Snopes.com’s Liberal Treatment of Whether Barack Hussein Obama Is The Anti – Christ
Posted by Job on September 22, 2008
See link below.
It is relatively disturbing that there has been so many people kicking this around that Snopes.com would feel the need to address it. Look, my position is that were Obama the anti – Christ, you would be following him. What do I base that on? The Bible, which states that but for the grace of God the anti – Christ would fool even the very elect, which means fully regenerated believers; see Matthew 24:24. A guy who pops out of the scene out of nowhere, has this bizarre convoluted personal/family background that no one can make sense of, knows the Muslim call to prayer but can’t correctly articulate even the most basic of Christian doctrines despite having attended a “church” for the last 20 years, is a committed globalist, represents the far left, and there have been all these rumors as to his sexual preferences … well let us just say that such a fellow would deceive no one, especially after he picked Roman Catholic Joe Biden as his running mate.
Still … I am not a fan of this article. First, they repeat the oft – quoted “the term anti – Christ is not used in Revelation” canard, which is almost as much as a diversion as “the word Trinity is never used in the Bible.” There are several names which refer to the anti – Christ: the beast, the man of sin, the son of perdition, etc.
The article also betrays its liberal historio – critical theological slant claiming that the Book of Revelation was completed by the end of the 2nd century. That means that they are basically taking the position that Revelation is not only not apostolic, but indeed came after some of the writings of the second generation church fathers. (Of course, people who assert the late date for Revelation and Hebrews generally do so for the gospels and everything else because they reject the doctrine that the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, and that the early church was able to determine the legitimate books from the frauds according to the rule of faith. Ironically, the biggest challenge to the book of Revelation came not because of questions about the dating, but because the book challenged Origenism and some other doctrines. It reached the point where the western church in particular began to claim that the book was not written by the apostle John, but rather by a prominent bishop of the same name.)
Their denial that the anti – Christ will necessarily be a man: a joke. Please note that some of his other titles are “the man of sin” and “son of perdition.” It was also, well, mighty revealing that Snopes.com gave no more respect to Revelation than it did the long – discredited ramblings of Nostradamus (Ray Comfort did a special discrediting Nostradamus, the fascination over which he attributed to people desiring any source that they could believe in or follow other than the Bible).
About the only thing that Snopes.com got right was their section debunking the claims that Revelation stated that the anti – Christ would be Muslim. (Please note: nothing precludes the anti – Christ from being Muslim, I just doubt it because the anti – Christ’s being Muslim would deceive no one. I find it far more likely that the anti – Christ will be someone who claims to be a theologically and politically conservative Christian or Jew. ) But even there: the people likely to take the concept of the anti – Christ seriously have already read Revelations more times than these people obviously have and know this already. The reason why so many people believe that the anti – Christ’s being Muslim is plausible has little to do with Obama or even September 11th (although I did note that after September 11th all of the talk about how the anti – Christ would be eastern European faded). It is faddish to be sure, but it is at least plausible. Jesus Christ descended from the godly line of Isaac, so it is not a bad guess to speculate that the anti – Christ would come from the line of Ishmael. This is what the angel said regarding Ishmael in Genesis 16:11-12:
11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
As the Ishmaelites played a role in the incident of Joseph – who typologically represented Christ – being sold to Egypt, it further increass the possibility, especially if we are to take “anti – Christ” literally, as this was indeed an action that harmed Joseph (or at least superficially seemed to). The problem: just as being a Jew does not mean that you are a genetic descendant of Abraham, being a Muslim does not make one a genetic descendant of Ishmael. Islam spread to the Kenya of Barack Obama (Barry Sotero?) the same way that it spread everywhere else: by the sword. And also, being a descendant of Ishmael does not even necessarily mean being a Muslim despite what Mohammed would have you believe. Ultimately, the thing to remember that there is nothing especially “anti – Christ” about being a Muslim. As a matter of fact, the Bible makes it clear that all that are not born again Christians are anti – Christ, meaning that they are against and oppose and hate Jesus Christ and His righteousness. In that respect, the son of an African with Muslim roots is no more of a suspect than anyone else. Raising hackles over Obama just because his “Obama waffles” packaging is not what we expect from world leaders is just the sort of thing that would cause people to be taken in not only by the anti – Christ when he does come, but the scores of false preachers that will come on the scene before the man of sin arrives.
Too bad that Snopes.com could not have made a more Biblical case. The next time they address a Christian topic, I hope they assign a person who actually takes the Bible seriously to write the article.