Replies

You think you know scripture, but you don't, because you do not avail yourself of history and the early fathers, who understood its cultural and historical context better than we do. If you did, you'd be Catholic.

But YOU DO rely on tradition -- the tradition of evangelical Protestantism, and you adhere to all of its dogmas without question. You buy into every single of it's suppositions. So much so it's actually very predictable how you will respond to any given question. I used to be like you, following the same man-made tradition you are following, and I also thought it was grounded purely in Scripture, but that frankly is false. I've been conversing with you long enough to make this fairly obvious. So please don't pretend you have a reading of the Bible that is without suppositions. No one buys it.

Basically you admit this when you call tradition "YOUR tradition" (meaning "MY tradition"). No, it's not MY tradition. Remember, I was an Evangelical. I left the Protestant tradition, and returned in full communion with the Church that Chirst established, because I came to reject the blind faith of Protestants to their own suppositions (based on very recent TRADITION) that not only are not grounded in early Christianity and a deep understanding of Jewish custom, but in many cases contains doctrines that are relatively recent aberrations that have ABSOLUTELY NO precendence in Christian history until the last couple hundred years. PREMILLENIALISM is a perfect example of a cultish belief system that has no precendence in Christian history and, as of now, is primarily confined to a relatively small group of fundamentalist Protestants in the United States -- and EVEN THEY CAN'T SEEM TO AGREE about what they are talking about. So it is deeply ironic when you speak as if you are interpreting the Bible without suppositions when you follow the party line of YOUR tradition, your RECENT tradition, and completely reject the tradition of CHRIST and the EARLY CHURCH that he founded, well before Trent was ever thought of.

Indeed, it is obvious, as you state, that logic and common sense means nothing to you. I'm glad you are at least honest about it.

With that said, your argument falls flat, because I already demonstrated, aside from the "1000 years" argument, that premillenialism does not fit with Scripture and cited three verses that demolish it. That is the earlier post I referred to. And no, the 1000 years must not literally refer to a millenium, any more than the seven days in Genesis refers to a literal seven days, or the Psalm literally refers to 1000 hills -- and it can't, because the other verses do not fit a literal interpretation, and scripture does not contradict itself. Numbers in the Bible are often used for their symbolic import. This is something I don't expect you to accept or understand, because that would require an understanding of some history and common sense, and you've already rejected those resources as valid sources for Biblical hermeneutics. So, this is just for those who happen to be reading over our shoulder, who might be tempted to believe YOUR heretical tradition and reject THE tradition.

Couple of problems with your assessment here...First, let's not confuse the Apostles with your early church fathers...It was your early church father, Origen, about 350 AD or so who convinced your religion that most of the bible wasn't real, it doesn't mean what it says...He apparently was suggesting the Apostles were playing word games with the scriptures...

And secondly, you are wrong about my knowledge of your religious fathers...I don't know it all but I know enough that your church has been caught corrupting the writings of some of your church fathers so that the authenticity of any one of them may be in question...

And thirdly and most importantly, the scriptures are just as valid now as they were when the Apostles wrote them...No one wandering the desert who may stumble across a bible has any need to know your church history, or any history or anyone's culture to have that bible come to life...

The Bible is a Spiritual book for Spiritual people...Absolutely no one needs your church father's bent on what they think the scriptures mean...

If you couldn't figure out the scriptures while you called yourself a Protestant, maybe you rejected what the Holy Spirit tried to show you...

Oh, and BTW,

And no, the 1000 years must not literally refer to a millenium, any more than the seven days in Genesis refers to a literal seven days, or the Psalm literally refers to 1000 hills

The fella in Psalms said 1000 hills...There is absolutely no reason in the world to suspect he didn't see a thousand hills in his mind when he said it...Maybe he was speaking in jest, but he saw a thousand hills...

1000 years and millennium are used interchangeably in the scriptures...1000 years means millennium...Millennium means 1000...

Did God say He created the earth in 7 days??? He sure did...Whatsa matter, too illogical for you??? Doesn't fit with your common sense???

God tells Peter that a day to Him is a thousand years to Peter...But that doesn't jive with your intellect, eh???

The mistake is not God's...it's your for not believing Him...

And that's for anyone looking over your shoulder...