Theory on the origin of evil

[DennisTate]

You can accuse me of being ignorant of the Scripture but just because you say so; doesn't mean it's true.

Remember, it was you who came to me telling me (oh how intelligent) I was and that I was the perfect person to help you with your project - and now that I tell you what I think of these matters - suddenly I'm "ignorant of the Scriptures"?

There's a whole lot of warnings in the Scripture about those who use flattery.

What Does the Bible Say About Flattery?



I read that thread. You're entitled to do and believe what you want. If you want to believe some rabbi above the Scripture; that's between you and God. I've done what God has commanded me to. I've warned you to seek the truth in the Scriptures alone.



Everything that happens in this world happens with in the providence of God's working out His salvation plan. That still doesn't mean that there isn't retribution to pay for those who inevitably fulfill God's will by they wicked actions.

Where does Cyrus (or Trump) end up in eternity? The unrepentant are certainly capable of doing God's will; but that does't save them; nor does it indicate to us that we should heed their sayings or actions as trustworthy.

Jesus said to Pilate "You'd have no authority over me if it wasn't given unto you by my Father; but those who've delivered me to you are guilty of the greater sin." In the end, Pilate "carried out the plan"; and the Scripture actually says that Pilate was afraid of Jesus. Why? Because who is this man making a stir in Jerusalem who's said to heal the sick and raise the dead? I see this Sanhedrin has brought him to me out of their envy. (Scripture says that too.) My wife tells me to have nothing to do with this just man; yet I'm the "buck stops here" guy. I'm the last stop in the road of who makes the decision. Do I stand for what I know is actual justice; or do I play the politician and let popular opinion determine my actions?

Although we don't know where Pilate's conscience landed in the end; we know what the outcome was!

And Jesus said specifically to the soldiers: "Father forgive them, for they know not who it is they do this to."

Yet the centurion declared. "Truly this was the son of God."

1 Corinthians 2:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

So.... if you feel no need to obey the Scripture. That's not my problem.

I myself admit to be being somewhat ignorant on most scriptures.... but my consolation is that I was even far worse off back in 1988........

Back in those good ol' days I thought that I had the scriptures figured out quite well...... but I began to have doubts.... I prayed to be corrected and shown what I had wrong..... and I was shown so many errors that I know I must be somewhat more accurate these days than i was back then.

I have read Pastor Todd Burpo's books, both of them.... .and they do indeed fit with a balanced understanding of the Christian and Jewish Bible and especially what they teach about the afterlife.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I myself admit to be being somewhat ignorant on most scriptures.... but my consolation is that I was even far worse off back in 1988........

Back in those good ol' days I thought that I had the scriptures figured out quite well...... but I began to have doubts.... I prayed to be corrected and shown what I had wrong..... and I was shown so many errors that I know I must be somewhat more accurate these days than i was back then.

I have read Pastor Todd Burpo's books, both of them.... .and they do indeed fit with a balanced understanding of the Christian and Jewish Bible and especially what they teach about the afterlife.

Answers to Scripture you will find in the Scripture and that's the only place you will find them!

 

[DennisTate]

Answers to Scripture you will find in the Scripture and that's the only place you will find them!

No.... there are two forms of scripture.....
the written Word of G-d the Jewish and Christian Bibles but there is also the Creation.

Messiah Yeshua - Jesus in parable after parable after parable attemped to show the Jews how they were neglecting to understand the message of G-d taught by every blade of grass..... every tree.... every stream or river.... every flower.... every animal, fish or bird....... not to mention the humans that are in our lives.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No.... there are two forms of scripture.....
the written Word of G-d the Jewish and Christian Bibles but there is also the Creation.

Messiah Yeshua - Jesus in parable after parable after parable attemped to show the Jews how they were neglecting to understand the message of G-d taught by every blade of grass..... every tree.... every stream or river.... every flower.... every animal, fish or bird....... not to mention the humans that are in our lives.

How you interpret the witness of the creation has to line up with the Scriptures though; and what you believe clearly does not.

Just because creation may witness something to you of the truth of God, does not mean you are correctly interpreting that witness. This is why you must filter what you learn through the word of God and you must filter what you understand of the word of God through the word of God. You understand the Scripture by comparing it to itself and than you understand creation by comparing it to Scripture.

 

[childeye 2]

Again, you missed the point. Death can not reign over someone who doesn't sin. JESUS DID NOT SIN! DEATH DID NOT REIGN OVER HIM! HE DID NOT HAVE TO DIE!


That was a choice He made. Will you at least agree with that?

Of course I will agree. That’s what scripture says. And of course I will also agree that death cannot reign over someone who doesn't sin. For death has reigned over all of mankind by one man's disobedience, (Apart from Enoch and Elijah).

Childeye said: "Jesus does lay his life down freely precisely because he can, and we can't."


Why not? Why can't we atone for our own sin?

If you look closely, I never said we could not atone for our sin. If you will recall, the record will show that I have previously pointed out where scripture says to love each other deeply because love covers over a multitude of sins (and without wrath).


The reason why I said Jesus can lay down his life freely and we can't, is because he alone is the Christ who can pick it up again, as in he is the resurrection.

Romans 5:9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


The atonement was about satisfying God's wrath! There, there is a verse for you that states it very clearly! Can you see it yet?

It does say that through Jesus we shall be saved from God's wrath. It does not say we shall be saved “by” God’s wrath being worked off on Jesus.


If you do not recall, the record will show that I have already said that we are saved from God's wrath through Christ's atonement. I also explained how, and it isn't by working it out on His son to get rid of it. By Grace and not by wrath, He gives us the free gift of righteousness by grace through faith.


And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;


2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:


3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.


4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,


5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved


That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

There are a ton more verses. (that I'd already given to you) Do you want to see them again?

Respectfully, you equate the "atonement" with God's "wrath". I have already pointed out that the wrath of God is meant for those who do not turn to God through faith. Consider how illogical it is to say that we are justified in our sinfulness by Jesus experiencing God's wrath in our place. It's like saying someone stole my car, so let me find someone innocent to punish with the crime, so I can justify the thief.

However, it makes perfect sense that we are justified by faith in Jesus who showed both grace and mercy. So long as we show the same grace and mercy to others, it makes perfect sense that we also believe and are justified by his resurrection.

Again, I've pointed to "Why have You forsaken me." But you don't want to hear that verse either. The Father forsook Jesus as part of the atonement because (again) enduring wrath has to do with being cast out of God's presence. That's ultimately what the lake of fire is.

But scripture doesn't say Jesus was cast out of God's presence, as if God was no longer in Jesus. And being cast from God's presence doesn't even equate with the cruelty of the cross which the Gospel testifies to as being performed by the wicked servants left in charge of the vineyard.

God's Spirit was not on the cross forgiving anyone. The Holy Ghost was not the one being crucified. The Son and the Spirit are two different persons. The Father or Spirit did not pay for anyone's sin.

The way I see it, the Spirit of Eternal Love was in Jesus forgiving people who crucified him. Even a cross of torture could not defeat that Love.

When Jesus said "Father forgive them because they know not who it is they do this to." That statement was directed at the Roman soldiers. That wasn't a statement of universal forgiveness.

The scripture doesn’t specify who Jesus is forgiving, but it does imply that they are those who are complicit in crucifying him. It doesn’t have to be a statement of universal forgiveness to accomplish the realization that this person on the cross does not blame those who crucify him. And it may serve to point out that Stephen did likewise for those who stoned him to death. It should be obvious that Jesus was a very forgiving person and his Spirit lives in those who follow him.

The word "power" (of death) in that verse is not the word "dynamos". "Dynamos" means power of authority that is intrinsic in the entity that possesses it. "Dynamos" is used in reference to God's power and authority to accomplish or decree something.


This word "power" that is in Hebrews 2:14 is the Greek word "kratos" which means "strength".


1 Corinthians 15:56 "The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law."


What is Satan. Satan is the "accuser o the brethren"


Revelation 12:10 "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.


What is Satan accusing them of. He's accusing them of breaking the law. What is the consequence of breaking the law. The consequence of breaking the law is the wrath of God.


Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath...."

That makes perfect sense to me. Satan plays both a tempter and an accuser. I see no faith exhibited in such a mindset. I have stated numerous times that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil by ending the Old Covenant whom I believe Satan was administering. He could only do that through his blood, by which he became the high Priest of a better Covenant that could actually make people righteous.


13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Yet you clearly don't know what Scripture actually does say!

I'm sure we all do the best we can as God has enabled us.

 

[childeye 2]

What's the point of the lake of fire then?

I currently believe it will be an eternal testimony of what happened when people did not trust in God's Eternal Power.

If you are by nature a child of wrath, than how can you say you don't think you deserve His wrath?

As I have tried to explain, the scriptures say that those who follow the Christ are no longer a child of wrath. My hope is that I am one of those who follow him, and therefore I am not at liberty to claim either way. But I don't follow him to escape wrath, so to speak. I follow him because I believe in the Love He displayed in the Gospel.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@childeye 2

How many times do you want to go around with this? You have presented no adequate Scriptural argument to convince me that you are right and apparently nothing I say, or Scripture I quote is going to convince you either - so what's the point in continuing this conversation?

 

[sparow]

The Hebrew definition of this particular word "evil" as well as "darkness" was covered in this thread. There are multiple Hebrew words translated as both "evil" and "darkness".



Again, just as in the philosophical realm, "evil" needs an action to define it by. So as would be with our understanding of "righteousness".

You are correct that the words in Hebrew are defined by the Scripture. It would take some time and probably a good amount of digging to delineate the various definitions though.



Yet the original context of the conversation was not speaking of righteousness as a commandment, it was used in context of describing God. God as an internally consistent entity does not need a command to follow.

And this is what's funny about peoples' assertion that Jesus came simply to teach us how to live right. LOL - God doesn't need to prove to Himself or us that He can follow His own commands. The first point would be moot and the second point is that fallen humanity doesn't give a rat's butt to begin with!

So, the incarnation obviously meant more than Jesus just not sinning. Although obviously that's totally consistent with God's character; there was much more to His purpose and point than just to be a good example.



How is Jesus Christ merely a "definition" of God? (Are you a modalist?) The word God can not be simply a rank or title, because it defines an entity. The word "king" does not explain to you what a king is. Neither does "Prince", "Lord" or "General". All of those have earthly correspondents. What we generally define "God" as though, does not have an earthly correspondent.



I agree, there is much more just to this created universe than we are capable of perceiving in this current state of mortality.

I have no idea what it will be like in the kingdom of God, and to keep the Law as we know it one needs to be human as was Christ. I expect that a version or expression of God's Law to be present to define righteousness in the kingdom of God and that the Law will and does define God's righteousness.

Traditionally and habitually men believe wrong things; Jesus came for many reasons and one was to be teacher; but to sum up, Jesus came to confirm or fulfil the covenant; to do all those things said of Him in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.

Having consulted the dictionary I am not able to exactly grasp the concept of modal-ism. I would if pressed, I would call myself a literary eccentric.

Your use of the word God is jargon; I have never learned religious jargon. The word God is purely and English word not borrowed from Latin and is derived from earlier words like “got, Goth, guth;” God does not uniquely describe the God of Israel, and can describe any superhuman Pagan god. In the Hebrew Bible the word “Elohim” is used to refer to the God of Israel about 4000 times, but this word in secular (Biblical times) Hebrew can mean any God other than the God of Israel; also “ Elohim” is plural and can be used as a title for God's subordinates for example, “Elohim Moses”. There are words that define the God of Israel uniquely, one is Jehovah, but I do not know what the word means; the Jew place more significance on “I AM”. When I hear the word God I assume the God of Israel is intended but the word contains no definition and further wordss usually imply a different god.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have no idea what it will be like in the kingdom of God, and to keep the Law as we know it one needs to be human as was Christ. I expect that a version or expression of God's Law to be present to define righteousness in the kingdom of God and that the Law will and does define God's righteousness.

Traditionally and habitually men believe wrong things; Jesus came for many reasons and one was to be teacher; but to sum up, Jesus came to confirm or fulfil the covenant; to do all those things said of Him in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.

Having consulted the dictionary I am not able to exactly grasp the concept of modal-ism. I would if pressed, I would call myself a literary eccentric.

Your use of the word God is jargon; I have never learned religious jargon. The word God is purely and English word not borrowed from Latin and is derived from earlier words like “got, Goth, guth;” God does not uniquely describe the God of Israel, and can describe any superhuman Pagan god. In the Hebrew Bible the word “Elohim” is used to refer to the God of Israel about 4000 times, but this word in secular (Biblical times) Hebrew can mean any God other than the God of Israel; also “ Elohim” is plural and can be used as a title for God's subordinates for example, “Elohim Moses”. There are words that define the God of Israel uniquely, one is Jehovah, but I do not know what the word means; the Jew place more significance on “I AM”. When I hear the word God I assume the God of Israel is intended but the word contains no definition and further wordss usually imply a different god.

Jesus says the law is done away with after all things are fulfilled. There's no law given in the new heavens and new earth because there is no need for one. In an incorruptible obedient universe there's no need for the law. The creatures inherently obey because now having a nature that inherently can do that.

Now, Jesus fulfilling the covenant is what makes the creatures capable of obedience. Because fulfilling the covenant meant taking on the punishment those (human) creatures would (and should) endure for their disobedience.

Modalism means that God took on different forms without being separate persons. The Father becomes the Son, the Son becomes the Spirit. Trinitarianism states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternally all equally coexistent separate persons who are all individually totally God, yet also make up God as one entity. They are all wholly the "substance" of God (how or what ever "substance" one would define God to be "existent of". That's the difference. Modalism is a heresy.

And yes, you are correct that "God" the English word is a generic term for deity. It could be deity, deities, or Deity; (god, gods or God). Yet it's not an inappropriate term because what ever religious group someone is of who speaks of "God" in Western culture; culturally everyone understands they are referencing "the Deity". Now they may need to further define that; but because the prevailing western religious traditions are all monotheistic; "God" is referencing the singular Deity.

Now the Hebrew word "Elohim" is equal to the English word "God" and "Elohim" is plural. "Elohim" also means "deity, deities, or Deity". And since Hebrew is all a "capital letter language" they are all expressed as just one word. "ELOHIM". So in that sense it is also "religious jargon". It just is so of an ancient language.

And it's true that just because of that; is why you get "ELOHIM MOSES" constructs of the Hebrew language.

"Jehovah" is an English transliteration of "Yahweh" (YHWH in Masoretic Hebrew). Now YHWH has no vowels so is technically unpronounceable. The Masoretic Text is what became "standardized Hebrew" for writing Scripture. There are earlier forms of the language and archeologically speaking; we have some of those examples. Now in the "standardization" of Hebrew the vowels of YHWH were taken out because the scribes / religious authorities who standardized the language believed it was a sin to say God's name.

Now "Yahweh" comes from three other Hebrew words "Ya" "Oh" "Weh" which is where we get "Ja-ho-vah". And as far as "proper pronunciation" goes; personally I think that's a mere matter of semantics. I don't know if we now have enough information about the earlier forms of Hebrew to be able to delineate what "YHWH" originally was?

Off the top of my head I don't remember what the words "Ya" "Oh" "Weh" meant. I'd have to look it up.

(Ya-oh-weh) loosely translated "I am that I am".

God is a spiritual entity though so if in your language "Hey God" is the intended target of the ancient Hebrew Deity - that's not lost on Him. He recognizes that and being omniscient and understanding language and terms change throughout time from culture to culture and that some English speaking person 3500 years post Moses is not necessarily going to know the exact name for "Hebrew Deity" Moses used. God accepts that you are still addressing Him. Same thing goes for what ever the Chinese word for "God" is; or the Russian word, pick any language.

Words also get switched around and one term may end up taking precedence over another one. That's happened in Arabic today. The prevailing term for "God" in Arabic is "Allah". Now "Allah" was not the original generic Arabic word for "God". "Allah" was originally the name of a moon god. But today, even people of non-Islamic faith in that culture use the word "Allah" to refer to "God". So yes, language naturally fluctuates over time.

So yes, when you hear the term "God" you assume "ancient Hebrew Deity" and that's not wrong in Western cultural context.