No one knows for sure, but the Bible's interpretation is that he will be a charismatic leader that everyone willingly follow him into the 'last battle' between good and evil.
Answer
The Bible does not specifically name the Antichrist but it does give us a methodology to identify him. The methodology requires an ability to transliterate his name into Hebrew and count the value of the Hebrew transliteration. In Hebrew, Aleph equals 1, Beit equals 2, Tet equals 9, Yod equals 10, Kaf 20, Resh 200, Shin 300 and Tav 400. A Hebrew dictionary gives the full list. The Antichrist's name, presumably first name and surname, must equal 666. Since names range in value from about 100 at the minimum to well over 1000 as a name like Timothy. R. Thomas might be, there could only be one chance in about 1200 or 1300 that a name could add to precisely 666. A nowadays common name in modern Israel, "Ronit", a female name, adds to 666 but a woman does not count in this issue and the antichrist has to be Roman not Israeli. There is no precise science in transliteration here. More than likely, the guide to spelling the antichrist's name in Hebrew will depend on etymology of names in Hebrew in the Bible. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, this can be done.
As noted, the Bible also makes it clear that The Antichrist must be Roman. That is because Daniel 9:24-27 requires this. Most people misread these verses. The syntax of the original language of the text requires that the 'he' of verse 27 refers to the "prince that shall come" of verse 26. So neither a Chinese, African, Asian, Polynesian, native American nor any other aboriginal group can provide The Antichrist. Probably only about 1 billion people at most count as "Roman". Half of them are women! As noted below, definite articles, indefinite articles, and as above pronouns, have to be handled carefully when reading ancient texts in languages like Hebrew, Chaldean etc.
The next stage of the methodology is more of an art than precise requirement. Nevertheless it will be quite analytical because one will need a very good knowledge of the Bible and its references to the Life of Jesus The Christ, the true Messiah of Israel. The Antichrist's life and rise to power will imitate, mimic, closely resemble and/or counterfeit Jesus' own path. This probably has to be the case so that people will be more easily deceived. However, without a good grasp of Jesus' early history, most people will not realise where the deceptions lie. Firstly, The Antichrist will be conceived in a way that is unusual, like Jesus. If God through the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive as the Scriptures tell us, Satan will attempt to conceive his counterfeit. There is a debate whether Satan will do this by direct consummation with a woman or by use of In Vitro Fertilisation using The Human Genome Project that in theory can generate a template of perfect genes to code into a woman's egg. The former seems simpler and more obvious but the latter might be the raison d'etre for modern genetic research.
Since a candidate for the antichrist has arisen and we know who his mother is, and who she might have conceived children with, direct intercourse between Satan and a woman seems even more likely now. Many women have no idea whom they have conceived children by. In this case, the mother has discussed in public an unusual event in her life that observers might identify with Satan and one of the descriptions of him in the Bible. In any event, one might say that in both Jesus' own case and with this current candidate, there will be doubt, mystery or something unique surrounding the circumstances of the child's conception.
Our candidate's mother later married another man. Before she met her current husband, she had already named her son. This is the same pattern with Mary and Joseph. The nature of this potential-antichrist's first name gives us a very strong clue regarding the ancient ethnicity of his forefathers. It's a classic Roman imperial family name. It used to be a typical Roman custom to name a child in that manner. The etymology of the name of this woman's husband, the child's step-father, is interesting because his name can be read "king of kings" or "king and king" in the old languages of the Eastern and Western Roman empires. Since we now realise that the Trojans who founded Rome after the defeat of Troy, were probably Chaldeans or Galatians, also named Celts, Chaldi, and Kurds and Hittites, depending on the language and ethnicity of the nations that talked about them, we can say that 'Rome' today extends west from Iraq to California or Vancouver. This is a very wide catchment for the Antichrist to come from but it is an important factor in limiting information so that his identity can be discerned before his rise to power and indeed several years before even he realises who he is chosen to be - Satan's only begotten Son. This also explains why a 'Roman' Antichrist might want to return his kingdom to Babylon (Southern Iraq). Rome was founded by Chaldeo-Babylonian refugees from Troy. That narrows the choices down to a particular city, as does actually happen with the origin of this candidate's mother.
Thus, to have a child with a classic Roman imperial family name for a first name plus a surname meaning "king of kings", or "king and king", then being able to transliterate this into Hebrew and arrive at a number of 666 is "statistically unusual" and that is an understatement.
There are other clues. Satan eventually corners Israel in Petra in Jordan, the ancient capital of the Edomites. Edom, although not all Edomites for some were good men (Jethro, father-in-law to Moses), has always wanted to destroy Israel. Edom's descendants in various refugee camps in the Middle East are trying to do this now. Our candidate for The Antichrist, taken by his mother and step-father, has already visited Petra. There may not be any significance in that. We may have mis-identified this person because the spelling of his name may not be absolutely correct in transliteration into Hebrew. It is quite likely that until he signs his name on some sort of official document, which may not be until he signs the Seven-Year Covenant with Israel, we will not be absolutely certain how to transliterate his name into Hebrew. For example, if he decides to adopt the surname of the man whom his mother has identified as his father, his (full) name comes nowhere near 666. It only gets exceedingly close to 666 when his first name, we dare not call it his 'christian' name, and step-father's name are used together. It may also depend on whether he uses a middle initial as many names do. He may not need to add a middle initial but there may be one or two reasons he desires to. His first- and sur-names are sufficient and together they make up a truly classical name with much, or even rich, meaning along the lines of "Majesty - king of kings". The letter 'a' or aleph in Hebrew has the value of 1 and vowels (such as 'ae' which may count as '2') may be added to enrich the name or make pronunciation more distinct or precise. Thus we depend finally on a signed name on an official document to be sure we have identified The Antichrist.
So the precise sequence of letters in his name will be very important. However, before that can be formally confirmed, we may well see various moves made on this person's behalf, or that he himself makes, that will eventually propel him to the position of world leader. Knowing in advance who he is will help us to monitor his progress and report on it. Mr Tony Blair, who is not the Antichrist, although he is a servant of the leading candidate for Antichrist's false prophet (The Pope), is anxious to be the first elected President of "Europe", whatever that means or will mean in the next few years. So, as we observe the current step-father of this candidate for the Antichrist, we may get more clues as time goes on especially if the step-father takes on a new or other significant role. If Jesus' life is to be paralleled, we may see much less or even nothing of the step-father as time goes on. The step-father may even die relatively early in the process like Joseph, Jesus' step-father, seems to have done. If the Antichrist takes on the mantle of an Alexander of Macedon, he may even be involved in the removal of his step-father.
So 'how The Antichrist will come to be' is a good question that we can now answer to quite a significant extent. We now have someone whose name equals 666 when that is really a very difficult thing to effect. The number of his name is not the only factor that is of interest at the moment. We would be surprised if the mother of this candidate named her son so that his first name, added to her future husband's surname, unknown to her at the time of the birth of her child, would then give a full name that equalled 666. The circumstances that we know of from many published reports and official documents mean that this is either a very unusual quirk of statistics or far more powerful forces than mere men and women are at work here. Let's be practical and fair. It may simply be a statistical oddity, freak (quirk). Otherwise, the Materialists will be silenced by these developments. The Eastern philosophies of India, China, Tibet, Persia etc., which do away with a god, will likewise be silenced. In fact it makes much sense of the Pope's and Dalai Llama's frequent discussions regarding unity around a cosmic force one group will name 'God' and the other 'Nirvana'.
Addendum to above from a different reviewer:
"He will come from a present day country that is within the boundries of BOTH the old Roman Empire, and the Grecian empire that Alexander the great built."
Comment on the above addendum:
Yes, the surname in particular reflects that point. The meaning "king of kings" that can be derived from the surname, reflects the languages of the above prescribed region(s). The contemporary names of those regions, and the titles of the rulers of those regions, were transliterated into the Hebrew Bible by the scribes. That process in turn gives us the precedents to know which Hebrew letter to use for the calculation. If the current candidate turns out not to be the Antichrist the exercise nevertheless crystallizes the methodology we need to identify the eventual candidate.
A Biblical Perspective:Antichrist will NOT "come to be." Antichrist already IS.The term "antichrist" appears in the Bible only four times. It is used exclusively by the apostle John in his New Testament epistles, and contrary to uninformed (read: popular) opinion, it does not appear in the book of Revelation.
Here are the only passages containing a mention of antichrist:
1 John 2:18, 19 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
These verses reveal the following:
1) Antichrist is not one individual; there are many.
2) Antichrist is not a person; it is a spirit of false teaching.
3) Antichrist is not "yet to come;" it was "already in the world" as John wrote.
4) Antichrist "went out from us;" it is a departure from the truth.
5) Antichrist has a specific agenda: to deceive.
6) Antichrist denies the Father and the Son.
7) Antichrist denies that Jesus came in the flesh (true of Gnosticism in John's day, and numerous false teachings since)
There is a specific reason for much of the confusion about "antichrist:" some more modern Bible translations (NKJV, NIV) personify, or individualize, the concept of "antichrist" by placing the word "the" before its first mention in 1 John 2:18, which is absent in the King James translation. The New King James in particular compounds the error by capitalizing "Antichrist."
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
The NIV also adds the word "the," but does not capitalize "antichrist."
Now here's the original King James translation:
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
No "the," small "a." In this regard, the NASB is also accurate:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.
This is what Scripture says of "antichrist." Beyond this lurks fanciful speculation.
Another Biblical Perspective
Other terms like "Rapture" or "Trinity" ("Triunity") do not appear in the Bible either but that does not negate their reality. In Isaiah 48:12 and 16, someone calling himself "The First and the Last" and "Creator" in verse 12, also says "God and His Spirit sent Me" in verse 16. Obviously this is as close as the Old Testament comes to referring to what we might label "The Triunity". Actually, this person in Isaiah is perhaps an even more specific statement on the Triunity (or Trinity perhaps) than anything in the New Testament.
So it is similar with "The Antichrist". Really, this person's identity begins with Genesis 3:15 not John's epistles. Satan will have a seed or offspring who will challenge Jesus. This will be "The Antichrist". One such challenge, before Satan actually sires (or sired) a human child, was when he sent demons into the world to mate with women in order to pollute humankind's procreation and to prevent a woman from giving birth to God. For example, the actual text of Eve's statement when she gave birth to Cain was "I have given birth to a man 'The Jehovah (God)' ". Of course Mary could say this when Yeshua-Jesus was born. Satan tried to stop that happening until the Flood of Noah's time intervened and saved four untainted women [Professor Sykes' Seven (or 'four'?) daughters of Eve perhaps?]
In Daniel, there is a person who speaks terrible things about God and even signs a covenant with Israel. Later, this person turns against Israel. About 130 verses in the Bible can be identified as referring to the Antichrist as an individual. In Revelation, this person spoken of in these 130 or so verses, is given a number via his name transliterated into Hebrew as referred to above. Certainly, he is not named "The Antichrist" in Revelationeven though he is obviously "antichrist". He is certainly not pro-Christ. However, unless one does acknowledge a person is spoken of in the Bible who will execute great powers not seen in any man so far (Jesus excepted) a lot of verses simply make no literal sense. Those who do not adopt such literalist options instead prefer to see words in the Bible in a spiritual, allegorical, metaphorical or typological context before any literal sense.
The problem referred to above concerning definite and indefinite articles, in particular regarding antichrist in John's writings, also occurs with that great title Jesus used for Himself: "The Son of Man". In the Old Testament sources for this title, it is not clear whether it should be translated into English from the Chaldean or Hebrew, depending on the Scripture used, as 'a' or 'the' Son of Man. It may even have been because of the imprecision of the term (or title) "Son of Man" in the Old Testament that Jesus' opponents realised they could not legally nail Him for blasphemy. That may have been why they wanted Him to "plainly" tell them He is "The Son of God". Likewise with "antichrist". There may be reasons for 'imprecision'. Taken within the context of a limited range of Scripture, such as two of John's epistles, one might come to the conclusion there is no specific individual antichrist in addition to the various antichrists (small 'a') that this world has seen e.g., Alexander the patricide, murderer and Slav/Serbian/Macedonian, Adolf Hitler the Austro-German and Pol Pot the Cambodian, etc. Anyway, it can be argued that the definite article should be in I John 2:18 but modern scholars of the Greek that is used in the New Testament are clearly divided on that issue. John speaks of many antichrists that have come and one that will come. The very fact of two tenses, one future and the other past, suggests a distinction between antichrist-types generally and one in particular with unique characteristics. However, that may well be an incorrect interpretation in itself and not what John meant. It is difficult to be dogmatic on this point. Therefore, one needs to move toward a wider basis for discussion. Perhaps that is not appropriate here or under this question.
However, it is worth noting one reasonably practical issue. John was not a Greek scholar and modern scholars are not necessarily that well versed in the language either. One might argue that the Queen Elizabeth I/King James translation team (late 16th/early 17th century UK) was better versed in ancient Greek, and Hebrew with assistance of cooperating Jewish Hebrew scholars of that day, than modern scholars. From the reconstruction of ancient Egyptian history, where the chronology of Egypt has been truncated from 26 dynasties between 2900 BC and 550 BC to about 8 between 2200 BC and 550 BC, including a 500 year period of anarchic conditions under the Amalekite-Hyksos (1500 - 1000 BC), we now understand "Greek" actually derived from what we might label a 'proto-Phoenician' lingua franca that dominated the Mediterranean region from circa 900-550 BC. That language had roots in Hebrew and 'Chaldean' and probably treated 'definite articles' in a similar fashion to its mother languages. Words such as Pathros("Botzrah" in Isaiah and Jeremiah), Shecinah-Skenoo(used by John in 1:14) later emerged in the Greek language of 300 BC onwards. Thus the "Greek" language probably inherited Patros and Skenoo from Hebrew via this putative 'proto-Phoenician'. The Assyrian, Chaldean and Persian advances from 750 to 300 BC, drove this 'proto-Phoenician' language out of Asia and Africa hence it became confined to the Greek Peloponnese where it emerged in the classical and other later forms after 500 BC. Thus, many understandings about Greek tenses and uses of definite articles etc., are now having to come under scrutiny as we try to figure out what the "Greek", or particular type of "Greek", might actually have meant when the New Testament writers used it. By and large there may not be many problems emerging from this. But Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the Hebrewsauthor, Peter, James and Jude may have used principles of grammar, depending on each writer's particular understanding, that we are no longer aware of. That is why it is far safer to do one's study of "The Antichrist" on a much broader scriptural basis covering the full range of books actually in the Bible and possibly as many as 130 entries or verses in those books.
Overall, one is much safer, even "wiser", to conclude there will be a particular "Antichrist" who is yet to come. World events are so out of control, ranging from nonsense about anthropogenic global warming (in contrast to actual global warming) to mishandling of monetary systems, that most commentators are now arguing for globalization of institutions. "The Antichrist" is the 'little horn' the Bible tells us will emerge through all this chaos.
Answer
Some manuscripts show "616" as the "number of his name". That came from a desire to label Caesar Nero as The Antichrist. That shows, if nothing else, that the early church was looking for a single person to fit the prophecies. However, "Nero Caesar" transliterated into Hebrew yields a value of just 616. So, in some quarters, they named him Neron Caesar so that by adding a letter 'n' or nun in Hebrew which has a value of fifty the sum of 666 could be reached. But that was a cheap corruption of Scripture and as most commentators say, only a small number of old manuscripts show this variation. The people then were not wrong to assume there would be such an individual, despite the comments of the writer above. Where some people erred was in trying to make a name fit and then to advertise that name. Above, it has been stated that there is indeed a name of a young person with a name meaning "Majesty - king of kings" alive right now and this name transliterated into Hebrew does come to 666. However, we will have to await some formal use of the name on a document of some sort. That will have to confirm the precise spelling of the name the child uses, or the name his mother and step-father adopt for him. Yeshua's parents named him according to angelic instruction. Yeshua-Jesus' surname 'of Nazareth' or 'Son of Joseph' was probably based on local custom. For Christians, the most important instruction is to be ready, waiting and watching. But that does not rule out keeping an eye open for any information that might just reveal who the Antichrist is before it becomes obvious to the world at large. There are too many verses in the whole Biblical text about some sort of evil world ruler to ignore the probability that there is One Particular Antichrist, One Particular Man (Roman). Yes, there have been lots of nasty antichrist types and the world is full of an antichrist spirit. But that does not rule out the candidacy for one particular 666!
No, the Antichrist is going to be a single person who woos everyone and leads them to a worldwide demise.
Obama is the Antichrist.
his song puke
No, they are not an Antichrist band.
No, the Antichrist is never specifically named. In the bible it does give you a description of what the Antichrist should look like and that is supposed to help you figure out who the Antichrist is.
The Antichrist, false teachers, false preachers, and false prophets
Antichrist Superstar was created in 1995.
The Antichrist - book - was created in 1895.
No. There are other forms. Here are just a few, taking the verb to arrive: I will arrive tomorrow. I shall arrive tomorrow. I am going to arrive tomorrow. I arrive tomorrow. I might arrive tomorrow.
It depends on where they were going.
The duration of Antichrist - film - is 1.72 hours.
google "church of satan" and call them^^