Dream on doc. Lurkers notice you saying that the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth doesn't exist.
Star and grace have real arguments because they follow the actual words of the text.
The bottom line is the same as it has been for some time: Do you interpret John 5 in light of the further revelation of Revelation 20, or do you interpret Revelation 20 in the light of John 5.
I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written. Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.
Right. But it's impossible to interpret John 5:25-29 in the light of Revelation 20--at least, it's impossible when a premill is the one who is doing it. The problem is, premillennialism does not constitute an interpretation of John 5:25-29 but an outright contradiction of that text.
To say that premillennialism is an honest interpretation of John 5:25-29 is a lie.
(You might be inclined to say. "Well, that's just your position." But my position is correct, xzins. You need to repent of your silly position. You need to re-read John 5:25-29 with an honest spirit which you don't even have.)
I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written.
This is smarmy nonsense dressed up to sound reasonable. I am not fooled by your phony hermeneutics. You are just presupposing that Revelation "further explains" John 5:25-29 and does so in the specific way of a literalistic/materialistic reading.
But that literalistic/lmaterialistic approach to the text is precisely what you can't defend. It's just a presupposition. And you are foolishly proud of your literalism. Pardon me, but that makes you a kind of Christian Pharisee, IMHO.
And as I said earlier, your whole interpretive theory is revealed to be bankrupt in that it is impossible for you to harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 flatly, even emphatically contradicts your premillennial understanding of the millennium. (So does 2 Peter 3.)
Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.
This is another example of the demonic fraud of premillennialism. Your claim is hermeneutically ridiculous. You have no right whatsoever to argue that a later text surely interprets an earlier text. This is NOT a principle of sound hermeneutics. It is an utterly foolish misrepresentation of the doctrine of progressive revelation.
***
In short, you have made two monumental hermeneutical blunders:
1) You have presupposed that Revelation 20 is to be read in a strictly literalistic/materialistic way. You can't even begin to prove that this approach is correct. (And the fact that the Lord delighted to use metaphor as a way of sealing His enemies in their confusion is a warning that you must abandon you literalistic/materialistic presupposition. Ah, but every time we warn you with this Truth, you get more stubborn. [Well, guess what? That's perfectly okay with me.])
2) You have presupposed that hermeneutics is a relatively simple matter of figuring out which text was written first--then reading both texts literally, then ignoring the fact that this approach actually rapes the first text!
Notice that these two errors interlock to reinforce each other.
You don't see any problem, of course. It's because you have a carnal contempt for sound hermeneutics. Your denominational pride has incapacitated your discernment.
So, if you want me to regard you as a Christian, you are going to have to recant an awful lot of stuff.