Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 346

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Fenris how do you view Jesus after this time stamped prediction came true? Do you think that He had divine knowledge?
    No. For a lot of reasons. Start a topic in "contro" and we can talk about it, but not here.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I will respond to you, but much less to FHG, because you have a civil spirit. I'm less interested in Christians who use worldly tactics like name-calling, and insulting those who hold different positions.

    My brother sent me a few articles yesterday on the subject. I will try to post them, for your consideration. They are scholarly, and try to approach the subject from a very fair viewpoint.

    But you too, if all you want to do is insult me as "hard-headed," which in my view is *not* the truth, then neither am I interested in holding discussions with you on the topic.

    What *is* the truth about me being "closed-minded?" The truth is, I memorized the Olivet Discourse back in the early 70s. I've held to your position, most likely, and any number of positions. I've never felt that I really had it right. As you can tell from all of the discussions, there are a variety of views, and problems with every view.

    I've changed my views on this and other subjects throughout the years. Just because I've held tenaciously to my arguments here on this subject does *not* mean that I'm inflexible. It just means that it is taking quite some time for me to get to the bottom of our differences, because I have seen over and over again that my position is not being represented properly.

    For example, it has taken me quite a long time on this Forum to communicate to some that my view of the Great Distress is different than how they've been thinking I view it. They've regularly argued with me, thinking that the Great Distress was the 66-70 AD tribulation when the Romans defeated the Jews in Jerusalem.

    But I've not viewed it that way. It's taken me quite some time to communicate just how I view this. And until I'm arguing with people who really understand my position, I'm not dealing with anybody remotely able to correct my notions, because they simply don't understand what my notions are!

    Another example is how one brother continually inserts what my beliefs are, and ignores my own statements on what I believe. For example, I define the "holy place" as a concentric circle around the vicinity of Jerusalem, and then I am ridiculed for believing that "outside the walls" is what I believe the "holy place" to be.

    Some people are just not worth responding to, because they are incapable of being fair with a position they don't themselves hold to. They are more interested in defending their own position than in understanding someone else's position.
    It is never in Christian character to attack or insult a brother instead of attacking their views. I am no saint and have unwittingly crossed some red lines in my time. So I'm always the first to hold up my hand as guilty and apologise. I hereby also, ask for your continued forgiveness for some of my less than polite remarks to you in the past and maybe, in the future too

    I have observed your proclivity to these phrases (a) we (those that disagree with you) are not presenting your position properly (b) we do not understand your position (c) we do not understand what your notions are.

    We have all been in positions where we are convinced to the bone that our view is the proper interpretation of the Bible's position on a given text. Consequently, we find ourselves sometimes exasperated that others disagree with us. For example, I'm presently debating the meaning and timeline of the New Covenant with some respected Brothers who disagree with me. But I will not say that they don't *understand my position* or that they are *improperly presenting my notion*.

    There are some less educated brethren here that one sometimes struggle to figure out what they are saying - you are a zillion miles away from that. So why would anyone not understand your position when your arguments are invariably presented in a concise and well-articulated form? And well understood. Therefore, disagreeing with the case presented doesn't mean your points are misunderstood. We just disagree with it. Hopefully, you understand what I'm saying here?

    Back to the topic. My understanding contextually of Jesus Christ' meaning of "the holy place" in the OD is specifically the temple and its sanctum. The "concentric circle" around the vicinity of Jerusalem doesn't qualify. Does this mean I don't understand your position? Of course, not! My position is just at variance with yours.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree with a lot of your logic here, except that you don't recognize the context, as I see it. This was a prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Jesus' generation. And it happened in 70 AD by the Romans. Jesus was telling his disciples that the key sign to avoid this would be to see the Roman Army encircle Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark describe the same thing as an Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place, or where it doesn't belong.

    So yes, the "holy place" refers back, in every Jewish mind, to the Holy Place of the temple. But the flexible usage of a holy area, or holy territory, allows an expansion of the application from strictly to the Holy Place in the temple to the city surrounding that temple.
    The problem for me in accepting your interpretation is that Roman soldiers had always been in Jerusalem since it capitulated to Pompey in 63 BC. Every Jew in that age would have seen them every day on the streets of the city, so I don't how what they see every day should now be recognised as the sign to flee?

    Certainly, the soldiers already in the city and the reinforcement coming with Titus would be no different to the Jewish observer.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Jesus couldn't have rejected the temple when he himself went in there to worship and teach. At one point, he was so vexed because of merchandise being conducted therein that he drove and overturned the tables of those who had turned it into a commercial place.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    Durbandude, remind me to buy a coffee if we ever meet

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    With regards to the AoD in the OD, I have always argued that is still in the future and not fulfilled in 70 AD. Consequently, the Roman soldiers weren't the AoD.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,190
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    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.
    Thank you for taking the time to share your view. What your comments overlooked is the fact that the Jews were supposed to flee for dear life when they see the AoD stand in the holy place. How can they flee when the gentile AoD is already standing upon the ruins of the temple according to your post? The implication is that they would be slaughtered before the temple is destroyed.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Thank you for taking the time to share your view. What your comments overlooked is the fact that the Jews were supposed to flee for dear life when they see the AoD stand in the holy place.
    So the verse in the same chapter about "not one stone standing on another" must be referring to something else also?

    Listen, in the plain language he's telling his followers to flee the Roman oppression, which they did do according to Eusebius and Epiphanius.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    It is never in Christian character to attack or insult a brother instead of attacking their views. I am no saint and have unwittingly crossed some red lines in my time. So I'm always the first to hold up my hand as guilty and apologise. I hereby also, ask for your continued forgiveness for some of my less than polite remarks to you in the past and maybe, in the future too

    I have observed your proclivity to these phrases (a) we (those that disagree with you) are not presenting your position properly (b) we do not understand your position (c) we do not understand what your notions are.

    We have all been in positions where we are convinced to the bone that our view is the proper interpretation of the Bible's position on a given text. Consequently, we find ourselves sometimes exasperated that others disagree with us. For example, I'm presently debating the meaning and timeline of the New Covenant with some respected Brothers who disagree with me. But I will not say that they don't *understand my position* or that they are *improperly presenting my notion*.

    There are some less educated brethren here that one sometimes struggle to figure out what they are saying - you are a zillion miles away from that. So why would anyone not understand your position when your arguments are invariably presented in a concise and well-articulated form? And well understood. Therefore, disagreeing with the case presented doesn't mean your points are misunderstood. We just disagree with it. Hopefully, you understand what I'm saying here?

    Back to the topic. My understanding contextually of Jesus Christ' meaning of "the holy place" in the OD is specifically the temple and its sanctum. The "concentric circle" around the vicinity of Jerusalem doesn't qualify. Does this mean I don't understand your position? Of course, not! My position is just at variance with yours.
    I of course have no problem with your statement here. My concern with you had to do with your failure to appreciate my definition of the Great Tribulation. You apparently understand it now. In fact you asked for me to have patience with you in that regard.

    But I strongly disagree with you on the point that I utilize "you don't understand my position" as a way of perpetuating honest disagreement. Like you, I have no wish to continue arguing, once we understand one another.

    I honestly have not been understood by a number of people here--not just you. And I don't fault them for it--these notions are time-worn and deeply impressed upon our thinking.

    In fact the way you view the Olivet Discourse was impressed, I believe, by modern eschatology, and not by a pure and neutral consideration of the passages. None of us have entered into this area free of indoctrination.

    As for me, I grew up in the church, and entered into this subject before any real skills had developed yet. I was open to anything, and received indoctrination from several sources.

    My first source was, I believe, a Lutheran scholar, Lenski, whose commentary initially shaped my view of Revelation. But that began several years of change, as Hal Lindsey became very popular in my circles.

    I appreciate your honesty and confession, and I admit to the same. We are human. My concern is not with those who are imperfect. My concern is with those who think they are perfect! Take care, brother.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Jesus couldn't have rejected the temple when he himself went in there to worship and teach. At one point, he was so vexed because of merchandise being conducted therein that he drove and overturned the tables of those who had turned it into a commercial place.
    It was a process. Jesus didn't want to reject Jewish religion. God has established it. But when the worship goes bad, the religion must go, along with its infrastructure. The land has to be laid waste, be emptied of people, and find rest.

    God waited, patiently, with Israel for 40 years. He didn't want to destroy Jerusalem, but He knew He would have to. Only a minority would obey Jesus. Most would reject him, and would continue in their wicked ways.

    The Olivet Discourse was an unambiguous rejection of the temple over the long run--not an immediate rejection. Jesus had to enter into Jerusalem to make his sacrifice, in fulfillment of everything the temple worship represented. That's why both Jerusalem and the temple were "the holy place" to Jesus, because Jesus had to do in Jerusalem something different from what the temple did.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The problem for me in accepting your interpretation is that Roman soldiers had always been in Jerusalem since it capitulated to Pompey in 63 BC. Every Jew in that age would have seen them every day on the streets of the city, so I don't how what they see every day should now be recognised as the sign to flee?

    Certainly, the soldiers already in the city and the reinforcement coming with Titus would be no different to the Jewish observer.
    The sign of the desolation of the temple was the approach, in 66 AD, of Cestius Gallus and his Army. They laid siege to the city, which is considered to be "in the holy place" by Jesus. This was the sign of the eventual destruction of the city and the temple.

    Gallus withdrew, and this gave time for the Christians, among the Jews, to escape. That therefore was the sign to flee.

    When Titus returned 3-4 years later, there was no escape. The escape had to be made before that time, and the sign was clearly the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Yes, that's what I said. When he says "the holy place" he means the temple.
    I realize that you may be in disagreement that Jerusalem can be included with the temple in the definition of "the holy place." This was, however, what I believe Jesus' definition was, because he explicitly said that Jerusalem would be encircled by abominable armies. That was the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," taken from Dan 9.

    What I am agreeing with you on is that Jesus is interpreting this as the 66-70 AD historical events, connected with the destruction of the temple. This is not a future Antichrist that Jesus had in mind. Clearly, not one word is said about the Antichrist!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    It's my understanding that it was Paul who said "we go to the gentiles", not Jesus.
    No, the Great Commission to his apostles was to "go into all nations, making disciples and baptizing them."

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,134

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.
    Again, when you say that paraphrasing Jesus in the synoptic gospels is a "lie of the Devil," you are being contentious. Paraphrases are accurate quotes of Jesus--they are just abbreviated statements accurately reflecting what Jesus said. When Matthew said, "spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand," and when Mark said, "let the reader understand," both were engaging in "paraphrase." They were accurately quoting Jesus in abbreviated form.

    When Matthew mentioned the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," and Luke mentioned "Jerusalem being surrounded by armies," they were both engaging in "paraphrase." Both were relaying accurate information about the same event, which Jesus had previously described. Jesus, in this case, likely used more words in the actual conversation, and the gospel authors simply chose to use their own abbreviated form of covering the event discussed in that conversation.

    Paraphrases are not necessarily inaccurate quotes, although they are not *exact* quotes. Paraphrases were a legitimate, and accurate, way of quoting Jesus in the gospels. Your contentious nature does not allow you to see that. But I think you should demonstrate some flexibility here, and admit that you're wrong.

    Jesus likely used both the language of the AoD and the language of the "encircling armies," and I've said that. But the fact you go on calling this a "lie of the Devil," or a "deception of the Devil," just proves how little you're willing to give me credit.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,517
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    No. For a lot of reasons. Start a topic in "contro" and we can talk about it, but not here.
    Will do thanks...............

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
  •