holy ground in the NT?

[randyk]

[QUOTE=ForHisglory;3489674]

I'm aware.

The point of rules in grammar is that an adjective is an adjective regardless of language if it performs the role of an adjective.
The order however may vary from language to language.

False, a word that is normally an adjective can also play the role of a noun. "The holy" is a perfect example. Instead of saying, "Here come the fools," I can say, "Here come the foolish." In this way, the "foolish" is normally an adjective that is here playing the role of a noun.

Nope, we don't do any of the above. If I said "the Holy" you would NOT know to what I was referring, and your very example requires a definition to utilise it in such a fashion.
If we said "the holy" and utilise it as a noun, then even though in most cases it is an adjective, in this point of reference it is NOT acting as an adjective but as a noun.

If "the holy" is used without a noun, then it is context that determines what "the holy" is. It doesn't have to be the temple. It is used in nearly every case in the OT, in its compact form, as the temple, because it is being used as virtually a proper noun for the temple in the context of temple worship. But apart from this "compact form" it is used in other ways. Moses standing on "the holy ground," or Joshua standing on "the holy ground" would be examples. The "holy city" could also be conceived of as land that is holy, instead of the compact form, "the holy place."

So determining whether "the holy place" applies to the temple as a proper noun is not so easy. In a less compact form, it could apply to Jerusalem, the "holy city." That is ground that is holy. And I've showed you that "the holy place" does not always apply exclusively to the compartment within the temple called "the holy place."

But if, outside of the context of temple worship, we find "the holy place" applied to both Jerusalem and the temple, is that inconceivable? No, because "the holy place" and Jerusalem are used sometimes interchangeably in the Scriptures. In fact, the "holy city" derives its value as a holy territory by being the locate for the temple itself. When an Army comes against the city, it is viewed as being "in the holy place" when it forms a siege against the city.

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

No, that is your assumption. You assume the definite article makes it a proper noun. That is false. You assume that "the holy" refers to the compartment within the temple called "the Holy Place," when it is not always the case. For example, the entire temple can be referred to as "the holy," and the Court of the Priests may be referred to as "the holy." I'm saying that the repeated association of the temple with Jerusalem would qualify them both as being "the holy," as well, particularly when the context is changed from temple worship to a military invasion. That invasion begins with the city, before it reaches the temple itself.

No, you haven't. You have not given a SINGLE example. I have told you to check, or do you need me to list every single scripture reference where "haqodesh" is used as "the holy".

Suit yourself. Up until now, I've done most of the reference work on this forum! Please respond, however, to the cases where I showed you ha-qodesh is used for other than the inner chamber of the temple referred to, properly, as the Holy Place?

You obviously are NOT understanding. The whole point is that this passage does NOT say "the Holy" in the Hebrew, that is it does NOT say "haqodesh".

It is true that slight variations may be significant. But that remains unproven. For example, the use of "b" in place of "h" in ha-qodesh may not be significant with respect to our argument. That remains unproven. And even "a holy place" may not be significantly different from "the holy place," since any time "a holy place" is referred to regularly it may become "the holy place" being referenced. It's like saying a holy place is "that holy place over there, the holy place next to the tree."

Much of your argument is pure assertion on your part, without a single reference to any authority, apart from your own thoughts on the subject, which is what you wish to prove. I agree that others have come up with similar conclusions. But I don't see any of this decided definitively by scholarly authority?

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

No the structure shows that a river runs through a city. The river has its source as the place of God which is within.

That's silly. You think "the holy place" is referring to the place God dwells, and not to anything said previously? If it is not the river being referred to previously, then it has to be the city!

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

Nope, they are NOT viewed as one in this Psalm, rather as you note, and then seem to ignore yourself, the one extends out to the next.
Because He is in the Holy of Holies, so next to it is the Holy, and then next to that the Temple, and then the Holy city and then the Holy land.
None of them are equivalent to the others, but rather FROM one to the next there is a flowing and extending.
You seem to have this idea that because they are connected so they then are the same.

Yes, the "holy places" definitely derive their status as a holy place by virtue of being in the same location as the temple. They therefore are referred to, altogether, as "the holy place." Particularly, when the context is changed from worship in the Holy Place within the temple, "the holy place" can refer to Jerusalem as the location for the temple. As such, it is called "the holy place," as indicated above.

Where does the Holy place apply to Jerusalem? Jerusalem is the holy CITY.

It applies when the holy city is being referenced as the location of the temple, in the context of an invading Army. Granted, this does not happen often. But I believe it was well understood by Jesus' disciples.

And? You don't seem able to reason this very well.
I live in a house, and my house is in a street, and the street is in a city.
Does this make the city my house?
Of course not.
In the bible we have very clear delineation of places.

I believe I've reasoned out, and explained it, perfectly well. It doesn't matter if you agree on the point. The principle is easily proven. When someone arrives from out of state at the head of my driveway I may legitimately say they've arrived at my house. They haven't yet walked up to the door, and actually made contact with my house. But in language, when you reach a locate, that locate may serve legitimately as a symbol of the object of that locate. When you reach my driveway, you've reached my house. When you reach the holy city, you've reached the holy place.

A letter makes a whole lot of difference.
You are randyk, if I changed a letter and replied to randyw, would that be you?
The "ba" is not "ha". It is a different meaning entirely.
There is of course a connection, but you want to have more than a connection, you require equivalence, which is not there.

The difference is obvious. The relevance is not. Not being familiar with Hebrew, I can't say. You've provided no proof.

As a locate "the Holy place" NEVER refers to Jerusalem. Provide a SINGLE passage where this is true. As it is ALWAYS used for the Holy place in the Temple, so it is a simple fact to note this.

Jerusalem is *always* equated with the temple. Every time it is called the "holy city" it is because it has been equated with the temple. So when we use Jerusalem as a locate for the temple, it is "the holy place" as a locate for the temple. Arriving at the holy city is, in a sense, arriving at the temple, as I showed you above.

This was a geographical trespass by the Romans. They were invading the holy city, and they were about to desolate the temple itself. And so, when they reached the gates of the city, they were already in violation of holy territory. They had arrived at the holy place and were, in fact, *in the holy place.*

I think we've beat the horse long enough, unless you have some real scholarship to cite, other than yourself? We've killed the horse twice over, buried it, and said a few prayers. Anything left to add?

[ForHisglory]

False, a word that is normally an adjective can also play the role of a noun. "The holy" is a perfect example. Instead of saying, "Here come the fools," I can say, "Here come the foolish." In this way, the "foolish" is normally an adjective that is here playing the role of a noun.

What is false? What are you disagreeing with me over? You seem to be agreeing with me. May be not. You are admitting that the adjective is NOT "playing" the role of an adjective but that of a noun. That means it is NOT an adjective, though in other sentences it may be used as an adjective. A word is NOT one thing or another, but what it is USED as.
If I say - hammer, then am I talking about an object and using it as a noun, or as a verb.
I hammer with my hammer, has me using both forms in the one sentence.

If "the holy" is used without a noun, then it is context that determines what "the holy" is. It doesn't have to be the temple. It is used in nearly every case in the OT, in its compact form, as the temple, because it is being used as virtually a proper noun for the temple in the context of temple worship. But apart from this "compact form" it is used in other ways. Moses standing on "the holy ground," or Joshua standing on "the holy ground" would be examples. The "holy city" could also be conceived of as land that is holy, instead of the compact form, "the holy place."

You keep saying "in nearly every case". You are yet to provide a SINGLE example where this is NOT TRUE!
Now when you change the word, and no longer have it in the same form then you say it has a different usage, well duh! you have changed it so of course it is different!

So determining whether "the holy place" applies to the temple as a proper noun is not so easy. In a less compact form, it could apply to Jerusalem, the "holy city." That is ground that is holy. And I've showed you that "the holy place" does not always apply exclusively to the compartment within the temple called "the holy place."

Actually it is VERY EASY. Just check every time that form is used as an adjective "playing" as a noun, and you will a 100% record. Change it and then of course it is meaningless. You are demanding that it is changed, yet it is THAT FORM which is the CENTRAL question. In that form does it EVER refer to anywhere but the place in the Temple?
Going back to your example of "the Foolish" there may well have been an initial reason why that group would be called the Foolish, perhaps they were. However they are known as the Foolish irrespective of them DOING anything further which is foolish.

Suit yourself. Up until now, I've done most of the reference work on this forum! Please respond, however, to the cases where I showed you ha-qodesh is used for other than the inner chamber of the temple referred to, properly, as the Holy Place?

You are yet to provide a SINGLE case where "haqodesh" is used for anywhere other than the place in the Temple, which I have not responded to.

It is true that slight variations may be significant. But that remains unproven. For example, the use of "b" in place of "h" in ha-qodesh may not be significant with respect to our argument. That remains unproven. And even "a holy place" may not be significantly different from "the holy place," since any time "a holy place" is referred to regularly it may become "the holy place" being referenced. It's like saying a holy place is "that holy place over there, the holy place next to the tree."

What do you mean unproven? Change a letter in any word in any language and it is NO LONGER the SAME WORD. This is simple, and you can try yourself.
What you seem to want to do is argue that a holy place could become the holy place, which I have agreed with you it can, you then say I contradict myself, but what I note is that it starts as "qodesh maqom - holy place" and would become "haqodesh maqom - the holy place", but we are NOT talking about "qodesh maqom" for here "qodesh - holy" is being used as the adjective of "maqom - place"
What is being considered is the word "haqodesh" without any "maqom - place" or city or other noun in the Hebrew. IOW when "haqodesh" is stated not as an adjective but as a place itself as a noun.

Much of your argument is pure assertion on your part, without a single reference to any authority, apart from your own thoughts on the subject, which is what you wish to prove. I agree that others have come up with similar conclusions. But I don't see any of this decided definitively by scholarly authority?

If you want scholarly opinion then go talk to a Hebrew professor. I am presenting you with what scripture says and you have all of scripture to show I am wrong, but you are unable to, because I am not wrong. Even were I to tell you that I was involved in Bible translation and studied Hebrew that would be meaningless. You would want peer reviewed papers etc.

That's silly. You think "the holy place" is referring to the place God dwells, and not to anything said previously? If it is not the river being referred to previously, then it has to be the city!

Of course the holy place refers to where God dwells, it is silly to think other wise. Where does the river come from? It comes from God and makes the city glad, therefore these two places are DISTINCT from where God is.

Yes, the "holy places" definitely derive their status as a holy place by virtue of being in the same location as the temple. They therefore are referred to, altogether, as "the holy place." Particularly, when the context is changed from worship in the Holy Place within the temple, "the holy place" can refer to Jerusalem as the location for the temple. As such, it is called "the holy place," as indicated above.

Almost agreement, amazing. Just note it isn't known as "haqodesh" alone.

It applies when the holy city is being referenced as the location of the temple, in the context of an invading Army. Granted, this does not happen often. But I believe it was well understood by Jesus' disciples.

As this is the ONLY occasion anywhere in the ENTIRE Bible, and as it was NEVER used in the context of a previously invading army, and as Jesus needs to state "an army surrounding Jerusalem" then this would mean it was NOT a concept understood by Jesus' disciples. They definitely never said this - except for you claim about this one verse.

I believe I've reasoned out, and explained it, perfectly well. It doesn't matter if you agree on the point. The principle is easily proven. When someone arrives from out of state at the head of my driveway I may legitimately say they've arrived at my house. They haven't yet walked up to the door, and actually made contact with my house. But in language, when you reach a locate, that locate may serve legitimately as a symbol of the object of that locate. When you reach my driveway, you've reached my house. When you reach the holy city, you've reached the holy place.

Your driveway is part of your property. Also you are describing actions and not specifying locations.
Your street is not your house, and your city is not your house.
If I came to your city I could NOT say I have arrived at your house, so it is easily proven you are incorrect.
By reaching your property, so you legitimately say that have arrived at my property.
Arriving in Jerusalem does not mean you have come to the temple, I could visit Israel and never go to Jerusalem. It would be true for me to say I have been to Israel but not Jerusalem. Likewise if I visit Jerusalem but never go to the Wailing Wall, then I could say I have been to Jerusalem but not the Wailing Wall.
A Gentile could walk the streets of Jerusalem and not be set upon by a mob of Jews, (in the time of Paul) but if he was thought to have entered the temple then he would be attacked.
There is a CLEAR UNEQUIVOCAL distinction shown throughout scripture of various locales, and we should have INTEGRITY and stick to the distinctions that scripture gives us.

The difference is obvious. The relevance is not. Not being familiar with Hebrew, I can't say. You've provided no proof.

What proof are you expecting? Are you saying it isn't a different letter? Are you arguing that changing a letter in a word does not change it? You are getting desperate here.

[randyk]

What is false? What are you disagreeing with me over? You seem to be agreeing with me. May be not. You are admitting that the adjective is NOT "playing" the role of an adjective but that of a noun. That means it is NOT an adjective, though in other sentences it may be used as an adjective. A word is NOT one thing or another, but what it is USED as.
If I say - hammer, then am I talking about an object and using it as a noun, or as a verb.
I hammer with my hammer, has me using both forms in the one sentence.


You keep saying "in nearly every case". You are yet to provide a SINGLE example where this is NOT TRUE!
Now when you change the word, and no longer have it in the same form then you say it has a different usage, well duh! you have changed it so of course it is different!


Actually it is VERY EASY. Just check every time that form is used as an adjective "playing" as a noun, and you will a 100% record. Change it and then of course it is meaningless. You are demanding that it is changed, yet it is THAT FORM which is the CENTRAL question. In that form does it EVER refer to anywhere but the place in the Temple?
Going back to your example of "the Foolish" there may well have been an initial reason why that group would be called the Foolish, perhaps they were. However they are known as the Foolish irrespective of them DOING anything further which is foolish.


You are yet to provide a SINGLE case where "haqodesh" is used for anywhere other than the place in the Temple, which I have not responded to.


What do you mean unproven? Change a letter in any word in any language and it is NO LONGER the SAME WORD. This is simple, and you can try yourself.
What you seem to want to do is argue that a holy place could become the holy place, which I have agreed with you it can, you then say I contradict myself, but what I note is that it starts as "qodesh maqom - holy place" and would become "haqodesh maqom - the holy place", but we are NOT talking about "qodesh maqom" for here "qodesh - holy" is being used as the adjective of "maqom - place"
What is being considered is the word "haqodesh" without any "maqom - place" or city or other noun in the Hebrew. IOW when "haqodesh" is stated not as an adjective but as a place itself as a noun.


If you want scholarly opinion then go talk to a Hebrew professor. I am presenting you with what scripture says and you have all of scripture to show I am wrong, but you are unable to, because I am not wrong. Even were I to tell you that I was involved in Bible translation and studied Hebrew that would be meaningless. You would want peer reviewed papers etc.


Of course the holy place refers to where God dwells, it is silly to think other wise. Where does the river come from? It comes from God and makes the city glad, therefore these two places are DISTINCT from where God is.


Almost agreement, amazing. Just note it isn't known as "haqodesh" alone.


As this is the ONLY occasion anywhere in the ENTIRE Bible, and as it was NEVER used in the context of a previously invading army, and as Jesus needs to state "an army surrounding Jerusalem" then this would mean it was NOT a concept understood by Jesus' disciples. They definitely never said this - except for you claim about this one verse.


Your driveway is part of your property. Also you are describing actions and not specifying locations.
Your street is not your house, and your city is not your house.
If I came to your city I could NOT say I have arrived at your house, so it is easily proven you are incorrect.
By reaching your property, so you legitimately say that have arrived at my property.
Arriving in Jerusalem does not mean you have come to the temple, I could visit Israel and never go to Jerusalem. It would be true for me to say I have been to Israel but not Jerusalem. Likewise if I visit Jerusalem but never go to the Wailing Wall, then I could say I have been to Jerusalem but not the Wailing Wall.
A Gentile could walk the streets of Jerusalem and not be set upon by a mob of Jews, (in the time of Paul) but if he was thought to have entered the temple then he would be attacked.
There is a CLEAR UNEQUIVOCAL distinction shown throughout scripture of various locales, and we should have INTEGRITY and stick to the distinctions that scripture gives us.


What proof are you expecting? Are you saying it isn't a different letter? Are you arguing that changing a letter in a word does not change it? You are getting desperate here.

Not having enough knowledge of the Hebrew I can't go on any further at this point. I do see the regular use of qodesh as the compartment within the temple specified as such. I can't say, with any certainty, what the limits of ha-qodesh are. And so I can't argue this from any knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Jerusalem would be the location of the holy place, or the temple. But I understand why you do not see Jerusalem as the equivalent of "the holy place," since ha-qodesh would, in the minds of Jews, refer to the temple. Insisting that Jesus specifically explained the violation of the holy place as the "encirclement of Jerusalem" by Roman troops I believe that Jesus was himself identifying the city of Jerusalem as "the holy place," along with the temple.

Jesus was saying that having arrived at Jerusalem the Roman troops had actually penetrated the area in which the temple was located, and that was the area around the city of Jerusalem. I do think much of the confusion surrounding what "desolating the holy place" means is due to the failure to accept Jesus' application of the term. I do think he meant to use the term flexibly, to associate the Roman defilement of the city area with the defilement of the temple by Antiochus 4. In other words, Jesus meant the siege Rome committed against the city to represent an invasion of the temple itself. They were, in a sense, within the territory of sacrilege, just as Antiochus 4 penetrated the temple itself.

I respect your strong arguments. I have a firm grasp of what they are. And though I don't agree with you, for the reasons I've mentioned, I can understand your problem with my position.

Again, the comparison of Luke's version with the versions of Matthew and Mark make it imperative, in my view, that we associate the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" with the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem. They are comparable in my view, or Luke would've explained that he had a different event in mind than Matthew and Mark had.

I'm afraid we just can't get any farther on this. I suppose my lack of knowledge seriously weakens my position. But I still believe that separating Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13 is even worse for your position!

[ForHisglory]

Not having enough knowledge of the Hebrew I can't go on any further at this point. I do see the regular use of qodesh as the compartment within the temple specified as such. I can't say, with any certainty, what the limits of ha-qodesh are. And so I can't argue this from any knowledge of the Hebrew language.

You don't need a large knowledge of Hebrew language.
You can simply check with an interlinear.
I use the online one of biblehub, and I use e-sword.
Between them and various downloads you can check out the exact words:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/46-4.htm
This links to your Psalm and you can see in verse 4 it ONLY says "qodesh" and not "haqodesh".

הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ
This is the word you are looking for.
Unfortunately in Strongs they only took the root word which is H6944, which is for qodesh, and that has 470 occurrences in the KJV text.
When checking further with Bible hub you find this:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hakkodesh_6944.htm

This narrows it down to 111 occurrences.

Again, the comparison of Luke's version with the versions of Matthew and Mark make it imperative, in my view, that we associate the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" with the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem. They are comparable in my view, or Luke would've explained that he had a different event in mind than Matthew and Mark had.

I'm afraid we just can't get any farther on this. I suppose my lack of knowledge seriously weakens my position. But I still believe that separating Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13 is even worse for your position!

Here is where you create a strawman of my (and others) position. I do not separate Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13, I actually add in Luke 17 as well.
I note that there are omissions by all three authors and so I recognise the need to put together a coherent whole.
However that coherent whole CANNOT be achieved by changing the standard meaning of words or definitions, rather it recognises that Jesus made BOTH statements and therefore asks the question, why? Further it asks IF the one was an explanation of the other why Matthew and Mark would make it cryptic, when Jesus has given an explanation. Did Matthew and Mark not hear about the explanation? Surely when they spoke with whomever told them they would have asked for clarity (Matthew after all was on the Mount of Olives), as the disciples often are with things Jesus is saying, and then they note them. So why didn't they note this simple explanation IF it was an actual explanation. Further why didn't Jesus say (as Mark has him elsewhere) a blend of the two -
"As it is written in Daniel, When you see an army surrounding Jerusalem, you will know it is time to flee."

Like Mark 7:6, 9:13, 14:21.

Rather the clear conclusion is that Jesus did NOT directly answer the question when would these things happen, as this was but the starting point of what He wanted to teach them. The hook to get them to realise things are about to get serious.
The OD is almost Jesus' last teaching before he died, and it was teaching ENTIRELY directed at the disciples, and NOBODY else. he had been teaching in public before that, but now it was just Him and them until the end.

When you start with a predetermined conclusion, then of course you will do whatever is necessary to see that be true. When you accept that we need to take the OD as CONTEXTUALLY presented, with Luke and Matthew and Mark all highlighting DIFFERENT things from the SAME discourse, then we find some parts the same and others differently.

I think we have done what is possible on this topic about "the Holy" as we have understanding of each others positions, and to say more without it being new will but vex.

[randyk]

You don't need a large knowledge of Hebrew language.
You can simply check with an interlinear.
I use the online one of biblehub, and I use e-sword.
Between them and various downloads you can check out the exact words:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/46-4.htm
This links to your Psalm and you can see in verse 4 it ONLY says "qodesh" and not "haqodesh".

הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ
This is the word you are looking for.

Yes, my brother pointed that out to me a couple of weeks ago. That isn't the problem.

Unfortunately in Strongs they only took the root word which is H6944, which is for qodesh, and that has 470 occurrences in the KJV text.
When checking further with Bible hub you find this:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hakkodesh_6944.htm

Yes, this is the problem. I'm constantly referred to the root word. I have to either look up in an English Concordance "holy" and find in each verse "the holy." That doesn't even really tell me whether the Hebrew word ha-qodesh is there. Or, I look up the word in a Hebrew Concordance "qodesh," and have to look up each reference to see if the definite article is there. It's very tedious.

I'm sure there are tools out there to make it easier, but it would be easier to just ask a Hebrew expert, as you suggested. But even determining how ha-qodesh must be understood isn't the end all. There is the Septuagint, and how the Hebrew passages of "the holy" are translated.

And there is also the problem I indicated with respect to how flexible words and terms can be used. I have a tendency to use words with some liberty myself. Jesus would've had great freedom in his word choice. And I think his choice of this term does not have to reflect usual or even exclusive use with respect to Jewish worship. In the context of predicting a military siege Jesus could easily have chosen to use "the holy place" as the location signaling an infringement on "the holy place."

But I appreciate your willingness to help! It doesn't, unfortunately, convince me that your argument "seals the deal." As I said, the biggest obstacle to the interpretation of Antichrist in the Olivet Discourse is the fact he is not even in the conversation! Referring back to Dan 9 there is no mention of Antichrist either. It is something that you must *suppose* if you are going to hold to that position.

Again, the synchronicity of the 3 gospel authors on the Olivet Discourse requires that the sign Jesus called for his disciples to look for be *the same sign!* I'm sorry. That is the overwhelming indicator for me--not the language utilized.

Jesus likely referred to language used that was similar to Antiochus 4 and his desecration of the temple. But in context, referring to Dan 9 Jesus had to have been talking about an entirely different kind of desecration. It was a complete destruction of Jewish worship. After all, the 70 Weeks prophecy was meant to lead to Messiah and to the 6 great things that would be accomplished. This didn't happen with Antiochus 4. But with the Roman invasion, the temple worship ended for all time.

This narrows it down to 111 occurrences.

Here is where you create a strawman of my (and others) position. I do not separate Luke 21 from Matt 24 and Mark 13, I actually add in Luke 17 as well.
I note that there are omissions by all three authors and so I recognise the need to put together a coherent whole.
However that coherent whole CANNOT be achieved by changing the standard meaning of words or definitions, rather it recognises that Jesus made BOTH statements and therefore asks the question, why? Further it asks IF the one was an explanation of the other why Matthew and Mark would make it cryptic, when Jesus has given an explanation. Did Matthew and Mark not hear about the explanation? Surely when they spoke with whomever told them they would have asked for clarity (Matthew after all was on the Mount of Olives), as the disciples often are with things Jesus is saying, and then they note them. So why didn't they note this simple explanation IF it was an actual explanation. Further why didn't Jesus say (as Mark has him elsewhere) a blend of the two -
"As it is written in Daniel, When you see an army surrounding Jerusalem, you will know it is time to flee."

I fail to see the problem? Everybody in the early centuries of the Church, except Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and perhaps a few others, recognized in this Discourse a prediction of the 70 AD event. So it is, for me, just a matter of understanding why Jesus chose to use the language he did.

If we see the "abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place" as the Roman Army, surrounding Jerusalem and the temple, it makes perfect sense to all! When Jesus introduced the prediction of the temple's destruction, which was in all 3 synoptic gospels, the focus was on the temple. But Luke made it clear that this attack upon the temple by "armies" would begin with the sign of *surrounding the city of Jerusalem!* This made the temple and the city virtually synonymous as a "holy place" into which foreign troops would trespass.

But we won't be able to solve this between ourselves, because the language is not critical for me, whereas it is for you. And I do respect your need for language confirmation. I just can't give it to you, from my pov.

Like Mark 7:6, 9:13, 14:21.

Rather the clear conclusion is that Jesus did NOT directly answer the question when would these things happen, as this was but the starting point of what He wanted to teach them. The hook to get them to realise things are about to get serious.
The OD is almost Jesus' last teaching before he died, and it was teaching ENTIRELY directed at the disciples, and NOBODY else. he had been teaching in public before that, but now it was just Him and them until the end.

Well, that's at least partly true. You would have to argue that Jesus didn't realize that his disciples would record this Discourse later, and share with the whole church!

But what Jesus shared to his disciples was also shared about the entirety of the Jewish People! This was a prophecy about the Jewish People! I do recognize that you don't seem to share that view.

As to whether Jesus directly answered their questions, I would have to disagree with you. They asked *when* to the question of when the temple would get destroyed. Later, he said it would be in *this generation.* So, the focus on the destruction of the temple was largely on their own generation, and on their need to be "watchful." It was all about spiritual living in a time of Jewish apostasy.

And this state of affairs would continue, in a sense, throughout the age until the 2nd Coming. The disciples also asked about how these events, ie their own generation, would relate to their expectation of the Jewish hope? That is, how did current prophecies reflect on eschatology?

And Jesus' answer was that eschatological expectation was a matter of remaining spiritually prepared at all times. It wasn't trying to anticipate prophetic events, but rather, the determination to prepare for eschatological events now, whether we die or live until the end.

When you start with a predetermined conclusion, then of course you will do whatever is necessary to see that be true. When you accept that we need to take the OD as CONTEXTUALLY presented, with Luke and Matthew and Mark all highlighting DIFFERENT things from the SAME discourse, then we find some parts the same and others differently.

I think we have done what is possible on this topic about "the Holy" as we have understanding of each others positions, and to say more without it being new will but vex.

True! I wish I could accommodate you on the language issues, but I've reached the limit of my ability or willingness. Thanks for putting in the time. I do appreciate it.

[Trivalee]

I know you see it that way, and I think that's impossible to uphold. The reason I'm arguing for the language of the "holy place" is precisely because I cannot uphold your position, that Luke said something different from Matthew and Mark. They are the *same Discourse!* They present the *same sign* for the Disciples to "flee from." How can they be different? How can 2 of them be speaking of the Antichrist, and Luke be speaking of the Roman siege? It just doesn't make sense!

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

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

If we are talking about what doesn't make sense, then we can all agree that neither the Roman army nor their standard is the AoD. You see, the problem with your argument is that once you've presented the Romans as the AoD, you are faced with the problem of making other aspects of the OD that doesn't belong to 70AD to fit. And you're struggling badly, hence you're ignoring bits that are out of place in your jigsaw puzzle knowing that if you accept wrong in one, the rest will collapse.

I have pointed out that as revered as the ECF were, they were also human and susceptible to error. Therefore, your greatest error, in my opinion, is ignoring their fallibility to showcase their views as inerrant.

[ForHisglory]

Yes, this is the problem. I'm constantly referred to the root word. I have to either look up in an English Concordance "holy" and find in each verse "the holy." That doesn't even really tell me whether the Hebrew word ha-qodesh is there. Or, I look up the word in a Hebrew Concordance "qodesh," and have to look up each reference to see if the definite article is there. It's very tedious.

I'm sure there are tools out there to make it easier, but it would be easier to just ask a Hebrew expert, as you suggested. But even determining how ha-qodesh must be understood isn't the end all. There is the Septuagint, and how the Hebrew passages of "the holy" are translated.

And there is also the problem I indicated with respect to how flexible words and terms can be used. I have a tendency to use words with some liberty myself. Jesus would've had great freedom in his word choice. And I think his choice of this term does not have to reflect usual or even exclusive use with respect to Jewish worship. In the context of predicting a military siege Jesus could easily have chosen to use "the holy place" as the location signaling an infringement on "the holy place."

But I appreciate your willingness to help! It doesn't, unfortunately, convince me that your argument "seals the deal." As I said, the biggest obstacle to the interpretation of Antichrist in the Olivet Discourse is the fact he is not even in the conversation! Referring back to Dan 9 there is no mention of Antichrist either. It is something that you must *suppose* if you are going to hold to that position.

Actually a LOT of people see the AC in Daniel 9. I personally do, but then my 70 weeks is based on the WORDS that are ACTUALLY used in Daniel 9 and following how they are used in the rest of scripture. This leads me to look for what scripture tells us about Daniel 9 and not the views of various commentators.

A

gain, the synchronicity of the 3 gospel authors on the Olivet Discourse requires that the sign Jesus called for his disciples to look for be *the same sign!* I'm sorry. That is the overwhelming indicator for me--not the language utilized.

Here we disagree, because you have been shown by other people that the synchronization you claim isn't actually there.
There is (especially when you add in Luke 17) TWO very clear and distinct time periods, and TWO very clear and distinct SIGNS.
One was coming soon, and one was BEFORE He returns.

Jesus likely referred to language used that was similar to Antiochus 4 and his desecration of the temple. But in context, referring to Dan 9 Jesus had to have been talking about an entirely different kind of desecration. It was a complete destruction of Jewish worship. After all, the 70 Weeks prophecy was meant to lead to Messiah and to the 6 great things that would be accomplished. This didn't happen with Antiochus 4. But with the Roman invasion, the temple worship ended for all time.

You claim this, yet you have NO scripture supporting this.
Why did Jesus have to be talking about a different type of desecration?
You claim it, but there is no logic I can see to back it up.
A4E was PRIMARILY and SPECIFICALLY abut an event IN the Temple (actually in the Holy place).
See how Maccabees uses the word - may be it will help you?

Temple worship according to prophecy INCLUDING NT prophecy is NOT ended for all time. However that is a whole other bag to discuss and we shouldn't go down there on this thread.

I fail to see the problem? Everybody in the early centuries of the Church, except Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and perhaps a few others, recognized in this Discourse a prediction of the 70 AD event. So it is, for me, just a matter of understanding why Jesus chose to use the language he did.

Incorrect! You claim everybody, but actually it wasn't UNTIL Eusebius and the Post-Nicene that a consensus formed that this happened in 70 AD. prior to this there were various views expressed with the MOST AUTHORITATIVE being that of Irenaeus.

What is WORSE for your POV is that those who see this fullfilled in 70 AD SPECIFICALLY connect "the Holy place" WITH the Temple. Therefore NO ONE supports your idea among ANY of the ECFs that the Holy place is anywhere other than what we understand from scripture - namely the place in the Temple.

If we see the "abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place" as the Roman Army, surrounding Jerusalem and the temple, it makes perfect sense to all! When Jesus introduced the prediction of the temple's destruction, which was in all 3 synoptic gospels, the focus was on the temple. But Luke made it clear that this attack upon the temple by "armies" would begin with the sign of *surrounding the city of Jerusalem!* This made the temple and the city virtually synonymous as a "holy place" into which foreign troops would trespass.

But we won't be able to solve this between ourselves, because the language is not critical for me, whereas it is for you. And I do respect your need for language confirmation. I just can't give it to you, from my pov.

If you misunderstand some one then you will get things wrong. Therefore LANGUAGE and its MEANING in CONTEXT is CRITICAL. EVERY bad pastor, every wrong theology has its basis in WRONG understanding of LANGUAGE.

Well, that's at least partly true. You would have to argue that Jesus didn't realize that his disciples would record this Discourse later, and share with the whole church!

Not really. As you claim it was all happening then, so the rest of the church in the world wouldn't matter.

But what Jesus shared to his disciples was also shared about the entirety of the Jewish People! This was a prophecy about the Jewish People! I do recognize that you don't seem to share that view.

As to whether Jesus directly answered their questions, I would have to disagree with you. They asked *when* to the question of when the temple would get destroyed. Later, he said it would be in *this generation.* So, the focus on the destruction of the temple was largely on their own generation, and on their need to be "watchful." It was all about spiritual living in a time of Jewish apostasy.

Sure, but His focus was NO LONGER on the Jews. He had told them in Matt 23 from now on your house is left desolate.
From that moment on His focus was on the church and is so UNTIL the final week.

True! I wish I could accommodate you on the language issues, but I've reached the limit of my ability or willingness. Thanks for putting in the time. I do appreciate it.

Well I hope anyone reading this gets the key points about the USAGE of "haqodesh" and can check for themselves when they have a few years.... Maybe someone will do a thesis?
I did read someone who did it for the Greek in the Septuagint, as he followed the usage into the NT.
His basic point though was the need to be holy, and that the Greek sometimes isn't the same as the Hebrew, but I didn't have time to check his references or anything - though it was still always about the Temple, and never another place. IOW it seemed in some cases it could refer to the whole sanctuary - that was sometimes being used in a SPIRITUAL sense rather than a PHYSICAL . Yet the two were seen to overlap.sense

[randyk]

If we are talking about what doesn't make sense, then we can all agree that neither the Roman army nor their standard is the AoD. You see, the problem with your argument is that once you've presented the Romans as the AoD, you are faced with the problem of making other aspects of the OD that doesn't belong to 70AD to fit. And you're struggling badly, hence you're ignoring bits that are out of place in your jigsaw puzzle knowing that if you accept wrong in one, the rest will collapse.

I have pointed out that as revered as the ECF were, they were also human and susceptible to error. Therefore, your greatest error, in my opinion, is ignoring their fallibility to showcase their views as inerrant.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I do fail badly at proving the language issues because I don't know Hebrew. This isn't, however, the overwhelming argument for me. To me, the *only issue* is the language issue, and it is a very small issue for me. Once we've determined that the Roman Army is indeed the "abomination standing in the holy place," there is no "jigsaw puzzle." It all makes sense to me.

But you're welcome to your view. If you hold to a contrary view, naturally my view will look like the most atrocious violation of logic in history! Take care, brother. We all have to deal with our own conscience!

[Trivalee]

I couldn't disagree with you more. I do fail badly at proving the language issues because I don't know Hebrew. This isn't, however, the overwhelming argument for me. To me, the *only issue* is the language issue, and it is a very small issue for me. Once we've determined that the Roman Army is indeed the "abomination standing in the holy place," there is no "jigsaw puzzle." It all makes sense to me.

But you're welcome to your view. If you hold to a contrary view, naturally my view will look like the most atrocious violation of logic in history! Take care, brother. We all have to deal with our own conscience!

Like you, I don't know my left from my right with regards to Hebrew and have to rely on the interpretation of the scholars who wrote the scriptures. So we are on the same boat on this one.

But relying on the English translation which fortunately is our first language, it is impossible for me to reach the same conclusion as you that the Roman army was the AoD. For a start, your idea of the "holy place" differs from what Jesus has in mind. So while your interpretation may be "overwhelmingly clear" to you, for those of us who see it differently, it is not.

[randyk]

Like you, I don't know my left from my right with regards to Hebrew and have to rely on the interpretation of the scholars who wrote the scriptures. So we are on the same boat on this one.

But relying on the English translation which fortunately is our first language, it is impossible for me to reach the same conclusion as you that the Roman army was the AoD. For a start, your idea of the "holy place" differs from what Jesus has in mind. So while your interpretation may be "overwhelmingly clear" to you, for those of us who see it differently, it is not.

Yes, I stated as much. When you have a particular position, every other position appears to be foolish, irrational, and proud to you. But when you're on my side of the table, I just can't understand how you arrive at your conclusions!

But to be completely serious, I've conceded to FHG, and now to you, that I can't give an adequate answer on the "holy place" issue. I grant that it most naturally applies to the Holy Place compartment within the temple. But I cannot say how the term "holy place" must be used by Jesus.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, "holy place" applies to a number of things other than the temple building itself. Attachment of the definite article "the" certainly draws our attention back to the temple building. But how the term can be applied in a unique context is the question. And I can't answer that effectively.

What I can do, however, is suggest that if the issue can be questioned at all--and I believe it can--look at the issue *apart from the problem of the holy place.* Just grant that "the holy place" can be applied to the city of Jerusalem for the sake of argument. Then look back at where I think my arguments are strongest.

The 3 synoptic authors of the Olivet Discourse likely referred to the *same things,* and the *same events.* The sign Jesus told his disciples to look for was not a. the Antichrist, and b. the Roman Army. It can only be one or the other. And since we *know* that Luke spoke of the Roman Army, read that back into the Abomination of Desolation in Mark and Matthew. Does it make sense?

Of course it does! Many, many scholars have read it this way precisely because it does make sense. It makes less sense to see 2 authors speak of the Antichrist, and 1 author speak of the Roman Army.

And if you line up these 2 things, notice their similarity:

a. abomination of desolation standing in the holy place
b. Roman Army to desolate the temple encircling Jerusalem

If we draw a circle around the walls of Jerusalem, and call it all "the holy place" is that really so weird? I don't think so. In the context of predicting a Roman invasion I think it makes perfect sense to say that the Roman Army is trespassing on God's holy ground merely by laying a siege against the city of Jerusalem. It is especially egregious when we know the ultimate result will be the destruction of God's temple.

Again, keep in mind that the entire Discourse is based on a prediction of the fall of the temple. If we keep this in mind our minds will not stray off into eschatological territory. I think Jesus addressed his 2nd Coming. But I also think he tried to clean up any efforts at skipping past the more immediate concern, which was the Jewish apostasy. Once the early believers had dealt with that they could focus on things beyond that generation.

[ForHisglory]

Just to deal with your "language" objection, let's assume for a moment that you are right and that "haqodesh" can be used with another meaning.
Could this allow anyone to agree with your reasoning?
The simple answer is NOT if you want to follow the apostles and prophets.

Let's reason it through:
1) We take "the Holy" and say, well let's apply it to the whole temple.
2) Then we say, well the temple is in the city and it is the holy city, so lets say it applies to the whole city.

Alright so far, can't really object, but now comes the BIG step.
3) Well the Holy city has environs so lets say the OUTSIDE of the city is holy too!

Massive problem, as this is contrary to what Leviticus states in the Law.
Oh but that isn't a problem for your reasoning as the Law is gone (though the Temple hasn't yet therefore how can that be claimed?)

So can we say OUTSIDE the city is holy?
Nope, as prophecy, such as Jeremiah (and Ezekiel (and I would argue Revelation)) ALL show that OUTSIDE the city is unholy. Jeremiah shows that on day (STILL IN THE FUTURE) this will no longer be true, yet this states TWO things contrary to your claim:
1) the OUTSIDE is unholy
2) At a date long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and still future to now, that area will be changed and will then be holy.

Now you might say, not a problem, that is prophets, I am going by the NT.
Problem for you as Hebrews shows that OUTSIDE the city was unholy and quotes from Leviticus to prove the argument.

So you have the Law, the prophets and the apostles ALL stating that OUTSIDE the city is unholy, yet you cling to an argument that somehow Jesus would teach his disciples something else, contrary to ALL scripture, which they then do not repeat anywhere, because your doctrine requires it.

We have to have a firm foundation which is Christ and we have the apostles and the prophets, and when they ALL state that OUTSIDE the city is NOT holy, then we need to accept that it is not holy!

Now this is completely separate to the usage of "haqodesh" which also shows you are incorrect, and is separate also to the CONTEXTUAL proof which shows you are incorrect, but debated elsewhere.

I personally CANNOT understand why anyone would cling to an idea which is THROUGHLY shown as contrary to scripture as the idea that "the Holy" was OUTSIDE the city.

Once you RECOGNISE that scripture does NOT allow for Luke 21:20 to be the SAME SIGN as that in Matt 24:15, THEN you can move onto other ideas which may still "initially" seem good. For example that Luke 21 was an initial sign of warning in 66 AD, whilst Matt 24:15 was a later sign of warning for 70 AD.

However as you refuse to countenance that it could be TWO signs, then you are left in the quandary of EITHER going with what scripture says about OUTSIDE the city and rejecting your present view, OR ignoring all scripture and simply go on your own understanding and say, no they are the same thing.

[randyk]

Just to deal with your "language" objection, let's assume for a moment that you are right and that "haqodesh" can be used with another meaning.
Could this allow anyone to agree with your reasoning?
The simple answer is NOT if you want to follow the apostles and prophets.

Let's reason it through:
1) We take "the Holy" and say, well let's apply it to the whole temple.
2) Then we say, well the temple is in the city and it is the holy city, so lets say it applies to the whole city.

Alright so far, can't really object, but now comes the BIG step.
3) Well the Holy city has environs so lets say the OUTSIDE of the city is holy too!

Massive problem, as this is contrary to what Leviticus states in the Law.
Oh but that isn't a problem for your reasoning as the Law is gone (though the Temple hasn't yet therefore how can that be claimed?)

So can we say OUTSIDE the city is holy?
Nope, as prophecy, such as Jeremiah (and Ezekiel (and I would argue Revelation)) ALL show that OUTSIDE the city is unholy. Jeremiah shows that on day (STILL IN THE FUTURE) this will no longer be true, yet this states TWO things contrary to your claim:
1) the OUTSIDE is unholy
2) At a date long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and still future to now, that area will be changed and will then be holy.

Now you might say, not a problem, that is prophets, I am going by the NT.
Problem for you as Hebrews shows that OUTSIDE the city was unholy and quotes from Leviticus to prove the argument.

So you have the Law, the prophets and the apostles ALL stating that OUTSIDE the city is unholy, yet you cling to an argument that somehow Jesus would teach his disciples something else, contrary to ALL scripture, which they then do not repeat anywhere, because your doctrine requires it.

We have to have a firm foundation which is Christ and we have the apostles and the prophets, and when they ALL state that OUTSIDE the city is NOT holy, then we need to accept that it is not holy!

Now this is completely separate to the usage of "haqodesh" which also shows you are incorrect, and is separate also to the CONTEXTUAL proof which shows you are incorrect, but debated elsewhere.

I personally CANNOT understand why anyone would cling to an idea which is THROUGHLY shown as contrary to scripture as the idea that "the Holy" was OUTSIDE the city.

Once you RECOGNISE that scripture does NOT allow for Luke 21:20 to be the SAME SIGN as that in Matt 24:15, THEN you can move onto other ideas which may still "initially" seem good. For example that Luke 21 was an initial sign of warning in 66 AD, whilst Matt 24:15 was a later sign of warning for 70 AD.

However as you refuse to countenance that it could be TWO signs, then you are left in the quandary of EITHER going with what scripture says about OUTSIDE the city and rejecting your present view, OR ignoring all scripture and simply go on your own understanding and say, no they are the same thing.

I understand that's how you look at it, brother. As I said, when you're outside looking in everything in my thinking is confused and unbiblical. And from my pov, looking out at you, I find you've missed the boat, and lost track of what really important!

Please let me explain. I'm not in a quandary at all. The basis for my position is, in fact, a doctrine. It is the doctrine of biblical consistency. If in Matthew Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, and if in Mark Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, and if in Luke Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, then they were all looking for the *exact same sign!*

This is bedrock truth, brother, and so your language concerns are not mine. I'd rather believe in biblical consistency, that Jesus was not confused, than trust in your logic.

You say that holiness extends outwards from the temple, and that it does. In fact, it extends not just from the temple to the courtyard, but also to the entire holy land. But I'm not for that reason claiming the entire Holy Land is the "holy place" in this particular context. No, in this particular context the "holy place" is identified as the place to which the Roman Army assembled, to lay a siege against the holy city of Jerusalem. And the object was to destroy the temple.

And so, laying a siege against Jerusalem was quite plainly aimed at the temple itself, to destroy it. Coming to the city in which the temple was located was, in fact, arriving at the "holy place." As I told you before, I see the city as a locate for the temple. And since the context was the assembling of a hostile Roman Army, just taking a position outside the city walls was defying the holy place. It was encroaching on the holy place. It was trespassing against the holy place.

It wasn't a matter of looking at defiled territory outside the city walls where bodies were thrown, burned, or buried. Rather, the idea is to perceive a gathering spot for an army assembled to destroy the temple. Thus, when that Army stands outside the walls of the city, it has entered the area of the holy place. Makes sense to me. This was the sign the disciples were instructed to look for.

[ForHisglory]

I understand that's how you look at it, brother. As I said, when you're outside looking in everything in my thinking is confused and unbiblical. And from my pov, looking out at you, I find you've missed the boat, and lost track of what really important!

Either what you claim agrees with what scripture DECLARES or it doesn't.
You CANNOT claim an explanation which says something to be so when God has said something else.
You have not only missed the boat but have got on a plane heading who knows where.
Absolutely ANY understanding of any passage MUST be in accordance with what scripture states.
Yet you have Jesus saying a place which He KNOWS is NOT Holy as a Holy place.
What you do is put the cart before the horse.

Please let me explain. I'm not in a quandary at all. The basis for my position is, in fact, a doctrine. It is the doctrine of biblical consistency. If in Matthew Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, and if in Mark Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, and if in Luke Jesus told his disciples to look for a sign, then they were all looking for the *exact same sign!*

Sorry but that is NOT the doctrine of Biblical consistency.
That is the doctrine of eisegesis.
The doctrine of Biblical consistency means that IF Jesus speaks of a place as being holy, then scripture will show elsewhere that such a place is holy, unless Jesus has declared that He has made it holy. You are NOT being in the slightest consistent with scripture.
The holy place as stated in one scripture CANNOT be an unholy place in another - that is the OPPOSITE of Biblical consistency.

This is bedrock truth, brother, and so your language concerns are not mine. I'd rather believe in biblical consistency, that Jesus was not confused, than trust in your logic.

I definitely stick with Biblical consistency, but what you are promoting is NOT that as you are going AGAINST what scripture STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY in the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles.
The Language concern is but an aspect of CONSISTENCY.
If I am told that Jerusalem is Holy then I can apply that elsewhere to other passages.
If I am told that OUTSIDE Jerusalem is NOT holy, then I should likewise apply that elsewhere.

The reason I CANNOT get even close to being on the same page with you on this is because you are TOTALLY removed from ANY Biblical consistency.
All my argumentation has been:
How does the Bible use the word?
How does the Bible define a place?
How did the people at the time understand the phrase?
How does the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles utilise the idea?

Instead you make out as IF I have some pet "nerdy" language specialist only knowledge which can't be proved or disproved, when actually all I have done is looked at everything within Biblical consistency.

You say that holiness extends outwards from the temple, and that it does. In fact, it extends not just from the temple to the courtyard, but also to the entire holy land. But I'm not for that reason claiming the entire Holy Land is the "holy place" in this particular context. No, in this particular context the "holy place" is identified as the place to which the Roman Army assembled, to lay a siege against the holy city of Jerusalem. And the object was to destroy the temple.

I actual gave a hypothetical, allowing for your usage to be considered in more detail.
We CANNOT say that what is declared as unholy, is somehow holy.
In this particular CONTEXT there is NO SUCH identification. Further for such an identification to be made you would have to be INCONSISTENT with the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles - so basically all of God's Word. Are you really saying that Jesus would say such a thing? To claim this is simply incomprehensible and even dangerous.

Any interpretation of His Word requires we remain consistent with what He reveals elsewhere in His Word. he tells us REPEATEDLY that OUTSIDE the city is NOT the Holy place.
In scripture we have similar statements, such as Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 in which there is a little horn.
YOUR brand of "consistency" means that the little horn in BOTH MUST BE the SAME little horn.
This is a FALSE idea. What it means is there is a relationship and a similarity between them, just as I can say, Paul is little and Peter is little. The similarity is that they are BOTH little. This does NOT make Peter Paul or Paul Peter.

[randyk]

Either what you claim agrees with what scripture DECLARES or it doesn't.
You CANNOT claim an explanation which says something to be so when God has said something else.
You have not only missed the boat but have got on a plane heading who knows where.
Absolutely ANY understanding of any passage MUST be in accordance with what scripture states.
Yet you have Jesus saying a place which He KNOWS is NOT Holy as a Holy place.
What you do is put the cart before the horse.


Sorry but that is NOT the doctrine of Biblical consistency.
That is the doctrine of eisegesis.
The doctrine of Biblical consistency means that IF Jesus speaks of a place as being holy, then scripture will show elsewhere that such a place is holy, unless Jesus has declared that He has made it holy. You are NOT being in the slightest consistent with scripture.
The holy place as stated in one scripture CANNOT be an unholy place in another - that is the OPPOSITE of Biblical consistency.


I definitely stick with Biblical consistency, but what you are promoting is NOT that as you are going AGAINST what scripture STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY in the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles.
The Language concern is but an aspect of CONSISTENCY.
If I am told that Jerusalem is Holy then I can apply that elsewhere to other passages.
If I am told that OUTSIDE Jerusalem is NOT holy, then I should likewise apply that elsewhere.

The reason I CANNOT get even close to being on the same page with you on this is because you are TOTALLY removed from ANY Biblical consistency.
All my argumentation has been:
How does the Bible use the word?
How does the Bible define a place?
How did the people at the time understand the phrase?
How does the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles utilise the idea?

Instead you make out as IF I have some pet "nerdy" language specialist only knowledge which can't be proved or disproved, when actually all I have done is looked at everything within Biblical consistency.

Brother, I was not being entirely serious in my reference to "the doctrine of biblical consistency!" I was just referring to the need to exercise common sense. When we compare 3 passages, all of which refer to a single Discourse, it is logical to assume that all 3 versions refer to the same events! Your arguments over words are far weaker than this kind of argument, in my view.

I don't find it difficult, for example, to explain how an area outside of Jerusalem can be considered "holy," when in other places that area is not considered "unholy." It is *context* that determines the meaning.

When we are, in context, talking about the disposal of animal carcasses, and such things, we may indeed refer to the area outside of the city as an "unclean area." But when we're talking about a pagan army approaching the holy city, they have indeed violated a holy space when they come up against the walls of the city.

We're not talking about divisions of areas, and what their designations are. Rather, we're talking about an invasion aimed at the holy temple!

I actual gave a hypothetical, allowing for your usage to be considered in more detail.
We CANNOT say that what is declared as unholy, is somehow holy.
In this particular CONTEXT there is NO SUCH identification. Further for such an identification to be made you would have to be INCONSISTENT with the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles - so basically all of God's Word. Are you really saying that Jesus would say such a thing? To claim this is simply incomprehensible and even dangerous.

Any interpretation of His Word requires we remain consistent with what He reveals elsewhere in His Word. he tells us REPEATEDLY that OUTSIDE the city is NOT the Holy place.
In scripture we have similar statements, such as Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 in which there is a little horn.
YOUR brand of "consistency" means that the little horn in BOTH MUST BE the SAME little horn.
This is a FALSE idea. What it means is there is a relationship and a similarity between them, just as I can say, Paul is little and Peter is little. The similarity is that they are BOTH little. This does NOT make Peter Paul or Paul Peter.

We are *not* here identifying a space outside the city where people may relieve themselves or dispose of garbage! In context we're talking about the *holy city,* and a pagan army defiling that city by coming up against its walls! The focus is not on the area outside the walls, but rather, upon the holy city that is being defiled!

We're not going to resolve this by petty arguments. The argument does not rest on such things. It really has more to do with whether the language allows for application to the temple exclusively, or to the entire city. We can agree to disagree on that.

But the strongest argument is, in my opinion, the need to be consistent from Matthew to Mark to Luke. There was only *one sign* Jesus told his disciples to flee from, and Luke describes that as the sign of armies besieging the city of Jerusalem.

Matthew and Mark refer to this as the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." Is the "holy place" just the temple, or is it all of Jerusalem? I think it is all of Jerusalem, because in history that was indeed the sign the disciples used in order to call for Christians to flee from.

[randyk]