News1 min ago
Is There Really a Devil?
211 Answers
Is there basis for believing that a wicked "spirit" creature exists? Or is this belief unfounded?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elderman - “...I have said before, and I say it again, the Bible is the Word of God and as such inspired by Holy Spirit the writers were men chosen by God....”
I find it extremely interesting that you have not even tried to justify your earlier claims that some of the authors of the New Testament knew Jesus personally. You've simply attempted to dodge the matter completely by posting the above drivel.
The bible is not the word of god. If it was, it wouldn't have so many errors, inconsistencies and downright absurdities within its pages. The fact that you willingly ignore such glaring mistakes demonstrates that your grasp of logic, reasoning and morality is tenuous to say the least. Isn't there a commandment that says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”? This commandment, rendered into modern parlance, literally means “Do not lie.”.
Do you understand what the term 'circular reasoning' means? It is a phrase (in its various forms) that has been used by a couple of other posters. What you are claiming is:
The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
I suspect that even a dyed-in-the-wool, bible basher such as yourself can see the logical fallacy in the above sentence. However, if you cannot, you must be aware of various biblical inconsistencies such as whether or not Jacob was Joseph's dad...
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
If the bible is the word of god, written by men who were chosen and directed by god, as you claim, then the book would be inerrant. It would contain not one scintilla of an inconsistency. However, it is replete with glaring errors and inconsistencies which even a child can see. Yet you still cling to your dogged belief that the bible is the word of god in defiance of all logic and rational argument even though you must know that your position on this matter is untenable and indefensible.
This is commonly known as 'lying'. I'm sure your god mentioned something about that...
I find it extremely interesting that you have not even tried to justify your earlier claims that some of the authors of the New Testament knew Jesus personally. You've simply attempted to dodge the matter completely by posting the above drivel.
The bible is not the word of god. If it was, it wouldn't have so many errors, inconsistencies and downright absurdities within its pages. The fact that you willingly ignore such glaring mistakes demonstrates that your grasp of logic, reasoning and morality is tenuous to say the least. Isn't there a commandment that says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”? This commandment, rendered into modern parlance, literally means “Do not lie.”.
Do you understand what the term 'circular reasoning' means? It is a phrase (in its various forms) that has been used by a couple of other posters. What you are claiming is:
The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
I suspect that even a dyed-in-the-wool, bible basher such as yourself can see the logical fallacy in the above sentence. However, if you cannot, you must be aware of various biblical inconsistencies such as whether or not Jacob was Joseph's dad...
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
If the bible is the word of god, written by men who were chosen and directed by god, as you claim, then the book would be inerrant. It would contain not one scintilla of an inconsistency. However, it is replete with glaring errors and inconsistencies which even a child can see. Yet you still cling to your dogged belief that the bible is the word of god in defiance of all logic and rational argument even though you must know that your position on this matter is untenable and indefensible.
This is commonly known as 'lying'. I'm sure your god mentioned something about that...
This is commonly known as 'lying'. I'm sure your god mentioned something about that.......Birdie......... I will answer this one for you, yes, lies are man’s great enemy history well proves this.
You need to remember that, while the Bible is the Word of God, it was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries. These writers had different backgrounds, writing styles, and gifts, and all these differences are reflected in the writing.
Moreover, if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement.
For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?
The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.
Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the “son of Heli.” Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).” It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Son of a certain Jacob; adoptive father of Christ Jesus, husband of Mary, and later, the natural father of at least four sons, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, besides daughters. (Mt 1:16; 13:55, 56; Lu 4:22; Joh 1:45; 6:42) Joseph was also called the son of Heli (Lu 3:23), this evidently being the name of his father-in-law. Ever obedient to divine direction, righteous Joseph adhered closely to the Mosaic Law and submitted to the decrees of Caesar.
The world of mankind alienated from God “is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That “wicked one,” Satan the Devil, is “the father of the lie.” Lying originated with him. (1 John 5:19; John 8:44) So it should not surprise me that you needs to make some quite a change in your view as to truthfulness.”
You need to remember that, while the Bible is the Word of God, it was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries. These writers had different backgrounds, writing styles, and gifts, and all these differences are reflected in the writing.
Moreover, if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement.
For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?
The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.
Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the “son of Heli.” Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).” It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Son of a certain Jacob; adoptive father of Christ Jesus, husband of Mary, and later, the natural father of at least four sons, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, besides daughters. (Mt 1:16; 13:55, 56; Lu 4:22; Joh 1:45; 6:42) Joseph was also called the son of Heli (Lu 3:23), this evidently being the name of his father-in-law. Ever obedient to divine direction, righteous Joseph adhered closely to the Mosaic Law and submitted to the decrees of Caesar.
The world of mankind alienated from God “is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That “wicked one,” Satan the Devil, is “the father of the lie.” Lying originated with him. (1 John 5:19; John 8:44) So it should not surprise me that you needs to make some quite a change in your view as to truthfulness.”
Elderman -
Do you remember when 'jomifl' (at 18:47 on Wednesday, 14th December 2011) stated, “... The bible was not written by anyone who had even met him let alone knew him...”? Your answer to that was (at 18:53 on Wednesday, 14th December 2011), “Wrong.”.
You are now admitting, quite correctly, that, “... [the bible] was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries...”. So it was written down by people who clearly never met the man?
You continue by stating that, “... if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement...”.
The above statement completely invalidates your claim that, “... the Bible is the Word of God...”. It cannot be the 'Word of God' if it has been incorrectly or incompletely recorded by those who compiled it. It is absurd to suggest such a thing. For example, if President Obama gives a press conference and a journalist writes what Obama said, word for word, then that article could be accurately described as being the 'words of Obama'. However, if the journalist misquotes Obama and/or selectively chooses what to include and what not to include then by no stretch of the imagination could that article be described as being the 'words of Obama'. If someone did claim such a thing, they would be lying.
I've mentioned this before but I feel that it's worth mentioning again. In his novel called, “1984”, George Orwell described a concept he called, “doublethink”. This is the condition of holding two contradictory ideas at the same time and believing them both to be equally true. You have clearly got the concept of “doublethink” down to fine art. You are overtly contradicting yourself by attempting to explain why there are so many errors and absurdities in bible whilst at the same time trying to convince yourself and others that the bible is the truth and the 'word of god'.
Do you remember when 'jomifl' (at 18:47 on Wednesday, 14th December 2011) stated, “... The bible was not written by anyone who had even met him let alone knew him...”? Your answer to that was (at 18:53 on Wednesday, 14th December 2011), “Wrong.”.
You are now admitting, quite correctly, that, “... [the bible] was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries...”. So it was written down by people who clearly never met the man?
You continue by stating that, “... if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement...”.
The above statement completely invalidates your claim that, “... the Bible is the Word of God...”. It cannot be the 'Word of God' if it has been incorrectly or incompletely recorded by those who compiled it. It is absurd to suggest such a thing. For example, if President Obama gives a press conference and a journalist writes what Obama said, word for word, then that article could be accurately described as being the 'words of Obama'. However, if the journalist misquotes Obama and/or selectively chooses what to include and what not to include then by no stretch of the imagination could that article be described as being the 'words of Obama'. If someone did claim such a thing, they would be lying.
I've mentioned this before but I feel that it's worth mentioning again. In his novel called, “1984”, George Orwell described a concept he called, “doublethink”. This is the condition of holding two contradictory ideas at the same time and believing them both to be equally true. You have clearly got the concept of “doublethink” down to fine art. You are overtly contradicting yourself by attempting to explain why there are so many errors and absurdities in bible whilst at the same time trying to convince yourself and others that the bible is the truth and the 'word of god'.
Birie.......Poor you Yes, And to impress upon your mind just how wonderful this gift is, try reading this same type of information in another language, one that you do not understand or speak. Would it not be meaningless? Yes, indeed, how wonderful it is to be able to read, understand and observe the application of the things written for mankind’s enjoyment, especially as they pertain to knowing and serving the Creator himself, God!
Why is there this difference between the view of today’s and that of Jesus and his apostles? Well, Jesus and his apostles knew the truth. They were convinced of the genuineness of what they taught. They never considered the Bible as a fiddle on which just any old tune could be played, but they recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures, the part of the Bible that had thus far been written, was the genuine Word of God, to be followed explicitly. Yet many of today’s take just the opposite view, seeming to be more concerned with other matters and far less convinced of the importance of their doctrine and the genuineness and clarity of the Bible as a sure guide.
Why is there this difference between the view of today’s and that of Jesus and his apostles? Well, Jesus and his apostles knew the truth. They were convinced of the genuineness of what they taught. They never considered the Bible as a fiddle on which just any old tune could be played, but they recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures, the part of the Bible that had thus far been written, was the genuine Word of God, to be followed explicitly. Yet many of today’s take just the opposite view, seeming to be more concerned with other matters and far less convinced of the importance of their doctrine and the genuineness and clarity of the Bible as a sure guide.
Jesus' teaching often directly contradicted the 'word of God' as it stood at that time in scripture- and both Jesus and his apostles predate the 'bible' as we now know it by about 150- 300 years, so how the hell did they manage that? Christ if he existed as has been speculated, clearly had a huge problem with the written word of God at that time, otherwise he wouldn't have turned up to preach a new message. Is that what happened? which is right in your book Elderman the Old or New Testaments because they are polar opposites in doctrine.
-- answer removed --
Some may want to believe that there is some thing up there, but Devil and so may dogmatically claim that it is, before conclusive evidence is obtained. But what if later evidence proves that this was not the Devil? Will that weaken their belief in the Bible account? It would not be the first time that the faith of people had been damaged by believing evidence that was unfounded while the event itself was the truth.
Elderman -
You have singularly failed to respond to any of my rebuttals of your claims. You have responded with incoherent waffle. It is crystal clear that you cannot defend your beliefs in any meaningful way – you simply resort to diatribes and quoting biblical texts.
You live in a prison. A prison for your mind. A prison that prevents you from mentally exploring the wonders of the universe.
Poor, poor you.
You have singularly failed to respond to any of my rebuttals of your claims. You have responded with incoherent waffle. It is crystal clear that you cannot defend your beliefs in any meaningful way – you simply resort to diatribes and quoting biblical texts.
You live in a prison. A prison for your mind. A prison that prevents you from mentally exploring the wonders of the universe.
Poor, poor you.
@ Elderman - Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may believe you are speaking clearly - communicating your message, as it were. Those of us who post here no different. You cherry pick in an attempt to add weight to your homilies. You flat out refuse to engage with anyone offering a counter - argument. You cut and paste from the internet with little regard for attribution or relevance. You do not come here to debate but to preach. You have demonstrated a completely closed mind, and the only voice you hear is your own.
You are a virtual demagogue, offering nothing original - only the same tired anti-scientific, anti - liberal, mysoginistic views, expressed in the form of your favourite verse from your favourite book of fairy tales.
You are a virtual demagogue, offering nothing original - only the same tired anti-scientific, anti - liberal, mysoginistic views, expressed in the form of your favourite verse from your favourite book of fairy tales.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
