Premillennialism

[Uriah]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

That is incorrect. Some here and in other recent ops have said Jesus is not currently reigning or that he is not currently reigning in this locale or another. Others have acknowledge God's sovereignty but then posted comments and claims inconsistent with the Truth of God's sovereignty. You are one of them.

(so then, according to your previous statement makes me an idolater!) But I've been called worse... And it is NOT true. You will NOT be able to show where I said that.  

You just got done failing to  answer the question... I am STILL waiting for the answer to the question I asked YOU, before that- Rev 11:15.

 directly, preferring instead to post a number of verses highlighting in boldface mentions of power other than God. I quoted Paul and JESUS. Do you believe what they say?

If you mean to suggest... I mean to suggest exactly what is stated by JESUS and Paul! Not what you are portraying as something you might say I suggest. 

there is actual power someplace other than the Almighty Creator and that power lies within the creature then you are one of those guys posting inconsistencies and you get upset with me for pointing it out if you like or you can do one of two other things: 1) begin on your own with the Sovereign Creator and consider all mentions of "power" and "war" within the NECESSARY context of a big-G GOD, or 2) walk with me through the logically necessary conclusions of God's existence and those associated with the necessarily qualifying realities of Creator to creature so as to avoid future inconsistencies. Read my post above to David and think about the realities of that last paragraph and read scripture accordingly. 

Josh, you seem fixated on an attack on something that, to me, is not even the issue. God has ALWAYS been reigning. When a certain rebel captured the dominion FROM ADAM, Jesus Won it back!

John 12:31- Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 16:11-Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

And in an example of say, a court case, it can be decided and won. THEN comes the enforcement of the decision. THAT is Rev 11:15.

[Uriah]

23 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Quote

 

Neither clarification nor correction is an "attack." 

Please do not put unnecessary perceptions of adversarialness on me or my posts. Re-read what was posted for what it states and try not to think of it as personal. My direct style of posting is not an attack.

 

No worries then. Same for making me an idolater too? 
 

Quote

Please think about the reality, the logic, the necessary conclusions of those two sentences...... because they contradict one another!!!!!

You do realize that I had quoted Paul and Jesus about the, "ruler of this world", right? How is their logic in that? Contradictory? God was still reigning, right? 

Quote

 IF God has ALWAYS reigned then there is no "capturing" of dominion away from God. By bringing Adam into the conversation as if it matters to God's sovereignty is irrelevant. It's a red herring, or a no sequitur, or a false equivalence, or even worse - a straw man. Adam losing his ability to rule and subdue does not compromise God's reign one iota.

Not one iota-right. But you cannot get your mind around Satan being the "ruler of this world" at the same time.

Quote

Therefore moving from the statement "God has always reigned," to the statement "Adam no longer reigns," is simply bad reasoning, bad logic, bad use of scripture. So what if Adam stopped ruling -  God did not. Ever. In point of inescapable fact, if Adam lost any authority that loss (still) occurred solely within the overarching Truth of God has always reigned! 

Oh, I guess you DO see my point. Thanks.

Quote

So whether intentional or not, conscious or subconscious, wittingly or unwittingly, a contradiction is being asserted and it needs to be sorted out correctly

A contradiction by saying virtually the same thing you did? Now that is actually humorous.  

Quote

Without an attack or any perception thereof.

OK.

 

Quote

Now there is another problem in this post to which I now reply but I will address it in separate post. 

The problem with THIS post is that you are STILL running from answering about Rev. 11:15-

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices shouting in heaven:
“The world has now become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,
and he will reign forever and ever.”

 

[WilliamL]

On 5/27/2021 at 9:47 PM, abcdef said:

Rev 20:4-6, The first resurrection is Jesus in 33 AD, not some future resurrection.

These verses show souls from the first resurrection living and reigning with Jesus.

They are living and reigning now, with Jesus from heaven.

You, as many people, apparently misunderstand the meaning here of "first"/protos. In the context, it does not mean first in order, but rather first in preeminence. The Rev. 20:4-6 resurrection is only for those killed by the Beast. Because of their faithfulness, they become entitled to join those of the first/protos/foremost resurrection at the resurrection of Christ (he was not the only one at that time), as well as those of the resurrection of the 1 Thes. 4:14-17 saints. All of these three groups are protos in the sense of being those over whom "the second death has no power." 20:6

[Uriah]

12 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Fix your html tags, Uriah. Need help doing so? Ask. Those of us who've figured it will gladly help (there are a couple of different ways to do so).

Oops, thanks, bro.

[Uriah]

23 minutes ago, Josheb said:

If these verses are intended to asert some kind of power or authority satan has over God

So do not in one sentence say, "God has always been reigning," and in the next say satan is a prince. It is nonsense. Bad theology. 

I don't know, bro. Its almost like you are making the assertion of my meaning. 

Hereafter Iwill not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

I think you know who said this. And I think you don't believe for a minute that He would say God was NOT reigning..........Bad theology?

As for being judged and cast out now, is it a contradiction compared to Rev. 11:15?- Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms[fn] of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Or Rev. 12:10- Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens,
“It has come at last—
salvation and power
and the Kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.[fn]
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters[fn]
has been thrown down to earth—
the one who accuses them
before our God day and night.

For example:

Isaiah 13:6- Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty................v. 10- For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine........ v. 13- Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Remember that pesky time thing? No contradiction.

[Diaste]

On 5/31/2021 at 9:09 AM, Josheb said:

This is a blatant error in proper exegesis because it uses the figurative to interpret the literal, rather than the other way around. It uses a parable to render real life, rather than the other way around. It is bad exegesis. It is wanton copy and paste eisegesis intended for the defense of an already existing position, not the reaching of a conclusion based on the proper handling of scripture. There is nothing in the rich young man text that remotely connects it to Jesus' words to the Pharisees. 

I think you resort to this when a point is made you don't like. And yeah it's an existing position. I should present ideas of a non existent position?? 

The point behind it was the eternal nature of the spirit in man. That breath of life God gave to each person is eternal. So when Jesus says 'and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven' it could be the next day or a 1000 years or more and it's possible because the spirit goes on forever.

 

On 5/31/2021 at 9:09 AM, Josheb said:

It is the idea Jesus does not cite it as a parable that is the argument from silence. 

No. It's not cited therefore the conclusion it is a parable would be wrong. If it's not a parable it is something else. Maybe the category could be disputed but since it was not labeled by the King we know what it is not. That's not from silence but deduction.

On 5/31/2021 at 9:09 AM, Josheb said:

 

You've also created a condition in which the dead Lazarus, the dead rich man, and the dead Pharisees now see Jesus reigning. They've been watching him reign for thousands of years.

I did not. I said torment sees comfort. The scenario is the rich man in torment and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. But that's not what is said. It's not only Jesus on the right hand of power but also coming in the clouds. 

"“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”"

Both have to happen for this to come to pass. I honestly don't know why this is so terrible to contemplate. And there isn't a person I know that thinks Jesus isn't on the throne right now. He is, and not only that but He has always been. He's the Creator, as it is written. 

But He is certainly not in this dimension ruling right now in the affairs of men. If so there is a great deal of prophecy that must have come to pass, yet we see no record in history nor do we see the affects of the reign. If Jesus was here, ruling right now over all mankind, one would think we would see something.

 

On 5/31/2021 at 9:09 AM, Josheb said:

Refutes your entire eschatology. 

You think every eschatology is refuted but the ones that agree with you. 

[Diaste]

On 5/31/2021 at 8:59 AM, Josheb said:

That can also be true of "one thousand years." 

First the tense of the language is ignored and segments of verses are highlighted eisegetically.

Then an erroneous statement was made = "No context suggests figurative interpretation." 

How is this derived from error? Examples of the figurative are not present in Rev 20 akin to Rev 12:1-4. I know how you're using the term 'figurative' but I think you mean allegory. Simile and metaphor do not suggest abstraction covered by symbolic images. I think in the future you should try to refute based on tangible proofs not decrying methods, it's unpalatable. Truth is gleaned by listening to the Spirit and hearing the voice of the Master. 

I have been through the methodology and gave it up. It's the machine that leads to all manner of false doctrine. Scripture is the Living word and resists technical clinicians. 

On 5/31/2021 at 8:59 AM, Josheb said:

Then excuses for others are made = "No. Okay, for some perhaps."

Now I have yes... but...

For some people, not 'sometimes yes, sometimes no'.

On 5/31/2021 at 8:59 AM, Josheb said:

And there's this new notion symbols "do not carry over to other aspects across the entire text." This too is profoundly incorrect. There are symbols for the Church in Revelation that do in fact "carry over" (whatever that means) to other aspects in other texts. One of them is the millennial reign!!!

You'll have to explain this. 

On 5/31/2021 at 8:59 AM, Josheb said:

Surely you can see this is neither exegetical nor rational. Has this occurred on your own or because of the failures of the sources and a critical examination thereof. Anyone and everyone who makes these errors should be read more critically, not less. I've cited only five errors. There are several more in your recent posts. I am encouraged we have a partial agreement with the yes buts. However, it is the errors that warrant correction, not explanations attempting to dismiss there erroneous nature. Ask yourself how or why it was you though "No context suggests figurative interpretation," when this is a self-evident, blatantly false statement. Was this your own doing or something learned from another without critical examination? 

Rational? What's that?

You have to be joking, seriously. Who's the arbiter, you? Are you saying your exegesis and rationality is the correct method and set of perceptions? By what authority? 

 

There a vast divide between listening and clinical examination. I did the clinical thing and gave it up as that method does not tend toward hearing what the Spirit says. Most important is hearing the Spirit, not dissecting.

 

On 5/31/2021 at 8:59 AM, Josheb said:

The eschatological language is past, present, and future tense. The book of Revelation is rife with figurative language and that alone provides reason for possibly viewing the number figuratively. And it is a symbol that can be specific..... or not.  

If we stick to what the text of Rev 20 says the ideas of 'complete' and 'inclusivity' just are not there. In fact both ideas are nonexistent and refuted by the text itself showing a decided incompleteness and exclusion based on the actors. Only those so described "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands" came to life and ruled with Jesus for 1000 years. It's not all the believers in Jesus and is limited to the ones who faced the beast and were victorious. 

So then in order to prove the millennial reign is a 'long time' and already occurred, or is occurring, we also need to find the group mentioned above. So when did a group go through the gauntlet of beheading for refusal to worship the beast and when did they come back to life?

If the millennial reign is that 'long time' should we not have seen the mark of the beast and those people who "had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands"?

It's not yet come no matter the harping about what's 'rational' or what in the mind of a group of men is proper exegesis.

 

 

[Retrobyter]

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

No, that is exactly the point at which everything falls apart into self-contradictory nonsense. It is not "God is in charge now. However...." The immutable truth is, "God is charge always," and instead of following that up with a "However...." it should be followed up with, "PERIOD!"

Shalom, Josheb.

You have a VERY dichotomous view of God. The immutable truth is that God has given men FREE CHOICE! He's also given them enough rope to hang themselves. He is NOT always in charge, because He ALLOWS men and women to make their own decisions regarding Himself and their justification. That's a PART of His Plan for His Creation!

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

God is always in charge. Period. 

Over the physical and the laws of that physical Creation, sure. But, not always in the lives of human beings!

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

Everything else gets built upon that axiom.

And, thus, you fail in your reasoning about God.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

The segue into "judgment" is also problematic for similar reasons. Although the scriptures do undeniably speak of a day of judgment the scriptures also tell us the judgment has all already been rendered. This fact is found throughout scripture but two of the most explicit examples are Genesis 6:5 and John 3:19. 

Genesis 6:5-6
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

This passage alone proves that you are incorrect. You are thinking universally, but this is a SPECIAL incident!

One must ask himself, "Who judges whom?" And, each incident of judgment is NOT universal by the sheer fact that it is an INCIDENT!

This judgment in the past was God judging mankind up to the point of Noach and his family. It was a ONE-TIME occurrence in human history! It is never to be repeated because God SAID it wouldn't be repeated and put His (rain)bow in the clouds to seal that promise!

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

John 3:18-19
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."

There also many implicit places where the scriptures speak of the judgment already having been rendered. The sacrifice of Christ being foreknown before creation (1 Peter 1:20) is one such example. Once this is understood what we then realize is that the so called "Judgment Day" is more accurately sentencing day, the day when the just recompense for sin is meted out. For those in Christ there is judgment but no condemnation (Rom. 8:1). For those denying Christ (such as covenant-breaking, Messiah-murdering, nation-state Israel) there is destruction. 

Well, that's how YOU view it, but there's equally just as much Scripture that puts the Judgment, particularly the ULTIMATE Judgment, in the FUTURE! For instance,

Romans 3:1- (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? ("No" is the expected answer.)

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

"That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid: for then HOW SHALL GOD JUDGE THE WORLD? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) "Let us do evil, that good may come"? whose damnation is just.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written,

"There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20.)

13 "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit"; (Psalm 5:9.)

"the poison of asps is under their lips": (Psalm 140:3.) 

14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness": (Psalm 10:7.)

15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known": (Isaiah 59:7-8.)

18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Psalm 36:1.)

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without (outside of) the law is manifested (revealed), being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his (God's) righteousness: that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without (outside of) the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which SHALL justify the circumcision BY faith, and uncircumcision THROUGH faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

The recompense for each has all already been decided: eternal life, or eternal corruption and destruction. 

This sounds like predetermination. I would even venture to say that you might be a Calvinist or at least one with Calvinistic persuasions. However, no matter how much God may already know and has locked into world events in the very process of having created the world, HE'S NOT TELLING! Our job is still to "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature!"

A five-point Calvinist is one who believes in the Total depravity of mankind (which I also believe); Unconditional election since GOD chooses who shall be justified by God (which I also tend to believe, knowing of the omniscience of God); Limited Atonement (which I do NOT accept, because God has said that "whosoever will may come"); Irresistable Grace, meaning whoever God has chosen to be justified cannot refuse His selection (which I also cannot accept, because it is "whosoever will," which implies that there are also those who "will not"); and the Perseverance of the saints, meaning that God will totally justify a sinner and no one will take them out of God's hand (which I can also accept).

Thus, I consider myself to be a "THREE-point Calvinist."

It was explained to me this way: Imagine a doorway to God's favor: On one side, above the door is written "whosoever will come," and when one walks through the door, on the other side above the door is written, "saved (justified) before the foundation of the world." 

As I said, even if God's election is correct, HE'S NOT TELLING WHO IS ELECTED AND WHO IS NOT! Thus, from OUR point of view, we must tell ALL for "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

God alone is in charge. Period. Always and everywhere. There is no place where His Son does not reign and rule, and that includes here on earth.

Now, you're confusing Their roles! God the FATHER is ruling and reigning over His Creation, but the SON of God is NOT YET ruling and reigning ANYWHERE! That's not to say that He's not worthy to rule and reign, nor does it mean that He isn't DESTINED to rule and reign over the whole earth, but He's not there, yet! That's just the way it is! That's how the Messiah Yeshua` spoke, and I'll believe HIM!

Matthew 25:31-34 (KJV)

31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory (brightness), and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 "THEN shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ..."

Luke 19:11-15, 27 (KJV)

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore,

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them,

"'Occupy till I come.'

14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying,

"'We will not have this man to reign over us!' 

15 "And it came to pass, that WHEN HE WAS RETURNED, having received the kingdom, THEN he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
...

27 "'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me!'"

See, one must understand that God the Father and the Son of God, Yeshua`, the Messiah of God, are TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS! They have TWO DIFFERENT ROLES! They don't have the same authority, and they don't have the same jurisdiction!

On 5/31/2021 at 3:50 PM, Josheb said:

When you guys start saying, "I don't see it," or "Anyone who says he's now ruling is      (insert derisive label)    ,"isn't just rude; it is irrational; completely contradictory to the truth God is in fact always and everywhere in charge. If you reason through all that MUST be as a consequence of a God existing then you'll find all the drama people imagine eschatologically is nonsense. Just think it through. 

When I say, "If the Messiah is now ruling then He is the weakest king there has ever been in the history of the world," I'm neither being "rude," nor am I being "irrational." It's simply the truth! Have you ever considered that Yeshua` and God the Father are talked about in Psalm 2?

Psalm 2:1-12 (KJV)

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us!"

4 He that sitteth in the heavens (YHWH God the Father) shall laugh: the Lord (the Son of God Yeshua` the Messiah) shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he (YHWH God the Father) speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion! 7 I will declare the decree:

"'the LORD (YHWH God the Father) hath said unto me (Yeshua` the Messiah, the Son of God),

"'"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel!"'

10 "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD (YHWH) with fear, and rejoice with trembling!

12 "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little! Blessed are all they that put their trust in him!"

This shall LITERALLY HAPPEN when the Messiah returns! This is a scene from a U.N. meeting! And, YHWH God and His Messiah shall INTERRUPT their meeting, laughing at them, mocking them!

THAT is the Messiah's inheritance! THAT is what YHWH God promised Him, not this fiction that you're trying to portray!

If you think the Messiah is ruling and reigning right now? "You ain't seen nuthin', yet!"

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, the reason the parable is a  parable is because Jesus made it quite clear = there are only two options on the other side of the grave: eternal life or eternal destruction. I have written about this many times. Although the Greek manuscripts have Jesus using Jewish, Greek, and Roman terms he taught an entirely different Truth than the paganisms and mythologies commonly understood in those days. He did NOT teach the soul wandered around in conscious misery under the underground rule of some lesser god. He taught the truth: your body and soul can be destroyed in "hel." In the end everything and everyone not believing in the resurrected son gets tossed into the fiery lake that is so violently destructive even death is destroyed. 

Selective use of scripture could lead someone to believe in an intermediate holding place where the dead know something, where they're free to chat with each other across the impassable abyss and plea to God on one another's behalf but that's not what Jesus taught about the grave. Sin kills. If a person dies dead in sin then s/he reaps destruction (corruption). If a person dies dead in Christ then s/he reaps eternal life. 

Lazarus nd the rich man is a parable.
Parables should not be used as authoritative over the literal. The literal should be used as authoritative over the figurative. 

 

It does not matter whether I like it or not. "Liking" it is a red herring.

Off topic

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Scripture. 

Isaiah 1:18-20
"'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD, 'Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.  If you consent and obey, you will eat the best of the land;  but if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.' Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

Acts 17:16-17
"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.  So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present."

 

Surely it is not being suggested all reason or reasoning is to be avoided; you cannot be implying we should be having an unreasonable or irrational conversation or an unreasonable or irrational understanding of God's word. God may at times be extra-rational, but He is never irrational. 

An adroit parry.