A Millennium already past

This post shall be me playing Devil's Advocate with Post-Millenialists and Partial Preterists, by arguing that their eschatological position does not necessarily require allegorizing the time period of The Millennium.

There is a common misnomer out there that believing in a Literal Thousand Years means believing The Kingdom of that time period ends at some point, which is why you occasionally see an argument that the Nicene-Constantinople Creed's quotation of Gabriel in Luke 1:33 somehow was specifically a refutation of Pre-Mil.  However the only thing Revelation 20 explicitly says happens exactly a Thousand years later is Satan being let out of the Abyss, he then stirs up Gog and Magog and they besiege the "Beloved City" however their siege fails.  Revelation 21 and 22 are about the separation between the spiritual and physical finally completely ending, not about a completely New Messianic Kingdom starting.  The Greek word translated New in those chapters isn't Neo which I wrote an entire post on already.

Now at face value it seems like everything from Satan being let loose to the White Throne Judgment happens pretty rapidly.  But that's because we're reading a summary, maybe it will happen quickly but it could theoretically all take decades, centuries or maybe even another thousand years to play out.

So Post-Mils and Partial Preterists do have the option to consider identifying The Millennium with an exactly one Thousand year time period of recorded Church Age history, and placing us right now in Revelation 20:9 with the "Camp of the saints" being understood spiritually rather then tied to a specific geographical location.

And in that context I have a few hypothetical models to propose, because even though I'm not Post-Mil currently I have considered it.  

But first I want to address how most of these models implicitly identity the "Hoards of Gog and Magog" with principally the Turks and perhaps by extension other Altaic peoples like the Mongols.  This part of Revelation is among the Bible passages that have been abused by White Supremacists so I want to make myself clear, IF any of these interpretations are true it's about the Turks having a specific role to play in God's plan, however I believe in Universal Salvation meaning all of them are still Children of Adam who God Loves as much as everyone else.  So do not use this material to justify being Racist.

Now on to the hypothetical Millenniums.

I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel in 37 AD one Week following the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in 30 AD, which I argued for on this blog years ago.  Low and behold 1037 AD is the beginning of the reign of Tughril the first Sultan of the Seljuk Turks.  It was under his leadership that the Turks first moved south of the Gates of Alexander into Persia.

However it was under Alp Arslan and Malik Shah that the Seljuk Turks first came into conflict with "Christendom" around 1070 AD.  The significance of 1070 minus 1000 I shouldn't need to explain to Preterists.

In 1135 AD a thousand years after the defeat of the Bar-Kochba Revolt Seljuk Ruler Imad Al-Din Zengi crossed the Eurphrates River.  1137-1144 contained other notable events.

Later in the early 1300s a Thousand years after Constantine is when the Ottomans under Osman I and Orhan and other Turkic Tribes conquered deeper into Western Anatolia capturing what had long been core Byzantine territories including the cities that housed the 7 Churches of Revelation 2-3. They besieged Nicaea just a few years after the one thousand year anniversary of the Council of Nicaea.  324 was the year Constantine defeated Licinius and began the founding of Constantinople, 1317-1326 was the Seige of Bursa which secured Ottoman control of most of Asia Minor with only the core area around Constantinople still free.

The decade from 380-390 is when Theodosius I firmly established Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire.  Ticonius published the first real Post-Millennial interpretation of Revelation in 380.  A thousand years later 1380-1390 would be when the Ottoman Empire really began entering Europe.

The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans was in 1454 BC, about 3 years following the Millennial Anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon.

There isn't a single event in the reign of Emperor Justinian that doesn't have it's Millennial anniversary during the reign of Suliman The Magnificent.  I actually already made a post on arguing for Bible Prophecy being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, that was mainly in the context of playing Devil's Advocate with Historicism, but it can be adapted for this purpose.

Some people have an odd fixation on viewing Bible Prophecy from an Anglo-Centric POV.  Interestingly the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons was pretty complete by 640.  One thousand years later and 1640 is when the English Civil War starts.

There is a lot of Misinformation related to the Archaeological facts about The Temple Mount

I finally started to just read some stuff from those who defend the official mainstream position.  And the people wanting to remove The Temple from the Mount altogether are misrepresenting a lot of facts especially in regards to the Antonia Fortress.

Wherever Antonia was it certainly wasn't the entirety of the Temple Mount.  And it probably may not have been where Jesus was tried before Pilate, and there are etymological issues with identifying the Gabbatha of John 19 with a Rock like the Dome of The Rock's.

One thing I've been noticing for awhile in those supporting the Gihon Spring or Nea Church location flat out ignore Hadrian's Temple to Jupiter when discussing the history since they want to claim nothing else was ever built on the same site.  We know even from a secular pagan gentile source that Hadrain did that, Cassius Dio.  And Jerome says the Statue of Hadrian standing over the Holy of Holies was still there in his day. Jerome identifies it with the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24 but still clearly had a Futurist understanding of Revelation.  For that eschatologically influenced reason he might be off on it being exactly where the Holy of Holies was, many think Antiochus's AoD was in the Holy of Holies when in fact 1 Maccabees says it was on the Brazen Altar.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Baalbek Temple built by the same architect so closely resembles the basic lay out of The Temple Mount, with the Hexagonal Court being what become the Dome of The Rock and the Temple proper being the Al Aqsa Mosque.  Though the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas fountain view proponents of whom I have been one in the past are perhaps assuming too much about the location of the Equestrian Statue being the same.

I'd like to see the primary sources on Byzantine Jerusalem's Church of Holy Wisdom discussed by someone without an agenda.  How true is it that it stood where the Dome of the Rock is now and that it was identified with a location relating to the trial(s) of Jesus?

Those who believe the Temple was where the Dome currently is say that spot was identified as such by Muslims right from the time of Umar.  For one the oldest Muslin worship site on the Mount is the Al Aqsa Mosque, the current silver domed building is slightly younger then the Dome of the Rock but it was still where Muslims prayed first.  And even then many scholars now think even that oldest primitive Al Aqsa Mousge doesn't go back to Umar but was founded by Muawiyah.

There is no real detailed contemporary account of what Umar did in Jerusalem.  The account typically used by Gihon Spring proponents is a 14th Century account.  Given my personal theories about the early history of Islam(that it was really just an Ishmaelite form of Christianity originally), I suspect Umar never intended any Mosque to be built in Jerusalem as he wanted it to remain a city for the previous People of The Book and if he prayed anywhere it was only the location just a little east of the Holy Sepulcher.  He captured the city because of his alliance with the Jews and Miaphysite Christians who'd been persecuted by Heraclius.  The Qurran does teach that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel.

Likewise when the Crusaders controlled Jerusalem they called the Al Aqsa Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of The Rock the Temple of The Lord, The Lord in Christianity is Jesus meaning that name implies a New testament significance.

I'm going to Copy/Paste from The Bordeaus Pilgram (333 AD) via this website.
http://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

There are in Jerusalem two big pools to the side of the Temple, that is, one to the right, another to the left, which Solomon made, but inside the cite there are two twin pools with five porches, which are called Bethsaida.

There those who have been sick for many years have been healed.

These pools have water which becomes scarlet when disturbed.

There is a crypt there where Solomon tortured demons.

There is the corner of the highest tower, where the Lord went up and he said to the one who was tempting him, and the Lord said to him: Do not tempt the Lord your God, but him only should you serve (Matt 4:7, 10).

There is the cornerstone about which it was said: stone, which the builders reproved, this has been made the head stone (Matt 21:42).

And under the pinnacle of the tower there are many chambers, where Solomon had his palace.

There is also the chamber in which he sat and wrote about wisdom; but the chamber itself has a single stone for its roof.

There are also very great pools of water underground and a great pool built with work.

And in that building where the Temple was, which Solomon built, in the marble before the altar is the blood of Zechariah which you would say was shed today; indeed, there appear to be traces of the soldier's boots, who killed him, throughout the area, such that you would think they had been pressed in wax.

There are two status of Hadrian; not far from the statues is a pierced stone to the Jews comes every year and they anoint it and they lament with a groan and they tear their garments and then they withdraw.

There is the house of Hezekiah, King of Judah.

I have come to believe all of this section is about stuff on The Temple Mount.  After this he heads south out of what was then the city proper where he observed the Pool of Siloam then goes to the Western hill which was considered to be Zion at that time.

The use of the name "Bethsadia" is confusing because the New Testament and Josephus use that of a place not anywhere near Jerusalem.

There are at least two probably three different stones refereed to here. However people confident The Dome is the site of The Temple seem to treat all three as the same and as being the titular Rock under that Dome.  I have my doubts any of them really match that Rock but the best bet is that the modern "Well of Souls" is what this Pilgrim identified as the chamber where Solomon wrote "the book of Wisdom" (whether that is the apocryphal text or they meant Proverbs I won't venture to guess).  This association could explain why a Church built there later was called Holy Wisdom, but again I need an unbiased way to analyze the more obscure primary sources on that Church.

When the Pilgrim says "and in that building where" he's clearly moved to a more specific location and so the stone that will be mentioned last can't be identified with the two prior stones.  Those two stones are explicitly not in The Temple proper.

Identifying the Dome of The Rock as the Temple's Location depends on the "pierced stone" the Jews came to anoint every year (we know elsewhere that day was the 9th of Av, not Yom Kippur as one article I read criticizing Cornuke assumed).  This stone was (believed to be) either a Cornerstone of The Temple or one which was supposed to be where The Ark rested and so probably only slightly larger then The Ark itself, something more like the Stone around which The Church of the Seat of Mary was constructed.  But on second thought this Stone is not actually likely to be where the Holy of Holies was since The Jews have always been adamant about not risking accidentally walking over it.

So yes, I still consider the Dome itself the least likely of spots on The Mount to place The Temple.  I have become more open to the Dome of The Tablets view because that places it directly due west of the Golden Gate.  However the narrative thrust of the Pilgrim's description could be seen as moving southward and thus placing The Temple south of the presumed Chamber that Solomon wrote the Book of Wisdom in.

I am far from making up my mind on this issue.  I'm still attracted to the Nea Church being the site of at least one of The Temples, or maybe David's Tabernacle.

Update: An article called The Byzantine Presence on The Temple Mount arguing for the Gihon Spring view is very misinformed and since fact checking it's claims I now doubt that Saint Sophia/Holy Wisdom was on the Temple Mount.

It once accuses a Wilson of wrongly conflating the Church of the Blessed Mary with the Nea Church of the Theotokos.  However it is in fact well known that both those names were used for the same Church.  Cyril of Scythoplis account of the Church's origin makes clear that Sabas's request was just of a Church for Saint Mary.  It was Justinian who took the prerogative of using the title Theotokos because of his agenda of trying to unify the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches while scapegoating the Nestorians.  Both this source and Procopius only refer to Justinian building one Marian Church, and none of this article's sources are aware of the Theotokos Church if they were indeed different.

The Saint Sophia Church is clearly near by and so I'm now thinking was maybe where the Armenian Church of the Archangels is with it's presumed trial location changing.  Carefully reading that article's own sources the "Stone" venerated here that Jesus stood on is clearly a smaller portable "stone" not something like what the Dome is built over.

I personally think the tradition of sealing off the East Gate began in the Byzantine era by Christians who felt it was time to fulfill Ezekiel 46:1 since Jesus had already entered at his Triumphal entry.

The Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3

[This theory I've semi-abandoned, I'm planning to revise it.]

The Mother of Harlots

The pastor I do not like to name did a sermon on the Whore of Babylon once.  This sermon focused specifically on her being called the "Mother of Harlots".  He views the Mother Whore as being the Roman Catholic Church (even though he's Futurist not Hisotricist), and the other Harlots as being other denominations of Christianity who broke off from Rome.  He is one of those Independent Baptists who insists the Baptists have some secret independent Apostolic Succession and so does not descend from Rome the way mainline Protestants do.

The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD.  It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV.  The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one.  Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut.  Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.

This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects.  It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one.  Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line.  Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?

Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine.  Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of.  And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.

Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria.  Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after.  In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).

At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian.  But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.

Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century.  The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.

The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire.  The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.

After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.

Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed.  I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.

Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria.  Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle.  Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus.  He also really hated The Jews.

He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus.  However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened.  From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power.  But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.

Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora.  But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.

It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria.  Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later.  Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia.  Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.

Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus.  Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.

Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church.  But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.

Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves.  Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.

All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism.  But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.

Was Bible Prophecy fulfilled around 500 AD?

A few 2nd/Early 3rd Century AD Church Writers predicted that the Millenium would begin about 500 AD [Strandberg, Todd; James, Terry (June 2003). Are You Rapture Ready. New York City: Dutton.].  I don't think that happened, but I am open to unconventional understandings of how Daniel 2 and 7 relate to Revelation which could include more quasi Preterist/Historicist interpretations of those Chapters.

The basis for Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome and Julius Africanus predicting around 500 AD was that for reasons based on Septuagint chronology they felt the time of Christ was 5500 years from Creation and that the Seventh Millennium would begin about 500 years later.  So I’m going to allow a range here.  It’s interesting that all three had passed away before 250 AD and so were not making predictions based on a bias for wanting it to happen in their lifetimes.

The earliest possible date for The Birth of Jesus is 25 BC, 500 years from which would be 476 AD, but more popular dates are about 5-4 BC which takes us to the 490s AD.  From here on the start date is already AD so just put a 5 in-front of it to get the end date.

I place The Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in the Spring of 30 AD.  Others have proposed dates all over the time Pilate was Governor (26-36 AD).  The latest possible date is 37 AD, which year is also when I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel so definitely an important year.  But there is also room to argue the history of the First Advent isn’t fully done till we reach the end of the narrative of Acts (62-64 AD), or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in the midst of the Jewish Revolt that spanned from 66-73 AD.

So what was the End Time scenario predicted by our 500 AD date setters?  Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy more then any other Pre-Nicene writers.  Their model predicted that the Roman Empire would collapse, than 10 Kingdoms would arise in its place, and then after that would come The Little Horn commonly identified with The Antichrist. 

This was a pretty standard view of Bible Prophecy prior to Nicaea.  But when Constantine happened things changed, many started thinking Rome’s fall wasn’t something to look forward to anymore, and so Amillennial and Post-Millennial interpretations rose in popularity, and then the Last Roman Emperor tradition developed, which turned the one who would restore Rome after it’s collapse into a Hero rather then a Villain.

So it’s Ironic that even though the Church stopped believing in what those early Eschatology teachers predicted, what they predicted at least partially did happen pretty much exactly when they predicted it would.  Basically everything but The Second Coming itself.

476 AD is one of the dates commonly cited as when the Western Empire fell, along with 480 and 488 AD.  Chris White talked about how Daniel 2 can be viewed as being fulfilled in the late 400s AD, which I talked about when critiquing his very different view of Daniel 7.

Much of the 500s were dominated by the reign of Justinian, an emperor popular with History YouTubers like Extra Credits.  Seventh Day Adventists and other Protestant Historicists have a long history of viewing Daniel 7 as being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, with the 10 Horns being the Barbarian Kingdoms that rose to power in the West as Rome Fell.  I’m going to link to a Playlist that is mostly videos an Atheist YouTuber called NumberOneSon made critiquing various SDA teachers on what they get wrong about Justinian’s history.
History Versus Playlist.  Note, There is at least one video on the Playlist not about this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL95E6667F8E19F8B0

His critiques are mostly correct. (He does confuse Monophysite and Miasphyte theology by calling Theodora a Monophysite, she was a Miasphyte and so did believe Jesus was both Fully Human and Fully Divine, and it was only Miasyphtes not proper Monophysites Justinian wanted to make peace with, but that confusion is common.)  However the details these SDAs get wrong don’t change that, yes, what happened then looks an awful lot like what Daniel 7 predicted as it was interpreted by pre-Nicene Christians.

I'm willing to consider the Prophetic use of the round number 10 a detail that doesn’t need to be fulfilled exactly literally.  You can say that’s convenient, but I say it’s just the nature of the number 10.  But still there are ways to justify making it exactly 10 kingdoms if you wanted to. And I lean towards viewing the three Kingdoms Justinian uprooted as being the Vandals, Alans and Ostrogoths.  I know the Alans and Vandals are technically viewed as being the same kingdom by this point, but I still think it's valid to view them as separate in the context of fulfilling this prophecy.

Also I’m not a Historicist (not properly anyway) so don’t accept any Day=Year arguments and therefore won't turn around and make this about Napoleon and The Roman Question.

But the big difference between what I’m considering possible here and the SDAs is I don’t make the Little Horn into The Pope.  Instead I think the Little Horn is basically the Eastern Empire.

Some Prophecy teachers will try to say the Ten Toes need to be 5 on each Leg, thus 5 for the Eastern Empire.  The problem is in the context of Daniel 7 the Eastern Empire is the land of the first three Beasts (Mainly the Leopard).  Making it the Eastern Empire can make the Little Horn of Daniel 7 the same as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 without rejecting that the Fourth Beast is Rome.  I have already argued in an early Seleucid Dynasty post that the Daniel 8 Little Horn can be viewed as the Seleucid Empire as a whole, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom is the horn it grew out of.  The legacy of the Seleucid Empire, both genealogically and culturally, was absorbed into the Eastern Roman Empire.  If the Eastern Empire had a Capital prior to Constantinople being founded it was Antioch, that’s where Germanicus operated from when he was placed in charge of the East.  And it remained important after, with Constantius Gallus operating there when he was the number 2 man in the Empire, and the Bishop of Antioch always being one of the top Bishops in the Imperial Church.

So when the Eastern Empire is uprooting certain Barbarian Kingdoms during the 6th Century AD, that could be the Little Horn uprooting three of the ten.  Also in Daniel 7 the "Little Horn" is never directly called a King, that could be relevant here since in Jsuitnian's time the Roman Emperors were still officially claiming they weren't kings.

Chris White argued The Stone from Daniel 2 is The Church being established.  Given my argument that Daniel 2 and 7 should be understood in the geographical context of Mesopotamia, the Assyrian Church would fit best as being that Stone.  And the Nestorians were the branch of Christianity Justinian was pushing out.

And because I've considered more complicated nuanced views of how Daniel and Revelation relate to each other, the 3 uprooted horns may not be permanently uprooted, or since 10 is a symbolic number they get replaced once the Little Horn's role is over.  And so the Barbarian Kingdoms have become the WEU nations or something like that.

The Eight King of Revelation 17 can be viewed as different from the Little Horn, the Little Horn uproots three horns, but the Eight King is someone the Ten Horns more willingly give their power to.  Maybe you can still make that the Papacy, but then comes the other problems traditional Historicism has.