Remember the end of Genesis 2? Adam and Eve were both naked and yet felt no shame. Innocence and purity. No guilt or embarrassment. Total harmony with God and with each other. God didn’t want them to be His robots so He gave them free will. Next is Chapter 3. EVERYTHING changed and the universe opened up to endless possibilities.

According to the story, the serpent (i.e., Satan) asked Eve a simple but provocative question, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Satan put a tiny bit of doubt in Eve’s mind -- could she really trust God?

When she responded, she embroidered God’s command a bit, “Well, God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'” (Umm, God hadn’t actually said anything about touching the fruit – just eating it.)

When God confronted them, the blame-shifting began. Adam blame-shifted twice! — he blamed God and Eve (“The woman you put here with me — she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it”). Eve blamed the serpent (“The serpent beguiled me and I did eat”). From that day on, the tendency of humans, when confronted with their sins, is to find someone else to blame — God, Satan (“The devil made me do it!”), or some other person (“Bobby made me do it!” or “She started it!”).

Eating the forbidden fruit, an act of their own free will, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil. Was there really a serpent (Is Satan real?) or was that merely Eve’s blame-shifting?

Eating the forbidden fruit, an act of their own free will, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil. Was there really a serpent (Is Satan real?) or was that merely Eve’s blame-shifting?

The Adam and Eve story is one of the most well-known in the Bible with the theme of Eve's blame-shifting a common explanation of her actions. It's hard not to believe it represents a patriarchal society who generally saw women as something less than men who were confused about women. Over time, woman as mother yields to woman as temptress. Or vice-versa. That one is best left to the Freudians.

Is Satan real? A talking serpent is certainly not real, and later Satan enters the myth as an explanation of the serpent. Satan is not originally called by name probably because Satan has not yet entered the worldview of the writers, Genesis being earlier in time than the Satan character.

Satan is one of the many names of the devil which, in turn, is the representation of evil. Is Satan a person? No, but he is the personification of evil.

Satan is the representation of evil...the personification of evil.
But not an actual being, is just the name (excuse?) that humans have given to the evil (anti-goodness) inside them? Then how has Satan become such a major figure in Christianity?

But not an actual being, is just the name (excuse?) that humans have given to the evil (anti-goodness) inside them? Then how has Satan become such a major figure in Christianity?

For the same reason any mythical figure has become a major figure. In the case of Satan, as a scapegoat or, as you put it, an excuse for the anti-goodness inside people.

What is more interesting - How does Satan get inside the Gospels testing Jesus in the desert?

What is more interesting - How does Satan get inside the Gospels testing Jesus in the desert?
Maybe that was Jesus' human nature leaning toward the Dark Side?

Maybe that was Jesus' human nature leaning toward the Dark Side?

Or maybe it was simply a story made up to make a point.

For instance, since there were only Jesus and the tempter there, how did the writer know about it?

Or maybe it was simply a story made up to make a point.

For instance, since there were only Jesus and the tempter there, how did the writer know about it?
As you stated in your first paragraph, maybe it's simply a story, an allegory, to make a point, to teach a truth. And that could be what was intended when the story of the Fall was written, that man can be -- and too often is -- his own worst enemy.

As you stated in your first paragraph, maybe it's simply a story, an allegory, to make a point, to teach a truth. And that could be what was intended when the story of the Fall was written, that man can be -- and too often is -- his own worst enemy.

Does this suggest that the Gospel story of Jesus being tempted is not literally true?

Does this suggest that the Gospel story of Jesus being tempted is not literally true?
Good question! Matthew 4 starts out: "1After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, he finally became hungry."

Jesus finally got hungry after not eating for over a month??? Seems like the writer whipped up this story to make several points -- one of which was that Jesus was famished yet still refused Satan's suggestion to turn a stone into bread (which he could have done any time during those forty days).

Good question! Matthew 4 starts out: "1After this, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, he finally became hungry."

Jesus finally got hungry after not eating for over a month??? Seems like the writer whipped up this story to make several points -- one of which was that Jesus was famished yet still refused Satan's suggestion to turn a stone into bread (which he could have done any time during those forty days).

Good point. I'm surprised to discover that most major Christian denominations treat this story of Jesus in the desert as literally true when it seems so clearly to be an example of making a moral comment. After all, how could Jesus see all the kingdoms of the world from the temple mount? And I never could find out who would have been there with Jesus and Satan in order to write the "true" story down. Then there's the difficulty with Satan who wasn't real to begin with.

Good point. I'm surprised to discover that most major Christian denominations treat this story of Jesus in the desert as literally true when it seems so clearly to be an example of making a moral comment.
And why would the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil?! (We pray, "Lead us NOT into temptation.") Sounds like a moral story, a sort of parable, is being told.

I wonder what else, if anything, has been edited in the Gospels to conform to the belief that was current by the time of the earliest copies being available which was a few centuries later - more than enough time to make changes to suit the then powers-that-be.

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.

Not sure why you bring up those points. No one here has denied anything you wrote in your reply. As far as Satan being considered a real being well before NT times, I agree with that.

The first 2 chapters of Job suggest that Satan was considered a real being well before NT times.

And his main job isn't to tempt. It's accusing and deceiving.
I got stuck on "was considered a real being." Does that mean humans used (and still use) Satan, like Eve did, as an excuse for their own sins? -- "the devil made me do it!"

Athos,
My point in bringing that up is partly to reaffirm that the biblical writers understood Satan to be a real critter before NT times, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that. But more important, the main thing those chapters tell us - and so does Revelation when it gets to Satan - is that this being accuses people before God and calls for...something other than what God is currently doing with them. Revelation calls him the "accuser of the brothers."
So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

WG doesn't need me to defend her, but her comment referred to what the people believe, not what the devil does. She also made a valid point of the devil as tempter in the story of Eve in the Garden.

I have more to write on your good answer above, but I'm rushed for time at the moment so it will have to wait.

Btw, I TOTALLY agree with the ideas expressed on your Facebook page.

Athos,
My point in bringing that up is partly to reaffirm that the biblical writers understood Satan to be a real critter before NT times, thanks for clarifying your thoughts on that. But more important, the main thing those chapters tell us - and so does Revelation when it gets to Satan - is that this being accuses people before God and calls for...something other than what God is currently doing with them. Revelation calls him the "accuser of the brothers."
So the whole "the devil made me do it" thing is pure cop-out. That's not what the devil does.
Hope that clears it up.

WG, quite the opposite. See my reply to Athos.

All this is well and good. But I think we're getting off the original topic here.

"DOES SATAN REALLY EXIST?"

My answer is NO. Does anyone else have a yes or no answer?

"DOES SATAN REALLY EXIST?"

My answer is NO. Does anyone else have a yes or no answer?
If he exists, where did he come from? Is he like God and has always existed, the antithesis of Good, or did God create him (a fallen angel? cf. Ezekiel 28)?

If he exists, where did he come from? Is he like God and has always existed, the antithesis of Good, or did God create him (a fallen angel? cf. Ezekiel 28)?

Satan is a myth.

In Job, he acts as a prosecuting attorney. Later, the Hebrews picked up Satan from the Persians (Zoroastrianism) who developed dualism - a universe divided into good and evil. Satan becomes the personification of this evil - opposed to a good God.

Lucifer arrives as another name for the devil - primarily in the Christian world. More names are clearly mythological or literary. Dante, especially, gives life to the myth and his picture of Satan/Lucifer/devil is the modern one.

Both Satan and Lucifer have long pedigrees in several cultures - ancient and modern.

The myth is an answer to the most perplexing question in religious worldviews - the existence of evil in a world created by a loving God. The best answer, although essentially a non-answer, is in the Book of Job.

WG: Where did he come from? Here's my definitive answer based on 50 years of scholarship:

Idunno.

The Lucifer passage - which is really Latin and was never a name for anybody or anything in Isaiah's time - is about the king of Babylon, not a supernatural being. It even says it right in the context, yet we've abused it for millennia.

Ditto the Ezekiel passage. Not about Satan. The only mentions in the Hebrew Bible are in Job.

Does that make him a myth? Not really. But it does suggest that we who acknowledge his/her/its existence have been asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong trees.

WG: Where did he come from? Here's my definitive answer based on 50 years of scholarship:

Idunno.

The answer doesn't take 50 years of scholarship. I certainly hope you haven't spent all those years on Satan. Any library will do.


The Lucifer passage - which is really Latin and was never a name for anybody or anything in Isaiah's time - is about the king of Babylon, not a supernatural being. It even says it right in the context, yet we've abused it for millennia.

Lucifer has been explained and discarded as follows: (by me)

Lucifer arrives as another name for the devil - primarily in the Christian world. More names are clearly mythological or literary. Dante, especially, gives life to the myth and his picture of Satan/Lucifer/devil is the modern one.


The only mentions in the Hebrew Bible are in Job. Does that make him a myth? Not really.

Yes, really. I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. A story with a God talking to Satan about the faith of Job is clearly a myth. It is intended to teach a lesson. We can argue about the lesson, but not about the story's mythological nature. I understand you approach it from an unquestioning belief basis, but that's not enough to declare that it is NOT a myth.


But it does suggest that we who acknowledge his/her/its existence have been asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong trees.

I don't understand your meaning. Could you expand on the "wrong questions" and "barking up the wrong trees".

Thank you for responding. I'm a few days behind in replying (yes, I know you addressed your reply to WG - but this is an open forum). I had given you up for no longer interested. Or something worse - perish the thought. Your input is always welcome and I hope you won't take so long to reply again.

I'm still thinking that, once we realized we have free will and the power to make choices, we decided we really didn't want the guilt and shame that came after making a BAD choice. Not wanting to blame ourselves, we decided to blame it on the "other". That other might be another human or the cat (never the dog!) or the neighbor or a stranger -- or hey! Satan! "The devil made me do it!"

And that's where Satan came from, our effort to soothe our own guilty consciences.

Hi Athos,
Sorry about that. My wife has been pretty ill with chronic pericarditis. She has had it for over a year and doctors can't figure out what's causing it. She has to be on an experimental drug as part of a research study and it's the only way she gets to have a life. I often get a little focused on her and my videos to the exclusion of all else. Me, I'm as fat and sassy as ever (literal on both points).

I get what you and WG are saying, but I can't go there. I do agree that we like to blame the devil for a lot of our own screw-ups, and that was what I meant by asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong tree.

The Bible never says that the devil made anybody do anything. The reason the name/title means "adversary" is because according to both Job and Revelation, his thing is accusing, not tempting or messing with. When James says to resist the devil, we have to take that in the context of everything else. When he accuses me of something, my resistance is "Jesus covered that" and the accusations cease. For now.

That's the short version.

Hi Athos,
Sorry about that. My wife has been pretty ill with chronic pericarditis. She has had it for over a year and doctors can't figure out what's causing it. She has to be on an experimental drug as part of a research study and it's the only way she gets to have a life.

No apology necessary. The illness of your wife dwarfs anything going on at this website/thread. The apology is all mine for insisting you spend time here engaging in the dialogue. It was done out of respect for your expertise in Christianity and your scholarship, but I now see that my request was wholly inappropriate, and whatever time you have to spend here is totally acceptable to me.

I will pray that your wife responds favorably to the experimental medical treatment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do agree that we like to blame the devil for a lot of our own screw-ups, and that was what I meant by asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong tree.

The Bible never says that the devil made anybody do anything. The reason the name/title means "adversary" is because according to both Job and Revelation, his thing is accusing, not tempting

Your point about the devil as adversary, not tempter, in Job and Revelation is noted. But he is described as tempting Jesus in the Gospels where he is referred to both as the devil and as Satan indicating the two are the same.

I understand your answer to the question, "Is Satan a myth?" is no, that you believe Satan is an actual entity. I find it difficult to grasp why you think so, but I won't quiz you any further on the topic so we will have to remain in disagreement on the issue.

Athos,
Yes, Satan did tempt Jesus in the wilderness. But Jesus is the only person he's ever described as tempting.
Yes, I do accept that Satan is real. Depictions of him/her/it are ridiculous in the extreme, and lead to stuff like we see in South Park. With the exception of his time with Jesus, he's essentially described as a non-corporeal being. Non-corporeal beings don't usually have horns, pointed ears, and a pitchfork.
The other myth is that Satan lives in, or rules over, hell/hades/the underworld/that place one doesn't want to go. All indications in the New Testament are that this being is right here on this planet, accusing people day and night.
I also believe demonic possession is real, mainly because I've seen it twice. I don't ever want to see it again.

YMMV, as always.

Athos,
Yes, Satan did tempt Jesus in the wilderness. But Jesus is the only person he's ever described as tempting.
Yes, I do accept that Satan is real.

All indications in the New Testament are that this being is right here on this planet, accusing people day and night.
I also believe demonic possession is real, mainly because I've seen it twice. I don't ever want to see it again. .
You surprised me with your having seen demonic possession twice. What did you see that couldn't be explained by modern psychology? The more specific, the better.

Also, you say that people are being accused day and night. How does that work, and what exactly are people being accused of?

A devil figure occurs in most of the world's religions and cultures. Do you believe that is the same Satan/devil that occurs in Christianity?

Finally, WHY do you believe in the devil? Did witnessing the demonic possession cause you to believe? If before that, why did you believe then?

Sorry all these questions, but I'm trying to understand. I'm genuinely interested.

I'm trying to understand. I'm genuinely interested.
I agree with you. I too am genuinely interested.

As for "this being is right here on this planet, accusing people day and night," I've read (from reliable Christian writers) that hell is here on Earth. I believe that to be true, especially now in 2020; the evidence is overwhelming.

I agree with you. I too am genuinely interested.

As for "this being is right here on this planet, accusing people day and night," I've read (from reliable Christian writers) that hell is here on Earth. I believe that to be true, especially now in 2020; the evidence is overwhelming.

Hell is another idea that needs to be examined. But first, Satan. I look forward with an open mind to DW's responses to the questions/comment posed.

Who tempted (or "tested", if you prefer) Jesus?

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-23212a)]then became hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”


the evidence is overwhelming.For hell being on earth? Are you referring to scriptural evidence?

Who tempted (or "tested", if you prefer) Jesus?


See posts 6-11, 25, and 26 where this is answered and discussed.

My point simply concerned the issue of why we should believe there was (is) a real Jesus, but then do not believe there was (is) a real devil? If there is not a devil, then it would seem that Jesus was being tested/tempted by...nothing? An idea? That doesn't seem very compelling. Even worse, he conversed with an idea?

BTW, I did look at the posts you listed and thank you for the references.

I often think that the devil, being a master at deceit and lying, determines first to convince people that there is no devil.

I was especially interested in the "overwhelming" evidence that hell is on the earth, and if any of that evidence is scriptural.

My point simply concerned the issue of why we should believe there was (is) a real Jesus, but then do not believe there was (is) a real devil? If there is not a devil, then it would seem that Jesus was being tested/tempted by...nothing? An idea? That doesn't seem very compelling. Even worse, he conversed with an idea?

A myth is a story that can contain a real person and a fictional person in the same myth. In this story, Jesus is the real person and the devil is mythical.


I often think that the devil, being a master at deceit and lying, determines first to convince people that there is no devil.

This is a common notion that has been around for at least 200 years.


I was especially interested in the "overwhelming" evidence that hell is on the earth, and if any of that evidence is scriptural.

The person who posted this will have to answer you.

A myth is a story that can contain a real person and a fictional person in the same myth. In this story, Jesus is the real person and the devil is mythical.Except that you would need a reason to believe that. I can't imagine finding that reason in the Bible. It certainly does not refer to the devil as mythical. Even worse, a myth is basically a made up story, and in this particular instance, it would be hard to imagine the devil becoming mythical in a mere thirty or so years between the event and Matthew writing. In addition, only thirty years later, Paul rather clearly regarded him as real. "For we wanted to come to you--certainly I, Paul, did, again and again--but Satan blocked our way."


The person who posted this will have to answer you.Completely agree.

I was especially interested in the "overwhelming" evidence that hell is on the earth...
Where have you been hiding during this horrendous and hellacious year, 2020?


Even worse, a myth is basically a made up story
Please google for the definition of myth.

Please google for directions on how to simply answer a question. Maybe these folks can help. Never heard of them, but it is a help line about answering questions.

https://www.frankly.ch/en/faq.html

Except that you would need a reason to believe that.{that the devil is a myth}

Some reasons -- In post # 6 I wondered how the writer knew about the story since only Jesus and the devil were there.

In post # 9, WG notes that the story has Jesus without food for 40 days, far too long for survival but clearly designed to make the devil's temptation of stone being turned into bread a part of the myth/story.

In post # 10, I ask how Jesus could have been brought to the top of the temple mount to see "all the kingdoms of the world" - another clear indication we are dealing with a myth here.

Here is post # 11 - "And why would the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil?! (We pray, "Lead us NOT into temptation.") Sounds like a moral story, a sort of parable, is being told."



It {the Bible} certainly does not refer to the devil as mythical.

There is much in the Bible that is mythical that the Bible does not say is mythical.


Even worse, a myth is basically a made up story

Why "worse"? A myth is a story with a point. Often with a moral or lesson. Like an allegory or a parable. Jesus told many parables that are stories with a moral lesson.


and in this particular instance, it would be hard to imagine the devil becoming mythical in a mere thirty or so years between the event and Matthew writing.

The devil did not BECOME mythical, he was mythical to begin with. What the author of Matthew intended or what Paul intended is unknown. Myths are handed down without explanation since the obvious truth in a myth is apparent to most hearing it. Over long periods of time, some myths become hardened into literal truth by later generations.

Some reasons -- In post # 6 I wondered how the writer knew about the story since only Jesus and the devil were there.Simple explanation. He told His disciples.


In post # 9, WG notes that the story has Jesus without food for 40 days, far too long for survival but clearly designed to make the devil's temptation of stone being turned into bread a part of the myth/story.And feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread is similarly impossible outside of the power of God. I don't find it hard to believe at all that the Son of God could go forty days without food.


In post # 10, I ask how Jesus could have been brought to the top of the temple mount to see "all the kingdoms of the world" - another clear indication we are dealing with a myth here.Refer to the answer above. If you limit the entire Bible to natural causes, you lose the entire story. What would be more difficult, seeing all the kingdoms of the world, or being raised from the dead? Do you similarly discount that story?


Here is post # 11 - "And why would the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil?! (We pray, "Lead us NOT into temptation.") Sounds like a moral story, a sort of parable, is being told."I think that's actually a pretty good question. But then, why make up a completely false story about a fake devil and then call it a "moral story"? Wouldn't representing such a false story as true simply amount to lying?

But then, why make up a completely false story about a fake devil and then call it a "moral story"? Wouldn't representing such a false story as true simply amount to lying?
For the same reason the Adam and Eve story was told and the Flood story, to tell a bigger truth, a bigger story.

Simple explanation. He told His disciples.

What is your Scriptural evidence for that?


I don't find it hard to believe at all that the Son of God could go forty days without food.

If your position is that the son of God can do anything to support your belief, then you should have said that in the beginning before questioning the story. It eliminates any reason for discussion.



If you limit the entire Bible to natural causes, you lose the entire story.

No one is limiting the Bible to anything. The issue is the myth of Jesus in the desert. Seeing one story as a myth does not mean the entire Bible story is lost.



What would be more difficult, seeing all the kingdoms of the world, or being raised from the dead? similarly discount that story?

If you wish to begin another thread about raising the dead or the Bible, you are free to do so.



why make up a completely false story about a fake devil and then call it a "moral story"?

A myth is not a "completely false story" nor is this one about a "fake devil". It is called a moral story because it IS a moral story.


Wouldn't representing such a false story as true simply amount to lying?

No. You don't understand what a myth is even though it's now been explained to you. Until you do, I can't help you any further on this issue. I'm sorry.

What is your Scriptural evidence for that?You asked how they would have known the story. It's a completely plausible explanation. In fact, it would have been odd if he had NOT told them.


If your position is that the son of God can do anything to support your belief, Your first twelve words are correct.


The issue is the myth of Jesus in the desert. Seeing one story as a myth does not mean the entire Bible story is lost.The issue was your contention that Jesus could not have fasted for forty days in the desert. You are plainly placing natural limits on your assessment. If you do that there, it it hard to imagine why you are not doing it throughout the Bible. But if you are not doing it throughout the Bible, then why there only?


If you wish to begin another thread about raising the dead or the Bible, you are free to do so.You are dodging the point.


A myth is not a "completely false story" nor is this one about a "fake devil". It is called a moral story because it IS a moral story.A myth is, at its foundation, a story not rooted in truth. When Matthew wrote his book, he plainly portrayed this as a genuine historical incident. There is no reason to believe otherwise except that some people find the supernatural element difficult to accept and therefore assume it is a myth. Plainly it was not presented that way.


Until you do, I can't help you any further on this issue. I'm sorry.Well, I hadn't asked you for help, but if you want to bow out, then that's fine.

For the same reason the Adam and Eve story was told and the Flood story, to tell a bigger truth, a bigger story.Kind of like the code in Revelation, the one that no one knows anything about?

Kind of like the code in Revelation?
That's what our pastor told us after we had been through an exhaustive study of that book.

You must be a literalist.

I take the Bible to be literal unless I have a good reason to do otherwise, which is a very good rule to follow.

If you did an "exhaustive study" of Revelation, then you should be able to tell us what your evidence is for it being code. So far your only evidence seems to be that your pastor told you that. Sorry, but that is far, far from compelling. Perhaps you mean that you were quite exhausted during the study and cannot remember any of it? 8D

I would actually consider myself to be an evidentialist.

He didn't mention the code idea until we had finished the study (that had included the historical, cultural, etc. settings), threw out that comment at the end of the last class. "Something to think about...."

Well then, I would suggest you think about it, but to simply accept it blindly just strikes me as very strange, and especially when I consider that you have not one ounce of evidence to support it. At least that has now become clear.

Plainly, you are not an evidentialist.

Good night. God bless your health.

Well then, I would suggest you think about it, but to simply accept it blindly just strikes me as very strange, and especially when I consider that you have not one ounce of evidence to support it. At least that has now become clear.

Plainly, you are not an evidentialist.


Neither are you an "evidentialist". Plausibility being a substitute for evidence as it suits you.

When you came to this thread I thought you were genuinely seeking knowledge. Now I see that it was your intention to argue. However, I did appreciate your honesty in saying that your position is that whatever you see as the position of the Son of God is what you believe. As I said then, such a position eliminates any need for discussion. A frank admission could have saved time for all concerned.

It seems to me you always think that a person coming to a thread has some obligation to agree with you, and if they don't, then they must surely be wrong, and unlike you must surely be there merely to argue. So you have this idea that you are here to "help" me or whoever. While I'm sure you could prove to be helpful, it would also be productive if you would offer a frank admission that there are a number of questions for which you have no answers.

The plausibility you refer to has a simple explanation. The Bible does not offer any description of how Matthew knew the story of the temptation of Jesus, so there is nothing I know of that would qualify as evidence, or at least as direct evidence. That being the case, we are left to offer plausible scenarios that could explain Matthew knowing the story. That Jesus told him would seem to be the most believable. I am not saying it HAD to have happened that way, but rather that it strikes me as a simple, very believable, and quite likely explanation. I would think it would certainly be better than believing that he just made the whole thing up and then presented it as historical truth, or that he took some measure of truth and embellished it, thus ending up with a myth. Matthew wrote a history of Jesus, included the story, and never hinted that it, or any other passage in his account, should be looked at as mythical. At any rate, there are limits to evidence, so perhaps you need to learn them.

It's like I said earlier. If you want to bow out and leave, then that is your privilege, but I would think a civil discussion could be productive.

JL, the Revelation code is that any reference to "you" in the book is because the book was written to the people of that time, not as warnings to future believers, e.g. us.

It was certainly written to the people of that time, but there is no reason to believe it was written ABOUT people of that time. Certainly chapters 2-5 would have made sense to the people at that time, but there is no reason to believe that the rest would have. The prophecies of the succeeding chapters are so extreme that it just makes your statement seem fairly impossible. And besides, Jesus tells John in chapter one this. "19. Therefore write what you have seen, what is, and what will take place after this." I think your theory makes nice conjecture, but I have no idea why a person would feel any compulsion to believe it.

It's not my theory. And who/what is 666 and who/what is the Beast?

Back to the thread's question, if Satan exists, where did he come from, how did he come to be?

It's not my theory. And who/what is 666 and who/what is the Beast?
It's a theory you are promoting. At any rate, I have no idea what 666 is or who the Beast is. I imagine it will all become clear when that time comes.


if Satan exists, where did he come from, how did he come to be?I don't think it really makes any difference. Is. 14 and Ez. 28 probably give some insight to that, but in the end it makes no difference. He is treated like a real being rather clearly, as are the demons. I know of no reason why anyone should believe otherwise.

It's a theory you are promoting.
Promoting? Offering an alternative possibility is promoting it?

Promoting? Offering an alternative possibility is promoting it?I think in the past it's been a good bit stronger than simply, "offering an alternative possibility", but that's fine. Revelation is a difficult book.

It's like I said earlier. If you want to bow out and leave, then that is your privilege, but I would think a civil discussion could be productive.


You abrogated the possibility of a civil discussion by entering this thread under false pretenses. Before you the discussion was quite civil.

I've said nothing that has not been civil. I've had no false pretenses at all. The topic is the existence of Satan and that is what we have discussed. It's all back to how you respond when someone disagrees with you.

Sorry for the delay, Athos. Lotta stuff going on. I'll see if I can answer your questions.

What did I see that can't be explained? That's difficult to answer. Call it a presence, not seen but sensed, (sort of) felt. Honestly, it's an overall experience that I don't want to repeat, and it's impossible to describe.

What about other representations of an evil being? Idunno. It seems people all over the world have stories about something. I think the best explanation for that is, there's something out there. Visual depictions can only go so far, and the human imagination can only handle so much.

Why do It believe in Satan? I see no reason not to. I have since childhood and haven't found any real evidence that The Adversary doesn't exist. If anything, human nature is strong evidence that something royally screwed us up.

I may have missed one, this thing won't show me the actual post I'm replying to (#27).

STAY SAFE! WASH YOUR HANDS! WEAR A MASK! NO, NOT THAT KIND OF MASK, IRON MAN WON'T PROTECT YOU FROM COVID - OH, NEVER MIND...

Why do It believe in Satan? I see no reason not to. I have since childhood and haven't found any real evidence that The Adversary doesn't exist. If anything,I think you are saying that your personal experience has matched what you've read in the Bible, so you see no reason not to believe. It's the same reason I am thoroughly convinced of the inherent sinfulness of man. What I see in myself and others matches what the Bible says about it.

Sorry for the delay, Athos. Lotta stuff going on. I'll see if I can answer your questions.

What did I see that can't be explained? That's difficult to answer. Call it a presence, not seen but sensed, (sort of) felt. Honestly, it's an overall experience that I don't want to repeat, and it's impossible to describe.

What about other representations of an evil being? Idunno. It seems people all over the world have stories about something. I think the best explanation for that is, there's something out there. Visual depictions can only go so far, and the human imagination can only handle so much.

Why do It believe in Satan? I see no reason not to. I have since childhood and haven't found any real evidence that The Adversary doesn't exist. If anything, human nature is strong evidence that something royally screwed us up.

I may have missed one, this thing won't show me the actual post I'm replying to (#27).

STAY SAFE! WASH YOUR HANDS! WEAR A MASK! NO, NOT THAT KIND OF MASK, IRON MAN WON'T PROTECT YOU FROM COVID - OH, NEVER MIND...

Thanks for your good reply, DW. Since you didn't offer any "proof", and simply stated your belief, you'll get no argument from me. I've made my position on Satan clear so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I respect the beliefs of others when they don't try to "prove" the belief by endlessly quoting nonsense from this or that book - or series of books. The Bible is a wonderful set of books but it is sadly abused by faulty interpretation such as the bizarre reading that has Jesus condemning to hell for eternal punishment all those who don't believe in him. This is the same Jesus who commanded "Love your enemy". Not to mention the God who creates people only to consign them to hell, knowing this from his perfect knowledge at the moment of their creation.

The troll, who has reappeared here, is best ignored - that keeps him under his rock.

So in a discussion of the existence of Satan, you object to an appeal to the Bible? And you object to my quoting the contention of Jesus that all those who don't believe in Him face eternal judgment? That seems rather strange. But if you don't feel up to it, re-block me. We don't seem to mix well anyway.

Athos,
I need some clarification of terms. What, to you, constitutes "proof"? What is it that is lacking in my response?

What, to you, constitutes "proof"?Great question.

Athos,
I need some clarification of terms. What, to you, constitutes "proof"? What is it that is lacking in my response?

There is nothing lacking in your response.

“Proof” in quotes means I am not using the word in its literal sense and am using it in a figurative sense as in Biblical “proofs” - the serpent in the Garden, Satan conversing with God in Job, etc.,etc.

What I did hope for was an explanation of your belief in Satan. You simply offered it as is, finding no reason to believe otherwise. You wrote, “ Why do It believe in Satan? I see no reason not to. I have since childhood and haven't found any real evidence that The Adversary doesn't exist. If anything, human nature is strong evidence that something royally screwed us up.”

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. As WG pointed out, Satan is often used as an scapegoat for human nature.

I accept and respect your belief and would not comment on a belief alone unless that belief is supported by reasons which I may or may not agree with.

I hope that serves as the clarification you asked for.

PS – Your replies are few and far between. Please understand that I don't expect you to engage in the discussion if you don't want to. I enjoy intelligent conversation on the subject of religion - I even have some Greek questions for you re the New Testament. Maybe some other time.

I guess biblical proofs are all I need. I understand that others need more than that, but it's good enough for me.

I haven't been on much, largely because I changed computers and don't have this site bookmarked. Gotta fix that one of these days...

Allow me to say that regardless of the fact that I believe in God and in his Only Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, both good and evil are born and proceed from the hearts of us humans. In a certain sense, Satan is nothing more than the evil that could come from someone's heart. There is free will, the decision to do good or evil knowing that the evil that is done is paid. I think this would be a good way to explain to those people who lack understanding what Satan could mean in a certain sense.

Athos,
I need some clarification of terms. What, to you, constitutes "proof"?I'd look at the Curse. God [verbaly] curses the animal itself...and then he curses the Devil, Oddly enough he doesn't curse Man.

both good and evil are born and proceed from the hearts of us humans. In a certain sense, Satan is nothing more than the evil that could come from someone's heart.I just don't think that can be supported from the Bible. There is no indication that the personage of the devil simply refers to the evil in human hearts. It would really be difficult to explain the three temptations of Christ by using that idea.

During His ministry Jesus told this story to audiences to explain His own inner experiences with temptations. He put it in the form of a parable, an allegory, so His listeners would more easily understand the idea of temptation and how to respond.

There is absolutely nothing to support such a view. Even worse, in the Gospel accounts it is not Jesus speaking. The Gospel authors are recounting the story and certainly present it as a genuine event. If it had been simply related to them as an allegory, then it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have said, "Jesus once told a parable about temptation."

Allow me to say that regardless of the factAllowing you to say - while disregarding [that] fact - Satan could mean what "you say," in a certain sense.
The real issue is whether we actually know God through Jesus.

Reading the God-breathed Bible does not mean looking at biblical words and then thinking your own thoughts, or feeling your own feelings or doing your own thing. That’s not reading. At least, Jesus didn’t think it was reading.

During His ministry Jesus told this story to audiences to explain His own inner experiences with temptations. He put it in the form of a parable, an allegory, so His listeners would more easily understand the idea of temptation and how to respond.


This is the dictionary definition of "reaching".

This is the dictionary definition of "reaching".
Where is that mountain Jesus and Satan were on to see all over the Earth?

From Wikipedia:
Writers including William Barclay (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barclay_(theologian)) have pointed to the fact that there is "no mountain high enough in all the world to see the whole world" as indication of the non-literal nature of the event, and that the narrative portrays what was going on inside Jesus' mind.[12] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation_of_Christ#cite_note-12)
12. Barclay, Discovering Jesus p.  22.

Where is that mountain Jesus and Satan were on to see all over the Earth?What you and I can see is one thing. What the devil can see, and certainly what Jesus can see, is an entirely different matter, so I think the height of the mountain is not an important point. To me, your objection is akin to saying that Jesus could not have raised a man from the dead since we all know that dead people don't come back to life.

What you and I can see is one thing. What the devil can see, and certainly what Jesus can see, is an entirely different matter, so I think the height of the mountain is not an important point. To me, your objection is akin to saying that Jesus could not have raised a man from the dead since we all know that dead people don't come back to life.
Why did they have to go to the top of a mountain? (That further validates the idea that this is an allegory.)

Your "dead people" (faux) analogy makes no sense as a comparison.

Using that approach, you would have to consider the entire Gospel story, and especially the resurrection, to be nothing more than one giant allegory since it is all filled with supernatural events and difficult to understand events. Why, for instance, did Jesus need to find a mountain for his transfiguration? Was elevation even remotely necessary?

As I said earlier, if the Gospel writers intended for us to see this as an allegory, then it would have been simple to introduce it that way as they did on many other occasions. "Jesus told a parable about temptation. It seems a man met "the devil" in the wilderness..."

I think DW nailed it. You're really reaching. Sometimes I think the first thing the devil does is try to convince a person that he does not exist.

The Bible, and NT especially, are filled with allegories and metaphors and parables. The people of that time when the Bible was written were simple, usually uneducated people who were storytellers themselves and wanted to have complex ideas and teachings put into a simple form so they could better understand.

Apparently you are a literalist. Do you believe the nursery rhyme "Jack and Jill" really happened, that Jack fell down and broke his crown? Actually, it's an allegory about ambitions, about determination and what to do when you fall.

Because the Bible does contain allegories does not mean EVERYTHING in an allegory. The allegories of the teachings of Christ are pretty obviously laid out. The story of the temptation does not meet those patterns. Is the resurrection an allegory? Is the birth of Christ an allegory? Is the cross an allegory? Where does your theory end???

Everyone is a literalist, and everyone believes in allegories, so your second paragraph is kind of meaningless. Your projected meaning has no support in the Bible at all. It is plainly presented as being a real event.

Because the Bible does contain allegories does not mean EVERYTHING in an allegory.
I didn't say everything is.

The allegories of the teachings of Christ are pretty obviously laid out. The story of the temptation does not meet those patterns.
Of course it does in a number of ways.

Everyone is a literalist
Hardly! I certainly am not. Even Trump isn't.

and everyone believes in allegories
You don't.

It is plainly presented as being a real event.
That's how allegories work, how and why they are created.

Hardly! I certainly am not. Even Trump isn't.I should have said, "Everyone takes some passages literally." Certainly you take some parts of the Bible literally. You believe, for instance, that God literally loves people. You believe that Trump was literally the pres. And I, of course, believe the parables were allegorical. So your statements are somewhat misguided. At any rate, it is impossible to communicate without regarding at least some statements to be literal. It would be mass chaos otherwise.



As to how allegories work, a true story can have an allegorical meaning. It doesn't mean it's not a true story. You are confused.


Of course it does in a number of ways.Not in the pattern of the Gospel accounts.

The two of you have gone through this before...many, many times before.

Might I suggest; try and read the Bible as you would any other story...maybe even as a child [trying] to read a children's storybook.

It's very important that we learn to read our thoughts as a result of knowing our Bibles, not learning from our Bibles as a result of what we have read in our thoughts.

The Bible is a story, they are all Parables even Alegorys...the story of God, the story of life, the story of truth, the Story of Creation...

It's very important that we learn to read our thoughts as a result of knowing our Bibles, not learning from our Bibles as a result of what we have found in the world.
I have no idea what this means.


Might I suggest; try and read the Bible as you would any other story...maybe even as a child [trying] to read a children's storybook.
Yes! That's why the allegory idea works so well as we read stories in the Bible.

Where is that mountain Jesus and Satan were on to see all over the Earth?


You don't think Satan is capable of projecting an image of the whole world? It says he "showed" him these things, it doesn't say they could see them all from where they were standing. I can look at anywhere on the planet with a few motions of my fingers. Do we really suppose a supernatural being like Satan can't do the same?

Good observation.

"The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world."

I have no idea what this meansI have re-iterated. I know I should not edit while posting. I was doing it all the while not knowing there was any response...as you can look at the post again and see no indication of it being edited.

The two of you have gone through all this before...many, many times before.

Might I suggest; try and read the Bible as you would any other story...maybe even as a child [trying] to read a children's storybook.
Yes. That's why the allegory idea works so well as we read stories in the Bible.
It's very important that we learn to read our thoughts as a result of knowing our Bibles, not learning from our Bibles as a result of what we have read in our thoughts...(@WG)by "your idea" of thinking, you seem to be falling right into it...and you still don't understand?

maybe even as a child [trying] to read a children's storybook.To have child-like faith can be a good thing, but we should never have child-like understanding.

To have child-like faith can be a good thing, but we should never have child-like understanding.
What understanding should we, of various temperaments and personalities and mental handicaps and illnesses, have?

Adult understanding. Well informed understanding. Unprejudiced understanding. Truthful understanding.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Terrific response!

And we get that adult understanding how?

You can start here.

1. Put away childish thinking.
2. Make truth your goal.
3. Evidence must come first, and conclusions afterward.
4. "Study to show yourself approved."

Who can you trust to be a good Christian guide(s) in your life? How do you decide?

I trust the Bible enlightened by the Holy Spirit. I don't "trust" any person completely. We are all subject to some degree of error. As to who I listen to, I look for people who are faithful to the Bible and who consistently desire to elevate the name of Jesus and make him glorious.

try and read the Bible as you would any other book
To have child-like faith can be a good thing, but we should never have child-like understanding.
Allow me to put it another way; Maybe try reading the Bible [as a Child of God] would read any other book...having a child of God-like understanding. Putting off (the exact opposite); making truth your goal, and seeking evidence to come forth, using that to make conclusions afterward, using it as a Study guide to show thyself approved unto God.

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word.

Maybe try reading the Bible [as a Child of God] would read any other bookI'm not sure what you mean with this. The Bible is not like "any other book". I have read the Bible, and especially the NT, many, many times. My Bible is highlighted in many places, and I have put hundreds of personal notes in it. I pray before I read it. All other books are subject to the truth of the Bible. So I can't read the Bible like "any other book", can I? Help me understand your meaning.

making truth your goal, and seeking evidence to come forth, using that to make conclusions afterward, using it as a Study guide to show thyself approved unto God.

My truth may not be your truth or my pastor's truth. Seeking evidence for what? Evidence to prove MY truth? And I AM approved by God!

My truth may not be your truth or my pastor's truth.That is true of opinions. It is, by definition, certainly not true of truth.

That is true of opinions. It is, by definition, certainly not true of truth.
As Pilate once said, "What is Truth?"

So you are siding with Pilate rather than Jesus who said HE was the truth.

It's just an unbelievably poor argument to suggest that there are many truths. I was surprised to see you go down that road. It is too, too easy to refute.

Please see below.
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you can give us an example of a situation where there are contradictory/nonagreeing propositions that are all true?

Perhaps you can give us an example of a situation where there are contradictory/nonagreeing propositions that are all true?
Your idea of Hell and my idea of Hell. Your idea of Heaven and my idea of Heaven.

Nope. Both of our ideas cannot be true. So either one or both of us is wrong, and one or neither of us is correct. In other words, either hell is an eternal place of fiery horror or it's not. You are referring to opinions.

Surely you are smarter than what you are presently displaying. This is grade school stuff.

Nope. Both of our ideas cannot be true.
Then, since you're the male person, you must be correct and are speaking truth.

And on that absurd note of desperation by you, we can conclude this silliness.

And on that absurd note of desperation by you, we can conclude this silliness.
But that's what you're thinking. I know how you guys are.

And now you know what someone is thinking. Golly-gee whiz.

Hey, I've been married to a man for 56 years! I know stuff, lots of stuff!

How is the hubster doing? I know he went through a rough patch a while back.

we should never have child-like understanding.This might have something to do with what "you're" talking about...this being your [sole] point of view, on what is (Scripture) being conveyed.
It's very important that we learn to read our thoughts as a result of knowing our Bibles, not learning from our Bibles as a result of what we have read in our thoughtsDo you see what you have done? "we should never have child-like understanding." And again; "All other books are subject to the truth of the Bible."What other books?
The Bible is not like "any other book
The Bible is not like any other blood because It is not just a book, it is a life. it takes on a life of its own.

One thing we are missing; Our God and Father, we pray for your help, as we [should] routinely because we actually believe ourselves to be tremendously in need of it both to be able to speak and to listen, certainly to understand, to obey your Word, to live in the light of its truth. And so, beyond the voice of a mere man, may we hear from you, the living God, for it is to you alone we listen and in the name of your Son we pray. Amen. I don't know where TV players or text prayers end up...My understanding is not important...Simply having the belief in prayer, is good enough for me.


Never [to] have a child-like understanding - does not a child of God make...it sure makes a fine teacher...I mean look at the Pharisees. The "Bible" is not your life, it is not your thoughts.

Do you see what you have done? "we should never have child-like understanding." And again; "All other books are subject to the truth of the Bible."What other books?All other books would mean...all other books.

I agree completely with your prayer.

If you have the understanding of a six year old (child), then you are in trouble. Our trust is to be childlike, but to suggest that our understanding of God and the truth of the Bible is to be on the level of what a child can understand is completely unbiblical. Any reading of Hebrews or Romans can illustrate that.

All God wants from us is to love one another, to love and take care of even the unlovable.

You are wrong. Read Hebrews 11:6, and then read Romans 3.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

You're hung up on the Law.

Faith begets love. Love one another.

I didn't realize Hebrews 11 was in the Old Testament ("the Law"). Likewise Romans 3. They're as plain as can be.

I didn't realize Hebrews 11 was in the Old Testament ("the Law"). Likewise Romans 3. They're as plain as can be.Well stated.

We are certainly called to love one another, and loving those in the most need is great, but to say that it's all God wants from us does not align with the Bible. And to suggest that faith amounts to being hung up on the law is kind of wild.

DW, in your view, what constitutes the "heart" in NT teaching? When Proverbs tells us to "guard your heart", what does "heart" mean there? I'm in the process of reading Witness Nee's description of the heart, but he can get so wordy and technical that I get lost in the weeds.

I didn't realize Hebrews 11 was in the Old Testament ("the Law"). Likewise Romans 3. They're as plain as can be.
JL's presentation is full of legalese and very off-putting.

Show, don't tell.

Read Hebrews 11:6, and then read Romans 3.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."How is that "full of legalese" and "off-putting"?

JL's presentation is full of legalese and very off-putting.

I haven't made a "presentation" that I know of. Still, what amounts to "legalese" and is "off-putting"?

I haven't made a "presentation" that I know of. Still, what amounts to "legalese" and is "off-putting"?
Orders. You're full of orders. No wiggle room allowed.

I don't think God has any wiggle room. At the risk of being accused of being legalistic, I would remind you of what Jesus said. “Go in by the narrow gate. For the wide gate has a broad road which leads to disaster and there are many people going that way. The narrow gate and the hard road lead out into life and only a few are finding it.” God's way is a good way. I became a Christian more than 45 years ago and have never considered turning aside from it, but it has required me to make to some hard decisions. God does not give us multiple options to come to him. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by me."

Another question for DW. Which Bible translations do you prefer?

And in case you missed this one, "DW, in your view, what constitutes the "heart" in NT teaching? When Proverbs tells us to "guard your heart", what does "heart" mean there? I'm in the process of reading Witness Nee's description of the heart, but he can get so wordy and technical that I get lost in the weeds."

I'm preaching on the heart Sunday and am not super clear on how to describe it.

I don't think God has any wiggle room.
Oh, that's right. Only 683 people are going to heaven. No Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.

“Go in by the narrow gate. For the wide gate has a broad road which leads to disaster and there are many people going that way. The narrow gate and the hard road lead out into life and only a few are finding it.” When you prefer to listen to your own ideas and ignore the words of Christ, then it's hard to help you.

I think his point was not so much about numbers (though that is there) as it is about access. There is only one way to God and that way is Jesus, but there are many wrong paths, and thus the road that leads to destruction is "broad". So much for wiggle room. I think you cherish that "wiggle room" because you think it allows you to introduce your own ideas into the Gospel. That will never be allowed. God put it this way. "My thoughts are not your thoughts." He is not referred to as "Lord" for no reason.

Read the story in John 4.

Jesus says we are to love one another. He doesn't specify who to love and who not to love..

I don't think you read it yourself. If you had, you would have seen this.
"39 Many Samaritans from the village believed in Jesus because the woman had said, “He told me everything I ever did!” 40 When they came out to see him, they begged him to stay in their village. So he stayed for two days, 41 long enough for many more to hear his message and believe.There's never been a question about us loving each other. The question concerns your false assertion that love is all God requires of us. It is flatly untrue.

I never said that's all God requires of us.

I never said that's all God requires of us

Really? "All God wants from us is to love one another."

You're trying to find some more of that "wiggle room".

I don't see any love, JL.

I Cor. 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Another question for DW. Which Bible translations do you prefer?

And in case you missed this one, "DW, in your view, what constitutes the "heart" in NT teaching? When Proverbs tells us to "guard your heart", what does "heart" mean there? I'm in the process of reading Witness Nee's description of the heart, but he can get so wordy and technical that I get lost in the weeds."

I'm preaching on the heart Sunday and am not super clear on how to describe it.

I'm partial to the NIV, though for the unchurched/untaught, I find The Message useful.
In both Testaments, the "heart" is the seat of the emotions and decision-making. "Guard your heart" because the wrong influences on the center of your being can send your decisions in a lot of bad directions.
We have several terms for it today, such as "trust your gut". Solomon would have said "Trust your heart" if he eve intended to say such an absurd thing. He said "guard" rather than "trust" because he knew the truth that Jeremiah wrote down a few centuries later: the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Since the heart is the entity that guides decision making, that means it's naturally prone to evil. That's why we need Jesus: not only to save us from a Godless eternity, but to save us from ourselves right now.
My reading in the Greek New Testament this morning was the stoning of Stephen. I had to ask, why is humanity's first answer to any conflict to try and kill someone? Why is that the first thing we think of? Think about it. Somebody pulls a prank, what do we say as we're laughing? "I'm gonna kill you!" Even in jest it's our first thought.
If that's not enough evidence that humans are hopelessly corrupt and in need of a savior to reconcile us to God, I don't know what will.
I hope I answered your question.


I don't see any love, JL.

I Cor. 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

First, I don't see any of what you suggest in JL's posts. Second, bringing in this passage is a red herring. Who's he addressing? Hint: not pagans or other non-believers. Check the wider context. The question is what God requires. You said in so many words that all God wants from us is to love each other. Then you said that's not what you said. Color me confused. And JL is right, John 4 does not support your argument. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Sorry if I'm getting snippy, but this sort of thing bugs me.

WG, maybe you'll see this the second time I post it. "There's never been a question about us loving each other. The question concerns your false assertion that love is all God requires of us. It is flatly untrue."

DW, thanks for the answers. I was sitting at the rehab this morning listenting to someone else and I started thinking about the various strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches to translation. Accurate translations such as ESV and NASB suffer from readability issues. Readable ones such as the NLT suffer from accuracy issues. It hit me that the solution might be to read both. Read a passage in, for instance, the NASB, and then turn around and read the same one in The Message or the NLT.

My wife and I send Bibles to Africa. We purchase used, leather bound study Bibles off of Ebay for not very much and ship them out. Just sent 450. We generally use the NIV with either the Life App notes or the Zondervan study notes, so I'm glad to see your endorsement of the NIV.

Your words concerning the heart are much appreciated. It certainly does seem plain to see that mankind has a fallen, rebellious, mean streak that only Jesus can work with.

WG, maybe you'll see this the second time I post it. "There's never been a question about us loving each other. The question concerns your false assertion that love is all God requires of us. It is flatly untrue."
When did I use the word ALL?

My other favorite passage besides I Corinthians 13 is this one. We used it at our son's funeral five years ago:

Micah 6:8 NIV: He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

This is getting old. ""All God wants from us is to love one another."

You need to address DW's comments. They are very good.

This is getting old. ""All God wants from us is to love one another."

I added more to my previous reply. This --

My other favorite passage besides I Corinthians 13 is this one. We used it at our son's funeral five years ago:

Micah 6:8 NIV: He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

You are running from your "all".

Please address DW's response.

Please address DW's response.
As he said, love is the answer:

"Since the heart is the entity that guides decision making, that means it's naturally prone to evil. That's why we need Jesus: not only to save us from a Godless eternity, but to save us from ourselves right now."

And yes, John 4 does support my argument. Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman because of love.

1 John 4:16
New International Version
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
(https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-4-16/)

Conveniently overlooked. "...not only to save us from a Godless eternity, but to save us from ourselves right now."

Intentionally, repeatedly ignored. "There's never been a question about us loving each other. The question concerns your false assertion that love is all God requires of us. It is flatly untrue."


I added more to my previous reply. This --And there is still that pesky "all".

If you don't have love, you don't have God in your heart.

I would certainly agree with that.

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
Please address DW's response.
As he said, love is the answer:

That is SO not what I said.



"Since the heart is the entity that guides decision making, that means it's naturally prone to evil. That's why we need Jesus: not only to save us from a Godless eternity, but to save us from ourselves right now."

That is NOT "love is the answer". That is "Jesus is the answer". And kindly address the "Godless eternity" and all the rest instead of copping out.



And yes, John 4 does support my argument. Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman because of love.

1 John 4:16
New International Version
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

JOHN 4, not 1 John 4. Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman because he was thirsty. Please stop eisegeting.

That is SO not what I said.
You should have.

That is NOT "love is the answer". That is "Jesus is the answer".
Yes, Jesus is the love that inspires us to give that love to each other.

And kindly address the "Godless eternity" and all the rest instead of copping out.
Those were DW's words. I simply agreed.

Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman because he was thirsty. Please stop eisegeting.
And let's talk about that woman. He had no clue about her past and present life? He just plopped down, hoping for a sip of water? Gimme a break!

John 4 = woman at the well. Then I posted:

1 John 4:16
New International Version
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

You should have.Oh brother.


He had no clue about her past and present life? He just plopped down, hoping for a sip of water? Gimme a break!When asked to stop eisegeting, you promptly begin to eisegete.

After I first read the Bible, I read "He who believes Jesus is the son of God."
Before I read the Bible I might have professed Evolution. After I read, I simply believed in God as it said, and that was it. That was all I was required to do...And I believed it.
I use to express that to others and I'd always get a - well not exactly -well there is more to it than that - wrong - That's not what it says -that's not what it means etc. Didn't matter how they explained it, I could hear them but It held no weight on my heart.
Walked around for the next 30 yrs before I craved a real love for Jesus.

Just leave WG alone. Please use prayer. Prayer is the only answer. you can not talk somebody into believing as you do, it's not set up that way. Only the holy spirit can intervene.
Your false assertion that love is all God requires of us. Maybe that is all God requires of her at this particular point in time.
Maybe you were brought in here for a time such as this, to open your eyes and see the problems you might be creating for yourself.
but to suggest that our understanding of God and the truth of the Bible is to be on the level of what a child can understand is completely unbiblical Really? Get out of your mind and focus on whats in your heart. Come, all you newborn children of God. Come, listen, drink, grow... And Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Every single human being, except one, has been under the sentence of death and has been a child of wrath (Genesis 2–3).

Maybe It is time to become a Child of God?

Prayer is the only answer. you can not talk somebody into believing as you do, it's not set up that way. Only the holy spirit can intervene.Then why are you trying to talk me into believing that? If you really believed what you just posted, then you would never post on this site. You would only pray, so even you are not following your own advice. But I would agree with you that prayer is the greatest weapon, and I do pray regularly for WG and Athos.

Still, Jesus had discussions with people. Paul had discussions with people . Peter had discussions with people. It's necessary.


Maybe that is all God requires of her at this particular point in time.Not according to the Bible.


Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.That is talking about having the humility of a child. It is NOT talking about having child-like understanding.

Would you take Paul's word for it? "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature." Did you see that? "DO NOT BE CHILDREN IN YOUR THINKING." It seems to be very clear.

I've been a child of God for 45 years. How about you?

Is there any reason why the bunch of you continue going round and round hitting on the same arguments year after year...repeating the same thing, time and time again...thinking the more you speak the more the truth gets out?

Don't you think we have been playing this Word game long enough? That's all it has become and it's become an endless cycle, that leads down a road most traveled.

I entered this thread, not trying to "talk [you] into believing that[.]" - ("That" being the prayer that was initiated). When I initially entered this post It was my desire to invoke God through prayer...I forgot, so it was included in a later post.

I know you pray and we all believe in prayer. I see many Bible verses in these threads, but I don't know If I have ever read a prayer...thought maybe that might be what's missing. I can pray by myself but it is much better when we enter being of one accord.

This thread is a prime example. How'd it go from; "Does Satan really exist?" Too a child-like understanding vs adult thinking?

I am a child of God and have been for all eternity.

Is there any reason why the bunch of you continue going round and round hitting on the same arguments year after year...repeating the same thing, time and time again...thinking the more you speak the more the truth gets out?A pretty fair observation. Just bear in mind that you are participating in it.


I am a child of God and have been for all eternity.You have existed for all of eternity?

Just bear in mind that you are participating in it.Yes, and that bothers me. I don't understand why it doesn't seem to bother any of you.
You have existed for all of eternity?Came to know life through the breath of God...no worries, you got 45 years on me.

Yes, and that bothers me. I don't understand why it doesn't seem to bother any of you.
Maybe you can put us on the right path. Are you a Witness?

I don't understand why it doesn't seem to bother any of you.It does bother me. I've mentioned it before, that we talk and talk and talk, and yet no one ever changes his/her mind about anything. But I have learned some things about myself in these conversations.

Desiring the truth in his Word; Lord Jesus, Forgive us of our sinful nature and bring your word into our hearts, bringing life in understanding. .
Not according to the Bible. How am I able to put this without offending you
(Prepare to be offended)?

You might have Great knowledge of what's in the Bible. But, you might also be lacking the Wisdom on how to apply said knowledge. A person can read any number of books, subjecting them to his own [limited] personal relationship with the Bible.
Maybe that is all God requires of her at this particular point in time. The wisdom of God, is fulfilling itself in many ways and in diverse manners. It is manifested, therefore, in the infinite variety both of the teaching and the life of the Church - yet one, as embodying but one life, the life of Jesus Christ...discovering itself gradually in such a beautiful and well-ordered variety of dispensations...some can only Dance to it, and some can sing to it.

IT APPEARS - To be well placed in your mind...It's not a code of Law that is to be explained. We don't, all, start from the same school of thought. In other words, It is only something that can be experienced, You can not define it. You can not reduce it to a form of a Creed.

Try getting out of your mind and start listening to your heart.

IT APPEARS - To be well placed in your mind...It's not a code of Law that is to be explained. We don't, all, start from the same school of thought. In other words, It is only something that can be experienced, You can not define it. You can not reduce it to a form of a Creed.

Try getting out of your mind and start listening to your heart.We are never told to listen to our hearts. We are told to listen to God.


You can not reduce it to a form of a Creed.Of course you can. That's done, for instance, in the first eight verses of Ephesians 2. There are other places as well, and that's not to mention early church creeds such as the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.

Perhaps I didn't catch your meaning well.

And kindly address the "Godless eternity" and all the rest instead of copping out.
Those were DW's words. I simply agreed.

But you've denied its existence. Please explain.