The phrase “abomination of desolation” refers to Matthew 24:15: “So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand.” This is referring to Daniel 9:27, “He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
The one problem I’ve always had with this is the idea that the Temple in Israel would have to be rebuilt. However, even if it is rebuilt, it wouldn’t be a real temple of God. Their sacrifices would be irrelevant. All of it wouldn’t matter. How can one abominate something that is itself an abomination that denies Jesus Christ?
The phrase “abomination of desolation” refers to Matthew 24:15: “So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand.” This is referring to Daniel 9:27,
I so wish that you people would take your heads out of the Dysfunctionalism sand and read the Bible instead of fiction writers such as as Lindsey and LaHaye. How do you not know that the Matthew 24:15 doesn't refer to Daniel 11:31 where pretty much everyone understands that the "abomination that makes desolate" is none other than Antiochus Epiphanes? Was he the "anti-Christ"?
Then you have Daniel 12:11 which says that "the daily sacrifice shall be taken away and the abomination that makes desolate set up..." Now what is being referenced here? Antiochus or the Roman armies pre 70AD where in both cases the daily sacrifices ceased?
I vote for the latter because, while you love to point to Matthew 24:15, your ilk refuses to read Luke 21:20 which is Luke's rendering of our LORD's message and clearly indicates that the Messiah was referring to the Roman Armies of "prince" Titus, son of Vespasian, who fulfilled Matthew 24:15/Luke 21:20 perfectly.
In every case of an "abomination that makes desolate" the reference is to an army, not to a single man. It is the LaHaye types that throw away Biblical precedent and gratuitously replace the Scriptures with their own vain fantasies to sell more books and videos.
Furthermore, there is talk of a Temple that was indeed there prior to 70AD, you require one to be constructed in the future when no one but a few thousand American Zionist Gentiles care to have one - and the government of Israel won't allow one to be built, let alone what a billion plus Muslims have to say on the matter. Facts like that are no obstacles to a good camp fire story.
The passage you refer to in Matthew is immediately followed by instructions to "flee to the hills of Judea" which only make sense in a very local context to the disciples and early Christians living in and about Jerusalem. Indeed, Josephus, in Wars, Book 6, chapter 6 describes the actual actions of the Roman army in terms that positively demonstrates that Mt 24:15 was fulfilled in 70AD.
Also conveniently forgotten is that only in 1 and 2 John does the Apostle speak of an Antichrist, and he said that many have already come at the time of his writing. This fallacious attempt to rob our LORD of prophecies concerning Him and plant them on some fictitious future "Anti Christ" ala Tim LaHaye/Jerry Jenkins is why many people won't listen to Christians for the Gospel because you folks are so ready to lie and deceive folks about future events now.