You clarified the Anti-Christ and an Anti-Christ very well, with distinctions between the 2 beasts.

Perhaps you'd like to read parallels in Muslim beliefs where the Mahdi will come to unite the Muslim world and 'jesus' will be his miracle worker. The Mahdi is not explicitly found in the Quran, only in the additional reports & sayings of the Prophet, but is believed by many Muslims. The ISIS movement was one attempt to establish the Caliphate, but of course, not all Muslims believe ISIS is the one. Political leaders don't believe but fundamentalists look forward to that day.

> Yeah, don't get me started on trump.

It's obvious that ship has already sailed. :)

> it's not a stretch to say anyone who claims to follow christ, but doesn't and instead uses that you manipulate people, such as trump, is the anti christ.

In 1 John, the antiChrist is anyone who opposes Christ, the spirit of deceit and of false teachings. In that sense, anyone who opposes Jesus is the antiChrist (they don't even have to claim to be a follower of Christ).

In Revelation 13, the beasts are more specific (and I think this was more the focus of your question, but maybe I'm wrong).

But I have several observations here.

1. Neither 1 John nor Revelation say that the antiChrist is one who claims to follow Christ but doesn't.

2. I have NEVER heard DJT claim to be a follower of Christ. In contrast, during his campaign I remember him saying "I've never asked forgiveness for anything." From everything I've heard and seen, Trump is not a Christian and has never claimed to be. I certainly don't regard him as one. Yuck.

3. Manipulation is not so much the issue as deceit, both in 1 Jn and Rev. Political maneuvering and manipulating is common among presidential candidates (as I showed you), but the antiChrist is more the spirit of deceit (1 Jn. 4.6; Rev. 13.11, 13-14). The antiChrist is more nefarious and harmful than self-centered and manipulative.

But, as I mentioned, we're always watchful and trying to figure things out, alert to clues that the vagueness is coming clear and happening. Rev. 13.5 speaks of "42 months," which is 3.5 yrs. Granted, numbers in Revelation are often symbolic, but we try to be discerning and alert. If this is a literal period of time, 42 months from Trump's inauguration would take us to July of 2020. We'll see, won't we? That will be thick in the middle of the election season.

> This is different from a politician simply manipulating people, this one is using christ to manipulate people.

Actually, what I see in 1 Jn. & Revelation is this person using religious deceit that mimics Christ while in actuality denying Him and mocking Him. Again, I don't see that in DJT, but if you do, you do.

I actually appreciate this conversation. The End Times could be right around the corner, and they could be millennia away. One never knows. Obviously one of these days they will actually be upon us for real (assuming the prophecies are true, which I do). Conversations like this help me look at the news and the Bible again (as I am continually anyway), always trying to be both wise and discerning. Any conversation that makes me research and think is a great conversation.

> Wow, we have swung wide of the original conversation, haven't we. This is more like a rant than a discussion.

Yeah, don't get me started on trump.

My point is that since anti christ is so vaguely defined, it's not a stretch to say anyone who claims to follow christ, but doesn't and instead uses that you manipulate people, such as trump, is the anti christ.

This is different from a politician simply manipulating people, this one is using christ to manipulate people.

> It's sad that you're comparing human presidents like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, with trump. Almost as though you think he's a decent person like all the presidents before him.

The *only* comparison I made was that they all try to manipulate the evangelical vote. I wouldn't *begin* to compare Trump to them in decency. Yeesh.

> People that support trump as a politician first have already abandoned him.

Some have, but that's not the point of our discussion. You wanted to know the evidence for perceiving DJT as the anti-Christ.

> or any other religious position that isn't based in evidence (and the rest of your post)

Wow, we have swung wide of the original conversation, haven't we. This is more like a rant than a discussion.

It's sad that you're comparing human presidents like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, with trump. Almost as though you think he's a decent person like all the presidents before him.

People that support trump as a politician first have already abandoned him. People who support him like a sycophant are all that is left. I don't understand why though. The best I can come up with is this.

They support him, regardless of what kind of person he is, regardless of the lies, the deals with foreign powers, or whether he shoots someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue, because to those people the ends always justify the means when it comes to abortion, guns, anti gay (conversion therapy), or any other religious position that isn't based in evidence.

Because these issues are so important, but cannot be won legitimately because they're either not supported by facts and evidence, which his supporters can't seem to recognize, or are unpopular. So the only hope they have of grasping onto any hope of having it their way, is to be a sycophant to a lying conman who will do anything to stay in power to make as much money as he can.

Why else would they overlook the Mueller report and make excuses for it. Why else would they overlook him putting a science ignorant creationist in as the education secretary. Oh wait, nevermind that one, that's obvious. Why else would they overlook him putting a science denying creationist climate denier as the head of the EPA? Oh, right. Why else would they overlook him siding with Putin over our own intelligence agencies about whether Russia interfered in our elections? Why else would they overlook the fact that he's constantly trying to obstruct oversight into his administration? If he's innocent, why get in the way of oversight and investigations?

Yeah, I got that you didn't say "misuse the Bible," though I think when politicians use the Bible they are trying for a connecting point with people who believe in it.

But as far has manipulating Christians, having been a Christian for a long time, we notice when the politicians are specifically trying to court the Christian vote, and sometimes specifically the evangelical vote. It's often a manipulation to get elected (though presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were Christians themselves).

Just some examples:

Ronald Reagan worked with Jerry Falwell to register millions of evangelical voters to win the election. ([url]https://www.salon.com/2014/05/18/the_evangelical_presidency_reagans_dangerous_love_affair_with_the_christian_right/[/url])

"Before serving as vice president to Ronald Reagan, the elder Bush, in interviews, referred to evangelicals like Pat Robertson as "snake handlers and swindlers." Coincidentally, he would later run against Robertson in the Republican primaries, by which point the evangelical voting bloc had become a significant portion of the Republican party. Recognizing that the bloc could help him get elected in 1988, the elder Bush enlisted missionary and policy adviser Doug Wead to improve his standing among evangelical Christians during his vice presidency, and into his presidency." ([url]https://classroom.synonym.com/the-evangelical-influence-on-the-bush-presidencies-12085971.html[/url])

"Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift. ... But it is a group that's fluid and in play and can be gotten by either candidate." ([url]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html[/url])

"Why did Obama win more white evangelical votes than Clinton? He asked for them." ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/22/why-did-obama-win-more-white-evangelical-votes-than-clinton-he-asked-for-them/[/url])

"The white evangelical vote has been a focus of post-election coverage, and for good reason. If you had told the average person that white evangelicals would account for more than a fourth of the entire electorate, they may not have believed you: After all, evangelicals are often imagined as a fringe population. But they represented more than a quarter of the electorate in 2012 and 2008, and again this year."

So, if every president tries to woo the evangelical vote and manipulate Christians, why is Trump the anti-christ for doing it?

> Well, then, that could include a lot of politicians who use (well, often misuse) the Bible to score political points.

I didn't say misuse the bible. I'm saying he's manipulating Christians.

> And a political leader who uses other people's belief in Christ for his own political gain and manipulation, seems to be very much against the spirit of what Christ taught.

Well, then, that could include a lot of politicians who use (well, often misuse) the Bible to score political points. Hillary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg are some very recent examples, but it happens all the time. I actually watch for such things as they come across the news, and the way politicians use the Bible is usually pretty funny. Many people running for president and Congress try to woo the evangelical vote by manipulation. I still think this doesn't point to Trump any more than to anyone else.

I agree that it's very much against the spirit of what Christ taught, but I don't see it pointing to Trump any more than in any other direction. A lot of Christians at the time were saying that Obama was the anti-christ. I think people tend to demonize those whom they oppose.

> Except that I don't see anything in Rev. 13 that speaks of using Christianity like a political pawn.

Yeah, we've established the bible is vague. So anti means against, so anti Christ can be said to mean against Christ, and this can be vague. And a political leader who uses other people's belief in Christ for his own political gain and manipulation, seems to be very much against the spirit of what Christ taught.

> I think the trump comparison is pretty vague since the anti Christ isn't well defined.

Correct on both points.

> But coming from an atheist, comparing someone like trump who uses Christianity like a political pawn, I can see how the comparison could work.

Except that I don't see anything in Rev. 13 that speaks of using Christianity like a political pawn. In Rev. 13.7 he makes war against the saints and to conquer them. Trump is sucking up to Christians, and he's using them like political pawns, but he's not "making war." The text seems to be speaking of the kind of violent oppression and opposition that is martyrdom. So I don't see how the comparison could work. It's not the right picture, the right attitude, or the right action as far as Trump's interaction with Christians.

And Rev. 13.8 speaks of the world worshipping this person—ain't gonna happen with Trump! I just don't see it. I'm willing to see your case and discuss it with you, but using Christians like political pawns isn't in the picture, by my reading of the text—even metaphorically or symbolically. But let's talk.