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 DurbanDude View Post
    Oh really. When challenged about your integrity, your response is that you unapologetically "play hardball" with your Christian brothers. Definition: to behave in an unpleasant threatening way so that you can get what you want.

    Some relevant fruits of the Spirit: love, peace, forbearance (restraint and tolerance) , kindness, goodness, gentleness.

    As you say God can defend his own word, he therefore doesn't need your deliberate unpleasantness to assist him. I wish you all the best as you examine your heart.
    My heart is fine. You should examine the posts leading up to my "hard ball" approach. They were on the "insulting" side. But I'm not crying about it.

    So let's leave the personal commentary aside for a moment. I've argued what I believe to be a reasonable position. Jesus begins this famous Discourse with a reference to the destruction of the temple, which took place in 70 AD. Most scholars agree on this.

    But then you diminish the importance of this point for the whole of the Discourse, choosing to emphasize, instead, the 2nd Coming, because for you the 2nd Coming is mentioned more often and is the most important event. None of this proves what the Discourse is actually saying, however. It is just tabulating how many times something is mentioned, and what is the more important event in history. I could write a book on the plague of the Middle Ages, and mention the 2nd Coming throughout, and yet the book would still be on the plague of the Middle Ages, with only a multitude of references to the 2nd Coming!

    But you dismiss all this, and in fact insult my views, as if I'm off in Left Field. Fine--that's the consensus here pretty much. But the fact remains that the Discourse sets as its subject the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Then you begin, one by one, to dismiss all other verses as having anything to do with that event, even if it's possible they do so. You dismiss the AoD, which in Daniel is mentioned close to the destruction of the temple. You dismiss the Jewish Diaspora, since it's only in Luke. You dismiss the initial signs leading up to the destruction of the temple, because one of the signs, the gospel mission, lasts until the end of the age. You completely ignore that *all* of these initial signs were present *before* the temple fell in 70 AD, even if they continue to take place long after.

    You see, you insult my view when you don't even touch upon my view being "unreasonable." And you think playing hardball isn't an acceptable way of getting your attention? Of course it is. Sometimes being a little "direct" appears to be rude and mean-spirited. That isn't my goal. I'm just trying to shake things up a bit, since "group think" seems to be forming a "resistance" to any probing questions.

    Let me go back and review this subject, which some think here is too repetitious and too ongoing. I assumed a position that is a bit unusual, and yet dignified with lots of scholarly support in a number of its important elements. The Early Church Fathers held to my position that this Discourse was largely about the 70 AD destruction. I provided proof of that, even though FHg continues to deny the undeniable.

    What makes this view seemingly "intolerable" in our era of prophetic sensationalism is the fact my view is similar to Preterism. I in fact have had to agree with the Preterists that the Olivet Discourse is largely about the 66-70 AD war! And I'm not upset that some have drawn attention to the link between my position and Preterism.

    But then, even though I clearly pointed out the difference between my position and Preterism, some here continued to name-call, and to call me a Preterist, even though it is untrue. It was used as a means of rendering my view disreputable to the group as a whole, and to completely avoid the arguments.

    By now, my view remains on the periphery because the group inference was that they are battling Preterism, rather than the question of what the main topic of the Discourse was. Viewing the destruction of the temple as the main topic of the Discourse is *not* Preterism!

    None of this is an argument for or against Preterism. It is just an argument for what the Discourse is primarily focused upon. My wish is to break up the "group think" to get honest individuals like you to think independently. And if you feel insulted by my inference that you are part of the "group think," good! That's my goal, for you to not want to be in any way associated with group thinking that relies on insults, rather than facts. If we can get back to facts, and leave aside the personal commentary, I will be the happiest guy around here!

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      A little history on this particular thread for my good brother DurbanDude.

      In post #300 Trivalee, who I happen to like as a brother, wrote to you that my view was like Swiss cheese!

      ForHisglory, who regularly insults me, agreed in post #302.

      Then in post #307 you said this:
      "aha I enjoyed that cheese analogy. You have a creative way of expressing yourself."

      But now you're complaining that I'm playing hardball? I'm just defending myself against a gang of thugs!

      Don't get me wrong. I can take it in the right spirit. But it is a little insulting that some have called for an end to my debate with ForHisglory because it has "dominated too many threads." And yet here you are, claiming that all of my arguments just amount to Swiss cheese!

      If this is all that's been accomplished, I'm going back to work, arguing my position.

      In post #228 Trivalee said this:
      "Why are you so obstinate on matters regarding the OD which you are mostly wrong, I don't get it?"

      Trivalee later denied this was insulting, even though he calls me "obstinate" for views that he considers "mostly wrong" in his opinion. This assumes I'm stubborn for not agreeing with him most of the time?

      But then in post #233 you say this:
      "You guys still at it? You should leave him to his beliefs, it's not like he will get a following, most people will have more common sense than just to take up any idea oft repeated."

      Again, you consider this not an insult, whereas my playing hardball is a "heart ailment?" It is, in fact, an attempt at group dismissal by marginalizing my views as "out of the mainstream." The fact is, in the Early Church it was a "mainstream" view!

      Then, in post #249 you said this:
      "That's one way of dealing with it, I can't deal with the sheer repetition."

      So you think that a position that is "overdone" still has holes like Swiss cheese? You'd think I would've repented years ago! In reality, a position so impossible to defend should've been blown away by the wind long ago, unless of course, your description of "Swiss cheese" doesn't hold up?

      Trivalee in post #36 called my my views an extreme "dogmatism," that was "exclusive to me."

      He also said this in post #135:
      "I note how sensitive you've become for being called out regarding your position on the OD, but the truth is that your position is WRONG and scripturally indefensible. It's something you need to deal with."

      And so I'm dealing with it, brother. If you think my view is "Swiss cheese," you've certainly failed to find the holes! So I'm fine with "brotherly insults." But if the arguments are ruining your attitude, you might want to step aside for awhile on this particular issue? That's what I have to do sometimes.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
        Convince yourself that sequence isn't important. I would be entertained to hear if you get a following on that concept.

        If anyone is reading this debate,
        please just read the two chapters for yourself and decide if the army comes before the Jewish captivity of Luke 21. And also read Matthew 24 and see that the abomination comes after the Gospel is preached to all nations, in second coming context.
        For what it's worth DurbanDude, I too, do not accept the Roman soldiers as the AoD.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
          For what it's worth DurbanDude, I too, do not accept the Roman soldiers as the AoD.
          I should hope you have complete liberty to state and hold to your opinion. Completely fine by me. You could even be right. My only concern here is that I be given the same dignity, to argue and hold to my position, until it actually becomes indefensible. Not only have I failed to see the "Swiss chees," but I have failed to see a single hole in my position at all! Please give me just one?

          But I have no problem with you disagreeing and holding to another position. On this forum, however, you should be able to defend it against any and all challenges. And I haven't seen you do that. I just see you insult my position, or try to marginalize it as "not part of the group think."

          The AoD only has a number of possible views. As I've said repeatedly, it is completely reasonable to assume that the AoD in Matthew and Mark is the "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops" in Luke. This is the "bologna in between the slices of bread" in *all 3 versions!* You don't have to agree, but to call this "Swiss cheese" is a poor characterization indeed, particularly when the Church Fathers largely agreed that the AoD took place in the 66-70 AD time period, generally.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post

            If anyone is reading this debate,
            please just read the two chapters for yourself and decide if the army comes before the Jewish captivity of Luke 21.
            Yes it does . It comes in response to the question asked...,

            Lk 21
            5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
            7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”


            So those in Judea were to flee etc.


            20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled



            Matthew answers the same question.

            Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
            3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”


            Those in Judea were told to flee.

            15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

            For Matt and Lk it was the same Bat time -same Bat channel as they tuned into his words....made obvious by the highlighted text.
            And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
              Yes it does . It comes in response to the question asked...,

              Lk 21
              5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
              7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”


              So those in Judea were to flee etc.


              20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled



              Matthew answers the same question.

              Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
              3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”


              Those in Judea were told to flee.

              15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

              For Matt and Lk it was the same Bat time -same Bat channel as they tuned into his words....made obvious by the highlighted text.
              Luke places the army before the captivity. Nearly 2000 years ago.

              Matthew places the abomination after the Gospel had been preached to all nations, a recent event.

              The two events of the army and abomination are therefore separated by nearly 2000 years. To counter this straightforward argument some say sequence is unimportant, at the same time claiming the two events are in the same place in sequence. There's some irony in that.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                Matthew places the abomination after the Gospel had been preached to all nations, a recent event.
                No.
                He places the desolation as during the preaching of good news of Jesus as they are given good news that they must heed his word and flee when they see the signs of the temple being torn down to the ground and desolated.
                And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                  No.
                  He places the desolation as during the preaching of good news of Jesus as they are given good news that they must heed his word and flee when they see the signs of the temple being torn down to the ground and desolated.
                  I'm not sure if sequence of events in the OD is important to you, I regard sequence as important. The abomination occurs after the gospel is preached to all nations, it's a modern event.

                  14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

                  15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                    Luke places the army before the captivity. Nearly 2000 years ago.

                    Matthew places the abomination after the Gospel had been preached to all nations, a recent event.
                    No he does not. Jesus places the Gospel preached as a universal message in the 1st generation, and continuing. Jesus never said the Abomination of Desolation would follow the full accomplishment of that mission. That is plain false! Did Jesus say that when the Gospel mission is complete, and the end has come, only then will the AoD take place? Of course not! Your saying so is pure presumption, and entirely illogical, in my thinking.

                    Originally posted by DurbanDude
                    The two events of the army and abomination are therefore separated by nearly 2000 years. To counter this straightforward argument some say sequence is unimportant, at the same time claiming the two events are in the same place in sequence. There's some irony in that.
                    Another absurd comment. In Gen 1 we read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

                    Immediately after that we read that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

                    That means a sequence between these 2 things does *not* mean there is a time sequence between them. And your claim that the full proclamation of the gospel until the end must precede, in time, the AoD is a false deduction. It is very apparent that the beginning of the Gospel mission preceded the AoD. But the end of the Gospel mission did *not* precede the AoD. You have a very, very bad system of interpretation.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                      I'm not sure if sequence of events in the OD is important to you, I regard sequence as important. The abomination occurs after the gospel is preached to all nations, it's a modern event.
                      Sequence is important when the context calls for it. If you are not understanding the context, you will apply sequence where it does not belong.

                      The Abomination does *not* take place after the Gospel mission is finished. The Gospel mission is finished at the last day of the age, when there is no chance that an abomination will take place any more!

                      Originally posted by DurbanDude
                      14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

                      15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
                      When "the end comes,* the age will be over. There will no longer be any opportunity for an "abomination" to come! This passage is not saying that when the Gospel mission is finished being preached the *endtimes* will take place. No, it is saying that when the Gospel mission is completed, there will begin immediately a new age!

                      No, brother. Sequence is important only when context calls for it. What is important here is the context, which indicates "all these things will take place in *this generation*." What things will take place in this generation? It is the things surrounding the main event being discussed, which is the destruction of the temple. The temple will be destroyed in "this generation."

                      And we know that event did take place in that generation, because it took place 40 years after Jesus said it. God waited with patience as long as He could in that generation, waiting 40 years until that generation had nearly passed away!

                      This was a critical prophecy, because Israel is the model for all of the other nations. What would happen to Israel would become a warning to all nations, and in fact part of the Gospel warning about divine judgment. And so, when the Gospel is preached, this event should be preached, as well.

                      The Abomination of Desolation was an explicit reference to the "desolation" of Jerusalem, just as Luke indicated in ch. 21. Your argument over sequence destroys this context, and this is why I'm so adamant in insisting on addressing the problem here.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                        I'm not sure if sequence of events in the OD is important to you, I regard sequence as important. The abomination occurs after the gospel is preached to all nations, it's a modern event.

                        14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

                        15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
                        Who is in Judea right at the end?

                        Those in Judea have already been exiled a long time ago when the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

                        You speak of a future desolation that totally ignores what happened in the past when not one stone remained on another. You are assuming a return from exile post 70AD that is not even hinted at in the OD.

                        20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short
                        Their flight refers to the exile of AD70.
                        And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                          Who is in Judea right at the end?

                          Those in Judea have already been exiled a long time ago when the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

                          You speak of a future desolation that totally ignores what happened in the past when not one stone remained on another. You are assuming a return from exile post 70AD that is not even hinted at in the OD.



                          Their flight refers to the exile of AD70.
                          God knew there would be a return from exile. Have you noticed there's a country called Israel?

                          I'm hoping that you noticed that the prophecy also deals with the second coming too, and it is this context that the abomination occurs, after the gospel is preached to all nations.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            . And your claim that the full proclamation of the gospel until the end must precede, in time, the AoD is a false deduction. It is very apparent that the beginning of the Gospel mission preceded the AoD. But the end of the Gospel mission did *not* precede the AoD. You have a very, very bad system of interpretation.
                            I never said "the full proclamation of the gospel" must precede the AoD. That concept would mean that no-one will preach during the GT, I would never imply anything like that. With transport limitations to distant continents it is only recently that this could be fulfilled:

                            14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
                            15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains


                            The AoD is an end-times concept.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                              I never said "the full proclamation of the gospel" must precede the AoD. That concept would mean that no-one will preach during the GT, I would never imply anything like that. With transport limitations to distant continents it is only recently that this could be fulfilled:

                              14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
                              15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains


                              The AoD is an end-times concept.
                              As I indicated, this is pure presumption on your part, that "the end" refers to "the endtimes." Not the same thing! When Jesus here refers to "the end" he is talking about the last day of the age, with no more possibility of abominations! You have yet to prove "the end" means "the endtimes?"

                              Not only so, but your scenario destroys the entire context of the Olivet Discourse. As I said Jesus was talking about the Main Topic, which was the *desolation of the temple,* which took place in 70 AD! And this Discourse was talking about "all these things taking place in this generation," referring to the generation of Jesus' disciples. We know that the temple was desolated in 70 AD, in the very generation that Jesus said it would happen.

                              To then say that the abomination of *desolation* has anything to do with something other than the *desolation* of the temple is ludicrous, that this has something to do with the *endtimes,* and not with *Jesus' generation,* is ludicrous. You completely overturn the context in favor of endtimes sensationalism, wanting to make every historic prophecy of Jesus about some endtimes scenario?

                              You have regularly implied the idiocy of my position, and yet that is what the Church Fathers believed, who were closer in time to the disciples of Jesus. You think we have an "advantage" in understanding these things in the endtimes when we completely destroy the context of Jesus' statements?

                              I'd be careful about suggesting idiocy or obstinacy of views that clearly do rely on context here, views that have been corroborated by the Church Fathers, and views that have been legitimized by historical interpreters. To assume that your small group of friends have the "obvious truth," and that it is "beyond dispute," are playground antics, in my view. Why not dignify historic views with the respect they deserve, wrong or right?

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                As I indicated, this is pure presumption on your part, that "the end" refers to "the endtimes." Not the same thing! When Jesus here refers to "the end" he is talking about the last day of the age, with no more possibility of abominations! You have yet to prove "the end" means "the endtimes?"
                                I never even mentioned "the end".

                                My focus is on the Bible wording "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"

                                This was written just before the abomination occurs in Matthew 24. It means the Gospel must first be preached to all nations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X