Then you have got a serious problem in that if the Old Covenant had not vanished away when Christ rose from the dead, the New Covenant could not have come into effect until the destruction of the Temple, only the Temple was destroyed due to judgment for rejecting Christ, not because it was made obsolete as a place of worship. The only other possibility is that the cited passage may also be in reference to this present world which is also destined to pass away along with the sin, death, decay, and misery that is in it.
I absolutely agree the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross. BUT scripture is very clear that while it was made obsolete it had not yet vanished.
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.
And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
2 corinthians 3:11
For if what is being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
The slaves of the old covenant, born according to the flesh, were persecuting the free children of new covenant, born according to the spirit.
Galatians 4:28-29 Now you,
f brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now
But if the Old Covenant had not vanished away upon Christ's death resurrection, then that means every follower of Christ was still in their sins and died in their sins, remaining separated from God until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, meaning their faith in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for their sins would have been rendered worthless with the Temple still standing. You are essence saying that the presence of the Jewish Temple was more powerful than the blood of Christ that was shed to take away sins.
Only those (i''m talking about those under the law not everyone in general) who remained slaves to the old covenant and did not die to it in order to belong to another, were still in their sins.
Romans 7:4-5 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
And at what point did believers stop worshipping at Jerusalem altogether, regardless of whether or not a Temple was present? Never. There have always been believers worshipping Christ wherever they are at from day one. When Jesus said that a time was coming when no one would go to a certain place to worship, it had nothing to do with the Temple. That is your addition to His Words.
You keep switching the topic from temple associated worship to general worship. Again, Jesus' comment in John 4:21 is specifically associated with temple worship.
If Zechariah chapter 14 is to be rendered symbolic, what would have to be established are:
1. What Jerusalem out of whom the living water flows represents.
2. What the geographic locations of where the waters flow to represent.
3. Who the nations are that come against Jerusalem and who the survivors of those nations are supposed to be.
4. What the Feast of Tabernacles is supposed to represent.
5. What the rain is that will be withheld from the nations that refuse to present themselves before the Lord in Jerusalem each year during the feast of Tabernacles.
1. New Jerusalem
Revelation 22:1 Then the angel showed me t
he river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Zechariah 14:8 On that day
living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea
d and half of them to the western sea
2. The living water is the Spirit, as attested by the scriptures. I would argue this is the movement of the Spirit and spreading of the gospel.
John 7:38-39 Whoever believes in me, as
f the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow
rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified
3. I would argue these are the nations that gathered together against the earthly Jerusalem leading up to, and after, the Death of Christ and His ascension from the mount of olives to the right hand of power, which results in the New Jerusalem and flowing of living waters.
Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.
John 7:38-39 Whoever believes in me, as
f the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow
rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified
4. The feasts are only a shadow of Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
These are a shadow of the things coming, but the substance belongs to Christ.
5. There is no NT scripture that directly references this, so my interpretation would be that those who do not belong to the New Jerusalem do not receive God's spiritual blessings. Again this is my personal interpretation based on the previous 4 points, no NT scripture states this.
History says otherwise. Jesus did not return in the first century which can only mean that there is a number of people from that generation who are still alive and hidden away until His return.
This assumes that Jesus coming is different that the comings of God in the OT.
God came down from heaven to defeat David's enemies (2 samuel 22:1, 10-11)
God came down from heaven to destroy the Egyptians (Isaiah 19:1)
God came down from heaven to destroy Samaria (Micah 1:1-6).
Jesus himself claims that God, the vineyard owner, would come to destroy the wicked tenants, of whom the pharisees realized were the subject of the parable (Matthew 21:40-45).
So does history attest that the temple and city where destroyed in 66-70ad by the coming of the vineyard owner? Yes it does.
I can't believe your logical argument for "this generation" is that there are 2,000 year old people walking around still.......
I believe it, even though we still die. That is because those of us who do died will not stay dead and not everyone will die before the return of the Lord.
So you agree we never die spiritually, even if we die physically. Good. So what happens to believers who never die spiritually, but die physically? Do they sleep in the ground awaiting the future resurrection or do they go home to be with the Lord?
How can they be in two places at once?
Scripture does not say they are in 2 places at once. Scripture states they are outside of the New Jerusalem, and Scripture also states that their portion "will be" in the lake of fire, which is the 2nd death. Thus while the wicked do exist outside of the New Jerusalem and can never enter it, they will eventually end up in the lake of fire.
But this doesn't answer my question. For some reason you always skirt around my questions, even though I always try to give you the courtesy of answering yours. So I will ask again, why does revelation only mention the wicked outside of the New Jerusalem and not outside of the New heavens and New earth?
It is the time when God will wipe away all tears. (Rev. 21:4)
I agree. But that avoids my question. What do the nations need healing if everything is "perfect".
That was not what I was saying. The woman's exodus has not happened yet. The Messiah's ascension into Heaven has, but the woman's exodus into the wilderness has yet to take place.
I disagree the woman's exodus has not happened. For Christ is clear that Satan was cast out at his ascension and the the prince of the world was "coming".
John 12:30-33 n response, Jesus said, “This voice was not for My benefit, but yours. Now judgment is upon this world;
now the prince of this world will be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” He said this to indicate the kind of death He was going to die.
John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me
This casting out at Christ's ascension and coming to persecute His followers fits perfectly with revelation 12. For it is when the male child is caught up to heaven that the dragon is cast out and attempts to persecute the woman.
Revelation 12:5-6 he gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule
a all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,
6and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Revelation 12:13-14 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.
You are free to believe that satan wasn't "cast out" at Christ's ascension, but that is opposite of the scriptures
You are the one who claimed that Daniel was written in Aramaic before it was written in Hebrew and I was pointing out that scriptures denied that they were originally written in Aramaic because that was not among the languages in which Pilate had written the sign placed above the head of Jesus when He was crucified.
I stated Daniel was written in both Aramaic and Hebrew, as attested by scholars (The Aramaic of the Book of Daniel on JSTOR). But What does this have to do with the LXX of Daniel 11:31 correlating nicely with the Hebrew of Daniel 8?
The man of sin declaring himself to be God ought to be a good indicator. There are other scriptures that make that even more clear. The Romans did not set that image up while the Temple was still standing but did so after it was destroyed. The Abomination of Desolation will be in a Temple that is not destroyed.
I agree that the standards were set up in the temple that had already been burned, but not after every stone torn down yet. Additionally, The temple had already been profaned by the zealots 3-4 years prior to the romans destroying it and setting up their standards.
Where does scripture define the AOD? what specific passage are you using to come up with your definition of the AOD?
Which will be made manifest when Jesus returns to the earth.
Already fulfilled at the resurrection of Christ according to Peter (acts 2:30-31)
Revelation chapter 19 is all about His return to the earth.
Revelation 20:1-4 is the length of His reign on this present earth.
I disagree. I believe the 2nd half of revelation 19 to be apocalyptic and symbolic language describing the cross, Christ's victory, and the spread of the gospel
Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast and the
kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army
Acts 4:25-27 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant,
d said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain? T
he kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’
e—or truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the nations and the peoples of Israel,
Colossians 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him
John 6:53-56 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him
Ezekiel 39:17 ‘Assemble and come, gather from all around
to my sacrificial feast that I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel,
and you shall eat flesh and drink blood.
Additionally, revelation 20:1-4 doesn't mention the length of reign of Jesus on earth. It only mentions the length of the saints reigning with Jesus. So I'm still not sure where exactly your getting Christ reigning on earth for a 1000 years from.
Revelation 20:4 They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
You have regurgitated an argument that was already answered in a previous post. Paul was pointing to the purity of the forthcoming Temple in Ezekiel's vision as an example of how God's spiritual Temple should be, but neither he nor any of the other Apostles ever called Ezekiel's vision an allegory or symbolic.
Paul doesn't point to a "future" earthly temple building. He states the body of Christ is the temple and then quotes from Ezekiel.
2 Corinthians 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God.
1 corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in
a you?
Ephesians 2:21-22 n Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. And in Him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for God in His Spirit.
While you may disagree with me, So far you have produced ZERO NT scripture that supports your interpretation of the Ezekiel temple as a literal future earthly building where believers worship.
Those dreams, visions, and riddles also came with interpretations, even if in some cases those interpretations were not revealed until the prophecy was fulfilled and theories and conjecture arise the most often when call symbolic scripture that is never declared to be. But when understanding of the scripture is confined to the parameters of the text itself, theories and conjectures are kept at a minimum.
I have no disagreement when symbolism results in speculation and theories.
If your not familiar with this website, there are also hundreds of different "literal" interpretations of the prophets and revelation. Symbolic and literal interpretations, without using the gospels and epistles, only lead to speculations and theories. Thus, interpretations should always be rooted in the gospels and epistles. for "the OT is the NT concealed" and "the NT is the OT revealed".
