αντιχριστοι is PLURAL, Dylan. One finds many anti-Christs all over the place throughout all of history.
And NO. The definition of the word (againstChrist) is NOT venturing into interpretations and traditions of men. Anything that speaks against Jesus as the Messiah is
by definition anti-Messiah (anti-Christ). The modern geopolitical nation of Israel is antichrist (
substantive adjective).
To be truthful, some of
your teachings are antichrist.
But don't think that
you don't venture into interpretations and traditions of men. Even here:
The Elder John is not the Apostle John. Surely with all those books in your library, one would have made you wise to this knowledge. (And not even the Apostle John wrote the Gospel named John. The book itself tells you who wrote it... if you open your mind and read what's actually written. cf. "John" 21:24. That one won't be in your books, btw.)
ALL of them purposeful lies. They know how to accurately translate 2nd Tim. 3:16, but they don't want to, because an accurate translation destroys their religious tradition of an infallible holy book. Take a look:
και οτι απο βρεφους τα ιερα γραμματα οιδας τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
2Ti 3:15-16
See what I mean? (One of these days I'll need to start a thread on this for those who truly are interested in knowing truth.)
Rhema
Rhema, you are such an arrogant blowhard I wonder why anyone would believe a word you write?!
You apparently do not read an entire post before making a reply. I did underline "antichrists" to point it out, and then mentioned the plural later in my post.
I see I did mistype a reference once, 1 Jn 2:28 rather than 1 Jn 2:18.
Since the Apostle John is the only person to use the term "antichristS", I'll let him define his word as he meant it, not as some dictionary defines it. Even when using a recognized authority such as the BDAG, the usage of a word by its author takes precedence over a dictionary or lexicon.
You do not like how Greek scholars translate 2 Ti 3:16, so again, you'll pretend to be more of an expert in NT Greek than the centuries of scholars doing the English translations.
Concerning the author of 2 & 3 John, I'll stay with the well established tradition that has more support.
INTRODUCTION TO 2 JOHN by John Gill, 18th C
Though this epistle was called in question and gainsaid by some as authentic, as Eusebius says {a}, yet there is no room to doubt of the authority of it; it was very early received into the canon of the Scripture, and is cited as such, and also as the Apostle John's, by Irenaeus {b}, who was a disciple of Polycarp, and an hearer of Papias, who were both disciples of the Apostle John; nor need there be any question as to his being the author of it. Eusebius indeed does say {c}, it was a doubt whether it was the Apostle John's or another of the same name; and some have since asserted, that it was written not by John the Evangelist, but by John the Presbyter of Ephesus, after the apostle; and this is thought to have some confirmation from the author of it being called an elder, or presbyter, which is judged not so agreeable to the Apostle John; though it should be observed, that Peter an apostle styles himself an elder, as John here does, 1Pe 5:1, moreover, the above ancient writer, Irenaeus, expressly ascribes this epistle to John, the disciple of the Lord; and whoever compares some passages in this epistle with the former, particularly 2Jo 1:5, with 1Jo 2:7, will easily conclude, from the likeness of style and matter, that it is a genuine epistle of the Apostle John: the design of which is to exhort and encourage the lady he writes to, to continue in the truth and faith of the Gospel, and in love to God and his people, and to avoid false teachers and their doctrines.
From Bakers New Testament Commentary, 20th C and notice the last paragraph
The Second Epistle of John belongs to the category general Epistles. However, it differs significantly from the first epistle, which does not have a reference to the author and lacks an address. But II John is a personal letter with information about the writer and the recipients of the epistle.
2Jn_1:1. The elder,
To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2Jn_1:2. because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever.
a. “The elder.” With this title the writer identifies himself. He omits his personal name, John, and he does not call himself an apostle of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the address is not like those of Peter's and Paul's letters.
What is the meaning of the word elder? The term means either “church leader” or “elderly person.” If the writer is a church official, why does he say that he is “the elder”? He does not write “an elder,” as does Peter when he addresses the church: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder” (1Pe_5:1, italics added). He cannot be an elder in a local congregation, for his compelling influence reaches beyond the boundaries of one church. For example, we read in the third epistle that the writer, who calls himself “the elder” (v. 2Jn_1:1), does not belong to the same local church as Diotrephes does (v. 2Jn_1:9). Because of his authority, he cannot be an elder in one congregation. He fills a much higher position.
Why, then, does he not use the title apostle? In the second and third epistles apostolicity is not an issue. We assume that his readers knew that he was an apostle. Especially, in the last decades of the first century, his readers knew John as the only surviving apostle. That is, the apostle John had reached advanced age and bore the honorable title the elder.
