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?

    An alternative rendering might be as follows. Jesus may have been referring to the Roman Army as the "abomination of desolation" because the Jews knew that this was an earlier reference to Antiochus 4, who completely altered Jewish worship and desecrated it, turning it into worship of Antiochus himself. By giving his disciples the sign of the Romans at the gate of the city, he was informing them that this Army would eventually penetrate the walls and similarly desecrate the temple. It was a clear warning to "get out" while there was time, because the Roman Army withdrew for a few years, giving them time to escape.

    Many Bible students have felt that the Roman Army had to actually put in place an idol or install emperor worship within the temple in order to fulfil this prophecy of Jesus. But since it was only an initial sign that a 2nd Army would approach later, the temple did not actually have to be encroached upon during the 1st siege, in order for it to be called the "abomination of desolation." That was just a designation indicating the 2nd Army would succeed in the name of Caesar.

    The Abomination of Desolation was said, by Matthew and Mark, to "stand in the holy place." But 1st Army, under Cestius Gallus, didn't actually stand in the temple, but stood around the city, as Luke indicated. But they were within the "holy place" in the sense that they were in the general location of the temple, poised to attack and defile it.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      An alternative rendering might be as follows...
      Not a chance.
      Absolutely nobody would read "standing in the Holy place" and think it meant "gathering outside the city"

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        No, I'm not conceding that at all! To offer a pig on the *original altar* was a sacrifice made *in the courtyard!* Later, the altar may have been altered and moved into the temple, with a new pagan worship installed within the temple area. But my point is that the original altar was *outside of the temple,* and *in the courtyard.* The initial desecration took place there, if I understand it correctly.
        The pig sacrifice was made on the altar inside the temple. FGH provided supporting scripture from the book of Maccabees in post #216. Why are you so obstinate on matters regarding the OD which you are mostly wrong, I don't get it?

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
          The pig sacrifice was made on the altar inside the temple. FGH provided supporting scripture from the book of Maccabees in post #216. Why are you so obstinate on matters regarding the OD which you are mostly wrong, I don't get it?
          You apparently didn't read my response.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            Not a chance.
            Absolutely nobody would read "standing in the Holy place" and think it meant "gathering outside the city"
            Yea, it doesn't seem likely to me either. However, the argument that because Antiochus committed sacrilege *inside of* the temple means the AoD of the Olivet Discourse also has to take place inside of the temple is not meaningful. It is already clear in Luke 21 that Jesus spoke of the Roman Army standing around Jerusalem. And in the synoptic authors this was called the "abomination of desolation."

            This is the stronger argument to me. If they are one and the same, from Luke 21 to Matt 24 and Mark 13, then the AoD *is* the Roman Army standing in the holy place. The holy place *must* refer to the entire area around the temple, including the area where the Roman troops stood, as they besieged Jerusalem. It was the act of aggression against Jerusalem that made this a violation of the holy place.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
              The pig sacrifice was made on the altar inside the temple. FGH provided supporting scripture from the book of Maccabees in post #216. Why are you so obstinate on matters regarding the OD which you are mostly wrong, I don't get it?
              I'm not being obstinate, brother. I don't know why you're getting so frustrated, and insulting me? I'm exploring ideas--isn't that what this forum is partly about? I have no idea how strong each argument is, when exploring alternatives. It may be very, very weak. I'm just throwing this out there--not to receive insults, but to explore ideas that possbily buttress my position!

              I don't care about alternative views, in terms of my original contention. It is totally strong for me to say that the 3 synoptic versions agree that they are saying the same things regarding the same Address. Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luk 21 are all talking about the same Olivet Discourse of Jesus. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the AoD in the 1st 2 authors is saying the same thing as the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem in the 3rd author.

              The AoD is, in fact, the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman Armies. This is a very, very strong argument. Why then are you so stubborn and refuse to embrace this as at least a *possible* rendering?

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                The pig sacrifice was made on the altar inside the temple. FGH provided supporting scripture from the book of Maccabees in post #216. Why are you so obstinate on matters regarding the OD which you are mostly wrong, I don't get it?
                I've been having some trouble with my cable provider, so I've broken this up into several posts. I was arguing that the *original altar* in the *outer court* was initially desecrated, *before* it was changed and brought into the temple itself. This would make it the AoD in the holy place in the courtyard, and not just after it entered into the temple.

                This may or may not be what Jesus argued. This was just put forward as a *possible* alternative rendering. But why make this personal? I'm just discussing my heart-felt beliefs. How can that be a crime?

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  Not a chance.
                  Absolutely nobody would read "standing in the Holy place" and think it meant "gathering outside the city"
                  You guys still at it? You should leave him to his beliefs, it's not like he will get a following, most people will have more common sense than just to take up any idea oft repeated. Just because someone is eloquent and persistent, does not give them convincing deductive reasoning. (partial compliment Randyk )

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by randyk View Post
                    I've been having some trouble with my cable provider, so I've broken this up into several posts. I was arguing that the *original altar* in the *outer court* was initially desecrated, *before* it was changed and brought into the temple itself. This would make it the AoD in the holy place in the courtyard, and not just after it entered into the temple.

                    This may or may not be what Jesus argued. This was just put forward as a *possible* alternative rendering. But why make this personal? I'm just discussing my heart-felt beliefs. How can that be a crime?
                    I never said that your "heartfelt" beliefs are a crime nor am I being personal. If anything, I believe you are claiming attacks that don't exist - from me anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      I'm not being obstinate, brother. I don't know why you're getting so frustrated, and insulting me? I'm exploring ideas--isn't that what this forum is partly about? I have no idea how strong each argument is, when exploring alternatives. It may be very, very weak. I'm just throwing this out there--not to receive insults, but to explore ideas that possbily buttress my position!

                      I don't care about alternative views, in terms of my original contention. It is totally strong for me to say that the 3 synoptic versions agree that they are saying the same things regarding the same Address. Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luk 21 are all talking about the same Olivet Discourse of Jesus. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the AoD in the 1st 2 authors is saying the same thing as the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem in the 3rd author.

                      The AoD is, in fact, the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman Armies. This is a very, very strong argument. Why then are you so stubborn and refuse to embrace this as at least a *possible* rendering?
                      Since when does being called 'obstinate' on a topic equal to being insulted? And has it ever occurred to you that you're actually the one getting frustrated on account of the overwhelming rejection of your academic rendition of what Jesus said? We all get exasperated when we are not getting our way, myself included. But I never claim to have been *insulted* when my views are refuted.

                      Secondly, to "explore" an idea or a theory requires that the proponent be objective, apt to consider and accept (when irrefutably proven) that their idea or position isn't correct. But this is hardly your position. At the risk of being accused of insult again, I would say you have been actually dogmatic on your interpretation of many aspects of the OD, despite being called out time and again to be incorrect. This, IMHO, is not exploring ideas.

                      Neither prophecy nor the word of God is subject to personal interpretation. So in the context of Jesus Christ' discourse on the impending events leading to his Glorious Return, I find it illogical to assert that the AoD was Romans encircling Jerusalem. My position is particularly reinforced by the fact that Jesus expressly said: "when you shall see the AoD spoken off by Daniel". It is my contention that Jesus was calling upon the Jews to recall the AoD that had occurred earlier in their history to recognise the present. And by this standard, your "position" makes a mess of thing because the AoD and where it occurred in the past (A4E era) is unrecognisable from your theoretical interpretation of the subject.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                        You guys still at it? You should leave him to his beliefs, it's not like he will get a following, most people will have more common sense than just to take up any idea oft repeated. Just because someone is eloquent and persistent, does not give them convincing deductive reasoning. (partial compliment Randyk )
                        I don't care. All I care is that you maintain your sense of humor. There is only one following I care about!

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                          I never said that your "heartfelt" beliefs are a crime nor am I being personal. If anything, I believe you are claiming attacks that don't exist - from me anyway.
                          Okay, nice to know that calling me "deliberately obstinate" was not meant to be an insult!

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                            You guys still at it? You should leave him to his beliefs, it's not like he will get a following, most people will have more common sense than just to take up any idea oft repeated. Just because someone is eloquent and persistent, does not give them convincing deductive reasoning. (partial compliment Randyk )
                            I was trying to stop, having clarified why his view wasn't possible, but then he decided to open it up again without adding anything new.
                            So I thought I wouldn't add anything new either...

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                              Since when does being called 'obstinate' on a topic equal to being insulted? And has it ever occurred to you that you're actually the one getting frustrated on account of the overwhelming rejection of your academic rendition of what Jesus said? We all get exasperated when we are not getting our way, myself included. But I never claim to have been *insulted* when my views are refuted.

                              Secondly, to "explore" an idea or a theory requires that the proponent be objective, apt to consider and accept (when irrefutably proven) that their idea or position isn't correct. But this is hardly your position. At the risk of being accused of insult again, I would say you have been actually dogmatic on your interpretation of many aspects of the OD, despite being called out time and again to be incorrect. This, IMHO, is not exploring ideas.

                              Neither prophecy nor the word of God is subject to personal interpretation. So in the context of Jesus Christ' discourse on the impending events leading to his Glorious Return, I find it illogical to assert that the AoD was Romans encircling Jerusalem. My position is particularly reinforced by the fact that Jesus expressly said: "when you shall see the AoD spoken off by Daniel". It is my contention that Jesus was calling upon the Jews to recall the AoD that had occurred earlier in their history to recognise the present. And by this standard, your "position" makes a mess of thing because the AoD and where it occurred in the past (A4E era) is unrecognisable from your theoretical interpretation of the subject.
                              Alright, I understand emotions are subjective. You think I'm frustrated, and I think you're frustrated. Personally, I feel fine and have no need that you accept my position. On this particular subject I've explored whether my position can hold up. And I'm satisfied that it has, whether you think so or not.

                              Again, as I've told FHG, there are 2 major arguments for me. Your belief seems to be that the AoD is Antichrist, regardless of the fact Luke spells out that it is the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem.

                              And my belief is that all 3 accounts express the same thing. The AoD is, in fact, the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem.

                              You deny that the Roman Army could've been viewed as "standing in the holy place," because the "holy place" is normally defined as the temple. But I suggest that the Roman Army could've been viewed as "standing in the holy place" by virtue of its proximity to the temple, and also because that is how Jesus described it in context.

                              I'm not frustrated because a few eschatology buffs, as a collective, reject my position. There are many, many others, including the Church Fathers, who held more closely to my position than yours. A small minority of Church Fathers believed that the AoD was the Antichrist. Does this make you feel uncomfortable? No. Neither do I feel uncomfortable that you, as a group, reject my position.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                I've been having some trouble with my cable provider, so I've broken this up into several posts. I was arguing that the *original altar* in the *outer court* was initially desecrated, *before* it was changed and brought into the temple itself. This would make it the AoD in the holy place in the courtyard, and not just after it entered into the temple.

                                This may or may not be what Jesus argued. This was just put forward as a *possible* alternative rendering. But why make this personal? I'm just discussing my heart-felt beliefs. How can that be a crime?
                                This is NOT a possible alternative reading.
                                What altar do you think was OUTSIDE the Holy place? And what was sacrificed or offered on it?

                                Remember A4E was with Zerubbabel's Temple and NOT Herod's temple. It was smaller and did NOT have all the courtyards that Herod and others later added.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X