' E, arriving Jesus at the parts of Cesaria de Filipe, interrogated its disciples, saying: Who says the men to be the Son of the man? they had said: Ones, Joo the Baptist; others, Elias; others, Jeremias, or one of profetas.' ' Mateus 16:13 – 14 This region, Cesaria de Philip, were to the north of the sea of the Galilia and were especially heathen. It was not by chance that the population had many crendices and versions on who they believed to be Jesus. Many found, enganosamente, that It was until ' ' reencarnao' ' of Joo Baptist or the return of Elias, as well as imagined that It could be Jeremias or, for its already known miracles and cures, some another prophet who appeared at that moment. Conclusions and typical characteristics of a people completely deviated of the truth, making declarations impossible to be correct! ' ' It to them said: it, who say that I am? Simo Peter, answering, said: You are the Christ, the Son of the alive God. Jesus, answering, said to it: Fortunate you are, Simo Barjonas, because it did not disclose to the meat and the blood to you, but my Father, who is in cus.' ' Mateus 16:15 – 17 apstolo Peter got the divine revelation of that Jesus is the chosen one of God-Father, consecrated to Its service and coated of the power to carry through the task that It is definitive, to save Its people of the enemies and to establish Its Kingdom of justice (Daniel 9:25 – 26). ' ' Therefore also say I you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the doors of the hell will not prevail against it; ' ' Mateus 16:18 This versicle receives many errneas interpretations for other no-evanglicas chains, where they define that Peter is the base of construction of the church We, believers studious fidiciary offices and of the Word of Gods and fully clarified of the Truth, know that this is not proceeds: the base of the confession of Peter is that it represents and it means ' ' rock firme' ': 1) Jesus is the Christ; 2) The confession of Jesus as Messias; 3) educations of Christ that were practised; 4) The proper paper that each one of us we have from the Day of Pentecostes.
Everything what I will speak in this text does not pass of an individual interpretation mine for what I believe to be the truth on the origin of the Evil, but, with it said, it is what I believe and not it undisputed Truth, a time that does not have a Biblical verse that it proves what I go to write. However, what I go to write, in way some enters in disharmony with the Biblical writings. Therefore, it does not include this text in the study ' ' The Satan Never He was Lucifer: The Truth On the Origin of the Mal' ' , because it brings one high degree of interpretativo subjetivismo, caused for the Biblical citation absence confirms that it. The evil, as it said, appeared with intention to characterize the good, that is, it is by means of the evil that I know that the good is good. It is not possible to characterize something as good without it has something bad it bases that it. It does not have doubts of that God is the creator of the Evil: ' ' Perhaps, it does not proceed in such a way from Highest the evil as the good? ' ' (Lamentations 3:37) ' ' I am you, and he does not have another one. I form the light and create the darknesses; I make the peace and I create the evil; I, Mr., make all these coisas.' ' (Isaiah 45:6 – 7) But, doubts have when the reason of the creation of the evil is questioned. Mainly in relation to the consequences that we suffer because of its existence: pain, the illness, the violence, the death, etc. Why God in gave the life to them to pass for all these ackward things? Why he is of the will of Gods who pass for all these tribulaes? Which the intention of creating the evil if the proper God of it is not pleased? In the previous paragraph the main consequences had been presented that we suffer because of the existence of the evil.