Based on my recollection of The Bible and the Book of Revelation (it's been almost 30 years since I was last forced to read it), Peter Thiel and his ilk match the definition of what an "antichrist" is or should be.

▲

timbit42 13 hours ago | parent [-]

The book of Revelation doesn't mention any antichrist. Only the epistles of John mention antichrists and the definition of what they are. Any proposed link between any antichrists and the book of Revelation was created in the past few hundred years.

▲

jonathanlb 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> Any proposed link between any antichrists and the book of Revelation was created in the past few hundred years.

Actually, the idea of an end times Antichrist has been around for much of Christianity's history.

Irenaeus of Lyon synthesized the beast of Revelation (which is what most people conflate with "The Antichrist"), Daniel's imagery, and Paul's "man of lawlessness" (2 Thess. 2) into a composite end-times figure back around 180 CE in his work "Against Heresies". Additionally, Hippolytus of Rome also wrote an entire treatise, "On Christ and Antichrist", back in early 200 CE, that also explored that relevant symbolism in the Old and New Testaments.

For context, both Irenaeus and Hippolytus are considered among the most important of the early Church Fathers.

	▲	timbit42 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Some of the ideas have been around a long time but they weren't integrated together into a whole until over a hundred years ago by John Nelson Darby and was then were popularized by the Schofield Reference Bible 1 hundred years ago.