How close is the Seven Year Tribulation?

[us2are1]

That's applying the 70 weeks prophecy totally... outside the context of Scripture of how it is given. The Dan.9:24-27 prophecy involves the Dan.11 chapter specifically also, and the Dan.12 chapter. And then it ties to Christ's Revelation about the final beast kingdom.

With the ending of the 69th symbolic week of Daniel 9:26, Christ was "cut off", meaning He had nothing more to do with Jerusalem since.

But what you're trying to do, is to push Christ's Ministry farther than it existed, into... the final 70th "one week" of Dan.9:27, and that is a false doctrine of men.



Don't know what Bible you're pulling from, but the KJV Bible I use doesn't mention Christ Jesus confirming ANY covenant for a period of 30 days, nor 3.5 years, nor 1260 days.


Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
(KJV)

That "vile person" is this one here...

Dan 9:27
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(KJV)

Only an antichrist would try to say that "he" of that Dan.9:27 verse is Christ Jesus. Know why? Because that same one is to do that "overspreading of abominations", which is about placing the abomination idol that makes desolate, the very "abomination of desolation" that Christ Himself warned about in Matt.24 and Mark 13.

On the contrary The messengers of the anti type kick against the truth because they can not see or hear beyond what they love. A lie

 

[BibleScribe]

...
I do believe I have now found a forum that can assist in a greater understanding than ever before so, I believe re-evaluation is beneficial.

Terry,

If you're going to study any topic, you'd be well advised to start at the beginning. So where Rev. 13:5 says the tribulation lasts 42 month, you are obviously influenced by Daniel's seventieth week in your seven year tribulation discussion.

As such, have you considered starting at the beginning of Daniel 9, and then arriving to the signficance of the seventieth, or are you content disregarding the full context of the Chapter?


BibleScribe

 

[veteran]

On the contrary The messengers of the anti type kick against the truth because they can not see or hear beyond what they love. A lie

And your Scripture support for that?

 

[veteran]

iF I understand these certain posts correctly te claim is the anti-christ confirms the covenant for one week (7 years) and mid-point of that (3 1/2 years) stops the Daily Sacrifice. I have issue with this as, yes, the Covenant is confirmed mid point of Tribulations but that one week is speaks of is DAYS. The covenant was made 30 days prior to the start of Tibulations and like confirming a reservation... the covenant is confirmed AFTER it was established. If you claim it is Confirmed for oe week - as in 7 years.. mid point of tribulatios then Armageddon cannot occur for another 7 years meaning tribulations lasts 10 1/2 years. When one considers that reference to a week is a literal 7 days tat the anti-chirst spends at the temple.. then Armageddon can still occur 42 months later. just a thougt...

You're really not even close. The only way you're going to grasp it is by breaking the phrases in those verses down in their separate timeline parts.


Dan 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ...."
The KJV translators put a colon : right after that phrase to show separateness from the next phrase. That first phrase is about Christ Jesus being "cut off" at His crucifixion to end that "threescore and two weeks" period (62 weeks). After that phrase, Christ is not being referred to anymore in the rest of that Dan.9 chapter. Dan.9:25 told us it would be from the end of the rebuilding Jerusalem period to 62 weeks when Messiah would come. Christ's Ministry was within that 62nd symbolic week, and then 'cut off' at the end of it.

"...and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;...."
That was about a type for the antichrist coming to destroy Jerusalem and the temple ("sanctuary"). It happened by the Roman empire in 69 A.D. Christ's crucifixion and resurrection had already been around 40 years prior to the Romans doing that.

"... and the end thereof shall be with a flood,..."
This "end" is not the period of the Roman army destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 69 A.D. That flood metaphor was specifically given for the last days, the end of this present world. It's when the 'dragon' of Rev.12:7-17 is cast down to this earth again, and a flood of waters out of his 'mouth' go after the symbolic 'woman' there (God's people who keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus Christ).

"... and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
The Hebrew for "war" refers to war, or to a battle, fighting. What great battle is already determined for the end of this world per God's Word? It's saying the at the end, a desolation from a battle is determined. It's pointing to the final battle at the 'end', that of Armageddon (Rev.16; 19; Ezek.38-39). It's that battle of Armageddon when our Lord Jesus returns to defeat His enemies, and cause a major destruction of man's works off this earth (per the fire of 2 Pet.3:10).

Thus the Dan.9:26 verse is a summary of events past... the time of Christ's crucifixion. The "prince" (Hebrew nagiyd) is put for a commander, captain, or chief over the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 69 A.D. In the Dan.10 chapter, the "prince of the kingdom of Persia" is given as a symbol for Satan, the one being withheld by Gabriel and Michael per Dan.10:21 (what Paul was speaking of in 2 Thess.2 of the one being withheld unto it becomes his time to be revealed).


Then comes the 27th verse...

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(KJV)

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: ...."
Many have problems with this "he" and idea of 'confirming' a covenant. The whole phrase "And he shall confirm" is the sole Hebrew word 'gabar', which per Strong's means 'to be strong; by implication to prevail, to act insolently' (Strong's no.1396). Since no specific pronoun is actually written In Hebrew with that, it demands that we go back to the previous Dan.9:26 verse and pickup the object of the one spoken of before. Doing that leads us back to "the prince" of Dan.9:26. Once again, that "prince" of Dan.9:26 is NOT our Lord Jesus. That's what we are to grasp within the next Dan.10 Chapter about "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" that Gabriel and Michael withhold until the time of his release. In the Dan.12:1 verse, we're then shown Michael making a stand ("stand up"), which is pointing to the future Rev.12:7 war in Heaven between Michael and Satan. Then the time of trouble follows, pointing to the tribulation in that same Dan.12:1 verse.

That word "covenant" means a contract or pact. It's not a Hebrew word used only for God's Covenants, but can apply to any contract man makes with others too (like Exod.34:12). In Joshua 9:6 the same Hebrew word for "covenant" is rendered as "league", for the pact the leaders of the Canaanites sought to make with Joshua so he wouldn't destroy them. It is not the Hebrew word 'chabar' for the "league" made in Dan.11 by the "vile person", but it's used in the same sense.

By the time one gets to the Dan.11 chapter, at Dan.11:21-23 verses with a "vile person" making a "league", it should be pretty clear that's who this Dan.9:27 confirming a covenant idea is about. Once again, the Hebrew is not specifically speaking of 'confirming' a pre-existing covenant. That was KJV translators adding that idea from the sole Hebrew word 'gabar'.

The "one week" of Dan.9:27 refers to the final period within the total 70 weeks prophecy Daniel was given. It represents a period of 7 years, because each symbolic week equals a time of 7 years per the Dan.9:24-26 period's events. That one week final period has nothing to do with Christ Jesus. The "cut off" idea in the Hebrew means He had nothing more to do with Jerusalem, and even proclaimed it would be left desolate for refusing Him (until His future return).

That Dan.9:27 verse is about that "prince" back at verse 26, which is called a "vile person" in Dan.11:21, and he is the one that comes to power in Jerusalem with making a "league" (Dan.11:23), and has the abomination placed that causes desolation per Dan.11:31.


That is not very difficult to understand. It simply requires focus in those Daniel Scriptures.

 

[us2are1]

And your Scripture support for that?

2-thessalonians 2
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of the adversary, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[veteran]

2-thessalonians 2
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of the adversary, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I well understand what that "strong delusion" is about, the coming antichrist in place of Christ. So what's the problem?

 

[revturmoil]

I just want to straighten out a few things Veteran said.

First of all Daniel 9:26 is better translated, "and his end thereof shall be like a flood.

Let the Buzzard explain! Here's a clip from him.

A Close Look at Daniel 9:26, 27: Antichrist’s Reign of Terror
by Anthony Buzzard

.....Above we made mention of the translation in some versions: "The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and sanctuary and ITS END will come in the flood" (Dan. 9:26).

Keil (Commentary on Daniel) translates, as does RV, Jerusalem Bible, Jewish Publication Society OT, International Critical Commentary on Daniel, Peake's Commentary etc., "And HIS end will come in the flood." The reference is taken to be to the evil prince who is to come who destroys the city and sanctuary .

Keil says: "The suffix 'HIS' refers simply to the hostile prince whose end is emphatically placed in contrast to his coming. Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references" (Comm. on Daniel, p. 363). In other words, translations which avoid the reference to the wicked prince ("his end") do so because they think that the prophecy ought to refer to the Roman invasion of AD 70. Titus did not come to "his end" in that event.

Now this is no small matter. If the translation "HIS end" is correct, Daniel 9:26 cannot possibly have been fulfilled in AD 70 (the traditional evangelical view), because Titus did not come to his end in that episode.

I think that the translation "HIS (not 'its') END" is right for these reasons:
1) It is supported by commentaries that deal with the detail of the language minutely (Keil is typical of these).
2) The nearest singular masculine antecedent for the reference his/its end is the prince and his people, NOT THE CITY OR SANCTUARY.
3) If the city and sanctuary were meant (and these words are further away), the text should read "their end."
4) The Hebrew HIS END has a masculine singular suffix and cannot agree with the city which is feminine, OR WITH THE PLURAL CITY AND SANCTUARY.
5) Most significant of all, the Hebrew word for end (ketz) never in 70 occurrences refers to the destruction of a thing. It refers to the end of a period of time and often to the end of the life, i.e. lifetime, of a PERSON. Even in Daniel alone, 11:45 speaks of HIS END, meaning the end of the final ruler (an obvious parallel with our verse in 9:26). Daniel is told to go to the END (i.e., of his life) in Daniel 12:13. In addition the end of human life is one of the main meanings of KETZ (Jer. 51:13,"your end" = end of your days; Lam. 4:18, "Our end" drew near = our days were finished, Job 6:11: "my end " = end of my life; Ps. 39:4, "my end" = extent of my days; also Genesis 6:13, "the end of all flesh.").
6) Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible renders "kitzo" as "his end" (p. 893).
7) Driver in his commentary (Cambridge Bible for Schools) renders "his end."
8) The Jewish Publication Society translation has "his end."

I believe therefore that Keil is right when he says that the translation "ITS END," i.e. the city's end, is incorrect. The right translation, based on the immediate context (the antecedent is the prince) and the consistent meaning of KETZ which never refers to the ruin or destruction of a thing, but the end of a period of TIME and especially the end of human life, is "he will come to HIS END [DEATH]." Daniel 9 26 thus refers to a future antichrist.

I maintain, therefore, with many commentators that Daniel 9 26 cannot be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 since Titus, the leader of the attack, did not come to HIS END in that event. But the evil ruler will come to HIS END (Dan. 11:45) in the holy land just before the resurrection (Dan. 12:2).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In case you haven't noticed, the evil ruler comes to an end in the holy land just as is prophecied about the Assyrian anti-christ.

Now the supposed "peace treaty."
How does the covenant with many have anything to do with Israel? It doesn't! In fact the covenant isn't a peace treaty at all. It's a confederacy/alliance!

Peace treaties are always made between enemies. And alliances are always made with friends.

The word covenant is briyth ber-eeth' from 1262 (in the sense of cutting (like 1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh):--confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.
The idea of a peace treaty comes from our illustrious bible prophecy experts and Daniel 8:25 where it is said, "and by peace shall destroy many".

The experts would like you to believe that the covenant with many includes Israel. And some experts teach that this covenant encompasses the entire world. This covenant is an "unholy alliance" of 10 Arab/Muslim nations who want to see the name of Israel be no more in remembrance. Either Ezekiel 38-39 or Psalm 83.



A Close Look at Daniel 9:26, 27: Antichrist’s Reign of Terror
by Anthony Buzzard

 

[veteran]

Even per you quote by Kiel, he admits the "prince" of Dan.9:26 was NOT about any Roman figure with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 69 A.D.

And I agree with him on that. Instead, that "prince" of Dan.9:26 is about a false one that comes at the END of this world, the time just PRIOR to Christ's second coming to destroy that false one.

Look at the Hebrew of Dan.11:21-23 verses, and you'll see a "league" IS... literally involved, made by the "vile person" (antichrist).

 

[BibleScribe]

You're really not even close. The only way you're going to grasp it is by breaking the phrases in those verses down in their separate timeline parts.


Dan 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ...."
The KJV translators put a colon : right after that phrase to show separateness from the next phrase. That first phrase is about Christ Jesus being "cut off" at His crucifixion to end that "threescore and two weeks" period (62 weeks). After that phrase, Christ is not being referred to anymore in the rest of that Dan.9 chapter. Dan.9:25 told us it would be from the end of the rebuilding Jerusalem period to 62 weeks when Messiah would come. Christ's Ministry was within that 62nd symbolic week, and then 'cut off' at the end of it.
...

To All,

What the King James translators have done is start with the conclusion that this is a prophecy for Jesus. Thus they take the literal scripture which is one period of seven, and a second period of sixty two (having an anointed one after the seven, and a second anointed one after the sixty-two), and twisted it to make it appear that GOD meant to say "sixty-nine", but somehow GOD couldn't muster that big a number, and had to sum two others to arrive to HIS true intent.

But of course Newton, the scholar he was, observed:

We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbring used by no nation.


Equally, both Montgomery and Young, the scholars they were, both refuted any possibility of a Jesus fulfillment:

“...Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.”​

“...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”​

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”​

The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ... "

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217-218


So I would most strongly recommend that anyone interested in the TRUTH of this Chapter be very careful regarding the commentator views, and equally consider a version which is TRUE to the text:





Daniel 9 English Standard Version (ESV)

[sup]25[/sup] Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. [sup]26[/sup]And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[sup][[/sup][sup]e[/sup][sup]][/sup] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.


The per above, one should find TWO anointed ones, -- the first after the seven, and the second after the sixty-two.



BibleScribe​

 

[us2are1]

I well understand what that "strong delusion" is about, the coming antichrist in place of Christ. So what's the problem?

There is no coming antichrist. The antichrist was already here in Saint Johns day. The beast of revelation are the nations and the false prophet is all who go around gathering money in Christ's name while preaching and teaching a false Christ.

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

 

[veteran]

There is no coming antichrist. The antichrist was already here in Saint Johns day. The beast of revelation are the nations and the false prophet is all who go around gathering money in Christ's name while preaching and teaching a false Christ.

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Well now, that... you preach... is men's doctrines of Preterism and Historicism.

Most of the time, I can't distinguish a Preterist from a Historicist, except when Preterists falsely say that Christ Jesus's second coming was a spiritual coming, and it already happened back in His Apostle's days.

The Antichrist, or pseudochristos (pseudo Christ), has NOT... come yet. The theology you're on is totally... away from what the early Church held to and understood about the end of this world with a false one coming first, and then Christ's return right after.

So to suppose that the Antichrist has come already, is to infer that Christ Jesus has already returned too, since both events overlap in the end per God's Word. 1 John 2:18 is not enough Bible evidence to support that theology, and actually, it doesn't even support that theology at all, because John mentioned a singualr "antichrist" and a plural version of "many antichrists", which are two separate objects.

 

[BibleScribe]

Wow,

It seems that everyone who has a differing view of Scripture form "veteran" is a Preterist or a Historist. I guess that makes Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD all preterists and Historists. -- At least I'm in good company.

Note: This is not to say that "us2are1" is not a Preterist or a Historist, -- but rather a comment on how "veteran" has so carelessly defined his opposition in other Topics and other Posts.


BibleScribe

 

[tgwprophet]

Vetran wrote:
"Don't know what Bible you're pulling from, but the KJV Bible I use doesn't mention Christ Jesus confirming ANY covenant for a period of 30 days, nor 3.5 years, nor 1260 days."
--------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure where you sumized I claimed Christ Jesus was to confirm any covenant, I certainly did not. I did however say the anti-christ will confirm the covenant. I guess you mis read? (I know due to my poor eyesight and no glasses I can mis-spell.)

Yes, also... I am not Jewish, but I am Hebrew. Every descendant of the Ark is hebrew, right?
-------------------------------------------------------
The anti-christ will be revealed by the 2 witnesses and the 2 witnesses have yet to begin their time of power, prophecy and testimony, so in fact, the anti-christ that is to enter the inner-sanctum is yet to make his debut.
-------------------------------------------------------

 

[veteran]

Vetran wrote:
"Don't know what Bible you're pulling from, but the KJV Bible I use doesn't mention Christ Jesus confirming ANY covenant for a period of 30 days, nor 3.5 years, nor 1260 days."
--------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure where you sumized I claimed Christ Jesus was to confirm any covenant, I certainly did not. I did however say the anti-christ will confirm the covenant. I guess you mis read? (I know due to my poor eyesight and no glasses I can mis-spell.)

You're right, I must have interpreted what you wrote as agreeing with us2r1, and others here who treat the Dan.9:27 verse as Christ confirming that covenant in relation to His Ministry.

Yes, also... I am not Jewish, but I am Hebrew. Every descendant of the Ark is hebrew, right?
-------------------------------------------------------
The anti-christ will be revealed by the 2 witnesses and the 2 witnesses have yet to begin their time of power, prophecy and testimony, so in fact, the anti-christ that is to enter the inner-sanctum is yet to make his debut.
-------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what that being Jewish reference is about. Not every... descendent of Noah is a Hebrew though, for the name Hebrew comes specifically from Eber, a descendent of Shem per Gen.10.

I agree pretty close as you do about the coming antichrist/false messiah. I don't think God's two witnesses are going to reveal who he is, but when he does kill God's two witnesses, it might make some start wondering. All the nations are going to be against us in that time, including some brethren here that are already deceived about that time. I don't believe the 'shock' will hit them until our Lord Jesus Himself arrives.

 

[tgwprophet]

When Satan arrives on earth mid-point of the Abomination of Desolation, his physical beauty and liquid eolquence of speech will mesmerize the world. Though his words be vile, the beauty of a poet will mask the underlining meanings of his words. As such, his words will spew the vile nature of his intent and yet the world will not recognize it - for they will love a lie.

 

[veteran]

When Satan arrives on earth mid-point of the Abomination of Desolation, his physical beauty and liquid eolquence of speech will mesmerize the world. Though his words be vile, the beauty of a poet will mask the underlining meanings of his words. As such, his words will spew the vile nature of his intent and yet the world will not recognize it - for they will love a lie.

Right, which is really pointing to God having blinded the majority.

 

[us2are1]

When Satan arrives on earth mid-point of the Abomination of Desolation, his physical beauty and liquid eolquence of speech will mesmerize the world. Though his words be vile, the beauty of a poet will mask the underlining meanings of his words. As such, his words will spew the vile nature of his intent and yet the world will not recognize it - for they will love a lie.

Satan is a Hebrew word that means adversary of God. It means nothing else. there are Billions of men, women and children who fit the description on earth today. Their type has been here since the serpent in the garden. They are liars. They have perverted and added lies to the gospel of Christ. They want you to believe they are something other than the one telling lies in Gods name.

 

[us2are1]

Well now, that... you preach... is men's doctrines of Preterism and Historicism.

Most of the time, I can't distinguish a Preterist from a Historicist, except when Preterists falsely say that Christ Jesus's second coming was a spiritual coming, and it already happened back in His Apostle's days.

The Antichrist, or pseudochristos (pseudo Christ), has NOT... come yet. The theology you're on is totally... away from what the early Church held to and understood about the end of this world with a false one coming first, and then Christ's return right after.

So to suppose that the Antichrist has come already, is to infer that Christ Jesus has already returned too, since both events overlap in the end per God's Word. 1 John 2:18 is not enough Bible evidence to support that theology, and actually, it doesn't even support that theology at all, because John mentioned a singualr "antichrist" and a plural version of "many antichrists", which are two separate objects.

Saint John an eye witness of the Glory of Christ said "the antichrist was already here two thousand years ago".

Who am I to believe an eye witness or you who falsely accuse the brethren of Christ?

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
22 --------- He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either;











.

 

[veteran]

Saint John an eye witness of the Glory of Christ said "the antichrist was already here two thousand years ago".

Who am I to believe an eye witness or you who falsely accuse the brethren of Christ?

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
22 --------- He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either;

That's just it, you are not heeding the witness of Apostle John either about a singular Antichrist, because he specifically mentioned TWO clauses in the verse, and only ONE of them is about the "many antichrists" idea you keep trying to use to replace his mentions of a singular antichrist.

I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)

1st clause - "...and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."
2nd clause - "...even now are there many antichrists;..."

The 1st clause is singular.
The 2nd clause is plural.


The 1st clause John's listeners had already heard.
The 2nd clause they had not heard until John revealed it to them.


So WHERE had they already heard the 1st clause that a singular antichrist would come?

Right here one for one...

Matt 24:23-26
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, he is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, he is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.
(KJV)

 

[us2are1]

That's just it, you are not heeding the witness of Apostle John either about a singular Antichrist, because he specifically mentioned TWO clauses in the verse, and only ONE of them is about the "many antichrists" idea you keep trying to use to replace his mentions of a singular antichrist.

I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)

1st clause - "...and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."
2nd clause - "...even now are there many antichrists;..."

The 1st clause is singular.
The 2nd clause is plural.


The 1st clause John's listeners had already heard.
The 2nd clause they had not heard until John revealed it to them.


So WHERE had they already heard the 1st clause that a singular antichrist would come?

Right here one for one...

Matt 24:23-26
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, he is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, he is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.
(KJV)

John was straitening out the misunderstanding that a single antichrist will come.

Like He said "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets"

Not one but many.

Which includes all of the false Christs being taught today for a love offering "of their God, money".