The Man Of Lawlessness

In the context of describing prerequisites to the eschatological "day of the Lord," Paul makes it clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 that a "man of lawlessness" will first appear and set himself up against God and the moral values rooted in God's nature.  This is not the only time the New Testament mentions such a person.  The title man of lawlessness is not the most commonly recognized one, but this matches the figure termed the antichrist that John predicts in multiple books.  Revelation, in actuality, is not the first one that refers to this abomination of a being, and it does not call him by his most popular name.

1 John 2:18 clearly references a supreme, singular antichrist to come even as it acknowledges that there have been many antichrists already as early as the first century AD.  Just as 2 Thessalonians 2 plainly promises a specific "man of lawlessness" who would at least in his disregard for God, morality, and Christ parallel the singular antichrist, 1 John 2, like Revelation 13 by the same apostle, predicts a specific being who would stand against God.  An eventual antichrist is a blatant part of Biblical doctrine and eschatology.  In a rush to identify a person they will likely never see, some forget that there are many antichrists; focusing on how there are many antichrists, some trivialize the eschatological role of the ultimate antichrist who has not yet reigned.

As for John's description of what makes someone a general antichrist, 1 John 2:22 states that denying that Jesus is the Christ is what grants someone this status.  Rationalistic skepticism of Christ's divinity, it is vital to realize, is not denial of it as a genuine logical possibility.  This is a rational uncertainty due to the inability of humans to know anything beyond logical possibilities or perception-based evidences in some cases--even as it is absolutely knowable that no unknown truth can contradict logical axioms and other necessary truths.  Coming to Christ does not require the irrationality of believing that one can know if one's memories, sensory perceptions, and other such subjective perceptions of fallible evidences are accurate.  It only requires a devotion to reason, acknowledgment of the historical and other evidences for Christianity, and a sincere repentance and commitment to the logical possibilities the evidence points to.

What Paul calls the man of lawlessness would deny this outright or would not care.  He certainly appears to be synonymous with the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13, for both are said to be defeated by Christ upon his return (2 Thessalonians 2:8, Revelation 19:11-20).  Paul's title for him reveals key characteristics on its own, though.  To ignore or actively violate the moral obligations revealed in Yahweh's laws is to be lawless in the Biblical sense (see 1 John 3:4, though this verse is not necessary to logically prove the necessity of such a thing).  The idea of lawlessness here has nothing to do with trampling on or mocking the meaningless, asinine social constructs of mere humans who think that their preferences are anything more than just that.  Human conventions and desires are not moral obligations, just things that non-rationalists cling to in their delusions.  

This man of lawlessness betrays reason, justice, and the God who grounds justice (reason is true in itself, apart from contingent things grounded in God).  The man of lawlessness that Paul speaks of was and is a future figure, as the world we see is not New Jerusalem after the Second Coming by any means, yet, as John touches upon, this individual would have things in common with other lesser antichrists who have been in the world since the very lifetime of Jesus.  The antichrist has yet to come.  As that time draws nearer, though it may be many millennia away, one can already see examples of forerunners that reflect some of the same egoistic, antichrist beliefs or intentions.