[jude24]

You say that you have scriptural reasons for heading toward amillennialism. That's good. Others have scriptural reasons for staying with premillennialism.... To recognize the good scriptural motives of the other is important with eschatology. One wise man I read recently summed it up as we are best when we recognize that all schools of eschatology are dealing with "probabilities."

That's certainly true, if a little post-modern. Our understandings of the Scriptures are tinged with our preconceptions and biases.

The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic. There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism

Except Heb. 9 is crystal clear that there are no more sin offerings. To interpret Ezek. 40-48 as literally as you and Dan do, you must assume that there are still some sin offerings. There is no conceivable middle ground.

[xzins]

Not so. There never was an offering that covered sin....except one. They ALWAYS were symbolic. ALWAYS. (And that according to Hebrews...Heb 10:4 - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

[BibChr]

So, on top of everything else, you have two ways of salvation. (I.e. you evidently believe, contra the writer to the Hebrews, that animal sacrifices actually did take away sin.)

What a dodge.

Dan