Ask Me Help Desk - Does Satan really exist?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

If your position is that the son of God can do anything to support your belief,

Your first twelve words are correct.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It's a theory you are promoting.

Promoting? Offering an alternative possibility is promoting it?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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?

Quote:

What, to you, constitutes "proof"?

Great question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

Allow me to say that regardless of the fact

Allowing 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.

Quote:

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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 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]
12. Barclay, Discovering Jesus p.  22.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Because the Bible does contain allegories does not mean EVERYTHING in an allegory.

I didn't say everything is.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Everyone is a literalist

Hardly! I certainly am not. Even Trump isn't.

Quote:

and everyone believes in allegories

You don't.

Quote:

It is plainly presented as being a real event.

That's how allegories work, how and why they are created.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...