I disagree. You might study on why Yeshua only fulfilled the spring Holy Days (and how they are fulfilled) for a grander view... And IF that is so, The Triumphal entry cannot have happened as Christians suppose. The Fall Holy Days have yet to find their fulfillment.
And unlike you, I believe the Old Covenant informs the New, not the other way around. For if the Prophets can be denied, then there is no proof of God... And if the Torah is not forever, then the law of God is quixotic, and subject to change.
What good is a promise by YHWH if His word can be broken?
Discard your Greek/Roman view. Understanding the Hebrew elements will be like an epiphany.
The new covenant temple is entirely spiritual. Jesus is seated in the midst of His true temple.
Here is a clue: The Old Covenant was entirely spiritual too. Do you not recall YHWH saying that the blood of beasts is a stench in His nostrils? What could it be that He wanted?
Interesting theory, but only a theory.
The fact remains that nowhere in the NT, not from the lips of Jesus nor from the apostolic writers, do we find the notion of a rebuilt temple with Jesus seated in a literal throne. That what the apostate Jews wanted, and why they rejected Jesus, because He had rejected their ideas of the kingdom.
Now we have whole groups of Christians today accepting the same faulty view of the kingdom that Jesus rejected.
I believe the Old Covenant informs the New, not the other way around.
Informs, but does not override. E.g., the sacrificial system with the priesthood and temple was a pointer forward to Christ. It was intended to pass away when that to which it pointed, Jesus Christ, came on the scene. The law was out tutor to point us to Christ. The law and prophets testified of Christ.
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete . Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8)
Obsolete. Yet some sad Christians see it as being reconstituted in the future, complete with animal sacrifice for sin. This is blasphemy.
The NT clearly interprets the Old. That's the way the writers took it anyway.