The Antichrist's Revealing is more important then his Rise

 Beware of Antichrist Risers, by Alan Kurschner
In that article the Author expresses his concern with Bible teachers who get more fixated on how The Antichrist might rise then his key defining moment. I agree essentially.

I've written a lot of stuff here speculating on the subject of his potential

background and rise to power. But in my post about The Temple Paul refereed to I also make clear the folly of allegoriseing The Abomination of Desolation.

The coming Abomination of Desolation will be a unique event in History. Even what Antiochus Epiphanes did that served as a foreshadowing is not an identical event. The Man of Sin won't place an Idol in the Holy of Holies (at least he won't just do that)), he will stand there himself and proclaim himself to be God. In Matthew 24 I believe Jesus was using that phrase "Abomination of Desolation" as a title of The Man of Sin himself, when he does what Paul describes. Revelation 13 does refer to an Image of The Beast, but it interestingly isn't linked to any single location, even though The Temple was refereed to in chapter 11. Maybe it'll be there, maybe not, I'm prepared to be wrong on my current theory.

There are a lot of Biblical clues I feel to his possible background, and we ought to study them. The danger comes only if you're so caught up in your current theory about how he emerges that you'll deny the obvious when it happens if it doesn't fit your personal theory. I don't think any of the Bible teachers I'm generally a fan of are likely to let that happen. Any good Christian, even if he isn't a Futurist, will recognize that Abomination when they see it, no matter how much it's set up didn't match their expectations.

Or the other danger is if they've taken some allegorical interpretation that allows them to believe it's already happened when it really hasn't. It wouldn't surprise me if the people who believe in Replacement Theology wind up seeing The Temple's rebuilding itself as The Abomination. Which is why it's key to me to point out that in Revelation 11 God approves of The Temple during the first half of the Week, just not the Outer Court.

My point is, I'm prepared to be wrong. Even if I start seeing things happen that seem to verify what I'm already suspecting, I'll still maintain that we won't know for certain who he is until The Abomination of Desolation happens.

I currently believe that The Abomination won't happen until The rebuilt Temple has been standing for 3 and a Half years exactly, or if not that at least that. But if I'm wrong and I see it happen sooner, I'll simply go "awe well", and then brace myself as the $h!t hits the fan. Cause even though I'm basically Mid-Trib, I still don't think I know for certain how much time could separate that event from the Rapture.

I think it will be possible to identify him before it happens, and that some Believers will have guessed right. But others I think will guess wrong, and those will be no less genuine or intelligent. Because I do think there will be decoys. Jesus and John's Epistles both warn of there being MANY False Christs and False Prophets, and Antichrists. And I frankly get a little annoyed at some teachers who take those verses about the plural and apply them as if their effectively only about the individual Beasts of Revelation 13. In John's case that was exactly the attitude he was warning against.

I've studied how certain extra Biblical false prophecies may play a role in setting up The Antichrist's deception, but doing so I definitely advise be done with caution, cause I label them deceptions for a reason, and they could be deceptive on multiple levels. Only The Bible's prophecies are inspired, these false ones probably won't line up to what happens perfectly. An important distinction is, for example. I do not think the Antichrist will be The Mahdi, that implies the Mahdi prophecies are real. What I (used to) think is possible is he'll claim to be The Mahdi.

And one thing I notice is these false prophecies often include an Antichrist or Villain in opposition to the messiah their setting up. And the possibly of the real deal having a rival(s) who could seem to fit the bill equally as much, I see having a possible Biblical basis in the wars he fights in Daniel 11:36-45, or Ezekiel 28-32 where he seems to be killed by "The Terrible of The Nations", a title that is linked typologically to Nebuchadnezzar in those chapters, who is often himself seen a type of the Antichrist, mainly in Daniel 3.

And what I do feel is dangerous is how a lot of other people talking about a possible Mahdi connection turn around and expect the Dajjal to be a good guy, typically by identifying him with Elijah. While vilifying good Godly people I think is indeed a part of Satan's deceptive false prophecies. I also feel like as far as key players go Satan probably wouldn't want to acknowledge people like The Two Witnesses. He'll want to make sure all the Actors in his play are ones he can manipulate to follow his intended script.

The Mahdi thing may not be relevant at all. The extent to which I currently think it's valid is that I believe there will be at least two Mahdi claimants. One for the Sunnis and one for the Shiites. Each accusing the other of being Dajjal. My old theory went against the general Twelfth Imam fixation, it was that the Sunni one will turn out to be The Beast. But again, we will not know for certain who he is until the Abomination happens.

The danger in identifying the Villains of these Demonically inspired Prophecies with The Two Witnesses is that I feel the Two Horns of the Second beast represent two proto-false prophets that will appear before The False Prophet, and they will claim to be The Two Witnesses. Which is why I feel when we first see two people who look like the Witnesses, we need to make sure what their teaching is Biblical, and not the Spirit of Antichrist, before we jump on their bandwagon. And certainly not assume their real just because some Muslims accuse them of being Dajjal. Though I'm by no means entirely ruling out that the real Witnesses could also have that accusation thrown at them, they will be unpopular. But that's not what we build doctrine on.

Other potential decoy Antichrists in false Prophecies include Armilus of Rabbinic Jewish Eschatology. And Mabus who's expected by Nostradamus fans.

The fact that Gog has been confused with The Antichrist by some people could be relevant. Not a lot by Christians recently, but in many older books I've read. However Rabbinic Judaism mostly doesn't distinguish between the Gog and Magog invasion and Armageddon. I believe, against popular conventional Wisdom, that Ezekiel was ultimately talking about the Gog and Magog invasion at the end of the Millennium. But I do think there could be a near fulfillment, where The Antichrist takes the credit.

The Abomination of Desolation never happens in these false Prophecies. Supposedly Christian ones (The Tiburtine Sibyl, and most early Apocrypha to address Prophecy) forget what The Antichrist's defining moment is. But neither do they really predict The Hero their promoting doing something like it. Neither Messiah Ben-Joseph or the Mahdi are expected to deify themselves, that wouldn't fit the Monotheistic belief system they're created for. The false prophecies I see as mainly about the first half of the 70th week (possibly wanting people to think the first half is the second) or before it starts. They expect this coming Hero to die and rise again, and that's where it ends mostly. They're to set the stage for when the Abomination happens.

This lack of that key moment in the fake prophecies is all the more reason Christians should not overlook it, or allegoize it.