• What exactly are the requirements to say "I am the Christ"?
• How is this different from someone saying "I am not the Christ"?

Years ago, in college, when my class was about the get car privileges for senior year, we had to go through some car safety training. In the introduction, the local policeman doing the training made the statement, "I could tell you how to commit the perfect crime" but then deferred, leaving us thinking.

Think about it. What would be a candidate for the "perfect crime" (in a general sense)? I thought about it though and come to the following conclusion. The "perfect crime" would be a crime that the one on whom the crime was committed (or oneself, reflexively) did not even know that a crime had been committed.

Discussion question: What are some perfect crimes that you have encountered (not realizing it until much later)?

A con artist or con job is a "confidence" job whereby the perpetrator gets the confidfience of a person and then uses it to their own advantage.

Discussion question: Does this ever happen in a church? This is, the person you thought was a "sheep dog" turned out to be a "wolf dog".

More: Sheep dogs and wolf dogs

In general, deception is harder than the truth since there are many more ways to do deception than the truth.

Consider computer science, software engineering and programming. (The following is in simple terms. Reality gets more involved.) In two-valued logic, as used to program computers, , 0 is (usually) taken as false and 1 as true. That is, integers are used (behind the scenes) to represent 2-valued Boolean values.

An error code is often returned from a called function to indicate what when wrong. Students often want to return true as 1 for everything went ok and false as 0 to represent an error.

However, in a functional sense, there is only one way for everything to have gone ok. There are a countable infinite (in theory) ways for something to go wrong. The larger the system, the more ways there are to go wrong. Thus, error codes are often represented using 0 for everything went ok and values 1, 2, 3, and so on, are used to represent both that something went wrong and the number code of the error that happened.

Thus, with false teaching, false Christs, etc., there are many more ways for things to be deceiving than there are ways for everything to be ok.

And deception is often done not with false facts or false rules but by omitting facts or rules and letting people then believe what they want to believe.

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.

This is easier said in theory than done in practice. Thus, deception can be hard to detect in practice, especially if the one deceived is ignorant (does not care) and/or apathetic (does not care).

Note that in software engineering terms, it is impossible to test the simplest of software programs to show it is correct. That is, that it has the correct output and no errors. One of the first demonstrative proofs was by Dijkstra (1972).

In some cases, one can prove (using logic, axiomatic proof rules, etc.) that a program is correct. But one cannot test programs to find (all of the) errors and that it is correct.

Details are left as a future topic.

Deception in action is similar between military operations, a salesperson making a (dubious) sale, and false teachers or false Christs in a church setting.

One waits for the person to make their decision and not interrupt them during the "perfect crime" is committed. At least until the Monday morning quarterbacks get into the action.

In false teaching terms, the mistake of the opponent is not recognizing the deception as that opponent is "offended". That is, ensnared and caught in the trap.

More: Matthew 11:6: Idiomatic misinterpretations that offend

.

More: A snare laced by a lasso string

Here are the relevant verses in Matthew regarding deception and false Christs.

For completeness, near the end of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, after tribulation, etc., Jesus talks again of false Christs.

Are these false Christs the same false Christs as in verses 4-5. Might they be special false Christs with power to do real miracles, etc.?

Details are left as a future topic.

Let us assume that the false Christs in verses 4-5 are more general and less powerful false Christs than those in verses 22-25.

Mark essentially repeats what is in Matthew 24:4-5.

Luke, as usual, takes a more literal (and less abstract) view of the same passage.

Instead of "deceive" Luke adds to "not go after them" which would appear to mean "do not follow them".

The English word "fake" started about 1775 from British criminal slang for something that is made to appear clean when it is not.

It is related to the English word "feign" which is from the Middle English word "feynen" ≈ "feign" which is, through French, from the Latin word "fingere" ≈ "form, shape, invent". A cognate word from the Latin is the English word "fiction" .

The common meaning is that of a false appearance leading to a false perception. That is, deception. The English word "fake" is related to the German word "fegen" ≈ "sweep, polish".

In sports, a "fake" is a move that makes the opponent do something which can be used to advantage (by the person doing the fake).

In the military, a "feign" is used for the same idea. Sports fans (and announcers) appear to prefer the simpler word that means the same thing.

The English word "counterfeit" comes through Norman French from the old French word "contrefait" ≈ "counterfeit".

In general, to recognize a counterfeit (e.g., currency), one should study the original so that one can recognize any differences.

Note that modern printing technology has made it hard for humans to recognize well-done (but not legally well-done) counterfeit currency. Might "IN GOD WE TRUST" on a United States dollar bill be a counterfeit statement? Discuss.

More: In God we Trust

A "fake" requires trust.

• Trust in someone else, as in a "false" Christ or a "fake" Christ.
• Trust in oneself - usually via ignorance (do not know) and/or apathy (do not care)

The meaning of "Christ" in Greek is "anointed one" and is used to translate the Hebrew word for "Messiah".

It appears that "false Christs" or "fake Christs" or those who feign to be "Christ" may be self-anointed as a "knock-off" of the real "Christ".

A "knock-off" is a product that is not the "authentic" product but something that looks somewhat like the original. The knock-off is usually of inferior quality and/or lower price. It is a "fake" or is it "authentic".

Example: Laundry detergent "Tids" in place of "Tide" using a similar color scheme and logo.

Suppose we consider a Rolex watch. A "knock-off" is a "fake" Rolex. The Rolex web site is at https://www.rolex.com.

• An imitation tries to look and feel like the real thing - usually at a much lower price
• An impersonation tries to both imitate the real thing and make you think (i.e., deceive) you into thinking that it is the real authentic thing.

This meaning of "knock-off" came from the idea that one would produce the work quickly from a previous meaning of stopping work for the day.

We are to imitate (Greek word "mimic") Christ but not impersonate Christ.


Is the impersonation of the real Christ what Jesus is talking about? If so, how might we identify such false or fake Christs?

The Greek word is "many" and not "few".

More: A feud about a little less

The English prefix "poly" as "many" comes from the ancient Greek word "πολύς" ≈ "many" and the ancient Greek prefix "πολύ" ≈ "many" is used often.

• How many were not saved through the flood? How few were saved? (as if by baptism)
• How many were not saved at Sodom and Gomorrah? How few were saved? (As if by fire)

• polynomial (many names)
• polymorphic (many forms)
• polymer

The Greek word is "many" and not "few". There must be a lot of fake Christs? How might one identify such a fake?

It is somewhat like the puzzle book called "Where's Waldo Now?", popular in the 1990's and after.

Finding Waldo is difficult when there is only one Waldo among many people in the scene. Finding Christ can be difficult too.

Consider the following employer-employee relationships.

• If the boss tells you to do something, you do it, or risk losing your job (or salvation).
• Someone says, "I am the boss, do this!".,Would you do it? You would ignore it if you know the authentic boss.
• Someone says, "The boss says to do this!". Would you do it? How would you know if the directive is from the boss?

Effectively, saying "The boss says to do this!" appears to be very similar if not the same as "I am the boss, do this!". That is, acting as an authorized agent of the boss.

Which appears to be the greater sin?

• Saying "I am Christ" and leading others astray.
• Saying "Christ says to do this" and leading others astray.

The organizational shape or hierarchy of Jesus is very short. There is no intermediate between you and Jesus.

More: Some shallow and yet deep ideas about organizational structure

The organizational shape or hierarchy of man can become very tall. There can be many intermediates between you and Jesus.

Any one of them can act to impersonate the boss, deceive by omitting facts, cherry-picking verses, filtering the massage, creating new messages, etc.

More: Exodus 18: Hierarchy as a man-made tree structure

Why is it important, as a teacher, to present a balanced (not unbiased) view so that listeners are aware of options and viewpoints - even those to which you might not agree?

Considering the above communication attacks. Which might a false Christ use?

• Man in the middle: change the message between source (Christ and the Bible) and destination (sheep)
• Impersonation or spoofing: make up one's own messages

Discuss.

A false Christ can be compared and contrasted with an "antichrist" in the general (and not specific) sense.

This brings us back to the original verses that motivated this content.


Discussion questions:

• Provide your definition of a "false Christ".
• Have you encountered any such "false Christs"? How did you know?
• Using your definition, could anything you have done qualify you as a "false Christ"?

It is not enough to understand. One needs to be able to teach or show someone else what you know or have learned.

Use Daniel in the Bible (or someone else) as an example. How would you convincingly demonstrate to someone else, such as a superior, that they are being deceived?

Details are left as a future topic.