• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How does your faith rationalize god allowing the existence of evil, death, and suffering?

firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
Not at all. I want you to look at all the meanings of Protokos in the NT and in the septuagint. You will see that it can mean 2 things.
1. 1st in regards to something
Or
2. It is actually used as firstborn examples
Luke 2:7, Luke 2:23, psalm 78:51, And so many other passages it is used as an actual 1 offspring of the parent.

Man made ok that's your opinion, but I say even if it is man made which is not let's look at the context.
Colossians 1:15 because he is the image of the invisible god the first born of all creation
Then
Colossians 1:16 because by him all things were made to created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and invisible, Whether they are thrones or lordships, Governments or authorities all things were created for him by him.
Colossians 1:17 also he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist.

Context: I see it related to creation.
Click to expand...

Well, first born always is Prototokos. Because thats Greek for firstborn and cannot change. When a woman has her first born, its not like God calling someone prototokos.

Only when it comes to Jesus you deem him a physical prototokos. Thats not context of the bible, thats making up your own context.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
What will you tell me about Protokos it appears 134 times
125 in the septuagint
9 in the NT

Examine every usage and you will see it means 1st born sometimes, or 1st in something
Strongs : 1st born, eldest. Strongs # 4416
Click to expand...

Take all the Prototokos appearances when it comes to God.

And if you agree that sometimes it only means 1st in something, Jesus, Ephraim could be both 1st in something. Why the double standards?
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
firedragon said:
Take all the Prototokos appearances when it comes to God.

And if you agree that sometimes it only means 1st in something, Jesus, Ephraim could be both 1st in something. Why the double standards?
Click to expand...
Ok so let's take that approach ok

What does it mean for Jesus to be the firstborn of "all" creation.
Whether it means first in something or the oldest you will have the same result.
Jesus is not god, but gods oldest creation.

So please provide the context of colossians 1:15-17
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
firedragon said:
Take all the Prototokos appearances when it comes to God.

And if you agree that sometimes it only means 1st in something, Jesus, Ephraim could be both 1st in something. Why the double standards?
Click to expand...
And I am making clear that Jesus was not begotten in the same way in human terms by god. But god created the angels, so not in the human sense but creator sense.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
firedragon said:
So you are saying that because of ones action, a little child suffers and dies. Ill tell you what mate, lets just end this discussion. I cant see any point. You cannot answer any proper question.
Click to expand...
Paul Chavez said:
Ok first of all my phones Internet connection sucks.
2nd a takes a long time to type from my phone which is why I stay brief.
But here is an explanation.

Who is the ruler of the world?
Obviously we would both agree that God is the Sovereign.
1. The bible tells us who really rules the world.
1 John 5:19
2 Corinthians 4:4
John 14:30
Luke 4:6
Revelation 12:9

Now the question is why does god allow Satan to rule?
1. Genesis 3:1-5 this is vital for doctrine. God is the creator and sovereign of the universe and this is his creation so he has the right to rule, I'm sure you agree.
2. Satan in Genesis 3:4 he basically is calling the Sovereign of the universe a liar.
So 2 things were done:
- he called god a liar.
- he challenged gods right to rule. Remember everything god made was good genesis 1:31. So by challenging the perfect men he is challenging that what god created or the way god is doing things is wrong. Otherwise provide another explanation as to why.

3. So god had 2 options:
- destroy Satan and that will be the end of that, but that would leave Satan's challenge unanswered leaving room for future rebellion or
- by letting Satan remain god gives a time to prove satan a liar and that's why Jesus is so vital because he being the 2 perfect man or 3rd perfect person has answered Satan's challenge of a perfect man being able to remain faithful to god. Once Satan's challenge is answered once it will be answered for all time.

So god proving Satan a liar and showing that gods way is best, is why he allowed Satan to remain.

How do we know Satan thought that a man would not remain faithful?
Job 2:4 a man will give anything in exchange for his life.
Revelation 12:10 the accuser(satan) of our brothers has been hurled down who accuses them night and day.

What kind of power does Satan have?
Job 1:15 attacked using ungodly people
Job 1:16 fire from heaven (which they "thought" was from god)
Job 1:17 again influenced human beings
Job 1:19 he used natural disasters
Job 2:17 infirmities were used.
All these things people thought were from god, but it was Satan the whole time accusing him and people today.
Also Job could not answer the charge fully because he was not perfect.

which is why Jesus was essential
1. Jesus remained perfect without sin (1 Peter 2:22-24) Jesus came to fulfill the law Matthew 5:17
2. A perfect man fulfilling gods law proves Satan a liar to this charge Job 2:4
3. We not being perfect cannot prove this charge because we don't have the capacity, but Jesus was perfect paid for our sins Romans 5:12,18
4. Jesus did so much for us.

so in a nut shell:
1. God intentionally creates everything good.
2. God is not responsible for evil or suffering, it is our own actions, and satan is the ruler of this world.
3. Satan challenged gods rulership and called god a liar. So 2 scenarios to handle the situation.
4. God does not try nor does he himself try anyone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
If it is man made and I don't know what I'm talking about please enlighten me. What is the context in colossians 1:15,16,17?
Click to expand...

In the beginning of Colossians Saul calls God "Our Father". God is the father of us all. That's how it is.

Jesus is definitely exalted above all. He is the firstborn over all creation. As in he is above all. When Saul says Pro, he means above. If you understand semitic languages, prior or before someone is above someone. But there is no real indication that he was sired by God.

May I ask you a bit of a weird question in your eyes? Are you and everyone in your faith circumcised by the Christ? Because Colossians says that. Its actually a spiritual circumcision, not a physical one. Which contradicts the OT which says if you are not circumcised you should be put to death. Which means Saul is either ignorant of the scripture, or he is claiming authority to change the law as he pleases.

He tells you to eat and drink as you please. Which again goes completely against the OT, Deuteronomy where you are not allowed to eat many things like Swine wherein which God the father, the almighty, has commanded people not to even touch the carcass of a swine.

And he contradicts himself, if he wrote Ephesians he contradicts himself because he tells you "not to be drunk with wine".

And Saul contradicts you by saying about Colossians being dead in your sins which is a spiritual death while you propagate a physical death when it comes to Adam.

Also Saul contradicts Jesus himself. Jesus says that he did not come to change the law. Not a jot or a tittle shall change. But Paul changes the law. Isnt that a contradiction?

And think of this question very carefully.

  • Paul claimed to have had a vision of Christ on the way to Damascus
  • Earlier he was a persecutor of Christ.
  • Based on his claim and his letters which never thought would enter the bible, you take it as Gospel truth.
  • You base your theology on Saul. Though he never claims to have even met Jesus, or God.
Now why dont you follow Muhammed and Quran?
  • Theologically, the Quran never contradicts itself. It only has contradistinctions.
  • Muhammed claimed its Gods word.
  • He glorifies Jesus. He mentions himself 4 or 5 times, and he mentions Jesus 25 times.
  • If two people claim to have revelations from God, time does not matter. So please dont tell me 500 years later excuse.
Why dont you follow Muhammed over Saul?

Errrm, I know that you will pick one speck of this post to answer. But thats fine.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Just look at your answer Paul.

1. Could be inherited sin. Could be? What kind of reasoning is that?

A little child has died in a landslide. actually 15 people including this baby. How could you answer with a could be? And is that could be biblical? Again I will quote Ezekiel.

"He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live." Ezekiel 18. Now you will quote me Saul from the NT. Does that mean the bible contradicts itself? Or the moralities of Gods nature changed? There was no original sin UNTIL Jesus was born. Or was it UNTIL Saul was born? What is your scriptural stand for this?

Let me tell you that you will not reconcile this because it cannot be reconciled. You will avoid this question or ask another question. You cannot answer this with direct answers because its your Bible that you have to answer with. Because this is a theological question and your basis is the bible. Youre an Evangelist, dont you think about what the Bible says at all?

What is the redemption for that child to have suffered under mud and sand and died? Afterlife. Have you read Ecclesias? Have you read Job? Those two books negate afterlife. Do you even know that?

A child is punished for the sins of the father you say (When I say father its the ancestor, biblical language mate, because you always quickly change it into normal language when convenient), while the bible says no, the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, and the father shall die for his own sins. Again, that's from Ezekiel 18.

While your bible says this, how could you answer saying "Could be inherited sin". I think its a complete hypocritical ignorance or ignorance.

2. The way we treat earth does cause disasters. The universe itself also causes natural disasters. The balance of the universe is a scientific subject, I am no scientist. But this is a somewhat valid answer. But then you have followed your 1st reasoning with this. The could be inherited sin answer. Where do you stand? Where does the bible stand?

3. Or our imperfect minds make huge mistakes because we don't have the perfect capacity anymore. Thats what you said. What does an imperfect mind have to do with a landslide. Are you saying that the child was stupid or dirty minded? Yes we make huge mistakes, sometimes with good intentions. Like the invention of explosives, or einsteins atomic bomb. But one day those things might save us from a bigger disaster. But you said "anymore". When did we ever have perfect capacity? If you say before Adam ate the fruit, do you mean there were no perfect persons after that? The bible is rampant with prophets who never had sinned, but Adam sinned, Eve sinned (According to the bible), they had imperfect minds before they ate the fruit, if their minds were perfect they would have never eaten from the forbidden tree. Thus, when did we have perfect capacity, since you said "Anymore".

I personally think that you are just bringing reasons out of a magical hat called "top of mind". You are so lost in the original sin thing that you have lost the need to know the bible as well as common sense.

I apologise if I come out to be sarcastic here, but this is not sarcasm, this is an effort to make you go back to your own bible and your own wisdom.

Peace.
Click to expand...
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
Ok so let's take that approach ok

What does it mean for Jesus to be the firstborn of "all" creation.
Whether it means first in something or the oldest you will have the same result.
Jesus is not god, but gods oldest creation.

So please provide the context of colossians 1:15-17
Click to expand...

Thats not what it means. I know that the NT tries to make Jesus to have lived before all creation, but thats not this.

First born is the leader, the heir. Thats why Ephraim was named first born.

Here firstborn is the same. Jesus is exalted above all creation.
 
Jabar

Jabar

“Strive always to excel in virtue and truth.”
Paul Chavez said:
Ok here is the thing.
Jesus is not god.
- God created Jesus colossians 1:15 context creation. Revelation 3:14.
- God created all things through Jesus. God is the main planner. We can see this delegation in genesis 1:26
- Jesus was a spirit creature(angelic being)
- Jesus emptied himself and became human. philippians 2:6
- Jesus is the 2nd highest name in the universe. Only YHWH is higher than Jesus.
Click to expand...

But you just called Jesus incarnate, brother your contradicting your own accusations.

:)
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
firedragon said:
In the beginning of Colossians Saul calls God "Our Father". God is the father of us all. That's how it is.

Jesus is definitely exalted above all. He is the firstborn over all creation. As in he is above all. When Saul says Pro, he means above. If you understand semitic languages, prior or before someone is above someone. But there is no real indication that he was sired by God.

May I ask you a bit of a weird question in your eyes? Are you and everyone in your faith circumcised by the Christ? Because Colossians says that. Its actually a spiritual circumcision, not a physical one. Which contradicts the OT which says if you are not circumcised you should be put to death. Which means Saul is either ignorant of the scripture, or he is claiming authority to change the law as he pleases.

He tells you to eat and drink as you please. Which again goes completely against the OT, Deuteronomy where you are not allowed to eat many things like Swine wherein which God the father, the almighty, has commanded people not to even touch the carcass of a swine.

And he contradicts himself, if he wrote Ephesians he contradicts himself because he tells you "not to be drunk with wine".

And Saul contradicts you by saying about Colossians being dead in your sins which is a spiritual death while you propagate a physical death when it comes to Adam.

Also Saul contradicts Jesus himself. Jesus says that he did not come to change the law. Not a jot or a tittle shall change. But Paul changes the law. Isnt that a contradiction?

And think of this question very carefully.

  • Paul claimed to have had a vision of Christ on the way to Damascus
  • Earlier he was a persecutor of Christ.
  • Based on his claim and his letters which never thought would enter the bible, you take it as Gospel truth.
  • You base your theology on Saul. Though he never claims to have even met Jesus, or God.
Now why dont you follow Muhammed and Quran?
  • Theologically, the Quran never contradicts itself. It only has contradistinctions.
  • Muhammed claimed its Gods word.
  • He glorifies Jesus. He mentions himself 4 or 5 times, and he mentions Jesus 25 times.
  • If two people claim to have revelations from God, time does not matter. So please dont tell me 500 years later excuse.
Why dont you follow Muhammed over Saul?

Errrm, I know that you will pick one speck of this post to answer. But thats fine.
Click to expand...
1. Ok so first off in colossians it is talking about creation account. Yes or no? Let's forget about Prototokos and lets look at the rest of the text is creation what is being addressed?
2. No we do not get circumcised. Jesus came to fulfill the law because we are imperfect, he came to answer Satan's challenge. There are many reasons for the law but you a right Jesus came to fulfill it something we cannot do flawlessly.
3. Yes he does say not to get "drunk" with wine, that is different than having a glass a day.
4. Ok so.I believe what Paul said.
Adam and eve dies a physical death, they were perfect and sinned. We are born imperfect and are deserving of death when we are born so we are dead spiritually until we choose to follow god, and when Jesus came to accept Christ ransom. So if we reject christ ransom we are dead. John 3:19-21
5. Yes when Jesus came, he came to fulfill, after he fulfilled it things would change.
6. To be honest I can picture Saul. We have huge apostates that oppose our message and for them to change and come to our religion is impossible(in human terms, anything is possible with god), if they are apostate they usually never come back and let alone come back and preach about Jesus zealously as Paul did. Plus there is the account in Acts 15 when they discuss the circumcision and Paul was said to have seen Jesus, and Paul clearly says he was appointed a ministry by Jesus and god the father Galatians 1:1

The Qur'an and muhammad
1. It is your opinion it does not have contradictions. But with that being said this alone does not prove it is of divine origin.
2. Yes muhammad claims it is god word correct. The problem is With Paul you can examine his commentary on the Hebrew scriptures and you can see if it makes sense or not, 2 high is why I compare Adam and creation in both the bible and the Qur'an. There is the key of which is divine.
3. How many times he mentions Jesus is irrelevant, the Jesus of the bible is the true Jesus.
4. Because Just looking at the entirety of the message that muhammad had and the entire them of the bible, the Quran doesn't make sense to me. What I did is examine the message that the Qur'an has in its entirety and the message the bible carries and the god of the bible makes more sense, the pieces paul gives us fit perfectly.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
muhammad_isa said:
I know what you mean, but why can't somebody die in an accident? So overall, I don't agree.
Click to expand...
The problem.is you have to understand the perfect human capacity. A human like Adam was in direct contact with god. Being perfect means god created us perfect capable of committing no error, so accidents would not happen.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
The problem.is you have to understand the perfect human capacity. A human like Adam was in direct contact with god. Being perfect means god created us perfect capable of committing no error, so accidents would not happen.
Click to expand...
That sounds daft .. human beings aren't 'gods' .. we have mortal bodies, and while they can maintain themselves very well with good nutrition and lifestyle, they are not immortal. Other creatures die as well, strangely enough :)
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
muhammad_isa said:
That sounds daft .. human beings aren't 'gods' .. we have mortal bodies, and while they can maintain themselves very well with good nutrition and lifestyle, they are not immortal. Other creatures die as well, strangely enough :)
Click to expand...
Now that's why we have to answer this question
1. Did god intentionally create us mortal
Or
2. Did god create us with an option of immortality

So then that leads to another question
If god created us immortal intentionally why?

To test us, that does not sound like the loving god I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top