That is nowhere to be seen in the passages.

You need to learn to read. It is explicitly stated in the passages I just quoted.

What is seen is "...they will look on Me whom they pierced."

That includes Judas and Caiaphas.

This is nothing less than willful wresting of the scriptures, in a vain attempt to justify refusing to believe what God has explicitly stated. And by willful wresting, I mean making an argument that you are perfectly aware is twisting scripture to mean something entirely different from what God meant.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You need to learn to read. It is explicitly stated in the passages I just quoted.



This is nothing less than willful wresting of the scriptures, in a vain attempt to justify refusing to believe what God has explicitly stated. And by willful wresting, I mean making an argument that you are perfectly aware is twisting scripture to mean something entirely different from what God meant.

I quoted verbatim what God said.

Isn't that what He meant?
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Isaiah 10:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.

Chapter 14 is full of events that can only happen during the Millennial kingdom. Chapter 10, not so much. The Lord has NOT "performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem." It goes on until "the day of visitation," the Day of the Lord. Verse 12 clearly states the Lord punishes the KING of Assyria. NOT the Assyrian people like you claim.

Jer 46:21
Also her hired men in the midst of her are like calves of the stall; for they also are turned back, they are fled away together, they did not stand:
for the day of their calamity is come upon them, the time of their visitation.
Hos 9:7
The days of visitation are come
, the days of recompense are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the man that hath the spirit is mad, for the abundance of thine iniquity, and because the enmity is great.

Luke uses "visitation" in the 70ad Jerusalem/Temple discourse


Luke 19:
41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments on Her,
42 saying, "That if thou-knew, and thou, even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes.
43 That shall be arriving days upon Thee, and Thy enemies shall be casting up a rampart/siege-work to Thee, and shall be encompassing Thee, and pressing Thee every which place.
44 And shall be leveling Thee and thy offspring in Thee,
and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in Thee, instead which not thou knew the time of Thy visitation.


Isaiah 61:2
To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Yahweh,
And the day of vengeance<5359> of our 'Elohim, To comfort all mourners.

Luke 4:
17 the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written:
21 and He began by saying,
“Today this Scripture<1124 is fulfilled<4137> in your hearing.”

Luke 21:

22 That days of vengeance these are, of the to be fulfilled all the having been written

Reve 14:8
And another Messenger, second-one follows saying "She falls, She falls, Babylon the Great,
the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations".





.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The 'anti-Christ' has several names. The man of sin, and the lawless one, the wicked counsellor, the son of perdition, a vile person, etc.

Where does scripture teach these are the same individual and are properly, Biblically referred to as "The Antichrist"??

He IS one individual since there are several times personal pronouns are used to describe him. Anti-Christ isn't always just a 'spirit.'

Scripture explicitly teaches that THE antichrist IS a Spirit that affected MANY. (1 John 4:3)

"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."

I would interpret it like this, "Many antichrist have come, and THE antichrist is coming, that's how you will know it's the last hour."

Why would you interpret that verse to mean something it absolutely does not say?

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that (THE) antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists; (plural) whereby we know that it is the last time."

The verse actually reads in the Greek interlinear like this...
Little boys and girls, it is the last hour and according as ye hear that THE "instead-anointed" (antichrist) is coming and now many instead anointeds have become.....

And John then CONFIRMS that "THE Antichrist", the one that they had heard was coming, was:
a)Already there, proving to John that the LAST HOUR had arrived. (1 John 2:18)
b) a SPIRIT affecting many (1 John 4:3)
 
Upvote 0