Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

holy ground in the NT?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    You may not have been part of some of my explanations of this, brother. I'm not saying there is no distinction between Jerusalem and the temple. I'm just saying that they are often viewed together as the general "locate" of the temple.

    It would be like saying you've arrived home in London when you've not actually arrived at your home, but only arrived in the city of London. London is "home" for you (if you lived in London). Can you appreciate this position?
    I have no problem with the analogy. But Jesus Christ' "the holy place" is more specific than that.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
      I have no problem with the analogy. But Jesus Christ' "the holy place" is more specific than that.
      Yes, I just reposted some material on the Church Fathers, since it had been lost. Barnabas had viewed Jesus as the "temple of the Lord," and Clement of Alexandria viewed him as "the Most Holy." I could also see Jesus as "the Holy Place," since the Most Holy is sometimes viewed as the "Holy Place," as well. There is no dispute that in the book of Hebrews Jesus is viewed as somehow the "new temple of God."

      It is the language, however, that I'm not clear about. I believe Jesus fulfilled all 6 things mentioned in Dan 24. The last one speaks of the "anointing of the Most Holy." I'm not sure if that is referring to the anointing of Jesus, or of his accomplishment of final redemption in Jerusalem?

      At any rate, I find that Jerusalem is part of the Holy Place of the temple as the city in which the temple resided. It was viewed as a single "locate." The Scriptures say that God's Name was put both in the temple and in Jerusalem. They are often treated as if one.

      The fact that Jesus accomplished his work in Jerusalem "outside the camp" indicated he accomplished his work *in the city,* and yet outside of the temple's holy area. That made Jerusalem the central location of Jesus' work on the cross, distinct from any work flawed priests did within the temple itself.

      But I'm sure that Jesus' disciples would've understand Jesus' reference to the "Holy Place" as representative of the temple in Jerusalem. And when Roman troops arrived to destroy the place, they were "in the holy place" when they surrounded the city area.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        Let's examine other possible meaning of these texts.

        Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

        Luke used "desolation" without the prefix *abomination*, therefore it is logical to conclude that he was referring to the destruction of the city only. The point being that the AoD was NOT fulfilled in 70 AD, but still in the future.

        Matt 24:15 When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

        However, it is plain from Matthews language that he was referring to the actual AoD - which is something abominable happening in the temple.
        Some people believe that there are actually 3 AoDs mentioned here, Antiochus 4, the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus, and Antichrist. I don't, but I do believe they are related. Antiochus 4 was clearly mentioned as an AoD in Dan 11.31 and 12.11. The Roman Army was mentioned, I believe, in Dan 9.27. The Roman Army is also, I believe, mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, in all 3 accounts.

        Some believe there is a difference between Luke's account and Matthew and Mark's account, one referring to the Roman Army and the other referring to Antichrist. I don't, because I see all 3 accounts being the same Discourse.

        But I can see how God has used these 3 figures to tie together the same kind of truth, about an evil man used by God to decimate God's People. If God used the Romans to put to death His Christ, then He can also use the Antichrist to put to death Christians in the endtimes.

        These are various views, but they're not entirely contradictory. You have to choose your own view.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          NONE of which means that they say "the Holy place" is anywhere other than a place in the Temple. Instead what they might do is say Jesus is NOW our Holy place.
          I have an view which is prophecy about Jesus has some been fulfilled and some not.

          However this is ALL irrelevant to the FACT that scripture ONLY names "the Holy place" as the place in the Temple.
          We have already agreed on this in some respects. I don't see how this contradicts my view that both Jerusalem and the temple are *locates* of the temple? That is, they can both be viewed as the location marker of the temple. So when someone says that they've gone to the temple they can also say they've arrived at the temple simply when they reach the city of Jerusalem. That's how I see it.

          You may disagree on what being "in the holy place" actually means, but I'm not sure you should disagree that in some sense it can be said that Roman troops are stationed "in the holy place" simply by virtue of their laying a siege outside the walls of Jerusalem.

          Again, it depends, in my mind, on whether you're using the "holy place" as a *locate,* or as a residence? Can "the holy place" be viewed as an extension of the building itself to include the area around it in which it was located?

          I believe the reference is to the city being a *locate* for the temple because in context we're talking about the Roman Army assuming the position of a siege outside the walls of that city. Thus, the Roman Army was "standing in the holy place." In other words, it was in the *general vicinity* of the temple.

          This is *not* denying that the "Holy Place" generally refers to the temple. But when the temple is being used as a locate, the city in which it is located is also considered an identical locate. Both the city and the temple itself are the "locates" of the temple.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            I ONLY added more as you say I am given a FALSE characterisation, and that I am being disingenuous.
            The TRUTH is that you are being disingenuous when you CHANGE the terms of reference.
            There is NOBODY, including Wesley or any ECFs who state that "THE Holy place" is anywhere other than the Temple.
            Wesley simply calls the whole area "holy" and so seek to abrogate the whole thing, a bit like you do. So you do have someone who seeks a solution through a similar set of reasoning.
            Yes, that was my point, that not *everybody* disagrees with my position. I would go on to claim that not just Wesley but many more, who do not even try to determine what the language means, say the same thing in essence. Many believe that either Cestius Gallus, or Titus, or both, were the AoD when they assumed positions outside the walls of Jerusalem, carrying idolatrous eagle standards.

            Conceding a point is not something you often do, so I appreciate your honesty. You're not giving up that much, but it does help me to see that you're treating my points fairly, in your own thinking.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            Yes you ARE saying "the Holy place" is NOT the Temple.
            IF you were saying "the Holy place" was the Temple then you would NOT be arguing it is somewhere else!
            I'm trying to use a little different language to explain it, to clarify. Does it make any difference to you when I describe both Jerusalem and the temple as "locates" of the temple? If Jerusalem is viewed as a *locate* of the temple, then that is not denying that the temple is the holy place. What it does accomplish, however, is that it enables an Army to be "in the holy place" in the sense of it being in the *general location* of the temple.

            I do realize you are making the distinction between being *inside the temple* or not! But I'm saying that if we look at being *in the holy place,* instead of just *in the temple,* then we can be in the *area* of the temple, and not just in the temple itself.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            You have been told numerous times that there is NO argument about OTHER places being holy There certainly are manyof them.
            What you don't seem to grasp or understand is the the word "the Holy place" refers ONLY to ONE place, and NOWHERE else.
            You keep trying to break it down into "the" and "holy" and "place". It isn't in Hebrew, and isn't in Aramaic. It is a SINGLE word.
            It is like trying to argue that a wardrobe is a "war" and a "drobe."
            Then putting a different word at the start like "cup" to make a "cupdrobe" it is simply nonsense.

            I can't have a discussion with any of the ECFs or Wesley, to find out the basis of their claim. We ONLY have what they have written. Anything else becomes speculation.

            The SIMPLE point under discussion in THIS thread is what does "the Holy place" mean. The SIMPLE answer as shown in EVERY scripture is that it means "the place in the Temple outside the Holy of Holies." Nothing more and nothing less.
            Yes, the Holy Place refers to the temple. But can the "holy place" be a reference to both the temple, and by extension, the area around it in which it is located? I believe so. And that's what I've been trying to prove by showing that other holy places exist by virtue of their being positioned close to the temple.

            I concede to you that the Holy Place is viewed primarily as the temple. But what I'm claiming is that the temple can refer to its general location in the city when it is referred to as "the holy place." The city of Jerusalem is not just the location of the temple, but it also includes the temple. So to be "in the holy place" means to be in the city in which the temple is located. At least that's how I understand it.

            Your point seems to be that "the holy place" can never be used as a city location for the temple. It must only refer to the temple itself. To be "in the holy place" is to be "in the temple."

            Whether this is what the language itself means I think it's pretty clear that common language use allows us to identify Jerusalem as the location of the temple. To be in Jerusalem is to be in the temple area.

            This does not deny that the holy place is the temple. It is only saying that common language use allows for use of the city as being the general location of the temple.

            We must determine here whether "the holy place" can be extended to apply to this *city area.* You don't, but I do.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
              Randy, why do take another man's interpretation of scripture as holy writ? I don't get it! Unlike Paul, Peter and the top 1st-century Apostles who God gave scriptures directly, John Wesley on the other hand, never claimed (and if he did, he lied) to have received interpretation of the OD from Jesus. At best, he interpreted from his own study and knowledge like everyone else and therein lies the problem - he is fallible like the rest of us.

              There is no way the Roman legions or their standard fits the the AoD mentioned by Jesus! Roman soldiers have been stationed in Judea since 63 BC meaning that their standard had been in Jerusalem before Jesus came. It, therefore, makes zero sense to ignore the standard already in the city to claim that that carried by the oncoming troops is more abominable.

              I note how sensitive you've become for being called out regarding your position on the OD, but the truth is that your position is WRONG and scripturally indefensible. It's something you need to deal with.
              I feel no conviction from the Holy Spirit for having done anything wrong in this respect. And I'm *very sensitive* to the Holy Spirit. These things are simply differences of opinion, and good Christians may disagree. We apparently do.

              You seem to be accepting FHG's mindset that being "outside of" the temple is incompatible with being "in the holy place?" Have you considered my response to FHG, that the "holy place" is being used, by Jesus, as a *locate* for the temple? To be "in the holy place" is to be in the vicinity of the temple. It does not necessarily mean to be *inside the temple itself!*

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                Yes, that was my point, that not *everybody* disagrees with my position. I would go on to claim that not just Wesley but many more, who do not even try to determine what the language means, say the same thing in essence. Many believe that either Cestius Gallus, or Titus, or both, were the AoD when they assumed positions outside the walls of Jerusalem, carrying idolatrous eagle standards.
                Your point is INVALID.
                NOBODY agrees with your position - this is SPECIFICALLY YOUR interpretation of what "the Holy place" is.
                I have common ground with you on many things, but that doesn't mean I agree with you about this.
                I even agree with you that there are many holy places.
                Yes and many saw the Roman armies carrying the eagles as an Abomination.
                I would reason with them as with anyone else IF possible.
                It is COMPLETE nonsense as those Roman armies with those standards were INSIDE Jerusalem THROUGHOUT the lifetime of Jesus and NOT ONCE was it referred to as an Abomination. Nor did ANY gospel writer or any scripture.

                However that is a side point. The KEY point in this is about what does "the Holy place" mean.
                This you do NOT have support for.

                I'm trying to use a little different language to explain it, to clarify. Does it make any difference to you when I describe both Jerusalem and the temple as "locates" of the temple? If Jerusalem is viewed as a *locate* of the temple, then that is not denying that the temple is the holy place. What it does accomplish, however, is that it enables an Army to be "in the holy place" in the sense of it being in the *general location* of the temple.

                I do realize you are making the distinction between being *inside the temple* or not! But I'm saying that if we look at being *in the holy place,* instead of just *in the temple,* then we can be in the *area* of the temple, and not just in the temple itself.
                No it doesn't make a bit of difference because you are PLAYING with words, and trying to use semantics to make one thing mean another thing. Something you have often accused me of, when I think what you really complain about me with is that I believe words have meanings which we are given in scripture, and WITHOUT any guidance in scripture then we should take the meaning it has.

                Yes, the Holy Place refers to the temple. But can the "holy place" be a reference to both the temple, and by extension, the area around it in which it is located? I believe so. And that's what I've been trying to prove by showing that other holy places exist by virtue of their being positioned close to the temple.
                No it CANNOT.
                Jerusalem is "A" Holy place. It is "THE" Holy city! Now if you play with words you will say that a city is a place and therefore Jerusalem is "the Holy place". The problem for you is that actually the word "place" is NOT stated in the Hebrew as a separate word. The word is "haqodesh" and it is COMPLETE idea and used as a PROPER Noun.
                It is like me arguing that you are randyw
                After all "k" is a letter and so is "w", so it is fine for you to be randyw. However everyone knows you as randyk and if you tried logging on as randyw the system wouldn't let you.

                I concede to you that the Holy Place is viewed primarily as the temple. But what I'm claiming is that the temple can refer to its general location in the city when it is referred to as "the holy place." The city of Jerusalem is not just the location of the temple, but it also includes the temple. So to be "in the holy place" means to be in the city in which the temple is located. At least that's how I understand it.
                No it is NOT primarily - it is the ONLY place. I know what you are claiming but it does NOT work as you claim.
                To be in the Holy place does NOT mean to be ANY PLACE in the city EXCEPT that place which is in the Temple.
                You have a house and it is perhaps in a city. I CANNOT say I am in your house simply because I am in your city. That is NONSENSE. What you claim is the SAME nonsense.
                ONLY by being in the Holy place are you in the Holy place.

                Your point seems to be that "the holy place" can never be used as a city location for the temple. It must only refer to the temple itself. To be "in the holy place" is to be "in the temple."
                Whether this is what the language itself means I think it's pretty clear that common language use allows us to identify Jerusalem as the location of the temple. To be in Jerusalem is to be in the temple area.
                I don;t suggest you claim common language. My point is EXACTLY that the Holy place ONLY means in the Temple.

                This does not deny that the holy place is the temple. It is only saying that common language use allows for use of the city as being the general location of the temple.
                We must determine here whether "the holy place" can be extended to apply to this *city area.* You don't, but I do.
                It isn't a question of what I do.
                It is a question of what LANGUAGE does. It is a question of what scripture does. It is shown in the OT AND the NT that it refers ONLY to that place.
                I have already determined, and we have asked others, and in EVERY case "the Holy place" ONLY refers to the place outside the Holy of Holies.
                Your reasoning FROM English doesn't support you.
                However please do consult any Hebrew expert you can find. Personally I just turn to His Word and find that there is ONLY ONE usage.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  Some people believe that there are actually 3 AoDs mentioned here, Antiochus 4, the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus, and Antichrist. I don't, but I do believe they are related. Antiochus 4 was clearly mentioned as an AoD in Dan 11.31 and 12.11. The Roman Army was mentioned, I believe, in Dan 9.27. The Roman Army is also, I believe, mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, in all 3 accounts.
                  What do you mean here?
                  In Luke 21 there is ZERO mention of an AoD. It only speaks of desolation, the same as stated here:
                  Mat 23:38* See, your house is left to you desolate.*
                  Mat 23:39* For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

                  Some believe there is a difference between Luke's account and Matthew and Mark's account, one referring to the Roman Army and the other referring to Antichrist. I don't, because I see all 3 accounts being the same Discourse.
                  What 3 accounts? Do you mean Mark's who puts the same as Matthew in regards to the AoD?
                  An army is one which makes a place desolate. However Cestius Gallas' army did NOT make any place desolate, therefore that army is NOT even making anything desolate. The desolation was later, and thus why Jesus said it was near - not there.

                  Very clearly we have TWO separate SIGNS. One of an army which came and surrounded Jerusalem, and once you saw it meant it was time to leave, and the army left and so did the Christians.
                  A separate sign is an AoD in the Temple.

                  Some reject this as possibly being future as the reject the idea of another temple being built, and if it is that it will be meaningless.
                  These same people though have no problem recognising the temple that Herod built, even though God didn't ask Herod to build it.

                  The KEY though is in ACCEPTING that what was stated had a SPECIFIC meaning at the time, and that meaning remains that "the Holy place" means the place in the Temple. Further as Jesus was just coming from the disciples and discussing that very temple with them, the CONTEXT DEMANDS that we take that meaning.

                  How this affects your understanding of other things is of course for you to work out. However CONTEXT should ALWAYS be the number one starting point for getting what God is saying.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    Your point is INVALID.
                    NOBODY agrees with your position - this is SPECIFICALLY YOUR interpretation of what "the Holy place" is.
                    I have common ground with you on many things, but that doesn't mean I agree with you about this.
                    I even agree with you that there are many holy places.
                    Yes and many saw the Roman armies carrying the eagles as an Abomination.
                    I would reason with them as with anyone else IF possible.
                    It is COMPLETE nonsense as those Roman armies with those standards were INSIDE Jerusalem THROUGHOUT the lifetime of Jesus and NOT ONCE was it referred to as an Abomination. Nor did ANY gospel writer or any scripture.
                    My argument is *not* that the standards were the "abomination!" Rather, I'm arguing that the *Roman Army* was the abomination. The Roman army may have existed 100 years earlier and a 100 years later, but that wasn't the *sign* that Jesus pointed his disciples to. The *sign* was when this Roman Army positioned itself *around Jerusalem!* This was the definition of a *siege.*

                    The Roman siege took place in 66 AD. It didn't take place 100 years earlier. And even if it took place 60 plus years later, the sign was *only* when the Roman troops besieged Jerusalem in such a way as to enable the Jewish believers to flee. This only took place in 66 AD.

                    The abomination was, in my view, the Army, the "people of the prince to come" (Dan 9.26). The fact others saw the abomination as the eagle standards only indicate that there is general agreement with my position--not that there is precision in everybody's view of an historical fulfillment.

                    You could find a ton of material on this from preterists. But I don't like to indulge too much in a position that lacks a futurist perspective. I can, however, benefit from their historical perspective on the AoD.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    However that is a side point. The KEY point in this is about what does "the Holy place" mean.
                    This you do NOT have support for.

                    No it doesn't make a bit of difference because you are PLAYING with words, and trying to use semantics to make one thing mean another thing. Something you have often accused me of, when I think what you really complain about me with is that I believe words have meanings which we are given in scripture, and WITHOUT any guidance in scripture then we should take the meaning it has.

                    No it CANNOT.
                    Jerusalem is "A" Holy place. It is "THE" Holy city! Now if you play with words you will say that a city is a place and therefore Jerusalem is "the Holy place". The problem for you is that actually the word "place" is NOT stated in the Hebrew as a separate word. The word is "haqodesh" and it is COMPLETE idea and used as a PROPER Noun.
                    I don't understand Hebrew, but my understanding is that "place" isn't even there? In other words, this has more to do with separateness than with a location.

                    The fact that the word has become identified with a particular location, through the use of ha-qodesh, and the fact that it regularly applies to that location, does not mean that this location cannot be used as a directional marker.

                    As I indicated to you, to arrive at the temple may be, for a Roman Army, to simply reach Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a "marker" for the temple. It doesn't change the identification of the Holy Place with the temple. It only extends the use of the term to its aspect as a destination. And that destination may be characterized in a more extensive way than you wish to apply it.

                    When I get back from England I say I'm finally at home when I reach Seattle. I'm not really at my physical home yet. But I extend the normal meaning of home, as applying to my house, to its use as a destination marker. Seattle becomes symbolic of my home in an adjacent County.

                    I don't see why you don't indulge me on this, because that's exactly how I see the context here applying it? From Daniel to the Olivet Discourse of Jesus this is about the "people of the ruler to come," ie the Roman Army, who would desolate the city and the sanctuary. When the Army reaches the city walls, it is now "in the holy place." It's in the place separated by God for the purpose of having His house there.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    It is like me arguing that you are randyw
                    After all "k" is a letter and so is "w", so it is fine for you to be randyw. However everyone knows you as randyk and if you tried logging on as randyw the system wouldn't let you.
                    I get it. You think the temple is exclusively the Holy Place. And it *cannot*--absolutely *must not*--refer to Jerusalem. I beg to differ, because the context indicates that it is when the Army reaches the walls of Jerusalem that it is now "in the holy place." That was the sign, and that is what happened in 66 AD.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    No it is NOT primarily - it is the ONLY place. I know what you are claiming but it does NOT work as you claim.
                    To be in the Holy place does NOT mean to be ANY PLACE in the city EXCEPT that place which is in the Temple.
                    You have a house and it is perhaps in a city. I CANNOT say I am in your house simply because I am in your city. That is NONSENSE. What you claim is the SAME nonsense.
                    ONLY by being in the Holy place are you in the Holy place.
                    No, I am *not* claiming that when the Roman Army was in the "holy place" that they were actually in the *temple!* I'm claiming that the Roman Army had reached their destination, and were now in the "holy place," which was a destination marker for the temple, and not the temple itself. "Holy place," in this sense, does refer to the temple. But as a destination marker, the territory that defines that marker is larger than the temple itself.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    I don;t suggest you claim common language. My point is EXACTLY that the Holy place ONLY means in the Temple.
                    I get that. And yet you refuse to indulge me. Using a precise term for a location, when used as a destination marker, has boundaries that extend well beyond the place itself. As I said, "Randy's house" has a very precise and regular application to my own home in my own city. It doesn't refer to the city, but to my own house.

                    However, when used as a destination marker, "Randy's house" has "extended boundaries." You have reached "Randy's house" when you arrive at the end of my long driveway (assuming I have one).

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    It isn't a question of what I do.
                    It is a question of what LANGUAGE does. It is a question of what scripture does. It is shown in the OT AND the NT that it refers ONLY to that place.
                    I have already determined, and we have asked others, and in EVERY case "the Holy place" ONLY refers to the place outside the Holy of Holies.
                    Your reasoning FROM English doesn't support you.
                    However please do consult any Hebrew expert you can find. Personally I just turn to His Word and find that there is ONLY ONE usage.

                    Well, do me this one favor. Please consider the use of the Holy Place as a destination marker, and ask yourself the question. At what point would Jesus' disciples consider the Roman Army "in the holy place?" Would it be when they arrive at the walls of Jerusalem? Or, would it be when they arrive inside the temple itself?

                    Based on Dan 9, and based on Luke's version, I believe the disciples expected the Roman Army to be "in the holy place" when they reached the outskirts of Jerusalem. After all, that is what Jesus said would happen. They would encircle Jerusalem. And if you assume Matthew and Mark were referring to the same event, they saw this Roman abomination "standing in the holy place." In other words, when this abominable Roman Army got to Jerusalem, and encircled it, they would be *in the holy place!*

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      What do you mean here?
                      In Luke 21 there is ZERO mention of an AoD. It only speaks of desolation, the same as stated here:
                      Mat 23:38* See, your house is left to you desolate.*
                      Mat 23:39* For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
                      Obviously, what I'm saying is that Luke 21's reference to the "desolation of Jerusalem" is the AoD! My argument is not that the words "abomination of desolation" are there. I'm saying that the equivalent event is there, the synonym is there. The abomination of desolation is the Roman desolation.

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory
                      What 3 accounts? Do you mean Mark's who puts the same as Matthew in regards to the AoD?
                      An army is one which makes a place desolate. However Cestius Gallas' army did NOT make any place desolate, therefore that army is NOT even making anything desolate. The desolation was later, and thus why Jesus said it was near - not there.
                      You have a problem with taking this ultra-literally--that extremely limits your ability to survey meaning over a broad spectrum of statements. It may make you real good on your particular job, depending on what you do. But when it comes to looking at the big picture, you might get bogged down in suspicions about what things mean.

                      When I say there are 3 accounts I'm obviously referring to the 3 gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse. And yes, I realize that Matthew and Mark have similar accounts of the AoD. Yet they are written not in perfect unison with one another, and are written by different authors. They confirm the application of "abomination of desolation." But this just causes Luke's version of Jerusalem's desolation to stand out. It is either an idiosyncrasy, or we were *meant* to correlate them. I believe it is the latter.

                      I also realize that Gallus did not penetrate the wall completely. His withdrawal gave time for the residents of Jerusalem to flee. That was the whole purpose of the sign! This AoD spoke generically of the Roman armies--not just this specific Roman Army. When this Army came and went, then was the time to flee. And flee you must because the next Army will actually follow through and desolate you! Keep in mind that Jesus, in Luke, spoke of armies, plural. The AoD was not just Gallus, but Titus, as well.

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory
                      Very clearly we have TWO separate SIGNS. One of an army which came and surrounded Jerusalem, and once you saw it meant it was time to leave, and the army left and so did the Christians.
                      A separate sign is an AoD in the Temple.
                      That is based on your assumption that "in the holy place" must mean "in the temple." As a destination marker, I believe the temple was arrived at when the Roman Army reached the outer walls of the city. They were already "in the holy place" by virtue of their penetration of the outer orbit of the temple, which included the outskirts of Jerusalem. It was all, as a destination marker, a part of the holy place.

                      You may not like this definition, but this is the context we were given. I find this application perfectly acceptable in light of the obvious context, particularly in Luke 21. You deal with it by another means.

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory
                      Some reject this as possibly being future as the reject the idea of another temple being built, and if it is that it will be meaningless.
                      These same people though have no problem recognising the temple that Herod built, even though God didn't ask Herod to build it.

                      The KEY though is in ACCEPTING that what was stated had a SPECIFIC meaning at the time, and that meaning remains that "the Holy place" means the place in the Temple. Further as Jesus was just coming from the disciples and discussing that very temple with them, the CONTEXT DEMANDS that we take that meaning.

                      How this affects your understanding of other things is of course for you to work out. However CONTEXT should ALWAYS be the number one starting point for getting what God is saying.
                      That is exactly what I'm using as my starting point: context! The context in Luke 21 is the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem--they are *not* inside the temple. This is the sign Jesus gave his disciples. In history we know they then fled, when they saw this sign.

                      I don't have a problem with using the temple as a destination marker. When the Romans reached their destination, which was Jerusalem, they were already there--they were "in the holy place." I don't have a problem with this definition. It retains the meaning of the Holy Place as the temple. But it extends its use as a general location to be arrived at.

                      I understand you position, and respectfully disagree with it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        Yes, I just reposted some material on the Church Fathers, since it had been lost. Barnabas had viewed Jesus as the "temple of the Lord," and Clement of Alexandria viewed him as "the Most Holy." I could also see Jesus as "the Holy Place," since the Most Holy is sometimes viewed as the "Holy Place," as well. There is no dispute that in the book of Hebrews Jesus is viewed as somehow the "new temple of God."

                        It is the language, however, that I'm not clear about. I believe Jesus fulfilled all 6 things mentioned in Dan 24. The last one speaks of the "anointing of the Most Holy." I'm not sure if that is referring to the anointing of Jesus, or of his accomplishment of final redemption in Jerusalem?

                        At any rate, I find that Jerusalem is part of the Holy Place of the temple as the city in which the temple resided. It was viewed as a single "locate." The Scriptures say that God's Name was put both in the temple and in Jerusalem. They are often treated as if one.

                        The fact that Jesus accomplished his work in Jerusalem "outside the camp" indicated he accomplished his work *in the city,* and yet outside of the temple's holy area. That made Jerusalem the central location of Jesus' work on the cross, distinct from any work flawed priests did within the temple itself.

                        But I'm sure that Jesus' disciples would've understand Jesus' reference to the "Holy Place" as representative of the temple in Jerusalem. And when Roman troops arrived to destroy the place, they were "in the holy place" when they surrounded the city area.
                        Again, I can't dispute the numerous examples of the use of 'holy place' that you cited. In Daniel, the Jews were sometimes called the 'holy people'. If we are arguing for the broader meaning of the phrase, then you are 100% on point. However, in the OD Jesus narrowed the AoD to a specific/definite 'locate' that every Jew in Judea at the time would have recognised - which is the temple itself. Not its environs.

                        And since the Romans didn't enter the temple in 66AD, they were certainly not the AoD.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          Some people believe that there are actually 3 AoDs mentioned here, Antiochus 4, the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus, and Antichrist. I don't, but I do believe they are related. Antiochus 4 was clearly mentioned as an AoD in Dan 11.31 and 12.11. The Roman Army was mentioned, I believe, in Dan 9.27. The Roman Army is also, I believe, mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, in all 3 accounts.

                          Some believe there is a difference between Luke's account and Matthew and Mark's account, one referring to the Roman Army and the other referring to Antichrist. I don't, because I see all 3 accounts being the same Discourse.

                          But I can see how God has used these 3 figures to tie together the same kind of truth, about an evil man used by God to decimate God's People. If God used the Romans to put to death His Christ, then He can also use the Antichrist to put to death Christians in the endtimes.

                          These are various views, but they're not entirely contradictory. You have to choose your own view.
                          If some people believe that there are 3 AoD, I certainly don't. There are just 2 AoD - the first, fulfiled by A4E. The second, still a distant future. The Romans caused a desolation in the city, but they weren't the AoD.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            I feel no conviction from the Holy Spirit for having done anything wrong in this respect. And I'm *very sensitive* to the Holy Spirit. These things are simply differences of opinion, and good Christians may disagree. We apparently do.

                            You seem to be accepting FHG's mindset that being "outside of" the temple is incompatible with being "in the holy place?" Have you considered my response to FHG, that the "holy place" is being used, by Jesus, as a *locate* for the temple? To be "in the holy place" is to be in the vicinity of the temple. It does not necessarily mean to be *inside the temple itself!*
                            On this topic, I'm with FHG. l don't accept your 'academic' interpretation of the holy place. As I have said consistently, the holy place is not just the temple, but inside of it. Identifying what constitutes the holy place is at the heart of the discourse, including the Great Tribulation. Obviously, you have a different take from me on this and that's okay.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by randyk View Post
                              My argument is *not* that the standards were the "abomination!" Rather, I'm arguing that the *Roman Army* was the abomination. The Roman army may have existed 100 years earlier and a 100 years later, but that wasn't the *sign* that Jesus pointed his disciples to. The *sign* was when this Roman Army positioned itself *around Jerusalem!* This was the definition of a *siege.*

                              The Roman siege took place in 66 AD. It didn't take place 100 years earlier. And even if it took place 60 plus years later, the sign was *only* when the Roman troops besieged Jerusalem in such a way as to enable the Jewish believers to flee. This only took place in 66 AD.

                              The abomination was, in my view, the Army, the "people of the prince to come" (Dan 9.26). The fact others saw the abomination as the eagle standards only indicate that there is general agreement with my position--not that there is precision in everybody's view of an historical fulfillment.

                              You could find a ton of material on this from preterists. But I don't like to indulge too much in a position that lacks a futurist perspective. I can, however, benefit from their historical perspective on the AoD.
                              There are just too many problems with this view that should have concerned you if you hadn't made up your mind to defend this position at all costs. The only pointer I can give you is from Luke's account. We know that Luke rather took a plain approach in his description of the events of 70 AD, unlike Matthew and Mark.

                              Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

                              From the above, it is clear that Luke was describing the destruction of the city in 70 AD. The fact he did not use the prefix "abomination" before desolation is not an accident because he was not referring to the defilement of the temple's sanctum which, in my view, is what the AoD will represent. The Romans and their eagle standard has been in Judea for years and even at the time of the discourse. Therefore, it would have been strange for Jesus to tell his disciples that when they see Roman soldiers or their standard around the temple, to get of dodge.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                                Again, I can't dispute the numerous examples of the use of 'holy place' that you cited. In Daniel, the Jews were sometimes called the 'holy people'. If we are arguing for the broader meaning of the phrase, then you are 100% on point. However, in the OD Jesus narrowed the AoD to a specific/definite 'locate' that every Jew in Judea at the time would have recognised - which is the temple itself. Not its environs.

                                And since the Romans didn't enter the temple in 66AD, they were certainly not the AoD.
                                And if you were right that the locate had to mean the temple, and not its environs, then you would be right. The Roman Army could *not* have been the AoD in 66 AD. However, I do believe that the environs of the temple is included in the term "the holy place." As a locate, it was its position *on the map* that mattered, and not strictly the temple. If you called a point on the map, where the temple was located, "the holy place," then you would see that Jerusalem also is "the holy place." The same dot that locates the temple also locates the city. The city and the temple are, in effect, the same locate.

                                I would not say that except for the simple fact that *the context calls for it.* And the context is all important for a term like "the holy place." FHG argues that "the holy place" is always the temple and never includes the city environment. But in reality, the context is all important for any term, no matter how it is regularly, and even exclusively, used.

                                The 1st time "holy ground" is used we may say it was used *exclusively* for an area outside of the temple. And we see that without the article "the" a "holy place" can indeed include the environs of the temple. And so, if we see how "the holy place" is used, and recognize that context controls how it is used, "the holy place" can be designated as applicable to the city as a locate for the temple.

                                This may sound convoluted, but it is in fact the context of the passage. It demands a larger application of "holy place" than just to the temple. It legitimately refers to the city environment in which the temple was located, I believe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X