User Tag List

Page 7 of 30 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 450

Thread: ST. JOHN 11:26

  1. #91
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    And likewise death is used figuratively to describe (even today) to describe sleep (or tiredness, even; eg: "he's dead on his feet", also Revelation 1:17)
    So "dead on his feet" is meant to describe someone that is aware of their surroundings? And "Fell at his feet as dead" is meant to support "death living" why?

    There are plenty of scriptures that contradict this assertion.

    For example, Revelation 6:9.
    A personification within a dream contradicts this assertion how? Never mind that if the passage were to be interpreted literally, it would also contradict any assumption that anyone was being avenged (like being tormented in hell) at this present time?

    Even if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was JUST a parable, one would do well to remember that parables are based on reality, not fiction or fantasy.
    Judges 9:14-15 KJV
    (14) Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.
    (15) And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.


    You mean like the way we all know that trees talk to each other and elect kings?

    But I believe that that story is also something that actually happened, because of what is said throughout the Bible, in particular, about the laws concerning cities of refuge, mentioned in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20, and many other places in the Old Testament, all of which describe a place to wait until, and this is the most important part, the "death of the high priest."
    I don't see the connection.

    Sheol, also known as Abraham's Bosom, was the place of refuge in Hell for the faithful to wait until...
    One problem with that proposal is that there isn't a single passage equating "Abraham's Bosom" with "Sheol."

    The death of Jesus Christ. Who, while in the grave, preached to them for three days, offering them salvation from hell.
    Sounds like a misreading of 1 Peter 3:18 as if "but quickened by the Spirit" was missing from the passage, with substituting "souls" for "spirits" in 1 Peter 3:19..

    There is a sermon from Pastor Enyart from 2015 that deals with the topic of where Christ was during the three days His body was in the tomb (and, in doing so, addresses the problems with soul sleep)

    http://store.kgov.com/20150405-where...se-three-days/

    If you would like, I will gladly give you money to purchase that sermon and listen to it.
    Would you be willing to email me a transcript?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (December 5th, 2018)

  3. #92
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,591
    Thanks
    16,937
    Thanked 40,117 Times in 20,053 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Would you be willing to email me a transcript?
    "Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly."


    Just kiddin'....just kiddin'...don't report me.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    lifeisgood (December 4th, 2018),Tambora (December 4th, 2018)

  5. #93
    Over 2000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,141
    Thanks
    2,054
    Thanked 1,373 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    414161
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    You can't just have "Death and Hades" as such a place.
    yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

    Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
    Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them,


    "The Sea" is included as well. Are you saying that the sea is also a place where souls are kept until judgment?
    no

  6. #94
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by way 2 go View Post
    yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

    Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
    Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them,

    no
    The "Lazarus and the rich man" parable doesn't have any mention of spirits in it.... though there is mention of eyes and tongues.

  7. #95
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by way 2 go View Post
    yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

    Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
    Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them,


    no
    Where are you getting your information from? Are those the only verses? If they are, then the sea is equal to "death and hades" in terms of what happens to them--Rev 20:13 is crystal clear in that, and the Luke passage doesn't mention a place called "death" or "the sea". That either makes the sea a place where spirits are kept until judgment or it makes "death and hades" places where dead bodies are. The text should be consistent with itself, especially within the context of the single verse in Revelation.

    But you make the statement, "Hades is a place for spirits" like it is common knowledge, so that you don't need scripture to help you define it. Is that true?

    Finally, the Lazarus passage, which is the main one used to tell us the state of "Abraham's Bosom" prior to Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, specifically distinguishes "Hades" from the place Abraham and Lazarus were. It seems like they were NOT in Hades, though they could see it and hear the rich man over the great gulf (Lu 16:26).

    If you're looking for other source options, here are some you could consider:
    The book of Enoch, Chapter 22, talks about places for people's spirits after they die.

    Plato's Republic, where Plato gives some of the thoughts of his day, though he himself eschews such things:

    O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!

    Again of Tiresias:

    [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he alone should be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades.

    Again:

    The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamentng her fate, leaving manhood and youth.

    Again:

    And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth.


    Not that I recommend them, but they seem to match your position, and perhaps give some indication of the general thought nearer to the time of Jesus.

  8. #96
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Rosenritter did not point out "cognitive" inability from the OT, but read the soul sleep doctrine INTO what was written.
    "Cognition" is the act of gaining knowledge, or the state of knowing, so that is the primary thing @Rosenritter was pointing out.


    King Solomon speaks of man's truths and things done "under the sun". So when you read about what the dead know...it's of all those things done under the sun. They have no "portion for ever IN ANY THING THAT IS DONE UNDER THE SUN. If you ignore that, you've missed it all.

    Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
    4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

    Rosen does the same thing with Paul's verse about being absent from the body and present with the Lord. It's clear to all those who don't fall for the lie of "soul sleep". In point of fact, man is comprised of more than just a body, but that is denied at every turn.
    Your point is a good one, imo, but it only negates it as an argument for Rosen's position, it doesn't help your position.

    We'll have to rely on other scriptures for that.

    I'm always intrigued with Samuel's ghost, or whatever it was, in 1 Sam 28.

    [1Sa 28:13 KJV] And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
    [1Sa 28:14 KJV] And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself.
    [1Sa 28:15 KJV] And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.


    Many apparently consider this apparition a trick of the woman, or a demon responding to the woman, but I tend to think it really was Samuel. If so, here are some things that it might tell us:

    Samuel rose "up" from the ground.
    He was like a "god", or there were "gods" accompanying him.**
    He looked old.
    He wore clothes (which helped Saul to recognize who it was, somehow).
    Saul had been resting, or in some state that his coming back was "disquieting".

    Just this passage alone doesn't slam the door on a soulish wakefulness in Sheol, even if I'm reading it rightly, but it brings up some interesting questions.

    If Samuel's soul was in Sheol, and his body was in the grave, were the two reunited for this appearance? Was Saul remembering what Samuel was buried in? I tend to think of this description as very lacking in details, if one were to be checking the prophet's identity to avoid a scam. "Old man" and "covered with a mantle"?

    But if it were just a "soul" are souls "old" vs "young" or "ageless", and do they present themselves with clothes because they have modesty?

    Finally, does "disquieted" mean that Samuel had been at rest? Was he in fact "asleep" in some way? Or is that merely a reference to his body. If it was a reference to his body, then it seems like the body was needed for the soul to make an appearance



    **on the question of what is meant by "gods": I took this to mean that angels went to get Samuel to bring him up from the grave, because vs 13 talks about "gods ascending out of the earth", but vs 14 says "an old man cometh up", suggesting there were two parts of this arising episode--one where "elohim" (probably angels) came out of the earth, and one where an old man came up out of the earth. Maybe they were lifting him up out of the earth, so they came up first, then Samuel came up.

    This harkens back (forward?) to the Lazarus story, because angels came to get Lazarus (Luk 16:22). What are the angels actually "getting" in these two cases? Maybe "souls" can't move around on their own, or don't know where to go. Or maybe, like Moses' (Jude 1:9), they were getting Lazarus's body, just as they were getting Samuel's, and in contrast to the rich man's body that was buried.

    If the latter, then the story of Lazarus might very well be a fast-forward to the judgment, and the rich man's torment might refer to his position in the lake of fire. Time seems to get all wonky when talking about future things.

  9. #97
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Where are you getting your information from? Are those the only verses? If they are, then the sea is equal to "death and hades" in terms of what happens to them--Rev 20:13 is crystal clear in that, and the Luke passage doesn't mention a place called "death" or "the sea". That either makes the sea a place where spirits are kept until judgment or it makes "death and hades" places where dead bodies are. The text should be consistent with itself, especially within the context of the single verse in Revelation.

    But you make the statement, "Hades is a place for spirits" like it is common knowledge, so that you don't need scripture to help you define it. Is that true?

    Finally, the Lazarus passage, which is the main one used to tell us the state of "Abraham's Bosom" prior to Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, specifically distinguishes "Hades" from the place Abraham and Lazarus were. It seems like they were NOT in Hades, though they could see it and hear the rich man over the great gulf (Lu 16:26).

    If you're looking for other source options, here are some you could consider:
    The book of Enoch, Chapter 22, talks about places for people's spirits after they die.

    Plato's Republic, where Plato gives some of the thoughts of his day, though he himself eschews such things:

    O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!

    Again of Tiresias:—

    [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he alone should be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades.

    Again:—

    The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamentng her fate, leaving manhood and youth.

    Again:—

    And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth.


    Not that I recommend them, but they seem to match your position, and perhaps give some indication of the general thought nearer to the time of Jesus.
    You left out the generally accepted "Hades" of Greek literature. In this Gentile hell the dead exist in various forms, some being punished with unusual torments, such as water that receded when they tried to drink, fruit that raised up higher when they tried to reach for it, and so forth. Achilles was supposed to have been dipped in its river Styx as an infant (with only his ankle protruding.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_underworld

    The Hades in Luke 23:43 seems to bear a close semblance with this Greek (gentile) literary version of hell... and it would have been easily recognized by any of his audience. It would be awfully ironic for the Jew to find himself in this Gentile hell when the Gentile finds himself grafted in to the symbol of the Jewish reward, wouldn't you think?

  10. #98
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    "Cognition" is the act of gaining knowledge, or the state of knowing, so that is the primary thing @Rosenritter was pointing out.

    Your point is a good one, imo, but it only negates it as an argument for Rosen's position, it doesn't help your position.

    We'll have to rely on other scriptures for that.

    I'm always intrigued with Samuel's ghost, or whatever it was, in 1 Sam 28.

    [1Sa 28:13 KJV] And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
    [1Sa 28:14 KJV] And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself.
    [1Sa 28:15 KJV] And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.


    Many apparently consider this apparition a trick of the woman, or a demon responding to the woman, but I tend to think it really was Samuel. If so, here are some things that it might tell us:

    Samuel rose "up" from the ground.
    He was like a "god", or there were "gods" accompanying him.**
    He looked old.
    He wore clothes (which helped Saul to recognize who it was, somehow).
    Saul had been resting, or in some state that his coming back was "disquieting".

    Just this passage alone doesn't slam the door on a soulish wakefulness in Sheol, even if I'm reading it rightly, but it brings up some interesting questions.

    If Samuel's soul was in Sheol, and his body was in the grave, were the two reunited for this appearance? Was Saul remembering what Samuel was buried in? I tend to think of this description as very lacking in details, if one were to be checking the prophet's identity to avoid a scam. "Old man" and "covered with a mantle"?

    But if it were just a "soul" are souls "old" vs "young" or "ageless", and do they present themselves with clothes because they have modesty?

    Finally, does "disquieted" mean that Samuel had been at rest? Was he in fact "asleep" in some way? Or is that merely a reference to his body. If it was a reference to his body, then it seems like the body was needed for the soul to make an appearance

    **on the question of what is meant by "gods": I took this to mean that angels went to get Samuel to bring him up from the grave, because vs 13 talks about "gods ascending out of the earth", but vs 14 says "an old man cometh up", suggesting there were two parts of this arising episode--one where "elohim" (probably angels) came out of the earth, and one where an old man came up out of the earth. Maybe they were lifting him up out of the earth, so they came up first, then Samuel came up.

    This harkens back (forward?) to the Lazarus story, because angels came to get Lazarus (Luk 16:22). What are the angels actually "getting" in these two cases? Maybe "souls" can't move around on their own, or don't know where to go. Or maybe, like Moses' (Jude 1:9), they were getting Lazarus's body, just as they were getting Samuel's, and in contrast to the rich man's body that was buried.

    If the latter, then the story of Lazarus might very well be a fast-forward to the judgment, and the rich man's torment might refer to his position in the lake of fire. Time seems to get all wonky when talking about future things.
    There was an earlier conversation concerning the apparition at Endor. Some historical names weighing in on "that apparition was a devil and not Samuel" include John Calvin, Martin Luther, and King James. Within our own TOL community Ask Mr. Religion also spoke in support of the vision being a demonic apparition. This is in agreement with my understanding as well.

    An excerpt from King James "Daemonologie, Book One" (a treatise concerning witchcraft)

    PHI: Yet if ye will mark the words of the text, ye will find clearly, that Saul saw that apparition: for giving you that Saul was in another Chamber, at the making of the circles and conjurations, needful for that purpose (as none of that craft will permit any others to behold at that time) yet it is evident by the text, that how soon that once that unclean spirit was fully risen, she called in upon Saul. For it is said in the text, that Saul knew him to be Samuel, which could not have been, by the hearing tell only of an old man with a mantle, since there were many more old men dead in Israel nor Samuel: And the common weid of that whole country was mantles.

    As to the next, that it was not the spirit of Samuel, I grant: in the proving whereof ye need not to insist, since all Christians of whatsoever religion agrees upon that: and none but either mere ignorants, or Necromancers or Witches doubt thereof. And that the Devil is permitted at sometimes to put himself in the likeness of the Saints, it is plain in the Scriptures, where it is said, that Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light [1]. Neither could that bring any inconvenience with the visions of the Prophets, since it is most certain, that God will not permit him so to deceive his own: but only such, as first willfully deceives themselves, by running unto him, whom God then suffers to fall in their own snares, and justly permits them to be deluded with great efficacy of deceit, because they would not believe the truth (as Paul saith).
    The reason the character from that book says that "all Christians of whatsoever religion agrees upon that" is because that was the common agreement. The idea that the apparition was literally Samuel is relatively recent: for example, you might see Adam Clarke advocating that this was the real Samuel, but not Matthew Henry or John Gill.

    Glory argued that it must be the real Samuel. I think the conversation was fairly thorough (bringing in evidences from all angles) so if she was unpersuaded then she is unlikely to be persuaded otherwise now.

  11. #99
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    522
    Thanked 903 Times in 621 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    240492
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    There was an earlier conversation concerning the apparition at Endor. Some historical names weighing in on "that apparition was a devil and not Samuel" include John Calvin, Martin Luther, and King James. Within our own TOL community Ask Mr. Religion also spoke in support of the vision being a demonic apparition. This is in agreement with my understanding as well.

    An excerpt from King James "Daemonologie, Book One" (a treatise concerning witchcraft)



    The reason the character from that book says that "all Christians of whatsoever religion agrees upon that" is because that was the common agreement. The idea that the apparition was literally Samuel is relatively recent: for example, you might see Adam Clarke advocating that this was the real Samuel, but not Matthew Henry or John Gill.

    Glory argued that it must be the real Samuel. I think the conversation was fairly thorough (bringing in evidences from all angles) so if she was unpersuaded then she is unlikely to be persuaded otherwise now.
    Then I suppose @glorydaz will appreciate the questions I brought up, assuming the apparition to be the real Samuel. I've been involved in other conversations about the Samuel story, too. I have a hard time getting past the idea that a faithful narrator of the story would not at some point tell us it was a demon pretending to be Samuel. And I have a hard time getting past the idea of an unfaithful narrator of stories, that God has inspired to write the "truth", writing it in his own unfaithful sort of way. Would a faithful narrator call the Devil "Samuel", not once but 3 times?

    [1Sa 28:12 KJV] And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou [art] Saul.
    [1Sa 28:15 KJV] And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
    [1Sa 28:16 KJV] Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?


    I'm not sure King James' theologians considered all the options--one of which is that it was not Samuel's spirit only, but a full rendition of Samuel, body included. (Which brings up interesting questions about what level of decay his body had experienced, whether God repaired the decay for this viewing, and what happened to the body afterward--just allowed it to restart the decaying process?)

    But I liked the part about how there was more to the identification than just the report of an old man and mantle, and that Saul actually saw the apparition, whatever it was. That makes sense. And I feel like this "seer", as such necromancers were sometimes called, might have been able to "see" what was going on in the part of the country where Samuel's body was buried, long before Saul saw Samuel up close.

    But if you can point me to the other conversation, I'd like to review it.

  12. #100
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Then I suppose @glorydaz will appreciate the questions I brought up, assuming the apparition to be the real Samuel. I've been involved in other conversations about the Samuel story, too. I have a hard time getting past the idea that a faithful narrator of the story would not at some point tell us it was a demon pretending to be Samuel. And I have a hard time getting past the idea of an unfaithful narrator of stories, that God has inspired to write the "truth", writing it in his own unfaithful sort of way. Would a faithful narrator call the Devil "Samuel", not once but 3 times?
    The context of the story already relates that they are calling on a woman who summons devils (familiar spirits) and the bible is known for its economy of words.

    As another example (of economy of words) in scripture:

    2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
    (19) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

    In the text above, the Hebrew text doesn't even bother with "the brother of" ... because you're supposed to already know that Elhanan wasn't fighting the original Goliath (but the italicized words above are justified by its appearance in its parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5.)

    For a modern day example of economy of words, if you were watching a movie about Moses and the Ten Commandments, you might talk about how you saw Moses lift up the stone tablets... when in actuality we all know you really saw Charlton Heston. It's rather cumbersome to say "And Charlton Heston who was appearing as Moses" ... rather than "And Moses" because it's understood that it's an actor (an impersonator) within the context of a movie.

    Likewise, it's supposed to be understood that in the context of a seance by one known to commune with familiar spirits that the actor is a devil. Once it says that "Saul perceived" that it was Samuel, further statements are already defined that the name is within the context of Saul's perception.

    But if you can point me to the other conversation, I'd like to review it.
    I think I broke something trying to use the search (the server went into time-out mode for several minutes and still came up with nothing.) I'll try some narrower searchers and get back on this.

    And while this is interesting in its own right, this entire topic has nothing to do with whether the dead are currently conscious (living) or not. John Calvin believed the dead were conscious and he said it was a demonic apparition. Myself (knowing the dead are truly dead) allow that God could raise the dead for a specific purpose and put them back to rest again at any time.

    And even if you were to believe that what the witch was summoning was telling the truth, doesn't the apparition even state that it was "disquieted" as if he had been in quiet?

    1 Samuel 28:15 KJV
    (15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.

    So whether this was the actual Samuel or not has no bearing on the subject that was being discussed.

  13. #101
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195050
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    But if you can point me to the other conversation, I'd like to review it.
    This seems to be in the thick of the conversation here. You could look back and forth several days from this landmark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Not Samuel.

    If God refused to speak to Saul through legitimate means (Samuel when alive), neither would he speak to him through illegitimate means (Dead Samuel).
    Spoiler

    God refused to let Samuel speak to Saul while he was alive. I find it hard to accept that in this desperate hour, after refusing to speak to him by dreams, Urim, and other prophets, God did give him a direct word from the Lord through an cursed methodology.

    I think there are at a minimum two huge textual questions for the pro-Samuel crowd to answer, namely the significance of "Samuel's" rising up from the ground, and his declaration that Saul will be with him. As soon as one starts explaining these observations in terms of "realm of the dead," and alleged "OT perspective" on the afterlife, he leaves the text behind, and begins his own version of systematic theologizing.

    The relevant texts are 1 Sam.15:35;19:18,22,24; and especially 1 Sam. 28:6 "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets."

    In other words, Saul sought for legitimate means to have God speak to him. He prayed, he went to worship, he sought the will of God through the intermediaries God had provided--priests and prophets. And God literally would not speak to him.

    Did God permit Saul to know the truth, via the medium? Yes, though why Saul should have expected a speaker of unreliable pronouncements to give him insight only shows how far he had fallen.

    God influenced Ahab through a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his false prophets. God can do what he likes.

    God can speak through an donkey, but
    1) people aren't typically trying to access secret knowledge through verbalizing animals,
    2) there was no God given law against accessing the verbalized thoughts of animals, and
    3) Balaam wasn't trying to get his donkey to talk to him.

    There was Law against witchcraft. Ex.22:18; Lev.19:31; 20:27; Dt.18:10-11

    Saul had harried mediums out of the land (1 Sam. 28:3,9), in accordance with the Law's prohibition. Saul knew these were agents of evil standing against God. But he somehow thinks one of these creatures will be able to compel Samuel's attendance?

    If God wasn't going to speak through legitimate means to Saul, even though he sought them out (recall God even spoke truth to Ahab, when he sought out Micaiah), I don't believe that he gave Saul even a message of judgment through his ghostly prophet, summoned buy a medium.

    A careful study leads me to think it was a demonic seance, and it was attended by a demon. But I don't think that anyone should have been inclined to believe the word of a demon, a medium, or any "spirit" message produced in that environment.

    AMR
    Most of the relevant posts that I'm thinking of seem to be in the June 26th - June 28th zone on that thread.

  14. #102
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,591
    Thanks
    16,937
    Thanked 40,117 Times in 20,053 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    "Cognition" is the act of gaining knowledge, or the state of knowing, so that is the primary thing @Rosenritter was pointing out.
    I know the meaning of the word, and the "knowledge" Rosen claims to have gained is based on a preconceived notion of what Scripture says. I've been down that road...

    Your point is a good one, imo, but it only negates it as an argument for Rosen's position, it doesn't help your position.

    We'll have to rely on other scriptures for that.
    I was merely giving you an example of a verse Rosen has used in the past.

    I'm always intrigued with Samuel's ghost, or whatever it was, in 1 Sam 28.

    [1Sa 28:13 KJV] And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
    [1Sa 28:14 KJV] And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself.
    [1Sa 28:15 KJV] And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.


    Many apparently consider this apparition a trick of the woman, or a demon responding to the woman, but I tend to think it really was Samuel. If so, here are some things that it might tell us:

    Samuel rose "up" from the ground.
    He was like a "god", or there were "gods" accompanying him.**
    He looked old.
    He wore clothes (which helped Saul to recognize who it was, somehow).
    Saul had been resting, or in some state that his coming back was "disquieting".

    Just this passage alone doesn't slam the door on a soulish wakefulness in Sheol, even if I'm reading it rightly, but it brings up some interesting questions.
    I believe you are reading it rightly. God allowed the appearance of Samuel, for Samuel's sake. Samuel had loved Saul. There is a great history there worth discussing. I prefer studying directly from the Scripture instead of bringing in fifteen other opinions and claiming the "truth" is in the numbers. It would be nice if we could do that.

    If Samuel's soul was in Sheol, and his body was in the grave, were the two reunited for this appearance? Was Saul remembering what Samuel was buried in? I tend to think of this description as very lacking in details, if one were to be checking the prophet's identity to avoid a scam. "Old man" and "covered with a mantle"?

    But if it were just a "soul" are souls "old" vs "young" or "ageless", and do they present themselves with clothes because they have modesty?
    I think what Samuel is wearing just shows he was dressed as usual. Irrelevant.

    Finally, does "disquieted" mean that Samuel had been at rest? Was he in fact "asleep" in some way? Or is that merely a reference to his body. If it was a reference to his body, then it seems like the body was needed for the soul to make an appearance
    It simply means that he had finished with the problems done "under the sun", and hated to be drawn back even though God may have been giving Saul another chance. Samuel was beyond the cares of this world.


    **on the question of what is meant by "gods": I took this to mean that angels went to get Samuel to bring him up from the grave, because vs 13 talks about "gods ascending out of the earth", but vs 14 says "an old man cometh up", suggesting there were two parts of this arising episode--one where "elohim" (probably angels) came out of the earth, and one where an old man came up out of the earth. Maybe they were lifting him up out of the earth, so they came up first, then Samuel came up.
    Don't know. Didn't get a chance to discuss it too deeply on the last thread because there was so much unbelief in the spirit realm at that time. The argument grew wearisome.

    This harkens back (forward?) to the Lazarus story, because angels came to get Lazarus (Luk 16:22). What are the angels actually "getting" in these two cases? Maybe "souls" can't move around on their own, or don't know where to go. Or maybe, like Moses' (Jude 1:9), they were getting Lazarus's body, just as they were getting Samuel's, and in contrast to the rich man's body that was buried.
    The physical body is in the grave, but there are different spiritual bodies given for different purposes.

    If the latter, then the story of Lazarus might very well be a fast-forward to the judgment, and the rich man's torment might refer to his position in the lake of fire. Time seems to get all wonky when talking about future things.
    There was a difference before the Cross and after the Cross. No one could go to Heaven before Christ. A study of the place of the dead is interesting for those who know man is composed of body, soul, and spirit.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 6th, 2018),way 2 go (December 6th, 2018)

  16. #103
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,591
    Thanks
    16,937
    Thanked 40,117 Times in 20,053 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    The "Lazarus and the rich man" parable doesn't have any mention of spirits in it.... though there is mention of eyes and tongues.
    Jesus made it clear these men were dead. So He was either telling a whopper about the afterlife, or he expected the hearers to know there is a spirit realm. After all, God is spirit. Just as angels are from the spirit realm. What do you think the angel was....flesh and blood?

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 6th, 2018),way 2 go (December 6th, 2018)

  18. #104
    Over 2000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,141
    Thanks
    2,054
    Thanked 1,373 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    414161
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Where are you getting your information from?
    definition of
    Hades is the abode of departed souls

    If they are, then the sea is equal to "death and Hades" in terms of what happens to them
    death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire not the sea &
    those thrown in the lake will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
    Mat 25:46
    Rev 20:10 And the Devil who deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were . And he will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

    --Rev 20:13 is crystal clear in that, and the Luke passage doesn't mention a place called "death" or "the sea". That either makes the sea a place where spirits are kept until judgment or it makes "death and hades" places where dead bodies are.
    no
    The text should be consistent with itself, especially within the context of the single verse in Revelation.
    still no problem with the Sea in the verse still does not change the what is raised from Hades which could only be spirits
    such as the rich mans spirit

    Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

    But you make the statement, "Hades is a place for spirits" like it is common knowledge, so that you don't need scripture to help you define it. Is that true?
    that IS the definition of Hades
    Hades the abode of departed souls
    as described by Jesus the creator of the place in Luk 16:23


    Finally, the Lazarus passage, which is the main one used to tell us the state of "Abraham's Bosom" prior to Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, specifically distinguishes "Hades" from the place Abraham and Lazarus were. It seems like they were NOT in Hades, though they could see it and hear the rich man over the great gulf (Lu 16:26).
    Abraham's Bosom has already been emptied when Jesus preached to them after the cross 1Pe 3:19

    and believers do not go there anymore
    Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

  19. #105
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,879
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 852 Times in 787 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121120
    I would like to acknowledge that this stuff is hard to follow. I can say that the question of if everyone dies is different than what happens when a person dies.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us