Michael stands up - Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7-9

[grafted branch]

At least we agree on something. I'll take it.

Ok, I’m glad we are in agreement with most of the things we are discussing.

I also think we will agree that thousands of Jews in the early church were still zealous for the law (old covenant) in Acts 21:20 and that this difference between Jew and Gentile during this time was accepted by the Holy Spirit.

Because that was still in the early days of the New Testament (or new covenant) church and the Holy Spirit knew it would take some time for Jewish believers to understand that they were no longer under the law. He allowed them to stay in ignorance for a time while they adjusted to the new covenant and the freedom that comes with it in Christ without the burden of following 613 commandments. So, the Holy Spirit allowed them to make the Gentiles follow just a few commandments of the law of Moses as a compromise out of the desire for unity amongst Jews and Gentiles in the church.

In post #257 you said “The idea that the old covenant was still in effect in any way, shape or form after Christ's death and resurrection is absolutely false”. It seems to me that the old covenant was still in effect (the power to produce an outcome or achieve a result) in some way otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have agreed to allow it to continue. Even if we say the result achieved was the time allowed for the Jewish believers to understand they were no longer under the law.

From Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant was ready to vanish away. Would you agree that it vanished in 70AD?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You only have to answer this 'yes' or 'no'. In the Bible, are there many last days?

I can't just answer it yes or no because it depends on the context of your question.

If you are asking if there are many last days in the context of the last days that are referenced in passages like Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4 then the answer is yes since the last days began long ago and are still ongoing today.

If you are asking if there are many last days in terms of there being many cases of a "last day" like Jesus referenced in John 6:40 and other places, then the answer is no. All the references to "the last day" are referring to the same last day.

 

[CoreyD]

Do you not think that God dwells in the third heaven?

The Bible does not say that, so I do not think, feel, nor believe that.

If not, then what is your understanding of the third heaven, which Paul also called "paradise" (2 Cor 12:2-4)?

I don't want to speculate on it, but what I can say is what the text tells us.
Paul was given "visions and revelations from the Lord". 2 Cor 12:1
Paul did not know what state he was in. 2 Cor 12:2, 3

Paul's experience here, bears similarities to the experience here - Luke 9:27-36
Since they are so closely related, I would say they are the same, in that the disciples God a supernatural vision of the kingdom, and Paul is here getting one.

Heaven can also mean rulership, and numbers in the Bible has significance. For example, 7 is used to represent complete. 10 also, and something refered to 3 times is done for emphasis. So 3rd could emphasize superiority.
However, I will not speculate.

The Bible does not say the 3rd heaven is where God dwells, though, and I think to take that literal would be to lower God. It makes more sense that 3rd would signify the degree or quality - being superior to.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, I’m glad we are in agreement with most of the things we are discussing.

Hmm. Most? Okay, if you think so.

I also think we will agree that thousands of Jews in the early church were still zealous for the law (old covenant) in Acts 21:20 and that this difference between Jew and Gentile during this time was accepted by the Holy Spirit.

It depends on what you mean by this. If you're asking if the Holy Spirit taught that they should still keep the law at that point, then I completely disagree. God knew that they would have trouble adjusting to the new covenant. We're talking about going from being required to follow 613 commandments to narrowing everything down to just 2 commandments (love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart, soul and mind) and being set free from the burden of those hundreds of commandments. God knew it would take some time for them to adjust to that and come to understand that, so He allowed them to still follow the law for a time while they learned more about Jesus and the new covenant even though they were not required to keep the law any longer.

In post #257 you said “The idea that the old covenant was still in effect in any way, shape or form after Christ's death and resurrection is absolutely false”. It seems to me that the old covenant was still in effect (the power to produce an outcome or achieve a result) in some way otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have agreed to allow it to continue.

There were 613 commandments in the old covenant law. We're talking about them telling the Gentiles to follow only a few of them. How does that mean the old covenant was still in effect? It was not. This was only a temporary compromise because of how huge the adjustment was to go from having to follow 613 commandments to no longer having to follow them any longer.

Even if we say the result achieved was the time allowed for the Jewish believers to understand they were no longer under the law.

From Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant was ready to vanish away. Would you agree that it vanished in 70AD?

I have told you multiple times now that it was made 100% obsolete and was no longer in effect at all after the death of Christ. And you're still asking me this? I have said already that I believe when it talks about it vanishing it's only talking about the traces of it and not talking about the old covenant itself. It makes no sense whatsoever to think that both the new covenant and old covenant were in effect at the same time for any length of time when you consider the fact that the new covenant replaced the old covenant. Once the new covenant was put into effect by the blood of Christ there was no requirement to be under the old covenant any more. It was completely obsolete after the death of Christ. You are trying to say otherwise.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Jesus nailed the old covenant law and its burdensome ordinances and rituals to the cross. It was no longer in effect at that point. Why would it be? It was all about faith in Christ at that point, not religious rituals.

 

[CoreyD]

I can't just answer it yes or no because it depends on the context of your question.

If you are asking if there are many last days in the context of the last days that are referenced in passages like Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4 then the answer is yes since the last days began long ago and are still ongoing today.

If you are asking if there are many last days in terms of there being many cases of a "last day" like Jesus referenced in John 6:40 and other places, then the answer is no. All the references to "the last day" are referring to the same last day.

You can't be picky Spiritual Jew.
In other words, you can't decide to say 'yes', when it fits your position.
It's either yes or no. If you cannot answer that, then you really have made your argument void. Since you are saying 'last days has context, and therefore can apply to other cases. So that the last days you refer to, should be taken in context, and would not necessarily refer to what Paul or Peter referred to.'

Let me ask another one.
How many "ends" did the disciples ask Jesus about, in Matthew 24:3?

 

[grafted branch]

If we agree on that, there is no problem, then. Right?

Right.

Let me summarize and maybe we are more closer in agreement than I previously thought.

You have made the point that the nation of Israel gets the kingdom when the old covenant, which is conditional, is given through Moses.

The kingdom is “set up” in Daniel 2:44 but this is not necessarily referring to when it started.

The kingdom is taken from national Israel and given to spiritual Israel (true believers) when the new covenant came, and the new covenant is unconditional.

I’m good with all this, and I’m also good with your post. To be honest I hadn’t previously looked closely at when the kingdom was started but I do agree with you that it started during the exodus.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Bible does not say that, so I do not think, feel, nor believe that.

Where does the Bible say that God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Nowhere explicitly. But, you believe that, don't you?

What is your understanding of the third heaven, which is also called paradise (2 Cor 12:2-4)? Why wouldn't that be where God dwells? Do you think there is a fourth heaven? Paul said he heard unspeakable words in the third heaven/paradise. Who do you think dwells in the third heaven?

I don't want to speculate on it, but what I can say is what the text tells us.
Paul was given "visions and revelations from the Lord". 2 Cor 12:1
Paul did not know what state he was in. 2 Cor 12:2, 3

Paul's experience here, bears similarities to the experience here - Luke 9:27-36
Since they are so closely related, I would say they are the same, in that the disciples God a supernatural vision of the kingdom, and Paul is here getting one.

Heaven can also mean rulership, and numbers in the Bible has significance. For example, 7 is used to represent complete. 10 also, and something refered to 3 times is done for emphasis. So 3rd could emphasize superiority.
However, I will not speculate.

The Bible does not say the 3rd heaven is where God dwells, though, and I think to take that literal would be to lower God. It makes more sense that 3rd would signify the degree or quality - being superior to.

I'd ask you what that would mean about the first and second heaven, but you don't want to speculate, so....

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You can't be picky Spiritual Jew.
In other words, you can't decide to say 'yes', when it fits your position.

LOL. Context matters. Don't act like it doesn't. You can't be so rigid about things. Not everything has the same context.

It's either yes or no.

Depending on the context, as I said.

If you cannot answer that, then you really have made your argument void.

Give me a break. Please get serious.

Since you are saying 'last days has context, and therefore can apply to other cases. So that the last days you refer to, should be taken in context, and would not necessarily refer to what Paul or Peter referred to.'

Huh?

Let me ask another one.
How many "ends" did the disciples ask Jesus about, in Matthew 24:3?

Why are you asking me this? I'm not too interested in playing games unless you have a good reason for asking me this.

 

[grafted branch]

I have told you multiple times now that it was made 100% obsolete and was no longer in effect at all after the death of Christ. And you're still asking me this?

I agree that it was obsolete and no longer a requirement but you are also saying it was no longer effective which can’t be true if it severed the purpose of allowing time for the Jews to transition.

To get back to the point, there was still a difference between Jew and Gentile, allowed by the Holy Spirit, during the early church. This difference is no longer recognized because it end. In my opinion it ended in 70AD, when the times of the Gentiles ended.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree that it was obsolete and no longer a requirement but you are also saying it was no longer effective which can’t be true if it severed the purpose of allowing time for the Jews to transition.

I didn't say "no longer effective", whatever that means. I said it was no longer in effect. No longer active. No longer required to be followed, in other words. No one was required to still be under the law after Christ's death and resurrection.

To get back to the point, there was still a difference between Jew and Gentile, allowed by the Holy Spirit, during the early church.

Yet, scripture very specifically says there was no difference between Jew and Gentile during the early church (Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22, Romans 10:12, etc.). Who should I believe? You or scripture? It's not a difficult choice.

Whatever differences you think there were, they have no significance in terms of the old and new covenants. No one was required by God to follow the law after Christ's death and resurrection. If you think so, then you are very sadly mistaken.

This difference is no longer recognized because it end. In my opinion it ended in 70AD, when the times of the Gentiles ended.

What ended in 70 AD exactly? The difference between Jew and Gentile? It makes no sense to believe that when scripture explicitly says God made no difference between Jew and Gentile before 70 AD. And what do you mean the times of the Gentiles ended in 70 AD? How are you coming to that conclusion?

 

[grafted branch]

Who should I believe? You or scripture? It's not a difficult choice.

The scriptures, and in particular Acts 15:28-29 where you agreed in your previous post that the difference between Jew and Gentile was allowed for the Jews to transition to the new covenant.

It makes no sense to believe that when scripture explicitly says God made no difference between Jew and Gentile before 70 AD.

It does make sense when you see that in the old covenant there was a difference but in the new covenant there isn’t. The transition period allowed by the Holy Spirit was also a period where the Gentiles could be differentiated in the church by those who still observed the practices of the old covenant. If everyone in the church only observed the new covenant sacraments then there was no difference between Jew and Gentile.

And what do you mean the times of the Gentiles ended in 70 AD? How are you coming to that conclusion?

The times of the Gentiles comes from the book of Daniel and the Gentile beast kingdoms, which makes Babylon the start of the times of the Gentiles. The different beast kingdoms are seen in the statue in Daniel 2. The times of the Gentiles ends or fullness happens when the Daniel 2 statue gets destroyed. This coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD where Luke 21:22 says that all things which are written may be fulfilled and vs 24 says until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

[CoreyD]

Right.

Let me summarize and maybe we are more closer in agreement than I previously thought.

That would be refreshing.

You have made the point that the nation of Israel gets the kingdom when the old covenant, which is conditional, is given through Moses.

The inheritance as heirs. Yes.

The kingdom is “set up” in Daniel 2:44 but this is not necessarily referring to when it started.

This is a new expression of God's sovereignty - rulership.
It's establishment began with the installation of its kings - the Messiah and the Saints. That happened - not in the first century, but during the end times world power - the feet of the image.
Do we agree on this also?

The kingdom is taken from national Israel and given to spiritual Israel (true believers) when the new covenant came, and the new covenant is unconditional.

Let me just say, the kingdom is taken from national Israel and given to "a people producing its fruits". So, it is conditional. Only, in this case, God does the selecting, so no lazy slaves are a part of the covenant.

Consider Judas. He was a part of the twelve, but was destroyed, replaced. God did the choosing, and continues to do so. Acts 2:1-4; Acts 10:44
Jesus made the covenant with those of the firstfruits - Luke 22:28-30

I’m good with all this, and I’m also good with your post.

Ah. Glad to hear.

To be honest I hadn’t previously looked closely at when the kingdom was started but I do agree with you that it started during the exodus.

Good effort. I like the fact that you made the effort.

The kingdom did not start during the Exodus. The kingdom started before Adam existed.
Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

As creator, God is sovereign of the universe. His kingdom is everlasting.
God arranged for a new expression of his sovereignty right after Adam sold out, and the human race lost paradise. Genesis 3:15
The covenant made with Abraham is tied up in that arrangement. So that the nation of Israel, became God's chosen people - not because they were good people, but because it was through Abraham's seed, the prophetic promise would be fulfilled. Genesis 3:15, Genesis 18:18; Deuteronomy 9:6; Galatians 3:7-0, 15-18, 26-29;
I assume you know all of this, so I did not quote scriptures. Although I still should. I'll edit it later.

Hence Israel became inheritors of the kingdom, on that day in Sinai.

This should help.
Notice that God begins to rule
Revelation 11:1
saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.

Yet, God was ruling before.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He [God] has put all things under His [Christ] feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

That's simple, isn't it.
To emphasize the main points:

• The kingdom of God is an expression of God's sovereignty - his rulership.
• That existed from the beginning of creation - recognized by the heavenly host.
• The kingdom of God, that would be given to the Messiah, is a new expression of God's sovereignty, which would be inherited by persons (covenanted) - the first of which was the nation of Israel. Their rejection of the Messiah disqualified them. The Israel of God becomes the new inheritors - those who bear fruit.
• That kingdom was set up when Christ was installed as king.
• That kingdom, which is an expression of God's sovereignty, is given - returned to him after it accomplishes his will, and God retains his right as sovereign.

I hope I did not confuse you.

 

[CoreyD]

LOL. Context matters. Don't act like it doesn't. You can't be so rigid about things. Not everything has the same context.


Depending on the context, as I said.


Give me a break. Please get serious.


Huh?


Why are you asking me this? I'm not too interested in playing games unless you have a good reason for asking me this.

There are two 'ends' being asked about in Matthew 24:3 - the end of Jerusalem, and the end of the world.
The end of Jerusalem had its last days. The end of the world, has it's last days.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The scriptures, and in particular Acts 15:28-29 where you agreed in your previous post that the difference between Jew and Gentile was allowed for the Jews to transition to the new covenant.

Should we just ignore Acts 15:7-9 which says there was made no difference between Jew and Gentile? Why are you not interpreting Acts 15:28-29 in light of that? In terms of things that actually mattered, there was no difference between Jew and Gentile well before 70 AD. Should that just be ignored? I'm not going to ignore that. Just because maybe the Jews continued to try to obey all 613 commandments (a futile endeavor) and said the Gentiles only had to obey a few of them, means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not the old covenant was still in effect at that point. It was not, as scripture makes very clear. To be obsolete means to not be in effect and the old covenant was made obsolete by the death of Christ.

It does make sense when you see that in the old covenant there was a difference but in the new covenant there isn’t. The transition period allowed by the Holy Spirit was also a period where the Gentiles could be differentiated in the church by those who still observed the practices of the old covenant. If everyone in the church only observed the new covenant sacraments then there was no difference between Jew and Gentile.

So, you don't accept it when scripture like Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22 and Romans 10:12 explicitly tell us that there was made no difference between Jew and Gentile well before 70 AD? You have decided that those scriptures can be ignored and we can decide that there was a difference? There was no difference that mattered or else scriptures like the ones I referenced would be false.

The times of the Gentiles comes from the book of Daniel and the Gentile beast kingdoms, which makes Babylon the start of the times of the Gentiles. The different beast kingdoms are seen in the statue in Daniel 2. The times of the Gentiles ends or fullness happens when the Daniel 2 statue gets destroyed. This coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD where Luke 21:22 says that all things which are written may be fulfilled and vs 24 says until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

If it was meant to be understood that way then that would mean you're saying the times of the Gentiles represent the times during which the beast kingdoms were in power. That would mean the times of the Gentiles would continue on at least until the beast represented by the Roman empire came to an end. And it obviously did not come to an end in 70 AD. So, I can't agree with your line of thinking here.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There are two 'ends' being asked about in Matthew 24:3 - the end of Jerusalem, and the end of the world.

Where do you see two "ends" referenced in Matthew 24:3? I see one.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

I see "the end of the world" referenced here, but not "the end of Jerusalem". Now, I know Jesus did answer both questions (the one related to when the temple buildings would be destroyed and the one related to His coming and the end of the age) in the Olivet Discourse, but there is only one "end" referenced in Matthew 24:3.

The end of Jerusalem had its last days. The end of the world, has it's last days.

Okay. What is your point? The term "the last days" that we see referenced in scripture refer to the last days leading up to the future second coming of Christ.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

 

[grafted branch]

Should we just ignore Acts 15:7-9 which says there was made no difference between Jew and Gentile? Why are you not interpreting Acts 15:28-29 in light of that?

I am, in the new covenant there is no difference but in the old covenant there was. When I read Acts 15:7-9 it’s talking about the new covenant, while Acts 15:28-29 is referring to the old covenant. You acknowledge that the old covenant was still being observed by some believers but then refuse to acknowledge that that fact was a difference between Jew and Gentile. Again I’m not referring to how anyone was saved, they all are saved by the blood of Christ.

To be obsolete means to not be in effect and the old covenant was made obsolete by the death of Christ.

Yet the old covenant was still useful in allowing the Jews the time to transition. The old covenant still served a purpose even though it was obsolete.

That would mean the times of the Gentiles would continue on at least until the beast represented by the Roman empire came to an end. And it obviously did not come to an end in 70 AD. So, I can't agree with your line of thinking here.

I agree the Roman Empire didn’t end in 70AD, but in Matthew 28:18 all power was given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, so that would’ve included the power of the Roman Empire being transferred to Jesus at that point in time.

The last thing the Gentiles (Roman Empire) did, so that all that was written was fulfilled, was to sack Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am, in the new covenant there is no difference but in the old covenant there was.

And? The no difference in the new covenant began right after Christ's death and resurrection, right? We know that there is scripture written before 70 AD which say that no difference had been made between Jew and Gentile, so you can't say that there was a difference until 70 AD. That is a case of not accepting what passages like Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22 and Romans 10:12 explicitly say.

When I read Acts 15:7-9 it’s talking about the new covenant, while Acts 15:28-29 is referring to the old covenant. You acknowledge that the old covenant was still being observed by some believers but then refuse to acknowledge that that fact was a difference between Jew and Gentile. Again I’m not referring to how anyone was saved, they all are saved by the blood of Christ.

The difference was not caused by God, though. He allowed it because of ignorance on their part since they all were new babes in Christ who had a lot to learn at that point. You are placing an unfounded significance on that difference between which commandments they believed they should follow, while not placing enough emphasis on the sense that there was no difference between them in terms of what really matters.

Yet the old covenant was still useful in allowing the Jews the time to transition. The old covenant still served a purpose even though it was obsolete.

So what? Again, you place too much emphasis on one thing and not enough on the other. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the old covenant being obsolete meant that it was no longer in effect. It was no longer required by God for anyone to be under the old covenant. That was their own choice to still put themselves under the old covenant. God put up with that for a short time because of His understanding that they were ignorant and needed some time to learn about what it means to live under the new covenant.

I agree the Roman Empire didn’t end in 70AD, but in Matthew 28:18 all power was given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, so that would’ve included the power of the Roman Empire being transferred to Jesus at that point in time.

That was well before 70 AD that He was given all power in heaven and earth. That was after His resurrection and just before His ascension. So, are you now going to say the times of the Gentiles ended in 33 AD? At least that would be consistent with when the old covenant came to an end.

The last thing the Gentiles (Roman Empire) did, so that all that was written was fulfilled, was to sack Jerusalem.

So, in your view, the times of the Gentiles included the entirety of the times of the beast kingdoms, but somehow that doesn't include the entirety of the Roman empire. You're not being consistent here. The context of the times of the Gentiles was not in terms of the existence of Jerusalem, but rather in terms of Jerusalem being controlled by Gentiles rather than the Jews. That has continued well beyond 70 AD.

 

[grafted branch]

And? The no difference in the new covenant began right after Christ's death and resurrection, right?

Yes, we agree that there was no difference in the new covenant which took effect after the cross. The problem is you aren’t getting the fact that there was a difference in the old covenant and that covenant didn’t vanish until after Hebrews was written.

The difference was not caused by God, though. He allowed it because of ignorance on their part since they all were new babes in Christ who had a lot to learn at that point. You are placing an unfounded significance on that difference between which commandments they believed they should follow, while not placing enough emphasis on the sense that there was no difference between them in terms of what really matters.

The difference originated in the old covenant. You yourself are saying God allows a difference but there is no difference. How can God allow it to be but it’s not? What God allowed was the old covenant to continue, even though it became obsolete.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the old covenant being obsolete meant that it was no longer in effect.

I guess it depends on how effective you think the old covenant was in the first place. It was never intended to be a permanent solution to our sins.

So, are you now going to say the times of the Gentiles ended in 33 AD?

No, the times of the Gentiles ended when Luke 21:24 tells us it did. I would say the Gentiles were powerless to destroy Jerusalem until it was allowed by Jesus. Once the Gentiles fulfilled all that was written then their times ceased.

The context of the times of the Gentiles was not in terms of the existence of Jerusalem, but rather in terms of Jerusalem being controlled by Gentiles rather than the Jews. That has continued well beyond 70 AD.

The heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Jerusalem we have come to, is not trodden by the Gentiles. The new Jerusalem came with the new covenant, the old Jerusalem got destroyed when the old covenant vanished.

If you don’t see the overlap of the covenants then you’re also not going to see that there remained a difference between Jew and Gentile in the old covenant until it and Jerusalem were destroyed in 70AD. Which is why you, on the one hand have to admit there was some kind of difference between Jew and Gentile yet on the other hand you can’t have that difference.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, we agree that there was no difference in the new covenant which took effect after the cross. The problem is you aren’t getting the fact that there was a difference in the old covenant and that covenant didn’t vanish until after Hebrews was written.

What does it mean to you for the old covenant to vanish? The same verse you're referencing (Hebrews 8:13) also says the old covenant was already obsolete when that was written. What does it mean to you for the old covenant to be obsolete?

The difference originated in the old covenant. You yourself are saying God allows a difference but there is no difference. How can God allow it to be but it’s not? What God allowed was the old covenant to continue, even though it became obsolete.

It can't continue if it's obsolete. You don't seem to know what the word obsolete means. To be made obsolete means it was put to an end. No longer required. Replaced completely by the new covenant. You are trying to make something that was deactivated still active. That doesn't work.

What was going to vanish after Hebrews was written was any traces of the old covenant like the temple buildings, not the old covenant itself which had already been made obsolete at that point and replaced by the new covenant.

I guess it depends on how effective you think the old covenant was in the first place. It was never intended to be a permanent solution to our sins.

When I talk about the old covenant not being in effect I am not saying anything about how effective or ineffective it was. I already said this and you are apparently just ignoring that. What I mean when I say it was no longer in effect is that it was no longer required for anyone to follow all the rituals and ordinances of the old covenant. It was obsolete. To be obsolete means it's no longer active. It's dead. It was replaced by the new covenant. It makes no sense whatsoever to believe that the new covenant and old covenant were active and in effect at the same time. The new covenant is all about God's grace and Christ's blood covering the sins of those who have faith in Him and has nothing to do with rituals and ordinances like the old covenant. The new covenant couldn't be in effect if the old covenant was still in effect. That makes no sense. Think about that.

No, the times of the Gentiles ended when Luke 21:24 tells us it did.

It doesn't tell us they ended in 70 AD. It indicates that the times of the Gentiles would continue while Jersualem was trodden down or trampled on which we both believe had already started long before that. There is no indication that ended in 70 AD. The Gentiles continued to trample on Jerusalem after 70 AD.

I would say the Gentiles were powerless to destroy Jerusalem until it was allowed by Jesus. Once the Gentiles fulfilled all that was written then their times ceased.

Again, the context of the times of the Gentiles was in relation to times during which Gentiles controlled Jerusalem rather than the Jews. That didn't end in 70 AD. Some think that ended in 1967, but I disagree. But, that's another story.

The heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Jerusalem we have come to, is not trodden by the Gentiles.

Who said it was?

The new Jerusalem came with the new covenant, the old Jerusalem got destroyed when the old covenant vanished.

Let's get down to the crux of the matter here. Do you believe that God required the Jews to still follow the law and be under the old covenant until 70 AD? If so, you are terribly mistaken. Jewish believers were under the new covenant and only the new covenant after Christ's death and resurrection. Otherwise, it couldn't be said that they were under grace since that would mean they were under the law. You can't be under both grace and the law at the same time.

If you don’t see the overlap of the covenants then you’re also not going to see that there remained a difference between Jew and Gentile in the old covenant until it and Jerusalem were destroyed in 70AD.

So, scriptures like Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22 and Romans 10:12 saying there was no difference between Jew and Gentile means nothing to you? You have to insist that there was a difference even though those explicitly say there was not a difference?

Which is why you, on the one hand have to admit there was some kind of difference between Jew and Gentile yet on the other hand you can’t have that difference.

That difference was meaningless compared to the sense in which there was no difference between Jew and Gentiles as verses like Acts 15:7-9, Ephesians 2:11-13, Romans 3:12, Romans 10:12 and others talk about. You are placing more significance on their relatively meaningless differences than on how they were not different for some inexplicable reason.

 

[AYM]

I agree the Roman Empire didn’t end in 70AD, but in Matthew 28:18 all power was given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, so that would’ve included the power of the Roman Empire being transferred to Jesus at that point in time.

Question for you - We're in the kingdom now. Is that kingdom physical or spiritual? I'd say it was spiritual (Ephesians 1:20-22 among many other verses), and if it's spiritual, then earthly nations - from Rome then to the USA today, could still exist, even as they did in the Old Testament.

The last thing the Gentiles (Roman Empire) did, so that all that was written was fulfilled, was to sack Jerusalem.

Then the Gentiles sacked it again and again (take your pick - Islamic Jihad, various caliphates, crusaders, sultans, Napoleon (almost), the British) until 1967 when Jews controlled it again for the first time since Zedekiah sat on the throne. That sounds like "trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" to me ...