Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

holy ground in the NT?

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

  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    So you're having the *same Discourse* described by different authors as meaning different things!
    That would not be a wise approach would it.
    Jesus had this conversation with 4 of his disciples once.
    Luke got his info from either James , Andrew , Peter or John , as did Mark and Matthew...,

    Mk
    3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?”
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
      That would not be a wise approach would it.
      Jesus had this conversation with 4 of his disciples once.
      Luke got his info from either James , Andrew , Peter or John , as did Mark and Matthew...,

      Mk
      3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?”
      It's called a fortress mentality. When we get to the place where we will no longer be corrected, we lose the will to suffer a sense of disgrace. We no longer are willing to go through the arduous ordeal of facing the music, which we all *must do* as Christians. We should *never* grow weary in well-doing. If I ever get to the place where I can no longer be corrected, I think I've reached the end of my growth.

      Four guys weren't hearing 2 different stories from the same source.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        Four guys weren't hearing 2 different stories from the same source.
        That has to be right...., same goes for the 3 guys who researched that private conversation and wrote about it. They had the mind of Christ and it was canonized as such.
        And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
          I get that is the reason some people tend to see the army as the abomination, due to similar wording surrounding both events. But that gives you a problem too, because what then was the original wording actually used? If it was BOTH abomination and army in the same sentence, then why didn't Luke just record it like that?
          You may not be interested in answers to your questions, but I will give answers nonetheless, in case others ask the same questions. The fact is, Luke, Matthew, and Mark all were quoting Jesus--not making up their own stories. They may have used slightly different words--even synonyms, or absent a word or two, but the idea conveyed and the words spoken were the same.

          Therefore, the accounts were accurately representing what Jesus said in this Discourse. Matthew and Mark recorded the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not." Matthew recorded "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, close to being desolated." My thought is that Jesus said both these things, describing the same event, and that Matthew and Mark used one part and Luke used the other part, conveying the same event.

          It is likely, in my view, that Luke's audience would be less able to comprehend the "abomination of desolation." And since Jesus probably had actually mentioned Jerusalem surrounded by armies, he simply inserted that part of the description that would've been more comprehensible to his readers.

          It is not difficult to see that Jerusalem surrounded by armies, bent on destroying it, is the same thing as an abomination bent on committing desolation against Jerusalem. To "stand in the holy place" is the same thing as a pagan army besieging the holy territory of God's temple. And this holy area extended out all the way to the walls of Jerusalem and beyond. Simply by approaching Jerusalem, the pagan army, bent on destroying Jerusalem, was in violation of God's sacred territory!

          Originally posted by DurbanDude
          Luke himself was not an eyewitness , he based his gospel on research and would have come across similar phrases of Jesus many times in his research. I believe Luke's gospel is a very accurate reflection of the two events described by Jesus, he splits them quite clearly mentioning the signs, then "before all this", then going back to the signs. So his events are very clear, but his wording is borrowed even if the events are accurately listed. Who knows where he borrowed the wording from, probably Mark, so yes some phrases about one event will sound like another event. It is not the phrases used that are important but the order in which he describes the events that are important.

          Looking at the order of events, they are not in the same place. Luke describes the army in the "before all this" section before even the BEGINNING of the diaspora. Yet Matthew describes the abomination AFTER the gospel has been preached to ALL NATIONS and in strong end-times context. I see similarity of wording in that whenever Jerusalem is under immediate threat it is good to flee to the mountains, but otherwise not much similarity in context at all.
          I do believe you're misinterpreting these events, and thus putting them out of order. All 3 versions have the same basic order. But you may be hardened against any other position than what you think "everybody believes."

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            So you're having the *same Discourse* described by different authors as meaning different things!
            Different authors quote different parts of the Olivet discourse. We know that they do because they each mention something the other does not mention, proving that they each quote different parts of the Olivet discourse. Therefore we have to read the order of events to see what message each is giving and where to place the army, and where to place the abomination. The gospels overlap somewhat, and differ somewhat. This is fact.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by randyk View Post
              If you would only hypothesize, along with me, in considering my pov, I have explanations for every one of your concerns. But if you've made up your mind, and you can dismiss the points I make about this, I supposed I'm wasting my time?
              Well the gospels are not rocket science. It is pretty clear what is said. When a phrase is ambiguous, then we look at normal biblical usage of that phrase. It's no use repeating arguments we have had before, I am open to new ones though, your view that the gospel preached to all nations is a first century event, frankly I disagree with.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                You may not be interested in answers to your questions, but I will give answers nonetheless, in case others ask the same questions. The fact is, Luke, Matthew, and Mark all were quoting Jesus--not making up their own stories. They may have used slightly different words--even synonyms, or absent a word or two, but the idea conveyed and the words spoken were the same.

                Therefore, the accounts were accurately representing what Jesus said in this Discourse. Matthew and Mark recorded the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not." Matthew recorded "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, close to being desolated." My thought is that Jesus said both these things, describing the same event, and that Matthew and Mark used one part and Luke used the other part, conveying the same event.

                It is likely, in my view, that Luke's audience would be less able to comprehend the "abomination of desolation." And since Jesus probably had actually mentioned Jerusalem surrounded by armies, he simply inserted that part of the description that would've been more comprehensible to his readers.
                So you believe Luke in effect messed with the original words of Jesus , so he could interpret them in a manner consistent with his views of the abomination after the 70AD event occurred? I believe Luke was more accurate than that, if you are correct, this makes Luke an inaccurate book. I don't believe you are correct, Luke was a very accurate historian who recorded events clearly.



                It is not difficult to see that Jerusalem surrounded by armies, bent on destroying it, is the same thing as an abomination bent on committing desolation against Jerusalem. To "stand in the holy place" is the same thing as a pagan army besieging the holy territory of God's temple. And this holy area extended out all the way to the walls of Jerusalem and beyond. Simply by approaching Jerusalem, the pagan army, bent on destroying Jerusalem, was in violation of God's sacred territory!
                We've been through this before. The word abomination was never used in biblical history to describe an army of judgment, and was actually used in biblical history to describe an actual abomination of a despicable religious object in the temple grounds. Using that history as our example, it would be better exegesis to look for a despicable religious object in the temple grounds than an army of judgment.

                I do believe you're misinterpreting these events, and thus putting them out of order. All 3 versions have the same basic order. But you may be hardened against any other position than what you think "everybody believes."
                You may have noticed that I have never cared what the majority thinks, we have enough tools at our disposal to develop our own opinions. I am not "hardened" against anything, I just accept the events as described and keep to what makes the most sense. Like I said in my previous post, this is not rocket science. The events simply unfold as described. And Luke and Mathew do not record the exact same set of events, Luke records an army and the captivity of Jews, Matthew does not mention either.
                Matthew records the gospel preached to ALL NATIONS then the abomination, Luke does not mention either.
                Your explanation that Luke was inserting his own wording both discredits Luke as an historian and discredits you; you who would want to base your views on what you yourself think is a loose translation.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                  Different authors quote different parts of the Olivet discourse. We know that they do because they each mention something the other does not mention, proving that they each quote different parts of the Olivet discourse. Therefore we have to read the order of events to see what message each is giving and where to place the army, and where to place the abomination. The gospels overlap somewhat, and differ somewhat. This is fact.
                  Correction to my previous post (I cannot edit):
                  "Therefore, the accounts were accurately representing what Jesus said in this Discourse. Matthew and Mark recorded the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not." [Luke] recorded "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, close to being desolated." My thought is that Jesus said both these things, describing the same event, and that Matthew and Mark used one part and Luke used the other part, conveying the same event."

                  Yes, each of the synoptic authors recorded what Jesus actually said, with minor editorial changes. The relationship between

                  "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" and
                  "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, [rendering] near [its] desolation"

                  are of negligible differentiation. They mean basically the same thing, and the unbiased reader might assume they were different phrases for the same thing. Hence, none of these authors felt the need to explain the difference. Since they placed these phrases in the exact same place in Jesus' Discourse, and since they all knew each other, and since they likely knew one another's versions, they would've felt the need to explain the differences had the different wording been significant.

                  But the fact is, and unbiased mind would assume that Jesus used both these phrases and used them in the exact same place to represent the exact same event. It seems highly likely that Luke used a less "biblically literate expression" to convey to his audience what Matthew and Mark used with confidence that those knowledgeable of Daniel would understand as a technical term--the AoD.

                  Not only were the different phrases given in the same place in the Discourse but they both express a "desolation" in the context of Jesus' main prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, the "holy place" refers to the sacred area around the temple, where the desolator would threaten the temple. And it would be viewed as an "abomination" simply because it was a foreign intruder, presenting a pagan violation of the holy city.

                  The things you call "fact" have nothing to do with resolving this troubling notion that Jesus referred to 2 separate events in the exact same place in the Discourse. In my view that is difficult pill to swallow. The Reign of Antichrist is far, far removed from both this Discourse and from the destruction of the temple in 70 AD!

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                    Well the gospels are not rocket science. It is pretty clear what is said. When a phrase is ambiguous, then we look at normal biblical usage of that phrase. It's no use repeating arguments we have had before, I am open to new ones though, your view that the gospel preached to all nations is a first century event, frankly I disagree with.
                    That is not my view. My view is that the focus was on the expansion of the gospel beyond Israel to include all nations, rather than make it into a time clock for the end of the age. Often we are told that Christ cannot come until every last tribe and language has been reached with the gospel. I'm not of that opinion. Jesus was focused upon the need to make the gospel to Israel a gospel to the world. That happened immediately.

                    But I'm certainly not saying that the gospel mission would be limited to the 1st century. Hardly! The gospel mission has gone on throughout the NT age, and will, like Jesus said, continue until the last day of the age. It will even continue in the reign of Antichrist.

                    Again, my point is that Jesus' focus was on what had to immediately happen--not in how long it would continue. What had to immediately happen was a change from an exclusively-Jewish gospel to a universal gospel. That happened with the ministries of Peter and Paul, along with others. All the apostles ultimately went beyond the borders of Israel to reach the world. That prophecy had to take place initially.

                    I agree there is the notion that the gospel ultimately has to reach all nations and languages. But I'm not sure we get to decide when this requirement has been adequately met? The primary picture is one of Israel's failure to achieve the Kingdom of God, and of the necessity of warning the world about the same things that Israel was warned about.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                      haha I enjoyed that cheese analogy. You have a creative way of expressing yourself.

                      Even if you split off what he himself regards as 70AD verses, still the Olivet discourse is vastly more concerned with the second coming. Rev 13 does fit like a glove into this second coming context.
                      Thank you for your kind words.

                      I disagree with Randy on different levels regarding the OD.

                      1. He believes the "holy place" Jesus pointed to as where the AoD will be cited is the vicinity outside the temple. I totally disagree with this view as I believe the holy place is non-other than the temple's inner sanctum.

                      2. He believes the AoD is the Roman soldiers surrounding the temple - I don't share this view either. I believe the AoD will actually be either or both, the man of sin sitting in the temple claiming to be God or his image placed in the temple to mirror the actions of his antitype - Antiochus IV. (2 Thess 2:4, Rev 13)

                      3. He believes the Great Tribulation is protracted Jewish distress that started from 70AD to end when Jesus returns. I understand it as an intensive, unprecedented catastrophe of epic proportions that will occur in the end-times and will require divine intervention to end it so as to save lives. (Matt 24:22)

                      4. He believes the GT in the OD is exclusively a Jewish experience. Again, this is an unjustifiable claim given several clues in scripture that suggest it will be worldwide (Rev 7:9).

                      5. He believes that to "shorten or cut short" the GT means bringing his 1900+years old distress to an end when Jesus returns. This interpretation does not align with scripture. Describing its intensity, Jesus said expressly that it will be unprecedented so much so it won't ever be repeated again. Therefore, I don't know how it could have lasted 1900 years and instead of wiping out life, Israel is thriving. So either Jesus lied or there is a serious error with this interpretation!

                      6. Finally, he believes the primary theme of the OD was the Jews and the judgment of 70AD. Again, I see it differently. I believe the focus is about Christ' Second coming with the events (plural) that will occur before his return plainly outlined. 70AD happens to be just one of these events. Secondly, although those addressed were Jews (the disciples), the OD, however, is for Israel [the unbelieving Jew - that he may hopefully save his life/soul in Christ] and the Church (Jew and Gentile).

                      I have been debating the Olivet Discourse with Randy for years and I do hope the above shows that I fully understand his argument, even though he claims I don't. So when you said that I "split off what he regards as the 70AD verses" this should clarify that I did not.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                        So you believe Luke in effect messed with the original words of Jesus , so he could interpret them in a manner consistent with his views of the abomination after the 70AD event occurred? I believe Luke was more accurate than that, if you are correct, this makes Luke an inaccurate book. I don't believe you are correct, Luke was a very accurate historian who recorded events clearly.
                        You are going down the same rabbit hole that ForHisglory went down, and he ended up slandering me as "satanic!" I never said such a thing! I do believe the synoptic authors made minor editorial changes, when they quoted Jesus. But their quotations were in effect perfectly appropriate representations of what Jesus literally said. An author may make, for example, minor variations to accommodate his audience. If, for example, an audience may understand one synonym better than another, it wouldn't violate the truth by substituting a different synonym, as long as the meaning was the same.

                        In this particular instance I actually believe Jesus said *both things*--I don't think Luke changed the wording from "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies." I'm not sure Mark changed the wording from "standing in the holy place" to "standing where it ought not." I'm not sure Mark changed the wording from "spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" to "let the reader understand."

                        My belief is that Jesus said essentially all of these things, with very minor editorial differences. Jesus likely said something like:

                        "For those of you who know Daniel, the abomination of desolation, written in Daniel about the Roman armies coming to desolate Jerusalem and the temple, will stand in the holy place, prepared to destroy Jerusalem."

                        From this theoretical account Matthew and Mark could address more knowledgeable Jews, who knew Daniel, and refer to the "abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place," whereas Luke could address Gentiles ignorant of Daniel, who would not understand the term "abomination of desolation." Luke could pick out the part his Gentile audience would understand, which was armies besieging Jerusalem, to destroy the temple.

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude
                        We've been through this before. The word abomination was never used in biblical history to describe an army of judgment, and was actually used in biblical history to describe an actual abomination of a despicable religious object in the temple grounds. Using that history as our example, it would be better exegesis to look for a despicable religious object in the temple grounds than an army of judgment.
                        Your assumption here is, I believe, an error. Who said that there has to be a trail of verbiage in this particular context? This is a unique change in the history of Israel--certainly not the 1st major judgment of Israel, but only the 2nd destruction of the mature nation! The AoD vocabulary is unique in Israel's history, originating from Daniel. In fact, you won't even find anything about Antichrist except in Daniel! Would you therefore dismiss the "little horn" as unacceptable verbiage? No.

                        So we have to look at the context to interpret the meaning of these words. There is a fallacy associated with trying to use the same meaning of words throughout the Bible, instead of relying on the particular context to interpret them. It is *context* that is king, brother--not how words and phrases have been used everywhere else. A brand new context requires a brand new look for the interpretation. Words are that way. If we had used your methodology for Jesus as Messiah we would never have accepted him as such. The terminology was so lacking that the Jews of his day reject Jesus as an "unproven Messiah!"

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude
                        You may have noticed that I have never cared what the majority thinks, we have enough tools at our disposal to develop our own opinions. I am not "hardened" against anything, I just accept the events as described and keep to what makes the most sense. Like I said in my previous post, this is not rocket science. The events simply unfold as described. And Luke and Mathew do not record the exact same set of events, Luke records an army and the captivity of Jews, Matthew does not mention either.
                        Yet here is your bias. You may view yourself as completely objective, and you may indeed be sincere in believing that. And yet you seem unwilling to hear the total evidence. You seem to rely upon more recent schools of eschatology, which is Hal Lindsey-like. It is like trying to read the Olivet Discourse as a list of signs to identify the last generation! But this was not the approach Jesus used, since he downplayed any effort to predict times and seasons.

                        And quite frankly, Hal Lindsey's approach has been entirely discredited, because he claimed that Jesus would return within 40 years of the restoration of Israel in 1948. Then it was said Jesus would return within 40 years of the restoration of Jerusalem to Israel in 1967. And then it was said that Jesus would return with 70 years of Israel's rebirth in 1948. It is now more than 70 years from the rebirth of Israel in 1948! These kinds of prognostications are wrong, and unbiblical. And quite frankly, they are based on misinterpretations of the text!

                        You say only Luke describes the invasion of Jerusalem, and yet you try to make Matthew and Mark about the *same thing* with respect to Antichrist! And it is patently false to say that Matthew and Mark did not refer to the same things as Luke because *they all recorded the same Address of Jesus!* They were all focused on the destruction of the temple in *their generation.* So your presumptions override the realities, and you simply dismiss evidence to the contrary. Apparently modern eschatological speculations dominate your preconceived notions of this Address?

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude
                        Matthew records the gospel preached to ALL NATIONS then the abomination, Luke does not mention either.
                        Your explanation that Luke was inserting his own wording both discredits Luke as an historian and discredits you; you who would want to base your views on what you yourself think is a loose translation.
                        I did not say that. You draw conclusions from false presumptions about what you think I said. You're doing the same thing with the Olivet Discourse. You're drawing false conclusions from presumptions you're making about what you think Matthew, Mark, and Luke said. The differences in all 3 versions are negligible. I've shown you that, and yet you've hardened yourself against this view. Why?

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                          Matthew records the gospel preached to ALL NATIONS then the abomination, Luke does not mention either.
                          Your explanation that Luke was inserting his own wording both discredits Luke as an historian and discredits you; you who would want to base your views on what you yourself think is a loose translation.
                          If you compare the 3 synoptic versions of Jesus' reference to the "preaching of the gospel to all nations" you will find that they did indeed all refer to that event. It just doesn't describe what *you think* this meant. Again, you are using it as a time clock. But Jesus meant no such thing. Study it out, brother, and you'll find I'm right. I've posted this information several times already.

                          The preaching of the gospel was intended to be an immediate change from Israel to the world. It was meant to be a testimony against hostile forces, to defend the truth--not just Billy Graham crusades. And it was meant to be a warning against imminent judgment, after the message had been delivered.

                          But I will develop these things only if there is interest. Up to now I've found very little interest in ideas outside of a closed set of ideas shared by some people here.

                          Luke 21.13 And so you will bear testimony to me.

                          In context, the preaching of the gospel is a defense against an evil world in an evil age. And it is a warning to the world that judgment will follow rejection of the truth.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            I was almost on my way to London, via JustFly, who just, for some reason, cancelled our tickets. We could've had tea, although both my wife and I prefer coffee.
                            Wouldn't that be wonderful?

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                              That would not be a wise approach would it.
                              Jesus had this conversation with 4 of his disciples once.
                              Luke got his info from either James , Andrew , Peter or John , as did Mark and Matthew...,

                              Mk
                              3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?”
                              And this requires that any meaningful interpretation should be gleaned from the 3 Gospels that covered the subject rather than build a case with Luke.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                                Thank you for your kind words.

                                I disagree with Randy on different levels regarding the OD.

                                1. He believes the "holy place" Jesus pointed to as where the AoD will be cited is the vicinity outside the temple. I totally disagree with this view as I believe the holy place is non-other than the temple's inner sanctum.

                                2. He believes the AoD is the Roman soldiers surrounding the temple - I don't share this view either. I believe the AoD will actually be either or both, the man of sin sitting in the temple claiming to be God or his image placed in the temple to mirror the actions of his antitype - Antiochus IV. (2 Thess 2:4, Rev 13)

                                3. He believes the Great Tribulation is protracted Jewish distress that started from 70AD to end when Jesus returns. I understand it as an intensive, unprecedented catastrophe of epic proportions that will occur in the end-times and will require divine intervention to end it so as to save lives. (Matt 24:22)

                                4. He believes the GT in the OD is exclusively a Jewish experience. Again, this is an unjustifiable claim given several clues in scripture that suggest it will be worldwide (Rev 7:9).

                                5. He believes that to "shorten or cut short" the GT means bringing his 1900+years old distress to an end when Jesus returns. This interpretation does not align with scripture. Describing its intensity, Jesus said expressly that it will be unprecedented so much so it won't ever be repeated again. Therefore, I don't know how it could have lasted 1900 years and instead of wiping out life, Israel is thriving. So either Jesus lied or there is a serious error with this interpretation!

                                6. Finally, he believes the primary theme of the OD was the Jews and the judgment of 70AD. Again, I see it differently. I believe the focus is about Christ' Second coming with the events (plural) that will occur before his return plainly outlined. 70AD happens to be just one of these events. Secondly, although those addressed were Jews (the disciples), the OD, however, is for Israel [the unbelieving Jew - that he may hopefully save his life/soul in Christ] and the Church (Jew and Gentile).

                                I have been debating the Olivet Discourse with Randy for years and I do hope the above shows that I fully understand his argument, even though he claims I don't. So when you said that I "split off what he regards as the 70AD verses" this should clarify that I did not.
                                Trivalee you misunderstood that last sentence of mine. I see you do understand his posts and I wasn't implying anything else.

                                This is what I meant:
                                Even if one splits the Olivet discourse according to Randyk's own division of 70AD and second coming events, even by his own view there are more verses in the OD that deal with the second coming, than deal with 70AD. (I hope that is less ambiguous, you know I battle to express my thoughts sometimes.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X