The individual Antichrist doctrine is a Marcionite Heresy

In 1 John and 2 John the only use of the word Antichrist that seems to have the idea of an expected future individual in mind is 1 John 2:18.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

For what I'm arguing here the key part of that verse is “ye have heard”, elsewhere in The New Testament expressions like  “ye have heard” sometimes (but not always) refer to oral traditions that are in fact wrong, like Matthew 5:43. And when it does seem to be used of an actual quotations of Scripture the implication is still that it was being misused or misunderstood, for example “Eye for an Eye” was always meant to be an expression of restraint not a mandate. 

The doctrine of an individual Antichrist does pop up very early in Church history, a fact I stressed back when I was a Futurist.  But even as early as the second century wrong ideas were popping up, indeed some of what’s in The Epistles is dealing with bad ideas already popping up.

Marcionism is the Heresy of Marcion of Sinope that the “Old Testament” God is not a benevolent God and has nothing to do with Jesus or The Father that Paul spoke of.  What is obviously wrong with that doctrine was quickly deemed Heresy by most Christians including those academics call the “Proto-Orthodox” and is still deemed Heretical to this day by all Chalcedonian, Miaphysite and “Nestorian” Churches as well as even the most rebellious of Low Church Protestants.  

However he did manage to be influential, perhaps one of the first Heretics whose real influence came in how even those debunking him conceded to him more ground then they should have.  

While literally separating the Old and New Testament Gods is recognized as obvious heresy, a lot of casual discussions of The Bible still maintains a perception that God seems different in The Hebrew Bible.  People will talk about it as if He mellowed out or something, and Dispensationalists argue God is operating differently now during the “Church Age” but eventually it will end and we’ll be back in the Old Testament. 

The truth is much of what the New Testament has to say about God’s Mercy and Forgiveness and Unconditional Love has its roots in The Hebrew Bible, like in the Psalms and much of Isaiah. The ugliest stuff in the Hebrew Bible still leads to a Happy Ending, it’s Hebrew Prophets who said God’s Punishments are for Correction and His fire a purging fire.  And God’s Wrath is by no means absent from the New Testament or even specifically from Paul.

This perception largely comes from The New Testament being shorter in total, especially in terms of actual narrative content.  Pop culture focus on stories where God’s Wrath is apparent often purely for entertainment, but in The New Testament we run out of that content quicker not because it’s a smaller percentage of the whole but simply because it’s smaller. 

But I also think it’s in some cases made worse by mistakes in how The Hebrew Bible is translated relative to The New Testament. In the Hebrew you are a lot less likely to be confused about “Eye for an Eye” being a law of restraint rather than a mandate.

Back to the topic at hand.

Marcion did in fact have an Eschatology, alongside arguing that Jesus has nothing to do with the Jewish God he also argued that the Jewish God was indeed going to send a conquering Jewish Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.  

As Gentile Christians among the “Proto-Orthodox” were starting to become Anti-Semitic for their own reasons, it was attractive to adapt what Marcion said into an expectation of a False Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.

While modern Futurists are usually depicting The Antichrist as more of a Globalist Savior, with the Islamic Antichrist claiming to be the Mahdi theory being the second most popular model.  Some degree of remembering the false Jewish Messiah idea remains.  

Christ White wrote a book called “False Christ: Will the Antichrist claim to be the Jewish Messiah” back in the 2010s going all in on that as his main model for understanding the Antichrist (abandoning an earlier interest he had in thinking he’d be a New Age Maitreya figure) and does convincingly argue that all the earliest extra-Biblical Church writings on the subject were focused on a False Jewish Messiah model.  Yet those still include no one older than the time of Marcion.  The only Non-Biblical Christian Writing with any Eschatology in it that could be older than Marcion is the Didache which on the subject of villains for its End Time scenario refers only to “The World Deceiver" like quoting Revelation 12 in reference to Satan The Dragon.

Christ White’s Biblical argument is largely built on Daniel 11:36-45 which I’ve demonstrated is about ancient BC Rome not a future conqueror.  And John 5:43 “another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”, which I view as fulfilled later in that same Gospel when the Jewish Priests say “We have no King but Caesar” and/or when they called for the freeing of Barabas. 

These early fathers liked to see what Jesus said about Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum in Matthew 11:21-24 and Luke 10:13-15 as relevant, I think it's self evident those verses are not about a villain coming from there and are probably fulfilled by these cities being destroyed in the First Jewish-Roman War.  Being way up north they were clearly being tied into the whole Dan fixation which is why Chris White doesn’t use those verses in his own argument.  I have a prior post on the Tribe of Dan including how prophecies about Dan may have also been fulfilled in the first Jewish-Roman War.

Much of what Chris White does in this book or in Islamic Antichrist Debunked is to correctly argue against the Antichrist relevance of many other popular Prophecies to connect to that topic.  But as I just showed the same can be done to the ones he bases his view on.

I’ve already argued on this blog that the Abomination of Desolation Jesus foretold is Hadrian’s statue, and that the Man of Sin in II Thessalonians 2 is all Christian Monarchy and Episcopal Polity.

I have posts on how The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is the Seleucid Dynasty focused on Antiochus Epiphanes and The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Byzantine Empire focused on Justinian.  And Chris White himself has argued for the final part of Daniel 2 being about events in the Fifth Century though that might be one of his old arguments he’s since reversed. 

https://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-49-nephilm-toes-or-the-end-of-rome-nebuchadnezzars-dream-2/

And I've shown that the 70th Week is entirely 30-37 AD.

In the last verse of Revelation 13, "Number of a man" can arguably be instead translated "number of men" or "number of Man" as in Mankind which is why it's often thought to be thematically linked to Adam being created on the 6th Day.  That fits well with my argument that 666=Iapetos given what Iapetos is in Greek Mythology.

In developing my current Eschatology, I have considered a few individual Emperors as candidates for The Beast.  But the gist of my Baptism of The Beast thesis is that The Beast is Rome as a collective entity, whose long ongoing Baptism began with the Milvian Bridge and is still in progress right now.

It is what I think about the Beast out of The Earth I’m still working on. 

Ezekiel 37 is about The Bodily Resurrection of The Dead

As I said before I happen to be a Zionist for Secular reasons but no longer hold the Bible Prophecy expectations associated with “Christian Zionism”, especially not its Futurist Premillennial Dispensationalist forms.

I'm not inherently hostile to the idea that Modern Israel could have a role to play in the Bible Prophecies I view as not already fulfilled yet.  But I don’t expect a Third Temple or some revival where they all convert to Christianity prior to The Parousia. When it happens The Parousia will affect every nation, so if you are in Israel when it happens you will have a unique view of it. 

Conservative Evangelicals have a tendency to side with the Revisionist Maximalists in terms of what the borders of Israel should be, but I’ve debunked that reasoning on my other blog.

What bugs me about the Eschatology of Christian Zionists is how they twist Ezekiel 37 in order to make it about 1948.

While contemporary Christian Zionism is viewed as mostly the domain of Pre-Trib Dispensationalism, it began among Puritans with a predominantly Historicist Eschatology.  However the most consistently hostile to Zionism is Full Preterism.  All forms of Christian Zionism exist in frameworks that are supposed to be built on stressing a literal physical bodily view of the General Resurrection of The Dead. 

And yet they wind up taking one of the most graphically explicit Hebrew Bible visuals of that literal bodily Resurrection, and allegorizing it the same way many Full Preterists do. Full Preterists agree with the Dry Bones of Ezekiel 37 being a picture of a rebirth of the Nation of Israel, however as Supersessionists they view that rebirth as the birth of The Church.

The core fallacy here is a refusal to accept that a Prophecy can be multiple things at once.  

Yes Ezekiel 37 it is putting a focus on how this will be a rebirth and reunification for Israel as a Nation.  But it is a renewal happening because all these dead Israelites of past generations are alive again.  Including David specifically singled out for reference, which Christian commentators keep saying simply represents Jesus here but I disagree, it is David himself Risen, Jesus in this chapter is YHWH, the one breathing the Breath of Life into them like back in Genesis 2. 

Because Pre-Trib is the most well known form of Futurism currently, Full Preterists love to cling to how they technically interpret Ezekiel 37 the same way and point out the absurdity of separating that Resurrection Prophecy from all the others.

The Resurrection is not a metaphor for national revival, it is the cause of it. 

Gog and Magog Invasion

Back when I was still a Pre-Millennial Futurist I became convinced of the view that the Gog and Magog Invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 is the same as the one in Revelation 20:8-9 and thus happens after the Millennium, I started being convinced of this after being first exposed to it by Chris White.  

Revelation 20 is clearly referencing that Prophecy in a way that implies this is what that always was.  I find it funny when people call Ezekiel's Prophecy "Gog and Magog" while denying they are the same because that exact wording is ONLY in Revelation and arguably a mistranslation even there, the Greek of Revelation 20 looks to me like it's saying "Gog from Magog" which is even more clearly referencing the language of Ezekiel.

However, I’m not Pre-Millennial anymore but a Partial Preterist so I can agree with that view but also wind up right back in the position of viewing it as possibly the next big event of The Biblical Timeline. Especially since unlike the standard forms of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism I view the end of The Millennium in verse 7 as already past. 

However that does not require me to expect something essentially the same as what most Futurists are expecting.  In my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog I’ve definitely argued for a reading that does not require taking its geography at face value, and seeing at least the start of the Invasion as something that’s also already happened.  However I’m not as firmly decided on how I view verses 8-9 as I am the first 7 verses.  Verse 11 on is definitely still yet future. 

Recent Geopolitical news I'm sure has riled up the typical Futurist Gog and Magog enthusiasts.  I also find it interesting how those who for Secular reasons spent all of 2022 and much of 2023 hyping up Putin as the New Hitler and saying our Foreign Policy decisions need to revolve around stopping him, failed to apply that to their positions on Israel, Palestine, Syria or Iran. Putin and Iran are allies and Putin is very Anti-Israel. 

I’m a Christian and a Zionist, but not what “Christian Zionist” as a term typically means.  My Eschatology does NOT demand me to see any Prophetic significance to modern Israel, it could wind up playing a role in something, but it doesn’t need to and I don’t particularly expect it to. It’s only on the topic of this Prophecy specifically that I’m even kind of thinking about it.  I’m a Zionist for Secular Materialist reasons just like most of the original Jewish founders of modern Zionism were.

I’m a Labor Zionist, in the original understanding of that term not what David Ben-Gurion turned Labor Zionism into, and I certainly have no love for the Likud party.  You can condemn both what Hamas did on October 7th 2023 and how Netenyahu has responded to it, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Many are going to use the connection they see between this situation and Ezekiel 38-39 to defend Netenyahu’s foreign policy decisions, but that is irrelevant actually.  A repeated theme in The Bible is that God saves The Nation in-spite of how unrighteous they are not because they deserve it. God’s intervention would be for the sake of the common people not the politicians in charge. 

However the big issue is that the implication of my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog see the Camp of The Saints as Christians not Civil Israel.  But there are Christians in Israel, some Cities who’s entire Population is Christian. 

Dispensationalists do believe Israel has a Sin that God is going to save them in-spite of, but rather than being any actual deeds it is the sin of not being Christians.  As both a Universalist and an Inclusivist I don’t think that matters, God is going to judge the Nations based on what they do not who they worship.  Jews are judged based on how they interpret and follow their own religions. I don’t see any value in actively trying to convert anyone.

I’m not writing this to come to any definitive conclusion at all, just sharing some thoughts I’ve been having. 

Materialism and Idealism

 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/05/materialism-and-idealism.html

I'm copy/pasting the text of the above post below.  But if I ever make edits or revisions of it in the future I'll be prioritizing that original posting. [Of course a further confusion when added to Bible Prophecy is Idealism as a term for a way of interpreting Revelation.]

One thing that unintentionally poisons the well of Internet Leftist Discourse is that both of those words (as well as their -ist forms) have more than one meaning, and yet many either only know one meaning, ignorantly conflate the meanings, or are willingly ignorant that others don’t know the other meanings.

Idealism as in the Metaphysics of Platonism and Immanuel Kant has nothing to do with what it means when someone is called an Idealist in contrast to being a Pragmatist or Cynical.  In the latter case Ideal is being used as a synonym for Value or Moral rather then a Platonic Ideal Form.

Likewise Materialist Metaphysics (or lack of metaphysics) has little to do with the “Historical Materialism” of philosophies like Marxism and nothing to do with the Madonna song Material Girl.

You can be Idealistic while still rejecting Philosophical Idealism, and you can be a Historical Materialist while while holding to Idealist Metaphysics.

Materialist Metaphysics is a key pillar of Stoicism, and the main reason I call myself somewhat of a Stoic rather than most anything popularly associated with Stoicism.  While the rejection of anything metaphysical existing is Epicureanism. 

I agree with Historical Materialism but not the more specific Dialectical Materialism which I view as a symptom of Pythagorean Dualism.  And that’s why my status as a Marxist is questionable.

So I’m definitely not a Philosophical Idealist.  How much the other Idealism applies to me is purely subjective. 

The Dual Fulfilment Fallacy

I'm a former Futurist who even when I was a Futurist interpreted a good number of individual Prophecies in ways that fit how a Preterist and/or Historicist could interpret them.  

When I tried to argue to a fellow Futurist that a certain Prophecy was clearly meant to be the near future of when the Prophecy was given, or even that at least how it begins was, that Prophets can't really be considered confirmed Prophets at all if nothing they predicted was fulfilled in their lifetime.  I occasionally get responses about the Dual Fulfilment concept, making it sound like it's an absolute that every prophecy has at least 2 fulfilments, near and far.  Understanding it this way makes it almsot impossible to definitively argue for anything.

Nathan's Prophecy about the Son of David building The Temple in 2 Samuel 7 is the core foundation upon which the dual fulfilment concept is based, and the reason why it can't even be called inherently Christian, every Jew who believes in a yet future Messiah Ben-David believes this Prophecy has a second fulfilment in addition to Solomon.

But the thing about this most undisputed case of a second fulfillment being needed, is that the first fulfilment failed.  Now make no mistake God always knew what was gonna happen, but the fact still remains that in theory Solomon alone could have been all this Prophecy needed, but he failed, the entire history of the divided kingdom is the legacy of Solomon's failure.  When you properly add that context it's not a dual fulfilment at all, it's only kind of applicable to Solomon at all because of what could have been.

That's why in my opinion dual fulfilments are possible and occasionally worth speculating on.  But to start building doctrine on some absolute expectation that no Prophecy is properly fulfilled till it's fulfilled twice is in my opinion foolish.

A lot of other almost undisputed examples of dual fulfilments are also ones where the second or final fulfilment is Jesus.  But in a lot of those cases it's typology, to Christians the applicability to Jesus is what matters most because we view everything through the lens of Jesus. But I would still call it wrong to act like that Prophecy wasn't actually fully fulfilled till Jesus.  The sense in which Jesus repeats it is a nice bonus for our Christian view of The Bible's metanarrative, but it often isn't at all what the original Prophet was concerned with.

Any Prophecy where I do feel that Prophecy was always chiefly about Jesus, I generally seek to, like with the failure of Solomon thesis, deconstruct the near fulfilment, which for example is how I currently treat Isaiah 7-8.  

However I long stopped to treating the "antichrist" concept the same way.  I actually think it's bordering on Dualism heresy how treat that figure is treated like a mirror image.  So yes in a sense every Hero of The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ, but that doesn't make every villain a similar type of the "Antichrist".

And the thing about a lot of the Prophecies I do think are about the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in AD 70. AD 70 was in a sense itself the second fulfilment, it was a repeat of the history of the fall to Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. so saying it must happen again in the future is arguing for a full on third fulfilment.

What I'm criticizing here is partly stuff I'd been guilty of myself in the past.  This is a product of how I feel I've grown wiser as a student of Prophecy.

In The Case of the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus tells us that an already fulfilled event will happen again.  However that doesn't mean every detail of Daniel 11-12 (or 9) is going to happen twice, the context of the next Abomination of Desolation could be very different.  I try to define what the AoD is based on the initial fulfilment of those prophecies, but that's it, everything leading up to and following it could and probably will be different.

And I now beleive the AoD Jesus was speaking of was Hadrian's Statue. 

Pompey The Great's Capture of Jerusalem

You will often learn in discussions of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives that it was a surprise he chose to pair Alexander The Great with Julius Caesar rather than Pompey. 

I think it’s telling that this debate is mainly about who gets to be the Roman Alexander. I don’t see many alternatives for a Greek Julius Caesar proposed and even less interest in who else should be the Roman Aqesilaus II.  

Most of that discussion will focus on very Secular reasons Pompey is a more natural Alexander. But what I couldn’t help but notice is that from a Biblical point of view Pompey is obviously the Roman Alexander since he’s the first Roman Conquerer to annex the land of Israel into Rome’s Empire.

I once made an argument for Pompey as the King of Daniel 11:36-45, but that’s no longer my main view of that passage and never really was all that strongly.  Pompey is still in Daniel 11 as the start of what the last part of verse 33 describes. 

However there is a Prophecy that I have come to view as much more specifically about Pompey’s 63 BC Conquest of Jerusalem recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.  The first two verses of Zechariah 14. 

“Behold, the day of YHWH cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”

When Zechariah lived the Babylonian Captivity was already in the past. 

To most Futurists this siege of Jerusalem is still yet future.  To the vast majority of Preterists and some Futurists this is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  I’m not a Futurist anymore and don’t want to get into why here.  But why I disagree with an AD 70 view of this is more relevant.

In AD 70 you can indeed say about half the population of Jerusalem went into captivity, but the other half died, or some had already fled. Jerusalem was completely destroyed after this and left uninhabited for over 60 years till it was rebuilt as a Roman City which Jews were not allowed inside of for another 500 years. 

Now “All Nations” here is Hyperbole, an AD 70 view can’t take that detail at face value either.  Rome did have allies in the Third Mithridatic War and Citizens in the Army who a few decades earlier were considered different nations.

Now Josephus makes it sound like Pompey didn’t take any Captives, but I think he mainly wanted to paint Pompey as positively as possible.  The Fasti Triumphales in the entry for Pompey’s 61 BC Triumph lists Judea as among the conquests Pompey is celebrating, and part of a Triumph is having Captives of all those you Conquered.  It’s also documented that Rome had a Jewish Population already in the mid 1st Century BC, Cicero for example referred to them and he died in 43 BC, and Julius Caesar granted them special privileges. 

So if those verses are about 63 BC how does what happens in the following verses happen next?  Well my ultimate view on Zechariah 12-14 is one I’m still working on.  But it’s tied to my belief that The Crucifixion and Resurrection happened on The Mount of Olives.

Messiah Ben-Joseph

Messiah Ben-Joseph is a concept that exists in some Jewish Apocalyptic literature, it’s not as universally accepted among Rabbinic Jews as some want to make it sound, but it is interesting.   

David C. Mitchell published a book in 2016 titled Messiah ben Joseph that I do recommend because it collects a lot of different relevant texts even though I disagree with some of his interpretations as well as his endorsements of Ben Abrahamson’s weird identifications when talking about the Seventh Century.  I’ll be referring back to his work sometimes in this post. 

Some Christians often talk about the Messiah Ben-Joseph and Messiah Ben-David distinction as if it’s a matter of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies correctly or not associated with Ben-Joseph in his First Advent and Ben-David in his Second Advent.  Ben-Joseph is killed at the Gate of Jerusalem then rises from The Dead while it’s Ben-David who’s the Conquering King.  AD 70 Preterists may be interested in the versions that say Ben-David’s advent is 40 years after the death of Ben-Joseph.

The first thing this ignores is that Ben-Joseph is expected to be a conqueror as well, more so actually, Ben-David simply finishes the campaign mostly carried out by Ben-Joseph. This fits the pattern of the original Ben-David as Solomon’s reign was built on the Conquests of David, and David’s own conquests continued what was begun by Saul.

Meanwhile in a lot of these same texts with a Messiah Ben-Joseph we also have a Messiah Ben David often named Menahem Ben Ammiel.  This Menahem is in fact initially born to his human parents in an earlier epoch of history, but exactly when is inconsistent.  

He’s said to have been born during the time of King David, his mother is definitely the wife of someone named Nathan, sometimes that’s the Prophet sometimes it’s David’s son by Bathsheba, Ammiel is the name of Bathsheba’s father so that makes more sense with the bigger genealogical picture.  In Luke 3 a Greek Transliteration of Menahem is the grandson of Nathan Ben-David. But his mother is named Hephzibah and The Talmud’s Messiah named Menahem is called the son of Hezekiah.  

He’s also said to be born the same day the first Temple was destroyed while the Talmud’s Menahem is born the day the second Temple was destroyed. The Veil of The Temple was torn while Jesus was on the Cross and Resurrection is analogized to Birth in The Bible, so Jesus can be said to have a birth that correlates to the true end of the Second Temple. We also know that Hebrew Christians identified Menahem as the Hebrew equivalent of the NT Greek Paraclete translated in the KJV of John and 1 John as Comforter and Advocate. 

Also in some of these same texts in Mitchell’s book it is Menahem Ben Ammiel who is despised and rejected and who Isaiah 53 is quoted in reference to.

Meanwhile Messiah Ben Joseph doesn’t Resurrect himself, it is Messiah Ben David who resurrects him (sometimes Elijah is part of the process).  It is Messiah Ben David who has the Power of Resurrection, who conquers Death. 

Zechariah 9-11 is one contiguous Prophecy and Zechariah 12-14 is one contiguous Prophecy.  But they are not in my view truly contiguous with each other, at least not entirely, chapter 12 verse 1 uses language that to me means a new Prophecy is starting.  Their mistaken conflation with each other is probably how the error of thinking Ben Joseph is the Pierced Messiah happened.  

There are no references to Joseph or Ephraim or Manasseh or Samaria or Joshua in 12-14. And no David in 9-11 though Judah is mentioned.  As Zechariah originally wrote these Prophecies the Pierced One is of the House of David, that’s why the House of David mourns Him, all four names mentioned in 12:12-13 are also in the Luke 3 genealogy.

There are two places where Joseph/Ephraim imagery could be relevant to Revelation.  

In Revelation 6 the Rider on the White Horse has a Bow and is given a Crown.  Joseph/Ephraim has a Bow in Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9 and has a Crown in Isaiah 28.

Meanwhile the standard Ben Joseph Narrative arguably fits the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11 pretty well, they are a problem for the World for a time till The Beast wages war against them and prevails over them and kills them leaving their bodies to rot in the City for a period of time until they Rise from The Dead.

One aspect of the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition Mitchell doesn’t want to engage with is the idea of Ben Joseph as a Gentile and/or Proselyte rather than someone of Jewish ancestry.  

It’s often suspected that the exiles of the Northern Kingdom were culturally assimilated into the Gentile communities the Assyrians settled them amongst and lost their Israelite Identity unlike the Southern Kingdom’s Exiles.  Meanwhile Genesis 48 prophesied Ephraim to become a Multitude of Nations or as some translate it the Fulness of The Nations, the LXX doesn’t use Pleroma in Genesis 48 but does use it to translate that same Hebrew word elsewhere. 

And so some interpretations of Messiah Ben Joseph see him as a Gentile ally of the Jews or maybe a full convert who may or may not indirectly descend from the Northern Tribes. 

Mitchell, when discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls, argues against the reading that Joseph is leading a foreign army and from then on doesn’t seem to acknowledge the Ben Joseph as a Gentile idea at all. But it is a big factor in Messiah Ben Joseph discourse to this day. 

For example today the Britam Website does this.  They are Jews who essentially believe in British Israelism and related ideas even though they aren’t Christians and so expect Messiah Ben Joseph to be a Western political leader, probably specially WASP since they identify Joseph with the English Speaking world.

However in Ancient Times people were more often looking to the East, since Assyria settled them in Northern Mesopotamia and Media.  Cyrus had Median descent through his Mother so maybe even his being called Messiah by Isaiah 44-45 was as a Messiah Ben Joseph?

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 20 Chapters 2-4 describes the life of Izates II King of Adiabene, he and his mother/aunt Helena were Gentiles by birth but converted to Judaism.  This Biography in my opinion clearly seeks to make Izates a parallel to Joseph in many ways starting with the envy of his half brothers. Either Josephus or an earlier source he’s drawing on I’m convinced saw Izates as a possible Messiah Ben Joseph and/or progenitor of one.  In the Talmud Adiabene called Hayab is identified as a place where Northern Kingdom Exiles were taken. I’ve argued the Kurds are the main modern descendants of the Northern Kingdom’s exiles using both geographical and DNA evidence, and indeed Erbil the ancient capital of Adiabene is in modern times the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iizates II’s main wife was the daughter of another Mesopotamian King who converted to Judaism Symacho of Characene, but he had multiple wives and children by them.  He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Monobaz II who also converted to Judaism. In Wars of The Jews Book 2 Chapter 19 Section 2 Monobaz II is an ally of the Jewish Rebels in AD 66 and sends two Kinsmen one named Monobaz and one named Kenedeus to fight in the war. Later in Book 5 Chapter 6 Section 4 we are told that sons and brethren of Izates were among those taken as hostages to Rome. 

Yusuf, the Arabic form of Joseph, was the actual name of the Himyarite King popularly known as Dhu Nuwas who reigned from AD 522-530.  The Himyarites were also Gentile Converts to Judaism and there is evidence Yusuf wasn't his birth name but one taken after he converted to Judaism.  So I have no doubt he too was seeking to present himself as a Messiah Ben Joseph figure.

But what about the most well known historical figure popularly viewed at the time to have been Messiah Ben Joseph, Nehemiah Ben Hushiel?  I have too many speculations about that subject going on in my head right now, it could be its own very long post.  But some do indeed involve him being a Gentile.

Some of those 7th Century texts even quote parts of Daniel 11:36-45 as being about Messiah Ben-Joseph like the "He will meet his end and none will help him", which is odd given how used we are used to seeing that figure as a villain. But remember from an Abrahamic Perspective not honoring the god(s) of your fathers is a bad thing only if your fathers were Abrahamists.

But let’s return to Genesis 48’s Fulness of The Gentiles.  

Some Christians believe Paul was deliberately drawing on that passage in Romans 11 where the Fulness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel and then All Israel will be Saved.  Meaning all Gentile Believers are by Adoption Children of Ephraim. 

I’m a Partial Preterist who believes the start and maybe even end of The Millennium are already in the past but the Parousia and Literal Bodily Resurrection of The Dead is still yet to come.  Like Post Millennials I believe we have a mission to make the current world better as much as we can, but like Amillennials I still expect the Return of Jesus is what Finishes the Project. 

So to me the Christian view of Messiah Ben Joseph should be that he’s not an individual but The Entire Body of Christ.  We are the Rider on the White Horse of both Revelation 6 and 19 conquering with the Sword of The Spirit which is the Word of God rather than literal violence. Many of us have been Killed by the Enemy doing so and probably more will be, but will be Risen by Jesus when He returns.