Daniel 9:

[jgr]

please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.

There's nothing faulty about antecedents. You said you received A's in English. Your course(s) must have included antecedents.

 

[Douggg]

That is not referring to an individual Antichrist. That is referring to the spirit of antichrist that is in all of the many antichrists and was already in the world in John's time.

It does not say spirit of antichrist in 1John2:18.

Them John was speaking to were already aware that antichrist singular was coming.

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.

 

[Douggg]

There's nothing faulty about antecedents. You said you received A's in English. Your course(s) must have included antecedents.

Yes. And Messiah the Prince is not the antecedent of the prince who shall come.

Messiah the Prince is in verse 25. Messiah cut off is in verse 26. The prince who shall come is after the Messiah has been cut off. And will be a Roman.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Where did I say that the physical temple was holy in 70 AD? I did not.

Good.

It was still holy at the time Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, so that's why He could still call it "the holy place" at that time.

Christ did not say that. He already considered the city desolate.

Mat 23:37-38
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The city did not kill the prophets. It's PEOPLE, Spiritual Jew!

But, it would no longer be holy and no longer be a place where God would meet with His people shortly after that when He died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn in two to signify the end of the old covenant and ushering in of the new covenant.

Not accurate. God will not meet with the Jews later to destroy a physical city. You got the timing and temple wrong.

Tell me, do you understand that the temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at were the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time? Do you understand that Jesus had just left one of the actual physical temple buildings before the disciples marveled at them?

Yeah after Christ told the Jews to destroy the temple when they thought He was talking about the physical temple that they need to rebuild in 46 years. That was what disciples thought too!

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The context here is clearly regarding the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time. Obviously, Jesus didn't depart from the spiritual temple and the disciples were clearly not marveling at the spiritual temple of God. You get that, right?

Of course, like Christ's disciples before the filling with the Holy Spirit, the natural man would look at this and think that God was speaking about a physical temple building...

...Let me explain... with TONS of Scripture so consider wisely...

...but the spiritual man knows God speaks of the congregation as a temple and those within it as the stones of that Temple. That's not something I made up, that's a Biblical fact. And as far as the prophecy, and despite suppositions to the contrary, our Lord was very specific saying not only that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another of it, but further amplified it by saying they (the stones one upon another) would all (BAR NONE) be thrown down! Even by using the vaunted secular history books we know of a certainty that more than one stone was left standing one upon another after AD 70. In point of fact, to this very day, there are foundation stones left standing "one upon another" of the physical Temple. Moreover, there were (and let's not forget this) many stones of the physical city Jerusalem left standing one upon another. Again, the qualifying prophecy was that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another. Too many people want to "ignore" this qualification because it doesn't fit or conform to their personal/private interpretations of this prophecy taking place in AD 70. I will quote again...so please read carefully:

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Today, many Christians refuse to hear the part where Christ unambiguously says the city shall be laid even with the ground and her children within her. It's very willfully convenient to leave that part out. Tell me, WHO TRULY were the enemies of Jerusalem and how were they compassed round about her? Who truly brought the city to desolation? Was it the Romans, or was it those who would smite the Shepherd? Which one? Only by comparing scripture with scripture will we ever know the "TRUE" answer to that. No, it's NOT the Romans! Christ said that the city Jerusalem itself and all its children within would be laid even with the ground so that NOT ONE STONE would be left standing one upon another. Again, Christ's specific qualification for fulfillment, not mine. Of course, the physical city remained with many stones left standing one upon another, which means that the physical city in AD 70 was NOT what Christ was speaking about in the prophecy. Only their spiritual city, the Old Testament congregation qualifies for having been completely laid even with the ground and brought to desolation. We have to understand, Christ didn't weep for literal stones or for a physical city Jerusalem, he wept for the congregation Jerusalem, the people who were the stones and the city proper. Hello? It is "THEY" who would be brought to desolation or total ruin by their abominations and rejection of the Messiah, and it is they who were laid even with the ground. That is why the Apostle Paul also wept for his kinsmen according to the flesh. Because He understood that at that moment, they were no longer the people of God. That is the ruin that came upon Jerusalem because of her abominations.

Romans 9:8

• "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Something has already taken place where the Old Testament congregation has been brought to ruin. They have been thrown down and would never be the representation of the holy city of God ever again! This is what the veil of the Holy Temple being torn in two signified.

Matthew 27:50-51

• "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
• And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"

What you fail to realize is that this "true" destruction of Jerusalem, the holy city, didn't occur in AD 70, but when Christ was crucified on the cross. Period. When the Temple veil was torn in two and the rocks rent that symbolized there was instituted a new way, a New Temple (a rebuilding or as Biblically put, "Build again"). And in order for the building again, there would have to he been the ruin before. Get it? Selah! For how do you rebuild up something that has not been previously brought down to ruin. Not one stone was left one upon another in that city because by their abominations, it was laid waste--the Kingdom was taken from them and given to another. Where all stones were thrown down, Christ came to start the rebuilding, being the beginning, the cornrstone of that rebuilding and with spiritual stones which is Christians! Not rebuilding a physical Temple as so many modern Christians suppose, but as God had always intended.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The Holy city representation of the congregation of God, the kingdom of God on earth, was taken from Jews (the stones falling down) and was instituted in the New Testament Church. Christ is the beginning, the cornerstone of that rebuilding of what was brought to ruin. The people of the congregation built upon Him are the stones of that rebuilding of city and sanctuary. Thrown down, rebuilt, it's not rocket science, Spiritual Jew. It's simply understanding Scripture spiritually, the way our Lord fully intended. Christians are spiritual beings, we don't understand things in the way the world does, but in the Spirit of truth. Comparing scripture with scripture is the only sound hermeneutic whereby we may understand righteously God's view of things.

1st Corinthians 2:13

• "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Not by comparing the carnal, natural and physical with the carnal, but by spiritual with spiritual. These are things that man's natural wisdom will miss as he looks to worldly or carnal interpretations through history books, nations and political rulers.

It is only in searching the word of God where we will find how Jerusalem was brought to desolation and ruin, and when.

Matthew 12:25-27

• "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
• And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
• And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges."

Jerusalem was brought to ruin because it was a city that was divided against itself, no longer holy and couldn't stand. That's not talking about an inanimate object such as a physical city or physical stones, but people. PEOPLE, Spiritual Jews, get it? Thus they were destroyed, every last stone laid level with the ground. And a rebuilding commenced in Christ as the first stone. This is the "TRUE" restoration of Israel, which secular history cannot dream of comprehending.

Acts 15:16-17

• "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
• That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

The tabernacle was fallen, and it had to be rebuilt, and the ruins restored, and this is all talking about Christ and the New Testament congregation. ALL of this already took place at the Cross. Not 70AD. Look deeper into the prophecy and know that it is true. What many people don't understand is the spiritual nature of the Bible. A literal Temple or rebuilding is NOT in view. Not at all. These people were the stones that were laid level in ruin, and Christ was the beginning of a new building, with new stones. God is not interested in physical bricks falling except in seeing they may not see.

Matthew 21:41-43

• "They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
• Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The Old Jerusalem was laid ruin at the cross by their rejection of Christ, the New Testament Jerusalem is built on their ruins, and we are the stones of that "building again" of the ruins. One laid one upon another. These are spiritual truths, not truths anyone will find in a secular history book, especially Josephus, but ONLY in the Word of God diligently searched out! And in searching it out we find that the Temple was destroyed at His death. But the responsibility for that destruction rests upon the head of those who rejected Christ. They, the Jews, (according to scripture) destroyed the sanctuary, they are those who Jesus said (according to scripture) "destroy this temple," and in three days the Lord raised it up. Sure, we can wax poetic about how no one really destroyed the Temple in Olivet Discourse until AD 70, but according to prophesy, they not only did destroy the holy temple by their abominations, but that it was left desolate (totally in ruins) by its abominations, not by Romans. Selah!

Look...anyone can study history. There is no Biblical law against the study of History. The problem comes in when Christians attempt to use secular history to prove fulfilled scripture. History doesn't prove scripture, Scripture proves History. The scriptures are not in error, your understanding of them is in error. That can be very easily proven, IF we take Christ at his word when He says that not one stone will be left standing one upon another. For example, there were many stones left standing one upon another AFTER the Romans attack on the city, and anyone can prove that for themselves by flying to Jersualem today and seeing the ruins and walls and stones STILL left standing one upon another. Unless Jesus made a mistake in claiming they wouldn't be left that way, then obviously your understanding of what He truly was saying is flawed.

Therefore...the buildings Christ talked about in the first verses of Olivet Discourse were NOT the physical buildings that the disciples thought but signifies the people of the congregation falling! The very people who came and destroy the city and the sanctuary. The disciples understood this after receiving the Holy Spirit.

You do know that Jerusalem and the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD, don't you?

Yeah, what about it?

It showed how Jesus knew the future and knew exactly what He was talking about which is something to celebrate.

Of...course...NOT! YOu got the wrong temple, my friend.

Now, this is where the preterists get things wrong, though. They think Jesus was only asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed, but He wasn't. He was also asked about His coming and the end of the age, which have not yet occurred. So, He talked about both events.

Actually many Christians misunderstood that the Olivet Discourse is not a prophecy about Jews and physical city in the Middle East. It is about the New Testament Congregation in a spiritual sense prior to Second Coming. This focuses on unfaithful New Testament congregations where false prophets and christs are. Woe upon those who suck where they no longer receive milk of gospel in God's house where False Prophets and Christ rise and deceive many. It is where many people will tell you that their church has the power of Christ, do not believe it because what they have is nothing but false Christs and prophets that show great signs and wonders like Joel Osteen, Joseph Prince, etc. etc.

 

[Douggg]

If it was talking about some future Antichrist it wouldn't make sense to call people who lived almost 2,000 years ago his people.

The prince who shall come will be of those people.

What you are not considering, I think, is that Gabriel was giving further understanding about the little horn, who in the visions in Daniel 7 and 8, was already connected with the Romans and is time of the end - when the daily sacrifice will be stopped and desolation of the temple will take place of Daniel 9:27 and in Daniel 8:12-17.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes. And the prince who shall come is not the antecedent of Messiah the Prince.

Messiah the Prince is in verse 25. Messiah cutoff is in verse 26. The prince who shall come is after the Messiah has been cutoff. And will be a Roman.

Not according to context. You twist it and add someone ELSE to it.

 

[jgr]

Yes. And the prince who shall come is not the antecedent of Messiah the Prince.

Messiah the Prince is in verse 25. Messiah cutoff is in verse 26. The prince who shall come is after the Messiah has been cutoff. And will be a Roman.

Of course not. "Messiah the Prince" is the antecedent of "the prince who shall come"; not the reverse.

Check your primer again.

But not the same primer that misled you on "cutoff" vs. "cut off".

Which, we see, you still don't understand either.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.

Oh, so grammar isn't important to you? Noted. Without giving any consideration to grammar, you can make scripture say whatever you want, so it's not surprising that you wouldn't care about proper grammar.

okay, I stand corrected. You did refer to John.

No big deal. Just another example of you missing something obvious.

 

[Douggg]

Of course not. "Messiah the Prince" is the antecedent of "the prince who shall come"; not the reverse.

I fixed my post.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It does not say spirit of antichrist in 1John2:18.

Them John was speaking to were already aware that antichrist singular was coming.

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.

And here you are denying the obvious again. The concept of interpreting scripture with scripture is truly lost on you. It's why you are wrong about everything.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So, these say that they heard antichrist would come and that spirit of antichrist would come. There is no basis for thinking that these verses aren't directly related. There's no reason to think that antichrist they heard was coming would come at some other time than the spirit of antichrist they heard was coming. That is complete nonsense. And John indicated that the spirit of antichrist was already in the world in his day. And, what John clarified for them is that there wasn't just one antichrist coming, but many because the definition of antichrist is anyone who denies Christ. But, you just completely ignore all of that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Christ did not say that. He already considered the city desolate.

Mat 23:37-38
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The city did not kill the prophets. It's PEOPLE, Spiritual Jew!

When did I say the city killed the prophets? Stop wasting your time making straw man arguments, TribulationSigns!

Not accurate. God will not meet with the Jews later to destroy a physical city. You got the timing and temple wrong.

No, I don't. Jesus was clearly speaking of the earthly city of Jerusalem where He was and of the physical temple buildings standing at that time. You probably don't even recognize that He was speaking of the people of earthly Jerusalem being killed and of that city being destroyed in Luke 19:41-44, but He clearly was.

Yeah after Christ told the Jews to destroy the temple when they thought He was talking about the physical temple that they need to rebuild in 46 years. That was what disciples thought too!

What in the world are you talking about? Why are you not specifically addressing anything I said? Let me try again. Please stop going off on tangents and specifically address what I'm saying for once.

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Just answer these questions without going on one of your self-righteous rants, okay?

In verse 1, it says "he went out of the temple". Do you agree that it's the physical temple that Jesus was in and that He went out of?

In verse 1, the disciples said to Jesus, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!". Do you agree that they were marveling at the stones and buildings of the physical temple standing at that time?

In verse 2, Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings?" and proceeded to tell them they would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. Do you agree that "these great buildings" are the same physical buildings of the temple that the disciples were marveling at?

Of course, like Christ's disciples before the filling with the Holy Spirit, the natural man would look at this and think that God was speaking about a physical temple building...

It doesn't take much spiritual discernment to see that it was the physical temple that Jesus went out of and the physical temple that the disciples were marveling at and the physical temple that Jesus said would be destroyed. You're just trying too hard to show how spiritual you are. You can't just spiritualize every verse in scripture. I know Premils take too much literally and I've pointed that out to them many times, but you go too far the other way and take too much in a spiritual sense even when it's literal.

...Let me explain... with TONS of Scripture so consider wisely...

You don't need to explain to me the concept of the spiritual temple of God as if you're my teacher, which you are not. I already understand all of that. I just happen to not believe that the Olivet Discourse is about that. But, plenty of other scripture is about that and I don't deny it.

...but the spiritual man knows God speaks of the congregation as a temple and those within it as the stones of that Temple. That's not something I made up, that's a Biblical fact. And as far as the prophecy, and despite suppositions to the contrary, our Lord was very specific saying not only that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another of it, but further amplified it by saying they (the stones one upon another) would all (BAR NONE) be thrown down! Even by using the vaunted secular history books we know of a certainty that more than one stone was left standing one upon another after AD 70.

Oh brother. You went from being overly spiritual before to overly literal here. You share something in common with Premils in that way.

Have you never heard of hyperbole? Are you somehow not aware that Jesus used hyperbole at times, such as when He said that if our eyes cause us to sin then we should gouge them out or if our hands or feet cause us to sin then we should cut them off? Do you take those verses literally? If so, then I assume you have gouged out both of your eyes and have cut off your hands and feet, which would make me wonder how are you seeing my post and what are you using to create your posts.

Jesus was using hyperbole to emphasize the fact that the destruction would be massive and would occur in the entire city and that every temple building would be destroyed without exception. And that is what happened.

Moreover, there were (and let's not forget this) many stones of the physical city Jerusalem left standing one upon another. Again, the qualifying prophecy was that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another. Too many people want to "ignore" this qualification because it doesn't fit or conform to their personal/private interpretations of this prophecy taking place in AD 70.

Too many people are ignorant of the hyperbolic language that is sometimes used in scripture that isn't meant to be interpreted in a hyper literal fashion like you're doing.

I will quote again...so please read carefully:

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Today, many Christians refuse to hear the part where Christ unambiguously says the city shall be laid even with the ground and her children within her. It's very willfully convenient to leave that part out. Tell me, WHO TRULY were the enemies of Jerusalem and how were they compassed round about her? Who truly brought the city to desolation? Was it the Romans, or was it those who would smite the Shepherd? Which one? Only by comparing scripture with scripture will we ever know the "TRUE" answer to that. No, it's NOT the Romans!

LOL! You have to be kidding me here. Yes, people like the Pharisees and chief priests were enemies of Jerusalem, but so were the Romans! Why do you act as if it can't be both? How can you deny that the Romans were their enemies? Do you somehow not know that the Romans oppressed the Jews in those days? Of course the Romans were their enemies.

 

[Douggg]

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So, these say that they heard antichrist would come and that spirit of antichrist would come. There is no basis for thinking that these verses aren't directly related.

They are related, but 1John2:18 is referring to the person of antichrist.

1John4:3 is referring to the spirit of antichrist, that will characterize the person of antichrist the singular person.

 

[Douggg]

But, you just completely ignore all of that.

Do you know what you are ignoring? That the Jews are looking for their messiah, someone other than Jesus. They are also desiring to rebuild their temple.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

They are related, but 1John2:18 is referring to the person of antichrist.

1John4:3 is referring to the spirit of antichrist, that will characterize the person of antichrist the singular person.

Why was the spirit of antichrist already in the world almost 2,000 years ago if the actual antichrist wouldn't come until at least about 2,000 years later? That makes no sense. You're just denying the obvious here and not taking everything that John said about the term "antichrist" into account and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from being ignorant about this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Do you know what you are ignoring? That the Jews are looking for their messiah, someone other than Jesus. They are also desiring to rebuild their temple.

Why does that matter? Scripture matters. There's nothing about that in scripture other than it does say that false Christs would come around. But, there's nothing about unbelieving Jews building a temple.

 

[Douggg]

Why was the spirit of antichrist already in the world almost 2,000 years ago if the actual antichrist wouldn't come until at least about 2,000 years later?

The spirit of antichrist was in the world already 2000 years ago because Jesus the Christ had come, and was being denied by them who had departed being among believers.

1John2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

An antichrist as John described were at one time being among believers, who went out from believers.

An example of someone who is an antichrist is Yusuf Estes, now a muslim, who once was a Christian preacher. He has some videos on You Tube.

 

[Douggg]

Why does that matter? Scripture matters. There's nothing about that in scripture other than it does say that false Christs would come around. But, there's nothing about unbelieving Jews building a temple.

It matters because the 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people, the Jews, and upon Jerusalem.

The daily sacrifice can only take place, and stopped, when there is a temple standing.

The little horn - vision which John saw, to take place at the time of the end - the sanctuary will be trodden under foot.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The spirit of antichrist was in the world already 2000 years because Jesus the Christ had come, and was being denied by them who had departed being believers.

1John2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

An antichrist as John described were at one time believers, who went out from being believers.

And there were many of them, as he said. Regardless of whether or not they heard or believed that only one antichrist was coming, the fact is that many antichrists came already in John's day and there have been many ever since. John simply did not teach anything about the coming of a singular Antichrist.

Again, they heard that antichrist would come and that the spirit of antichrist would come and there's no reason to think that they didn't come at the same time. It's ludicrous to think that John was saying antichrist was coming, but not for a long time, while the spirit of antichrist had already come. That's just plain confusing and makes no sense at all.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It matters because the 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people, the Jews, and upon Jerusalem.

The 70 weeks are already fulfilled. Jesus confirmed the new covenant with His blood long ago which put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings.

The daily sacrifice can only take place, and stopped, when there is a temple standing.

The little horn - vision which John saw, to take place at the time of the end - the sanctuary will be trodden under foot.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Do you believe this future sanctuary that you believe will be built would be a temple that God ordains?

What daily sacrifice would be performed there that the little horn would want to stop and why would he want to stop it?

 

[Douggg]

And there were many of them, as he said. Regardless of whether or not they heard or believed that only one antichrist was coming, the fact is that many antichrists came already in John's day and there have been many ever since. John simply did not teach anything about the coming of a singular Antichrist.

John was likening them to the coming singular antichrist, who will be anointed the King of Israel coming in his own name.