a reply to: JON666
As you should have expected, I've got a previous thread on this, and prefer to refer you back to it rather than go so far off-topic.
I will say this, following on from what I've already tried to explain to you;
The ruler portrayed at the end of Daniel is modelled on the hostile ruler Antiochus Epiphanes. I've explained to you how we know that. That point
ought to be recognised as established.
In other words, the whole point of the second half of the book of Daniel is that it is talking about a hostile ruler (the first half is about hostile
rulers in general).
Now in the context of Antiochus Epiphanes and in the context of Daniel, "stopping the sacrifice" is a HOSTILE action of a ruler HOSTILE to the worship
of God. He sets up an idolatrous form of worship and diverts the original sacrifices to the idol. As a result, the true worshippers feel they have
lost contact with their God, because the real sacrifices have stopped, and that is what is meant by "desolation". "Abomination" is God's reaction to
the event, "desolation" is the reaction of the worshippers to the same event. That is why it is called "an abomination of desolation". You see, it all
fits together, as long as you focus on what the words actually mean. How many times have I said this now?
I've also pointed out already that the New Testament does not make a big deal about "animal sacrifice being stopped" as an important thing to have
done. Animal sacrifice is never presented as an evil thing; just, in Hebrews, as something which does not work, and which has now been replaced by a
much more effective sacrifice. In fact Hebrews ch8 v4 rather takes it for granted as an intended good; there are sacrificing priests on earth already,
which is why Christ has to move to heaven in order to be a sacrificing priest.
The idea of "conitnuing animal sacrifice being a great evil" was invented by modern people wanting an escape route from the concept of a future
abomination. In other words, they were allowing their preferred theology to control their interpretation of the text.
I see no real difference between "there will be a rapture" people and "the abomination was continuing animal sacrifice" people. Both groups are
obsessively allowing their interpretation of texts to be controlled by their preferred theology.
I will say it, not for the first time; let us focus on what the words actually MEAN.
edit on 23-8-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)