Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 217

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    Again, you're claiming what you wish to prove! Your "proof" is only that the most common use of a "holy area" is the Holy Place of the temple. You have most certainly *not* proven that there are other "holy places" to which the article "the" can not be affixed! And as I said, *at any time* the article "the" can be affixed to a different application of a "holy place" if context warrants it.

    For example, we know Jerusalem is, by definition, a "holy place." That's because a city is a "place," and the city is called a "holy city." Therefore, it is a "holy place." It may be called "the holy city," instead of "the holy place," because the city is often distinguished from the temple. "The holy place" is not an exclusive definition of the temple, but most often it is used as such, due to the fact the temple is most commonly in view.

    My argument is that when the context calls for the city and the temple to be viewed together as a gathering spot for an attacking army, then they both may be referred to as "the holy place," because to attack the temple a siege must be set up against the city first. As a single locate, they are viewed as a single "place" for the enemy to gather.

    You don't control how words are used. The speakers and the writers do. Since we have in Dan 9 precedent for viewing the city and the temple together as a single spot to which an enemy army gathers, Jesus felt justified in calling them both "the holy place." The beginning of the siege of Jerusalem was the *sign* for his Disciples to take note of. Viewing the desolation of the temple itself as the sign would be too late.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    The "holy city" is clearly a "holy place." The choice to use the word "city" instead of simply the "holy place" is designed, I believe, to distinguish the city from the temple.

    But when Daniel portrayed the city and the temple together, as a single location to which a pagan army would desecrate the "holy place," they were together portrayed as a single "holy place."

    I didn't say Daniel used words to say that both were "the holy place"--they were still distinguished as a city from a building.

    But Daniel was portraying a future event in which both would be simultaneously desecrated. Thus, Jesus combined this desecration by making it a warning for his Disciples to escape, at the point when only the city had been desecrated.

    Jesus drew upon the image of the pagan army desecrating both the city and the temple from Daniel. He did this to afford time for his Disciples to flee well before the walls of Jerusalem had themselves been penetrated. When the city had been surrounded by a pagan army the Disciples knew there was an immediate need to flee. And since Cestius Gallus backed off after he established his initial siege, time was in fact given for Jesus' Disciples to flee.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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".
    If something is used as "the holy place" only twice for the temple, one could say it was used "exclusively" for the temple. What you're arguing is not how the article "the" functions, but about *how many times* "the holy place" referred to the temple. The article "the" thus functions to identify the temple regularly and almost exclusively in the OT because interest was focused on that particular use under those conditions.

    But use of the article "the" does not control the meaning when the context changes. It is simple for me to say to you, "I'm now going to include the holy area of the entire city along with the temple in calling them both 'the holy place.' " And then I may legitimately say an Army has stepped within "the holy place" when it arrives at Jerusalem and assumes a siege around the walls of Jerusalem.

    You claim that regular use of "holy place" with the article "the" controls an exclusive application to the temple. But that is not so. Once the context comes to include a greater application, as when an army encircles the city containing the temple, "the holy place" could be applied to the whole city.

    And that's what Jesus did when he said that the army, which was coming to destroy the temple, would 1st surround the city, and thus show a sign of "desecration." Jesus was drawing from Daniel a unique context in which the context would be initially external, until the temple would actually be destroyed by a later army.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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)
    I'm saying that Matthew, Mark, and Luke likely knew one another, and drew upon common resources in order to quote Jesus. They each obviously felt they were accurately quoting Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. It is highly improbable that Luke would quote something utterly different *in the same place* where Matthew and Mark mentioned the "abomination of desolation!"

    If Luke knew how they represented/interpreted it, then he would certainly not represent/interpret it any differently! The use of different but similar words suggest that Luke was representing/interpreting things the *exact same way* as Matthew and Mark. If not, and if he knew he was referring to a completely different event, he would've had to say so!

    But he did not. And this was indicating Luke felt he was representing the Oliivet Discourse and the Abomination of Desolation as the very same event--the siege and desolation of Jerusalem. If he knew they were separate events, he would've had to spell this out, or appear to be contradicting Matthew and Mark, or perhaps even Jesus!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    You are making my whole point for me! If Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew one another--if the entire Jewish leadership largely knew one another--and had shared Jesus' words about the AoD, then Luke would certainly not have said anything different, would not have referred to a completely different event, and create confusion!

    He would've felt compelled to explain the difference in detail, if his representation of the *siege of Jerusalem* was *not* the "abomination of desolation," because it would've appeared to derail what Matthew and Mark thought and said about the same passage!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now YOU are the one who is claiming that they are INTERPRETING Jesus, not me.
    I've explained to you repeatedly how "interpretation" applies as *I'm using it.* Matthew and Mark quoted Jesus by referring to the "abomination of desolation." Luke quoted Jesus by referred to a *besieging Army* there to *desolate Jerusalem.*

    This indicated how Luke interpreted what Jesus had meant by the "abomination of desolation." He "interpreted" both quotations of Jesus as meaning the same thing. It was his choice of Jesus' words in *quoting Jesus* that makes his *interpretation* of what Jesus meant apparent!

    He applied his choice of Jesus' words *in the very place* where Matthew and Mark had mentioned the AoD. And thus, Luke *interpreted* the Roman siege of Jerusalem to be the same thing as the "abomination of desolation."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    What? It is the exact opposite! Luke clearly *knew* about the AoD, since he knew the people who were using the term! And if he used other quotes of Jesus to say something different *in the same place* he would've had to explain himself. And since he didn't, he inferred the AoD and the "Roman siege of Jerusalem" were the same thing. This is how Luke "interpreted" the AoD. And it is also how those who used the terminology of the AoD understood it.

    I'm not saying Luke wrote out an explanation of what the AoD was. He *assumed* the readers would know he was speaking of the AoD when he described the Roman siege of Jerusalem. He assumed everybody had *the same interpretation.* By using these words Luke didn't even think it possible that his choice of words could be anything other than the words Matthew and Mark chose!

    Jesus had said *all of these things* in the *same place* in the Discourse. They had to mean the same thing, and Luke clearly assumed this.

    To say that Jesus at one moment spoke of the AoD as the Antichrist, and in the same moment spoke of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, is too much to believe. It is entirely irrational. Does Jesus speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time? No!!

    But you *want* the AoD to be about the Antichrist, because perhaps this is more exciting for you? Perhaps the past is less interesting for you here? Or, maybe you just feel a need to join the bandwagon of modern eschatology in its endless attempts at recognizing prophetic signs?

    However, God found it important to have His Son explain to us what this AoD was by leading Luke to use other words of Jesus, which he had spoke in the same place and at the same time, to make it clear to us that the AoD was, in fact, the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    The most common forms of abomination had to do with sacrileges committed in the holy places of the temple. They could be committed in the temple, in the Court of the Priests, or even in the holy city. Clearly, pagan armies had defiled the holy city before. And they had even defiled the temple itself. There was plenty of precedent established for what Daniel predicted--a sacrilege of the city as well as of the temple, leading to the destruction of both.

    But you're wrong. The Scriptures clearly portray pagan armies as defilers of God's holy city. Not only is it clear in Dan 9 when the desolation of the city and the sanctuary is described as the "abomination of desolation," but we see it elsewhere in Scriptures.

    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.”

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    No, there was only *one thing* that Jesus in all 3 accounts called for his Disciples to note. Matthew and Mark both referred to the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." Luke called *the same sign* a siege of Jerusalem.

    In using other words of Jesus, which Jesus had used to more fully describe the AoD, Luke "interpreted" Jesus to refer to a *single sign.* Otherwise, he would've explained his blatant diversion away from what Matthew and Mark had meant.

    This is why you attack my description of Luke's quotatioin as in essence an "interpretation." By using different words *in the same place* than Matthew and Mark used, Luke was in effect interpreting Jesus's sign as a *single sign.* You are actually the one interpreting Jesus' words to mean something different from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, thus indicating a *2nd sign* where it is not warranted.

    But I'm not going to call you a "Devil," brother. I'd just say you fail to read this "single sign" as Jesus presented it. You're mistaken. If you had argued as vigorously for consistency between the 3 synoptic gospels on this point, you would've agreed with me a long, long time ago!

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, you're claiming what you wish to prove! Your "proof" is only that the most common use of a "holy area" is the Holy Place of the temple. You have most certainly *not* proven that there are other "holy places" to which the article "the" can not be affixed! And as I said, *at any time* the article "the" can be affixed to a different application of a "holy place" if context warrants it.
    It is PROVEN, but you refuse to accept the FACT.
    Next you will be arguing that nobody has been in space and the earth is flat.
    You have ZERO scripture supporting your contention whilst I have the ENTIRETY of the Bible.

    For example, we know Jerusalem is, by definition, a "holy place." That's because a city is a "place," and the city is called a "holy city." Therefore, it is a "holy place." It may be called "the holy city," instead of "the holy place," because the city is often distinguished from the temple. "The holy place" is not an exclusive definition of the temple, but most often it is used as such, due to the fact the temple is most commonly in view.
    I was wondering when you would start arguing semantics again, even though you complain I am the one doing it.
    Jerusalem is NEVER called "a holy place".
    It is called "the Holy city".
    You see you are arguing around the idea that because a city is a place, so it is de facto a holy place.
    I am simply highlighting that scripture gives NAMES to places, so that we have Jerusalem as "the Holy city".
    "The Holy place" in SCRIPTURE is USED EXCLUSIVELY for the place in Temple.

    So though we agree many places may be called holy, ONLY ONE is called "the Holy place".

    You don't control how words are used. The speakers and the writers do. Since we have in Dan 9 precedent for viewing the city and the temple together as a single spot to which an enemy army gathers, Jesus felt justified in calling them both "the holy place." The beginning of the siege of Jerusalem was the *sign* for his Disciples to take note of. Viewing the desolation of the temple itself as the sign would be too late.
    I agree that I don't. However I would think it is fair to say we should AGREE with HOW scripture uses words. You don't seem willing to submit to scripture though, or recognise its authority.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is PROVEN, but you refuse to accept the FACT.
    Next you will be arguing that nobody has been in space and the earth is flat.
    You have ZERO scripture supporting your contention whilst I have the ENTIRETY of the Bible.
    The association of the temple, as the Holy Place, with the city of Jerusalem is proven through the ENTIRETY of the Bible. To use the term "the holy place" to refer to an army invading Jerusalem was less frequent, but not without precedent. Daniel 9 was one of those occasions. Desecration of the holy city by foreigners is here described in Joel...

    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I was wondering when you would start arguing semantics again, even though you complain I am the one doing it.
    Jerusalem is NEVER called "a holy place".
    It is called "the Holy city".
    You see you are arguing around the idea that because a city is a place, so it is de facto a holy place.
    I am simply highlighting that scripture gives NAMES to places, so that we have Jerusalem as "the Holy city".
    "The Holy place" in SCRIPTURE is USED EXCLUSIVELY for the place in Temple.
    You say I'm arguing "semantics" when you're arguing that the term "the holy place" has to be a Proper Noun? I've already showed you where the term can be used outside of its technical application to the Holy Place of the temple! Moses and Joshua both stood on "the holy place" far from the place where the ark was given a home!

    Exo 3.5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”
    Josh 5.15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

    "The holy place" is not a proper noun, though in context it may be used as such. Your claim that it is used *exclusively* as a proper noun is a fallacy. It is the Totality Transfer Fallacy. When the holy place is used in one place in Scriptures, it must be used in all places in Scriptures. When it is understood as one thing in Scriptures, it must be understood in all places in Scriptures.

    But I've just shown you that it was *not* used the same in all places in Scriptures. And yet you continue to assert such. Not only so, but the article "the" is not used this way, to control how a term is used *exclusively.* It is used initially, in each context, to determine what particular holy place is being referred to--not how it must *exclusively* be used.

    And even if "the holy place" is commonly understood to refer to the temple, the context may require that the city be associated with the temple to constitute a single "holy place" without violating the regular understanding of the term as applied to the temple. I've showed you how the holy city and the temple were joined together in this particular context, in Dan 9, so that Jesus could used the term "the holy place" in connection with a besieging pagan army.

    But you can believe what you want. You can even try to determine the rules of word use. It's a free world. But you'd be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So though we agree many places may be called holy, ONLY ONE is called "the Holy place".
    False.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I agree that I don't. However I would think it is fair to say we should AGREE with HOW scripture uses words. You don't seem willing to submit to scripture though, or recognise its authority.
    When you can't win an argument you revert to ad hominem. I find that sad.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The association of the temple, as the Holy Place, with the city of Jerusalem is proven through the ENTIRETY of the Bible. To use the term "the holy place" to refer to an army invading Jerusalem was less frequent, but not without precedent.
    Incorrect it is entirely WITHOUT precedent. Daniel 9 makes NO mention of "the Holy place".

    Daniel 9 was one of those occasions. Desecration of the holy city by foreigners is here described in Joel...
    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."
    You confuse places which are Holy with "the Holy place".

    You say I'm arguing "semantics" when you're arguing that the term "the holy place" has to be a Proper Noun? I've already showed you where the term can be used outside of its technical application to the Holy Place of the temple! Moses and Joshua both stood on "the holy place" far from the place where the ark was given a home!
    Nope, NEITHER Moses or Joshua stood on "the Holy place". They stood in A Holy place.

    Exo 3.5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”
    Josh 5.15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

    "The holy place" is not a proper noun, though in context it may be used as such. Your claim that it is used *exclusively* as a proper noun is a fallacy. It is the Totality Transfer Fallacy. When the holy place is used in one place in Scriptures, it must be used in all places in Scriptures. When it is understood as one thing in Scriptures, it must be understood in all places in Scriptures.
    It is NOT a fallacy. There is NOT ONE occasion when "the Holy place" in the Hebrew is NOT EXCLUSIVELY the place in the Temple.
    You argue from English and IGNORE the Hebrew reality.

    But I've just shown you that it was *not* used the same in all places in Scriptures. And yet you continue to assert such. Not only so, but the article "the" is not used this way, to control how a term is used *exclusively.* It is used initially, in each context, to determine what particular holy place is being referred to--not how it must *exclusively* be used.
    No you haven't.
    God did NOT say to Moses, the place where you are standing is "the Holy place".
    God said, the PLACE you stand on is Holy.

    We have already agreed that there are many things which are Holy. Many places, such as the city of Jerusalem etc, but NOT ONE of those places is EVER CALLED "he Holy place".
    It is IMPORTANT perhaps for you to grasp that in this verse, it uses a word for place as well as the word for holy.
    However when speaking of "the Holy place" no word is used for place, it is literally "the Holy".

    And even if "the holy place" is commonly understood to refer to the temple, the context may require that the city be associated with the temple to constitute a single "holy place" without violating the regular understanding of the term as applied to the temple.
    It is NOT simply commonly understood, this is its ONLY usage.
    The context NEVER makes this joining. However when a holy place is meant, then a word for place, or city etc is used combined with holy. However "the Holy place" has no such word associated with it, just as the Holy of Holies does NOT have a place attached to it. It is simply "holy holies".
    Are you next going to argue that because the Holy of Holies is in the Holy place, so the Holy place can be called Holy of Holies also?!?


    Your problem is that you refuse to accept how words are SPECIFICALLY used, and that this single word "haqodesh" when used on its own ALWAYS ONLY means the Holy place in the Temple, WITHOUT exceptions that I can find, and which you have also NOT found.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Incorrect it is entirely WITHOUT precedent. Daniel 9 makes NO mention of "the Holy place".
    Dan 9 mentions "the city and the sanctuary" together. And Jesus interpreted this as "the holy place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You confuse places which are Holy with "the Holy place".
    Do you even see this obvious contradiction of yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, NEITHER Moses or Joshua stood on "the Holy place". They stood in A Holy place.
    The article seems to have been applied in both places. And your argument was that use of the article *requires* a holy place to apply to the temple 100% of the time!

    Exo 3.5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”
    Josh 5.15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is NOT a fallacy. There is NOT ONE occasion when "the Holy place" in the Hebrew is NOT EXCLUSIVELY the place in the Temple.
    You argue from English and IGNORE the Hebrew reality.
    Do you even understand that you are using this Fallacy? If I use "the holy place" only one place in a day, I've used it *exclusively* in a certain way. Nothing prevents me from applying the term to a different holy place tomorrow!

    Your argument is that "the holy place" cannot be used differently anywhere else because it applies exclusively to the temple in the context of Jewish worship. However, the same terminology is used for Moses and for Joshua to apply outside of the context of Jewish worship, and it did *not* denote the temple!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No you haven't.
    God did NOT say to Moses, the place where you are standing is "the Holy place".
    God said, the PLACE you stand on is Holy.
    There you go again, sounding confused! Are you seriously saying that "the place that is holy" is not "the holy place?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    We have already agreed that there are many things which are Holy. Many places, such as the city of Jerusalem etc, but NOT ONE of those places is EVER CALLED "he Holy place".
    Wrong. Jerusalem is referred to as "the holy place" by Jesus because based on Dan 9 he conjoined the city of Jerusalem with the temple. It was naturally understood as such because the city had long been called a kind of holy place--the holy city. And when Daniel provided a context, not for Jewish worship, but for the invasion of Jerusalem to destroy the temple, Jesus conjoined the city and the temple to refer to "the holy place." It makes perfect sense to me, and it would've made perfect sense to Jews in Jesus' time.

    Jerusalem was the major locate for the temple. As such, an invading army entering the outskirts of Jerusalem would violate "the holy place" and thus present a sign of the imminent destruction of the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is IMPORTANT perhaps for you to grasp that in this verse, it uses a word for place as well as the word for holy.
    However when speaking of "the Holy place" no word is used for place, it is literally "the Holy".
    As I understand it, the holy is an adjective, and yet by receiving a particular Hebrew mark or letter can be denoted a place. It is a holy location--not necessarily a Proper Noun with a technical application, but a reference to whatever the context indicates is being referred to.

    We know the temple was the primary "holy place" in Jewish worship, and therefore was often indicated by "the holy place." But if the context shifted outside of Jewish worship, and another "holy place" was noted, it could also be designated as "the holy place."

    For example, a certain city could be designated THE holy city as a designated holy place. It could've been called "the holy place." But to distinguish the city from the temple itself in terms of Jewish worship, the places maintained their respective distinctions. If, however, there was no need to distinguish the city and the temple, due to a shift away from Jewish worship, both the city and the sanctuary could be designated "the holy place." And this is what Jesus did.

    In the context we are discussing, this is not Jewish worship, but rather, a hostile invasion of the holy places of Jewish worship. By the time this was fulfilled, Jewish worship had lost its zeal and merit.

    And so, "the holy place" has a different context, even though the temple is, once again, in view. But the application of "the holy place" obtains a broader application due to the fact this alien invasion involves both the city and the sanctuary. The sign required that the holy place be violated outside the walls of the city first so that believing Jews could escape afterwards. And so, "the holy place" had to receive a broader application.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is NOT simply commonly understood, this is its ONLY usage.
    The context NEVER makes this joining. However when a holy place is meant, then a word for place, or city etc is used combined with holy. However "the Holy place" has no such word associated with it, just as the Holy of Holies does NOT have a place attached to it. It is simply "holy holies".
    Are you next going to argue that because the Holy of Holies is in the Holy place, so the Holy place can be called Holy of Holies also?!?
    Nobody is saying that. On the other hand, the Holy of Holies is also called a "holy place." A "holy place" may be referred to as THE holy place simply by designating which particular holy place is being discussed. In the case of the Holy of Holies, it is preferable to say THE Holy of Holies, rather than THE holy place, if the need is to distinguish the two areas. Since the context is Jewish worship, there was a need to distinguish between them.

    But in the case of the city and the sanctuary, there was no need to distinguish the two. In the context of a besieging army, there actually had to be no distinction between the two, because violation of the sanctity of the city would in essence be a sign of the violation of the temple. Violation of the city would constitute a sign of the relatively imminent destruction of the temple.

    The army violated "the holy place" when it stood around the walls of the city. That is how Jesus referred to it. And he wanted to use the term that way to warn his disciples of the soon destruction of the temple. This violation of the holy place afforded them an opportunity to escape. That is the explicit context for Jesus' use of "the holy place." It referred to the encirclement of Jerusalem by invading armies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Your problem is that you refuse to accept how words are SPECIFICALLY used, and that this single word "haqodesh" when used on its own ALWAYS ONLY means the Holy place in the Temple, WITHOUT exceptions that I can find, and which you have also NOT found.
    No, I have no problem not accepting your version of what *you think* the rules are. I don't agree with your attempt to make "the holy place" used for the temple exclusively, excluding the holy city.

    Jerusalem was used, by Jesus, as a locate for the temple. As such, it was both the holy city and "the holy place," into which the invading army took its stand. A desecration of the city was viewed as the equivalent of the desecration of the temple. As such, it was a warning sign for believing Jews to leave *before* the temple was destroyed and there was no escape.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Dan 9 mentions "the city and the sanctuary" together. And Jesus interpreted this as "the holy place."
    So Daniel 9 does NOT mention the Holy place.
    Now as to the "interpretation", you are the one CLAIMING Jesus interpreted it this way, yet you have ZERO scripture actually stating this.
    Instead we have YOUR SPECULATION that this is what Jesus meant, base don your own reasoning, but without a SINGLE scripture to support it.

    Do you even see this obvious contradiction of yours?
    No, it is NOT a contradiction.
    A holy place in English can be called the holy place in English. As all we are doing is specifying that we are referring to the holy place aforementioned.
    However in Hebrew they do NOT say "a holy place", they simple put "holy" "place", and to which we add the indefinite article or the definite article based upon English rules of grammar.
    However "the Holy place" is literally "the Holy" and is NOT described as a place AT ALL.
    It is "the Holy" without a location marker, not place, not city, not ground, NOTHING, simply "the Holy".
    So you CANNOT argue what you are trying to, based upon English rules of grammar.
    There is NO place in "the Holy place", it is simple "haqodesh" - "the Holy" and because it is referring to a place so we call it "the Holy place" when translated into English.
    Blame the translators if this is not clear enough for you.

    The article seems to have been applied in both places. And your argument was that use of the article *requires* a holy place to apply to the temple 100% of the time!

    Exo 3.5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”
    Josh 5.15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
    No the article is applied to "the place" and NOT to "the Holy".

    If you really want to get to grips with this then I suggest you spend some time learning a bit of basic Hebrew.
    The article "the" by itself is not what is of importance, it is the word "haqodesh", which is "the Holy" which is of importance.
    Every time that we simply read "haqodesh" then it is ALWAYS referring to "the Holy place".

    Do you even understand that you are using this Fallacy? If I use "the holy place" only one place in a day, I've used it *exclusively* in a certain way. Nothing prevents me from applying the term to a different holy place tomorrow!
    Your argument is that "the holy place" cannot be used differently anywhere else because it applies exclusively to the temple in the context of Jewish worship. However, the same terminology is used for Moses and for Joshua to apply outside of the context of Jewish worship, and it did *not* denote the temple!
    Actually the SAME terminology is NOT used.
    There is no fallacy.
    You are basically missing the FACT it is used as a PROPER NOUN.
    You wish to break it down into constituent parts and then argue it means something other than it does. It doesn't.

    There you go again, sounding confused! Are you seriously saying that "the place that is holy" is not "the holy place?"
    Yes I am seriously saying that. There is no confusion as we are NOT dealing with the English language but meaning as given in Hebrew. The concept being taught in scripture.
    The problem is that you are clearly confused because you are desperately trying to make ANY holy place suddenly become "the holy place" simply by talking about it.

    Wrong. Jerusalem is referred to as "the holy place" by Jesus because based on Dan 9 he conjoined the city of Jerusalem with the temple. It was naturally understood as such because the city had long been called a kind of holy place--the holy city. And when Daniel provided a context, not for Jewish worship, but for the invasion of Jerusalem to destroy the temple, Jesus conjoined the city and the temple to refer to "the holy place." It makes perfect sense to me, and it would've made perfect sense to Jews in Jesus' time.

    Jerusalem was the major locate for the temple. As such, an invading army entering the outskirts of Jerusalem would violate "the holy place" and thus present a sign of the imminent destruction of the temple.
    Not wrong at all. This is circular reasoning by you. It is YOUR contention that Jesus meant the city AND the sanctuary based on YOUR interpretation of Luke 21 meaning Matt 24.
    However Daniel 9 does NOT say what you claim and Jesus is NEVER quoted as saying what you claim, instead this is YOUR ASSUMPTION which is NOT based on the meaning of words as used in the ENTIRETY of scripture.

    As I understand it, the holy is an adjective, and yet by receiving a particular Hebrew mark or letter can be denoted a place. It is a holy location--not necessarily a Proper Noun with a technical application, but a reference to whatever the context indicates is being referred to.
    Then your understanding is partial.
    Holy is an adjective, and in "the Holy city" the words "the Holy" are an adjective of the city.
    However when "The Holy" is stated by itself it is no longer an adjective but a PROPER NOUN.

    Maybe now you might get it?

    We know the temple was the primary "holy place" in Jewish worship, and therefore was often indicated by "the holy place." But if the context shifted outside of Jewish worship, and another "holy place" was noted, it could also be designated as "the holy place."
    Notice you say "IF" yet NOWHERE in scripture does this IF ever occur. Yo are creating a hypothetical that does NOT exist in scripture.
    It is also akin to me renaming my house "Buckingham Palace".
    Because my house is now called Buckingham Palace, does it become "THE" Buckingham Palace?
    Nope, NEVER.

    Nobody is saying that. On the other hand, the Holy of Holies is also called a "holy place." A "holy place" may be referred to as THE holy place simply by designating which particular holy place is being discussed. In the case of the Holy of Holies, it is preferable to say THE Holy of Holies, rather than THE holy place, if the need is to distinguish the two areas. Since the context is Jewish worship, there was a need to distinguish between them.
    Actually you are saying that in your argument about "the Holy place".
    Just as "the Holy of Holies" is NEVER "the Holy place", though it is a place which is holy, so "the Holy place" is NEVER "a holy place", though it is a place which is holy.

    The SIMPLE FACT is that "the Holy place" is used as a PROPER NOUN and not as an adjective, it is ONLY ONE location and EVERYONE in scripture, everyone alive at the time of Jesus, all the ECFs KNEW that "the Holy place" referred to the place in the Temple.
    You claim to agree with the ECFs, yet you clearly disagree with them on this. You reject how a Jew would understand it or that having just been to the Temple and talking about the temple the CONTEXT is 100% about the Temple, and therefore in CONTEXT the meaning could hardly be any clearer.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So Daniel 9 does NOT mention the Holy place.
    Now as to the "interpretation", you are the one CLAIMING Jesus interpreted it this way, yet you have ZERO scripture actually stating this.
    Instead we have YOUR SPECULATION that this is what Jesus meant, base don your own reasoning, but without a SINGLE scripture to support it.
    "The holy place" is not a proper noun, but rather, the designated holy place indicated by the context of a passage. Throughout the OT Scriptures, wherever the temple worship is in focus, "the holy place" would refer to the temple, because there the temple worship is in context. But wherever the temple worship is not in context, "the holy place" can refer to a different holy place, and its meaning is determined by the particular context. For example, if in Matthew 24 the context is the gathering of a Roman Army to lay siege against Jerusalem in order to destroy the temple, the positioning of that Army around Jerusalem would render it "in the holy place," because in context, the "holy place" is designated as Jerusalem, and not just the temple.

    You say I have no Scriptures to prove this. But Matthew 24 is a Scripture that proves it. Furthermore, the important element in determining what "the holy place" is would be the context. And the context is the surrounding of Jerusalem by a Roman Army, as indicated in Dan 9.26-27.

    I think we've really come to the end of our debate, because your position is clear, and so is mine. You argue that "the holy place" always refers to the temple because it is a term that exclusively refers, in the Bible, to the temple. And I argue that although "the holy place" most often refers to the temple, if the context changes from temple worship to the city of Jerusalem, "the holy place" may be applied differently there. At any rate, "the holy place" is *not* a proper noun in the Hebrew language, as I understand it. That is, it doesn't utilize capital letters to indicate it as such. It would require context in order to determine if it can be applied as an actual name. And the same term can then be applied differently if a different context requires it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, it is NOT a contradiction.
    A holy place in English can be called the holy place in English. As all we are doing is specifying that we are referring to the holy place aforementioned.
    You're arguing here that "the place that is holy" is different from "the holy place," and you don't think that's a contradiction?? What in the Hebrew language determines for you the difference (apart from context)?

    However, the definite article "the" does not indicate that a proper noun is in play. It could be, but not necessarily. For example, "the Holy Place" could refer as a proper noun to the temple. But "the holy place" could also refer to the place where Moses' feet touched the ground beside the burning bush. This was *not* a proper noun.

    It is the context that determines whether a proper noun is in play, whether "the Holy Place" refers to the name of the temple or not. This doesn't even decide whether we are talking about the compartment in the temple called "the Holy Place," or the temple in its entirety. For all I know, "the holy place" could refer to a name for the entire temple complex! In fact I believe it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Every time that we simply read "haqodesh" then it is ALWAYS referring to "the Holy place".
    That is your unproven claim. "The holy place" in Matthew 24 refers to Jerusalem. It is the context that determines this--not the term. The term is not necessarily being used as a proper noun, which would be common when temple worship is in play. But when the context determines that an army is invading, "the holy place" may be applied to the superstructure that protects the temple. And that is the city of Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not wrong at all. This is circular reasoning by you. It is YOUR contention that Jesus meant the city AND the sanctuary based on YOUR interpretation of Luke 21 meaning Matt 24.
    However Daniel 9 does NOT say what you claim and Jesus is NEVER quoted as saying what you claim, instead this is YOUR ASSUMPTION which is NOT based on the meaning of words as used in the ENTIRETY of scripture.
    I *never* claimed that Dan 9 actually referred to the term "the holy place." What I said is that Jesus derived his use of the term *from that passage,* because in that passage "the city and the sanctuary" applies both Jerusalem and the temple *together!* And this is not just my understanding--this is clear. The advance of the Roman Army appeared in order to destroy *both* the city and the sanctuary. To defile one is to defile the other. To become a sign of the destruction of one is merely to appear at the gate of another.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Holy is an adjective, and in "the Holy city" the words "the Holy" are an adjective of the city.
    However when "The Holy" is stated by itself it is no longer an adjective but a PROPER NOUN.
    No, "the holy" would merely indicate that a particular "holy" is being pointed to. It could be a proper noun, or it could be something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Notice you say "IF" yet NOWHERE in scripture does this IF ever occur. Yo are creating a hypothetical that does NOT exist in scripture.
    Wrong. The context shifts from the temple worship to an invasion of the temple complex. Most of the OT references to "the holy place" involves the temple worship at the temple. But in Dan 9, the context is *not* temple worship! Rather, it involves a Roman military invasion of both the city and the sanctuary.

    And Jesus referred to this particular "holy place" as the sign of the temple's destruction. According to Luke it was when the Roman Army would "encircle Jerusalem." Violation of the territory around the holy city was the sign of the temple's imminent destruction.

    This was the sign Jesus gave to his disciples. It was an abominable pagan army "standing in the holy place." The locate for the temple was, in fact, the city of Jerusalem. And thus, the city was as much the "holy place" as the temple itself, in light of a military invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually you are saying that in your argument about "the Holy place".
    Just as "the Holy of Holies" is NEVER "the Holy place", though it is a place which is holy, so "the Holy place" is NEVER "a holy place", though it is a place which is holy.
    When used in reference to the temple worship, "the Holy Place" and "the Most Holy" are indeed Proper Nouns, or appellations to particular compartments within the temple. However, outside of the context of temple worship, "the holy place" can refer to either the "holy ground" or the city of Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The SIMPLE FACT is that "the Holy place" is used as a PROPER NOUN and not as an adjective, it is ONLY ONE location and EVERYONE in scripture, everyone alive at the time of Jesus, all the ECFs KNEW that "the Holy place" referred to the place in the Temple.
    You claim to agree with the ECFs, yet you clearly disagree with them on this. You reject how a Jew would understand it or that having just been to the Temple and talking about the temple the CONTEXT is 100% about the Temple, and therefore in CONTEXT the meaning could hardly be any clearer.
    As I said, "the holy place" is not always used as a proper noun--only when it refers in particular to temple worship. Outside of that context, it may refer to the city of Jerusalem or to "the holy ground" that both Moses and Joshua stood upon. It all depends on context, brother!

    The Church Fathers agreed with me that Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the time around 66-70 AD. Most of them saw the AoD as fulfilled at that time, and not in the Antichrist. Only Irenaeus and Hippolytus saw in the AoD the Antichrist, as far as I know? So the consensus would be that most of the Church Fathers agreed with my position, that the AoD was fulfilled in the desolation of both Jerusalem and the temple.

    There were differences of opinion as to how to apply the AoD. I'm only trying to give my thoughts on how that should've been understood by Jesus' generation.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    "The holy place" is not a proper noun,
    No point discussing this further as you don;t recognise this SIMPLE FACT.
    In Hebrew it is called "haqodesh" which is literally "the Holy".
    When it is used as "haqodesh" without another locative word, such as "city" or "place" it ALWAYS is being used as a PROPER NOUN.
    The problem which you are refusing to accept is that you read it in English and then reason according to English usage of a phrase.

    I highlighted that "Buckingham Palace" refers to a SPECIFIC place. Its origins are from "Buckingham" and from "Palace" so has a meaning derived from this, but as a PROPER NOUN - which it is -
    it does not refer to any other palace even if that palace is in the county of Buckingham.
    As long as you live in DENIAL about the TRUTH of this, there is NO possibility to reason with you.
    Don't take my word for it, not that this is the TRUTH in ALL scripture.
    It is the view understood by a Jew today.
    It was the understanding of the ECFs.
    You can go to Hebrew scholars, do research - ALL will tell you that you are wrong.

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No point discussing this further as you don;t recognise this SIMPLE FACT.
    In Hebrew it is called "haqodesh" which is literally "the Holy".
    When it is used as "haqodesh" without another locative word, such as "city" or "place" it ALWAYS is being used as a PROPER NOUN.
    The problem which you are refusing to accept is that you read it in English and then reason according to English usage of a phrase.
    Nope. In English we capitalize words and terms to help identify them as proper nouns. Words like Jerusalem, or the Holy Place (used as a technical application to the compartment within the temple). But when we have "the city," or "the holy place," we don't know what name to affix to the term to identify it as a name.

    Even if the "holy city" is most commonly associated with Jerusalem, it is a term that could apply to Mecca in another place. It is *not* a proper noun--not even if it has the article "the" attached to it.

    I could say, for example, that I'm going to "the holy place." You don't know what particular "holy place" I'm talking about if I don't clearly identify it, by capitalizing it or by referencing it in particular. For all you know, I could be going down to the holy place by the river, or to the holy city up on the hill in a nearby county.

    Even if the context is given, we don't know if there is a technical application for "holy city" or "holy place" unless the term is firmly attached to a particular entity. That's why we use names, which *are,* in fact, proper nouns!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I highlighted that "Buckingham Palace" refers to a SPECIFIC place. Its origins are from "Buckingham" and from "Palace" so has a meaning derived from this, but as a PROPER NOUN - which it is -
    it does not refer to any other palace even if that palace is in the county of Buckingham.
    I have no problem with Buckingham Palace being a proper noun. I've been there. I know it's a place. I have pictures of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As long as you live in DENIAL about the TRUTH of this, there is NO possibility to reason with you.
    Don't take my word for it, not that this is the TRUTH in ALL scripture.
    It is the view understood by a Jew today.
    It was the understanding of the ECFs.
    You can go to Hebrew scholars, do research - ALL will tell you that you are wrong.
    Yes, you're not ever going to convince me you have a handle on *all* scholars! If you're self-satisfied, be done with the conversation.

    No, you haven't convinced me--not close. But thanks for trying. I really do want to bounce my ideas off of difficult people.

    If you can't convince me, I'll hold to my beliefs, because they are stronger than yours. I am not likely to back down to such arguments--even though they are fairly strong arguments.

    The stronger argument, for me, is that what Matthew and Mark said about the AoD applies to what Luke said about the desolation of Jerusalem. They are said in the same place in Jesus' Discourse, and obviously meant the same thing. "Standing in the holy place" was, for Luke, the "the encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies."

    But you're not going to back down either, are you? Good for you. You need more definitive proof, too, before changing your mind!

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No point discussing this further as you don;t recognise this SIMPLE FACT.
    In Hebrew it is called "haqodesh" which is literally "the Holy".
    When it is used as "haqodesh" without another locative word, such as "city" or "place" it ALWAYS is being used as a PROPER NOUN.
    I'm specifically interested in your claim here, that "haqodesh," or "the holy," is always used as a proper noun. Not knowing Hebrew, and having to rely on a variety of resources, I don't find it so easy to oppose or to defend your claim here. May I ask where you get your information from? And could you please cite a reference to support your claim?

    I've already heard that you claim every use of "haqodesh" refers to the temple. But are you saying that the term *cannot* apply to something other than the temple? Or, are you simply saying that *in the Bible* all references refer only to the temple, but that outside of the Bible the term may apply differently?

    If you say that "haqodesh" is an exclusive term that must apply to the temple everywhere, I believe you have a problem. But if you're saying that only in the Bible "haqodesh" must refer to the temple, I'd have to ask if you're just claiming what you wish to prove?

    I've never denied that there is a near exclusivity to the word's application to the temple. And I've explained this as due to the fact that the near exclusive application of the word is in the context of OT worship. So it very well likely assumes a kind of status as proper noun, because it is only one specific building being referred to.

    However, what about 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.

    One commentary I read indicated that "the holy place" here refers to the Court of the Priests, which I understand was *outside of the temple.* It could not, then, *be the temple!* And just one application of "the holy place" to something other than the compartment in the temple called "the Holy Place" would indicate that the term "the holy place" is not automatically assumed to be a proper noun. It cannot automatically be assumed to be the temple itself!

    And so, if "the holy place" is not automatically directed to the Holy Place inside the temple, then the term "the holy place" may assume other applications, whether or not connected directly to the building itself. It may apply to something peripheral to the temple, and yet still be "a holy place," such as the Court of the Priests, or even the city of Jerusalem itself.

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

    How does this stream indicate that "the holy place" is anything other than Jerusalem, the holy city? Do you really see a stream flowing inside the temple? It is much more reasonable to assume that the river flows in or near the city in some area. Again, the thought is not that "the holy place" must mean the temple! Rather, it is not a proper noun in the sense that it is being identified with the temple building!

    This seems to undo your claims of exclusive application of "the holy place" to the sanctuary as a proper noun? It is the place where God happens to dwell, whether that is in the Holy Place of the temple, the entire temple complex, the Court of the Priests, or the city of Jerusalem itself.

    If you're going to prove that "the holy place" must apply only to the temple, you need to answer these kinds of questions. But I've put these verses to you before, and you haven't given a satisfactory answer.

    And so, when in Dan 9 we read of the people of a ruler coming against the city and the sanctuary, we understand where Jesus got his notion of armies coming against "the holy place." In Luke 21 the holy place is, I believe, identified with Jerusalem. And in Matt 24 and Mark 13, the holy place is identified with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, I believe, because the entire context of the Discourse has to do with the absolute destruction of the temple building.

    But you can keep on claiming things, and you can keep on saying the Church Fathers disagreed with me. You even said nobody agreed with me, until I showed you Wesley did. And quite frankly, the Church Fathers don't at all agree with you, that the AoD is the Antichrist!

    So as I said before, be happy with your position. Until you come up with something better, I'm firmly entrenched in what I believe, based on *all* the evidence, and not just on your own claims.

  11. #176

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    At the time the prophecy in Daniel was given, "the holy place" was still the temple in Jerusalem.

    Reading Josephus will give an idea of just how much abomination took place when the siege resulted in Jews starving, moving within the temple walls when the walls of the city were breached, and eating their babies to survive. The blood that was shed in the temple and the abominations that took place during that time will certainly, most certainly make for a fulfilling of the words, "overspreading of abominations" (KJV) in Dan 9:27. The Hebrew word translated as overspreading in the KJV is kanap:

    3671 kanaph kaw-nawf' from 3670; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle:--+ bird, border, corner, end, feather(-ed), X flying, + (one an-)other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing((-ed)). see HEBREW for 03670

    Whatever the correct translation of the word, Josephus' War of the Jews gives an account of just how much abomination took place in the Holy Place of the temple during the Roman siege. The war lasted A.D 66-70, and began in the countryside, where he Romans practised a scorched earth policy, burning everything behind them as they advanced towards Jerusalem. Thinking about it again now, I'm thinking it's quite possible that the siege of the city and temple lasted 3 1/2 years, but I will have to read it again in Josephus.

    In Daniel, the verses open with what the 70th week would accomplish:

    "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint (Hebrew: mashach) the most Holy." Dan 9:24.

    7 + 62 weeks until Messiah (Hebrew: Mashiach) the Prince is 69 weeks until Messiah.

    And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. (Daniel 9:26)

    Messiah was cut off in the 70th week - after the 7 + 62 weeks (in other words, after the 69th week).

    The opening verse is still applicable: what was it that was to be accomplished 70 weeks from the time the prophecy was given?

    Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (Daniel 9:24)

    "And he (the anointed one who was spoken of in the opening verse) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week (3 1/2 years of Christ's ministry) he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations (KJV: for the overspreading of abominations) , even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator (KJV: upon the desolate)". (Daniel 9:27).

    The apostles asked Jesus when the temple would be destroyed (the opening verses of the Olivet Dicourse ). They also asked Him what the sign would be of His coming.

    The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet has to be interpreted in accordance with the opening verse both in Daniel and in Matthew 24:

    "Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)

    " And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to *Him* to show Him the buildings of the temple.
    And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down.
    And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what *shall be* the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3)


    The disciples had no knowledge of a third temple being built 2,000+ years later. They wanted to know from Jesus when that temple which he had just told them was going to be destroyed, would be destroyed. They never asked about a "3rd temple" 2,000+ years later.

    It is in this context that Jesus mentions the AOD spoken of by Daniel - in the context of the opening statement and opening question in Matthew 24, and it is in the context of the opening verse of Daniel that the AOD is mentioned.

    Daniel does not say how many years after Messiah was cut off the temple would be destroyed, and neither does Jesus. Jesus simply tells them that when they see the AOD spoken of by Daniel, they must flee - they must get out of Jerusalem.

    The Romans allowed for a time the Jews who wanted to escape with their lives, to escape the city, offering amnesty to them.

    The rebirth of Israel has caused so much fancy and so many fanciful re-interpretations of prophecy, it's just unbelievable at times. There is no 2,000-year "gap". Daniel's prophecy regarding the AOD and destruction of the temple by the prince that (in Daniel's time) was to come, was fulfilled, and our Lord Jesus knew that the time was soon to come, and that time was up for Jerusalem and the temple, because He was about to finish the transgression and make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and He had already been anointed to do so, fulfilling Daniel 9:24

    It might happen again that "the antichrist", if he lays the foundation for a 3rd temple, only to be evicted by the Jews when he exalts himself, that the nations will come against Jerusalem again because they evicted the ruler which the nations consider a messiah and the legitimate ruler of the nations, and this time Jesus will come and destroy the nations. But the word "might" is the operative word because that is all speculation.

    The fact of the matter is that it will be a blasphemous insult to God the father and to Christ the Son if a 3rd temple is built and animal sacrifices for sins are reinstituted - the Jews rejected Jesus which resulted in Him shedding His blood for sins. This resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the overspreading of abominations in the temple between 36-40 years later. The rebuilding of the temple and reinstitution of animal sacrifices for sins is an insult which I fear many Christians are going to blasphemously support. There is going to come a falling away led by the man of lawlessness. It's possible (springing back to speculation) that he is the beast that rises from the earth and that he will be the one to lay the foundation of the 3rd temple in Jerusalem.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    At the time the prophecy in Daniel was given, "the holy place" was still the temple in Jerusalem.

    Reading Josephus will give an idea of just how much abomination took place when the siege resulted in Jews starving, moving within the temple walls when the walls of the city were breached, and eating their babies to survive. The blood that was shed in the temple and the abominations that took place during that time will certainly, most certainly make for a fulfilling of the words, "overspreading of abominations" (KJV) in Dan 9:27. The Hebrew word translated as overspreading in the KJV is kanap:

    3671 kanaph kaw-nawf' from 3670; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle:--+ bird, border, corner, end, feather(-ed), X flying, + (one an-)other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing((-ed)). see HEBREW for 03670

    Whatever the correct translation of the word, Josephus' War of the Jews gives an account of just how much abomination took place in the Holy Place of the temple during the Roman siege. The war lasted A.D 66-70, and began in the countryside, where he Romans practised a scorched earth policy, burning everything behind them as they advanced towards Jerusalem. Thinking about it again now, I'm thinking it's quite possible that the siege of the city and temple lasted 3 1/2 years, but I will have to read it again in Josephus.

    In Daniel, the verses open with what the 70th week would accomplish:

    "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint (Hebrew: mashach) the most Holy." Dan 9:24.

    7 + 62 weeks until Messiah (Hebrew: Mashiach) the Prince is 69 weeks until Messiah.

    And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. (Daniel 9:26)

    Messiah was cut off in the 70th week - after the 7 + 62 weeks (in other words, after the 69th week).

    The opening verse is still applicable: what was it that was to be accomplished 70 weeks from the time the prophecy was given?

    Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (Daniel 9:24)

    "And he (the anointed one who was spoken of in the opening verse) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week (3 1/2 years of Christ's ministry) he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations (KJV: for the overspreading of abominations) , even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator (KJV: upon the desolate)". (Daniel 9:27).

    The apostles asked Jesus when the temple would be destroyed (the opening verses of the Olivet Dicourse ). They also asked Him what the sign would be of His coming.

    The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet has to be interpreted in accordance with the opening verse both in Daniel and in Matthew 24:

    "Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)

    " And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to *Him* to show Him the buildings of the temple.
    And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down.
    And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what *shall be* the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3)


    The disciples had no knowledge of a third temple being built 2,000+ years later. They wanted to know from Jesus when that temple which he had just told them was going to be destroyed, would be destroyed. They never asked about a "3rd temple" 2,000+ years later.

    It is in this context that Jesus mentions the AOD spoken of by Daniel - in the context of the opening statement and opening question in Matthew 24, and it is in the context of the opening verse of Daniel that the AOD is mentioned.

    Daniel does not say how many years after Messiah was cut off the temple would be destroyed, and neither does Jesus. Jesus simply tells them that when they see the AOD spoken of by Daniel, they must flee - they must get out of Jerusalem.

    The Romans allowed for a time the Jews who wanted to escape with their lives, to escape the city, offering amnesty to them.

    The rebirth of Israel has caused so much fancy and so many fanciful re-interpretations of prophecy, it's just unbelievable at times. There is no 2,000-year "gap". Daniel's prophecy regarding the AOD and destruction of the temple by the prince that (in Daniel's time) was to come, was fulfilled, and our Lord Jesus knew that the time was soon to come, and that time was up for Jerusalem and the temple, because He was about to finish the transgression and make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and He had already been anointed to do so, fulfilling Daniel 9:24

    It might happen again that "the antichrist", if he lays the foundation for a 3rd temple, only to be evicted by the Jews when he exalts himself, that the nations will come against Jerusalem again because they evicted the ruler which the nations consider a messiah and the legitimate ruler of the nations, and this time Jesus will come and destroy the nations. But the word "might" is the operative word because that is all speculation.

    The fact of the matter is that it will be a blasphemous insult to God the father and to Christ the Son if a 3rd temple is built and animal sacrifices for sins are reinstituted - the Jews rejected Jesus which resulted in Him shedding His blood for sins. This resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the overspreading of abominations in the temple between 36-40 years later. The rebuilding of the temple and reinstitution of animal sacrifices for sins is an insult which I fear many Christians are going to blasphemously support. There is going to come a falling away led by the man of lawlessness. It's possible (springing back to speculation) that he is the beast that rises from the earth and that he will be the one to lay the foundation of the 3rd temple in Jerusalem.
    I agree with your historicist interpretation. And although I would caution you against being too overtly opposed to what is happening in Israel, I agree with your sentiment that Jewish restoration is *not* Christian restoration. We can't become giddy over the reconstruction of Jewish worship, instead of Christian worship. It is Christ who saves--not Moses!

    Thanks for your perspective. I do agree that Jesus was, in his Olivet Discourse, talking about *when* the temple would be destroyed. That happened in 70 AD.

    When asked how this compared to the time of his Return, Jesus made it clear that we don't engage in conjecture about future events, but rather, prepare our lives spiritually in the present. What was immediately on the horizon, for Jewish Christians, was God's judgment against Jewish worship, which would take place in "this generation."

    Believers had to decide for Christ or for Jewish worship. This was a real issue in the Early Church. Ultimately, they decided on Paul's gospel, and aimed only to witness, respectfully, to the Jewish People. Thanks again!

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm specifically interested in your claim here, that "haqodesh," or "the holy," is always used as a proper noun. Not knowing Hebrew, and having to rely on a variety of resources, I don't find it so easy to oppose or to defend your claim here. May I ask where you get your information from? And could you please cite a reference to support your claim?

    I've already heard that you claim every use of "haqodesh" refers to the temple. But are you saying that the term *cannot* apply to something other than the temple? Or, are you simply saying that *in the Bible* all references refer only to the temple, but that outside of the Bible the term may apply differently?
    I am stating this in relation to the Bible.

    If you say that "haqodesh" is an exclusive term that must apply to the temple everywhere, I believe you have a problem. But if you're saying that only in the Bible "haqodesh" must refer to the temple, I'd have to ask if you're just claiming what you wish to prove?
    It is easy to check if what I have said is true in regards to the Bible, and also outside the Bible.
    As you know the word "qodesh" is used a lot in the Bible and means "holy".
    The word "haqodesh" literally means "the holy".

    Now when you combine "the holy" with "city" you get the holy city and in this case it is being used as an adjective. Just as when you use "holy" with "place" etc then it is being used as an adjective.
    This after all is what adjectives do, they describe an aspect of the thing.

    My point has been though that the word "haqodesh" is used repeatedly throughout scripture WITHOUT a connected place or object, and in those instances it is no longer functioning as an adjective because there is NO THING for it to be describing. Instead it is acting as a proper noun.
    EVERY SINGLE time, and you can check this separately to my claim, we find that when "haqodesh" is used without an object, such as city it ALWAYS refers to the place in the Temple.

    Now because this is a well known and well used phrase I believe that it would be an exclusive term, not only in scripture but also in general usage. However I am not able to prove that, this is simply the way language works. The Bible has affected a lot of English idioms.

    I've never denied that there is a near exclusivity to the word's application to the temple. And I've explained this as due to the fact that the near exclusive application of the word is in the context of OT worship. So it very well likely assumes a kind of status as proper noun, because it is only one specific building being referred to.

    However, what about 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.

    One commentary I read indicated that "the holy place" here refers to the Court of the Priests, which I understand was *outside of the temple.* It could not, then, *be the temple!* And just one application of "the holy place" to something other than the compartment in the temple called "the Holy Place" would indicate that the term "the holy place" is not automatically assumed to be a proper noun. It cannot automatically be assumed to be the temple itself!
    Here the word isn't "haqodesh" but "baqodesh"
    You can check these things out online with an interlinear such as here:
    https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vakkodesh_6944.htm

    This phrase could mean the sanctuary, but it definitely is INSIDE the temple in these instances.

    And so, if "the holy place" is not automatically directed to the Holy Place inside the temple, then the term "the holy place" may assume other applications, whether or not connected directly to the building itself. It may apply to something peripheral to the temple, and yet still be "a holy place," such as the Court of the Priests, or even the city of Jerusalem itself.

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

    How does this stream indicate that "the holy place" is anything other than Jerusalem, the holy city? Do you really see a stream flowing inside the temple? It is much more reasonable to assume that the river flows in or near the city in some area. Again, the thought is not that "the holy place" must mean the temple! Rather, it is not a proper noun in the sense that it is being identified with the temple building!
    The holy place is God's throne room which is the temple. The river comes FROM the holy place and makes the city glad.
    We have the same picture in Ezekiel 47 and Rev 22:
    Rev 22:1* Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb*through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    Very clearly it comes from the throne of God and flows out into the city. So there is no argument for changing what the holy place from this Psalm.

    This seems to undo your claims of exclusive application of "the holy place" to the sanctuary as a proper noun? It is the place where God happens to dwell, whether that is in the Holy Place of the temple, the entire temple complex, the Court of the Priests, or the city of Jerusalem itself.
    How is this "undoing" my claim? You need to put something actually shows it is incorrect.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am stating this in relation to the Bible.

    It is easy to check if what I have said is true in regards to the Bible, and also outside the Bible.
    As you know the word "qodesh" is used a lot in the Bible and means "holy".
    The word "haqodesh" literally means "the holy".
    I'm aware.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now when you combine "the holy" with "city" you get the holy city and in this case it is being used as an adjective. Just as when you use "holy" with "place" etc then it is being used as an adjective.
    This after all is what adjectives do, they describe an aspect of the thing.
    You are here applying principles of grammar in English to Hebrew grammar. How do you know that an adjective without an object has to refer to a proper noun? In English we would normally have an adjective following by the noun it qualifies, but how do we know this holds true in Hebrew?

    Let's not say "it just makes common sense," or "that's the way it works." It *doesn't* have to work that way.

    Even in English, as awkward as it sounds, we may legitimately say "the holy" as an adjective is qualifying itself as a noun! "The holy" could refer to any "holy place" that retains temporary importance as a marker. It doesn't have to be the name of a place. It doesn't have to be a permanent holy place. It doesn't have to be the tabernacle tent. It doesn't have to be Solomon's temple or Herod's temple. It can strictly be something like, "God's holy place in the heavens."

    We may legitimately, in English, refer to "the holy" in the heavens, where God dwells. Or we may refer to "the holy" where Moses and Joshua stood near the place where God revealed Himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    My point has been though that the word "haqodesh" is used repeatedly throughout scripture WITHOUT a connected place or object, and in those instances it is no longer functioning as an adjective because there is NO THING for it to be describing. Instead it is acting as a proper noun.
    EVERY SINGLE time, and you can check this separately to my claim, we find that when "haqodesh" is used without an object, such as city it ALWAYS refers to the place in the Temple.
    I gave you a couple of examples where this is not true. And you have not proven that outside the context of temple worship "the holy place" cannot apply elsewhere, such as in the case of an Army surrounding the temple location. Even though the Roman Army surrounded the city, it still was surrounding the temple as well! It was, in this sense, legitimately "in the holy place!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now because this is a well known and well used phrase I believe that it would be an exclusive term, not only in scripture but also in general usage. However I am not able to prove that, this is simply the way language works. The Bible has affected a lot of English idioms.

    Here the word isn't "haqodesh" but "baqodesh"
    You can check these things out online with an interlinear such as here:
    https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vakkodesh_6944.htm
    It is still "the holy place," and that's the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This phrase could mean the sanctuary, but it definitely is INSIDE the temple in these instances.

    The holy place is God's throne room which is the temple. The river comes FROM the holy place and makes the city glad.
    We have the same picture in Ezekiel 47 and Rev 22:
    Rev 22:1* Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb*through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    No, I believe the structure of the sentence indicates an equation between the temple and the city.
    Psa 46.4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells

    The *river* is not the "holy place!" It is the *city of God* that is the "holy place!"

    It doesn't matter that God is the source of spirituality. The river runs through the city, and not through the temple. This Psalm was *not* a vision like Eze 40-48 was.

    It's possible that "river" could've been used metaphorically, or poetically. But the structure of the sentence indicates that the city of God and the holy place run parallel and interchangeably.

    This is how I often see Scripture poetry work, as parallelisms. I've mentioned this to you before. There is a positive equation between the temple and the city because both were holy.

    There was a distinction between the temple and the city because God was the origin of holiness in the temple. But His holiness extended out, like an aura, to encompass the whole city, because God's purpose was to *dwell among His people.*

    This was not to live *separate* from His people, but to dwell *in* His people. The word of God was not "far away," but His word was "near them," and "in their heart," so that they may *do* God's word. And so, the temple and the city were viewed together as God's "holy place." It was an extended application of the "holy place" from the temple to the whole city.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Very clearly it comes from the throne of God and flows out into the city. So there is no argument for changing what the holy place from this Psalm.

    How is this "undoing" my claim? You need to put something actually shows it is incorrect.
    So where "the holy place" seems to apply to Jerusalem you simply disregard it as evidence of what I'm proposing? Why should I be surprised? How do you think Jerusalem became the "holy city," brother? If the temple alone was "the holy place" then nothing else was holy either.

    And yet you distinguish between "a holy place" and "the holy place." If holiness comes only from the temple and extends, like a river, out into the city, wouldn't that make Jerusalem "the holy city," or a "holy place," as well?

    Of course it would. But you determine that "a holy place" is not "the holy place" simply because you say so. You say this is so because we find no examples of "the holy place" outside of the temple, ie according to you.

    But when I show you there is, you say the letter "b" makes a difference, or that the city of God has no connection in Scriptures to "the holy place." And yet it clearly is.

    Not only is Jerusalem called "the holy city," but it also is the same location as the temple! Why would reference to the holy place of the temple not also utilize Jerusalem as a reference to the location of the temple as well? In this way Jerusalem is referred to as "the holy place" as a locate for the temple.

    But I've explained to you that there is no proof that "the holy place" has to be used as a proper noun for the temple. When temple worship is in context, of course "the holy place" would refer to the temple. But when used as a locate, "the holy place" can refer to Jerusalem, where hostile troops gather to storm the temple.

    But we are becoming repetitious!

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    [QUOTE=randyk;3489660]I'm aware.

    You are here applying principles of grammar in English to Hebrew grammar. How do you know that an adjective without an object has to refer to a proper noun? In English we would normally have an adjective following by the noun it qualifies, but how do we know this holds true in Hebrew?
    The point of rules in grammar is that an adjective is an adjective regardless of language if it performs the role of an adjective.
    The order however may vary from language to language.

    Let's not say "it just makes common sense," or "that's the way it works." It *doesn't* have to work that way.

    Even in English, as awkward as it sounds, we may legitimately say "the holy" as an adjective is qualifying itself as a noun! "The holy" could refer to any "holy place" that retains temporary importance as a marker. It doesn't have to be the name of a place. It doesn't have to be a permanent holy place. It doesn't have to be the tabernacle tent. It doesn't have to be Solomon's temple or Herod's temple. It can strictly be something like, "God's holy place in the heavens."

    We may legitimately, in English, refer to "the holy" in the heavens, where God dwells. Or we may refer to "the holy" where Moses and Joshua stood near the place where God revealed Himself.
    Nope, we don't do any of the above. If I said "the Holy" you would NOT know to what I was referring, and your very example requires a definition to utilise it in such a fashion.
    If we said "the holy" and utilise it as a noun, then even though in most cases it is an adjective, in this point of reference it is NOT acting as an adjective but as a noun.

    However "the Holy" when used in the Bible ONLY refers to one place.

    I gave you a couple of examples where this is not true. And you have not proven that outside the context of temple worship "the holy place" cannot apply elsewhere, such as in the case of an Army surrounding the temple location. Even though the Roman Army surrounded the city, it still was surrounding the temple as well! It was, in this sense, legitimately "in the holy place!"
    No, you haven't. You have not given a SINGLE example. I have told you to check, or do you need me to list every single scripture reference where "haqodesh" is used as "the holy".

    It is still "the holy place," and that's the point.
    You obviously are NOT understanding. The whole point is that this passage does NOT say "the Holy" in the Hebrew, that is it does NOT say "haqodesh".

    No, I believe the structure of the sentence indicates an equation between the temple and the city.
    Psa 46.4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells

    The *river* is not the "holy place!" It is the *city of God* that is the "holy place!"
    I agree the river is NOT the holy place, but nor is the city of God.
    The Holy place is where the Most High dwells, and it is from that place that the river flows from out into the city and thus the city is made glad.

    It's possible that "river" could've been used metaphorically, or poetically. But the structure of the sentence indicates that the city of God and the holy place run parallel and interchangeably.
    No the structure shows that a river runs through a city. The river has its source as the place of God which is within.

    This is how I often see Scripture poetry work, as parallelisms. I've mentioned this to you before. There is a positive equation between the temple and the city because both were holy.
    There was a distinction between the temple and the city because God was the origin of holiness in the temple. But His holiness extended out, like an aura, to encompass the whole city, because God's purpose was to *dwell among His people.*
    This was not to live *separate* from His people, but to dwell *in* His people. The word of God was not "far away," but His word was "near them," and "in their heart," so that they may *do* God's word. And so, the temple and the city were viewed together as God's "holy place." It was an extended application of the "holy place" from the temple to the whole city.
    Nope, they are NOT viewed as one in this Psalm, rather as you note, and then seem to ignore yourself, the one extends out to the next.
    Because He is in the Holy of Holies, so next to it is the Holy, and then next to that the Temple, and then the Holy city and then the Holy land.
    None of them are equivalent to the others, but rather FROM one to the next there is a flowing and extending.
    You seem to have this idea that because they are connected so they then are the same.

    So where "the holy place" seems to apply to Jerusalem you simply disregard it as evidence of what I'm proposing? Why should I be surprised? How do you think Jerusalem became the "holy city," brother? If the temple alone was "the holy place" then nothing else was holy either.
    Where does the Holy place apply to Jerusalem? Jerusalem is the holy CITY.

    And yet you distinguish between "a holy place" and "the holy place." If holiness comes only from the temple and extends, like a river, out into the city, wouldn't that make Jerusalem "the holy city," or a "holy place," as well?
    And? You don't seem able to reason this very well.
    I live in a house, and my house is in a street, and the street is in a city.
    Does this make the city my house?
    Of course not.
    In the bible we have very clear delineation of places.

    Of course it would. But you determine that "a holy place" is not "the holy place" simply because you say so. You say this is so because we find no examples of "the holy place" outside of the temple, ie according to you.
    But when I show you there is, you say the letter "b" makes a difference, or that the city of God has no connection in Scriptures to "the holy place." And yet it clearly is.
    A letter makes a whole lot of difference.
    You are randyk, if I changed a letter and replied to randyw, would that be you?
    The "ba" is not "ha". It is a different meaning entirely.
    There is of course a connection, but you want to have more than a connection, you require equivalence, which is not there.

    But I've explained to you that there is no proof that "the holy place" has to be used as a proper noun for the temple. When temple worship is in context, of course "the holy place" would refer to the temple. But when used as a locate, "the holy place" can refer to Jerusalem, where hostile troops gather to storm the temple.
    But we are becoming repetitious!
    As a locate "the Holy place" NEVER refers to Jerusalem. Provide a SINGLE passage where this is true. As it is ALWAYS used for the Holy place in the Temple, so it is a simple fact to note this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •