Yeah, you said Rome did...
From your post 123:
Applying the "little horn" to Rome covers the Daniel 8:9-13 verses:
Dan 8:9-14
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
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.
KJV
Yes. That is why I referred to Rome, not Alexander III the Great as fulfilling it (like you kept continually saying we (keraz, brakelite and myself) said, to then deny it). That is what I have been telling you the whole time, and yet you keep going on and on about Alexander III the great, when that was never the contention, at all.
Rome did not fulfill that "transgression of desolation".
The second phase of Rome did, being Papal Rome, which if you check my references, yet again, you will see that I did not say Pagan Rome, but Papal Rome for that section and provided the texts.
Like the Jewish historian Josephus said, when the Roman army in 70 A.D. tried to seize the temple in Jerusalem, the Jews inside fought, a battle ensued with a fire, and the temple burned down before the Romans could get control of it (see the Jewish Wars by Flavius Josephus). That "transgression" is the same event Daniel was given to write in Daniel 11:31.
This is where you are in error. Daniel 11:31 doesn't refer to Pagan Rome, but to Papal Rome. The transition was in verse 21 with the "vile person", and so also the "league" of church and state. Vs 31, deals with Papal Rome obtaining an army on its behalf, and these the Franks, under their king Clovis., and "they" "take away" the "daily", and doesn't deal with an earthly temple, as Daniel 11:20 deals with Pagan Rome, and the collapse thereof, already demonstrated from the text.
The "daily" deals with Christ's heavenly ministry in the Holy Place, not an earthly element, as type (natural Babylon) was followed by its antitype (spiritual Babylon). You may see that study here -
Study Notes – The Daily Daily (PDF)
Why would you rely upon a turncoat Jew (Josephus), to understand prophecy? He rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah. What would he (Josephus) know of Daniel 9, or the prophecy therein? You will accept Josephus' interpretation there, but reject his rejection of Christ Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel 9? Seems you like to pick and choose, and really, are your own commentary, and merely use others as justification for what you already believe.
The Dan.8 & Dan.11 Scriptures are linked regarding that event, as also in Dan.9:27 and in Dan.12.
I agree that Daniel 8 and 11 are linked. I agree that Daniel 9:26,27 refers also to Pagan Rome, but not merely (only), as it mentions "desolations" (plural) and "abominations" (plural), not singular.
From your post 104:
You have pagan Rome, AND Papal Rome being responsible for the Dan.11:31
No. Look again. You are confounding what you believe with what I clearly stated. I stated, in print, that Papal Rome was identified in Daniel 11:31 and the events. Look at the summary chart you repeated from my response again.
event of ending the daily sacrifices
The word "sacrifices" is not in the Hebrew text. I thought you read Hebrew? In all places in Daniel, where the word "daily" is used, the "
ha tamiyd" (
the daily; as a noun), never is the word "sacrifice" found in Hebrew, see for yourself, and this is why I know you do not read Hebrew, and merely rely upon others outdated and obscure commentary.
Dan 8:11 ועד שׂר־הצבא הגדיל וממנו הרים התמיד והשׁלך מכון מקדשׁו׃
Dan 8:12 וצבא תנתן על־התמיד בפשׁע ותשׁלך אמת ארצה ועשׂתה והצליחה׃
Dan 8:13 ואשׁמעה אחד־קדושׁ מדבר ויאמר אחד קדושׁ לפלמוני המדבר עד־מתי החזון התמיד והפשׁע שׁמם תת וקדשׁ וצבא מרמס׃
Dan 11:31 וזרעים ממנו יעמדו וחללו המקדשׁ המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השׁקוץ משׁומם׃
Dan 12:11 ומעת הוסר התמיד ולתת שׁקוץ שׁמם ימים אלף מאתים ותשׁעים׃
Each of those passages are related, speaking of the same timeframe, and none of them mention the word "sacrifice" (in Hebrew). The word "sacrifice" is a supplied word by the translators (KJB) as an help to identify something specific, namely the entirety of the sanctuary service or ministrations, not simply "sacrifice", as the "daily" in scripture deals with the whole service in the courtyard and the holy place (burnt offerings, laver, shewbread, candlestick and altar of incense, etc), not merely the "sacrifice". It is even mentioned in the NT in its type and antitype:
Type:
Heb_7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb_10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Antitype:
Act_6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
etc. For many more references see the PDF study.
... and placing the abomination that makes desolate, which is the same event of Dan.8:11-13. Pagan Rome nor Papal Rome ever did that. Alexander didn't do it either.
Why do you constantly keep bringing up Alexander III the Great. No one but you is even bringing him up in this place. Papal Rome, as antitypical Babylon did do so as the study (PDF) shows, but I highly doubt you will even consider the fullness of the study therein.
