Would it be a sin to kill the antichrist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter question_bunny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

question_bunny

Guest
This implies that you knew with 100% certainty that the person was the antichrist, and is really a question of his nature. This is not about whether or not it could actually be done. Obviously if he was merely a possessed human, an attempt on his life aside from governmentally-sanctioned execution would be murder. I ask in this way because I am curious what the theology on the nature of this evil being is; being a fairly recent convert from Protestantism, I spent my formative years being taught that the antichrist is the literal son of satan. If this were the case, that would certainly muddy whether or not he was human or not (and therefore make this a rather interesting question). I apologize if this question comes off weird; I just have an interest in eschatology.

I have edited this post because someone on here seems to think (wrongly, I might add) from my old wording that I’m intending something inappropriate
 
Last edited:
It will not be possible to kill the Antichrist. He will die at the appointed time.
 
question_bunny said:
What would the moral implications be of making an attempt on the antichrist’s life? Of failing to do so?
Click to expand...
The antichrist will be a human being, under the direct control of Satan himself. You won’t be able to kill him. Any attempt will most likely lead to your own demise. Having said that, since he will be a human being - albeit an evil one at that - he would still be created in the image of God. Any attempt to end his life would be considered murder. Capital punishment would be the only just course, upon the antichrist murdering people. But again, that would be impossible, since the eschatological events surrounding the antichrist cannot be changed. But if you are a genuine Christian, you won’t have to worry about it, when the antichrist is revealed, because the church will not be here.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
But if you are a genuine Christian, you won’t have to worry about it, when the antichrist is revealed, because the church will not be here.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything else you said, but this part, while a common belief in some Christian groups during the last couple centuries, was clearly not the belief of the Christians to whom the writings about future tribulation and such were originally addressed. They were undergoing persecution by an evil state right then, as were their Jewish forebears when similar apocalyptic works were inspired for them. The message was “It will get even worse, but ultimately God wins and therefore so do we,” not “This has zero application to your suffering, because when the final persecution comes, the Church will have been removed from the situation.” Even passages of Scripture that have their ultimate fulfillment much later still have to make sense and mean something to the people who actually wrote and read them originally.
 
Usagi said:
Even passages of Scripture that have their ultimate fulfillment much later still have to make sense and mean something to the people who actually wrote and read them originally.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And if we take a chronological eschatological view of Revelation & end-times, most of the events of Revelation are still yet-future. Premillennialism was the eschatological view of the early church, until Augustine, at which time amillennialism became popular, until the time you mentioned when premillennialism was rediscovered.
 
I know; I’m sorry if it was poorly worded, but it’s more a question about his nature–if you were to make an attempt on his life, whether it would succeed being irrelevant, would it be right, wrong, or neutral? Is he 100% demon, some mixture of demon and human, a possessed human, or just a really evil human?
 
The Antichrist is/will be a very evil human who gives himself to the Evil One. I suppose he will then be possessed but if so it will be with his consent.

The fact that you can’t kill him is a purely practical issue. The moral issue is: would it be evil to try?

The same moral principles apply to Antichrist that would apply to anyone.
So: would it be moral to try if you thought you had a chance?

That issue is beyond me.
 
You can’t answer evil with evil. This is like saying would it be morally okay to go back in time and kill Hitler. Murder is still murder, it can’t be quantified just as mortal sin can’t be quantified.
 
No no–I was asking if it is murder at all. As I said, it’s more a question of his nature–if he is 100% human, possessed or not, then it is murder. If he is the devil pretending to be a human, then it is (probably??) not, and it is muddier still if he is some combination of demon and human. I wanted to know what people think on that matter (and why), and if there is any documentation on the subject.
 
Is it possible Hitler was the antichrist?

Why can’t the antichrist die as people have said?
 
There are certain criteria the antichrist has to fulfill, including a specific mortal wound that he “miraculously” survives. I don’t think it’s possible that Hitler was the antichrist because of these reasons, though people did, at the time he was alive, believe he could possibly be. The reason the antichrist cannot die from ordinary means (car crash, cancer, etc.) is because he’s backed by satan, who is both very evil and very powerful.
 
Won’t this person grow old and die like anyone else? A human, not immortal right? How do we know about this wound thing?
 
I have no idea if the antichrist can grow old and die, or even if he will be mortal–it’s why I asked. We know about the wound from Revelation 13:3.
 
Do we know it will be a he? Maybe this part of Revelation is figurative? I don’t know
 
Last edited:
Well, the Bible does use the pronoun “he” when referring to the antichrist, so I would assume we know it’s a man, unless Greek grammar worked like English grammar does, and “he” is used whenever you’re referring to a person whose gender is unknown.
 
Taking a look at the Hitler situation, if he had been killed in “full flower”, there would have been any number of people who would have taken his place. Soviet Russia the same, although they have a tradition of absolute power going back more than two hundred years, hard to break. The evil Roman Emperors are the same. Absolute power over matters both spiritual and temporal begets absolute evil. We even have discovered that the Papacy is vulnerable to abuse. As such, the antichrist is a spirit, rather than an individual.
 
Last edited:
Would you say the antichrist is a demon, or do you mean “spirit” as the word is used in “spirit of the revolution”?
 
You could argue the antichrist was part of the Rwandan Genocide yes?
 
Demonic spirit. “Spirit of the revolution” can be anywhere on the continuum.
 
Last edited:
Some people have made the argument recently that Pope Francis or Trump is the antichrist. It seems that the discussion of the antichrist often leads to pointing fingers and condemning others which might be the devil’s plan to further perpetuate sin through suspicion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top