I seem to recall Napoleon being the anti-christ, because the Pope had been imprisoned by him. Plus, he was supposed to have met some Nostradamus criterion.
Hitler was never declared an antichrist, nor was Stalin.
I believe we get the first antichrist depending on people's opinion of the ex-communication of Frederick Barbarossa II, but that seems like a reach.
There is also a nomination for "the Mahdi" of the Sudan from the 1870-80s. Particularly because he proved to be a false prophet, and did threaten to destroy Christian nations, and did push troops toward Jerusalem (and Armageddon, the hill where the final battle will take place; oddly, the site of a battle between the Brits and the Turks in WWI).
For whatever reason, people seem to believe that the antichrist will rebuild the Roman Empire. Current events sort of make this a long reach, unless you're on the EU-UN antichrist team.
To the best of my knowledge, Napoleon was the only person who has been smacked with it for real.
Oddly, there is not a direct liaison between the concepts of antichrist and the Beast in the Bible. The Beast (who is to come in three forms, thus giving us three antichrists) appears in Revelations (y'know, the part of your Bible you don't tell your kids about, because no amount of Christmas presents and Easter chocaolates are going to calm them after reading it as truth). However, the antichrist only appears sparingly in the books of John.
So . . . hard to say.
The Nostradamans are limping a little -- and are also the source of lot of what we take as doctrine that is not; indeed Nostradmus himself, is a pretty good antichrist candidate under John the Baptist's criteria.
Nostradamus gives us Aug 11, 1999 for the appearance of the next antichrist. However, a few skewers of the timeline will say that given the change over from whatever calender to whatever calander that this becomes Sept 11, 2001, and therefore Osama bin Laden is an antichrist. The Nostradamus prediction does make mention of things from the sky . . .
So, try to figure out what the hell all of that has to do with anything.
The antichrist does seem to have a few clear criteria:
1. He will successfully build or rebuild an empire.
2. He will develop a new religion, to dissuade people from Christ.
3. His coming will either slightly preceeed, or else mark, the Rapture.
I dunno. I don't have a high opinion of this sort of thing. Seems a little odd that the Bible should spell things out (Ten Commandments) on the easy stuff, then get all mystic about the hard stuff!
Most of the antichrist myth is actually developed post-scripture, therefore has to be treated as heresy.
Of course, I'm not a Christian.
And, because I like subtle tricks, I'm placing a 99-1 bet on the current Dalai Lama as the antichrist. He is unusually happy, even for a Buddhist. The kind of happiness that . . . only the Devil can give a man . . .
We can't stop here! This is bat country!
