Page 11 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 483

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    If some people believe that there are 3 AoD, I certainly don't. There are just 2 AoD - the first, fulfiled by A4E. The second, still a distant future. The Romans caused a desolation in the city, but they weren't the AoD.
    We agree that there are just 2 AoDs. We disagree on who they are. You believe they are Antiochus 4 and the Antichrist. I believe they are Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    On this topic, I'm with FHG. l don't accept your 'academic' interpretation of the holy place. As I have said consistently, the holy place is not just the temple, but inside of it. Identifying what constitutes the holy place is at the heart of the discourse, including the Great Tribulation. Obviously, you have a different take from me on this and that's okay.
    Yes, it's okay, brother. I do have an interest in any opposition to my position. Like you, I want the truth of the matter--I have no interest in "winning" an argument.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    There are just too many problems with this view that should have concerned you if you hadn't made up your mind to defend this position at all costs. The only pointer I can give you is from Luke's account. We know that Luke rather took a plain approach in his description of the events of 70 AD, unlike Matthew and Mark.

    Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

    From the above, it is clear that Luke was describing the destruction of the city in 70 AD. The fact he did not use the prefix "abomination" before desolation is not an accident because he was not referring to the defilement of the temple's sanctum which, in my view, is what the AoD will represent. The Romans and their eagle standard has been in Judea for years and even at the time of the discourse. Therefore, it would have been strange for Jesus to tell his disciples that when they see Roman soldiers or their standard around the temple, to get of dodge.
    I understand that you've already decided against my position. But to let you know how I feel about your comments, I need to say this.

    I do *not* think the eagle standards are the "abomination." Rather, I believe the Army itself was an "abomination" by virtue of their being a pagan army dedicated to the destruction of God's temple. Approaching the holy city, therefore, constituted an "abomination."

    Romans had been around the temple complex for years. They were not allowed to go into the temple area--I don't know if they actually did. But it is only when the Roman Army mobilized and set up a siege against Jerusalem, in order to defeat the holy city, that they became a threat to the temple itself. Even if there was no desire on the part of the Roman leader to actually destroy the temple, Jesus indicated that would happen once the Roman Army had begun to stand "in the holy place," ie when they positioned themselves to storm the city.

    My position finds its strength not so much in the language of the "holy place," but rather, in the words of Luke, in which Jesus described the event as a siege against Jerusalem by a [Roman] Army. Inasmuch as Luke describes it as "armies," it is indicated that the 1st Army would not accomplish the "desolation" itself. It would, in fact, be the 2nd Army, under Titus, that accomplished the "desolation" in reality.

    When we compare the desolation of Jerusalem in Luke with the "abomination of desolation" in Matthew and in Mark, we find that they are referring to the *same event*--not to different events. To say that the different language implies 2 different events is too much of a stretch for me. It doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather fall back and try to explain the language of the "holy place" Matthew and Mark referred to.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    I think I owe it to brothers to explain why I hold to my view of the Holy Place, and justify doing so. I think their arguments would be very strong if it wasn't for the fact the *context* in Luke requires that this invasion of the Holy Place involves the encirclement of Jerusalem, and not a penetration of the temple itself.

    Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”... 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..."

    Here, Jesus is unmistakably identifying the temple as the object of the destruction, and Jerusalem as the objective of Roman armies. Notice that "armies" is plural, indicating that this invasion would be 2-pronged, one taking place under Cestius Gallus in 66 Ad and the other taking place under Titus in 70 AD. Between the 2 invasions there was an immediate need to escape, particularly as the 70 AD attack approached.

    The big problem here is that when we compare this passage in Luke with the other versions, in Matt 24 and in Mark 13, the wording is different. And although those who disagree with me argue that this means another event is being referred to, this does not make sense to me. These passages are correlated in the same place in the Discourse and using similar language.

    Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”... 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."

    As you can see, the wording is very, very similar. In all accounts there is the sign: When you see X. And following immediately after is the response: Flee! And in between we can compare what the event is described as being: the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" or "Jerusalem being surrounded by armies."

    Why should we not assume that the *armies* are the *abomination?* That only makes sense to me! It makes much less sense to assume that Luke inserted a completely different event than either Matthew or Mark! And it makes even less sense since all 3 accounts are stated as having to do with the some thing--the destruction of the temple, stone by stone!

    So as far as I'm concerned, the only issue that needs to be resolved is: How can we correlate the being "in the holy place" with Roman armies "surrounding Jerusalem?"

    Well, there are a number of options.
    1) Jesus is covering the entire 2 pronged attack as if it was a single event. Jesus indicated the 1st attack would provide cover for escape, before the 2nd attack actually penetrated the temple.
    2) The "holy place" is defined not just as the temple, but as the whole temple complex, including the city itself.

    In defense of #2 I offer the following Scriptures...

    Exo 3.5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”

    Deut 23.14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

    2 Chron 8.11 Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the City of David to the palace he had built for her, for he said, “My wife must not live in the palace of David king of Israel, because the places the ark of the Lord has entered are holy.”

    2 Chron 35.5 “Stand in the holy place with a group of Levites for each subdivision of the families of your fellow Israelites, the lay people. (This was outside the Temple in the Court of the Priests.)

    Isa 51.51 “We are disgraced, for we have been insulted and shame covers our faces, because foreigners have entered the holy places of the Lord’s house.” (We know from 2 Chron 35.5 that this included the Court of the Priests.)

    Eze 45.1 “‘When you allot the land as an inheritance, you are to present to the Lord a portion of the land as a sacred district, 25,000 cubits long and 20,000 cubits wide; the entire area will be holy. (Once an area is designated holy, it can then be referred to as "the holy place" if cause required it to be referred to again.)
    45.4 It will be the sacred portion of the land for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and who draw near to minister before the Lord. It will be a place for their houses as well as a holy place for the sanctuary.

    Eze 48.13 “Alongside the territory of the priests, the Levites will have an allotment 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide. Its total length will be 25,000 cubits and its width 10,000 cubits. 14 They must not sell or exchange any of it. This is the best of the land and must not pass into other hands, because it is holy to the Lord.


    Notice the variety of applications of "holy place" in the above passages. It is argued that "the holy place" refers exclusively to the temple, and not to Jerusalem.

    However, "a holy place" has been defined as places outside of the temple as well. They were not referred to as "THE holy place" only because God had in mind affixing that appellation to the temple.

    Any place designated a "holy place," however, could be referred to as "the holy place" if the author had referred to it previously as a designated "holy place." None of this means that other "holy places" could not be designated "the holy place" if it had been referred to as such previously.

    In the above passages we see that the ground upon which Moses stood next to the burning bush was holy. Since it had been designated as holy before, I could say, "THE holy ground upon which Moses stood." This is the 1st mention of a "holy place."

    In Deut 23 you can see that not just the tabernacle is holy, but so also is the camp. Here is an early indication of how someone can desecrate an area, or place, outside of the tabernacle, or temple.

    In 2 Chron 8 we find that the palaces of David were considered "holy places" simply because the ark of God had passed through them.

    In 2 Chron 35 there is the Courtyard of the Priests that is viewed as "the holy place."

    In Isa 51 there are "holy places of the Lord's house," indicating that the temple includes more than a single "holy place." Not only is there the Most Holy and the Holy Place, but there is also the Courtyard of the Priests, as well as, perhaps, the city of Jerusalem itself, which is also called a "holy city."

    Jerusalem is, in a sense, a "holy place." There was a designated place within the temple called "the Holy Place." But any other area designated as "holy" could also be considered part of the holy area as well.

    I would argue that the city does belong to the temple, biblically, as a holy area. Eze 45 and 48 refer in a vision to sacred districts, indicating that land areas can be designated "holy" outside of the temple.

    But there are 2 things in particular I would point out here...

    1) The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of the "holy territory" connected with the temple.
    2) When enemies invaded Jerusalem they were often viewed as trespassing upon the holy city.

    Consider the following verses, indicating that Jerusalem was holy, and connected to the temple as a holy territory...

    Psal 46.4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells.

    Psal 48.1 Great is the Lord, and most worthy of praise, in the city of our God, his holy mountain.

    Psal 87.1 He has founded his city on the holy mountain.

    Neh 11.1 The rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of every ten of them to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, while the remaining nine were to stay in their own towns... 18 The Levites in the holy city totaled 284.

    Isa 4.3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.

    Isa 27.13 Those who were perishing in Assyria and those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.

    Is 48.2 you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and claim to rely on the God of Israel— the Lord Almighty is his name...

    Isa 52.1 Awake, awake, Zion, clothe yourself with strength! Put on your garments of splendor, Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again.

    Isa 60.14 The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet and will call you the City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

    Isa 62.12 They will be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the Lord; and you will be called Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted.

    Isa 66.20 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord.

    Jer 31.40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.”

    Dan 9.16 Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill.

    Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

    Joel 3.17 “Then you will know that I, the Lord your God, dwell in Zion, my holy hill. Jerusalem will be holy; never again will foreigners invade her.

    Zeph 3.11 On that day you, Jerusalem, will not be put to shame for all the wrongs you have done to me, because I will remove from you your arrogant boasters. Never again will you be haughty on my holy hill.

    Zech 2.12 The Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem.

    Zech 8.3 Then Jerusalem will be called the Faithful City, and the mountain of the Lord Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain.”

    Zech 14.21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty.

    Matt 27.53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

    Acts 21.28 This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.”

    Rev 21.2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

    21.10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.


    Zech 14 indicate Canaanites defile the temple *outside of the temple.* Acts 21 indicates that Greeks did the same. My assumption is that the defilement of the temple was by entering into the temple precincts rather than into the temple itself.

    This extends the definition of temple desecration to include area outside of the temple. We already know from this study that the "camp" could be made unclean, as well as the Courtyard of the Priests. Is it too much to think a "holy city" cannot be defiled by pagan armies?

    In fact, in the above passages we find that it is normal to view pagan armies as desecraters of God's holy places. Just invading Judah is considered part of the desecration of God's sacred territory and God's sacred people, along with any invasion of Jerusalem itself. We see this in Zech 2.

    I would go so far as to say that Jerusalem is viewed together with the temple as the object of desecration when enemy armies invade it. Clearly, as we can see, Jerusalem is referred to as the "holy city." Since this is a common theme, it does not seem much for Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse, to refer to both Jerusalem and the temple as a single desecration and as a single desolation. This he clearly did!

    Finally, the source referred to in Jesus' Discourse was in Dan 9. And it was in that very passage that Jerusalem is dealt with together with the temple as the things to be both desecrated and desolated.

    Daniel was making "request to the Lord my God for his holy hill." This was a prayer on behalf of the city of Jerusalem, since it was the city in which God's temple was located.

    Dan 9.26 he people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

    Clearly, the desecration of the sanctuary includes the destruction of the temple. It involves armies who besiege the city of Jerusalem!

    Dan 9.27 And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation

    The "abomination" is set up "at the temple," which is already indicated to be an assault against the city. The armies, in surrounding the city of Jerusalem, are in the process of attacking the temple. It would, however, be the 2nd Army that actually desecrated and destroyed the temple.

    In view of these things, I find it perfectly acceptable to view the Roman Armies as having been "in the holy place" when they surrounded the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was, biblically, the "holy city," and as such, were part and parcel with the temple itself.

    The sacred areas surrounding the temple were considered holy together with the temple itself. And any attack from enemies were viewed as an attack, firstly, on the city of Jerusalem, since that city was the defense of the temple.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My argument is *not* that the standards were the "abomination!" Rather, I'm arguing that the *Roman Army* was the abomination. The Roman army may have existed 100 years earlier and a 100 years later, but that wasn't the *sign* that Jesus pointed his disciples to. The *sign* was when this Roman Army positioned itself *around Jerusalem!* This was the definition of a *siege.*
    And a Roman army INSIDE a city isn't an abomination, which is the very definition of an occupying force!

    The Roman siege took place in 66 AD. It didn't take place 100 years earlier. And even if it took place 60 plus years later, the sign was *only* when the Roman troops besieged Jerusalem in such a way as to enable the Jewish believers to flee. This only took place in 66 AD.
    Which means they DID not actually capture the city and did NOT enter the Holy place or destroy it but where instead themselves vanquished!

    I don't understand Hebrew, but my understanding is that "place" isn't even there? In other words, this has more to do with separateness than with a location.
    The fact that the word has become identified with a particular location, through the use of ha-qodesh, and the fact that it regularly applies to that location, does not mean that this location cannot be used as a directional marker.
    It doesn't "regularly", but it ONLY applies to that location.

    As I indicated to you, to arrive at the temple may be, for a Roman Army, to simply reach Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a "marker" for the temple. It doesn't change the identification of the Holy Place with the temple. It only extends the use of the term to its aspect as a destination. And that destination may be characterized in a more extensive way than you wish to apply it.

    When I get back from England I say I'm finally at home when I reach Seattle. I'm not really at my physical home yet. But I extend the normal meaning of home, as applying to my house, to its use as a destination marker. Seattle becomes symbolic of my home in an adjacent County.

    I don't see why you don't indulge me on this, because that's exactly how I see the context here applying it? From Daniel to the Olivet Discourse of Jesus this is about the "people of the ruler to come," ie the Roman Army, who would desolate the city and the sanctuary. When the Army reaches the city walls, it is now "in the holy place." It's in the place separated by God for the purpose of having His house there.
    When you in Seattle you are NOT IN your home. So you may use the word "home" in a colloquial way, but NOT in a clear or exact way.
    If someone said "You will see randyk standing in his home and then you may shout 'surprise'" then when you arrive in Seattle I would NOT be seeing you standing IN your home.
    It is wrong to indulge you when you are playing with words, when the meaning is plain and simple.

    I get it. You think the temple is exclusively the Holy Place. And it *cannot*--absolutely *must not*--refer to Jerusalem. I beg to differ, because the context indicates that it is when the Army reaches the walls of Jerusalem that it is now "in the holy place." That was the sign, and that is what happened in 66 AD.
    Nope the CONTEXT 100% does NOT support your view. The CONTEXT was the Temple and NOT the city. Did Jesus say, not one stone of the city, or was it not one stone of the temple?
    Further it is not simply what I think. I think New York is a city in the US. I could be wrong as I have never been there to check this out, however everybody KNOWS that New York is a city in the US. "the Holy place" only ever refers to one place, which is IN the Temple. I may be wrong about that, but EVERYBODY who knows anything about scripture KNOWS this.
    Now when you approach people who are involved in languages and Hebrew experts and understand the Jewish perspective etc then we discover they ALL know this.
    It is a SIMPLE FACT, which you are refusing to accept because to do so means you have to change your entire understanding of the OD and then this has ripple affects on a lot of other things.

    Well, do me this one favor. Please consider the use of the Holy Place as a destination marker, and ask yourself the question. At what point would Jesus' disciples consider the Roman Army "in the holy place?" Would it be when they arrive at the walls of Jerusalem? Or, would it be when they arrive inside the temple itself?
    The Holy pace IS a location marker. The point when ANYONE, disciples, Jews, other people would consider an army or anything else to be in the Holy place, is when it is IN the Holy place! That is very simple and straight forward and the CLEAR meaning. It is why everyone understands it as that.

    Based on Dan 9, and based on Luke's version, I believe the disciples expected the Roman Army to be "in the holy place" when they reached the outskirts of Jerusalem. After all, that is what Jesus said would happen. They would encircle Jerusalem. And if you assume Matthew and Mark were referring to the same event, they saw this Roman abomination "standing in the holy place." In other words, when this abominable Roman Army got to Jerusalem, and encircled it, they would be *in the holy place!*
    Jesus said many things would happen. You want to make EVERYTHING be limited to just the one thing. It isn't.
    Why would any of the disciples expect and army OUTSIDE Jerusalem to be co-equivalent to being IN the Holy place, requires that Jesus not only said both things, but that He also linked them.
    The problem for you is that Jesus does NOT link them and nor does a SINGLE gospel author. The link is ONLY made in your head.
    If you were Matthew writing the OD and you wanted to be clear as to what Jesus said so that other Christians would understand, would you make a CRYPTIC remark - let the reader understand - or would you quote what Jesus said as the explanation. After all Matthew gave Jesus' explanations elsewhere, such as the parable of the Sower!

    Also If you were Luke and you have information about a second time to flee, wouldn't you note it in a separate place where it is connected to the time of His return - which is what Luke did!

    Jesus did NOT change what words mean. He did NOT say the Holy place was outside of Jerusalem. Jesus would have KNOWN what everyone else would have known, which is that the Holy place is in the Temple. This is what Daniel would have known too!

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,766
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    And if you were right that the locate had to mean the temple, and not its environs, then you would be right. The Roman Army could *not* have been the AoD in 66 AD. However, I do believe that the environs of the temple is included in the term "the holy place." As a locate, it was its position *on the map* that mattered, and not strictly the temple. If you called a point on the map, where the temple was located, "the holy place," then you would see that Jerusalem also is "the holy place." The same dot that locates the temple also locates the city. The city and the temple are, in effect, the same locate.

    I would not say that except for the simple fact that *the context calls for it.* And the context is all important for a term like "the holy place." FHG argues that "the holy place" is always the temple and never includes the city environment. But in reality, the context is all important for any term, no matter how it is regularly, and even exclusively, used.

    The 1st time "holy ground" is used we may say it was used *exclusively* for an area outside of the temple. And we see that without the article "the" a "holy place" can indeed include the environs of the temple. And so, if we see how "the holy place" is used, and recognize that context controls how it is used, "the holy place" can be designated as applicable to the city as a locate for the temple.

    This may sound convoluted, but it is in fact the context of the passage. It demands a larger application of "holy place" than just to the temple. It legitimately refers to the city environment in which the temple was located, I believe.
    You said it: your definition of the holy place as used in context of the OD is convoluted and academic. A far cry from the simplicity of understanding in which Jesus used the phrase.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,766
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    We agree that there are just 2 AoDs. We disagree on who they are. You believe they are Antiochus 4 and the Antichrist. I believe they are Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus.
    It's good when we agree on a topic. Allows me to wake up every morning with hope...

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,766
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I understand that you've already decided against my position. But to let you know how I feel about your comments, I need to say this.

    I do *not* think the eagle standards are the "abomination." Rather, I believe the Army itself was an "abomination" by virtue of their being a pagan army dedicated to the destruction of God's temple. Approaching the holy city, therefore, constituted an "abomination."

    Romans had been around the temple complex for years. They were not allowed to go into the temple area--I don't know if they actually did. But it is only when the Roman Army mobilized and set up a siege against Jerusalem, in order to defeat the holy city, that they became a threat to the temple itself. Even if there was no desire on the part of the Roman leader to actually destroy the temple, Jesus indicated that would happen once the Roman Army had begun to stand "in the holy place," ie when they positioned themselves to storm the city.

    My position finds its strength not so much in the language of the "holy place," but rather, in the words of Luke, in which Jesus described the event as a siege against Jerusalem by a [Roman] Army. Inasmuch as Luke describes it as "armies," it is indicated that the 1st Army would not accomplish the "desolation" itself. It would, in fact, be the 2nd Army, under Titus, that accomplished the "desolation" in reality.

    When we compare the desolation of Jerusalem in Luke with the "abomination of desolation" in Matthew and in Mark, we find that they are referring to the *same event*--not to different events. To say that the different language implies 2 different events is too much of a stretch for me. It doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather fall back and try to explain the language of the "holy place" Matthew and Mark referred to.
    I agree that you have not presented the Eagle Standard as the AoD, but some of the ECF positions you've cited to support your position believed the standard is. Surely you can't agree with their interpretation of the discourse and disagree with what they believe the AoD is?

    On the contrary, I don't see Luke's language in, ch 21:20 as a stretch. I believe he was referring to 70 AD whereas Matthew and Mark focused on the AoD which is yet to be fulfilled.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    And a Roman army INSIDE a city isn't an abomination, which is the very definition of an occupying force!
    A Roman Army on the outskirts of a city are indeed an "abomination," but not yet an "occupying force." I'm not defining the Roman Army as an "occupying force." But I am identifying it as an "abomination." In other words, I don't agree that the Roman Army "in the holy place" has to be inside the city walls and so constitute an "occupying force." The Roman Army can still be an "abomination" that is "in the holy place" without having to be an "occupying force." (The language here is sheer madness!)

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Which means they DID not actually capture the city and did NOT enter the Holy place or destroy it but where instead themselves vanquished!
    Right, the Roman Army did *not* enter the temple, nor destroy it. Nor did it vanquish the Jews in Jerusalem. This doesn't address whether the "holy place" can apply to the siege of Jerusalem? To be around the city may very well constitute being "in the holy place," if the language allows for it? I understand that you don't think so. I think it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It doesn't "regularly", but it ONLY applies to that location.
    "The holy place" is controlled more by the context than by its exclusive use as a designated Proper Noun. In other words, "the holy place" can be exclusively used as a proper noun, represented the temple, and still be used in a more general way as "the holy place," if it is being specifically referred to as something previously referenced.

    For example, the temple had other extended holy areas, including the entire city of Jerusalem, and around it. It was not designated specifically as THE holy place, but was regularly referred to as "holy places."

    To designate it as THE holy place simply required a context to indicate it as such. And we find that in Dan 9, where the "people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

    In other words, based on this previous mention in Dan 9, the "holy place" has an extended definition to include the city, and not just the temple. And so, Jesus refers to it as THE holy place, ie the one referenced in Dan 9. This is the "holy place" in which an Army surrounds the city to desolate both it and the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    When you in Seattle you are NOT IN your home. So you may use the word "home" in a colloquial way, but NOT in a clear or exact way.
    If someone said "You will see randyk standing in his home and then you may shout 'surprise'" then when you arrive in Seattle I would NOT be seeing you standing IN your home.
    It is wrong to indulge you when you are playing with words, when the meaning is plain and simple.
    Words can indeed be "played with." That's the nature of words. They can have colloquial uses, and they can be flexibly applied, depending on how the speakers or writers wishes to use those words.

    We know that "holy place" refers to the temple. But we also know that "holy place" can refer, flexibly, to areas around the temple. THE holy place always designated the temple--I agree. But the nature of the use of articles does not require that "the holy place" always refer to the temple. Just a single change in context, and "the holy place" can refer to both the temple and Jerusalem. And that change is evident, I believe, in Dan 9.

    I'm not "playing with words" in a disrespectful way. I'm just recognizing, rightly, that words cannot always be applied uniformly. Context matters. There is a fallacy associated with applying the totality of a word or phrase in all places in the Scriptures.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope the CONTEXT 100% does NOT support your view. The CONTEXT was the Temple and NOT the city. Did Jesus say, not one stone of the city, or was it not one stone of the temple?
    Luke made it clear that the destruction of the temple also meant a siege laid against the city! In the Scriptures, the city of Jerusalem was associated with the temple. That is why Jerusalem was called the "holy city." I provided the Scriptures to support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further it is not simply what I think. I think New York is a city in the US. I could be wrong as I have never been there to check this out, however everybody KNOWS that New York is a city in the US. "the Holy place" only ever refers to one place, which is IN the Temple. I may be wrong about that, but EVERYBODY who knows anything about scripture KNOWS this.
    No, as I showed you, Wesley viewed the Army surrounding the city as being "in the holy place." And so do the majority of church fathers, indirectly. It's just that they believed that it included actual penetration of the temple walls in some way, whether Caligula or some other emperor, depositing some idol in the temple building.

    In reality, I think too much is made of the correlation between Antiochus 4 and the phrase "in the holy place." Because Antiochus 4 actually put an idol in the temple we think that an "abomination in the holy place" must refer to an idol put in the temple proper.

    But I believe the "abomination of desolation" referred to the replacement of Jewish worship with idolatrous emperor worship. When Antiochus put his own image in the temple, it was the same as Caesar demanding his own worship. The Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem had eagle standards, with, I believe, a representation of Caesar himself. This was the abomination--Caesar worship! It was not placing something inside the temple proper.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now when you approach people who are involved in languages and Hebrew experts and understand the Jewish perspective etc then we discover they ALL know this.
    It is a SIMPLE FACT, which you are refusing to accept because to do so means you have to change your entire understanding of the OD and then this has ripple affects on a lot of other things.
    Actually, I believe you have it worse than you think I have it. As far as lexicons go, I have a burden to prove that "in the holy place" involved besieging Roman forces. But you have it much, much worse! You have to prove that Matthew and Mark were saying something very different from what Luke explicitly said!

    Luke clearly said, and we all agree he said, that Jerusalem would be surrounded by Roman armies. This would be the sign the Disciples were to "see," and which would make them "flee."

    And yet in Matthew and Mark, in the *very same Discourse,* you have the Disciples look for a *completely different sign* and something completely different to *flee from!* This makes the same Discourse completely conflicted.

    Yes, your problem is impossible to overcome, in my view. You are dealing with a much smaller problem when I try to explain the "standing in the holy place." You have to explain how Matthew and Mark meant the Antichrist when Luke meant the Roman armies! Your problem is nearly impossible to resolve.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The Holy pace IS a location marker. The point when ANYONE, disciples, Jews, other people would consider an army or anything else to be in the Holy place, is when it is IN the Holy place! That is very simple and straight forward and the CLEAR meaning. It is why everyone understands it as that.
    Anybody who uses common language understands that two very different markers can locate the *same thing!* My town and my house can both locate my home. The city of Jerusalem, and the temple itself, can both locate the "holy place."

    Not only do they mark the temple, but they both locate a more broad definition of the temple than just the building itself. I've proven that holy places extend outwards from the temple building itself to include the Court of the Priests, the city, and even the surrounding areas.

    When an army invades Jerusalem it is invading the "holy place." And it is invading the *temple itself.* Language does allow for this. It's just a matter whether this is how the Disciples understood it or not?

    And I think they did, based on their unique understanding of Dan 9. It is precisely because the terminology is unique that Matthew called for reference to Daniel, and Mark called for more intense reading. And Daniel provided precedent for viewing the "holy place" as the entire temple locality, including the city and the surrounding areas in which armies would be present.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Jesus said many things would happen. You want to make EVERYTHING be limited to just the one thing. It isn't.
    Why would any of the disciples expect and army OUTSIDE Jerusalem to be co-equivalent to being IN the Holy place, requires that Jesus not only said both things, but that He also linked them.
    Luke 21 shows that Jesus linked them!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The problem for you is that Jesus does NOT link them and nor does a SINGLE gospel author. The link is ONLY made in your head.
    Again, Jesus linked them in Luke 21. You are not accurate here. Keep in mind that what you accuse me of would also apply to Wesley, and I believe to many others, including the Church Fathers. They all saw the fulfillment of the AoD in the 66-70 AD time frame, generally. They just didn't try to work out all of the language, as I'm trying to do now.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you were Matthew writing the OD and you wanted to be clear as to what Jesus said so that other Christians would understand, would you make a CRYPTIC remark - let the reader understand - or would you quote what Jesus said as the explanation. After all Matthew gave Jesus' explanations elsewhere, such as the parable of the Sower!
    Yes, I would. I would want to draw specific reference to the AoD, so that Jewish readers would understand the direct relationship between the 70 AD destruction of the temple with the prophecy, by Daniel, of the same. Jewish readers would have to apply their *Jewish* understanding, and thus recognize that this has to do with Jewish history. The language of the AoD also held a precedent in the history of Antiochus 4, such that Jewish readers would know that this had to do with emperor worship--something to be avoided at all costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Also If you were Luke and you have information about a second time to flee, wouldn't you note it in a separate place where it is connected to the time of His return - which is what Luke did!
    No, Luke would say the same thing as Matthew and Mark, since they were all quoting Jesus. Luke mentioned "armies," plural. This would've included both Roman invasions, Gallus and Titus.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Jesus did NOT change what words mean. He did NOT say the Holy place was outside of Jerusalem. Jesus would have KNOWN what everyone else would have known, which is that the Holy place is in the Temple. This is what Daniel would have known too!
    "Holy Place" was used flexibly in the OT in the sense of "a holy place." The article could change from indefinite to definite if the context warranted it. There may have been little precedent for it.

    However, it would've been understood if there was a specific precedent for it. And I believe that precedent existed in Dan 9, where the city and the sanctuary are treated together as the objective of a pagan foreign army. Yes, I think there is sufficient warrant for believing that Jesus predicted the Roman armies would stand around Jerusalem and be "in the holy place." That is the lesson from Daniel, that emperor worship would defile Jerusalem, the holy city, where the temple was located.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    You said it: your definition of the holy place as used in context of the OD is convoluted and academic. A far cry from the simplicity of understanding in which Jesus used the phrase.
    It was not so simple for the simple reader, like the early Gentile Christians. That's why, I believe, Jesus referred his Disciples to Daniel 9, because this had precedent in Jewish history, namely Antiochus 4, and had to do with the future of the Jewish People.

    Luke made it more clear for Gentile readers. But for Jewish readers, Jesus wanted them to understand that they would be presented with a choice between emperor worship, such as existed under Antiochus 4, or the worship of the one true God. That was, I believe, the meaning of the cryptic phrase, "abomination of desolation." It was the severe temptation to accept the worship of pagan kings, in place of worship of God and His Christ, Jesus.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    It's good when we agree on a topic. Allows me to wake up every morning with hope...
    Clearly, with some brothers we can fight like brothers do, and then defend one another when common enemies threaten us. But with some brothers, the arguments are a matter of fighting to the death. I prefer the former.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I agree that you have not presented the Eagle Standard as the AoD, but some of the ECF positions you've cited to support your position believed the standard is. Surely you can't agree with their interpretation of the discourse and disagree with what they believe the AoD is?

    On the contrary, I don't see Luke's language in, ch 21:20 as a stretch. I believe he was referring to 70 AD whereas Matthew and Mark focused on the AoD which is yet to be fulfilled.
    I know you see it that way, and I think that's impossible to uphold. The reason I'm arguing for the language of the "holy place" is precisely because I cannot uphold your position, that Luke said something different from Matthew and Mark. They are the *same Discourse!* They present the *same sign* for the Disciples to "flee from." How can they be different? How can 2 of them be speaking of the Antichrist, and Luke be speaking of the Roman siege? It just doesn't make sense!

    Why would you support the unsupportable, and consider my lesser problem a big deal? I don't get it...honestly! As I've shown you, I'm not alone in my views. The Church Fathers generally held that all this had to do with the 66-70 AD time period. Wesley even had the surrounding of Jerusalem as the "holy place!" Preterists at least get this part right by declaring it had something to do with the Romans themselves, having eagle standards.

    I do, for what it's worth, agree with the Preterists and with other historicists, who see significance in the eagle standards. But I think the "abomination" is only represented by this. I think the abomination is actually emperor worship, represented by the pagan Romans, who worshiped their emperor. And the eagle standards did represent the worship of their emperor, as I understand it?

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    "Holy Place" was used flexibly in the OT in the sense of "a holy place." The article could change from indefinite to definite if the context warranted it. There may have been little precedent for it.
    No, there is NOT a SINGLE occasion where the article changes in the Hebrew. Don't confuse what is done with the English to what happens with Hebrew.
    There is NOT a SINGLE instance of "a holy place" being called "the Holy place" in Hebrew. Not ONCE.
    There is therefore NO precendence, less than little, ZERO!

    However, it would've been understood if there was a specific precedent for it. And I believe that precedent existed in Dan 9, where the city and the sanctuary are treated together as the objective of a pagan foreign army. Yes, I think there is sufficient warrant for believing that Jesus predicted the Roman armies would stand around Jerusalem and be "in the holy place." That is the lesson from Daniel, that emperor worship would defile Jerusalem, the holy city, where the temple was located.
    What you mean is that you are claiming Jesus said something in a way NEVER said by anyone before, for it certainly is NOT said in Daniel 9, notice that the city and sanctuary are noted SEPARATELY, but both suffer the same fate.
    Further Jesus does NOT get quoted by Luke or anyone else as saying "When you see this, you are to understand it in this way..."
    After all this is what you are claiming Jesus said, yet for some reason which you are unable to explain NONE of the gospel authors made such a connection. These people who have ALL the information to hand, sharing it between them as they did. Are you claiming that Luke did NOT know that Jesus said the other statement about seeing the AoD standing...? Are you saying that Matthew did NOT know Jesus had shared about the army surrounding Jerusalem?

    It is clear you are unwilling to treat with what is stated as is stated and instead wish to INTERPRET what is said and further claim others are interpreting beyond that.
    This is woeful, but as you are unwilling to accept the truth that "the Holy place" ONLY refers to the place in the Temple, then there is no more to add.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No, there is NOT a SINGLE occasion where the article changes in the Hebrew. Don't confuse what is done with the English to what happens with Hebrew.
    There is NOT a SINGLE instance of "a holy place" being called "the Holy place" in Hebrew. Not ONCE.
    There is therefore NO precendence, less than little, ZERO!
    You are making a *huge* mistake here. You are saying that a definite article *cannot* be applied once there is a pattern of exclusivity attached to "the Holy Place." That is *false!* "The Holy Place" can be exclusively used for the temple, and for nowhere else, for a time. And then the same phrase can be applied differently in a later context when that context warrants it.

    My point was already made pretty clear. There is plenty of warrant for changing the context of the Holy Place being just the building itself. As I pointed out on multiple occasion, the term "holy place" is applied to places outside of the temple building, including the city of Jerusalem and surrounding it. Thus, when the occasion warrants it the term "the holy place" may indeed apply contextually in any of those ways.

    You are applying a fallacy, "totality transfer fallacy." One cannot say that "the holy place" can *only* apply in the same way in different places in Scriptures!

    But let me be clear. I do understand that you believe *every place* the term applies to the temple building. You are most certainly assuming what you wish to prove where it is used in the Olivet Discourse.

    And I also understand that you are arguing that Jews were likely to understand the term the way it was regularly and perhaps exclusively used. But my argument is that Jesus was referring, explicitly, to a specific and rare application in Dan 9, which nevertheless had basis for this application. Due to the regular use of "holy place" for Jerusalem, indicating it is a "holy city," it is warranted that Dan 9 applied the sense of the temple building and the city together as one, and not as separate components. That's why Jesus referred to "the holy place" as indicative of the entire city, and not just the temple building.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What you mean is that you are claiming Jesus said something in a way NEVER said by anyone before, for it certainly is NOT said in Daniel 9, notice that the city and sanctuary are noted SEPARATELY, but both suffer the same fate.
    Further Jesus does NOT get quoted by Luke or anyone else as saying "When you see this, you are to understand it in this way..."
    After all this is what you are claiming Jesus said, yet for some reason which you are unable to explain NONE of the gospel authors made such a connection. These people who have ALL the information to hand, sharing it between them as they did. Are you claiming that Luke did NOT know that Jesus said the other statement about seeing the AoD standing...? Are you saying that Matthew did NOT know Jesus had shared about the army surrounding Jerusalem?

    It is clear you are unwilling to treat with what is stated as is stated and instead wish to INTERPRET what is said and further claim others are interpreting beyond that.
    This is woeful, but as you are unwilling to accept the truth that "the Holy place" ONLY refers to the place in the Temple, then there is no more to add.
    No, there is no more to add, I should think? You wish to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew one another, and yet interpreted Jesus differently in the Olivet Discourse. In fact, the "abomination of desolation" is the "army of desolation." The "abomination standing in the holy place" was the "army encircling Jerusalem." I do not interpret them differently. I interpret them the same. It is *you* who are interpreting them differently. And this makes *no sense* to me!

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are making a *huge* mistake here. You are saying that a definite article *cannot* be applied once there is a pattern of exclusivity attached to "the Holy Place." That is *false!* "The Holy Place" can be exclusively used for the temple, and for nowhere else, for a time. And then the same phrase can be applied differently in a later context when that context warrants it.
    Nope, the HUGE mistake is made by you claiming the opposite.
    Remember I am NOT saying this about English, but about Hebrew.
    "The Holy place" IS used exclusively in the ENTIRE Bible, both OT and NT for the place in the Temple.

    And I also understand that you are arguing that Jews were likely to understand the term the way it was regularly and perhaps exclusively used. But my argument is that Jesus was referring, explicitly, to a specific and rare application in Dan 9, which nevertheless had basis for this application. Due to the regular use of "holy place" for Jerusalem, indicating it is a "holy city," it is warranted that Dan 9 applied the sense of the temple building and the city together as one, and not as separate components. That's why Jesus referred to "the holy place" as indicative of the entire city, and not just the temple building.
    Where does Daniel 9 speak of "the Holy place"?
    It mentions the city and sanctuary but makes no mention of "the Holy place".
    There was NO regular use of "Holy place" for Jerusalem either.
    It was called "the Holy city":
    Neh 11:1* Now the leaders of the people lived in Jerusalem. And the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of ten to live in Jerusalem the holy city, while nine out of ten remained in the other towns.

    However when it was used of "a Holy place" we find another word added:
    Lev 6:16* And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat. It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.
    So we have "qodesh" is for Holy, and is used with "maqom" for place to mean "a Holy place"
    When it is used with city is becomes a Holy city.
    However when it is used by itself it is ALWAYS "the Holy place".

    No, there is no more to add, I should think? You wish to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew one another, and yet interpreted Jesus differently in the Olivet Discourse. In fact, the "abomination of desolation" is the "army of desolation." The "abomination standing in the holy place" was the "army encircling Jerusalem." I do not interpret them differently. I interpret them the same. It is *you* who are interpreting them differently. And this makes *no sense* to me!
    Are you saying you think Matthew, Mark and Luke never met or knew each other?
    Now Luke was with Paul BEFORE he went to Macedonia. (Acts 16:10)
    Luke met Philip the Evangelist (one of the seven) who met the Ethiopian Eunuch. (Acts 21:8)
    Luke then met the brothers, James and all the elders present. (Acts 21:18)

    Now Luke has 7 days in Jerusalem finding things out, and then he goes to Caesarea, and is there for two years with Paul. Now Luke receives information from lots of people for his gospel and there is no reason to think he doesn't meet Matthew and Mark. How well he knows them is another matter, but two years is a good length of time with nothing else to do but find out all that Jesus taught and said.

    Now YOU are the one who is claiming that they are INTERPRETING Jesus, not me.
    I am noting that Luke makes NO mention of an AoD, which EITHER means Luke was NOT told about it, or that Luke does NOT see it as being connected with what he is told about the armies.
    The AoD is NOT an army, it isn't ANYWHERE in scripture. You may need an army in order to cause an AoD, but the army itself is not.
    Further an army which causes desolation is NOT an Abomination which causes desolation. Armies cause desolation as normal. That is what armies do.

    As Jesus spoke BOTH statements then this means there are TWO SIGNS. Therefore I will stick with what Jesus said, and note there are TWO SIGNS.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty
    By doug3 in forum Praise
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Apr 24th 2011, 03:41 PM
  2. My first ground up build...
    By Firefighter in forum Solomon's Porch
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Mar 10th 2011, 01:39 PM
  3. Holy Ground
    By LLarios in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep 8th 2009, 06:19 AM
  4. Replies: 128
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2009, 11:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •