With all the conflicting messages about this subject, what's a body to do?
First, I wish to remind all here that only about two months ago, both zeke37 and zadok7000 refused to reveal their denominational ties. The only reason for such action that I can imagine would be that they are connected with a group that is not generally considered orthodox. It now appears that they have been joined by a third member of this mystery group. I most certainly judge several things each of them has posted as hetrodox.
But be that as it may, They stick fast to their theory that most Christians will be deceived by the Antichrist. If you define a Christian simply as someone who says they are a Christian, I agree with them. But if you define a Christian as someone who is a real Christian, as opposed to just professing the name, they could not be more wrong. They correctly point out that all but the elect will be deceived. (Matthew 24:24) But the Greek word transliterated elect is eklektos. Romans 8:33, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1-2, 1 Peter 2:9, and Revelation 17:14 all show that in the Bible this term refers to all who have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, all true Christians.
There can be no question that Jen is correct in pointing out that in Revelation 13, we see two distinct beasts rise up. The first one we recognize as the Roman power because it has seven heads and ten horns. But the two z's, as garry2 calls them are correct in pointing out that the second one has two horns like a lamb (Remember the lamb of God?) but speaks like a dragon. (Remember that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan?) So we recognize the second beast as the Antichrist, or the false Christ.
Jen correctly points out that the worthless shepherd is wounded in the eye and in the arm, but has missed several details about him. First, he is raised up "in the land." He is worthless because he "leaves the flock." (Zechariah 11:17) We see this again in the missing shepherd of Zechariah 10:2, in the missing king of Micah 4:9, and the fainthearted king of Jeremiah 4:9. Thus we see that this worthless shepherd is in the land of Judea, which is now (incorrectly, as far as Biblical terms go) called Israel.
But this is not the only detail Jen missed. (I say Jen because she is the one who pointed it out here, not because it is her mistake. This is a very common misconception. Actually, I admire Jen greatly, both as to her ideas and her attitude.) She equates the beast's deadly wound with the worthless shepherd's wounds. But there are two problems with this idea. First, a wound in the eye and one in the arm are not deadly wounds. There would be nothing remarkable about such wounds being healed. And second, we are specifically told that the worthless shepherd's wounds will not be healed. His arm shall completely wither and his eye shall be totally blinded.
But these details only confirm Jen's general thesis, that these two beasts are two distinct individuals. The Roman one is plainly the one elsewhere called "the Beast." But the other one is the Antichrist, and is the Jewish ruler, the false Messiah, who reigns in Israel.
One of the two z's thought garry2 was splitting hairs when he said that the Antichrist will say he is God, but will not say he is Jesus. But this is not splitting hairs. If he said he was Jesus returned, he would be recognizing Jesus as the true Messiah. This he will not do. He will maintain the current Jewish lie that Jesus was an imposter. He will claim to be the true Messiah, as opposed to Jesus, who he will claim was a false Messiah. We see this in Jesus' words in John
5:43, I am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
We see this also in Isaiah 57:7Upon a lofty and high mountain hast thou set thy bed: even thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice. 8Behind the doors also and the posts hast thou set up thy remembrance: for thou hast discovered thyself to another than me, and art gone up; thou hast enlarged thy bed, and made thee a covenant with them; thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it. 9And thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell.
Here the Lord accuses Israel of adultery in going up to the bed of "the king." That is, the false king of Israel, the Antichrist.
(And of course, the fact that I say it makes it correct. Right?)