Revelation 13 speaks about the beast deceiving the world and causing people to receive the mark of the beast on their right hand or forehead. This raises the question of just how far-reaching Satan’s deception can be on a global scale. If the Bible warns that the entire world will be deceived into accepting the mark of the beast, does this imply that the devil can successfully promote widespread false beliefs and practices on a global level? How does Christian theology understand the devil’s power to deceive nations, especially considering the vast differences in cultures, languages, and political systems? How could Satan maneuver these differences to bring the whole world into unity under a single deception?

Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result. Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons: - He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself. - He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive. - He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge. In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?

Deuteronomy 18:21–22 says that if a prophet’s words do not come to pass, then the Lord has not spoken through them. This seems to suggest that fulfilled prophecy is a sign of true prophecy. Some Christians also believe that Satan does not know the future in the way God does (i.e., perfectly and completely), so any accurate future prediction would necessarily come from God. However, in Matthew 24:24, Jesus warns of false prophets performing great signs and wonders that could deceive even the elect if that were possible. Does this imply that even seemingly accurate future predictions could come from deceptive sources? So my question is: Can fulfilled predictions about the future be used as a reliable test to determine whether a prophet is truly from God, considering the claim that Satan does not know the future? Or are there additional biblical criteria that must be used to discern a true prophet?

The Bible quotes God assaying: >And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:15-17) The Bible goes on to quote Eve and the serpent talking: >3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (3:3-7) Now the devil tells Eve that she will not die and that she will gain the knowledge of good and evil. Which happens from what the Bible describes. God also specified that they will die on the day that they touch the tree, which does not happen, so it wasn't truth that God told Eve. Even if God said it as a metaphor, it was a metaphor that neither Adam nor Eve understood, because Eve told the serpent they they will surely die. And God is all-knowing, so he had to know that they will misunderstand him. So, he deliberately told a metaphor, which he knew was going to be understood literally, and he knew it would be taken as literal interpretation. In either way God provided Eve with misleading information. (It could be a possibility that something is lost in translation, but if not, it would take interpreting the text completely opposite to what is written in order to come to a different conclusion - and if we do, then why bother taking the rest of the Scripture as it is written?) Does this mean that we must redefine our definition of lying? Maybe lying excludes lying to children for example to save them from a greater harm (like taking drugs for example) If something is too complicated to explain to a child, maybe the Bible suggests that it's OK to lie to them. I feel like a lot of parents already do that making up stories to keep their children from making noise in church (for example). Telling them that if they misbehave the ghost will get them etc. Or maybe lying overall means something else in the 10 commandments. I really wonder about that, because I see situations when it might be good to tell a lie. I'm Polish, so I always think of the story If I was holding a Jew in my house and Nazis would come in asking if I had any Jews in the house. I know that I couldn't tell the truth. So I just wonder If God lied? If so, is lying sometimes ok according to this passage? If God doesn't lie, then what is the definition of lying? If God told the truth that they would die, then is devil lying that they will not die? I'm only interested in the Catholic perspective of this scripture as I was raised Catholic and this question bothered me for most of my life.

Proponents of intelligent design in both the universe and biology highlight several noteworthy features of nature. These include the [fine-tuning of the universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe) , the [surprising applicability of mathematics to the cosmos](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111145/66156) , the extraordinary complexity of even the simplest cells, and concepts such as [irreducible complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) and [specified complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) . However, many skeptics find most, if not all, of these arguments unconvincing. Instead, they generally feel more persuaded to support the mainstream naturalistic explanations offered by science, namely, naturalistic [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . They may also offer [naturalistic explanations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Explanations) for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. According to Christian proponents of intelligent design, why do so many skeptics remain unconvinced by ID arguments and instead advocate the mainstream naturalistic scientific views? Do ID proponents believe that skeptics' cognitive faculties are impaired by the blinding influence of Satan? If not, what other explanations might there be?

In a Christian worldview, is Satan the main force behind atheism? If so, how exactly does this occur? I'm intrigued by this conundrum because if Satan actively influences individuals to adopt atheism, he must achieve two objectives simultaneously: 1. He (or his demonic agents) must intervene in the physical world somehow to convince a person to embrace atheism. 2. He must execute this influence in a masterfully subtle manner, ensuring the individual remains completely unaware of the spiritual manipulation prompting their atheistic beliefs. Think of notable atheists, such as [Richard Dawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) , and notable agnostics, such as [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) . If Satan indeed played a role in shaping Dawkins' atheism and Sagan's agnosticism, this would suggest a sophisticated mastery of subliminal manipulation. Because both Dawkins and Sagan never acknowledged any Satanic influence behind their beliefs, and in fact, if they were presented with the hypothetical manipulation scenario I'm entertaining, they would likely dismiss it with a laugh, seeing it as nothing more than a far-fetched thought experiment. How do Satan and his demons manipulate individuals into embracing atheism (or agnosticism) while remaining completely undetected? What are the mechanisms behind this imperceptible and subconscious manipulation, and is there a means within Christianity to unveil and expose this influence, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness?

The Word of God says, >Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1) Many televangelist claim miracles happen and profess the name of Jesus. Some have claimed they witnessed terminally ill people get healed and such. There have been some high profile preachers from around the world who have been accused of staging miracles and preaching the "gospel of prosperity" for their own gain. What is the way to test whether they are false prophets taking care not to touch the Lord's anointed? I went through [a similar post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8074/how-do-we-identify-false-teachers) , but am concerned with teachers who say they are doing it in the name of Jesus.

Jesus ultimately cares about the judgement of our eternal soul. Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe in a Holy deception; that the reason He made His return unknown and mysterious is to keep us in line or away from sin? If we are anxiously awaiting that he can return any moment, we are more likely to stick to His way and in result, preserve our soul? I am not saying He is lying, but loves us so much that He will give us any impression possible to keep us away from the Devil or Hell. Does this go against any other Christian belief or doctrine? **EDIT** Notice how Biblical passages can look like lies but are not. Please read this very good Christian writers article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/26.56.html > "He will rescue you from every trap and protect you from the fatal > plague. … For he orders his angels to protect you wherever you go. > They will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your > foot on a stone." [All Scripture citations from the New Living > Translation.] > > At first blush it sounds really good, but that day I had to say what I > really thought. Through tears I told the group, "I don't get how this > is true. He did not rescue us from a fatal plague. He did not keep us > from striking our feet on a stone but, in fact, allowed much worse > than that."

Most translations read '(But he was lying to him)'. I always thought the Old Prophet lied to the man of God, but now I'm wondering if the 'angel' lied to the old prophet. This wondering started when reading Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem chapter 19 Angels pp. 406-407. 1 Kings 13.18 is used as an example of 'false doctrine or guidance being conveyed by angels ... the clear possibility of satanic deception tempting us to disobey ...' Having investigated, some translations put 'the old prophet lied' which makes it clear (if they are correct??). Any gentle help appreciated.

Imagine Madoff coming to your living room and saying, "I got an investment that I want you to invest all your money in." You test him. You left some changes on the table and pretend to do something else. You return and see the changes are still there. Ah I can trust Madoff in small things. He must be trustworthy on big things. That would be stupid, right? Many people don't steal small things not because they're infinitely trustworthy. People don't steal small things, so that they have their reputation intact and can steal big things. Madoff didn't take the change not because he is trustworthy. Madoff didn't take the change because the change is small. He aims to steal big. So those who are trustworthy on small things are not necessarily trustworthy on big things. I once lost $30k due to a fraudster that built trust by being honest on small deals. When the deals got big they ran away. Likewise, most corrupt officials that steal billions won't steal chickens or bread. On then face of it, this appears to contradict some of Jesus teaching on trust: >[Luke 16:10](http://biblehub.com/luke/16-10.htm)
> "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with > much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest > with much. How is this apparent contradiction resolved? Note: I honestly trusted this interpretation on Jesus words and lost almost $1 million of profit because my ex-employee become my competitor. Consider this a form of "customer complaint" on Christianity.

In John 7, Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going up to the festival. Then he goes up in secret. This sounds to me like a lie. > **John 7:6-10 (NIV)** > > **6** Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. **7** The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. **8** You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” **9** After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. > > **10** However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. >

> [b] Some manuscripts not yet Most Christians believe in Jesus' sinlessness, while believing that lying is a sin. Given those beliefs, how do such Christians explain his words in John 7?

Reading *The Sayings of the Desert Fathers*, I came across at least two accounts of the Fathers lying to or deceiving people >10 . Once a provincial judge heard of Abba Moses and went to Scete to see > him. They told the old man that he was on his way, and he rose up to > flee into a marsh. The judge and his train met him, and asked: "Tell > me, old man, where is the cell of Abba Moses?" And the old man said: > "Why do you want to see him? He is a fool and a heretic." > The judge came to the church, and said to the clergy: "I heard of > Abba Moses and came to see him- But an old man on his way to Egypt > met me, and I asked him where was the cell of Abba Moses. And he > said: 'Why are you looking for him? He is a fool and a heretic.* " > And the clergy were distressed and said: "What sort of person was > your old man who told you this about the holy man?" And they said: > "He was an old man, tall and dark, wearing the oldest possible > clothes.'* And the clergy said: "That was Abba Moses. And he told you > this about him- self because he did not want you to see him." And the > judge went away much edified. > >17 . A magistrate came to see Abba Simon one day. When he heard of it, he > put on his apron and went out to attend to a palm-tree. When the > visitors arrived they called out to him, 'Old man, where is the > anchorite?' He replied, 'There is no anchorite here.' Hearing these > words, they went away again. Source: *THE SAYINGS OF THE FATHERS, PART VIII in "The Library Of Christian Classics Volume XII. Western Asceticism" by Owen Chadwick, 1958* Having read many other anecdotes about the Desert Fathers and knowing how much they valued eremitic lifestyle and detachment from the world I take the behavior of these two abbas as an attempt to avoid being bothered by unexpected and random visitors lest they disturb their seclusion and peace of mind. Abba Moses (the protagonist of the first anecdote above) is recorded as saying > 10 . "A man who avoids men is like a ripe grape. A man who companies with men is like a sour grape" Source: *ibid, Part II* Various sources, for example gotquestions.org , assert that lying is regarded as a sinful act. So I would guess that by being deliberately untruthful these Fathers not only acted presumably unethically and sinfully, they also acted against the ethos of Jesus's teachings expressed in such saying as > If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to > the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to > borrow from you. Mt 5:41-42 In the quoted stories the visitors were going to ask for advice and borrow some wisdom, which they were denied under false pretenses, although in the first case the visitor is said to have still derived benefit from witnessing the abba's humbleness, which nevertheless could have been a byproduct and not the original intent. **My question thus is whether and how these Fathers' deceptive behavior could be justified from the Christian doctrine point of view, either Catholic or Greek Orthodox denomination?** - Obviously the purpose of these anecdotes was and is to serve as examples of good Christian ascetic conduct and so recording these two particular ones their authors must've not viewed the conduct of the abbas as either deceitful or as a morally reproachable deceit (if deceit can be morally neutral or even positive) possibly knowing a good excuse for it.

> But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be **false teachers** among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. ***-2 Peter 2:1*** My question is: **How can you tell if a teacher is a "false teacher"?** Please support your answer with Scripture.

I've always been a devout Christian, but I once had a terrifying thought while reading the Bible, and I'm scared I'm going to go to Hell. At one point I began to question why God killed so many people throughout the course of the old testament, how he killed peoples' first born children, made people give their kids as sacrifices, flooded the entire Earth and killed almost everybody and everything, sent plagues upon people, burned down their cities and often commanded genocidal wars. God also commands that everybody fear him and worship him, lest they should burn in Hell for all eternity. Then, it occurred to me that the Devil is almost never mentioned in the Bible. He certainly isn't credited with killing very many people. He might actually have only killed about ten people in the entire Bible, if I remember correctly. Certainly nothing compared to the millions of people that God kills. The things the Devil really did wrong were deny God as his king and try to give Adam and Eve the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I get that, but why is God the one discouraging knowledge? How could Adam and Eve have known it was inherently wrong to disobey God without having first HAD the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why is it that God didn't want them to have that knowledge? I remember in Sunday school they referred to the Devil as the Great Deceiver. If he truly IS THE Deceiver, then wouldn't it stand to reason that his deceptive powers would be vast? His capacity for deception would be unparalleled? Could he go so far as to pretend to be God and convince the majority of the world's Christians, and maybe even Muslims, that he IS GOD? Could he convince people to lead crusades and inquisitions? Could he have guided the hand of man to have writ the Bible (and possibly the Qur'an??) for the purpose of striking the fear of Hell into the heart of man and ensuring a future of war and death? To convince everybody that they were wretches without HIM? To make everybody feel ashamed of their thoughts and emotions? Could he have convinced people that knowledge was evil? I guess what I'm asking, from a vulnerable position is, could God as he is described in the Bible, actually be the Devil in disguise? Why would a loving and all-knowing God be trying to convince people that they should shun and hate gay people or people of other religions? God actually commands people to kill people because they are of different religions or races at different points in the Bible. I didn't want to end up hating God as I read the Bible, but by the end of it, I'm afraid I kind of developed a disdain for Him. Even the New Testament, with its morbid demise of Jesus Christ and its prophecies of Revelation, all just seems to be designed to terrify people and make them feel bad about themselves and make them look forward to nothing but a future of fiery apocalypse and uncertainty. It all seems to be designed to make people think they are bad people if they don't follow God's code of law. And then I look around me and I see how hateful most Christians are toward people that are different than them and I assume that the Devil's deception must be working. One day, when the Revelation comes to fruition, and some evil politician wins the Christian vote because he claims to be Christian, I'm afraid it will be the Christians that first follow him right into Hell. I'm afraid I'm already seeing this happening in society today. I'm a Christian that is afraid he has discovered a terrifying underlying message inherent in the Bible, and I hope I'm wrong. Can someone weigh in on this?

I know Jesus is not a liar, but an incident in the New Testament has puzzled me for a long time. Jesus was asked by his disciples if he was going to go to a feast and he said he wasn't, but, later he went: >You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come. (John 7:8, ESV) > >But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. (7:10) Could someone explain this contradiction?