Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[freelight]

ECT down the tubes......

ECT down the tubes......

~*~*~

Just a reminder,...whether one believes the witch of Endor actually did conjure or 'call' up the spirit of Samuel or not, the narrative can be interpreted various ways, and has been since the 'passage' was 'crafted',...further modified by tradition, culture, religious persuasion and 'personal opinion'. I can equally hold to a spiritualist/spiritist position on this, and 'God' remains 'God' by classical definition, and universal truth-values and religious principles still hold. - fundamental natural and spiritual laws ever sustain,...only differences in some minor relativities remain, which may be more or less 'non-essential'. Love is the universal law and way...and this is the same in all realms and dimensions, whether any soul is 'conscious' or 'unconscious'

More importantly to consider is that -

The doctrine of ECT in 'hellfire' is still insane.

~*~*~

As noted before,...the concept of an 'immortal' soul is foreign in Jewish scripture for the most part and such was adopted/adapted by the influence of pagan/greek/gnostic thought-streams, as Christianity added even more eclectic elements into its 'theology', so that traditionally many believe in some concept of the spirit or soul living forever (whether in heaven, hell or any state inbetween). This can be challenged by biblical literalists, in sundry passages, where no soul is ever 'immortal', but subject to death (mortality)...while only Deity is immortal, and CAN GIVE IMMORTALITY to any soul who so qualifies and chooses such. In this way, immortality is a GIFT given by God, not some inherent quality, property or attribute of the soul already. - more is elaborated with biblical proof texts in this research venue here.

On the whole of things I subscribe more to a Spiritualist viewpoint, and still remain open to futher psychical research on the Afterlife, spirit communication, NDE's, etc. although still allowing for what appears to be many passages supporting 'conditional immortality', if you want to keep things in the context of being 'biblical'. Otherwise, we have plenty of ancient and modern records of spirit-communications where the spirits/souls of the dead are apparently alive and well and happy in many cases to share about their adventures in the spirit-lands while exemplifying and expounding on the highest spiritual teachings and religious values, which could not be teachings of any 'demon' or 'devil', since a tree is known by its fruit, and we discern the nature of a thing or being by its essential characteristics or qualities.


ALSO, the law of karma continues in all realms and dimensions as long as any actions and their corresponding results or consequences pertain. - all souls continue to reap what they sow, and by this universal law,...God(divine law) is not mocked, since whatever you give out, you get back....measure for measure. Hence the call for repentance (changing ones mind) is always proclaimed by the prophets, for whatever quality, kind and nature of your thoughts and actions, you will produce the corresponding results in your experience. This pertains to every moment of 'conscious existence'. Now if you're "dead" somewhere (who knows where?)....and are wholly 'unconscious',....it wouldn't really matter, would it

 

[way 2 go]

You "imagine" the "the spirit" "she summoned" "told her that her visitor was the King of Israel"?

Don't your read what you have written? It reads like the first draft of a Broadway play.

It doesn't say she summoned anything. Samuel says he was "brought up". The text never has Samuel speaking to the witch at all, much less giving her any information. Why you think it "seems" like she could hear Samuel amazes me...and that Saul couldn't amazes me even more.

Just read what is written and stop adding to the word of God.




:doh:

:thumb:

how far will rozen go to avoid the simple truth, the spirit lives on after the body dies

 

[Derf]

I used the link and read the post about Joshua's Long Day. I agree with AMR that the sun stood still in Joshua's day. And now that you bring it up, this instance of Joshua actually provides another evidence that the spirit was not the real Samuel. It's right there in the text with Joshua.

Joshua 10:12-14 KJV
(12) Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
(13) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
(14) And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

First, it states that this was a miracle of the LORD, and second, it said that this was the most unusual thing ever that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man. Not happened before, shall not happen afterwards.

Here are a few more instances where the Lord hearkened unto one or more men:
[Num 21:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.
[Deut 9:19 KJV] 19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also.
[Deut 10:10 KJV] 10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, [and] the LORD would not destroy thee.
[2Ki 13:4 KJV] 4 And Jehoahaz besought the LORD, and the LORD hearkened unto him: for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Syria oppressed them.
[2Ch 30:20 KJV] 20 And the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.
[Mal 3:16 KJV] 16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard [it], and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

Since it happened both before and after the Joshua story, the Joshua text must not mean that God has never before and never afterward hearkened unto the voice of a man. Rather, the hearkening to do such a great miracle seems to be the emphasis in Joshua. And maybe to do such a great miracle that goes against what he had established before. Here's a suggestion of what God had revoked for a time when He stopped the sun:
[Gen 1:14 KJV] 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And I would caution you not to apply the "since" to all eternity. The context of the word "since" is pretty clear that whatever is being referred to had not happened before and had not happened since (both terms indicating what had already transpired)--up to the time of the writing of the passage. It's a dangerous extrapolation to go beyond the writer's words. I think it's a dangerous extrapolation to go beyond the author's words in our Samuel passage, too. I'm up for some rousing speculation, but at the end of the day, we only know what the scripture says about it, and extrapolating and speculating must take a back seat to the text.

Now consider the instance of the witch. It does not say that this was a miracle of the LORD, and some people here have suggested that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a witch! Ah, but you say, perhaps the LORD decided of his own will coincidentally? That's not acceptable either, for look how Jesus answered the temptation of the devil? When he was hungry, and Satan told him to make bread, he refused to avoid any appearance of obeying the suggestion.

Is God going to even make it look like he is obeying the witch?

Are you saying the LORD was unable to decide to bring up Samuel coincidentally? His power was limited in that instance? If that is true there would never, ever be an instance where a medium would be able to foretell something and be correct, even by coincidence, so that, by your statement, God would then be bound to always change what He was going to do any time an unbeliever predicted it. Are you sure you want to put God in that box? Plus, such an argument is self defeating--it makes it impossible for the apparition to be anything other than a messenger from God, because if it was a demon, then his prediction could never have come true the next day. And if he's a messenger from God, and he acknowledges that he was both "disturbed" and "brought up" by Saul's actions, then he identifies himself with Samuel, or at least a dead person, and a true messenger from God shouldn't be so deceitful. Thus, it appears to me that the messenger was actually Samuel--which conveniently fits the rest of the text.


And forgive my bluntness, but your example is exceedingly weak. I don't see any connection at all with the temptation of Jesus, and your assertion that Jesus went out of His way to avoid even the appearance of obeying Satan is without scriptural support. Maybe another extrapolation?

The text of Samuel doesn't say that this is a miracle of the LORD. The spirit says that he was brought up by the seance, not by an act of the LORD.

I assume you mean the spirit of the passage, and while I agree it looks that way, it isn't explicit, and the reaction of the witch speaks against it being her intention, imo. Thus, even though the witch was trying to do SOMETHING with her seance, and SOMETHING happened, the two SOMETHINGs are not the same. So, no, I don't think God hearkened to her voice.

Also, if the Lord has to announce each miracle as a miracle before it can an actual miracle, it seems to eliminate a good number of things we call miracles. Like the creation of the whole universe, perhaps.

(You seem to be exercising a double-standard here: Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man was never called a parable in the text, so for you to maintain such is duplicitous. Just a thought...)

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.

As for the integrity of the narrative, it tells us that the rebellion of Saul is as the sin of witchcraft, which was the reason Saul had the kingdom stripped from him, and also why God stopped talking to Saul. So when Saul engages in actual witchcraft, the narrative itself has already provided all the evidence we need to know that this isn't a prophet of God speaking to Saul. The integrity of the narrative itself demands that attempting to bypass God again is not going to bring him the real Samuel.

Seems like you're expending a lot of brain power to get around what the actual text is stating. You are saying that the passage is saying IMPLICITLY that it ISN'T Samuel, despite the EXPLICIT statements that it is. That was the point of my bringing up the conversation with [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]--that I appreciated his point (despite my scientific misgivings) that both the quotes and the narrative of the Joshua passage indicate that the sun is what stopped, and that we are in dangerous territory when we try to make it say something else.

I was just wondering why he didn't apply the same logic in the Samuel passage. It seemed a double standard on his part.

It doesn't tell us what rituals the witch may have done, because the scripture has never been of the intent of telling us what these rituals are. Therefore what she did or didn't have to do remains speculation, and rightly so.

Agreed.

However, the text does not say she was surprised by anything other than the identity of her client, that is, the king of Israel, the executioner of witches, Saul himself.

1 Samuel 28:12 KJV
(12) 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.

Saying that she was surprised by anything else would be speculation beyond what is given by the text.

Even "surprise" is more than the text gives us. All we know is that she cried out with a loud voice. I assume some surprise, but the loud voice was no doubt in fear of punishment, as you suggest, because of her client's identity. But the revelation of her client's identity was somehow from what she SAW. And if the apparition were something she was used to seeing (your assertion), then what she SAW would not seem to convey such revelation as the identity of her client. Maybe what the apparition might have SAID would reveal such, but not just the sight.

 

[way 2 go]

~*~*~

Just a reminder,...whether one believes the witch of Endor actually did conjure or 'call' up the spirit of Samuel or not, the narrative can be interpreted various ways, and has been since the 'passage' was 'crafted',...further modified by tradition, culture, religious persuasion and 'personal opinion'. I can equally hold to a spiritualist/spiritist position on this, and 'God' remains 'God' by classical definition, and universal truth-values and religious principles still hold. - fundamental natural and spiritual laws ever sustain,...only differences in some minor relativities remain, which may be more or less 'non-essential'. Love is the universal law and way...and this is the same in all realms and dimensions, whether any soul is 'conscious' or 'unconscious'

your god or gods are made up and can be whatever you feel ,
so your feelings on whether or not eternal conscious punishment
is true is just your feelings and has nothing to do with truth. :mrt:

Isa 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

[glorydaz]

:thumb:

how far will rozen go to avoid the simple truth, the spirit lives on after the body dies

Yep, that's what it all boils down to, isn't it?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

~*~*~

Just a reminder,...whether one believes the witch of Endor actually did conjure or 'call' up the spirit of Samuel or not, the narrative can be interpreted various ways, and has been since the 'passage' was 'crafted',...further modified by tradition, culture, religious persuasion and 'personal opinion'. I can equally hold to a spiritualist/spiritist position on this, and 'God' remains 'God' by classical definition, and universal truth-values and religious principles still hold. - fundamental natural and spiritual laws ever sustain,...only differences in some minor relativities remain, which may be more or less 'non-essential'. Love is the universal law and way...and this is the same in all realms and dimensions, whether any soul is 'conscious' or 'unconscious'

More importantly to consider is that -

The doctrine of ECT in 'hellfire' is still insane.

~*~*~

As noted before,...the concept of an 'immortal' soul is foreign in Jewish scripture for the most part and such was adopted/adapted by the influence of pagan/greek/gnostic thought-streams, as Christianity added even more eclectic elements into its 'theology', so that traditionally many believe in some concept of the spirit or soul living forever (whether in heaven, hell or any state inbetween). This can be challenged by biblical literalists, in sundry passages, where no soul is ever 'immortal', but subject to death (mortality)...while only Deity is immortal, and CAN GIVE IMMORTALITY to any soul who so qualifies and chooses such. In this way, immortality is a GIFT given by God, not some inherent quality, property or attribute of the soul already. - more is elaborated with biblical proof texts in this research venue here.

On the whole of things I subscribe more to a Spiritualist viewpoint, and still remain open to futher psychical research on the Afterlife, spirit communication, NDE's, etc. although still allowing for what appears to be many passages supporting 'conditional immortality', if you want to keep things in the context of being 'biblical'. Otherwise, we have plenty of ancient and modern records of spirit-communications where the spirits/souls of the dead are apparently alive and well and happy in many cases to share about their adventures in the spirit-lands while exemplifying and expounding on the highest spiritual teachings and religious values, which could not be teachings of any 'demon' or 'devil', since a tree is known by its fruit, and we discern the nature of a thing or being by its essential characteristics or qualities.


ALSO, the law of karma continues in all realms and dimensions as long as any actions and their corresponding results or consequences pertain. - all souls continue to reap what they sow, and by this universal law,...God(divine law) is not mocked, since whatever you give out, you get back....measure for measure. Hence the call for repentance (changing ones mind) is always proclaimed by the prophets, for whatever quality, kind and nature of your thoughts and actions, you will produce the corresponding results in your experience. This pertains to every moment of 'conscious existence'. Now if you're "dead" somewhere (who knows where?)....and are wholly 'unconscious',....it wouldn't really matter, would it

I see several aspects to your post that I deeply appreciate. You distinguished repentance as changing of ones mind, thus offloading the artificial religiously imposed kind of salvation by works.

I also noted that you acknowledge that the soul goes on.

I still wish you would roll up your sleeves and rip the scripture out and intertwine mostly scripture with reserved dialogue to keep your points from being attacked, but I read what you wrote and I have to say that it has "some" fair validity.

I don't think karma fits here, because we all have bad karma. Only God has GOOD karma, so to insinuate that our actions, good or bad influence outcome, in light of biblical discussion... other than acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and God.. in relationship to (changing ones mind).

In fact... I challenge you to bind what you just wrote to scripture. I'm just a voice suggesting this here, but I genuinely appreciated "most" of what you wrote here.

On this note... I genuinely believe that tampering with communication with the Dead is a bad practice. I sincerely believe that God warned us for the sake of the dead and the living.

What is your stance on this?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

There's a couple cat moments that I've seen that I wish I had on video. Even better than that.

Observable points for taking the fair sportsman approach!

 

[Derf]

Derf's post was very well thought out (it sounds like he is able to discuss rationally) but that particular first part you mention needs more explanation. So asking Derf, Is it a matter of who wrote the narrative, since the witnesses were one witch, Saul (who died), and his bodyguard? Or is it an implication that the writer would have been beholden to have inserted "(which was not Samuel)" to avoid controversy?

Jasher, maybe?? It's not an idle speculation, as both the Joshua story (prior to Saul), and the first chapter of 2 Sam (after Saul), refer to his book.

It is a great question, though the question is twofold: who related the story? and who wrote the story down? Maybe there's a third question of who canonized the story (by which I mean who put it into the form we have today).

For the relater, I will immediately discount the witch, though not so quickly Saul--might have related the story to his historian or someone else before he died. I would more likely expect one of the two men that accompanied him:
[1Sa 28:8 KJV] 8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee.

It would make sense there weren't too many with him, as an entourage would alert the witch of his importance, negating his disguise.

I admit that any of the potential relaters could likely get it wrong, purely based on their perspective of what transpired. But what I have a hard time with is when you say the Holy Spirit that inspired the canonizer (my usage) got it wrong. Not that we should never consider the possibility of incorrect text, but if we allow for incorrect text here, in the narrative (not in quotations), we allow for all sorts of incorrect things to be given us in the whole bible, including both narrative and quotations, since both had to have been inspired by the same incompetent Spirit.

So, if both quotation and narrative are unreliable? Which part of the bible IS reliable?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Jasher, maybe?? It's not an idle speculation, as both the Joshua story (prior to Saul), and the first chapter of 2 Sam (after Saul), refer to his book.

It is a great question, though the question is twofold: who related the story? and who wrote the story down? Maybe there's a third question of who canonized the story (by which I mean who put it into the form we have today).

For the relater, I will immediately discount the witch, though not so quickly Saul--might have related the story to his historian or someone else before he died. I would more likely expect one of the two men that accompanied him:
[1Sa 28:8 KJV] 8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee.

It would make sense there weren't too many with him, as an entourage would alert the witch of his importance, negating his disguise.

I admit that any of the potential relaters could likely get it wrong, purely based on their perspective of what transpired. But what I have a hard time with is when you say the Holy Spirit that inspired the canonizer (my usage) got it wrong. Not that we should never consider the possibility of incorrect text, but if we allow for incorrect text here, in the narrative (not in quotations), we allow for all sorts of incorrect things to be given us in the whole bible, including both narrative and quotations, since both had to have been inspired by the same incompetent Spirit.

So, if both quotation and narrative are unreliable? Which part of the bible IS reliable?

This is an enormously important point! 2nd Timothy 3:16 is either true or not true. Because Jesus explained that His divine words were "Spirit", we know that the entire bible is the Work of the "Spirit".

No matter how inconvenient a verse may be to our perception, it should forever be that we yield to Scripture, in context of 1 John 2:27, instead of attempting to make scripture yield to us.

 

[way 2 go]

I wonder who witnessed what was written in Job? :think:

Adam and Eve? :shocked:

I wonder who witnessed creation :think:



Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Rosenritter]

You "imagine" the "the spirit" "she summoned" "told her that her visitor was the King of Israel"?

Don't your read what you have written? It reads like the first draft of a Broadway play.

It doesn't say she summoned anything. Samuel says he was "brought up". The text never has Samuel speaking to the witch at all, much less giving her any information. Why you think it "seems" like she could hear Samuel amazes me...and that Saul couldn't amazes me even more.

Just read what is written and stop adding to the word of God.

:doh:

Glory, the difference between you and me here is that when the details of the text leave something unspecified, I am being straight-up with saying "I imagine" when trying to fill in the gaps. When you imagine something, you state it as if it were fact.

So how did the witch realize that she had been tricked, and that her visitor was Saul? It doesn't seem as if Saul told her, or else why would she have confronted Saul? Unless you want to lay the blame on one of the bodyguards, the only other entity involved here was the spirit.

"The text never has Samuel speaking to the witch at all?" The text does show us that the witch was privy to information that Saul was not. Vision, for example. Why did Saul need to ask what this spirit appeared as? If the witch could see what Saul could not, it isn't a far stretch to think that she could also hear the spirit when Saul couldn't. This would actually be normal behavior in a seance... and this was a seance. Before you attempt to argue that with more venomous snark, you may wish to look up the meaning of the word seance.

 

[Rosenritter]

Otherwise, we have plenty of ancient and modern records of spirit-communications where the spirits/souls of the dead are apparently alive and well and happy in many cases to share about their adventures in the spirit-lands while exemplifying and expounding on the highest spiritual teachings and religious values, which could not be teachings of any 'demon' or 'devil', since a tree is known by its fruit, and we discern the nature of a thing or being by its essential characteristics or qualities.[

The wide spectrum and variety of conflicting accounts claiming to have been alive while dead is not a testimony to their veracity, nor does confusion of doctrine and contradiction of God's word agree with the goodness of fruit.

 

[patrick jane]

t. This would actually be normal behavior in a seance... and this was a seance. Before you attempt to argue that with more venomous snark, you may wish to look up the meaning of the word seance.

Hold on, let me get my Ouija Board

 

[glorydaz]

Glory, the difference between you and me here is that when the details of the text leave something unspecified, I am being straight-up with saying "I imagine" when trying to fill in the gaps. When you imagine something, you state it as if it were fact.

I try to stick with the actual text. :chew:

So how did the witch realize that she had been tricked, and that her visitor was Saul? It doesn't seem as if Saul told her, or else why would she have confronted Saul? Unless you want to lay the blame on one of the bodyguards, the only other entity involved here was the spirit.

The witch didn't expect anyone to actually appear, because she had no power to make someone "appear". Her only power lay in deception. (LIKE IN A SEANCE)(added for effect)

"The text never has Samuel speaking to the witch at all?" The text does show us that the witch was privy to information that Saul was not. Vision, for example. Why did Saul need to ask what this spirit appeared as? If the witch could see what Saul could not, it isn't a far stretch to think that she could also hear the spirit when Saul couldn't. This would actually be normal behavior in a seance... and this was a seance. Before you attempt to argue that with more venomous snark, you may wish to look up the meaning of the word seance.

And to think I nearly responded to the rest of your post.

You are a whiney little girly man who got his comeuppance, and now has to treat others like they are idiots. I knew what a seance was before you learned to wipe your own behind.

Having fun yet?

Try reading what the scripture says instead of reading your own human reasoning into what it says.

The text says it was Samuel. The text says Saul perceived it was Samuel. The text has Samuel repeating what he had already told Saul, and adding that he and his sons would be dead and joining him the next day.

 

[glorydaz]

Hold on, let me get my Ouija Board

Do, it wouldn't be hard to convince him he was talking to an evil spirit. :chuckle:

 

[way 2 go]

I try to stick with the actual text. :chew:

Try reading what the scripture says instead of reading your own human reasoning into what it says.

The text says it was Samuel. The text says Saul perceived it was Samuel. The text has Samuel repeating what he had already told Saul, and adding that he and his sons would be dead and joining him the next day.

pesky details

1Sa 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered

 

[Rosenritter]

Here are a few more instances where the Lord hearkened unto one or more men: ...

Num 21:3, Deut 9:19, Deut 10:10, 2 Kings 13:4 .... The word "hearkened" is there but that's not the same thing. Jonah spoke out loud in front of everyone for God to do something and God did it. Something huge, something wild, something that sounds almost crazy.

Joshua 10:12 KJV
(12) Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

That's what it means by it hasn't happened before, and has not until now. It would be like if I went out and said "Everest, begone into the Pacific" and God just did it right there, SPLASH, with a resulting tsunami.

Since it happened both before and after the Joshua story, the Joshua text must not mean that God has never before and never afterward hearkened unto the voice of a man. Rather, the hearkening to do such a great miracle seems to be the emphasis in Joshua. And maybe to do such a great miracle that goes against what he had established before. Here's a suggestion of what God had revoked for a time when He stopped the sun: [Gen 1:14 KJV] 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

So far we aren't in any disagreement.

And I would caution you not to apply the "since" to all eternity. The context of the word "since" is pretty clear that whatever is being referred to had not happened before and had not happened since (both terms indicating what had already transpired)--up to the time of the writing of the passage.

Of course. But even to this day, I don't think anything that dynamic has happened where a man said "do this" and God did it for him.

It's a dangerous extrapolation to go beyond the writer's words. I think it's a dangerous extrapolation to go beyond the author's words in our Samuel passage, too. I'm up for some rousing speculation, but at the end of the day, we only know what the scripture says about it, and extrapolating and speculating must take a back seat to the text.

Your premise is reasonable and well-cautioned.

Are you saying the LORD was unable to decide to bring up Samuel coincidentally? His power was limited in that instance?

Yes, and I will clarify my meaning. He would be just as unable to raise a spirit of Samuel "coincidentally" making it seems "in response to a seance" as he would be unable to regenerate a man's severed arm, who invoked the power of healing by offering a blood child sacrifice while cursing the name of Jehovah. Even under better circumstances, Jesus was unable to perform miracles of healing where their faith was lacking.

So to speak clearly, God is unable in that He will not respond in any such a fashion that would appear to justify wickedness.

If that is true there would never, ever be an instance where a medium would be able to foretell something and be correct, even by coincidence, so that, by your statement, God would then be bound to always change what He was going to do any time an unbeliever predicted it. Are you sure you want to put God in that box?

Ah, God is not in such a box. Were push to come to shove, and a medium were claiming to speak for God or to be proving who was supreme, God can simply silence the medium in question that would have made the correct lucky guess and claimed it for a sign. Or he could kill the medium, that would work also. God silenced Zacharias (Luke 1;20) for less. I don't think God would be reluctant to voice-lock a witch or two to avoid the paradox that you came up with in that thought-experiment.

Plus, such an argument is self defeating--it makes it impossible for the apparition to be anything other than a messenger from God, because if it was a demon, then his prediction could never have come true the next day.

There's a flaw in there somewhere. Devils do sometimes give accurate prediction, and God is under no obligation to make the words that come from a devil's mouth not come to pass. Once you leave the safety of God, you're on your own at that point.

And if he's a messenger from God, and he acknowledges that he was both "disturbed" and "brought up" by Saul's actions, then he identifies himself with Samuel, or at least a dead person, and a true messenger from God shouldn't be so deceitful. Thus, it appears to me that the messenger was actually Samuel--which conveniently fits the rest of the text.

I am not persuaded as such, for reasons voiced above. After the LORD refused to answer Saul by prophet or legitimate oracle, Saul went and sought out the enemies of the LORD that he was obliged to put to death, and engaged in witchcraft by performing a seance. The text does not say that the LORD intervened, or sent an angel, or a saint, and as such we should expect that this was a "normal" seance, with the results of what you would normally expect from a seance.

The ghost saying it was "disquieted" by Saul's act does nothing to authenticate it as being legitimate. That's exactly what you would expect a demonic apparition to say as well. If we were to assume this was the legitimate Samuel, he would have been obliged to at the very least disassociated himself from the witch... but rather he heeded her summons, and (we assume that) she even got paid.


And forgive my bluntness, but your example is exceedingly weak. I don't see any connection at all with the temptation of Jesus, and your assertion that Jesus went out of His way to avoid even the appearance of obeying Satan is without scriptural support. Maybe another extrapolation?

I don't understand you. I'm speaking of when Jesus was very hungry. Like not having eaten in forty days. The devil appears, and says "You are very hungry. If you be the Son of God, you have the power to make those stones bread. Aren't you hungry? Why not do it?" We know Jesus didn't turn the stones into bread. I'm going to assume that we are in agreement that he had the power, and he was hungry, so why didn't he?

I assume you mean the spirit of the passage, and while I agree it looks that way, it isn't explicit, and the reaction of the witch speaks against it being her intention, imo. Thus, even though the witch was trying to do SOMETHING with her seance, and SOMETHING happened, the two SOMETHINGs are not the same. So, no, I don't think God hearkened to her voice.

God has no motive to help the witch in her craft. An argument that God coincidentally decided to perform a miracle seems very shaky. Given the setting, it would need a "Thus the LORD did .... such and such" for support.

Also, if the Lord has to announce each miracle as a miracle before it can an actual miracle, it seems to eliminate a good number of things we call miracles. Like the creation of the whole universe, perhaps.

Given the setting of a seance performed by a witch, it would definitely need such a declaration.

(You seem to be exercising a double-standard here: Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man was never called a parable in the text, so for you to maintain such is duplicitous. Just a thought...)

We are told that Jesus didn't speak before multitudes without parable, Matthew 13:34, Mark 4:34, which sets the default for anytime Jesus is about a multitude. So without something to indicate that Jesus is obviously using plain speech, the bible default is parable.

Now if we shift to the witch, we are told that God condemns the sins of witchcraft and necromancy, that he is not a man that he should be wearied into changing his decree, and although we are told he can be merciful when petitioned by those with a repentant heart, what Saul is doing is the opposite of repentance. So our bible-defined default is that what is happening in this passage is entirely not the actions of God.

Seems like you're expending a lot of brain power to get around what the actual text is stating. You are saying that the passage is saying IMPLICITLY that it ISN'T Samuel, despite the EXPLICIT statements that it is.

Yes, I am saying that the passage is implicitly saying it isn't the legitimate Samuel. I understand that the Bible is expected to be read in context. But you are not correct in saying that the text has explicit statements that the spirit is legit. Here's the definition of explicit:

explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

If there was an explicit statement, there would be no room for the argument of implicitness.

That was the point of my bringing up the conversation with @Ask Mr. Religion--that I appreciated his point (despite my scientific misgivings) that both the quotes and the narrative of the Joshua passage indicate that the sun is what stopped, and that we are in dangerous territory when we try to make it say something else.

This is veering off on tangent slightly, but as to the question of whether the sun stopped moving, or the earth stopped rotation, and all that, whether the earth moves around the sun or the sun around the earth is simply a matter of where you define your mathematical zero.

For practical purposes, I understand that the sun stopped moving in the sky for a literal duration in which time continued to pass. If one side of the earth had a longer day, another would have a longer night. Portions must have had a really long sunrise or sunset.

I was just wondering why he didn't apply the same logic in the Samuel passage. It seemed a double standard on his part.

The text of Joshua explicitly says what occurred, and says it was a miracle from God, even a miracle to top miracles. That explicit statement leaves no room for implicit suggestions that it was an illusion of daylight. The seance of the ghost of Samuel comes with no explicit statement that it was an act of God, or that the Samuel was legitimate, and so many implicit reasons why (as AMR mentioned a few) that this could not be the legitimate saint summoned by the witch.

Even "surprise" is more than the text gives us. All we know is that she cried out with a loud voice. I assume some surprise, but the loud voice was no doubt in fear of punishment, as you suggest, because of her client's identity. But the revelation of her client's identity was somehow from what she SAW. And if the apparition were something she was used to seeing (your assertion), then what she SAW would not seem to convey such revelation as the identity of her client. Maybe what the apparition might have SAID would reveal such, but not just the sight.

I wasn't the person saying "surprised surprised" before. I just finally turned to that again because of the oft repetition of such. As you say, the text doesn't say surprised, but if there is surprise, it would be implied because she was wary of Saul before when she thought he was distant, and now was crying in a loud voice that she had been tricked and it was Saul. Sounds like some surprise at least, because it specifically deals with that.

How do you think the witch realized that she was dealing with Saul? Do you think she figured it out on her own, or was told?

 

[Rosenritter]

Jasher, maybe?? It's not an idle speculation, as both the Joshua story (prior to Saul), and the first chapter of 2 Sam (after Saul), refer to his book.

It is a great question, though the question is twofold: who related the story? and who wrote the story down? Maybe there's a third question of who canonized the story (by which I mean who put it into the form we have today).

For the relater, I will immediately discount the witch, though not so quickly Saul--might have related the story to his historian or someone else before he died. I would more likely expect one of the two men that accompanied him:
[1Sa 28:8 KJV] 8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee.

It would make sense there weren't too many with him, as an entourage would alert the witch of his importance, negating his disguise.

I admit that any of the potential relaters could likely get it wrong, purely based on their perspective of what transpired. But what I have a hard time with is when you say the Holy Spirit that inspired the canonizer (my usage) got it wrong. Not that we should never consider the possibility of incorrect text, but if we allow for incorrect text here, in the narrative (not in quotations), we allow for all sorts of incorrect things to be given us in the whole bible, including both narrative and quotations, since both had to have been inspired by the same incompetent Spirit.

So, if both quotation and narrative are unreliable? Which part of the bible IS reliable?

I've read Jasher, and it doesn't have anything in it about this. It's more on the earlier Israel times, and although it starts off parallel to Genesis, it starts veering off into the tall tale area. I mean where anyone reading it would say "Wait a minute, that did NOT happen..." and it's for good reason it's not considered among inspired scripture.

I am inclined to think that God could have simply told whomever he chose to finish writing this part of the book, "These are the words, write them this way..." There's precedent that God does sometimes say "write this..."

Jeremiah 36:27-28 KJV
(27) Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
(28) Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hold on, let me get my Ouija Board

Reasons like that... are why we aren't given details of what the witch did. People would be tempted to try it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Do, it wouldn't be hard to convince him he was talking to an evil spirit. :chuckle:

I seriously hope that you know better than to mess with Ouija boards.