When did the Old Covenant truly "disappear" and end?

[Al Touthentop]

For you to claim that in Paul's time the future has arrived is simply untrue. A simple survey of the text indicates that Paul is referring to another time other than his own. Heb 8:10 states I WILL establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.... NOT I have established a new covenant....

Paul is quoting Jeremiah. The language putting this event in the future is some 500 years before Christ. The future language is in the words of the Prophet, not Paul and Paul is clearly stating that Christ and specifically the establishment of the New Covenant has been fulfilled as foretold by this prophecy.

If you persist in believing that this pertains to an original prophecy which now applies in Paul's day, that is plainly contraindicated by v.10 I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God.... Does this description sound like the spiritual state of Israel today??

Of spiritual Israel, most definitely.

Israel is largely a secular nation and Tel Aviv is home to the largest gay pride parade in the world. So much for God's laws being put into their minds and written upon the hearts of the Jewish people.

The Prophecy was not talking about "Jewish people."

No, your eisegete the text to fit you belief system. I repeat, the blood of bulls and goats, NEVER took away sins. I suspect you don't believe me so I'll simply reference an article by Dr. Michael Heiser who is a preeminent Hebrew/Old Testament scholar.
If "Blood of Bulls & Goats" Can't Forgive Sins, Why All the OT Bloodshed? - LogosTalk

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy unless the appeal is directly to God's word. Paul says that the New Covenant established through Christ is the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. You have taken up YOUR argument with God. See where you end up.

This author wants us to believe that when God told Israel that their sins will be forgiven, that he was not really talking about forgiveness. It's nonsense. The reason that Paul in Hebrews 10 says that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins is because he has already said that the perfect sacrifice was already given, and the law which commanded them was abolished. They no longer bring remission. He didn't say they could never in the past have forgiven sin.

Moreover, you failed to address my citation of 1 Tim 1:8 where Paul states that the law is good if used properly. I ask you again, how does that fit with your notion that the law is now obsolete? How can the law be good as Paul stated when you state that the law is gone/obsolete? I prefer to believe Paul.

You don't believe Paul at all. You keep arguing with him. Paul affirms in Timothy that those who try and teach that we are to go back to the law are in error. He says in the context that the law is good for instruction but only for sinners with regards to what is an abomination to God, not that we should return to it.

1 Timothy 1:3-7
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

See above as I already demonstrated to you how verses 8-12 do not even fit with your belief about v.13.

You have merely asked me to ignore Paul's plain words saying that the prophecy was fulfilled. Your argument is vain and is in error.

Your explain away the literal as figurative simply to fit your narrative. If it is figurative how do you explain animal sacrifices and priests administering the sacrifices in the temple?

Why do you think this is significant? It speaks to the fact that at the time of Paul's writing, the temple was still in use even if as he also plainly states, the sacrifices had no possibility any longer of bringing remission.

Of course Jesus referred to His body as the temple but that in itself does not preclude the building of the Millennial temple. You have just committed a logical fallacy known as an either-or argument.

You keep looking through prophecy through a veil.

You are the one who wrote that the church has "replaced" Israel. The fact is the gentiles are grafted onto Israel and not the other way around. Jesus in fact, directed His message at the Jews - not the gentiles but his efforts mostly fell on deaf ears.

The Covenant was brought to the Jews first. Those who obeyed remained part of the natural olive tree. Gentiles were grafted in and were made part of the one body Christ died to establish. That you would claim there are two bodies is a rejection of the very purpose for which Christ came. The modern day nation of Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with the spiritual Israel - which was always those who obeyed God through faith - or the historical physical kingdom of Israel - which, if you knew your scripture, you would know also that the physical kingdom of Israel was in and of itself a rejection of God's rulership. Physical Israel was NEVER spiritual Israel. The only thing that ever mattered to God was spiritual Israel. And back then, to be a part of that kingdom you obeyed God through faith. Being a member of the physical kingdom didn't bring any spiritual benefit.

1 Samuel 8:7
7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."

There was no replacement, there was only a reconciliation. The only way to become a part of that olive tree today is to obey the gospel. I didn't say that there was a replacement. I said that the naming of this belief as "replacement theology" is just name-calling. It's an attempt to paint the gospel believer as somehow anti-Semitic and therefore shut down debate.

Moses and the Law is what the gentiles needed to learn which provides the foundation foreshadowing Jesus as the fulfillment of the law; not the abolishment of it.

You're arguing with God, who through Paul said that law had been made obsolete.

When the Jerusalem council debated what gentile proselytes needed to do for salvation in Acts 15, they ruled out physical circumcision as a requirement in order to become saved however they specified a few O.T. restrictions namely, "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:20). In order not to be a burden to the gentiles (v.28) this list was the minimum requirement that the gentiles needed to heed because in the very next verse (v.21) we read: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

This was an acknowledgement that the moral requirements were still instructive, not that the law was still in effect. Christ's new Covenant was itself a law which James calls "the perfect law of liberty."

There weren't two laws in effect. The law of Moses was nailed to the cross. Nobody today or in the future could obey that law and be saved. Quite the opposite. Jesus calls such people members of the 'synagogue of Satan.'

As the gentile believers continued to attend synagogue every Sabbath they would better understand the Mosaic law preached there and what was required of them. So for you to claim that the Mosaic law no longer applies to the church is contraindicated by the explanation give by the Jerusalem council themselves.

Neither Jewish Christians nor Gentiles worshiped Jesus on Saturday (Sabbath). The Jerusalem council did not tell Gentiles to worship on the Sabbath either. They met on Sunday - The Lord's Day.

There are not two gospels nor are their two laws. There is one law, the law of Christ.

 

[Oldmantook]

Because Jesus and the New Testament authors say that those prophecies refer to the Christ's resurrection rather than a physical temple. John 2 for instance, and Luke 24.






Because that's what the authors of the New Testament say.

2 Corinthians 3:14-16
But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed. 15 And even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away

Why are you still reading the Old Covenant through a veil?



Prophecy is always figurative in its language. Taking it literally is totally inappropriate. Were it so, we could prove easily that John the Baptist never arrived in the spirit of Elijah because he never did any physical excavating when he arrived.

You failed to neglect to address the chapters I cited in Ezekiel. Why is that?? I even cited a link that explained it in more detail for your benefit. Not a mention of it in your reply. Instead you reference other verses while totally ignoring the ones that I believe point to a literal temple in the future. It appears I am wasting my time in this dialogue since you refuse to deal with the text of Ezekiel. That of course is your prerogative and you may go on believing as you wish but this discussion is no longer productive for me as a result. Signing off here; thanks for your input.

 

[Oldmantook]

It is not there. It is a Premil invention. It is never going to happen! Christ was the final sacrifice for sin. It is finished!

You may believe as you wish!
Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org
Who is the prince in Ezekiel 46? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Al Touthentop]

You failed to neglect to address the chapters I cited in Ezekiel. Why is that??

Because you are too quick to hit the reply button and haven't read my responses at all. That's why you missed it. You only want to argue. I addressed it two or three posts ago.

The significance of Ezekiel's measurements was the certainty of the prophecy coming to pass. It's all been measured and the dimensions set. And it came to pass when Christ was resurrected and the new temple - the real temple, the only temple that matters, Christ - was 'rebuilt.'

I even cited a link that explained it in more detail for your benefit.

Not for my benefit at all. He argues that God wasn't telling the truth when he said that animal sacrifices brought remission. He, like you, doesn't accept God's own words on the subject.

Not a mention of it in your reply.

You didn't read my reply. You replied less than three minutes after I posted it. You have no interest in reading anything and then whine when people don't read your heretical sources. Funny.

Good luck to you. You will find plenty of people to argue with using the tactics you use.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You may believe as you wish!
Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org
Who is the prince in Ezekiel 46? | GotQuestions.org

Clearly you have no answers. This seems to be a common trait with some views, when they cannot answer the questions, they point you to link that cannot answer the questions!

 

[sovereigngrace]

When all is realized.

"Amillennialism: A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology" by Anthony Hoekema

Do you mean at the final future coming of Christ?

 

[Oldmantook]

Because you are too quick to hit the reply button and haven't read my responses at all. That's why you missed it. You only want to argue. I addressed it two or three posts ago.

The significance of Ezekiel's measurements was the certainty of the prophecy coming to pass. It's all been measured and the dimensions set. And it came to pass when Christ was resurrected and the new temple - the real temple, the only temple that matters, Christ - was 'rebuilt.'



Not for my benefit at all. He argues that God wasn't telling the truth when he said that animal sacrifices brought remission. He, like you, doesn't accept God's own words on the subject.



You didn't read my reply. You replied less than three minutes after I posted it. You have no interest in reading anything and then whine when people don't read your heretical sources. Funny.

Good luck to you. You will find plenty of people to argue with using the tactics you use.

No tactics; just the truth of Scripture which you ignore. Physical dimensions, animal sacrifice, the Prince who cannot be Jesus and allocation for the gentiles are literal truths you simply overlook in order to cling to your belief. Certainly your choice but in order to form your doctrine you need to account for all scripture; even those that appear to contradict your belief.

 

[Oldmantook]

Clearly you have no answers. This seems to be a common trait with some views, when they cannot answer the questions, they point you to link that cannot answer the questions!

I provided you with answers and links. You choose not to read and enlighten yourself. Your choice.

 

[sovereigngrace]

From this link: Holy Assembly and the Everlasting Covenant

Is the covenant given to Israel at Mount Sinai a renewal of the covenant originally given to Abraham or is it a new and different covenant? God's word shows that the covenant God gives Israel at Mount Sinai are a renewal of the covenant for two reasons. First God told Abraham that the covenant he was making with him is also for his descendants and he will confirm his covenant with them (Genesis 17:2) which, as we have seen he did with Isaac, Jacob and the nation of Israel in Egypt. The second reason is from a statement by King David.

He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant". (1 Chronicles 16:15-17)

Leviticus 26:12 is quoted in 2 Corinthians 6:16 showing that the very promise from the first covenant is carried over into the renewed covenant.

Holy Assembly and the Everlasting Covenant​

When is the coming of the Lord (Mat 24:27, 37, 39, 2 Pe 3:4, 12)?
When is the physical resurrection (Matt 16:27, 22:29-32, Matt 25:31-34, Luke 14:14, John 5:28, 6:39-40, 44, 54, 11:24, 12:48, 10:42, 17:31, 23: 6, 24:15)?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I provided you with answers and links. You choose not to read and enlighten yourself. Your choice.

No you haven't! All I see is man's opinion and conjecture. Where is your evidence. Premil is non-corroborative theory. Amils believe in one final sacrifice for sin, as per Scripture.

Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Romans 6:10 says, “he died unto sin once.”

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”
Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Christ put and end of sin by this final transaction for sin, thus making an end of sin forever for those who would believe. There will never again be a sacrifice for sin. Christ’s atonement satisfied heaven’s holy demands and ensured that there would never again be another sacrifice/offering for sin carrying God’s blessing.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You may believe as you wish!
Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org
Who is the prince in Ezekiel 46? | GotQuestions.org

You failed to neglect to address the chapters I cited in Ezekiel. Why is that?? I even cited a link that explained it in more detail for your benefit. Not a mention of it in your reply. Instead you reference other verses while totally ignoring the ones that I believe point to a literal temple in the future. It appears I am wasting my time in this dialogue since you refuse to deal with the text of Ezekiel. That of course is your prerogative and you may go on believing as you wish but this discussion is no longer productive for me as a result. Signing off here; thanks for your input.

Could you show me actual Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as "memorial sacrifices" on the new earth?

All i see is you repeating what you have been taught or found online. There is no Scripture forthcoming.

 

[sovereigngrace]

As far as the temple goes, there is our spiritual temple but also a future physical temple as well. The existence of one does not automatically negate the other as that would be a logical fallacy known as an either-or dilemma. The future Millennial temple complete with its physical dimensions is described in Ezekiel 40-48.

Where does Ezekiel 40-48 mention a future millennial temple?
Where is there a mention of such a Revelation 20?
What possible reason would there be to rebuild a Jewish temple after it has been rendered useless forever?

 

[mkgal1]

When is the coming of the Lord (Mat 24:27, 37, 39, 2 Pe 3:4, 12)?
When is the physical resurrection (Matt 16:27, 22:29-32, Matt 25:31-34, Luke 14:14, John 5:28, 6:39-40, 44, 54, 11:24, 12:48, 10:42, 17:31, 23: 6, 24:15)?

This seems more like a declarative statement than a question.

 

[sovereigngrace]

This seems more like a declarative statement than a question.

Are you serious? I think you are being paranoid. LOL. Can you answer these simple questions? Is it the Scriptures that scare you? I can remove them if you wish.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When all is realized.

"Amillennialism: A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology" by Anthony Hoekema

Can you answer this question? This is the 4th time I have asked this simple question (#99, #120, #126): Do you mean at the final future coming of Christ?

 

[GraceBro]

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

In another thread - these specific questions were asked:

When did the old covenant end?
When did the new covenant begin?
When did "the last days" begin?
When will "the last days" finish?
When is the "end of the age"?
When is the day of redemption?
When did "this age" arrive?
When does "this age" end?
When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?
When did the kingdom of God begin?
When does "the age to come" arrive?
When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Hebrews states:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

The Old Covenant hasn't ended. However, the purpose of the Old Covenant is to show the lost/unbelievers their sin and to drive them to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 says, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

Galatians 3:24-25 reads, "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian ..."

Under the New Covenant, a Christian now lives in dependence on the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:4-6 reads, "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

The Old Covenant has no role in the life of a Christian unless we use it to show the lost their sinfulness or a Christian who believes it has value to them, that they are not living up to its requirements.

Grace and Peace

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Old Covenant hasn't ended. However, the purpose of the Old Covenant is to show the lost/unbelievers their sin and to drive them to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 says, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

Galatians 3:24-25 reads, "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian ..."

Under the New Covenant, a Christian now lives in dependence on the indwelling Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:4-6 reads, "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

The Old Covenant has no role in the life of a Christian unless we use it to show the lost their sinfulness or a Christian who believes it has value to them, that they are not living up to its requirements.

Grace and Peace

Then, why not go out and start cutting the throats of innocent lambs and goats again?

 

[ralliann]

From this link: Holy Assembly and the Everlasting Covenant

Is the covenant given to Israel at Mount Sinai a renewal of the covenant originally given to Abraham or is it a new and different covenant? God's word shows that the covenant God gives Israel at Mount Sinai are a renewal of the covenant for two reasons. First God told Abraham that the covenant he was making with him is also for his descendants and he will confirm his covenant with them (Genesis 17:2) which, as we have seen he did with Isaac, Jacob and the nation of Israel in Egypt. The second reason is from a statement by King David.

He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant". (1 Chronicles 16:15-17)

Leviticus 26:12 is quoted in 2 Corinthians 6:16 showing that the very promise from the first covenant is carried over into the renewed covenant.

Holy Assembly and the Everlasting Covenant​

The Sinai covenant was not made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Notice the covenant confirmed through Isaac was with an oath....
Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Notice also the sinai covenant gives no king.
But the promise to Abraham is kings....

Ge 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

That would be pretty poor exegesis since when he gets to verse thirteen he is explaining the meaning of the prophecy, which itself used the word covenant and he quotes the word 'new' in the prophecy which clearly refers to the new covenant that God had promised. Otherwise, how would you understand his quote of the word 'new' in verse 13? Is he saying God promised a new pair of shoes?

This isn't even controversial. It's explicit and plain. The only problem is with the reading.

Hi the new covenant was certainly brought in when Jesus died and rose again. He noted that the cup was the cup of the new covenant and we were to do this; share the bread and wine in memory of Him.
When we examine the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31 we see that it is replacing the covenant made with the Israel here, "31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,". Now this covenant was a conditional covenant and this covenant does not replace the covenant made with Abraham and his seed to be a nation and for the land. Jer 31 continues and places a double assurance immediately after announcing the new covenant that Israel will not cease to be a nation nor will the LORD cast them off for all they have done.
Think about it why would God who knew Jesus would be rejected and subsequently Jerusalem and the temple destroyed in 70 AD and inject this promise here? Jer ends the chapter with an even further out prophecy that shows the city being built again for the LORD at a time when dead bodies are everywhere and it will never be plucked up or torn down again. 38 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever.
I agree that there is a thing called spiritual Israel of all who are saved yet national Israel has a prophetic destiny and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The return of the sacrifice and the temple are key elements of the coming tribulation. The fact Israel is prepared for the return of the temple sacrifices is strong evidence that the futurist view is correct. The prophecy of Jesus in LUKE about His mission is this.
67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
68 “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of His servant David,
70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets,
Who have been since the world began,
71 That we should be saved from our enemies
And from the hand of all who hate us,
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers
And to remember His holy covenant,
73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham:
74 To grant us that we,
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. Read Zech 14 Dan 7 and you will see described the day the kingdom comes to earth and this salvation described in Luke is accomplished. Eze 36 describes a born again experience for those called back to the mountains of Israel in the day the LORD removes the reproach of the nations from them and notes that the LORD did it for the LORD's name sake and accuses these people brought back from all the nations (not just Babylon) of having profaned His name where they were scattered.
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 Not for your sake do I do this,” says the Lord GOD, “let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!”
Note they have bee brought back from every nation into the mountains of Israel and they are still the reproach of the nations. The 2nd half of this promise; with the transformation is what is accomplished in the day of vengeance of our God when the LORD Jesus treads the winepress in furry. Hosea 3 links the return of the sacrifice to the return of the kingdom when Israel has gone many days without either. 4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.
The NWO is a Satanic occult organization that will take over the world at the time the sacrifice is restored and the man of sin is revealed. The scale of the Rev is global and not Jerusalem and the very plagues in ch 6 will come upon this world when the current financial system collapses. Out of this chaos order is restored and in the middle of the week or with 42 months to go we will see the mark and image of the beast rolled out.

 

[Oldmantook]

Because you are too quick to hit the reply button and haven't read my responses at all. That's why you missed it. You only want to argue. I addressed it two or three posts ago.

The significance of Ezekiel's measurements was the certainty of the prophecy coming to pass. It's all been measured and the dimensions set. And it came to pass when Christ was resurrected and the new temple - the real temple, the only temple that matters, Christ - was 'rebuilt.'

Christ fulfilled it in a spiritual sense. Believer's bodies also being their temples fulfill it in a spiritual sense. However you conflate the physical temple and spiritual temple as being one and the same. I do not as a plain reading of the text/context indicates otherwise. Your perceive it as an "either-or" fallacy. I see it as both. The temple described in Ezekiel among other things, cannot be Jesus because animal sacrifices take place there performed by priests which is something you have not accounted for. I suspect that you will object and state that this is because Jesus spiritually fulfilled the temple. However, the temple described in Ezekiel cannot be Jesus' spiritual fulfillment as Ezekiel describes a time period which is ruled/led by a Prince (Eze 46:2,4,8,10,12). No where in Israel's past or present has such a man been referred to or described, thus it points to a time in the future where a Prince rules so this prophecy remains unfulfilled. Moreover, this Prince cannot be Jesus. Yet you might protest and exclaim that the Prince is indeed Jesus because his blood fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice. If so, you would be wrong in this case as the Prince is a man who prepares a calf as sacrifice for the sins of the people as well as his own sins (Eze 45:22).
Thus your claim that Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple has already come to pass in the resurrection of Jesus is false as there has been no Prince as described in the OT who has already performed those things. And the Prince certainly cannot be Jesus who had no sin and therefore cannot offer a calf as sacrifice for His own sin. Thus Ezekiel's prophecy has not yet been fulfilled contrary to your claim that it has been fulfilled in Jesus.

Not for my benefit at all. He argues that God wasn't telling the truth when he said that animal sacrifices brought remission. He, like you, doesn't accept God's own words on the subject.

Where does the author state that animal sacrifices brought remission? Scripture itself states no such thing. Do you believe animal sacrifices brought remission of sin? Yes or No? If you do, Heb 10:4 states the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin but rather it serves as a reminder of sin (Heb 10:3). Apparently you are unaware of this critical distinction. That is why Jesus' blood is the ONLY THING that takes away sin. Your apparent misunderstanding of the reason for animal sacrifice undermines your whole argument.

You didn't read my reply. You replied less than three minutes after I posted it. You have no interest in reading anything and then whine when people don't read your heretical sources. Funny.

Good luck to you. You will find plenty of people to argue with using the tactics you use.

"Heretical" per your misunderstanding of animal sacrifice.