I think I'm as redeemed spiritually as I can be. I do not believe salvation come in stages. "Your either pregnant or you not."
There is a concept called "the already but not yet". More typology but I don't believe until the High Priest(Jesus) came out of the Holiest of Holies(Heaven) was the sacrifice complete. His "parousia" was the proof that God accepted the sacrifice. I still struggle with the transition period, its a little tricky, so allow me room to change.
This is what I was talking about. You say it was all complete in the Christian life, but the NT still speaks of some future completion. Then you're the one who begins speaking of a "transition period". As I said, were those Christians who read the NT completely redeemed? Or was there another
stage. You seem to be suggesting now something that amounts to them having redemtion, but it was made official later. Even if you apply the "deposit" I spoke of to this, that is still a sort of "stage".
You still have not shown how the destruction of the temple could be the parousia. You seem to be assuming it, and then fitting everything around it.
The NT does the same. Instructions on how to live in the New Covenant.
Still, so many of them are tied in with or seen in light of waiting for the return of Christ.
Are the OT prophecies of the birth of the messiah irrelevant?
That's historical. So I guess the OT has no other use for us than history. While we're at it, I guess the same with Revelation.
Yes, but the point is those were the only ones prophecied about. Peter and the writer of Hebrews said they lived in the "last days". These things were to happen in the "last days". Don't tell me you believe the "last days" is the church age.
Then what was it? Just a "transition period" to an invisible coming of Christ that didn't visibly change anything, but only made things official? Instead, the whole context we see was that these "last days" were to come before great visible changes, such as the destruction/judgment of the wicked. The Jews having their temple destroyed may be an example of that, and only loosely. It is a people as a
nation that were being judged. But it does not match what we see described in 2Pet and all the rest of those prophecies. "the wicked" and other descriptions of sinners in those passages speaks of individuals being judged and punished, not a nation, especially since "the wicked" are in all nations. Some may have been killed around AD70, but I still see no judgment of the earth occurring then.
Perhaps God did create it this way. What we lost in Adam we regain in Christ. In a spiritual sense paradise is restored. Man once again walks and talks with God.
So God created a world of sin, stuck Adam in it, and Adam couldn't see God, but prayed to Him, thus "walking with Him" as we do, and there was pain and suffering, but it didn't matter, because Adam had God. But then Adam fell, and fellowship was broken, and that's really all that changed.
Now Adam felt the pain and loneliness around him that He had been sheltered from before.
The Tree of Life is for the healing of Nations. Why would there be a need for healing in heaven?
I always took that as a first time thing. Just by being in the New Earth, the nations (meaning people of the earth) are "healed". The Church may be bringing spiritual healing to the people it brings Christ to, but still, I don't see how anyone could say the nations were "healed".
Figurative language describing the New Covenat. Lamentations in the Old Testament reveals why there was mourning and weeping. Those conditions no longer exist to New Covenant believers.
The Lamentations were because of Israel's punishments because of its sins. Of course, Christians
should not have that problem today, though individuals can disobey and be chastened as various passages tell us. Right there, that raises questions. As I said, we still do sin, and while we may not have condemnation, still this does not seem to be what all of the prophecies are ultimately describing.
Still, does the verse say that it refers only to the "pain" and "tears" of separation from God? Why would all of the other types of pain and suffering be ignored? Scripture interprets scripture, and when someone reads "no more tears", they are not going to think "spiritual pain from separation from God" ONLY, but rather ALL pain and suffering. Once again, it looks like you are only force fitting it to preterism.
A perfect example is the prophecy of the coming of Elijah in Malachi. Jesus says John the baptist is that Elijah, but futurist insist on a physical Elijah therefore they must push a still futuristic fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy. Despite the fact that Jesus said it's John. This is where your dualism/double fulfillment comes in.
Look at Matt.17:11 Christ still says "Elijah truly IS COMING first and WILL restore all things". John's ministry was only until Christ came. And since it is Christ speaking this to us already, John's ministry was already past. Then also, as John was telling people of the coming Christ who would soon take over, he denied being Elijah (John 1:21). So Christ continued, that John was "Elijah". but "they did not know him and did to him whatever they wished". The prohpecy of Elijah was that he would "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children" (i.e. bring repentance). So what Jesus was showing us was that John was a
type, and there was yet a future Elijah coming who would completely fulfil the propecy.
This is what forces a dualistic typology, not us forcing it in. People did not just make it up off the top of their heads. Your view is much like that of those Jews who only understood a single coming of the Messiah. Therefore, there would only be one Elijah, etc. But if that was true, then why did they reject the "Elijah" that was sent to them? Why did they reject the Messiah?There must be another coming.
Then perhaps Jesus is a mere type of a still greater Messiah.
No, but his first coming was the type of a greater second coming.
To try to make everything literal in Revelation is to go against how it God intended it to be interpreted. Is the whore of Revelation a physcical woman?
Tell me, how would you describe spiritual truths to a physical people? They only way is to use physical terms. Does God literally do a circumscision of the heart or is that a description using physical terms to describe a spiritual event?
Isn't apocalyptic literature inherently symbolic? Do you believe that Satan is literally a great red dragon and that he literally sweeps a third of the the physical stars onto the physical earth? Plus, do you believe that Jesus is literally a lamb?
Once again, scripture interprets scripture. Often, the passage tells us it is figurative. You can also look up the symbolism in OT prophecies, or even historical Jewish meanings, and common sense. This is done with the harlot, the beasts, etc. (How could those things be literal from the way they are described?). As for Satan's description, maybe that is what he looks like. Where did we ever get the picture of a two horned manlike guy with a goatee and pitchfork from? The text tells us that the heads and horns of the beasts are "kings", for instance, but this first 7-headed/10-horned creature we see is said only to be Satan, so there is a chance that that may be literal (and the other beasts then which are clearly said to be symbolic are simply patterned after him.
But you're going way beyond all of this and making everything it says figurative only, even if it is something that is not interpeted that way anywhere else, and a common sense reading of it would suggest something literal.
