They will believe the Antichrist is the Messiah...
I feel that this level of confidence about something requires some kind of basis, in this case, a basis in revelation, aka Scripture.
Otherwise it's just an opinion, and I see no reason why such an opinion should be regarded as having much weight.
1) I'm not convinced that there is sufficient biblical support for the idea of there being a definitive, end-of-the-world figure known as "The Antichrist". The idea behind this idea tends to be the result of cobbling together several pieces of information, but wherein the relevant texts don't really suggest themselves a relationship between them.
a) The only use of the word "antichrist" comes to us from the Johanine epistles, primarily the first. And here the antichrist(s) refer to heretics who had once been present within the apostolic/Christian communities but which were never of them, for they preach heresy. The type of heresy in question can easily be identified in the text as referring to proto-Gnostic beliefs, namely Donatism and Cerinthianism. The spirit of antichrist is the spirit of heresy which denies the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith in regard to Jesus Christ as the Incarnate God-Man.
b) The vague figure which St. Paul speaks about in 2 Thessalonians, the "man of sin" is also frequently used to speak of this future Antichrist, but the text itself is difficult to parse--and so debate over what St. Paul speaks of here has been continuous throughout the history of the Church with many diverse opinions. In particular the Apostle here speaks of that which restrains needed to be taken away, the ancient opinion most common in Christian antiquity has this referring to the Roman Empire. That the Roman Empire was a restraining force curbing against lawlessness. Which is one of the reasons, of course, why when Rome was invaded and taken over by the barbarians in the 5th century, and the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, many Christians were of the opinion that this was the end of the world. Of course these things happened, the world didn't end, and Western Europe continued on generally just fine. The barbarians converted to Christianity, and in the place of old Rome stood new kingdoms of the Franks, Lombards, Visigoths---and eventually France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. And opinions over this text have continued to be diverse without there being much in terms of a general consensus within the Church. Is the "man of sin", the "lawless one" an end times antichrist? Maybe. Or maybe it's an historical figure. Is the falling away Paul speaks of something that happens near the end, or does he refer to those who lapse during persecution, such as happened under Diocletian?
c) The Beast of Revelation 13 is another popular figure that is often used to speak of a final antichrist, though in the context of the Revelation itself it is almost certainly a reference to Emperor Nero and the imperial power structure of Rome itself; though again opinions are divided in Church history on this matter as well.
d) The last major figure often looked to is the "king of the north" mentioned a few times in Daniel, though the case of the historicity of this is the strongest of any of the text here; as these references are almost absolutely certain as being about the Syrian Wars between the Diodochi, specifically the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. These conflicts eventually saw the land of Judea pass from Ptolemaic control (in which the Jews had largely been left alone to practice their religion) to Seleucid control under the tyranny of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the tyrant who committed abomination that causes desolation by having swine sacrificed to an image of Zeus in the Holy of Holies, who forbade the Jews to practice their religion, forbade them from circumcision, from observing the Sabbath, and their Holy Days--forcing them to Hellenize. This abomination and tyranny is what ultimately led to the Maccabean Revolt, and against all odds the Jews won their freedom and independence, at least for a time until the Romans conquered them during the campaign of General Pompeii.
2) Even granting that there will be a final end-of-the-world capital 'A' Antichrist, I don't see how one can make a biblically based argument that Jews and Muslims are just going to completely abandon their religious beliefs so easily as to promote this new person as the messiah.
Given these things, I simply don't see a very good argument being made here. Just opinion, and while opinion is fine. I don't think opinion should be treated as though it were dogma. Moreso, we should consider the ramifications of our opinions: Do such opinions ultimately harm our service to our neighbor? And in this case it really seems like Jews and Muslims are being treated less as persons, and more as objects. It is dehumanizing to ignore that people are individuals, and that they have beliefs, opinions, convictions, and ideas of their own--they aren't monolithic objects that simply exist as props in the stories we tell to one another. And the idea that Jews and Muslims will simply give up being Jewish and Muslim in order to follow after the Antichrist as the messiah is, frankly, a dehumanizing opinion that ignores that these are very real human beings, with real feelings, real convictions, they practice their respective religions seriously. They aren't props, they are people.
-CryptoLutheran
