The Rapture

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1690227' date='Oct 31 2008, 08:50 PM']I think you misunderstand the role of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium. Vatican I proclaimed that the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium are in fact infallable. These teachings consist of the ordinary and continuous teachings of the Bishops who are in union with the Pope. This is true because the Holy Spirit continuously teaches through the Bishops by virtue of their ministry in passing on Sacred Tradition throughout the centuries. And the Church Fathers are in fact part of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium, so those teachings of theirs that are part of Sacred Tradition are also infallible. So the weight of the Father's teachings -- especially those they held in common -- is much heavier than what you may believe.

And I disagree with your understanding of the Church's position on Millenarianism, but I'll have to do some research so I can post some sources.

And my statement about there being nothing to come back to is that, if the Millenium is in fact now, then it certainly would also occur later. Otherwise there would be two Milleniums. And the only reason for Christ and the Saints to return to earth after the "Rapture" would be for the Millenium to occur thereafter.

I should also say that when one reads the Father's teachings on Eschatology, one doesn't get the idea that the End Times will be as complicated as most people today lead us to believe. I believe the complication people have today is more sourced in others trying to make a name for themselves so they can publish more books.[/quote]
I have a decent understanding of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It teaches infallibly when the Pope and the Bishops throughout the world have taught the one and same doctrine from the Deposit of Faith of faith and morals, definitively to be held by the faithful, over the course of some length of time. It usually occurs through the daily witness and prreaching of the Popes and Bishops or in some cases it might be expressed in documents. It is never exercised apart from the Pope. If the Pope or better yet successive Popes never taught a particular teaching then it cannot be a part of the Universal Magisterium.

The problem is it is difficult to discern when a teaching falls under the infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium, since there are no clear criteria established.

So, the Fathers would first have to be Bishops (which most of them were) and their teachings would have to also be taught by the Popes, and other Bishops throughout time and place. And so their teachings passed down to us have to be examined each on their own. Theoretically, if their was a consensus among the Fathers on a particular teaching, yet the a majority of Bishops in union with the Pope never taught then, it would still not be an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium. That being said, it is obvious their teachings are valuable to the Church.

There is one more problem. Some of the Fathers teaching was speculative theology, and some of their theological points were wrong. Saint Augustine was obviously wrong about some points, so it is nice to put things in perspective. Also the Father's lived a long time ago. As the Church passes through time She plunges deeper into truths of the unfathomable Deposit of Faith and comes up with new insights.

As far as Millenarianism is concerned, I'd like to see what you can come up with. Basically all I've found is that some of the early Church Fathers and theologians speculated about it, but never came to a consensus. There were a few straggler heretics who thought it would be a kingdom of sensual pleasures after Christ Returns, but obviously this is heretical. Then the theologians for the most part stopped speculating about it and it has really never been preached by Popes and Bishops. Therefore in my opinion it is an open question of speculative theology.

I think we are in the living the Millenium now in a spiritual sense, yet based on several passages of Sacred Scripture I truly think there will be a literal Millenium after Christ Returns. I wouldnt mind sharing all these passages and commenting on them, but this post is getting long, and we'll see where the discussion goes.

Edited November 1, 2008 by kafka

[CatherineM]

The problem I have with the study of Revelation generally, or some of the issues it raises, specifically, is that it seems an area that can be easily misinterpreted. Let me explain. I would not want a first year Biology student engaging in cloning, first year Physics students designing rockets to carry men to Mars, or first year Chemistry students designing nuclear bombs. To me, Revelation is the Advanced Quantum Physics of the bible. There are so many things that one could and should study first. Revelation, just as it is in the bible, should be studied last, after a thorough grounding in Sacred Scripture at the University or Graduate level, and then only under a well qualified instructor.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1690329' date='Oct 31 2008, 10:40 PM']The problem I have with the study of Revelation generally, or some of the issues it raises, specifically, is that it seems an area that can be easily misinterpreted. Let me explain. I would not want a first year Biology student engaging in cloning, first year Physics students designing rockets to carry men to Mars, or first year Chemistry students designing nuclear bombs. To me, Revelation is the Advanced Quantum Physics of the bible. There are so many things that one could and should study first. Revelation, just as it is in the bible, should be studied last, after a thorough grounding in Sacred Scripture at the University or Graduate level, and then only under a well qualified instructor.[/quote]
I do agree that Revelation can be difficult to interpret. It takes time to understand it.

I disagree that one would need necessarily need a University or Graduate level degree to come to an good understanding of Revelation or for that matter any other book of the Bible. To me this is implying scholarship should be placed over grace and faith, in studying, teaching and interpreting the Bible, which has never been the case in the life of the Church.

Knowing the fundamental teachings about Sacred Scripture such that it is infallible, total inspired, and inerrant, as well as the two levels of meaning, namely the literal and spiritual levels is something any modern Catholic can learn apart from the University. For those willing, the fundamentals are not all that difficult to learn, and even if one is not familiar with fundamental theological teachings, he is still welcome, lead by grace and faith, nay even mightily encouraged by the Church to delve into the profound depths of Scripture.

An advanced education may or may not assist the faithful in understanding Scripture. A majority of modern scholars and theologians have gone astray from truth. Errors have even entered into so called Orthodox Universities. Therefore, it is sufficient to learn the fundamentals of Scripture from Sacred Tradition, what Sacred Scripture itself asserts about itself, and the Sacred Magisterium, which is available to any willing Catholic apart from the University.

In the end, grace and faith are most important. It is quite possible that somewhere an unlearned person, who is holy, has a deeper understanding of Scripture than the most learned theologian on earth. For,

"He will direct the mild in judgment. He will teach the meek his ways." (Psalm 24:9)

Edited November 1, 2008 by kafka

[abercius24]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[quote]675 [b][u]Before[/u] Christ's second coming [u]the Church[/u] must pass through a [u]final trial[/u][/b] that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of [b]the Antichrist[/b], a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 [b]The [u]Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape[/u] in the world every time the claim is made to realize [u]within history[/u] that messianic hope which can only be realized [u]beyond history[/u] through the eschatological judgment. The Church has [u]rejected[/u] even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of [u]millenarianism[/u],577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism[/b].578

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 [b][u]The kingdom will be fulfilled[/u], then, [u]not by a historic triumph[/u] of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only [u]by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil[/u][/b], which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 [u][b]God's triumph[/u] over the revolt of evil [u]will take the form of the Last Judgment[/u] after [u]the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world[/u][/b].581

680 [b][u]Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church[/u][/b], but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.

681 [b]On [u]Judgment Day[/u] at the [u]end of the world[/u][/b][u][/u], Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

682 [b]When he comes at the [u]end of time[/u] to [u]judge the living and the dead[/u][/b], the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.[/quote]

The Catechism clearly teaches that the Church will in fact endure the Great Tribulation. And it teaches of an Anti-Christ to come as part of this Tribulation, be it a single fleshly "Messiah" or a general movement of secularist fervor. And it further teaches that a millenial reign in any earthly political/historical form is heresy. Moreso, the Catechism warns of the scenario where those who support or encourage a millenial reign will likely find themselves [u]aiding and supporting the reign of the Anti-Christ himself[/u].

And the Catechism teaches that the full reign of the Kingdom exists AFTER the Last Judgement, which in context clearly happens after the end of the world.

And I should also make note that the Catechism is the main resource for Ordinary and Universal teachings in the Western Church, which has been approved by the Pope himself, and which contains the infallible teachings of the Church in an abridged form.

Edited November 1, 2008 by abercius24

[Guest Jon]

[color="#000080"]Oh my goodness, it is a sunny day - and I have so much to do - I must read every word of your posts tonight ----
May I say that I am on another Christian Forum - and I have talked about this subject.

I really have a problem - so I have decided to simply put Rev on a shelf for now ----so many other insights in other NT sections that are pressing for me...I have a problem with the fact that no one seems to know who this "John" was that even wrote Rev. let alone had a dream!

Apparently many scholars, theologians - secular,Prot and Cath - can not definitively say who "John" was. Can you? - Please, tell me ----please.
I, naively thought many years ago that it was St. John the Beloved... - not so. I've gotten movies out of the library to research college professors of the NT and Theology. There were so many "Johns". Oy-vay.sp?

Because of this present confusion ---Rev is on a shelf.

I have read so many things on the Rapture. One insight presented that: Of course not, - it doesn't mean the actual flesh and bones will be "raised"- what use is the flesh in Heavan- it is a Spiritual Dimension ----it has been so misinterpreted. I'm sorry or was that the Resurrection of the Dead ----the sunny day is calling me ----75 in Colorado today Nov 1 --- but you get my meaning-don't you ----apples and oranges ----flesh=3rd Dimension -----spirit - Supernatural Dimension --God is Spirit.

I'll be back, thank you for your time,bless you all,
Jon[/color]

[Slappo]

[quote name='kafka' post='1690392' date='Oct 31 2008, 08:36 PM']as well as the two levels of meaning, namely the literal and spiritual levels[/quote]

Littera gesta docet;
quid credes anagogia;
Moralis quid agas;
quo tendes allegoria
- St. John Caspian

There are four levels of meaning of scripture:
Literal
Anagogical
Moral
Allegorical

It is a lot more complicated then your average Joe Christian can handle. To fully understand the meaning of the passages, one must be familiar with the rest of scripture, writing styles, historical and cultural contexts, and more.

[kafka]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1690965' date='Nov 1 2008, 04:33 PM']Littera gesta docet;
quid credes anagogia;
Moralis quid agas;
quo tendes allegoria
- St. John Caspian

There are four levels of meaning of scripture:
Literal
Anagogical
Moral
Allegorical

It is a lot more complicated then your average Joe Christian can handle. To fully understand the meaning of the passages, one must be familiar with the rest of scripture, writing styles, historical and cultural contexts, and more.[/quote]
I prefer Aquinas' approach better, in my opinion it is more fruitful. Two levels of meaning. The literal and the spiritual. The direct and indirect. The explicit and the implicit.

1. the words refer to things

This level of meaning can be literal, as in a narrative of an historical event, or it can be figurative, as in a parable. Some passages mix literal and figurative elements.

This level can be referred to as the direct level, in which truths are explicitly (directly) stated. Example: the Crucifixion of Christ.

2. the things refer to other things

This level of meaning is also called the spiritual level of meaning. It asserts truths implicitly (indirectly). For example: Esther implicitly teaches us about the Blessed Virgin Mary.


An understanding of the basic fundamentals is helpful, yet one can come to a depth of understanding through grace, faith and reason. It is not necessary to be particularly learned in writing styles, history, etc to come to a deep understanding. I do agree though that it is good to be familiar with the rest of Scripture. Besides, no one on earth will every come to the full meaning and depth of Scripture. All men put together with all their insights into Sacred Scripture still falls short of its depth.

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1690818' date='Nov 1 2008, 01:55 PM']The Catechism clearly teaches that the Church will in fact endure the Great Tribulation. And it teaches of an Anti-Christ to come as part of this Tribulation, be it a single fleshly "Messiah" or a general movement of secularist fervor. And it further teaches that a millenial reign in any earthly political/historical form is heresy. Moreso, the Catechism warns of the scenario where those who support or encourage a millenial reign will likely find themselves [u]aiding and supporting the reign of the Anti-Christ himself[/u].

And I should also make note that the Catechism is the main resource for Ordinary and Universal teachings in the Western Church, which has been approved by the Pope himself, and which contains the infallible teachings of the Church in an abridged form.[/quote]
The Catechism is a document of the Ordinary Magisterium, yet it expresses three levels of teachings: infallible teachings of the Popes or Ecunemical Councils of the past, non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, and pious opinion/theological speculation. It does not declare new infallible teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

It is not correct or complete on every single point.

The Catechism makes some good points here such as The Tribulation and Antichrist and the General Judgement. That point made about millenarianism has nothing to do with the verses in Sacred Scripture about the Millenium:

"The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578"

This passage is expressing how the Church rejects secular messianism where a political kingdom is a sort of salvation on earth. The Millenium expressed in Sacred Scripture is a time of peace, holiness, and miracles. It is a time where Christ will reign through the Eucharist. A spiritual kingdom on earth, not a political kingdom, or one which emphasizes pleasure.

In addition the Catechism does not clearly state what the Millenium is or when it occurs. It states what it is not.

Edited November 1, 2008 by kafka

[abercius24]

[quote name='kafka' post='1691055' date='Nov 1 2008, 06:01 PM']The Catechism is a document of the Ordinary Magisterium, yet it expresses three levels of teachings: infallible teachings of the Popes or Ecunemical Councils of the past, non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, and pious opinion/theological speculation. It does not declare new infallible teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

It is not correct or complete on every single point.

The Catechism makes some good points here such as The Tribulation and Antichrist and the General Judgement. That point made about millenarianism has nothing to do with the verses in Sacred Scripture about the Millenium:

"The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578"

This passage is expressing how the Church rejects secular messianism where a political kingdom is a sort of salvation on earth. The Millenium expressed in Sacred Scripture is a time of peace, holiness, and miracles. It is a time where Christ will reign through the Eucharist. A spiritual kingdom on earth, not a political kingdom, or one which emphasizes pleasure.

In addition the Catechism does not clearly state what the Millenium is or when it occurs. It states what it is not.[/quote]

The Catechism is clear in stating that the Kingdom of Christ will not be revealed whatsoever on a historical/political basis. Christ will not physically reign on Earth outside his spiritual presence within the Church and his mystical presence within the Eucharist.

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1692848' date='Nov 4 2008, 03:51 AM']The Catechism is clear in stating that the Kingdom of Christ will not be revealed whatsoever on a historical/political basis. Christ will not physically reign on Earth outside his spiritual presence within the Church and his mystical presence within the Eucharist.[/quote]
It does not seem clear to me exactly what it is stating. Besides it could be incorrect on that particular point since the point about the Millenium is speculative theology. In my opinion the kingdom of God must eventually encompass the earth. Take a look at these passages of Sacred Scripture:

From Revelation:
{20:1} And I saw an Angel, descending from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the abyss and a great chain.
{20:2} And he apprehended the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and he bound him for a thousand years.
{20:3} And he cast him into the abyss, and he closed and sealed it, so that he would no longer seduce the nations, until the thousand years are completed. And after these things, he must be released for a brief time.

~ This passage directly follows the passage about Antichrist and the False Prophet being cast alive, body and soul into hell. Then the Angel binds Satan and the fallen angels into hell so that they may not tempt people towards evil. And this binding is only for a period of time (about a thousand years), and then he will be released. This does not refer to our times. Satan and the fallen angels obviously still roam the earth and tempt people. So it must refer to some future period of time.

{20:4} And I saw thrones. And they sat upon them. And judgment was given to them. And the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the Word of God, and who did not adore the beast, nor his image, nor accept his character on their foreheads or on their hands: they lived and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
{20:5} The rest of the dead did not live, until the thousand years are completed. This is the First Resurrection.
{20:6} Blessed and holy is he who takes part in the First Resurrection. Over these the second death has no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him for a thousand years.

~ This passage is clearly referring to the Saints who lived during the time of Antichrist, and did not adore him or follow him, etc. It also refers to a First Resurrection, implying their will be another one after the thousand years. They reign and live with Christ. We already know that the kingdom of Christ is not political or secular, so this kingdom will be a spiritual one where Christ reigns in the Eucharist, yet it still takes place on earth. So yes it is Christ's kingdom on earth. It is one of peace, holiness, miracles. Nature will not rebel against man since there will be no sin. It is strange to think of or imagine in light of our modern times, but God's kingdom will truly be established on earth.

From the Song of Songs:
{8:13} Groom to Bride: My vineyard is before me. The thousand is for your peacefulness, and two hundred is for those who care for its fruit.
{8:14} Bride to Groom: Your friends are attentive to those who have been dwelling in the gardens. Cause me to heed your voice.
{8:15} Flee away, my beloved, and become like the doe and the young stag upon the mountains of aromatic plants.

~ the Groom (Christ) is speaking. The vineyard is the Church. Christ Returns to the earth and gives the Church over a thousand years (perhaps 1200?) to reign on earth. By that time the Church will be fully mature and cover the entire earth. The Church prays she may hear the voice of Christ, thus God's will is done on earth as in Heaven. Then notice the Groom is asked to leave for a while.

The Our Father:
"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

~ God eventually must answer this prayer, as it has been prayed sincerely so many times over the course of history.

The 2nd Beatitude:
{5:4} Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.

~ The Meek are all the true Saints. I do not interpret this as metaphorical, eventually they will possess the earth as an inheritance from God.

Psalm
{103:30} You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created. And you will renew the face of the earth.

~ Yes this verse does refer to the first Pentecost, yet it has not been fulfilled to its completion. The Church is not yet fully mature, and the entire earth has not been renewed by the Holy Spirit. At least not yet.


I think these verses all refer to a specific time in the future which one could call the Millenium.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kafka' post='1693092' date='Nov 4 2008, 03:03 PM']We already know that the kingdom of Christ is not political or secular, so this kingdom will be a spiritual one where Christ reigns in the Eucharist, yet it still takes place on earth. So yes it is Christ's kingdom on earth. It is one of peace, holiness, miracles. Nature will not rebel against man since there will be no sin. It is strange to think of or imagine in light of our modern times, but God's kingdom will truly be established on earth.[/quote]

If we agree that the kingdom will not be manifested on a political/historical basis, then we are certainly going in the direction the Church teaches.

One thing I should note in those passages you quote, if I may. In Jewish literature, the "Earth" is a symbol of the Hebrew/Jewish Kingdom and the "Sea" is a symbol of the gentile nations (which are also regularly referred to as "the nations" throughout the New Testament). If you keep that symbolism in mind, those passages read very differently. In fact, that perspective supports the Church's teaching that the millenium exists in our current day in some form. Now can a more perfect Millenium come in the future? I don't know. But I do know the Church does not teach of a Second and Third Coming, so the idea of Christ coming and going as part of the "Rapture" and the Millenium is quite foreign to our theology. And the need for Christ to come as part of a more perfect Millenium is not really necessary since Christ has already told us that He would be with us until the end of the age. And we know that promise is fulfilled most perfectly through His Real Presence in the Eucharist. So if there is a future Millenium, I think you are right in believing it will come through Christ's reign in the Eucharist.

I need to do some more research on the Millenium for us to clarify some of these finer points (such as whether or not a non-poliitical/non-historical future Millenium is consistent with Catholic theology).

[kafka]

Abercius,

Like I said I certainly agree it will not be manifested as a political/secular government.

I dont see a problem with it being historical. The Earth is a part of Time, so all events which occur on Earth will eventually be historical. I even speculate there will be a type of time on the New Earth. I believe the Church in a metaphorical way renews the entire life of Christ. So the Tribulation/End Times is a renewal of the Passion and Death of Christ and the Millenium would be a renewal of the Resurrection and the time Jesus spent on Earth after the Resurrection. So it makes sense to me that after the Tribulation the Church will remain on Earth for a time praising God and being even more perfected. How the world will be set up eludes me. Their will be many holy Saints, and the Church will do the Father's will as in Heaven.

Thanks for bringing up the points about Jewish symbolism in their literature. Like I said before I believe we are now living the Millenium in a spiritual sense, but I speculate there will be a literal Millenium in the future. Sacred Scripture is for all times, and as you well know it has different levels of meaning so I agree with your interpretation in one sense, but in another sense those passages seem to explicitly or implicitly refer to a future period of time on Earth.

The Second Coming has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium, but the other fine points of exactly what happens in the years leading up to it (namely the Tribulation) and the time after the Second Coming tend to be speculative or pious opinion. It seems to me it implies in Sacred Scripture that their will be a Second Coming and a Third Coming, as well as a First Resurrection and a Second Resurrection. I've never seen or heard of any teaching of the Magisterium either condemning or affirming these speculations, therefore I believe it to be an open question as many points of eschatology seem to be. The Magisterium does not or cannot teach infallibly or non-infallibly on all truths of the Deposit of Faith. The Church continues to delve deeper into the Faith as She passes through time. I know enough about Catholic theology that I wouldnt bother bringing these subjects up in a discussion/debate form if I knew they were not open questions.

I'd appreciate anything you can find on the subject, though I'm not sure what you will find. I've read some articles on it and it seems some Catholic theologians have merely speculated on it, but there doesnt seem to be any consensus.

Peace. and thanks for the conversation.

[kafka]

here is a good article from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm[/url]

[abercius24]

Here are some words from a 2nd Century Church Father on the subject:

[quote]O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that [b]two advents of Christ have been announced[/b]: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when [b]the man of apostasy[/b], (2 Thess. ii. 3) who speaks strange things against the Most High, [b]shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians[/b], who, having learned the true worship of God from the law, and the word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostles of Jesus, have fled for safety to the God of Jacob and God of Israel; and we [b]who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,— our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage[/b], —and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified. -- Justin Martyr; Dialogue with Trypho (CX); circa 155 A.D.[/quote]

Here St. Justin Martyr speaks of strictly 2 advents of Christ (allowing only for a First and Second Coming). He also speaks of the Church suffering under the Great Tribulation at the hands of the Anti-Christ. And the language he uses when speaking of the change of heart the Christians have (changing "swords into ploughshares") is language normally associated with the Millenium. This leads us to believe that he understands the Millenium as existing in some form in the general life of the Church.

I'll post more when I can find my set of Church Father's books, which are apparently lost somewhere in "the Vault" (aka my cluttered, box-ridden garage; another reason I hate moving).

And by the way, thank you for urging me to study more on this subject. I've been looking for an inspiring topic to study up on again!

Edited November 8, 2008 by abercius24

[kafka]

I did a little research myself and found some interesting teachings from the early pre-Nicean Church Fathers,who believed and taught some form of the Millenium, though I must admit their ideas were not well developed. The most popular Fathers who taught about the Milenium were St Papias (a companion of St Polycarp and is said to have known St John, AP), Saint Justin, Saint Iraneus, and Tertullian.

Since, you mentioned Saint Justin the Martyr, I'd like to start by ananlying his ideas a bit. I like the above quote from Dialogue with Trypho (CX), since he lays out the basics about the Tribulation, Antichrist, the Second Coming. I like his spiritual sense of Isaiah 2:3 yet I dont think he was implying the Millenium since He devotes two chapters to it later in the same work. My interpretation of Isaiah 2:3 is that after the Tribulation men will convert weapons such as rifles etc. into useful tools such as a sickle, etc.

Following taken from the Dialogue with Trypho LXXX & LXXXI (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxx.html)

First I would like to note, interestingly before setting forth his arguments about the Millenium he states that some Christians agree with him and others disagree. This is an important point, since it goes to show that it was a topic of speculative theology.

"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."

Then he goes on to say:

"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then need to be built, adorned, and enlarged as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah, and others declare."

~ I agree with him that after the Tribulation, there will be a resurrection of the dead, Jerusalem will be rebuilt and their will be a time period of a thousand years or so, yet I do not think this takes place only in Jerusalem. I think the Just will inhabit the entire Earth. Notice he places the thousand years after a resurrection of the dead. Obviously, a resurrection of the dead has not occured yet.

In the next chapter St Justin does a short commentary on Isaiah 65:17-25 where he compares the thousand years tobe a sort of perfect fulfillment of Adam in the Garden of Eden. He also makes an interesting quote about St John and Revelation:

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’"

~ so he says here the Just will dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem (implying a period of Time and Place) then will come the General Resurrection and Judgement. So take this quote together with the one from the previous chapterhe seems to be implying a sequence of events:

1. A First Resurrection of the Just
2. A thousand years dwelling in Jerusalem
3. The General Resurection and Judgement

I have to admit though that these ideas along with the ones you quoted are a bit underdeveloped. They leave open questions as to when the Millenium is. One could say it implies the Millenium in the spiritual sense in the life of the Church, yet it also leaves one to develop it in a literal sense. If he strictly meant them in the spiritual sense I would have thought that he would have mentioned the Millenium specifically refers to the Church. St Iranaeus has some interesting ideas about the Millenium. I'll analyze his writings in another post.