The emphasis on Beheading for those Martyred by The Beast

Revelation 20:4 says.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Those who are focused on an Islamic Antichrist theory like to point out how today it's only in the Islamic world that Decapitation is still a standard form of execution, the West now prefers means that are supposedly more "Humane".

I'm not as sold on the Mahdi theory as I used to be.  I kind of feel like this is the strongest argument it has.  If the End Times scenario is in the near future, (as most contemporary Futurists kind of want to believe), that detial currenlty doesn't fit any other contemporary candidate.  But right now I want to discus other things besides the possible Islam connection this could tell us.

To those focused on a Jewish False Messiah theory, Beheading is NEVER approved of in the Torah as an acceptable means of Capital Punishment.  In fact done right it doesn't even fit the basic requirement demanded from Genesis 9, that Blood be shed.  When decapitation is done cleanly there actually shouldn't be any bleeding.

I've become more open to this theory then I used to be, but this remains possibly it's biggest problem.  I've come to view Chris White's theory as possibly correct only in terms of how he views the first half of The Tribulation.  The beheading of those who refuse to take The Mark comes in the second half, when I think he'll have abandoned any such pretense of pretending to be Pro-Jewish or Christian.  But if you want all details about the Antichrist to back up your view, the beheading is an issue.

Both Preterists, and Bible Skeptics love to insist Revelation was written with the intent to apply to the time it was written, the First Century AD, maybe Second but no later. And that this must be understood in the context of the Persecutions of early Christians by the Roman Empire.

The thing is, Beheading was a standard form of execution for Rome IF you were a Roman citizen. Indeed Paul we know was a Citizen and tradition says he was beheaded. But during the first two centuries the majority of Christians were NOT citizens, even those living in Rome who Paul addressed in the last chapter of his epistle to the Romans, were mostly either Jews or slaves.

Non citizens didn't get it so easy, and indeed, whether it was under Nero or Domitian or Trajan or Marcus Aurelius, most Christians who were Martyred by Rome suffered far more brutal forms of execution.

I also think, this detail is bound to have been interesting to many Christians who lived through The French Revolution.

The French Revolution was mostly the work of Atheists and Deists. Deisism is a philosophy that allows one to effectively be an Atheist/Materialist while still acknowledging the logical common sense arguments of Intelligent Design, but simply claiming God never interferes in his Creation.

Now by no means did all these Atheists and Deists want to persecute Christians, many like Nicolas Bonneville believed strongly in Freedom of Religion, they were a lot like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. But the violent minority gained the political power, and during the Reign of Terror the mostly Atheist Committee on Public Safety and the Deist Maximilien Robespierre carried out a massive campaign of Dechristianization. They slaughtered entire regions of France for refusing to abandon their faith.

And of the course the Icon of the dark side of the French Revolution was La Guillotine which was a supposedly "Humane" way to decapitate someone. I think many Christians of the time must've felt like they were in the End Times.

Robespierre may well have been seen as The Antichrist, after he was accused of seeking to deify himself. This accusation was a misunderstanding of what he was actually trying to do at the Festival of the Supreme Being.

Robespierre had also turned on his Atheist allies. Indeed if one sees Robespierre a a type of the Antichrist then the Cult of Reason with it's Goddess of Reason would be the Whore of Babylon.

We know now that none of that was the End Times. But I think it's interesting to study past chapters of History in these contexts, because History does Repeat itself.

The Impossibility of something happening is the least valid argument against a Prophetic interpretation.

Now what I mean here is impossible, or implausible, in secular terms.  That it could happen based on our observable contemporary situation. If you think it's impossible for a Biblical reason that's different.

Chris White is someone I discovered only a few months ago. I find many of his arguments good, they've helped me make new insights. Ironically, how well he argues for his Pre-Wrath position makes me more secure in my Mid-Trib position.

I like his approach even when expressing views I disagree with. But one annoyance I have with hearing him argue against certain popular views on Bible Prophecy is how much time he devotes to saying something couldn't happen, or is highly improbable to happen.

Sometimes he does this arguing against views I also don't agree with. Like viewing The Pope as The Antichrist or The False Prophet. The former I consider completely invalid, the latter highly unlikely.   I'm against using that argument even in those cases, I want to be consistent.

He also uses it when arguing against the view that the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view of The Temple's location is correct, and that the Third Temple will be rebuilt with both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of The Rock still standing.

He claims that even if neither the Mosque or the Dome would have to be damaged, that Muslims still could never accept having a Temple where animal sacrifices are going on exist even within the vicinity of those sites. So the only way for The Temple to be rebuild is for Muslims to completely lose the ability to have any say in the matter.  [Update: turns out he was wrong on ANimal Sacrifice in Islam]

Well the problem is for most of the Church Age (around 500 A.D. to WWI) even the basics of the End Time scenario seemed impossible to ever happen. It seemed impossible Israel would ever be given their land back, much less rebuild The Temple. That's why the mainstream approach all through those periods was to allegorize everything, even the most basic stuff.  It was only after the Protestant reformaiton that any dissenters insisting Israel will be established began to emerge.  But they were the minority even among Protestants.

And even without considering for the Supernatural, in Geo-politics things that seemed impossible have happened many times. The United States of America has a Black President right now, only 10 years ago that still seemed an impossibility.

I'd say it's an inherent sign of a lack of Faith if the only Prophetic predictions you think are valid are the ones that are plausible. Indeed every Prophecy for which both the foretelling and fulfillment is recorded in Scripture seemed laughably unlikely to the Kings the Prophets gave them to.

So I don't care how impossible some think it is that any Muslims would accept the arrangement of The Temple being rebuilt between the Mosque and the Dome. I believe that's the picture The Bible paints. No it's not clearly laid out in one single passage, but neither is The Trinity, or Israel fleeing to Edom. It fits various Biblical clues all put together like a perfect puzzle, and all the other explanations of each of those verses fails in my view.

So therefore I have faith that it WILL happen, no matter how Impossible it is. If things happen differently that won't phase me because it doesn't effect the Gospel. I'm Dogmatic on only the most indisputable things, like that The Temple must be rebuild, and the Abomination of Desolation will happen. But of all the conjectural views of Bible Prophecy I have, this is the one I view as the most solid.

No matter what Antichrist theory turns out to be true, this scenario I think this is compatible.  In terms of Chris White's False Christ claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph theory.  There is no reason to rule out such a figure trying to to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully before he's forced to wage war on them.

As far as why it's implausible to Christ White. Well I don't necessarily think all Muslims will accept it, I think there will still be lots of Middle East tension during this time. All The Willful King's Wars recorded in Daniel 11:40-45 I think will likely happen while the Third Temple is standing and it's sacrifices being carried out during the first half of the 70th Week.

But it's the Jordanian Hashamite dynasty who actually controls the Mount, and their pretty moderate right now. Their very cooperative with the U.N.. and the Club of Rome. And the West constantly forces things on the Muslim world they should know better then to think they'd be OK with.

Frankly the greater obstacle to me is getting the leading Jews in Israel to accept that the official view of where The Temple stood is wrong. To me the official view is Biblically impossible for many (non eschatological) reasons. But none the less all the Rabbis in Israel are emotionally married to it.

Chris White's Jewish Messiah claimant theory

False Christ: Will The Antichrist claim to be the Jewish Messiah

I left a Review on Amazon of the Book.  I like Chris White's style.  I've actually changed my mind on some things since I left that review.

I cannot accept White's Mystery Babylon theory.  Or much of how he views the second half of the 70th week since he's Pre-Wrath and I'm not.

How Chris White envisions the first half of the 70th Week I've come to think may be more or less exactly right.  He talks in one of his Podcasts, I think it was this one.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/ntr-bpt-israelpalestinian-conflict-and-striving-toward-holiness/
And talks more about it here.
 http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-isis-russia-and-iran-and-creation-questions/

About why he believes The Antichrist won't be trying to appeal to The World like we generally assume.  Satan already has The World.  It'll be us Bible Believing Judeo-Christians he's trying to trick.  I'd already considered to some degree that he might use the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept.

But this ability to deceive true believers will end once The Abomination of Desolation happens.  From then on it's purely by Force he enforces his Will.

I've become more open then I used to be to the idea of The Antichrist being American.  After all Chris White's think he'll be an ally coming to Israel's aid, America is the only one they really have.  And I think now if he's American he'll come from The Right, not the Left.  Either claiming to be one of us Evangelical Pro-Israel Christians.  Or one of those "Conservative" that the "Moral Majority" are so easily duped into supporting, meaning a Republican/Neo-Con.  But I also wouldn't rule out him appearing to be exactly the same kind of Paleo-Conservative or Libertarian that I prefer to vote for.  But he would obviously be betraying such Small Government, Free Market, Individual Liberty principles once he imposes the Mark.

I'm also reminded of how annoyed at I am at many Evangelicals to be wiling to get in Bed politically with The LDS Church.  They all got behind Romney because they felt anything is better then Obama.  Those of use trying to warn them that both parties are equally corrupt are constantly ignored.

Being Mid-Trib rather then Pre-Wrath does give me one big difference in how I view the first half of the 70th week.  I believe The Church will face a Worldwide persecution before The Abomination of Desolation.  The persecution after is of Jews which is why I can't accept the idea of them still following him as their Messiah during the second Half when their in hiding.

I've said I don't think the persecution The Church faces will necessarily be from The Antichrist.  And in-light of other things we've discussed here, I'm thinking maybe he'll be the one political leader opposing the persecution.

Chris White's discussion of Messiah Ben-Joseph ignores one key aspect of it.  That's he's also supposed to be of the "Lost Tribes" reuniting Judah and Joseph.  But it's something he should consider since he does take over a Ten Kingdom confederacy, that's probably from The West.

Likewise his discussion of how the incorrect Psalm 83 theory of Bill Saulus could serve The Antichrist leaves how how many people teaching on that theory think a sort of "New Gideon" will be involved, since it alludes to the Gideon Narrative in that Psalm.

British-Israelism and French Israelism and other related theories try to claim that the Celtic, Germanic and Norse tribes of Northern and Western Europe are the Lost Tribes.  And also that European Royalty has descent from King David.  These ideas are often lumped in with Anti-Semies believing in some form of replacement theology and/or the Kazzar conspiracy theory, which Chris White does a good Job debunking on YouTube.

But Britam is a community of Orthodox Jews who accept such theories.  And as think Think messiah Ben-Joseph will be a western Political Leader.
http://britam.org/Proof/Joseph/joCyrus.html
And while the reject the normal Tea-Telphi myth.  They do have their own means of claiming David Descent for European Royalty.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html

Even though the foundational passage of the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept is a verse from Zachariah 12 that we Christian know refers to Jesus and his Wounds from The Cross.  There are some Christians who have accepted the Messiah Ben-Joseph idea.
http://messiahbenjoseph.com/
That website is only one example.  Certain Rabbinic teaches about Messiah Ben-Joseph's body lying in the Streets of Jerusalem till he's Resurrected have been taken advantage of by Christians to see him in The Two Witnesses.

Which reminds me of why I'm so bothered by Perry Stone's decision to see Elijah/The Two Witness as political figure,s who's retake control of The Temple Mount from the Muslims.  None of that is in Revelation 11.

This takes me to one more aspect of Chris White's theory I want to talk about.  His view that The False Prophet/Second Beast is posing as Elijah.

That view could be correct entirely, it works fine with how I generally view things.  But his claim that ONLY people trying to write in the Mahdi/Islamic Antichrist idea see The False Prophet as a posing as Jesus is a straw-man.  I've seen online articles tying that into a Papal Antichrist viewpoint.  And one saying he resembles 'The Gentle Jesus of Liberal Denominations", which is virtually the opposite.

I'll be a post latter on why I think he will be posing as Jesus Biblical.  Here I'd like to say that if The Antichrist poses as Messiah Ben-Joseph, a fake Jesus could also play the Messiah Ben-David role.  That's who is expected to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.

A fake Elijah is needed if it's Jewish eschatology expectation he's mainly trying to deceive.

I think it's possible the two Lamb-Like horns of the Second beast are like the Horns of the first beast, separate individuals linked to him.  And thus possibly two Proto-False Prophets posing as The Two Witnesses.

But also, I have that other post where I suggest it'll look like The Antichrist is performing the Signs and Wonders that The False Prophet is performing.

I've actually exchanged the emails with Yair Davidy of Britam.  Because while I don't believe that Theory, they do have interesting information.  In response to one Email I sent he said many Jews are willing to consider that Messiah Ben-Joseph and the returned Elijah are the same.  Since Elijah is a Northern Kingdom figure, from The House of Joseph.  That obviously overlaps well with the potential Two Witnesses confusion.