*Is The Devil The One Putting Politicians Into Power?*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But is there a Devil?
2. If so is he the one really putting people into power?
3. Says something to that effect in the Bible.
4. It goes thus: Devil said: "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."Luke 4.6
5. Now consider that before you answer it.:coffee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Immanuel]

Sorry bout that,

1. But is there a Devil?
2. If so is he the one really putting people into power?
3. Says something to that effect in the Bible.
4. It goes thus: Devil said: "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."Luke 4.6
5. Now consider that before you answer it.:coffee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Actually, Paul was inspired to say,


1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13

Satan may have believed he had control of the Authorities, but it is in fact God who has the authority. In your example of the temptation, Jesus replied


8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'[b]" Luke 4:8

It seems to me that Jesus' reply, "Worship the Lord YOUR God and serve him only applies" to Satan as well as the rest of us. So, at the very most, Satan, is under the authority of God himself.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

Sorry bout that,

1. But is there a Devil?
2. If so is he the one really putting people into power?
3. Says something to that effect in the Bible.
4. It goes thus: Devil said: "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."Luke 4.6
5. Now consider that before you answer it.:coffee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Silly boy. It's an ill-informed and apathetic electorate that puts these liars, scoundrels and poltroons into office.

[darin]

liars, scoundrels and poltroons

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/hillary.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/farmerkerry.jpg


http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0504/hentoff.jpg

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/1118-01.jpg

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0420_01.jpg

[Hagbard Celine]

I once heard a religious guy ask if maybe the Internet was the anti-Christ. This was back in the early 90s before the Internet had really transformed everyone's life. I remember rolling my eyes and losing respect for the man--"how could a grown man entertain such ridiculous, childish ideas?" I thought. Keep in mind I was a child at the time.
Well, my eyes are doing the same thing right now.

[TheSage]

Actually, Paul was inspired to say,

Romans 13

Satan may have believed he had control of the Authorities, but it is in fact God who has the authority. In your example of the temptation, Jesus replied

Luke 4:8

It seems to me that Jesus' reply, "Worship the Lord YOUR God and serve him only applies" to Satan as well as the rest of us. So, at the very most, Satan, is under the authority of God himself.

Immie

So Immie, was the American Revolution a sin against god?

If this is christianity, it needs to be rejected. This is totalitarian thinking.

[Immanuel]

So Immie, was the American Revolution a sin against god?

If this is christianity, it needs to be rejected. This is totalitarian thinking.

:dunno:

You'll have to take that one up with God. This is in fact a good question. My reply would be that perhaps in his time, God was re-establishing new authority here in America. It would not be without precedence considering the changes of authority from Biblical times now would it?

Immie

[TheSage]

:dunno:

You'll have to take that one up with God. This is in fact a good question. My reply would be that perhaps in his time, God was re-establishing new authority here in America. It would not be without precedence considering the changes of authority from Biblical times now would it?

Immie

So many government are illegitimate and evil. I think portions of the bible were created by the church to be a source of worldly power, or to placate authorities who may feel threatened by the actually revolutionary philosophy of jesus. Jesus was a rebel, treated to capital punishment by worldly authorities.

I think this part of the bible should be rejected as a fascist totalitarian perversion.

[darin]

you tend to reject EVERY part of the bible which counters your point of view.

[Immanuel]

So many government are illegitimate and evil. I think portions of the bible were created by the church to be a source of worldly power, or to placate authorities who may feel threatened by the actually revolutionary philosophy of jesus. Jesus was a rebel, treated to capital punishment by worldly authorities.

I think this part of the bible should be rejected as a fascist totalitarian perversion.

Think what you would like but that sounds very liberal to me.

The liberals say, "I believe in the Holy Bible but only in the parts that I think God would have said. The rest was inserted by man. I don't like what Paul wrote about women in Romans. The God I believe in** would never say that so this was written by an evil man and inserted later". My question is, if this true then how can any of the Holy Bible be true and how can we possibly judge which parts are true and which ones were "created by the church to be a source of worldly power, or to placate authorities who may feel threatened by the actually revolutionary philosophy of jesus."

If what you say is true then the Bible is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am not saying you are wrong here just that I can't understand how anyone can pick and chose what they believe in the Bible and still believe in the Word of God.

{edit}


you tend to reject EVERY part of the bible which counters your point of view.

The above quote was added while I typed my reply, but it pretty much sums up what I was saying although I don't know you well enough to put the "you" in there.

Immie

** Should be read as "The God I have created in my own mind"

[darin]

Immie, I knew a guy who once said "Only those things written in RED are of God" - as if GOD wouldn't have 'allowed' men to switch back and forth between black and red ink on the printing press.

:)

[Immanuel]

Immie, I knew a guy who once said "Only those things written in RED are of God" - as if GOD wouldn't have 'allowed' men to switch back and forth between black and red ink on the printing press.

:)


What I want to know is why isn't the whole thing written in red if God inspired it, then God said it and all of it should be red. Right? ;)

Immie

[darin]

Even the concordance! :)

[Abbey Marie]

It seems to me that if one believes in Jesus, then logically, one must believe in the the OT. By referring to himself as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, he put his imprimatur on it. I don't recall him stating that it was all symbolic, or only partly inspired by God. Even without the red words.

[Hagbard Celine]

So many government are illegitimate and evil. I think portions of the bible were created by the church to be a source of worldly power, or to placate authorities who may feel threatened by the actually revolutionary philosophy of jesus. Jesus was a rebel, treated to capital punishment by worldly authorities.

I think this part of the bible should be rejected as a fascist totalitarian perversion.

What if Jesus was merely an actor in a play meant to spread the word about the need to reform Judaism and was put to death by the Romans for the reason they said, which was that he was a rabble rouser? Hmm? This was the belief of Kurt Vonnegut.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there is also things in the Bible saying, *The god of this world*.
2. Perhaps we should really look at this before we chuck the possibility???
3. Think about it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[-Cp]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there is also things in the Bible saying, *The god of this world*.
2. Perhaps we should really look at this before we chuck the possibility???
3. Think about it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry bout that,

1. You clearly lack Biblical understanding
2. The word "god" - used with a little g and not uppercase is used to descire a false-god or idol. Capitalized G in God always refered to Yaweah/Jehovah.
3. Check into it.

[Immanuel]

What if Jesus was merely an actor in a play meant to spread the word about the need to reform Judaism and was put to death by the Romans for the reason they said, which was that he was a rabble rouser? Hmm? This was the belief of Kurt Vonnegut.

P.P., er Pontius Pilate, said that he had not found Christ guilty of any crimes. Who said he was a rabble rouser? Wasn't that the Jewish Leaders? Now, I can and do believe that the Jewish leaders had him killed because he threatened their power.

Immie

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. There is a god of this world, or it wouldn't of been written the way it is.
2. Look around, how this world is full of death and endless suffering.
3. Who do you think is responsible?
4. Not God.
5. Its the god of this world.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[TheSage]

you tend to reject EVERY part of the bible which counters your point of view.

Christ was not a totalitarian fascist asshole. That's a worldly perversion.

[TheSage]

It seems to me that if one believes in Jesus, then logically, one must believe in the the OT. By referring to himself as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, he put his imprimatur on it. I don't recall him stating that it was all symbolic, or only partly inspired by God. Even without the red words.

But do you update your understanding of salvation based on the new testament? things have changed since the OT. For instance, is it your Christian understanding that Jews are still god's chosen people even without belief in jesus? Or do they need to believe in jesus for salvation?

[TheSage]

What confuses the discussion is christians think "the torah" is literally the first five books of the OT that's included in their christian bible. But in the jewish world Torah means the first five books PLUS the ORAL teachings, the propaganda of the priesthood. Jesus critiqued HEAVILY this aspect of judaism.

These Oral teachings actually supersede the Torah in importance, even into modern day Rabbinic Judaism. Ignorance of jesus actual criticisms even among christians, results in a false sense of unity with modern day rabbinic judaism, and bizarre talmud submissive versions of christianity, which are actually Noahidism (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Noahidism&btnG=Google+Search).


THis is another good article.



http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=10899
The Jesus Movie Gibson Should Make
by David Klinghoffer

Jewish leaders continue to decry Mel Gibson’s forthcoming Jesus movie for supposedly threatening to whip up anti-Semitism. Due out next April, "The Passion" identifies Jewish priests as instigators of the crucifixion. Maimonides, too, in his Mishnah Torah, affirms Jewish involvement in Jesus’ execution — which must make the greatest of medieval Jewish sages an anti-Semite, too.

But the film I’d like to see produced that would really make some Jews nervous, while teaching a healthy lesson: an honest depiction not of Jesus’ death, but of his preaching. The Christian Bible makes clear what was probably the main theme of his sermons. It is a theme that many liberal rabbis, to their discomfort, would feel obliged to endorse.

Today’s secular historians generally assert that Jesus was a loyal adherent of Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. They argue against the conventional Christian understanding that Jesus radically critiqued Judaism. On this, the Christians are right.

True, Jesus is repeatedly quoted in the gospels as embracing Torah observance (e.g., Matthew 5:17-18). He must have accepted certain broadly defined mitzvot like the Sabbath and Temple sacrifice, because his followers were still practicing these commandments just after his death.

What Jesus rejected was the oral Torah that explains the written Torah. Essential to rabbinic Judaism, this notion of an oral Torah recognizes the Pentateuch as a cryptic document, a coded text. It posits that the Bible’s first five books were revealed to Moses along with a key to unlock the code — for a lock is never made without a key.

This oral tradition was passed from Moses to the prophets to the rabbis, later to be written down in the Mishnah and Talmud. At least that’s the theory presented in the first chapter of the Mishnah’s tractate Pirke Avot, a theory that still animates traditional Judaism.

On point after point, Jesus derides not the written Torah but its orally transmitted interpretations. He does so on matters like the details of Sabbath observance (no carrying objects in a public space, no harvesting produce or use of healing salves except to save a life), donating a yearly half shekel to the Temple, refraining from bathing and anointing on fast days like Yom Kippur, hand washing before eating bread and praying with a quorum.

Stated this way, laundry-list fashion, such commandments from the oral tradition might seem like trivialities, as they did to Jesus. But from the constellation of such discrete teachings there emerges the gorgeous pointillist masterpiece of Torah — not merely "the Torah," the finite text of the Pentateuch that the Christian founder accepted, but the infinite tradition of Judaism as a whole, reflecting God’s mind as applied to human affairs.

For Jesus, oral Torah was a manmade accretion without transcendent authority. He tells a group of Pharisees, "So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God," citing Isaiah. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:7-9).

Elsewhere, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens hard to bear" (Luke 12:46).

From this position, it was a logical next step to that of the apostle Paul, who abrogated the Torah altogether, oral and written. Abandon the former and you’ll soon abandon the latter.

A phenomenally charismatic person, Jesus mocked the Jewish establishment of his day and was adulated by a following from Galilee, the region where he conducted his brief ministry, famous in this period (as professor Geza Vermes shows) for the ignorance of the local populace. Knowing no better, loathing Pharisees as their own teacher did, they thought Jesus uniquely had Judaism all figured out.

Sound familiar? Reform ideology has always viewed oral tradition as being pretty much nothing more than the "precepts of men," while the Conservative movement increasingly understands it as a human creation, "hard to bear." Having grown up in a Los Angeles-area Reform community, I can testify that most Reform and Conservative temples impart a level of lay education that is approximately Galilean. As radio commentator Michael Medved has memorably said, the majority of Jews in our country know little about Judaism other than that it rejects Jesus.

Yet when it comes to the oral Torah, most American Jews follow Jesus without know it.

Mr. Gibson, please consider making another movie, a prequel about his career before the crucifixion showing how much Christianity we have unwittingly absorbed.

Torah indeed necessitates rejecting Christianity, but that means rejecting also the Christian view on the most fundamental of concepts in all Judaism: oral Torah. A Jesus movie about his life as a preacher would be a good dose of reality, if unpopular with our beloved Jewish leaders — not, come to think of it, unlike the film that Gibson will give us next year.

[Abbey Marie]

But do you update your understanding of salvation based on the new testament? things have changed since the OT. For instance, is it your Christian understanding that Jews are still god's chosen people even without belief in jesus? Or do they need to believe in jesus for salvation?

Update. But to update is not to completely negate.

[TheSage]

Update. But to update is not to completely negate.

Do jews need jesus, Abbey? According to christian teaching?

[Abbey Marie]

Do jews need jesus, Abbey? According to christian teaching?

Yes, RWA, I knew where you were going with this. The answer is, yes, everyone does, according to Christian teaching. I believe we have always agreed on this point.

The Pope was wrong.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



Yes, RWA, I knew where you were going with this. The answer is, yes, everyone does, according to Christian teaching. I believe we have always agreed on this point.

The Pope was wrong.



1. Which Pope, and what was he wrong about?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Whoever does it , it sure isn't God. It's bizarre to think that he even cares about things that are not spiritual.

http://bible.cc/john/18-36.htm


Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Pick whatever interpretations you prefer.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But for arguments sake, if God isn't putting people into power.
2. And there is a *god Of This World*.
3. Who do you think he is and where is his home base?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,

1. But for arguments sake, if God isn't putting people into power.
2. And there is a *god Of This World*.
3. Who do you think he is and where is his home base?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I don't think there is a god of "this world" although several people would like to be. Looks like Putin put himself in power actually.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




I don't think there is a god of "this world" although several people would like to be. Looks like Putin put himself in power actually.



1. So you don't believe there is a *Devil*?
2. And if so then, you then, dis~believe in, *THE BIBLE*.
3. The Bible says, that, *The Devil* wants to be like the *Most High God*.
4. Putting himself even higher than God.
5. So if this is indeed true, do you think *The Devil* could or would be on Earth in the open?
6. Wouldn't he have to stay hidden, working behind the scenes?
6. a) Like a *EVIL STAGE HAND* gone bad?
6. b) Oops are not stage hands all bad?
6.c) This kind of proves my point in itself does it not?
7. Wouldn't the *Devil*, also be studded with untold wealth, with riches and earthly glories untold?
8. Wouldn't he be able to out maneuver his enemies with *Special Skills*, calling unbeknown-st allies into service?
9. After all he would be *Immortal*.
10. That was always here, after a child was born and died of old age, he is still here, planning how to deceive the next generation.


:popcorn:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,







1. So you don't believe there is a *Devil*?
2. And if so then, you then, dis~believe in, *THE BIBLE*.
3. The Bible says, that, *The Devil* wants to be like the *Most High God*.
4. Putting himself even higher than God.
5. So if this is indeed true, do you think *The Devil* could or would be on Earth in the open?
6. Wouldn't he have to stay hidden, working behind the scenes?
6. a) Like a *EVIL STAGE HAND* gone bad?
6. b) Oops are not stage hands all bad?
6.c) This kind of proves my point in itself does it not?
7. Wouldn't the *Devil*, also be studded with untold wealth, with riches and earthly glories untold?
8. Wouldn't he be able to out maneuver his enemies with *Special Skills*, calling unbeknown-st allies into service?
9. After all he would be *Immortal*.
10. That was always here, after a child was born and died of old age, he is still here, planning how to deceive the next generation.


:popcorn:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The Bible is a compilation of writings approved by the Church. The individual stories have different messages, come from different perspectives, and were aimed at the target population of the time yet PRIMARLY the NT concerns itself with the spiritual nature of man and describes the world form a spiritual point of view. It often demonizes money, power, etc. to make the point that the spiritual world is more important. The physical world is by nature in oppostion to the NT when people deny the spirit and glorify "earthly" powers and riches.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




The Bible is a compilation for writings approved by the Church. The individual stories have different messages, come from different perspectives, and were aimed at the target population of the time yet PRIMARLY the NT concerns itself with the spiritual nature of man and describes the world from a spiritual point of view. It often demonizes money, power, etc. to make the point that the spiritual world is more important. The physical world is by nature in opposition to the NT when people deny the spirit and glorify "earthly" powers and riches.



1. There's a lot of truth in this statement.
2. But how does that address my last post?

Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

[TheSage]

Sorry bout that,






1. Which Pope, and what was he wrong about?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


check out this debacle



http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/augustweb-only/8-12-32.0.html
Weblog: Jews Are Already Saved, Say U.S. Catholic Bishops





U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Don't evangelize Jews
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement Monday saying that Catholics should evangelize non-Christians—but not Jews. "The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples 'of all nations' means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God," says Reflections on Covenant and Mission.

However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people.
Rabbis from the National Council of Synagogues (representing Reform and Conservative groups) also joined in the statement. "It should be obvious that any mission of Christians to the Jews is in direct conflict with the Jewish notion that the covenant itself is that mission," the document says. "The pious of all the nations of the world have a place in the world to come." (These comments come under "Jewish reflections," so it appears that the Catholic bishops didn't necessarily agree to this specific sentence. Nevertheless, it is part of the larger Reflections on Covenant and Mission statement.)

The document is just starting to receive media attention, and most analysis isn't very deep. The Associated Press ran a four-sentence summary, stating in the second sentence that "the bishops have made similar declarations in the past and the Catholic church has largely dropped the practice of evangelizing Jews."

The Baltimore Sun focuses on the local angle, and drops the ball on at least one sentence: "Many evangelical Christians see evangelizing non-Christians, particularly Jews, as a religious obligation."

First, evangelicals don't see particular need for evangelizing Jews over and above other non-Christians—though there is some confusion about Paul's admonition to take the gospel "to the Jew first."

Second, there is wide debate in the evangelical community over evangelization of Jews. Such was recognized by the 1989 Willowbank Declaration, one of the most widely accepted evangelical documents on Christians and Jews (signatories included Vernon Grounds, Kenneth Kantzer, David Wells, and J. I. Packer, as well as evangelical leaders from Kenya, France, Norway, the Philippines, England, Taiwan, and India). As the Willowbank Declaration points out, evangelicals agree that Jews don't need to give up their identity as Jews—but we also believe they need Jesus.

The Boston Globe's article on Reflections on Covenant and Mission emphasizes its disparity with evangelical theology, but also notes that "Catholic efforts to convert Jews 'dried up' after the Second Vatican Council."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, meanwhile, suggests that Reflections on Covenant and Mission isn't just at odds with evangelical Protestant theology—it's at odds with a lot of Catholic teaching. Scott Hahn, theology professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, says the U.S. bishops' statement goes far beyond what the Vatican has said, even in its recent statement that "The Jewish Messianic wait is not in vain." Yes, Hahn says, God's covenant with the Jews "is still binding. Yes, it is not revoked, and yes, the Jewish people are witnesses of the kingdom. But that does not lead us to conclude that their faithful witness to the kingdom calls for them not to recognize Jesus as the messiah and to respond in faith to the grace of conversion."

Hahn tells Post-Gazette that he'd rather see the bishops call targeting Jews for conversion pastorally unacceptable—not theologically unacceptable. Others quoted in the story disagree with Hahn's wish, but agree that Reflections on Covenant and Mission goes way beyond the Vatican's teaching on evangelizing Jews.

We'll have more on this later, but those interested in evangelical beliefs about Jews should check out Richard Mouw's 2001 Christianity Today article, "The Chosen People Puzzle." Be sure also to check out the "Related Elsewhere" items at the bottom of that page, which include links to Christianity Todayeditorials, statements by Billy Graham, and other articles on the topic.

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,







1. There's a lot of truth in this statement.
2. But how does that address my last post?

Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

(pssssst the "devil" is symbolic and in you head)

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Not in my head, he may be into yours thou.
2. I can honestly say, that, *THERE IS A DEVIL*.
3. And he laughs at it when others don't think that there is.
4. Understand, that the Devil is looking for a way to steal men's souls.
5. Not knowing or believing that he is real, is one way he will be able to catch you in a weak moment.
6. Like a roaring lion, he wants you.:pee:*DEVIL*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,

1. Not in my head, he may be into yours thou.
2. I can honestly say, that, *THERE IS A DEVIL*.
3. And he laughs at it when others don't think that there is.
4. Understand, that the Devil is looking for a way to steal men's souls.
5. Not knowing or believing that he is real, is one way he will be able to catch you in a weak moment.
6. Like a roaring lion, he wants you.:pee:*DEVIL*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I think that everyone struggles at times. It's tough to keep a balance (wear the world as a loose garment). If you wish to personify evil by sticking a "D" in front of it, be my guest.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Dilloduck, its your call what you consider as fact.
2. Don't be surprised if you meet him some day.
3. Anyway, its hard to prove he is, and so is proving God is real.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,

1. Dilloduck, its your call what you consider as fact.
2. Don't be surprised if you meet him some day.
3. Anyway, its hard to prove he is, and so is proving God is real.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So why are you wasting you time? Cute little game tho.

Sorry bout that. :poke:

[Pale Rider]

Sorry bout that,







1. So you don't believe there is a *Devil*?
2. And if so then, you then, dis~believe in, *THE BIBLE*.
3. The Bible says, that, *The Devil* wants to be like the *Most High God*.
4. Putting himself even higher than God.
5. So if this is indeed true, do you think *The Devil* could or would be on Earth in the open?
6. Wouldn't he have to stay hidden, working behind the scenes?
6. a) Like a *EVIL STAGE HAND* gone bad?
6. b) Oops are not stage hands all bad?
6.c) This kind of proves my point in itself does it not?
7. Wouldn't the *Devil*, also be studded with untold wealth, with riches and earthly glories untold?
8. Wouldn't he be able to out maneuver his enemies with *Special Skills*, calling unbeknown-st allies into service?
9. After all he would be *Immortal*.
10. That was always here, after a child was born and died of old age, he is still here, planning how to deceive the next generation.


:popcorn:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I wish you'd write this out in coherent sentences like everyone else.