holy ground in the NT?

[randyk]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

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.

That is not true. I've done this many times now.
The context of a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem, as a sign to escape, is the basis for seeing a new application of "the holy place." It applies to the Roman Army in its position as a soon-coming desolator. There is no basis for seeing "the holy place" as the Holy Place of the Temple! That was the regular application of "the holy place," but not for "holy place." The addition of "the" to "holy place" does not render it a proper noun. But you ignore 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.

It is a completely logical assumption, and a matter of common sense. All 3 synoptic versions of the same Discourse would logically be saying the exact same things. In the part of the Discourse where Matthew and Mark mention the AoD Luke mentions the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies, preparing to desolate the city. They all, logically, refer to the same event. It is completely *illogical* to view Luke's version as different from Matthew and Mark's versions.

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.

That is false. In Matt 24 the 1st advance of the Roman Army is presupposed by the fact Jesus gave this as a sign for purposes of escape. If it was not a "1st advance," there could be no escape. The context in Matthew 24 is clear--it is about the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem.

We have the exact same context in Luke 21. It is about the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem. It is about Roman armies gathering as a sign for Jesus' disciples to escape. No difference at all.

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.

That's like saying it is circular reasoning to say an orange is round. It is not a pretext to say an orange is round. It is simply a fact, easily recognizable. It is also recognizable that all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse are the same Discourse, predicting the exact same events. This is not an example of "circular reasoning." This is self-evident observation.

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.

My view is completely based on Scripture. Your view distorts any agreement between Luke on one hand and Matthew and Mark on the other hand. You have one version of the Discourse about the Antichrist, and the other version of the Discourse about the Roman Army.

If they are both about the same event, and they are, then it is reasonable to assume you have a basis for a change in the meaning of "the holy place." It is the place where pagan Roman armies gathered, in preparation to desolate the temple.

The 1st advance gave Jesus' disciples time to escape. The 2nd advance was the actual desolation. The AoD was to be identified in the 1st advance. The escape was to be made *before* the 2nd advance.

[jeffweeder]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

Absolute rubbish.
Matthew did NOT use the SAME words as Luke.

Where did Matthew address this question....,

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

[jeffweeder]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

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!

I agree Randy.
Even though Luke 21 begins by only addressing "when will these things happen", he still addresses the question of his coming again that Matt poses. He keeps step with Mark and Matthew to accurately report on what Jesus actually said that day when he left the temple for the last time.

[jeffweeder]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

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!

I agree Randy.
Even though Luke 21 begins by only addressing "when will these things happen", he still addresses the question of his coming again that Matt poses. He keeps step with Mark and Matthew to accurately report on what Jesus actually said that day when he left the temple for the last time.

[randyk]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

I agree Randy.
Even though Luke 21 begins by only addressing "when will these things happen", he still addresses the question of his coming again that Matt poses. He keeps step with Mark and Matthew to accurately report on what Jesus actually said that day when he left the temple for the last time.

To me it's the only sensible explanation. I'm not hostile to other viewpoints, but to say that the 3 treatments of the same Discourse represent different histories seems absurd to me. Thanks.

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

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

Actually Jesus did NOT answer this question DIRECTLY in any of the recordings by Matthew, Mark or Luke.
You want Jesus to give you a straight forward answer, but He chose to tell them the things they needed to know.
He told them of things to watch out for, and things which would happen BEFORE He returns.

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

That is not true. I've done this many times now.
The context of a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem, as a sign to escape, is the basis for seeing a new application of "the holy place." It applies to the Roman Army in its position as a soon-coming desolator. There is no basis for seeing "the holy place" as the Holy Place of the Temple! That was the regular application of "the holy place," but not for "holy place." The addition of "the" to "holy place" does not render it a proper noun. But you ignore that.

Nope, that is NOT a basis for seeing a new application, as that SIGN makes ZERO mention of the Holy place.

It is a completely logical assumption, and a matter of common sense. All 3 synoptic versions of the same Discourse would logically be saying the exact same things. In the part of the Discourse where Matthew and Mark mention the AoD Luke mentions the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies, preparing to desolate the city. They all, logically, refer to the same event. It is completely *illogical* to view Luke's version as different from Matthew and Mark's versions.

Actually no, logic tells us that they did NOT say EXACTLY the same things.
UNTIL you acknowledge that Matthew tells us of things which Luke did NOT and vice versa then you will continue to hold this FALSEHOOD.

That is false. In Matt 24 the 1st advance of the Roman Army is presupposed by the fact Jesus gave this as a sign for purposes of escape. If it was not a "1st advance," there could be no escape. The context in Matthew 24 is clear--it is about the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem.

Nope, that is a PRESUPPOSITION of yours, but NOT what Jesus said as recorded by Matthew.
In Matthew the MOMENT to flee is when the AoD is seen (which you agree is the 2nd advance). So NOT the SAME SIGN.

We have the exact same context in Luke 21. It is about the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem. It is about Roman armies gathering as a sign for Jesus' disciples to escape. No difference at all.

No desolation occurred in Luke 21:20. Only that it was near. A different sign, as it was possible to flee ONCE the armies left (as in GONE, no more).

That's like saying it is circular reasoning to say an orange is round. It is not a pretext to say an orange is round. It is simply a fact, easily recognizable. It is also recognizable that all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse are the same Discourse, predicting the exact same events. This is not an example of "circular reasoning." This is self-evident observation.

Actually saying an orange is round is simply a statement. That is giving NO reasoning.
It is indeed recognisable (and even agreed between us) that there is but one Discourse.
However there is NOTHING which demands that because it is ONE Discourse, that EVERYTHING noted by Matthew from that Discourse is also noted by Luek or vice versa. In FACT we are shown the OPPOSITE, that Matthew notes things which Luke does NOT!
So for example Matthew states:
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.

Yet Luke makes NO mention of this statement. Does this mean Luke has recorded it in other words, or as most normal people would agree that Matthew has recorded something Luke has not.
Luke states:
Luk 21:34* “But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap.*
Luk 21:35* For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth.*

Yet Matthew has NO record of this. So has Matthew written it with other words? No certainly not. Luke has recorded things from the Discourse that Matthew has NOT!

My view is completely based on Scripture.

Anyone who claims PRETEXT can make this claim.

Your view distorts any agreement between Luke on one hand and Matthew and Mark on the other hand. You have one version of the Discourse about the Antichrist, and the other version of the Discourse about the Roman Army.

Actually my view does NOT distort any agreement which is held. It simply clarifies what is in agreement and what is noted as being different.
What it DOES change is the notion that Luke 21:20 is the SAME SIGN as Matt 24:15.

If they are both about the same event, and they are, then it is reasonable to assume you have a basis for a change in the meaning of "the holy place." It is the place where pagan Roman armies gathered, in preparation to desolate the temple.

Here is your circular reasoning again. As you claim they are so of course they are. However by the same token then if they are not, then of course they are not.
Your ENTIRE basis of understanding lies on your PRESUPPOSITION that "they are", yet you have NOTHING beyond that claim that "they are" to support your view that they are.
If the wording of Matt 24:15 allowed an army being in the place known as being unclean in BOTH OT and NT scripture to be "the Holy place" then you could argue they are about the SAME place. However the words themselves, as stated do NOT allow for your PRESUPPOSITION, and you CANNOT rely on your PRESUPPOSITION alone to determine there is a change in meaning.

In conclusion, YOUR entire reasoning is PREDICATED on PRETEXT, that "they are because they are".
My reasoning is based SOLELY on CONTEXT, that meaning is understood from the meaning of words as used normally UNLESS there is something stated WITHIN the CONTEXT which shows they should be understood in a different way.

[randyk]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

Nope, that is NOT a basis for seeing a new application, as that SIGN makes ZERO mention of the Holy place.

I'd love to have a real conversation with you when you are able to recognize somebody else's argument as *legitimate* even though you don't agree with it. You don't seem to be able to do that?

Here is the argument, which many Christians may be able to agree is a *legitimate argument,* whether they agree or not...

In all 3 versions of the same Discourse there is a sign Jesus' disciples were told by Jesus to look out for. When they see this thing, they are to seek to escape. In Matthew and Mark it is the AoD. In Luke it is the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies. They are all the same sign, and the thing that was to prompt the disciples of Jesus to pursue escape.

Simple logic: if all 3 versions present the same thing to signal the need to escape, then all 3 things presented are the same--the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies are the thing that signals the need to escape. When Roman armies stand in the holy place, it signals the need for them to escape.

And so, "the holy place" presents a new context for that term, and not applied as it normally is, as the Holy Place of the temple. Here, "the holy place" applies to the location of Roman troops around the wall of Jerusalem, trespassing upon holy territory as a threat to annihilate the temple.

Since you cannot even acknowledge a legitimate argument, I'm talking in effect to a "deaf person," and am wasting my time. Get back to me when you know how to discuss differences with brothers. You are unable to do that, it seems?

Actually no, logic tells us that they did NOT say EXACTLY the same things.
UNTIL you acknowledge that Matthew tells us of things which Luke did NOT and vice versa then you will continue to hold this FALSEHOOD.

It is not a falsehood. A falsehood is a "lie." This is my *opinion.* Do you know the difference?

It is *my opinion* that all 3 versions tell the same story and reference the same events. That is a reasonable position, whether one agrees or not. It is not necessary that all 3 versions use the same carbon copy account, with the same exact number of words. The point is, the Discourse is the same discourse, and all 3 versions would be about the same events.

Nope, that is a PRESUPPOSITION of yours, but NOT what Jesus said as recorded by Matthew.
In Matthew the MOMENT to flee is when the AoD is seen (which you agree is the 2nd advance). So NOT the SAME SIGN.

I don't know what's wrong with your comprehension, unless it is your hard-heartedness? I've told you this umpteen times! The moment to flee was after the AoD is recognized at the *1st advance!* That signals the need for Jesus' disciples to flee! How can they flee at the 2nd advance, except perhaps by the skin of their teeth? No, it was the 1st advance that gave them time and warning.

The identification of the Roman Army as the AoD did *not* require the desolation to take place. It only required the *campaign* to be recognized, which would result, 4 years later, in the desolation of Jerusalem. Once it was recognized that this was the beginning of the Roman campaign to destroy the temple, Jesus' disciples knew to flee. And that recognition came when the disciples saw the Roman troops standing outside the walls of Jerusalem, positioned in "the holy place."

No desolation occurred in Luke 21:20. Only that it was near. A different sign, as it was possible to flee ONCE the armies left (as in GONE, no more).

Actually saying an orange is round is simply a statement. That is giving NO reasoning.
It is indeed recognisable (and even agreed between us) that there is but one Discourse.
However there is NOTHING which demands that because it is ONE Discourse, that EVERYTHING noted by Matthew from that Discourse is also noted by Luek or vice versa. In FACT we are shown the OPPOSITE, that Matthew notes things which Luke does NOT!
So for example Matthew states:
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.

Yet Luke makes NO mention of this statement. Does this mean Luke has recorded it in other words, or as most normal people would agree that Matthew has recorded something Luke has not.
Luke states:
Luk 21:34* “But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap.*
Luk 21:35* For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth.*

Yet Matthew has NO record of this. So has Matthew written it with other words? No certainly not. Luke has recorded things from the Discourse that Matthew has NOT!

Anyone who claims PRETEXT can make this claim.

Actually my view does NOT distort any agreement which is held. It simply clarifies what is in agreement and what is noted as being different.
What it DOES change is the notion that Luke 21:20 is the SAME SIGN as Matt 24:15.

Here is your circular reasoning again. As you claim they are so of course they are. However by the same token then if they are not, then of course they are not.
Your ENTIRE basis of understanding lies on your PRESUPPOSITION that "they are", yet you have NOTHING beyond that claim that "they are" to support your view that they are.
If the wording of Matt 24:15 allowed an army being in the place known as being unclean in BOTH OT and NT scripture to be "the Holy place" then you could argue they are about the SAME place. However the words themselves, as stated do NOT allow for your PRESUPPOSITION, and you CANNOT rely on your PRESUPPOSITION alone to determine there is a change in meaning.

In conclusion, YOUR entire reasoning is PREDICATED on PRETEXT, that "they are because they are".
My reasoning is based SOLELY on CONTEXT, that meaning is understood from the meaning of words as used normally UNLESS there is something stated WITHIN the CONTEXT which shows they should be understood in a different way.

All you're arguing against is a legitimate position. Of course one makes assumptions when coming to a position--so do you. Big deal!

Notice the sign indicating the time to escape--they are all the same thing!...

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."
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."

Please indulge me, brother. Hypothesize that these 3 versions are actually the same Discourse saying the same things. All 3 versions are telling Jesus' disciples what to *look out for,* and what to *flee from.* Even if you don't agree, learn how to recognize a position as a legitimate consideration, whether you agree or not. We will get much farther on our conversations, if you can do this!

I fully understanding your argument. What you argue is that because Luke has different words for the things to *look for,* this much be a different event. Legitimate argument. I disagree, but I will admit that you have legitimate grounds for believing as you do. It doesn't hurt me to acknowledge that--I can still disagree, and provide reasons for my disagreement. But we *don't have to agree.* And if we don't agree we *don't have to keep arguing the same points,* as if *by force* we will impose our will on another!

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

I'd love to have a real conversation with you when you are able to recognize somebody else's argument as *legitimate* even though you don't agree with it. You don't seem to be able to do that?

When you present a "legitimate" argument then I can debate that with you. Until then I can only highlihgt how illegitimate is your argument.

It is not a falsehood. A falsehood is a "lie." This is my *opinion.* Do you know the difference?

It is a LIE. This is clearly seen by anyone who actually reads the words. I gave examples to show the LIE for what it is.

It is *my opinion* that all 3 versions tell the same story and reference the same events. That is a reasonable position, whether one agrees or not. It is not necessary that all 3 versions use the same carbon copy account, with the same exact number of words. The point is, the Discourse is the same discourse, and all 3 versions would be about the same events.

Here you dance around, because I have stated repeatedly that I agree that there is but one Discourse.
What is the LIE is whether they are stating the EXACT SAME things.
You shift from "the same story" to "the same thing" as if these are EXACT equivalents.
What IS necessary is that when one diverges from another we RECOGNISE that there is a DIVERGENCE and in the place of the divergence then the story being shared is NOT the same. If it were the SAME then there would be NO divergence.
You go from one thing which is correct and then slide into another which is not.

Notice the sign indicating the time to escape--they are all the same thing!...

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."
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."

Absolutely NOT the SAME thing. This is YOUR presumption speaking and NOT the words you have quoted.
Standing in the Holy place means IN the Temple, for we do NOT have anywhere in Matthew (or Mark) a suggestion that "the Holy place" is NOT the Temple.
In fact we do NOT have anywhere in the ENTIRE Bible which suggests the Holy place is anywhere other than in the Temple.

Please indulge me, brother. Hypothesize that these 3 versions are actually the same Discourse saying the same things. All 3 versions are telling Jesus' disciples what to *look out for,* and what to *flee from.* Even if you don't agree, learn how to recognize a position as a legitimate consideration, whether you agree or not. We will get much farther on our conversations, if you can do this!
I fully understanding your argument. What you argue is that because Luke has different words for the things to *look for,* this much be a different event. Legitimate argument. I disagree, but I will admit that you have legitimate grounds for believing as you do. It doesn't hurt me to acknowledge that--I can still disagree, and provide reasons for my disagreement. But we *don't have to agree.* And if we don't agree we *don't have to keep arguing the same points,* as if *by force* we will impose our will on another!

Why do you want me to indulge a PRESUPPOSITION?
They are from ONE Discourse, this is agreed. However there are things stated in one that are NOT stated in the other. Acknowledge this FACT and THEN you can start to ask, why did Matthew say this in connection with these words, and Luke in connection with other words.
You see you take Matthew 24:15 OUT of the PLACE where Matthew put it, because Matthew 24:14 places it as AFTER the gospel has gone to the ends of the world. IOW you are IGNORING the CONTEXT of what Matthew and the order he used, to try to claim it is the SAME thing.

Where you are also wrong is that I have hypothesized about your view. It is a commonly taught idea, especially among pre-trib adherents that they speak of the SAME thing. The question is whether it is a VALID method of interpretation. Is it correct to use PRETEXTS?
I have not been arguing for individual words having the same meaning but being slightly different. I have arguing words which have a TOTALLY different or unrelated meaning, and I have been arguing about CONTEXT.
NEITHER of which you are willing to engage in. Instead you continual run around in a circle WITHOUT dealing with the point made.
You HAVE to do this, because without doing so your view has ZERO support from scripture.

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

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."
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."

By the way, when you see does NOT mean it is about the SAME event. What it means is that there is something to see and to which you need to respond.
Your error is the SAME as those who claim the little horn in Dan 7 is the SAME little horn as found in Dan 8. After all they are BOTH visions of Daniel and only 3 years apart and BOTH by Daniel and BOTH speak of someone who will speak out against God. There is a relationship between them, but they are NOT the SAME.

[jeffweeder]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

Actually Jesus did NOT answer this question DIRECTLY in any of the recordings by Matthew, Mark or Luke.
You want Jesus to give you a straight forward answer, but He chose to tell them the things they needed to know.
He told them of things to watch out for, and things which would happen BEFORE He returns.

He told them everything relating to the question.

Mk 13
2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?” 5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.

23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

[randyk]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

By the way, when you see does NOT mean it is about the SAME event. What it means is that there is something to see and to which you need to respond.
Your error is the SAME as those who claim the little horn in Dan 7 is the SAME little horn as found in Dan 8. After all they are BOTH visions of Daniel and only 3 years apart and BOTH by Daniel and BOTH speak of someone who will speak out against God. There is a relationship between them, but they are NOT the SAME.

I understand, but I don't agree. Matt 24.15, Mark 13.14, and Luke 21.20 are all referring to the same words of Jesus, give or take a few words. "Standing in the holy place" translates into "armies standing around Jerusalem." Jesus said all of these things, we know not in what particular order. But it is unreasonable for me to assume the 3 authors would be each referring to anything other than the same 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."
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

I understand, but I don't agree. Matt 24.15, Mark 13.14, and Luke 21.20 are all referring to the same words of Jesus, give or take a few words. "Standing in the holy place" translates into "armies standing around Jerusalem." Jesus said all of these things, we know not in what particular order. But it is unreasonable for me to assume the 3 authors would be each referring to anything other than the same 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."
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."

Let me first give you an apology. I said that something was not a legitimate argument. That statement I feel was not completely fair and not properly dealing with your view.
It is in fact entirely legitimate to claim that these above three passages COULD BE speaking of the SAME event.
Where I was saying it was not legitimate was in a claim that they MUST BE speaking of the SAME event.

IOW there is a possibility of them being the SAME due to the similarity of language etc, but simply because of this similarity etc does not lead to a conclusion that they MUST be the same. This has to be determined by other things stated WITHIN each passage.

Now an example for you which hopefully will clarify HOW it is entirely reasonable to conclude they are NOT the same event, even without recourse to other points, such as the words used, etc.

Let's say you attend a one hour lecture on the "history of the 20th century."
Later you report back to your friends Bill and Ben what you heard.
They BOTH record that you told them of a war that started in Eastern Europe, but which through alliances of nations led to Germany invading France and Britain getting involved and so the countries of the World became involved and there was a World War, in which the US then became embroiled.
Now Bob writes this down in his blog and notes some additional things said - he notes that you said that Poland was invaded and then the World War really started.
Ben meanwhile notes in his blog that you said that the Archduke was assassinated and that this was the cause leading to the World War.

Based on what BOTH wrote you could have been speaking of one World War. This is the legitimate question you pose.

However it is what is additionally written that we find that Bob has noted down about the Second World War. Poland did NOT exist DURING the 1st World War, nor was its invasion the START of the 1st World War. However this was the START of the 2nd World War.
When we read Ben we realise he has captured what you said about the 1st World War.

Two events separated in history by more than 20 years, yet with great similarities.
You see it is NOT the similarities which tell us whether it is the same thing or not. It is whether the differences rule out them being the same or actually also point to them being one event that matters.

You try to ARGUE that the difference IS the SAME, yet you have NOTHING to support your contention EXCEPT a circular argument that because they are the SAME, so these differences are the SAME.
What you need is something else which shows that the differences - and there are a LOT of MAJOR differences - can somehow be the SAME.

The Holy Place is NEVER anywhere in scripture meaning anywhere but in the Temple. This was also the view of the ECFs of ALL viewpoints. This is a MASSIVE problem for you and to which you have NO answer - except the above circular reasoning.
Additionally Matthew places this event AFTER the gospel has been preached in all the world. To this you have no answer except to ignore this statement - even though it is stated BEFORE the "similarity" occurs.
Luke also gives additional information which places this event as being UNTIL the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, which means UNTIL the gospel has been preached in all the world.

I do fully understand why you claim they are the same, I also note the reasons why they do NOT have to be the same, even in normal situations such as the example I gave.
I have highlighted why your claim on circular reasoning is NOT legitimate, what is legitimate is to question IF it possibly is. IOW all assumptions should be tested.

I am not sure I can really be any clearer for you. It is up to you to accept my points, deal with them or ignore them.

[ForHisglory]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

He told them everything relating to the question.

Mk 13
2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?” 5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.

23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

Sorry, but verse 23 is in relation to the warnings He gave about what will happen to them, thus the statement "take heed" or "be on guard".
Jesus did NOT say - in 70 AD Jerusalem will fall - so clearly NOT everything was told them. Nor did He say who would set up the AoD.
So no, Jesus did NOT tell them everything about everything in this Discourse, nor even everything they had asked.

[randyk]

Re: holy ground in the NT?

Let me first give you an apology. I said that something was not a legitimate argument. That statement I feel was not completely fair and not properly dealing with your view.
It is in fact entirely legitimate to claim that these above three passages COULD BE speaking of the SAME event.
Where I was saying it was not legitimate was in a claim that they MUST BE speaking of the SAME event.

Thank you. You've now shown me that you're a reasonable and "friendly" debater. That was actually my biggest concern in all of our arguments. I, for my part, would not argue that my view "must" prevail. It is a matter of the evidence. We do draw conclusions based on the amount of evidence we have *at present.* But we do not always have *all* of the evidence. We are human.

IOW there is a possibility of them being the SAME due to the similarity of language etc, but simply because of this similarity etc does not lead to a conclusion that they MUST be the same. This has to be determined by other things stated WITHIN each passage.

Now an example for you which hopefully will clarify HOW it is entirely reasonable to conclude they are NOT the same event, even without recourse to other points, such as the words used, etc.

Let's say you attend a one hour lecture on the "history of the 20th century."
Later you report back to your friends Bill and Ben what you heard.
They BOTH record that you told them of a war that started in Eastern Europe, but which through alliances of nations led to Germany invading France and Britain getting involved and so the countries of the World became involved and there was a World War, in which the US then became embroiled.
Now Bob writes this down in his blog and notes some additional things said - he notes that you said that Poland was invaded and then the World War really started.
Ben meanwhile notes in his blog that you said that the Archduke was assassinated and that this was the cause leading to the World War.

Based on what BOTH wrote you could have been speaking of one World War. This is the legitimate question you pose.

However it is what is additionally written that we find that Bob has noted down about the Second World War. Poland did NOT exist DURING the 1st World War, nor was its invasion the START of the 1st World War. However this was the START of the 2nd World War.
When we read Ben we realise he has captured what you said about the 1st World War.

Two events separated in history by more than 20 years, yet with great similarities.
You see it is NOT the similarities which tell us whether it is the same thing or not. It is whether the differences rule out them being the same or actually also point to them being one event that matters.

You try to ARGUE that the difference IS the SAME, yet you have NOTHING to support your contention EXCEPT a circular argument that because they are the SAME, so these differences are the SAME.
What you need is something else which shows that the differences - and there are a LOT of MAJOR differences - can somehow be the SAME.

The Holy Place is NEVER anywhere in scripture meaning anywhere but in the Temple. This was also the view of the ECFs of ALL viewpoints. This is a MASSIVE problem for you and to which you have NO answer - except the above circular reasoning.

Good example, though it is scarcely applicable to a single Discourse, prompted by a question specifically about the 70 AD event. When talking about the 70 AD event, ie the fall of the temple in 70 AD, it is hardly likely that the endtime Antichrist can be arbitrarily inserted into the Discourse, particularly if the reference to the 2nd Coming, in the Discourse, serves merely as a comparison to the 70 AD event.

The whole question, to you, revolves around the usual application of "the holy place," and for me, it revolves around whether reference to the 2nd Coming has anything to do with the Antichrist. Quite frankly, you have *not* proven that "holy place" always refers to the Holy Place of the temple. You've only proven that "THE holy place" always refers to the Holy Place of the temple in the OT, which is what is exclusively the definitive "holy place" under OT law.

However, when the context changes, "holy place" can refer to other things, including the region around Jerusalem. In the Olivet Discourse this became the definitive focus of "the holy place," and context therefore rules--not any supposed exhaustive application of "holy place" in the OT Scriptures. Your argument that "THE holy place" in the OT *always* refers to the Holy Place of the temple is a very weak argument, since "holy place" is equally significant, and does *not* exclusively refer to the Holy Place of the temple.

Additionally Matthew places this event AFTER the gospel has been preached in all the world. To this you have no answer except to ignore this statement - even though it is stated BEFORE the "similarity" occurs.

I don't have an answer *that satisfies you.* That is a far cry from my having "no answer!" Saying the gospel will be preached in all the world is not, for me, a time scale. It is, rather, a description of *how far* the gospel will go in warning the world about the events about to overtake an apostate Israel. The "end" of Israel may very well refer to 70 AD.

Luke also gives additional information which places this event as being UNTIL the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, which means UNTIL the gospel has been preached in all the world.

One thing refers to the end of Israel's diaspora. The other refers to the end of Israel as a viable nation in the Holy Land. Not the same thing.

I do fully understand why you claim they are the same, I also note the reasons why they do NOT have to be the same, even in normal situations such as the example I gave.
I have highlighted why your claim on circular reasoning is NOT legitimate, what is legitimate is to question IF it possibly is. IOW all assumptions should be tested.

I do not see identification of the same events, in context, as the product of "circular reasoning." I think that once the context has been firmly established as the fall of the temple in 70 AD, there is in no sense "circular reasoning," but actually, putting the puzzle together *in context.*

As I said above, "holy place" is *not* exhaustively applied to the Holy Place of the temple in the OT Scriptures! Your only argument is that "THE holy place" exhaustively refers to such. But as I've repeatedly argued, the addition of the definite article "the" is not the determiner of what "holy place" means, biblically. It only defines what "THE holy place" means when the context is the Holy Place of the temple. Once the Holy Place of the temple is no longer in context, "holy place" can mean something else, along with "THE holy place."

I am not sure I can really be any clearer for you. It is up to you to accept my points, deal with them or ignore them.

I've repeatedly dealt with them. We've covered *all* of this ground before. At some point you're going to have to acknowledge this, or become dishonest. And I don't think you're a dishonest person.