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
    No, we're just talking about the launch of a *universal* Gospel, as opposed to a strictly nationalistic Gospel to Israel. That happened before the fall of the temple in 70 AD.
    Matthew 24 is not referring any "launch".
    "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."

    That's no launch, that's the Gospel to the "whole world". "All nations". Both terms more commonly associated with the whole world, all nations, than any limited region reached by 70 AD.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
      Matthew 24 is not referring any "launch".
      "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."

      That's no launch, that's the Gospel to the "whole world". "All nations". Both terms more commonly associated with the whole world, all nations, than any limited region reached by 70 AD.
      You don't think the universal Gospel was "launched?" Before the apostles, Peter, and Paul, there was only Jesus' Gospel to the Jews. But after the resurrection, and after the ascension, the apostles began their mission in Jerusalem and branched out to include the Gentiles. If this isn't a "launch," what is it?

      I'm not referring to a "limited region," and I don't know why you suggest that? I'm saying the universal Gospel was launched earlier than 70 AD. It was launched at the general time when Jesus gave his apostles the Great Commission.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        You don't think the universal Gospel was "launched?" Before the apostles, Peter, and Paul, there was only Jesus' Gospel to the Jews. But after the resurrection, and after the ascension, the apostles began their mission in Jerusalem and branched out to include the Gentiles. If this isn't a "launch," what is it?

        I'm not referring to a "limited region," and I don't know why you suggest that? I'm saying the universal Gospel was launched earlier than 70 AD. It was launched at the general time when Jesus gave his apostles the Great Commission.
        Yes definitely, you could see Pentecost as that launching of the gospel into the world. But the Gospel reaching all nations in context of the abomination doesn't refer to Pentecost or any launch.

        Anyway good luck with trying to figure out Matt 24:14 , I think it means that this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          When looking at this verse, one should remember where John was when told to measure the Temple.
          Temple is often used for the habitat of God, not a building.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
            Yes definitely, you could see Pentecost as that launching of the gospel into the world. But the Gospel reaching all nations in context of the abomination doesn't refer to Pentecost or any launch.

            Anyway good luck with trying to figure out Matt 24:14 , I think it means that this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
            It's not a matter of luck. The way I've read it for many years is that this is a reference to the gospel reaching out to the whole world, to all nations, before the end of the age comes. But in discussing this with you, I've gone back to look at commentaries on this. And some of them--and not just a few--believe that the reference is to the *end of the temple system in Jerusalem,* and not to the end of the age.

            https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/24-14.htm Indeed, virtually all of the commentators cited believe that the focus of this "universal gospel" prophecy was on the world at that time--the Roman world. And it was largely having to do with warning the Jews of that time that the "end" was coming to their religious system under the Law of Moses--the temple system.

            If you don't want to believe this fine. But you seem to be following current trends, rather than historical trends in interpreting this. Some would argue that modern systems of interpretation are superior to older systems of interpretation. But it is just as arguable that modern systems of interpretation tend to be subject to liberalizing tendencies, and may follow cult figures who compromise the gospel for currently popular views.

            What it really boils down to is, What is the passage saying, in terms of context--not, What is the most popular view today, or what is the consensus today? If you go, for example, by the consensus of this particular forum, you're not following the Scriptures, but rather, following leading cult figures (the dominant teachers on this Forum) who use persuasion to get you to follow *them,* and not the Scriptures. We want to follow our own mind and conscience, and be faithful to Jesus, and not "love the world." I'm sure you agree? To "love the world" is to love ourselves, and to try to save our pride, rather than to die to ourselves, and serve Christ alone. I'm just asking you, politely, to take a fresh look at this, rather than take a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss, outright, anything that is different from what you have believed up until now.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by Dayle View Post
              When looking at this verse, one should remember where John was when told to measure the Temple.
              Temple is often used for the habitat of God, not a building.
              The quotation, "standing in the holy place," comes from the Olivet Discourse, Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. It doesn't come from Rev 11. However, it is worth comparing these different passages, because they both mention the temple. My own view is that the Olivet Discourse addresses the literal temple in Jerusalem, which was about to be torn down. By contrast, the Rev 11 passage was written, I believe, *after* the destruction of the temple, and refers to the temple as a symbol of Jewish worship.

              Both Ezekiel's temple (Eze 40-48) and John's temple (Rev 11) were about the temple after its physical destruction. So we're talking about symbolic views of the temple that instruct how proper Jewish worship was to be done--not about a literal restoration of the temple. I think it's pretty clear, from Hebrews, that the old temple system has been forever done away with.

              And Jesus basically said he was the new temple. Paul added to this by saying that the Church is joined to Christ to become God's temple, as well. And so, the true Jewish temple worship is spiritual, and universal, rather than limited to the old temple in Jerusalem. Rev 11, therefore, is talking about the heavenly temple, where Jews worship Christ. The Olivet Discourse, on the other hand, refers to the literal, physical temple in Jerusalem, which was about to be completely torn down.

              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!
                When you say the "same Discourse" what you really are trying to say, is that the Discourse is LIMITED to ONE thing.
                It is NOT.
                The different authors noted things which WERE 100% missing from another of the authors.
                This is SIMPLE FACT.
                Recognise FACTS about the Discourse, then you can start to move from the rhetoric and onto the fullness of what is stated.

                When Matthew noted something which is ENTIRELY missing from Luke then this means he CANNOT be meaning something different to Luke as Luke has no record of that stated thing.
                The SAME is true in reverse, when Luke notes something NOT mentioned by Matthew then this means he CANNOT be meaning something different to Matthew as Matthew has no record of that stated thing.

                What this boils down to is that you claim because certain words are placed in a certain location in Luke, that therefore words placed in a similar location in Matthew are about the SAME thing.

                Now this thread was started because I had highlighted to you that certain words are NOT used ANYWHERE in scripture to mean what you claim they mean. Therefore by itself this shows your claim as to the meaning of these words is clearly CONTRARY to scripture.
                You have been ENTIRELY unable to show that these words could mean what you claim, the best attempt being your reference to Jeremiah 31, which you have subsequently abandoned, because they actually PROVE your claim is wrong.

                However you have moved away from this unwinnable argument back to your KEY point, which is the ONLY point which has any merit at all.
                You said in post #311
                "Jesus said "endure," then X, and then "flee." What is X? Mind you, all 3 authors follow this same pattern: "endure, X, and flee."

                So the question is really whether your claimed pattern is matching scripture or not:
                Looking at Matthew we find:
                Mat 24:13* But the one who endures to the end will be saved.*
                Mat 24:14* And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

                So here we have Jesus said "endure", then He says the gospel is proclaimed throughout the whole world, then the end will come, then X and then flee.

                Looking at Luke though we find:
                Luk 21:19* By your endurance you will gain your lives.

                Here we have Jesus says "endure" then Y and then flee.

                X is the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place, and Y is Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

                Therefore your claim is NOT supported on TWO levels from the gospels.
                1) X is NOT equal to Y. The Holy Place, as I have shown you throughout scripture does NOT EVER mean Outside Jerusalem. Even your very best attempt has part of Outside Jerusalem included in the city and then it becomes holy.
                2) As important is the FACT that Matthew has the gospel proclaimed throughout the world BEFORE Y happens, but Luke does NOT have such a thing happen at all.

                Also tellingly Luke has an event AFTERWARDS recorded in verse 24 which shows that the event he is referring to occurred 2,000 years ago when the gospel had NOT been preached throughout the world.

                So we do NOT have a pattern of endure, X, flee in the gospels. Your claim is without basis.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                  Are you having a laugh? No one can take your dignity from you; any damage done is all down to you. You can't play the victim card by pleading to be allowed to "hold your own position" since it's everybody's right to take a stand and defend it. Something you've done pretty well over the years. For one who has notched over 10,000 posts, you're not a newbie around here, so stop playing the victim. To see the 'holes' in your position, you need to first, acknowledge them. But as long as you continue to propagate the views that the majority has outed as incorrect, how can you ever see them?

                  Asking me to show you "just one hole" in your extensive exegesis is more or less a rhetoric query that requires no response. Your question is further dumbfounding considering that I numerically highlighted your position on the OD back in post #325 and showed my disagreement against each of them. Fortunately, acknowledged that I articulated your position correctly in post #334. Perhaps you understand why it will be superfluous for me to point out the holes per your request?

                  Don't you think it's unbecoming of you to claim to be 'insulted' by anyone who disagrees with your views? I just have to flick back a few pages and show the number of people you've claimed to either insult you or your position. I have no reason to insult your person - I just disagree with your position. Given the years we've been breaking bread here (word of God) you should know that I'm not one to concur to what I know in my heart to be wrong so as not to hurt your ego?

                  Prophecy is not philosophy where the most entertaining or skillfully expressed theory carries the day! It is exact in its entirety! So forgive me for not being swayed by your "reasonable assumptions" as acceptable "alternatives" to understanding the discourse. The place for reasonable assumptions is in a court of law as you know. Again, I don't mean any disrespect - just responding the only way I know how.
                  Alright, brother, I'm not offended. I accept your analysis, and will try to be better. No promises though. Change never comes easy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    When you say the "same Discourse" what you really are trying to say, is that the Discourse is LIMITED to ONE thing.
                    It is NOT.
                    The different authors noted things which WERE 100% missing from another of the authors.
                    This is SIMPLE FACT.
                    Recognise FACTS about the Discourse, then you can start to move from the rhetoric and onto the fullness of what is stated.
                    There are different words, but in my view they are not different subjects. The AoD are not the same words as the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman forces. But the subject is, in my opinion, the same. And the words are similar. "Desolation" exists in both cases, because the objective of the Roman forces is to desolate the city and the sanctuary.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    When Matthew noted something which is ENTIRELY missing from Luke then this means he CANNOT be meaning something different to Luke as Luke has no record of that stated thing.
                    The SAME is true in reverse, when Luke notes something NOT mentioned by Matthew then this means he CANNOT be meaning something different to Matthew as Matthew has no record of that stated thing.
                    And as I said, for me these are not entirely different words and subjects. In both cases, the subject and words have to do with *desolation,* namely the desolation of the temple and Jerusalem.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    What this boils down to is that you claim because certain words are placed in a certain location in Luke, that therefore words placed in a similar location in Matthew are about the SAME thing.
                    Yes, that is central to my argument. It's the bologna in the sandwich. "X" is in between the same "slices of bread" in each version.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Now this thread was started because I had highlighted to you that certain words are NOT used ANYWHERE in scripture to mean what you claim they mean. Therefore by itself this shows your claim as to the meaning of these words is clearly CONTRARY to scripture.
                    You have been ENTIRELY unable to show that these words could mean what you claim, the best attempt being your reference to Jeremiah 31, which you have subsequently abandoned, because they actually PROVE your claim is wrong.
                    This is the strongest part of your argument, and yet not overwhelming to me. I base my argument not on this, but rather, on what is absolutely conclusive to me, namely that "X" is between "endure" and "flee" in all 3 versions.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    However you have moved away from this unwinnable argument back to your KEY point, which is the ONLY point which has any merit at all.
                    You said in post #311
                    "Jesus said "endure," then X, and then "flee." What is X? Mind you, all 3 authors follow this same pattern: "endure, X, and flee."
                    Yes, this is the strongest argument, and yet, I have not abandoned my main point in this thread. "In the holy place" means what it means not based on what the overwhelming use of it is in the Bible, but rather, on what the specific context requires. This is how words are used. There may very well be standard applications with nearly universal meaning. But this is only true up until a brand new context is introduced.

                    As I've said before, the standard use of "the holy place" was established by the OT worship, and thus was the universal application under that system. But when the context changed, so do the use of the term. We differ on whether "the holy place" is by necessity a proper noun or not. In your view, you think it is. In my view, it certainly is not. And so, no, I've not abandoned my argument in the least. In context, "the holy place" refers, according to Jesus, to an encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    So the question is really whether your claimed pattern is matching scripture or not:
                    Looking at Matthew we find:
                    Mat 24:13* But the one who endures to the end will be saved.*
                    Mat 24:14* And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

                    So here we have Jesus said "endure", then He says the gospel is proclaimed throughout the whole world, then the end will come, then X and then flee.

                    Looking at Luke though we find:
                    Luk 21:19* By your endurance you will gain your lives.

                    Here we have Jesus says "endure" then Y and then flee.

                    X is the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place, and Y is Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

                    Therefore your claim is NOT supported on TWO levels from the gospels.
                    1) X is NOT equal to Y. The Holy Place, as I have shown you throughout scripture does NOT EVER mean Outside Jerusalem. Even your very best attempt has part of Outside Jerusalem included in the city and then it becomes holy.
                    "In the holy place" does not have reference to inside of or outside of Jerusalem. Rather, it only has to do with *proximity* to the temple, namely the territory encompassing that general area--an area where hostile forces would gather to besiege the city.

                    Outside the walls of the city is still within proximity of the temple. Thus, it is still part of the "holy place." And "holy place" does *not* have to mean the temple, biblically. Nor does the definite article require it to be used of the temple, even if that's how it's been used. So it is context that determines what "the holy place" is, as Jesus used the term.

                    X is not exactly the same as Y, because different words are used. The AoD is a technical term, which students of biblical prophecy would've understood. Luke uses other words that Jesus used in the same context, perhaps because Luke was addressing those who were less able to understand biblical prophecy.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    2) As important is the FACT that Matthew has the gospel proclaimed throughout the world BEFORE Y happens, but Luke does NOT have such a thing happen at all.
                    I don't agree. Luke's version, Mark's version, and Matthew's version, all have the same slices of bread. Words can be omitted without changing the meaning.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Also tellingly Luke has an event AFTERWARDS recorded in verse 24 which shows that the event he is referring to occurred 2,000 years ago when the gospel had NOT been preached throughout the world.
                    I've changed my view on this. I think "the end" refers to the end of the temple and the end of Jewish worship, including the end of Jerusalem. It did not just refer to the end of the age. We seem to have a dual use of "the end" in the Olivet Discourse because the Disciples are asking Jesus about both the end of the temple and the end of the age, when Israel would be restored. They were not the same events.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    So we do NOT have a pattern of endure, X, flee in the gospels. Your claim is without basis.
                    I disagree. All 3 versions have the same pattern. Slightly different words in Luke do not imply the subject has changed. This is where you dismiss the most compelling argument of all, which is that all 3 versions are telling the exact same story!

                    I really don't care how many people on this forum disagree with me. We have a host of adept commentators in history who would agree with my view, and perhaps even with some of my arguments. When you disparage my views, you're actually disparaging views that are time-worn arguments, making your narrow view of this argument as "you vs me" a little short-sighted.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      There are different words, but in my view they are not different subjects. The AoD are not the same words as the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman forces. But the subject is, in my opinion, the same. And the words are similar. "Desolation" exists in both cases, because the objective of the Roman forces is to desolate the city and the sanctuary.
                      You FAILED to deal with my point.
                      Are there things written in Matthew which are NOT in Luke?
                      Are those things ADDING to our understanding of what Jesus said?

                      When we pay attention to what Matthew has which Luke does NOT have (and vice versa) then we easily and quickly move from a faux position of exactness, and see great differences in terminology, chronology and focus.

                      When (as you do) you IGNORE the additional things stated by Luke and Matthew, THEN you create a PRETEXT and slam TWO different events together.
                      X is NOT Y.
                      "Desolation is near" is NOT the SAME as "Abomination of Desolation" and more importantly chronologically, "desolation is near" means it has NOT happened, but "Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy place (the place it ought not be) tells us that desolation is HERE!

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        "In the holy place" does not have reference to inside of or outside of Jerusalem. Rather, it only has to do with *proximity* to the temple, namely the territory encompassing that general area--an area where hostile forces would gather to besiege the city.
                        Rubbish! "the Holy place" DOES have a VERY SPECIFIC reference to the place IN the Temple.
                        It does NOT ever mean proximity to the temple, by which you stretch it to mean in Jerusalem, which you then stretch to mean outside Jerusalem.
                        As you REFUSE to abide by EVERY scripture which mentions "the Holy Place" in the OT ("haqodesh") and NT which show it as being IN the Temple, it means you are rejecting the ENTIRE canon of scripture in order to have your OWN pet interpretation. An interpretation that NOT ONE of the ECFs held either.
                        This begs the question WHY you think you alone have the correct understanding of this reference.

                        How many more posts does it take for you to admit that "the Holy place" means EXACTLY what Jesus said, which was the SAME meaning as used in the OT and NT, a SPECIFIC place in the temple?

                        I have to keep posting on this thread as otherwise others who will read it may get the wrong impression that you have posted something true.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                          You FAILED to deal with my point.
                          Are there things written in Matthew which are NOT in Luke?
                          Are those things ADDING to our understanding of what Jesus said?

                          When we pay attention to what Matthew has which Luke does NOT have (and vice versa) then we easily and quickly move from a faux position of exactness, and see great differences in terminology, chronology and focus.

                          When (as you do) you IGNORE the additional things stated by Luke and Matthew, THEN you create a PRETEXT and slam TWO different events together.
                          X is NOT Y.
                          "Desolation is near" is NOT the SAME as "Abomination of Desolation" and more importantly chronologically, "desolation is near" means it has NOT happened, but "Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy place (the place it ought not be) tells us that desolation is HERE!
                          We are just covering old ground. The "desolation of the temple" was indeed "near" when the Roman troops stood on "holy ground" outside the walls of Jerusalem. The actual desolation had not happened yet.

                          And the words are indeed different from Matthew to Luke, but not significantly so to prove there is a change in context. Matthew speaks of the technical term "AoD," whereas Luke is less technical in explaining it to be Roman troops surrounding the city and the temple. Same context, and slightly different words.

                          I did *not* fail to deal with your point. That is clear.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                            Rubbish! "the Holy place" DOES have a VERY SPECIFIC reference to the place IN the Temple.
                            It does NOT ever mean proximity to the temple, by which you stretch it to mean in Jerusalem, which you then stretch to mean outside Jerusalem.
                            As you REFUSE to abide by EVERY scripture which mentions "the Holy Place" in the OT ("haqodesh") and NT which show it as being IN the Temple, it means you are rejecting the ENTIRE canon of scripture in order to have your OWN pet interpretation. An interpretation that NOT ONE of the ECFs held either.
                            This begs the question WHY you think you alone have the correct understanding of this reference.

                            How many more posts does it take for you to admit that "the Holy place" means EXACTLY what Jesus said, which was the SAME meaning as used in the OT and NT, a SPECIFIC place in the temple?

                            I have to keep posting on this thread as otherwise others who will read it may get the wrong impression that you have posted something true.
                            Again, I have repeatedly admitted that "the Holy Place" does refer, exhaustively and often, to the space inside the temple designated as such. And that's because it is regularly used as a proper noun for that particular location. After all, the temple worship is the focus of the worship of the Law of Moses. The entire OT Scriptures is devoted to this subject.

                            My point, as you know, is that "the holy place" is *not* a proper noun, and simply by context can change its meaning. The definite article "the" does *not* render this a proper noun by necessity. Nor does the term "holy place" always refer to the temple.

                            You may call it "rubbish" all you want, but you have simply bypassed the argument by getting "personal." That doesn't strengthen your argument.

                            The *context,* I argue, changes the application of "the holy place," which is precisely what Jesus did, based on Dan 9. There, the context is the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman troops, intent upon destroying "the city and the sanctuary."

                            This context, then, identifies the entire area around the temple, where foreign troops gather, as "the holy place." The Romans were in violation of God's "holy place" when they entered into the area that constituted a siege of the holy city and the holy temple.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                              Rubbish! "the Holy place" DOES have a VERY SPECIFIC reference to the place IN the Temple.
                              It does NOT ever mean proximity to the temple, by which you stretch it to mean in Jerusalem, which you then stretch to mean outside Jerusalem.
                              As you REFUSE to abide by EVERY scripture which mentions "the Holy Place" in the OT ("haqodesh") and NT which show it as being IN the Temple, it means you are rejecting the ENTIRE canon of scripture in order to have your OWN pet interpretation. An interpretation that NOT ONE of the ECFs held either.
                              This begs the question WHY you think you alone have the correct understanding of this reference.

                              How many more posts does it take for you to admit that "the Holy place" means EXACTLY what Jesus said, which was the SAME meaning as used in the OT and NT, a SPECIFIC place in the temple?

                              I have to keep posting on this thread as otherwise others who will read it may get the wrong impression that you have posted something true.
                              Again, I have repeatedly admitted that "the Holy Place" does refer, exhaustively and often, to the space inside the temple designated as such. And that's because it is regularly used as a proper noun for that particular location. After all, the temple worship is the focus of the worship of the Law of Moses. The entire OT Scriptures is devoted to this subject.

                              My point, as you know, is that "the holy place" is *not* a proper noun, and simply by context can change its meaning. The definite article "the" does *not* render this a proper noun by necessity. Nor does the term "holy place" always refer to the temple.

                              You may call it "rubbish" all you want, but you have simply bypassed the argument by getting "personal." That doesn't strengthen your argument.

                              The *context,* I argue, changes the application of "the holy place," which is precisely what Jesus did, based on Dan 9. There, the context is the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman troops, intent upon destroying "the city and the sanctuary."

                              This context, then, identifies the entire area around the temple, where foreign troops gather, as "the holy place." The Romans were in violation of God's "holy place" when they entered into the area that constituted a siege of the holy city and the holy temple.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                Again, I have repeatedly admitted that "the Holy Place" does refer, exhaustively and often, to the space inside the temple designated as such. And that's because it is regularly used as a proper noun for that particular location. After all, the temple worship is the focus of the worship of the Law of Moses. The entire OT Scriptures is devoted to this subject.

                                My point, as you know, is that "the holy place" is *not* a proper noun, and simply by context can change its meaning. The definite article "the" does *not* render this a proper noun by necessity. Nor does the term "holy place" always refer to the temple.

                                You may call it "rubbish" all you want, but you have simply bypassed the argument by getting "personal." That doesn't strengthen your argument.

                                The *context,* I argue, changes the application of "the holy place," which is precisely what Jesus did, based on Dan 9. There, the context is the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman troops, intent upon destroying "the city and the sanctuary."

                                This context, then, identifies the entire area around the temple, where foreign troops gather, as "the holy place." The Romans were in violation of God's "holy place" when they entered into the area that constituted a siege of the holy city and the holy temple.
                                When a word is USED as a Proper Noun, then it IS a Proper Noun. Words used in exclusion can be changed to mean other things.
                                Hammer is a word. Is it a noun or a verb? You don;t know without a CONTEXT.
                                Place the word "haqodesh" in a context and you immediately KNOW if it is being used as an adjective or a proper noun.
                                In Matt 24:15 it is being used as a proper noun. It is NOT describing ANOTHER object or place, but on its own.
                                So your point IS rubbish, as I have highlighted for you numerous times.

                                The CONTEXT, which you abandoned, demonstrates the application is to the temple.
                                Dan 9 (and other places in Daniel such as 8 and 11) show it is about the Temple.
                                The FACT that you NEED it to be about the city, even though the FOCUS is the Temple, simply highlights the issue with your view.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X