I Think Donald Trump Is Likely The Actual, Final Antichrist

[DoubleDown]

Hey everyone, I've been away from this forum for several years, but recently returned to see what's going on. I've been enjoying early retirement now for 10 years, and it's gone exceedingly well! Never could have done it without the guidance and tools from MMM. Glad to see many of the folks from years ago are still here.

Anyway, as ridiculous as it sounds, I want to point out that I think Donald Trump is very likely the actual final Antichrist as described in the Bible. Let me say, at any other time in my life, I would have scoffed at anyone saying, "<Person X> is the Antichrist!" It's been going on for centuries, and it's always wrong. And let me also say I believe in zero conspiracies or wild claims. As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But in the case of Trump, he lines up exactly as described in Bible prophecy, and it is too much to ignore. Now, I'm a believer in Jesus Christ as Savior, but even atheists and agnostics have noticed just how closely Trump lines up with descriptions of the Antichrist, and how crazy things are right now in the U.S. and the world that match up with "end times" prophecy.

I did not come to this conclusion on my own. Others who study these things pointed out the undeniable comparisons, and slowly I came to believe it was likely true. I even told my SO about 1 year ago, "I'm about 60-70% convinced already; but if he gets shot in the head and survives, I will be 90% convinced!" Since that time, everything Trump has done has led me to be about 95 - 99% convinced he is the actual final Antichrist. There are many, many ways he lines up with the Biblical description of the final Antichrist, but here are just a few:

1. The antichrist is described as "vile."
2. The antichrist "will throw truth to the ground," and truth itself will become meaningless (sound familiar?)
3. The antichrist is lawless (he ignores the law, laws are useless against him, and he changes the laws to his own will)
4. The antichrist "will do as he pleases."
5. Many Christians will fall under a "strong delusion" and follow the antichrist (i.e., so-called MAGA Christians support Trump despite his obvious, un-Christ-like behavior).
6. The antichrist will come into power peacefully (e.g., vote, not war or violent overthrow), but will then set out to conquer.
7. The antichrist will be given power by other leaders (Congress, Supreme Court, Billionaires, etc.).
8. The antichrist is boastful, magnifying himself above others. He is so full of himself that eventually he will declare himself as a god.
9. The antichrist will have supernatural energy that comes from Satan (so, a nearly 80 year-old man who is unhealthy, obese, eats junk food, gets no exercise, and sleeps only 4 hours per day somehow carries on with no problem and says he feels stronger now than 30 years ago).
10. The antichrist practices "dark sentences" (for example, saying things obliquely such that his followers know what he means). He uses intrigue and sows division.
11. The antichrist will be beloved in Israel.
12. The antichrist will command a nation that is unmatched in power, such that he can conquer the entire world. No one will be able to come against the "beast."
13. The antichrist will have a "number of his name" (666) associated with him (eventually people will be forced to be marked with this number to buy or sell). Trump has many associations to 666 (including the building previously owned by J. Kushner at 666 5h Ave. in Manhattan!).
14. The antichrist will suffer a head wound, survive, and the world will marvel after him.
15. The antichrist will form and strengthen a "Covenant with Many" with Israel and other nations (see: Abraham Accords).

I could go on, but this is already a ridiculously long post. As frightening as it sounds if you believe this to be true, the story has a good ending: Jesus Christ returns and destroys the antichrist. I hope if anyone fears these things could be true, that they will consider seeking Christ, who is the only way out of this mess.

P.S. Musk is a contender for the "false prophet," although he doesn't really match just yet. If you want more information about all this, this gentleman's youtube channel has plenty: https://www.youtube.com/@Antichrist45/videos

Okay, fire away!

[2Birds1Stone]

I believe in zero conspiracies or wild claims.

I'm a believer in Jesus Christ as Savior

You already contradicted yourself mate.

[Herbert Derp]

Is this what this forum has came to? First numerological Nazi conspiracy theories and now we are prophetizing the literal antichrist.

Reminds me of QAnon.

By the way, Donald Trump’s bleeding ear did not look like a “fatal wound” to me.

[AuspiciousEight]

Is this what this forum has came to? First numerological Nazi conspiracy theories and now we are prophetizing the literal antichrist.

Reminds me of QAnon.

By the way, Donald Trump’s bleeding ear did not look like a “fatal wound” to me.

Yep....this is what the forum has come to.

To be fair to OP though, I'm one of the very rare agnostics who attend church, and the church has been spewing worse nonsense for decades now. 

I know several Christians who base their entire life on a Bible first principle. They see the Bible as the ultimate meaning of life, and put it as more important than their spouse, children, work, money, and science. Some of them even believe they have to surrender their own thinking and judgement of things to the Lord in order to be a real Christian (scary, no?).

So if we could convince some of these folks that Trump is the anti-christ, it might go a long way to saving democracy, because a lot of these same people are the ones who voted for Trump.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I believe religion played an important role in human evolution.  You can see it in some of the studies mentioned in "The Righteous Mind" (Jonathan Haidt) where communes more often survived if they were religions (20 year survival of 6% secular and 39% religious).  I'm not personally religious, but I believe religion has value for many people.  That's why I'm taking this point by point.

1. The antichrist is described as "vile."
2. The antichrist "will throw truth to the ground," and truth itself will become meaningless (sound familiar?)
3. The antichrist is lawless (he ignores the law, laws are useless against him, and he changes the laws to his own will)
4. The antichrist "will do as he pleases."

That describes every con man.

5. Many Christians will fall under a "strong delusion" and follow the antichrist (i.e., so-called MAGA Christians support Trump despite his obvious, un-Christ-like behavior).

Christian leaders have claimed Trump is a figure like the Persian king Cyrus, who wasn't Christian himself, but helped Christians.  MAGA definitely follows Trump, but there are other Christians who vote for Trump only because they dislike the alternative more.

6. The antichrist will come into power peacefully (e.g., vote, not war or violent overthrow), but will then set out to conquer.

Doesn't that describe every elected official in the world?

7. The antichrist will be given power by other leaders (Congress, Supreme Court, Billionaires, etc.).

U.S. courts have repeatedly issued injunctions, stopping Trump/DOGE/Musk acts that contravene U.S. law.  Trump doesn't control the courts.

8. The antichrist is boastful, magnifying himself above others. He is so full of himself that eventually he will declare himself as a god.

Egomaniacs are common, and Trump has not called himself a god.

9. The antichrist will have supernatural energy that comes from Satan (so, a nearly 80 year-old man who is unhealthy, obese, eats junk food, gets no exercise, and sleeps only 4 hours per day somehow carries on with no problem and says he feels stronger now than 30 years ago).

You can't both claim Trump "throws truth to the ground" (point #2), and then trust him when he says he feels stronger.

10. The antichrist practices "dark sentences" (for example, saying things obliquely such that his followers know what he means). He uses intrigue and sows division.

I'm not familiar with the term "dark sentences", but there is way too much division in the U.S. already.  The two political parties are punished if they work with each other.  Democrats throw insults at all Republicans ("racist", "transphobe") rather than consider if 70+ million Republicans all fit the same insult.  Trump and his party aren't alone in sowing division.

11. The antichrist will be beloved in Israel.

Probably accurate.

12. The antichrist will command a nation that is unmatched in power, such that he can conquer the entire world. No one will be able to come against the "beast."

You're assuming Congress authorizes the U.S. military to "conquer the entire world", which Trump can't declare by himself.  China has focused on anti-ship missiles, ship production, and a very large Navy.  Compared to China, U.S. ship production is a rounding error.  Add in nuclear weapons, and the U.S. cannot conquer the entire world.

13. The antichrist will have a "number of his name" (666) associated with him (eventually people will be forced to be marked with this number to buy or sell). Trump has many associations to 666 (including the building previously owned by J. Kushner at 666 5h Ave. in Manhattan!).

Donald John Trump, with 6-4-5 letters, doesn't fit.  As long as you're going down that route, "Ronald Wilson Reagan" (6-6-6 letters) is a better fit.  Not something I noticed, but Killer Mike did in his song "Reagan".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU

14. The antichrist will suffer a head wound, survive, and the world will marvel after him.

Good point.

15. The antichrist will form and strengthen a "Covenant with Many" with Israel and other nations (see: Abraham Accords).

The Abraham Accords fell apart.  Various countries feared Iran, which is why they banded together.  Then Hamas struck Israel in a terror attack on Oct 7, and the events after that caused the anti-Iran group to fall apart.  My own conspiracy theory is that the country (Iran) which arms, trains and funds Hamas and directly benefitted from their attack was probably aware and involved in the planning.

[reeshau]

A great deal of this could have been said about Hitler.  My point being this, while bad, is not unprecedented.

If looking to prove a thing, you should look not just for confirmation, but inversion.  What could disprove it, and is it true?  All swans were white, until someone found Australia and saw a black one.

For example, the reign of the antichrist is set to last three and a half years.  So, at least Trump is going to step down early.  Sound plausible?

Much more likely, given how things are going, is that Democrats are going to enjoy a stronger-than-aversge midterm blowout, and we will see either a) all noise and no action from government or b) a series of veto overrides that strengthens the governmental guardrails which are being tested.

And, speaking of that, what about Trump's first term?  That doesn't count?  He had to give this antichrist business a second go?


Then, there is Hanlon's razor:  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[uniwelder]

I think Donald Trump is very likely the actual final Antichrist as described in the Bible.
...
...if you believe this to be true, the story has a good ending: Jesus Christ returns and destroys the antichrist. I hope if anyone fears these things could be true, that they will consider seeking Christ, who is the only way out of this mess.

I'm not religious, so besides hearing Antichrist thrown around in conversation, I don't have any background.  I have heard religious people support Trump because they say God works in strange ways and that although Trump is faulted, God is working through him.  Is this in some way a sign they believe Trump to be the Antichrist and believe Christ's salvation will come as a result?  I'm just trying to rationalize how religious people support Trump, given he seems to stand for everything that Christ does not.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

@DoubleDown sent you PM.  Don't want to cause public controversy on this item...

[Morning Glory]

It could be marketing. I've heard of groups who actually want the anti christ and the end times,  so his team could have been emphasizing the traits you listed in order to get votes. It's more likely that he's just a shitty person though.

[Metalcat]

This take is so US-centric.

It doesn't take much looking around the world and through history to see that Donald Trump isn't special.

[Scandium]

If true, so what? Trump matches some gobbledygook nonsense from an old book, ok..? Why would I care? What would I do with this information?
Hardly anything in the bible is true, novel or useful to anyone not living in an horrendously violent, and wildly oppressive desert cult

[GuitarStv]

The problem with interpreting prophecy is that all prophecy is written in generally vague terms.  It can therefore conform to many situations that you're likely to run into in your life.  Sure, Trump ticks many of the antichrist checkboxes . . . but that's because he's an awful person in a position of power.  There have been other awful people in positions of power who have ticked many of the boxes before too.

I think there's enough to dislike about Trump to generate an obvious and powerful need to resist him at every chance without him needing to be the antichrist.

[Daley]

@DoubleDown sent you PM.  Don't want to cause public controversy on this item...

Ditto.

[GilesMM]

Many many people do see DT as a savior.

[dividendman]

Well... dang. I'm convinced.

[Telecaster]

If true, so what? Trump matches some gobbledygook nonsense from an old book, ok..?

Before we conclude he matches, I encourage everyone to actually read Revelations and see how much of it actually matches up.

Along those lines, I encourage everyone to read the entire Bible.   If everyone did, we'd have a lot more atheists in this country.   



 

[ChpBstrd]

Not a Christian, but I can agree the shoe fits.

That said, fair points are made above that many of the characteristics could describe despotic populist authoritarians from any time/place. The religious men who wrote about the Antichrist concept could have been describing a human nature that keeps repeating over time. Or, the more likely explanation is that they sought to undermine secular leaders who might usurp the authority of the religious leaders. An Antichrist label could be applied to scapegoat any secular leader when things happened that made them unpopular. Did they know the earth was round? No. But these explanations don't require them to.

Finally, as a non-Christian, I am very skeptical of any claim that there exists an authentic Christianity somewhere out there that somebody else isn't following correctly. Am I supposed to mediate these debates, using intentionally vague scriptures as a reference point? Picking right and wrong denominations? Stating an opinion about the values and preferences of a god I don't believe in? I might as well opine about whether Poseidon or Apollo prefer to be worshiped through prostrate incantations or dance and song.

[Luke Warm]

Funny, my uncle swore Bill Clinton was the Antichrist.

[jrhampt]

Well, it's not the first time I've speculated about this...not completely seriously, but I did just remark this morning yet again that the mark of the beast that people choose to wear on their foreheads could just be those stupid MAGA hats (after that ridiculous/offensive Gaza Riviera video with the massive gold statue of Trump).  And the shooting was another point of interest. 

Now, I also grew up in the church and there has been lots of speculation over many, many years about multiple candidates for this position, including Gorbachev, so take that's for what it's worth, which may not be very much. 

In any case, he may or may not be the antichrist, but regardless he is a very very bad choice to lead any nation. 

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Did they know the earth was round? No.

Just a nit and I'm probably being pedantic (do NOT want to wade into public religious discussion at this time).  Learned people of the world pretty much all knew the world was "round" (oblated spheroid) on 6 continents a long time before Christ walked the Earth.  Proving that is a trivial matter of measuring shadows at different times of the day at multiple locations.  You don't need calculus, just some basic arithmetic.  At a minimum the findings were published by the early Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese Emporers, and in India.  Ancient architecture demonstrates this knowledge existed in North/South America, Africa, and even Australia. 

[blue_green_sparks]

Christian Nationals have their useful idiot pushing an agenda to convert the US into a very specific theocracy. This bothers me immensely. Believe whatever you want; but never try to force me to join you. It's the primary guiding principle the country was founded on.

[DoubleDown]

The problem with interpreting prophecy is that all prophecy is written in generally vague terms.  It can therefore conform to many situations that you're likely to run into in your life.  Sure, Trump ticks many of the antichrist checkboxes . . . but that's because he's an awful person in a position of power.  There have been other awful people in positions of power who have ticked many of the boxes before too.

I think there's enough to dislike about Trump to generate an obvious and powerful need to resist him at every chance without him needing to be the antichrist.

Agreed, there have been many figures in the past who have checked many of the boxes. Trump, however, is the only one to check them all so far. I would say that prophecy about the antichrist (unlike generalities in a daily horoscope) is surprisingly specific, in my opinion, when considering the time it was written. For example, John in his vision says that the false prophet will create an "image" of the beast (antichrist), and make the image appear alive and be able to speak. I can imagine this would be very confusing to someone who has never seen movies or television or even photographs, and only knows an "image" to be a painting or drawing. So, he writes in terms he understands. To me, it sounds exactly like the kind of thing we could expect from AI in our time.

[DoubleDown]

A great deal of this could have been said about Hitler.  My point being this, while bad, is not unprecedented.

If looking to prove a thing, you should look not just for confirmation, but inversion.  What could disprove it, and is it true?  All swans were white, until someone found Australia and saw a black one.

For example, the reign of the antichrist is set to last three and a half years.  So, at least Trump is going to step down early.  Sound plausible?

Much more likely, given how things are going, is that Democrats are going to enjoy a stronger-than-aversge midterm blowout, and we will see either a) all noise and no action from government or b) a series of veto overrides that strengthens the governmental guardrails which are being tested.

And, speaking of that, what about Trump's first term?  That doesn't count?  He had to give this antichrist business a second go?


Then, there is Hanlon's razor:  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Jesus warns us that there will be many antichrists that appear, but only one final, capital-A Antichrist. I'd say Hitler was definitely "an" antichrist, but not "the" Antichrist.

Regarding Trump's presidential terms, I do not think there is any correlation between those and the last three and a half years of the tribulation. Besides, Trump has already made clear he intends to stay in power beyond Constitutional limits, and there are plenty of sychophants in Congress who back him in this. If Trump is the Antichrist, as I suspect, then eventually he will physically enter the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, betray Israel (breaking the covenant with many), and declare himself like a god. At that point, the tribulation begins, and term limits will be a quaint afterthought. He could just declare emergency powers and suspend elections. Everyone, at that point, will know exactly what he is.

[DoubleDown]

I think Donald Trump is very likely the actual final Antichrist as described in the Bible.
...
...if you believe this to be true, the story has a good ending: Jesus Christ returns and destroys the antichrist. I hope if anyone fears these things could be true, that they will consider seeking Christ, who is the only way out of this mess.

I'm not religious, so besides hearing Antichrist thrown around in conversation, I don't have any background.  I have heard religious people support Trump because they say God works in strange ways and that although Trump is faulted, God is working through him.  Is this in some way a sign they believe Trump to be the Antichrist and believe Christ's salvation will come as a result?  I'm just trying to rationalize how religious people support Trump, given he seems to stand for everything that Christ does not.

Personally, I believe these Christian nationalists that support Trump and claim that God is working through him are under the "strong delusion" that is discussed in the prophecy, and the falling away from the church that was also prophecied. It was foretold that in the end times, the love of men will grow cold, people will fall away from the church and seek after worldly things and then the Antichrist. God allows the people who disregard the truth to fall under this delusion to believe the Antichrist. These MAGA Christians have in large part replaced Jesus with Trump+America, and it's gross. And even if you aren't religious, it's bad for democracy and tolerance. So, no, they don't believe he's the Antichrist, quite the opposite.

[Fru-Gal]

I appreciate all the comments on this because I have seen this very speculation begin to take hold on Reddit and I'm sure elsewhere. I too was worried that accelerationists might consider this a feature not a bug.

A much more concerning (to me) issue is that a neofeudalist plot to break up the US and distribute the spoils to various billionaires is actually progressing. Whether or not it can come to fruition depends on us.

Democratic Insiders Are Sharing A Warning About Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk & Neoreactionaries
DNC employees and think tank workers are spreading a document about the Neoreactionary threat to democracy

https://shatterzone.substack.com/p/democratic-insiders-are-sharing-a pp

[aasdfadsf]

The final antichrist? Can we not be sure he's just working it up, like there might be many more antichrists or that he's just fronting?

I had always hoped better out of the antichrist. Like he's not supposed to be that dumb and an obvious buffoon, but maybe that's what he wants you think.

[FINate]

Did they know the earth was round? No.

Just a nit and I'm probably being pedantic (do NOT want to wade into public religious discussion at this time).  Learned people of the world pretty much all knew the world was "round" (oblated spheroid) on 6 continents a long time before Christ walked the Earth.  Proving that is a trivial matter of measuring shadows at different times of the day at multiple locations.  You don't need calculus, just some basic arithmetic.  At a minimum the findings were published by the early Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese Emporers, and in India.  Ancient architecture demonstrates this knowledge existed in North/South America, Africa, and even Australia.

I will add: This was also widely known and accepted in the West, including during the Middle Ages. Many Christian thinkers and leaders believed the earth was spherical (e.g. Thomas Aquinas). For sure, there were also many that believed in a flat earth, just saying there were diverse views.

The view that science and Christianity have long been in conflict (the Conflict Thesis) was promoted in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White and is now widely regarded as bad history. This includes the commonly misunderstood Galileo Affair, which wasn't a conflict between science and faith:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

[FINate]

What is an antichrist? Is this a character that just pops up in Revelation? What does this word even mean?

I think a lot of the confusion can be traced to a misunderstanding to the word Christ. This is a title, not the last name of Jesus. A little etymology:

Hebrew (māšîaḥ) → Greek (Christos) → Latin (Christus) → Old English (Crīst) → Modern English (Christ)

With the Messiah (māšîaḥ) being the long anticipated king from the line of David who fulfills the promises throughout the story of scripture.

The Christ was highly anticipated during the Second Temple period, hence there were multiple leaders claiming to be the anointed one around the time of Jesus. This included Judas the Zealot before the ministry of Jesus who founded the Zealot movement, and Simon bar Giora who was one of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt that resulted in the destruction of the Temple. There were many others.

Messiah is a claim to kingship, and hence almost certain to get one executed in the Roman world, as this is a competing claim to Caesar. The Good News/Gospel (euangelion in Greek) is very tightly bound with this kingship. In the ancient world messengers would herald the Gospel of a new king to the world, proclaiming the good news of his reign bringing peace over the land. Christianity intentionally subverted the imperial propaganda. Caesar brought "peace" to the land through violence and death (pax romana), whereas Christians worshiped a king who conquered by being humiliated and giving up his own life.

So Jesus the Christ is the king who rules by dying for his enemies. As a Christian I'm not the least bit bothered by those who say "Jesus Christ" meaning it to be offensive -- they are proclaiming Jesus is the Christ, the king, whether or not they realize it.

An Anti-Christ is anyone claiming to be the promised king who will put things right. These are leaders who claim to promote peace through violence and coercion, and ultimately death. Does this fit Trump? Yes, I think so. But also most leaders and nations throughout history, including the USA with its long history of violence, oppression, and exploitation. When Christians put their hope in a political party (left or right), elected officials, the military, etc. -- they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthy system (Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> etc.) and its antichrists.

[GuitarStv]

An Anti-Christ is anyone claiming to be the promised king who will put things right. These are leaders who claim to promote peace through violence and coercion, and ultimately death. Does this fit Trump? Yes, I think so. But also most leaders and nations throughout history, including the USA with its long history of violence, oppression, and exploitation. When Christians put their hope in a political party (left or right), elected officials, the military, etc. -- they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthy system (Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> etc.) and its antichrists.

All religious organizations are human made and human led (and typically follow ancient texts that are human made and then human translated multiple times, with various meanings gained/lost over time).  Important to note that when people put their faith in any Christian denomination they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthly political system and it's antichrists too.  These churches have leaders who claim to promote peace, but invariably use various forms of coercion (fully ranging through outright violence, brainwashing, indoctrination, social pressure, etc.)  to force adherents to step in line with whatever tenets were decided upon as important by church leaders.

[FINate]

An Anti-Christ is anyone claiming to be the promised king who will put things right. These are leaders who claim to promote peace through violence and coercion, and ultimately death. Does this fit Trump? Yes, I think so. But also most leaders and nations throughout history, including the USA with its long history of violence, oppression, and exploitation. When Christians put their hope in a political party (left or right), elected officials, the military, etc. -- they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthy system (Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> etc.) and its antichrists.

All religious organizations are human made and human led (and typically follow ancient texts that are human made and then human translated multiple times, with various meanings gained/lost over time).  Important to note that when people put their faith in any Christian denomination they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthly political system and it's antichrists too.  These churches have leaders who claim to promote peace, but invariably use various forms of coercion (fully ranging through outright violence, brainwashing, indoctrination, social pressure, etc.)  to force adherents to step in line with whatever tenets were decided upon as important by church leaders.

We have an abundance of ancient documents for the Biblical texts. Yes, these have been translated multiple times, but want to be clear that most of the translations we have today are direct from the original language (not translations of translations). Of course, there's never a 1:1 correspondence while translating, so this always involves interpretive moves and there is no perfect translation. There are a bunch of different English translations because there are different ways to go about this. Some translations (e.g. NASB) are more word for word, which can be difficult/tedious to read, whereas others are more thought for thought (e.g. NIV), whereas others are more paraphrased (e.g. the Message).

And I agree with you that Christians should never put their faith in a denomination or religious leader. I don't think denominations are necessarily bad (in fact, I think a big issue in the American church is a lack of oversight in non-denominational churches), but these should always be understood as institutions filled with people that are a mix of good and bad. This is similar to my views on earthly governments, though I think the ideology behind most of these governments are inherently corrupt whereas Christians reading scripture well (esp. the teachings of Jesus)  have a different foundation.

[GuitarStv]

An Anti-Christ is anyone claiming to be the promised king who will put things right. These are leaders who claim to promote peace through violence and coercion, and ultimately death. Does this fit Trump? Yes, I think so. But also most leaders and nations throughout history, including the USA with its long history of violence, oppression, and exploitation. When Christians put their hope in a political party (left or right), elected officials, the military, etc. -- they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthy system (Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> etc.) and its antichrists.

All religious organizations are human made and human led (and typically follow ancient texts that are human made and then human translated multiple times, with various meanings gained/lost over time).  Important to note that when people put their faith in any Christian denomination they are putting their faith in a corrupt earthly political system and it's antichrists too.  These churches have leaders who claim to promote peace, but invariably use various forms of coercion (fully ranging through outright violence, brainwashing, indoctrination, social pressure, etc.)  to force adherents to step in line with whatever tenets were decided upon as important by church leaders.

We have an abundance of ancient documents for the Biblical texts. Yes, these have been translated multiple times, but want to be clear that most of the translations we have today are direct from the original language (not translations of translations). Of course, there's never a 1:1 correspondence while translating, so this always involves interpretive moves and there is no perfect translation. There are a bunch of different English translations because there are different ways to go about this. Some translations (e.g. NASB) are more word for word, which can be difficult/tedious to read, whereas others are more thought for thought (e.g. NIV), whereas others are more paraphrased (e.g. the Message).

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

And I agree with you that Christians should never put their faith in a denomination or religious leader. I don't think denominations are necessarily bad (in fact, I think a big issue in the American church is a lack of oversight in non-denominational churches), but these should always be understood as institutions filled with people that are a mix of good and bad. This is similar to my views on earthly governments, though I think the ideology behind most of these governments are inherently corrupt whereas Christians reading scripture well (esp. the teachings of Jesus)  have a different foundation.

Yeah, I think we're largely in agreement here.  Religious denominations are not necessarily bad or good.  They're human organizations, run by humans, based on documents written by humans.  Governments are the same.  In a democracy at least, the government is a reflection of the general will of the people.  If a functioning democratic government is acting in an immoral manner, it is a reflection of the morality of the society that has elected the government.  If the people in a democracy don't like their government, or don't think the government is acting morally then it is telling us something - it means that that person doesn't like his countrymen and believes that they're immoral.

[mtnrider]

Is this what this forum has came to? First numerological Nazi conspiracy theories and now we are prophetizing the literal antichrist.

Reminds me of QAnon.

By the way, Donald Trump’s bleeding ear did not look like a “fatal wound” to me.

First off, Musk's 1488 signaling is not numerology in the sense that mystical forces haven't bestowed the numbers upon him.  They are known hate symbols.  The guy is openly supporting far right parties.  He does a sieg heil on TV.  He opens up twitter to Nazis.  He posts 14 flags at 14:14 on Twitter.  At some point Bayesian statistics kicks in.  I'm not wedded to this, and I'll be curious how it ends up, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that he was both trolling and signaling to Nazis.

What's even less cloaked is the Dark Enlightenment.  Out of context that sounds more like Q, but they openly embrace it, on video.

To the Antichrist.  While I'm not religious, the bible has some universal wisdom.  It's easier to subvert a strong system by exploiting the rules and breaking the norms than by attacking it directly.  The Antichrist in the bible is a similar trickster.

[mtnrider]

...
 I too was worried that accelerationists might consider this a feature not a bug.
...

That's insightful.  And scary.

A much more concerning (to me) issue is that a neofeudalist plot to break up the US and distribute the spoils to various billionaires is actually progressing. Whether or not it can come to fruition depends on us.

Democratic Insiders Are Sharing A Warning About Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk & Neoreactionaries
DNC employees and think tank workers are spreading a document about the Neoreactionary threat to democracy

https://shatterzone.substack.com/p/democratic-insiders-are-sharing-a pp

Agreed that this is more scary, if only because they have more power right now.

[Cranky]

I think there are people who voted for him because they think he’s the antichrist. Sigh

[FINate]

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

I know this is a popular narrative that gained traction with books/movies like the Da Vinci code but we need to remember these are fictional works. How canonization actually happened is much different than leaders just throwing things out because they didn't like the message.

We should start by recognizing that Christianity was a persecuted minority religion for the first ~300 years. It was criticized as a religion for women and slaves (the lowest in that society). So when we talk about early church leaders it's important to note that they didn't have political power, and in many cases were tortured and executed for their faith (e.g Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and many more). And "churches" were underground communities of believers that gathered in houses.

The collection of books in New Testament were written within the first century, perhaps as late as the very early second century for the Gospel of John.

By the second century early church leaders (some listed above) where quoting from and treating the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation as scripture. And these were being circulated around and revered within church communities at this time.

It's during the late 2nd century that we get the Muratorian Fragment, which is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It contains 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It excludes Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John (which our modern Bibles have).

Writings from the Church Fathers in the 3rd confirm widespread use and consensus of most of the books of  the New Testament, with some ongoing debate about Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John, due to concerns of authorship.

It's not until the 4th century and Constantine's conversion that canonization is formalized, but what was agreed upon was really a completion of a process that had been ongoing within the community for centuries.

Yes, there a lot of ancient writings that claim to be Christian that are excluded from the canon. Most of these were excluded because they were authored well after the living memory of Jesus and his first followers. Here's a timeline of when various ancient texts were authored.

Issues with these texts have been further confirmed with modern techniques such as onomastic congruence, which compares frequencies of names in a text to known occurrence for a specific time to see how well they line up. The 4 gospel accounts match very well for what is expected in first century Galilee and Judea, whereas the Gospel of Judas (along with other non-canonical gospels) is very clearly from a different time and place. Here's a short video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XVNzqFuMbQ

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

Yes, I agree that the Bible (like many sophisticated texts) reads you as much as you read it. Indeed, the Bible was used to justify slavery, but it's also true that Christianity played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

[GuitarStv]

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

I know this is a popular narrative that gained traction with books/movies like the Da Vinci code but we need to remember these are fictional works. How canonization actually happened is much different than leaders just throwing things out because they didn't like the message.

We should start by recognizing that Christianity was a persecuted minority religion for the first ~300 years. It was criticized as a religion for women and slaves (the lowest in that society). So when we talk about early church leaders it's important to note that they didn't have political power, and in many cases were tortured and executed for their faith (e.g Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and many more). And "churches" were underground communities of believers that gathered in houses.

The collection of books in New Testament were written within the first century, perhaps as late as the very early second century for the Gospel of John.

By the second century early church leaders (some listed above) where quoting from and treating the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation as scripture. And these were being circulated around and revered within church communities at this time.

It's during the late 2nd century that we get the Muratorian Fragment, which is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It contains 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It excludes Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John (which our modern Bibles have).

Writings from the Church Fathers in the 3rd confirm widespread use and consensus of most of the books of  the New Testament, with some ongoing debate about Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John, due to concerns of authorship.

It's not until the 4th century and Constantine's conversion that canonization is formalized, but what was agreed upon was really a completion of a process that had been ongoing within the community for centuries.

Yes, there a lot of ancient writings that claim to be Christian that are excluded from the canon. Most of these were excluded because they were authored well after the living memory of Jesus and his first followers. Here's a timeline of when various ancient texts were authored.

Issues with these texts have been further confirmed with modern techniques such as onomastic congruence, which compares frequencies of names in a text to known occurrence for a specific time to see how well they line up. The 4 gospel accounts match very well for what is expected in first century Galilee and Judea, whereas the Gospel of Judas (along with other non-canonical gospels) is very clearly from a different time and place. Here's a short video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XVNzqFuMbQ

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

Yes, I agree that the Bible (like many sophisticated texts) reads you as much as you read it. Indeed, the Bible was used to justify slavery, but it's also true that Christianity played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

Meh.  As far as I'm concerned, all religious texts are works of fiction.  While it's interesting to learn about the different interpretations of this fiction (and the moral/philosophical arguments can be fun to get into), it's hard to get too excited or concerned about which stories are considered more fictional than others in the minds of some grand poobahs.

[FINate]

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

I know this is a popular narrative that gained traction with books/movies like the Da Vinci code but we need to remember these are fictional works. How canonization actually happened is much different than leaders just throwing things out because they didn't like the message.

We should start by recognizing that Christianity was a persecuted minority religion for the first ~300 years. It was criticized as a religion for women and slaves (the lowest in that society). So when we talk about early church leaders it's important to note that they didn't have political power, and in many cases were tortured and executed for their faith (e.g Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and many more). And "churches" were underground communities of believers that gathered in houses.

The collection of books in New Testament were written within the first century, perhaps as late as the very early second century for the Gospel of John.

By the second century early church leaders (some listed above) where quoting from and treating the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation as scripture. And these were being circulated around and revered within church communities at this time.

It's during the late 2nd century that we get the Muratorian Fragment, which is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It contains 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It excludes Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John (which our modern Bibles have).

Writings from the Church Fathers in the 3rd confirm widespread use and consensus of most of the books of  the New Testament, with some ongoing debate about Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John, due to concerns of authorship.

It's not until the 4th century and Constantine's conversion that canonization is formalized, but what was agreed upon was really a completion of a process that had been ongoing within the community for centuries.

Yes, there a lot of ancient writings that claim to be Christian that are excluded from the canon. Most of these were excluded because they were authored well after the living memory of Jesus and his first followers. Here's a timeline of when various ancient texts were authored.

Issues with these texts have been further confirmed with modern techniques such as onomastic congruence, which compares frequencies of names in a text to known occurrence for a specific time to see how well they line up. The 4 gospel accounts match very well for what is expected in first century Galilee and Judea, whereas the Gospel of Judas (along with other non-canonical gospels) is very clearly from a different time and place. Here's a short video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XVNzqFuMbQ

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

Yes, I agree that the Bible (like many sophisticated texts) reads you as much as you read it. Indeed, the Bible was used to justify slavery, but it's also true that Christianity played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

Meh.  As far as I'm concerned, all religious texts are works of fiction.  While it's interesting to learn about the different interpretations of this fiction (and the moral/philosophical arguments can be fun to get into), it's hard to get too excited or concerned about which stories are considered more fictional than others in the minds of some grand poobahs.

Sure, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to make claims about the historicity of the text, translations, or the process of canonization then you should do some due diligence on these topics instead of just repeating misinformation.

[GuitarStv]

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

I know this is a popular narrative that gained traction with books/movies like the Da Vinci code but we need to remember these are fictional works. How canonization actually happened is much different than leaders just throwing things out because they didn't like the message.

We should start by recognizing that Christianity was a persecuted minority religion for the first ~300 years. It was criticized as a religion for women and slaves (the lowest in that society). So when we talk about early church leaders it's important to note that they didn't have political power, and in many cases were tortured and executed for their faith (e.g Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and many more). And "churches" were underground communities of believers that gathered in houses.

The collection of books in New Testament were written within the first century, perhaps as late as the very early second century for the Gospel of John.

By the second century early church leaders (some listed above) where quoting from and treating the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation as scripture. And these were being circulated around and revered within church communities at this time.

It's during the late 2nd century that we get the Muratorian Fragment, which is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It contains 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It excludes Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John (which our modern Bibles have).

Writings from the Church Fathers in the 3rd confirm widespread use and consensus of most of the books of  the New Testament, with some ongoing debate about Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John, due to concerns of authorship.

It's not until the 4th century and Constantine's conversion that canonization is formalized, but what was agreed upon was really a completion of a process that had been ongoing within the community for centuries.

Yes, there a lot of ancient writings that claim to be Christian that are excluded from the canon. Most of these were excluded because they were authored well after the living memory of Jesus and his first followers. Here's a timeline of when various ancient texts were authored.

Issues with these texts have been further confirmed with modern techniques such as onomastic congruence, which compares frequencies of names in a text to known occurrence for a specific time to see how well they line up. The 4 gospel accounts match very well for what is expected in first century Galilee and Judea, whereas the Gospel of Judas (along with other non-canonical gospels) is very clearly from a different time and place. Here's a short video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XVNzqFuMbQ

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

Yes, I agree that the Bible (like many sophisticated texts) reads you as much as you read it. Indeed, the Bible was used to justify slavery, but it's also true that Christianity played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

Meh.  As far as I'm concerned, all religious texts are works of fiction.  While it's interesting to learn about the different interpretations of this fiction (and the moral/philosophical arguments can be fun to get into), it's hard to get too excited or concerned about which stories are considered more fictional than others in the minds of some grand poobahs.

Sure, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to make claims about the historicity of the text, translations, or the process of canonization then you should do some due diligence on these topics instead of just repeating misinformation.

I honestly don't understand your response here.  There are multiple versions of just the Christian approved Old Testament bible depending on sect - specifically because various church leaders had disagreements regarding the message (and holiness) contained within.  The Catholic bible contains different stories (73 books) than the Protestant bible (66 books), which is different than the Greek/Russian Orthodox (79 books) or Ethiopian (81) bibles.  The core of Christian Old Testament stories were taken from the original Jewish bible (which itself is still subtly different from the Christian OT versions in punctuation, emphasis, and language).  Granted, the New Testament is much more consistent than the old testament - early Christian groups got together after about 300 years give or take and came to a consensus on which books should be included and removed which has been generally accepted ever since.  There's some debate if this was completely decided at the council of Nicea or not, but it was shortly afterwards the books we know and love in the NT were officially canonized at the council of Hippo and then re-affirmed a few years later by the council of Carthage.

Again, arguing about which sect got the bible the most right or which man-made stories should be included and which man-made stories are not holy is the least interesting and most pointless part of biblical study.  History is messy.  And a good story is a good story.  'The bible' (both new and old testament) is an interesting collection of tales cribbed from religions that pre-dated Judaism, let along Christianity and then cobbled together into something unique.  Multiple arguments and nuances between different translations have resulted in differently accepted 'word of God' at different times.  Talking about how the bible has changed many times over history (depending on whim of sect and translation) is not misinformation.  Talking about how various Christian churches have added/removed books from the bible depending on their viewpoints is not misinformation.

And I'm not sure any of this has anything to do with Trump being the antichrist.

[FINate]

Sure.  And we have a bunch of ancient biblical texts that are no longer considered cannon because various church leaders threw them out because they didn't carry the right message.

I know this is a popular narrative that gained traction with books/movies like the Da Vinci code but we need to remember these are fictional works. How canonization actually happened is much different than leaders just throwing things out because they didn't like the message.

We should start by recognizing that Christianity was a persecuted minority religion for the first ~300 years. It was criticized as a religion for women and slaves (the lowest in that society). So when we talk about early church leaders it's important to note that they didn't have political power, and in many cases were tortured and executed for their faith (e.g Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and many more). And "churches" were underground communities of believers that gathered in houses.

The collection of books in New Testament were written within the first century, perhaps as late as the very early second century for the Gospel of John.

By the second century early church leaders (some listed above) where quoting from and treating the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation as scripture. And these were being circulated around and revered within church communities at this time.

It's during the late 2nd century that we get the Muratorian Fragment, which is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It contains 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. It excludes Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John (which our modern Bibles have).

Writings from the Church Fathers in the 3rd confirm widespread use and consensus of most of the books of  the New Testament, with some ongoing debate about Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and 3 John, due to concerns of authorship.

It's not until the 4th century and Constantine's conversion that canonization is formalized, but what was agreed upon was really a completion of a process that had been ongoing within the community for centuries.

Yes, there a lot of ancient writings that claim to be Christian that are excluded from the canon. Most of these were excluded because they were authored well after the living memory of Jesus and his first followers. Here's a timeline of when various ancient texts were authored.

Issues with these texts have been further confirmed with modern techniques such as onomastic congruence, which compares frequencies of names in a text to known occurrence for a specific time to see how well they line up. The 4 gospel accounts match very well for what is expected in first century Galilee and Judea, whereas the Gospel of Judas (along with other non-canonical gospels) is very clearly from a different time and place. Here's a short video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XVNzqFuMbQ

Religions are human created and all supporting documentation (regardless of how old) is written by fallible humans.  (I think that a good argument can be made that the older the documentation, the less reliable and more likely to have human failings it is to have, but maybe that's another discussion).  Religion largely acts as a Rorschach test.   A good Christian reading scripture will have a great moral foundation.  A bad Christian reading the same scriptures will have plenty of basis to act in an immoral and evil manner.  (Like how the bible was used to justify slavery in the US.)  They both are just looking for justification for the things they already believe.

Yes, I agree that the Bible (like many sophisticated texts) reads you as much as you read it. Indeed, the Bible was used to justify slavery, but it's also true that Christianity played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

Meh.  As far as I'm concerned, all religious texts are works of fiction.  While it's interesting to learn about the different interpretations of this fiction (and the moral/philosophical arguments can be fun to get into), it's hard to get too excited or concerned about which stories are considered more fictional than others in the minds of some grand poobahs.

Sure, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to make claims about the historicity of the text, translations, or the process of canonization then you should do some due diligence on these topics instead of just repeating misinformation.

I honestly don't understand your response here.  There are multiple versions of just the Christian approved Old Testament bible depending on sect - specifically because various church leaders had disagreements regarding the message (and holiness) contained within.  The Catholic bible contains different stories (73 books) than the Protestant bible (66 books), which is different than the Greek/Russian Orthodox (79 books) or Ethiopian (81) bibles.  The core of Christian Old Testament stories were taken from the original Jewish bible (which itself is still subtly different from the Christian OT versions in punctuation, emphasis, and language).  Granted, the New Testament is much more consistent than the old testament - early Christian groups got together after about 300 years give or take and came to a consensus on which books should be included and removed which has been generally accepted ever since.  There's some debate if this was completely decided at the council of Nicea or not, but it was shortly afterwards the books we know and love in the NT were officially canonized at the council of Hippo and then re-affirmed a few years later by the council of Carthage.

Again, arguing about which sect got the bible the most right or which man-made stories should be included and which man-made stories are not holy is the least interesting and most pointless part of biblical study.  History is messy.  And a good story is a good story.  'The bible' (both new and old testament) is an interesting collection of tales cribbed from religions that pre-dated Judaism, let along Christianity and then cobbled together into something unique.  Multiple arguments and nuances between different translations have resulted in differently accepted 'word of God' at different times.  Talking about how the bible has changed many times over history (depending on whim of sect and translation) is not misinformation.  Talking about how various Christian churches have added/removed books from the bible depending on their viewpoints is not misinformation.

And I'm not sure any of this has anything to do with Trump being the antichrist.

None of this is surprising, well known within Christian circles for millennia now. For those who are curious, here's a short explainer video about it: https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/what-is-bible/

From what I can tell stuff like this is only surprising or a problem for those that misunderstand what is actually meant by "inspiration" and/or approach the Bible as a flat theology text. The Bible is ancient literature, which means it is a form of art. The largest genre in Scripture is narrative, followed by poetry. What we call the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible (the TaNaK to the Jews) was finalized in the first century CE. By the 2nd-3-rd century BCE a Greek translation call the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was created because Greek had become the common language throughout the Greco-Roman world. LXX contained the TaNaK but also other books that were highly valued by Jews at that time. There was significant debate among Jews and early Christians about what books beyond the TaNaK were considered scripture, but broad consensus on the 39 books of the TaNaK, what we call the Old Testament. I think these additional books are worth reading and are very helpful. But none of these additional books change the essential message or beliefs of Christianity. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc. are all within Christendom as long as they hold to the essential beliefs (more or less the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds).

How this relates to Trump potentially being an antichrist comes down to that question of how we approach Scripture. If it's misunderstood as a flat book of theology, then people tend to read Revelation as a secret code to unlock the future, which means they're looking for a 1:1 correspondence with current events. This overlooks the fact that Revelation was written to real people who were suffering very real persecution under Roman rule. And it means the essential message is often missed, which is that humans have a long (and ongoing) history of building corrupt empires based on violence and death, but the Lamb conquers by dying for his enemies and redeeming all things in the end. So while I think Trump likely fits the definition of an antichrist, he's not the first and is probably not the last.   

[DoubleDown]

...
So while I think Trump likely fits the definition of an antichrist, he's not the first and is probably not the last.

I'm curious, why do you think Trump is probably not the last Antichrist? By the way, your knowledge of the Bible is very impressive!

[Fru-Gal]

...
So while I think Trump likely fits the definition of an antichrist, he's not the first and is probably not the last.

I'm curious, why do you think Trump is probably not the last Antichrist? By the way, your knowledge of the Bible is very impressive!

To me it’s similar to the UFO topic, which I got into for the first time when NORAD, with no explanation, shot down three car-sized objects and one balloon in February 2023. It was a fun rabbit hole for someone who didn’t already know all the pundits and grifters in this space.

However, eventually I saw that many arguments for the existence of nonhuman intelligence already living on our planet, as cool as they are, boil down to religion of some flavor. UFO adherents often believe that NHI or aliens are watching humans and planning to save the planet, or us.

The problem with this theory is the countless number of times evil leaders or cataclysmic events have happened. Why not stop the Holocaust, or Stalin, or Alexander the Great, or Idi Amin?

Same applies to DJT. He’s not the first strongman in charge of a massive country, and won’t be the last. More interestingly, does a strongman leader ever get out alive?

[LennStar]

OP: Don't just steal stuff. There are in-debt articles about that. The oldest (and fairly extensive) I personally know about (and I only read this things for fun, for obvious reasons as an atheist, so I only read 3) is this:

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

[Fru-Gal]

Dang. That article was pretty compelling.

[DoubleDown]

OP: Don't just steal stuff. There are in-debt articles about that. The oldest (and fairly extensive) I personally know about (and I only read this things for fun, for obvious reasons as an atheist, so I only read 3) is this:

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

??????

I literally said in my original post, "I did not come to this conclusion on my own." And I pointed out a youtube channel that has been around for 10 years with much more in-depth information. I'm confused about what seems like an accusation of "stealing stuff." And I did not claim to write the Biblical prophecies. I have already seen the article by Benjamin Corey long ago, it was interesting.

[LennStar]

OP: Don't just steal stuff. There are in-debt articles about that. The oldest (and fairly extensive) I personally know about (and I only read this things for fun, for obvious reasons as an atheist, so I only read 3) is this:

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

??????

I literally said in my original post, "I did not come to this conclusion on my own." And I pointed out a youtube channel that has been around for 10 years with much more in-depth information. I'm confused about what seems like an accusation of "stealing stuff." And I did not claim to write the Biblical prophecies. I have already seen the article by Benjamin Corey long ago, it was interesting.

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean it as an attack. But especially IF you say "I did not come to this conclusion on my own.", posting a link to e.g. my article would be important. Just a Youtube channel is... not a good "source" imho.

[FINate]

...
So while I think Trump likely fits the definition of an antichrist, he's not the first and is probably not the last.

I'm curious, why do you think Trump is probably not the last Antichrist? By the way, your knowledge of the Bible is very impressive!

The book of Revelation is Jewish apocalyptic literature, which is clear from the opening: "The revelation of Jesus Christ" -- the Greek word that's rendered as "revelation" is apokalypsis, where we get the word apocalypse. The word apocalypse in the Bible does NOT mean the end of the world as understood in our current context. Instead, it means to unveil or to reveal true reality, hence the name of this book. This genre is well established throughout Scripture, with big sections of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and many others written in this style. Apocalyptic uses highly symbolic and often cosmic imagery to reveal God's perspective on human history. It can include prophecies about the future, but this is not its primary purpose.

I simply don't think the book of Revelation is intended to function as a way for us to predict future events. A lot of what is described through symbolic imagery was already happening in the early centuries of the church. This does not mean I'm a preterist (the belief that Revelation is only communicating past events). I think it's revealing a pattern of evil that corrupts human power structures, and that we keep seeing this pattern play out in the world. In Biblical times this was Babylon, then Persia, then Geece, then Rome. But this has continued on through the ages and now includes modern nations deceived into the same broken ideologies. So there's a long string of antichrists -- those who promise to save and bring peace by way of violence and death. In this way Trump, and probably much of the US leadership on both sides throughout our history, fits into this same pattern. Will Trump be the culmination of this history before the final day of the LORD? It's possible, I just don't see anything about him that is uniquely bad compared to the rest of human history. What we're witnessing is just a normal turn of events here on earth.