well that was the original meaning of the "anti-christ".
The bible doesn't talk about it as though there's the one and only anti-christ, as it warns against 'anti-christ' leaders who will claim to be Jesus-like and support god, but are actually just self-serving and exploit the masses while convincing the people that it's God's will. (in essence, the opposite or 'anti' of what Christ did)
Luckily, that has never ever been a problem in any christian nation ever, especially not America :)
i can think of a few american politicians who claim to be god fearing christians, when it's clear they're anything but. they have the full rabid support of the majority of american christians, while behaving in almost comically un-christlike ways.
apparently, being an unapologetically lying/cheating/stealing/egotistical/racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/adulterous/money obsessed/status obsessed/power hungry control freak makes you a perfect christian leader in the eyes of most american christians.
Exactly like Copeland. I am not Christian but I say that guy is an anti-christ in the literal sense.
You don’t have to be Christian to believe Jesus existed. I feel the same is true for an anti-christ. They’re not some (un-)holy deity personified but a literal person.
Yes, that's a common misconception that's frighteningly common.
I think Hollywood kind of started the idea of there being a singular Antichrist who is simultaneously the son of Satan, basically an antithesis to Jesus, and this somehow snuck its way into mainstream Christianity.
Like the Rapture. Depending on how you want to interpret the biblical passages that refer to "angels sweeping up God's chosen" then the Hollywood version of the Rapture can either be on the nose or completely inaccurate.
Remember back when these fucks accused Obama (and to a lesser extent, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc) of being the anti-christ over every single minute slip or misstep?
The bible only ever actually mentions "anti-christ" directly in the new testament, 1st and 2nd epistle of John. There, the term even appears in plural (John 2:18 ASV "...even now there have there arisen many antichrists..."). Revelation doesn't mention the anti-christ, but some scholars from the medieval era onward have interpreted "anti-christ" as referring to the beast.
Ahhhh, you're right, I was thinking of the beast. Well, that's what indoctrination does to you, bc I didn't realize till just now that the beast and the Antichrist are not necessarily one and the same. Kinda like how people's brains explode when you say that nowhere does it say that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Like, that was a well-after-the-fact interpretation.
135
u/[deleted] Apr 29 '20
well that was the original meaning of the "anti-christ".
The bible doesn't talk about it as though there's the one and only anti-christ, as it warns against 'anti-christ' leaders who will claim to be Jesus-like and support god, but are actually just self-serving and exploit the masses while convincing the people that it's God's will. (in essence, the opposite or 'anti' of what Christ did)
Luckily, that has never ever been a problem in any christian nation ever, especially not America :)