How would a potential Third Temple be constructed?

[The Mikado]

I can't see a scenario in which the piece of land in question is...cleared...that would be at all conducive to the sort of massive construction project we'd be talking about.

One of dozens of reasons why I'd like the Temple Mount status quo to continue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

Nurse?! One of the patients has escaped!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

Nurse?! One of the patients has escaped!

it is very plausible that in a WMD war Tel Aviv (where a good portion of secular Jews live) will be nuked (Jerusalem would be spared because it is holy to Muslims).  The remaining population of Jews, with the religious now making up a much higher percentage take over the West Bank and expel the Muslims from Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

There are already groups in Israel amassing material for the rebuilding:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm

[dead0man]

Divide the mount into thirds and give each of the bitchy groups a chunk.  One guess as to which group would be the first to blow sh**t up over that decision.

[Boris]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

So it is likely the Anti-Christ is a member of an international institution, such as the United Nations Security Council? Or could (s)he be a nobody who just posts an idea for peace on the uselectionatlas forum?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Divide the mount into thirds and give each of the bitchy groups a chunk.  One guess as to which group would be the first to blow sh**t up over that decision.

Wow. Congratulations on posting something almost as dumb as jmfcst's crap.

First of all, the main reason the Muslims would be most upset is they already have a mosque on that site that would have to be demolished. So you're proposing demolishing not only a Muslim holy site (which of course I don't care about), but also an important historical site. Not much different than the collapse in Cologne.

Second, I'll assume you're counting Christians as one of the "bitchy groups". This is very stupid as the vast majority of Christians could not care less about the Temple Mount. Like around 95%. Only a handful of nutjobs like jmfcst do. Please note he is the only person on this forum raving about it. Even most conservative Christians would not agree with him.

Thirdly, What Christian group would you give this slice of the Mount too? The largest church, the Roman Catholic Church? Well they don't care about it and have no desire to build a church on the mount. Neither do the Armenians, Greek Orthodox, or any other Christian group in Israel. In fact, no truly international church does, just a handful of nuts, almost exclusively in the western hemisphere with no organized group. It's essentially impossible.

Fourthly, even THEY don't care about building a church on the Mount. They just want the Jewish Temple built like jmfcst, which is also an issue because...

Fifthly, the vast majority of Jews don't care about the Temple Mount either, at least not in this sense. Jews believe the Temple will be rebuilt by the Messiah, meaning anyone proposing to rebuild it is essentially claiming to be the Messiah, hence heresy. Many Jews also interpret the Messiah as being the Temple, meaning they have no desire to ever rebuild the physical Temple. The people jmfcst keeps referring to are a fringe handful of kooks with about as much influence in Israel as the Green Party has in the US.

Sixthly, there are many logistical issues to rebuilding the Temple from the Jewish perspective. Such as the Temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant, not example an option now, and that it also contained a spot known as the Holiest of Holies considered too holy to even set foot on. Now where that spot was is quite unclear. Most religious Jews would never set foot on the Mount out of fear they'd be stepping on the Holiest of Holies.

Really, this is one of the most irrational and clearly unthought out proposals I have EVER seen on this forum. You can do better than this crap, seriously.

[Yamor]

Coming at this from the Jewish respective, your fifth and sixth points are completely true. I'd only disagree with what you said that these fringe group have as much power as the greens - they have far less, and are virtually unheard of in mainstream society in Israel!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Second, I'll assume you're counting Christians as one of the "bitchy groups". This is very stupid as the vast majority of Christians could not care less about the Temple Mount. Like around 95%. Only a handful of nutjobs like jmfcst do.

this is so full of misrepresentations:

1) I have no personal interest in the Temple Mount.  I, myself, along with every other believer filled with the spirit of Jesus Christ, am the temple of God.

2) There is a MUCH larger percentage than 5% of Christians who believe the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.  In fact, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of millennialists believe the temple will be rebuilt. (and, as a side-note, millennialism was the norm during the 1st four centuries of Christianity.  It wasn’t until the formation of the Catholic Church that the belief was pushed aside)

---

Please note he is the only person on this forum raving about it. Even most conservative Christians would not agree with him.

I am also one of the very few persons on this forum preaching against sexual immorality, though the bible is filled with such warnings.

[Bono]

Second, I'll assume you're counting Christians as one of the "bitchy groups". This is very stupid as the vast majority of Christians could not care less about the Temple Mount. Like around 95%. Only a handful of nutjobs like jmfcst do.

this is so full of misrepresentations:

1) I have no personal interest in the Temple Mount.  I, myself, along with every other believer filled with the spirit of Jesus Christ, am the temple of God.

2) There is a MUCH larger percentage than 5% of Christians who believe the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.  In fact, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of millennialists believe the temple will be rebuilt. (and, as a side-note, millennialism was the norm during the 1st four centuries of Christianity.  It wasn’t until the formation of the Catholic Church that the belief was pushed aside)

Justin Martyr says himself in the Dialogue with Trypho, that while he himself is a premillenialist, there were many other Christians you disagree. That is immaterial anyway. They weren't dispensational premillenialists--their premillenialism was church centered, not Israel centered. I know you never read anyone with which you disagree, but I'm still going to recomend you check the work of George E. Ladd, who is the most known modern proponent of "histoci" premillenialism. Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby(Peace Be Upon Him), regardless of whatever lineage you might try to claim for it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Justin Martyr says himself in the Dialogue with Trypho, that while he himself is a premillenialist, there were many other Christians you disagree. That is immaterial anyway. They weren't dispensational premillenialists--their premillenialism was church centered, not Israel centered. I know you never read anyone with which you disagree, but I'm still going to recomend you check the work of George E. Ladd, who is the most known modern proponent of "histoci" premillenialism. Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby(Peace Be Upon Him), regardless of whatever lineage you might try to claim for it.

Bono, I find your repeated statement “Peace be upon him” to be quite arrogant, as it attempt to proclaim that I follow Darby when I don’t know anything about him.

If you would TAKE THE TIME to read the early church fathers, you would know that same thing that took me the last 10 mintues to google:

Exhibit A – Justin

Justin’s statemetnts about the antiChrist are in agreement with my own:

"The one that Daniel revealed would reign for a time, times and a half, is now at the door ready to utter bold and blasphemous words against the Most High.  And you, being ignorant of how long he will reign, hold a different opinion, interpreting the word “time” as meaning one hundred years.  But if this is so, the man of sin must reign at least three hundred and fifty years….But the other (advent) in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy (who speaks strange things against the Most High) will venture to do unlawful deeds on earth against us Christians”

Exibit B: Irenaeus 

Irenaeus  believed the AntiChrist would be ruling from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and that he  held believes on this topic which are identical to my own, quoting 2Thes2 and Matt 24:14 to back up his beliefs.  And Irenaeus  believed the AntiChrist would rule for 3.5 years ,just as I believe.  And he used linked Dan 9:27 with the sacrifice being taken away to the antichrist in the rebuilt temple (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 25)

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple in Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 30)

If I hadn’t quoted Irenaeus, everyone on this forum would have thought that the above statement came from jmfcst! 

Exhibit C: Hippolytus

Hippolytus also seperated Daniel’s 70th week and believed it signified the last 7 years.  Hippolytus also believed the AntiChrist would rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, where the AntiChrist will abolish the sacrifice and proclaim himself to be God:

"For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world...."
[Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, 22] 

"Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every God, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed' - that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'
[Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, 39]

"And at first, indeed, that deceitful and lawless one, with crafty deceitfulness, will refuse such glory; but the men persisting, and holding by him, will declare him king. And thereafter he will be lifted up in heart, and he who was formerly gentle will become violent, and he who pursued love will become pitiless, and the humble in heart will become haughty and inhuman, and the hater of unrighteousness will persecute the righteous. Then, when he is elevated to his kingdom, he will marshal war; and in his wrath he will smite three mighty kings, - those, namely, of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem, and will restore it again speedily, and give it over to the Jews. And then he will be lifted up in heart against every man; yea, he will speak blasphemy also against God, thinking in his deceit that he shall be king upon the earth hereafter for ever; not knowing, miserable wretch, that his kingdom is to be quickly brought to nought, and that he will quickly have to meet the fire which is prepared for him, along with all who trust him and serve him. For when Daniel said, 'I shall make my covenant for one week,' he indicated seven years; and the one half of the week is for the preaching of the prophets, and for the other half of the week - that is to say, for three years and a half - Antichrist will reign upon the earth. And after this his kingdom and his glory shall be taken away. Behold, ye who love God, what manner of tribulation there shall rise in those days, such as has not been from the foundation of the world, no, nor ever shall be, except in those days alone. Then the lawless one, being lifted up in heart, will gather together his demons in man's form, and will abominate those who call him to the kingdom, and will pollute many souls."
[Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV] 
 
Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease. By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations. For John says, And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [Hippolytus - Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 43]

--==========================================

So, Bono, in closing, I have two suggestions for you…

1) Put your arrogance aside, for you may be well read, but you know very little – your knowledge is limited to labels.  For it took me a mere 10 minutes to google the beliefs of early Christians and demonstrate that my beliefs concerning the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and its subsequent occupation by the AntiChrist did NOT come from Darby, a person I have never read, but rather were common in the early church among those who studied the scriptures.

2) Put all your books written by Christians aside and get into the scripture.  Those other books may have some value, but they’ve also passed onto to you the doctrinal errors and prejudices of their authors, which took only 10 minutes for me to refute.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To All -

I hope my previous post puts aside all talk that I gleaned my beliefs from anyting other than scripture. That's not to say my beliefs are perfect, but I do hope it ends all this talk that I am a pawn of some Christian writer within the last 500 years.

In my years on this forum, I have repeatedly communicated the fact that I do not read Christian books other than the bible.  I have never read the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, or whoever else is out there.

I came to believe in Christ as a result of being prompted by a follower of Herbert Armstrong in Oct '92.  During my first night of study, I happened to start with the book of Galatians.  God gave me the ability to understand the book of Galatians refuted the legalism of Armstrong, and I became a believer and received the Holy Spirit that very same night while alone in my apartment.

I spent the next 18 months studying with and witnesses to my friends caught up in Armstrong's church.  I quickly became aware of the dangers of following teachers instead of reading the bible for yourself.  I can’t not tell how you many times I would have my friends read to me scripture and how when I would have them interpret it themselves (without me first telling them my interpretation), their interpretation would agree with mine…but when they realized they were contradicting their church’s doctrine, they would claim that there must be something their own interpretation had missed even though they couldn’t pinpoint it.  I have them take an entire book of scripture, like Hebrews, and have them read it to me while they provided a steady steam of their own interpretation, and be completely on the same page without me saying a single word…until they found out what their church believed.  And this sort of thing happened so often, that my friends began refusing to give their own interpretations without first checking their church’s position. 

Sadly, that is how much of Christianity operates.  And my frustrations from witnessing it firsthand is the reason I have admittedly taken an over-extreme position of being somewhat indifferent to Christian writings.  I believe that if you can’t interpret scripture for yourself, then you have no way to verify your church’s teachings.  I do, however, check to make sure I am not out on a limb by myself on any given doctrine, for I do not believe I have been given special knowledge apart from other Christians.

As for as the church I go to and my pastor...I didn't step foot into my church until 5.5 months after being saved. And during that intervening 5.5 months, I studied everyday and basically had the outline of what I believe today BEFORE I ever stepped foot into my current church.

During those 5.5 months, I was without a church and I was attending Armstrong’s church with my friends (not that I agreed with it, but I went to learn more and to demonstrate to my friends in that church that I was going the extra mile).  I planned to find a church, but my priorities were to help my friends.

When I decided to get baptized (I received the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism), I took a long lunch from work, drove the 20 miles back to my apartment, and walked into a Baptist church chose to where I lived.  I told the pastor my story and asked to be baptized.  The pastor told me he would schedule it for the following Sunday, but I was disappointed and asked again to be baptized then and there.  The pastor said that he would baptize me immediately under one condition: that I would come back Sunday and be rebaptized in front on the congregation.  Even though I had planned on attending Sunday and making it my home, having to be rebaptized made no sense to me, so I left.  I arrived back at work and told a fellow worker what had happened.  She replied that she knew a pastor who would baptize me today and that was close to work.  She made a phone call, and set up an appointment with me immediately after work.  I told the next pastor my story and what the other pastor said.  He agreed there was no scriptural basis to the other pastor's objections.  After a short talk, he baptized me and has been my pastor ever since, even though I have had to drive 20 miles to attend church for the last 16 years.

Granted, my pastor teaches me a lot, otherwise I wouldn’t have continued attending, but my doctrine was pretty much put in place during those intervening 5.5 months through self-study (I was about 95% in agreement with my pastor when I first accepted his as my pastor, now I’m about 94% in agreement).  That’s why every attempt to categorize my beliefs will flop.  No one can take the beliefs or Calvin or Luther or Darby or even my pastor and use them as a template in an attempt to label and dismiss my beliefs.  I’m not going to fit neatly into any box because I didn’t get my beliefs from any box other than my own interpretation of the bible.

And that is what I have an issue with – labeling for the purpose of dismissing, especially when the label doesn’t fit.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So no reply from dead0man? Just more jmfcst super-long posts that no one will read?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[dead0man]

So no reply from dead0man?

I was supposed to take you as seriously as you took me?  Nah, I'm good man.

Hey, do you know anything about the iTouch and home wireless networks where the security is done at the MAC address level?  I can't get my son's iTouch to connect to my wireless network.  It sees it, but it can't connect.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So no reply from dead0man?

I was supposed to take you as seriously as you took me?  Nah, I'm good man.

Hey, do you know anything about the iTouch and home wireless networks where the security is done at the MAC address level?  I can't get my son's iTouch to connect to my wireless network.  It sees it, but it can't connect.

Does it work on others? Then it's with your network. Don't know about changing the network security itself though, that's not my area.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[dead0man]

Does it work on others? Then it's with your network. Don't know about changing the network security itself though, that's not my area.

Yeah, it works on him mom's network.  I figured it was my weird security.  Thanks man.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[Bono]

Here is "my reaction".

First, Justin Martyr. We find his eschatological views in his Dialog with Trypho, the Jew. There is no dispute that he was a Premillenialist. But a few considerations blunt the strenght of this fact as an argument for the universality of Premillenialism in the early church. First, Justin makes clear that not all Christians agree with him about premillennialism. In Chapter 80 of this work, Trypho, the Jew, is cross-examining Justin about his belief that Jerusalem will be rebuilt as the center of a joyful fellowship of the Christ and his people during the millennium, asking him if he really affirms a doctrine held also by the Jews? Justin replies:

"I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. "

But this is not the only problem. Justin's premillenialism was clearly distinct from modern dispensational premillenialism: one of the great thrusts of Justin's Dialog  is the doctrine that Christians are the true Jews. This is clear when he says in chapter 11:

“For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham…are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ…”

Moreover, when Justin is speaking of the kingdom for which Christians look, he denies that it is a human kingdom - "you suppose we speak of a human kingdom, whereas we speak of that which is with God." Justin speaks of a general judgment at Christ's second coming, when death "shall for ever quit those who believe on Him and be no more: when some are sent to be punished unceasingly into judgment and condemnation of fire: but others shall exist in freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief and in immortality."

From these statements one would suppose there was no room for an earthly millennium in his teaching, yet inconsistently he says elsewhere that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, and "that thereafter the general and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." Justin's millennium would have no special place at all for the Jew, for he tells us over and over that Christians "are the true Israelite race".

I think this does away with any claim dispensationalism can lay on Justin Martyr's lineage.

Irenaeus, too, denied any special Judaic character in the Millenial kingdom. In Book 5, Chapter 32 of Against Heresies, he writes:



He equates Abraham's seed not with Jews, but with those "who are justified by faith". I think this also nails the coffin on the claim that he was some sort of proto-dispensationalist. Moreover, while he does affirm that the Anti-Christ will rule in the second half of Daniel's seventieth week, he is not very clear how "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away" during the "half-week," or three and one-half years of Antichrist's reign. Also, he says nothing of the seventy weeks, so we do not know how he placed the seventieth in relation to the former sixty nine.

As for Hyppolytus, I am surprised to seem him quoted as someone to which credence should be given, considering he was a who believed in the notion that the six days of creation were typical of the history of humanity, and as such men would live six thousand years (with each day representing a thousand years) before the millennial sabbath. Keep this in mind, because I'm going to come back to it later.

In the same chapter you quoted, 22 from Book II, but a part which you conveniently left out, when he talks about what the taking away of the sacrifice and oblation means, he writes:

"And when [the antichrist] comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. "

He wasn't talking of a sacrifice in the rebuilt Jewish temple, he was talking about transubstantiation! Ie, he envisions the antichrist persecuting the Church, not the Jews, thus establishing that he, too, was no proto-dispensationalist

More generally, none of this indicates that premillenialism had an origin in apostolic Christianity.

As the quotations from Justin have already suggested, a Christian premillennialist could recognize a remarkable similarity between his own views and those of the Jews at this point. This tends to confirm the view that premillennialism originated within ancient Judaism. Masselink in his polemic work against premillennialism, Why Thousand Years? asked the question:

"What is the origin of this strange doctrine?" The careful study of church history will furnish us with the conclusive answer. Premillennialism is a descent of ancient Judaism. There is a striking resemblance between the offspring and the parent. The old Jewish conceptions of an external Messianic kingdom have found their perfect embodiment in the Chiliastic theory of the millennium. Premillennialism is a relic of Judaism.

Geerhardus Vos in his Pauline Eschatology offers abundant evidence that within pre-Christian Judaism there had grown up an eschatological system which related the idea of the Messianic kingdom to the eternal state by way of making them consecutive phases in God's plan for the end of history. That is to say, the Messianic kingdom occurs before the final judgment at the end of history and the eternal state. That's where Hyppolitus belief comes in. His belief in the day--thousand years equivalent is reminiscent of a similar (not not identical) division in the apocryphal book of Enoch.  Also, in 4 Ezra, for instance, the Messianic kingdom lasts four hundred years at the end of history. It seems likely that early Christians coming out of a judaistic background imported this view into their new faith. Rather than spiritualizing the Messianic kingdom or in some way seeing the Messianic kingdom as already present in the church, they retained the entire Jewish eschatology and placed it at the end of history.

This ancestry of premillennialism is, of course, not conclusive against it. A premillennialist might claim that these views developed in inter-testamental Judaism from Old Testament rootage. Yet, it does provide an explanation for the early Premillennialism which is consistent with rejecting it as the authentic eschatology of the Bible.

I end with a final note on Augustine. The tune was set against premillenialism since the excesses of the Montanists, some of whom (but far from all), held to an extreme form of premillenialism. This was way before Augustine came into play, though even he himself was a premillenialist before coming to his amillenial conclusions. That said, there are clear indications that Augustine believed in a personal antichrist who comes on the scene in the final little season before Christ's return after the thousand years are completed. (Note chapters 13 and 19 of Book 20 of the City of God). I note this to avoid conflating he two issues like you did back there. Many (most?) historical premillenialists, with a perfectly non-dispensational ecclesiology and israeology, believed in a personal antichrist, and so do many amillenialists for that matter.

[prophetman]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

>>>that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.<<<

That is precisely the teaching which originated with John Darby and our Protestant forefathers, and of whose teaching has been passed down through the centuries by the Protestant churches of America.

Ol' John Darby and a few other preachers of that era simply speculated and used their own private interpretation of the prophetic scriptures.
They read the scripture in 11Thes.2 where it says that the man of sin will sit in "the temple of God", and thought to themselves, "Hey, that must mean that the Temple will someday be rebuilt in Jerusalem!"

They did this with the rest of the prophetic scriptures, thus creating the popular "Antichrist" fable....a fable which all Christians and most  of the secular world have bought into.

[Torie]

For some odd reason I have never pondered this question. I think it should be up to God myself. Let Him make it happen.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is "my reaction".

First, Justin Martyr. We find his eschatological views in his Dialog with Trypho, the Jew. There is no dispute that he was a Premillenialist. But a few considerations blunt the strenght of this fact as an argument for the universality of Premillenialism in the early church. First, Justin makes clear that not all Christians agree with him about premillennialism.

Dude, I NEVER argued for the “universality” of Premillenialsim, I simply said it was a common belief.  Whether it had the acceptance of 20% or 80% is relevant to my point.  I simply was pointing out that the idea was nothing new and the early church fathers that I quoted prove that.  So stop trying to redefine the argument.

---

But this is not the only problem. Justin's premillenialism was clearly distinct from modern dispensational premillenialism: one of the great thrusts of Justin's Dialog  is the doctrine that Christians are the true Jews.

Likewise I also believe Christians (whether Gentile or Jew) are the true spiritual Jews and makeup the true spiritual Israel.  But I, like Justin, also distinguish between spiritual Jew and blood Jew.  Again, you’re attempting to force a disagreement in an area where it doesn’t exist.

---

Justin's millennium would have no special place at all for the Jew, for he tells us over and over that Christians "are the true Israelite race".

Your conclusion is plain conjecture, for I myself believe Christians are the true spiritual Israel, yet I am able to distinguish the spiritual Israel from the physical Isreal.

---

I think this does away with any claim dispensationalism can lay on Justin Martyr's lineage.

What?!  As I understand the term “dispensation”, unless you believe the Law of Moses is still in effect, you, by definition believe in different dispensations of time where God’s economy (the system he gave man) changed.  Catholics are dispensationists, which is why they mention throughout the catholic catechism the fact that God’s economy has changed.

---

Irenaeus, too, denied any special Judaic character in the Millenial kingdom.

And….what’s your point?  Irenaeus still believed the Temple in Jerusalem was going to be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist before the Second Coming.

---

He equates Abraham's seed not with Jews, but with those "who are justified by faith".

As you can see in the following, I’ve always believed the exact same thing:

430 years before the Old Covenant commandments, God prophesied to Abraham that the Gentiles would be justified by faith through the message of gospel: "All nations will be blessed through you."  The blessing of the gospel to the whole earth came “through Abraham” because Jesus was a descendent of Abraham.  That is why Abraham is called “the father of the faithful”, because we become children of Abraham in the eyes of God when we receive Christ into our hearts, so we become identified with Christ, who is Abraham’s heir and promised seed.

 

---

Hippolytus…

He wasn't talking of a sacrifice in the rebuilt Jewish temple, he was talking about transubstantiation!

Hippolytus clearly believed the temple in Jerusalem was going to be rebuilt:

“And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem, and will restore it again speedily, and give it over to the Jews”  [Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV] 

Case closed.

---

Ie, he envisions the antichrist persecuting the Church, not the Jews, thus establishing that he, too, was no proto-dispensationalist

I also believe the antichrist will persecute the church:

I am NOT a Pre-Tribber, I believe the church will have to endure persecution from the Anti-Christ.

And whether or not there is a difference between Hippolytus and I concerning the Jews, he and I are still in agreement that the Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt.

---

More generally, none of this indicates that premillenialism had an origin in apostolic Christianity.

But it does indicate that the idea of the rebuilding of the Temple and the occupation thereof by the AntiChrist just prior to the Second Coming was NOT an idea that originated with Darby.  Period!

---

As the quotations from Justin have already suggested, a Christian premillennialist could recognize a remarkable similarity between his own views and those of the Jews at this point. This tends to confirm the view that premillennialism originated within ancient Judaism. Masselink in his polemic work against premillennialism, Why Thousand Years? asked the question:

"What is the origin of this strange doctrine?" The careful study of church history will furnish us with the conclusive answer. Premillennialism is a descent of ancient Judaism.

This is what I don’t get about you, Bono:  For some idiotic reason, you discount the possibility that some members of Judaism and some members of Christianity (e.g. Justin, jmfcst) can read the same scriptures and independently come to the same conclusions in certain areas. 

I know it is difficult for you to grasp the idea of independent thought, which is why you’re always quoting Christian writers to back up your beliefs instead of quoting scripture; but believe it or not, some of us can think without the help of others:

1 John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you”


Two closing points…

1)   You have no basis to accuse me of following the teachings of anyone.  My testimony is that I am largely self taught, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

2)   Belief in a rebuilt Jerusalem temple did NOT originate with Darby, but rather the idea came about independently by believers who independently read the same set of scriptures and came to the same conclusion.

[12th Doctor]

Actually, according to the Biblical and Archeological evidence, it would be a fifth temple.  Four total have sat on the site.

[Bono]

jmfcst, I think it's you who doesn'tread what others said. I never said they didn't believe the temple would be rebuilt. Hell, Augustine believed that and he was an amillenialist--Catholic doctrine until the Reformation said the same thing, in fact. What I said was:

Justin Martyr says himself in the Dialogue with Trypho, that while he himself is a premillenialist, there were many other Christians you disagree. That is immaterial anyway. They weren't dispensational premillenialists--their premillenialism was church centered, not Israel centered. I know you never read anyone with which you disagree, but I'm still going to recomend you check the work of George E. Ladd, who is the most known modern proponent of "histoci" premillenialism. Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby(Peace Be Upon Him), regardless of whatever lineage you might try to claim for it.

I didn't say futurism (the belief most prophetic texts in the Bible are yet to be fulfilled, and will be just prior to the Second Coming of Jesus) was invented by John Nelson Darby. I would be an idiot to claim anything like that, because I know perfectly well there have been scores of futurists in Church history. All I was denying was that they were dispensationalist. The same George Ladd I mentioned in that post was a futurist (he's with the Lord now), he just wasn't a dispensationalist.

I also don't see how you expect me to quote the Bible to document post-biblical Church history, but there you go. Ladd surveyed early church eschatology and found no traces of dispensationalism, though he did find a lot of futurism.

To reiterate--I never said some early Christians never believed the temple would not be rebuilt, nor that most prophecies were yet to be fulfilled. I just denied that they were proto-dispensationalists, and none of your arguments disprove that, for you are arguing against something I never said.