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
    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.
    No, you are IGNORING, that the NEAR refers to 66 AD, but the HERE refers to 70 AD. An almost 4 year gap. So TWO different SIGNS, for TWO different TIMES. One is NEAR, the other is HERE.
    Now IF Matthew IS being technical then this MUST refer to the place IN the Temple. So you are actually disagreeing with yourself.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
      No, you are IGNORING, that the NEAR refers to 66 AD, but the HERE refers to 70 AD. An almost 4 year gap. So TWO different SIGNS, for TWO different TIMES. One is NEAR, the other is HERE.
      Now IF Matthew IS being technical then this MUST refer to the place IN the Temple. So you are actually disagreeing with yourself.
      No, that has never been an issue with me, and I can't read your mind. There may be a problem in pointing out a difference between 66 AD and 70 AD for you, but it isn't for me.

      The Roman invasion in 66 AD was merely called the "Abomination of Desolation" because it was an identification of who would desolate the temple--not necessarily the army of 66 AD. Generically, it would be a "Roman Army" that desolates the temple. And that means the initial Army in 66 AD identified who it was that would actually do the desolating--namely, a Roman Army.

      After all, Jesus identified the AoD as Roman "armies," plural. The Army in 66 AD identified the Army in 70 AD--they were all the same Roman entity. No contradiction. Simple answer.

      The fact the desolation was relatively "near" in 66 AD--just 3 years before the actual desolation, it was an indication that it was a warning signal for Christians to escape before 70 AD. The AoD, therefore, arrived in 66 AD, giving indication to the fact it was near to being implemented.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        No, that has never been an issue with me, and I can't read your mind. There may be a problem in pointing out a difference between 66 AD and 70 AD for you, but it isn't for me.
        So is 66 AD the SAME time as 70 AD? Really? Does 4 years NOT matter. That was a period in which Jesus had His ministry, the expected length of the ACs rule, but to you 4 years is immaterial?
        Weird.

        After all, Jesus identified the AoD as Roman "armies," plural.
        Nope, Jesus NEVER did. In your HEAD you have Jesus say this, but NOWHERE in scripture do we find this.
        Also the AoD is in the SINGULAR and NOT the plural.
        Abomination is the ANS (Accusative Neuter Singular) and Desolation is GFS (Genitive Feminine Singular).

        I know you have ZERO scripture support for your view. I do wonder why you persist in your fantasy that they are the same thing? Perhaps it is because you are used to pretrib supporters doing the same, but pushing it all into the future? When you RELY on a PRETEXT then you should KNOW that your interpretation is wrong. Stick to the CONTEXT always.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          So is 66 AD the SAME time as 70 AD? Really? Does 4 years NOT matter. That was a period in which Jesus had His ministry, the expected length of the ACs rule, but to you 4 years is immaterial?
          Weird.


          Nope, Jesus NEVER did. In your HEAD you have Jesus say this, but NOWHERE in scripture do we find this.
          Also the AoD is in the SINGULAR and NOT the plural.
          Abomination is the ANS (Accusative Neuter Singular) and Desolation is GFS (Genitive Feminine Singular).

          I know you have ZERO scripture support for your view. I do wonder why you persist in your fantasy that they are the same thing? Perhaps it is because you are used to pretrib supporters doing the same, but pushing it all into the future? When you RELY on a PRETEXT then you should KNOW that your interpretation is wrong. Stick to the CONTEXT always.
          I don't have a clue what you're going on about? It has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I claimed that Jesus referred to "armies"--plural. This means that the AoD in 66 AD includes the Army of 70 AD. The AoD showed up in 66 AD, and pointed forward to the AoD of 70 AD. They were "armies"--plural.

          Now you say this is not so. The mind boggles!

          Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

          Do you see the word in bold--"armies." That is plural, as I see it. Maybe I need to go back to the Greek to look it up, but I have confidence that the translators got it right. A better words might be "camps."

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            I don't have a clue what you're going on about? It has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I claimed that Jesus referred to "armies"--plural. This means that the AoD in 66 AD includes the Army of 70 AD. The AoD showed up in 66 AD, and pointed forward to the AoD of 70 AD. They were "armies"--plural.

            Now you say this is not so. The mind boggles!

            Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

            Do you see the word in bold--"armies." That is plural, as I see it. Maybe I need to go back to the Greek to look it up, but I have confidence that the translators got it right. A better words might be "camps."
            You said "armies" - plural = "AoD".
            I have highlighted that "AoD" is NOT plural but singular.

            And further armies in Luke 21:20 speaks of the armies which surrounded Jerusalem in 66 AD.
            There was one overall commander Cestius, but he commanded a number of armies.

            A modern example is Eisenhower, who was Supreme Allied Commander of the armies (plural) in Europe.
            This meant he was in charge of a number of armies who were each led by their own Generals, but under him.
            There were 12 nations involved in D-Day, which was a single invasion but spread over an area, and involved US First Army (under Bradley) and British Second Army (under Dempsey)

            So in modern terms armies does not mean at different dates. But what about in the time of Jesus? A single legion was considered an army. The greek though used is this:
            G4760
            στρατόπεδον
            stratopedon
            strat-op'-ed-on
            From the base of G4756 and the same as G3977; a camping ground, that is, (by implication) a body of troops: - army.

            This literally speaks of encampments, which is what a besieging army does, has various encampments around a city.
            Cestius Gallus, not only had his Legio XII Fulminata, but also detachments from 3 other legions, and six cohorts of auxiliary infantry and 4 alae of cavalry, plus another 14,000 troops provided by Agrippa II. So he had armies with which to surround Jerusalem.

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              You said "armies" - plural = "AoD".
              I have highlighted that "AoD" is NOT plural but singular.

              And further armies in Luke 21:20 speaks of the armies which surrounded Jerusalem in 66 AD.
              There was one overall commander Cestius, but he commanded a number of armies.

              A modern example is Eisenhower, who was Supreme Allied Commander of the armies (plural) in Europe.
              This meant he was in charge of a number of armies who were each led by their own Generals, but under him.
              There were 12 nations involved in D-Day, which was a single invasion but spread over an area, and involved US First Army (under Bradley) and British Second Army (under Dempsey)

              So in modern terms armies does not mean at different dates. But what about in the time of Jesus? A single legion was considered an army. The greek though used is this:
              G4760
              στρατόπεδον
              stratopedon
              strat-op'-ed-on
              From the base of G4756 and the same as G3977; a camping ground, that is, (by implication) a body of troops: - army.

              This literally speaks of encampments, which is what a besieging army does, has various encampments around a city.
              Cestius Gallus, not only had his Legio XII Fulminata, but also detachments from 3 other legions, and six cohorts of auxiliary infantry and 4 alae of cavalry, plus another 14,000 troops provided by Agrippa II. So he had armies with which to surround Jerusalem.
              I was just arguing my point, that 66 AD and 70 AD go together, to form the "AoD." You're saying you disagree, and I understand that. I'm putting forward evidence of my position. You ignore this evidence simply because you hold to a different position.

              Your argument was that 66 AD and 70 AD were separated by 3-4 years. My argument was that the language of a plurality of armies indicates a singularity of attack within the same strategic time frame in which Rome sought to put down a Jewish rebellion.

              The fact these armies approached Jerusalem in 2 separate time frames is ameliorated by the fact they were part of the same historic attempt to desolate Jerusalem and to put down the Jewish rebellion. They were all part of the same "Abomination of Desolation." They were both a pagan incursion into holy territory, designed to destroy both the city and the sanctuary.

              The 1st military encroachment upon holy territory by Cestius Gallus in 66 AD made the "desolation near." The 2nd military encroachment actually completed the "desolation" initiated by Cestius Gallus. It was completed by a 2nd Army in 70 AD under Titus.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                I was just arguing my point, that 66 AD and 70 AD go together, to form the "AoD." You're saying you disagree, and I understand that. I'm putting forward evidence of my position. You ignore this evidence simply because you hold to a different position.
                I don't ignore your evidence. You CLAIM I ignore it every time I show that it is not evidence which supports such a claim.
                Being near and being here are clearly NOT the same.

                Your argument was that 66 AD and 70 AD were separated by 3-4 years. My argument was that the language of a plurality of armies indicates a singularity of attack within the same strategic time frame in which Rome sought to put down a Jewish rebellion.
                And I dealt with your argument about plurality of armies, as it is a SINGLE moment, being 66 AD.
                Further IF you study Roman history you will realise that a lot changed within those 4 years and there is NOT a single strategic time frame.

                [QUOTEThe fact these armies approached Jerusalem in 2 separate time frames is ameliorated by the fact they were part of the same historic attempt to desolate Jerusalem and to put down the Jewish rebellion. They were all part of the same "Abomination of Desolation." They were both a pagan incursion into holy territory, designed to destroy both the city and the sanctuary.

                The 1st military encroachment upon holy territory by Cestius Gallus in 66 AD made the "desolation near." The 2nd military encroachment actually completed the "desolation" initiated by Cestius Gallus. It was completed by a 2nd Army in 70 AD under Titus.[/QUOTE]
                So IF 66 AD was NEAR, then the HERE was 70 AD, which is a SEPARATE event.
                The attacks of Vespasian and Titus was NOT part of Cestius Gallus fight, but an entirely separate and new strategy with different Legions and leadership.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  So IF 66 AD was NEAR, then the HERE was 70 AD, which is a SEPARATE event.
                  The attacks of Vespasian and Titus was NOT part of Cestius Gallus fight, but an entirely separate and new strategy with different Legions and leadership.
                  The 2 advances were together the AoD. The AoD was a plurality of "armies," including both 1st and 2nd advances. The 1st advance made the attack "near." The 2nd advance completed the "desolation." The Disciples were to identify the AoD during the 1st advance, when it was "near." I think we're done here?

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by randyk View Post
                    The 2 advances were together the AoD. The AoD was a plurality of "armies," including both 1st and 2nd advances. The 1st advance made the attack "near." The 2nd advance completed the "desolation." The Disciples were to identify the AoD during the 1st advance, when it was "near." I think we're done here?
                    The AoD was NOT a plurality of armies, it was a SINGULAR event.
                    The plurality of armies happened in 66 AD, and a separate plurality of armies happened in 70 AD.
                    There was no AoD in the 1st advance, as that was only that a desolation was near. However the disciples were told to look out for that and then flee.
                    However the 2nd advance there were no disciples around, so that would make it a separate event and also something the disciples did not see.
                    I think your view is indeed done.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      The AoD was NOT a plurality of armies, it was a SINGULAR event.
                      The plurality of armies happened in 66 AD, and a separate plurality of armies happened in 70 AD.
                      There was no AoD in the 1st advance, as that was only that a desolation was near. However the disciples were told to look out for that and then flee.
                      However the 2nd advance there were no disciples around, so that would make it a separate event and also something the disciples did not see.
                      I think your view is indeed done.
                      I've tried to explain to you that this is just a disagreement--we can't debate the fact we have a difference of opinion. We can only debate by advancing new arguments. We've run out of arguments, brother! We've already covered this ground.

                      I believe the 66 and 70 AD advances were all a single operation, and you don't. We can't debate the fact we disagree on this. There is no new information forthcoming. You think these are 2 separate operations. And I think they are the same operation, in terms of the language of the AoD.

                      I think the AoD expresses the fact the desolation would take place in 70 AD, but was meant to ID *who* the AoD was in the 1st advance. In my view, it is the *Roman Army* generically who is the AoD, as a combination of both 66 AD and 70 AD advances. The 1st advance *identified* the AoD, whereas the last advance completed the operation.

                      We can't just declare my position right, and your position wrong, without just arguing in futile fashion. We are bringing nothing new to the discussion. If you truly do have anything new to bring to the argument, but all means share this!

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        I've tried to explain to you that this is just a disagreement--we can't debate the fact we have a difference of opinion. We can only debate by advancing new arguments. We've run out of arguments, brother! We've already covered this ground.

                        I believe the 66 and 70 AD advances were all a single operation, and you don't. We can't debate the fact we disagree on this. There is no new information forthcoming. You think these are 2 separate operations. And I think they are the same operation, in terms of the language of the AoD.

                        I think the AoD expresses the fact the desolation would take place in 70 AD, but was meant to ID *who* the AoD was in the 1st advance. In my view, it is the *Roman Army* generically who is the AoD, as a combination of both 66 AD and 70 AD advances. The 1st advance *identified* the AoD, whereas the last advance completed the operation.

                        We can't just declare my position right, and your position wrong, without just arguing in futile fashion. We are bringing nothing new to the discussion. If you truly do have anything new to bring to the argument, but all means share this!
                        I have been dealing with this along the lines of HISTORICAL reality and in terms of the words used.
                        The AoD IF it refers to the 1st century, would be referring to 70 AD, when the desolation is HERE. This is how the ECFs who claim it has happened argued.
                        However you are the one trying to roll in a different event which occurred 4 years earlier with different leadership and different armies and different agenda / purpose and where the desolation is NEAR.

                        This ALL shows that it is NOT one event, but two.
                        You don't seem able to accept that FACT.

                        Now what you are trying to do is make it as ONE war, and therefore ONE event. However the language used speaks of TWO events even IF in ONE war.
                        Therefore Luke 21 is NOT speaking of the SAME armies as Matt 24 does.
                        Now with your 1st advance, 2nd advance you are starting to recognise and accept that as a reality.
                        However by doing so, then it means that Luke is NOT simply stating the SAME thing as Matt 24, but is ADDITIONAL information which Matthew has NOT conveyed, just as Matthew has ADDITIONAL information which Luke has NOT conveyed.
                        By recognising that this is FACT, and that Luke has something Matthew doesn't and vice versa, it then blows out of the water YOUR claim that they are the SAME thing, as BOTH are ADDITIONAL!
                        Yet you seem unable to grasp this simple TRUTH.

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                          I have been dealing with this along the lines of HISTORICAL reality and in terms of the words used.
                          The AoD IF it refers to the 1st century, would be referring to 70 AD, when the desolation is HERE. This is how the ECFs who claim it has happened argued.
                          However you are the one trying to roll in a different event which occurred 4 years earlier with different leadership and different armies and different agenda / purpose and where the desolation is NEAR.

                          This ALL shows that it is NOT one event, but two.
                          You don't seem able to accept that FACT.

                          Now what you are trying to do is make it as ONE war, and therefore ONE event. However the language used speaks of TWO events even IF in ONE war.
                          Therefore Luke 21 is NOT speaking of the SAME armies as Matt 24 does.
                          Now with your 1st advance, 2nd advance you are starting to recognise and accept that as a reality.
                          You have quite a sense of humor. I've been stating there were 2 advances and 2 separate armies for quite awhile now. Yes, the actual "desolation" took place in 70 AD, and following. But yes, the initial identification of *who* would desolate in 70 AD happened in 66 AD. This was not, in my view, identifying the specific *military contingent* that would do the desolating. Rather, it was identifying the ethnicity, or nationality, or the army to do the desolating. And it was identifying the general time frame, or the overall campaign that would definitely lead to the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.

                          In this case, it was the *Roman* army, in this specific time frame, or in this particular invasion, that would be the "desolator." Yes, for me it was all a single campaign, designed to put down the immediately preceding Jewish rebellion. It began in 66 AD and ended in 70 AD--all a single AoD.

                          Originally posted by ForHisglory
                          However by doing so, then it means that Luke is NOT simply stating the SAME thing as Matt 24, but is ADDITIONAL information which Matthew has NOT conveyed, just as Matthew has ADDITIONAL information which Luke has NOT conveyed.
                          By recognising that this is FACT, and that Luke has something Matthew doesn't and vice versa, it then blows out of the water YOUR claim that they are the SAME thing, as BOTH are ADDITIONAL!
                          Yet you seem unable to grasp this simple TRUTH.
                          What you fail to grasp is that you're just repeating the same old arguments. You simply don't agree with me--get over it! No, the 3 gospel accounts are giving the *same information.* The AoD was to be identified from the start so as to give Jesus' followers time to escape.

                          All the accounts say this. The AoD is identified *before* the desolation. That's common sense. It's makes perfect sense to have 2 military advances during the same campaign. And it makes perfect sense to identify a later advance so as to have time to escape it.

                          The AoD was identified in 66 AD. The generically-same Roman Army (not the same contingent) would appear 3-4 years later, and achieve total destruction. This gave time for Jesus' followers to escape. That was the *intent* of the Discourse!

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            You have quite a sense of humor. I've been stating there were 2 advances and 2 separate armies for quite awhile now. Yes, the actual "desolation" took place in 70 AD, and following. But yes, the initial identification of *who* would desolate in 70 AD happened in 66 AD. This was not, in my view, identifying the specific *military contingent* that would do the desolating. Rather, it was identifying the ethnicity, or nationality, or the army to do the desolating. And it was identifying the general time frame, or the overall campaign that would definitely lead to the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.

                            In this case, it was the *Roman* army, in this specific time frame, or in this particular invasion, that would be the "desolator." Yes, for me it was all a single campaign, designed to put down the immediately preceding Jewish rebellion. It began in 66 AD and ended in 70 AD--all a single AoD.
                            So now Luke 21 is about WHO? And then Matt 24 is about WHAT?

                            What you fail to grasp is that you're just repeating the same old arguments. You simply don't agree with me--get over it! No, the 3 gospel accounts are giving the *same information.* The AoD was to be identified from the start so as to give Jesus' followers time to escape.
                            All the accounts say this. The AoD is identified *before* the desolation. That's common sense. It's makes perfect sense to have 2 military advances during the same campaign. And it makes perfect sense to identify a later advance so as to have time to escape it.
                            The AoD was identified in 66 AD. The generically-same Roman Army (not the same contingent) would appear 3-4 years later, and achieve total destruction. This gave time for Jesus' followers to escape. That was the *intent* of the Discourse!
                            No I have not being simply repeating myself (except when you have).
                            And as one identifies WHO and the other identifies WHAT, then clearly they are NOT giving the SAME information as WHO is NOT the same as WHAT!

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                              So now Luke 21 is about WHO? And then Matt 24 is about WHAT?


                              No I have not being simply repeating myself (except when you have).
                              And as one identifies WHO and the other identifies WHAT, then clearly they are NOT giving the SAME information as WHO is NOT the same as WHAT!
                              I repeat: all 3 Gospels recount the same conversation, including the same subjects. Luke is not introducing something different, except that the term "abomination of desolation" is not used. That appears to be a more technical term which those more familiar with biblical prophecy would immediately identify with Dan 9. The AoD is the invading Roman Army, beginning the campaign with the 1st advance under Cestius Gallus in 66 AD, and completing the campaign in 70 AD under General Titus. The AoD comprises both armies, or both advances. It is all a single campaign, designed to bring down the Jewish revolt. What is so difficult about this?

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                I repeat: all 3 Gospels recount the same conversation, including the same subjects. Luke is not introducing something different, except that the term "abomination of desolation" is not used. That appears to be a more technical term which those more familiar with biblical prophecy would immediately identify with Dan 9. The AoD is the invading Roman Army, beginning the campaign with the 1st advance under Cestius Gallus in 66 AD, and completing the campaign in 70 AD under General Titus. The AoD comprises both armies, or both advances. It is all a single campaign, designed to bring down the Jewish revolt. What is so difficult about this?
                                So now Luke is NOT giving additional information, in which case BOTH are about the WHO and the WHAT contrary to your earlier assertion.
                                There is NO AoD in Luke 21. Luke even notes that desolation is NEAR, and not HERE.
                                And Luke 21 does NOT say it is Abomination of Desolation.
                                Moreover Luke cannot be writing short-hand for Matthew, so IF the Abomination was in view, then Luke would have put it as such, especially as he would have been told about the Abomination by the eyewitness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X