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
    Brother, I was not being entirely serious in my reference to "the doctrine of biblical consistency!" I was just referring to the need to exercise common sense. When we compare 3 passages, all of which refer to a single Discourse, it is logical to assume that all 3 versions refer to the same events! Your arguments over words are far weaker than this kind of argument, in my view.
    We do indeed need to exercise common sense.
    It is however incorrect to say "it is logical to assume...", what IS logical is to CONSIDER IF they refer to the same events.
    You see when they speak of the same things, using the same words, then we can say quite confidently that they speak of the same thing. However when they diverge from each other THEN it is LOGICAL to assume that they are then highlighting something or other which the other authors were NOT highlighting. THAT is a LOGICAL assumption.

    However arguments over words are NOT weaker, but in fact are STRONGER than the above, as words are about scriptural TRUTHS as supported consistently by scripture.
    Further it is NEVER one or the other, that is I will sacrifice the meaning of words because I see this as of greater value. Instead they ALWAYS support each other. I have yet to find a SINGLE case where this is not so. You may argue that is my a priori view, so I would find that, however I have NEVER found that when the correct meaning is taken that then a balanced and consistent meaning is not found.
    You seem willing to sacrifice one truth in preference of your "other" truth. Clearly to my view this is wrong.

    I don't find it difficult, for example, to explain how an area outside of Jerusalem can be considered "holy," when in other places that area is not considered "unholy." It is *context* that determines the meaning.
    So you actually are now saying that CONTEXT has NO MEANING related to what scripture declares as TRUE? CONTEXT is understood by what we KNOW of the meaning of things we bring in.

    When we are, in context, talking about the disposal of animal carcasses, and such things, we may indeed refer to the area outside of the city as an "unclean area." But when we're talking about a pagan army approaching the holy city, they have indeed violated a holy space when they come up against the walls of the city.

    We're not talking about divisions of areas, and what their designations are. Rather, we're talking about an invasion aimed at the holy temple!
    We ARE talking about a LOCATION. The area OUTSIDE the city was the unclean area. Therefore Jesus was NOT saying, that area is now holy. The SIGN stated is "when you see IN" that location, and the definition of the LOCATION is that it is a HOLY place. It is therefore NOTHING to do with the attitude or mind set or plan of whoever is in that place (which we cannot see anyway).
    Furthermore, the army seen in 66 AD did NOT violate a holy space (for it was not a holy space), nor did they plan (at that time) to destroy the sanctuary or city.
    Never mind the FACT that the pagan army was INSIDE the Holy city just months earlier and this was NOT a violation of that "holy city".

    We are *not* here identifying a space outside the city where people may relieve themselves or dispose of garbage! In context we're talking about the *holy city,* and a pagan army defiling that city by coming up against its walls! The focus is not on the area outside the walls, but rather, upon the holy city that is being defiled!
    Rubbish!
    We are in CONTEXT talking about a LOCATION. It is what you SEE in that LOCATION!
    The focus in Luke 21 is on the location OUTSIDE the walls.
    The focus in Matt 24 is on the location which is the Holy.

    You say the TWO are synonymous, which means you are saying the location of one is the SAME as the location of the other.

    We're not going to resolve this by petty arguments. The argument does not rest on such things. It really has more to do with whether the language allows for application to the temple exclusively, or to the entire city. We can agree to disagree on that.
    So now it IS about Language, in which case your argument has ZERO support from language, as I have shown through the many posts above.

    But the strongest argument is, in my opinion, the need to be consistent from Matthew to Mark to Luke. There was only *one sign* Jesus told his disciples to flee from, and Luke describes that as the sign of armies besieging the city of Jerusalem.
    So you really don't have an argument at all if this is your "strongest" argument.
    However this can be argued in a different thread as this was meant to focus on "the Holy place" and how it is used and what it means.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
      We do indeed need to exercise common sense.
      It is however incorrect to say "it is logical to assume...", what IS logical is to CONSIDER IF they refer to the same events.
      You see when they speak of the same things, using the same words, then we can say quite confidently that they speak of the same thing. However when they diverge from each other THEN it is LOGICAL to assume that they are then highlighting something or other which the other authors were NOT highlighting. THAT is a LOGICAL assumption.

      However arguments over words are NOT weaker, but in fact are STRONGER than the above, as words are about scriptural TRUTHS as supported consistently by scripture.
      Further it is NEVER one or the other, that is I will sacrifice the meaning of words because I see this as of greater value. Instead they ALWAYS support each other. I have yet to find a SINGLE case where this is not so. You may argue that is my a priori view, so I would find that, however I have NEVER found that when the correct meaning is taken that then a balanced and consistent meaning is not found.
      You seem willing to sacrifice one truth in preference of your "other" truth. Clearly to my view this is wrong.

      So you actually are now saying that CONTEXT has NO MEANING related to what scripture declares as TRUE? CONTEXT is understood by what we KNOW of the meaning of things we bring in.

      We ARE talking about a LOCATION. The area OUTSIDE the city was the unclean area. Therefore Jesus was NOT saying, that area is now holy. The SIGN stated is "when you see IN" that location, and the definition of the LOCATION is that it is a HOLY place. It is therefore NOTHING to do with the attitude or mind set or plan of whoever is in that place (which we cannot see anyway).
      Furthermore, the army seen in 66 AD did NOT violate a holy space (for it was not a holy space), nor did they plan (at that time) to destroy the sanctuary or city.
      Never mind the FACT that the pagan army was INSIDE the Holy city just months earlier and this was NOT a violation of that "holy city".

      Rubbish!
      We are in CONTEXT talking about a LOCATION. It is what you SEE in that LOCATION!
      The focus in Luke 21 is on the location OUTSIDE the walls.
      The focus in Matt 24 is on the location which is the Holy.

      You say the TWO are synonymous, which means you are saying the location of one is the SAME as the location of the other.

      So now it IS about Language, in which case your argument has ZERO support from language, as I have shown through the many posts above.

      So you really don't have an argument at all if this is your "strongest" argument.
      However this can be argued in a different thread as this was meant to focus on "the Holy place" and how it is used and what it means.
      I've already conceded to you that I don't have enough Hebrew expertise to argue further the "holy place." It doesn't mean I can't continue to argue hypothetically its application to the city of Jerusalem! You are only arguing, not based on Hebrew knowledge yourself, but on how you think the term "holy place" must be used, based on the idea that it is used exclusively for the temple. But I've given you my belief that words and terms can be used flexibly, depending on the speaker and the context.

      So for me, apart from language arguments, the strongest argument is concerned with keeping Matthew and Mark and Luke consistent, from one version to the other. Different words do not necessarily imply a difference in subject. Different words simply mean that Jesus used more words. Matthew and Mark selected "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." And Luke selected "armies standing around Jerusalem." It is very reasonable, from my perspective, to see these statements as complementary, rather than different events!

      Sectioning off different areas around the temple into designated uses, such as "unholy areas" and "holy areas," does not address how these areas can be referred to differently, depending on context. For example, if we address the entirety of the Holy Land we would not designate any area within Israel as "unclean." It is all the "Holy Land."

      But if we speak of Jerusalem as the destination for an invading army, seeking to destroy the temple, we would call the arrival of that army at the walls of Jerusalem an incursion upon "holy territory." You therefore confuse different contexts, and draw false conclusions.

      I could easily say, without confusion, that an army outside the walls of the holy city was trespassing upon holy territory. This may or may not be valid, depending upon your view, but the statement on its own makes sense. And you would be wrong to deny that. I'm not here arguing whether it is so, or not. I'm just arguing that such a statement truly does make sense to an objective listener.

      If you don't want to believe that the sign Jesus told his disciples to look for is the *same sign* in all 3 accounts, fine. Different words don't change the sign for me! That's just my thinking, and you don't have to agree with it. It is a very strong argument to me.

      You make strong arguments that "the holy place" applies to the temple. Whether this is so or not doesn't really affect my position. I can accept that "the hoy place" applies to the temple, and simply view the siege of Jerusalem as being in the vicinity of the temple. For me, being "in the holy place" is the same as being in the vicinity of the temple. It is a trespass upon the holy area around the temple. It does not have to mean actually entering into the temple or being in the temple.

      For me, it is all about context. For you it is all about words, and about what "the holy place" must mean. We are at an impasse, brother.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        I've already conceded to you that I don't have enough Hebrew expertise to argue further the "holy place." It doesn't mean I can't continue to argue hypothetically its application to the city of Jerusalem! You are only arguing, not based on Hebrew knowledge yourself, but on how you think the term "holy place" must be used, based on the idea that it is used exclusively for the temple. But I've given you my belief that words and terms can be used flexibly, depending on the speaker and the context.
        No, I am arguing on the FACT that "the Holy place" is a LOCATION.
        I am further arguing that an army surrounding a city is in a LOCATION also.
        Then I am also noting that YOU claim that the one is equivalent to the other THEREFORE according to YOUR own reasoning, the one LOCATION is the other LOCATION, and you are saying that OUTSIDE the city IS the Holy place.
        Further you are saying Jesus is declaring such.
        So the point being argued is - Would Jesus state that the LOCATION of OUTSIDE the city, a LOCATION which is SPECIFIED as NOT being Holy, and as you noted is UNCLEAN, is in fact Holy, contrary to the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles. Would the apostles have understood Jesus to have said so? And IF that is the case then why don;t the apostles then note that it is NOW Holy?
        You see I am simply working through YOUR claim, based on the merits of such a claim.
        The claim falls flat NOT ONLY due to the Hebrew but also due to the FACT that the LOCATION of OUTSIDE the city is NOT a Holy place, and therefore Jesus would NOT have said, an army stanidng in the Holy place IS standing OUTSIDE the city.
        The TWO terms CANNOT mean the same thing as ONE LOCATION is Holy, and the other LOCATION is specifically NOT Holy.

        This isn't about being flexible. That is an excuse to make things say anything you want. The CONTEXT does NOT change the LOCATION from being Holy or NOT!

        So for me, apart from language arguments, the strongest argument is concerned with keeping Matthew and Mark and Luke consistent, from one version to the other. Different words do not necessarily imply a difference in subject. Different words simply mean that Jesus used more words. Matthew and Mark selected "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." And Luke selected "armies standing around Jerusalem." It is very reasonable, from my perspective, to see these statements as complementary, rather than different events!
        Slightly different words but with a similar meaning don't necessarily imply a difference in subject. However the more the words are dissimilar then the more we consider them to be about a different subject.
        I have hypothesised with you as to whether it is REMOTELY IMAGINABLE that these two phrases could have the same meaning, as this isn't a simple rewording, but is ENTIRELY different words.
        So we look at is there ANY WAY that OUTSIDE the city could be consider the Holy place. The simple CLEAR scriptural answer is NO.

        This does NOT in ANYWAY make Matthew, Mark and Luke more or less consistent. It simply shows that Matthew, Mark and Luke have retained certain statements and not others. It allows them to highlight different aspects of things Jesus was speaking about.
        Your approach on the other hand is about putting a straitjacket on the OD and make it predominantly about one thing IRRESPECTIVE of the CONTEXTUAL-NARRATIVE differences between them.

        Sectioning off different areas around the temple into designated uses, such as "unholy areas" and "holy areas," does not address how these areas can be referred to differently, depending on context. For example, if we address the entirety of the Holy Land we would not designate any area within Israel as "unclean." It is all the "Holy Land."
        Actually it isn't all holy land. There is as far as I know ONLY one place in ALL scripture which actually calls Israel the Holy Land. It is found in Zechariah 2:12 and speaks of a time in the FUTURE when God comes to dwell and the land will be Holy.
        As the Law specified that there were places which were unclean then we have to recognise this as a TRUTH.

        I could easily say, without confusion, that an army outside the walls of the holy city was trespassing upon holy territory. This may or may not be valid, depending upon your view, but the statement on its own makes sense. And you would be wrong to deny that. I'm not here arguing whether it is so, or not. I'm just arguing that such a statement truly does make sense to an objective listener.
        People would understand what you are trying to say.
        However just because it is understandable, does NOT make it a valid or possible interpretation.
        The JWs often have valid interpretations, as do Preterists - the question is NOT is a n interpretation that makes a certain type of sense, but is it an interpretation which sticks CONSISTENTLY with how scripture uses those forms and terminology.

        If you don't want to believe that the sign Jesus told his disciples to look for is the *same sign* in all 3 accounts, fine. Different words don't change the sign for me! That's just my thinking, and you don't have to agree with it. It is a very strong argument to me.
        It is an incredibly weak argument.
        If three people report back from a briefing on car crashes, then we shouldn't be surprised to hear of numerous car crashes, but the question would be which are reporting about the SAME car crash.
        Jesus was telling the disciples about things which would happen to them and to Jerusalem.
        The SIMPLEST and CLEAREST and MOST CONSISTENT understanding is that Jesus noted a couple of times when Jerusalem would be a place to flee from.
        Therefore elements of those times will be the SAME - you need to leave being obvious. It being difficult being another.
        These are not just slightly different words, but ENTIRELY different words, which means your strong argument isn't much of an argument at all.

        If someone said, see you in Washington, and someone else said, see you in New York, then you would not say - well BOTH people said they will "see you..." therefore it must be the same place!


        You make strong arguments that "the holy place" applies to the temple. Whether this is so or not doesn't really affect my position. I can accept that "the hoy place" applies to the temple, and simply view the siege of Jerusalem as being in the vicinity of the temple. For me, being "in the holy place" is the same as being in the vicinity of the temple. It is a trespass upon the holy area around the temple. It does not have to mean actually entering into the temple or being in the temple.

        For me, it is all about context. For you it is all about words, and about what "the holy place" must mean. We are at an impasse, brother.
        IF you actually cared about CONTEXT then you would NOT hold the view you do.
        The CONTEXT EMPHATICALLY speaks of DIFFERENCES which you refuse to countenance because you make them ONE CONTEXT, when Matthew and Mark speak of things happening to Believers whilst Luke notes things happening to Jews.
        Further Jesus would NOT say being OUTSIDE the city is being IN the Holy place.
        IF Jesus had said they are the SAME place, then He would have said so for one (which He hasn't), and two He would have said "When you see standing outside the Holy place".
        By the way have you noticed that the part "standing in the Holy place" is NOT stated ANYWHERE in any part of Daniel (or anywhere else in the Bible) and therefore Jesus was stating the LOCATION as CLEARLY as possible so that NO ONE would be confused as to the LOCATION that He meant.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          Yes, I stated as much. When you have a particular position, every other position appears to be foolish, irrational, and proud to you. But when you're on my side of the table, I just can't understand how you arrive at your conclusions!

          But to be completely serious, I've conceded to FHG, and now to you, that I can't give an adequate answer on the "holy place" issue. I grant that it most naturally applies to the Holy Place compartment within the temple. But I cannot say how the term "holy place" must be used by Jesus.

          As I've pointed out repeatedly, "holy place" applies to a number of things other than the temple building itself. Attachment of the definite article "the" certainly draws our attention back to the temple building. But how the term can be applied in a unique context is the question. And I can't answer that effectively.

          What I can do, however, is suggest that if the issue can be questioned at all--and I believe it can--look at the issue *apart from the problem of the holy place.* Just grant that "the holy place" can be applied to the city of Jerusalem for the sake of argument. Then look back at where I think my arguments are strongest.

          The 3 synoptic authors of the Olivet Discourse likely referred to the *same things,* and the *same events.* The sign Jesus told his disciples to look for was not a. the Antichrist, and b. the Roman Army. It can only be one or the other. And since we *know* that Luke spoke of the Roman Army, read that back into the Abomination of Desolation in Mark and Matthew. Does it make sense?

          Of course it does! Many, many scholars have read it this way precisely because it does make sense. It makes less sense to see 2 authors speak of the Antichrist, and 1 author speak of the Roman Army.

          And if you line up these 2 things, notice their similarity:

          a. abomination of desolation standing in the holy place
          b. Roman Army to desolate the temple encircling Jerusalem

          If we draw a circle around the walls of Jerusalem, and call it all "the holy place" is that really so weird? I don't think so. In the context of predicting a Roman invasion I think it makes perfect sense to say that the Roman Army is trespassing on God's holy ground merely by laying a siege against the city of Jerusalem. It is especially egregious when we know the ultimate result will be the destruction of God's temple.

          Again, keep in mind that the entire Discourse is based on a prediction of the fall of the temple. If we keep this in mind our minds will not stray off into eschatological territory. I think Jesus addressed his 2nd Coming. But I also think he tried to clean up any efforts at skipping past the more immediate concern, which was the Jewish apostasy. Once the early believers had dealt with that they could focus on things beyond that generation.
          Any attempt to understand "the holy place" must be viewed in the context of the information Jesus gave the disciples. A holy place would fit with your expanded definition as supported by other uses of a holy place in scripture. But "the" holy place, narrows it down to no other than the temple's sanctum. Secondly, we all agree that given the impending danger and potential loss of life, an ambiguous warning and narrative would be useless. Jesus as we know, is not the author of confusion.

          Throughout scripture, Jerusalem and its people (Israel) have been called a holy city, and holy people. However, the context of the OD leaves me in no doubt that the 'holy place' is neither the city in general nor the immediate locality, but INSIDE the temple.

          I understand your argument and would concur if am not convinced that the destruction of the temple is different from the AoD which will mirror A4E's desecration of the temple earlier. I think your problem is your insistence that the primary focus of the OD was the imminent fate of Jerusalem and its people at the time as against Jesus Christ' need to expound on the events to come leading up to his Glorious Return. In this purview, the events of 70 AD easily becomes "one" among many of the events en route to that climactic event - his return.

          Perhaps if you read the discourse again and reconsider what the gospel is mainly about? Was it all about short term judgment of Israel's apostasy or warnings and exhortation to the faithful of all generations to persevere to the end, so as to be saved? You may surprise yourself how easily you your views will change.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            No, I am arguing on the FACT that "the Holy place" is a LOCATION.
            I am further arguing that an army surrounding a city is in a LOCATION also.
            Then I am also noting that YOU claim that the one is equivalent to the other THEREFORE according to YOUR own reasoning, the one LOCATION is the other LOCATION, and you are saying that OUTSIDE the city IS the Holy place.
            Further you are saying Jesus is declaring such.
            So the point being argued is - Would Jesus state that the LOCATION of OUTSIDE the city, a LOCATION which is SPECIFIED as NOT being Holy, and as you noted is UNCLEAN, is in fact Holy, contrary to the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles. Would the apostles have understood Jesus to have said so? And IF that is the case then why don;t the apostles then note that it is NOW Holy?
            You see I am simply working through YOUR claim, based on the merits of such a claim.
            The claim falls flat NOT ONLY due to the Hebrew but also due to the FACT that the LOCATION of OUTSIDE the city is NOT a Holy place, and therefore Jesus would NOT have said, an army stanidng in the Holy place IS standing OUTSIDE the city.
            The TWO terms CANNOT mean the same thing as ONE LOCATION is Holy, and the other LOCATION is specifically NOT Holy.

            This isn't about being flexible. That is an excuse to make things say anything you want. The CONTEXT does NOT change the LOCATION from being Holy or NOT!
            I suggest you re-read my last post. You completely missed the import of it. You are using words in a *completely different sense.* It is context that determines the sense. If you mix contexts it's like mixing metaphors--you make a mess of things, and things appear hopelessly conflicted and contradictory.

            If we were sizing up rooms in a large house, we could designate the purpose of each room. This is maybe how an architect would look at it. But if we are looking at the location of the house as a dot on a map, we would find the house not sectioned off into designated rooms, but rather, a locate in a particular neighborhood.

            This is how I view "the holy place." it is not sectioned into areas, such as the Holy Place and Most Holy within the temple, a courtyard of the priests, and the area outside the walls for disposing garbage. Rather, I'm seeing "the holy place" as a dot on the map, representing the city of Jerusalem, which was also considered holy.

            Invading pagan forces violated God's "holy place" when they came up against the walls of Jerusalem to lay a siege against it. It was a dot on a map, and they were within the circumference of that dot! The whole dot was holy because it represented the temple. It did not distinguish between an unclean place outside the walls of the city and the temple inside the city. It was a single dot representing the "holy place" over all.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            Slightly different words but with a similar meaning don't necessarily imply a difference in subject. However the more the words are dissimilar then the more we consider them to be about a different subject.
            I have hypothesised with you as to whether it is REMOTELY IMAGINABLE that these two phrases could have the same meaning, as this isn't a simple rewording, but is ENTIRELY different words.
            So we look at is there ANY WAY that OUTSIDE the city could be consider the Holy place. The simple CLEAR scriptural answer is NO.

            This does NOT in ANYWAY make Matthew, Mark and Luke more or less consistent. It simply shows that Matthew, Mark and Luke have retained certain statements and not others. It allows them to highlight different aspects of things Jesus was speaking about.
            Your approach on the other hand is about putting a straitjacket on the OD and make it predominantly about one thing IRRESPECTIVE of the CONTEXTUAL-NARRATIVE differences between them.
            I couldn't disagree with you more. It is your view of the city, compartmentalizing it into various designated areas, that prevents you from seeing the similarity between "abomination of desolation" and "desolating armies." They are absolutely about the same event, different words notwithstanding, because there was only *one sign* that Jesus pointed out his disciples should look for!

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            Actually it isn't all holy land. There is as far as I know ONLY one place in ALL scripture which actually calls Israel the Holy Land. It is found in Zechariah 2:12 and speaks of a time in the FUTURE when God comes to dwell and the land will be Holy.
            As the Law specified that there were places which were unclean then we have to recognise this as a TRUTH.
            Actually, the purpose of God dwelling among His people Israel was to make the entire population holy! Since Israel failed to live up to God's holy standards, the holy land "spit out" or "vomited out" Israel, due to their uncleanness. This implies the entire land was to be holy, including the "unclean garbage disposal" places. Even disposal was to be carried out in holiness, according to the Law.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            People would understand what you are trying to say.
            However just because it is understandable, does NOT make it a valid or possible interpretation.
            The JWs often have valid interpretations, as do Preterists - the question is NOT is a n interpretation that makes a certain type of sense, but is it an interpretation which sticks CONSISTENTLY with how scripture uses those forms and terminology.
            I already conceded as much.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            It is an incredibly weak argument.
            If three people report back from a briefing on car crashes, then we shouldn't be surprised to hear of numerous car crashes, but the question would be which are reporting about the SAME car crash.
            Jesus was telling the disciples about things which would happen to them and to Jerusalem.
            The SIMPLEST and CLEAREST and MOST CONSISTENT understanding is that Jesus noted a couple of times when Jerusalem would be a place to flee from.
            Therefore elements of those times will be the SAME - you need to leave being obvious. It being difficult being another.
            These are not just slightly different words, but ENTIRELY different words, which means your strong argument isn't much of an argument at all.
            Nice try! It is the opposite. When 3 accounts refer to the same sign for which Jesus' disciples had to flee, it is a *confirmation* that they all refer to the *same thing!* This is a very, very strong argument.

            All 3 accounts about the destruction of the temple in 66-70 AD.
            All 3 accounts have the disciples asking, When?
            All 3 accounts have Jesus explaining that there will be a Sign anticipating when the disciples should flee from this event.
            All 3 accounts describe, using different words, that they are to flee either armies or an "abomination" that will appear "in the holy place," or "in Jerusalem.

            To say this represents 2 different signs is unfathomable to me. This is why I cannot accept your language arguments. "Abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" is way to close to "pagan armies positioned around the walls of Jerusalem, in which the temple stood."

            It all referred back to Dan 9 where it was said that the "people of the ruler to come will desolate the city and the temple." And right afterwards this was called the "abomination of desolation."

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            If someone said, see you in Washington, and someone else said, see you in New York, then you would not say - well BOTH people said they will "see you..." therefore it must be the same place!
            What a lame example! The abomination of desolation is *very similar* to a pagan army set to desolate Jerusalem! New York and WA are very different places!

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            IF you actually cared about CONTEXT then you would NOT hold the view you do.
            The CONTEXT EMPHATICALLY speaks of DIFFERENCES which you refuse to countenance because you make them ONE CONTEXT, when Matthew and Mark speak of things happening to Believers whilst Luke notes things happening to Jews.
            This is your claim, but one that does not hold up with me. All accounts refer to believers and all accounts refer to the Jewish People. There is no distinction on this basis!

            Furthermore, the context is not determined by the difference of possibly synonymous phrases! The AoD and desolating armies are possibly synonymous phrases. They cannot, on their own, determine a difference in context!

            But we do know the major context established for all versions of the Discourse to be the desolation of the temple. This puts the AoD and the desolating armies in the same place in the same context. And it is, in fact, the same sign in all 3 accounts, from a logical pov.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            Further Jesus would NOT say being OUTSIDE the city is being IN the Holy place.
            IF Jesus had said they are the SAME place, then He would have said so for one (which He hasn't), and two He would have said "When you see standing outside the Holy place".
            By the way have you noticed that the part "standing in the Holy place" is NOT stated ANYWHERE in any part of Daniel (or anywhere else in the Bible) and therefore Jesus was stating the LOCATION as CLEARLY as possible so that NO ONE would be confused as to the LOCATION that He meant.
            Your failure is to see that the senses of words change with different applications. If I refer to the "holy place" on a map, the dot representing the holy place would encompass all of Jerusalem. But if I'm referring strictly to compartments within the temple, or within the city, then we can distinguish outside the walls from inside the walls. But I'm talking about the "holy place" as a locate, as a dot on a map. You just can't imagine that kind of application, even it is perfectly reasonable to suggest this. The Roman Army was in fact "in the holy place" when they arrived at Jerusalem in 66 AD. When they laid siege against the city, in order to destroy it and the temple, they were viewed by Jesus as being "in the holy place." They were at "ground zero."

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
              Any attempt to understand "the holy place" must be viewed in the context of the information Jesus gave the disciples. A holy place would fit with your expanded definition as supported by other uses of a holy place in scripture. But "the" holy place, narrows it down to no other than the temple's sanctum. Secondly, we all agree that given the impending danger and potential loss of life, an ambiguous warning and narrative would be useless. Jesus as we know, is not the author of confusion.

              Throughout scripture, Jerusalem and its people (Israel) have been called a holy city, and holy people. However, the context of the OD leaves me in no doubt that the 'holy place' is neither the city in general nor the immediate locality, but INSIDE the temple.
              Well you should doubt it because I'm virtually certain you're wrong! Not only so, but it is troubling to say that the sign Jesus called for his disciples to flee from was different in Luke from what it was in either Matthew or Mark. This would make Jesus very, very confusing in what he was warning his disciples to flee from!

              You are using the same arguments FHG is using. I suggest you read my posts to him on his argument against Jerusalem being the "locate" for the temple, or for the "holy place." To be in the vicinity of, or in the locate for, the temple is to be "in the holy place." This means that in this sense the pagan Roman Army was an abomination standing "in the holy place" when they laid siege against Jerusalem outside the walls of the city. They were in the vicinity of the temple, or in the vicinity of the holy place. As such they were *in* the holy place!

              Originally posted by Trivalee
              I understand your argument and would concur if am not convinced that the destruction of the temple is different from the AoD which will mirror A4E's desecration of the temple earlier. I think your problem is your insistence that the primary focus of the OD was the imminent fate of Jerusalem and its people at the time as against Jesus Christ' need to expound on the events to come leading up to his Glorious Return. In this purview, the events of 70 AD easily becomes "one" among many of the events en route to that climactic event - his return.
              Well, I appreciate the fact you at least understand my arguments. I believe Irenaeus made the same mistake you do, by projecting the language of this imminent Jewish war onto a future eschatological scenario. Jesus wasn't in the least prognosticating about distant future events. In fact he taught us *not* to do that! Here, he was much more concerned to get his disciples ready immediately, in view of the imminent judgment coming against the Jewish People.

              Originally posted by Trivalee
              Perhaps if you read the discourse again and reconsider what the gospel is mainly about? Was it all about short term judgment of Israel's apostasy or warnings and exhortation to the faithful of all generations to persevere to the end, so as to be saved? You may surprise yourself how easily you your views will change.
              Not likely, brother. I've been studying this since I was a teenager, and I'm 65 now. I've held many views on this Discourse. My present view is the only one that has ever consistently made sense to me. But I'm not the Holy Spirit. You have to follow your own path. I'm just here to help you in any way I can. And I trust you'll do the same for me?

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                I suggest you re-read my last post. You completely missed the import of it. You are using words in a *completely different sense.* It is context that determines the sense. If you mix contexts it's like mixing metaphors--you make a mess of things, and things appear hopelessly conflicted and contradictory.

                If we were sizing up rooms in a large house, we could designate the purpose of each room. This is maybe how an architect would look at it. But if we are looking at the location of the house as a dot on a map, we would find the house not sectioned off into designated rooms, but rather, a locate in a particular neighborhood.

                This is how I view "the holy place." it is not sectioned into areas, such as the Holy Place and Most Holy within the temple, a courtyard of the priests, and the area outside the walls for disposing garbage. Rather, I'm seeing "the holy place" as a dot on the map, representing the city of Jerusalem, which was also considered holy.

                Invading pagan forces violated God's "holy place" when they came up against the walls of Jerusalem to lay a siege against it. It was a dot on a map, and they were within the circumference of that dot! The whole dot was holy because it represented the temple. It did not distinguish between an unclean place outside the walls of the city and the temple inside the city. It was a single dot representing the "holy place" over all.
                A good attempt at explanation. Doesn't matter though in the slightest as a "dot" still covers a LOCATION.
                Therefore is OUTSIDE the city covered by that "dot" or not?
                For it to be a CONSISTENT application then the dot MUST include OUTSIDE or otherwise OUTSIDE is NOT part of the Holy place.
                However OUTSIDE is NEVER the Holy and therefore your "dot" is covering things which are not to be included.

                For the WHOLE dot to be holy, it must ONLY refer to the place that IS holy.
                IOW You cannot put a dot which covers the middle east and say well Jerusalem is there so the whole is holy. This is arrant nonsense. It is a very poor attempt to IGNORE the FACT that OUTSIDE is a DIFFERENT place to INSIDE. Inside (can by a stretch) be at least termed holy, but OUTSIDE cannot. Your dot is covering things which are NOT included in "holy" therefore your dot is wrong.

                I couldn't disagree with you more. It is your view of the city, compartmentalizing it into various designated areas, that prevents you from seeing the similarity between "abomination of desolation" and "desolating armies." They are absolutely about the same event, different words notwithstanding, because there was only *one sign* that Jesus pointed out his disciples should look for!
                They ABSOLUTELY and without ANY DOUBT whatsoever NOT the same thing.
                You CLAIM it is ONE SIGN, yet Jesus spoke of TWO SIGNS. There is NO WAY to make the one set of wording be the SAME as the other. You have accepted that Jesus SPOKE both, but have no rational for why.
                An army that desolates may also bring about the abomination, but they also might not.

                Actually, the purpose of God dwelling among His people Israel was to make the entire population holy! Since Israel failed to live up to God's holy standards, the holy land "spit out" or "vomited out" Israel, due to their uncleanness. This implies the entire land was to be holy, including the "unclean garbage disposal" places. Even disposal was to be carried out in holiness, according to the Law.
                Note - was to be, which means WAS NOT.

                I already conceded as much.
                If you concede as much then why do you choose an explanation which is FAR more complex, convoluted and difficult rather than accepting the straight forward things He said?

                Nice try! It is the opposite. When 3 accounts refer to the same sign for which Jesus' disciples had to flee, it is a *confirmation* that they all refer to the *same thing!* This is a very, very strong argument.

                All 3 accounts about the destruction of the temple in 66-70 AD.
                All 3 accounts have the disciples asking, When?
                All 3 accounts have Jesus explaining that there will be a Sign anticipating when the disciples should flee from this event.
                All 3 accounts describe, using different words, that they are to flee either armies or an "abomination" that will appear "in the holy place," or "in Jerusalem.
                Not the opposite.
                Matt 24 and Mark 13 have ZERO mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
                Matthew and Mark have DIFFERENT when question to Luke
                Matt and Mark have a different sign for a different event
                Matt and mark make reference to fleeing after an AoD, but Luke speaks of fleeing AFTER an army has come.
                To claim these are saying the same thing means you haven't actually read what they say.

                To say this represents 2 different signs is unfathomable to me. This is why I cannot accept your language arguments. "Abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" is way to close to "pagan armies positioned around the walls of Jerusalem, in which the temple stood."
                Not even slightly or remotely the same.
                An AoD is in relation to the altar.

                It all referred back to Dan 9 where it was said that the "people of the ruler to come will desolate the city and the temple." And right afterwards this was called the "abomination of desolation."
                In Dan 9 the event of verse 26 is NOT connected with verse 27.
                Verse 27 is SPECIFICALLY occurring DURING the 70 weeks.
                However you would agree that verse 26 is NOT occurring DURING the 70 weeks. Therefore it is CLEARLY and LOGICALLY not about the same event. How anybody can say they are the same after noting it is a different point in time means they are so set in their view they are UNABLE to note the absurdity of their view.

                What a lame example! The abomination of desolation is *very similar* to a pagan army set to desolate Jerusalem! New York and WA are very different places!
                So a PERFECT example, because a Holy place and an unclean place are VERY DIFFERENT places.
                Also an AooD has NOTHING to do with armies (except that it may be an army which allows an AoD to occur).

                This is your claim, but one that does not hold up with me. All accounts refer to believers and all accounts refer to the Jewish People. There is no distinction on this basis!
                Lots of differences and you have been shown them. You continue to stick your head in the sand and say "la la la, this is your view, la la la" instead of dealing with the FACT that persecution of Christians is NOT persecution of Jews, and distress for Jews is NOT tribulation for Christians.

                Furthermore, the context is not determined by the difference of possibly synonymous phrases! The AoD and desolating armies are possibly synonymous phrases. They cannot, on their own, determine a difference in context!
                You love to claim things as synonymns when they clearly are not.
                What is connecting them is that they have the word desolate. However the army in Luke 21 did NOT cause any desolation in Jerusalem. It was NOT the army that brought desolation. However that means Luke 21 isn't even a desolating army but simply an army - just as Jesus said.

                But we do know the major context established for all versions of the Discourse to be the desolation of the temple. This puts the AoD and the desolating armies in the same place in the same context. And it is, in fact, the same sign in all 3 accounts, from a logical pov.
                Incorrect again. That is NOT the CONTEXT. The temple was a starting point for a conversation which covers the ENTIRE period of time from Jesus' leaving to Jesus returning. The FOCUS is on the Disciples and what they will face.

                Your failure is to see that the senses of words change with different applications. If I refer to the "holy place" on a map, the dot representing the holy place would encompass all of Jerusalem. But if I'm referring strictly to compartments within the temple, or within the city, then we can distinguish outside the walls from inside the walls. But I'm talking about the "holy place" as a locate, as a dot on a map. You just can't imagine that kind of application, even it is perfectly reasonable to suggest this. The Roman Army was in fact "in the holy place" when they arrived at Jerusalem in 66 AD. When they laid siege against the city, in order to destroy it and the temple, they were viewed by Jesus as being "in the holy place." They were at "ground zero."
                Your claim about words often leads to disbelief. I have no problem with your dot, meaning all of Jerusalem. The problem is you keep EXPANDING the dot BEYOND the area which can be agreed is that included. OUTSIDE is so specified because it is NOT INSIDE. INSIDE is the Holy city, but OUTSIDE is NOT the holy city.
                The dot refers to a LOCATION and that LOCATION has a limit.
                You want that limit to included SPECIFIED areas, yet you refuse to accept that when we look at SPECIFIED areas then certain areas CANNOT be included.
                The Roman army was NOT IN the Holy place in 66 AD, they NEVER entered the Holy city. They remained in the place with the unclean on the OUTSIDE.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  Well you should doubt it because I'm virtually certain you're wrong! Not only so, but it is troubling to say that the sign Jesus called for his disciples to flee from was different in Luke from what it was in either Matthew or Mark. This would make Jesus very, very confusing in what he was warning his disciples to flee from!

                  You are using the same arguments FHG is using. I suggest you read my posts to him on his argument against Jerusalem being the "locate" for the temple, or for the "holy place." To be in the vicinity of, or in the locate for, the temple is to be "in the holy place." This means that in this sense the pagan Roman Army was an abomination standing "in the holy place" when they laid siege against Jerusalem outside the walls of the city. They were in the vicinity of the temple, or in the vicinity of the holy place. As such they were *in* the holy place!
                  I hear you loud and clear but cannot accept that the Roman army is the AoD for the simple reason (as I've reiterated several times) that the soldiers and their eagle ensign were already in and around the city when Jesus made the pronouncement. Secondly, if the outside of the temple is purportedly the holy place and the Roman soldiers have been trampling the grounds in peacetime, why would the same action in wartime suddenly become an 'abomination'?

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  Well, I appreciate the fact you at least understand my arguments. I believe Irenaeus made the same mistake you do, by projecting the language of this imminent Jewish war onto a future eschatological scenario. Jesus wasn't in the least prognosticating about distant future events. In fact he taught us *not* to do that! Here, he was much more concerned to get his disciples ready immediately, in view of the imminent judgment coming against the Jewish People.
                  At least some of the ECF like Irenaeus correctly understood what Jesus taught at the OD. You who've elevated the thoughts of these ECFs to almost holy writ here disagree with one of them! How funny is that! Am I surprised that you label him as 'mistaken'? I still believe you are mistaken in the belief that the OD was primarily about the judgement of Israel in 70AD. Fortunately, the majority recognises that its theme is the events leading to Christ' Second Coming.

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  Not likely, brother. I've been studying this since I was a teenager, and I'm 65 now. I've held many views on this Discourse. My present view is the only one that has ever consistently made sense to me. But I'm not the Holy Spirit. You have to follow your own path. I'm just here to help you in any way I can. And I trust you'll do the same for me?
                  Well said and I respect that even if I disagree. May the Holy Spirit continue to give us discernment for the truth.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    A good attempt at explanation. Doesn't matter though in the slightest as a "dot" still covers a LOCATION.
                    Therefore is OUTSIDE the city covered by that "dot" or not?
                    For it to be a CONSISTENT application then the dot MUST include OUTSIDE or otherwise OUTSIDE is NOT part of the Holy place.
                    However OUTSIDE is NEVER the Holy and therefore your "dot" is covering things which are not to be included.
                    The point is, a "dot" on a map is *never* designed to represent a specific area--only a location. This isn't about inside walls or outside of walls. This is a *locate,* which is so general that it never represents a specific geometrical area--only its location. You keep trying to impose on a "locate" geometrical properties. And in the language of location, that is irrelevant!

                    Again, in terms of a *locate," the Roman Army was "in the holy place," ie in the location of the temple in a very general sense. In terms of the geometry of the temple, the Roman Army was *not* inside the temple. You are confusing these 2 very different concepts.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    For the WHOLE dot to be holy, it must ONLY refer to the place that IS holy.
                    IOW You cannot put a dot which covers the middle east and say well Jerusalem is there so the whole is holy. This is arrant nonsense. It is a very poor attempt to IGNORE the FACT that OUTSIDE is a DIFFERENT place to INSIDE. Inside (can by a stretch) be at least termed holy, but OUTSIDE cannot. Your dot is covering things which are NOT included in "holy" therefore your dot is wrong.
                    I don't think you understand how I'm using the sense of a *locate?* To be in the general vicinity of the temple is to be *in that vicinity.* It has nothing to do with being inside the building itself. Rather, it has to do with being in the general vicinity of that building. And since "the holy place" is not just a building, but also a location, I would refer you to its use as a *location,* and not just a building. A holy PLACE is not just a building, but also a location. And that's why it can refer not just to the building, but also to its location.

                    I've given you the example of someone arriving from out of state at the end of my driveway. They have come to my home, literally, when my home is being used as a general locate. The person out of state has not yet entered into my home, but they have, in a sense, arrived at my home simply by arriving within the vicinity of my home.

                    When I fly in to Seattle I tell my wife, "We're home!" And this is even though we're only in the region of our home, and not actually in our own town yet! I don't know why you can't understand how I'm applying being "in the holy place" here? It has to do with using the "holy place" as a locate, and not as a geography, nor as a building. Arriving in the holy place for an invading army is simply a matter of arriving at the outside walls of the city!

                    I don't care if you accept this view. I'm just asking you to understand it. If all you want to do is insult the view or the language being used I would have to ask why? I use this kind of language all the time. It is really, for me, a matter of determining whether this kind of language is legitimately being used in the Scriptures.

                    I would argue that Jerusalem is used as a general locate for the temple regularly in the Bible. And that's how I justify applying the language of a *locate* to the holy place.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    They ABSOLUTELY and without ANY DOUBT whatsoever NOT the same thing.
                    You CLAIM it is ONE SIGN, yet Jesus spoke of TWO SIGNS. There is NO WAY to make the one set of wording be the SAME as the other. You have accepted that Jesus SPOKE both, but have no rational for why.
                    An army that desolates may also bring about the abomination, but they also might not.
                    I most certainly do have a rationale as to why Jesus used 2 different phrases in describing a single sign! It is because Luke's audience may have wanted to understand more clearly how this sign applied, when the term "abomination of desolation" was more of a technical term. I don't think there was any effort to clarify that this was talking about Roman armies for obvious reasons. This would've been viewed as seditious. "Abomination of desolation" is a throwback to the prophecy of Antiochus 4. And yet Jews who were learned in prophecy would've easily understood that Jesus was applying this to a Roman sacrilege--an invasion of Jerusalem.

                    No, Jesus did not specify 2 signs merely because he provided a variety of descriptions. More description simply provided more detail. Matthew and Mark were content with the language of the AoD. Luke added more detail so that the application was more clear for his own audience. The descriptions are so similar that they can't be used to prove there are 2 signs. Since this Discourse is all about the destruction of the temple, there could only have been one sign to flee from this Roman desolation.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Note - was to be, which means WAS NOT.
                    No, God viewed the land of Israel as holy. It was dedicated as a holy land. It was only when it became contaminated by Israeli sin that the Hebrew people were cast out of the land, to keep the land clean and to let it rest. It's holy character was not to be only in the future. It was *always* to remain holy.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    If you concede as much then why do you choose an explanation which is FAR more complex, convoluted and difficult rather than accepting the straight forward things He said?
                    Not the opposite.
                    Matt 24 and Mark 13 have ZERO mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
                    Huh? You have to be kidding! All 3 accounts *begin* with the prophecy of the temple's destruction! No wonder you can't see a single context for all 3 accounts!

                    Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
                    Mark 13.1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
                    2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
                    Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

                    It's no wonder we cannot agree on anything in this matter. You begin with a completely irrational perspective, in my opinion.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Matthew and Mark have DIFFERENT when question to Luke
                    Matt and Mark have a different sign for a different event
                    Matt and mark make reference to fleeing after an AoD, but Luke speaks of fleeing AFTER an army has come.
                    To claim these are saying the same thing means you haven't actually read what they say.
                    You know, I don't think we can discuss this any further? If we can't begin with a common framework, we'll never come to comparable conclusions. I didn't realize you were so out in left field with respect to the context for the Olivet Discourse. Are you really willing to go this far to prove your interpretations?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Not even slightly or remotely the same.
                    An AoD is in relation to the altar.
                    Again, at the very least you should acknowledge that both "abomination of desolation" and an army that "desolates" have a common import? Yet you say it isn't "even slightly" the same?

                    If you can't agree on even the remotest of similarities, it isn't possible to discuss this with you. Should I discuss, for example, the sun with you if you won't agree that there isn't even a "slight similarity" between heat and light?

                    And yet, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place is *very similar* to the idea of an army besieging the holy city. And the notion of a pagan army invading holy territory is the very definition of an "abomination." Even more, Dan 9 refers to both a city invasion and the "abomination of desolation" in the same breath! If you can't find the "remotest" similarity in that, you're just not open to discussion, brother. You're hardened in your position.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    In Dan 9 the event of verse 26 is NOT connected with verse 27.
                    Verse 27 is SPECIFICALLY occurring DURING the 70 weeks.
                    However you would agree that verse 26 is NOT occurring DURING the 70 weeks. Therefore it is CLEARLY and LOGICALLY not about the same event. How anybody can say they are the same after noting it is a different point in time means they are so set in their view they are UNABLE to note the absurdity of their view.
                    I believe reference to a military incursion upon Jerusalem and the temple is very much related to the AoD mentioned in the next verse in Dan 9. But I just mention it as a possible association between the two phrases, because they are only one verse apart! I don't wish to discuss Dan 9 here--only to show that I interpret Dan 9 based on how I think Jesus interpreted it in the Olivet Discourse. It was all about a Roman incursion within the vicinity of the temple, called the "abomination of desolation."

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    So a PERFECT example, because a Holy place and an unclean place are VERY DIFFERENT places.
                    Also an AooD has NOTHING to do with armies (except that it may be an army which allows an AoD to occur).
                    An Army is an abomination because it arrives to contaminate the holy territory of the temple with its pagan presence. It desolates because it is an invading army. I don't see why you find this a difficult association? The Church Fathers certainly saw it as such. The Jews certainly saw it as such.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Lots of differences and you have been shown them. You continue to stick your head in the sand and say "la la la, this is your view, la la la" instead of dealing with the FACT that persecution of Christians is NOT persecution of Jews, and distress for Jews is NOT tribulation for Christians.
                    Brother, my head is not in the sand. But when you say all 3 versions of the *same Discourse* are saying different things, and that not all 3 are referring to the same *temple destruction,* I would have to say that you're way off course. I'm not going to insult you, like you insult me, but I will say that I feel you're projecting your own inadequate arguments onto my arguments to deflect from the irrationality of your own arguments.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    You love to claim things as synonymns when they clearly are not.
                    What is connecting them is that they have the word desolate. However the army in Luke 21 did NOT cause any desolation in Jerusalem. It was NOT the army that brought desolation. However that means Luke 21 isn't even a desolating army but simply an army - just as Jesus said.
                    Yes, Cestius Gallus did not bring the promised full scale destruction. Jesus referred to "armies" plural that were coming. The 1st Army was the sign to flee. The 2nd Army brought the desolation. The 1st sign did not require the desolation. It was only the Sign of the coming desolation.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Incorrect again. That is NOT the CONTEXT. The temple was a starting point for a conversation which covers the ENTIRE period of time from Jesus' leaving to Jesus returning. The FOCUS is on the Disciples and what they will face.

                    Your claim about words often leads to disbelief. I have no problem with your dot, meaning all of Jerusalem. The problem is you keep EXPANDING the dot BEYOND the area which can be agreed is that included. OUTSIDE is so specified because it is NOT INSIDE. INSIDE is the Holy city, but OUTSIDE is NOT the holy city.
                    The dot refers to a LOCATION and that LOCATION has a limit.
                    You want that limit to included SPECIFIED areas, yet you refuse to accept that when we look at SPECIFIED areas then certain areas CANNOT be included.
                    The Roman army was NOT IN the Holy place in 66 AD, they NEVER entered the Holy city. They remained in the place with the unclean on the OUTSIDE.
                    I appreciate your understanding what I mean by using Jerusalem as a "locate." You do seem to understand that here. However, to say that a "dot" must be restricted to the walls of Jerusalem simply defies the meaning of a locate. A locate is *not* geometrical, and does not align with physical walls. It is a *locate!* It tells you, in the most general sense, where a place is located. You have arrived at the destination when you arrive at that dot. But the dot is not a survey marker. It is a general vicinity. When you acknowledge that, our different views will be clearer to all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      The point is, a "dot" on a map is *never* designed to represent a specific area--only a location. This isn't about inside walls or outside of walls. This is a *locate,* which is so general that it never represents a specific geometrical area--only its location. You keep trying to impose on a "locate" geometrical properties. And in the language of location, that is irrelevant!

                      Again, in terms of a *locate," the Roman Army was "in the holy place," ie in the location of the temple in a very general sense. In terms of the geometry of the temple, the Roman Army was *not* inside the temple. You are confusing these 2 very different concepts.
                      WRONG!

                      A dot is simply to show you on a map where the location is. It is a stand in for an ACTUAL LOCATION.

                      If I say Los Angeles, you can find a dot on a map and that will be for Los Angeles. It is NOT an EXACT thing as it is a symbol on a map.
                      However when you go to the PHYSICAL LOCATION, it is NO LONGER a dot, but a place with a point where you are OUTSIDE the city and then a point where you are INSIDE the city.

                      Now IF I speak of Queens or Harlem, then yo would recognise these as areas in New York City (perhaps).
                      On a map it may be a dot, but we aren't talking about a map, we are talking about being IN a LOCATION.

                      So while you are in Brooklyn you are NOT in Harlem. They are TWO separate places even though they may be on a map under the dot of New York.
                      The point I am making is that the DESIGNATOR of the location is "the Holy", therefore whatever that refers to is the LOCATION and OUTSIDE where that refers to is NOT the location.

                      So the LOCATION given is "the Holy" which refers to a place in the Temple.
                      You wish to expand that to include all of Jerusalem.
                      So hypothetically we test, what if we extend to include all of Jerusalem, does that work?
                      The answer is NO!
                      Instead what you THEN DEMAND is that this dot expands to cover MORE than Jerusalem, but land OUTSIDE, land which does NOT go with the name "the Holy" in anyway.


                      Arguing your example simply means you are moving away, step by step by step from what is actually said to something ENTIRELY different.
                      The army of Cestius Gallus were NEVER in the LOCATION known as "the Holy".

                      I most certainly do have a rationale as to why Jesus used 2 different phrases in describing a single sign! It is because Luke's audience may have wanted to understand more clearly how this sign applied, when the term "abomination of desolation" was more of a technical term. I don't think there was any effort to clarify that this was talking about Roman armies for obvious reasons. This would've been viewed as seditious. "Abomination of desolation" is a throwback to the prophecy of Antiochus 4. And yet Jews who were learned in prophecy would've easily understood that Jesus was applying this to a Roman sacrilege--an invasion of Jerusalem.
                      So Jesus gave a different quote for Luke's audience - Luke who wasn't even there!
                      EVERYBODY wanted to understand the SIGN clearly therefore Matthew and Mark would have noted it too - that is IF it was about the SAME SIGN. As they have NOT so it is CLEAR it is NOT about the SAME SIGN!

                      Huh? You have to be kidding! All 3 accounts *begin* with the prophecy of the temple's destruction! No wonder you can't see a single context for all 3 accounts!

                      Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
                      Mark 13.1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
                      2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
                      Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

                      It's no wonder we cannot agree on anything in this matter. You begin with a completely irrational perspective, in my opinion.
                      I accept I wasn't clear.
                      I didn't say that mention of the destruction wasn't mentioned at all but it is NOT mentioned in the OD as recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.
                      The OD is NOT whilst they are at the Temple, nor while they are walking away from it but when they reach the Mount of Olives.
                      So Matt 24:3 is the start of the OD and you can argue the first question is abut the Temple, so my claim isn't completely correct.
                      Mark 13:3 is the same and again you can argue the first question is about the Temple. so the same thing.
                      However NOWHERE in the rest of the OD as recorded by Matthew or Mark to they make any note of the destruction of the Temple.

                      You know, I don't think we can discuss this any further? If we can't begin with a common framework, we'll never come to comparable conclusions. I didn't realize you were so out in left field with respect to the context for the Olivet Discourse. Are you really willing to go this far to prove your interpretations?
                      I am not the one with a UNIQUE perspective on the OD that "the Holy place" is OUTSIDE the city.

                      Again, at the very least you should acknowledge that both "abomination of desolation" and an army that "desolates" have a common import? Yet you say it isn't "even slightly" the same?
                      I already stated why they aren't.

                      If you can't agree on even the remotest of similarities, it isn't possible to discuss this with you. Should I discuss, for example, the sun with you if you won't agree that there isn't even a "slight similarity" between heat and light?
                      Actually there isn't the slightest similarity between heat and light. Their cause might be the same, and it might not. Something can be hot without giving off light, or can give off light without heat.

                      An Army is an abomination because it arrives to contaminate the holy territory of the temple with its pagan presence. It desolates because it is an invading army. I don't see why you find this a difficult association? The Church Fathers certainly saw it as such. The Jews certainly saw it as such.
                      Nope, the ECFs saw a statue on the Temple Mount as an AoD.

                      Brother, my head is not in the sand. But when you say all 3 versions of the *same Discourse* are saying different things, and that not all 3 are referring to the same *temple destruction,* I would have to say that you're way off course. I'm not going to insult you, like you insult me, but I will say that I feel you're projecting your own inadequate arguments onto my arguments to deflect from the irrationality of your own arguments.
                      Of course you would say that, but that is because your head is stuck somewhere IGNORING what is CLEARLY stated. You prefer your own view (which is understandable) but this is REGARDL:ESS of what is ACTUALLY stated (which is NOT understandable).

                      Yes, Cestius Gallus did not bring the promised full scale destruction. Jesus referred to "armies" plural that were coming. The 1st Army was the sign to flee. The 2nd Army brought the desolation. The 1st sign did not require the desolation. It was only the Sign of the coming desolation.
                      Cestius Gallus brought armies in 66 AD. This was NOT a statement about TWO lots of armies coming at TWO different times. Of course that would mean TWO SIGNS as TWO armies, but hey!!

                      I appreciate your understanding what I mean by using Jerusalem as a "locate." You do seem to understand that here. However, to say that a "dot" must be restricted to the walls of Jerusalem simply defies the meaning of a locate. A locate is *not* geometrical, and does not align with physical walls. It is a *locate!* It tells you, in the most general sense, where a place is located. You have arrived at the destination when you arrive at that dot. But the dot is not a survey marker. It is a general vicinity. When you acknowledge that, our different views will be clearer to all.
                      A locate has to have an actual REAL WORLD meaning, otherwise it is MEANINGLESS.
                      The dot for Jerusalem does NOT include Caesarea. To say it does would be a stupid claim. So the dot for Jerusalem is a stand in for the PLACE and LOCATION which is KNOWN as Jerusalem. NOT a place which is NOT Jerusalem, such as a place which is OUTSIDE the city! You wish to have a dot which isn't actually having ANY real definition.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                        WRONG!

                        A dot is simply to show you on a map where the location is. It is a stand in for an ACTUAL LOCATION.
                        That's correct. It is a locate. It is a symbol of where something is located. It is not the thing itself. It represents where the thing is located.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        If I say Los Angeles, you can find a dot on a map and that will be for Los Angeles. It is NOT an EXACT thing as it is a symbol on a map.
                        However when you go to the PHYSICAL LOCATION, it is NO LONGER a dot, but a place with a point where you are OUTSIDE the city and then a point where you are INSIDE the city.
                        Of course. The dot is a symbol. The city and the temple are real.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        Now IF I speak of Queens or Harlem, then yo would recognise these as areas in New York City (perhaps).
                        On a map it may be a dot, but we aren't talking about a map, we are talking about being IN a LOCATION.

                        So while you are in Brooklyn you are NOT in Harlem. They are TWO separate places even though they may be on a map under the dot of New York.
                        Now you've moved away from the symbol, from the locate, to examine what the symbol represents in detail. To be in the place the dot represents one simply needs to be in the location represented by the dot, which is a general marker, and not descriptive of the geographical details. A dot can only be descriptive of a location in general, since it is viewed as if from space.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        The point I am making is that the DESIGNATOR of the location is "the Holy", therefore whatever that refers to is the LOCATION and OUTSIDE where that refers to is NOT the location.
                        That is false. To be in the same general area that the temple is to be in the area of the temple. This may be a truism, but that is what a locate indicates, that something can be in a location without specifying how close the proximity must be. When I'm in Seattle, I'm home from the perspective of space. When I'm at the end of my driveway I'm home from the perspective of the sky. When I arrive at my city, I'm home from the perspective of a dot on a map. Lingually, I may legitimately say I've arrived home even when I'm not yet inside my home, when I arrive in my neighborhood. You should be able to understand my argument here?

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        So the LOCATION given is "the Holy" which refers to a place in the Temple.
                        You wish to expand that to include all of Jerusalem.
                        No, I'm referencing the "holy place," and not the Holy of Holies. I refer to "the holy place" as the place where the temple is located. We may refer to the "holy place" as a building or as the space where the temple is located. If the "holy place" is being used as a general location for the temple, an army may be in the holy place simply by being in the vicinity of the temple.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        So hypothetically we test, what if we extend to include all of Jerusalem, does that work?
                        The answer is NO!
                        Instead what you THEN DEMAND is that this dot expands to cover MORE than Jerusalem, but land OUTSIDE, land which does NOT go with the name "the Holy" in anyway.
                        Again, I use the term "the holy place" as a locate, and not strictly as the building itself. It is *where* the building is generally located. To be "in the holy place" is to be nearby the temple. The Roman Army was nearby the temple when it stood outside the walls of Jerusalem. It had arrived at the holy place, and had desecrated it by its pagan presence.

                        And it was not just defiling it by its pagan presence, but even more by its intention to desecrate the city with pagan symbols, and to desolate the temple itself. After all, that is precisely what Antiochus 4 had done, trying to favor Hellenism among the Jews over orthodoxy. And that is what Caligula tried to do by imposing paganism near and in the temple.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        Arguing your example simply means you are moving away, step by step by step from what is actually said to something ENTIRELY different.
                        The army of Cestius Gallus were NEVER in the LOCATION known as "the Holy".

                        So Jesus gave a different quote for Luke's audience - Luke who wasn't even there!
                        EVERYBODY wanted to understand the SIGN clearly therefore Matthew and Mark would have noted it too - that is IF it was about the SAME SIGN. As they have NOT so it is CLEAR it is NOT about the SAME SIGN!
                        That's pretty twisted logic. For something to be *clear,* the truth must be made explicit. Nobody indicated 2 signs were being given. It is most natural, therefore, to assume Luke's statement was congruent with the statements of Matthew and Mark!

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        I accept I wasn't clear.
                        I didn't say that mention of the destruction wasn't mentioned at all but it is NOT mentioned in the OD as recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.
                        The OD is NOT whilst they are at the Temple, nor while they are walking away from it but when they reach the Mount of Olives.
                        So Matt 24:3 is the start of the OD and you can argue the first question is abut the Temple, so my claim isn't completely correct.
                        Mark 13:3 is the same and again you can argue the first question is about the Temple. so the same thing.
                        However NOWHERE in the rest of the OD as recorded by Matthew or Mark to they make any note of the destruction of the Temple.
                        The distance between the temple and the Mt. of Olives is negligible. Jesus and his disciples were looking down at the temple and the city when Jesus was giving his Olivet Address. The conversation may have started half an hour earlier. But the subject matter was so grave it is not likely that the subject had changed by the time they arrived at the top of the mountain.

                        The fact all 3 versions of this Discourse begin with questions about Jesus' statement, that the temple would be destroyed, indicate that all 3 versions were the same, and represented the same events which Jesus indicated would anticipate the destruction of the temple. The sign of the army of cestius gallus was most certainly the sign Jesus spoke of when Luke indicated an army would surround the city. Historically, this is what happened. And the same message was indicated by Matthew and Mark when they referenced the abomination of desolation. The difference of language does not confuse for me the identity of the sign as the Roman Army encroaching upon Jerusalem.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        I am not the one with a UNIQUE perspective on the OD that "the Holy place" is OUTSIDE the city.
                        It isn't unique to refer to someone being in the same general location of a city both inside the walls and outside the walls. To be *in* the general vicinity of the temple does not require that the army be inside the city walls! This is not a language problem for me, because I'm referring to being in a general location, while you are requiring something to be precisely within the temple.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        I already stated why they aren't.

                        Actually there isn't the slightest similarity between heat and light. Their cause might be the same, and it might not. Something can be hot without giving off light, or can give off light without heat.

                        Nope, the ECFs saw a statue on the Temple Mount as an AoD.

                        Of course you would say that, but that is because your head is stuck somewhere IGNORING what is CLEARLY stated. You prefer your own view (which is understandable) but this is REGARDL:ESS of what is ACTUALLY stated (which is NOT understandable).

                        Cestius Gallus brought armies in 66 AD. This was NOT a statement about TWO lots of armies coming at TWO different times. Of course that would mean TWO SIGNS as TWO armies, but hey!!
                        No it doesn't. The coming of armies was the sign. The 1st one was the sign only because it represented a 2nd army coming later to actually desolate the city and the temple.

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory
                        A locate has to have an actual REAL WORLD meaning, otherwise it is MEANINGLESS.
                        The dot for Jerusalem does NOT include Caesarea. To say it does would be a stupid claim. So the dot for Jerusalem is a stand in for the PLACE and LOCATION which is KNOWN as Jerusalem. NOT a place which is NOT Jerusalem, such as a place which is OUTSIDE the city! You wish to have a dot which isn't actually having ANY real definition.
                        Honestly, you can't understand that a dot represents the general location of a temple or city? The "holy place" represents a general location for the army to gather. They don't have to be inside the temple to be in the holy place! All they have to be is in the general location in order to represent a sign for the need to escape! To actually be in the temple would be too late to flee!

                        Let me make this as clear as I can so we can move on, and agree to disagree. Consider the following statements, and you will see how you read things in contrast to how I read them...

                        1) The pagan thing is inside the *temple.*
                        2) The pagan army is in the *vicinity* of the temple.

                        You see the Holy Place as the temple itself. I see the Holy Place as a Holy Location--the general place where the temple was located.

                        As such, the pagan army encroached upon this holy area, and was therefore "in the holy place." It was in the general *location* of the holy place, and not in the temple itself. We are defining "holy place" differently.

                        So the question we must answer is, Must "the holy place" refer only to the building, or can it refer to an area in which the building was located? I think it is the latter. And this is at the heart of our debate.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          That's correct. It is a locate. It is a symbol of where something is located. It is not the thing itself. It represents where the thing is located.
                          Of course. The dot is a symbol. The city and the temple are real.
                          Now you've moved away from the symbol, from the locate, to examine what the symbol represents in detail. To be in the place the dot represents one simply needs to be in the location represented by the dot, which is a general marker, and not descriptive of the geographical details. A dot can only be descriptive of a location in general, since it is viewed as if from space.
                          So was Jesus saying "When you see the army standing in the dot..."

                          No, Jesus was not speaking of dots seen from space but PHYSICAL LOCATION which ANYONE could see and KNOWN.

                          Your VERY reasoning shows HOW FAR you have to DEPART from what Jesus ACTUALLY said in order for your claim to even be possible to consider.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                            So was Jesus saying "When you see the army standing in the dot..."
                            Yes, Jesus was saying, "When you see the army standing in this *location!*" He was *not* saying, "When you see the army standing *inside the temple!*" Jesus was talking about the holy PLACE, where the temple was located, and not the "Holy Place," meaning the temple itself.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            No, Jesus was not speaking of dots seen from space but PHYSICAL LOCATION which ANYONE could see and KNOWN.
                            I didn't say Jesus was speaking about dots, but rather, using "the holy place" as a locate. He was speaking of an army arriving at a *place,* rather than entering a temple.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Your VERY reasoning shows HOW FAR you have to DEPART from what Jesus ACTUALLY said in order for your claim to even be possible to consider.
                            No, this just shows how unwilling you are to go to understand how I'm applying the term "the holy place." It is not a reference to the building in terms of its structural qualities. Rather, it is a reference to *where it is located.*

                            To arrive at Jerusalem, an invading army would be, according to Jesus, "in the holy place." It is a *place* and not just the temple. Specifically, it was the place, generally, where the temple was located.

                            Obviously you are unable or unwilling to consider this. That effectively ends the conversation. Unless you want to show why "the holy place" cannot be used as a *location* for the temple, we have nothing further to discuss.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by randyk View Post
                              That is false. To be in the same general area that the temple is to be in the area of the temple. This may be a truism, but that is what a locate indicates, that something can be in a location without specifying how close the proximity must be. When I'm in Seattle, I'm home from the perspective of space. When I'm at the end of my driveway I'm home from the perspective of the sky. When I arrive at my city, I'm home from the perspective of a dot on a map. Lingually, I may legitimately say I've arrived home even when I'm not yet inside my home, when I arrive in my neighborhood. You should be able to understand my argument here?
                              So let's APPLY your "lingual" approach as a substitution for what Jesus said, and see IF it makes any kind of sense, or whether we should through it out.

                              Now one statement is AoD staning in the Holy place.
                              So we shall substitute AoD with Robber and Holy place with home.

                              This becomes "When you see the ROBBER standing in MY HOME..."

                              Can this possibly mean what Luke said?
                              So let's perform the SAME substitution:

                              "When you see the ROBBER outside Seattle..."

                              Do these TWO sentences:
                              "When you see the ROBBER standing in MY HOME..."
                              "When you see the ROBBER outside Seattle..."

                              mean the same thing in ANYBODIES vocabulary?

                              After all you have argued that from space being near Seattle is an equivalent.

                              CLEARLY to anyone this is NOT the SAME thing whatsoever.
                              The ROBBER has NOT "lingually" arrived at your home, when he is OUTSIDE Seattle. Nobody would consider this as being a valid comparative.

                              Your ATTEMPT for a comparative with the Holy place is of as little value.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                So let's APPLY your "lingual" approach as a substitution for what Jesus said, and see IF it makes any kind of sense, or whether we should through it out.

                                Now one statement is AoD staning in the Holy place.
                                So we shall substitute AoD with Robber and Holy place with home.

                                This becomes "When you see the ROBBER standing in MY HOME..."

                                Can this possibly mean what Luke said?
                                So let's perform the SAME substitution:

                                "When you see the ROBBER outside Seattle..."

                                Do these TWO sentences:
                                "When you see the ROBBER standing in MY HOME..."
                                "When you see the ROBBER outside Seattle..."

                                mean the same thing in ANYBODIES vocabulary?

                                After all you have argued that from space being near Seattle is an equivalent.

                                CLEARLY to anyone this is NOT the SAME thing whatsoever.
                                The ROBBER has NOT "lingually" arrived at your home, when he is OUTSIDE Seattle. Nobody would consider this as being a valid comparative.

                                Your ATTEMPT for a comparative with the Holy place is of as little value.

                                You are still referring to the "holy place" as a building, rather than as the general vicinity of the temple. We can indeed call the "holy place" a compartment within the temple. That is using the "Holy Place" as a proper noun. It is a specific application as the name of a room.

                                But I'm not using "holy place" this way. I'm referring to its use as a general location, the neighborhood, as you will, where the temple is located. Since the temple is in that neighborhood, the whole neighborhood is being called "the holy place," not as a building but as a locate.

                                Again, you are trying to use "holy place" strictly as a proper noun, as if it applies either to the compartment within the temple called "the Holy Place," or as an alternative name for Jerusalem. But I'm *not* using "the holy place" as a proper noun at all, but rather, as a general location in which the temple resided.

                                The area in which the temple was located is also called "the holy place." That's how Jesus used it in the Olivet Discourse, because the Roman Army would be positioned "in the Holy Place," outside of the walls of Jerusalem.

                                Jerusalem itself was not being called "the holy place," as if the term was being applied as a proper noun. Rather, the entire area, the location, in which the temple was located, was called "the holy place," because it was the *place* where the temple was located. And the temple made the entire area "holy."

                                I do understand your temptation to believe the "holy place" can only refer to the temple itself. But Jesus used the term as a *place* instead, because the context required that kind of application. There is no rule that says "holy place" must be used in every instance as a proper noun. It can, but it doesn't have to.

                                But we're going in circles. We've already discussed this. You believe the fact THE holy place *always* refers to the temple as a proper now precludes its use as a general vicinity, or place. I disagree, since the Hebrew language does not, I believe, require it to be applied as a proper noun in all cases.

                                The fact the definite article is used to show the use of the term in application to the temple indicates this was the normal understanding of the term, assuming the context was in fact the temple building itself. But once the context changed from temple worship to a military invasion, the context required use of the term as a general location, allowing the Roman Army to become a *sign* once its activities indicated it had encroached upon the holy area of the temple.

                                And that area included the walls of the city, in which the temple was located. That's how a siege works! Once the Roman Army assumed position as a military siege the sign was evident that the "abomination was standing in the holy place."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X