| Barack Obama the Antichrist? |
[Jul. 12th, 2008|11:59 pm] |
While recently watching the Decoding the Past episode I mentioned in my last post, I had a thought.
They mentioned the Bible, particularly the Revelation of John. Before John's Armageddon there is the rise of the Antichrist. Everyone loves the Antichrist. He's seems like a good guy, is even given power over the world, even though he seemingly rose to popularity from nowhere. If you take the stance that the battle of Armageddon starts in 2012 and you add a bit of American egoism to it you can come to a fun conclusion.
So what happens in 2012 in America? A Presidential election.
Who do we know that's running for 2008 that generally everyone loves, is a great guy, nobody had heard of him until recently, and will probably win meaning he'll be most likely to win again in 2012?
 That's right, Barack Obama.
One thing that has to happen for someone to be the Antichrist is that he must "be wounded in the head and thought dead only to rise again". With the growing interest on the web of people wanting to assassinate Obama if he wins coupled with the greatness of current medicine, it could just happen to him. Hopefully not, not only for his well-being but the world's.
So let's see, everyone predicting the end in 2012, the last President before then who fits the profile somewhat, and we're running out of pre-Apocalypse popes.
I'm sure if I pressed the issue I could come up with 50 reasons why Obama is the Antichrist, but none of them would matter. We'll see when we see. (Oddly enough, someone has done it for me: Barack Obama the Antichrist?)
Disclaimer: I AM NOT claiming that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, nor am I claiming that he isn't, nor do I wish he is, nor do I wish for this to influence your vote for the next USA President. Vote for whomever you think will do the best job. Potential Antichrist or not, I'm still leaning toward voting Obama. Though I'm not officially endorsing Obama or McCain.
Now, if you made it this far you're in for a reality check and bit more seriousness.
The Term AntichristSociety is always thinking someone is the Antichrist. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't actually predict a single antichrist. It does make mention of the term, but is used as a general term for anyone who says that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Jewish Messiah. One can use the term, however, to describe the first beast from the sea in the Revelation of John of Patmos, namely because the beast's main purpose was to rule the world and blaspheme the people to his favor, thereby making him not only an antichrist but arguably the Antichrist.
Analysis of the RevelationHah, you thought I was going to do a full analysis in this paragraph. Good luck. Do your own if you seriously think Obama could be the Antichrist. After you read the book over and over, research John of Patmos, research the history of how the book came into canon, the subtleties of the translations you've been reading (you did read more than one right?), and rack your brain trying to make heads or tails of the text, you'll come to the conclusion that it is so complicated and arbitrary that we could only match it up as a postdiction and never a prediction, even then it would be a challenge. But that shouldn't stop you from trying. Feel free.
Metamorphosis of the ImageryI mentioned above the idea that the Antichrist will rise from obscurity. You probably thought that was the accepted case. Why? The book says that the beast rose from the sea. That could be taken to mean many things. Obscurity, turmoil, a body of water, etc. You could do an analysis of the original text to see exactly what word John used, then cross-reference that to its accepted connotations in the same era, but you'll probably come up with a really long list of things.
 The beast has 7 heads, with "names of blasphemy" on each, and 10 horns, with a diadem on each. The form of a leopard, the feet of a bear, the mouth of a lion. Since I doubt we'll be seeing that anytime soon (though genetics is now creating chimeras) I'd assume this is metaphor. Most obvious modern interpretation is a single entity consisting of 7 parts, each ruling a deadly sin, and together controlling 10 industries of some sort. An entity so powerful that the world is handed to it (hence why some think the UN is the beast). Another obvious interpretation is a single person embodying all blasphemies, ruling 10 things, and with 7 seemingly independent facets.
So the Antichrist is wounded in the head, thought dead, then rises again to the wonder of the world. I wrote the last paragraph so I could point this odd general acceptance out. Most every bit of media you see has a single person as the Antichrist, who generally gets shot or otherwise wounded in the head. Why? That doesn't make sense in either of the two obvious interpretations. A portion of the beast is supposed to appear slain and rise again. This causes much "wonder" on the part of the public. Then later there is much rejoicing and idolatry of the beast.
ConclusionI wrote that I could come up with at least 50 reasons why he is the Antichrist, on that same note I could also come up with 50 reasons why he isn't the Antichrist, the cons possibly being more compelling than the pros. But it wouldn't really get us anywhere would it? So I'm going to just throw this out there and let it live in the aether. I know this post is a bit disconnected, but it is on purpose, it is for you to consider these disconnected cases. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think.
A little errataSnopes tried to debunk a chain letter that's been going around about this topic, though I have to say they did a pretty lame job of it. Thought to be fair, they did successfully debunk the letter. However, they spun it like they were debunking the idea, which they didn't.
The official name of the Biblical book is "The Book of Revelation". Known historically as "The Apocalypse of John" or "The Apocalypse of the theologian", otherwise known as "The Revelation to John", and "Revelation(s)". Though oddly enough, it refers to itself as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" and was written by John of Patmos, Patmos is a Greek Island. "Apocalypse" means "unveiling" in Greek, therefore "Apocalypse to John" can mean "Revelation to John". Make sense?
So you thought the Apocalypse was the end of days? No, it is the story of the end of days. The final battle contained in the story is referred to as Armageddon. Which has its own sorted history of language misconceptions. |
|
|