I know what your point is. And I believe your time frame is wrong for all the reasons stated previously. Even the OC itself did not become obsolete in 70 A.D., so how could it have ended in 70 A.D.? In Heb 8 you conflate obsolescence with disappearing, which is poor exegesis. You ignore both the verb tenses. What became obsolete at the Cross (the OC) the most preeminent symbol thereof (the temple) will surely disappear. (There was nothing more sacred and relelvant to the Mosaic Law than the temple. They were inextricably entwined!) The obsolescence took place in the writer's past, while he spoke of the disappearing as yet future.
The Cross work of Christ does not actually bring prophecies to their fulfillment. The Cross work was a necessary means to their end (fulfillment).
And if you insist that 70 A.D. brought an end to the "last days", then you must logically believe Isa 2:1-5 has already been fulfilled. It had to have been fulfilled some time prior to 70 A.D., which is very doubtful.
And since I hold to classical preterism, I do agree with your take on 70 A.D. Most of Revelation has been fulfilled. But that doesn't prove your premise on when the last days came to their end, since your timeframe is wrong.
Best we agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me or vice versa.
The Cross work of Christ does not actually bring prophecies to their fulfillment. The Cross work was a necessary means to their end (fulfillment).
And if you insist that 70 A.D. brought an end to the "last days", then you must logically believe Isa 2:1-5 has already been fulfilled. It had to have been fulfilled some time prior to 70 A.D., which is very doubtful.
And since I hold to classical preterism, I do agree with your take on 70 A.D. Most of Revelation has been fulfilled. But that doesn't prove your premise on when the last days came to their end, since your timeframe is wrong.
Best we agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me or vice versa.
Under the terms of the old covenant what could bring the covenant to an end?