Is Donald Trump the Antichrist?

[Judas Maccabeus]

I see J M has not formally met George yet.

Well, I have never met one “in the wild” yet.

[barnhart]

This thread reminds me of one of the weaknesses of futurism/ literalism. Once the antichrist is defined as solely a literal, future, end of days event, there is no motivation to stay aware of current antichrist threats. Christians have always identified current antichrists. The first was Nero and I think they were right for their time. This does not preclude an end of days fulfillment, only acknowledges the spirit of the antichrist is "already among us" as John writes.

A large portion of the American church would be better served by looking for traits of the antichrist rather reducing those prophecies to the end times. President Trump does exhibit antichrist traits like pride, boasting, claiming the power to deliver peace and security that belongs to Jesus ("I alone can save you"). It would be good if more Christians were wary, or more reluctant to embrace him and all he represents.

[gcdonner]

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

1 John 2:18-19

He is just one of potentially many.

Are you ignoring the time context?
The anti-christ in the first century was an indicator of it being...not the last days, or the last time, but the last hour! Get it? It's a done deal! Maybe y'all are still waiting for the last minute or the last second 2000 years later?

Preterism?I have not heard that one since grad. School. Are you serious or sending me off?

I have just published my book on the end times entitled, "Fulfilled in Christ". Perhaps you would be interested in a free copy?

[gcdonner]

I see J M has not formally met George yet.

Well, I have never met one “in the wild” yet.

Oh well, as many on here will tell you, I am pretty "wild". I'm one of those guys who believes in accepting scripture for what it says rather than what we would like it to say or think it says. There is such a thing as audience relevance and the need to remember that the bible was NOT written TO US but rather FOR US. Always interpret scripture with scripture and not with the newspaper in your left hand as many futurists are won't to do.

[Jazman]

I see J M has not formally met George yet.

Well, I have never met one “in the wild” yet.

Oh well, as many on here will tell you, I am pretty "wild". I'm one of those guys who believes in accepting scripture for what it says rather than what we would like it to say or think it says. There is such a thing as audience relevance and the need to remember that the bible was NOT written TO US but rather FOR US. Always interpret scripture with scripture and not with the newspaper in your left hand as many futurists are won't to do.

Ah, maybe you know where that reference "scripture in one hand, the newspaper in the other" comes from? I was listening to a podcast just yesterday that referenced that; I believe it's the words of Karl Barth (very conservative theologian btw). I get your point and maybe agree somewhat, but I think Barth had a good point as well.

[Bootstrap]

Ah, maybe you know where that reference "scripture in one hand, the newspaper in the other" comes from? I was listening to a podcast just yesterday that referenced that; I believe it's the words of Karl Barth (very conservative theologian btw). I get your point and maybe agree somewhat, but I think Barth had a good point as well.

Once you see the Seven Hills reference to Rome, a lot of things Preterists say make sense. I'm not purely in that camp, but they have a lot of good insights.

[Josh]

Ah, maybe you know where that reference "scripture in one hand, the newspaper in the other" comes from? I was listening to a podcast just yesterday that referenced that; I believe it's the words of Karl Barth (very conservative theologian btw). I get your point and maybe agree somewhat, but I think Barth had a good point as well.

Once you see the Seven Hills reference to Rome, a lot of things Preterists say make sense. I'm not purely in that camp, but they have a lot of good insights.

I’ve always been open to the idea some of Revelation might have already happened, and also that some parts of it could happen multiple times.

[gcdonner]

Well, I have never met one “in the wild” yet.

Oh well, as many on here will tell you, I am pretty "wild". I'm one of those guys who believes in accepting scripture for what it says rather than what we would like it to say or think it says. There is such a thing as audience relevance and the need to remember that the bible was NOT written TO US but rather FOR US. Always interpret scripture with scripture and not with the newspaper in your left hand as many futurists are won't to do.

Ah, maybe you know where that reference "scripture in one hand, the newspaper in the other" comes from? I was listening to a podcast just yesterday that referenced that; I believe it's the words of Karl Barth (very conservative theologian btw). I get your point and maybe agree somewhat, but I think Barth had a good point as well.

How about Benny Hinn or a myriad of other futurist speculators?

[gcdonner]

Ah, maybe you know where that reference "scripture in one hand, the newspaper in the other" comes from? I was listening to a podcast just yesterday that referenced that; I believe it's the words of Karl Barth (very conservative theologian btw). I get your point and maybe agree somewhat, but I think Barth had a good point as well.

Once you see the Seven Hills reference to Rome, a lot of things Preterists say make sense. I'm not purely in that camp, but they have a lot of good insights.

I’ve always been open to the idea some of Revelation might have already happened, and also that some parts of it could happen multiple times.

The one part of the Revelation I don't really have a grasp of time on is Rev 20, though there are some Preterists who cut that 1K years down to 7 years. I haven't been able to justify that. Suffice it to say Rev 21-22 for me a clear pictures of the New Covenant, especially in the light of Hebrews 12:22 and following.

[Bootstrap]

Once you see the Seven Hills reference to Rome, a lot of things Preterists say make sense. I'm not purely in that camp, but they have a lot of good insights.

I’ve always been open to the idea some of Revelation might have already happened, and also that some parts of it could happen multiple times.

The one part of the Revelation I don't really have a grasp of time on is Rev 20, though there are some Preterists who cut that 1K years down to 7 years. I haven't been able to justify that. Suffice it to say Rev 21-22 for me a clear pictures of the New Covenant, especially in the light of Hebrews 12:22 and following.

My own view: These things were meaningful to the first Christians who read the Revelation, and Rome was a big part of their reading. In subsequent generations, the same imagery has been very applicable to other situations Christians experience. The final consummation of the Revelation is still shrouded to us. We do not know how close we are to that time, or how long it will take.

But we know how it all ends - Glory be to God.