Trump walks on water?

Submitted by Michael S (United States), May 21, 2018 at 20:07

Hi, Peter.

I watched President Trump's comments about the embassy move, and didn't see him "calling God a liar". You will have to elucidate the meaning of that to me.

Concerning the "antichrist" identity, an "antichrist" is one who denies that Jesus "is come in the flesh". In the world of doctrinal gobbledegook, I suppose that can mean just about anything. Taken at its most reasonable meaning, I believe John is saying that these "antichrists" say that Jesus wasn't really human, but some sort of "man-god" like Achilles and other Greek legends. The Muslims believe something like that, saying Jesus didn't really die on the cross, but just "appeared" to. Christians have also had very confused doctrines concerning this.

Denying the "Father AND the Son" has also come to mean many things to many people. I take it at face value, that one must accet "The Father", everywhere identified with "God", one unique entity, but also "The Son", another unique entity, namely, God's chosen, adopted, unique son, the Messiah Jesus.

John says, it seems to me, that the deceivers and false prophets say they accept "God", whom nobody can see, but do not accept the fact that the man Jesus was His Messiah, His unique messenger. If Hohn wrote these things around 90 CE, it was some 55 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. None of the earlier NT writers had to deal with this heresy, because there seem to have been plenty of witnesses in their generation (from around 40-70 CE) who knew Jesus as fully human, and who know that he truly died and rose from the dead as a human. People who "denied Christ" during those days were not questioning his humanity, but his being a saving "Messiah", sent from God (Jews had differing ideas about what sort of person this should be; but definitely that such a one ought to have been sent from God as a true emmisary).

This new heresy, however, seems not to have been aimed at Jews, but at Christians, people who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah. The falseness of their doctrine was not that they denied some "Messiah", called "Jesus" had indeed existed; but that he was not human. During the time when Caesars were routinely being called "gods", the story of Jesus also was being presented as a fairy tale.

That's my take on what John was saying, which I hope you can see is not too complicated. It does not correspond to orthodox Christian doctrine, which was hammered out in great councils before pagan emperors, centuries later; but that's not pertinent to the topic. We are not talking about nuances of "Godhead" teaching, but about the identity of the person or persons John referred to as "antichrist(s)".

I think it's clear that these people are ones who trivialize the gospel. In our time, many people do this -- some publicly, like the late Richard Dawkins, and others in private. Some of them are greatly respected, learned men and women; and they seek to destroy the faith of believers. Therefore, what Jesus said in Matthew 24 is certainly true: the world is full of "false messiahs and false prophets".

It seems strange to me, that so many self-proclaimed experts of the Bible expect an "Antichrist" to appear on the scene. Maybe I just fon't "get" it. People are funny. They will follow anyone who seems to be "god-like" in any way, from a rock idol to a sports star to a Hitler. Christians do this, as well as non-Christians; there seems to be no distinction there. Concerning the great world leader of the Last Days, the Bible says,

Rev. 13:
[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

"The Beast" does not seem to be a religious figure, but a political leader of a great nation. Let me repeat the obvious, that "Great Nation" translates, in our day and age, as "The United States of America"'; and that "the beast" will likely be one of its presidents. The gematria John gave us of his name, "666" translates to "Nero Caesar", indicating the type of ruler he will be. In this, you are correct in thinking Donald Trump COULD be the one people call "The Antichrist", and whom the Bible calls "The Beast".

But why Trump? As I pointed out elsewhere, others have been more wicked, mor anti-Christian, more anti-Israel, and certainly more dishonest. I named both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. They were leading our country on a course that would ultimately betray and destroy Israel. Trump has not been following in their footsteps. COULD he? Could the man who literally studied at the feet of Rev. Norman Vincent Peale be a great deceiver AND Jew-hater? this father of a Jewish daughter? this husband of a woman who boldly opens her speech with the Lord's Prayer? To those who think he's just "too good to be true", let me add that he's been the most honest, straightforward President I can remember, tweeting virtually his every thought and every intention. COULD such a one suddenly turn and surprize us all with an attack on Israel? Yes; but it's just as likely that a mob of crazed Amazons will overrun the White House, pee on all the furniture and declare a world-wide gendercidal Jihad.

If the "Trump Plan" somehow comes to be, in the confusion after the death of Abu Mazen, then ends the Korean War, then gets himself assassinated and miraculously recovers, do you think the masses will throng after him? Call me a skeptic. I don't believe it. Elton John becoming Emperor? I can believe that. George Clooney? Easy, a no-brainer. Prince Harry? Sure. But Donald Trump is not likely to be worshipped, even if he parts the Atlantic Ocean, then walks over the Pacific to China and teleports himself the rest of the way to Jerusalem. They would still call him a racist, and accuse him of Russian collusion.

Shalom shalom :-)

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".