Should the apocalyptic language style of the old testament be taken at face value or symbolic?

[Davy]

You didn't answer the question, so here it is again:

In what supporting instances did Paul refer to a physical temple?

Your question is invalid because it is outside the Scripture evidence of the usage of Greek 'naos'.

 

[jgr]

Your question is invalid because it is outside the Scripture evidence of the usage of Greek 'naos'.

Then provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".

 

[Davy]

Using the NT to interpret the OT is "letting God's word interpret God's word".

Not always. Often in the New Testament a prophetic event quoted from the Old Testament is just hinted at in the New Testament, with the greater details written in the Old Testament Books.

Just because the New Testament often quotes the Old, that doesn't automatically mean what is quoted is fulfilled already. There is still MUCH prophecy not yet fulfilled written in the Old Testament prophets. This is why Apostle Peter told us in the last days to be mindful also of what was written in the OT prophets (2 Peter 3:2).

 

[Davy]

Then provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".

Sorry, child play time is over.

 

[jgr]

Sorry, child play time is over.

Agreed. So be a man and provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".

 

[Davy]

Agreed. So be a man and provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".

You just made my Ignore list because of your childish behavior.

 

[claninja]

Not always.

Yes, it always is. Now, does the NT mention every single OT verse? No, but the NT does show us how OT passages are to be interpreted, whether literally or symbolically

Often in the New Testament a prophetic event quoted from the Old Testament is just hinted at in the New Testament, with the greater details written in the Old Testament Books.

The NT explicitly tells us what the OT prophesied about, thus the NT should be our frame of reference for interpreting the OT.

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms

Acts 3:24 Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have proclaimed these days.

Luke 21:22 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city. For these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

Just because the New Testament often quotes the Old, that doesn't automatically mean what is quoted is fulfilled already. There is still MUCH prophecy not yet fulfilled written in the Old Testament prophets. This is why Apostle Peter told us in the last days to be mindful also of what was written in the OT prophets (2 Peter 3:2).

If the NT quotes an OT verse and states "fulfilled", then that definitely means it is fulfilled.

I would disagree that there is still "much" prophecy not yet fulfilled.

I believe the Bible is about Christ, thus I believe the majority of it fulfilled:

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms

 

[jgr]

You just made my Ignore list because of your childish behavior.

Imagine that. Requesting Scripture is childish behavior.

Do you have Scripture for that?

 

[Davy]

Yes, it always is. Now, does the NT mention every single OT verse? No, but the NT does shows us how OT passages are to be interpreted, whether literally or symbolically

I don't know where you heard that, but just because the New Testament mentions a prophecy quoting from the Old Testament, that does NOT automatically mean it has been fulfilled. You should read this statement more carefully.

This Apostle Paul quoted from the OT prophet Haggai, and it has not yet come to pass today...

Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.'

27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV

 

[Davy]

The NT explicitly tells us what the OT prophesied about, thus the NT should be our frame of reference for interpreting the OT.

I'm not denying the NT includes witnesses of things from the OT that are fulfilled. I'm simply saying NOT ALL OT SCRIPTURE QUOTED in the NT has been fulfilled. The Haggai 2/Hebrews 12 is only one type example.

If the NT quotes an OT verse and states "fulfilled", then that definitely means it is fulfilled.

Well that, clearly.

I would disagree that there is still "much" prophecy not yet fulfilled.

That is where you and I strongly disagree then. There is still much OT prophecy not yet to come to pass, and lot of that even is for the future new heavens and a new earth. That topic is scattered all throughout the OT prophets, even verse sections that appear among historical events (Isaiah 61:1-3 is an example; Zechariah 9:9-10 is another). None of the Zechariah 14 chapter has happened yet. None of the last nine chapters of Ezekiel have happened yet. Even some prophecy given in Genesis 49 is still not yet happened. It would take weeks just to list a portion of what all is written in the OT that has yet to be fulfilled.

I believe the Bible is about Christ, thus I believe the majority of it fulfilled:

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean alignment with God's Word. The whole... Bible is about our Lord Jesus Christ, but that still does not prove it has all been fulfilled. Not everything written in God's Word is specifically about His death and resurrection.

 

[claninja]

Imagine that. Requesting Scripture is childish behavior.

Do you have Scripture for that?

I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.

I don't know where you heard that, but just because the New Testament mentions a prophecy quoting from the Old Testament, that does NOT automatically mean it has been fulfilled. You should read this statement more carefully.

This Apostle Paul quoted from the OT prophet Haggai, and it has not yet come to pass today...

Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.'

27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV

Again, your arguing against a point I didn't make.

I simply stated "using the NT to interpret the OT is letting God's word interpret God's word".

You stated "not always". Which doesn't make any sense because all of the NT is found in the OT.

So I stated "Yes, it always is" in regards to using the NT to interpret the OT.

Additionally, I never stated that just because an OT verse is mentioned in the NT means it is fulfilled.

I stated "If the NT quotes an OT verse and states "fulfilled", then that definitely means it is fulfilled. "


Look at the verse you provided. It talks about a shaking of heaven and earth so that what cannot be shaken remains. The author of Hebrews is talking concerning when the saints will inherit the kingdom, thus he states "wherefore we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved".

You don't believe the saints have yet possessed/inherited the kingdom yet?

 

[claninja]

I'm not denying the NT includes witnesses of things from the OT that are fulfilled.

I don't think you are either, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a Christian.

I'm simply saying NOT ALL OT SCRIPTURE QUOTED in the NT has been fulfilled. The Haggai 2/Hebrews 12 is only one type example.

So per your example, you don't believe the saints have yet received/possessed/inherited the kingdom yet?

Well that, clearly.

I'm glad we agree.

None of the Zechariah 14 chapter has happened yet.

I would disagree. We can even find fulfillment of part of zechariah 14 in the NT. What other OT scripture is John talking about if it is not zechariah 14?

John 7:38-39 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’” He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

zechariah 14:8 In that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sead and half of them to the western sea.e It shall continue in summer as in winter.

None of the last nine chapters of Ezekiel have happened yet.

Again I would disagree. Paul quotes from Ezekiel 37 as being fulfilled with US being the temple of God. Ezekiel 37 and 43 are clearly talking about the same temple as God dwells there forever with His people.

2 corinthians 6:16 What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell with them and walk among them,
and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”d

Ezekiel 37:26-27 nd I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling placed will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be My people

Ezekiel 43:6-7 While the man was standing beside me, I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple,and He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place for the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the Israelites forever

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean alignment with God's Word. The whole... Bible is about our Lord Jesus Christ, but that still does not prove it has all been fulfilled. Not everything written in God's Word is specifically about His death and resurrection.

Believing that the Bible is about Christ, and that all the promises of God are yes in Him, and that the majority of scripture was fulfilled in Him odes not align with God's word?

Nothing besides scripture can prove all or even any scripture fulfilled. If anyone claims, outside of the Bible, that something is fulfilled, how can we know it to be true?

What if someone claimed the events of 9/11 fulfilled the beasts 42 month reign? How do I know this interpretation of theirs is correct?

 

[jgr]

I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.

Yeah.

Back when truth prevailed, they would have been known as a cult.

Thankfully, truth will once again prevail.

 

[keras]

I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.

What will be really interesting, is how those who dismiss all the warnings and ignore all the plainly stated prophesies that tell us what God has planned for our future, will react when it all happens.
We are told that many will fall away, when they find to their surprise, that they do have to face some dramatic end time events.

Evidence? Just read the Prophetic Word. NONE of it will go unfulfilled, even the allegories have literal meanings.
If anyone believes otherwise, they are Bible rejecters.

 

[Davy]

Yes, it always is. Now, does the NT mention every single OT verse? No, but the NT does show us how OT passages are to be interpreted, whether literally or symbolically

The subject of the NT showing us portions of the OT being fulfilled is one thing, but the fact that not all NT quotes from the OT means they are fulfilled is another thing. Don't confuse the two. I showed the Hebrews 12 and Haggai 2 as an example of the latter. If you're not going to recognize that example but just keep hammering an idea I've already agreed to, then I see no reason to continue our conversation.

 

[Davy]

I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.

Now you are bearing false witness, because I provided you an example with Hebrews 12 and Haggai 2, which is about a quote from the OT in the NT of an event that is STILL YET TO HAPPEN!

Thus I gave you an example of how the NT when quoting the OT DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN WHAT IS QUOTED HAS ALWAYS BEEN FULFILLED.

And here is another proof...

2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
KJV

That is Apostle Peter quoting from the OT prophets about the ending of this present world on the "day of the Lord". It is still yet to happen.

 

[Davy]

I don't think you are either, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a Christian.


So per your example, you don't believe the saints have yet received/possessed/inherited the kingdom yet?

I'm sorry, but am I speaking to an adult here? How old are you? When speaking of the events prophesied in Hebrews 12 compared to Haggai 2 where it was quoted from, how does that revolve into the subject of whether the saints have received or inherited the kingdom yet?

That subject at the end of Hebrews 12, do you not understand what it is about? If you do, can you explain it?

 

[claninja]

Now you are bearing false witness,

The context of this was you not providing scripture to support your argument when JGR asked for it. So if I am "bearing false witness" please show the post where you provided scripture to support your argument against JGR. All I seem to find is you saying "Sorry, child play time is over." in post 104.

And here is another proof...

2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
KJV

That is Apostle Peter quoting from the OT prophets about the ending of this present world on the "day of the Lord". It is still yet to happen.

The greek word in this passage for elements is not in regards to the literal periodic table of elements but of:

4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudiments with which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer).

Thus the removal of the elements should be understood along the the removal of the old covenant principles, which would be consistent with Hebrews 12:27-29.

Do you believe the old covenant is still in affect? Or do you believe its rudiments have been destroyed?

I'm sorry, but am I speaking to an adult here? How old are you?

It's always telling when one must resort to personal and derogatory remarks. Let's avoid these.

When speaking of the events prophesied in Hebrews 12 compared to Haggai 2 where it was quoted from, how does that revolve into the subject of whether the saints have received or inherited the kingdom yet?

The author of Hebrews is contrasting the new and old covenants. Notice the contrast of the mountain that could not be touched with "But you have come to mount zion".

Hebrew 12:18-24 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

The author of hebrews states that the earth was shaken by the voice of God when the old covenant was given. The author goes on to quote Haggai in regards to the earth and heavens being shaken, so that what cannot be shaken remains = the kingdom the saints were to receive.

Hebrews 12:25-29 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.

I agree with the Benson commentary on these verses that what is shaken was the destruction of Jerusalem and the removing of the old obsolete covenant in 66-70ad, so that only the gospel of the kingdom would remain.

"Hebrews 12:26-27. Whose voice — Namely, Christ’s, who appeared to Moses at the bush, gave the law, and conducted Israel through the wilderness; see on Exodus 3:2; Isaiah 63:9; 1 Corinthians 10:9; then shook the earth — When, at the giving of the law, he spoke from Sinai, and the whole mount quaked greatly, Exodus 19:18; but now — In the gospel times; he hath promised — Or declared, saying, (Haggai 2:6,) Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven — Meaning, probably, the abolition of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple"

This is in agreement with the words of Jesus, where He states the kingdom is given to the saints when it was removed from 1st century Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits


So when do you believe the saints receive the kingdom?

 

[Davy]

The context of this was you not providing scripture to support your argument when JGR asked for it. So if I am "bearing false witness" please show the post where you provided scripture to support your argument against JGR. All I seem to find is you saying "Sorry, child play time is over." in post 104.

You're the one who made the suggestion (a false one) that when OT prophecy is quoted in the NT, then that means it is fulfilled. That is NOT true. And I proved it with Scripture examples. Now you're trying to back out of your argument.

The greek word in this passage for elements is not in regards to the literal periodic table of elements but of:

4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudiments with which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer).

Thus the removal of the elements should be understood along the the removal of the old covenant principles, which would be consistent with Hebrews 12:27-29.

The subject Peter is covering there in 2 Peter 3 is about the destructions that God has done over this earth's history. And that 2 Peter 3:10 verse is within a section of verses that is about the future... literal... destruction of this present world age by fire.

2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV

And guess what? Even in verse 13 there Peter is STILL... talking about a destruction by fire to come upon this earth. So your pulling out the word 'elements' to play around with that certainly does not work, but only shows you're not really serious about staying with the context of that chapter. And by the way, the Greek word for elements is put for the idea of rudiments of the world, like a world order. Yet Peter also proclaimed clearly about man's works being burned off the earth there, so you cannot escape the meaning nor the context of the subject there.

Do you believe the old covenant is still in affect? Or do you believe its rudiments have been destroyed?

Sorry, but Peter wasn't talking about what Jesus nailed to His cross per Col.2. Peter was talking about the LAST DAY of this present world when Jesus comes on the "day of the Lord".

Do you not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is literally going to return to this earth how He ascended to Heaven? Do you not know what timing God's Word shows that will happen? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth even ascended to Heaven?

It's always telling when one must resort to personal and derogatory remarks. Let's avoid these.

Uh, you first. Yet me declaring something isn't Biblical nor written, or is a doctrine or tradition of men, is NOT a derogatory remark.

The author of Hebrews is contrasting the new and old covenants. Notice the contrast of the mountain that could not be touched with "But you have come to mount zion".

Much of the Book of Hebrews is indeed contrasting the old covenant vs. the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. No mystery there. But the latter part of Hebrews 12 is not about that. It instead is the subject of His Salvation with that phrase you quote there pointing to having come to it already, i.e., spiritually only though through Faith on Christ Jesus The New Covenant. And the subject then turns to a warning, "See that you refuse not Him That speaketh...".

Then you back up to talk about the Hebrews 12:18-24 verses, which again, is still about the contrast between the old and New Covenant. At verse 25 to 29 the subject CHANGED to a quote from OT Haggai about the DESTRUCTION God is going to bring upon this earth on the last day of this present world. HUGE DIFFERENCE IN SUBJECT.

I agree with the Benson commentary on these verses that what is shaken was the destruction of Jerusalem and the removing of the old obsolete covenant in 66-70ad, so that only the gospel of the kingdom would remain.

"Hebrews 12:26-27. Whose voice — Namely, Christ’s, who appeared to Moses at the bush, gave the law, and conducted Israel through the wilderness; see on Exodus 3:2; Isaiah 63:9; 1 Corinthians 10:9; then shook the earth — When, at the giving of the law, he spoke from Sinai, and the whole mount quaked greatly, Exodus 19:18; but now — In the gospel times; he hath promised — Or declared, saying, (Haggai 2:6,) Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven — Meaning, probably, the abolition of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple"

I do NOT... agree with the Benson Commentary. You can go find a Bible commentary for just about any kind of doctrine you want to believe today. The matter is, whether or not it agrees with God's Word as written, or not.

Heb 12:26-27
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
KJV

The subject there is the END of this present world, with the destruction upon this earth like 2 Peter 3 showed, by God's consuming fire. And there is a MULTITUDE of Bible Scripture parallels to confirm that is the subject there (Isaiah 2:18-19; Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16-17; Matthew 24:35; Isaiah 66:22; even Hebrews 1:10-12!).

 

[claninja]

You're the one who made the suggestion (a false one) that when OT prophecy is quoted in the NT, then that means it is fulfilled. That is NOT true. And I proved it with Scripture examples. Now you're trying to back out of your argument.

What does this have to do with you not providing scripture when asked by JGR, and instead stating "Sorry, child play time is over" in post 104?

It appears you can't provide scripture to support your argument against JGR as requested, Otherwise you would have.

The subject Peter is covering there in 2 Peter 3 is about the destructions that God has done over this earth's history. And that 2 Peter 3:10 verse is within a section of verses that is about the future... literal... destruction of this present world age by fire.

2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV

And guess what? Even in verse 13 there Peter is STILL... talking about a destruction by fire to come upon this earth. So your pulling out the word 'elements' to play around with that certainly does not work, but only shows you're not really serious about staying with the context of that chapter. And by the way, the Greek word for elements is put for the idea of rudiments of the world, like a world order. Yet Peter also proclaimed clearly about man's works being burned off the earth there, so you cannot escape the meaning nor the context of the subject there.

Notice Peter compares 2 sets of heaven and earth. The 1st one existed long ago, prior to the flood and was destroyed by the flood. the 2nd set of heaven and earth was on the that Peter was existing in when this 2 Peter was written.

2 Peter 3:5-7 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Do you believe God created a 2nd literal earth after the flood in order to be consistent with your belief that God is going to create another 3rd earth after the "fire" judgment?

Sorry, but Peter wasn't talking about what Jesus nailed to His cross per Col.2. Peter was talking about the LAST DAY of this present world when Jesus comes on the "day of the Lord".

The author of hebrews makes it clear that the old covenant, while obsolete, and not yet vanished, existed in the 1st century long after the cross.

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.

Do you not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is literally going to return to this earth how He ascended to Heaven? Do you not know what timing God's Word shows that will happen? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth even ascended to Heaven?

As far as the 2nd coming and timing, I believe exactly as the scripture states:

Matthew 24:30-35 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

As far as the ascension, I believe exactly as the scriptures state:

Acts 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Uh, you first. Yet me declaring something isn't Biblical nor written, or is a doctrine or tradition of men, is NOT a derogatory remark.

Again deflecting to something I didn't even quote. In post 118, I quoted your statement of "I'm sorry, but am I speaking to an adult here? How old are you?", not you declaring something isn't Biblical.

It's very Ironic that you imply that I am a child, and then when I state let's avoid derogatory remarks like that, you state "you first". I had a good chuckle from that.

Much of the Book of Hebrews is indeed contrasting the old covenant vs. the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. No mystery there. But the latter part of Hebrews 12 is not about that. It instead is the subject of His Salvation with that phrase you quote there pointing to having come to it already, i.e., spiritually only though through Faith on Christ Jesus The New Covenant. And the subject then turns to a warning, "See that you refuse not Him That speaketh...".

Good, I am glad we are in agreement that it is about the old covenant being contrasted.

At verse 25 to 29 the subject CHANGED to a quote from OT Haggai about the DESTRUCTION God is going to bring upon this earth on the last day of this present world. HUGE DIFFERENCE IN SUBJECT.

Verse 25 and 26 are still in regards to Sinai and the old covenant.
Hebrews 12:25-26 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth

So once more God was going to shake the heavens and earth to remove the the things that have been made.
Hebrews 12:27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain

We should dive into "the things that have been made". What do you believe this is in regards to?

I do NOT... agree with the Benson Commentary. You can go find a Bible commentary for just about any kind of doctrine you want to believe today. The matter is, whether or not it agrees with God's Word as written, or not.

Heb 12:26-27
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
KJV

The subject there is the END of this present world, with the destruction upon this earth like 2 Peter 3 showed, by God's consuming fire. And there is a MULTITUDE of Bible Scripture parallels to confirm that is the subject there (Isaiah 2:18-19; Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16-17; Matthew 24:35; Isaiah 66:22; even Hebrews 1:10-12!).

You are free to disagree with the benson Commentary.

Additionally, this does not address the question I asked you. When do you believe the saints inherit the kingdom?