jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (47 posts)

Doctrines of Demons

  1. Disappearinghead profile image83
    Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago

    1 tim 4:1-2
    But the Spirit in words says that in latter times (not restricted to 'Last Days' mind you) some will depart from the faith, giving heed (paying attention to, Strong's #4337) to deceiving spirits (pneuma, wind, breath, spirit, heart, mind, the immaterial part of the inner person that can respond to God, Strong's #4151) and teachings of (or about) demons, in hypocrisy, of liars, having been seared on their own conscience....

    Mmmm. Picking this apart:

    1) In latter times, i.e. not long after the Church in Rome started to prostitute itself with pagan beliefs.
    2) Some, err I think many.
    3) Paid attention to their own inner deceptions, vain and false ideas in their heads and hearts (not wee supernatural being beasties that cavort about with tridents and pointy tails)
    4) Also paid attention to doctrines and teachings about demons. That is made up superstitious beliefs.
    5) Seared their own consciences, that is, back to their own minds again, this deception is internal in its source.

    I put it you dear audience, that all this Church hysteria about demons, from medieval times to the mumbo jumbo exorcisms on God telly is all made up, and a hang over of pagan ideology.

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Doctrine of demons are any teaching which gives strength  to deception in a man person.

      This deception is ultimately their death....

      Who are teachers of these doctrines?

      There are the religion of this world an not only religion but any man, who set up themselves as teachers of the word of God, but are still ignorant of the basic understanding of The way and nature of Life Truth and God.

      Because he will of necessarily point to a man to a salvation that is foreign to God and His Christ.... instead will point to books and writings and exalted men which is a continuation of the doctrine of sin and death....

      For they have their foundation in Ignorance of Life which is the Devil the cheif of all demons.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image83
        Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Some very sweeping generalisations here Kess.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No my friend this is not a generalization at all, but very pointed and very specific....

          Why have you seen it as such....?

          Doctrine of demon are far more common than the many will want to believe, simply because it is taught by the many themselves....

          You will know the many for they occupy themselves fighting against each other justifying themselves within their own demonic doctrines.

    2. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes; Jesus did not speak of any Doctrine of Demons; it is mischief of the Church.

      1. profile image70
        paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are too right.

  2. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    DH, you pose a very good point.

    I believe the interpretation of Y`shua casting out 'devils' from the one with 'legion' was a healing from perhaps the mental illness we now call schizophrenia. The explanation of the story fits the symptoms --as does the story of the man who beat up the sons of the Hebrew High Priest, Sceva to the point they ran out of the house bloody and shredded clothes. I find it interesting, this Legion Man, sees him and runs to him, kneeling and kissing his feet, and begging for a healing. The only odd thing is the pigs stampeding and killing themselves. That part has me puzzled.

    It is also very interesting you mention: doctrines about demons, which is a perfect transliterate. All kinds of doctrines have sprung up and increased over the last 20 years, like massive vampire stories and ghost sitings.

    Baal ideology still exists today and is reinforced by a misinterpretation of Enoch, Ezekiel and others.

    There is no evidence that millions of angels transformed/turned into demons. I think this is the root of the doctrine and where the Satan/Lucifer concept comes from.

    James.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image83
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think I may have a solution for the pigs. Bear with me.

      In order to receive healing, the important thing is to believe you will have it. Remember the case where Yeshua and the disciples came across some bloke who needed healing. His disciples asked, who sinned this man or his parents? Yeshua said neither. Then there was the man lowered through the roof to whom Yeshua said son your sins are forgiven.

      In that culture, people thought sickness came as a result of sin. For these men to believe for healing, they 'needed' in their own heads, to believe their sins were forgiven first. Hence Yeshua asked which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or be healed? Knowing the sickness-sin link was a false teaching, Yeshua goes along with it for the sake of the men's need for healing. Once these men were forgiven, they believed for healing and it came to them.

      Likewise, people believed mental disorders were due to demons. They were a superstitious lot without the benefit of today's mental health care workers. So they believed they needed to be delivered from a demon before they could be healed. Think about it, if a member of the community had some bi-polar disorder, was ostracised and continually told they had demons, how long would it take for the patient to be convinced they had a demon, even manifesting things that would be expected of demon possession? In the exorcism, the communiuty would expect some external evidence. So Yeshua provides a misdirection in sending the pigs into the lake when the man asked if his demons could go in to them. The man now believes he is delivered, and so believes for his healing.

      If these demons really existed, then it would have been better for them to remain in the man rather than have 1000 other people infected after they left the pigs.

  3. IntimatEvolution profile image81
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Hi!

    You know Jesus called upon the demons during one of his demon possession/removals miracles.  Remember?  He called on the wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus says, I use the ancient wisdom of King Solomon........  Guys, that is a huge clue to this discussion, and virtually answers any questions on this subject.   

    To help us understand what Timothy was referring to, you must first realize the direct correlation and hence direct references to the wisest of all men, Solomon.  And......, by the grace of God Solomon was a prolific journalizer, and past scribes would later write volumes on the workings of Solomon, his demons, his wisdom, and his miracles.

    The most common text read of his is the, Testament of Solomon.  It's a very interesting read.  It might serve as a catalyst to understanding for you all.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image83
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If we confine ourselves to the OT for a moment, there simply are no demons contained therein whatsoever.

      What is the Testament of Solomon?

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The OT and demons?  Ummm, I disagree.  You know the OT makes references to evil spirits, evil gods, fallen angels, etc... 

        You know the name Lilith mention in Isaiah 34:14, was the name of a demonic-being mentioned, and Asmodeus from the Book of Tobit is/was considered a possessed presence.  The Book of Tobit is not found in the King James version of the bible, but it is found in the Canon.

        The Testament of Solomon is an ancient greek text that was later translated into German, and parts of it can today be found in the Medieval manuscript known as the Pseudapigrapha.  Which is a manuscript credited to Solomon, but, put together by a medieval monk in the 13th century.  (I think the 13th century.)  Anyways it is commonly thought that the Pseudapigrapha was written by one author, however, recent discoveries have challenged that idea.  And in the 1940's I think it was, an ancient Greek copy of the first segment of the Pseudapigrapha was found.  So now it is believed that there are actually three variants to the Pseduapigrapha, and that the author acted as a scribe by gathering and completing this body of works into one piece. 

        The most convincing discoveries that supports these findings, are found in Greek Mythology.  It is now believed that the Ancient Greeks named many of their Mythological Gods and Demigods after some of King Solomon's demons.  Like Medusa, and the Greek God known as Pan.  Matter of fact, King Herod I believe built a large, magnificent, building and altar into of a huge cliffside, just outside Jerusalem, which was dedicated to the Greek God, Pan.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image83
          Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No evil spirits in the OT, I've searched the Tannach. Eil gods of the pagans were just dumb idols and men's fantasies. Fallen angels get no mention either. And where is this lilith character?

          Isaiah 34:14 (Young's Literal Translation)
          14And met have Ziim with Aiim, And the goat for its companion calleth, Only there rested hath the night-owl, And hath found for herself a place of rest.

          Judaism never believed in evil spirits or demons, but did refer to them as foreign legends or superstitions. In Jesus' time, they were a hangover from Zoroastrian beliefs that found their way into Jewish popular culture, but they never were acknowledged in scripture.

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Isaiah 14:12"How you are fallen from heaven,
               O Day Star,(son of Dawn!)
            How you are cut down to the ground,
               you who laid the nations low!
            13 You said in your heart,
               'I will ascend to heaven;
            above the stars of God
                I will set my throne on high;
            I will sit on the mount of assembly
               in the far reaches of the north;
            14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
               I will make myself like the Most High.'
            15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
               to the far reaches of the pit.
            16 Those who see you will stare at you
               and will ponder over you:

            'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
               who shook kingdoms,
            17 who made the world like a desert
               and overthrew its cities,
               who did not let his prisoners go home?'
            18 All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
               each in his own tomb;
            19but you are cast out, away from your grave,
               like a loathed branch,
            (clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword,
               who go down to the stones of the pit,
               like a dead body trampled underfoot.
            20 You will not be joined with them in burial,
               because you have destroyed your land,
               you have slain your people.

               "May the offspring of evildoers
               nevermore be named!" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=ESV

            It took me awhile to figure out the message you're trying to convey.  With that said, I personally feel you do yourself and those who might agree with your opinions, a great disservice by discounting 1st all 1.) Jewish Mysticism  and 2.) Ignoring other ancient Hebrew texts that deals with this topic, for your own personal understanding and knowledge.

            As I mentioned before in the Book of Tobit, a evilbeing, evildoer, (or whatever term you deem necessary to use is mentioned). This demonic character is  even named in the first person, Asmodeus.  How can you discount that?  It is the OT.  It is a book that is found in the Canon.  The Canon is the first and original Bible, and not the "medieval" bible.  Now as I understood your prerequisites, those two facts were the only common denominators that had to be present for this discussion/debate.  Now....., are you saying that these "demons" also have to be mentioned in all/other ancient Hebrew texts as well or only in certain texts too?  Or are we now only suppose to be considering the texts that the Council of Trent agreed upon?  Or didn't agree upon? 

            The only reason I point this out is because the criteria in which we use to prove our side of the issue is getting blown out of portion.  This is a problem with Internet forums.    So I am sincerely asking you which is it?

            As for Lilith, I knew better than to pop off scripture from my the dead space between my ears.  Sorry about that.  I have to go back and do some additional looking for the right scripture or to see if my bibles say things differently or what the deal is...  So I'll be back.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image83
              Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Hi IE. The point of my OP was as an antidote to the demonology hysteria that pervades some sections of the Church.

              With regards to Isaiah 14 you quote, I have put a hub together on this and my conclusion is that Isaiah was drawing a parable between the King of Babylon and a Caananite myth. Not to validate the myth, but to show how quickly and unexpectedly, the king would fall.

              I've also spent some time recently looking at Judaism to see if their theology can support demonology and it simply can't. For sure there is Jewish mysticism, but there is Christian mysticisms too. It doesn't mean that their ideas are mainstream or true either.

              As for the Book of Tobit, it may be found in the Catholic or Orthodox cannon but not the protestant or Jewish. In the plot, the angel Raphael is sent by God to go and rescue Sarah from the demon of lust Asmodeus. Along the way, he is attacked by a giant (or little) fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines. Upon arriving in Media, Raphael tells Tobias of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobias has the right to marry, because he is her cousin and closest relative. He instructs the young man to burn the fish's liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night.

              Now don't you think it's just a little bit ridiculous that this demon Asmodeus, this non-material spiritual being who was allegedly brave enough to rebel against God Almighty is easily frightened by the smell of
              burning fish livers? This account in itself renders the Book of Tobit as being fanciful nonsense.

              As for lilith, I've never found her anywhere in scripture. Perhaps you could state where she's being talked about.

              I have written some hubs on these subject which obviously I cannot advertise here. I am on the side of rationality and as such I cannot accept the existence of demons or Satan as logical or plausible, especially as their origins are in Zoroastrianism and not Judaism.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 6 years agoin reply to this



                Isaih 34:14 Darby Version

                Depending on the version you will get:
                Lilith, Night Creature, Nite owl

              2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You are chastising Medieval beliefs in Demonology, but, you want to use the Medieval NKJV bible as a reference over the 1.) First and Original bible, The Canon?  I'm sorry but that doesn't fly for me. 

                The Book of Tobit should be recognized.  I mean to select the King James version over the first and original bible is crazy to me.  Why?  Because essentially you've made this discussion a debate between Protestants and then the rest of us. 

                You are aware that King Henry the VIII's break from the church is what stemmed a need to write a "new bible."  King James felt that if he had the newly commissioned bible translated to English, that would help stamp out Catholicism from England. There is nothing "divine" about the King James bible, because there is nothing "divine" about King James' intentions.  I mean, it was rework in order to help a King, gain control.  So yeah..., I don't buy into that reasoning. 

                However, the other stuff you wrote, you made a very compelling argument.  But as I just wrote, the excuse you used to discredit the ancient Hebrew book of Tobit; well ruined it for me.  You can't discredit the Canon.  Well you can, but......

                Ok, tell you what I discredit the New King James version.  So now what?  Do we turn to the Greek Orthodox bible or the Ethiopian bible, heck let's choose the Book of Mormon.  Nah.  Why because all those bibles post date the Canon.

                Yes- you are right that ancient Jews did not want to possible confuse followers by having two equal Gods, 1 good and thus 1 evil.  Whereas Zoroastrianism did have as you pointed out. It is my further belief that Abraham was the first Jewish man.  That he is the one who finally split from Zoroastrianism, because of the two deity concept.  But this is just a theory I have developed over the years.  I have done quite of bit of study in this area.  I still think you are discounting Jewish Mysticism a little too much, but, hey you do make a good, healthy argument for your view point.  That is something in which I have great respect for.  Thanks disappearinghead, this has been a fun debate.  Cheers!

                1. profile image70
                  paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The Zoroastrians believe only in one the Creator-God named AhuraMazda; devil or demon or Satan is not a god with them.

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Right. No devils in the OT at all. I've done several hubs on this subject as well. I'll be reading yours. wink

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
          IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Who do you think Job is challenged by?  Satan!

          Who is Satan?  The Devil

          Where is the Book of Job located?  The OT

          Sorry, but you're flat wrong about that one......

          1. Disappearinghead profile image83
            Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The Hebrew word satan simply means adversary or one that opposes. It's a generic term and not a proper noun or someones' name. David was called a satan by the Philistines. The Angel of the Lord that stood in Balaam's way in Numbers 22:22 was called a satan in the Hebrew (Of course they don't used the term satan in English translations as that would undermine the entire Satan doctrine).

            In Job some argue that Sons of God referred to men, others that it referred to Angels. Either way how is that the Satan who is supposed to be the author of all evil is able to casually wonder up to God who has a nice friendly cosy chat with him? In Judaism, this satan in Job is simply one of God's Angels who whilst being in complete submission and obedience to God, fulfills the role as one who challenges men before God.

            Considering the use of the term satan in the Hebrew, I'm inclined to accept the Jewish explanation rather than the Church's.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              IntimatEvolution

              Yup. Satan in a Job is a satan. No capitals. It is not someone's name. There are many of them. They are like god's cops laying charges and reporting back to god. The satan in Job was always under god's control and working directly for him.

              In Hebrew writing we often find references to "the satans" or "a satan"
              The word means accuser, nothing more.

  4. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Hmm, I can nod to that.
    The visual necessity to convince him by deflecting to the pigs makes sense --especially as pigs were considered highly unclean creatures to the Hebrews. What better aesthetic than to send unclean thoughts into an unclean animal.

    Also a footnote is how the 'demon possessed' are placed in the same category as those who had severe pain, seizures, paralysis. And the location of Decapolis --the border lands between Israel and Syria --same location where the Legion Man lived.

    James.

    1. Jaydeus profile image75
      Jaydeusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Be afraid, be suspicious of your neighbor, believe only the ''word of God'', not works written by man.  All a load of donkey fodder to get people to rely on a ''church'' to ''save their souls''.
      Seriously, people of the planet Earth, we landed people on the Moon.  We landed robots on a moon of Saturn!  We landed robots on Venus and Mars.  We have probes that have even left our Solar System and soon will be out of reach of our own star's solar wind!  Relying on thousand year old doctrine written by either dissidents of the Roman empire, or those few with the money and power to enforce Roman creed on its poor inhabitants, is both absurd and anti-evolutionary to our species.  WE SENT A MAN to another heavenly object.  There is no text stating what kind of demons inhabit the moon.  One would think an all intelligent being that controls the universe would have made some comment regarding future exploits outside of this world.
      Knowledge is power, use your brains before the zombies eat it.

  5. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    I havn't seen doctrines of demons yet, I only saw the davinci code.

  6. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Nice little ancient history lesson, I learned something reading your post. smile

  7. IntimatEvolution profile image81
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Hey thanks.  I love biblical history, as I'm sure you know already.  wink

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I have noticed. smile

      You don't say a lot in these threads, but when you do you often confirm things I have learned or add to my knowledge. smile

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image81
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well thanks Earnest. 

        Ya I usually don't get involved that much with these types of forum topics, because their is so much people don't know that when I input something, it kills the thread.  And, that is not my intention, so it kinda backfires if you know what I mean.   

        But when threads talk about "absolutes," such as with this thread; I feel that a disservice is made, and to put it flatly, wrong information is spread. 

        Well..., as you very well know- wrong information in religion is a VERY dangerous thing.wink

        Cheers!

  8. IntimatEvolution profile image81
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    You know Disappearinghead, Lilith is a bad example to give. My bad really.  The verse of Lilith is not what I mentioned before.  I know better than to pinpoint down scripture off the top of my head.  Another bad of mine.  But the right scripture is, Isaiah 34:11-13.

    I forget that there so much philosophical debate over Lilith/Lilu.

    There is a Lilith hub here on hubpages that would probably serve as a good catalyst for learning about Lilith.  But for the sake of this discussion, there are literally too many biblical translations and personal interpretations of the so-called "Lilith verse."

    For example, in the hub the NRSV bible is used, but, the hubber also presents the Canonized version which does not mention Lilu/Lilith by name, but rather refers to her as a "Desert Owl...., for Satyrs to dwell in."  The NKJV I thinks makes a mention of a "night owl."  One biblical version refers to Lilith as a snake or serpent in the same verse.  So you know- I should not have put Lilith on the table.  The argument is still too widely debated among scholars.  My mistake.  Sorry.  If someone doesn't know of the biblical history surrounding the verse (not saying this is the case with you, but just referring to your question, as to who Lilith was), one would naturally think of what the literal word translation is, and further not know to question what they might be reading.  It is the bible after all, and I do try to present an argument that takes into account that some Christians view the bible to be the work of God.  Therefore, an argument could be made that if the "bible says" desert owl...., it literally meant a desert owl. It falls on the same lines of what you're arguing......., that their are no mentions of demons in the OT that predate the Medieval translations of the OT.  But there is.......  while Lilith is a bad example to give there are other examples to the fact.  Such as I have already given you.


    Enough on that.  Evildoers are mentioned in the OT.  They might not be called a demon directly, but, they are in there.  That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.  As I mentioned before, the Book of Tobit might be one place you could look for yourself.

    And........., with all that mentioned, I'd like to add to the fact that none of this provides positive proof that demons do exist.  Some Christians believe in the devil, while others believe other things.  As for myself, is there fallen angels and demons.........??? There are presences out there that I sometimes find hard to explain and they sure seem awful evil to me.  So maybe this is something that past Rabbi's and early Christian philosophers dealt with personally, and so too..... all the different translations. wink

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "demons, from medieval times to the mumbo jumbo exorcisms on God telly is all made up, and a hang over of pagan ideology." Demons are scapegoats for the results of having your cake and eating it too.

  10. Jaydeus profile image75
    Jaydeusposted 6 years ago

    Yin/Yang=a whole
    God is love/Satan is hate
    God is  the creator of all, therefore he created Satan and thus created hate.
    If God is both love and hate, he is black and white, the Yin and the Yang.
    God is the sum of its parts.
    A positive and a negative cancels itself out,
    Therefore, God does not exist.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think it is a modern misconseption that Satan is equally hateful as God is loving, when infact the opposite of God is nothingness. Comparing the power of God to Satan is like camparing the worlds largest army to a band of preschoolers armed with waterpistols.

      1. Jaydeus profile image75
        Jaydeusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Equating Satan with all evil must be true fact based on the assumption that God is the light, therefore there must be darkness to counter said light.  All things are in balance.
        As far as your comparison, stated band of preschoolers armed with water pistols sounds like the future breed of the worlds most powerful army.

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Light has the purpose of banishing the dark. If a candle is lit then it would be impossible for the darkness to overpower it. The universe is filled with darkness, but just because there is more darkness than light does not make it stronger or even equal. Infact because there is so much darkness out there it should be able to extunguish what little light there actually is, but as soon as the lights come on the darkness has fled.

  11. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Out of the body comes love.
    Out of the mind comes hate.

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    What religion does is make god accessible only thru the mind, and not of body like the Pagans where everyone could agree on the experience.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image83
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Through the mind is the intellect and logic. Through the body could be psychosomatic, heightened emotions,  an atmosphere drummed up by music, or mind altering drugs even. All experiences through the body are therefore subjective.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Through the mind is the intellect and logic." ... "I cannot accept the existence of demons or Satan as logical or plausible, especially as their origins are in Zoroastrianism and not Judaism". How subjective is this?

    1. Disappearinghead profile image83
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Easy really. They simply don't exist in Judaism, and should have no place in Christianity either. Now if I was a Zoroastrian, then I might have lent some credence to their existence. But all religions evolve in time to some degree or other, and for all I know Zoroastrians may no longer believe in them either.

  14. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Now if I was a Zoroastrian"
    Now if we were both Zoroastrians as experience with our bodies we might both know. As is it with our minds we can only conjecture.

  15. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Jesus did not speak of any Doctrine of Demons; it is the mischief of the Church.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Matthew 18
      16When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

      17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

      He cast out demons.

    2. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      1 Timothy 4 specifically says; "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils"

      Since Paul was an ordained apostle of Christ, he was speaking by the authority of Jesus.

  16. Jaydeus profile image75
    Jaydeusposted 6 years ago

    I often wonder how the authors of the books in the Bible would have described these miracles if they had any sense of biology, physics, or a 5th grade equivalent education.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So what part of physics dictates that if a man spits in the dirt and dobbs it onto the eyes of a blind man, and he washes it off with water, his sight will return? And why is modern science incapable of repeating this process?

  17. Jaydeus profile image75
    Jaydeusposted 6 years ago

    Nice shotgun.

 
working