If you want to debate spirituality, God, Christianity, etc... you can do it here! Everyone's welcome. :)

You didn't mention the Devil. Gosh sorry not to post in the other one. I gotta soon.

Do you think the Devil exists? Do you think the Devil has two horns and hoofs? Do you think that he's an angel? Why did God make the Devil if he knew how he'd turn out? Why did the Devil turn bad in the first place? What does "Devil" and "Satan" mean? Is the Devil's name "Lucifer?"

Those are some questions for whomever.

Do you think the Devil exists?
Yes.

Do you think the Devil has two horns and hoofs?

No, I don't think the devil has horns and hooves.. ;) and that description is not Biblical.

Do you think that he's an angel?

Yes, Lucifer is a fallen angel. Ezekiel 28:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK%2B28%3A14-16&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=ESV&x=3&y=7) describes him as an annointed cherub, and there are other scriptures that describe him as a being of high intelligence and perfect beauty.

Why did God make the Devil if he knew how he'd turn out?

God didn't create 'the devil'... at the beginning Lucifer was not the devil, but one of the angels, as I said. But God did create the angels with free will, and with free will comes the possibility for evil.

When people ask "Why would God create beings that would turn out evil?" Well, if we had no choice but to love and serve God, then that love is meaningless. He created us with free will so we could choose to love Him by our own free will, and that way it is genuine. What good would it be to create robots programmed to do nothing but good? Why create anything at all in that case?


Why did the Devil turn bad in the first place?

Pride. I'll try to find the scriptures, but I believe Lucifer was one of the highest angelic beings, and his pride is what led him to rebel against God.

What does "Devil" and "Satan" mean? Is the Devil's name "Lucifer?"

Devil - Greek: diabolos; Meaning: a slanderer
Satan - adversary; accuser (translated from Hebrew)

Yes, the devil's name was originally Lucifer which means brilliant star, day star, shining one.


Thanks for starting this thread off, Shogun! :)

I'd offer you a decent fight I think, but I don't think we share enough basic "truths" between us to do anything more than argue internal contradictions.

Justin

I have one about the devil....

If the wages of sin are death.. why is satan still walking the earth?

:)

Good question. But we know what's going to happen, it just hasn't happened yet. :)

The same goes for us, the wages of (unforgiven) sin are death, but that doesn't happen til this life is over...

right, but we had our lives cut short.

when we sined we lost our immortality.
why didnt he lose his?

jason, turn on your msn please. :)

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
right, but we had our lives cut short.

when we sined we lost our immortality.
why didnt he lose his?

Wait a minute... we didn't lose our immortality, we will just be eternally separated from God (if we aren't forgiven).

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
right, but we had our lives cut short.

when we sined we lost our immortality.
why didnt he lose his?


Because he challenged God's Soveriegnty. Job's peril was a microcosm of this whole ordeal. He's got to stay alive to see the outcome. To see whether or not he's right or wrong. But the outcome has already been fortold.

Originally posted by buttercup

Yes, the devil's name was originally Lucifer which means brilliant star, day star, shining one.


I question this. I have info that says otherwise. Not on the meaning as much as if it's his name or not. I have also yet to read that name in my Bible. What translation do you read?

i believe the whole story of satans fall, at least the one commonly accepted by christians is actualy not in the cannonized bible, but is from the book of enoch.. on the the books of apocropha.

Originally posted by Shogun

I question this. I have info that says otherwise. Not on the meaning as much as if it's his name or not. I have also yet to read that name in my Bible. What translation do you read?

Hmm, interesting. The name 'Lucifer' is only mentioned once, in the KJV. (I have a KJV Bible and an NIV)

Isaiah 14:12 ~ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!


What info do you have that says it wasn't his name?

>click< (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/lucifer.html)

I had a question regarding communiun. (I think I may have misspelled that :o)

I understand its a sacrement that is to be performed in your lifetime as a christian, but should it be performed yearly, weekly? I have only had communiun twice in my life and Im sure it was expected of me at some point, but I have been to churches that have communiun monthly. :confused:

I dont think there is any defined number of times it should be performed.
My church does it quite a bit..
Actualy it seems like they do communion whenever Im playing drums that week. It has sorta become a running joke with the worship band.. Im the communion drummer.

I have a question for you people.

Yes, Lucifer is a fallen angel. Ezekiel 28:14-16 describes him as an annointed cherub, and there are other scriptures that describe him as a being of high intelligence and perfect beauty.

How did people like Ezekiel get all this information. There seems to be a fairly agreed upon view on god, angels, feuds in heaven, and so on, but how did mere mortals get this info?

That's a good question. The scriptures of both the Old and New Testament were written by people led or inspired by God. (The NT was written by people who were either disciples of Jesus, or worked with a disciple) As far as the OT - and the method of inspiration... I think it was different for the different writers... but I don't want to give you the wrong answer, so I'll try to get sapience or Banky or someone to answer the question.

In the Catholic church, as well as the direct derivatives of it (Presbyertian, Anglican, Episcopalean), communion is practiced weekly. In other Protestant churches, it's practiced in a manner that is agreed upon by that denomination. Many Baptist churches do it once a month or once a quarter, usually on a sunday night. Independent churches are alike, do it on mutually agreed upon timetables.

But true communion, can happen any time between believers, sharing a meal, and observing the sacrement. It's a particularly lovely celebration that way.

>There seems to be a fairly agreed upon view on god, angels, feuds in heaven, and so on, but how did mere mortals get this info?<

Some folks think the book of enoch was widely read in ancient times, and that that is where alot of the ideas people had about angels, the war in heaven, the nature of satans fall and who he was in heaven came from.

The Book of Enoch is interestng and fun to read but it is apoccrapha so I wouldnt base too much theology on it.

Okay, but how about the other information the church and it's followers seem to have about god, jezus and the holy spirit? How about genesis? Where did they get all that info?

like what?

What kinda information are you refering to exactly?

I don't know exactly, I'd have to look thta up. But how does mankind know about the holy spirit, about heaven, about angels, about satan, about everything that happened between them?

well, alot of it is in the bible.
alot of it is in other ancient books which are considred apocrapha.
but all of it was supposedly handed down to the writers from God.

It takes a measure of faith to believe it.
There is no archeological evidence that supports the War in Heaven.
Nor have they found any scortch marks on the earth from when Satan was cast down. ;)

But there is archeological evidence to support alot of the other stuff in the bible, including civilizations that were thought lost. many people until recently thought the hittite civilization was proof that the bible was WRONG.. until they FOUND those lost civilizations in archeological digs!

Thus, there is enough evidence, in my opinion to support the belief that the bible is accurate and inspired.
Thus, I can tend to believe the other stuff in the bible that cannot be verified archologicaly.


RWZ

If we're assuming the Bible is inspired...

There are a couple of ways we can know things about Angels and Demons etc. First, some of the humans who wrote about angels had direct, physical contact with them (Ezekiel, Daniel, Moses, John, Peter). Others reported contact with Angles to the people who wrote the Bible (Joseph and Mary, Zachariah and Elizabeth, etc). We see in the Gospels that Jesus casts out demons in people, and the disciples and Paul did as well. So we know that Demons are capable of human possession.

As for what Heaven is like, that all comes from Revelation, the final book of the Bible. The Apostle John had been exiled to the island of Patmos (I think?) by the Romans. While he was there, he had a dream vision where Christ appeared to him a) gave him a message to take to the churches, b) certain future events and c) showed him what the eternal state (heaven in particular) would be like.

The Holy Spirit is God, who indwells human beings when they become Christians. He is known as the counselor. One of the gifts the Holy Spirit gives is that of discernment, and that is partially how Christians are expected to be able to tell between good and bad angels (of course, Christians are commanded to "test the spirits" using the Bible so they are not misled).

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Originally posted by aslansavz
In the Catholic church, as well as the direct derivatives of it (Presbyertian, Anglican, Episcopalean), communion is practiced weekly. In other Protestant churches, it's practiced in a manner that is agreed upon by that denomination. Many Baptist churches do it once a month or once a quarter, usually on a sunday night. Independent churches are alike, do it on mutually agreed upon timetables.

But true communion, can happen any time between believers, sharing a meal, and observing the sacrement. It's a particularly lovely celebration that way.

I'll just add a few esoteric details. We have pretty strong evidence that the early church had communion once a week. They gathered together for a meal, and in the midst of that meal would have communion, a breaking of the bread and drinking from the same cup. It is meant to follow Christ's command, do this in rememberence of me, as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup.

Originally posted by seekerofvisions
I had a question regarding communiun. (I think I may have misspelled that :o)

I understand its a sacrement that is to be performed in your lifetime as a christian, but should it be performed yearly, weekly? I have only had communiun twice in my life and Im sure it was expected of me at some point, but I have been to churches that have communiun monthly. :confused:
Good question!

Communion is to be done whenever you want! :)

There was never any mentioning of when to do Communion, just why and how.

First, some of the humans who wrote about angels had direct, physical contact with them

In another light, if anyone today were to claim having had physical contact with an angel he'd most likely be laughed at. Why would we believe it did happen back then, but don't anymore?

While he was there, he had a dream vision where Christ appeared to him

But isn't that kinda shaky? How do you know it was a dream vision, and not just a dream?

Well, if a dream comes true--to the last detail--I would have problems doubting. But like I said, dreams and visions are meant to be tested by scripture. If they say anything contrary to scripture, then they are either not a vision, or a vision but not from God.

As for contact with Angels, the most commonly accepted reason for this is the fact that human beings, Christians in particular, wouldn't need contact with Angels now that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Angels were messangers from God, but now that Christ's death and resurrection has paid for our sins and allowed us to come back into God's presence, we can come directly into his presence without an intermediary like an Angel.

I just wanted to say thank you to aslansavz, RWZ, Banky and sapience! Zaphod, I'll see if I can find more info on your question about the methods of inspiration, and I'll post some links.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Okay, but how about the other information the church and it's followers seem to have about god, jezus and the holy spirit? How about genesis? Where did they get all that info?
The only record is what is written in the Bible.

Remember: When the Bible was handed down through the Jews, there were people still alive when these events happened, until after the return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity. There was about 450 years of silence until Jesus came.

The events of Jesus' life, being recorded in the New Testament, were written about during a time when people who actually lived through these events, and also DIDNT believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but they could not deny what happened.

That is the better testimony in some ways, these people did NOT believe Jesus was the Messiah, but they confirmed the events that happened as recorded in the Bible.

As for Genesis, the first five books of the Bible are called THE BOOKS OF MOSES. Whether Moses was the VERY first writer or not is not omething we have a record of, but we do have mention that Moses wrote the first 5 books in the form they are in now. So, the record of Genesis comes from Moses, through the Holy Spirit working through him.

Originally posted by Banky

The only record is what is written in the Bible.

Hmm... I don't necessarily agree. It's the only inspired record. :)


As for Genesis, the first five books of the Bible are called THE BOOKS OF MOSES. Whether Moses was the VERY first writer or not is not omething we have a record of, but we do have mention that Moses wrote the first 5 books in the form they are in now. So, the record of Genesis comes from Moses, through the Holy Spirit working through him.

Agreed. Moses could have used sources to create the first five books of the Bible. However, his use of the sources, and any changes from those sources, are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So, the record of Genesis comes from Moses, through the Holy Spirit working through him.

Okay, let's put it a little more bluntly. You guys believe a book that was written over 2000 years ago by people who claim they were inspired by the holy spirit. How can you even assume it's true? I'm not trying to bust balls here, but I'm just trying to understand. And still completely failing, I might add.

Okay, here's the deal. Moses, while he was writing this stuff, pulled off some major miracles. Parting the Red Sea, for example. Managing to lead some Four Million Jews out of Slavery in Egypt. These were things that there were witnesses to at the time (ie, all four million Jews), and if he had written something that hadn't happened, he would have gotten in big trouble. Obviously there was something very different about this guy, right? Nothing he wrote contradicts a single thing we can know from other historical sources, so it appears that it is very accurate.

Besides, Moses didn't explicitly claim that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He doesn't deal with the issue at all, though, he does claim he spoke directly to God, who gave him word for word what he was supposed to write for at least portions of the books. However, we look at the rest of the Bible for clues. The Bible includes 66 different books by many different authors, which, by comparison with any other historical document, has very few contradictions. People often ask how we can know people didn't change the document to make it consistent later, and we have plenty of manuscript evidence to show and track any changes, which are astonishingly few. There is, again, something very different about this book.

Finally, we have the records of people who there is significant evidence they were inspired by the holy spirit, such as Paul; he said that all scripture (ie, the Old Testament) was "God breathed," or inspired by the Holy Spirit. Christians, upon accepting Christ, receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, we have the same spirit in us that inspired the writing of these books. It's not something that can prove our case, I know. But between the absolutely amazing evidence about the nature of the Bible, the internal testimony of the scriptures, and finally our own testimony, I can believe with rational justification that the Bible is the word of God.

The parting of the red sea might very well have been a symbolic thing indicating that for example a draught had caused a passage. Similar to jesus' walking over water being symbolic for him bing able to swim, which was extremely rare in those days.

It's also a trifle odd to say the least that none of the 'miracles', like the parting of the red sea, are found in non-religious historical documents. Can you explain that?

>Similar to jesus' walking over water being symbolic for him bing able to swim, which was extremely rare in those days.<

where on EARTH did you get this?

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
The parting of the red sea might very well have been a symbolic thing indicating that for example a draught had caused a passage. Similar to jesus' walking over water being symbolic for him bing able to swim, which was extremely rare in those days.

It's also a trifle odd to say the least that none of the 'miracles', like the parting of the red sea, are found in non-religious historical documents. Can you explain that?

Concerning Old Testament miracles I suggest you rethink the nature of the Old Testament. Yes, the OT was a religious book, but it also served as the history of the nation. There isn't a single incident in the Bible that they've been able to contradict by archeology, which gives it a tremendous amount of historical validity. And the miracles in the New Testament by Jesus are recorded in secular documents, though as a categorical statement, rather than individual accounts. Josephus, a Jewish (and anti-Christian) historian, said that Jesus "was one who wrought suprising feats." The Jewish Talmud said that "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray" and that he had "practiced sorcery." That's pretty much what we would expect from historians who were biased against Jesus and the Christian movement.

As for the Red Sea, the language is pretty clear that it wasn't symbolic for a drought--it was an instantaneous event. The Israelites were trapped between Pharaoh and the Red Sea, and they began to say that they should have stayed in Egypt. If the Red Sea was experiencing a drought that enabled them to cross, they would never have doubted. And the Egyptian Army could have easily come after them.

As for Jesus' walking on water, I doubt it was symbolic. These were fishermen he was with--if anybody knew how to swim, or what swimming looked like, it would be them. Also, how could Jesus have pulled Peter out without being above the water himself? All the evidence points to the miracle being authentic.

Hi everyone, I was searching the net and was directed here as the last option. Basically I've read somewhere about Ezekiel (not the known prophet), but the fallen angel, who walked the Earth and taut the men the art of "Reading the Clouds". Can anybody help me with this info on the Ezekiel as The Fallen Angel? You can e-mail me: vlad@dublin.com Thanks

and there are other scriptures that describe him as a being of high intelligence and perfect beauty.

Well, call me the Devil! :p