An Argument for Zion of Revelation 14 being Earthly Zion

First of all if you're seeing this as a complete reversal of a certain post I made earlier this month, that was a post directed at Preterists rhetorically assuming certain Preterist presuppositions.

In Revelation 14 I definitely believe the Parousia is already in progress.  And the only apparent smoking gun that this Zion must be in Heaven not on Earth is the 144 Thousand being "Before The Throne".  But remember Daniel 7:9-14 is the foundational Hebrew Bible source material for how Jesus defined the Parousia, and that passage seems to involve YHWH's flying Chariot-Throne.  It could be The Throne is The Cloud or on it.

Hebrews 12:22 is the other major New Testament basis for a "Heavenly Zion", though it's actually Jerusalem Paul calls Heavenly there.  Paul does sometimes use Heavenly as a synonym for Spiritual.  That passage is about how we are Citizens of The Kingdom regardless of where we dwell or who controls any Earthly location.  And also about how the architectural final form of the City is currently under construction in Heaven.  It doesn't contradict the connection to a Terrestrial location.

Psalm 48 can be seen as the Old Testament basis for a Heavenly Zion since it links Zion to the "sides of the north" a term also used in Isaiah 14 about Satan's yet future fall from heaven.  But I think the relation of geographical terms in both these passages may be complicated.  If The Tabernacle of David were located where I currently hypothesize it was then it was indeed on a slope north of The Mountain's Summit.  And "Sides of the north" is used in some translations of where Beth-Togarmah is located in Ezekiel 38.  Since I believe Isaiah 14 is about End Times events it could refer to Satan and The Beast wanting to set up their own Throne on Mt Zion which will ultimately fail.

I should perhaps mention here how I don't think Zion was the location most people think it was.  I have argued on this Blog that Bethlehem is the City of David.  My current theory is that the Summit of Mt Zion is where the Mar Elias Monastery currently sits which is the highest elevated summit in the region, and I have a hunch that the Tabernacle of David stood where the fifth century Church of Mary's Seat was located to the north of the summit.  But even if that theory is wrong my position on this chapter doesn't change.

And thus this view can be compatible no matter what city you think Babylon and/or The Great City is.

It is frequently assumed that the Mount of Olives is where Jesus will Return to.  Now it could be involved in how all this plays out.  But the Biblical basis for it is weak in my view.  In Acts 1 what the Angel says is about Jesus Returning the same way He Ascended, it's not meant to be about the location of a landing spot.  And I think a strong argument can be made that the Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled in 30 AD.  Still it could be He returns first to the Mount of Olives to begin the Resurrection there and then sets up His Throne on Zion.

It is often assumed the reference to "Heaven Opened" in Revelation 19 means a door opening in heaven and that the Rider on the White Horse and His Army are traveling from heaven to earth at that moment.  But that's not necessarily borne out by the text either.

Earlier in Revelation 11 a reference to Heaven being "shut up" is agreed by all to be a reference to it not raining, showing how the Witnesses echo the ministry of Elijah and using language from 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26 and 7:17.  In Genesis 7-8 the Windows of Heaven being Opened is terminology linked to the flood waters.  So this Terminology in Revelation 19 could be linked to the "latter rain" of Joel 2, or 2 Peter 3 talking about how the End Times Judgment will echo The Flood but with Fire instead of Water.  But I also now believe the ministry of the Witnesses is the same 1260 days as the Woman hiding in the Wilderness, so Heaven being Opened in Revelation 19 is the end of their shutting up of heaven.

This further proves the point that both Pre-Tribers and Post-Tribers are wrong on Revelation 19 being in any way the Second Coming, this is happening after He's already Returned.

My belief in The Man-Child being The Church means I see The Rapture as a second fulfillment of many Prophecies that were also about the Birth of Christ, like Micah 4 and 5.

Why does the Tense change in Revelation 11?

I've noticed a few things interesting about Revelation 11.

First, because we often study the different subjects of Revelation in a compartmentalized fashion, we often think in verse 3 the "I will give power unto my two witnesses" is God/Jesus talking, and maybe it is, but that depends on how you interpret other parts of Revelation.

In the first verse of chapter 11 John writes "and the angel stood, saying" and most of the rest of the chapter is John writing what this angel says.  What Angel is it?  Well remember there were no chapter divisions originally, if you read through 10 and 11 uninterrupted, it becomes clear the angel in question is the angel who was the subject of chapter 10.

I also wonder about the "God of the Earth" the Two Witnesses stand before.  Is it a God they're severing or a God they are opposing?  "Stand Before" could be used both ways.  This title is used no where else in the New Testament, but Satan being the Archon of the Kosmos and God of this Aion leaves open the possibility that this title would most likely be used of Satan.  However it is used of YHWH in Genesis 24:3.   Is it a title of this Angel, who's feet are in the Earth and in the Sea?  It is also worth noting that we are before Satan is cast out of Heaven.

This Blog is predicated on my belief that Revelation should be interpreted chronologically.  But since I now notice much of chapter 11 is a character in the narrative describing future events, I am forced to wonder if there is some wiggle room here, and maybe somethings I have long viewed as being before the Last Trumpet sounds could be after.

And that leads me to the question that was the title of this post.  For verses 1-10 this Angel is speaking in the future tense, in the KJV at least.  Then in verse 11 it changes to past tense.  Maybe it's only in translations it seems this way.  I wouldn't be able to know.

It shouldn't be that big a mystery since lots of Prophecies are spoken in the past tense, and I've made a point of that in posts before.  The sudden change in tense is what seemed interesting here, as I was rereading Revelation 11 in the context of the observations I mentioned above.

In verse 14 it's no longer the Angel speaking, it's John setting the stage for the next Woe to happen, which is the Seventh Trumpet.  

The Angel in Chapter 10 also says the stuff he's telling John about pertains to when the Seventh Angel sounds his Trumpet.  So yeah I do now think everything this Angel Talks about is simply another angels on what happens after the Seventh Trumpet sounds.

Objections to Enoch and Elijah being translated

Lex Meyer has raised some I want to address.

This post is not me objecting to his overall doctrine.  Where I agree and disagree with that I already addressed on my Sola Scriptura Blog.

Here I want to point out that he can keep his basic premise without being so contrarian on Enoch and Elijah.  I do NOT believe they've already obtained immortal glorified bodies.  And I agree that Jasher and the Book of Enoch should be rejected.  I believe they are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, which means I believe they are going to physically die in the future.

The first explanation for how this could work is what I already mentioned on this Blog in my main Two Witnesses identities post.  That they traveled through Time as well as Space.  I do not believe they ascended to the Third Heaven, but may have been taken to receive training on another Planet and then sent back, and for them it'll have seemed like only a few years not Thousands.  Because of the theory of Relativity.

The second option also still has them basically the same normal humans we are, but God has supernaturally stalled their ageing process.  We saw during the 40 Year Wandeirng that he did something similar in Deuteronomy 29:5, making it so the shoes and cloths the Israelites wore wouldn't wear out.  This could then also apply to the argument for The Apostle John being a Witness.

As far as his attempts to explain away the accounts of their translations.

His argument is ironically more difficult to buy with Enoch precisely because so much less is said.  With the Elijah narrative his arguments about the real point of what was going on being to get Elisha to go out on his own are quite valid, and without what's said in Malachi and The New Testament, I would be totally willing to accept that.

But with Enoch he just sites all the places where similar terminology is used of death.  That's all true, but context matters.  In the context of Genesis 5 a point is made to define Enoch's fate as not like everyone else, and everyone else is defined as dying.  Genesis 5 is unambiguous about what it is trying to say.

Now what he sites as proof of Elijah not being taken out of the Earth is the letter Jehoram received from him later in 2 Chronicles 21:12.  If Elijah himself were personally present in this story, I would consider it a slam dunk for his argument, but he.s not.

I don't have his book unfortunately, I just listened to the Rob Skiba interviews.  Rob Skiba is into science fiction like Back to The Future.  There is a trope that shows up in some Time Travel stories of a letter being written to be delivered to someone on a very specific date in the distant future.  Well maybe that concept originated right here?

God did a lot of pre-planning with Elijah.  The instructions to anoint Hazael and Jehu were originally given to Elijah in 1 Kings 19, but they were carried out in 2 Kings 9 after the mantle was passed to Elisha.  So I think God had Elijah write this letter way in advance, because He knows the End from the Beginning.  And delivering it at the appointed time was another responsibility passed on to Elisha or someone else.

A second explanation could be that our understanding of the Chronology is wrong, many disagree on the Divided Kingdom Chronology.  But I don't want to get into that here, the above theory works just fine for me.

Now on the subject of Elijah's foretold return.  He sites that John The Baptist preached in the Spirit and Power of Elijah to mean that the Two Witnesses will just do the same.  Problem is in John's Gospel 1:21, John The Baptist states blatantly that he does not qualify as the return of Elijah.  What Jesus says at the Transfiguration about how John could have been that was purely rhetorical.  What Malachi said in his closing verses was NEVER applicable to the First Advent, it is strictly about the Day of Yahuah.

The return of Elijah absolutely needs to be taken literally or else you open the door to not take Jesus promised Return literally.

God has used Babylon, and he might again.

The key passage for this study is Jeremiah 27 and 28.  Read all of that before going into this study, I shall quote one particular verse at the start, verse 8 of 27.

"And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith Yahuah, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand."

God's people should never worship the gods and goddesses of Babylon or other nations.  But it's important not to forget that there was a time when God's will was for nations to serve political Babylon.

Jeremiah, and also Ezekiel, preached to the people of Israel that God wanted them to submit to and serve Babylon.  And he was accused of Treason for that, of being a spy.  Imagine the modern equivalent of that, an American Baptist or Pentecostal Pastor going on Television and Preaching to the whole Nation that God wants The United States to surrender to Russia or to China, or to Iran, or I.S.I.S. and if they don't then God will punish them.  The Pundits and your typical Evangelicals would go crazy.

But that's what happened.  And The People indeed didn't listen and instead allied themselves with Egypt.

My point Eschatologically here is that there are reasons to think that in some ways the End Times will be a repeat of some of that history.  Plenty of Prophecies from Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to be about both their own time and the End Times.  I've already argued that Ezekiel 30:24 could be telling us a King of Babylon will be who Mortally Wounds The Beast.

And now I think, what if Jeremiah and Ezekiel were also Types of the Two Witnesses?  What if part of what they'll Preach is to side with Babylon over Egypt?  Because Egypt is being ruled by The Beast?  The modern Church would be totally unprepared for that, especially if this Egyptian Ruler is also presenting himself as a Conservative Christian, and maybe even an American.  And maybe he'll even be preaching the same kind of Anti-Babylon message as Rob Skiba.

Rob Skiba is right spiritually to preach against the wickedness of Babylon.  Yet at the same time I suspect his treating Babylon as being the same as The Antichrist may be unwittingly helping The Beast.

So I want to repeat. The Bible never says Nimrod was Evil.  And it also never necessarily says the World will Love the Antichrist.

Witnesses and The Seventh Trumpet

This is copied from a Pre-Trib Website arguing against linking the Seventh Trumpet of Revelation 11 to the Rapture's Last Trumpet of Yom Teruah.

Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple. 

This sanctification could happen during either of two days, depending on when the witnesses come. Since no one knew when the witnesses would come, no one knew when the Feast of Trumpets would start. 

On the 30th of each month, the members of the High Court assembled in a courtyard in Jerusalem, where they waited to receive the testimony of two reliable witnesses. They then sanctified the new moon. The new moon is very difficult to see on the first day because it can be seen only about sunset, close to the sun, when the sun is traveling north. So, looking for a very slim faint crescent moon, which is very close to the sun, is a very difficult thing to do. If the moon’s crescent was not seen on the 30th day, the new moon was automatically celebrated on the 31st day. 

 They leave out another important detail however.

After the witnesses are interviewed, to confirm that they are indeed two agreeing witnesses, the High Priest was informed.  Then The High Priest stood at the top of the Temple Mount (because the witnesses brought this news to the bottom of the mount) and tells the two witnesses to "Come up" and they ascend the Temple Mount to the High Priest, and then they sound the Last Trump.

This site's argument against tying this to the Seventh Trumpet was.

We cannot go to the Book of Revelation and say that the voice of the seventh angel (Revelation 11:15) is the last trump. In the first century, the last trump (shofar) meant a specific day in the year.

 It's not an argument, people are just under the assumption Yom Teruah and the 7th Trumpet can't be the same cause we are conditioned to think the Fall Feast begin/end years even though Biblically they mark the middle.  So we're not prepared to see them in the middle of Revelation unless you're a post-tirbber who garbles the chronology.

This site also talks about how Jewish thought also has a First Trumpet, and the First Trumpet is sounded on Pentecost.

Well I've argued on this Blog extensively why I see the Sixth Seal and Revelation 7 as the second fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32.  And the sealing of the 144,000 is the latter rain, the final great outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  So the First Trumpet being sounded right after that fits perfectly.

This site assumes the Great Trumpet and Last Trumpet can't be the same simply because Rabbinic Tradition distinguishes them I guess.

I believe when The Witnesses are Resurrected will be when the sliver of the New Moon of Tishri is seen.  The World will witnesses their rising, they'll preach some more, The Gospel will spread and then God will call them up to Heaven and they will Ascend to Heaven.

Then the people of Jerusalem (who we know from the beginning of chapter 11 are mostly Gentiles at this time) will Believe and Repent and Praise God.  That will be when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in.  Then the Seventh Trumpet is sounded.

Jesus said in Luke 21 that Jerusalem will be "Trodden under foot of the Gentiles till the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".  And that is when he will return.

Could the second Witness be John?

I've argued before for the second witness being Enoch.  And I still feel strongly convinced by all those arguments.  But I've become aware of a compelling argument being made that the other Witness is John, the Beloved Disciple to whom the Revelation was given, himself.

At the end of Revelation 10 John is told.  "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."  Maybe this just means him preaching the message of Revelation to the world after he finished it.  But early Church tradition doesn't record such an epic final ministry, though Irenaeus says he lived into the reign of Trajan.  The compelling thing is, it's the very next chapter that discuses the Two Witnesses.

Of all the verses Preterists misuse to make it sound like the New Testament says Jesus' Second Coming must happen in the lifetime of his ministry.  Matthew 16:28 (and it's parallels in the other synoptics) is the strongest.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

 I have for awhile favored the argument of Chuck Missler and others that this refers to the Transfiguration in the next chapter.  Which was a glimpse of the Kingdom.  But I've read recently that the Greek word Tis translated "Some" here can also me "a certain one".

At the end of John's Gospel.  Jesus says concerning the Beloved Disciple who is the book's author.

"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

We are told that many interpreted this to mean he wouldn't die.  But then we are told that was incorrect, "yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

The correction is often taken as assuring us it doesn't give John any unusual lifespan, or anything else like that, but that this was simply fulfilled in a way by him having the vision that is The Book of Revelation.  But the correction was only about thinking John wouldn't die, The Two Witnesses will die.

John is traditionally believed to have not died a Martyr, a few sources all drawing on Papias who's original work we don't have say he was Martyred during the reign of Domitian.  But our oldest quoter of Papias, Irenaeus, who has supposedly an indirect connection to John via Polycarp, was unaware of this and says John lived into the reign of Trajan.  Zahn T argued that the reference in Papias is actually to John The Baptist.

A work attributed to Hippolytus of Rome called "On the Apostles and Disciples" records certain traditions I don't believe, mainly Peter dying in Rome, and it follows Catholic dogma of confusing certain of the 12 with the Brothers of Jesus.  But what it says about John is interesting.

"John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."

Matthew 10:35 and 20:20 have been interpreted as implying both sons of Zebedee would die Martyrs.  James is the only one of the 12 who's death is recorded in the History of the New Testament, in Acts 12.  But if John is one of the Two Witnesses then his is recorded in Prophecy.

Thematically I think it would fit well with my argument for The False Prophet being Judas Iscariot.  Having a disciple on each side relevant to the End Times.

How does this effect Rapture timing disputes?  Any argument that the Two Witnesses ministry can't be during the Church Age would be destroyed by this, since John is absolutely part of The Church.  It would give more credence to an argument that the Rapture of the Witnesses is part of the Rapture of The Church if one of them is one of the 12.  And the statement from John 21 would require their death to be very near when the Rapture happens.

Also, read Acts 3 and 4 carefully.  Peter and John sort of serve as a type of the Witnesses there.  Just as Elijah did during his first ministry.

Thing is, there are still arguments I made for Enoch that I feel are pretty difficult to refute.  And this would require that the early traditions about John's death are false, which they could be, but I'm forced to wonder why they would pop up?  But that he's traditionally the only of the 12 not Martyred is interesting.

Who will The False Prophet claim to be?

This is a continuation of my False Prophet Study.

I believe during the first  half of and/or before The 70th Week that the Antichrist will be claiming to be, or be claimed to be, Messiah Ben-Joseph.  This agrees in part with Chris White's view.  But I also have a lot of problems with White's view.

Part of that theory as White presents it has The False Prophet be a counterfeit Elijah.  The main clue pointing to that being the one miracle directly linked to him being also linked to Elijah, calling fire down form Heaven.  Which is also usually cited as one of the reasons we know one of the Two Witnesses in chapter 11 is Elijah, because they do something similar.

That could be correct, but I have another theory I think is more likely.  I'm not dogmatic about it however.

First off I talk about what goes on with the Signs and Wonders of Revelation 13 here.  Also fire from heaven isn't unique to Elijah, we know it's one of the abilities Jesus gave the 12 the Authority to perform from Luke 9:54.  And technically Moses and Aaron also did it as one of the 10 Plagues inflicted on Egypt.

White also makes it sound like Rabbinic Jews expect Elijah to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.   There is only one very obscure Rabbinic reference giving credence to that, and it's based on identifying Messiah Ben Joseph with the individual Elijah already resurrected during his first ministry.  That's not compatible with how The Antichrist deception will play out in my or White's understanding of the Mid-70th Week drama.  The far vaster and more universal expectation is that Messiah Ben-David resurrects Ben-Joseph.

If you're convinced by all the other arguments for him trying to convince Jews he's the Jewish Messiah, then of course an Elijah claimant must play some role.  But there are three other ways that could fit in.

1. The horns affiliated with the first beast we know represent 10 other distinct individuals linked to The Beast.  But generally no one considers that the two "lamb like horns" of the second beast could be the same.  I think it's possible they could be two proto-False Prophets counterfeiting the Two Witness.  Maybe these are among the False Prophets of Matthew 24:11, and it's not till verses 23 and 24 that the Two Beasts show up and are added to the list.

2. Yair Davidy of Britam is among those Rabbinic Jews who actually believe ideas similar to British Israelism.  And he ties Messiah Ben-Joseph into that.  I've actually had a few brief email exchanges with him, I asked if anyone has considered that Elijah and Messiah Ben-Jospeh could be the same, since Elijah probably was tribally of either Manasseh or Ephraim.  And he said yes, that is a possibility some Rabbis have considered.

And among those Christians who have accepted the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept, they usually read him into Revelation as one of The Witnesses.  Because of the parallel of Ben-Joseph laying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for a period of time before being resurrected.

Meanwhile some commentators on Revelation have suggested both Beasts are the Evil Counterparts of the Two Witnesses.

So, especially looking at my thoughts on how the miracles might play out, maybe before he outright deifies himself The Antichrist claims to be Elijah?  Most likely in the same sense John The Baptist is viewed as Elijah?

3.  In my Four Horsemen study, I suggest that the person who becomes The Beast might not even be evil at first.  Some Old Testament figures who become types of The Antichrist were indeed anointed by true Prophets of God, one specific example, Jehu, has an indirect connection to Elijah in his anointing.  So maybe we shouldn't rule out that The White Horseman will be supported by The Two Witnesses at first?

So those are the alternative ways Elijah could be accounted for in the coming deception.  Now as for my personal view on who The False Prophet claims to be.

Having "two horns like a lamb" is thought to support the idea of him claiming to be Jesus.

The word translated "lamb" here is used over 25 times in Revelation, this is the only time it's not in direct reference to Jesus. But it's not actually a lamb, it's "like a lamb". similar or resembling is what the Greek word here means. So some scholars (even without the intent of connection to any extra Biblical ideas I'll mention latter) have theorized that it's the second beast not the first who claims to be Jesus himself. This word occurs outside Revelation only once in John 21:15, and there it's in a different form, being the only time it's plural. It is not provable to be a perfect synonym of any other term Biblically.

Chris White feels two of the key miracles linked to Elijah being calling down fire and raising the dead is significant.  But both of those are linked to Jesus as well.

It's interesting that the only other place in The New Testament a specific individual is described with the term False Prophet, is Acts 13. And the name of this person is Bar-Jesus. Yeshua (transliterated Iesous into Greek and then Jesus in English via Latin) was a very common name in First century Judea. But the New Testament generally avoids referring to any other individuals with the same name as it's central character. This isn't the only exception (translations sometimes obscure that Barabas was forenamed Jesus), but it's an interesting thematic coincidence.

Some have cited Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." As proving the False Prophets and false Messiahs are distinct.

First of all claiming to be Jesus doesn't necessarily mean claiming to be The Messiah, it could be the point is claiming the Antichrist and not Jesus is The Messiah.

 But also Hebrew expression often lists synonyms next to each other like that. All True Prophets are Anointed of God and thus Messiahs. And Jesus is the "Prophet like unto Moses" which even some modern Rabbinic Jews claim to be Messianic.

 When False Prophets are paired with False Teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 there is more blatant justification for viewing them as different groups grammatically. Yet they're clearly not meant to be viewed as mutually exclusive. If you want to argue that they are, I'd just remind you of the Isaiah verse I quoted early on "prophet that teacheth lies".

 Why Two Horns? Lambs have horns, but they're very small and barely noticeable. No where outside Revelation does The Bible emphasize horns in a symbolic or literal description of lambs or sheep, or even acknowledge the possibly of them having horns. So when you see commentators say "two horns because that's the number a Lamb normally has".  That's true biologically, but doesn't have much Biblical precedent.

The only other Biblical reference to Lamb horns is in Revelation 5:6 "stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." So these false Lamb horns could equate to demonic spirits (and so could connect to my theory elsewhere about them being proto false prophets, speaking by the power of those spirits). John as I'll mention later equates the "Spirit of Antichrist" with two linked yet technically different key heresies.

Some see a connection to Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."  Firstly the word for Sheep is not the same word as Lamb, in the Greek or in English.  Some use this against The False Prophet claiming to be Jesus, because here it means sheep as in how Christians are sheep, not Jesus himself. But he said wearing Sheep's clothing, that imagery is meant to make us think of a Shepherd.  Zachariah 11 and Ezekiel 34 speak of Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Ezekiel speaks of multiple bad Shepherds, but Zachariah 11:16-17, says

"For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."

The key to me however is that IF one of the two beasts claims to be Jesus, it can only be the second. It is debatable on if Jesus saying "shall come in my name" means The Antichrist will claim he's Jesus, that could be a different study.  But why you ask do I think only the second beast can be claiming to be Jesus?

John's epistles define Antichrists and the Spirit of Antichrist as denying Jesus is God made Flesh, and denying the relationship of The Father and The Son.  NOT as denying Jesus existed, or denying he was good, or denying he was a wise teacher, or denying he was a Prophet, or The Messiah, or denying he performed miracles, or was born of a Virgin, or that he died and rose again, or denying he was without sin. It's defined as denying Jesus was the Son of God, or was God made Flesh.

We know from Revelation 13 the first beast is the one deified, the second is promoting him. So it can't fit the definition of Antichrist if the First is claiming also to be Jesus.  It'd still be heresy, but not the Antichrist heresy.

However it would in fact be the perfect manifestation of The Antichrist heresy, if THE Antichrist is actually Two Individuals.  One claiming to be Jesus and not God, and the other to be God and not Jesus.

Chris White's objection to The False Prophet claiming to be Jesus begins with the strawman that ONLY people focused on an Islamic Antichrist (Mahdi and Isa) theory make that argument.  I used to flirt with the Islamic theory, but I've since abandoned it.  But I like to remain open to all possibilities, since we will NOT know for certain who he is until The Abomination happens.

Just doing some casual searching on the subject, I know I found one site making this argument for a Vatican centered theory.  Another who said of the second beast description "this sounds like the gentle Jesus of liberal denominations", clearly he wasn't thinking of the Islamic Isa.

And one that didn't allude to what they felt the nature of the first beast was, or what false religion he'd be, but just arguing for The False Prophet as claiming to be Jesus to help arguing that The False Prophet really is who I will argue he is in the 4th part of this study.  But certain aspects of his argument differed from mine.

The Islamic theory isn't the only theory it works with.  It could lend itself well to a variation of White's own theory, because as I said Messiah Ben-David is who Rabbinic Jews expect to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.  And a fake Jesus can very easily be claimed to be Messiah Ben-David, since that's one of the many things the Real Jesus is.

In fact I think the Islamic eschatological tradition was mostly plagiarizing the Mahdi from Ben-Joseph, simply changing which disinherited branch of the family of Abraham to prop up, and then gave the Ben-David role to Isa.  The extra-Biblical Christian concept of the Last Roman Emperor I feel also has that origin.

Mormonism btw is also guilty of The Antichrist heresy.  They can say they consider Jesus God, but they don't believe in the true Trinity, and their God the Father isn't even a truly monotheistic God, or the ultimate highest god of their cosmology.  None the less they do believe Jesus will return, and will Resurrect The Dead when he does.  And then they have their own Rider on a White Horse prophecy.  They've also hijacked the Rabbinic Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.

Another heresy being promoted today by Stephen Huller (a Frankist) is laid out in his book The Real Messiah, and it's promotional blog.  In it he argues Jesus wasn't The Messiah (at least not of Daniel 9) but the forerunner.  And the real Messiah of Daniel 9 (he believes the details of Daniel 9 commonly linked to The Antichrist are in fact The Messiah also, and that there is no Antichrist) was King Herod Agrippa (he believes there was only one Agrippa and Josephus artificially divided them).  His timing of the 70 weeks agrees with Chris White's wrong view, that they point to 70 AD rather then 30.

His theory is very convoluted, and much of it easily debunk-able.  The most credible part of his argument is that there does seem to be over looked references to a Herod Agrippa being viewed as The Messiah.  Which is interesting in light of my view that the first Agrippa is a type of The Antichrist in Acts 12.

So the False Elijah theory could be true, but I think the False Jesus theory is more likely.  It's also not impossible he'd claim to be both in some fashion, a number of ways could be thought of to make that work.

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.