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
    Nope, Jesus is NOT using new circumstances.
    Jesus did NOT say, that which was formerly unclean is now holy. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the Holy place is no longer the Holy place. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the temple is gone and there is no more Holy place. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the territory around the city is now holy. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did not have to say what you would have him say. It was sufficient for him to describe the AoD as armies encircling Jerusalem 66-70 AD. He referred to the troops as "eagles" circling about, gathering to a corpse. He described it as pagan armies encroaching upon the holy temple. That's why he called it an "abomination," because this was a Roman revolution against God and against His holy things. And it was called a "desolation" because it led to a complete annihilation of the temple in 70 AD.

    Now you want to argue that pagan Romans standing around the city of Jerusalem was not a violation of the "holy place?" Fine. I don't see the problem. The context demands this interpretation, in my view. You may not agree, but you have not proven any internal inconsistency with this position. The fact there may have been poop on the ground outside the walls of Jerusalem did not make it any less a pagan intrusion upon God's holy territory!

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    You see, I am basing it ENTIRELY on what YOUR claim REQUIRES, but there is NO CHANGE in circumstance. Jesus does NOT make a claim of a CHANGE. This is what you are ENTIRELY lacking.

    What you are arguing above is NOT a CHANGE in circumstance, but that Jesus would use words knowing how there are understood WITHIN the historical and present circumstances, and use them for an ENTIRELY and CONTRARY meaning, all WITHOUT a CHANGE in the circumstance.

    This by itself (and alone) PROVES that your claim is ENTIRELY without substance.
    Huh? I already proved the substance of my argument. Jesus called this violation of divine territory an encroachment upon "holy territory." Even if you don't agree it should make you consider it a legitimate question. But you don't.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Actually I am EXACTLY considering the situation when such a CHANGE occurs. You don;t like the point i make as it CONFLICTS for what you want to be a truth, which unfortunately it is not.
    How many times do you know when someone builds a new church and make ZERO reference to the old, and don;t call the new as "new"?
    I am debating YOUR position, because this is NOT about my position.
    You are the one who is in a place where you are UNABLE to change. You are LOCKED in your understanding.
    Not at all. If you were to come up with something more substantial, I would change my view.

    I just honestly do *not* see it as an acceptable position to see Antichrist in Matt 24 and Mark 13, and also see Cestius Gallus/Titus in Luke 21! It honestly does not make sense to me! It is confusing and contradictory. And quite frankly, if I go back to Dan 9, where the Olivet Discourse originated, I also see this as the 66-70 AD event--not Antichrist! The attempt to insert Antichrist I see as "red meat" for eschatology buffs. I'm an eschatology buff, but I'm willing to hesitate before jumping.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Wow! I am looking at this from all sorts of angles and you are unable to recognise this is deal with the point made.
    I have ALREADY responding to this. This isn't about imagination. When you have a word or phrase used as a Proper Noun, like Buckingham Palace, then you can use those same two words and NOT use them as a Proper noun. You can say the palace in Buckingham, or even you can say "there is a palace in Buckingham." However a palace in Buckingham is NOT called Buckingham Palace except perhaps jokingly in a local or colloquial way, and is used in reference to the ACTUAL Buckingham Palace. The same could be said about "The White House".
    If I say I visited "The White House", neither you nor any other American would think, amazing that person has gone to a house which is white.
    I am not the one lacking in imagination or understanding.
    The simple point is that in the bible "haqodesh" is used as part of the description of a location or item, when it is NOT being used as a Proper Noun, and in that instance it is NOT referring to "the Holy Place" in the temple. That is because these words are being used as adjectives and not as a phrase on its own.
    However when the word "haqodesh" is used on its own to denote a location, then it IS being used as a Prper Noun and it ONLY refers to one location throughout scripture, which is "the Holy place" in the temple.
    What I'm arguing is that haqodesh is *not* the equivalent of a proper noun like the "White House!" It is common terminology which was regularly used for the temple. But the fact it is used as an adjective does *not* make it a proper noun! The holy *what?* If you don't know what *what* is, then you cannot call it a proper noun!

    Again, I don't care how many times haqodesh referred to the temple. It is the kind of word that can apply to other things. And there were a number of other holy places. To use the definite article, or the equivalent in Hebrew, does not make it a proper noun!

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    It wasn't me arguing against it but you. You were trying to say when a word is not of one form then it is still of that form without being of that form.

    See the point above. "Haqodesh" is used as a stand alone word WITHOUT any other word, such as "place" or "city" etc THEN it ALWAYS means "the Holy place" in the Temple. Any other usage is irrelevant because it is NOT the same.
    I completely disagree, because in Matt 24.20 it is *not* used for the Holy Place in the temple! Rather, with a change in context "the holy place" there refers to the area around Jerusalem where besieging troops would stand. I have no concern about how many times haqodesh referred to the temple in the Law. A change of context allows for a change of use for that term.

    To prove your point you would have to go beyond saying haqodesh is used exclusively in the OT Scriptures. You would have to prove that *by definition* haqodesh is a proper noun. But you cannot. I've given you opportunity, and "silence"....

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    No, I have stated that it does not say "haqodesh" it says "qodesh admat". The translation into English can be the similar "admat" means ground and that is a place. However you are trying to compare "record" with "record", where one is a verb and the other is a noun. The word is the same, though the pronunciation is different. You see the word "holy" and you see the word "place" and so you say THIS IS THE SAME, but in Hebrew it is NOT.
    It is a FACT of scripture, which you seem unable to accept.
    I don't know what you mean by "one is a verb and another is a noun? "Holy ground" and "holy place" both used "holy" as an adjective. At any rate, I'm not that advanced in Hebrew, and I don't think the entire argument rests upon this one example in Exo 3. There are many examples of "holy place" that apply outside of the temple. But when you claim "the holy place" must always refer to the temple, you only prove it regularly applied to the temple--not that it *had to* apply to the temple.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    You are the one claiming the world is flat, and you expect me to simply accept what you say? You are the one making a silly argument, and I am highlighting this.
    I do know what parallelism is, and we see it in a lot of the Psalms:
    Ever since Robert Lowth's 1753 study, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, biblical scholars have known that ancient Hebrew writers relied on parallelism to make their poetry. What is parallelism? It is a structure of thought (rather than external form like meter or rhyme) in which the writer balances a series of words so that patterns of deliberate contrast or intentional repetition appear.
    Yes, of course. I thought you knew.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    I get you are claiming it is a different context. However context does not mean unholy is suddenly holy.
    Further as you have the context completely wrong so that doesn't help you claim in the slightest.
    A general encroachment does NOT change ground which is unclean to suddenly become holy. That is a greater nonsense than you claiming the earth is flat!
    Again, this is not a comparison of polluted soil with unpolluted soil. Rather, this views territory, generally, as within distance of the temple or not. Clearly, the Roman Army was within distance of the temple, encroaching upon *sacred territory.* I know you don't want to use it this way. And even if you don't think the Bible used it this way, I'm certainly able to use it this way myself!

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    Your ENTIRE claim is based on the point that Luke and Matthew BOTH record the Olivet Discourse and in one place in one record, you find something else in the other THEREFORE the one MEANS the other. This is the SUMMATION of your claim.
    Yes, it is this theory that underlies my proposition that the AoD is, in fact, the encircling of Jerusalem by pagan troops.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    You do NOT care about the meaning of the words in Matthew or the CONTEXT he is providing around it. You do NOT care about the meaning of the words in Luke or the CONTEXT Luke provides. You do NOT care about the CONTEXT of the ENTIRE Olivet Discourse, which is having left the Temple - for you DENY that the Temple is the CONTEXT of the discourse YET conversely you try to claim that being OUTSIDE the city is somehow being IN the holy place.
    No, I completely agree the context of the Olivet Discourse is the destruction of the temple, as compared with the 2nd Coming. This is the judgment of the Jewish People, much as Christ will bring judgment against the whole world at his 2nd Coming.

    But the focus is on the destruction of the temple 66-70 AD, because Jesus said "all these things will happen in this generation." Every stone of the temple would be thrown down.

    So the temple is at the core of the Address. And it is the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem that precipitates a wake up call for Jesus' Disciples who happen to be near or around Jerusalem later on when this happens.

    This is the AoD, which is a warning of near destruction of the temple. The fact the temple is at the center of this Discourse makes the identification of the AoD easy. It is when Roman troops surround the city of Jerusalem, which was the temple area. This was, for me, the "holy place" into which the Roman Armies encroached. It was the sacred place upon which the Roman incursion took place.

    Originally posted by ForHisglory
    I haven't said you are internally inconsistent, I have noted that your claims require CONTEXT to be ignored and for the meaning of words to be ignored, and you build your entire premise on the placement of words as recorded by two different authors.
    I have looked at what you are claiming and as a basis for understanding scripture it is a FALSE one. You ALWAYS start with the INTERNAL CONTEXT first and then build from there.
    However even disregarding that, you are still changing the wider picture as seen in Luke and Matthew and making up your own narrative which is different to that given.
    Further you CHANGE the meaning of words to try to fit together two things that do NOT fit.
    This is why your entire reasoning is bunk. The sooner you realise that the earth is not flat, that those things which are unclean are NOT holy, then the sooner you can get to what Jesus was telling His disciples.
    Sorry, I'm happy with my interpretation. I sleep well at night. I want to interpret things properly. To fit Antichrist into this is *not* biblical. As such, I wouldn't be happy with your position, if I was you. I wouldn't want to add words that just aren't there.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      Jesus did not have to say what you would have him say.
      IOW you are claiming a CHANGE in circumstances but WITHOUT Jesus (or anyone else) stating or noting any change in circumstance

      Huh? I already proved the substance of my argument. Jesus called this violation of divine territory an encroachment upon "holy territory." Even if you don't agree it should make you consider it a legitimate question. But you don't.
      You have not proved (even remotely) the substance of your argument.

      Not at all. If you were to come up with something more substantial, I would change my view.
      I just honestly do *not* see it as an acceptable position to see Antichrist in Matt 24 and Mark 13, and also see Cestius Gallus/Titus in Luke 21! It honestly does not make sense to me! It is confusing and contradictory. And quite frankly, if I go back to Dan 9, where the Olivet Discourse originated, I also see this as the 66-70 AD event--not Antichrist! The attempt to insert Antichrist I see as "red meat" for eschatology buffs. I'm an eschatology buff, but I'm willing to hesitate before jumping.
      I know you have an issue with this.
      This is because you are more concerned about PRETEXT than CONTEXT.
      As for Dan 9, verse 26 is 70 AD, but verse 27 CANNOT be.

      What I'm arguing is that haqodesh is *not* the equivalent of a proper noun like the "White House!" It is common terminology which was regularly used for the temple. But the fact it is used as an adjective does *not* make it a proper noun! The holy *what?* If you don't know what *what* is, then you cannot call it a proper noun!
      The word "white" is an adjective, but when used in this format it is used as part of a Proper Noun.
      You keep saying "regularly", however it was used in this way EXCLUSIVELY for th place in the temple.

      Again, I don't care how many times haqodesh referred to the temple. It is the kind of word that can apply to other things. And there were a number of other holy places. To use the definite article, or the equivalent in Hebrew, does not make it a proper noun!
      So can white, and? I have highlighted that when it is used without any other noun then it does NOT apply to anything else and makes its use as a Proper Noun.

      I completely disagree, because in Matt 24.20 it is *not* used for the Holy Place in the temple! Rather, with a change in context "the holy place" there refers to the area around Jerusalem where besieging troops would stand. I have no concern about how many times haqodesh referred to the temple in the Law. A change of context allows for a change of use for that term.
      To prove your point you would have to go beyond saying haqodesh is used exclusively in the OT Scriptures. You would have to prove that *by definition* haqodesh is a proper noun. But you cannot. I've given you opportunity, and "silence"....
      Matt 24:20 is the verse in question, so you need to look at EVERY other verse to prove or disprove your contention about that verse.
      As Hebrews uses it in the SAME way as the place in the temple (NT reference) and as EVERY usage in the OT means that place also, so your claim does NOT have ANY support from scripture.

      Again, this is not a comparison of polluted soil with unpolluted soil. Rather, this views territory, generally, as within distance of the temple or not. Clearly, the Roman Army was within distance of the temple, encroaching upon *sacred territory.* I know you don't want to use it this way. And even if you don't think the Bible used it this way, I'm certainly able to use it this way myself!
      Actually it is. Either something is Holy or it isn't.
      Also "encroaching on" is NOT the SAME as STANDING IN. However you don't actually care that the meaning is different.

      No, I completely agree the context of the Olivet Discourse is the destruction of the temple, as compared with the 2nd Coming. This is the judgment of the Jewish People, much as Christ will bring judgment against the whole world at his 2nd Coming.
      But the focus is on the destruction of the temple 66-70 AD, because Jesus said "all these things will happen in this generation." Every stone of the temple would be thrown down.
      So the temple is at the core of the Address. And it is the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem that precipitates a wake up call for Jesus' Disciples who happen to be near or around Jerusalem later on when this happens.
      This is the AoD, which is a warning of near destruction of the temple. The fact the temple is at the center of this Discourse makes the identification of the AoD easy. It is when Roman troops surround the city of Jerusalem, which was the temple area. This was, for me, the "holy place" into which the Roman Armies encroached. It was the sacred place upon which the Roman incursion took place.
      IF you thought the CONTEXT was about the Temple, then you would have to ACCEPT that the Holy place is speaking about the Temple. However you REFUSE to ACCEPT that this is about the Temple, so you are arguing against your OWN idea. This is what I am highlighting for you, the INTERNAL dissonance WITHIN YOUR claim.

      Sorry, I'm happy with my interpretation. I sleep well at night. I want to interpret things properly. To fit Antichrist into this is *not* biblical. As such, I wouldn't be happy with your position, if I was you. I wouldn't want to add words that just aren't there.
      If you want to interpret things properly you certainly would NOT interpret them as you do.
      I have been arguing that YOUR view is INCONSISTENT, contrary to the CONTEXT etc. I have not argued for an Antichrist or something else. That is another argument altogether. However Irenaeus definitely believed it was Biblical. Perhaps you should read Against Heresies Book V Chapter 25 then you can read the Biblical reasoning that he used for why it was the case.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
        IOW you are claiming a CHANGE in circumstances but WITHOUT Jesus (or anyone else) stating or noting any change in circumstance
        Not at all.

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        You have not proved (even remotely) the substance of your argument.

        I know you have an issue with this.
        This is because you are more concerned about PRETEXT than CONTEXT.
        As for Dan 9, verse 26 is 70 AD, but verse 27 CANNOT be.

        The word "white" is an adjective, but when used in this format it is used as part of a Proper Noun.
        You keep saying "regularly", however it was used in this way EXCLUSIVELY for th place in the temple.
        You keep using this argument, but it is flawed. Exclusive use of a term may imply regular use, but not exhaustive use. In other words, unless we have a proper noun, the term can be flexible, and change its meaning with a new context.

        The word "Jesus" may be used exclusively for the Messiah in the Gospels (I don't really know this to be so). But that doesn't mean "Jesus" has to *always* be used for the Messiah.

        For example, Paul refers to "another Jesus." And quite frankly, other people were named "Jesus." So, even if a term is used exclusively in one area, this does not prohibit it from being used differently in another area.

        When "the holy place" was regularly applied to the temple compartment called "the Holy," the application seemed universal, but it was not. Jesus showed that "the holy place" could apply in the general territory in which the temple was located, and not just to the "Holy Place" in the temple. When the focus came to be on invading troops, who would besiege the temple area, "the holy place" took on a whole new meaning.

        How many times must I point this out? You are just asserting your own argument, and not disproving mine!

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        So can white, and? I have highlighted that when it is used without any other noun then it does NOT apply to anything else and makes its use as a Proper Noun.
        gibberish!

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        Matt 24:20 is the verse in question, so you need to look at EVERY other verse to prove or disprove your contention about that verse.
        As Hebrews uses it in the SAME way as the place in the temple (NT reference) and as EVERY usage in the OT means that place also, so your claim does NOT have ANY support from scripture.
        My argument depends on a particular context, and not on other biblical passages that have nothing whatsoever to do with an invading army! Why would I refer to the holy place inside the temple when I'm talking about an invading Roman force? Specifically, the context is an invading Roman force *encircling Jerusalem!* This is *not* inside the temple! No other Scriptures having to do with the Holy Place in the temple has a thing to do with it!

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        Actually it is. Either something is Holy or it isn't.
        Also "encroaching on" is NOT the SAME as STANDING IN. However you don't actually care that the meaning is different.
        False. An encroachment can easily be someone standing in forbidden territory. A besieging Army is indeed trespassing. It is a violation not just of Jerusalem, but also of holy territory.

        When speaking of the perimeter around the temple, we are speaking of holy territory, generally. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a particular area that may have been polluted. We are not talking about the Kidron Valley here. We're talking about the space immediately adjacent to the walls of Jerusalem!

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        IF you thought the CONTEXT was about the Temple, then you would have to ACCEPT that the Holy place is speaking about the Temple. However you REFUSE to ACCEPT that this is about the Temple, so you are arguing against your OWN idea. This is what I am highlighting for you, the INTERNAL dissonance WITHIN YOUR claim.
        We are either talking about a compartment in the temple called the Holy Place, or we are talking about the territory surrounding the temple. At any rate, we are both talking about the temple. Two major events are being described by Jesus, the destruction of the temple, and the invasion of the Roman Army into holy territory. Both involve the temple. Your point lacks merit.

        Originally posted by ForHisglory
        If you want to interpret things properly you certainly would NOT interpret them as you do.
        I have been arguing that YOUR view is INCONSISTENT, contrary to the CONTEXT etc. I have not argued for an Antichrist or something else. That is another argument altogether. However Irenaeus definitely believed it was Biblical. Perhaps you should read Against Heresies Book V Chapter 25 then you can read the Biblical reasoning that he used for why it was the case.
        No, you're arguing for Antichrist if you're not arguing for the AoD being the Roman troops. That is illegitimate, because Antichrist is not in the context at all. We are left with the Roman Army, which is *precisely* what Luke said it was! Come over from the Dark (obscure) Side, brother. You're getting cold over there!

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          Not at all.
          Exactly not at all a change of circumstance, yet you claim it is.

          You keep using this argument, but it is flawed. Exclusive use of a term may imply regular use, but not exhaustive use. In other words, unless we have a proper noun, the term can be flexible, and change its meaning with a new context.
          The word "Jesus" may be used exclusively for the Messiah in the Gospels (I don't really know this to be so). But that doesn't mean "Jesus" has to *always* be used for the Messiah.
          For example, Paul refers to "another Jesus." And quite frankly, other people were named "Jesus." So, even if a term is used exclusively in one area, this does not prohibit it from being used differently in another area.
          When "the holy place" was regularly applied to the temple compartment called "the Holy," the application seemed universal, but it was not. Jesus showed that "the holy place" could apply in the general territory in which the temple was located, and not just to the "Holy Place" in the temple. When the focus came to be on invading troops, who would besiege the temple area, "the holy place" took on a whole new meaning.
          How many times must I point this out? You are just asserting your own argument, and not disproving mine!
          It isn't flawed. Your example of Jesus is a name and many might have that name. Some think Barabbas was called Jesus.
          However if we say Jesus Christ, then your argument falls down entirely. You see Jesus Christ is an EXCLUSIVE term.

          gibberish!
          Exactly what your argument amounted to.

          My argument depends on a particular context, and not on other biblical passages that have nothing whatsoever to do with an invading army! Why would I refer to the holy place inside the temple when I'm talking about an invading Roman force? Specifically, the context is an invading Roman force *encircling Jerusalem!* This is *not* inside the temple! No other Scriptures having to do with the Holy Place in the temple has a thing to do with it!
          Actually your argument is ENTIRELY based on PRETEXT, and NOT CONTEXT. Luke makes NO mention of Holy anything.
          The CONTEXT is NOT therefore about the Holy, but about an army, and that army is NOT anywhere Holy, but OUTSIDE the city, which is NOT called holy. You are correct to note it is not in the temple. If Matthew 24 made no mention of the Holy place then you would NOT be claiming it is the same place.
          So you are misrepresenting your claim when you state the above.

          False. An encroachment can easily be someone standing in forbidden territory. A besieging Army is indeed trespassing. It is a violation not just of Jerusalem, but also of holy territory.
          When it is IN the forbidden territory, but you have whatis OUTSIDE as somehow also being IN at the SAME time. Do you always have problems with prepositions, like you do with Proper Nouns?
          I am being facetious!

          When speaking of the perimeter around the temple, we are speaking of holy territory, generally. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a particular area that may have been polluted. We are not talking about the Kidron Valley here. We're talking about the space immediately adjacent to the walls of Jerusalem!
          We aren't speaking of the perimeter around the OUTSIDE of the temple, which coincidentally was NOT considered holy by the Jewish zealots. They ONLY considered INSIDE the temple as holy.
          The Kidron valley is immediately adjacent to the walls, directly below.
          Jer 31:31 has an area outside the walls (directly outside) as then being included, as being unclean and then being considered holy. Jesus was OUTSIDE the city walls (and not that far) and that too was considered unclean.

          No, you're arguing for Antichrist if you're not arguing for the AoD being the Roman troops. That is illegitimate, because Antichrist is not in the context at all. We are left with the Roman Army, which is *precisely* what Luke said it was! Come over from the Dark (obscure) Side, brother. You're getting cold over there!
          I haven't bothered arguing my own view at all. I have been continually dealing with your view.
          Whatever is meant by the AoD, and that could be debated on another thread if we ever can get time for it, we still KNOW 100% that "the Holy place" is NOT OUTSIDE the city walls, and no amount of special pleading or arguing from PRETEXT will change the FACT of how the word "haqodesh" is consistently used in scripture, that there is NO change in circumstance and that NOT a single NT author, nor ECF claimed that the Holy place was anywhere but in the temple. Even Eusebius, who has 70 AD as the tim eof the AoD, has it happen in the temple.
          Your view is one that has no traction in any scripture or tradition as to the meaning of "the Holy place"

          I think I have said this enough times, and you have decided to ignore it enough times.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
            People have been misunderstanding the bible for millenia, and not all church fathers always agree with you. Our current advantage is we have complete bible tools and concordances and history and even comparative arguments at our fingertips. We are at a complete advantage compared to the church fathers. Instead of debating what they said, we can look directly at history and the bible and dig deep right at the facts rather than second hand opinions over 1500 years ago. If you need to enhance your argument through using an ancient set of logic go for it, but the logic should stand on its own, rather than the value been in the sheer age of the opinion.
            I agree with you completely. There is nothing to support the assumption that the ECF were imbued with knowledge and discernment than us. I mean, you have cited valid reasons that give us far more advantage.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
              I agree with you completely. There is nothing to support the assumption that the ECF were imbued with knowledge and discernment than us. I mean, you have cited valid reasons that give us far more advantage.
              The ECF have the sole advantage that they were closer in time to the apostles than us. the earlier the ECF then in theory the better.
              I personally think Irenaeus had a better understanding than those who lived two hundred years later like Eusebius. Irenaeus had it second hand, whilst Eusebius had the same puzzle we face but with less pieces. I personally dislike almost all the teaching of the post-Nicene ECFs, and when you read about their lives it is can be very sad. I actually see the 1st seal of Revelation speaking about the Church from the time of Nicene Council in 325, which is when the Church unified with the state.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                Exactly not at all a change of circumstance, yet you claim it is.
                Again, you're just arguing your position vs. my position. This does *not* dispose of my claim of a change of circumstances. If my proposed interpretation is accepted, then we do indeed have a change of circumstances. We have a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem "where it belongs not," where elsewhere it is referred to as a violation of the holy place.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                It isn't flawed. Your example of Jesus is a name and many might have that name. Some think Barabbas was called Jesus.
                However if we say Jesus Christ, then your argument falls down entirely. You see Jesus Christ is an EXCLUSIVE term.
                It's totally flawed! For one thing, I used as my example "Jesus"--not "Jesus Christ." Even as a proper noun the word "Jesus" can be exclusively used in one biblical book, and yet not have to mean the same thing in another biblical book. It depends on *context.*

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                Exactly what your argument amounted to.
                I didn't mean to insult you. It just was an incomprehensible argument to me.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                Actually your argument is ENTIRELY based on PRETEXT, and NOT CONTEXT. Luke makes NO mention of Holy anything.
                The CONTEXT is NOT therefore about the Holy, but about an army, and that army is NOT anywhere Holy, but OUTSIDE the city, which is NOT called holy. You are correct to note it is not in the temple. If Matthew 24 made no mention of the Holy place then you would NOT be claiming it is the same place.
                So you are misrepresenting your claim when you state the above.
                Matthew 24 makes mention of a different "holy place," outside of the room within the temple, because it is the *same context* as Luke 21! You don't have to accept this, but assuming this is my argument, it makes perfect sense then to see the "holy place" as the area where the Roman Army stood, besieging the temple area.

                Mark doesn't mention "holy place," but refers to a "place where it ought not." This indicates that we are talking about a different kind of holy place, where Roman troops should not be stationed. For an "abomination" to be where it "ought not," we may think of an area inside the temple or an area outside the temple. The Roman Army "ought not" to be besieging the walls of Jerusalem, right? So it depends on context, which Luke makes clear has to do with an invading Roman force. Since they were to give time for Jesus' disciples to escape, this Army was meant to penetrate the forbidden zone of the temple without actually penetrating the walls of the city. Thus, it was standing in the holy place without actually entering the city. It was within the temple zone of forbidden territory. The Roman Army had encroached upon sacred territory.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                When it is IN the forbidden territory, but you have whatis OUTSIDE as somehow also being IN at the SAME time. Do you always have problems with prepositions, like you do with Proper Nouns?
                I am being facetious!
                Actually, you look foolish to me. To be *in* sacred territory is certainly *outside of* the walls of Jerusalem if the area outside of the city is still sacred territory! The fact you can't fathom this indicates your view is seriously flawed. You're too biased to understand your logical contradiction.

                Let's just draw a circle around the temple for argument sake. This circle contains the temple and its Holy Place. Now let's draw a larger circle around the whole city, and refer to this entire area as the sacred territory of the temple.

                Is it really a contradiction to say that a pagan army has come to stand within the sacred territory encompassing Jerusalem even if it is outside the temple itself? Your flawed logic states that the sacred territory must be within the circle of the temple itself. But that is *your position,* and not my position. Again, you are simply opposing my theory with your own theory, and completely fail to disprove my own position. There is no logical contradiction is saying the Roman Army is *in* the holy territory, even though it is *outside of* the city.

                It really depends on where the circle is drawn to enclose what is called "the sacred territory of the temple." You are merely arguing that the sacred territory is inside the temple, and arguing that my position is that the sacred territory is inside the city. But I've not said that, have I? Your argument is merely your view that the sacred territory cannot include the area where an invading army besieged the city.

                I'm really done arguing this with you, because you lack comprehension in this regard. You're plenty smart enough to understand it. Therefore, you *refuse* to understand it, or simply want to argue your position against mine. I've been asking you to disprove *my position,* and not simply argue your position vs my position.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                We aren't speaking of the perimeter around the OUTSIDE of the temple, which coincidentally was NOT considered holy by the Jewish zealots. They ONLY considered INSIDE the temple as holy.
                This is getting way too repetitious! My argument was not your view vs. my view. It was the proposed inconsistency of my position. And yet you continue to oppose my view with your view, rather than prove any inconsistency with my position. I'd be happy to argue the inconsistency of your own position, but you're not even proposing a full position here. You're not arguing that this is Antichrist, for example. And so, I can't show you how illogical it is for you to propose that this is inside the temple itself, if the person there is the Antichrist!

                We were, in fact, speaking of the perimeter around the city, and not just the temple. Why you should think we weren't talking about that mystifies me? If were discussing *my view,* then that's what I've been proposing from the start!

                I don't care what the zealots considered "sacred territory." It's Luke who is writing this, and these are the words of Jesus. It is Jesus whose views matter in regard to identifying the sacred territory. And in Luke he saw Roman troops as violating sacred territory when they encircled the city--not just the temple.

                Luke saw this as the start of the "trampling of Jerusalem," and not just the trampling of the temple. And in ch. 17 he had called this a "gathering of eagles," which is an encirclement of unclean birds. This "encirclement" was thus a violation of sacred territory, even from the start, where the encirclement began. And it was not just an encroachment upon the temple, but more, an encroachment of the entire sacred territory, including the city of Jerusalem. Besieging the city was itself an encroachment, and a violation of sacred territory, in the eyes of Jesus.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                The Kidron valley is immediately adjacent to the walls, directly below.
                Jer 31:31 has an area outside the walls (directly outside) as then being included, as being unclean and then being considered holy. Jesus was OUTSIDE the city walls (and not that far) and that too was considered unclean.
                We are not here marking off lots, but referring to an invasion force threatening Jerusalem! You seem incapable of understanding that the context has to do with the encroachment of an invading force on the outskirts of the city, as opposed to marking off clean and unclean areas!

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                I haven't bothered arguing my own view at all. I have been continually dealing with your view.
                No, most of your arguments simply oppose my view with your own view. You have not properly represented my own view. You still see my view of the "holy place" as existing within the walls of Jerusalem, for example. That is *not* my view.

                And you are incredibly inflexible in discussing opposing views. You see no possibility in being wrong yourself. For example, you see no possibility whatsoever that "the holy place" can be something other than the temple's holy place! Nothing could be easier to consider in theory!

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                Whatever is meant by the AoD, and that could be debated on another thread if we ever can get time for it, we still KNOW 100% that "the Holy place" is NOT OUTSIDE the city walls, and no amount of special pleading or arguing from PRETEXT will change the FACT of how the word "haqodesh" is consistently used in scripture, that there is NO change in circumstance and that NOT a single NT author, nor ECF claimed that the Holy place was anywhere but in the temple. Even Eusebius, who has 70 AD as the tim eof the AoD, has it happen in the temple.
                You see what I mean? You are completely inflexible in your arguments! There is no possibility that you will change your views. You're convinced in your own mind.

                Originally posted by ForHisglory
                Your view is one that has no traction in any scripture or tradition as to the meaning of "the Holy place"

                I think I have said this enough times, and you have decided to ignore it enough times.
                If an argument lacks merit, I will certainly ignore it. I'm open to any argument, but your arguments fail to provide a complete view yourself. And when you attack my view, you don't represent it properly.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  Again, you're just arguing your position vs. my position. This does *not* dispose of my claim of a change of circumstances. If my proposed interpretation is accepted, then we do indeed have a change of circumstances. We have a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem "where it belongs not," where elsewhere it is referred to as a violation of the holy place.
                  You know you sound like Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK.
                  You seem to think that by repeating yourself and pushing the same argument over and over that somehow this will win you the argument.
                  Your argument has NO basis and has been completely trashed.
                  The usage of "the Holy place" is established beyond any doubt, and refers in Daniel's day and in Matthew's day and in the days of the ECFs to the place in the temple.
                  The Roman armies had every right to be in Israel, to be outside the city and even inside the city. The ONLY place they had no right to enter was "the Holy place", and this according to Roman Law.
                  So saying a Roman Army does NOT belong OUTSIDE Jerusalem is incorrect.
                  Nowhere is a Roman army OUTSIDE Jerusalem called a violation of the Holy place.
                  This is NOT supported by the words, nor the meaning of what is Holy (the extended meaning).
                  It is ONLY suggested by EISEGESIS, utilising a PRETEXT. and even that PRETEXT is on shaky ground as demonstrated on other threads.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    You know you sound like Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK.
                    You seem to think that by repeating yourself and pushing the same argument over and over that somehow this will win you the argument.
                    Please leave May out of it. I didn't like her last time I was in England, and I still don't like her. She's trying to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to say she accomplished Brexit without actually accomplishing Brexit. She wants the people to believe she did as they asked, even while remaining tethered to the EU.

                    Just as a note of interest, my wife is trying to get me to go back to England soon. Last time I went there was a bombing in Manchester (May 2017), and there were IT problems, making flights temporarily unavailable. I'm not really wanting to go back there. I love England, but I'm getting too old for this... Sounds like you have as many games in the UK as we have here in the US?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Your argument has NO basis and has been completely trashed.
                    In your seriously confused mind.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    The usage of "the Holy place" is established beyond any doubt, and refers in Daniel's day and in Matthew's day and in the days of the ECFs to the place in the temple.
                    Says the man, as he sweats profusely... No doubt, no doubt, no doubt--if I just say it enough times?...

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    The Roman armies had every right to be in Israel, to be outside the city and even inside the city. The ONLY place they had no right to enter was "the Holy place", and this according to Roman Law.
                    You silly man! God considered the Roman troops to be violating sacred territory, because it was *God* who prohibited pagans from trampling not just upon His sacred temple, but also upon His sacred territory, which included the entire region around Jerusalem. The Romans may have had legal right to be there, but in approaching the city to destroy it and the temple they were clearly violating the vicinity of the temple.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    So saying a Roman Army does NOT belong OUTSIDE Jerusalem is incorrect.
                    Nowhere is a Roman army OUTSIDE Jerusalem called a violation of the Holy place.
                    It isn't a violation of the Holy Place if you define the Holy Place as a compartment within the temple. But if you define the "holy place" as the area around the temple, generally, then indeed pagan Roman troops positioned around the city were in violation of "the holy place!"

                    Again, you are just arguing *your definition* of Holy Place against *my definition* of "the holy place." You vs Me. We are not going to get anywhere just restating our own positions. However, you are arguing *against* my position, and failing to show internal inconsistencies within *my argument!* On the other hand, you aren't even touching upon your own position, with all of its flaws. Showing the failures of your own position would expose your alternative as illegitimate, thus strengthening my position.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    This is NOT supported by the words, nor the meaning of what is Holy (the extended meaning).
                    It is ONLY suggested by EISEGESIS, utilising a PRETEXT. and even that PRETEXT is on shaky ground as demonstrated on other threads.
                    There's no shaking ground around me. Maybe you're feeling it from your need to constantly proclaim "100% certainty" over your own position. But I won't go that far. I plan to remain objective and flexible. For me this is a real discussion, and not a sham to slam my own position down upon everyone.

                    If you're 100% certain you're right, you should recognize by now that you haven't made any bedrock arguments with me--strong enough to make me doubt my own position. I'm open, but I'm still convinced my position has more support than yours.

                    There is no Antichrist in Matt 24 and Mark 13. And there is indeed an encircling Roman Army in Luke 21. Violation of the holy place took place in 66 AD when Cestius Gallus' troops encircled the region of the temple, when they besieged Jerusalem.

                    But go your own way, brother. You're not open to anything other than what you are convinced is 100% true. And if you're truly happy with your position, why repeat the same old tired arguments. Just sleep well.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      The ECF have the sole advantage that they were closer in time to the apostles than us. the earlier the ECF then in theory the better.
                      I personally think Irenaeus had a better understanding than those who lived two hundred years later like Eusebius. Irenaeus had it second hand, whilst Eusebius had the same puzzle we face but with less pieces. I personally dislike almost all the teaching of the post-Nicene ECFs, and when you read about their lives it is can be very sad. I actually see the 1st seal of Revelation speaking about the Church from the time of Nicene Council in 325, which is when the Church unified with the state.
                      I agree that Irenaeus had exceptional discernment. That said, being closer to the time of Christ or the Apostles can only help in matters of history or first-hand account of the events. However, in matters of scripture, knowledge and discernment is no different today than it was at the time of Christ. My point is if being closer to that age equals knowledge and understanding, then the disciples and all those who believed at that time would have understood everything Jesus represented and taught. But of course, we know this wasn't the case.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                        I agree that Irenaeus had exceptional discernment. That said, being closer to the time of Christ or the Apostles can only help in matters of history or first-hand account of the events. However, in matters of scripture, knowledge and discernment is no different today than it was at the time of Christ. My point is if being closer to that age equals knowledge and understanding, then the disciples and all those who believed at that time would have understood everything Jesus represented and taught. But of course, we know this wasn't the case.
                        The disciples were led into all truth, and then shared it with others, and wrote it down.
                        Nothing we discern or learn is extra to what they taught.
                        Those who didn't meet Jesus, but did meet the Apostles therefore hand first hand eye-witnesses who they could ask questions from, and therefore they were in a better position than we are today.
                        As you move away from that time then you get to the point you have made.
                        This is why I think Irenaeus is basically the last generation that had something which was subsequently lost.
                        I don;t think Irenaeus got everything right either.
                        So our main source of knowledge remains His Word and His Spirit.

                        Yet how the earliest believers understood something can shed light for us.
                        This is why I noted that NONE of the ECF thought "the Holy place" was anywhere other than in the temple. Not that it is scripture, but it helps us understand how people of around that time understood it as taught.
                        This means randyk's claim is a novelty and not supported in anyway from any scripture or tradition.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          Please leave May out of it. I didn't like her last time I was in England, and I still don't like her. She's trying to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to say she accomplished Brexit without actually accomplishing Brexit. She wants the people to believe she did as they asked, even while remaining tethered to the EU.

                          Just as a note of interest, my wife is trying to get me to go back to England soon. Last time I went there was a bombing in Manchester (May 2017), and there were IT problems, making flights temporarily unavailable. I'm not really wanting to go back there. I love England, but I'm getting too old for this... Sounds like you have as many games in the UK as we have here in the US?
                          She made a mistake. She agreed to something she shouldn't have, and now that has come back to bite her.
                          Her basic plan was sound enough, but the problem was when that plan fell through she had no plan B (still doesn't). I see God at work in this, but that is a side point.

                          You silly man! God considered the Roman troops to be violating sacred territory, because it was *God* who prohibited pagans from trampling not just upon His sacred temple, but also upon His sacred territory, which included the entire region around Jerusalem. The Romans may have had legal right to be there, but in approaching the city to destroy it and the temple they were clearly violating the vicinity of the temple.
                          Who is being silly here? What did Jesus say - render to Caesar what is Caesar's!
                          Did Jesus EVER say Roman's being OUTSIDE the city was an abomination? Nope. Did God ever say that Roman's being INSIDE the city was an Abomination? Nope.
                          So the "silly man" is the one who claims something which God did NOT say.
                          There is NOT a single scripture which has the Roman army being an abomination.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                            She made a mistake. She agreed to something she shouldn't have, and now that has come back to bite her.
                            Her basic plan was sound enough, but the problem was when that plan fell through she had no plan B (still doesn't). I see God at work in this, but that is a side point.


                            Who is being silly here? What did Jesus say - render to Caesar what is Caesar's!
                            Did Jesus EVER say Roman's being OUTSIDE the city was an abomination? Nope. Did God ever say that Roman's being INSIDE the city was an Abomination? Nope.
                            So the "silly man" is the one who claims something which God did NOT say.
                            There is NOT a single scripture which has the Roman army being an abomination.
                            I'm still trying to decide if I want to come to England! Been working on it for hours...

                            But on this issue, I'm not out to prove there is a basis for the Roman Army being an abomination in the vicinity of the temple. This passage only seems to declare it. Conceptually, I think I'm fine. Pagan Rome was an abomination, and it did tread upon the vicinity of the temple because its siege against Jerusalem would ultimate destroy the temple.

                            I appreciate the time you put into this, but others have grown tired of it some time back. There may be valid arguments still ongoing, but not much. If you have anything more to offer, and further concerns, let me know.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                              The disciples were led into all truth, and then shared it with others, and wrote it down.
                              Nothing we discern or learn is extra to what they taught.
                              Those who didn't meet Jesus, but did meet the Apostles therefore hand first hand eye-witnesses who they could ask questions from, and therefore they were in a better position than we are today.
                              As you move away from that time then you get to the point you have made.
                              This is why I think Irenaeus is basically the last generation that had something which was subsequently lost.
                              I don;t think Irenaeus got everything right either.
                              So our main source of knowledge remains His Word and His Spirit.

                              Yet how the earliest believers understood something can shed light for us.
                              This is why I noted that NONE of the ECF thought "the Holy place" was anywhere other than in the temple. Not that it is scripture, but it helps us understand how people of around that time understood it as taught.
                              This means randyk's claim is a novelty and not supported in anyway from any scripture or tradition.
                              I can't fault the way you put it now.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                                The example of the Antiochus abomination is of a defilement in the temple (statue to Zeus and pig sacrifices). Daniel also contains other references to a future abomination and a 3.5 year period which is obviously what Jesus is referring to when Jesus mentions the abomination of Daniel.

                                THEN Rev 13 concerns the rise of antichrist which we know occurs as an abominable event in the "holy place" according to 2 Thess 2 (when the antichrist declares himself God in God's holy place). Rev 13 also contains an evil image, and also mentions a 3.5 year period. Regardless of your perceived Olivet discourse fulfilment, you should be able to acknowledge this UNDENIABLE future set of events of an abomination in the holy place followed by 3.5 years as mentioned by 2 Thess 2 read with Rev 13.
                                To be honest, I don't know how an objective mind can ignore this set of events as you pointed out above? From my perspective, it fits like a hand in glove in comparison to the claimed fulfilment in 70AD that has more holes than Swiss cheese.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X