Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Eagles Wings]

I am a guy. I am married to a girl. I have a seven month old daughter.

How wonderful!

 

[Lon]

You should have stayed lost on this one. Taking bits and pieces is not really cool.

I'm with Bobby and Cindy
View attachment 25786

If you happen to see a little native boy running away from his grandfather around, please point him toward our direction.

 

[glorydaz]

Can you show me where the text says that it WAS the "spirit of Samuel?" I think you're reading that into the text. It says that Saul perceived it was Samuel. Because if the passage literally confirmed that this was indeed the actual Samuel, and not a familiar spirit, then this discussion wouldn't be necessary, would it?

1 Samuel 28:7 KJV
(7) Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.

Scripture says nothing about Samuel being a "familiar spirit", or a pretend spirit, or a fake Samuel, or a figment of Saul's imagination. The woman, herself, was surprised at what she saw.

Scripture says plainly, "the woman saw Samuel".

1 Sam. 28:12 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.​

Scripture clearly says, "And SAMUEL said to Saul.."

1 Samuel 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?​

 

[way 2 go]

Scripture says nothing about Samuel being a "familiar spirit", or a pretend spirit, or a fake Samuel, or a figment of Saul's imagination. The woman, herself, was surprised at what she saw.

Scripture says plainly, "the woman saw Samuel".

1 Sam. 28:12 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.​

Scripture clearly says, "And SAMUEL said to Saul.."

1 Samuel 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?​

:up:

so simple a child can understand it

 

[Rosenritter]

Scripture says nothing about Samuel being a "familiar spirit", or a pretend spirit, or a fake Samuel, or a figment of Saul's imagination. The woman, herself, was surprised at what she saw.

Scripture says plainly, "the woman saw Samuel".

1 Sam. 28:12 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.​

Scripture clearly says, "And SAMUEL said to Saul.."

1 Samuel 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?​

The scripture does say that the woman was one who had a familiar spirit, and we are elsewhere told that the spirits can impersonate things they are not, even making themselves as an angel of light. When the disciples of Jesus thought they saw a spirit, they never once thought that "maybe it is a friendly spirit." (Mark 14:26, Luke 24:37, 1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 11:14). When one goes to a woman who summons spirits by means of a familiar spirit, it is a reasonable expectation that what she summons is what she is known to summon.

If I understand the thrust of your point, however, it is that the text refers to the thing as "Samuel." But, as already mentioned earlier, this by itself proves nothing, as the Hebrew scripture especially uses short forms in place of more lengthy appellations. for example, who did Elhanan slay in battle? Did he really slay Goliath?

2 Samuel 21:19 RV
(19) And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim the Beth–lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

The King James adds the brother of to the passage in italics, because the author of 2 Samuel simply used the word "Goliath." The addition of the brother of is supported by context: first, we already know that David killed Goliath, and second, 1 Chronicles 20:5 uses the extra words "the brother of" in a parallel account supporting that this the correct translation.

Likewise, same book, 1 Samuel 28, it is easier for the writer to say "Samuel" than "the apparition that called itself Samuel" and perfectly in keeping with the meaning of the way scripture is writ. Given the context of the passage, it seems to me that without a positive affirmation of "thus saith the Lord" it would be irresponsible to assume that the specter was anything but an impostor.

I am not assuming that the ghost was the real Samuel. If you can show me where the text makes that clarification for us, please do so. Otherwise, the context of the passage is a medium that deals with devils, who does not have the power to raise the dead or summon the saints to her bidding, and a God who has already refused to entertain Saul's request for council through all other means.

I'll remind you that I am not the only person who understands the passage in this sense. Luther, Calvin, King James I, etc... so if we are talking about this then let's consider the merits and what we can find that adds support. Or in other words, let's make an attempt at objectivity. Way 2 Go's time-tested method of ad hominem mockery remains unpersuasive.

 

[way 2 go]

The scripture does say that the woman was one who had a familiar spirit, and we are elsewhere told that the spirits can impersonate things they are not, even making themselves as an angel of light. When the disciples of Jesus thought they saw a spirit, they never once thought that "maybe it is a friendly spirit." (Mark 14:26, Luke 24:37, 1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 11:14). When one goes to a woman who summons spirits by means of a familiar spirit, it is a reasonable expectation that what she summons is what she is known to summon.

If I understand the thrust of your point, however, it is that the text refers to the thing as "Samuel." But, as already mentioned earlier, this by itself proves nothing, as the Hebrew scripture especially uses short forms in place of more lengthy appellations. for example, who did Elhanan slay in battle? Did he really slay Goliath?

2 Samuel 21:19 RV
(19) And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim the Beth–lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

The King James adds the brother of to the passage in italics, because the author of 2 Samuel simply used the word "Goliath." The addition of the brother of is supported by context: first, we already know that David killed Goliath, and second, 1 Chronicles 20:5 uses the extra words "the brother of" in a parallel account supporting that this the correct translation.

Likewise, same book, 1 Samuel 28, it is easier for the writer to say "Samuel" than "the apparition that called itself Samuel" and perfectly in keeping with the meaning of the way scripture is writ. Given the context of the passage, it seems to me that without a positive affirmation of "thus saith the Lord" it would be irresponsible to assume that the specter was anything but an impostor.

I am not assuming that the ghost was the real Samuel. If you can show me where the text makes that clarification for us, please do so. Otherwise, the context of the passage is a medium that deals with devils, who does not have the power to raise the dead or summon the saints to her bidding, and a God who has already refused to entertain Saul's request for council through all other means.

I'll remind you that I am not the only person who understands the passage in this sense. Luther, Calvin, King James I, etc... so if we are talking about this then let's consider the merits and what we can find that adds support. Or in other words, let's make an attempt at objectivity. Way 2 Go's time-tested method of ad hominem mockery remains unpersuasive.

a lot of :blabla: to avoid the truth .

pegged you from the beginning as someone who didn't care about truth .

everything Samuel said was true and everything Samuel prophesied came true

1Sa 28:16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?
1Sa 28:17 The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me, for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.
1Sa 28:18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day.
1Sa 28:19 Moreover, the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

 

[KingdomRose]

The doctrine of eternal conscious torment is insidious, blasphemous, sadistic and 100% pagan. It is not taught in the Bible, and anyone who wants to know the truth about "hell" can find out very quickly.
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Hell

 

[glorydaz]

The scripture does say that the woman was one who had a familiar spirit, and we are elsewhere told that the spirits can impersonate things they are not, even making themselves as an angel of light. When the disciples of Jesus thought they saw a spirit, they never once thought that "maybe it is a friendly spirit." (Mark 14:26, Luke 24:37, 1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 11:14). When one goes to a woman who summons spirits by means of a familiar spirit, it is a reasonable expectation that what she summons is what she is known to summon.

The question is what the scripture actually says. It says clearly that it was Samuel and that Samuel spoke.

If I understand the thrust of your point, however, it is that the text refers to the thing as "Samuel." But, as already mentioned earlier, this by itself proves nothing, as the Hebrew scripture especially uses short forms in place of more lengthy appellations. for example, who did Elhanan slay in battle? Did he really slay Goliath?

Samuel was not a "thing". He was a prophet of God.

2 Samuel 21:19 RV
(19) And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim the Beth–lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

The King James adds the brother of to the passage in italics,

Most translations have it right.

Likewise, same book, 1 Samuel 28, it is easier for the writer to say "Samuel" than "the apparition that called itself Samuel" and perfectly in keeping with the meaning of the way scripture is writ. Given the context of the passage, it seems to me that without a positive affirmation of "thus saith the Lord" it would be irresponsible to assume that the specter was anything but an impostor.

No, if it had been a "specter", Scripture would not have say it was Samuel, nor would the woman have been so surprised....nor would a "specter" have spoken for God and repeated what Samuel had already told Saul.

I am not assuming that the ghost was the real Samuel. If you can show me where the text makes that clarification for us, please do so. Otherwise, the context of the passage is a medium that deals with devils, who does not have the power to raise the dead or summon the saints to her bidding, and a God who has already refused to entertain Saul's request for council through all other means.

I'll remind you that I am not the only person who understands the passage in this sense. Luther, Calvin, King James I, etc... so if we are talking about this then let's consider the merits and what we can find that adds support. Or in other words, let's make an attempt at objectivity. Way 2 Go's time-tested method of ad hominem mockery remains unpersuasive.

You can have a whole crowd on your side, and that won't change what is clearly written.

You refuse to read it as it's written because you think we die when we put off this tent in which we dwell. I think the Bible clearly says that's not the case.

 

[glorydaz]

The doctrine of eternal conscious torment is insidious, blasphemous, sadistic and 100% pagan. It is not taught in the Bible, and anyone who wants to know the truth about "hell" can find out very quickly.
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Hell

According the this cult member, Jesus is merely A GOD. Of course she preaches error and knows nothing but error.

 

[Rosenritter]

The question is what the scripture actually says. It says clearly that it was Samuel and that Samuel spoke.

Samuel was not a "thing". He was a prophet of God.

Most translations have it right.

No, if it had been a "specter", Scripture would not have say it was Samuel, nor would the woman have been so surprised....nor would a "specter" have spoken for God and repeated what Samuel had already told Saul.

You can have a whole crowd on your side, and that won't change what is clearly written.

You refuse to read it as it's written because you think we die when we put off this tent in which we dwell. I think the Bible clearly says that's not the case.

You are neglecting to answer the actual points. Is this on accidental, or by design?

1) You deflected the point that the scripture, even the same author of the books of Samuel, does use less words, and that "the thing calling itself Samuel" would also be called by the same word "Samuel." And to counter the "Samuel was not a thing" argument, yes, Samuel was a thing. Regardless of whether it was a devil or man, even the Christ-child was a "thing" (Luke 1:35) so could you put aside any pretended indignation and address the actual point?

2) Regardless of whether English translations add "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19, you again avoided addressing the point. The literal Hebrew text itself says that Goliath was slain, which counters your argument that the lack of "He that spoke as" in front of "Samuel" means that it must therefore be the one and only true Samuel.

3) Scripture does not "say" it was the legitimate Samuel , any more than scripture says Goliath died twice. See points above. Whatever was speaking called itself Samuel. Regardless, yes, a specter would have spoken for God and would have known what was already told Saul. That's what false prophets and devils do.

What is missing is any sanction from God or scripture to show that this apparition was legitimate. The context shows that we should have no expectation of legitimacy, Saul was abandoned by God and went to a witch that had a familiar spirit. If you are interested in any sort of logical discussion, show me reason(s) why this Samuel should be accepted as true and legitimate.

You can have a whole crowd on your side, and that won't change what is clearly written.

You refuse to read it as it's written because you think we die when we put off this tent in which we dwell. I think the Bible clearly says that's not the case.

Your logic isn't working very well here. John Calvin strongly believed that when we die we go floating zipping around as immaterial beings, without need of resurrection. Likewise with Matthew Henry (as cited earlier) - clearly this is not the issue with interpreting whether this be the actual Samuel. Can you abstain from red herrings, and address the issues raised?

An argument as to the nature of the state of the dead is irrelevant in this case, it is not being used as a point of persuasion (and people on both sides of that question still agree that the apparition was not the legitimate Samuel.

Here, I will summarize again for you:

1) The use of the word "Samuel" does not testify as to whether this was the real legitimate Samuel. It only means that the thing called itself Samuel, and it is consistent with the style of biblical transcription to use less words.

2) Context of the passage includes that Saul was rejected by God, had a history of being plagued by evil spirits, and when God would not speak to Saul by oracle or prophet or any other means, that being summoned by a medium that summons devils is hardly the type of situation which would invoke a response from the True God or his prophets. Context demands that we assume that this Samuel was not a Samuel of God, but a Samuel of Satan.

3) You have neglected to show any evidence to show why this Samuel should be considered legitimate. Evil spirits of divination do make predictions of doom which do come true, and it is not as if Saul was under the protection of God any longer.

Would you be able to abstain from ad hominem and/or diversion and address the points raised please?

 

[Rosenritter]

You refuse to read it as it's written because you think we die when we put off this tent in which we dwell. I think the Bible clearly says that's not the case.

Again, an appeal for your argument to remain on topic, I will remind you that whether or not this was the real Samuel or not has no influence on the normal state of the dead. This "Samuel" was risen from the depths of the earth, he said that he had been disquieted, disturbed from rest, and that afterwards, Saul and his sons would join him. This does not conflict with what we are told of the normal state of death elsewhere, that the dead are at rest, they know nothing, that good and evil men alike are free from troubling.

The only thing this would influence is whether one can be temporarily summoned by a witch into an conscious ghostly state that can carry on a conversation. I realize that you likely WANT this to be the real Samuel because you may have thought that it would prove that "the dead are conscious" but it doesn't even do that for you. This is about the reach and realm of necromancy and witchcraft, and whether God allows witches to summon his saints from their rest.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I have decided to reveal my full hand of cards and realign myself for this discussion. I have been following it off and on, and I want to make some specific distinctions from all of the other annihilists that have posted here.

I do believe in "tortured souls" that are in anguish as we speak, right now. I don't believe this is "Fire" of the literal sort, but I believe it is a culmination of a craving for rest that doesn't come. Sort of like this...

Isaiah 48:22 There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.​

I need to point out that God taught us about DEMONS and GHOSTS in the contents of the Gospels.

Mark 5:9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.”​

The Demons were "Spirits" that had no "Home" or "Body". This is emphasized here.

Luke 11:24 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’​

Parallel the word water-less with the following...

Luke 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’​

It is clear that the "Rich Man" has rejected Christ in the dispensational age of grace. We know this because of this...

Luke 11:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.​

This "one rose from the dead" is clearly Jesus, and the dispensation of Grace is going forth, while the Popper that was paid for by accepting Jesus' provision is with Jesus, but the "Rich Man" is stuck in Sheol, consciously.

We know that Sheol is a place of Consciousness because of this...

Jonah 2:2 He said, "I called because of my affliction to Yahweh. He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried. You heard my voice.​

When I say "Tortured Souls"... I mean something like this...

I could go on and on, but I believe that even this "Refiner's Fire" is allowed for a GOOD purpose. I believe that judgment will provide a final reckoning for people and Israel will be central to this reckoning. I believe that the fallout from the "JUDGMENT" will be the annihilation of some and the reconciliation of others.

The hope I see for this is found in the following verses...

Joel 2:2 “Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;​

Revelation 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there).​

There can no longer be torment Day and Night if there is NO NIGHT. This, and the following verse...

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”​

There will no longer be any more pain, once the old passes away. This is the annihilation of the wicked and all that brought wickedness. If this weren't true... than Revelation 21:4 would be a lie.

As for ghosts, or disembodied souls that dwell consciously in the "Realm of the Dead"...

This is pretty much the irrefutable proof...

Matthew 14:26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.​

And again...

Luke 24:36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”​

Sorry [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] ,

There are GHOSTS and DEMONS ... "Tortured Souls and Disembodied Angels that are Cast Down"...

If it were not so, then the author of Matthew would have said... they thought they saw a ghost/spirit, though those don't exist.

And again... In Luke 24:36, Jesus wouldn't have gone to lengths to differentiate Himself from a Ghost/Spirit.

If you don't want to "believe" in immediate afterlife and ghosts, then you are reading the wrong book. To believe in life after death is one of the key elements of acknowledging the validity of Spiritual things.

Souls don't cease to be "Conscious" and "exist" until the Judgment (Matthew 10:28, Zechariah 10:5; 14:3f). And we don't face the "Judgment" if we are IN CHRIST, but are immediately ... (2 Cor. 5:8). Those that do have hope, but they will experience that hope under deep peril, deception and pain.

- EE

As far as deception and pain on that "Millennial DAY" goes... (dropped those cards too.) ...

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.​

Note... The VERY ELECT... I.E. Israel of Jacob's Land and Decedents will be brought back to CHRIST and as much as SATAN wants the "Body of MOSES" (Jude 1:9) ... He can't have them... notice Matthew 24:24 says ... "IF IT WERE POSSIBLE"...

que up that good old Romans 11. Yup!

So, um...

Where do I go from here?

Don't forget...

Those of us know our fate, once we shed this "TENT"...

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

And just in case there's any questions...

Matthew 27:52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,​

How did they get "JAIL BUSTED"?

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey,​

After all...

Ephesians 4:8 This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people."​

Let me put it this way... [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] , I agree that "Highway to Hell" is on the money... it's just that the Sheol and Gehenna are two separate matters. The truth of the matter is that the song Highway to Hell is devoted to making the cut in Sheol and Gehenna. That's not the best aspirations, but at least AC/DC had the guts to tell it like it is.

[MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] I've enjoyed watching the thread discussion here...

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] , I do believe you are the only person in a long time to ever be willing to study with me so deep that I hit my flat out... I don't know if I'll ever know that... point, but you helped me get there and it always feels good to know that we won't know it all. After all, there is only ONE TRUE "Know's it All" and He goes by the name Jesus. Deep gratitude for the tactful and honest way you approach discussion and scripture.

Yup...

 

[Lazy afternoon]

1Sa 28:18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day.

The Spirit of Amalek must be killed off in the heart of all men in order that they be saved, even in the believers.

Saul was a type of many a preacher of our time and any who love themselves more than the Lord who bought them.

LA

 

[glorydaz]

You are neglecting to answer the actual points. Is this on accidental, or by design?

If I could find an "actual point" in what your wrote, I would certainly address it.

1) You deflected the point that the scripture, even the same author of the books of Samuel, does use less words, and that "the thing calling itself Samuel" would also be called by the same word "Samuel." And to counter the "Samuel was not a thing" argument, yes, Samuel was a thing. Regardless of whether it was a devil or man, even the Christ-child was a "thing" (Luke 1:35) so could you put aside any pretended indignation and address the actual point?

That right there is why I can barely force myself to respond to anything you write.

2) Regardless of whether English translations add "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19, you again avoided addressing the point. The literal Hebrew text itself says that Goliath was slain, which counters your argument that the lack of "He that spoke as" in front of "Samuel" means that it must therefore be the one and only true Samuel.

And you think someone might be fooled enough to think it was the same Goliath that had already been slain, just because "the brother of" was not written down? :chuckle:


You're busy grasping at straws when the Scripture says it is Samuel who spoke to Saul. :chew:

What is missing is any sanction from God or scripture to show that this apparition was legitimate. The context shows that we should have no expectation of legitimacy, Saul was abandoned by God and went to a witch that had a familiar spirit. If you are interested in any sort of logical discussion, show me reason(s) why this Samuel should be accepted as true and legitimate.

Besides what is plainly written, you mean? All things are consistent with what Samuel said and repeated to Saul, including the fact that he and his sons would die. I am interested in all kinds of discussion, but you aren't interesting in discussion....you're into cramming your thoughts down my throat, and I'm not willing to sit here and take it.

Can you abstain from red herrings, and address the issues raised?

Oh, I was thinking you were the red herring purveyor.

An argument as to the nature of the state of the dead is irrelevant in this case, it is not being used as a point of persuasion (and people on both sides of that question still agree that the apparition was not the legitimate Samuel.

Except for all those people who agree it was Samuel....just as Moses and Elijah were themselves when they appeared on the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Here, I will summarize again for you:

1) The use of the word "Samuel" does not testify as to whether this was the real legitimate Samuel. It only means that the thing called itself Samuel, and it is consistent with the style of biblical transcription to use less words.

The "thing" didn't call itself Samuel.

"Biblical transcription to use less words." Really? All the necessary words are in Scripture....it's not a matter of style but of what God has seen forth to give us.

2) Context of the passage includes that Saul was rejected by God, had a history of being plagued by evil spirits, and when God would not speak to Saul by oracle or prophet or any other means, that being summoned by a medium that summons devils is hardly the type of situation which would invoke a response from the True God or his prophets. Context demands that we assume that this Samuel was not a Samuel of God, but a Samuel of Satan.

Nonsense, God had mercy on the entire nation of Israel (many times) after He had threatened to destroy them. It's a little thing called MERCY. Context does NOT DEMAND we ASSUME any such thing. I will say again, God would never allow Satan to use one of His prophets for such a deception. Satan can only do what God allows. That is where your little Hollywood drama fails.

3) You have neglected to show any evidence to show why this Samuel should be considered legitimate. Evil spirits of divination do make predictions of doom which do come true, and it is not as if Saul was under the protection of God any longer.

You are simply blind to any evidence because you are so convinced that you're right. It's pointless to have discussions with those who have donkeyed down like you have.

Would you be able to abstain from ad hominem and/or diversion and address the points raised please?

Would you be able to abstain from your condescension? No, I don't believe you can.

 

[glorydaz]

Again, an appeal for your argument to remain on topic, I will remind you that whether or not this was the real Samuel or not has no influence on the normal state of the dead. This "Samuel" was risen from the depths of the earth, he said that he had been disquieted, disturbed from rest, and that afterwards, Saul and his sons would join him. This does not conflict with what we are told of the normal state of death elsewhere, that the dead are at rest, they know nothing, that good and evil men alike are free from troubling.

It's exactly where he would be (in Abraham's bosom) as Luke 16 tells us. They are free from the "cares of this world", and if you weren't just a cherry picker, you would know that. Samuel was disturbed from his rest...done with the cares of this world....waiting in Abraham's bosom.

Samuel knew the state of things when he died (put off the tent of his body), and when God allowed him to come up, Samuel repeated to Saul what God had said. But Saul had repented and Samuel had no knowledge of that....but God did. Saul was not yet dead and there is always hope until then. Hebrews 9:27 It could be that Saul was being given another chance by God. That's another topic and I wouldn't want to put it forth as a "red herring". But there is more to the story than the witch of En Dor.

The only thing this would influence is whether one can be temporarily summoned by a witch into an conscious ghostly state that can carry on a conversation. I realize that you likely WANT this to be the real Samuel because you may have thought that it would prove that "the dead are conscious" but it doesn't even do that for you. This is about the reach and realm of necromancy and witchcraft, and whether God allows witches to summon his saints from their rest.

I realize you WANT this to be about witches and not the state of the soul after death, but it supports what the Bible says all throughout. Man is more than just flesh and blood....he is soul and spirit as well. Soul sleep is not Biblical...period.

 

[way 2 go]

The doctrine of eternal conscious torment is insidious, blasphemous, sadistic and 100% pagan. It is not taught in the Bible, and anyone who wants to know the truth about "hell" can find out very quickly.

this from a cultist

 

[way 2 go]

You are neglecting to answer the actual points. Is this on accidental, or by design?

1) You deflected the point that the scripture, even the same author of the books of Samuel, does use less words, and that "the thing calling itself Samuel" would also be called by the same word "Samuel." And to counter the "Samuel was not a thing" argument, yes, Samuel was a thing. Regardless of whether it was a devil or man, even the Christ-child was a "thing" (Luke 1:35) so could you put aside any pretended indignation and address the actual point?

basic english escapes rr

noun,person place or thing

Samuel is a person

2) Regardless of whether English translations add "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19, you again avoided addressing the point. The literal Hebrew text itself says that Goliath was slain, which counters your argument that the lack of "He that spoke as" in front of "Samuel" means that it must therefore be the one and only true Samuel.

3) Scripture does not "say" it was the legitimate Samuel , any more than scripture says Goliath died twice. See points above. Whatever was speaking called itself Samuel. Regardless, yes, a specter would have spoken for God and would have known what was already told Saul. That's what false prophets and devils do.

Joh 21:17Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
by rr logic we should assume that was not Jesus, after all this was after the crucifixion

What is missing is any sanction from God or scripture to show that this apparition was legitimate. The context shows that we should have no expectation of legitimacy, Saul was abandoned by God and went to a witch that had a familiar spirit. If you are interested in any sort of logical discussion, show me reason(s) why this Samuel should be accepted as true and legitimate.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

1Sa 28:16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?


rosen says the bible lies a lot,
first Jesus in luke 16 now the writer of 1Sa 28

 

[Rosenritter]

As for ghosts, or disembodied souls that dwell consciously in the "Realm of the Dead"...

This is pretty much the irrefutable proof...

Matthew 14:26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.​

And again...

Luke 24:36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”​

Sorry @Rosenritter

Sorry to have to refute you so early here, but the use of the word "ghost" or "spirit" does not mean that one believes that these are the remnants of dead people. Case in point, myself. I speak of ghosts or spirits, and understand these to be demonic apparitions. Without a body, perhaps, but not from the realm of the dead, regardless of how they wish to appear. I could find quite a few more examples to show that I am not unusual in this regard, but hopefully you can recognize the flaw in your argument above.

 

[Rosenritter]

If I could find an "actual point" in what your wrote, I would certainly address it.

Literacy, tried it? The points are numbered for you.

That right there is why I can barely force myself to respond to anything you write.

Don't force yourself too hard.

And you think someone might be fooled enough to think it was the same Goliath that had already been slain, just because "the brother of" was not written down? :chuckle:

Actually, it does happen. That particular spot is one of the places that anti-bible folks use to attack the scriptures, claiming it contains self-contradiction. And another case in point, you apparently have been fooled into believing in the devil, appearing as an angel of light, because you don't see the words "the spirit that was not actually" in front of "Samuel."

Would you be able to abstain from your condescension? No, I don't believe you can.

Shall I try condescension now? It seems you don't appreciate attempts to appeal to civility or logic.

 

[Rosenritter]

Samuel repeated to Saul what God had said.

Ah, can you show me where it says that this "Samuel" repeated what God had said? I distinctly remember the text saying that God was not communicating to Saul by any means. Is God a man, that he should repent? Your story keeps getting more and more elaborate as you try to make things fit.

But Saul had repented and Samuel had no knowledge of that....but God did. Saul was not yet dead and there is always hope until then. Hebrews 9:27 It could be that Saul was being given another chance by God. That's another topic and I wouldn't want to put it forth as a "red herring". But there is more to the story than the witch of En Dor.

Red herring or no, it's not like it matters when you don't address specific points on logical terms. So although far be it from me to distract you from your pattern of personal attacks, why don't you just go ahead and tell me where you have read that Saul had repented. You sound pretty sure about this. I understand the Koran says that Pharaoh repented right before he perished in the Red Sea, is it something like that? Is your source biblical, or extra-biblical?