At the end of day, you disagree with my literal interpretation
No, I disagree that its a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation should be a matter of debate, but rather should be based on the plain meaning of the text.
Thus, a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and the Synoptic institution narratives are that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of our Lord which we are to partake of as an anamnesis (remembrance or recapitulation) of Him.
A literal interpretation of John 1:1-14 is that Jesus Christ is the Word of God who existed in the beginning with God, and was God, and by Him all things were made, and God was revealed to us, and his presence was anticipated by St. John the Baptist.
Literal interpretations are not always highly dogmatic, especially if read in isolation, for example, a literal interpretation of Matthew 28:19 in isolation tells us to baptize people from all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, however, in order to understand who these Divine Persons are, we need to read John 1, and Luke 1-3, and Matthew 1-4, and also Acts 1-2, and also an account of the Transfiguration, such as in Mark 9, is quite helpful. Collectively, these literal interpretations add up to form an exegesis.
The problem with your approach is twofold: firstly, that it is eisegetical, since there are multiple scriptures that indicate that our Lord’s kingdom shall have no end, and furthermore, we know that “1000” was commonly used to indicate a very long time, such as an eternity, and the chief problem with premilleniarianism or Chiliasm as it is more correctly called is that it implies an end to the reign of Christ, at least in some sense.
Secondly, and more importantly, as I see it, you have engaged in the same “spiritualization” you accuse our learned friend
@ViaCrucis of, in that while you may believe your interpretation of Zechariah 8 is literal, there is nothing in the text which explictly affirms the doctrines of premillenial dispensarionalism, most of which did not exist as a unified or coherent whole before the 19th century, when they were developed by the devout Restorationist John Nelson Darby, the leader of the exclusive branch of the Plymouth Brethren, whose worship is quite interesting (like Lutherans and Orthodox, they practice infant baptism and closed communion, but their doctrine of separation from the world is rather extreme, and their closed communion is considered to be the most thoroughly closed of any major Christian denomination). It is clear you have an a priori doctrinal view, and are using Zechariah as a proof-text to further this view.
Such proof-texting is undesirable, aside from a general search for typological references and prophecies of the Incarnation of Christ, but such a search is, based on 2 Peter 1:20, not able to extract reliable inferences concerning prophecies of the future, since we cannot privately exegete scripture concerning the future.
Thus, based on your statement:
Its about facts, is someone understanding scripture literally or not
This is my criticism of your approach. You claim your interpretation of Zechariah is
the literal interpretation, but this is not the case, for your interpretation reads meanings into the text which are not indicated therein, but rather are derived from Chiliast concepts about the Millenium, based on an eisegetical literal reading of Revelation, which is itself contradicted in numerous other places explicitly, for example, in 2 Peter. You cannot say that Zechariah ch. 8 is talking about Christ our True God ruling over this Earth for a thousand years and leading worship in a rebuilt Temple, because Zechariah ch. 8 does not contain these concepts. There is nothing in Zechariah ch. 8, for example, that specifically links it to the Messiah, that is to say, to the second person of the Trinity, God the Son and Word, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, nor to any other person of the Trinity.
Rather, God is referred to in such a manner that it could be referring to all three persons of the Holy Trinity, or to the Father, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, all of whom are equally God, but you have inferred, based on your a priori doctrinal assumption, that it is referring to the Messiah, however, the chapter is devoid of specifically Messianic content.
And this takes us to the main problem with literal readings of prophetic chapters: literally, they are ambiguous, and make sense only when read from an informed doctrinal perspective using typological analysis, or “spiritualization”, as you called it, along with hermeneutical analysis. And we know that this Christological “Spritualization” is the correct way to exegete these chapters, since it is the only way we can produce a Christ-centric reading of the Prophets that is consistent with what our Lord, God and Savior told the Disciples about the books of the Law and the Prophets prior to His ascension to Heaven in the Gospel According to Luke.
Thus, I propose your reading is not literal, that you are mistaken in thinking that it is, but furthermore, if understood as non-literal, iti s still mistaken, because it is eisegetical, an example of proof-texting, that is to say, a reading which supports premillenial dispensationalism, but a reading in isolation, without regard to the constraints imposed by other scriptural texts.
This is simply because, regardless of whether or not a scriptural text is amenable to literal interpretation, or requires a spiritual, typological-prophetic approach, or some combination thereof, it must be read with regards to what all other verses in Scripture say.
This need for complete consistency is why the subject of dogmatic theology and systematic theology is so difficult, and why even ordained clergy are not necessarily trained on how to interpret scripture from the ground up, but rather, this tends to be the province of those who pursue a masters or doctorate in theology (who may or may not be clergy - a great many noted scholars of theology are not clergy; in antiquity, most tended to be bishops, but not all, there being a significant number of deacons who were noted theologians or hymnographers or exegetes, St. Ephraim the Syrian being an example par excellence, and still others who were monastics or presbyters but not bishops, and even some laity, for example, Origen (also, if I recall, Tertullian was a laic, both before and after his joining the heretical Montanist sect).
This also underscores the dangers with a DIY approach to scriptural interpretation, that entirely neglects ecclesiastical history, Patristics, or the writings of most Protestant reformers, including those who themselves engaged in systematic theology. The sad fact, which people are not told when they are encouraged to read scripture and rely on the Holy Spirit to interpret it for them, ignoring what Scripture says about how the Holy Spirit interprets scripture - by working in the Church, with the Church and through the Church as a unified body of scriptural interpretation, as Fr. John Behr pointed out in his 2008 lecture “The Heresy of Orthodoxy” (which despite the provocative name, does not suggest Orthodoxy is a heresy, according to the contemporary meaning of the term, but rather looks at traditional Christianity as a community united by its interpretation of scripture, which is also the basis for most denominations, even those which we would both mutually agree are in serious error, since as Nicene Christians who agree to the ChrstianForums Statement of Faith, you and I do share a common interpretation of scripture insofar as we are united by a shared belief in the Holy Trinity, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection of the dead, the life of the world to come (although we disagree on what is meant by the thousand year reign of Christ, whether this is literal or figurative, we do believe in it), the Apostolate of Paul,a and several other key issues.
Thus, my essential argument is that the complexity of scripture is such that the Holy Spirit works to guide us in its interpretation on an ecclesiastical rather than individual level, and that it requires an extreme amount of learning and skill to perform a literal interpretation of Scripture, which is what you seem interested in, that is consistent, wherein each book of the Old and New Testament is interpreted in a manner that does not contradict any other book, and furthermore, literal interpretations are inherently limited when it comes to books of prophecy, since, as St. Peter says, no prophecy is its own exposition. The field that attempts to produce such literal interpretations from scratch is known as Systematic Theology, and it is one mostly dominated by Calvinists, such as Karl Barth, although the first two works recognizable as Systematic Theology are the Summa Theologica of the Roman Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. And it should also be noted that none of these authors attempted to develop a systematic theology entirely in isolation - all of them were members of Christian denominations who were well versed in church history, Patristics, and related fields, and in the case of the Summa of Thomas Aquinas and the Institutes of John Calvin, Patristics and Tradition played a large role in shaping the works.
There is also a related, but less demanding and more accessible field known as Dogmatic Theology, which seeks merely to provide an exposition of the doctrines taught by a given denomination, with the classic work in this field being the eighth century Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus, although there are earlier works, and also many later works, and indeed even in Orthodoxy new works of dogmatic theology continue to be written, with one of my favorite works being Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.
I would close with this thought: the most literal interpretation of Scripture is the text of Scripture itself. All interpretations require referencing other texts within scfipture and all interpretations by their very nature will include some element of doctrinal content, since as soon as we begin the process of exegesis, we begin creating a hierarchical network of hermeneutical precepts, for example, based on the ending of the Gospel according to Luke, we know that there is an essential Christological meaning at the heart of the books of the Law and Prophets, and we are commiting ourselves to exposing that meaning. If someone of your beliefs, who believes in a literal thousand year reign of Christ sets about the process of interpretation, you are saying that certain prophetic texts will be read literally, and this literal reading will govern the interpretation of all other prophetic texts, and other texts which would potentially contradict your approach must be interpreted in a different manner. Bias is unavoidable in scripture interpretation - there is no way to avoid bias even in translation, but especially when it comes to actually interpreting scripture and discerning the correct understanding of each book, chapter, passage and verse.
