Well, I think AE4 is what the little horn is referring to and I do think it’s a very real possibility that AE4 was a type that pointed to a future antitype, and saying the antitype is what’s in view in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is certainly reasonable. I think where the real debate comes in is where in time does 2 Thessalonians 2:4 happen, first century or still future.
Off the top of my head, I don’t know of any examples where there is a type and more than one antitype, which would mean 2 Thessalonians 2:4 can only be referring to one event and not both a first century and future fulfillment.
I’ve thought about starting a thread on how we can determine whether something has been fulfilled or not but from what I can see there are no hard rules given in the Bible on this subject, which is why we get debates about the meaning of “soon”, “at hand” or “last hour” between preterist and futurist.
I grasp the logic about types and anti-types, thus don't disagree with the logic. A4E can still be the type, but according to Maccabees not the book of Daniel, though. Several things mentioned in Daniel 8 already plainly tell us what time period the little horn in question is involving, which I will list below. And IMO it is involving the same time period that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is. Regardless whether one thinks 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving the first century, or that it's involving the final days of this age, one thing it is not involving is the days of A4E.
for at the time of the end shall be the vision(Daniel 8:17)
(The time of the end of what? If referring to A4E, what exactly ended at the time? Obviously, the world didn't end eventually)
what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be(Daniel 8:17)
(the end of what shall be at the appointed time?)
in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up(Daniel 8:23)
compare with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4----- except there come a falling away first--- and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Clearly, except there come a falling away first, involves transgressors. Clearly, the one meant in verse 4 matches a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, if the one meant in verse 4 is pertaining to the beast and false prophet meant in Revelation 13.
Daniel 8:25---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes(obviously, meaning Christ after Christ has already been born, died and then rose. As if it makes sense that this can be involving A4E in that case) ; but he shall be broken without hand(sounds like that could fit Revelation 19:20, for one).
and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it(Daniel 8:27)
(As if it makes good sense, that if this is involving a literal event involving what was to happen to a literal brick and mortar temple during ancient times in BC, that a wise person such as Daniel would not even be able to comprehend the vision, and that no one at the time was able to. That is clearly laughable if the vision was pertaining to what A4E was going to do eventually. But it is hardly laughable if the vision is not even involving literal events but is involving a time period Daniel would not be familiar with, such as the 21st century. Now it makes sense why Daniel was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. But who cares about anything making sense, right? That's not the way things are supposed to work, apparently)
