Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

holy ground in the NT?

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

  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    Sorry, your questions betray a lack of understanding of what I'm actually saying. Please reread.

    I'm not arguing that one is "who," and one is "what"--that's your argument. I've argued that all accounts are referring to the same AoD event, comprising 2 advances, 1 making the desolation "near," and the other making the desolation "here."

    I didn't say Luke 21 mentions the AoD--in fact, I said just the opposite. What I did say is that the AoD event is in all 3 accounts, though Luke does *not* specifically refer to the AoD terminology. I did *not* say Luke was "short-hand" for Matthew--I said Luke referred to the same AoD that Matthew referred to without using the AoD terminology.

    You simply need to get my story right before trying to present it as something you can't agree with.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      Sorry, your questions betray a lack of understanding of what I'm actually saying. Please reread.

      I'm not arguing that one is "who," and one is "what"--that's your argument. I've argued that all accounts are referring to the same AoD event, comprising 2 advances, 1 making the desolation "near," and the other making the desolation "here."

      I didn't say Luke 21 mentions the AoD--in fact, I said just the opposite. What I did say is that the AoD event is in all 3 accounts, though Luke does *not* specifically refer to the AoD terminology. I did *not* say Luke was "short-hand" for Matthew--I said Luke referred to the same AoD that Matthew referred to without using the AoD terminology.

      You simply need to get my story right before trying to present it as something you can't agree with.
      No, I have got your story right, and you confirm it in this quote and which I have underlined.

      Luke 21 EXPLICITLY states "desolation is near":
      20“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

      This means Luke is reporting about the 1st advance ONLY.

      The question therefore is whether Matthew 24 is reporting the 2nd advance.

      Luke 21:20 certainly does NOT speak about the 2nd advance, but verse 21 and after then speaks of what will happen when it is here.

      This means quite simply that Luke 21 is therefore NOT speaking of the AoD as being HERE.
      This means that Luke 21 is NOT saying the same thing as Matt 24:15.

      When you finally drop the FALSE claim that they are saying the SAME thing, then you can get into what they REALLY are saying.

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
        No, I have got your story right, and you confirm it in this quote and which I have underlined.

        Luke 21 EXPLICITLY states "desolation is near":
        20“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

        This means Luke is reporting about the 1st advance ONLY.

        The question therefore is whether Matthew 24 is reporting the 2nd advance.

        Luke 21:20 certainly does NOT speak about the 2nd advance, but verse 21 and after then speaks of what will happen when it is here.

        This means quite simply that Luke 21 is therefore NOT speaking of the AoD as being HERE.
        This means that Luke 21 is NOT saying the same thing as Matt 24:15.

        When you finally drop the FALSE claim that they are saying the SAME thing, then you can get into what they REALLY are saying.
        No, you don't represent my view properly. I do see Luke, Matthew, and Mark as all representing *both* 1st and 2nd advances. Luke refers to the desolation of the temple, which is the 2nd advance. As I said, my view is that the AoD represents the Roman Army, including both advances. You divide these events up into two--I don't. I do recognize two advances, but reference to the AoD is a reference to both advances. Together they represent the "Abomination of Desolation." The 1st advance is the place where the AoD is identified. But this presumes the 2nd advance will actually accomplish the desolation.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          No, you don't represent my view properly. I do see Luke, Matthew, and Mark as all representing *both* 1st and 2nd advances. Luke refers to the desolation of the temple, which is the 2nd advance. As I said, my view is that the AoD represents the Roman Army, including both advances. You divide these events up into two--I don't. I do recognize two advances, but reference to the AoD is a reference to both advances. Together they represent the "Abomination of Desolation." The 1st advance is the place where the AoD is identified. But this presumes the 2nd advance will actually accomplish the desolation.
          Yes I HAVE represented your view accurately. What you don;t seem to like is me picking your view apart.
          Do you agree that verse 20 is about the 1st advance and then from verse 21 is about the 2nd?
          Are you claiming that Matt 24:15 is about the 1st advance or do you accept it is about the 2nd? (as Eusebius et all do.)

          There is NO identification in Luke 21:20 of the 1st advance being an Abomination, so your claim that it is identified there is missing from the verse.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            Yes I HAVE represented your view accurately. What you don;t seem to like is me picking your view apart.
            You're quite wrong there, brother! I solicit your challenges! That's the whole reason I post my views, to get a clear view of my opinion and its problems. The things you "pick apart" don't appear to face my position properly. By all means, continue to "pick my view apart," if you have concerns. You just need to get a grasp of what my position really is.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            Do you agree that verse 20 is about the 1st advance and then from verse 21 is about the 2nd?
            Are you claiming that Matt 24:15 is about the 1st advance or do you accept it is about the 2nd? (as Eusebius et all do.)
            I've told you, and you just don't get it. You claim to get it, but you don't. This isn't an insult, but a recognition that you are overconfident about what you think you understand about my position.

            The very questions you ask here betray a lack of understanding of my position. I probably just need to get ever more detailed about this particular issue.

            Again, I believe all synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse refer to the AoD, even though Luke doesn't use the actual AoD terminology. The AoD is identified as such in the 1st advance. The AoD accomplishes its predicted task in the 2nd advance. Together, these 2 advances represent the AoD, which the Disciples were to watch out for in the 1st advance, but were to expect a completion of in the 2nd advance.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory
            There is NO identification in Luke 21:20 of the 1st advance being an Abomination, so your claim that it is identified there is missing from the verse.
            Again, you show that you reject my position, which explains why you don't understand it. The terminology of the AoD is not mentioned in Luke 21. But it is there identified as the thing to be watched out for, presenting a sign of the need to escape. The 1st advance did allow them time to escape since the Roman army withdrew.

            The real point here is that the 1st advance did not have to actually accomplish the desolation in order to be identified as the AoD. The identification was not a matter of which advance accomplished the desolation. Rather, it was a matter of identifying which *campaign* would accomplish the desolation. And the Roman advance of 66 AD identified the campaign that would eventually lead to the Roman desolation in 70 AD.

            If you still cannot get this, I may have to give up on the conversation altogether. I don't just want to argue the point at this juncture--I just want to be sure you understand what I believe, whether you agree or not?

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              Originally posted by randyk View Post
              You're quite wrong there, brother! I solicit your challenges! That's the whole reason I post my views, to get a clear view of my opinion and its problems. The things you "pick apart" don't appear to face my position properly. By all means, continue to "pick my view apart," if you have concerns. You just need to get a grasp of what my position really is.
              I've told you, and you just don't get it. You claim to get it, but you don't. This isn't an insult, but a recognition that you are overconfident about what you think you understand about my position.
              The very questions you ask here betray a lack of understanding of my position. I probably just need to get ever more detailed about this particular issue.
              Again, I believe all synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse refer to the AoD, even though Luke doesn't use the actual AoD terminology. The AoD is identified as such in the 1st advance. The AoD accomplishes its predicted task in the 2nd advance. Together, these 2 advances represent the AoD, which the Disciples were to watch out for in the 1st advance, but were to expect a completion of in the 2nd advance.
              No, you do NOT like challenges. You simply reject anything that shows your view doesn't fit with the meaning of words or CONTEXT or anything else.
              I also have faced your position correctly.
              It is a very basic claim that Luke 21 is stating the same as Matt 24.
              IOW you ENTIRELY ignore the differences and the focus of each gospel writer and try to make an omelette of it all, instead of eggs sunny side up.
              Luke doesn't use AoD terminology at all, which makes it problematic to claim he is then speaking of the AoD as he makes ZERO reference to it. In fact your view REQUIRES that you use a PRETEXT.
              Further the AoD is NOT identified in anyway with a 1st advance. There is NO requirement for an AoD to have a 1st advance at all.
              This is something else which seems entirely to have slipped your mind when proposing your view.

              Nowas there is NO 1st advance with the AoD, there is also no 2nd advance.

              Again, you show that you reject my position, which explains why you don't understand it. The terminology of the AoD is not mentioned in Luke 21. But it is there identified as the thing to be watched out for, presenting a sign of the need to escape. The 1st advance did allow them time to escape since the Roman army withdrew.
              The real point here is that the 1st advance did not have to actually accomplish the desolation in order to be identified as the AoD. The identification was not a matter of which advance accomplished the desolation. Rather, it was a matter of identifying which *campaign* would accomplish the desolation. And the Roman advance of 66 AD identified the campaign that would eventually lead to the Roman desolation in 70 AD.
              If you still cannot get this, I may have to give up on the conversation altogether. I don't just want to argue the point at this juncture--I just want to be sure you understand what I believe, whether you agree or not?
              No, I reject your position because I do understand it, and it does NOT fit with the meaning of words, nor the usage in CONTEXT.

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                No, you do NOT like challenges. You simply reject anything that shows your view doesn't fit with the meaning of words or CONTEXT or anything else.
                I also have faced your position correctly.
                It is a very basic claim that Luke 21 is stating the same as Matt 24.
                IOW you ENTIRELY ignore the differences and the focus of each gospel writer and try to make an omelette of it all, instead of eggs sunny side up.
                Luke doesn't use AoD terminology at all, which makes it problematic to claim he is then speaking of the AoD as he makes ZERO reference to it. In fact your view REQUIRES that you use a PRETEXT.
                Further the AoD is NOT identified in anyway with a 1st advance. There is NO requirement for an AoD to have a 1st advance at all.
                This is something else which seems entirely to have slipped your mind when proposing your view.

                Nowas there is NO 1st advance with the AoD, there is also no 2nd advance.

                No, I reject your position because I do understand it, and it does NOT fit with the meaning of words, nor the usage in CONTEXT.
                If you understand my position you should stop debating with simple disagreement. You have nothing more to bring.

                I don't care if you reject my arguments. But if all we're doing is rejecting each other's position, why are we still arguing at all?

                My interest in debate is not to win an argument, but rather, to bring in all of the relevant facts. Brothers in Christ should be agreed when all of the facts come in. It isn't even a matter of who's winning an argument! It's a matter of bringing in all of the relevant facts, and then humbly submitting to the truth.

                I believe the AoD consists of 2 advances, one in 66 AD and one in 70 AD. Recognition of the AoD *as a sign to escape* took place in 66 AD. Recognition of the fulfilled act of desolation took place in 70 AD. It was the same AoD not because they were the same advances, but because they were both part of the same campaign, to defeat the Jewish rebellion. If you disagree, and have nothing more to add, let it go.

                You don't think the AoD consists of 2 advances. No big deal. We will disagree on a good many things. But it's senseless to continue to argue something when we have nothing more to bring to the table.

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  If you understand my position you should stop debating with simple disagreement. You have nothing more to bring.
                  I don't simply disagree, I highlight the detail of why I disagree and request you to show why my understanding is wrong. It is you who fails to go beyond simply disagreeing.
                  In this thread I explained to you why your understanding of "the Holy place" is wrong. And rather than accept it, you disagreed, which is your choice, but then when followed up as to why you disagree, you did NOT deal with the REALITY that scripture ALWAYS applies the SAME meaning to "the Holy place".

                  My interest in debate is not to win an argument, but rather, to bring in all of the relevant facts. Brothers in Christ should be agreed when all of the facts come in. It isn't even a matter of who's winning an argument! It's a matter of bringing in all of the relevant facts, and then humbly submitting to the truth.
                  Yes FACTS are what should be brought to the debate. I presented you with the FACTS of scripture, but you choose to reject the FACTS as if those FACTS are irrelevant.
                  So when you are willing to humbly submit to the TRUTH, or present a FACT which shows you have the truth, then things progress in the discussion.

                  I believe the AoD consists of 2 advances, one in 66 AD and one in 70 AD. Recognition of the AoD *as a sign to escape* took place in 66 AD. Recognition of the fulfilled act of desolation took place in 70 AD. It was the same AoD not because they were the same advances, but because they were both part of the same campaign, to defeat the Jewish rebellion. If you disagree, and have nothing more to add, let it go.
                  You don't think the AoD consists of 2 advances. No big deal. We will disagree on a good many things. But it's senseless to continue to argue something when we have nothing more to bring to the table.
                  We know what you believe, and we also know as a FACT that there was an advance in 66 AD which was turned into a rout and the armies involved where defeated and destroyed.
                  His main army was the Legio XII Fulminata, reinforced with units of III Gallica, IIII Scythica, and VI Ferrata.
                  Some 6,000 Roman troops were killed and many more wounded in the battle, with Legio XII Fulminata losing its aquila, as Gallus abandoned his troops in disarray, fleeing to Syria. After his defeat Judea was lost to the Romans until Vespasian raised another force.
                  Vespasian, along with legions X Fretensis and V Macedonica, landed at Ptolemais in April 67. There he was joined by his son Titus, who arrived from Alexandria at the head of Legio XV Apollinaris

                  Notice not the same Legions as were involved in the 66 AD attack.

                  There was NO AoD in 66 AD, further the forces which had attacked in 66 AD were NOT bringing Abomination nor seeking at that time to cause any abomination or destruction of the temple. They were simply seeking to restore Roman rule.

                  The point is that Luke makes NO mention of the AoD, and Matthew makes no mention of an earlier advance.
                  This is you attempting to cobble together statements which are NOT simply saying the same thing in other words, but actually different pieces of information altogether.

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    I don't simply disagree, I highlight the detail of why I disagree and request you to show why my understanding is wrong. It is you who fails to go beyond simply disagreeing.
                    In this thread I explained to you why your understanding of "the Holy place" is wrong. And rather than accept it, you disagreed, which is your choice, but then when followed up as to why you disagree, you did NOT deal with the REALITY that scripture ALWAYS applies the SAME meaning to "the Holy place".
                    I did deal directly with your point, and we are simply at an impasse. We cannot always come to instant agreement. As I've told you before, you have a good argument. But I believe the stronger argument is that when comparing all of the versions of the Olivet Discourse, they must all agree with Luke's version. And that version requires that the "holy place" be interpreted in a unique context--at the time the Roman Army assembled at the walls of Jerusalem. This is what makes me reject your argument--not the lack of soundness in your argument, but rather, the broader context of *agreement among the synoptic versions of this Discourse.*

                    Your argument is that "the holy place" must *always* refer to the room in the temple called the "Holy Place" because exhaustive use of the term applied as such in the OT Scriptures. But as I argued, exhaustive use is only true until it is no longer exhaustive--until it meets an exception. This is true of *all words* in the Scriptures. They mean what they mean as originally used until they meet an exception. This is also true of "the holy place." It only refers to the Holy Place of the temple until it doesn't.

                    Again, if "the holy place" had to be used as a proper noun, then it would likely have to refer to the temple room. But since "holy place" is clearly, in Scriptures, not always used as a proper noun, and does not always refer to the temple, it is *not* a proper noun and does not have to apply as such to the temple room.

                    Not even the use of the word "the" (or Hebrew equivalent) indicates that "holy place" has to be used as a proper noun. The word "the" only identifies the thing to which the "holy place" applies, based on the particular context. And the context Jesus spoke in was different than the room in the temple. It was an assemblage of Roman soldiers outside the walls of Jerusalem, with the intention of destroying the city and the temple.

                    Why do you ask me to argue this repeatedly? We simply disagree. Maybe in the future we will get more information? But until then why not just let it go? You don't have to make accusations and personal attacks.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    Yes FACTS are what should be brought to the debate. I presented you with the FACTS of scripture, but you choose to reject the FACTS as if those FACTS are irrelevant.
                    So when you are willing to humbly submit to the TRUTH, or present a FACT which shows you have the truth, then things progress in the discussion.
                    No progress is being made.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    We know what you believe, and we also know as a FACT that there was an advance in 66 AD which was turned into a rout and the armies involved where defeated and destroyed.
                    His main army was the Legio XII Fulminata, reinforced with units of III Gallica, IIII Scythica, and VI Ferrata.
                    Some 6,000 Roman troops were killed and many more wounded in the battle, with Legio XII Fulminata losing its aquila, as Gallus abandoned his troops in disarray, fleeing to Syria. After his defeat Judea was lost to the Romans until Vespasian raised another force.
                    Vespasian, along with legions X Fretensis and V Macedonica, landed at Ptolemais in April 67. There he was joined by his son Titus, who arrived from Alexandria at the head of Legio XV Apollinaris

                    Notice not the same Legions as were involved in the 66 AD attack.
                    Yes, I've not had any trouble understanding your argument. My argument also still stands. I define the AoD as the Roman Army. The Roman Army was there in 66 AD, and also in 70 AD. Same Roman Army--different groups. Even if they were different armies in different advances they were still both *the Roman Army!*

                    That's what makes it the AoD from my perspective. Both advances were the Roman Army--the AoD. Jesus intended for his disciples to see them as all part of a single campaign, and yet in 2 stages. The 1st stage warned them to flee. The 2nd stage was final. Your argument is logical, but does not unsettle my own argument. Again, this is an impasse and should be set aside for future reference. Why repeat the same arguments over and over?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    There was NO AoD in 66 AD, further the forces which had attacked in 66 AD were NOT bringing Abomination nor seeking at that time to cause any abomination or destruction of the temple. They were simply seeking to restore Roman rule.
                    This shows you don't understand my argument. I'm not arguing that the "abomination" took place in the 1st advance, though that could perhaps be argued. I'm rather arguing that the 1st advance enabled the disciples to identify a Roman campaign that would soon become inescapable. The desolation would take place soon after. The desolator could be identified prior to that desolation.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory
                    The point is that Luke makes NO mention of the AoD, and Matthew makes no mention of an earlier advance.
                    This is you attempting to cobble together statements which are NOT simply saying the same thing in other words, but actually different pieces of information altogether.
                    From my perspective this is completely false. Luke mentions the AoD not by reference to the term "AoD," but rather by reference to the same event that is mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13. Use of the word "desolation" is plainly there in Luke 21.20.

                    And both Mark and Matthew make reference to the 1st advance simply by identifying the need to be forewarned of an escape *before* the desolation takes place. How could then *not* refer to the 1st advance if that was the warning signal for the final advance?

                    Matt 24.15 “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."

                    This is intended to be an *advance warning,* obviously. This was Matthew's reference to an "earlier advance."

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      I did deal directly with your point, and we are simply at an impasse. We cannot always come to instant agreement. As I've told you before, you have a good argument. But I believe the stronger argument is that when comparing all of the versions of the Olivet Discourse, they must all agree with Luke's version. And that version requires that the "holy place" be interpreted in a unique context--at the time the Roman Army assembled at the walls of Jerusalem. This is what makes me reject your argument--not the lack of soundness in your argument, but rather, the broader context of *agreement among the synoptic versions of this Discourse.*

                      Your argument is that "the holy place" must *always* refer to the room in the temple called the "Holy Place" because exhaustive use of the term applied as such in the OT Scriptures. But as I argued, exhaustive use is only true until it is no longer exhaustive--until it meets an exception. This is true of *all words* in the Scriptures. They mean what they mean as originally used until they meet an exception. This is also true of "the holy place." It only refers to the Holy Place of the temple until it doesn't.

                      Again, if "the holy place" had to be used as a proper noun, then it would likely have to refer to the temple room. But since "holy place" is clearly, in Scriptures, not always used as a proper noun, and does not always refer to the temple, it is *not* a proper noun and does not have to apply as such to the temple room.

                      Not even the use of the word "the" (or Hebrew equivalent) indicates that "holy place" has to be used as a proper noun. The word "the" only identifies the thing to which the "holy place" applies, based on the particular context. And the context Jesus spoke in was different than the room in the temple. It was an assemblage of Roman soldiers outside the walls of Jerusalem, with the intention of destroying the city and the temple.

                      Why do you ask me to argue this repeatedly? We simply disagree. Maybe in the future we will get more information? But until then why not just let it go? You don't have to make accusations and personal attacks.



                      No progress is being made.



                      Yes, I've not had any trouble understanding your argument. My argument also still stands. I define the AoD as the Roman Army. The Roman Army was there in 66 AD, and also in 70 AD. Same Roman Army--different groups. Even if they were different armies in different advances they were still both *the Roman Army!*

                      That's what makes it the AoD from my perspective. Both advances were the Roman Army--the AoD. Jesus intended for his disciples to see them as all part of a single campaign, and yet in 2 stages. The 1st stage warned them to flee. The 2nd stage was final. Your argument is logical, but does not unsettle my own argument. Again, this is an impasse and should be set aside for future reference. Why repeat the same arguments over and over?



                      This shows you don't understand my argument. I'm not arguing that the "abomination" took place in the 1st advance, though that could perhaps be argued. I'm rather arguing that the 1st advance enabled the disciples to identify a Roman campaign that would soon become inescapable. The desolation would take place soon after. The desolator could be identified prior to that desolation.



                      From my perspective this is completely false. Luke mentions the AoD not by reference to the term "AoD," but rather by reference to the same event that is mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13. Use of the word "desolation" is plainly there in Luke 21.20.

                      And both Mark and Matthew make reference to the 1st advance simply by identifying the need to be forewarned of an escape *before* the desolation takes place. How could then *not* refer to the 1st advance if that was the warning signal for the final advance?

                      Matt 24.15 “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."

                      This is intended to be an *advance warning,* obviously. This was Matthew's reference to an "earlier advance."
                      Yes . The advance that led to the answer to Matts first question concerning the destruction of the temple.



                      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?”

                      Matt answered the question the same way Luke did...word for word.
                      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 . The advance that led to the answer to Matts first question concerning the destruction of the temple.



                        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?”

                        Matt answered the question the same way Luke did...word for word.
                        If I understand you correctly, that's a good point. Jesus said the temple would be completely destroyed, and then said a certain event would provide early warning for purposes of escape. The early warning was in 66 AD, and the actual desolation was in 70 AD. Therefore, the AoD consisted of both advances, in 66 AD and in 70 AD. Both marked the Roman Army as the AoD. Rome was "abominable" as a pagan army set to destroy the holy city. They were abominable in 66 AD, and they were abominable in 70 AD. But they were to be identified, according to Jesus, when they "encircled Jerusalem," and that was in 66 AD.

                        And since all 3 synoptic authors referred, word for word, to the same event, they all referred to the same early warning, and they all referred to the same desolation. To separate these 3 accounts as giving conflicting information is wrong, in my opinion. They cannot be referring to different events while using the same or similar words!

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          I did deal directly with your point, and we are simply at an impasse. We cannot always come to instant agreement. As I've told you before, you have a good argument. But I believe the stronger argument is that when comparing all of the versions of the Olivet Discourse, they must all agree with Luke's version. And that version requires that the "holy place" be interpreted in a unique context--at the time the Roman Army assembled at the walls of Jerusalem. This is what makes me reject your argument--not the lack of soundness in your argument, but rather, the broader context of *agreement among the synoptic versions of this Discourse.*

                          Your argument is that "the holy place" must *always* refer to the room in the temple called the "Holy Place" because exhaustive use of the term applied as such in the OT Scriptures. But as I argued, exhaustive use is only true until it is no longer exhaustive--until it meets an exception. This is true of *all words* in the Scriptures. They mean what they mean as originally used until they meet an exception. This is also true of "the holy place." It only refers to the Holy Place of the temple until it doesn't.
                          Whenever there is an EXCEPTION then this is stated so that there is NO confusion.
                          However you have an exception with ZERO support beforehand, during or after.
                          A word has a meaning UNLESS that meaning is clarified as being different. You do NOT have that clarification, nor support from ANY part of scripture, nor from any tradition of the ECF.
                          IOW you are claiming a CHANGE in meaning without it having a witness from ANY source.

                          We could use your argument to say words can have any meanings, and this is what the Jehovah Witnesses do. They CHANGE the meaning of the words, CONTRARY to the ENTIRE evidence of scripture.
                          So I COMPLETELY disagree that your argument is a valid one.
                          If it were, then I would agree to disagree, but as it is NOT a valid argument, so I will continue to highlight this FACT.

                          This shows you don't understand my argument. I'm not arguing that the "abomination" took place in the 1st advance, though that could perhaps be argued. I'm rather arguing that the 1st advance enabled the disciples to identify a Roman campaign that would soon become inescapable. The desolation would take place soon after. The desolator could be identified prior to that desolation.
                          You argued that the AoD is made up of 2 advances.
                          Now IF you are changing it to ONLY the 2nd then it means Luke, who describes the 1st is NOT describing the AoD in verse 20.
                          IF you shift your meaning then of course WHO can understand what you mean.
                          The 1st advance actually did the CONTRARY to identifying a Roman campaign which is inescapable, as that advance was defeated with Cestius Gallus and his armies routed.
                          We cannot identify the desolator from the 1st advance.

                          It is ONLY because Jesus said the 1st advanced would tell you you must flee that anyone would know to flee.

                          From my perspective this is completely false. Luke mentions the AoD not by reference to the term "AoD," but rather by reference to the same event that is mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13. Use of the word "desolation" is plainly there in Luke 21.20.
                          The word desolation is indeed used. So what? A desolation is not in itself an abomination.
                          Further Luke does NOT reference the SAME event as Matthew and Mark. You are applying CIRCULAR argumentation to claim this.

                          And both Mark and Matthew make reference to the 1st advance simply by identifying the need to be forewarned of an escape *before* the desolation takes place. How could then *not* refer to the 1st advance if that was the warning signal for the final advance?
                          Nope, and this is part of your problem, for Matthew and Mark BOTH state that the time to flee is when the AoD is IN the Holy Place. This makes no reference to a prior advance or event. This is what is to be seen, and as you noted above the 1st advance was NOT the Abomination, so Matthew and Mark CANNOT be referring to that event.

                          Matt 24.15 “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."
                          This is intended to be an *advance warning,* obviously. This was Matthew's reference to an "earlier advance."
                          It is an instruction to flee, but there is NOTHING advance about it. This is not a warning of 4 years earlier, but AT THE TIME of the AoD, which you noted is the 2nd advance.

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                            Matt answered the question the same way Luke did...word for word.
                            Absolute rubbish.
                            Matthew did NOT use the SAME words as Luke.
                            And as randyk has acknowledged Luke is speaking about 66 AD.
                            Are you seriously trying to claim that the AoD was SEEN IN the Holy place in 66 AD?

                            In which case you are stuck with the SAME problem as randyk, that the phrase "the Holy place" (in English) is noted throughout the OT as "haqodesh" in Hebrew and when used on its own ALWAYS refers to the Holy Place in the Temple.

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                              Whenever there is an EXCEPTION then this is stated so that there is NO confusion.
                              However you have an exception with ZERO support beforehand, during or after.
                              A word has a meaning UNLESS that meaning is clarified as being different. You do NOT have that clarification, nor support from ANY part of scripture, nor from any tradition of the ECF.
                              IOW you are claiming a CHANGE in meaning without it having a witness from ANY source.

                              We could use your argument to say words can have any meanings, and this is what the Jehovah Witnesses do. They CHANGE the meaning of the words, CONTRARY to the ENTIRE evidence of scripture.
                              So I COMPLETELY disagree that your argument is a valid one.
                              If it were, then I would agree to disagree, but as it is NOT a valid argument, so I will continue to highlight this FACT.
                              Again, you just express disagreement in place of real argument. My argument stands. The evidence of a change of meaning for "the holy place" is the comparison of all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. In 2 versions the term "holy place" is used in the context of the complete annihilation of the temple--that was in 70 AD.

                              In the 3rd version the context is very, very clear--the context is the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops in 66 AD, as a warning to escape the final conflagration in 70 AD. It is the *same context* in all 3 versions, and defines the meaning of "the holy place" as the area where Roman troops gathered in 66 AD!

                              Just declaring that I have no evidence is exposed as false by my clear position as expressed here. What you're really saying is that you reject the real evidence that I present--you reject its validity as evidence. But to say I present no evidence at all is obviously false.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              You argued that the AoD is made up of 2 advances.
                              Now IF you are changing it to ONLY the 2nd then it means Luke, who describes the 1st is NOT describing the AoD in verse 20.
                              IF you shift your meaning then of course WHO can understand what you mean.
                              The 1st advance actually did the CONTRARY to identifying a Roman campaign which is inescapable, as that advance was defeated with Cestius Gallus and his armies routed.
                              We cannot identify the desolator from the 1st advance.
                              You apparently are unwilling to present my argument as stated. I'll let others judge. Both 1st and 2nd advances were the same AoD, though different armies. They were the *Roman Army.* The 1st advance was for purposes of identifying the Roman Campaign that would desolate Jerusalem. The 1st advance was for the purpose of identifying the time when it would be necessary to escape, before the final advance. This is not rocket science.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              It is ONLY because Jesus said the 1st advanced would tell you you must flee that anyone would know to flee.

                              The word desolation is indeed used. So what? A desolation is not in itself an abomination.
                              Further Luke does NOT reference the SAME event as Matthew and Mark. You are applying CIRCULAR argumentation to claim this.
                              No, I'm applying Common Sense! The "desolation" is the same event as the "abomination of desolation" in the same place in Jesus' discourse in all 3 versions of the same discourse!

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              Nope, and this is part of your problem, for Matthew and Mark BOTH state that the time to flee is when the AoD is IN the Holy Place. This makes no reference to a prior advance or event. This is what is to be seen, and as you noted above the 1st advance was NOT the Abomination, so Matthew and Mark CANNOT be referring to that event.
                              What you're doing is defining what the "holy place" is in advance, in order to discredit any idea that "standing in the holy place" was the Roman troops encircling Jerusalem. What you're saying is that the Roman Army could not be standing in the holy place when they surrounded Jerusalem because for you the "holy place" is in the temple. You are begging the question.

                              When the Roman Army stood around Jerusalem they were "in the holy place," according to my position. And this then became the sign that Jesus' disciples could flee, once the army had withdrawn.

                              Originally posted by ForHisglory
                              It is an instruction to flee, but there is NOTHING advance about it. This is not a warning of 4 years earlier, but AT THE TIME of the AoD, which you noted is the 2nd advance.
                              I've told you the AoD is identified at the 1st advance, and the "desolation" takes place at the 2nd advance. Is that so hard to understand? The AoD was not identified by the success of a "desolation" at the 1st advance--this was only for the purpose of identifying the general time period, and the Roman campaign, that would lead to the eventual desolation. 4 years is a good period of time to prepare an escape. In fact Christians did take Jesus seriously, as history records they fled to Pella. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                Again, you just express disagreement in place of real argument. My argument stands. The evidence of a change of meaning for "the holy place" is the comparison of all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. In 2 versions the term "holy place" is used in the context of the complete annihilation of the temple--that was in 70 AD.
                                No, your "evidence" does NOT stand.
                                You CANNOT use the phrase in question to simply claim it is changed. You need evidence that it HAS been changed.
                                IOW you need something IN Luke 21 which connects what Jesus says with the Holy Place. You do NOT have that.
                                What you are arguing is a PRETEXT, saying because Luke says this, and Matthew says that, so this equals that. Yet NEITHER Luke nor Matthew have Jesus making this equivalence. This is ENTIRELY an ASSUMPTION from OUTSIDE either text.
                                If you read Matt 24 by itself you will NOT get the idea of the 1st advance.
                                If you read Luke 21 by itself you will NOT get the idea of an Abomination occurring or that the army is IN the Holy Place.

                                Your ENTIRE basis is therefore predicated on a PRETEXT. It is a PREREQUISITE for them to be speaking about IDENTICAL things, in order for you to be able to claim they are talking about IDENTICAL things. This is known as CIRCULAR reasoning and is NOT a sound method, just as PRETEXTS are NOT a sound method.

                                When you actually have an argument which is supported by scripture THEN you have something. At the moment ALL you have is YOUR opinion which is UNSUPPORTED by scripture.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X