Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

holy ground in the NT?

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

  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Why is it "scarcely" applicable to a single Discourse? Jesus was telling the Disciples what they would face UNTIL He returns.
    It is 100% CERTAIN without any shadow of doubt that the AC can be included in the Discourse. Nothing arbitrary about it.
    We read:
    Mat 24:29 - 31* “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.*Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    Are you saying this was in 70 AD? If not would you agree this is speaking of the time of Jesus' return? If it is ending with Jesus' return then clearly the AC comes BEFORE Jesus returns. Moreover Jesus said this:
    Mar 13:21* And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.*
    Mar 13:22* For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

    Surely the AC is included among the false Christs.

    It is interesting you claim "merely" a comparison, yet 70 AD pales in significance to what happens DURING the 42 month reign of the AC. Rather 70 AD is but a shadow of what will be.
    However as has been noted you have the Discourse ENTIRELY backwards as you believe it is MAINLY about 70 AD, rather than being MAINLY about what the Followers of Jesus will face UNTIL He comes.

    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.
    Actually as i have shown it does NOT revolve around that question.
    CONTEXT demonstrates that this is simply one item which PROVES a difference.
    Moreover I note you say "the OT" and yet in the NT in the ONLY other place where "the Holy place" is mentioned it is UNEQUIVOCALLY speaking of the place in the Temple.
    Heb 9:2* For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place.

    So my claim is NOT ONLY from the OT, but from the NT usage AND also from ALL the ECFs.
    This means you have NO example ANYWHERE in scripture where "the Holy place" does NOT mean in the Temple.

    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.
    Nope, changing CONTEXT does NOT change the meaning of the words. ONLY when you add words to it to change it from a phrase of its own, to part of a phrase does it change.
    CONTEXT does 100% rule and in the Olivet Discourse the CONTEXT is The Temple. Yet you REQUIRE the CONTEXT is NOT the Temple, but Jerusalem, and NOT Jerusalem, but OUTSIDE Jerusalem.
    When you choose to make words mean whatever you want them to mean, rather than accepting the meaning shown in EVERY SINGLE scripture and usage in tradition THEN you can claim anything. This is how the JWs operate with Jesus being god. They accept the word god, they simply change the meaning regardless of what the word means in scripture.

    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.
    The gospel is NOT a warning about events in Jerusalem, but about Jesus.

    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.
    Indeed, and yet YOU claim they are the same.

    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.*
    Circular reasoning is saying, because i understand this to mean this, so this MUST mean this. This is what you are doing by saying because Luke 21:20 MUST be the SAME thing as Matt 24:15 so they ARE the SAME thing.
    This is what your PRETEXT approach does.

    Comment


    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
      Why is it "scarcely" applicable to a single Discourse? Jesus was telling the Disciples what they would face UNTIL He returns.
      The history of the 20th century includes a lot more things than a single Discourse.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      It is 100% CERTAIN without any shadow of doubt that the AC can be included in the Discourse. Nothing arbitrary about it.
      We read:
      Mat 24:29 - 31* “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.*Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

      Are you saying this was in 70 AD? If not would you agree this is speaking of the time of Jesus' return? If it is ending with Jesus' return then clearly the AC comes BEFORE Jesus returns. Moreover Jesus said this:
      Mar 13:21* And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.*
      Mar 13:22* For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
      No, as I said, Jesus' 2nd Coming is involved, but it serves as a comparison to the Main Event, which is indicated to be the 70 AD destruction of the temple.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      Surely the AC is included among the false Christs.
      Yes, Antichrist is a false Christ. But the warning about "false Christs and false prophets" initially had to do with the time prior to 70 AD, when Israel was tempted to believe that they would be delivered from their enemies--even though they had rejected their Messiah and were steeped in sin. This sign of false Christs was a warning to Israel not to believe them, but rather, to believe Jesus when he said judgment was coming to those who were rejecting his message.

      This is *not* primarily about the Antichrist, even though it could include him. These were signs, fore mostly, for Jesus' generation. However, inasmuch as this is compared with the 2nd Coming of Christ, Jesus indicated there would be these kinds of false Christs and false prophets all through the present age, and up until the coming of the Kingdom.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      It is interesting you claim "merely" a comparison, yet 70 AD pales in significance to what happens DURING the 42 month reign of the AC. Rather 70 AD is but a shadow of what will be.
      Doesn't matter. The context was the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The "Great Tribulation" to come began with the 70 AD event, and continues until the end of the age, when "the times of the Gentiles" come to an end.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      However as has been noted you have the Discourse ENTIRELY backwards as you believe it is MAINLY about 70 AD, rather than being MAINLY about what the Followers of Jesus will face UNTIL He comes.
      It is explicitly said to be about the 70 AD desolation of the temple in *all 3 versions* of the Olivet Discourse! This is not backwards! You corrupt the context, brother. I'm just saying what these passages say--they were all about the desolation of the temple. It's audacious that you call this "backwards!"

      I've not said that the OD is *only* about the 70 AD event--it does include the 2nd Coming as an event that is comparable, and as an event that brings all judgments and all salvation to a conclusion. Also, the 70 AD event only *began* the Jewish diaspora of the NT age. If so, then it was a warning not just to Jewish believers that they would be without a nation, but it was also a warning to other nations not to follow the example of Israel.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      Actually as i have shown it does NOT revolve around that question.
      CONTEXT demonstrates that this is simply one item which PROVES a difference.
      Moreover I note you say "the OT" and yet in the NT in the ONLY other place where "the Holy place" is mentioned it is UNEQUIVOCALLY speaking of the place in the Temple.
      Heb 9:2* For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place.

      So my claim is NOT ONLY from the OT, but from the NT usage AND also from ALL the ECFs.
      This means you have NO example ANYWHERE in scripture where "the Holy place" does NOT mean in the Temple.
      You just don't accept it--as I said, the words "holy place" does *not* apply strictly to the temple in the Scriptures! Your argument is that with the addition of the definite article "the" the words "the holy place" *must* apply to the temple.

      This is false! It is entirely logical for "the holy place" (with the definite article) to apply exclusively to the temple, because the use of "holy place" was applied as a proper noun to the temple under OT law. This was also true in Hebrews. But when Jesus applied the term "holy place" in the Olivet Discourse, he no longer specified the temple, but rather, applied it, in context, to Roman armies encircling Jerusalem.

      Let me give you an example. 10 years ago, the word "well" was used by me for my own well. After installing the well we began to call it "the well," with the definite article.

      But that all changed when we acquired a different well, at a different property. Then, "the well" no longer meant my old well, even though "the well" had been used exhaustively and 100% of the time for the well I used to have. When the circumstances changed, "the well" did not have a required application to the previous well. Use of the term "well" with a definite article made no difference at all.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      Nope, changing CONTEXT does NOT change the meaning of the words. ONLY when you add words to it to change it from a phrase of its own, to part of a phrase does it change.
      CONTEXT does 100% rule and in the Olivet Discourse the CONTEXT is The Temple. Yet you REQUIRE the CONTEXT is NOT the Temple, but Jerusalem, and NOT Jerusalem, but OUTSIDE Jerusalem.
      Yes, the context is *outside of* the walls of Jerusalem which is nevertheless still "in the holy place." By virtue of it being *near* to the temple, and near to Jerusalem, the Roman army had already trespassed onto God's property. They did not have to actually be inside the walls of Jerusalem to trespass. They only had to arrive at the walls of Jerusalem, just as happened in Hezekiah's time, to present a threat to God's sacred territory. And that is what Jesus meant by this pagan army being "in the holy place." The pagan army was within the proximity of the temple, near enough to present a threat of its desolation.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      When you choose to make words mean whatever you want them to mean, rather than accepting the meaning shown in EVERY SINGLE scripture and usage in tradition THEN you can claim anything. This is how the JWs operate with Jesus being god. They accept the word god, they simply change the meaning regardless of what the word means in scripture.
      You are the one who is changing the meaning in Luke 21, where everything I've said about it is transparently clear. You just want to separate Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13, which I think is nonScriptural. The Scriptures read this as a single Discourse.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      The gospel is NOT a warning about events in Jerusalem, but about Jesus.
      I don't agree. I believe God was using the events of 70 AD, with respect to Israel's judgment, as a warning to all nations. They were to take notice that as Israel rejected Jesus, so the world would be held accountable with respect to Jesus. This was a declaration of Christ's coming Kingdom, and the need for all of mankind to prepare for it, through repentance. The Gospel of the Kingdom began with the Israeli nation, and ends with a universal proclamation of that same Kingdom, as it affects all nations.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      Indeed, and yet YOU claim they are the same.
      No, I've just declared that they are different. The end of the temple is one thing, and that is the main focus of the Discourse. But the 2nd Coming is also part of the Discourse, and presents the "end game" of all judgment, 1st for Israel, and then for all nations.

      The end of the Jewish diaspora is a different subject than the end of the temple worship. Both of these elements are there, and does not remove the main focus of the Discourse on the destruction of the temple. The destruction of the temple leads to an *age-long* Jewish judgment, which we call the Jewish Diaspora. This is the Great Tribulation, which is what I often identify as such.

      Originally posted by ForHisglory
      Circular reasoning is saying, because i understand this to mean this, so this MUST mean this. This is what you are doing by saying because Luke 21:20 MUST be the SAME thing as Matt 24:15 so they ARE the SAME thing.
      This is what your PRETEXT approach does.
      No, it is simply *logical* and *obvious* that all 3 versions are about the exact same Discourse! That is *not* circular reasoning. All 3 versions begin with a declaration that the temple will be destroyed in Jesus' generation. That's what was predicted, and that's what followed. The fact the Jews went into an age long "wandering" does not take away from that fact. The fact that this story ends with the 2nd Coming does not take away from this fact. None of this is "circular reasoning."

      Comment


      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        The history of the 20th century includes a lot more things than a single Discourse.
        No, you can state the history of the 20th century in a few words, or more words, or a dissertation or lots of dissertations. The question is the AMOUNT of information you choose to include. I am fairly certain we do NOT have the whole of the Discourse in the gospels. I expect Jesus spoke for the whole afternoon.

        No, as I said, Jesus' 2nd Coming is involved, but it serves as a comparison to the Main Event, which is indicated to be the 70 AD destruction of the temple.
        As a Christian you are SEVERELY CONFUSED as to WHAT the MAIN event is.
        The MAIN event is Jesus.

        Doesn't matter. The context was the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The "Great Tribulation" to come began with the 70 AD event, and continues until the end of the age, when "the times of the Gentiles" come to an end.
        The Temple was indeed the CONTEXT, but it was NOT ONLY about the PHYSICAL Temple in Jerusalem. This is where you need to look a bit deeper into what Jesus was speaking about.
        He was talking to His Body, which IS the Temple, and what they would go through.
        The PHYSICAL Temple was but the STARTER of the MEAL. The MAIN course was what the Disciples (The Temple) would go through whilst Jesus is GONE. The DESSERT was His return, coming for His Disciples (who had been the visible expression of His Temple on earth).

        It is explicitly said to be about the 70 AD desolation of the temple in *all 3 versions* of the Olivet Discourse! This is not backwards! You corrupt the context, brother. I'm just saying what these passages say--they were all about the desolation of the temple. It's audacious that you call this "backwards!"

        I've not said that the OD is *only* about the 70 AD event--it does include the 2nd Coming as an event that is comparable, and as an event that brings all judgments and all salvation to a conclusion. Also, the 70 AD event only *began* the Jewish diaspora of the NT age. If so, then it was a warning not just to Jewish believers that they would be without a nation, but it was also a warning to other nations not to follow the example of Israel.
        No, you have said that anything about the AC was not part of this, but clearly Jesus DID cover this too.

        You just don't accept it--as I said, the words "holy place" does *not* apply strictly to the temple in the Scriptures! Your argument is that with the addition of the definite article "the" the words "the holy place" *must* apply to the temple.
        It is NOT a question of ME accepting it. You have NOT provided a SINGLE instance where "the Holy place" does NOT refer to the Temple. So why should ANYONE agree with your view as being valid when it has ZERO support from any scripture?

        This is false! It is entirely logical for "the holy place" (with the definite article) to apply exclusively to the temple, because the use of "holy place" was applied as a proper noun to the temple under OT law. This was also true in Hebrews. But when Jesus applied the term "holy place" in the Olivet Discourse, he no longer specified the temple, but rather, applied it, in context, to Roman armies encircling Jerusalem.
        IOW EVERYWHERE in scripture INCLUDING when Jesus gave the Discourse, "the Holy place" meant the Temple.
        Jesus had just left the Temple and ALL the Disciples KNEW what the Holy place was.
        You are claiming something that the very scripture you are making claim to, does NOT give such an idea.

        Let me give you an example. 10 years ago, the word "well" was used by me for my own well. After installing the well we began to call it "the well," with the definite article.
        But that all changed when we acquired a different well, at a different property. Then, "the well" no longer meant my old well, even though "the well" had been used exhaustively and 100% of the time for the well I used to have. When the circumstances changed, "the well" did not have a required application to the previous well. Use of the term "well" with a definite article made no difference at all.
        Yes, and? The Temple was STILL standing when Jesus gave these words. Moreover NO OTHER Temple was built. Additionally UNTIL the Temple was destroyed, you accept that the OT was still holding sway. IOW UNTIL a circumstance changes, which has NOT happened until the Temple is destroyed, the OLD meaning remains the correct meaning.
        Furthermore, EVEN AFTER the Temple is destroyed this usage of the word CONTINUED, and this is where your example falls down, for NO new well was dug, so there is NO CHANGE.

        No, it is simply *logical* and *obvious* that all 3 versions are about the exact same Discourse! That is *not* circular reasoning. All 3 versions begin with a declaration that the temple will be destroyed in Jesus' generation. That's what was predicted, and that's what followed. The fact the Jews went into an age long "wandering" does not take away from that fact. The fact that this story ends with the 2nd Coming does not take away from this fact. None of this is "circular reasoning."
        You are still giving circular reasoning. It is NOT disputed that there is but ONE Discourse. This is not what the claim about circular reasoning challenges.
        What is in question is whether certain things stated in one recollection of the Discourse MUST be the SAME thing as something stated DIFFERENTLY in another.

        Now do ANY of the Discourses say that the Temple will be destroyed in Jesus' generation? NO, not one. However even IF that were true it does NOT deal with the simple issue.
        I agree that the Jews being without a PHYSICAL Temple doesn't make any difference, except to help understand what Luke wrote.
        What is CIRCULAR is your claim that the SPECIFIC verses in Luke 21:20 MUST be the SAME as those in Matt 24:15 because you say they are the SAME, so then they are SEEN as being the SAME.

        I have highlighted how we can determine the TRUTH of this claim, based on a number of things:
        1) What happens BEFORE and AFTER the event.
        2) What happens DURING the event.
        3) What else the authors have put about the time.
        4) Where the SIGN is seen, and what that SIGN is.

        In each case you simply say - it is the same so it is the same.
        When you have been told that one speaks of things happening to Disciples and the other to Jews, you then claim that what happens to the Jews IS what happens to the Disciples, though this is CLEARLY and UNARGUABLY not true - yet you persist in this claim.
        When you are told that one has the gospel being preached in the whole world first, you change what the gospel is - so that you can persist in your claim.
        When you are told that the Holy place is ONLY used about the place IN the Temple, you argue that he meaning has changed, but have ZERO support for this change EXCEPT circular reasoning.
        When you are told that given a clear example which shows that speaking of two similar events in one discussion is entirely possible and even a normal thing to do - you persist in your claim by try to say that this is not possible.

        Really your ENTIRE basis for your claim is because they sound similar. Beyond this you have NOTHING to support such a view from scripture. Everything IN those scriptures show TWO separate events.

        Comment


        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          No, you can state the history of the 20th century in a few words, or more words, or a dissertation or lots of dissertations. The question is the AMOUNT of information you choose to include. I am fairly certain we do NOT have the whole of the Discourse in the gospels. I expect Jesus spoke for the whole afternoon.
          I agree. However, since the excerpts chosen by the 3 synoptic authors were similar, I think the key points were covered. Additional words would not materially affect the obvious meaning.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          As a Christian you are SEVERELY CONFUSED as to WHAT the MAIN event is.
          The MAIN event is Jesus.
          No, as a Christian I must be honest before Jesus, and declare what I believe to be true. The Discourse is indicated to be a response to Jesus' declaration that the temple is about to fall. You really want to make every theological argument about whether Jesus is the priority?

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          The Temple was indeed the CONTEXT, but it was NOT ONLY about the PHYSICAL Temple in Jerusalem. This is where you need to look a bit deeper into what Jesus was speaking about.
          He was talking to His Body, which IS the Temple, and what they would go through.
          The PHYSICAL Temple was but the STARTER of the MEAL. The MAIN course was what the Disciples (The Temple) would go through whilst Jesus is GONE. The DESSERT was His return, coming for His Disciples (who had been the visible expression of His Temple on earth).

          No, you have said that anything about the AC was not part of this, but clearly Jesus DID cover this too.
          No, Antichrist is not mentioned a single time! Daniel talked about the Little Horn. The book of Revelation discusses the Beast. But here, Jesus speaks only of False Christs and False Prophets, both of which constituted his concern for the disciples in his own generation. This is not focused upon the Antichrist at all! On the contrary, the primary focus is on the 70 AD event, with the 2nd Coming being referred to only in connection with this. I therefore conclude that the 2nd Coming is used as a comparison to the events of 70 AD, and as the end game of the entire period of great tribulation for the Jewish People.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          It is NOT a question of ME accepting it. You have NOT provided a SINGLE instance where "the Holy place" does NOT refer to the Temple. So why should ANYONE agree with your view as being valid when it has ZERO support from any scripture?
          This is getting repetitive. I've already explained this to you several times. The 2 words "holy place" do *not* always refer to the temple! When the definite article "the" is attached to these 2 words, yes, they always refer to the Holy Place of the temple, as long as the context has to do with OT worship.

          And this was the continuous application in the OT Scriptures. Under the Law, THE holy place was the Holy Place of the temple. However, when it came to the end of the OT system, and to the end of the temple itself, Jesus referred to THE holy place as the location to which an invading army would gather. That is a different context than usually applied under OT standards. And thus, a different application is justified.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          IOW EVERYWHERE in scripture INCLUDING when Jesus gave the Discourse, "the Holy place" meant the Temple.
          Jesus had just left the Temple and ALL the Disciples KNEW what the Holy place was.
          You are claiming something that the very scripture you are making claim to, does NOT give such an idea.

          Yes, and? The Temple was STILL standing when Jesus gave these words. Moreover NO OTHER Temple was built. Additionally UNTIL the Temple was destroyed, you accept that the OT was still holding sway. IOW UNTIL a circumstance changes, which has NOT happened until the Temple is destroyed, the OLD meaning remains the correct meaning.
          Furthermore, EVEN AFTER the Temple is destroyed this usage of the word CONTINUED, and this is where your example falls down, for NO new well was dug, so there is NO CHANGE.

          You are still giving circular reasoning. It is NOT disputed that there is but ONE Discourse. This is not what the claim about circular reasoning challenges.
          What is in question is whether certain things stated in one recollection of the Discourse MUST be the SAME thing as something stated DIFFERENTLY in another.
          Yes, that's the issue. Different words can be introduced to mean something different in the same discourse. But this was not likely the case here. All 3 versions begin with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. All 3 versions use the language of "desolation" with respect to the temple. All 3 versions inform the disciples what specifically to *look for,* and what specifically to *escape from.* This is an argument by comparison, as well as by context. This is neither circular reasoning, nor arguing simply a pretext.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          Now do ANY of the Discourses say that the Temple will be destroyed in Jesus' generation? NO, not one. However even IF that were true it does NOT deal with the simple issue.
          Yes, all 3 versions say that the temple would be destroyed in "this generation." And that is precisely what happened, historically.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          I agree that the Jews being without a PHYSICAL Temple doesn't make any difference, except to help understand what Luke wrote.
          What is CIRCULAR is your claim that the SPECIFIC verses in Luke 21:20 MUST be the SAME as those in Matt 24:15 because you say they are the SAME, so then they are SEEN as being the SAME.
          Yes, that is the argument.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          I have highlighted how we can determine the TRUTH of this claim, based on a number of things:
          1) What happens BEFORE and AFTER the event.
          2) What happens DURING the event.
          3) What else the authors have put about the time.
          4) Where the SIGN is seen, and what that SIGN is.

          In each case you simply say - it is the same so it is the same.
          No, that isn't at all what I've said. I argue by comparison and by context.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          When you have been told that one speaks of things happening to Disciples and the other to Jews, you then claim that what happens to the Jews IS what happens to the Disciples, though this is CLEARLY and UNARGUABLY not true - yet you persist in this claim.
          When you are told that one has the gospel being preached in the whole world first, you change what the gospel is - so that you can persist in your claim.
          No, my view of the universality of the gospel preaching has not changed. I only question, as a side interest, what "the end" refers to, whether the end of the temple or the end of the age. It doesn't materially affect my overall interpretation of the passage.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          When you are told that the Holy place is ONLY used about the place IN the Temple, you argue that he meaning has changed, but have ZERO support for this change EXCEPT circular reasoning.
          When you are told that given a clear example which shows that speaking of two similar events in one discussion is entirely possible and even a normal thing to do - you persist in your claim by try to say that this is not possible.
          I have not at all said it is "impossible." I've said it is *unlikely* in this particular case.

          Originally posted by ForHisglory
          Really your ENTIRE basis for your claim is because they sound similar. Beyond this you have NOTHING to support such a view from scripture. Everything IN those scriptures show TWO separate events.
          If they "sound similar" you agree I have a basis to my claim.

          Comment


          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            I agree. However, since the excerpts chosen by the 3 synoptic authors were similar, I think the key points were covered. Additional words would not materially affect the obvious meaning.
            So now you are missing the point of my example.
            Well if you refuse to engage...

            Comment


            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

              I'm surprised that this debate is still going on... Is there anything that hasn't already been said?

              Comment


              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                I'm surprised that this debate is still going on... Is there anything that hasn't already been said?
                I have explained to our brother FHG multiple times that I believe we've covered all bases, and can now agree to disagree. He just perpetuates the conversation by acting as if I'm missing a point. And I answer that I've not missed that point. And then he misrepresents something I've said repeatedly, and so I feel I have to straighten that out.

                I really don't know how to deal with a brother who can never agree that we've reached an impasse? If you have any suggestions, I'm open...

                Comment


                • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  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".
                  What happened to them that were in Judea? Clearly he warned them to flee the coming destruction.

                  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.

                  He referred us to the book of Daniel, which states that the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
                  And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                  Comment


                  • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                    Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                    What happened to them that were in Judea? Clearly he warned them to flee the coming destruction.
                    Not about 70 AD. He does want them us to flee a coming destruction (if we are in Jerusalem).

                    He referred us to the book of Daniel, which states that the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
                    This is a problem for you as that was stated AFTER the 62nd week, which you (and randyk) have as meaning DURING the 70th week.
                    Yet 70 AD was NOT the SAME week as when Jesus died.

                    Comment


                    • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      I have explained to our brother FHG multiple times that I believe we've covered all bases, and can now agree to disagree. He just perpetuates the conversation by acting as if I'm missing a point. And I answer that I've not missed that point. And then he misrepresents something I've said repeatedly, and so I feel I have to straighten that out.
                      I really don't know how to deal with a brother who can never agree that we've reached an impasse? If you have any suggestions, I'm open...
                      The easy way is to say you agree to disagree and leave it as that.
                      If you decide to put your own view forward though then it means you are asking for further debate.

                      Comment


                      • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                        Not about 70 AD. He does want them us to flee a coming destruction (if we are in Jerusalem).


                        This is a problem for you as that was stated AFTER the 62nd week, which you (and randyk) have as meaning DURING the 70th week.
                        Yet 70 AD was NOT the SAME week as when Jesus died.
                        Please don't misrepresent my position. I've *never* said that "the people of the prince to come" will destroy "the city and the sanctuary" *during the 70th Week!*

                        I will restate my position for you, so that you can present it properly. I believe the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was indicated, in Dan 9, to take place AFTER the 70 Weeks. The 70th Week brought to pass the fulfillment of the 6 things that Messiah was to accomplish. The desolation of the temple was to *follow* Messiah's work!!

                        Comment


                        • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                          The easy way is to say you agree to disagree and leave it as that.
                          If you decide to put your own view forward though then it means you are asking for further debate.
                          I've already informed you that on a number of points we were just repeating old arguments, and should "agree to disagree" on those matters. I'm *always* open to new arguments, or to review older issues that remain unsettled or misconstrued, or even possibly misunderstood.

                          I was disturbed by a few others on this site who grew tired of hearing what they saw as the "same old arguments." Maybe I shouldn't worry so much about others, who can simply ignore the arguments?

                          Regardless, I took the cue, and decided old arguments were going nowhere. I wish to put no constraints on you if you genuinely wish to address issues. We just need to know when we're both saying, "Yes it is," "No it isn't."

                          Comment


                          • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                            Not about 70 AD. He does want them us to flee a coming destruction (if we are in Jerusalem).
                            What reason would Jesus have for not warning 1st century Judea? You make it sound like he wanted them to perish...not being worthy of Gods patience and grace.
                            And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                            Comment


                            • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                              Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                              What reason would Jesus have for not warning 1st century Judea? You make it sound like he wanted them to perish...not being worthy of Gods patience and grace.
                              No, Jesus DID warn them about 70 AD, as clearly recorded by Luke.
                              However Jesus is also concerned to warn the Jews about what will happen when the AC comes to power. This is recorded by Matthew.
                              What is strange is to think that Jesus would NOT want to warn them about this event.

                              Comment


                              • Re: holy ground in the NT?

                                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                Please don't misrepresent my position. I've *never* said that "the people of the prince to come" will destroy "the city and the sanctuary" *during the 70th Week!*

                                I will restate my position for you, so that you can present it properly. I believe the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was indicated, in Dan 9, to take place AFTER the 70 Weeks. The 70th Week brought to pass the fulfillment of the 6 things that Messiah was to accomplish. The desolation of the temple was to *follow* Messiah's work!!
                                You have stated that Dan 9:26 and 27 are parallel verses meaning that the one is a restatement of the other.
                                You clearly have Jesus dying in verse 27 DURING the 70th week, which you have paralleling verse 26 which speaks about AFTER the 62nd week.
                                THEREFORE when verse 26 speaks of destruction this parallels verse 27 which ALSO speaks of destruction.
                                The WHOLE of the 70 weeks you also state here was fulfilled, and verse 27 is fulfilled by the end of the 70th week.

                                This is an issue with your entire approach.
                                I disagree with parallelism of this nature and have the 70th week so far yet to happen.
                                This is ONLY an issue for you due to your TWO claims that the 70th week and the whole prophecy is fulfilled, and that verse 26 and 27 are parallel verses.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X