holy ground in the NT?

[DurbanDude]

It was suggested that the following point discredits my position that the AoD "in the holy place" cannot refer to Jerusalem.
Reference to "the holy place" under conditions of OT Jerusalem always included the temple. Therefore, the holy place must refer exclusively to the temple, and never to Jerusalem, where the temple was located.

However, Jesus completely rejected the temple, indicating that he was the true temple and thus, the true "holy place." It was in Jerusalem, where the temporary Holy Place was located, that Jesus died to fulfil the sanctification of Jerusalem, which is what the temple represented.

Thus, the abomination standing in the holy place was the Roman Army standing around Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the holy place where Jesus had finished his work of redemption. Jesus had anointed Jerusalem by his work of redemption. And the pagan Romans desecrated it.

Dan 9.25 Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.

I hear your possibilities, but we are trying to get the "BEST FIT" here, not a possible fit. Jerusalem was often invaded in the past. None of those invasions were regarded as "abominations", they were all regarded as punishments or judgments on disobedient Israel.

Yet the statue of Zeus in the temple in 168 BC was actually recorded as a biblical abomination in Daniel 11:31

When we read in Rev 13 about the image of the beast, on the balance of logic it matches better with previous biblical use and the meaning of the word "abomination".

a foul thing, a detestable thing
of idols and things pertaining to idolatry

You are busy trying to make your view sound possible, in the meantime there is a very good fit described in Rev 13.

[randyk]

I hear your possibilities, but we are trying to get the "BEST FIT" here, not a possible fit. Jerusalem was often invaded in the past. None of those invasions were regarded as "abominations", they were all regarded as punishments or judgments on disobedient Israel.

Yet the statue of Zeus in the temple in 168 BC was actually recorded as a biblical abomination in Daniel 11:31

When we read in Rev 13 about the image of the beast, on the balance of logic it matches better with previous biblical use and the meaning of the word "abomination".

a foul thing, a detestable thing
of idols and things pertaining to idolatry

You are busy trying to make your view sound possible, in the meantime there is a very good fit described in Rev 13.

Psalm 79.1 O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple, they have reduced Jerusalem to rubble.

Here we see that the defiling of Israel's temple consists of an invasion of Jerusalem, desolating it. This is, in the simplest terms, how I'm applying the Abomination of Desolation in Dan 9 and in the Olivet Discourse.

The invading Army positions itself around the walls of Jerusalem, and yet is viewed by Jesus as *in the holy place.* This renders the invading Army an "abomination of desolation," standing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where the temple was located. Luke makes it unmistakably clear, in my view.

In this view, the "holy place" holds a more expansive definition, beginning with the position of the temple in the city of Jerusalem, and expanding outwards to include the city of Jerusalem itself. I'm just including in the definition of "Jerusalem" the area immediately around the walls, where the invading Army took its stand.

[ForHisglory]

I would have thought that the essence of these discussions is to seek validation of our understanding of certain topics while revising our position on those proven by scripture that we got wrong? What's the point in sticking to our guns when everything points to our being wrong on a doctrine? Randy has been most vehement and dogmatic in his view of the OD. I really hope I can one day, see "this perspective" that only him has seen with regards to the OD.

Many have the view that Luke 21:20 and Matt 24:15 speak of the SAME event. Some see it ALL as in the past, others see it all as in the future.
This is partly because we perceive patterns and see the similarities - it is a well known reality - hence some see 4 heads in Dan 7 and 4 in Dan 8 and so conclude it is the same as well.

The problem is that when something is shown which disproves our cherished belief, we try to find a "plausible" work-around.
The ECF Eusebius decided that a statue of Zeus (or Jupiter) placed in the Temple area AFTER the destruction constituted the AoD, as he recognised the need for their be something which matched what occurred with A4E and this was the closest he could find.
Randyk agrees that doesn't fit, and as NOTHING is seen in "the Holy place" it forces him to REDEFINE what a very clear and unambiguous usage of a word is to something which NO ONE at the time would understand, and even today we don't see it as fitting, but his doctrine DEMANDS he has such a solution.
There is a further more serious issue with anyone who says that Luke 21:20 and Matt 24:15 are saying the same thing, which led to randyk deciding not to debate with me further, and that is a more fundamental question of our approach to scripture.
Luke and Matthew BOTH have the words as being spoken DIRECTLY out of the mouth of Jesus. That is that they are verbatim quotes. Yet for them to be about the same sign, it requires Luke to be INTERPRETING what Jesus said and not actually saying these words at all.
This is what I noted is a LIE of the Devil, as if we accept this about this one verse, then what about any other verse that Luke wrote. Basically the Devil wants us to say we CANNOT trust the Word of God. Perhaps DECEPTION of the Devil would be a better phrase, as he is a deceiver as well as a liar.
You see when we accept that Luke wrote down words that Jesus ACTUALLY said, then this means Jesus made BOTH statements, and therefore one sentence is NOT an interpretation of the other.
This then leads to another correlating point which is that Matthew notes (let the reader understand), which would be a totally unnecessary phrase to write IF Jesus gave the explanation as "an army surrounding Jerusalem". Matthew could have written that explanation instead of the cryptic one, especially IF it is the one that Jesus gave. This means that Jesus did NOT say "an army surrounding Jerusalem" was an explanation for "the AoD... standing in the Holy place." And that therefore there are TWO separate SIGNS, which then demands we work out what each SIGN was about.

On top of this is the demand that the authors must have written down the answer to the question - when will this happen (in regards to the destruction of the Temple), yet if Jesus did NOT give an exact answer to the question, but rather a SIGN which would precede it, then we recognise that sometimes questions are asked which are NOT directly answered.

[ForHisglory]

Hopefully you can zoom these?

Attachment 13676
Attachment 13677
Attachment 13678

Difficult to read when zoomed in. However Culver makes two points:
1) To understand this phrase he suggests we are to understand what the phrase would have meant to Daniel, how it would be used then. If this idea is correct then it COMPLETELY discredits the idea of an exclusive NT usage of holy, but confines it to meaning the Temple.
2) That this is in reference to a sacrilegious act which occurs in a SPECIFIED holy place. This means there MUST be a way to determine WHERE that holy place is. This again does NOT point to any holy place, but a SPECIFIC one, which points to the Temple.

[randyk]

Many have the view that Luke 21:20 and Matt 24:15 speak of the SAME event. Some see it ALL as in the past, others see it all as in the future.
This is partly because we perceive patterns and see the similarities - it is a well known reality - hence some see 4 heads in Dan 7 and 4 in Dan 8 and so conclude it is the same as well.

The problem is that when something is shown which disproves our cherished belief, we try to find a "plausible" work-around.
The ECF Eusebius decided that a statue of Zeus (or Jupiter) placed in the Temple area AFTER the destruction constituted the AoD, as he recognised the need for their be something which matched what occurred with A4E and this was the closest he could find.
Randyk agrees that doesn't fit, and as NOTHING is seen in "the Holy place" it forces him to REDEFINE what a very clear and unambiguous usage of a word is to something which NO ONE at the time would understand, and even today we don't see it as fitting, but his doctrine DEMANDS he has such a solution.
There is a further more serious issue with anyone who says that Luke 21:20 and Matt 24:15 are saying the same thing, which led to randyk deciding not to debate with me further, and that is a more fundamental question of our approach to scripture.
Luke and Matthew BOTH have the words as being spoken DIRECTLY out of the mouth of Jesus. That is that they are verbatim quotes. Yet for them to be about the same sign, it requires Luke to be INTERPRETING what Jesus said and not actually saying these words at all.
This is what I noted is a LIE of the Devil, as if we accept this about this one verse, then what about any other verse that Luke wrote. Basically the Devil wants us to say we CANNOT trust the Word of God. Perhaps DECEPTION of the Devil would be a better phrase, as he is a deceiver as well as a liar.
You see when we accept that Luke wrote down words that Jesus ACTUALLY said, then this means Jesus made BOTH statements, and therefore one sentence is NOT an interpretation of the other.
This then leads to another correlating point which is that Matthew notes (let the reader understand), which would be a totally unnecessary phrase to write IF Jesus gave the explanation as "an army surrounding Jerusalem". Matthew could have written that explanation instead of the cryptic one, especially IF it is the one that Jesus gave. This means that Jesus did NOT say "an army surrounding Jerusalem" was an explanation for "the AoD... standing in the Holy place." And that therefore there are TWO separate SIGNS, which then demands we work out what each SIGN was about.

On top of this is the demand that the authors must have written down the answer to the question - when will this happen (in regards to the destruction of the Temple), yet if Jesus did NOT give an exact answer to the question, but rather a SIGN which would precede it, then we recognise that sometimes questions are asked which are NOT directly answered.

Brother, I respect your intelligence and well-stated concerns. And I do continue to read your posts. I can't always respond directly to you because you do not agree that calling opposing views "lies of the Devil" is not civil discourse. Even if you believe that something I say is a "lie of the Devil," it is not civil discourse to go on saying things that you know will not be well-received. This means you don't want a civil discussion at all.

So yes, this is why I cannot discuss things with you directly on some of these issues, because we disagree on the rules of civil discourse. And if we can't act like Christians, we're defeating our purpose. We should not be provoking each other, but rather, edifying each other. That is more important than agreement on every issue, and I'm sure you would agree.

But I will this once try to explain why I do not believe our view of the Olivet Discourse constitutes a "lie of the Devil" when we think the synoptic authors said the same things in alternate ways. It is a matter of opinion whether they wrote exact quotes or paraphrases--both are reasonable conclusions. If you see each version quoting Jesus in a different way, you may assume a different truth is being stated. You may believe that because Matthew mentioned the AOD, and Luke mentioned the Armies encircling Jerusalem, that they were each stating different truths.

But if you, like me, see Matthew and Luke stating the same truths, then we must conclude that they were both paraphrasing, selecting their own abbreviated language to state the same truths. Paraphrases, as such, do not call authors "liars," but rather, recognize that quoting somebody sometimes involves an abbreviated explanation. As such, these are true quotes--just shortened versions.

I will be happy to engage you, brother, when we agree on the rules of civility. I don't care if you agree with me on anything else. You never seem inclined to respect another position, or at least, to say so. And if you're so emotionally vested in your own position, it is even harder to humble yourself when new information calls for you to make a change.

But it isn't my job to change your views. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. And it is your job to keep yourself humble, and moldable. I hope you can do it. It seems few can.

I strongly disagree with your caricature of me as one who is hardened in his own position. I've changed many, many times in my personal history. I just won't change a position because someone tries to bully me into a change by language that does not actually challenge what I believe. If, for example, you misrepresent my views, and argue against that, how does that convict me of a need to change? And if you simply try to get me to change by personal attack, how does that assist me in making a change? Change and become a bully? I think not.

[randyk]

Difficult to read when zoomed in. However Culver makes two points:
1) To understand this phrase he suggests we are to understand what the phrase would have meant to Daniel, how it would be used then. If this idea is correct then it COMPLETELY discredits the idea of an exclusive NT usage of holy, but confines it to meaning the Temple.
2) That this is in reference to a sacrilegious act which occurs in a SPECIFIED holy place. This means there MUST be a way to determine WHERE that holy place is. This again does NOT point to any holy place, but a SPECIFIC one, which points to the Temple.

It is because you made a noble effort to read this, I will show my appreciation by making this brief comment. I do agree with you that the Holy Place of the temple is the primary focus of the term "the holy place."

My argument, again, is that by virtue of the temple being located in the city of Jerusalem, both the temple and the city together constitute "the holy place." I know you don't agree, but this is my argument.

This is not confining "the holy place" to just the temple. Nor is it excluding the normal definition of the Holy Place as being the temple. It is defining "the holy place" as *both* the temple and the city.

Once the temple has been consigned to destruction, the focus is no longer on the temple as a place to worship, but rather, as a structure within a city to be destroyed, both temple and city. And this is the context in which "the holy place" is referred to by Jesus, and also by Daniel, who Jesus referred to. It is a prophecy of the destruction of *both* the city and the temple. *Both" constitute "the holy place" in my opinion.

I have no need to try to force you to agree. I'm just stating my opinion. If you have further concerns I will always read them. But I won't engage in any discussion with you, since we don't agree on the rules of civil discourse.

[Fenris]

Yea, I don't mind that you disagree. You just have to justify your views for me to change my own opinion. My opinion is based on the fact the 4 Gospel authors had been commissioned by Jesus to take his Gospel out beyond Israel, after beginning in Jerusalem and in Judea. They were to begin proclaiming Jesus' message of the Kingdom within Israel, and then move out into the Roman world.

It's my understanding that it was Paul who said "we go to the gentiles", not Jesus.

[Fenris]

Fenris, if you have not already read Matt 24, would you mind to take a quick look at v-15-20 and tell us what a Jews understands as "the holy place" with particular attention to the context of the discourse?

Mathew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The chapter begins with Jesus talking about how one stone won't be standing atop another. Nobody disputes that this is talking of the temple. His disciples ask "When will this happen?" When he gets to verse 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation'..." he's talking about the temple's destruction and some pagan gentile (or whatever you interpret ‘the abomination that causes desolation' to mean) standing on the ruins of the temple. This seems to be a very simple and straightforward interpretation.

[randyk]

Mathew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The chapter begins with Jesus talking about how one stone won't be standing atop another. Nobody disputes that this is talking of the temple. His disciples ask "When will this happen?" When he gets to verse 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation'..." he's talking about the temple's destruction and some pagan gentile (or whatever you interpret ‘the abomination that causes desolation' to mean) standing on the ruins of the temple. This seems to be a very simple and straightforward interpretation.

And this is how the Church Fathers largely interpreted it. Thank you!

[ForHisglory]

And this is how the Church Fathers largely interpreted it. Thank you!

I think you are misunderstanding what Fenris is saying.
He is NOT agreeing with your idea that an army OUTSIDE the city is somehow standing in the Holy place, but that an army is standing IN the Holy place, IN the Temple (or where the Temple was).

This is what Eusebius stated, but it falls down on one CRUCIAL point.

Jesus said - WHEN you SEE (this event) THEN you are to flee.
Now in 70 AD when an army was standing in the Holy place, the city had fallen, perhaps as many as a million Jews had been killed and another 10,000 or so of the survivors had been taken captive to be slaves. There was NO ONE able to flee in 70 AD when the army was standing in the Holy place.
Therefore this means Jesus is NOT speaking about 66 AD, for that doesn't fit the simple meaning as Fenris highlights, nor does 70 AD work because AT THAT TIME it was TOO late to flee.
This demands as Irenaeus highlighted that it is a future event, where when the AoD is standing in the Holy place, it is STILL possible to flee.

[ForHisglory]

Mathew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The chapter begins with Jesus talking about how one stone won't be standing atop another. Nobody disputes that this is talking of the temple. His disciples ask "When will this happen?" When he gets to verse 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation'..." he's talking about the temple's destruction and some pagan gentile (or whatever you interpret ‘the abomination that causes desolation' to mean) standing on the ruins of the temple. This seems to be a very simple and straightforward interpretation.

Why ruins? When Antiochus IV Epiphanes caused the Abomination of Desolation, was the temple in ruins?
Now I get that Jesus stated about the destruction of the temple, but then isn't it possible for the Abomination to occur in a standing Temple and then for it to be ruined afterwards, and still be about the same thing?
IOW could the chronology be the other way around, and in fact isn't that more likely as when the temple is in ruins (with not even one stone atop another) how do you know where the Holy place was?

[marty fox]

Mathew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The chapter begins with Jesus talking about how one stone won't be standing atop another. Nobody disputes that this is talking of the temple. His disciples ask "When will this happen?" When he gets to verse 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation'..." he's talking about the temple's destruction and some pagan gentile (or whatever you interpret ‘the abomination that causes desolation' to mean) standing on the ruins of the temple. This seems to be a very simple and straightforward interpretation.

Fenris how do you view Jesus after this time stamped prediction came true? Do you think that He had divine knowledge?

[ForHisglory]

It is because you made a noble effort to read this, I will show my appreciation by making this brief comment. I do agree with you that the Holy Place of the temple is the primary focus of the term "the holy place."

My argument, again, is that by virtue of the temple being located in the city of Jerusalem, both the temple and the city together constitute "the holy place." I know you don't agree, but this is my argument.

The city is A Holy place, and I understand your claim about it being "THE Holy place". However your virtue idea is NOT supported by a single scripture anywhere. The closest you have is that the city is holy just as the holy place is holy.

This is not confining "the holy place" to just the temple. Nor is it excluding the normal definition of the Holy Place as being the temple. It is defining "the holy place" as *both* the temple and the city.

Scripture confines it, so we should interpret it as scripture does and not create our own interpretation. This is the thing you attack me on, though I try ALWAYS to stick with how scripture interprets something, but that isn't sometimes supported by ECFs or other commentators.
Your claim though is NOT supported by a single ECF or commentator, as well as not being supported by scripture, so you seem to be moving the goalposts of what you consider, yet judge others to a different set. I personally try to use the SAME judgement for everything.

Once the temple has been consigned to destruction, the focus is no longer on the temple as a place to worship, but rather, as a structure within a city to be destroyed, both temple and city. And this is the context in which "the holy place" is referred to by Jesus, and also by Daniel, who Jesus referred to. It is a prophecy of the destruction of *both* the city and the temple. *Both" constitute "the holy place" in my opinion.

Until it is destroyed, then it is (and was) still a place of worship. The Apostles went there to worship. Paul did too.
The context is WHILE the Temple exists, and Daniel who had TWO prophecies about AoDs has it being connected with the Temple.
EVEN IF you somehow have Jerusalem become the Holy place, you still have the problem that the army was OUTSIDE Jerusalem and NOT IN it. Therefore you have to perform a SECOND change to the meaning whereby now it is no longer Jerusalem but actually places OUTSIDE Jerusalem which are NOT destroyed and therefore NOT part of your dual idea as above. This is contrary to what the writer of Hebrews noted EXPLICITLY and in an NT setting.

I am arguing for the TRUTH, and if you do or don't accept it, then that is your choice. I am also open to when you show that my reasoning is NOT possible or fitting with what is stated. That is that I am presenting something which doesn't fit with the TRUTH. Yet perhaps you may have noted you are perpetually on the back foot because you are using argumentation which is easily refuted. Nothing I have stated, such as "the Holy place" ALWAYS refers to the place in Temple is incorrect. Nor can you find support for such a view. I gave you SEVEN reasons why your view was wrong. Fenris shows a possible meaning, but which doesn't support your view, ONLY that of Eusebius, who connected Matt 24:15 with 70 AD.
The question is whether you wish to support Eusebius or continue on your own path, which no scripture, no ECF and no one gets from the language and simple reading of the passage.

And this is how the Church Fathers largely interpreted it. Thank you!

ONLY later ECFs.

[ForHisglory]

Brother, I respect your intelligence and well-stated concerns. And I do continue to read your posts. I can't always respond directly to you because you do not agree that calling opposing views "lies of the Devil" is not civil discourse. Even if you believe that something I say is a "lie of the Devil," it is not civil discourse to go on saying things that you know will not be well-received. This means you don't want a civil discussion at all.

I highlighted a SPECIFIC thing which you were claiming was a LIE of the Devil. It is a DECEPTION of the Devil if you prefer.
I will continue to note that SPECIFIC claim is such a LIE. This doesn't, and NEVER has meant I have said your claims re. where the Holy place is a LIE of the Devil.
If someone were to say Jesus was Beelzebub, then I would note that this is a LIE of the Devil too - for the Father of Lies suggested such a thing. Jesus didn't pull punches on certain things, and if that offends you then I suggest you consider whether claiming that Luke made up what Jesus said allows for any form of discourse on this forum.

So yes, this is why I cannot discuss things with you directly on some of these issues, because we disagree on the rules of civil discourse. And if we can't act like Christians, we're defeating our purpose. We should not be provoking each other, but rather, edifying each other. That is more important than agreement on every issue, and I'm sure you would agree.

Actually sometimes Iron sharpening iron causes sparks. It is NOT the sparks which are the issue, but dealing with them. They can cause a fire and in that case are dangerous.

But I will this once try to explain why I do not believe our view of the Olivet Discourse constitutes a "lie of the Devil" when we think the synoptic authors said the same things in alternate ways. It is a matter of opinion whether they wrote exact quotes or paraphrases--both are reasonable conclusions. If you see each version quoting Jesus in a different way, you may assume a different truth is being stated. You may believe that because Matthew mentioned the AOD, and Luke mentioned the Armies encircling Jerusalem, that they were each stating different truths.

No it is NOT a reasonable conclusion to say that Luke or any other of the gospel authors paraphrased Jesus. This means EVERYTIME that ANY gospel author wrote the words of Jesus, that actually they were NOT the words of Jesus at all, but were simply that authors words.
Further Luke DID NOT claim prophetic insight into what would happen, which did in 66 AD. He was INCREDIBLY ACCURATE for someone who was paraphrasing an event which occurs 4 years later.
This is a FUNDAMENTAL point in regards to scripture. To understand anything we need to agree that what is written is what was stated by Jesus. If you think Luke just made up his own version and Matthew and Mark theirs and John his own, then I see no value in discussing anything with you as there is NO common framework of understanding the TRUTH.

But if you, like me, see Matthew and Luke stating the same truths, then we must conclude that they were both paraphrasing, selecting their own abbreviated language to state the same truths. Paraphrases, as such, do not call authors "liars," but rather, recognize that quoting somebody sometimes involves an abbreviated explanation. As such, these are true quotes--just shortened versions.

Where differences occur is NOT in the words the record that Jesus spoke, but in how they present them, which words they do or do not include etc.
A TRUE quote DEMANDS the words be what are quoted.

I will be happy to engage you, brother, when we agree on the rules of civility. I don't care if you agree with me on anything else. You never seem inclined to respect another position, or at least, to say so. And if you're so emotionally vested in your own position, it is even harder to humble yourself when new information calls for you to make a change.
But it isn't my job to change your views. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. And it is your job to keep yourself humble, and moldable. I hope you can do it. It seems few can.

There are many things I am open to, but changing the WORDS of Jesus is NOT one I am EVER willing to make. My understanding of them I am willing to change, but I am not willing to change one jot or tittle of the words He spoke, not for any doctrine whatsoever.

I strongly disagree with your caricature of me as one who is hardened in his own position. I've changed many, many times in my personal history. I just won't change a position because someone tries to bully me into a change by language that does not actually challenge what I believe. If, for example, you misrepresent my views, and argue against that, how does that convict me of a need to change? And if you simply try to get me to change by personal attack, how does that assist me in making a change? Change and become a bully? I think not.

As for one who is hardened in their position, this accurately describes your position in regards to the OD. You are in fact hardening yourself more and more. this is NOT because you have more scriptural support for your view. You may have changed many times, but tat is irrelevant, the question is rather are you OPEN to what scripture STATES, or do you demand that scripture changes to fit YOUR doctrine. I haven't once misrepresented your view, though you claim I don't or haven't understood it.
I have simply noted that OUTSIDE the city is NEVER IN the Temple. Your claim is that OUTSIDE the city is STILL IN the Holy place, but the point is that NO ONE agrees that IN the Holy place is ANYWHERE EXCEPT IN the Temple. Therefore YOU ARE claiming that OUTSIDE is IN when they are two geographically different locations.

[Fenris]

I think you are misunderstanding what Fenris is saying.
He is NOT agreeing with your idea that an army OUTSIDE the city is somehow standing in the Holy place, but that an army is standing IN the Holy place, IN the Temple (or where the Temple was).

Yes, that's what I said. When he says "the holy place" he means the temple.