Re: Amillennialism and Dispensationalism are both Anti-Semitic in their core ideology
I used to be dispensational, pre-millennial and futurist, but not for years now. I do see your preferences coming through, the rookie, although thanks for trying to be neutral.
I do think it is misleading to say this:
of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants in a way that was not intended by the ratification of the New Covenant.
Thus, while the concern for the individual is admirable and scriptural, the removal of God's corporate and covenantal plan represents a serious deficiency in the amillennial view.
While not being "emotionally" or purposefully anti-Semitic, the amillennial viewpoint removes from the Jewish people God's stated and pre-ordained (and irrevocable) future from them and is therefore "anti" God's heart and plan for the Jewish people in the future.
Actually, I think we can all agree that the Old Testament can really be defined by the New Testament. (Or do we? To me, that is SO logical there is no argument about it. But I am aware that many try to define the New by the Old.)
We don't redefine anything. We just simply allow the NEW TESTAMENT to define the Old.
Back when I was a dispensational premillennialist, I regarded the Old Testament prophesies given to Israel under the old covenant as having a literal fulfillment in a coming/future millennium. But this view absolutely requires a return to the Old Covenant, including:
1. Jerusalem as capital city of the kingdom!
2. Jesus sitting on an actual 'throne' in the city of Jerusalem!
3. The temple rebuilt!
4. A reestablished priesthood!
5. Animal sacrifices again offered!
6. Christ entering the temple each Sabbath by the eastern gate while the priests offer sacrifices! (Ezekial 46)
7. Observing dietary laws!
But, I've learned that the Old Testament sacrifices, feasts, and ceremonies are ALL done away with and now obsolete because of coming of Christ and his total sacrifice.
Hebrews 8:13 screams plainly that the old covenant was obsolete and passing away! Therefore the dispensational view of Ez 40-48 as a reinstitution of temple sacrifice is impossible!
And here is why:
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
No need for another EXAMPLE. WE HAVE THAT, in the Old Covenant in the Old Testament. (I'm putting it that way to make it easy to understand.)
WHY would NOT the promised land, Jerusalem, the temple, and the nation of Israel point the way as an example, pointing toward the NEW covenant... just as all the other things did under the Old Covenant??
The fact is, all of the Old Testament sacrifices, feasts, and ceremonies were ALL pointing to the New Testament, to the NEW covenant. Once the NEW came to pass in its fullness, the OLD (which was a shadow, type and example of the new to come)...passed away. No more, no more ever again, will these OLD covenant sacrifices, feasts, and ceremonies be acceptable to God! Why would they, when Jesus did all that was ever to be needed or worthy of acceptance?
My favorite scripture: Malachi 3:16
"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name!" (Every time we speak of the Lord, or even THINK of him--its written down in a book of remembrance!)