Talk:Millennialism

There's a lot of good information in this article, but it's loaded with opinion as well. I've restructured it, retaining all of the original material, with the intention of presenting the definition of Millennialism preceding instead of following the comparative religion analysis. ...

... And, in my opinion, all of the comparative stuff should be the start of a new page on Utopianism (with a good teaser to invite interest - because, it really is good stuff; it just doesn't have much directly to do with Millennialism, per se). -- Mkmcconn

Millennialsim has nothing to do with the Messianic Age. The foretelling of the Messianic age shadows the Millenium Messiah hype. - Eisenmond 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've noticed this tendency in Wikipedia to create more and more new pages whenever I think a comprehensive survey might do the trick. So maybe you, Mkmcconn, or someone else will create that new article. I'm not so sure about the text being "loaded with opinion" -- I really tried to observe the NPOV guidelines. Anyway, thanks for the "good stuff" bit. -- KF 15:06 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

I do apologize for not being more courteous in making my comments. The article already exists, now, at Utopianism. If you read it there, I think that you might agree with me that it's complete in its own right. I left the same material in the Millennialism article, and I wonder if you won't agree with me that it is more neutral now that it's put at the end instead of at the beginning? But, you may not agree with me that the material at the end could be deleted, and replaced with a more brief summary and link to Utopianism. — Mkmcconn

There's really no need to apologize for anything. You have added valuable information -- but you seem to be much more of sn expert. All I'm saying is that if I had thought that the material I added belonged to separate articles I would have split it up. Basically, I think there's nothing wrong with different types of articles within one enyclopedia (in one of the old Britannica editions they called it "Macro" and "Micro" or something like that, i e general versus in-depth information). So please delete the parts you have moved. Personally, I like reading texts that lead you from one thing to another step by step.

All the best :) KF 16:10 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

Hopefully the two articles can grow in a complementary way. A passer-by added titles which, although they don't perfectly fit the contents at the moment, do suggest a good structure for the article (in my opinion). It would be interesting to see more about the Millennial teachings of Zoroastrianism and Judaism. I hope you won't let me force an idea onto the work that you have done in a way that cools your interest in the work, though. It's much less gratifying if that happens when it isn't necessary. -- Mkmcconn

The first two sentences of the section on the early church and premillennialism are a direct quotation from the article cited as a source and should be documented as such. This opening paragraph makes claims which are disputed. In particular, to say that millenialism was "normative" in the Church is certainly an overstatement, as the quotation from Justin that follows demonstrates. The Catholic Encyclopedia (admittedly not an unbiased source) says this,

"Though millenarianism had found numerous adherents among the Christians and had been upheld by several ecclesiastical theologians, neither in the post-Apostolic period nor in the course of the second century, does it appear as a universal doctrine of the Church or as a part of the Apostolic tradition."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm

Furthermore, the statement that "Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine" ought to be qualified. While it is technically true, some explanation should be given that distinguishes their "premillenial" views from the views which are referenced by that term today.

Andy kaylor 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 2 February 2004 an anonymous contributor edited the Millennialism article (which had not been edited for more than a year) and changed it considerably. I would ask anyone knowledgeable about the subject to check if the alterations are okay. What I certainly don't like is confusing terminology, which was also introduced today. In any case we should make sure it's millennium and millennia. <KF> 09:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What has Hiler has to do with this page? Pure nonsense. Not every graziness has to be called eschatology.

What is relevant here is not Hitler as a person, it's the fact that millennial thinking did play a (minor) role in Nazi ideology. As the original article was much longer, less emphasis was seemingly placed on the Third Reich. Why do you say "pure nonsense", User:80.133.106.218? <KF> 14:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please weave in the Fifth Monarchy Men into this article? Philip Baird Shearer 13:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This information is very knowledgeable, but how can we believe what we read if the information is able to be edited by anyone who visits the site?

Since the major views on the Millennium of Revelation 20 are Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism, I'm wondering why only the latter two have their own article, while the former redirects to here.--PeterR 20:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short answer...no one has written it yet.  :-) --Cberlet 22:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They have now. Arcan 13:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, the Millennium reign of Christ is the time when mankind will have the chance to be redeemed. The Gospel Age was for the church to be gathered, chiseled and transformed into spiritual beings. The Millennium is for the world which was not called to be part of the Church but will be called to obey God's laws which will be implemented here on Earth with the help of the invisible, powerful, spiritual Church.

Every single soul that lived on this Earth will be resurected and asked to obey God's perfect laws in order to receive eternal human (not spiritual as the Church) life on Earth.

Salvation of mankind is not for this time of Gospel Age, only for the Church the "Bride of Christ"

the phrase "messianic age" is a catch phrase used by Judaism to speak about the "Olam Ha Ba" or the Age to Come. It has a distinctly Jewish feel to it and I don't think they would appreciate amalgumating it into the millenial article because that is primarily a Christian article. The messianic age is similar but in my opinion distinct enough to keep as a separate entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlaveOFchrist (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Yes, I think it is relevant historical information, but should be a link, and not necessarily part of article. S.W. April 12, 2007 8:41 EDT

Yes. Millenialism is too broad to put into Messianic Age, and Messianic Age is important in other religions including Judaism, so it should not be inserted here. I am removing the merge template. nadav 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Agree with S.W. and nadav.--Cberlet 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reference quoted: - [...] einem tausendjährigen Volk mit tausendjähriger geschichtlicher und kultureller Vergangenheit für die vor ihm liegende unabsehbare Zukunft eine ebenbürtige tausendjährige Stadt zu bauen [...]. [...] to build a millennial city adequate [in splendour] to a thousand year old people with a thousand year old historical and cultural past, for its never-ending [glorious] future [...]

This suggests to me that Hitler believed he was building a new city for a people/empire which had already lasted for a thousand years not as it has been interpreted lasting for a thousand years:

- "Hitler's "Third Reich" ("Drittes Reich", "Tausendjähriges Reich"), which, in his vision, would last for a thousand years - but which in reality only lasted for 12 years (1933-1945)."

Needs correcting??203.173.159.108 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"There have been many claims that a millennial panic..." and you only give two footnotes. This section needs to be expanded with a list of the so-called many or else take out "many" and do a rewrite. 4.249.63.50 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Deleted this section. Based one the ideas of one person on one website. I would even suggest that it was included here by the same person, as this seems the only plausible explanation, even though it wasn't done by an editor with a user name. Holford (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

After fixing a presumed grammatical mistake, I found that this text is a word for word copy from [Always Victorious! The Earliest Church Not Pre - ButPost-Millennial Francis Nigel Lee, Lulu.com, 2006, with copyright of 2000]. Please click to verify the infringement.

Shall we remove these passages?

Zezen (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I have found that this passage was introduced in 2005 by an IP user, who seems to have been opinionated about religious themes Zezen (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm unable to verify plagiarism because Google doesn't give me access to the page, but that's something towards verifying that the page itself is governed by some copyright restrictions. Having found "a word for word copy" in the article text, I would say that that is grounds for immediate removal of the text. However, it would also make some sense to attempt a summary or paraphrase in the article, and to use the book as a source. That would take care of copyright difficulties.

The author, Francis Nigel Lee, has a short WP article of his own; check it out. I can't really speak as to whether the source is reliable or not. The Google info about the book looks as though it were published in Poland (perhaps elsewhere in eastern Europe), but in English. That seems a bit odd, and makes it harder to determine the book's credentials. Likewise, the author's collection of degrees, while numerous, don't ring any bells for me, and his association with Shelton College, listed in his article, seems less than impressive, given that the Supreme Court of New Jersey yanked its credentials for granting degrees. So, I'm wondering if someone more familiar with the author and his career could speak to reliability here. StAnselm, would you be willing? I see that you did significant editing on his article.

If the Wikipedia wording is dated 2005, and the Lee wording is dated 2006, that means there's no copyright violation – rather it appears that Lee is copying Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh! Yes, of course! So obvious now that it is pointed out! Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The publication date is different to the copyright date, so the Wikipedia revision was created later than the stated copyright date: 2000. Another option: he himself had rewritten the Wiki article from his earlier book, but I consider it unlikely. Zezen (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

To complicate matters, the admin of the Lee's remembrance site seems to have published the book online in 2014, check here, with the caveat "© Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. LeeAll Rights Reserved". Zezen (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

And if Lee copied WP in the first place, then it cannot be viewed as WP:RS, because it would amount to self-referencing. Evensteven (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The section on the reformation and beyond fails to note that the key figures in the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, were both vehement opponents of chilianism (millennialism). See Riddlebarger ^[1] As Riddlebarger argues, the mainstream Protestant denominations rejected the eschatalogical claims and preoccupations of the fringe Church/Sects such as Anababtists, Mormons, etc. This rejection was based on several grounds, including their rejection of the notion of a perfect community prior to the end of time, and their horror of groups justifying their existence on the basis of millennial claims. The current discussion on Reformation and Beyond would appear to be an attempt to sanitize the Mormon view of the subject. This section needs to be rewritten and referenced to provide a more cogent explanation of the Lutheran and Calvinist Church's opposition to chilianism. Oxe10 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Warshy and all -- I have discussed this addition with editor Warshy, and agreed to add another reference, which I have now done. Warshy directed me to post comments here about the addition (rather than as before on his talk page). So I am doing this here. Following is the proposed addition to the Millennialism Wikipedia page. I will now repost it, with the added reference. Thank you -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bible Students believe that the Millennial reign of Christ is the time when the curse will be lifted, all mankind will come to know that the Kingdom of God has been established on Earth, and every human being who has ever lived will have an opportunity for reformation, obedience, and to obtain everlasting life -- as offered to Adam and Eve at the beginning. That the intervening 6000 years have allowed mankind an experience with sin and its consequences, so that they may make good choices when opportunity provides in the Millennium. That this Millennial Kingdom will begin at Israel, and be administered by the resurrected "Ancient Worthies" -- men and women of faith from the time before Christ. That the time from Christ until the Millennial Kingdom, the "Gospel Age," is for gathering the "Bride" class who will rule with Christ, from heaven, to uplift mankind during the Millennium (Revelation 20:6). This view is documented in "The Divine Plan of the Ages," Volume One of the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, by Pastor Charles Russell, 1886 (Currently published by the Dawn Bible Students Association). (See the Special History Issue, "Bible Student History," at Herald-magazine.com for a history of the Bible Student Movement, and their views.)

Hello. Your suggested addition above is NOT properly referenced. The only link you give above is a WP internal link only to a disambiguation page that includes the Jehova Witnesses. It is by no means a proper REFERENCE to a reliabe secondary source that describes the sect or movement. Your reference to Charles Russell, at the end, is not a properly formatted reference to a verifiable book either. You could try to add a link to Russell on Wikipedia, and maybe in that page there is a properly formatted reference to his book, which you could then try to copy here. But even so, Russell's book would be a primary religious text source, not a reliable secondary source that is describing the sect or movement as a notable historical phenomenon, separated and differentiated from Jehova's Witnesses. The rest of your text are not very welll written (from an encyclopedia point of view) religious beliefs that can maybe found in Russell's book, but do not refer to any specific notable and differentiated movement or sect. I am therefore removing your suggested addition, until you can provide properly formatted secondary sources for your statement. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Warshy -- I thought I was complying with your request. But let me try again. Following is what I propose to post. It adds references to two other Wikipedia articles. Is this agreeable? Please advise -- Thank you, David Rice

===Bible Students===

Bible Students believe that the Millennial reign of Christ is the time when the curse will be lifted, all mankind will come to know that the Kingdom of God has been established on Earth, and every human being who has ever lived will have an opportunity for reformation, obedience, and to obtain everlasting life -- as offered to Adam and Eve at the beginning. That the intervening 6000 years have allowed mankind an experience with sin and its consequences, so that they may make good choices when opportunity provides in the Millennium. That this Millennial Kingdom will begin at Israel, and be administered by the resurrected "Ancient Worthies" -- men and women of faith from the time before Christ. That the time from Christ until the Millennial Kingdom, the "Gospel Age," is for gathering the "Bride" class who will rule with Christ, from heaven, to uplift mankind during the Millennium (Revelation 20:6). This view is documented in "The Divine Plan of the Ages," Volume One of the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, by Pastor Charles Russell, 1886 (Currently published by the Dawn Bible Students Association). (See the Special History Issue, "Bible Student History," at Herald-magazine.com for a history of the Bible Student Movement, and their views.) See also Bible Student Movement and Studies in the Scriptures.DavRice (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Warshy -- I have not heard a reply for a week. I have upgraded with two more references. Shall I proceed? -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here is my suggestion to what I could agree could be added to the page, based on your added links above:

Bible Student Movement is a Millenialist movement based on the views expressed in "The Divine Plan of the Ages," Volume One of the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, by Pastor Charles Taze Russell, in 1886. (The series is still currently published by the Dawn Bible Students Association).

Since all the history and beliefs are already explained in the linked page, there is no need to go into all these specific doctrinal beliefs here. The sentence would link this article to the FOUR other related Wikipedia pages, that contain all the other information needed. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Warshy -- Well, I suppose I could swallow hard, and appreciate your effort here. It seems a shame, when the small paragraph proposed above expresses the essence of so many particulars, so succinctly. But compromise is part of life, and I appreciate you have spent a lot of time on this. But perhaps we could augment it just a bit, to explain the view that distinguishes Bible Students from all other groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses). While accepting your reduction from the various specifics. Here following is a suggestion. If this is agreeable, I will proceed. Please advise. Thank you -- David Rice

The Bible Student movement is a Millennialist movement based on views expressed in "The Divine Plan of the Ages," in 1886, in Volume One of the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, by Pastor Charles Taze Russell. (This series is still being published, since 1927, by the Dawn Bible Students Association.) Bible Students hold for Universal Opportunity for every person, past and present, not previously recipients of the Heavenly Calling, to gain everlasting life on Earth during the Millennium. DavRice (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have made some corrections to your suggested text above. Go over them first. Then we still have 2 problems to discuss, resolve, and agree, before I can proceed and possibly add the agreed upon text to the page. The problems are:

1) Would you have secondary source (other than Pastor Russel's writings; those are primary sources in this case) that corroborate these assertions about such highly abstract concepts as "Universal Opportunity" or "Heavenly Calling."? Why do they need to be capitalized as you have it? Mind you, we are adding this paragraph of information without any specific reliable secondary source supporting it, which is contrary to basic WP procedure. If you don't have such a source, I would still be willing to add the agreed upon text, since it points to 4 other established WP pages, that can corroborate it.

2) We still have a problem of where exactly to insert it. My suggestion is to create a new section in the page called Watch Tower Society. This new section would have 2 sub-sections: first, the Bible Student movement paragraph agreed upon above; and second, the current section called Jehova's Witnesses. This is because it is clear that the two sects spring from the writing of Pastor Russell, but there was a serious schism in the overall movement after the death of the Pastor in 1916. Now, hopefully, this arrangement would not suddenly awaken the ire of some JW supporters who happen to track developments on WP. Let me remark in passing also that that section is also currently not corroborated by any secondary reliable sources, it just points also to their WP pages. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Warshy -- As to another source, perhaps "To Us the Scriptures Clearly Teach," which is widely used by Bible Students, but by no one else other than Bible Students. It appears in the Herald Magazine each issue, and also on the Dawn Bible Students website. As to combining Bible Students under a single "Watch Tower" designation -- it would mutually ire Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. None of the Bible Student fellowship are in any way associated with the Watch Tower, which regularly disfellowships people who do not agree with them. Really, it is best to leave "Bible Students" as its separate entity. No one else holds the same basic understanding. It is broad enough to incorporate many subgroups -- I could list a dozen of them. It is a generic term to cover them all. -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thank you. I have rearranged all "modern era" sections under a new section ("19th and 20th Centuries"), and I have rearranged all of the sub-sections in this new section in a better chronological order. The new sub-section we discussed and agreed upon above has been added. Be well. warshy ^(¥¥) 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Warshy -- You spent a lot of time with me on this, and I appreciate it. -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It just so happens that in my 17th century historical studies I've come across one of the periods in European history where this quite peculiar Christian religious phenomenon was at its zenith. In the second half of the 20th century, in contrast, it seemed to me to be pretty much on the vaning. But this 21th century, alas, has proved to be so far to be very different from the preceding one, so who knows, it may be on the rise again. It is a type of religious phenomenon, in my view, from which the Judeo-Christian religions cannot seem to be able to avoid. It is rather died in their wool from their inception. This article and its cognate one on the subject (Millenarianism), still need a lot of work on Wikipedia. Once you pointed to me all the pages already developed on your particular topic on Wikipedia, I could not excuse myself anymore from helping you a little bit. You have been undoubtedly perseverant, but also quite polite and respectful in your interchanges with me, and that always makes the work here more pleasant and bearable, so I thank you for that. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Editor2020 -- You will have observed the considerable discussion above, leading to compromise and agreement. But now a considerable revision, with no discussion involved. Among the revisions, is the omission of the central point of Christian Millennialism -- namely, the purpose of the Millennium. In discussion with editor Warshy, we extremely shortened our comments on that point, down to the essence. I thought it was a feasible compromise, though much more in the direction of editor Warshy, than of myself. Would it be agreeable to add back this sentence following? If so, I would do that, but wait for your comments, please. The proposed change -- (( Bible Students hold for universal opportunity for every person, past and present, not previously recipients of a heavenly calling, to gain everlasting life on Earth during the Millennium. )) Without this, the point and purpose of the Millennium is missing. Thus the existence of the Millennium is vacuous. Is this agreeable? Thank you -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I had said the same thing in the discussion between us above, that this statement needed a secondary reliable reference. And this is precisely the reason Editor2020 removed it, when he recently did some generic editing and corrections on the entire page. So, I agree with his editing and correction of this section. This sentence is currently unreferenced, and that is why it was removed. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see. It is so fundamental a point among Bible Students, that it is not disputed. But here is the addition for the text itself -- (( Bible Students hold for universal opportunity for every person, past and present, not previously recipients of a heavenly calling, to gain everlasting life on Earth during the Millennium. )) ---- and here is a suggested supporting reference, the material between the double parens following. Is this agreeable? ---- (( "According to God's arrangement in providing a ransom, all mankind ... must be delivered from the original penalty, 'the bondage of corruption,' death, else the ransom does not avail for all. ... The object of our Lord's death and resurrection was not merely to bless and rule over and restore the living of mankind, but ... the dead as well as the living, insuring the benefits of his ransom as much to the one as to the other" (Studies in the Scriptures, Volume One, "The Divine Plan of the Ages," Study IX, "Ransom and Restitution," page 149). "The 'ransom for all' given by 'the man Christ Jesus' does not give or guarantee everlasting life or blessing ... but it does guarantee to every man another opportunity or trial for life everlasting" (page 150). The time for this opportunity is in "the Millennial age" (page 152). "The hope for the world lies in the blessings of knowledge and opportunity to be brought to all by Christ’s Millennial Kingdom" (From "To Us the Scriptures Clearly Teach," carried in every issue of the bi-monthly publication, "The Herald of Christ's Kingdom." )) -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, DavRice. As I explained in the edit summary, the groups publication can be a reliable source for the group's own beliefs. I have now added your requestes clarification of the group's beliefs, and the section should be OK now. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chiliasm redirects to this article, Millennialism, but Chiliast and Chiliastic redirect to Premillennialism. I don't know enough about the subject to figure out which is right, but I feel like these terms should all redirect to the same place. (Or if there's a good reason why not, this could be explained in a hatnote.) DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for noting this inconsistency. I changed both redirects, they redirect to this article now. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Sorry to be a pain, I've just noticed that millennialist redirects to Millenarianism, but the lead of that article wikilinks the same word to Millennialism. "Millennialist" should redirect here, no? I'd fix it myself, but I want to be sure I'm not meddling in things I don't understand. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Once again, thank you. Even if those links seem like small problems, they can still cause confusion. I corrected Millennialist and also Millenialist. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nazism is also Utopian as perceived by its creators. Conflating social movements into utopianism & nazism is not a definition grounded in truth as defined by the words used here.

You could say "nazism" and "communism" which would be a more accurate use of words as both items here are 'social movements'. 2620:149:13C0:600:0:0:0:521 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article is linked as the expansion of a brief mention in a book article The Long Ships that during the actions in the novel, the characters experience the failure of Jesus to reappear in the year AD 1000 . It is unclear in this article if that form of Millennialism actually existed in the Western European Christian Church around AD 1000, as the article jumps from a discussion of Apocalypticism (called Premillennialism) during the first few centuries AD (Early Christianity), to discussions of beliefs in and after AD 1800, surprisingly omitting any sections about beliefs actually related to the years AD 1000, AD 2000 etc. Jbohmdk (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply