The Churches of Asia

 In verses 4 and 11 of the first chapter of The Book of Revelation the phraseology can be interpreted as seeing these Seven Congregations account for all the Congregations in the Roman Province of Asia.

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia”

“and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia”

But some others are seemingly known to have existed very early.  How do we address this?

Well first of all not every place Paul visited in Acts (in Asia or elsewhere) was a place a Church was planted.  Some may have produced converts but they likely joined Churches elsewhere or became traveling companions of Paul.

For example the only reference to Miletus in Acts is 20:15-17 where Paul met with the Elders of the Church of Ephesus. So when you break it down Acts doesn’t definitively plant any Church in Asia other than Ephesus. 

Colossians is actually the only solid Biblical Evidence for other Churches in Asia besides those named in Revelation, the audience of the letter itself is Colosse and Hierapolis is mentioned in 4:13.  Both of these cities are very near Laodicea, in a subregion of the province that Laodicea was the regional capital of. 

All three of those cities are often referred to as part of Phrygia but there is some confusion with Phrygia as a geographical term.  The part of the Province of Asia sometimes called Phrygia is a smaller lesser Phrygia, every appearance of that name in Acts seem to be to the larger greater Phrygia that was in the same Roman Province as Galatia.

Colosse is referred to by Paul as a place he hasn’t personally visited yet, and the same may be implied about Hierapolis and Laodicea.  So that explains their absence from Acts.

I want now to point out something about how the Churches are addressed in their letters.  For Smyrna through Philadelphia each is called the Ecclesia in (name of city).  However for Ephesus it’s the Church of Ephesus and for Laodicea it’s the Church of the Laodiceans.

The Church of the Laodiceans is also used in Colossians 4:16.  The only other Church referred to by Paul in such a manner is The Church of the Thessalonians in the first verses of both those Epistles.  And when going back to the origin story of that Church in Acts 17 most of Paul’s missionary success wasn’t in Thessalonica itself but in nearby Berea, so the people addressed by those Epistles are likely to include sounding cities like Berea.  Meaning the Laodiceans could be the same, they could include Hierapolis and Colosse in how Jesus addressed them.  Though Paul in Colossians 4:16 is seemingly distinguishing Colosse from the Laodiceans but that could be a matter of context.

There are two other Asian Churches that seem to pop up pretty early but aren’t mentioned in The Bible.  Tralles and Magnesia which both received letters from Ignatius of Antioch. Now in my view the earliest possible date for the Ignatian letters is the mid 140s so these Churches could have been brand new and non-existent yet when Revelation was written during the reign of Hadrian.

However if these did exist longer it’s worth noting that both are very near Ephesus, closer to Ephesus even then Miletus, and since Ephesus is the other Church addressed with an “of” rather then an “in” maybe it too could include the Christians of some smaller nearby cities.

Were there Jews in Smyrna and Philadelphia?

The two references in Revelation 2-3 to “them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” is commonly interpreted as referring to Non Christian Jews partly on the authority of John 8:44.

If that theory is true the way it’s used by Antisemitic Christians is still invalid.  In the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD Judaism was still a more privileged Religion then Christianity.  Jews were exempted from the legally mandated worship of the Imperial Cult because the Romans considered an Ancient Religion.  Christians were included in that exception when they were still perceived by outsiders as a sect of Judaism which they almost always were before the Bar Kochba Revolt and even often for a while after.  

The only thing that may have prevented them from being so exempted is if the prominent Jews told the Roman authorities they don’t count as Jews.  So the theory is some Jews (probably a minority of them) in Asia were doing that and so Jesus is simply responding to that by saying no you are the ones who’ve forfeited your Jewishness.

Today it's the Christians who have the political Privilege and need to learn to see Jews as brethren regardless of where we diverge.

But moving on, the problem with that assumption about the Synagogue of Satan is the two cities who’s Messages to their Churches include this reference are ones with a severe lack of any evidence of any Ancient Jewish Presence independent of this interpretation of Revelation.

For Smyrna even the Encyclopedia Judaica has only Revelation the Martyrdom of Polycarp to go on for any claim of an Ancient Jewish presence in the City, otherwise they have no records of Jews in Smyrna till 1605.

And the Martyrdom of Polycarp is not a reliable source, it was written long after the events it depicts and depicts an event almost always dated later than even my very late date for Revelation.  And it wouldn’t be an independent source, the authority may well be imagining Jews to have been involved because of what they assumed about Revelation. Polycarp’s own Epistle makes no reference to Jews.  

With Philadelphia also we only have this possible Revelation reference. If you Google it the AI Review will say they’re also referenced in Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Philadelphians, but no he’s just talking about Christian who still observe Jewish Laws, and is arguably only warning about the theoretically possible of his readers encountering them not real confirming there even are any in Philadelphia.

And it’s not as if the entirety of Jewish Presence of Roman Asia was undocumented. We have a lot of references to the affairs of Jews in Ephesus from Josephus to The Book of Acts and same with Miletus.  It’s also well documented how Antiochus III Megas settled Jews in both Laodicea and Hierapolis.  Josephus also records the existence of a Jewish community in Sardis.  Pergamon and Thyatira however do seem to share Smyrna and Philadelphia lack of Ancient Jews, though the Lydian woman of Thyatira in Acts 16:12-15 seems to be implied to be Jewish or at least a Proselyte.

Philadelphia was a pretty small city today viewed as important only because of its Revelation significance, the message to Philadelphia in Revelation 3 arguably alluded to this being a small insignificant church in a small insignificant town.  So the idea that the affairs of its Jewish population would be overlooked even by Josephus I could consider plausible.

But Smyrna was important, it was the birthplace of the Roma Cult and thus equal to Pergamon as a provincial center of the Imperial Cult.  There’s no way if they had a Jewish Population they did nothing  worth noting by Josephus.  Maybe they avoided settling in Smyrna and Pergamon precisely because of their cult center status?

What Alternative interpretation of the Synagogue of Satan is there then?  Well early forms of Supersessionism were popping up shockingly early.  

I’m not Dispensationalist but I still reject the notion that Jews are completely abandoned.  Saying “All Israel shall be Saved” in Romans 11:25-26 is a meaningless statement if you define Israel as only being the Saved.  It's not about whether The Church and Israel are separate Tents, it's about how big the Tent is.

The Two Witnesses as Jewish rather then Christian leaders

First I want to say that given Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet is specifically what the Angel of Revelation 10 is saying as opposed to the normal mode of John narrating what he sees.  I'm willing to consider that even within my generally highly Chronological reading of Revelation this material could be chronologically displaced. 

An Atheist Website called Vridar.org agrees with me on Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  But for them that means what Revelation is claiming to foretell also happens then while I see that content as mostly much further in the future. 

But it’s possible Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet could be a more immediate future then most of this vision.  Or it could be further in the Future, given my current Post-Millennial view on the Bodily Resurrection this could be at least in part after the Millennium.

There are two particular Vridar Articles I’m interested in here.

https://vridar.org/2022/08/20/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-a/

https://vridar.org/2022/08/21/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-b/

They argue that the Two Witnesses are Jewish but not Christina leaders and are political figures of sorts not mere homeless Prophets preaching doom in the Streets.  Specifically that they are figures in Military conflict with Rome being represented by The Beast.

The arguments have a lot to do with the quoting of Zechariah 4 comparing them to Zerubbabel and Jeshua.  But also the fact that The beast “makes war” on them.  But also how their power and authority seem to come from the Chapter 10 Angel not God directly.

They also hold the view that verses 11-13 were not in the original text.  I’m not inclined to agree with that but the sudden switch in tense here is an issue I don’t have an answer for yet.  What I am considering is a way to justify arguing their Resurrection doesn’t happen immediately, which is only viable if I can argue the three and a half days of verse 11 are different from the earlier three and a half days.

There has been much speculation about the text in the Greek using singular language to describe the two witnesses, with appeals to John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 making a single person more then one witness, as well as how the two offices represented by Zachariah 4's Olive Trees are united in Jesus.  I don't think that'll be two important to what I suggest here, but it's worth noting.

Now for Vridar's time frame that means arguing they are Simon bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva.  And I am currently open to that possibility as well.

But 70 AD Preterists could instead look at Rebel leaders of the First Jewish-Roman War.  Simon bar Giora is the one we know for certain was killed in Titus’s Triumph, but I do think at least one of the others was as well, maybe John of GIshchala or maybe Eleazar ben Simon.  

If you watch the Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5-6, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witness representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

 I read an article about how Josephus while an eyewitness to Titus's Triumph also drew in his description on prior literary accounts of Triumphs.  In that context I think when describing the execution itself Josephus focuses on just Simon because standard older Triumphs focused on a singular enemy leader, regardless he had earlier told us there were two leaders in the procession, Simon and John.

Going back to the Hadrianic period however.  We do not have a complete list of every Roman Triumph that happened.  So while no known Triumph celebrating the defeat of the Bar Kochba Revolt is recorded one could have happened.  Maybe Hadrian had an unconventional Triumph that wasn’t in Rome but in the newly founded Aelia Capitolina and killed Bar Kochba and Akiva at the site of one of its newly consecrated Temples?

But going further into the future there are more options.  The Jewish Revolt against Constantius Gallus also had two leaders, Isaac of Diocaesarea and Patricius aka Natrona. 

Then comes that often overlooked history of Samaritan Revolt during the late 5th through much of the 6th Century.  

The Justa Revolt’s history is interesting for how it’s inciting incident parallels the Hasmonean Revolt, including dumb Secular Historian who want to deny that this Greek Gentile Ruler was actually persecuting these Semitic YHWH Worshipers and claim they brought it on themselves.

I'm gonna repeat here what I said in some comments on Thersites the Historian's Zeno video.

On the subject of the Samaritan Revolt I find the desire of modern scholars to say no the Persecution came after the Revolt to be an offensive Revision.  Just like the revisions people try to do regarding the Hasmonean Revolt.  The Empire had been increasingly trying to standardize Christianity as the only legal religion in the Empire for a Century by this point, it's absurd to suggest the Samaritans revolted for no reason after being perfectly content for centuries.  

We also know archaeologically that the Marian Church he built at Gerizim is similar to others being made at the same time like the Church of Mary's Seat north of Bethlehem.

Much of their argument is based on when Zeno could have been there personally.  The Problem is I don't think the Samaritan account actually intended us to think he was there personally, these kinds of Semitic Texts frequently treat a King and his Kingdom as inseparable entities.  I don't think Antiochus Epiphanes personally performed a big sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, a detail not even in the books of Maccabees, but I do believe his policies resulted in an Idol of Zeus being set up on the Brazen Altar in December of 167 BC.  So I don't think Zeno was ever personally in Samaria, it was the actions of his Regime.

A Church of specially Mary Theotokos being built at this time was probably tied to the whole Henotikon thing, Emperors trying to make peace with the Miaphysites loved to scapegoat the Nestorians and stress their common support of calling Mary Theotokos.  And 482-484 is the timeframe for that being a priority.

But the Bar Sabar revolt under Justinian is the most compelling, it's connected to the building of the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which Porcipius describes in ways that make it sound like a rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple.  I no longer think its location is where The Temple actually was, but I do think a Tabernacle housing the Ark briefly before Solomon’s Temple was finished may have been there.  Its construction seems to have started in 531 and been completed in 543.

Justinian also sent The Menorah and other treasures of Herod’s Temple back to Jerusalem to be placed in Christian Churches after Belisarius’s Triumph in 534.  Which is notable considering The Menorah’s role in how Revelation 11 relates to Zechariah 4.

The 556 revolt could be of interest too, for in that one alone it seems Samaritans and Jews worked together, Judah and Joseph, and thus there could have been a leader for each.

We do not have exactly dates for the terms of any of the Samaritan High Priests during this period.  So one of them being executed alongside a Civil Leader of one of these Revolts is possible.

Interestingly there is a potential Samaritan Revolt not listed on the main Samaritan Revolts Wikipedia page, and that's one implied to have happened in the time of Babba Rabba traditionally dated to 308-328.  

Constantine contrary to Eusebius and his modern critics did across the board advocate Religious Tolerance so the source of any Samaritan Persecution during this time period couldn't be him.  But perhaps the persecutions of Monotheistic religious minorities under Diocletian, Galerius and Maximinus Daza could be relevant, or even Licinius who's alleged relapse into pro Pagan Persecution is controversial.  It's possible his traditional dates are off and that the references to Constantinople were originally Nicomedia.

One source places Babba Rabba's death in 362 during the reign of Julian, but he didn't persecute anyone either.  So basically the exact timing of Babba Rabba is highly unclear.

The Tyrant of Babba Rabba's rebellion being called Pharoah of Egypt fits in well with my Maximianus Daza thesis.

Finally there was the Revolt against Heraclius which I discussed in my main Heraclius Post.  It too had two prominent leaders, Nehemiah ben Hushiel and Benjamin of Tiberias.  And the Sefer Zerubbabel has some compelling parallels to Revelation 11 in how it talks about Nehemiah ben Hushiel.

Valerian as The Beast of Revelation

Eusebius in his Church History Book VII Chapter 10 talks about the Valerian Persecution primarily using an older source named Dionysius.  And Dionysus quotes Revelation 13:5 as being about this persecution.

The Decian Persecution was the first truly Empire wide persecution of Christians, but it didn’t last nearly 42 months.  However the Decian Persecution did result in the Novatian Schism because it was the first time the Church had any significant Apostasy, making it possibly relevant to II Thessalonians 2.

This account of the Valerian Persecution also presents two possible False Prophet candidates.  First the leader of “the Magi from Egypt” who definitely sounds like a Pagan mystic of some kind in-spite of the translation misleadingly using the word “Synagogue”.  However another option is Macrianus who is likely the figure Wikipedia calls Macrianus Major who was placed in charge of the Economy under Valerian but was also a Military Commander according to the Historia Augusta.  Macarianus’s two sons could be who the second beast’s two horns represent.

The rider on the White Horse or Red Horse could be Shapur I’s invasion of Syria.  Or just the Red Horse with the White Horse being my Smyrna reading. 

The Debasement of the Denarius and other Imperial Currencies greatly escalated during the mid 3rd Century which could explain the Black Horse.

The Plague of Cyprian could be connected to the Chlorus Horse.

Brining in my prior post arguing the Image of The Beast is his Son.  That could be Gallienus who was a co-ruler during Valerian’s reign.

It is also known that at least some of the Martyrs during the Valerian Persecution were specifically Beheaded like Bishop Sixtus II of Rome on the 6th of August 258.

262 is the year Pergamon was sacked by Goths and destroyed in an Earthquake.  An argument can be made that in a local scale interpretation of Revelation the city of Pergamon is Babylon (derivative of the Rome as Babylon argument because Pergamon was Rome within Asia as the Seat of Imperial Worship). This was the end of Pergamon as it was known to the original audience of Revelation. 

The first ever Edict of Toleration directed mainly at ending a Persecution of Christians was actually the Edict of Gallienus which ended this Persecution.  Now there is some dispute about the exact time of that Edict, some sources like Eusebius made it sound like it was made immediately after Valerian was captured by the Persians, but it seems more likely that some time did pass. If the edict of Persecution was made in 258 then 42 months later would be in 261 or 262. 

That would in this model be the beginning of The Baptism of The Beast.

Vespasian as The Beast of Revelation

I'm a Post Millennial Partial Preterist and Semi-Historicist who still largely looks to much later then AD 74 for when I think Revelation 6-19 and the start of chapter 20 happened.

But I decided it would be fun to see if I could argue for a 70 AD Fulfillment of Revelation better than actual believers in that timeframe do.  And perhaps elements of how I make this argument could prove Typologically useful to us advocates of more niche forms of Preterism that are less focused on the 1st Century.

First of all I have come to take the language of Revelation 17:11 as saying that the 8th King is the Individual person The Beast passages are about even when still during the reigns of the first 7.  

Caesarea Maritima means Caesarea “by the sea”, and it was also a very sandy location.  It was always the Roman Provincial Capital of Judea and as such played an important role in the 66-73 AD War including as a location Vespasian used as a base of operations.  

The Seven Heads are further explained in Revelation 17 as being Seven Kings.  Roman Emperors didn’t like to admit they were Kings but we see in John 19:15 that Jews in Judea didn’t care about their semantics.  Why Kings would be represented as Heads is perhaps explained by the language of Bible Verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18 where Christ is The Head of The Church and God The Father is the Head of Christ, but there's also Hebrew Bible precedent for Kings as Heads in 1 Samuel 15:17 and Isaiah 7:8-9.  Your "Head" is a person who holds authority over you, hence why the 8th King which is The Beast isn’t an 8th Head.

Vitellius from the year of the 4 Emperors was never recognized in the East, the Roman Armies of the East chose Vespasian as soon as Otho was dead.  So for example when looking at the Archaeological record of the Roman Pharaohs we see that Vespasian was the 8th and the first 7 were Augustus, Tiberius, Calgiula, Claudius, Nero, Galba and Otho who did indeed have the shortest reign.  Vespasian was born during the reign of Augustus so each of those 7 had also personally been Vespasian’s Head.

I no longer believe the 6th King being associated with the present is meant to be a clue to when Revelation was written, rather for this theory I think it has to do with Revelation 17’s point in the narrative following the 7th Bowl of Wrath.  There was a major Earthquake during the reign of Galda which Suetonius refers to having been considered an Omen of his coming demise, that could be identified with the Earthquake of the 7th Bowl.  

On December 19th of AD 69 the major Temple to Jupiter in Rome was burned down during the war between Vitellius and Vespasian.  So one could see that as Revelation 18 in a Babylon=Rome reading.

Back to where we left off in chapter 13.  The 10 Horns, Leopard, Bear and Lion imagery are evoking Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 was primarily fulfilled by Intertestamental History, Revelation is picking up later with a Rome that has annexed most of the Greek Empire and portions of Babylon and Persia.  The 10 Horns we also know represent lesser kings allied with the Beast, these are likely various local Client Kings and Tribal Leaders who assisted Vespasian in the Conquest of Judea like Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene.

The Mortal Wound being Healed could have multiple meanings.  Vespasian did suffer a serious wound during the Siege of Yodfat that Josephus makes a big deal out of.  But it’s seemingly associated with one of the specific Seven Heads, most of them died violently but Vespasian presented himself as the Heir of Otho.

For Revelation 13:5 the YLT says “Make War” where the KJV says “Continue” and I think that is more accurate to the Greek.  This is about the Authority Vespasian was given to carry out the War against Judea.  There are two ways we could count the 42 months, we could begin them with when Vespasian was first formally placed in charge of the Campaign on September 22nd 66 AD ending it in March of 70 AD.  In April of 70 the War continued but now with Vespasian fully established as sole Emperor and his son the one actively carrying out the Campaign in Judea.  Or we could say the 42 months started when Vespasian actually arrived in Judea seemingly in Spring of 67 then continued to September of 70 AD when the Siege of Jerusalem was fully completed.

Vespasian was in Alexandria when he was proclaimed Emperor, and as such was the only Roman Pharoah ever consecrated by proper Egyptian Ceremonies, much of which symbolically Deified him.

Verse 7 of chapter 13 repeats language from chapter 11 verse 7.  If you watch Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witness representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

Revelation 13:10 is about Captivity which is obviously relevant to 70 AD.

The Beast out of The Earth called elsewhere The False Prophet I think could have been Tiberius Julius Alexander.  Many have argued “out of the Earth” in contrast to “out of the Sea” implies a Jewish background for the second Beast as opposed to the Gentile Background of the First, and Alexander fits that even though he was considered an Apostate.  He had formerly been a Governor of Judea but was Prefect of Egypt when this War started and was vital to Vespasian becoming Emperor due to the control that position gave him over the Empire’s Food Supply.  And he was involved in that Ceremonial Deification of Vespasian as Pharaoh as well which did include performing False Miracles.

When the Image of The Beast is introduced in verse 14 many translations wrongly say the Image was “made”, but the Greek doesn’t use a word for Create here, it should read that they Set Up the Image, meaning the Image could be something that already existed.

In Genesis 5:3 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam as his son.  Multiple New Testament passages further connect Jesus as the Image of God to Him being The Son of God, like Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15.  So there is Biblical Precedent for a person’s Image being their Son.

The Image of The Beast in this model would be Titus the Son of Vespasian who had the same full name and was also elevated by Tiberius Julius Alexander who joined him in the Conquest of Judea where he was proclaimed Imperator after destroying Jerusalem.

That leads us to the matter of Jerusalem as Babylon.  The arguments for it are well known but in the past my issue with holding that view at the same time as The Beast being Rome was that I misunderstood Revelation 17 as implying Babylon held power over The Beast, but I now know the text doesn’t describe her as Riding the Beast.  Berenice in her affair with Titus seems frankly like a good personification of the Harlot.  The word “kill” isn’t actually used in Revelation 17 or 18 (and with Jezebel in chapter 2 only her children are killed), the City is destroyed by the people represented by The Harlot still live on to, in my view, eventually become the Bride of chapter 19 and Lamb’s Wife of Chapter 21.

Revelation 17 also strictly speaking says the Ten Horns hate Babylon and destroy her with fire not the Beast himself.  This could be relevant to how Vespasian was in Rome when the final Siege happened but also Titus himself did not want to Destroy the Temple, his troops and allies got out of control.  

I have also considered that because of how the word “Wilderness” is used in Revelation this final destruction of Babylon refers to the fall of Masada.

The main issue is that I can't figure out how to make Vespasian or this False Prophet candidate fit my Baptism of The Beast premise, we are still far from Rome's Christianization.

A Third Jewish Temple was built in the 7th Century

 I'm Copy/Pasting below something I wrote back when I was still a Futurist, but it has obvious potential relevance to the new kind of Partial Preterism I've been developing on This Blog.

__________________________________________________________________

I have been looking into theories about reconstructing the history of the 7th Century and the origins of Islam.  I however do believe the traditional Biography of Muhammad is fairly grounded in real history, unlike Jay Smith.

And the thesis I shall provide here doesn't even matter much to if the early Arab Empire was already distinctly "Muslim" or not, my theories on that I get into elsewhere.  This is just specifically about what they did on The Temple Mount.

The current Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were both originally built by Abd al-Malik the third Umayyad Caliph between 690 and 705 AD, that's pretty indisputably agreed on by everyone.  The question of whether or not the Arabs built some kind of earlier Mosque on the Temple Mount is difficult to answer since everything written on the subject from the Muslim POV is centuries later, including that account of Umar and Sophronius which many Gihon Spring Temple location supporters misunderstand.

There are however some contemporary 7th Century Christian sources, and one Jewish source.  Here is a link quoting a number of them gathered together by Hoyland in 1997.

 https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

There are Four primarily I want to quote, but first let me provide some context.

Byzantine Christians of Late Antiquity, and probably all the other mainstream types of Christians who existed at that time, on the subject of the possibly of a Third Jewish Temple being built had the exact opposite opinion of modern Dispensationalist Evangelicals.  They not only weren't expecting it but they believed God would never allow it.  So if they saw it happening they would have to either deny it, or interpret it as inherently negative.  Like how today many Anti-Semitic Post Tribbers pretty much believe the Third Temple itself will be the Abomination of Desolation.

Meanwhile I have on my other Blog documented that the Quran is actually a Zionist book, it affirms Israel's right to the Promised Land and expects their return.  The parts that seem Anti-Semitic exist in the context of the Arabs' conflict with Jews living in Arabia.  I believe Muhammad probably never intended his united Arab state to expand west of the Jordan River (or East/North of the Euphrates for that matter).  None the less when Umar did conquer Judea, even under the most traditional view of what happened he allowed The Jews to live in Jerusalem again after 500 years of Rome (both Pagan and Christian) banning them from the city.

Also on the use of the word "Mosque" in these passages, if that even is an accurate translation.  It should be remembered that in the Quran itself the word Mosque does not mean the specific type of Muslim worship building we're used to today, but rather just means a Sacred site.  The most popular interpretation of the Night Journey Sura is that the "Farthest Mosque" is the site of the Temple in Jerusalem even though no building of any kind stood there at the time.

So let's start with the witness of Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem who died in 638 AD.

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

I notice how hostile the Christians are to their Arab conquerors seems to depend on their sect of Christianity, the "Nestorians" like Ishoyahb and John bar Pankaye got along with them just fine.  At any rate this reference doesn't tell us much about what's being built, but by "the Capitol" he almsot certainly means the City's highest peak, The Temple Mount, after all Hadrian's Temple bult there was called the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

The second reference shall be the Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from about 644 AD.

The Persians . . . will go down to Egypt and much killing will accompany them. They shall seize the wealth of the Egyptians and sell their children for gold, so harsh is the persecution and oppression of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians, for they will take the church vessels and drink wine from them before the altar without fear or anxiety. They will rape the women before their husbands. There shall be great distress and anguish, and of those that survive a third will die of grief and misery.

Then after a while the Persians will depart from Egypt and there shall arise the Deceiver, who will enter upon the king of the Romans and will be entrusted by him with headship of both the military commanders and the bishops. He shall enter Egypt and undertake many tasks; he shall take possession of Egypt and its provinces, and build ditches and forts, and order that the walls of the towns in the deserts and wastelands be [re-]built. He shall destroy the East and the West, then he shall combat the pastor, the archbishop in Alexandria entrusted with the Christians resident in the land of Egypt. They will expel him and he will flee southwards until he arrives, sad and dispirited, at your monastery. And when he comes here, I shall return him and place him on his seat once more.

After that shall arise the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau, who hound the Christians, and the rest of them will be concerned to prevail over and rule all the world and to [re-]build the Temple that is in Jerusalem. When that happens, know that the end of times approaches and is near. The Jews will expect the Deceiver and will be ahead of the [other] peoples when he comes. When you see the [abomination of] desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke standing in the holy place, [know that] they are those who deny the pains which I received upon the cross and who move freely about my church, fearing nothing at all. (Ps.-Shenute, Vision, 340-41 [pp. 280-281])

Since the King of the Romans here is certainly Heraclius, my first instinct was that the "Deceiver" being referred to was Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople being condemned for the Monothelite controversy, but the Coptic perspective made me doubt that.  Since the author would have considered Benjamin I the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria this Deceiver could fit Cyrus of Alexandria who was indeed given both Ecclesiastical and Military authority in Egypt.  John of Niku was another Egyptian of the period who tied his hostility towards Cyrus into how he talked about the Arab conquest.

The last detail of that account could sound like it's saying the Arabs of this time already said Jesus didn't die on The Cross.  But in the context of how Divine Impassability was what largely drove Nestorius to develop his view of the Incarnation, this could make sense to me as a criticism of Nestorianism.  Just as Ishoyahb III saying "those who say that God, Lord of all, suffered and died" is a Nestorian criticism of Cyrilian Christianity and not opposition to the doctrine of the Crucifixion or Incarnation.  

Arculf a pilgrim from the 670s.

In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This house can, as it is said, accomodate at least 3000 people. (Adomnan, De locis sanctis 1.1.14.186 [p. 221])

However the most crucial witness to my theory is the Jewish one, Simon bar Yohai in the 680s.

The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque (hishtahawaya) there on the Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock." (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 79 [p. 311])

Not only did some Christians see this as a rebuilding of the Temple from a hostile POV, but Jews also celebrated it as a rebuilding of The Temple.  Meanwhile the Rectangular shape shows this was being built more like Solomon's Temple then like the Octagonal Dome we see there now.

This witness has actually effected my opinion on the Dome of the Rock being the Temple Site.  Having a Jewish pre Dome of the Rock witness to The Temple being on a Rock really lessens how unlikely I found that possibility previously.

Still technically it is the Al Aqsa Mosque that is in it's name claiming to be the "Farthest Mosque" of the Night Journey.  And the Crusaders called that Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of the Rock the Temple of The Lord.

However archeologically we know that where the Al Aqsa Mosque is was Herod's southern expansion of The Temple complex, the Royal Stoa, so the least likely place on the Mount for the The Temple itself to have been.

When was Jesus's Not One Stone Prophecy fully fulfilled?

You might think the answer to that is obvious and well known, but you'd be surprised.  First I'm going to quote the account of the Prophecy from Mark 13:1-2 since I think it's the most complete account of exactly what Jesus in this case.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down".

Notice that it isn't JUST about The Temple, it's about all the buildings, plural.  

While Matthew and Luke's account of this in their main Olivet Discourse chapters downplay the inclusion of other buildings, Luke 19:44 also refers to not one stone being left, with The Temple not even being the focus, that Prophecy is about the entirety of Jerusalem.

The 9th of Av in AD 70 (presumed to be August 4th on the Roman Calendar) as recorded in Josephus Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapters 4-5 is the day The Temple was destroyed in the sense of not being able to be used as a Temple anymore.  Remember what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral a few years ago?  The worst case scenario people were fearing that day is basically what happened to The Temple on the 9th of Av.  The next day however as recorded by Josephus in Wars Book VI Chapter 6 there are clearly still standing ruins.  

The beginning of Book VII is when Titus demolishes even those ruins and thus this is where most Christians talking about AD 70 via Josephus (both Preterists and Futurists) say the Not One Stone Prophecy was fulfilled.  Except Josephus tells us there were three towers that Titus left standing, in my view as long as those three towers were still standing this Prophecy of Jesus was incomplete.

In AD 131 Emperor Hadrian while visiting Jerusalem after ending his extended stay in Egypt announced his plans to rebuilt Jerusalem as a Greco-Roman City with a Temple to Zeus being built over the former site of The Temple.  I think the early stages of that project is when even those three remaining towers were torn down.  

Then after Hadrian left the Near East for Asia Minor in 132 the Bar Kokchba Revolt broke out.  That probably stalled the reconstruction project even though the Rebels never held Jerusalem during that war.  Then after the revolt was put down in 135 the project restarted.