How could a King of Babylon be a Jewish Messiah?
Do you really think the king of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28 is talking about the literal king of Tyrus?
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Contrary to common popular assumption The Man of Sin will NOT claim to be The Jewish Messiah, certainly not The Messiah as in Messiah Ben-David0
Did John F. Kennedy, when he was serving on PT109, claim to be the president of the United States?
The Antichrist goes through a series of stages during his career. He is not the little horn, the prince who shall come, the revealed man of sin, the beast - all simutaneously.
This false belief goes back far, it was almost universally believed by the Early Church Fathers. But the Church Father had many problems, even Ireanus and Hipolytus who are correct in much of what they said on Eschatology. One of those key problems was Anti-Semitism, which began to emerge in Christianity following the bar Kochba revolt, when Bar Kochba persecuted many Christians for refusing to follow him. This resentment toward the False Messiah Bar Kochba probably influenced their desire to see the "Antichrist" as a Jewish Messiah.
So, are you saying back before the church became more gentiles in it, that it was common knowledge that antichrist shall come - was a specific person who the Jews would embrace as their King of Israel, son of David, messiah ?
And since then the church no longer connected to the Jewish understanding of the messiah, and began to believe during the reformation that the office of the Pope is the Antichrist and the Pope himself the false prophet?
And now adays, not knowing what messiah actually means, nor what
"the" messiah means bibically, them growing up in a far removed knowledge of what the disicples and everyone else at the times knew about the messiah, comes up with things like the Mahdi is the Anti-messiah.
Hey, wait a minute! That sounds like you.....
The Biblical passages they backed this up with were mostly stuff about Dan. Dan however was foretold by Moses to "lap form Bashan" in Deuteronomy 32. And Ezekiel 27:19 "Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market." links Dan with Javan. Dan became the Danoi/Danaans of ancient Greece. The rulers of both Sparta and Macedon descended from Andromeda of Joppa/Jaffa.
I haven't been using any of those verses. So why bring it up? I challenge you to find one, either historic or current day commentator, well known, like Jack Van Impe, Chuck Missler, Joel Richardson (your Mahdi guru), or even a preterist - who identifies confirming the covenant with Moses law set forth in Deuteronomy 31:10-11, concerning the 7 year cycle, the commemorative reading.
First of all, he will be a Gentile.
"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." Using Scripture to interpret Scripture (everything in Revelation comes from earlier in The Bible) "The sea" represents the gentile Nations.
The Antichrist will not be a Gentile. He must be a Jew. He is a Jew who will come out of the Gentile nations. Are there Jews in Europe, in your opinion?
The false prophet will be a Jew as well. But will emerge from Israel.
Daniel 11:37 "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers" is the only Hebrew Bible passage used to support a Jewish Antichrist theory.
Besides being wrong, which I gave you passages in Isaiah 14 as one source of him being a Jew, disdained by God, for destroying his land and his people, and being likened to the abominable branch, if you find Daniel 11:37 to support him being a Jew...
how many passages do you need?
Everywhere else it's pretty obvious Daniel and Isaiah others see him as an enemy of Israel.
Apparently, you are not listening. He doesn't become the enemy of Israel until the latter stages of his career. In 2thessalonians2, he is called the son of perdition, because like Judas, he is entered into by Satan to carry out the act, of betraying his own people.
First off, is the "God of his fathers" in question is indeed the Biblical God, that could equally mean Christian.
No, because each person becomes a Christian on their own accord, not by blood descent from their father.
And this is part of his description form the beginning of his career, even at the end of Chapter 11 the Abomination of Desolation hasn't happened yet. He's worshiping a "strange god" (strange here simply means foreign/pagan in the Hebrew). So no, this chapter proves he's not Jewish, certainly not be faith, publicly or privately.
The Antichrist does not appear in Daniel 11, until verse 36. Because he is claiming to be greater than any god, and opposes God Almighty, the Antichrist in verse 36 is in the beast stage of his career - which is the last stage.
In the Antichrist-beast's view of gods, because Satan from square 1 in the garden tried to convince Adam and Eve that they would be like God, implying gods themselves, the Antichrist will view a structured tier of gods.
But the Antichrist-beast will be greater than them all, he will claim.
The real basis for claiming a false Jewish Messiah is John 5:43. "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive..
First off he said "if" it's more hypothetical and not a definitive statement of anything happening, and so that makes it hard to build eschatological doctrine on.
I gave you the verse of Jesus being recognized as the messiah riding into Jerusalem, as coming in the name of the Lord. The Antichrist is not going to be coming as the one God sent to be the King of Israel, son of David, messiah. The Antichrist spurred by his enormous ego will fancy himself in that role. In Judaism, they teach that any Jew has the potential to be the messiah.
Receive does no necessarily have to mean as a Messiah, could just refer to them receiving him as an ally when the peace agreement he'll later break is made.
There is no peace treaty in bible prophecy.
That is a long popularized notion, because none of the commentators as I have challenged you to find one - who were/are aware of Deuteronomy 31:10-11; so therefore the commentators based on two passage (1) in Daniel 8 that he the King of fierce countenance will destroy many by peace (2) in 1thess5, when they say peace and safety, sudden destruction will come upon them, came up with the idea that the covenant confirmed in Daniel 9:26-27 will be a peace treaty.
Because we know from a larger testimony of references that ultimately the Jews will reject the Man of Sin. Matthew 24, Revelation 12 when the woman flees to the Wilderness. That's why Yeshua returns first to Edom in Isaiah 63. I'm inclined to reject seeing this passage as about The Beast at all, but rather about Simon Bar Kokhba, the revolt which lead to the Diaspora.
sigh.... you first need to go to that opening post I made on the Antichrist - the rise and fall. Then after you get that fixed in your mind, start a study on the crowns on the heads and horns in Revelation 12, 13, 17.
They are different in each of those chapters because those tell the status of the beast with 42 months to go (Chapter 13), 7 years to go (Chapter 12), and first century (Chapter 13).
From that you would know that Revelation 12:6 is the first half of the seven years, and not sometime when Simon Bar Kokhba was around.
Hey, I have studied this material for over 40 years and have prayed to God that he would open the understanding thereof. I am 65. You are a beginner, a student in college according to your profile. You are doing pretty good - even if you are off by a long shot...
We should not build any doctrine abut The Beast on Yeshua's statement in the Olivite Discourse about there being many "False Christ" who will "come in my name". Because those are what Chuck Missler likes to call the "non signs" they went on back then and their already happening again now.
The Antichrist is not simply a false christs. He is the one specific person who will become the illicit King of Israel, son of David messiah - someone to actually take that office for a short while. No-one has ever done that.
For one thing, Israel the unified nation has not existed since the time of Solomon, for anyone to be King of Israel.
What the term "Antichrist" itself means is a factor. I keep seeing scholars say it can mean "in-place of Christ" and thus be effective a synonym for Pseudochrist (False Christ). But this doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Strongs says it means "the adversary of the Messiah".
Of course the Antichrist is the adversary of Jesus, the true messiah. He has to be in order to think of himself in that role.
At any rate only one of the four verses where John used this word in his first and second epistles had The Antichrist in mind, 2:18. I've often wondered if the term should in fact apply to The Second Beast rather then the first, but that's incidental.
The one you need to focus in on is where it says - "you have heard antichrist shall come". Where would they have already heard that if not what Jesus said to Nicodemus?
1John2:
18 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.