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 ForHisglory View Post
    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...
    I thought it was the overwhelming conviction that accompanied my argument, and you couldn't resist trying to add more? I'm very persistent when I think God may be on my side! None of this is personal for me. I want us all to hear God and to adjust our positions to align with His.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      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.
      You don't have to believe that the AoD is the AC to note that Luke did NOT claim that the AoD was a Roman army OUTSIDE the city. Luke makes ZERO connection between what he wrote and Daniel.

      And my belief is that all 3 accounts express the same thing. The AoD is, in fact, the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem.
      So your second argument is that they recorded the same thing.
      So you don't accept that Matthew noted things which Luke did not and vice versa?
      If you DO accept that, then your second argument is also gone.

      What you are left with is simply proximity - because Luke stated something which is an approximately same location as Matthew so they are the same thing.

      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 deny it because the Roman Army CANNOT be viewed as standing in the Holy place until AFTER the Temple was destroyed.
      The ECFs who connected the 70 weeks with 70 AD connected the event of AFTER the destruction and NOT BEFORE.
      Nobody can make that argument. You have tried and failed on EVERY level.

      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.
      NONE of the ECFs held your position. You are holding a UNIQUE position. This is what is so bizarre about your claim.
      You recognise the issues with the claims of some of the ECFs and so try to find a solution, which leads to your UNIQUE claim that an army OUTSIDE the city is somehow at the SAME TIME standing in the Holy place, when it is NOT standing in any holy place, butt actually the place of those things which are unclean.

      The anti-Nicene Fathers did connect it with the Antichrist as do Preterists (one area of agreement you might say). The difference being that Preterists had Nero and subsequent Caesars as the AC, whilst Irenaeus and other ECFs had it as still future from there time.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        I thought it was the overwhelming conviction that accompanied my argument, and you couldn't resist trying to add more? I'm very persistent when I think God may be on my side! None of this is personal for me. I want us all to hear God and to adjust our positions to align with His.
        I definitely want you to hear God, but you seem determined to ignore the overwhelming TRUTH of scripture.
        When you ignore EVERY SINGLE usage of a phrase to bring about a PERSONAL and UNIQUE interpretation, then you can be sure it needs checking most carefully.
        You should be convinced that I have considered your view and understand it, and basically find it comes across as worth considering due to proximity, but after reflection of ALL the reasons it CANNOT be, then it needs rejecting and consigning to the bin.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          You don't have to believe that the AoD is the AC to note that Luke did NOT claim that the AoD was a Roman army OUTSIDE the city. Luke makes ZERO connection between what he wrote and Daniel.
          Yes, that is the argument. You say there is "zero connection." And I show you it is obviously there, simply by comparing the 3 synoptic gospels. What Matthew and Mark called the "abomination of desolation" Luke called armies encircling Jerusalem. They were, in fact, the same thing. And this is so obvious that not just me, but *many* Christians, including a majority of the Church Fathers, believed this! To say there is "zero connection" is therefore incredibly na´ve, since you dismiss the fact many do make this connection!

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          So your second argument is that they recorded the same thing.
          So you don't accept that Matthew noted things which Luke did not and vice versa?
          If you DO accept that, then your second argument is also gone.
          I have no idea what you're talking about. Comparison of the 3 versions show not just an assumed connection but a substantial connection.
          1) The major subject of the Discourse in all 3 versions is the destruction of the temple, which took place by Roman armies.
          2) The major time frame in all 3 versions is *Jesus' generation,* which must involve the Roman armies.
          3) The "abomination of desolation" speaks of the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in Dan 9, which is exactly what Jesus quoted--again involving Roman armies.

          The assumption you have that the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies are completely unrelated is na´ve and absurd. To say Matthew and Mark are speaking of Antichrist while in the same place in the Discourse Luke is speaking of Roman armies is patently ridiculous!

          But there is this amazing need for many on this forum to read Antichrist into every prophecy, even when he is not mentioned and is not in the least in the context of the prophecy! I'm just pointing this out. You can believe what you want.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          What you are left with is simply proximity - because Luke stated something which is an approximately same location as Matthew so they are the same thing.

          I deny it because the Roman Army CANNOT be viewed as standing in the Holy place until AFTER the Temple was destroyed.
          The ECFs who connected the 70 weeks with 70 AD connected the event of AFTER the destruction and NOT BEFORE.
          Nobody can make that argument. You have tried and failed on EVERY level.
          Yes, Wesley must've been a failure too, because *you say so?* I don't think the Church Fathers were united in how they viewed the "abomination in the holy place." I wouldn't doubt that they might correlate the AoD of the Olivet Discourse with the AoD of Antiochus 4. In both cases, they assume some abominable desecration took place *within* the temple. However, I don't believe this is established. On the contrary, Jesus declared that the mere location of Roman troops on the outskirts of the city constituted a desecration of the holy place. They were, in my opinion, "in the holy place!" Of course you don't have to agree, but failure in your eyes is not the failure as actual failure to prove a point. I may prove a point all day long and you may still, out of pride, simply claim I've failed to prove my point.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          NONE of the ECFs held your position. You are holding a UNIQUE position. This is what is so bizarre about your claim.
          You recognise the issues with the claims of some of the ECFs and so try to find a solution, which leads to your UNIQUE claim that an army OUTSIDE the city is somehow at the SAME TIME standing in the Holy place, when it is NOT standing in any holy place, butt actually the place of those things which are unclean.
          Don't confuse your own limited view of the "holy place" with the way Jesus described it. He described the holy place as violated when pagan Armies surrounded Jerusalem.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          The anti-Nicene Fathers did connect it with the Antichrist as do Preterists (one area of agreement you might say). The difference being that Preterists had Nero and subsequent Caesars as the AC, whilst Irenaeus and other ECFs had it as still future from there time.
          The Church Fathers saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the fulfillment of Dan 9. So do I.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            I definitely want you to hear God, but you seem determined to ignore the overwhelming TRUTH of scripture.
            When you ignore EVERY SINGLE usage of a phrase to bring about a PERSONAL and UNIQUE interpretation, then you can be sure it needs checking most carefully.
            You should be convinced that I have considered your view and understand it, and basically find it comes across as worth considering due to proximity, but after reflection of ALL the reasons it CANNOT be, then it needs rejecting and consigning to the bin.
            If "the holy place" is utilized 9 out of 10 times as a reference to the temple, but in the 10th use it is applied to the region around the temple, then you have no argument at all. In fact, "the holy place" is largely used in reference to the temple, although the general concept of "holy place" does not have a necessary connection to the temple. But when Jesus defines in a unique instance that "the holy place" is the place where Romans troops gather around the city, then we do have a unique application of "the holy place." Your argument against this is weak. The context reigns supreme, and this is how Jesus utilized "the holy place" in the Olivet Discourse, as the place where Roman troops gathered to violate the city and the temple.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by randyk View Post
              If "the holy place" is utilized 9 out of 10 times as a reference to the temple, but in the 10th use it is applied to the region around the temple, then you have no argument at all.
              Notice you say "if". We don't need to say "if", we can look in scripture and see.
              There are 111 occurrences of "haqodesh" in the OT.
              So 9 out of 10 would be 90 out of 100 where it is a reference to a SPECIFIC place in the temple, or 10 times where it is applied to the region around the temple.
              However as you have been told already (and which you ignore) there is not even one time where "haqodesh" is applied to he region around the temple. That is 0 out of 111 times.
              IOW you do NOT have a SINGLE example where "haqodesh" means "a region around the temple."
              Further it is NEVER used in ANY form, such as "qodesh" (without the definite article) of which there are 147 more occurrences, in which it means a region OUTSIDE the city.
              The closest you get is Jeremiah 31:40 which speaks of the city being enlarged, and in that enlargement an area which is presently unclean, will be brought INSIDE the city and so THEN it will be holy.
              This means there isn't even a prophecy which speaks of OUTSIDE the city as being holy, rather there is prophecy which speaks of the city being enlarged so that former areas which were OUTSIDE are now INSIDE and so become holy.

              So using batting analogy, you don't get one hit out of ten, you don't even get 1 hit out of 100. You don't manage to get any hits out of 248.
              Your ENTIRE supposition is therefore ENTIRELY and COMPLETELY without a shred of scriptural support.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                [QUOTE=randyk;3494309]Yes, that is the argument. You say there is "zero connection." And I show you it is obviously there, simply by comparing the 3 synoptic gospels. What Matthew and Mark called the "abomination of desolation" Luke called armies encircling Jerusalem. They were, in fact, the same thing. And this is so obvious that not just me, but *many* Christians, including a majority of the Church Fathers, believed this! To say there is "zero connection" is therefore incredibly na´ve, since you dismiss the fact many do make this connection![/QIUOTE]
                Nope there is ZERO connection made by Luke.
                You might make a connection, but Luke does not.
                By comparing the synoptic gospels you have a SUPERFICIAL connection, but anyone who looks at CONTEXT (which is supreme) will see that clearly it is NOT the same.

                I have no idea what you're talking about. Comparison of the 3 versions show not just an assumed connection but a substantial connection.
                1) The major subject of the Discourse in all 3 versions is the destruction of the temple, which took place by Roman armies.
                2) The major time frame in all 3 versions is *Jesus' generation,* which must involve the Roman armies.
                3) The "abomination of desolation" speaks of the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in Dan 9, which is exactly what Jesus quoted--again involving Roman armies.
                1) Nope the major subject is NOT the destruction of the temple. IF you can't even get the CONTEXT then of course you won't get anything else.
                2) Nope, the time frame is NOT Jesus' generation. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. You still persist with that nonsense.
                3) The AoD does NOT specifically speak of the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It speaks of a desolation at some period of time.

                The assumption you have that the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies are completely unrelated is na´ve and absurd. To say Matthew and Mark are speaking of Antichrist while in the same place in the Discourse Luke is speaking of Roman armies is patently ridiculous!
                It is naive and absurd to claim what you are claiming. However that is simply name calling.

                But there is this amazing need for many on this forum to read Antichrist into every prophecy, even when he is not mentioned and is not in the least in the context of the prophecy! I'm just pointing this out. You can believe what you want.
                I don't read the AC into every prophecy, and some need to read Jesus into every prophecy, however CONTEXT from each author makes things clear. However you REJECT the CONTEXT of Matthew and try to substitute the CONTEXT of Luke.

                Yes, Wesley must've been a failure too, because *you say so?* I don't think the Church Fathers were united in how they viewed the "abomination in the holy place." I wouldn't doubt that they might correlate the AoD of the Olivet Discourse with the AoD of Antiochus 4. In both cases, they assume some abominable desecration took place *within* the temple. However, I don't believe this is established. On the contrary, Jesus declared that the mere location of Roman troops on the outskirts of the city constituted a desecration of the holy place. They were, in my opinion, "in the holy place!" Of course you don't have to agree, but failure in your eyes is not the failure as actual failure to prove a point. I may prove a point all day long and you may still, out of pride, simply claim I've failed to prove my point.
                You can be a great Evangelist and still get things wrong in your doctrine.
                it is EMINENTLY established that those ECFs who believe that 70 AD is the fulfillment of Matthew 24 AoD is about something IN the temple, because they TOLD US THIS in their writings. SO I am not sure how you can say it isn't established.
                You even quoted Eusebius I believe where he clearly says this.
                Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine
                Chapter V
                4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

                Don't confuse your own limited view of the "holy place" with the way Jesus described it. He described the holy place as violated when pagan Armies surrounded Jerusalem.
                I am not confused, I am quite happy to accept how scripture uses a phrase repeatedly and accept that as its meaning.
                Jesus did NOT once describe the holy place as violated when armies surrounded Jerusalem.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  Notice you say "if". We don't need to say "if", we can look in scripture and see.
                  There are 111 occurrences of "haqodesh" in the OT.
                  So 9 out of 10 would be 90 out of 100 where it is a reference to a SPECIFIC place in the temple, or 10 times where it is applied to the region around the temple.
                  However as you have been told already (and which you ignore) there is not even one time where "haqodesh" is applied to he region around the temple. That is 0 out of 111 times.
                  I haven't ignored your point. I've actually given it thought for many months! My present position is, in fact, a response to your argument, which I thought was pretty good. I even think that this is the reason so many Church Fathers, and other scholars, have differed on this issue. The "holy place" largely does refer to the temple. You say it *always* referred to the temple. And that may be.

                  But you are here ignoring my point, that even if "the holy place" refers to the temple 111 times in the Scriptures, it only requires the 112th time to apply to something other than the temple to have a different application! And that's because the 111 times it may be used to apply to the temple, it is being used as a proper noun. And the words "the holy place" does not have to apply as a proper noun.

                  111 times "the holy place" may apply to the temple as a proper noun. But the 112th time it may *not* apply as a proper noun. That's because "the holy place" as a term does not require application as a proper noun! You absolutely ignore this point. Or, if you dispute it, you would be wrong. I can easily apply the term "the holy place" to something other than the temple. That would prove you wrong that it *must* apply only to the temple!

                  And so again, my argument is that Jesus applied the term in a very unique way, based on Dan 9, where the city is to be destroyed, and the sanctuary desolated. When Jesus referred to an "abomination" that would "stand in the holy place," he was referring to Roman armies encircling the city of Jerusalem. In this case, the area surrounding the temple, including Jerusalem, was the "holy place." Armies besieging the city were set against the temple, and thus were "in the holy place." You utterly fail to refute this. Indeed, you cannot refute this. And that's because no matter how many times "the holy place" is used as a proper noun for the temple, it does not *have to be used* this way!!

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory
                  IOW you do NOT have a SINGLE example where "haqodesh" means "a region around the temple."
                  Further it is NEVER used in ANY form, such as "qodesh" (without the definite article) of which there are 147 more occurrences, in which it means a region OUTSIDE the city.
                  The closest you get is Jeremiah 31:40 which speaks of the city being enlarged, and in that enlargement an area which is presently unclean, will be brought INSIDE the city and so THEN it will be holy.
                  This means there isn't even a prophecy which speaks of OUTSIDE the city as being holy, rather there is prophecy which speaks of the city being enlarged so that former areas which were OUTSIDE are now INSIDE and so become holy.

                  So using batting analogy, you don't get one hit out of ten, you don't even get 1 hit out of 100. You don't manage to get any hits out of 248.
                  Your ENTIRE supposition is therefore ENTIRELY and COMPLETELY without a shred of scriptural support.
                  We're wasting time here. We've argued this to death. You're never going to accept anything I say. And yet you cannot prove that "the holy place" does not apply to the entire area surrounding the temple, including the temple and the area where the Roman Army stood. You cannot prove this. If Jesus wanted to apply it that way, he had every right to do so!

                  My argument not only remains strong. In my view it remains likely. The context *requires* that we view the "holy place" this way! It is all about a besieging army positioning itself in violation of God's holy territory. But you're welcome to disagree.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    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...
                    That's one way of dealing with it, I can't deal with the sheer repetition.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      I haven't ignored your point. I've actually given it thought for many months! My present position is, in fact, a response to your argument, which I thought was pretty good. I even think that this is the reason so many Church Fathers, and other scholars, have differed on this issue. The "holy place" largely does refer to the temple. You say it *always* referred to the temple. And that may be.

                      But you are here ignoring my point, that even if "the holy place" refers to the temple 111 times in the Scriptures, it only requires the 112th time to apply to something other than the temple to have a different application!
                      There are often multiple ways of interpreting scripture. One can go down all sorts of side paths if taking less obvious views, as per your view of the holy place. God didn't want to confuse true truth seekers, yet the Bible is vague enough to allow anyone to confuse themselves if not honest with the most obvious meaning of the text.
                      In this case you have chosen the less obvious viewpoint, a view that the text itself just does not favor. Fulfilment is too vague compared to a known image of the beast and known 3.5 year period in Rev 13, more closely resembling the Antiochus example of what an abomination should look like.

                      Sure defend your view, but acknowledge the other views, agree to disagree and move on. I don't see why one subject should dominate so many threads.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        I haven't ignored your point. I've actually given it thought for many months! My present position is, in fact, a response to your argument, which I thought was pretty good. I even think that this is the reason so many Church Fathers, and other scholars, have differed on this issue. The "holy place" largely does refer to the temple. You say it *always* referred to the temple. And that may be.

                        But you are here ignoring my point, that even if "the holy place" refers to the temple 111 times in the Scriptures, it only requires the 112th time to apply to something other than the temple to have a different application! And that's because the 111 times it may be used to apply to the temple, it is being used as a proper noun. And the words "the holy place" does not have to apply as a proper noun.
                        When 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4 then adding it for the 112th time will NOT change its value.
                        I am not ignoring your point, but simply highlighting that when a certain phrase is ALWAYS meaning the SAME thing then there is NO basis for expecting it to change.
                        However I went down the rabbit hole earlier on this thread with the hypothetical, "what if" the 112th is different.

                        111 times "the holy place" may apply to the temple as a proper noun. But the 112th time it may *not* apply as a proper noun. That's because "the holy place" as a term does not require application as a proper noun! You absolutely ignore this point. Or, if you dispute it, you would be wrong. I can easily apply the term "the holy place" to something other than the temple. That would prove you wrong that it *must* apply only to the temple!
                        Actually you CANNOT apply the Hebrew term without qualifier as to being any where other than the place in the temple.
                        As soon as you add a qualifier then you are changing the word and so no longer saying the same thing, which then means your claim is shown as wrong.

                        I absolutely have not once ignored this point. I have disputed it and shown that I am not wrong.

                        And so again, my argument is that Jesus applied the term in a very unique way, based on Dan 9, where the city is to be destroyed, and the sanctuary desolated. When Jesus referred to an "abomination" that would "stand in the holy place," he was referring to Roman armies encircling the city of Jerusalem. In this case, the area surrounding the temple, including Jerusalem, was the "holy place." Armies besieging the city were set against the temple, and thus were "in the holy place." You utterly fail to refute this. Indeed, you cannot refute this. And that's because no matter how many times "the holy place" is used as a proper noun for the temple, it does not *have to be used* this way!!
                        What this claim boils down to is Jesus choosing to use a KNOWN term and to use it is a way CONTRARY to its established and ONLY meaning throughout scripture.
                        Further to do so when He has just been talking about that very temple, and without any explanation as to why He would change the meaning.
                        Are you REALLY claiming that Jesus would KNOWINGLY use a well known phrase and use it in a way that NO ONE would have understood it, and not explain it, and further that NONE of the gospel writers would then note this.
                        Sorry, but your claim is insulting to Jesus.

                        We're wasting time here. We've argued this to death. You're never going to accept anything I say. And yet you cannot prove that "the holy place" does not apply to the entire area surrounding the temple, including the temple and the area where the Roman Army stood. You cannot prove this. If Jesus wanted to apply it that way, he had every right to do so!
                        Actually it is a waste of time as though i have continually dealt with your claim and proved that "the Holy place" does NOT apply to the entire area surrounding the temple, and more importantly that it does NOT apply to the entire area surrounding the city of Jerusalem.
                        Your petulant claim that Jesus could use it in a way NEVER used by anyone, is like arguing that His Word can mean anything you want it to mean, as you want Jesus to mean something other than what the words He used mean.

                        My argument not only remains strong. In my view it remains likely. The context *requires* that we view the "holy place" this way! It is all about a besieging army positioning itself in violation of God's holy territory. But you're welcome to disagree.
                        Your argument has NO strength whatsoever. The CONTEXT requires we view the Holy place as related to the Temple. There is NO getting away from this. You claim that the MAJOR focus IS the temple, and yet when the Temple is then held to be the CONTEXT, you change to it being about the area OUTSIDE the city. That is simply schizophrenic.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                          There are often multiple ways of interpreting scripture. One can go down all sorts of side paths if taking less obvious views, as per your view of the holy place. God didn't want to confuse true truth seekers, yet the Bible is vague enough to allow anyone to confuse themselves if not honest with the most obvious meaning of the text.
                          In this case you have chosen the less obvious viewpoint, a view that the text itself just does not favor. Fulfilment is too vague compared to a known image of the beast and known 3.5 year period in Rev 13, more closely resembling the Antiochus example of what an abomination should look like.

                          Sure defend your view, but acknowledge the other views, agree to disagree and move on. I don't see why one subject should dominate so many threads.
                          I've informed ForHisglory a number of times I'm willing to "agree to disagree." He continues to try to rebut something, and obviously feels unsuccessful. I actually agree with you--repetition can be very, very boring.

                          But before you claim that my position is weak, keep in mind that John Wesley held to the same position. And keep in mind that the Church Fathers held to the bulk of my position, which is that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 were fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Jesus, and in the desolation of Jerusalem following in 70 AD.

                          If you fail to acknowledge this, don't be surprised that I continue to fight for the truth! I'm not about to let untruths be pushed with the assurance that I won't respond.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                            When 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4 then adding it for the 112th time will NOT change its value.
                            I am not ignoring your point, but simply highlighting that when a certain phrase is ALWAYS meaning the SAME thing then there is NO basis for expecting it to change.
                            However I went down the rabbit hole earlier on this thread with the hypothetical, "what if" the 112th is different.
                            If X is true a thousand times, yes X will still be the same the 1001st time! But "the holy place" is not X the 1001st time! It is Y! And that's because the 1000 times X is used X is being applied as a proper noun for the compartment within the temple. The 1001st time it is Y, because "the holy place" there is not a proper noun, and it is not being applied to the temple.

                            I could apply "the rabbit hole" 5 times to an actual rabbit hole. But the 6th time I may apply "the rabbit hole" to a quagmire, and not to a real rabbit hole. You do *not* apply a real rabbit hole to "the rabbit hole" the 6th time only because it is used as such the 1st 5 times! If the context changes, so does the application of "the rabbit hole!"

                            I really expect this to go over your head, because I've told you this several times now, and you just can't get it. You're too steeped in trying to prove me wrong. You've lost the ability to discuss and to debate.

                            All you say is that X means X 1000 times, and therefore X always must mean X. But X is not Y. "The holy place" is not always the same "the holy place!" The context reigns supreme--you cannot apply a technical application to "the holy place" when the context changes! And Jesus changed the context from the temple to the general location of the temple where the Roman Army would form a siege!

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Actually you CANNOT apply the Hebrew term without qualifier as to being any where other than the place in the temple.
                            As soon as you add a qualifier then you are changing the word and so no longer saying the same thing, which then means your claim is shown as wrong.
                            Ridiculous! Context determines the meaning of "the holy place." There is no absolute technical application of the term "the holy place." The definite article determines which "holy place" is being referred to. And it's already been proven that there are a number of different "holy places!" Context determines which "holy place" is being referred to.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            I absolutely have not once ignored this point. I have disputed it and shown that I am not wrong.

                            What this claim boils down to is Jesus choosing to use a KNOWN term and to use it is a way CONTRARY to its established and ONLY meaning throughout scripture.
                            You claim that the term "the holy place" has a fixed meaning. It does not. I realize that many would want to interpret "the holy place" in only one way. But that doesn't make it so. A change of context indicates a change of application.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Further to do so when He has just been talking about that very temple, and without any explanation as to why He would change the meaning.
                            Of course there is explanation as to why the meaning would change! Dan 9 indicates the context is the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. Jesus indicated in Luke 21 this has to do with the encirclement of troops around Jerusalem. That stand is described by Jesus as an incursion into the holy place. It is a violation of the space around Jerusalem.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Are you REALLY claiming that Jesus would KNOWINGLY use a well known phrase and use it in a way that NO ONE would have understood it, and not explain it, and further that NONE of the gospel writers would then note this.
                            Sorry, but your claim is insulting to Jesus.
                            No, I told you from the beginning that "holy place" itself is a flexible term that is applied in a number of different ways. So when a particular "holy place" is being specified it can either be the compartment within the temple or somewhere else, depending on the context. In this case, the context specified is the area around the temple, including the place where the Roman Army stood.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Actually it is a waste of time as though i have continually dealt with your claim and proved that "the Holy place" does NOT apply to the entire area surrounding the temple, and more importantly that it does NOT apply to the entire area surrounding the city of Jerusalem.
                            Your petulant claim that Jesus could use it in a way NEVER used by anyone, is like arguing that His Word can mean anything you want it to mean, as you want Jesus to mean something other than what the words He used mean.
                            Yes, words can be used in any way a speaker wishes to use them. There is no fixed meaning of a word, particularly when a speaker wishes to use that word differently, in a different context. And that's precisely what Jesus did. If you want to deny what Jesus did, sleep well at night, my friend. I know I do.

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory
                            Your argument has NO strength whatsoever. The CONTEXT requires we view the Holy place as related to the Temple. There is NO getting away from this. You claim that the MAJOR focus IS the temple, and yet when the Temple is then held to be the CONTEXT, you change to it being about the area OUTSIDE the city. That is simply schizophrenic.
                            On the contrary, the "holy place" being specified is expressly defined by Jesus as being the area around the temple where the Roman Army stood. If you want to call Jesus "schizo," then sleep well tonight, my brother!

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                              Sure defend your view, but acknowledge the other views, agree to disagree and move on. I don't see why one subject should dominate so many threads.
                              I just wish to add this thing, brother. I am so persistent on this one subject because I believe a proper understanding of this, and many other pieces of the puzzle fall together. I've been working at this a very long time--in fact, most of my life. And this particular piece of the puzzle evaded me for years. I finally have found a measure of peace, believing that this was a major missing piece!

                              And so I can't help but be excited to share it over and over again. Honestly, I was messed up over the Olivet Discourse for many, many years. I had some of the pieces, but they didn't all fit together. With my present position I feel they truly do fit together.

                              But I want to be sure. And so it is more important to me than other subjects. If you get this wrong, then you're going to get wrong an awful lot of things. Of course, if I'm wrong, little harm done. You simply need to ignore my posts on this.

                              But I'm going to start a new thread on the 7 sealed scroll...

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                I just wish to add this thing, brother. I am so persistent on this one subject because I believe a proper understanding of this, and many other pieces of the puzzle fall together. I've been working at this a very long time--in fact, most of my life. And this particular piece of the puzzle evaded me for years. I finally have found a measure of peace, believing that this was a major missing piece!

                                And so I can't help but be excited to share it over and over again. Honestly, I was messed up over the Olivet Discourse for many, many years. I had some of the pieces, but they didn't all fit together. With my present position I feel they truly do fit together.

                                But I want to be sure. And so it is more important to me than other subjects. If you get this wrong, then you're going to get wrong an awful lot of things. Of course, if I'm wrong, little harm done. You simply need to ignore my posts on this.

                                But I'm going to start a new thread on the 7 sealed scroll...
                                I get you, I understand your passion. Go for it

                                Even if I think your doctrine is way off course

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X