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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ForHisglory
View Post
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.
Originally posted by ForHisglory
Originally posted by ForHisglory
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.
Originally posted by ForHisglory
Originally posted by ForHisglory
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.
Comment