Hi hairston, this is a new one to me. I remember someone else mentioning this on another forum to which I belong and I double checked the passage. Mark is the only one of the four gospels to mention when Jesus was first crucified (the 3rd hour). Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that there was darkness on the land from the sixth to ninth hour (which happened after Jesus was nailed to the cross), and that Jesus died at the ninth hour. John does not specify a time for Jesus' crucifixion at all (only the details that it happened), so I cannot see how this could possibly contradict.

Could you show me the passage which shows the difference?

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Matthew and Mark did not witness the second thieves confession, or perhaps they felt that for the sake of brevity (they only had limited parchment remember) that they would omit the thieves confession of Christ - omission does not imply contradiction.

Probably many, but John may have only been aware of one (having not been among the women who went in the first place). Just because John was not aware of more than one does not mean that he was wrong.

The Matthew account actually states "Very early in the morning, while it was still dark". But the fact that it was morning meant that the sun was coming up ("while it was still dark" would not be total darkness, for the Jews did not consider it morning until the sun started to rise, so therefore it cannot be total blackness). Again, I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Probably 2. Just because an account doesn't mention a second angel does not mean there was not one. In both accounts only one of the angels spoke, so the author might have simply included the important angel (the one who spoke).
*Imagine if you bump into two friends in the street and have a conversation. Imagine the next day if someone asks you what you did, you might mention that you bumped into your friend Barry, because he was the one telling you a story that you found funny. But to someone else you might say you bumped into Barry and Ross, because you wanted to provide a more accurate account. Does the omission of Ross in the first account mean there is a contradiction? Or more likely that you just chose to tell what part of the story was important (the conversation with Barry).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for sharing, I do see what you mean, but each of these are easily explainable as simply different points of view of the same incident. There is nothing inherent in what is there to suggest taht there is something blatantly contradictory. Indeed, with eye-witness accounts of an event, you would likely get small differences such as this, especially when the writers only had limited parchment to write it on

Just a few thoughts to consider.

~ PA

It depends. An underlying theme of this word translated as "repent" is the concept of changing your mind. In Numbers 23 then, the way you look at Repenting is in the context of God not being one to change his mind. In Exodus, God did indeed sorrow for his actions, but he did not change his mind. that's the way i read it, at least.

The word translated as "evil" is not appropriate to this context. The word has heavy overtones of disaster and calamity. Looking at the words before this, the passage says "I create light and dark", and then "I make peace and ra‛ râ‛âh". Evil is not the most appropriate translation, but rather disaster. It would fit in with the theme of opposites set out in this passage (in fact, very few translations today use the word "evil", the vast majority of them translate it something along the lines of "calamity", which most agree is much more appropriate).

That said, while I do not believe this passage supports a God who created evil, the Bible is clear that God is in control of all things, including the evil. But there is a difference between God being in control of actions and God endorsing those actions. God is in complete control. But God hates sin. That makes perfect sense to me.

For a creator who owns all that we are, he has the right to be jealous when we go our own ways and against God. God's jealousy seems to be a common point of discussion in recent days, but what has struck me is that so many people are happy to attribute Jealousy as an emotion a perfect God would never feel, but they never question why the same perfect God would feel Love. Why? What is different about Love and Jealousy, and why would God feel one but not the other? Why is one of those emotions a "godly" emotion, and the other a mere "human" one. As I mentioned in the point above, There is a difference in God being in control and God condoning or endorsing something. God is quite within his rights to be Jealous of HIS creation. But this has been done to death in the other thread, so I'll stop there......

Actually you have rather missed the point concerning the significance of sacrifice. It's also not hard to explain but one of the most fundamental foundational statements in the Bible.

Adam's sin seperated man from God, and that sin had to be punished. The punishment for sin was and still is death. When approaching God a sacrifice was essential because the death of the animal represented the death of the man offering the sacrifice. The blood of the animals took the place of the blood of sinful man. This was what God throughout the entire Old Testament was so dogmatic about.

He repeatedly instituted and reinstituted the necessity of the blood sacrifice in order man to approach God. It was first presented with Cain and Abel, then Noah, then Abraham and finally through Moses to the entire Jewish nation. It was so drum into them through the practise of ritual the fact that they were seperated from God and that their sinful blood must be shed as punishment for sins. As God wanted to reconcile us to Himself, he substituted the deaths of animals to die in our place. But this form of sacrifice was only ever a temporary arrangement. God's long term plan was to send His own Son to die as the ultimate sacrificial offering for mankind and through whom's sacrifice we can all be saved.

Now to all those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour he acts as our permenant and eternal sacrficial offering to God, the Scape Goat who died once for sins so that all of us who believe may have life.


The significane of the blood sacrifice cannot be understated. It is crucial to understanding the Old Testament and Jesus's redemptive mission.

It is also one of the most powerful facts of ancient history that all the ancient religions around the world practised the ritual of blood sacrifice to atone for their sins or to appease angry Gods.

This idea of sacrifice can only be understood and explained within the context of the Bible and is one of the most astonishing facts of ancient history. It is a universally accepted and practiced form of religious ritual whose origins are only explained in the Bible.

When man built the Tower of Babel, they all dwelt in once place. God then confounded their languages which resulted in them dispersing around the whole world. They took their memories of their previous form of religion, pyramids and towers, serpent worship, priests, sacrifice etc and rebuilt cities in Asia, the Americas and Europe all following the same old rituals.

That's why all these civilisations all sprung up at once with the same religious ideas all over the world. It's one of the most powerful evidences for Biblical history but is largely ignored because so few people understand it.

The passage in which Jesus says "Why do you call me good" does not finish with "No one is good but the Father", but rather finishes "No one is good but God alone". There is no distinction between the Father and the Son in this passage. It then becomes a matter of whether you think Jesus was God's Son or not, and whether Jesus is God. Hope that helps

Old Covenant. These laws were written at a time when the Israelite nation was first entering the Promised Land. God told Israel that they would be different to the other nations, were to keep themselves separate and distinct from them. He then instituted a series of laws that would ensure this. Since the Israelite nation no longer exists in the sense that it did then, this early law no longer applies directly. This goes for all the laws in that section of the Bible.

Some of the laws have been reiterated at other points in teh Bible, by other writers, and if so, they still apply, but these specific laws I do not think they are a requirement for salvation.

That said, I can understand the argument that people might use to say that we should indeed keep those specific laws. There is a strong argument to suggest that they are correct. if they are correct, then when I find myself before God I will of course apologise most humbly and repent (promising to turn away and do those things). The law itself is not a law that will condemn me to a life without God. there is no indication that not doing this will condemn me. God won't like me living this way if i am wrong, but I will not be forsaken because if I do find out I'm wrong, I would apologise with sadness that I have misunderstood my God.

Hope that helps with your response

Hi kjaye, forgive me for saying, but that response had nothing to do with my answer. You did do a good job at expanding on the NEED for sacrifice, but my question was responding to why God was happy with one sacrifice but not the other. Unless you were attempting to state that God was not pleased with Cain's sacrifice because his was unable to account for sin, and in which case I think that would be sad considering Cain was not a cattle-herder but a farmer of the earth. It is also worth noting that the account of Cain and Abel does not specify WHAT the sacrifices were for. There is no indication that the sacrifices were indeed used as atonements for sin, and there are other forms of sacrifices to God which did not involve animals at all.

That said, what is your opinion then on the Salt Sacrifices? These are grain offerings that have been seasoned with salt (in the form of flour, bread, etc) which were sacrificed to the Priests. For the poor who could not afford animals, God did indeed accept these Grain Offerings as atonement for sins - in other words, even in the Old Testament, for the poor there was a way to make atonements for sin without killing animals (because they could not afford animals).

Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

As PA has said most of the 'apparent' contradictions are not really any such thing. Criminal lawyers who have studied the Gospels have found the eye witness accounts to be highly credible. The fact they are not all absolutely identical ADDS credibility, it doesn't take it away.

In real life if 4 people all witness the same event they will ALL have slightly different viewpoints based on their own position in the event, their own biases and emotions will cause them to focus on some areas rather than others. They may not all witness everything together but people witness different things.

When police are cross examing witnesses to a crime scene they immediately smell a rat if everybody agrees on all details. It's the little ommissions and selective focusing that marks a story as credible or not.

The Gospel accounts are highly credible in that regard.

Hey PA. You may have a point regarding the grain offerings. I guess my belief stems from the fact that this is the idea of sacrifice was featured in the Bible and that God wanted to make the point regarding the importance of blood sacrifices.

It's also fair to say that neither Cain or Abel would have been poor both having been the sons of Adam after all. It's also important to note that God's spirit at this point was still with man, it was only at the point of the flood that he decided he would withdraw communications so both Cain and Abel would have been able to communicate directly with God, at least as I understand it.

This would also mean that Cain knew full well the type of offering that was required by God but that he wilfully disobeyed putting his own ideas before God's commands.

The fact that he also then slay his brother Abel seems to me like a kind of reverse blood sacrifice, a Satanic sacrifice you might say.

His own sacrifice was rejected by God because in not sacrificing animals he was in effect saying that he had no guilt or sin to be atoned for.

Then in revenge he killed his brother, as punishment for what Cain saw to be his sins against him.

I may have read this wrong but that is how I have always interpereted this.

as was stated, the word translated repent means to change your mind, more specificaly, to change the way you think. thus, when it says people repented, it means they stopped thinking that doing bad things is ok, and began to think that doing bad things was not ok, when used in this context, it also implies the feeling of remorse for the bad things that were done.

when Jesus said "i and my father are one" he meant that they were one in purpose, thought, and desires. Think of it like this, if a King sends his son to visit a remote part of his kingdom to deliver a message to the people, the prince is speaking on behalf of the king, so to the people, the prince and the king are the same, and to the people when speaking to the prince, it would be the same as speaking to the king.
as a second example , say you owned a business, and you sent your son to meet with and negotiate a business contract with another, the person negotiating with your son, is really negotiating with you, through your son. in this case, you and your son would be considered the same person. even though you are not. jesus also said that he did only what he saw his father do.

is God infinite? could you expand this a bit to be more specific as to what you mean by infinite, so a good answer can be given.

the angels that fell with satan are on earth, as satan is, still attempting to destroy man. satan is not able to be everywhere at once, and he uses those angels to carry out his plans through out the earth.
the angels refered to as "those who kept not there first estate" or those who took human women as wives, were bound in chains till judgement day.

some christians do try to follow this command/teaching (it's somewhat difficult in this day and age though)... Amish, Brethren, Mennonite, Quakers... and a few other too. It promotes their ideas of simplicity.

Actually, just because we don't have records of the Scriptures when they were first written, it doesn't mean it was written later. For example: The copy of the manuscript that makes account of Julius Caesar is about 800 years older than our earliest copy of the Bible. And yet no one has a problem believing in Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus. If that manuscript had never been found, then we could as easily as said that Shakespear made the whole thing up. That goes to show that people choose to believe what the want to believe moreso than they rely on evidence. Otherwise, the New Testament writers would get more credit. Shakey society if you ask me.

Well, let's get more precise. Is your claim that they claim they knew Jesus in person, or is your claim that their claim is true? (A twister there, eh? Lol)

If it's the latter, then you are the one who needs to provide some proof. Sure, we know they claimed to know Jesus, but to say it's true just because they say so?

That's an interesting hypothesis. i haven't quite thought about it that way. Reverse blood sacrifice...... could be could be. You make a compelling case. However, I still think we are jumping to conclusions on the basis that Genesis 4 does not specify what type of offering they were giving. You could be right and it was a sin-sacrifice, but there's no way to know for sure. In the absence of any textual evidence, I still think the way the Bible describes the different sacrifices given is telling. You could be right, of course. As I said originally, the Bible just doesn't say, so it's a kind of free-for-all opinions. In any case, thanks for this point of view. Reverse blood sacrifice, I'll have to think this one over.....

~ PA

My claim is that they claim to have known Jesus in person. It then becomes a matter of whether you trust that source to be telling the truth. And it just so happens that I do trust them to be truthful in their comments.

And in all the rush of posts, this one got missed - my apologies. Methuselah was one of the people mentioned in the genealogy from Adam to Noah. He was the son of Enoch. In total he lived 969 years, fathering many children in the process. Methuselah is noteworthy for the sole purpose that he is documented as the oldest person in the Old Testament (hence the modern usage of the term to refer to an old and wise man as a "Methuselah").

Who exactly Methuselah was beyond this information given in Genesis 5 is unknown. We don't know anything about the events of his life except that he fathered many children, including Lamech who carried on the lineage to Noah. Hope that helps with your query

~ Paranoid Android

I got another one by the way this is fun!

We know that the bible was written by man & God says that man is full of sin So therefore we’re flawed.
Being that the bible is just over some 2,000 years old & that man did write it how do you know what’s in it is what God wanted? It’s say to say that the bible was inspired by God so end of story. During all that time it would be really easy for someone to mistranslated a word & slip something in there that they thought was lets says close enough. So why do people put his/her faith in a book that might not be very accurate in the first place?

BTW take your time it seem you got your work cut out for ya!

I can agree with you on that. No arguments against your reply

Kindly,

Hairston

actually I don't think the love humans feel and the 'love' God feels is even similar. Ours has strings attached. always does.

I don't think God feels emotions. that's a human experience. humans lable God with emotion to feel closer hence making God smaller.

and yes God created and endorses 'evil' as we deem it in all respects because it is just part of life. call it what you will , satan , disaster from the mundane to the prophetic ...... all just life.

Well i guess this means you will be responding to everyone but me. I accept that & your fear of engaging me in conversation.

Sorry for the wait. For clarification when you say, "Is God infinite?", do you mean is he all powerful? All-knowing?
Infinite in what aspect? Or just all of the above?
~Apostle

My word you are being very generous with your assumptions.(short of parchment )you can do better than that PA .Mathew says it was dark but you say it wasn't.

Slipping an angei in where it wasn't mentioned ,What are you doing rewriting the gospel??

fullywired

Was there suppossed to be a book in the bible after revelations? If so why isn't it there, I have heard the catholic church has it, Always a pleasure

I forgot to point out something about the dates of the gospels. The dates used are for the oldest copies of them that have been found. Several copies of different ages have been found of some of the books of the new testament, they use the oldest of these to arrive at the dates used, so there could possibly be older copies that have yet to be found.

sandee, the catholic church has alot of documents from around that time period (say 100 yrs) that they will not allow anyone access to because they claim they are heretical. personaly, I would prefer them to let some linguist in to translate them so I could read them and decide for myself. however, that will never happen.

First off anything based on the english bible is already ridden with mistranslations from hebrew, secondly the english versions have been translated so many times and stuff changed and thrown out its essentially useless, and third the entire religion was just borrowed from ancient egypt.

What you have to understand here is religion was made as a means to control the populace, they ask for "faith" for a reason, and thats because if they didn't have your faith they wouldn't have anything at all. This is an age old game that i never foresee an end to.... ug... its been 6000 years already when are people going to wake the F up????

How did God communicate with Cain and Abel to tell them that one of their sacrifices was not good enough?

And why didn't he inspire them to do "the right thing " in the first place ?

Did He send angels , or did He speak to them ? Where was Adam and why didn't he help them out , instead of having one son kill his brother ?

And another question :

Was there ever a man/woman called israel ? Or a prophet ? Who was the first israelite ever ? And why were they called so ? Does the word mean anything ?

I know .. that's a big bunch .. but you said we may ask !!

Thank you for this inspired thread. It is so nice for once to see explainations and different comments and ideas instead of just bible bashing...

I want to know what happened to the Garden of Eden. Firstly was it ever really part of this world and then 'taken' out of it somehow? Or was it more in a spiritual plane and when Adam and Eve were forced to leave it they actually came to the Earth as we know it...

Thanx Star

I mean textbook infinite, ALL pervasive, ALL powerful, etc., etc.

Jehovah god should actually be answering these questions. But here goes>

"How come the horses in Exodus die twice in the Ten Plagues and still survive for Pharoah to mount a final attack against the Israelites, and then die again ?"

Is it not true, that, if you wrote the bible and jesus words in red ink and wrote pauls words in black in, that the red ink would only take up 1% of the bible.

How do you explain 50,000 errors inthe bible,

I tell you what, i will keep it simple unlike the others here, who will throw alsorts of red herrings and not stick to one topic at a time. Can you prove the bible is the word of God.

If so, it should have not contradiction, errors, lies, mistakes etc. There should be accurate knowledge verifiable by science and testable means. Is there a falsification test given by the bible.

Thanks

I know your question was not to me But, Can you prove all that you ask to be proven of the bible in the koran?

Of course he thinks he can, just like some Christians believe they can prove the bible.

Neither book can be proven completely historically, scientifically, spiritually, or even grammatically correct, as they were written by men, whether inspired or not.

Ofcourse, otherwise i would not ask. Believe me im a student of comparative religion, i know there is no religion on this planet, that offers a falsfication test, where as the quran offers 100s. Also, there is no book on this planet, which specifically tells man his purpose, why he was created. You dont believe me, test this for yourself. Poeple searching for the truth like i once was, earnestly, will take the time out to study all religions thoroughly.

Sundog,

Hi mate, hope you well, been a little while, i have been busy with my job. Anyway you say.

"Of course he thinks he can, just like some Christians believe they can prove the bible.

Neither book can be proven completely historically, scientifically, spiritually, or even grammatically correct, as they were written by men, whether inspired or not."

I totally disagree, i agree that the above can be applied to all religions, besides Islam, which gives evidence historically, scientfically (falsification test and more), grammatically, there is nothing like the quran, and no one can ever bring anyting like it, even if we used the whole universes resources and man and djinn put together, we still can not produce even a verse like it. The quran was inspired, god words decendind on muhammed, via gabriel, and then written down immediately, and memorised, the arabs at the time were amazing in aural traditions and memory. Infact out of the muslims population, about 9 million or more, know the quran by heart , word by word, so even if we lost the quran one day in a literal form, we would know it by heart, so it cant be lost, if some one tried to tamper with it, by chanding the arabic and attempts have been made in the past, then we will jump on it quickly, and let them know where its wrong. u see this is back up, the quran in muslims hearts embedded, now tell me is the bible authentic in its orignal form. NO!, the quran Yes!

Ozi, You have srtong beleifs in the quran and while that is admirable their are christians whose beliefs in the bible are just as strong. I have said this to you before and do not mean to offend you , You can claim the quran is truer than the bible but that is just your opinion. You have no more proof that your bible is more accurate than mine, They are different and have different beliefs and veiws but that does not make one true and one a lie. Just different. I will not list the reasons why nor will not argue because it would prove usless as you believe your right and I believe I am right . Thats is our opinions not fact, as the skeptics would tell us BOTH, Always a pleasure

Though the Bible doesn't speak specifically on this subject, I think the answer is in between the lines. I don't think he did. He wouldn't have needed to.

Edit: Had a double negative, sorry for the confusion. Satan wouldn't have needed to eat from the tree of life because angels are immortal anyways. He also already had the knowledge of good and evil.

Thanks for the question and patience! Humans make mistakes and the Bible was written by humans; so shouldn't the Bible contain mistakes? Nope, and the Bible says that it is error free because of the inspiration from God.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV)
We don't know how the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible, but he did. I'm sure because God did not want His Word to be filled with errors so He oversaw the writing of His Word. God has done many more miraculous things then inspiring humans to write an error free book, I believe that's why people can believe it. Not only that but new archaeological, scientific, and many more things have only proven the Bible to be sound. Also, the many prophecies written in it that have come to pass.
~Apostle

Yes, God is infinite. He knows everything, he sees everything, he can do all things, he is everywhere. I don't know if you want to know any more then that, if so just ask, sorry for the wait.
~Apostle

Here’s my problem with saying that the bible is the word of God. Yes it’s said that the bible is inspired by the him. Your still basing that verse on what someone said & not God.

Inspired: outstanding or brilliant in a way or to a degree suggestive of divine inspiration

Based on that all God really did was suggest that they got it right. Yes there are Hebrew
Dictionary’s out there but let’s not forget that the OT is the Jewish bible & that almost every word had more then one meaning just like the English language does. Not to mention that they do not believe in the Christian God like most of you do here. I know a few Jewish people & they are very secretive about their faith, so it really goes back to how do we know that the OT is what they really believe? They just might have a version of the bible just for them. Anything is possible.

No problem....

So my friend and i were talkin about the death of Heath Ledger. She commented on how the poor daughter of theirs won't ever get to know her father. I then said jokinly that maybe if he remains in the spirit world do to his sudden/tragic death, she may be able to see him or talk to him. She then got all on the defense and said that's not possible, to show me in the bible where it says that.

So, my question, if it doesn't say it in the bible, why do i hear and see(on tv) so many accounts on spirits or ghosts that remain in our world do to either:tragic death, sudden unexpected (not their time to leave)death, or someone holding them here against their own will? Thanx

Okay, I have a question


Can Satan ever be redeemed and go to heaven? And why or why not



If I recall correctly, from Catholic theology classes:
Angels are fully enlighted and understand all he mysteries of God. When Satan made the choice to separate from God, he did so with full knowledge and understanding of the choice and its consequences... Therefore, his decision was absolute and his separation also.

Humans do not have enlightenment to all of God's mysteries, but just suspect the nature of some of them. Consequently, our decisions are "best guesses" - and once we die and enter into enlightenment, we will be equipped to understand fully our choices and their consequences... offering an opportunity for redemption...

(something like that... LOL! This is based on the teachings from the philosophies of Aquinas and C.S. Lewis)



my question to that answer:


If he knew and completely understood the decision and its consequences, why would he do that? Why would anyone do something when they knew that it wouldn't work, they couldn't win, and they would suffer for it? It doesn't make sense to me; it's not a logical choice at all.

I don't think I have done any such thing. I am just stating that small differences like this don't indicate an out-and-out contradiction. I am not "rewriting" anything, just suggesting that the contradictions are not contradictions but differing points of view. I suggest you re-read my post if you think that is what I was doing.

Hi Star girl,

There are a few theories on this one, and since no one was ever alive at the time, there is no way we can say for certain. I can give you my opinion though, but you may get a different opinion from other Christians. My view is that there never was a real Garden of Eden. I don't think there was necessarily a specific Adam, and a specific Eve. The language of the early chapters of Genesis are largely figurative and in many cases adhere to the conventions of Hebrew poetry. Keeping this in mind, I don't think then that the whole creation story is a scientific account written to convey HOW life came to be, but rather a poetic writing designed to convey the importance of WHO created it, and WHY.

That said, I could be wrong. As I said, no one today can look into the past and find out for certain. If Eden does exist, and Adam and Eve did exist, then concerning the location of Eden, again I could only speculate. I don't think it is really important though. The theological point of the story of Eden (whether it be a real place or not) is not in any way related to the location, but it does convey the story of humanity's sinfulness - even when there is just one law in the whole world (don't eat from the tree), mankind is bound to fail in that.

Sorry I can't provide a more concrete answer for you, but the Bible just does not have the scope to answer the question you ask. Thanks for listening.... err, reading

~ PA

In 2 Timothy, the phrase used to refer to scripture is that it is "God-breathed". This is far more than simply "inspired" or "suggestive of divine inspiration". The phrase literally refers to something being "breathed out" of the mouth of God. At the very least, this is suggesting that scripture is not just "inspired" by God, but is indeed the very words of God himself. Now, whether you take this as true or not is a different question. But the Bible does claim itself to be the words of God, not just God suggesting that they got it right.

That is why the context is vitally important. In English, someone might write the following:

a - I went to the bank to get some money
b - I went down to the bank for a swim

Both phrases use the word "bank", but the context used, it clearly shows that in the first, the writer is referring to a place where money is kept, while the second is referring to a river bank. To think otherwise would be just plain foolish. No one would go to withdraw money from the river bank, nor would someone go to their financial institution for a swim. Hebrew is the same. 99% of the time the context clearly shows what meaning of the word should fit. However, there may be some rare instances where the exact meaning may be unclear (possibilities that arise off the top of my head are Genesis 1:26, and Isaiah 45:7). Does this then invalidate the entire process? One could easily say the same about any ancient text, regardless of its origin, and therefore claim the futility in reading Aristotle or Plato for exactly the same reasons. Would it not be smarter then to simply look at these rare places and discuss the varying possibilities and their ramifications, and where they do not actually affect the way we live or what we know of the character of God take it as an intellectual exercise. *So far, I haven't seen a case where the context has been an issue and the doctrine of that verse has affected the way a person lives their life*

The Bible doesn't say anything about ghosts. But then again, not everyone believes that ghosts are real, and that is as universally true for Christians as for non-Christians. However, I don't think the Bible actually condemns the possibility either. Personally, I believe that there is a spirit realm that humans can sometimes get a glimpse of, but that no one can fully see. I believe that this spirit realm can manifest itself in the world and take the guise of many things, and sometimes people misinterpret these spirits as ghosts of ancestors and what have you. These spirits may or may not be helpful, and the Bible does not say, though it does say that in all things we should put God first, so it would be a mistake to look at this spirit world and worship anything within it.

As I said though, the Bible does not specifically condemn teh possibility of ghosts, and so I would not completely discount the possibility in these beings.

Hope that helps

~ Paranoid Android

And when you really come to it thats where ones faith takes over.

Well, lets discuss that: If sinful men did write it, then how do we know that what was written was what God wanted?

If God wanted something written in there, wouldn't it get done? He is the Almighty. But I can see where you are coming from. Its hard to trust sinful men, but we do it everyday. Its knowing their reasons for writing that will help you understand the writings themselves. You see, though, the words in the Bible denounce the pride of humanity at every angle. If the authors of the Bible were doing it for personal recognition or gain, then they wouldn't have consistently humbled themselves and confess their sin (even when sin wasn't apparent, as in Daniel's case [Daniel 9].) Same for the New Testament: The Christians wouldn't have made Peter (their leader) look like a fool in the Gospel if indeed they were writing for personal gain. The focus wasn't on man. That was God's job. Man's job was focusing on God, which was properly demonstrated in the writings of the Bible. Take care.

Still thats faith talking which I'm cool with.

So can anyone answer my question?


Can Satan ever be redeemed and go to heaven? And why or why not



If I recall correctly, from Catholic theology classes:
Angels are fully enlighted and understand all he mysteries of God. When Satan made the choice to separate from God, he did so with full knowledge and understanding of the choice and its consequences... Therefore, his decision was absolute and his separation also.

Humans do not have enlightenment to all of God's mysteries, but just suspect the nature of some of them. Consequently, our decisions are "best guesses" - and once we die and enter into enlightenment, we will be equipped to understand fully our choices and their consequences... offering an opportunity for redemption...

(something like that... LOL! This is based on the teachings from the philosophies of Aquinas and C.S. Lewis)



my question to that answer:


If he knew and completely understood the decision and its consequences, why would he do that? Why would anyone do something when they knew that it wouldn't work, they couldn't win, and they would suffer for it? It doesn't make sense to me; it's not a logical choice at all.

The Bible and the Church, condemn all kinds of Spiritism and mediums with the strongest terms: It is "prostitution against God", "stone them to death". "Child of the Devil", reprimands St. Paul to the medium Bar Jesus in Acts 13.

and Satan can simulate many supernatural manifestations of God, like the magicians did in the times of Moses, using living persons, as reported in 2 Thessalonians 2:9: "the work of Satan, using all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders, and every kind of wicked deception" (Exodus 7, 2Cor.11:14, 1Tim.4)...

Everybody, says the Bible, is "a child of God", or "a child of the Devil" (1Jn.3:10)... you and I, right now, are either "a child of God, or a child of Satan"... if you and I are "in the grace of God", we are "children of God"; if we are "in sin", we are "children of Satan"... You can not be both at the same time!...


I always believed the contact of spirits or things of that nature to be strictly against God as the scripture says, But then satan can use these things? Always a pleasure

Hi menace,

I've been thinking a little about this question since I read it earlier today. I haven't really come to a fully fledged answer because quite simply I have never thought of it before. One thing I have come to realise though is that the interpretation you have given is completely false. There is no biblical justification to suggest that anyone cannot be redeemed if they seek forgiveness, even if the person repenting is an angel/demon. There is simply not enough information in the Bible about angels or demons to suggest what their knowledge is. It certainly is true that they are privy to more information than humans, but does that mean that if they sin they cannot be forgiven?

According to the Bible, I am not even sure of exactly who Satan is. What I do know is that Satan is the "prosecuting attorney" against mankind, and at some point in history did indeed revolt against God. But was the revolt designed by God? Lucifer was created for the purpose of prosecuting humanity. Has Satan then actively rebelled, or been a loyal subject of God, doing his bidding in being the prosecutor of mankind? Is Satan rebelling because that is how God created him, or is he acting faithfully as God's servant this whole time. I haven't fully worked out an answer for this one yet. But what I can say is that in relation to your question, IF satan has rebelled, and IF satan repents, God will indeed forgive. I can base this answer on no other point beyond that the Bible gives no information about angels repenting.

That said, God through the Bible has prophesied that Satan will continue to act as prosecuting attorney right to the end of days. It thus does not become a matter of IF Satan repents. God as an all-seeing, all-knowing God has essentially told us that Satan will not repent, and God should know, being the creator of Satan, and creating him for the purpose of being a prosecuting angel (whether Satan is a Faithful subject or a rebeller, the effect and point is still the same). Since Satan cannot ever change his ways (by this reasoning, at least), then I don't think it's a matter of whether God could or would forgive Satan if he turned, but more the point that the issue will never arise.

That's my current thought on the question you asked, at least. I may refine it in the future and if so, I'll let you know - as I said, it's not a question I had ever thought of before today. All the best,

~ Regards, PA