If God created the souls of birthed babies, why they are under the bondage of sins ?

[chesed]

12 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Face the facts and be strong in your mind and it is not necessary to teach God ...anything...he knew the difference between one word and the other...and he chooses to post evil because by that time the people knew the meaning...

You do not need to correct God and he did not asked you to do what the Pharisees were doing...creeping in substitute words in the OS to make them project their wants..

No need to teach God what is the proper word or that he used the wrong word. 

I am reminded of Peter who rebuke Jesus and he try to tell him what to say and what not to say about his own self...

 

Sorry, I didn't realize Coheir was God.

I thought he was 'coheir'.

¿Did I miss something?

[Your closest friendnt]

19 minutes ago, chesed said:

Sorry, I didn't realize Coheir was God.

I thought he was 'coheir'.

¿Did I miss something?

Yes and no ...it will all depends..

Still it is God who said: what 'coheir' scripture put down. 

 ("But Isaiah 45:7 says

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.") 

No need to discuss this...

And he said it more than ones and he did it to his own people the Israelites and the Jews because it was in their Covenant to do to them evil for evil....an eye for an eye..a leg for a leg....the people their fathers agree to that Covenant that it will apply to them and to their children. 

We must see the scriptures that it was not God who ended the Covenant but it was the people who were part in the Covenant who ended the Covenant of Sinai by putting to death on the Cross the Lord of their Covenant ...they choose Ceasar as their King....and they asked Pilate to write on the placard on the top on the Cross "THAT HE IS NOT OUR KING".

They choose Ceasar for them and their children. 

IN IGNORANCE THEY CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Your closest friendnt

[coheir]

3 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

The reference to Isaiah it is interesting to bring it up..

But for a different argument than the arguments raised in the OP...thank you for the reminder. 

 

 

If you read the last six words in the First sentence of chesed post you will see what I referred to in my post.

Edited February 12, 2023 by coheir
add

[Your closest friendnt]

1 hour ago, coheir said:

If you read the last six words in the First sentence of chesed post you will see what I referred to in my post.

We are in the new Covenant...God is not going to do evil to us..in the New Covenant. .

That was said to those in the Covenant of Sinai..it was one of the terms in their Covenant...evil for evil...

They were the words of God spoken by the prophet..

God's vocabulary was rich...and he new the word you suggest and did not used it...he used Evil for Evil...and he did to them Evil....

The King confessed that evil that has come upon us is from our Lord...

This is the point...

She said the word "Evil" is not meant to mean "Evil", it's meant to mean something else...

Little by little, a bit by bit, a little hear and a little there they changed the words of God...this was said about the Pharisees and todays preachers from a distance and they do not stay around for discussion...and they demand blind royalty from the membership if not...the say the door is open...they Love Jesus and we Love Jesus also..so everyone can be found wanting...Paul said many times he was humble...the Lord took him away from everyone so he can help him to see his errors and Paul came back with a new song...with a renew mind...he said "less of me and more of Jesus...and Peter got a very good lesson and not everyone followed in his new steps....

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Your closest friendnt

[coheir]

12 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

We are in the new Covenant...God is not going to do evil to us..in the New Covenant. .

That was said to those in the Covenant of Sinai..it was one of the terms in their Covenant...evil for evil...

They were the words of God spoken by the prophet..

God's vocabulary was rich...and he new the word you suggest and did not used it...he used Evil for Evil...and he did to them Evil....

The King confessed that evil that has come upon us is from our Lord...

This is the point...

She said the word "Evil" is not meant to mean "Evil", it's meant to mean something else...

Little by little, a bit by bit, a little hear and a little there they changed the words of God...this was said about the Pharisees and todays preachers from a distance and they do not stay around for discussion...and they demand blind royalty from the membership if not...the say the door is open...they Love Jesus...so everyone can be found wanting...Paul said many times he was humble...the Lord took him away from everyone so he can help him to see his errors and Paul came back with a new song...with a renew mind...he said "less of me and more of Jesus...and Peter got a very good lesson and not everyone followed in his new steps....

 

He said God was NOT the author of evil; I posted a verse only to show that statement is incorrect. My post was to a specific statement he made it did not apply to the OP or other post.

 

[chesed]

3 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

No need to discuss this...

great idea

[Your closest friendnt]

43 minutes ago, chesed said:

great idea

I am thinking why did I say that...

I am thinking what kind of excuse do I have... I do not have any...

[Roymond]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:22 AM, chesed said:

Perhaps, yet purgatory has no more basis in Scripture than, 'God helps those who help themselves'.

 

Purgatory comes from Paul's statement about being saved as through fire.

[Roymond]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:28 AM, chesed said:

The problem with that is why did He predestinate only 'some' of His family?

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love — Ephesians 1:4

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. — Romans 8:29-30

Predestination is almost certainly one thing Peter was indicating when he said that Paul says things hard to understand!

But to invoke the ancient rule, we have to assess this statement in light of the Gospel; in this case, the plain statement that God doesn't want anyone to perish but to come to knowledge of the truth.

One ancient solution to this was a sort of dual salvation plan:  some are chosen beforehand to be saved, in order to have a Church that will proclaim the Gospel; the rest are not denied, but after death face purgation aimed towards repentance, a purgation that lasts as long as needed for each individual -- yes, predestination leads back to universalism in order to make arbitrary choice compatible with the stated desire of God that all come to the truth and be saved.

Though the question arises even without predestination:  cur alii sed non aliis (if my memory has the Latin right), "Why some but not others?", had been a theological stumper for centuries before it  was labeled "Crucis Theologus", "the theologian's Cross" and it remains a stumper today.

A fairly recent attempt to tackle predestination is saying that God predestined a people for Himself, but that the boundary of who is part of that people depends on the reception of the Gospel.  It's kind of applying set theory to theology and having a fuzzy/flexible definition of the set "God's People".

I don't recall ever encountering a satisfying solution, though a certain Lutheran theologian from Australia illustrated it this way:  if you believe in Christ, then you were predestined; if you don't believe in Christ, the matter is uncertain. So the Christian can take a struggling path to finally surrendering to Christ, but looking back will see that the issue was never in doubt:  God predestined him.

[Roymond]

On 2/11/2023 at 2:24 PM, HAZARD said:

Can God judge them even though they don't understand the basis of that judgment? THE BIBLE DOES INDICATE THAT CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT, for example, when describing how some of the Israelites in the Valley of Benhinnom had become corrupt so as to sacrifice their own (innocent) children:


Jer. 19:4-5, V 4, Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the BLOOD OF THE INNOCENTS;
 

That "Innocents" here means "children" is inference and uncertain inferrence at that; the term appears elsewhere in the prophets to refer to the poor, and also gets used to indicate people let free from an oath.  What links these is powerlessness, so while this may not mean children it definitely means that people with power were using people without power as human sacrifices.

Also, using it of the poor pretty much indicates that it doesn't mean "innocent of wrongdoing".