The END of Sacrifices?

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The command required that every Israelite male be present at Jerusalem 3 times in the year. 

If you have interpreted the Law of Moses correctly here, then Jesus apparently broke the Law and became a sinner when his parents took him to Egypt for an extended period to avoid Herod.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Ron,  if another Temple IS built on the Mount before Jesus returns (and before the Evil One sits there), do you really believe the Jews of the present state of Israel will ALLOW Christians to enter there.  Israel currently screens printed material entering the country, and forbids anything that supports Christ as Messiah from entering.  They actively suppress Hebrew Roots and Messianic literature and videos.  They block internet that teaches Christianity.   They are AGAINST Christ.  In other words - they are antichrist.  (Just one of many powers and persons who have resisted and fought against Christ.

You speak of the Jews as if they were all the same, which they are not.  Yes, there are some Jews who presently do some of the things you assert.  There were some Jews in the days of Paul who were also against Messiah, yet Paul indicated that one should still respect the high priest, "Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ” (Acts 23:4-5) 

It was for unbelieving Jews like you describe that Paul had great anguish of heart and said he would even be willing to be cut off from Messiah for the sake of such Jews. (Romans 9:1-2)  Does the gospel you teach give you that same desire to save such Jews as the true Gospel gave to Paul?

Today there are also Jews in Israel that create and distribute videos and publications that tell the truth about Yeshua the Messiah.  On the other hand, there are Christian videos and materials that should be blocked because they present Jesus as if he was a lawless, profane Christian just like some Christians today.  That message is definitely "against Christ" and is part of the deception that has turned many present-day Jews against Messiah.

According to your criteria for identifying antichrist, there are Christians who would easily qualify as being "against Christ", because Jesus obeyed the Law of Moses and taught his followers to follow his example, yet these Christians teach us that we should not live as Jesus lived.  Therefore they are teaching "against Christ".   

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I just don't believe the whole "animal sacrifice" thing will be an issue for Christians, this side of the SC.  And after the SC, Jesus can tell us whether HE wants the sacrifices continued.  You believe HE will.  I believe HE won't.

Our discussions will be more profitable if you stick to saying what you believe and let me say what I believe. 

God certainly has the authority to put an end to animal sacrifices.  I don't find any clear evidence that he has already done so.  If God chooses to do so at any time, I would be content with that.  I just don't want to misrepresent God by saying things about his Law that are not actually true.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Though I believe - if a person plans a trip to the New Temple, this side of the SC, he/she might just be required to bow before the Son of Perdition.  I will skip that trip - thank you.

I would encourage you to reserve judgment about a future Temple in Jerusalem, and to study (without all the man-made traditions and without speculation) what God's Word actually says about the Temple in Jerusalem so that you may accurately discern whether a trip to a future Temple would be a good thing or not.

I have heard Christians declare that any future Temple in Jerusalem will definitely be a work of Satan.  That is certainly a possibility, but the Scriptures do not actually teach that.  I have heard Christians declare that offering any animal sacrifice would be a slap in the face to Messiah and YHWH.  The scriptures do not teach that either.  Such people have already set themselves up to resist the work of God, if he chooses to have a third Temple built in Jerusalem in order to fulfill what is written in the Prophets. 

The Scriptures do teach us to be careful that we are not deceived.  Teaching things about the Temple that are not taught in Scripture seems like a very effective way to be self-deceived.

[phkrause]

I agree Ron, I don't see anywhere in scripture that there will be a 3rd temple built. And according to Revelation 21:22- I saw no Temple in the city, for ADONAI, God of heaven's armies, is its Temple, as is the Lamb. So from that I take it that there will be no need for sacrificies in the new earth!

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

You believe absolutely nothing commanded in the Torah has been changed.  I believe the priesthood has been changed to Melchizedek, under Christ our High Priest.  I believe that "change" ended the system of animal sacrifice.  You don't.  We can continue to repeat this over and over and over, but I don't see that will get us anywhere. 

Thank you for debating.  I'm out. 

[Ron Amnsn]

17 hours ago, phkrause said:

I don't see anywhere in scripture that there will be a 3rd temple built.

If you had lived at the time when Saul was King of Israel, would you have found anywhere in Scripture where it said that a first Temple would be built?   (The first Temple was built by Solomon using the materials collected by David.)

There are prophecies in the Old Testament that involve a Temple -- prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.  Although there is a man-made theory that such prophecies will never be fulfilled, the Scriptures do not actually teach that.  In fact there are rather clear statements saying that God will fulfill what he has spoken.  Less than a week before he died Jesus quoted from one of those Old Testament prophecies about the Temple, Isaiah 56:6-8. 
       6      “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
      to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD,
      and to be his servants,
                  everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it,
      and holds fast my covenant—
      7       these I will bring to my holy mountain,
      and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
                  their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
      will be accepted on my altar;
                  for my house shall be called a house of prayer
      for all peoples.”
      8       The Lord GOD,
      who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,
                  “I will gather yet others to him
      besides those already gathered.”

The time when Jesus quoted from this prophecy is recorded in Matt 21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46.

[Ron Amnsn]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

You believe absolutely nothing commanded in the Torah has been changed.

That's one way of stating it.  Another way would be to say I believe that all of God's Word is valid until God explicitly changes it, and I also believe in every change that God has explicitly and clearly made to the Law of Moses, when those changes have been made in the same scope and with the same authority that the original commands were given.  So far I have found in Scripture no such changes that have been made.

Scripture does contain an example how God changes his commands regarding sacrifices when he actually wants them to be stopped.  That example is when God wanted Abraham to stop sacrificing Isaac.  God told Abraham to stop the sacrifice with the same clarity with which he had commanded Abraham to begin the sacrifice.  God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then tell someone else that Abraham should stop sacrificing Isaac.  God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then just put a ram in a thicket as a hint that Abraham should interpret as a sign that he should stop sacrificing Isaac.  From this example we know that God is able to clearly and explicitly stop sacrifices in the same scope and with the same authority with which the command to start the sacrifice was given.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

Jerm 18:9     And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];   18:10       If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

This verse is true, but it does not say that it results in permanent rejection of a nation  The verses just before the ones you quoted are very relevant and should be quoted as well:  "If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it."  (Jeremiah 19:7-8)

Right after the promise of the New Covenant is given in Jeremiah 33, God says,
      35       Thus says the LORD,
                  who gives the sun for light by day
      and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
                  who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
      the LORD of hosts is his name:
      36       “If this fixed order departs
      from before me, declares the LORD,
                  then shall the offspring of Israel cease
      from being a nation before me forever.”

      37       Thus says the LORD:
                  “If the heavens above can be measured,
      and the foundations of the earth below can be explored,
                  then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel
      for all that they have done,
                declares the LORD.”  (Jeremiah 30:35-37)

Because the explicit conditions of this prophecy have not been met, it is clear that God has not cast off the nation of Israel.

Two chapters later, God says:

19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”

23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.”

The explicit condition of these promises requires that the covenant with day and night must be broken before God will reject Israel.  The covenant with day and night was part of the covenant that God made with Noah and the animals after the flood. That covenant says,
" While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."  (Genesis 8:22)

God keeps his promises and covenants, in spite of what the naysayers may claim.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

For those who recognize the inspiration of the SOP , I add the following:

When Caiaphas rent his garment, his act was significant of the place that the Jewish nation as a nation would thereafter occupy toward God. The once favored people of God were separating themselves from Him, and were fast becoming a people disowned by Jehovah. When Christ upon the cross cried out, "It is finished" (John 19:30), and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the Holy Watcher declared that the Jewish people had rejected Him who was the antitype of all their types, the substance of all their shadows. Israel was divorced from God. Well might Caiaphas then rend his official robes, which signified that he claimed to be a representative of the great High Priest; for no longer had they any meaning for him or for the people. Well might the high priest rend his robes in horror for himself and for the nation. {DA709.4}

     Christ was standing at the point of transition between two economies and their two great festivals. He, the spotless Lamb of God, was about to present Himself as a sin offering, that He would thus bring to an end the system of types and ceremonies that for four thousand years had pointed to His death. As He ate the Passover with His disciples, He instituted in its place the service that was to be the memorial of His great sacrifice. The national festival of the Jews was to pass away forever. The service which Christ established was to be observed by His followers in all lands and through all ages.  {DA 652.2} 

Those who truly value the SOP know that finding an EGW quotation is easy compared to using those quotations responsibly. 

The responsible student of EGW also needs to test each paragraph to make sure that it does not contradict Scripture, as is required by Fundamental Belief of SDA's #18 which says in part, "Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."

EGW was aware that much of the material that was published under her name did not come by direct revelation.  Some of it she learned from non-SDA sermons while she was growing up.  Some came from magazine articles published by non-SDA authors.

We are told by those who knew EGW that she never allowed people to use her visions or writings to settle theological disputes.  She always sent people back to study the Bible.  It is an abuse of her gift and her writings to try to establish doctrine from the SOP instead of the Bible.  It's a lazy and irresponsible method of Bible study.

It is evident that few SDA's take EGW's writings seriously because virtually none of them know how to even begin testing her writings by Scripture as required by one of the SDA's fundamental beliefs.  Those who quote EGW the most are often the worst offenders. 

I was guilty of abusing EGW's writings in these ways when I was an SDA and an avid fan of EGW.

Somebody who knows how to test EGW's writings using the Bible, please start a new topic and show us how to test the two quotations that Jackson posted, then let us know where to find the new topic.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

So far I have found in Scripture no such changes that have been made.

That's not quite true.  King David changed the responsibilities of some of the Levites who no longer needed to carry the Tabernacle and its furnishings.  Instead he assigned them to be musicians and singers.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:17 PM, jackson said:

But the Jewish nation never did turn from their evil and their house was left to them desolate.

The Bible has a lot more to say about the future of the Jewish nation than that one statement Jesus made.  You can read the prophecies in the Word of God.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:17 PM, jackson said:

Probation for the Jews ended in 34 AD.. There favor as God's chosen ended and Jerusalem was subsequently destroyed. The Gospel went to the Gentiles and there was no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile. All who now exercised faith were to become the  seed of Abraham and the Israel of God.

God gave Israel 490 years of probation, extending from 457 BC to  the stoning of Stephen in 34 AD 34 .

Dan 9:24       Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city

The Bible itself doesn't say anything about probation for the Jews ending in 34 AD.  That is only a man-made interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy 'sevens' of Daniel 9.  That man-made interpretation can't be correct because it disagrees with God's promises given though Jeremiah, disagrees with other passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and disagrees with the historical records.

The most glaring problem with your interpretation is that it would make Daniel a false prophet.  If Daniel had actually foretold that sacrifices would cease in the midst of the final seven years, and those final seven years ended in 34 AD, then Daniel would fail the test of a true prophet given in Deuteronomy 18:22, because the sacrifices didn't actually cease before 34 AD.  History tells us that the sacrifices continued on until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and the Bible tells us that the followers of Jesus continued to go to the Temple to make sacrifices at least until Paul's final visit to Jerusalem in Acts 21, which was well after 34 AD.

Another problem with that interpretation is that those who teach it usually require that the Jews accomplish (as the terms of their probationary period) the things that Daniel says Messiah would accomplish for the Jews -- "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness."  Messiah actually is accomplishing those things as king of the Jews, so the Jews didn't fail the supposed "probationary period".   Those who teach your interpretation of Daniel 9 also claim that Messiah will do the thing that Daniel says will be done by the army of an evil person who destroys the city -- "he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering" (Daniel 9:27)  Daniel makes clear two chapters later what kind of person does that --  "Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate." (Daniel 11:31)  History tells us that it was the army of Titus, not Messiah, that destroyed the city and put an end to the sacrifices in AD 70.

In Jeremiah 33:23-26 God clearly refutes people who falsely claim that God has rejected the Israelites or Jews.

In Jeremiah 31:31-34 God declares that he will make the New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  The book of Hebrews, which was written well after AD 34 confirms that the New Covenant will still be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (Hebrews 8:8-12).

Paul wrote well after 34 AD and he clearly declared that the God had not rejected the Jews and that God's promises and covenants with the Jews were still valid at that time. (Romans 11:1, Romans 9:5)

If you go back and read the terms of God's original covenant with the nation of Israel, you will find that there is no provision in that covenant for the nation of Israel to get out of the covenant, even if it wanted to.  Paul tells us in Galatians 3:15 that additional stipulations cannot be added to a covenant after it has been ratified. Your man-made interpretation of Daniel 9 falsely claims that God has added new stipulations and deadlines to His covenant with the Israelites.  God's original covenant stipulates what will happen when Israel disobeys -- they will be disciplined repeatedly until the remnant of the Israelites comes to obedience.  You have pointed out some of the calamities that have happened to Israel as part of the discipline of God's covenant, and have mistakenly identified those as signs of rejection.

Jesus confirmed that not one stroke would pass from the section of Scripture known as "the Law" until heaven and earth pass away and everything is fulfilled. (Matt 5:17).  The Law is where God's covenant with the nation of Israel is recorded.  Heaven and earth have not passed away, and there are many prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.  So according to Jesus himself, God's covenant with the Israelites is still valid.  I choose to believe Jesus rather than to believe a misinterpretation of Daniel 9.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:17 PM, jackson said:

there was no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile

Paul was a bit more specific than what you say.

In chapters 9 to 11 of Romans Paul presents a discourse showing how God has not rejected the nation of Israel, and how the Gentile believers are grafted into the olive tree that represents the nation of Israel, as in Jeremiah 11:16. (The olive tree In Romans 11 can't represent Jesus or the church, because it is the same olive tree that the unbelieving Jewish branches originally grew on and were cut off from. They will be grafted back into their own olive tree.)

In the middle of that discourse Paul says, "For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  (Romans 10:11-13) 

Paul is talking about individuals, not nations.  And he's talking about individuals whose Lord is Jesus -- the Jesus who will inherit the throne of David (Luke1:32) and who will reign over the house of Jacob forever (Luke 1:33).

Paul is definitely not saying that the heathen Greek nation is no different than the Jewish nation. That is clear because at the beginning of the passage Paule quotes from Isaiah 28:16 where the foundation that everyone "believes in" is laid in Zion (rather than in some city in Greece).  And at the end of the passage Paul quotes from Joel 2:32, where those who are saved find refuge in Mount Zion in Jerusalem (rather than in the Acropolis in Athens).

Gentiles have always been welcome to join themselves to God's people, beginning with Abraham, whose foreign male servants received the sign of the covenant; and with the mixed multitude of Gentiles who left Egypt with the Israelites and who stood at Mt. Sinai and entered into the covenant with Israel.  And continuing with people like Ruth the Moabite and Uriah the Hittite. 

[8thdaypriest]

44 minutes ago, jackson said:

I respectfully submit that that one act of Jesus was a most unusual act and completely out of character with His forgiving nature. It only makes sense when seen in its deeper significance as parable depicting the fate of the Jewish nation.

Mark 11:12    And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:   11:13    And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet].   11:14    And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it].

i find this account in the Desire of Ages particularly poignant 

  Christ's act in cursing the fig tree had astonished the disciples. It seemed to them unlike His ways and works. Often they had heard Him declare that He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. They remembered His words, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56. His wonderful works had been done to restore, never to destroy. The disciples had known Him only as the Restorer, the Healer. This act stood alone. What was its purpose? they questioned.   
     God "delighteth in mercy." "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Micah 7:18; Ezekiel 33:11. To Him the work of destruction and the denunciation of judgment is a "strange work." Isaiah 28:21. But it is in mercy and love that He lifts the veil from the future, and reveals to men the results of a course of sin.                                                                                                                                                                                                 The cursing of the fig tree was an acted parable. That barren tree, flaunting its pretentious foliage in the very face of Christ, was a symbol of the Jewish nation. The Saviour desired to make plain to His disciples the cause and the certainty of Israel's doom. For this purpose He invested the tree with moral qualities, and made it the expositor of divine truth. The Jews stood forth distinct from all other nations, professing allegiance to God. They had been specially favored by Him, and they laid claim to righteousness above every other people. But they were corrupted by the love of the world and the greed of gain. They boasted of their knowledge, but they were ignorant of the requirements of God, and were full of hypocrisy. Like the barren tree, they spread their pretentious branches aloft, luxuriant in appearance, and beautiful to the eye, but they yielded "nothing but leaves." The Jewish religion, with its magnificent temple, its sacred altars, its mitered priests and impressive ceremonies, was indeed fair in outward appearance, but humility, love, and benevolence were lacking.  
     All the trees in the fig orchard were destitute of fruit; but the leafless trees raised no expectation, and caused no disappointment. By these trees the Gentiles were represented. They were as destitute as were the Jews of godliness; but they had not professed to serve God. They made no boastful pretensions to goodness. They were blind to the works and ways of God. With them the time of figs was not yet. They were still waiting for a day which would bring them light and hope. The Jews, who had received greater blessings from God, were held accountable for their abuse of these gifts. The privileges of which they boasted only increased their guilt.  
     Jesus had come to the fig tree hungry, to find food. So He had come to Israel, hungering to find in them the fruits of righteousness. He had lavished on them His gifts, that they might bear fruit for the blessing of the world. Every opportunity and privilege had been granted them, and in return He sought their sympathy and co-operation in His work of grace. He longed to see in them self-sacrifice and compassion, zeal for God, and a deep yearning of soul for the salvation of their fellow men. Had they kept the law of God, they would have done the same unselfish work that Christ did. But love to God and man was eclipsed by pride and self-sufficiency. They brought ruin upon themselves by refusing to minister to others. The treasures of truth which God had committed to them, they did not give to the world. In the barren tree they might read both their sin and its punishment. Withered beneath the Saviour's curse, standing forth sere and blasted, dried up by the roots, the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them. Refusing to impart blessing, they would no longer receive it. "O Israel," the Lord says, "thou hast destroyed thyself." Hosea 13:9. (DA 582.2-583.2)

 

Jackson,

I personally would say that the pretentious fig tree represented the corrupt priesthood - NOT the entire nation.  

The priests, were to teach the Law, judge, settle disputes, and administer justice (Deut. 17:8-11, Deut. 21:5, Deut. 33:8).  By the time of Christ, they did had so distorted the Law as to "make it of none effect".  They were unjust judges, and did NOT administer justice. 

We do know that the Law was changed concerning "the priesthood" when Christ became High Priest in the "true tabernacle, which is Heaven itself". 

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, jackson said:

What the Jewish nation did after Christ's sacrifice has no bearing on when the sacrificial system ceased in God's eyes. That the temple curtain was ripped in two by unseen hands exposing the temple innards to all onlookers should be evidence enough that the earthly temple was now obsolete. That did occur in the middle of the 70th week . That the priests kept offering sacrifices up to the temple destruction has no bearing on when Jesus caused the earthly sacrificial system to cease. It ceased at his death.

The test that God gave us for determining whether a prophet is true or not (Deut. 18:22) does not involve what someone thinks happened "in God's eyes".  The prophet is to be tested by whether or not the event actually takes place -- and it has to happen where humans can verify that it happened -- otherwise the prophet was not speaking for God.  The test would be useless if the test could be successfully passed by the occurrence of some hidden event, such as something that happened "in God's eyes".  To defend a failed prophecy, any false prophet can make up a story about what happened "in God's eyes" or out of sight "in heaven" -- this kind of excuse-making occurs virtually every time a false prophecy fails.

In the case of your interpretation of Daniel's prophecy, the only "witness" that says the sacrifices ceased during the seven years ending at 34 AD is your interpretation of Daniel himself.  That doesn't pass the test of Deut. 18:22.  You haven't tested a prophet at all if you'll accept the prophets own writings as the evidence that fulfills the prophet's own prophecy.  I believe Daniel was a true prophet, so I believe his prophecies can pass the test of a true prophet (Deut 18:22) without any nonsense like forcing him to declare his own prophecy fulfilled.

If Daniel had prophesied that the Temple veil would be torn, we could verify that by the Bible and historical accounts.  We know that happened.  But that isn't what Daniel prophesied.  And there's nothing in the Bible that supports your assertion that the tearing of the veil means "that the earthly temple was now obsolete".  The Bible tells us only that the veil was torn (Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) and that the veil represents the flesh of Messiah (Hebrews 10:20).   All other teachings about the meaning of the torn veil are simply the imaginings and speculation of humans. There is no further explanation in Scripture.

The tearing of the temple veil is not the fulfillment of Daniels prophecy about sacrifices and offerings ceasing.  It seems self-evident that the fulfillment of a prophecy that says someone causes the sacrifices and offerings to cease would have to be when an event occurs that causes those sacrifices and offerings to actually cease.  If those sacrifices and offerings continue to occur, they haven't ceased.  History and the Bible both tell us that the sacrifices kept occurring after 34 AD.  And those spirit-filled followers of Jesus who went up to the temple to offer sacrifices, obviously didn't believe as you do about the temple being obsolete.

Those four decades between the tearing of the temple veil and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD were the most successful years of evangelism among religious Jews in Israel ever.  Before that, nobody understood completely what the sacrifices represented.  During those four decades the priests who believed in Jesus could explain the true significance of the sacrifices to the people as they were officiating at the sacrifices.

[JoeMo]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:17 PM, jackson said:

Probation for the Jews ended in 34 AD.. There favor as God's chosen ended and Jerusalem was subsequently destroyed.

This line of thinking (that followed by preterists and historicists) eventually lead to worldwide anti-Semitism.  The Jews are the most universally discriminated-against ethnic group in the history of the world.  They have been universally hated and persecuted for over 2,400 years.  If probation for the Jews ended in 34 AD, why does Paul defend them so staunchly in Romans 9 -11?  Why are they still the supreme object of satan's attacks if they are already "lost"?  The Jews are still God's chosen people; and one day, a Jew (Jesus) will rule the universe.

[Ron Amnsn]

13 hours ago, jackson said:

Will miserably destroy those wicked men and will let out his vineyard under other husbandmen

The parable of the vineyard occurs in a context that shows Jesus was not talking about the nation of Israel as the wicked husbandmen, but rather it was the wicked leaders of Israel that would be replaced.

Jesus started the parable quoting/paraphrasing from Isaiah:
      Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard.
      My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
      And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof,
      And planted it with the choicest vine,
      And built a tower in the midst of it,
      And also made a winepress therein:
      And he looked that it should bring forth grapes,
      And it brought forth wild grapes.  ( Isaiah 5:1-2 )

Five verses later in Isaiah 5 it says:
      For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel,
      And the men of Judah his pleasant plant  ( Isaiah 5:7 )

Very clearly, the context from the Old Testament shows that the nation of Israel is represented by the vineyard itself, rather than by the husbandmen.  The people were familiar with this Old Testament passage, so they knew what Jesus was talking about.  Unfortunately, Christians are often not familiar with the Scriptures that Jesus used, so they often misunderstand what Jesus taught.

The New Testament context also shows that it was not the nation of Israel that would be replaced.  The story of this parable is found in Matt 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19.  In all three accounts it tells us that the reaction of the leaders to this parable was different than the reaction of the common people.  The parable held only good news for the common people of Israel represented by the vineyard itself, but it was bad news for the leaders who were supposed to be caring for that vineyard.  All three accounts also tell us that the leaders knew that that the parable was about themselves. Let's look at those:
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.  (Matt 21:45-46)

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders ...  And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.   (Mark 11:27 and Mark 12:12)

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.  (Luke 20:19)

Your interpretation is not supported by Scripture.  Both the Old Testament and the New Testament disagree with you.  However, the man-made traditions of the Jew-hating church of the Roman empire agree with your interpretation.

[Ron Amnsn]

14 hours ago, jackson said:

Why would you think the incident with the fig tree is any different than the parable of the vineyard and the king's marriage invitation ?

If Jesus the Jewish Messiah told the parable of the king's wedding feast invitation in Matthew 22 to a crowd of Jews, is there any reason those Jews would think that the king was anything other than a Jewish king, and that the wedding feast was anything other than a Jewish wedding feast? 

When we think of the the king as a Jewish king and the wedding as a Jewish wedding, as the original hearers of the parable would have, there is no anti-Jewish message to the parable at all.  Very few of the original hearers would have imagined themselves as the invitees to a king's wedding banquet. 

The main message of the parable is a warning to the important and wealthy people who would have imagined themselves as invitees to such a wedding feast -- those who are caught up in their own self-importance and their own business ventures.

The common Jewish hearers of the parable would have imagined themselves as the replacement guests that were invited later after the rich people refused to come and were destroyed.

There is also a very strong warning to those represented by the replacement guest who didn't know how to dress or behave at a Jewish wedding.  He could very well represent an arrogant Gentile who thinks he's better than the Jews.