Well to be honest, once I realized that you were simply posting your replies to a debate that you held with marbren, I simply stayed on that thread and finished reading the debate. What I found was that you rely more upon what the Early Church Fathers say than what Scripture says and, frankly, the sources you're using aren't exactly unbiased.
Take post #147 on that thread for example. In it, you try to provide support for your idea that Cerinthus was labeled a heretic for preaching a literal Millennial reign of Christ, yet all you do is set up a straw man argument. Here's a quote from that post.
As before stated, Cerinthus was the first to attempt to introduce this doctrine under Christianity. Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."This is the true origin of the Millennium theory. The reader will observe how lightly our author speaks of Cerinthus's idea of the kingdom of Christ being set up on earth after the resurrection. He says this doctrine was "something which he [Cerinthus] pretends was shown to him by angels." Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming. Observe also that Caius calls Cerinthus "an enemy to the scriptures of God," and one who was "wishing to deceive men." This language he uses with special reference to the one thousand years Cerinthus claimed would be spent in sensuality. Notice also that Cerinthus believed in an earthly kingdom.Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now call your attention to the attitude of the beloved apostle toward this Millennial teacher. Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John, [Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within." (Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28). Let this be a rebuke to modern Millennial advocates. They claim their doctrine is well founded in the Apocalypse of John. But John called the founder of their theory "that enemy of the truth."
I would point out a few things here. Caius is disagreeing with Cerinthus over the idea that Believers will again be subject to desires and pleasures of the flesh. That, not the idea of a Millennium, is the heresy. Furthermore, Caius hammers away again at this same idea because he points out that Cerinthus believes that the 1000 years are for marriage festivities. That, not the Millennium itself, is the heresy.
Then, to make matters worse, you inject your own theology into the writings by stating
"Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming."
No where can you draw the conclusion that orthodox teaching states that Christ's Kingdom was set up at His first coming from what is written here. You assume that to be the case, but you do not show proof.
Furthermore, you attempt to link an apocryphal quote attributed to John by Eusebius as not only being true, but also being in relation to Millennial beliefs. No evidence exists that John made this remark, no evidence exists that John regarded Millennial belief as heretical and no evidence exists to show that Cerinthus' heresy was related to the Millennium rather than to his Gnostic beliefs.
In short, you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Millennial beliefs are heretical, yet you persist in claiming that they are heresy.
So I ask you, who's being deceitful here? Millennial beliefs are based upon interpretation of Scripture by other Scripture. Your accusations against it are based upon apocryphal quotes from John, quotes from Church Fathers taken out of context and disinformation. My question would be, why are you so opposed to Millennial beliefs?
Really?
"Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:
"....And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
Deceitful?
Scofield's "Notes" aren't Scripture.
Again, all the "Scriptual" and historical references (that back them up) to just about any of the questions you could come up with are contained in my links in #30 above.
Also Here