Ah, but if the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices, then those who make them have no expectation of their efficacy, and since they don't expect the sacrifices to expiate sin, they do not violate the warning of Hebrews 10:26. Or else those who take communion are also in violation of that verse, since they too, memorialize the death of Jesus on the cross.Hebrews 10:26 says, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
But then, where does Ezekiel say that the earthly temple will be on the New Earth? If this Temple is on the old earth during this age, then why would the Amil doctrine have a problem with it?The new earth will be incorrupt, it will be glorified. That is why mortals cannot inhabit it.
Perhaps, but remember all this takes place after God has put all of Jesus' enemies under his feet as a footstool. Even those who affirm the premil doctrine, place that time after the defeat of Satan, death and Hades.This couldn't be clearer. The kingdom that is going to be inherited at Christ's return is an incorrupt one.
The error of the premil doctrine may not be in the fact that Jesus rules for a thousand years on earth, but that the righteous dead are resurrected during that time. After all, if all the righteous dead are resurrected at the inauguration of the Millennial period, it could be argued that death was defeated then, rather than later. Why assume that the "first resurrection" is the resurrection of all the righteous dead, especially when the text specifies a narrow subset of the righteous dead -- the martyrs of the Great Tribulation?
Why can't the rapture not only be post-trib but post-mill?