When did I say He did? How does this question have anything to do with what I said?
How do these questions have anything to do with what I said in my post?
Why do you ask a bunch of questions without answering any of mine first? Can you just answer one simple question? My understanding is that you believe Zechariah 14 describes things that would occur during "the Millennium" after Christ's return. So, if anyone refused to go up to Jerusalem to worship God during that time, do you think that would be a sin or not? The issue I was trying to talk to you about was whether there would be sin during that time or not (you say there won't be), so that's what I'm trying to get you to address.
I am going by your words. Do you not go by your words?
Do you somehow think that not even one person would refuse to go up to Jerusalem to worship God at that time? If so, why does it warn about people receiving punishment if they don't do that if it won't even be possible for them to refuse to do that?
What do you mean, won't even be possible for them to refuse?
The Millennium is not some sort of mind control where all are robots. Nor will be a place where sin or sin nature can exist. It is like but not exactly the NHNE. If you cannot comprehend life before sin, how can I explain it to you?
Sin did not exist in the Garden nor any where on earth prior to Adam eating. No one sinned. No one had a sin nature. The Garden was God's temple on earth. Adam was to be the priest, as was all of his family for 8000 years. That lasted for about 30 years. Disobedience is not sin, until sin was granted. God told Adam that he would die, ie become full of sin. It was Adam who brought sin into the world. The name of the tree introduced a choice between good and evil. You are looking at the Millennium with the knowledge of good and evil. Try looking at the Millennium with only the knowledge of God's perfect will. It is not sin to disobey. It is Disobedience to not obey.
Now that sin was in the world, God warned Cain not to allow it into the Garden. When Cain killed Abel, that brought sin into the Garden. God did not specifically tell Cain murder was a sin nor being disobedient. Even hating his brother was wrong according to God. God told Cain not to let sin in. If God and Cain could sit down and talk with each other about Cain's attitude, that is a closer relationship than most so called Christians have with God. There was no sin separating them. Yet Cain lost control any ways. Cain was not forced to do anything. You claim, "if it won't even be possible".
Why would it not be possible for Egypt to show up or not show up? That is a direct command. If it was an impossibility, why have a direct rule. We are not told why they would not, but it is not because of sin. It is direct Disobedience. If you cannot see the difference, it is because you cannot see anything out side of the knowledge of good and evil. It does take some thinking to know what only good is, but knowing only good, does not remove free will. If there are laws, it does not mean no Disobedience. The difference is that Death has not been defeated. So breaking a law will be instant Death. Except it seems some laws have less dire circumstances, than killing a whole nation, because those in charge were too lazy to send a delegation one year.
Apply OT Millennium prophecy to those who did not even have a NT nor the knowledge of the Cross and the Atonement. Can you even get into that mindset, where God does not even have grace when His people disobey God? All they had were cursings or blessings.
Can God allow cursing and blessing in a sin free environment? If you cannot see life without sin post Cross, how did they in the OT see life without sin way before the Cross? Did the Cross totally remove sin from this earth? That is what some posters here claim. What do you do with these verses:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead...)
What does it mean to not impute sin? Before the law no one was charged? No one was guilty? No one could disobey God? How does that even work in your paradigm? What is sin that is not breaking a direct law? Can a law be broken even without sin present? They all were dead in sin, but they were free to live as they pleased without any direct laws. I guess some claim the Noahide laws. But those were not direct commands compared to the Law of Moses. Mostly dietary.
The more laws there are to curb free will, the less liberty there is for the individual. Now just remove sin totally. There can still be direct commands. There can still be consequences. What is missing is the knowledge of evil. Now is withholding rain evil, or a minor discomfort? Some areas on earth get little rain, and people survive. Some places get too much rain, and people still survive. Compared to perfection and ideals some may think it pure evil to loose a little rain. Cannot think evil in the Millennium, so I have no clue what a perfectionist or idealist will think about. Maybe just a blank thought process all the time as thinking would be too redundant?