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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)