A Question For Davka.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Davka.

 

I wonder if I could call upon your expertise in the Hebrew language to help me better understand two parts of the Old Testament and how they might relate to each other please?

 

Isaiah 45:7

The King James Version of the Bible reads as follows, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

A quick check thru other versions yields the words, Disaster, Calamity, Discords, Bad Times, Sorrow, Troubles and Hard Times substituting for the word, "evil". Interestingly enough, in Young's Literal Translation the words in question are rendered as, "preparing evil"!

 

Here...

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa45.pdf

 

...the word, "evil" seems to be the preferred translation.

 

Now to my questions.

 

1. How would you translate this passage?

2. Are the other words (disaster, calmaity, etc.) equally applicable?

3. What context should this passage be read and understood in?

 

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

Judges 9:23

"Then god sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:" KJV.

I see that "evil spirit" is used in most versions. Variations on this are, Spirit of Ill Will, Animosity or Injurous Spirit.

 

Here...

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jdg9.pdf

 

..."evil" seems to be preferred again.

 

So, I'd like to put to you the same three questions as before, regarding Judges 9:23, plus one more.

4. Is this evil spirit meant to be understood as being the same or similar to an unclean spirit or demon, as mentioned in the New Testament - e.g., Matthew 8:28-32?

 

Once again, thanks for any help!

 

BornAgainAthiest.

[Skepticaldude541]

I'm eager to see Davka's response to this. I have been wondering about these verses for a long time also.

[Guest Davka]

Isaiah 45:7

The King James Version of the Bible reads as follows, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

. . .

 

1. How would you translate this passage?

2. Are the other words (disaster, calmaity, etc.) equally applicable?

3. What context should this passage be read and understood in?

 

KJV has it right. "I form/shape/make light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil, I YHWH do these (all) things)."

 

The word for "create" is the same used in Genesis 1:1, "In the Beginning, God created . . . " It is a word reserved for God alone in the Tanakh - it has the connotation of ex nihilo creation, forming something from nothing. God "creates," humans "make" or "shape."

 

The word for "evil" is "evil." It's also bad, terrible, and a handful of other very negative words. In this context "evil" is the best translation. Calamity, disaster, etc. are desperate attempts on the part of the translators to avoid what the Hebrew actually says.

 

The words in Hebrew for "create evil" can be transliterated as "borey ra." The "r" is pronounced similarly to a French "r."

 

Orthodox Judaism has no problem with this passage. All that began to exist was created by YHWH, whether good or evil. YHWH is the source of all that has been created, including evil.

 

Judges 9:23

"Then god sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:"

 

It's an evil spirit. The Hebrew word is the same as the previous verse, except in feminine form (to match the noun "spirit," which is feminine as well) - "ruakh ra'a." Again, the primary meaning for the word is "evil." (The "kh" is pronounced by softly hacking up a loogie).

 

Here's what Strong's Concordance has to say about the word "ra."

 

The passage seems to be saying that YHWH send an evil spirit (or spirit of evil/bad/malignancy) to create hatred between Abimilekh and the men of Shekhem. This is not a new concept - God did similar things to Pharaoh, if you recall, causing him to "harden his heart" against Moses so God would have an excuse to open up a serious can of whoop-ass on Pharaoh and his army.

 

Is this evil spirit meant to be understood as being the same or similar to an unclean spirit or demon, as mentioned in the New Testament - e.g., Matthew 8:28-32?

Damned if I know - I don't speak or read Greek.

 

It seems fairly likely that it's the same sort of thing. An evil spirit or spirit of evil. The word "spirit" used in Hebrew also means "wind," if that's any help.

 

The OT doesn't really seem to have the same concept of a "demon" that we see in the NT. There's HaSatan, "the adversary," who messes with Job and pops up a few other times, and there are a handful of fallen angels mentioned here and there - Michael the Archangel wrestles with one of them in Daniel, iirc. But the thing about being possessed by evil spirits doesn't really happen. King Saul is "overshadowed" by an evil spirit when he flips out and throws his spear at David.

 

I suspect that the concept of possession might be Greek in origin, but I'm just guessing.

 

Hope that helps. Remember, I'm just a guy who happens to read some Hebrew, not an expert.

[bornagainathiest]

Isaiah 45:7

The King James Version of the Bible reads as follows, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

. . .

 

1. How would you translate this passage?

2. Are the other words (disaster, calmaity, etc.) equally applicable?

3. What context should this passage be read and understood in?

 

KJV has it right. "I form/shape/make light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil, I YHWH do these (all) things)."

 

The word for "create" is the same used in Genesis 1:1, "In the Beginning, God created . . . " It is a word reserved for God alone in the Tanakh - it has the connotation of ex nihilo creation, forming something from nothing. God "creates," humans "make" or "shape."

 

The word for "evil" is "evil." It's also bad, terrible, and a handful of other very negative words. In this context "evil" is the best translation. Calamity, disaster, etc. are desperate attempts on the part of the translators to avoid what the Hebrew actually says.

 

The words in Hebrew for "create evil" can be transliterated as "borey ra." The "r" is pronounced similarly to a French "r."

 

Orthodox Judaism has no problem with this passage. All that began to exist was created by YHWH, whether good or evil. YHWH is the source of all that has been created, including evil.

 

Judges 9:23

"Then god sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:"

 

It's an evil spirit. The Hebrew word is the same as the previous verse, except in feminine form (to match the noun "spirit," which is feminine as well) - "ruakh ra'a." Again, the primary meaning for the word is "evil." (The "kh" is pronounced by softly hacking up a loogie).

 

Here's what Strong's Concordance has to say about the word "ra."

 

The passage seems to be saying that YHWH send an evil spirit (or spirit of evil/bad/malignancy) to create hatred between Abimilekh and the men of Shekhem. This is not a new concept - God did similar things to Pharaoh, if you recall, causing him to "harden his heart" against Moses so God would have an excuse to open up a serious can of whoop-ass on Pharaoh and his army.

 

Is this evil spirit meant to be understood as being the same or similar to an unclean spirit or demon, as mentioned in the New Testament - e.g., Matthew 8:28-32?

Damned if I know - I don't speak or read Greek.

 

It seems fairly likely that it's the same sort of thing. An evil spirit or spirit of evil. The word "spirit" used in Hebrew also means "wind," if that's any help.

 

The OT doesn't really seem to have the same concept of a "demon" that we see in the NT. There's HaSatan, "the adversary," who messes with Job and pops up a few other times, and there are a handful of fallen angels mentioned here and there - Michael the Archangel wrestles with one of them in Daniel, iirc. But the thing about being possessed by evil spirits doesn't really happen. King Saul is "overshadowed" by an evil spirit when he flips out and throws his spear at David.

 

I suspect that the concept of possession might be Greek in origin, but I'm just guessing.

 

Hope that helps. Remember, I'm just a guy who happens to read some Hebrew, not an expert.

 

Hi Davka and thanks!

 

As Spock would say,"fascinating"!

 

That link to Strong's pre-empts what would have been my next question... "What about Genesis 3:22 where it says that God knows both good and evil?" You've covered that base too!

 

I can read a little Koine, the NT Greek, because I was crazy about astronomy (not astrology!) , Ike Asimov, Star Trek and anything to do with the high frontier when I was a spotty teenager. Reading and re-reading astro science books, I learned the symbols Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. Then, when I made the biggest screw-up of my life and became a Born-Again Xian I happened to look at a Greek InterLinear. I could read this shit! At the time I putting it down to a blessing from God! (Shakes head in disbelief.)

Anyway, if there's something you want to know about the NT I'll do my darndest to try and return this favor, ok?

 

Moving on...

 

It looks to me like the Xian model of God is seriously at odds with what the Bible says about YHWH/Yeshua/Jesus. I mean, what do we see?

 

* Passages in the NT about God being light, God not lying, God not doing evil, there being no darkness in Him, etc., all of which are directly contradicted by what you've laid out for us in this thread.

* So much for free will! If my mind is being warped by the influence of an evil spirit sent by God, how can God then punish me for this while I'm alive and then judge me for this when He raises me from the dead?

* In the case of Pharaoh and Abimelek, the end seems to be justifying the means. Probably elsewhere too. Are these the actions of a righteous, holy, pure, just and good God?

* I note that God gets an evil spirit to do His dirty work, presumably because a good one (seraphim or cherubim?) couldn't or wouldn't.

* God knowing, creating and doing evil makes a mockery of Jesus' sinless sacrifice and therefore the belief that His blood saves sinners from hellfire.

* If any member of the indivisible and holy Trinity does evil the Trinity is automatically divided! No Trinity = no God. No God = no universe. Ooops!

* By what fair and impartial standard can God be the, "judge of all" if He creates and practices evil to carry out His supposedly good will?

 

However, the flip side of this is that The Problem of Evil is now solved.

The question of why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would permit evil to exist at all, is now answered. God created evil. He can only create what He knows and since He knows and does evil, He is evil. Problem solved!

 

Thanks again Davka.

 

BornAA.

[Guest Davka]

It looks to me like the Xian model of God is seriously at odds with what the Bible says about YHWH/Yeshua/Jesus.

 

Yeah, I gotta agree with you here. The NT is like a revisionist history of Judaism. Judaism is like "hey, he's fucking GOD, who are we to question him? He wants to create evil and send a tornado to thrash your house, that's his call - you better get on your face and beg for mercy!" God in the OT is a lot more like Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu than like Santa Claus.

 

The early church seemed to get this concept pretty well - that's why they instituted prayer to Mary. She's a woman, and a mom, so she's more likely to be gentle and forgiving. "Please, Mary, ask your Son not to open yet another can of whoop-ass on us for His entertainment. Amen."

 

I'm not really sure when the fluffy-cuddly sky daddy god was invented. I think it'a a fairly new idea, though. Preachers were scaring the crap out of people with fire-and-brimstone sermons as recently as the mid-1800s. As long as life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," a wrathful god made sense to people. Only when life began to be pretty damned comfortable did people start to wonder why god was such a prick.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

However, the flip side of this is that The Problem of Evil is now solved.

The question of why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would permit evil to exist at all, is now answered. God created evil. He can only create what He knows and since He knows and does evil, He is evil. Problem solved!

 

Thanks again Davka.

 

BornAA.

 

How could it be any other way? Seriously? Evil is a constant in this world, with or without God. So, God is suppose to be the entity that created man, in perfection, and is all good? I think this was the cornerstone for the Gnostic movement. Is God evil or is He good?

 

I like to think that God didn't necessarily create evil, but that evil was born into this world from His creation rebelling against Him. Thus, creating the word 'evil' to exist. So, before evil existed, all was good. And He made this and that,....and it was good. The NT speaks of Michael speaking to Satan, as well as Job. It seems that Satan was the creator of evil, not God. Just like someone created the Internet, but not the evil administered wherein.

[Guest Davka]

 

 

However, the flip side of this is that The Problem of Evil is now solved.

The question of why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would permit evil to exist at all, is now answered. God created evil. He can only create what He knows and since He knows and does evil, He is evil. Problem solved!

 

Thanks again Davka.

 

BornAA.

 

How could it be any other way? Seriously? Evil is a constant in this world, with or without God. So, God is suppose to be the entity that created man, in perfection, and is all good? I think this was the cornerstone for the Gnostic movement. Is God evil or is He good?

 

I like to think that God didn't necessarily create evil, but that evil was born into this world from His creation rebelling against Him. Thus, creating the word 'evil' to exist. So, before evil existed, all was good. And He made this and that,....and it was good. The NT speaks of Michael speaking to Satan, as well as Job. It seems that Satan was the creator of evil, not God. Just like someone created the Internet, but not the evil administered wherein.

 

Except that the Bible specifically says that God created evil. You can't use the Bible to prove that God is "good," and then ignore the part where God says he created evil.

 

I know you don't buy the idea that the Bible was 100% written or even inspired by God, but how do you distinguish between the "true" parts and the false ones? Do you simply choose to believe the verses that make you feel good about God, and throw away the ones that don't?

 

Once you start down the path of recognizing that the Bible is, at best, polluted by the opinions of men, you have a real problem. Because the only reason to believe anything that Christianity claims is that "it's in the Bible." If the Bible contains half-truths and outright lies, why should you believe anything it says?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

However, the flip side of this is that The Problem of Evil is now solved.

The question of why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would permit evil to exist at all, is now answered. God created evil. He can only create what He knows and since He knows and does evil, He is evil. Problem solved!

 

Thanks again Davka.

 

BornAA.

 

How could it be any other way? Seriously? Evil is a constant in this world, with or without God. So, God is suppose to be the entity that created man, in perfection, and is all good? I think this was the cornerstone for the Gnostic movement. Is God evil or is He good?

 

I like to think that God didn't necessarily create evil, but that evil was born into this world from His creation rebelling against Him. Thus, creating the word 'evil' to exist. So, before evil existed, all was good. And He made this and that,....and it was good. The NT speaks of Michael speaking to Satan, as well as Job. It seems that Satan was the creator of evil, not God. Just like someone created the Internet, but not the evil administered wherein.

 

Except that the Bible specifically says that God created evil. You can't use the Bible to prove that God is "good," and then ignore the part where God says he created evil.

 

I know you don't buy the idea that the Bible was 100% written or even inspired by God, but how do you distinguish between the "true" parts and the false ones? Do you simply choose to believe the verses that make you feel good about God, and throw away the ones that don't?

 

Once you start down the path of recognizing that the Bible is, at best, polluted by the opinions of men, you have a real problem. Because the only reason to believe anything that Christianity claims is that "it's in the Bible." If the Bible contains half-truths and outright lies, why should you believe anything it says?

 

That depends on what kind of faith about God one has. Why am I not allowed to perceive God as 'good'; good as in the representation of Jesus in the Gospels? Is that against a rule? There are just as many 'good' attributes to God in the OT as there are 'evil' attributes. Did you know that? How can one person say God is evil, when the book they make the claim from gives an equal amount of good attributes?

 

And also, the book specifically says that God created good too.

[Shyone]

I like to think that God didn't necessarily create evil, but that evil was born into this world from His creation rebelling against Him.

 

What was this evil made of? Was it ex nihilo creation?

 

Phanta

That just sends the argument back for another coat of paint.

 

Why is there evil? "Oh, I'm too weak to stop the rebellion. Evil is too strong. I want to, but I caaannn't!!!!"

 

Or, "Fuck you. Make evil and I'll just enjoy the show."

 

Or, "Uh, I don't care. Whatever."

 

And that's "God"?

[Abiyoyo]

I like to think that God didn't necessarily create evil, but that evil was born into this world from His creation rebelling against Him.

 

What was this evil made of? Was it ex nihilo creation?

 

Phanta

 

Two primary colors mixed together Blue and yellow make- Green! I say evil is a byproduct of the primary's

 

I think the deeper thought or question is, Is God evil because He already knew the evil humans would create, etc? I say no.

[Abiyoyo]

 

That just sends the argument back for another coat of paint.

 

Why is there evil? "Oh, I'm too weak to stop the rebellion. Evil is too strong. I want to, but I caaannn't!!!!"

 

Or, "Fuck you. Make evil and I'll just enjoy the show."

 

Or, "Uh, I don't care. Whatever."

 

And that's "God"?

 

What rebellion? Biblically, Doesn't evil lose in the end?

[Shyone]

 

That just sends the argument back for another coat of paint.

 

Why is there evil? "Oh, I'm too weak to stop the rebellion. Evil is too strong. I want to, but I caaannn't!!!!"

 

Or, "Fuck you. Make evil and I'll just enjoy the show."

 

Or, "Uh, I don't care. Whatever."

 

And that's "God"?

 

What rebellion? Biblically, Doesn't evil lose in the end?

Aren't we still rebelling? Isn't there still evil? Or has evil been banished and I didn't realize it?

[Ouroboros]

Two primary colors mixed together Blue and yellow make- Green! I say evil is a byproduct of the primary's

In subtractive color mix, yes. In additive, you'd get a different color. Actually in additive you add red and green and get yellow.

 

I think the deeper thought or question is, Is God evil because He already knew the evil humans would create, etc? I say no.

The answer is that there would be one, highest god, which is the creator of good and evil. Then you have one god who is good, and one god who is evil. Zurvan -> Ahura Mazda + Angra Ahriman. Zurvan is eternal, the circle of yin and yang, atemporal/nontemporal, First Cause, Tao, or whatever you want to call it. And the good v evil gods are temporal, and created and destroyed, cyclically for eternity.

 

Good cannot exist without evil. Good is a comparison, and it has to be compared to something, and that something is what is Not-Good, i.e. evil. When evil is destroyed, good is destroyed.

[Abiyoyo]

Aren't we still rebelling? Isn't there still evil? Or has evil been banished and I didn't realize it?

 

Sure. Yes, still evil out there. Nope, your right, still around.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Good cannot exist without evil. Good is a comparison, and it has to be compared to something, and that something is what is Not-Good, i.e. evil. When evil is destroyed, good is destroyed.

 

But, blue is not destroyed if yellow is destroyed, just green. Same the other way around. To say that good is destroyed along with evil, well that just isn't the case Hans. Good can exist without evil, it just would be the only comparison. Same with evil.

[Ouroboros]

But, blue is not destroyed if yellow is destroyed, just green.

Which means, neither is ever destroyed.

 

Same the other way around. To say that good is destroyed along with evil, well that just isn't the case Hans. Good can exist without evil, it just would be the only comparison. Same with evil.

No. Comparison requires a "comparee" and a "comparand". It's an binary operator, not unary.

 

The word "good" would be completely meaningless if it did not have a contrast. Good without evil is nothing.

 

--

 

Wait, I think I know how you're thinking. Let me break it up a little.

 

The concept and understanding of good can only exist if we also have a concept and understand of what evil is. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

Actual evil doesn't have to exist for an actual good to exist, and that's what you are saying.

 

In other words, helping a person because it is good doesn't mean that I also have to do something evil or that someone else does something evil to that person. I think that's what you mean. But I have to understand what an evil act would entail in the moment of doing a good act, otherwise I wouldn't know that what I was doing was good or not. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Evil as a concept or potential risk must exist. It must exist as a choice. It must exist at least as an idea, otherwise I wouldn't know what I'm doing is good. Good is compared as a concept and definition against what is not-good.

[Shyone]

Good is compared as a concept and definition against what is not-good.

In an almost perfect world, polished nails are good. Broken nails are evil.

 

Regular BMs are good. Constipation is evil.

 

Jokes that make you laugh are good. Jokes that aren't funny are evil.

[Abiyoyo]

But I have to understand what an evil act would entail in the moment of doing a good act, otherwise I wouldn't know that what I was doing was good or not.

 

 

6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

 

Yeap, there we have it folks. The very first moral dilemma

[Ouroboros]

6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,

Which means that she also knew what food which was not good would be like. What else did she compare to? Good food or good food? Which food is good for you as good food, if all food is good food?

 

and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

 

Yeap, there we have it folks. The very first moral dilemma

Here's an interesting observation from that quote, she saw it was good, but it wasn't. Or was the result good? If it wasn't good result, then how come the fruit was good? In other words, good is subjective and multifaceted. It isn't just one kind of good for every thing. A thing can be good and bad simultaneous.

 

I think Aristotle considered these things (but he wasn't a Christian), that some things can be good (or pleasant) right now, fulfilling a desire, but not necessarily good for you in the long term. Some things (like medicine) can be unpleasant, but good for you in the long term. The best of the good things are the ones that are both pleasant and have a good outcome.

 

But then again, you would have to know what unpleasant is to recognize pleasant. And you would have to know what a bad outcome is to appreciate a good outcome.

[Guest Davka]

Once you start down the path of recognizing that the Bible is, at best, polluted by the opinions of men, you have a real problem. Because the only reason to believe anything that Christianity claims is that "it's in the Bible." If the Bible contains half-truths and outright lies, why should you believe anything it says?

 

That depends on what kind of faith about God one has. Why am I not allowed to perceive God as 'good'; good as in the representation of Jesus in the Gospels? Is that against a rule? There are just as many 'good' attributes to God in the OT as there are 'evil' attributes. Did you know that? How can one person say God is evil, when the book they make the claim from gives an equal amount of good attributes?

 

And also, the book specifically says that God created good too.

 

This is what I like about you, Abiyoyo - you're not locked into trying to defend the Bible, you're just looking for ways to affirm the existence of a good and loving God. You're willing to say that the Bible might be screwed up, as long as God is good.

 

I have a question about believing the Gospels - or, maybe I should specify the Red Letters in the Gospels, though. The Gospel accounts have Jesus pretty strongly defending the "holiness" of the OT. Is that just a glitch? Or are you doing what Thomas Jefferson did: cutting out all the parts of the NT that you cannot imagine Jesus really saying, and holding on to your favorite parts?

 

There's no rule (unless you're a Southern Baptist - then there are plenty!) about how or what you are "supposed" to believe. I'm just trying to understand what sort of balance you, personally, have struck. It sounds very similar to where I was at for the last few years of my faith life.

[Seeking]

There are just as many 'good' attributes to God in the OT as there are 'evil' attributes. Did you know that? How can one person say God is evil, when the book they make the claim from gives an equal amount of good attributes?

 

The OT displays an equal amount of good and bad attributes of God? Really? I have just finished reading the first seven books of the OT, and I've taken copious notes about the positive and negative attributes of God. Know what I've found?

 

Three good attributes:

• powerful
• personal
• had some generous laws

Dozens of bad attributes *:

• unfair
• sorry he made man
• unsure of his decisions
• encourages theft
• hardens people's hearts
• sanctions slavery
• punishes people for what their ancestors did
• fickle
• impatient
• murderous
• delights in destroying people
• sends evil spirits
• deems women to be worth considerably less than men

Etc, etc, etc. Where and when does this all balance out? Obadiah? Nahum? I haven't gotten to those yet, so maybe they are chock full of godly goodness.

 

*(References provided upon request.)

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Here's an interesting observation from that quote, she saw it was good, but it wasn't. Or was the result good? If it wasn't good result, then how come the fruit was good? In other words, good is subjective and multifaceted. It isn't just one kind of good for every thing. A thing can be good and bad simultaneous.

 

And I thought God said after he got done creating all the plants and stuff that it was good?

[Abiyoyo]

 

Here's an interesting observation from that quote, she saw it was good, but it wasn't. Or was the result good? If it wasn't good result, then how come the fruit was good? In other words, good is subjective and multifaceted. It isn't just one kind of good for every thing. A thing can be good and bad simultaneous.

 

I think Aristotle considered these things (but he wasn't a Christian), that some things can be good (or pleasant) right now, fulfilling a desire, but not necessarily good for you in the long term. Some things (like medicine) can be unpleasant, but good for you in the long term. The best of the good things are the ones that are both pleasant and have a good outcome.

 

But then again, you would have to know what unpleasant is to recognize pleasant. And you would have to know what a bad outcome is to appreciate a good outcome.

 

True. This is in one of the Gnostic writings as well. The whole A&E story, with a different twist. I think it's in the Apocalypse of John? Anyway, supposedly the serpent was God/Christ helping us, by eating the fruit, and being able to see.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I have a question about believing the Gospels - or, maybe I should specify the Red Letters in the Gospels, though. The Gospel accounts have Jesus pretty strongly defending the "holiness" of the OT.

 

I see the OT's reflection in the NT as more of a reference. As far as Jesus words, God's holiness is displayed through righteousness, and to me, it painted a picture of a righteousness that we would never be able to fully understand or possess until we are with God. I don't see the comparison or reference of this righteousness to the OT from the NT. It's almost like Jesus was defending something that was never there. David is referenced by Christ, and David was righteous unto God in the OT IMO, not perfect, but always bringing himself to God, even after he sinned.

 

 

There's no rule (unless you're a Southern Baptist - then there are plenty!) about how or what you are "supposed" to believe. I'm just trying to understand what sort of balance you, personally, have struck. It sounds very similar to where I was at for the last few years of my faith life.

 

Southern Baptist are very profound in regard to there doctrine. I dunno Davka, I guess I use Christ and his words as my buffer and root. Jesus thought similar to a philosopher of that time, but He wasn't a philosopher. And within that mix of philosophical teaching, I see connections of righteous judgment, forgiveness, and mercy mixed into this. For example, Love is the greatest commandment. But, Jesus would forgive and say, 'Go and sin no more'. I see God in that, not just philosophy.

 

Christ didn't judge many people in the Gospels, followers, even only noting that Judas was the 'one' that would offend. But, when it came to the hypocritical, Pharisee etc; He judged, and said that when He does judge, He judges rightly.

 

Southern Baptist have gotten me baffled as well. I first had a problem with OSAS doctrine, and the most recent is Faith vs Works. They believe that once you are saved you are always saved, and they also believe that we are saved by faith alone. But, I do believe that once baptized, we go into the setting and dominion established for Jesus. Now, I do believe that it is possible that we stray away, even renounce God for a time; but in the end, I do think that Christ is searching for that one lost sheep as in the parable. I say this IMO, because, if Christ told a murderer beside him while on the cross, that he would be with Him in paradise today, then we also can be in paradise with Him if we believe in Him.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

*(References provided upon request.)

 

Must not have read Psalms yet or Isaiah