Thank for trying to read it all. Well done.
However, I again will point out that your position is vague waffle. Basically you're saying;
'We can't know any thing specific about the identity of the AC/FP etc but we will know when it happens because of signs.. And to try and point out any specifics is wrong because God doesn't work that way (trust me)'.
Well...no. I'm saying that we both agree on the general premise that deception is going to be the cause of the great apostasy and the deluding of many to engage in utterly false worship of one who claims to be God. But where we part company is the nature of the proof. I say that the only reliable indicators themselves will be spiritual in nature. Not that they will be hidden or ethereal and mystical - but rather that they will be of a moral and spiritual quality such that "only the wise will understand" while "the wicked will do wickedly" (and not understand). In other words, the only infallible basis for identifying any prophetic character (ahead of time) is discernment. As can be seen by the profusion of theories based on physical characteristics, there is no sound way to test the soundness of an end-times scenario - at least not until after the prophecy is fulfilled. By then, it will often be too late.
Consider Jesus. The Jews (even the disciples!) looked for someone who would overthrow Rome - a deliverer from their political bondage. So they had a profusion of zealots who were looking to usher in the kingdom of God by violence. They were going to bring about what they expected. And the religious leaders rejected Jesus - in part - because He came from Galilee (they used scripture to prove it -- John 7:52). They rejected Him because He was supposedly of tainted lineage (born of fornication -- John 8:41). Meanwhile, they had someone who was performing miracles, prophesying infallibly and speaking with such great authority that even those who would apprehend Him had to admit His undeniable presence (John 7:46). Maybe ironically, this was in the midst of a debate over whether Christ would hail from Galilee or not (thus John 7:52).
And even with discernment, there is no guarantee the truth of the matter will be known well ahead of time - just in enough time to allow those who believe the truth to obey it and for those who don't to reject it to their judgment. The overthrow of Jerusalem in 70AD shows us that. When the believers in Christ saw Jerusalem surrounded with armies (which then, inexplicably, retreated) they fled to the hills and were spared the fate of those that did not heed Jesus' warning. You may say that this violates my premise of not looking to externals, but I will add that I don't deny that those externals are true and that those who trust the Lord's Word will benefit thereby. But in identifying personalities (whether they be individuals, nations or other entities), there is a difference between that and heeding a warning to flee in given conditions. But again, the conditions Jesus talks about in Luke 21:20-21 are clearly stated. And when you read the parallel passages in Matthew 24:15-16 and Mark 13:14-15, it is evident that the "wise" readers understood what was meant by the abomination of desolation. The only way to have interpreted that was to have had a way of identifying the marks of whatever this abomination was to be. And whether the believers knew ahead of time who it was (or not) I don't know. But they certainly had plenty of time once it was clear what was happening. But to those that did not obey, they rejected Christ. So their judgment goes back to their rejection of the person of Jesus Christ.
Yet you cite virtually no scripture to support this view but the ones you do show you are misinterpreting. E.g: Matthew 16:2-4
Which is simply about Jesus stating that the only sign (proof) of his divinity would be His resurrection. Nothing to do with the end days. Although that said it can also point to Jesus returning on the third prophetic day, i.e. the third millennium from his death and resurrection. i.e. the year 2029. Which is the year of his return.
What I find interesting here is that you want to impose a very strict reading on the passage when I find in it a principle, but when you want to apply it (potentially) to Christ's return. He clearly points to His death (sign of the prophet Jonah) so the warrant for expanding that is suspect. But what I am saying is that Jesus makes a point that doesn't just apply to this one scenario. He makes the general statement that a wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign. That is not simply applying to the people of Jesus' day (though his appearance certainly made that demand for the miraculous more likely), but establishing that an adulterous generation follows after something or someone only for what they can get and then deserts it (or him) only when they find they aren't getting what
they want. Jesus made that point (less bluntly) to the multitude in John 6 after He fed the 5,000.
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
John 6:26
They wanted to make Him king (John 6:15) because He did miracles. And when Jesus confronted them about it in verse 26, they then revealed the truth of what was in their hearts :
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:26-35
First they were wanting to do great works for God. Then they demanded a sign so that they might believe Christ's work. They used Moses to justify their request - but Jesus told them they were (at best) missing the point. What they were seeking was there with them - in front of them - and they were looking for something else entirely (showing that they were more interested in satisfying their own ideas and lusts than they were in following Jesus).
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
John 6:42
So they rejected Him because He didn't fit their natural understanding of what the Lord was after. Had they simply recognized their spiritual poverty, they would have realized what He was saying. All the external signs in the world weren't going to get them to believe - only poverty of spirit. That, in the end, was possessed only by the disciples who, evidenced by Peter's resignation to follow Christ, followed Him in spite of everyone else and because they knew who and what it was they were dealing with :
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 6:66-69
They knew there was no other answer for them. They still, however, didn't have much of a clue what they were in for. But they knew who they were following.
That is all to say that at the heart of acceptance or rejection of Jesus was NOT the compliance with external signs, but a recognition both of who HE was (and is) and who WE are in light of Him. If the only import were the question surrounding resurrection of the dead, then at the least the Pharisees would have accepted Him on that point - while the Saducees would have rejected Him. But both rejected Him. The import of prophecy is not just to tell what is coming in the future, but to understand the nature of the times in which they come.
You can't seem to see that you are actually turning people away from looking into prophesy which is the opposite of what we should do. You should be saying. 'Well I'm going to keep studying prophesy till I get some definitive answers from it'. That's what I did and it works. My long post is all the study and scriptures that support my position.
If you mean I am turning people away from looking at prophesy as a puzzle to be assembled and figured out a la Graham Hancock, the Da Vinci Code and assorted spy flicks and books, then I would say that is a good thing. The foundation of understanding prophecy is not a right understanding of history and politics. It is an appreciation for the context of what God is doing in the earth and what issues are critical in any matter of eschatological interest.
