Does the national backround of the anti-christ make a difference?
I think it does, Biggirl. The foundation of America is the rule of law, not the rule of a king or emperor. The founding fathers’ intention was to make the US decidedly NOT like Roman Europe...with its kings, emperors, and conquerors.
When a US president is inaugurated he takes his oath on the Bible, which, I believe is that rule of law. God’s law, the Bible, is above all men. The founding fathers in one stroke set this country on a totally different foundation, again, totally different from Roman Europe.
Not to say, of course, that this subversive we have in office believes any of this. I do believe he would like to overturn all of this (with his associates on the left), so he could crown himself some sort of emperor. Were he to succeed in this, I would join the crowd thinking he could very well be the antichrist. But as it stands now, no.
At the present he just doesn’t fit the Biblical portrait of antichrist. He exhibits a great many antichrist attributes, however, there is these other things that don’t fit. I see him as an antichrist, but not THE antichrist. The way I see it anyway.