Isaiah 19 possibly about Ptolemaic Egypt?

I've argued before for a large part of Isaiah 19 being about 20th Century Egypt and the Aswan Damn.   And I'm still compelled by that, but it requires significant gaps to tie in with other parts of the Prophecy.

Given my recent realignments in how to think of Egypt's role in Bible Prophecy over all.  I decided to go over this chapter again, and I think a strong argument can be made for it being about some Ptolemaic History, maybe crossing over at the end into the Time of Christ.

Let's go over it verse by verse.

The burden of Egypt. Behold, Yahuah rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

The first verse is arguably the strongest argument for this being End Times, with Yahuah riding on a Cloud, but such imagery is not uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

Some people have argued the "Kingdom Against Kingdom" statement here may be what Jesus was drawing on in the Olivite Discourse.  But in the context of Ancient Egypt this terminology is likely meant to make one think of Egypt's traditional division between Upper and Lower Egypt.

Now we often think of that as not a factor in Ptolemaic Egypt.  However during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater, a rebel named Horwennefer/Ankhwennefer proclaimed himself King in Thebes (Upper Egypt).  Ptolemy IV is also the villain in the controversial 3 Maccabees which I intend to discus in the future, but isn't relevant to this subject.

And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

Ptolemaic Egypt was very important to the history of the occult.  Particularly the cult of Serapis.  But also Gnosticism was born from combining aspects of Platonic Philosophy and Egyptian religious ideas, then later the most famous forms of it gave it Judeo-Christian dressing.

And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Yahuah of hosts.

The brief independence of Upper Egypt was put down by Ptolemy IV's son, Ptolemy V Epiphanes.  (Coincidentally he has the same infamous epithet as as the Seleucid Antiochus IV, who is so often a subject of Bible Prophecy discussions.)  Ending Horwennefer's reign wasn't the only internal conflict he dealt with either (going back to verse 2).

Wikipedia twice uses the word "cruel" dealing with Ptolemy Epiphanes putting down these insurgents.  For one of them citing this Historical Source as a reference.

The king, says Polybius, "treated them cruelly, and fell into many dangers."

Which in turn quotes Polybius.

Verses 5 through 10 are the center piece of the Aswan Damn argument.  And I still partly feel only what happened then can (so far) fit the full scale of what's described here.  But Ancient Egypt had many famines caused by the Nile drying up.  Is there evidence of a similar event during the time of Ptolemy V?

The argument that Imhotep is Joseph is largely dependent on the Famine Stele.  It is the only source linking Imhotep to a Seven year Famine.  But it still lacks the Seven years of plenty and other details about Joseph.  And Imhotep doesn't have his dream in advance, he's given a solution after there has already been seven years of famine.  And in The Bible it's the Pharaoh not Joseph who has the dream, making the Famine of Neferkasokar closer to being the same scenario but still not quite.

The reason I mention it here is it's an incredibly late Stele, it's Ptolemaic and even been specifically dated to the reign of Ptolemy V.  I've read some websites claim Imhotep was very popular during the reign of Ptolemy V.

What if it was a story told about a more ancient figure as a commentary on contemporary events?  Saying either that someone in their time did what is attributed to Imhotep here, or as a more critical commentary saying someone should have done what Imhotep did.

Verses 11-15 mentions Zoan.  What is meant by the Biblical Zoan is rather controversial.  The City of Tanis most likely meant in Isaiah's time was only strictly speaking the Capital during the 21st Dynasty.  I support the Revised Chronology view that the 21st Dynasty overlaps the Persian and Ptolemaic periods, and that a 21st Dynasty inscription mentions Alexander The Great at Siwa. [I've changed my mind on Revised Chronology, it's not really important here.]

Verses 16-17.

In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of Yahuah of hosts, which he shaketh over it.  And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of Yahuah  of hosts, which he hath determined against it.

This is the most difficult part for this theory.

It was during the reigns of Ptolemy IV/V that Judea changed from being under Ptolemaic control to Seleucid under Antiochus III The Great.  This point in the Prophetic narrative of Daniel 11 is around verse 14&15, which has been taken as implying this happens because the people of Judah themselves sided with Antiochus over Ptolemy.  Josephus possibly supports this in Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 3 Section 3.

If what 3 Maccabees claims about Ptolemy IV's treatment of The Jews has some truth to it, that could explain this change in allegiance.

In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahuah of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.  In that day shall there be an altar to Yahuah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahuah.

Now we enter the part that is often taken one of two ways, sometimes both at the same time.  That this can only be Millennial, and that the Pillar/Altar is the great Pyramid.  That latter view I've debunked elsewhere, the former had been my main assumption, but now I'm thinking maybe not.

The five cities speaking Hebrew could well refer to Jewish settlements in Egypt made during and after the time of Alexander.  Which includes Alexandria which Josephus and Philo tell us was 2 Fifths Jewish in their time.

The argument that the "City of Destruction" is Heliopolis is absolutely valid.  From Wikipedia.

In the time of the major prophets, Isaiah made a reference to the City of the Sun as one of the five cities of Egypt that would come to speak Hebrew. However he made a wordplay on "city of the sun" (’ir hašemeš) by writing ’ir haheres which literally means "city of destruction".^{[Freedman, Myers, & Beck. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (ISBN 0802824005, ISBN 978-0-8028-2400-4), “City of the Sun”, p. 261]} These play of words were a prophetic description later reinforced by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.^{[Isaiah 19:18 NLT]} The Hebrew name, Beth-shemesh, where Beth means "house" and shemesh means "Sun" was also used to describe Heliopolis by Jeremiah. He prophesied this city's fate specifically when he declared that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, would shatter the obelisks of Heliopolis and burn the temple of the sun in fire.^{[Jeremiah 43:13 NASB; Compare NIV]} Jeremiah’s contemporary Ezekiel, reinforced this message by saying that the "young men of Aven (or Beth-Aven) would fall by the sword". Like Isaiah, Ezekiel also made a word play on the original Hebrew name of Heliopolis that was used in the time of Joseph, the city of On. The Hebrew word aven means "folly" or "iniquity", so that his reference implied "temple of folly" or "temple of iniquity".^{[Ezekiel 30:17 NIV]}

So while I'd in the past like most assumed Onias IV's desire to apply this to his Temple in Leontopolis (a city in the district of Heliopolis) was totally spurious.  I'm now thinking it may not have been.

If the Elephantine Temple was still in use or at least partly still standing it could explain the Pillar at the border.   Some traditions from the Ethiopian Beta Israel community implies their ancestors still had a presence on Elephantine till the fall of Alexandria in 30 BC.

It was Ptolemy VI, the son and successor of Ptolemy V who gave Onias permission to build his Temple.

And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Yahuah of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto Yahuah because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

Is it possible we've now leaped forward to the time of Christ?  Most uses of the peculiar noun form of this Hebrew word for "save" that the KJV renders "Saviour" (Moshiah) are taken as references to Jesus.  Egypt was under Roman occupation when Jesus was born.  Is it possible Jesus family visited the Onias Temple during their time in Egypt?

The talk of Assyria that follows could very well refer to Adiabene which became Jewish at this time, and also Osroene/Edessa, and the Highway to Roman Roads.  But Assyria in Isaiah's time would have included much of what was Roman Syria, including Antioch which became a major center of early Christianity.

Many Christians want to build a negative image of Alexandria's role in Church History because they say the Alexandrians were mentioned negatively in Acts 6.  But if you read all of that story it arguably implies these Alexandrians and Cyrnecians were eventually won over by Stephen's arguments.  Meanwhile Apollos we are told was from Alexandria.

This is one option for this Prophecy.  But I am open to other theories.

A Pre-Tribber on interpreting Revelation Chronologically

They and various forms of "Mid-Trib" like me seem to be the only ones inclined to take it Chronologically.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/reading-revelation-chronologically/

Reading Revelation Chronologically

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

• End Times
• Prophecy

Q. John’s gospel is the least chronological of the four gospels. Events are out of order and a very unequal amount of verses are applied to certain events versus other events in Jesus’ life. So it would seem unlikely then that John’s book of Revelation would be completely in time order. Perhaps some parts of the Revelation are chronological, and others are placed thematically. This is a critical issue, since from reading your material it appears the primary basis of your belief in pre-Trib is because Rev 4 & 5 in chapter order precede the rest of the book. Can you please enlighten me as to how you see it and why?

A. I’ve read lots of opinions about whether the Revelation is chronological or not, and the only exceptions to a chronological reading that makes sense to me are;

1) John could only write about one thing at a time so there are places where multiple things are happening together and he could only describe them one at a time,

2) where he brought a particular subject to its conclusion before back tracking to pick up another train of thought, or

3) where he’s providing some background to help us understand something. These are all obvious. Otherwise, I don’t think it makes sense to depart from a chronological reading.

It’s not fair to compare the Revelation with John’s gospel. In the Revelation John was essentially “taking dictation” from the Lord, and the writing style is so different that some scholars debate whether he even wrote it.

Finally, there are several much stronger proofs for a pre-trib rapture that make a chronological reading of Revelation unnecessary to support the case for one.

My first objection is that taking it chronologically inherently helps Pre-Trib, Pre-Trib sees The Rapture not in Revelation at all so really it's chronology should be irrelevant to them.  I see it clearly in the middle of the book, from the latter part of Chapter 11 through chapter 14, with the key moment being The Rapture of the Man-Child.

1), His intent was clearly to try as much as possible to write things down as he saw them.

2), Certain subjects ARE clearly scattered about, the book is clearly not organized by subject, even The Beast gets a reference before his formal introduction.

3), This I assume is mainly about the mystery of the Seven heads, and maybe the various time statements.

The reason Revelation's Authorship confuses people is indeed because it was really written by Jesus with John as his stenographer.  It's actually wrong to say Jesus wrote none of The Bible.

Since Jack Kelly knows John's Gospel is the least Chronological, I wonder if he is wiling to admit Jesus ministry wasn't three years but only one tops.

Many of Chris White's videos seem to be down.

Youtube Videos to be exact.

Which is a problem for me given how often I used them as a source on this blog.  Some posts were nothing more then my commentary on what he said.

Middleism

Is a school of Eschatological thought I've recently been made aware of.

The description of it given to me is that they hold a Futurist view of Revelation and a Preterist view of Matthew 24.

So on Revelation we agree basically, that's good.

I've already argued against Preterist views of Matthew 24 in previous posts with the Preterism, 70 AD and Matthew 24 labels.

I assume they must also be Preterist on the other Olivte Discourse chapters, since Matthew's is literally the most difficult to make a Preterist interpretation work.  Much of Luke 21 I believe is about 70 AD.  At the same time Luke has a clear tie in to Revelation 11 with the part about Jerusalem being trodden under foot of The Gentiles.

I'm not sure what their views on 1 Thessalonians 4 and II Thessalonians 2 would be.  I have argued before they are essentially Paul's commentary on Matthew 24.

So the only things I should need to say specific to Middleism is how to prove with Scripture that Matthew 24 correlates to things in Revelation.  Since I've before criticized connecting the Four Horsemen to the "Non Signs" and gone back and forth on how if at all I feel the Matthew 24 Abomination of Desolation statement ties into Revelation 13.  I'm perhaps less able to do that then other Futurists.

But I do believe Matthew 24:14's statement about the Gospel being Preached to the whole world probably ties into Revelation 14.

Also Matthew 24 and Revelation are the only parts of Scripture that use the specific phrase "Great Tribulation" in Revelation 7 it's used of the multitude that is clearly the same multitude of martyrs seen in the Fifth Seal.  They all are Christian martyrs not just of a specific time period which is what puts me in conflict even with most Futurists.  As long as Christians are still being martyred (they are in most of the world, we just have it easy in the West) the Great Tribulation isn't over.

And I believe the Last Trumpet is the Seventh Trumpet.

And I believe the "Sign of the Son of Man" refers to either the Ark of the Covenant being seen in Heaven in Revelation 11 or to the signs of Revelation 12 which I believe will literally be seen in the Heavens before the Rapture.

And I believe the Son of Man coming on a Cloud is fulfilled in Revelation 14.

P.S.  Looking back on my earlier post about the Eschatological views of those who reject Paul as a False Prophet.   They were essentially a form of Middleism, believing Matthew 24 was a warning about Paul basically, but seemingly still treating Revelation as yet future.

Israel's hiding place in The Wilderness during The Day of Yahuah

I still believe the doctrine that Israel will have a Hiding Place in the Wilderness during the three and a half years between The Rapture and the start of the Millennium.

The Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, and verses 6 and 14 refer to her hiding in the Wilderness in a place prepared by God.

Matthew 14 also records Jesus warning to flee to the Wilderness when you see The Abomination of Desolation.

What I have come to disagree with is the popular view that this hiding place is in the land anciently ruled by Edom but today part of Jordan, Biblically identified with Bozrah, though for some reason popularly identified with the distinct Petra.

Daniel 11:41 is taken as assurance that Edom, Moab and at least part of Ammon (all in modern Jordan) will escape The Antichrist.  But I've already shown that Prophecy was about Caesar Augustus, and refers to those lands being ruled by the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas.  And even if it does have a second fulfillment, this passage still doesn't directly connect itself to this doctrine, and that lack of control is not guaranteed to be permanent, Rome did eventually conquer the Nabatean Kingdom under Trajan, the same Caesar who conquered Babylon for Rome interestingly.

The main basis for placing their hiding place in Bozrah is Micah 2:12.

I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.

Thing is Bozrah is also a Hebrew term that means Sheepfold, and in context it looks like that is what's being said here, not a place name.  There are no near by references to Edom or other Edomite place names to verify this being the Edomite city.  And to further complicate things Jeremiah 48:24 refers to a Bozrah in Moab.

Amos 1:12 and Isaiah 34 refers to Bozrah specifically and Edom as a whole as being subject to God's Wrath during the Day of Warth.  Now I think that is arguably about Eschatological Edom being Rome/The West, but I think the geographical lands of Ancient Edom could play a role in that, Edom returning to their roots in a sense, not unlike Mystery Babylon returning to Shinar in Zechariah 5.

The final passage cited to prove this theory is Isaiah 63 where Jesus, described similarly to how he is in Revelation 19, is coming from Edom and Bozrah.  This passage also doesn't directly connect itself to the Wilderness hiding place doctrine but I think it's more likely to be relevant then Daniel.

It could be Jesus is traveling through Edom/Bozrah and it's neither the starting or ending point.  However it certainly is not the ending point, so this theory is dependent on saying he goes where Israel is hiding first and then marches to Armageddon.

I however think based on Genesis 28:17 that when Revelation 19:11 says Heaven Opened, that opening is in Beth-El.  Destroying The Armies of The Beast is the first thing Jesus will do, then he'll go to Israel to lead them back to Jerusalem.

So I think the reference to Edom and Bozrah in Isaiah 63 is the same as in Isaiah 34 and other Prophecies about Edom's final Judgment, like Obadiah, of Ezekiel 35-36.

So where do I think Israel will be protected?

I have argued before for seeing the Day of Yahuah as being a typological repeat of much of the history of The Exodus.  In that context I think perhaps this will be the same place they wandered in The Wilderness for 40 years in the days of Moses.  In fact I think the reference to her being fed there in 12:6 possibly alludes to a return of the Manna miracle.  Also Exodus 19:4 uses Eagles' Wings terminology, as does Isaiah 40:31.

We do also see a pattern throughout The Bible of individuals returning to this same location.  David spent some time in Paran which is also a place Israel spent some of the 40 year wandering.  Elijah spent some time at Mt Sinai.  We're never told where Jesus 40 days in the Wilderness was.  Paul in Galatians 1:17 says he was in Arabia for some of the time between his conversion and the beginning of his ministry.  Paul places Sinai in Arabia in Galatians 4:24-25.

That of course leads to debates about where those locations are.

I believe Mt Sinai is in Midian, possibly Jabal El Lawz, a view first popularized in The West by Ron Wyatt but later verified by the more reliable and trustworthy Bob Cornuke.

I've expressed in the past a willingness to believe certain Muslim claims that most modern Western Christians are adverse to.  Doesn't change my complete rejection of the Theology, Christolgoy and Soterology of Islam, or that Muhammad is not eligible to be a Biblical Prophet.  These issues come up in any post I give the Ishmael label to.

The Mt Sinai debate ties into that.  If Sinai is in what we today call the Sinai Peninsula then the Desert of Paran can't be in Arabia either, since Paran is also one of the locations mentioned during the 40 year wandering.

We're used to thinking of the total geography of the 40 year wandering as pretty small because The West since the time of Constantine has been forced to limit it to the Sinai Peninsula.  But once you place Mt Sinai in Arabia, then things can open up.

I want to point out that the Islamic view of Paran is not that it's just Mecca, they view the Wilderness of Paran as the entire Hijaz, that's pretty much all of Saudi Arabia that borders the Red Sea.  But there is also a more specific Mt Paran.

Eusebius and Jerome were Pre-Islamic non Arab Christians who placed Paran in Arabia Desertia, which is the Roman name for Saudi Arabia basically, south of Nabatea (Jordan mostly) and north of Arabia Felix (Yemen).

There are Samaritan sources like some texts of their Pentateuch and their apocryphal Book of Moses that seem to agree with identifying Paran with al-Hijaz and linking Ishmael to Mecca.  However a claim that Abraham built the Kaaba remains incompatible with Genesis.

Immanuel Velikvosky when arguing for his view of the Amalekites (which I agree with, with some qualifiers) in Ages in Chaos saw identifying Paran with al-Hijaz as supporting his theory based on his use of Arab Historians.

I'm even willing to consider valid the identification of the Baca of Psalm 84:6 with Bakkah an ancient name for Mecca.  Though that is pretty difficult to prove.

In context it does sound like a Desert or Wilderness location, I'm even wondering now if Psalm 84 could be directly applicable to Israel's End Times wildness protection.

Psalm 84 being a Davdic Psalm is taken as meaning it's probably a location linked to a place David was during his exile.  Well 1 Samuel 25:1 says David went to Paran after Samuel died.

The usage of Psalm 82 by Islamic apologists remains wrong in that Baca is not the destination of this Pilgrimage.  They basically try to argue Zion just means Sacred Land and thus can mean the Kaaba.  Zion only came to mean that after David placed his Tabernacle on Mt Zion, this being a Daivdic Psalm shows David's Zion is what he meant.  While he was in Paran he longed to return to Zion.

If you take the size of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22, and place it's center at Jerusalem or Beth-El, it's total land would include Mecca and Medina, and one or two of it's southern gates would be just south of them in Arabia.  So you could have people pilgrimage through those gates and past Mecca towards Zion.

So basically I think Arabia, not Jordan is where Israel will be protected during the last 1260 days.

Or maybe this and the Petra view don't conflict, since another suggested location for Mt Sinai is Jabel al-Madhbah near Petra.  Petra isn't named as such in the Bible being a Greek name and the city as we know it from the Greco-Roman period.  It was the Nabatean capital making it actually Ishmaelite territory just outside of Edom.   But again during the NT era the Nabateans ruled Edom, Moab and much of Amon.  But being connected to Ishmael's oldest son makes it logical to be near Paran.

It is named in The Bible as Cela/Sela/Selah, often translated Rock. Possibly first being given that name in 1 Samuel 23:25-28.  And having being given another name in 2 Kings 14:7.  It's refereed to in Obadiah 3 and Jeremiah 49:16.  Showing at times Edom did have it.  But it's linked to Kedar in Isaiah 42:11.  And it identified as being in The Wilderness in Isaiah 16:1.

It is used of the Rock Moses smote the second time, when smiting it wasn't what he was supposed to do, in Numbers 20, and mentioned in Psalm 78:16.  And it's used in Number 24:21 about the Kenites, the clan of the Father in-law of Moses.  And in Deuteronomy 32:13.  It's also possibly being mentioned in Judges 1:36.

Perhaps the Karaite reocking isn't as perfect as I thought

I had argued before strongly for the Karaite reckoning of when to begin a Hebrew Year.  And I certainly still reject the Rabbinic calendar and the Samaritan one.

Aviv is a name for the month now commonly called Nisan used in The Torah.  Because Aviv is a term related to the Barley Harvest (As someone not at all a Harvest expert I still don't quite understand it) the Karaite assumption is the Aviv has to happen before the month can begin.

The issue is in a case like this year where the Karaites and the Rabbis both had a second Adar, and celebrate Passover and Unleavened Bread in the 20s of April rather then the 20s of March.  The Barley Harvest is done before Passover happens meaning it's not possible to offer the First Fruits Wave Sheaf on the Morning after the Sabbath after Passover.

(Side note, I still agree with the Karaite view that Purim should be celebrated in 1st Adar when there are two, Esther defines it as being the 12th Month, but the Rabbis like doing it a month before Passover no matter what.)

I think the Goal should be to make sure the Barley Harvest is going on when Unleavened Bread happens.

What I think many people don't want to accept is that it may be the New Moon that begins the New Year might need to be not recognized as such till after the fact.  The Torah does not call for anything to be done on the New Years Day itself that isn't called for for every New Moon, the only New Moon that is a Holy Day is the New Moon of Tishri which marks the Midway Point of the year.

Ezekiel 45 makes the First Day of the First Month important (and the Seventh Day of the First Month also), it's unclear to me if those are for every year or just about when that Temple is first instituted. Whichever case that is, Ezekiel's Temple is instituted either at the start of The Millennium or the New Heaven and New Earth, either way when The Messiah reigns, so calendar ambiguities will no longer be a concern.

I think if the Barley is Aviv very soon after a New Moon, like within a Week, then that New Moon should be retroactively considered the start of the New Year.

Josephus said the first month of the Jewish year was Aries.  Back then the Sun was in Aries a month before when it is now, beginning around the Spring Equinox and ending in the midst of April.  I would not build doctrine on Josephus, and his goal was to define things in terms a Greek audience would understand, but it's still an interesting reference.

That there is a risk of missing Passover is part of why the Second Passover law was instituted in Numbers 9.

Update March 17th 2018:  There are some out there arguing that we should use the Equinoxes to decide what New Moon starts the year.   One of these I can't recommend since they're Lunar Sabbath supporters and very Racist.

But the Argument is that Israel in the Wilderness didn't have Barley to check, and neither did Moses on the Ark.  And that the Sabbatical and Jubilee years you weren't to be planting any crops.  Genesis one says the Sun, Moon and Stars are to be times and seasons are determined.

They also argue that tquwphah Strong Number 8622, means Equinox.  It means Circuit but apparently that's kind of what Equonox means.  I'm not entirely convinced of that argument however.

However they largely fall into the same issue as the Kariaites, that it should always be the first New Moon after the Spring Equinox, not simply the closest.  They say that if you started the year 13 days before the Spring Equnox, most of Tabernacles would happen before the Fall Equinox.

I think the answer isn't closest or first after, I think it's somewhere in between.  They're concerned with starting it too soon, but I feel it can be equally a problem to start it too late.

Again, no one is willing to consider that the New Moon that starts the year can maybe be identified as such afterwards.

Take March of 2018 when I'm writing this Update for example.  The New Moon (as in the first Crescent) will probably bee seen on the 18th or 19th.  In this case the Equinox is certainly soon enough afterwards that it seems extreme to delay the new year a whole month over it.

We need to make sure it's Spring when the Nisan Festivals happen.  But the start of Nisan can be sooner.

Update March 22nd 2018:

Another reason I would be more concerned about doing them a Month late then a month early is the Feast of Jeroboam.  Jeroboam's Feast wasn't in the 6th month it was in the 8th.  The people in Ancient Israel doing Tabernacles a month later where Jeroboamists.

For people attacking Christmas because they vaguely happening at the same time as Pagan holidays is so bad.  In a year like this one, not starting Nisan till nearly a full Month after the Equinox is going to place Passover on Walpurgisnacht/Beltaine and Halloween during Tabernacles.  But the truth is it's the Kabbalahist holiday Lag BaOmer a month after Passover that has it's origins as a Judaized form of the Mid Spring Pagan bonfire festival.

The Imam Mahdi of Shia Islam

All the speculation among Christians about if the Antichrist might claim to be the Mahdi of Islamic Eschatology barely acknowledges the differences between the Sunni and Shiite views of the Mahdi.  But when it does in general the focus is on the Shia version because there are more details in their traditions to over analyze.  For example, it's the Shiites who call him Imam, to the Sunnis he is a Caliph.  I've tried to be an exception in my past speculations, but have hardly gone too deep into it.

The interesting thing I've discovered recently is, it's not just Christians who think the Imam Mahdi could be the Antichrist, there is a Sunni Website saying the Dajjal is actually the Shiite Imam Mahdi.  And their reasoning is very interesting given my own speculations on a number of subjects.  But I should of course say I doubt all or even most Sunnis would agree with everything on that site, it engages in a lot of weirdness similar to what I'm used to seeing from the most off the deep end Christian websites.

It kind of starts with how the Shiite view makes Imam Mahdi kind of quasi Divine, even giving him a Pre-existence.  While the Sunnis see the Mahdi as not even a Prophet.

Another claim of this website is that Shiites don't always admit to being Shiites, and so ideas it's skeptical of in traditional Sunni sources they suspect could have been planted by Shiites.  Since for most of Islamic history the Sunnis have been in control and haven't always allowed Freedom of Religion, one can't blame Shiites for having a history of hiding.

Today most Shiites live in Iran and Iraq.  Geographically that happens to be the lands associated with the Dajjal in the oldest Muslim eschatological traditions.

The Dajjal was originally expected to be a Jewish Messianic claimant.  This website points out many things that seem oddly Jewish to them about the Shia traditions.  Like Traditions that the Imam Mahdi will use the Jewish Name of God (I've read other Muslim websites agreeing with conspiracy theories that YHWH is actually a pagan god), and rule in the manner of David and Solomon.  And that specifically say the Imam Mahdi will have Jewish followers.

And many Jews have lived in the Irag/Iran region, going back to the exile and the Exilarchs.  Also early Caliphs resettled the Jews of Khyabar in Iraq.  I meanwhile could add my arguments that the Lost Tribes settled East of the Euphrates, and that the Persians and Iranians partly descend from Naphtali and the Eranites.  In the context of all that, seeing the Shiite Imam Mahdi and the Rabbinic Messiah Ben-Joseph as possibly the same personage could fit pretty well.  And that fits how Shiite traditions often treated Ali as the Joshua to Muhammad's Moses.

They are suspicious of prophecies that say he'll discover the Original Torah Scroll and Gospel, and rule the Jews and Christians according to their own laws.  And also re-discover the original Koran as well.  I've commented on the Mahdi's expected archaeological exploits before.

They are also suspicious of the Sufyani tradition, an enemy the Mahdi is said to defeat, who will rule parts of Syria and Iraq and will descend from Sufyan.  When the split between the Sunni and Shia happened the Sunni followed a son of Sufyan, so it could be possible to see Sufyani as a code for a Sunni leader (maybe even Sunni Mahdi claimant) from a Shia POV.  Today ISL/ISIS and it's desire to set up a Sunni Caliphate in Syria and Iraq could be seen as fitting the Sufyani description from a Shiite POV.

They also object to Shiite traditions that seem anti-Arab and even Anti-Mecca.  If you're thinking "how could any version of a Faith founded by Arabs be Anti-Arab" just look at all the Anti-Semitism in Christian history.

The Koran was written before the split happened obviously.  Thing is the word Shia was originally a word for Sect, so this site takes advantage of some Koran and early Haddith usage of that word, including references to the Dajjal having a Shia(Sect).

Thing about all this is, my emphasis on the overlooked fact that the Beast is actually against Babylon, and that his Seat is West of the Euphrates.  Tells me that an Imam Mahdi claimant is far more likely to be a Decoy Antichrist then the real one, and perhaps one of the Kings of the East, or the Terrible of the Nations.

Does that make a Sunni Mahdi claimant the real one?  Maybe, maybe not, there could be multiple Decoys.

And I still have my skepticism the Antichrist will be Muslim or Pagan at all.