sotto voce

The conventional wisdom is that they were written c. 95, because they addressed a particular problem for a particular group of addressees, and the term' antichrist' is there of specific meaning. If that was not the case, the criterion set is much too narrow for the condition that Peter and Paul referred to; so the time must be earlier than that. The point here is that the term 'antichrist' can apply to any teaching that contradicts apostolic teaching, not just the relatively crude teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh. One is not limited by John's use.

mountainman

Conventional wisdom and "Biblical History" being synonymous, these letters could have been written much later.



In dealing with Arius of Alexandria, the only known historical opponent of the warlord Constantine's Bible agenda, we are dealing with the heresiologists's description of Arius as the "harbinger of antichrist". The heresiologists seemed to be playing the Johanine Antichrist heresy card against the opinion of Arius. If so, why on earth would they do this?

sotto voce

:hysterical: You have such a way with words.

To make themselves look heroes, defending 'truth' against nasty people like Arius (who was paid off handsomely for his Thespian antics. Mebbe).

Chili

Nice line Pete. Mary is Queen of Angels and not because 'we say so' but simply because She is 'the woman' presiding over the TOL, taken from man to be his dowry in bethrotal and so when the father and son become one she is done forever and can withdraw he reproach among men of good will.

Point in fact is that the trinity is done in the Gosples without recognizing Her as Arjuna who will hand over the reigns to the sufferening servant here called Jesus in the silence of John and even without the prayers of Zechariah's so that She can see better herself to navigate this staged final event where She stands below the cross presenting the victory that she alone knew about.

http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/regoitalia/masaccio.html