Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 288

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So where do you get your understanding from?
    I have quoted scripture which states it was in the Most Holy place.
    The temple had TWO curtains.
    One was between the Holy place and the Most Holy place, and the other was between the Holy place and the outer court.
    Exo 40.5 Place the gold altar of incense in front of the ark of the covenant law and put the curtain at the entrance to the tabernacle.

    The golden altar of incense was placed in the Holy Place, directly in front of the curtain, which separate the Most Holy from the Holy Place. In this way the incense was directed towards the ark of the covenant within the Most Holy, though the fragrance had to drift through the curtain to saturate that area.

    This isn't something I've quickly looked up to appear knowledgeable. I've been studying this since the early 70s.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Again where do you get this.
    I gave some scripture which shows it is in the Holy place.
    1 Kings 6.22 may say what it does, but looking at the entire testimony of Scripture we would have to interpret that particular passage different from the way it seems to you.

    Exo 40.6 “Place the altar of burnt offering in front of the entrance to the tabernacle, the tent of meeting."

    Please trust me. I've studied this for many years. But if you need more proof, I can provide that. It's just unnecessarily time-consuming, when you could research it yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As for your "need" to change the meanings of words. The Outer court was still consider part of the temple, and was not some territory surrounding the temple.
    So please provide scripture which shows the golden altar was NOT in the Most Holy, and that the altar for burnt offerings was not in the Holy Place.
    Remember I did quote that when Solomon dedicated his temple that the normal altar was not big enough and so they consecrated the outer court for the offerings made that day. So quoting that particular event won;t support your claim. In fact that shows that normally the outer court was not consecrated and not the place for the burnt offerings.
    Please do some research. I've known these things for decades, and I'm absolutely certain I'm right--100%.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Not at all. My sense of context is NOT based on the definition of "the Holy place" whatsoever.
    The CONTEXT is the CONTEXT in which Jesus spoke.
    So the sense is about WHEN He spoke (having just left the temple)
    WHAT He was looking at (the temple) and the statements He had just made (about the temple)
    That's true, but I'm just generalizing. Your stronger argument, in my opinion, is on how you define the term "the holy place." It normally applies to the compartment in the temple called, the "Holy Place," or "the Holy."

    On the other hand, my stronger argument is based on the description in Luke 21 and on Dan 9, where we read that Jerusalem and the temple are desolated. That, for me, is the context for which we must apply the term, "the holy place." When the Roman Army encircled Jerusalem I base my argument on the idea that when the Romans stood around Jerusalem they were in violation of the "holy place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So the WHEN and WHAT are the basis of the CONTEXT.

    You IGNORE that CONTEXT and make up your own predetermined idea of the reason for what He is saying, COMPLETELY OMITTING the FACT that He has highlighted the temple a short while earlier, and that the disciples ask a question in regards to that temple.

    So EVERYTHING in my understanding of the OD, the CONTEXT as well as the TERMS, are in agreement.
    Are you really going to claim that the CONTEXT was NOT as I have put above?
    If so then of course we CANNOT find any common ground, because what I have put I think is entirely beyond dispute.
    Some of the facts you relate we would agree on. The conclusion you draw we would not agree on.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,728

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's true, but I'm just generalizing. Your stronger argument, in my opinion, is on how you define the term "the holy place." It normally applies to the compartment in the temple called, the "Holy Place," or "the Holy."

    On the other hand, my stronger argument is based on the description in Luke 21 and on Dan 9, where we read that Jerusalem and the temple are desolated. That, for me, is the context for which we must apply the term, "the holy place." When the Roman Army encircled Jerusalem I base my argument on the idea that when the Romans stood around Jerusalem they were in violation of the "holy place."



    Some of the facts you relate we would agree on. The conclusion you draw we would not agree on.
    The example of the Antiochus abomination is of a defilement in the temple (statue to Zeus and pig sacrifices). Daniel also contains other references to a future abomination and a 3.5 year period which is obviously what Jesus is referring to when Jesus mentions the abomination of Daniel.

    THEN Rev 13 concerns the rise of antichrist which we know occurs as an abominable event in the "holy place" according to 2 Thess 2 (when the antichrist declares himself God in God's holy place). Rev 13 also contains an evil image, and also mentions a 3.5 year period. Regardless of your perceived Olivet discourse fulfilment, you should be able to acknowledge this UNDENIABLE future set of events of an abomination in the holy place followed by 3.5 years as mentioned by 2 Thess 2 read with Rev 13.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's true, but I'm just generalizing. Your stronger argument, in my opinion, is on how you define the term "the holy place." It normally applies to the compartment in the temple called, the "Holy Place," or "the Holy."

    On the other hand, my stronger argument is based on the description in Luke 21 and on Dan 9, where we read that Jerusalem and the temple are desolated. That, for me, is the context for which we must apply the term, "the holy place." When the Roman Army encircled Jerusalem I base my argument on the idea that when the Romans stood around Jerusalem they were in violation of the "holy place."
    On this thread the focus was the terms.
    I have shown that it is CONCLUSIVE that the terminology CANNOT mean OUTSIDE the city.
    You simply are FORCED to deny this, without a shred of reasoning (about the terminology) to support you.

    As for the CONTEXT, which has mainly been debated elsewhere, Luke 21 makes ZERO mention of an AoD or a Holy place, and does NOT connect them in his gospel. Daniel 9:26 makes mention of a desolation, which DOES connect to Luke 21, and Matthew 23 desolation. However Dan 9:27 is NOT a parallel verse (which is not employed in prophecy anyway as far as I could find), and is PROVEN not to be parallel as EVERYTHING in verse 27 happens in the 70th week and includes the end of the desolator.
    Dan 9:27 speaks of an Abomination and so you are connecting Luke 21 with the wrong verse in Daniel 9.

    However it is a least understandable why you do so even if the verses in question are clearly NOT parallel.

    What we find is that it is your pre-determined view, rather than the CONTEXT of each gospel which determines your understanding, and there leads to a clear difference in this regards.

    So in conclusion, in terminology it is hard for scripture to be any clearer to show your view is wrong.
    In regards to CONTEXT, then you have a reason for debate, but even that is extremely weak.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The example of the Antiochus abomination is of a defilement in the temple (statue to Zeus and pig sacrifices). Daniel also contains other references to a future abomination and a 3.5 year period which is obviously what Jesus is referring to when Jesus mentions the abomination of Daniel.

    THEN Rev 13 concerns the rise of antichrist which we know occurs as an abominable event in the "holy place" according to 2 Thess 2 (when the antichrist declares himself God in God's holy place). Rev 13 also contains an evil image, and also mentions a 3.5 year period. Regardless of your perceived Olivet discourse fulfilment, you should be able to acknowledge this UNDENIABLE future set of events of an abomination in the holy place followed by 3.5 years as mentioned by 2 Thess 2 read with Rev 13.
    My brother and I have discussed this, and he has tended to see the possibility of a "telescoping interpretation," viewing all of the events down the same corridor, using similar language but referring to a series of different events in time. I don't believe this way, but I do acknowledge that the language is similar from Antiochus to Cestius Gallus to Antichrist.

    The language of the "abomination of desolation" I see as only specifically applied to Antiochus 4 and Cestius Gallus. I don't see it applied, specifically, to Antichrist, unless you apply Dan 9.27 as referring to him. This may cause you to interpret the AoD in the Olivet Discourse as applying to him, as well.

    But you know I don't interpret either Dan 9.27 or Matt 24.15 that way. The Church Fathers interpreted Dan 9.27 as applying to Cestius Gallus, or thereabouts. And they also applied the AoD in the Olivet Discourse the same way, particularly since Luke 21.20 seems to require that interpretation.

    But we've gone over all that. You think the abomination requires that something take place *within* the temple. And I don't. That's okay--we can agree to disagree.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    On this thread the focus was the terms.
    I have shown that it is CONCLUSIVE that the terminology CANNOT mean OUTSIDE the city.
    You simply are FORCED to deny this, without a shred of reasoning (about the terminology) to support you.
    That is quite humorous. You state what is *absolutely true* to you, and then expect the rest of the world to agree with you? Has it occurred to you that your statements of "absolute truths" are not "absolute" at all, that they are just swiss cheese with more holes in it than you can count?

    I wish you would just state your points, without all of the "absolute truth" window dressing? It is *not* conclusive that "the holy place" cannot mean *outside of the city.* I've gone to great lengths to show you that that from the pov of a map, the Roman Army was literally *in the holy place,* if one considers arriving at Jerusalem "the holy place."

    And your claim that I argue this "without evidence" is untrue. The evidence I presented is that the *context* requires that this be viewed as such. Dan 9.27 and Luke 21.20 require that the Roman Army besiege Jerusalem. And if we compare Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15 we can plainly see that the entity "standing in the holy place" was the Romans who stood around Jerusalem. You may disagree, and that's fine. But to say I'm left with "no reasoning" is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As for the CONTEXT, which has mainly been debated elsewhere, Luke 21 makes ZERO mention of an AoD or a Holy place, and does NOT connect them in his gospel. Daniel 9:26 makes mention of a desolation, which DOES connect to Luke 21, and Matthew 23 desolation. However Dan 9:27 is NOT a parallel verse (which is not employed in prophecy anyway as far as I could find), and is PROVEN not to be parallel as EVERYTHING in verse 27 happens in the 70th week and includes the end of the desolator.
    Dan 9:27 speaks of an Abomination and so you are connecting Luke 21 with the wrong verse in Daniel 9.
    Yes, we see this differently. Biblical prophecy is replete with parallelisms. Dan 9.26 and 27 are complementary verses. Verse 27 explains more fully verse 26. In verse 27, the AoD is set against the wing of the temple, which is perfectly compatible with an Army standing around Jerusalem, bent on desolating the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However it is a least understandable why you do so even if the verses in question are clearly NOT parallel.

    What we find is that it is your pre-determined view, rather than the CONTEXT of each gospel which determines your understanding, and there leads to a clear difference in this regards.

    So in conclusion, in terminology it is hard for scripture to be any clearer to show your view is wrong.
    In regards to CONTEXT, then you have a reason for debate, but even that is extremely weak.
    I suppose from your pov my argument looks weak. I feel pretty good about it, though.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,728

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My brother and I have discussed this, and he has tended to see the possibility of a "telescoping interpretation," viewing all of the events down the same corridor, using similar language but referring to a series of different events in time. I don't believe this way, but I do acknowledge that the language is similar from Antiochus to Cestius Gallus to Antichrist.

    The language of the "abomination of desolation" I see as only specifically applied to Antiochus 4 and Cestius Gallus. I don't see it applied, specifically, to Antichrist, unless you apply Dan 9.27 as referring to him. This may cause you to interpret the AoD in the Olivet Discourse as applying to him, as well.

    But you know I don't interpret either Dan 9.27 or Matt 24.15 that way. The Church Fathers interpreted Dan 9.27 as applying to Cestius Gallus, or thereabouts. And they also applied the AoD in the Olivet Discourse the same way, particularly since Luke 21.20 seems to require that interpretation.

    But we've gone over all that. You think the abomination requires that something take place *within* the temple. And I don't. That's okay--we can agree to disagree.
    My point being that Jesus refers to the abomination of Daniel which is precisely associated with a 3.5 year period. Rev 13 has such an abomination precisely associated with a 3.5 year period, that more closely resembles the Antiochus abomination of being a false God in the holy place.

    Not only that, but the Olivet discourse has more actual verses about the second coming than 70AD, and the Rev 13 abomination occurs in second coming context.

    Even if you have some powerful fulfilment in 70AD of an abomination like Antiochus' example (I believe you don't) even then you should acknowledge how nicely Rev 13 also fits a dramatic abomination in the holy place followed by 3.5 years in second coming context.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    My point being that Jesus refers to the abomination of Daniel which is precisely associated with a 3.5 year period. Rev 13 has such an abomination precisely associated with a 3.5 year period, that more closely resembles the Antiochus abomination of being a false God in the holy place.

    Not only that, but the Olivet discourse has more actual verses about the second coming than 70AD, and the Rev 13 abomination occurs in second coming context.

    Even if you have some powerful fulfilment in 70AD of an abomination like Antiochus' example (I believe you don't) even then you should acknowledge how nicely Rev 13 also fits a dramatic abomination in the holy place followed by 3.5 years in second coming context.
    Well, I don't quite know how to approach this, without it getting to complicated? So I'll just number a few points for you.

    1) The term "abomination of desolation" does not *have to be* associated with a 3.5 year period. It is mentioned in association with Antiochus 4, who we know committed his desolation upon Jerusalem over a 3.5 year period generally. But the term does not have to apply to any 3.5 years period if used in reference to something later in the book of Daniel. And if used later in the book of Daniel, neither does it have to refer to Antiochus 4.

    2) The 70th Week appears to end in the middle of the final 7 Year period with the death of Messiah. That left a 3.5 year period uncompleted. And that doesn't matter as long as there was a partial 70th Week. It is still the final Week of the 70 Week period.

    On the other hand, the desolation wrought by the Romans against Jerusalem 40 years later did take place over a 3.5 year period, if I remember correctly?

    3) The Abomination of Desolation is defined as "the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people." And this is explained that Antiochus would: 1. devastate the Jewish People, 2. challenge divine worship, and 3. oppose the authority of the High Priest. The upending of the daily sacrifice may have begun in the outer court, with the usurpation of the burnt altar.

    Dan 8.24 He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes.

    If we view the last chapter of Daniel as a summation of both the 3.5 years of Antichrist and the 3.5 years of Antiochus 4, we read this:

    Dan 12.11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

    Here, the AoD is defined as something that is "set up." That seems to refer to the desecration of the altar in the outer court. Or, it may represent, generally, the rebellion that Antiochus has set up against God by entering into the holy places to change the order of worship.

    Dan 11.31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.

    What is clear is that the 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign in Dan 7 is different from the 3.5 years of Antiochus 4's reign of terror. From Revelation we know the 3.5 years of Antichrist involves a period of 1260 days. And from Dan 8 and 12 we see that the 3.5 years of Antiochus 4 is a period of 1290 days. These 3.5 year periods are different, though they seem to establish a pattern.

    In sum, I would say that there is a common pattern from Antiochus 4 to Antichrist. But use of the term "abomination of desolation" may well apply, in Dan 9 and Matt 24.15 to the Roman Army standing around Jerusalem, even though there is no direct connection to Antiochus 4, the 3.5 years, or a usurpation of the burnt altar.

    I think, rather, that the term "abomination of desolation" is a fluid term, as is the sense of it "standing in the holy place." And how Jesus applied these things is determined by the context, which in Luke 21 Jesus plainly described as armies encircling Jerusalem. Whether you agree or not, these are my thoughts.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That is quite humorous. You state what is *absolutely true* to you, and then expect the rest of the world to agree with you? Has it occurred to you that your statements of "absolute truths" are not "absolute" at all, that they are just swiss cheese with more holes in it than you can count?
    No I don't. Certain truths are very clear, such as 2 + 2 = 4.
    Others are less clear and so I don't claim them.
    Now one I would claim which you might not, is that if I drop and apple, it will fall to the ground. This is a very clear and simple TRUTH.
    You would (from your reasoning) argue, that this might not happen if you were in a spaceship in orbit, or if you had an elastic band around the apple which would then pull it up (or a whole lot of helium balloons).
    However all your arguments would show is that actually my claim is the TRUTH and requires a CHANGE (which is not being made known) in order for it to be different.

    I wish you would just state your points, without all of the "absolute truth" window dressing? It is *not* conclusive that "the holy place" cannot mean *outside of the city.* I've gone to great lengths to show you that that from the pov of a map, the Roman Army was literally *in the holy place,* if one considers arriving at Jerusalem "the holy place."

    And your claim that I argue this "without evidence" is untrue. The evidence I presented is that the *context* requires that this be viewed as such. Dan 9.27 and Luke 21.20 require that the Roman Army besiege Jerusalem. And if we compare Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15 we can plainly see that the entity "standing in the holy place" was the Romans who stood around Jerusalem. You may disagree, and that's fine. But to say I'm left with "no reasoning" is false.
    So my points are 100% TRUE that there is NOWHERE in the ENTIRE Bible (and you have not provided anywhere), where "haqodesh" used by itself is not meaning "the Holy place" and that this is not referring SPECIFICALLY to a place in the temple.
    So the EMPHATIC position I take is stressed to show that you have NOTHING to counter this claim. Absolutely NOTHING in terms of terminology.

    Yes, we see this differently. Biblical prophecy is replete with parallelisms. Dan 9.26 and 27 are complementary verses. Verse 27 explains more fully verse 26. In verse 27, the AoD is set against the wing of the temple, which is perfectly compatible with an Army standing around Jerusalem, bent on desolating the temple.
    Really replete? Can you provide some examples of prophecy with this parallelism?
    Secondly, let's assume you are correct that parallelism often occurs, the question is whether it is possible for this to be a parallelism? Here we hit the problem I noted which demonstrates it CANNOT be. The end of the 70 weeks is when the verse 24 is fulfilled. Further it is when the desolator is made desolate. Also it is when the Abomination occurs.
    Yet you have the AoD as occurring in 70 AD based on verse 26, which means you have an AoD which is NOT WITHIN the 70th week.
    This clearly shows it is NOT parallel.

    I suppose from your pov my argument looks weak. I feel pretty good about it, though.
    It looks more than weak. It is based primarily on PRETEXT.
    Read Matthew by itself and you would NEVER connect it with 70 AD after a brief moment of consideration. Matthew was writing in order for this AoD to be understood.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No I don't. Certain truths are very clear, such as 2 + 2 = 4.
    Others are less clear and so I don't claim them.
    Now one I would claim which you might not, is that if I drop and apple, it will fall to the ground. This is a very clear and simple TRUTH.
    You would (from your reasoning) argue, that this might not happen if you were in a spaceship in orbit, or if you had an elastic band around the apple which would then pull it up (or a whole lot of helium balloons).
    However all your arguments would show is that actually my claim is the TRUTH and requires a CHANGE (which is not being made known) in order for it to be different.
    So, what you're saying is that the earth is the center of the solar system, and for this to be false, the sun would have to replace the earth as the center of the solar system?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So my points are 100% TRUE that there is NOWHERE in the ENTIRE Bible (and you have not provided anywhere), where "haqodesh" used by itself is not meaning "the Holy place" and that this is not referring SPECIFICALLY to a place in the temple.
    So the EMPHATIC position I take is stressed to show that you have NOTHING to counter this claim. Absolutely NOTHING in terms of terminology.
    This would be true only if you're right about how "haqodesh" is supposed to be used. If it is not naturally a *proper noun,* then your whole claim collapses, and this ceases to be true at all!

    For example, if "haqodesh" is used 100 times in the OT for the Holy Place in the temple, the fact it does not always have to be used as a proper noun indicates the context can apply it elsewhere, other than to the Holy Place of the temple.

    The temple is the center of your universe--not mine! And it certainly wasn't the center of Jesus' universe! He saw himself as the main temple from heaven. However, for him, the "holy place" in context here is the region around the temple, including the Roman troops who were besieging the city.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Really replete? Can you provide some examples of prophecy with this parallelism?
    Too easy. You do the homework. Just look up "parallelism in the Bible."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Secondly, let's assume you are correct that parallelism often occurs, the question is whether it is possible for this to be a parallelism? Here we hit the problem I noted which demonstrates it CANNOT be.
    Yet another "absolutist" statement? A little less drama please?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The end of the 70 weeks is when the verse 24 is fulfilled. Further it is when the desolator is made desolate. Also it is when the Abomination occurs.
    Yet you have the AoD as occurring in 70 AD based on verse 26, which means you have an AoD which is NOT WITHIN the 70th week.
    This clearly shows it is NOT parallel.
    I've shown you how my interpretation lines up the parallel accounts. You can't judge my position simply by countering with your own position. You have to show how my position is internally inconsistent. It isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It looks more than weak. It is based primarily on PRETEXT.
    Read Matthew by itself and you would NEVER connect it with 70 AD after a brief moment of consideration. Matthew was writing in order for this AoD to be understood.
    Sorry, this is how most Christians in history likely read it. You are out of the mainstream, historically, although in this short space of modern prophetic fever you may be in the majority--perhaps on this forum?

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So, what you're saying is that the earth is the center of the solar system, and for this to be false, the sun would have to replace the earth as the center of the solar system?
    A nice attempt a humour!

    This would be true only if you're right about how "haqodesh" is supposed to be used. If it is not naturally a *proper noun,* then your whole claim collapses, and this ceases to be true at all!
    For example, if "haqodesh" is used 100 times in the OT for the Holy Place in the temple, the fact it does not always have to be used as a proper noun indicates the context can apply it elsewhere, other than to the Holy Place of the temple.
    The temple is the center of your universe--not mine! And it certainly wasn't the center of Jesus' universe! He saw himself as the main temple from heaven. However, for him, the "holy place" in context here is the region around the temple, including the Roman troops who were besieging the city.
    If you were to provide an example where "haqodesh" is NOT a Proper Noun and actually explain how it cannot be a Proper Noun when it is USED as a Proper Noun then that would be quite an achievement. You see you are arguing about the basis of language.
    You have TWO separate issues.
    1) "haqodesh" as a Proper Noun is ALWAYS used for the Holy place in the Temple. This is a scriptural FACT. We know what scripture says and you do NOT have a SINGLE occasion anywhere in scripture where this is NOT true! So this is PROVEN. You might try to deny, but without a SINGLE verse in scripture to support your view this is a MAJOR problem for you.
    2) "haqodesh" being used as an adjective. Now this can be used as an adjective when it is placed with another noun. However then it is NOT "haqodesh" alone but another form. So what you need is "haqodesh" by itself, so that it remains a Proper Noun, but with an alternative meaning.

    Too easy. You do the homework. Just look up "parallelism in the Bible."
    You provide examples. You are the one claiming something so it is for you to show it. I haven't said Parallelism doesn't exist in scripture. I said in prophecy. Moreover I highlighted that for it to work it must ACTUALLY be parallel.

    Yet another "absolutist" statement? A little less drama please?
    It is an absolute statement because this is an ABSOLUTE FACT. It is not being dramatic simply to state a TRUTH.

    I've shown you how my interpretation lines up the parallel accounts. You can't judge my position simply by countering with your own position. You have to show how my position is internally inconsistent. It isn't.
    Actually I have shown your position is internally inconsistent. You seem to not understand when someone shows you based on your verses.

    Sorry, this is how most Christians in history likely read it. You are out of the mainstream, historically, although in this short space of modern prophetic fever you may be in the majority--perhaps on this forum?
    Making claims to "Christians" from history being right is EXTREMELY weak. This is an argument to use against Martin Luther! Oh except he kiboshed that reasoning as being dumb! What matters is WHAT scripture states and HOW scripture is to be interpreted. If you believe we should go by PRETEXTS then why didn't you say so earlier. I thought you were arguing for CONTEXT to be upheld.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    A nice attempt a humour!


    If you were to provide an example where "haqodesh" is NOT a Proper Noun and actually explain how it cannot be a Proper Noun when it is USED as a Proper Noun then that would be quite an achievement. You see you are arguing about the basis of language.
    You have TWO separate issues.
    1) "haqodesh" as a Proper Noun is ALWAYS used for the Holy place in the Temple. This is a scriptural FACT. We know what scripture says and you do NOT have a SINGLE occasion anywhere in scripture where this is NOT true! So this is PROVEN. You might try to deny, but without a SINGLE verse in scripture to support your view this is a MAJOR problem for you.
    It is *not* a major problem for me, and I cannot understand why you fail to grasp my argument here? I've given it to you several times.

    Let's use an example that will be unmistakable. Let's say there is presently only one temple in town, and everybody calls it "the Temple." Everybody knows it's the only temple in town, so that when I refer to "the Temple," everybody knows what I'm talking about. It is a term that is being applied as a proper noun, and yes, the context indicates that this is how the term is regularly being used.

    But does this mean that "the temple" must always be used as a proper noun, that it must *always* refer to the present temple in town? Absolutely not!! Circumstances change, and the context for the use of this term may change. A new temple could be built that replaces the older main temple, and the older temple may go out of use. Then when we refer to "the temple," we are referring to a new proper noun, and to a new temple.

    Or, we might build a small replica of a temple, and say, that is "the temple." In this case, "the temple" does not even apply to a main temple in the city!

    But the term *does not* have to be used as a proper noun. It likely would in my example, but in the matter of "the holy place," the term likely could have a number of uses outside of any sense of a proper noun.

    We know, for example, that "holy place" is a term applied well outside of the temple itself, such as when Moses stood next to the burning bush. In that case, someone may have referred to the place where Moses stood as "the holy place." This is just the flexibility associated with language.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    2) "haqodesh" being used as an adjective. Now this can be used as an adjective when it is placed with another noun. However then it is NOT "haqodesh" alone but another form. So what you need is "haqodesh" by itself, so that it remains a Proper Noun, but with an alternative meaning.
    You have cited no evidence that this is true. "The holy" is the same for me as "the holy place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You provide examples. You are the one claiming something so it is for you to show it. I haven't said Parallelism doesn't exist in scripture. I said in prophecy. Moreover I highlighted that for it to work it must ACTUALLY be parallel.
    I'm not going to waste my time, brother. Parallelisms are so abundant that if you look them up you'll probably drown in them. Yes, in prophecies too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is an absolute statement because this is an ABSOLUTE FACT. It is not being dramatic simply to state a TRUTH.
    I see, said the blind man?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually I have shown your position is internally inconsistent. You seem to not understand when someone shows you based on your verses.
    I think you're confused over the difference between having different points of view and showing an internal inconsistency in someone else's position? Your claim that "the holy," used as an adjective, must be a proper noun, is completely unsubstantiated. Do you expect me to accept pure assertions from you?

    And when I say that you illegitimately claim "the holy place" cannot be used outside of the temple, you cannot prove otherwise. Am I then to cave to your weak logic? In fact, the very context in which Jesus used the term, "the holy place," he was referring to Romans troops encircling Jerusalem. They were standing "in the holy place!" I have the Scriptures, brother--you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Making claims to "Christians" from history being right is EXTREMELY weak. This is an argument to use against Martin Luther! Oh except he kiboshed that reasoning as being dumb! What matters is WHAT scripture states and HOW scripture is to be interpreted. If you believe we should go by PRETEXTS then why didn't you say so earlier. I thought you were arguing for CONTEXT to be upheld.
    I am arguing context--the context of a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem. This is what Scriptures provide as a context. You just refuse to compare Scripture with Scripture--namely, Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15. The thing "standing in the holy place" was the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem! In this case, "the holy place" referred not to the compartment in the temple called "the Holy," but rather, to the area around the temple where invading pagan troops were standing.

    Rather than try to add drama to your claims of "infallibility" why don't we just agree to disagree?

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is *not* a major problem for me, and I cannot understand why you fail to grasp my argument here? I've given it to you several times.
    I have ALWAYS got your argument. You simply don;t get the counter-argument or refuse to accept it.
    I will try to help you again with your example.

    Let's use an example that will be unmistakable. Let's say there is presently only one temple in town, and everybody calls it "the Temple." Everybody knows it's the only temple in town, so that when I refer to "the Temple," everybody knows what I'm talking about. It is a term that is being applied as a proper noun, and yes, the context indicates that this is how the term is regularly being used.
    But does this mean that "the temple" must always be used as a proper noun, that it must *always* refer to the present temple in town? Absolutely not!! Circumstances change, and the context for the use of this term may change. A new temple could be built that replaces the older main temple, and the older temple may go out of use. Then when we refer to "the temple," we are referring to a new proper noun, and to a new temple.
    Or, we might build a small replica of a temple, and say, that is "the temple." In this case, "the temple" does not even apply to a main temple in the city!
    But the term *does not* have to be used as a proper noun. It likely would in my example, but in the matter of "the holy place," the term likely could have a number of uses outside of any sense of a proper noun.
    Notice a few things from your example.
    1) There is a REQUIREMENT for "circumstances (to) change". IOW as long as there is NO indication of circumstances changing, then there is no change in the usage.
    2) If a new temple is built which replaces the old temple, then normally we call the new Temple, "the New Temple", and refer to the old Temple, as "the Old Temple", especially AT A TIME of change.
    3) Now if the new temple is at EXACTLY the same spot, and simply is knocking down the old building and putting up a new one in its place, which functions in the same manner etc, then there is a possibility that people won't change what they say - but will that matter as they are the same in form and fnction. IOW a change is made with what is said, when something different is meant.
    4) If a small replica temple were built it would NOT be called "the temple" whilst "the temple" existed, but would be called something else, such as small temple or replica temple or whatever as people like things to be clear.
    5) The term IS a Proper Noun, when it is USED as a Proper Noun. So to try to argue it isn't a Proper Noun whilst being USED as a Proper Noun is a failed argument.

    We know, for example, that "holy place" is a term applied well outside of the temple itself, such as when Moses stood next to the burning bush. In that case, someone may have referred to the place where Moses stood as "the holy place." This is just the flexibility associated with language.
    This usage is not as a Proper Noun and adds the additional information that tis is a place.

    You have cited no evidence that this is true. "The holy" is the same for me as "the holy place."
    You have the ENTIRE Bible as evidence. And we have looked at a number of verses which show this.
    So for example Exodus 3:5 does NOT say "haqodesh" but says "qodesh admat" which means holy ground.

    I'm not going to waste my time, brother. Parallelisms are so abundant that if you look them up you'll probably drown in them. Yes, in prophecies too.
    So you should be able to find one example of a prophecy with parallelism without any problems.

    I think you're confused over the difference between having different points of view and showing an internal inconsistency in someone else's position? Your claim that "the holy," used as an adjective, must be a proper noun, is completely unsubstantiated. Do you expect me to accept pure assertions from you?

    And when I say that you illegitimately claim "the holy place" cannot be used outside of the temple, you cannot prove otherwise. Am I then to cave to your weak logic? In fact, the very context in which Jesus used the term, "the holy place," he was referring to Romans troops encircling Jerusalem. They were standing "in the holy place!" I have the Scriptures, brother--you don't.
    I have proved otherwise, and you have too. You have shown that OUTSIDE the city is NOT holy ground, but one day (after Jesus returns) it will be holy. This in itself PROVES that OUTSIDE the city is not holy. It has been demonstrated ad Nauseam that this is the FACT. You simply refuse to accept this without any grounds on the basis of the actually words used.

    I am arguing context--the context of a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem. This is what Scriptures provide as a context. You just refuse to compare Scripture with Scripture--namely, Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15. The thing "standing in the holy place" was the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem! In this case, "the holy place" referred not to the compartment in the temple called "the Holy," but rather, to the area around the temple where invading pagan troops were standing.
    Nope, that is NOT the CONTEXT. The CONTEXT is the Olivet Discourse, and what they saw and heard whilst Jesus spoke with them.
    CONTEXT is NOT comparing scripture with scripture.
    CONTEXT is understanding what is happening WITHIN a scripture.
    The CONTEXT is the words and what they mean, which you don;t like the meaning so you wish to change them to mean something else.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,080

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I have ALWAYS got your argument. You simply don;t get the counter-argument or refuse to accept it.
    I will try to help you again with your example.

    Notice a few things from your example.
    1) There is a REQUIREMENT for "circumstances (to) change". IOW as long as there is NO indication of circumstances changing, then there is no change in the usage.
    This is what I mean when I say you must argue for internal inconsistencies *within the other persons' argument!* My argument is that *circumstances did change!* When we compare Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15 and assume, using my argument, that these two passages are comparable, then Jesus *is using new circumstances* in his application of "the holy place." The holy place is now being applied to Roman armies encircling Jerusalem. The territory around the temple, including around Jerusalem, is being defined, in context, as "the holy place!"

    However, you are just arguing, not against the internal inconsistency of my argument, but rather, your own opposing view. That's an argument like, "Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." That will get us nowhere. I already understand your argument because you deny that Luke 21.20 and Matt 24.15 are related, having different words. But my argument is based on the theory that because these passages takes place in the same location within the Olivet Discourse, and contain similar language, they must be comparable.

    We should agree to disagree rather than burn out readers who are hearing the same old tired arguments?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    2) If a new temple is built which replaces the old temple, then normally we call the new Temple, "the New Temple", and refer to the old Temple, as "the Old Temple", especially AT A TIME of change.
    You can't even allow yourself to understand another position, apparently? I was arguing that others used "the temple" under new circumstances. If you are so frigid in your thinking, you cannot debate another position. And you will certainly find yourself in a place where it's difficult to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    3) Now if the new temple is at EXACTLY the same spot, and simply is knocking down the old building and putting up a new one in its place, which functions in the same manner etc, then there is a possibility that people won't change what they say - but will that matter as they are the same in form and fnction. IOW a change is made with what is said, when something different is meant.
    You're just proving my point, that you cannot assume somebody else's position. It's difficult for you, and at times, impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    4) If a small replica temple were built it would NOT be called "the temple" whilst "the temple" existed, but would be called something else, such as small temple or replica temple or whatever as people like things to be clear.
    As I said, "the temple" does *not* have to be used as a proper noun! I could say, "that temporary temple is *the temple* now in use. The temple formerly used is currently being demolished." You have little imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    5) The term IS a Proper Noun, when it is USED as a Proper Noun. So to try to argue it isn't a Proper Noun whilst being USED as a Proper Noun is a failed argument.
    You are arguing a truism? A proper noun is, of course, a proper noun when it is being used as one! My argument is based on the fact the term "the holy place" does *not* have to be used as a proper noun. You are just arguing your own position--not proving my own position internally inconsistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This usage is not as a Proper Noun and adds the additional information that tis is a place.
    That's the whole argument! I know you have a different argument, but you haven't proven my own position inconsistent! The idea of a "holy place" is *not* essentially tied to the temple. "The Holy" is *not* tied to the compartment in the temple called "the Holy!" You are just denying it and stating your own position. You haven't disproven 1) the fact "the Holy" can't mean something outside of the temple, and 2) the fact "holy places" exist outside of the temple itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You have the ENTIRE Bible as evidence. And we have looked at a number of verses which show this.
    So for example Exodus 3:5 does NOT say "haqodesh" but says "qodesh admat" which means holy ground.
    So you're arguing that "ground" is not a "place?" And you're arguing that a "holy ground" is not comparable with a "holy place?" Your fallacy is that you think haqodesh must only apply to the temple because it was exclusively tied to the temple. But that's not how words work, brother. When the context changes, so does the meaning of the word. Not only so, but we do have evidence for a change in context. And we do have biblical evidence that a "holy place" can mean something outside of the temple. And use of the definite article "the" would not do anything more than apply "holy place" to a particular context.

    Again, 100 uses of the haqodesh to the temple does not prove that use of the word doesn't change with a change in context. It only means that under a particular condition the term does consistently apply to the temple. When the condition changes, the meaning of the word changes as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So you should be able to find one example of a prophecy with parallelism without any problems.
    Do you want me to prove the earth is round too? I don't fall for such silly arguments. You want to deflect, and I'm not buying. Perhaps you don't even know what a parallelism is? If so, you didn't look up my reference. But if you know what a parallelism is, why are you asking for an example?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have proved otherwise, and you have too. You have shown that OUTSIDE the city is NOT holy ground, but one day (after Jesus returns) it will be holy. This in itself PROVES that OUTSIDE the city is not holy. It has been demonstrated ad Nauseam that this is the FACT. You simply refuse to accept this without any grounds on the basis of the actually words used.
    This is an entirely different context, and you seem unwilling to grasp that. We are not talking about clean and unclean areas. We are talking, in context, about the holy territory around the temple into which the pagan Roman army marched! We are talking about a general encroachment--not conditions under which a particular area may be called "unclean!" A bull may have pooped on the ground in the courtyard, rendering that particular spot "unclean." But that's not what we're talking about, are we?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, that is NOT the CONTEXT. The CONTEXT is the Olivet Discourse, and what they saw and heard whilst Jesus spoke with them.
    CONTEXT is NOT comparing scripture with scripture.
    CONTEXT is understanding what is happening WITHIN a scripture.
    The CONTEXT is the words and what they mean, which you don;t like the meaning so you wish to change them to mean something else.
    I didn't say comparing Scripture with Scripture is context, brother! You're exasperating! I'm saying you build the sense of how I view the context by comparing two Scriptures. If you don't want to do that, fine. But don't then say my position is internally inconsistent. You're not even willing to look at it that way!

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is what I mean when I say you must argue for internal inconsistencies *within the other persons' argument!* My argument is that *circumstances did change!* When we compare Luke 21.20 with Matt 24.15 and assume, using my argument, that these two passages are comparable, then Jesus *is using new circumstances* in his application of "the holy place." The holy place is now being applied to Roman armies encircling Jerusalem. The territory around the temple, including around Jerusalem, is being defined, in context, as "the holy place!"

    However, you are just arguing, not against the internal inconsistency of my argument, but rather, your own opposing view. That's an argument like, "Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." That will get us nowhere. I already understand your argument because you deny that Luke 21.20 and Matt 24.15 are related, having different words. But my argument is based on the theory that because these passages takes place in the same location within the Olivet Discourse, and contain similar language, they must be comparable.

    We should agree to disagree rather than burn out readers who are hearing the same old tired arguments?
    Nope, Jesus is NOT using new circumstances.
    Jesus did NOT say, that which was formerly unclean is now holy. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the Holy place is no longer the Holy place. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the temple is gone and there is no more Holy place. That would be a change in circumstance.
    Jesus did NOT say, the territory around the city is now holy. That would be a change in circumstance.

    You see, I am basing it ENTIRELY on what YOUR claim REQUIRES, but there is NO CHANGE in circumstance. Jesus does NOT make a claim of a CHANGE. This is what you are ENTIRELY lacking.

    What you are arguing above is NOT a CHANGE in circumstance, but that Jesus would use words knowing how there are understood WITHIN the historical and present circumstances, and use them for an ENTIRELY and CONTRARY meaning, all WITHOUT a CHANGE in the circumstance.

    This by itself (and alone) PROVES that your claim is ENTIRELY without substance.

    You can't even allow yourself to understand another position, apparently? I was arguing that others used "the temple" under new circumstances. If you are so frigid in your thinking, you cannot debate another position. And you will certainly find yourself in a place where it's difficult to change.
    Actually I am EXACTLY considering the situation when such a CHANGE occurs. You don;t like the point i make as it CONFLICTS for what you want to be a truth, which unfortunately it is not.
    How many times do you know when someone builds a new church and make ZERO reference to the old, and don;t call the new as "new"?
    I am debating YOUR position, because this is NOT about my position.
    You are the one who is in a place where you are UNABLE to change. You are LOCKED in your understanding.

    You're just proving my point, that you cannot assume somebody else's position. It's difficult for you, and at times, impossible.
    Wow! I am looking at this from all sorts of angles and you are unable to recognise this is deal with the point made.

    As I said, "the temple" does *not* have to be used as a proper noun! I could say, "that temporary temple is *the temple* now in use. The temple formerly used is currently being demolished." You have little imagination.
    I have ALREADY responding to this. This isn't about imagination. When you have a word or phrase used as a Proper Noun, like Buckingham Palace, then you can use those same two words and NOT use them as a Proper noun. You can say the palace in Buckingham, or even you can say "there is a palace in Buckingham." However a palace in Buckingham is NOT called Buckingham Palace except perhaps jokingly in a local or colloquial way, and is used in reference to the ACTUAL Buckingham Palace. The same could be said about "The White House".
    If I say I visited "The White House", neither you nor any other American would think, amazing that person has gone to a house which is white.
    I am not the one lacking in imagination or understanding.
    The simple point is that in the bible "haqodesh" is used as part of the description of a location or item, when it is NOT being used as a Proper Noun, and in that instance it is NOT referring to "the Holy Place" in the temple. That is because these words are being used as adjectives and not as a phrase on its own.
    However when the word "haqodesh" is used on its own to denote a location, then it IS being used as a Prper Noun and it ONLY refers to one location throughout scripture, which is "the Holy place" in the temple.

    You are arguing a truism? A proper noun is, of course, a proper noun when it is being used as one! My argument is based on the fact the term "the holy place" does *not* have to be used as a proper noun. You are just arguing your own position--not proving my own position internally inconsistent.
    It wasn't me arguing against it but you. You were trying to say when a word is not of one form then it is still of that form without being of that form.

    That's the whole argument! I know you have a different argument, but you haven't proven my own position inconsistent! The idea of a "holy place" is *not* essentially tied to the temple. "The Holy" is *not* tied to the compartment in the temple called "the Holy!" You are just denying it and stating your own position. You haven't disproven 1) the fact "the Holy" can't mean something outside of the temple, and 2) the fact "holy places" exist outside of the temple itself.
    See the point above. "Haqodesh" is used as a stand alone word WITHOUT any other word, such as "place" or "city" etc THEN it ALWAYS means "the Holy place" in the Temple. Any other usage is irrelevant because it is NOT the same.

    So you're arguing that "ground" is not a "place?" And you're arguing that a "holy ground" is not comparable with a "holy place?" Your fallacy is that you think haqodesh must only apply to the temple because it was exclusively tied to the temple. But that's not how words work, brother. When the context changes, so does the meaning of the word. Not only so, but we do have evidence for a change in context. And we do have biblical evidence that a "holy place" can mean something outside of the temple. And use of the definite article "the" would not do anything more than apply "holy place" to a particular context.

    Again, 100 uses of the haqodesh to the temple does not prove that use of the word doesn't change with a change in context. It only means that under a particular condition the term does consistently apply to the temple. When the condition changes, the meaning of the word changes as well.
    No, I have stated that it does not say "haqodesh" it says "qodesh admat". The translation into English can be the similar "admat" means ground and that is a place. However you are trying to compare "record" with "record", where one is a verb and the other is a noun. The word is the same, though the pronunciation is different. You see the word "holy" and you see the word "place" and so you say THIS IS THE SAME, but in Hebrew it is NOT.
    It is a FACT of scripture, which you seem unable to accept.

    Do you want me to prove the earth is round too? I don't fall for such silly arguments. You want to deflect, and I'm not buying. Perhaps you don't even know what a parallelism is? If so, you didn't look up my reference. But if you know what a parallelism is, why are you asking for an example?
    You are the one claiming the world is flat, and you expect me to simply accept what you say? You are the one making a silly argument, and I am highlighting this.
    I do know what parallelism is, and we see it in a lot of the Psalms:
    Ever since Robert Lowth's 1753 study, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, biblical scholars have known that ancient Hebrew writers relied on parallelism to make their poetry. What is parallelism? It is a structure of thought (rather than external form like meter or rhyme) in which the writer balances a series of words so that patterns of deliberate contrast or intentional repetition appear.

    This is an entirely different context, and you seem unwilling to grasp that. We are not talking about clean and unclean areas. We are talking, in context, about the holy territory around the temple into which the pagan Roman army marched! We are talking about a general encroachment--not conditions under which a particular area may be called "unclean!" A bull may have pooped on the ground in the courtyard, rendering that particular spot "unclean." But that's not what we're talking about, are we?
    I get you are claiming it is a different context. However context does not mean unholy is suddenly holy.
    Further as you have the context completely wrong so that doesn't help you claim in the slightest.
    A general encroachment does NOT change ground which is unclean to suddenly become holy. That is a greater nonsense than you claiming the earth is flat!

    I didn't say comparing Scripture with Scripture is context, brother! You're exasperating! I'm saying you build the sense of how I view the context by comparing two Scriptures. If you don't want to do that, fine. But don't then say my position is internally inconsistent. You're not even willing to look at it that way!
    Your ENTIRE claim is based on the point that Luke and Matthew BOTH record the Olivet Discourse and in one place in one record, you find something else in the other THEREFORE the one MEANS the other. This is the SUMMATION of your claim. You do NOT care about the meaning of the words in Matthew or the CONTEXT he is providing around it. You do NOT care about the meaning of the words in Luke or the CONTEXT Luke provides. You do NOT care about the CONTEXT of the ENTIRE Olivet Discourse, which is having left the Temple - for you DENY that the Temple is the CONTEXT of the discourse YET conversely you try to claim that being OUTSIDE the city is somehow being IN the holy place.
    I haven't said you are internally inconsistent, I have noted that your claims require CONTEXT to be ignored and for the meaning of words to be ignored, and you build your entire premise on the placement of words as recorded by two different authors.
    I have looked at what you are claiming and as a basis for understanding scripture it is a FALSE one. You ALWAYS start with the INTERNAL CONTEXT first and then build from there.
    However even disregarding that, you are still changing the wider picture as seen in Luke and Matthew and making up your own narrative which is different to that given.
    Further you CHANGE the meaning of words to try to fit together two things that do NOT fit.
    This is why your entire reasoning is bunk. The sooner you realise that the earth is not flat, that those things which are unclean are NOT holy, then the sooner you can get to what Jesus was telling His disciples.

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
  •