The Instigator
mrw
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Is it possible that Barack Obama is the Antichrist mentioned in Revelation of the Bible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,116 times Debate No: 7129
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (12)

 

mrw

Pro

I will allow my opponent to begin.
Puck

Con

The book of Revelation does not reference an 'antichrist' at all. :)
Debate Round No. 1
mrw

Pro

"Antichrist" is a word commonly used to describe "the beast" (biblical wording) mentioned in Revelation. In 2 John 1:7 it uses the word "Antichrist". Let me remind you that you are debating against the possibility of Barack Obama being this biblical figure.
Puck

Con

""Antichrist" is a word commonly used to describe "the beast" (biblical wording) mentioned in Revelation. In 2 John 1:7 it uses the word "Antichrist". Let me remind you that you are debating against the possibility of Barack Obama being this biblical figure."

"commonly" is an ad populum fallacy. Saying 'the beast' equates to 'the antichrist' with no evidentiary of such is somewhat a poor premise to be advocating. John merely describes that there will be multiple antichrist figures, and then goes on to say they are present in his own time - and asserts the end time is his own - clearly he is not referencing a future figure. :)

The beasts in Revelation - there are at least 3, take your pick, still have nothing to do with an antichrist figure, and until you show some evidentiary otherwise the question of whether Obama is the antichrist, as referenced in revelations is moot. :)
Debate Round No. 2
mrw

Pro

John mentions one Antichrist that is a deceiver. You can not prove that Barack Obama is not this figure. Some may argue that if people like Adolf Hitler were not the before-mentioned figure, then it is impossible that Barack Obama is this figure. This is however untrue because he "deceives the entire world". Whatever we may see or think can be wrong.
Puck

Con

"John mentions one Antichrist that is a deceiver. You can not prove that Barack Obama is not this figure. Some may argue that if people like Adolf Hitler were not the before-mentioned figure, then it is impossible that Barack Obama is this figure. This is however untrue because he "deceives the entire world". Whatever we may see or think can be wrong."

Since evidence isn't your thing and the book of John isn't the book of Revelation, then we can stop right there. :)

However..as already mentioned...John asserts the end time as his own. That's not now by the way.

Even if I was to grant your premise that beast = antichrist, there are 3 beasts mentioned, the interpretation then would mean that they represent an evil trinity - of which the antichrist is one. Which beast was Obama you would have to assert, and haven't i.e. which component of the evil trinity (which beast) he represents. Since I have to do your side of the debate as well to make this remotely interesting, here we go.

Revelation 13:5 "The first Beast has a mouth "speaking great things," 2 Thessalonians 2:4 "Who...exalteth himself above all that is called God." Nope not Obama there.

Revelation 13:7 "The first Beast makes war on the saints" 2 Thessalonians 2:4 "Who opposeth [...] all that is called God," Yer still no Obama. So beast one is out.

John 5:43 "I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive". If one here is coming "in his own name" is the Antichrist, then the second Beast of Revelation 13 cannot be the Antichrist, for he does not come "in his own name." In actuality, the second Beast comes in the name of the first Beast as is laid out in Revelation 13:12-15. Similarly as the Holy Spirit—the third entity of the Holy Trinity speaks "not of Himself" - John 16:13, but is present to in essence glorify Christ, so the second Beast seeks to raise majesty to the first Beast, the Antichrist. (We know Obama doesn't fit beast one already). If you think that the second Beast is represented as working miracles (a requisite for the antichrist) - Rev. 13:13,14 and, as the 'Man of Sin' is also said to come "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" - 2 Thess. 2:9, it then follows that the second Beast must be the Antichrist, which clearly doesn't make much sense at all.

For the 4 horsemen nutters out there - Daniel 9:27 the Head of the Roman Empire makes covenant with the Jews. In Isaiah 28:18 said covenant is said to have been "made with Death and Hell." In Revelation 6:8 the rider on the pale horse - the closest bet to an antichrist figure - is named "Death and Hell." Coincidence?! Nah, the figure referenced is most likely the head of the Roman Empire. ( see also Daniel 11:40-42). :)
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 5 years ago
DATCMOTO
Keep focused on CHRIST! and His Words! WHOEVER disagrees with Him is 'anti-Christ'..
Whoever or whatever is coming it's gonna be the same old thing.. that all religions are 'one', that krishna, buddha and Jesus are 'one'..
" I am THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life. " NOT ' A way, A truth or A life.. "
Posted by mrw 5 years ago
mrw
All evidence is invalid because the Antichrist has the power to deceive all people.
Posted by mrw 5 years ago
mrw
LoveyounoHomo:

In this you happen to be incorrect. Even things that we consider proven do not stand up the the power of the Antichrist. What proof is there that he is not born in Europe; all witnesses could be under his influence.
Posted by hauki20 5 years ago
hauki20
666... The number of the Beast. It means something. Gematria may be the answer, but after all, the NT was written in Greek (or Aramaic, according to some). The Antichrist may be Barack Obama. Or not. I could be the Antichrist. Or not. You could be the Antichrist. Or not. He's going to come sometime. I used to try different names with gematria, but after a week I had it up to my throat. If, however the Antichrist must be someone in the present time, I would suggest it being Javier Solana. I'm not saying he is. He might be.
Posted by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
Antichrist is always plural (eg antichrists), it is referring to two different classes of people, those who deny Jesus is the Christ and those who deny Jesus came in the flesh (this is not in the book of revelation however). The Beast of Revelation specifically refers to Nero Caesar (that is why John says 666 is the number of a man - and when it is calculated with common Hebrew numerology it yields the name Nero Caesar).
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 5 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
This is so stupid. Atleast make a better debate, and theres a fact that he couldnt be

Bible says he will be of european decent. so FAIL!
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
i think he could be. The scriptures refer to the anti-christ as some one who has his same characteristics. not physically of course but mentally. people think he is like another god, basically. people pray to him, people worship him, build statues of him just like he is a god. the anti-christ is described to have the same characteristics. plus with barrack obama in leadership we are nearing the end of the world just like the anti-christ will suposedly bring. this is a good debate and gets one thinking....
Posted by NYCDiesel 5 years ago
NYCDiesel
Ignorant Christians make us all look ignorant. For the record- I am a white, Christian Conservative Republican and I do not believe for a second that there is even a remote possibility that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. To say so is to expose your own ignornace to scripture, your lack of competence in interpreting scripture, and your complete lack of knowledge of the life of Barack Obama (who's life does not fit the detailed requirements of an anti-christ or "beast").
Posted by mrw 5 years ago
mrw
I understand but it might help if you spell checked first. No hard feelings though.
Posted by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
Apologies for the random characters, my copy of Word and this site don't always mix well.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 12 records.
Vote Placed by Demosthenes 5 years ago
Demosthenes
mrwPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
mrwPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07