Tired of the "why did God allow ……." posts.

[Simplelogic]

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! Good it were for him if that man had not been born.

How could it be good for a man to never have been born? If we're talking about a transgression that occurs decades after birth, why extend judgment to the birth of this person?


You acknowledge that Adam and Eve were cursed because of a transgression that was their own. So then, why also acknowledge that their offspring are cursed?

We are comparing apples and oranges here. I agree that the curse of death entered the world.

 

[Kolibri]

"For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins." - Ec 7:20
Why?
"For the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up." - Ge 8:21b

Adam and Eve were not created with an inclination towards sin. We are.
That is the sad consequence of being born imperfect.
That is why we are symbolically considered dead.
We will fully come to life at the end of the 1000s years of Kingdom Rule - having shed this inclination towards sin. (Re 20:5a)

 

[Sleeppy]

In Moses' case, there are two things to consider. One, Moses as a mediator prefigured Jesus. Jehovah was using Moses to demonstrate how he leaves the judging to his Son, to mediate between God and man.

Two:
*** w10 10/15 pp. 5-6 pars. 13-15 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
For example, consider Jehovah’s words to Moses after the Israelites had made a golden calf to worship. God said: “I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation.”—Ex. 32:9, 10.
14 The account goes on to say: “Moses proceeded to soften the face of Jehovah his God and to say: ‘Why, O Jehovah, should your anger blaze against your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “With evil intent he brought them out in order to kill them among the mountains and to exterminate them from the surface of the ground”? Turn from your burning anger and feel regret over the evil against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, in that you said to them, “I shall multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have designated I shall give to your seed, that they may indeed take possession of it to time indefinite.”’ And Jehovah began to feel regret over the evil that he had spoken of doing to his people.”—Ex. 32:11-14.
15 Did Moses really need to correct Jehovah’s thinking? By no means! Although Jehovah expressed what he was inclined to do, this was not his final judgment. In effect, Jehovah was here testing Moses, just as Jesus later did Philip and the Greek woman. Moses was given an opportunity to express his view. Jehovah had appointed Moses as mediator between Israel and Himself, and Jehovah respected His appointment of Moses to that role. Would Moses succumb to frustration? Would he take this opportunity to encourage Jehovah to forget about Israel and to make a mighty nation from Moses’ own descendants?

*** w10 10/15 p. 6 “Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?” ***
According to some scholars, the Hebrew idiom rendered “let me be” at Exodus 32:10 could be taken as an invitation, a suggestion that Moses would be allowed to intercede, or ‘stand in the gap,’ between Jehovah and the nation. (Ps. 106:23; Ezek. 22:30) Be that as it may, Moses obviously felt comfortable expressing his opinion freely to Jehovah.

Even after considering these things, the problem remains: Moses is seen as an authority comparable to God. Moses needed to "soften" God's face. In other words, Moses causes God to change. Moses causes God to repent. - God has an original intent, which Moses modifies. -- If Moses was being tested, was it with good or with evil?

Jesus really shouldn't be considered a mediator either. According to Jesus, God sent him to enact His will, not his own, and not the will of men. Jesus didn't come so that God would repent, but so that men would enter into His rest. So in that sense, mediation is the wrong term. There is no mediator. There are only examples of acceptable behavior.

 

[Sleeppy]

We are comparing apples and oranges here. I agree that the curse of death entered the world.

But why do you agree?

Ezekiel 18:1-5
And there is a word of God unto me, saying: `What -- to you, ye -- using this simile Concerning the ground of Israel, saying: Fathers do eat unripe fruit, And the sons' teeth are blunted? I live -- an affirmation of the Lord God, Ye have no more the use of this simile in Israel. Lo, all the souls are Mine, As the soul of the father, So also the soul of the son -- they are Mine, The soul that is sinning -- it doth die.

How is it that Adam ate "unripe fruit, and the sons' teeth are blunted"?

 

[Sleeppy]

Humans have no control over God. Though humans can change God's mind about a certain matter. I don't see this as a negative thing. I see it as an amazing because He actually hears the cry of His people.

You've contradicted yourself. --

 

[Kolibri]

Even after considering these things, the problem remains: Moses is seen as an authority comparable to God. Moses needed to "soften" God's face. In other words, Moses causes God to change. Moses causes God to repent. - God has an original intent, which Moses modifies. -- If Moses was being tested, was it with good or with evil?

Jesus really shouldn't be considered a mediator either. According to Jesus, God sent him to enact His will, not his own, and not the will of men. Jesus didn't come so that God would repent, but so that men would enter into His rest. So in that sense, mediation is the wrong term. There is no mediator. There are only examples of acceptable behavior.

Risking Simple's wrath towards Paul
Mediation is a thought projected by scripture

"[The Law] was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator." - Ga 3:19b
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." - 1Ti 2:5

 

[Simplelogic]

You've contradicted yourself. --

Did Moses MAKE God change His mind? No. So it was not control.

 

[Simplelogic]

But why do you agree?

Ezekiel 18:1-5
And there is a word of God unto me, saying: `What -- to you, ye -- using this simile Concerning the ground of Israel, saying: Fathers do eat unripe fruit, And the sons' teeth are blunted? I live -- an affirmation of the Lord God, Ye have no more the use of this simile in Israel. Lo, all the souls are Mine, As the soul of the father, So also the soul of the son -- they are Mine, The soul that is sinning -- it doth die.

How is it that Adam ate "unripe fruit, and the sons' teeth are blunted"?

you bring up a good point. This statement is actually making the opposite case that you are making. this parable that you were quoting was not a good parable.if you read the verses previous, God said to never say this parable again in Israel!

or short, people were acting like they were being judged for the sins of their forefathers.God reminds them in Ezekiel chapter 18 that they are not to think this way, he says that the sins of man are upon the man not upon their fathers. this entire chapter absolutely destroyed the concept of original sin

 

[Sleeppy]

Another horrible explanation imho. Calling the King of Tyre a Cherub because of "his long wingspan"?

The article said:

"The king metaphorically covered his people with his wings, protecting them." -----kind of a reach wouldn't you say?

Again, the article dismisses the reference to this Cherub being in the "garden of Eden". It also dismisses this Cherub being called blameless.

This is much more likely a prophetic passage of doom over the king of Tyre. The pride of the King of Tyre is being compared to the pride of a Cherub who was "in the garden of God".

Again, I don't know the history.. I'm not in a rush to read about the King of Tyre either. But, Eden is referring to his kingdom. Being a "covering Cherub" describes his relationship with his people. And his blamelessness, as described in the article, includes his role in building the Temple, and extends up until the point in which he offends Israel.

I understand your "need" to place this Cherub in the original Genesis story. It makes sense. It just doesn't make enough sense to convince me that it's what either author intended. This Cherub only appears several thousand years after the original Genesis story- and beyond naming Eden, it says nothing concerning the original events. It says nothing of Adam and Eve. It says nothing of the serpent. Genesis had opportunity to mention these things in its text, and Ezekiel had opportunity to mention the original circumstances in its text. So while I absolutely understand your association, it isn't a "need" I have to state what the texts do not. If Ezekiel hadn't been asked to speak about the king of Tyre, you would never have even associated him with a Cherub not mentioned in the original story.

 

[Sleeppy]

Did Moses MAKE God change His mind? No. So it was not control.

Yes. According to you and your texts, Moses did command God to repent. God didn't "soften" His own "face". -- But even before Moses was required to "mediate" according to your belief, Israel incited God to anger. Israel caused God to change, and Moses followed suit.

 

[Sleeppy]

you bring up a good point. This statement is actually making the opposite case that you are making. this parable that you were quoting was not a good parable.if you read the verses previous, God said to never say this parable again in Israel!

or short, people were acting like they were being judged for the sins of their forefathers.God reminds them in Ezekiel chapter 18 that they are not to think this way, he says that the sins of man are upon the man not upon their fathers. this entire chapter absolutely destroyed the concept of original sin

You're ignoring the question: How is it that Adam ate, and was punished along with the entire human race after him? Your original statement, which said that we are cursed because of Adam and Eve's transgression, is directly related to the simile.

 

[Simplelogic]

Again, I don't know the history.. I'm not in a rush to read about the King of Tyre either. But, Eden is referring to his kingdom. Being a "covering Cherub" describes his relationship with his people. And his blamelessness, as described in the article, includes his role in building the Temple, and extends up until the point in which he offends Israel.

I understand your "need" to place this Cherub in the original Genesis story. It makes sense. It just doesn't make enough sense to convince me that it's what either author intended. This Cherub only appears several thousand years after the original Genesis story- and beyond naming Eden, it says nothing concerning the original events. It says nothing of Adam and Eve. It says nothing of the serpent. Genesis had opportunity to mention these things in its text, and Ezekiel had opportunity to mention the original circumstances in its text. So while I absolutely understand your association, it isn't a "need" I have to state what the texts do not. If Ezekiel hadn't been asked to speak about the king of Tyre, you would never have even associated him with a Cherub not mentioned in the original story.

I get your position. And I am thankful for the honest debate. I do believe that there are many things in the early text that were expounded upon later. This isn't the issue for me. The text clearly diverges from the king of Tyre himself to another entity IMHO. I'm not trying to read anything into the text myself. I simply don't see any logical or poetic reason to claim the king of Tyre to be "in the garden", "perfect", or a "cherub". Normal Hebrew poetry does not make this specific of a claim.

 

[Sleeppy]

Risking Simple's wrath towards Paul
Mediation is a thought projected by scripture

"[The Law] was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator." - Ga 3:19b
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." - 1Ti 2:5

Scripture is not God.. Nor is it a mediator. You're commanded to test the spirits, not accept them because they are written down.

 

[Sleeppy]

I get your position. And I am thankful for the honest debate. I do believe that there are many things in the early text that were expounded upon later. This isn't the issue for me. The text clearly diverges from the king of Tyre himself to another entity IMHO. I'm not trying to read anything into the text myself. I simply don't see any logical or poetic reason to claim the king of Tyre to be "in the garden", "perfect", or a "cherub". Normal Hebrew poetry does not make this specific of a claim.

The question I really want you to ask yourself is: Why would the text diverge at all? Why would Ezekiel respond to God's request concerning the king of Tyre, with something else entirely?

 

[Sleeppy]

The question I really want you to ask yourself is: Why would the text diverge at all? Why would Ezekiel respond to God's request concerning the king of Tyre, with something else entirely?

I would have less of a problem with you making a case for the dual fulfillment of these particular verses, than with you saying Ezekiel diverged to an event which had already occurred, for no apparent reason.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins." - Ec 7:20
Why?
"For the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up." - Ge 8:21b

Yes .. we are all sinners, atheists and believers alike..

Adam and Eve were not created with an inclination towards sin. We are.

I don't agree with that .. Adam and Eve are part of mankind .. the only reason that they would be less sinful than us, is because they were initially 'in paradise' ..

..but Almighty God knew that it couldn't last..

 

[Kolibri]

you bring up a good point. This statement is actually making the opposite case that you are making. this parable that you were quoting was not a good parable.if you read the verses previous, God said to never say this parable again in Israel!

or short, people were acting like they were being judged for the sins of their forefathers.God reminds them in Ezekiel chapter 18 that they are not to think this way, he says that the sins of man are upon the man not upon their fathers. this entire chapter absolutely destroyed the concept of original sin

Some will teach that all of Adam's future offspring shared in Adam's initial act because, as their family head, he represented them, making them in effect participants. This concept of original sin is not what the Bible talks about.

"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned-." - Romans 5:12

Note that this verse speaks of death 'spreading' to all men? This implies a progressive effect, not a simultaneous one.

Ezekiel 18:2,3 and Jeremiah 31:29,30 clearly teach that the house of Judah would be paying for their own sins, rather than the sins of their fathers, (as they wanted to believe). There is, however, a difference between them and their forebearers and what happened between Adam and ourselves. I do not pay for the sins of my human father. I have though caught an infection from my human father, that he caught, and so forth all the way back from Adam. That infection is going to eventually be fatal, unless Armageddon, and the physical application of the ransom that comes after, comes first.

That infection carries with it a weakness - a propensity to miss Jehovah's mark for human perfection.

 

[Ingledsva]

Just because Eve didn't have first hand knowledge of evil does not mean that her decision wasn't evil. This is just sill. The text clearly shows that Eve and Adam knew what was right and chose to believe another voice in the hopes of becoming like God. Once they acted on it, they became aware of the full capacity of evil and its detrimental effects on the human condition.

You can go on and on - however -

She can't be charged with an evil act, if God has withheld the KNOWLEDGE of evil, which is what the story tells us.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Ha! This makes sense. Paint me as some misogynistic male just because I disagree with you and call out your man hatred. I could have predicted you would go there.

Yes. God's supernatural protection from enemies requires man to be in obedience and relationship with Him. Sorry if you don't like that. The Bible shows God going through great lengths to get His people to repent before withdrawing His supernatural protection. And no, He doesn't feel bad about it afterward. He simply waits for humans to repent and follow His ways before He leads them back into prosperity.

Did only Adam have to till the ground? Did only Eve have pain in childbirth? No! These curses were for all men and women.

LOL! Dude! You proved me right with your first paragraph!

I did not say anything so-called feminist. You brought it up - when you misunderstood what I was talking about with slavery = God letting his people go into slavery when angry, - and not as you put it,- woman's slavery to men.

When told you misunderstood, - you continue with the errant CRAP - above!

Grow up!

*

 

[Simplelogic]

You're ignoring the question: How is it that Adam ate, and was punished along with the entire human race after him? Your original statement, which said that we are cursed because of Adam and Eve's transgression, is directly related to the simile.[/QUOTE

You can go on and on - however -

She can't be charged with an evil act, if God has withheld the KNOWLEDGE of evil, which is what the story tells us.


*

ok