Manifesting the 'Man of Sin'

I proffer this study to deny a common conception that a Roman Pontiff -- past or current -- is the Antichrist.

I also depart from the position advocated by an extreme minority -- known as the modern sedevacantists -- that since about the year 1958 any person chairing the seat of Peter in Rome is antipope.

Is it possible to discover the identity of the Antichrist?

The answer is, No. Not by human means.

Here is why, as found in the following verse:

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”. Matthew 11:27.

Anyone familiar with my study of Matthew 11 “ART THOU HE THAT SHOULD COME, OR DO WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER?” (posted on this site) will recognize that the mystical Son in this verse is the same person identified by title as “The Other” (when properly translated) in verse 3 and also “The Least in the Kingdom” in verse 11. (The reader will have to accept on faith my claim that the Antichrist is the same person as “The Other” in Matthew 11. I will proffer biblical proofs for this assertion in forthcoming studies.)

For those who haven’t yet read that study, I’ll summarize it as follows: In the course of an interview with two disciples of John the Baptist, Jesus disclosed and affirmed His belief in a Second Jewish Messiah. To us, this truth has been suppressed in a mistranslation. That God designed that it remain hidden until the proper time is implied in verse 25. This messiah is given the titles “The Other” and “The Least in the Kingdom”.

Matthew 11 is not the only place in the New Testament where the Second Messiah is referred to as “The Other”. In later studies, I’ll discuss this. Of course, I address this and kindred themes in depth in my forthcoming book Dark Messiah: The Coming of the Antichrist.

What did Jesus mean by His comments in Matthew 11:27?

Firstly, what Jesus is about to say was delivered to Him -- that is, reported or told -- by the Father. The stunning disclosure that Jesus would have a sibling bears the imprimatur of God Himself! Whereas John the Baptist spoke plainly about “The Other”, thus, in effect, removing the veil from a mystery, Jesus chose to speak in figures, such as His works, and the mystic title “The Least in the Kingdom”, thus re-veiling the truth about “The Other” in a renewed, though now semi-, mystery.

Secondly, when discussing the Son in Matthew 11:27, Jesus could not be speaking about Himself. Such an interpretation would interfere with the flow of the argument in the rest of the chapter. He is referring to “The Other”, the One yet to come, whose coming is after the manner expected by John the Baptist: “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire”. Matthew 3:11, 12.

Thirdly, this “Other” Son would have important things to teach people about the Father – things hereunto unknown.

Fourthly, this “Other” Son and the Father have a unique and MUTUAL relationship. “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth [epiginosko] the Son [including his name], but the Father; neither knoweth [epiginosko] any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal [apokalupto] him”. Matthew 11:27. One might surely anticipate that the divine Father would possess a unique knowledge of His human Son, but it is stunning that the Son is depicted as reciprocating the relationship toward the Father IN THE SAME MANNER as the Father toward the Son! Strong’s assigns the following meaning to epiginosko, “to become thoroughly acquainted with; to know accurately and well; to recognize by sight, hearing, of certain signs; to perceive who a person is; to find out, ascertain; and, to know by understanding”.

This “Other” Son evidently possesses a rare personal power of insight or perception. I believe Jesus elsewhere refers to this as the EYE single to the glory of God.

Our study of Matthew 11 confirms the meaning of a kindred passage in Second Thessalonians. Believers in Thessalonica had fallen prey to a deception about the timing of the Lord’s return. They mistakenly believed the Lord’s return to be imminent. Paul warned them that this was not so and assured them that certain signs must precede it, particularly a falling away of believers and the manifestation of the Man of Sin, the Antichrist:

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed [apokalupto], the son of perdition”. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

The Man of Sin is a well-known title of the Antichrist.

We have already previewed the nature of this revelation in Matthew 11:27. The Antichrist Son manifests himself. The manner of his Coming is as a self-revelation.

The roots of [apokalupto] convey the idea that what is revealed is what in fact -- as though with intent -- had been hidden, kept secret, or concealed that it may not become known.

What, then, hinders the Antichrist? Nothing except discovering the truth about himself and revealing it to the world.

"What, then, hinders the Antichrist? Nothing except discovering the truth about himself and revealing it to the world."

exactly.

the anti-christ i see more as destiny.
jesus more as fate.

jesus was the son of god. true that, and jesus had no choice but to love others. it was born in him. ...as the devil tempted him, jesus could have changed his destiny. he could not have been the savior of the world. he could have chose himself. (but i just wondered why would jesus love himself?) there was no himself...

alright, and the anti-christ the son of man... this is just what i get because i've given this a whole lot of thought a few months ago...when i realized the truth about the two, but yeah..
my feeling is that the anti-christ, or other son as you say, was/is/will be naturally drawn to only love self.
obviously, christ and anti christ are opposites, but it runs soo deep in their opposition.

..jesus, born of "god", was perfect, free of sin. it was not programmed into him. even more reason to say he was more fate. he had no choice but to die for what he was born for. to turn away would be ..sin. the worst, the only, not loving the lord with all his heart, nor loving another as ones self. and he could not sit.
fate has no room for destiny, but destiny can decide ones fate.
interesting. how's that for a one lined contradiction?

- anti christ, born of man, born into sin, had no choice in being a sinner.
..fate of the sinner..
according to jesus, the ten commandments were wiped out with him. they'd served their purpose is showing that no one could keep all ten. it's impossible for a born sinner. given for us to see we needed redemption, for the wages of sin is death. then jesus came, and set a new law, said love is the law.
god is love.

the anti-christ now has two choices to make. a, does he root around in his sinful nature, cover himself in it like a pig in mud, or does he strive for life, for cleanliness. does he strive for something better?
only if

ok. i guess he only has one choice.

whether or not he chooses to put others before himself. does he choose to follow gods law, or try and rise above it, go with his nature and only love himself...or love others for what it would do for himself.
satan (ha shatan, the opposer, the hurdle) "tempted" jesus (he atleast held the illusion he had the power to tempt the christ. born perfect, satan had no chance.)

and since the two are opposites is it kinda safe to say that therefor god would be left to tempt "the other"...

god is love.

and anti doesn't have to be negative/bad. just opposite. like matter and anti matter.. anniliate each other when they meet.

however christ and the other complete one another.

two spirals, opposite directions, coming together, forming a filled in circle.
just like on the standardized tests.. a cross through it just won't be accepted as an answered question. computer won't recognize it.

are our brains not like computers?

i run on free association and lines to connect my circles, vertex to my angels. vortex, spiraling in the center of my circle.

ok. so is the universe an ever expanding circular disk? vortex, spiraling in the center...would it spiral a different direction depending on which side it was being viewed from?
matter one side of the disk, anti-matter on the other.. like a double sided dvd. what keeps the laser from reading the other side, or matter not touching anti matter?

...satan is the buffer, keeping "god"/us (we are god..god is all) from anniliation? there's a thin line between love and hate, and than line is satan..the opposer.

love is the only truth.

or love is the buffer... and it's all relative, my dear.. self love or selfless love? love opposes love.

contradiction is the only truth.

balance between two opposites.
nothing cannot be without everything.
and the two are equal.

where jesus was only one man, is the anti-christ not all of us? there is no middle ground between sin and no sin, perfection and imperfection.. or there is, but you can't draw a line to show people. is religion not that line?


and was lucifer not a fallen angel, who thought better of himself than "god"..who chose himself over god (selfless love), basically?
when there was never a better or a worse. when there was nothing at all except what was. what is, is. can't get any more true than that. as i am what i am.. and i will be what i will be.
i will be what i will to be.


to be or not to be. that is the question.

(love reign over me just came on the radio. love it. so perfect.)

[edit on 14-5-2007 by hollyjo]