Christian history has thought of the antichrist as being either....
1) Anyone who preaches false doctrine (i.e., no specific individual), as in early Christianity.
2) The papacy, as argued by anti-Catholic Protestant reformers from the 1500s to the early 20th century.
3) A specific Antichrist to come just before the end of the world, to be accepted by the Jews and enthroned in the temple at Jerusalem, as created by Francisco Ribera, a 16 century Spanish Catholic Jesuit priest, specifically to counter the anti-Catholic Protestant theology on the subject (exchanging anti-Catholicism for populist anti-Semitism? How typical.).
Ribera's antichrist is identified by the following traits:
Likewise, Ribera was the first to formulate the idea that the antichrist was an apocalyptic concept that had no bearing on the Middle Ages or the papacy, but, instead to the distant future. Ribera's antichrist theology was widely absorbed into Protestantism with the advent of the influential Protestant Scofield Reference Bible that was published in the immediate years before World War I. Thus, Scofield's pessimistic view regarding our future resonated well with the horrors that people experienced during the war, and it was this Bible that permanently introduced an obsession with "the end times" into American fundamentalist Christianity.
So, basically, by all reasonable standards, Obama is not "The Antichrist."
