1. Origins of pre-trib idea will tell you all you need to know.. plus it only really became more wide spread after a FICTION book (left behind) became wildly popular

2. Not biblical (read 1 Thess. 4:13-18, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, & Matt. 24:29-31), they very clearly state we will go AFTER the dead in Christ

3. It’s simply wishful thinking ignoring the fact that Paul and Jesus assure us we will have to endure troubles on earth.

4. Jesus message was never about escaping the world, but preparing for his coming. We need to be assured in our faith so when the end comes, we remain steadfast sharing the gospel with all those who need it

5. Never taught by early church, only taught in western world, & never mentioned anywhere until early 1800s

The question just crossed my mind.

I've always been Amillennialism Partial-Preterist guy, I simply can't understand the rapture and Premillennialism, I understand the Postmillennialism because is relatively simple, but premillennialism is too much.

What were the Church Fathers views?

https://preview.redd.it/50dk2yid9mwd1.png?width=1602&format=png&auto=webp&s=87f3b3c35aacf3cfd74f2f4d692f39fda16515d9

Let's start by assuming that the starting point of the prophecy is Artaxerxes' decree (444-445 BC), because:

• Artaxerxes' decree (444-445 BC) represents better Daniel 9, the other decrees talk about rebuilding the temple and it's administration, not the city walls, that's a point in favor of Artaxerxes' decree.
• one "prophetic biblical" year is equivalent to 360 days, not 365, Artaxerxes' decree is the only one that doesn't have problem and fits.
• The Gospel of John says that Jesus' ministry lasted three Passovers, so Jesus died on 33AD

[Source for these claims]

What's the meaning of the starting seven weeks (49-50 years)? I think nothing important in Jerusalem happened in 395 BC, Jerusalem was already rebuilt, why didn't the writer just said "69 weeks" instead of 7+62?

What's your interpretation of the second half of the last week? I've seen interpretation like "prophetic gap", but bro why the last part of the prophecy is missing for 2000 years? Others say that it is actually a reference to Stephen's death, what????

Can someone please explain to me Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy.

Christians believe God to be all-knowing, including knowledge of the future. But this raises questions of predetermination, and calls into question human free will. If God knows what I am going to do before I do it, am I really free to do anything else? And if God knows I am going to end up a non-believer before I am even created, how is it just for me to deserve Hell?

These are great questions. I think the answer to them lies in how we think about God’s Extratemporality. What exactly do we mean when we say that God knows the future?

Imagine a couple of 2-Dimensional stick figures on a piece of paper, with a line like a wall drawn between them. They would not be able to see each other with the wall in the way, but we, as 3-Dimensional humans, could see both stick figures at the same time. In order for one stick figure to see the other, he would have to walk around the wall; he would have to traverse the dimension of the paper to a new vantage point in order to see his friend. We do not.

The way the stick figures relate to the paper is the same way that we humans relate to time. In order for me to view events that haven’t occurred to which I am blind, I have to traverse the dimension of time to a new vantage point.

But the way we relate to the stick figures in the analogy is the same way God relates to the events of time. God is outside of time, not bound by it, in the same way we are not bound by the 2 dimensions of the paper. God does not “know the future,” God watches the future as it happens from a single temporal vantage point. Just like we do not need to traverse the paper in order to see both stick figures, God does not need to traverse time in order to see two locations in it. God can see both the present and the future— the stick figure on the left of the wall, and the one on the right— without having to move through time to do so.

So, human free will is not affected by God’s ability to see the outcome. At every crossroads, we are always free to choose one option or the other, and impact our future. God simply watches both the present and the future as the unfold, from a single extratemporal vantage point.

Hello everyone,

I’ve been a Christian for a few years (Episcopalian) and, though it is not a doctrine recognized by my church, I’ve always wondered about Predestination. I suppose I’m uncomfortable with the implication that free will doesn’t exist and that God has already determined everyone’s place in Heaven and Hell. However, if God exists outside of time and space (which it seems like He does) then it would make sense logically that he would already know of fate of all people before they were born. I was hoping that this community would be able to provide me with some more information along with arguments for and against Predestination. Thank you so much for your time and have a blessed day!

With the war in and around Israel intensifying again, and certainly a lot of theology of various qualities being employed throughout the corners of the web, I've finally been motivated to create some YouTube Shorts to provoke some conversation, and hopefully deeper examination of the theological issues among Christians.

To that end, here's a couple of videos on Israel from Romans 11 I've posted recently.

Who is "All Israel"? - https://youtube.com/shorts/91JM61e-ons

Is Israel "Cut off" from God's promises? - https://youtube.com/shorts/EIBXi9p-tVo

I'm happy to hear feedback, arguments, advice for improvements, etc. I'm also making this a poll because I generally wonder in groups like this what the breakdown looks like of different schools of thought.

So, do post your answer in the poll also. Who is "All Israel" in Romans 11?

View Poll

I’d like to initiate a discussion on the influence of Origen and his theology, particularly focusing on his concept of apokatastasis (the eventual restoration of all things). This concept has been a point of controversy within Christian thought, yet I’ve come to view it in a hopeful and dynamic light that aims to balance God’s infinite mercy with the reality of human choices. My views draw heavily from Origen, but also incorporate insights from figures like Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner, while being influenced by Scholasticism.

In considering Origen’s theology, I see his ideas as foundational yet nuanced, particularly regarding his belief in the eventual restoration of all souls, even the devil and demons, through God’s mercy. I hold a hopeful apokatastasis view, one that doesn’t insist on universalism but suggests that through God’s justice and mercy, all souls could ultimately be restored. This perspective holds that even the lost souls in hell or those who may have lost their salvation will eventually be given a chance for purification, offering a final chance for redemption.

Here's a summary of my views compared to Origen's and Gregory of Nyssa’s:

| Aspect | Gregory of Nyssa | Origen | My View |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| **Concept of Apokatastasis**| Believed in purification and eventual restoration, but nuanced. | Believed in universal reconciliation, including the devil and demons. | Hopeful apokatastasis: eventual restoration of all souls through God's mercy. |
| **Theological Method** | Emphasized practical and pastoral implications; dynamic progress. | Used speculative and philosophical methods; heavy allegorical interpretation. | Dynamic view of salvation, balancing mercy and justice. |
| **Views on God's Nature** | God is infinite and incomprehensible. | God is limited by goodness, knowable and definable. | Emphasizes God's infinite mercy and justice, and the potential for ultimate restoration. |
| **Influence and Legacy** | Contributions to Trinitarian theology and the soul's progression are highly regarded. | Influential in early Church, but some ideas, like apokatastasis, were later condemned. | Emphasizes a balanced and dynamic theological perspective, incorporating hope and mercy. |

While I understand that Origen’s views on apokatastasis were later condemned by the Church, I find his broader theological approach compelling. I also recognize that figures like Gregory of Nyssa provided a more cautious and pastoral version of apokatastasis, focusing on continuous progress and purification rather than a definitive, universal reconciliation.

I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this matter, particularly how we can interpret apokatastasis in a way that maintains the integrity of God’s justice and mercy. Can we be hopeful about the restoration of souls without falling into universalism? What role do figures like Origen and Gregory play in shaping our views on salvation? Please keep things civil and frame questions in a friendly, respectful, and logical manner.

ORIGINAL POST:
I finally decided to try my first long form theological YouTube video. This subject is very personal to me, albeit controversial. I have been passionate about the topic for a long time. I personally am convicted that political Zionism is a trap, and a deception in the Church today. So I'm interested to hear your rebuttals to the points I bring out in the video. Also, any feedback you want to offer on the production of my video, the style, format, etc.? As theology nerds, you are my target audience. So, if you think I could improve the delivery, please take a moment to share, it would be really helpful as I really want my channel to actually be useful! Thank you!

Grace and Peace

My first public YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mOGFCPWv51s

My channel: https://youtube.com/@GospelNerd

ADMIN: Sorry, u/theology-ModTeam, I didn't realize that if I fill out text and the link tab, that only the link gets posted. Seems confusing. I tried editing the post after also to add text, and that didn't save either. So, annoyed, I gave up and got busy with something else. Then, you guys removed the post. Understandable. So, this time I'm trying it text first, and I'll just put a link in the text, and if there's a way to add the link so that the thumbnail shows on the main page, I'll try to find it, or let me know, please.

I'm of the view the rapture is not biblically true or theologically coherent. There's the verse in Thessalonians about being caught up to meet him, and you would have to frame your whole theology of this issue around this verse (which is always a dangerous thing to do). I also don't believe it's theologically coherent with the new testament approach to suffering - we are called to persevere in faith and persecutions as God's glory is more revealed through this. It strikes me as an escapist theology of God removing his followers and destroying creation rather than renewing and restoring it. Its a pretty new doctrine developed in the last couple of centuries after fictional writings associated with it. However its a pretty widely held belief in some churches. What do you think? And how would you articulate your position on it to people whose theology has the rapture as central?

I generally subscribe to the “futurist” view, but I wouldn’t say I’m too firmly planted anywhere. I read an interesting article from a preterist and honestly one of the most difficult things was the verse listed in the title. This is when Jesus is brought before the Pharisees, and the high priest asks if He is the Christ. Verse 62 is Jesus’ response:

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Would Caiaphas live to see the second coming? This is what the preterist article states, and to my limited knowledge, makes sense from the text.

However, another thought I had added onto the confusion. I assume Caiaphas was an older fellow (and this is fully an assumption, not based on any historical fact per se - just that one would think it would take a fair amount of time to move through the ranks to become high priest). Caiaphas was high priest from roughly AD 18-36. Many preterists (including the author of the article) believe Jesus’ second coming happened in AD 66. It just doesn’t seem right that Caiaphas could live another 30 years after his “retirement” (I can’t seem to find anything detailing when he died or why he was no longer high priest after AD 36).

What are your thoughts? Preterists are more than welcome to respond as well. I just want to hear what other sides have to say.

[TL;DR at the bottom.]

I realize we've all been conditioned to read end-of-the-age prophecy in a strictly futurist way, but if we're being honest, we need to at least thoroughly investigate the possibility that it has already passed.

​

The End of the Age:

The following scriptures demonstrate that the end of the age began at the very least with Jesus' crucifixion:

[Mat 24:3 NASB95] 3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what [will be] the sign of Your coming, and of *the end[G4930] of the age*?"

[1Co 10:11 NASB95] 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom *the ends of the ages** have come.*

[Heb 9:26 NASB95] 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at *the consummation[G4930] of the ages** He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.*

​

The Four Horsemen:

We may not interpret the white, red, black, and pale horsemen in just any way we please. We must look for the Old Testament to define the New Testament and see how a greater narrative emerges.

• Who are the four horsemen? The Book of Zechariah tells us:

[Zec 1:8-11 NASB95] 8 I saw at night, and behold, a man was riding on a *red horse, and he was standing among the myrtle trees which were in the ravine, **with red, sorrel and white horses behind him. 9 Then I said, "My lord, what are these?" And the angel who was speaking with me said to me, "I will show you what these are." 10 And the man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered and said, "These are those whom the LORD has sent to patrol the earth." 11 So they answered the angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees and said, "We have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth is peaceful and quiet."*

• We see all four of these horsemen in Zechariah 6, riding chariots:

[Zec 6:1-5 NASB95] 1 Now I lifted up my eyes again and looked, and behold, four chariots were coming forth from between the two mountains; and the mountains [were] bronze mountains. 2 With the first chariot [were] *red horses, with the second chariot **black horses, 3 with the third chariot white horses, and with the fourth chariot strong dappled horses. 4 Then I spoke and said to the angel who was speaking with me, "What are these, my lord?" 5 The angel replied to me, "These are the four spirits of heaven, going forth after standing before the Lord of all the earth,*

​

The Angels at the End of The Age:

So how can we know the End of the Age has already passed?

• We may know the answer to this question by the Parable of Wheat and Tares:

[Mat 13:37-42 NASB95] 37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and [as for] the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil [one;] 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and *the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.** 40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.*

• The harvest that is spoken of here is took place between 66-70 AD. In 66 AD, Eleazar, son of Ananias put a stop to the daily sacrifices offer by the gentiles, to spite Rome. This triggered the Roman-Jewish war. Rome sent it's armies to surround Jerusalem, and it was a signal to the elect within the city to flee to the caves before the city was internally sealed off by the zealot gangs.

• From that point forward, there was conquest, war, famine, and death until the Lord came to take the faithful members of the Church.

TL;DR: The four horsemen were patrolling angles sent to gather up the tares and throw them into the furnace of tribulation, between 66-70 AD.

I would just like some clarification on what happens to our body when we go to heaven. I’ve heard from other christians that our body gets transformed into a new glorified body. So are we the same person we were when we died or do we change personality wise as person? (ie we no longer want the desires our earth self had).

Personally I’ve been thinking that wouldn’t you become bored if you were in heaven? Continually praising the lord for eternity? As being essentially immortal is not for everyone. But when we go Heaven do we change and suddenly find Heaven amazing?

Matthew 13:30 "...Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn."

The wheat going into the barn is the sons of the kingdom going into the kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the evil one.

How much ought we to read into the phrasing and implications of this statement? For example: Origen makes the case that there is no general or pre-existent Hell prepared for the sinful, but rather we are condemned by our hearts and suffer in a Hell separate from others. Does the "bundling" of the tares mean that there is definitely a "general Hell" for sinners?

Also, tares won't burn forever, so if we take this parable at face value, you could make a case for annihilationism, and then go to any verses where "eternal torment" is suggested, make this parable a priority, and say that the "eternity" is inapplicable to any individual, but only to Hell itself.

What are your thoughts? How do you read it?

My interest lately has been determining which hermeneutic is the most Biblical. I have always been raised to believe that my church fell into a dispensational approach but, in studying this question, there is no doubt I fall into a progressive dispensational (erring to the side of progressive covenantal) approach.

I’m just looking for thoughtful insights and resources on this. What I have found has been that if I listen to one person give a lecture on it, they tend to mischaracterize the other side. I find this very frustrating when trying to take an unbiased approach and see all sides fairly based on their merits.

I’ve read “Three views on Israel and the Church: perspectives on Romans 9-11” but disliked the demeaning writing style of the Covenantal guy (Merkle) so much that I feel I didn’t mentally give it a fair shot.

Any resources or insights to help parse this out further would be appreciated.

Edited to add: Has anyone else out there had a personal knockdown drag out issue trying to hammer these things out for themselves? I feel like I run into resources that merely offer a defense of one position or the other (understandably) but I want to start with a blank slate and evaluate all by their merits. If you’ve been through that, I would be really interested in commiserating (haha) with you.

I don’t have it all figured out and a lot of smart people come down a lot of different ways on this. I just don’t accept that my church’s view needs defending as much as it needs evaluating.

A lot of ink is spent on the first part of Matt. 16:18 and the whole debate over Peter and the Papacy. But I see very little commentary tackling what this last part means.

Does this passage mean that the Church will assault Hades in the end, playing a part in abolishing death? Is it just a statement about the resurrection of the dead? How does this fit in with broader eschatology?

Up in heaven, God may have Soul Blueprints. At conception, someone may have been given a Soul Blueprint. As someone experiences the world, makes decisions, and is in sin or is choosing God, said Soul Blueprint developed into somethings. Two different people may have had the same Soul Blueprint. There are different individuals who may have looked similar, had similar mannerisms, been motivated towards similar things. Due to things experienced and decisions made, as individuals, their souls developed differently. At death, these souls may have ended up in hell or heaven. They may have ended differently.

Where did this understanding come from, and how was it developed? In contemplation with God, particularly about Elijah and John the Baptist. Also, with contemplation on The Soul and Spirits.

Reading to be on the same page:

Article: Was John The Baptists really Elijah? Got Questions

Post: Soul Development and Christianity. on r/Conceptal_Biblestudy.

Elijah and John The Baptist

Was Elijah a Essene? I don't know. The Bible doesn't go into much detail about the lives of Prophets prior to them working for God. Elijah seemed to have potentially come out of a group of traveling prophets that may have been established by Prophet Samuel. I don't 100% know. As far as knowledge is concerned, Elijah had a particular up bringing, and education that may have helped make Elijah, Elijah.

John the Baptist showed up after over 400 years after the last recorded Prophets of the Bible. John the Baptist lived in the wilderness, and may have been a hermit for a time. John The Baptist had particular education, experiences, and a calling that made John the Baptist, John the Baptist.

Given Elijah and John the Baptist had the same Soul Blueprint, they had very different experiences and education where as individuals they ended differently. They may have been motivated towards similar ends. They had different experiences and education that molded them differently.

What did they do as a servant of God? Elijah and John the Baptists did some unique things. As two different individuals whose souls developed differently, and were independent, they may have won some accolades or Glory. Working for God, man is God's Glory, and we do things through The Spirit of God for God's Glory. Both men may have had done particular things that made them special and unique.

Have you ever heard of someone wearing Army Medals or a uniform he didn't earn? A man walking around with a Medal of Honor he didn't earn may have been stealing valor looking for attention for something. Someone saying, "I" the key word is "I," "I am Elijah," that man saying he was Elijah may have been stealing valor. Elijah has had a Glory or Valor tied to him, and someone wanted attention for things he didn't do or earn. In an understanding of God, Glory, and Soul Blueprint, a Soul is an individual, he is independent, and every man has a chance to succeed or fail, and has freedom of choice.

Have you seen the movie "The Butterfly Effect?" A man is capable of going back in time. Some bad things happened, and he keeps going back in time to try and fix said bad things that hurt people he cared about. Every time he did, it may have become different or worse. One time the woman he loved may have been pretty normal and happy except that she died. The next time he came back she ended up on drugs and was a prostitute and was a completely different person. Same soul, same person, due to a variety of experiences, and decisions made, the soul developed differently. Sue is a Christian girl in 2018. God may have had Soul Blueprint that Sue developed from. This Soul Blueprint may have been used a number of times through history, and there could be two or more individuals living in 2018 that developed from the same Blue Print. Due to experience and decisions made some these souls may have ended differently. Some were saved. Some were not. Some went to hell. Others are with God.

Where or how did I develop this? In contemplation with God. God has tended to give me things or show me things, and later, I have found Saints and certain people that were given similar things. I haven't related "Copies of The Soul" much perceiving it may have been a little controversial.

Origen Cosmology and eschatology

One of Origen's main teachings was the doctrine of the preexistence of souls,[153][154][152][147] which held that before God created the material world he created a vast number of incorporeal "spiritual intelligences" (ψυχαί).[154][152][155][147] All of these souls were at first devoted to the contemplation and love of their Creator,[154][155][147] but as the fervor of the divine fire cooled, almost all of these intelligences eventually grew bored of contemplating God, and their love for him "cooled off" (ψύχεσθαι).[154][152][155][147] When God created the world, the souls which had previously existed without bodies became incarnate.[154][152] Those whose love for God diminished the most became demons.[155][147] Those whose love diminished moderately became human souls, eventually to be incarnated in fleshly bodies.[155][147] Those whose love diminished the least became angels.[155][147] One soul, however, who remained perfectly devoted to God became, through love, one with the Word (Logos) of God.[146][147] The Logos eventually took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary, becoming the God-man Jesus Christ.[146][155][147] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Origin may have been on to something here. I haven't written about this much due to the controversial nature of it, and God having other things for me to do. What is controversial? Just looking at the movie "The Butterfly Effect," the understanding from the movie is going to fly in the face of the LGBT crowd, and the narrative they support. I don't really know who in theology, in general, would not care for this idea since this is the first time I have worked to present it.

Can anyone give me a general definition of the different views on eschatology (historical premil, dispensationalist premil, postmil, amil), and verses used by those who believe each? I would really like some chapters and verses to look over and discuss with others. I am generally premil myself, but am always open to hearing arguments for others.