Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[glorydaz]

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

Aren't you just the cutest? And it comes so naturally.

Don't force yourself too hard.

I won't.

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.

I'm not anti-bible....are you?

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."

And you call this an example of literacy?

I've been "fooled into believing in the devil"....because of what I don't see in the text?

All righty then. :chuckle:

Shall I try condescension now?

Try it?

No, you've already proven your skill in snarky.

It seems you don't appreciate attempts to appeal to civility or logic.

Oh, I appreciate any honest attempts to be civil.

I'm just not buying your supposed attempts. I can spot a hypocrite a mile away. :wave:

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Do you even pay attention to what I've said? Have you ever read the Book of Samuel that we're talking about? This is what Samuel told Saul the last time he saw him, and he was grieved because of what Saul had done. He didn't see Saul again until the day of Saul's death when God brought him up from Abraham's bosom. It's just the same as when the Lord brought Moses and Elijah to appear on the Mount of Transfiguration. I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand.

1 Samuel 15:27-35
And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. 28 And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. 30 Then he said, I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God. 31 So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord. 32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. 33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.​

As I said, Samuel repeats what he had told Saul in chapter 15 when Saul rent his garment.

1 Samuel 28:16-19
Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? 17 And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: 18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. 19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.​

Is God a man, that he should repent? Your story keeps getting more and more elaborate as you try to make things fit.

I don't have to make things fit. I merely read the Scripture....including the above in yellow where the LORD REPENTED that He had made Saul a king over Israel. Must I show you other places in the word where God changed His plans because of man's repentance or prayer?

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?

It would help if you had read the chapter in question.

1 Samuel 26:21-25
Then said Saul, I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly. 22 And David answered and said, Behold the king's spear! and let one of the young men come over and fetch it. 23 The Lord render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed. 24 And, behold, as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation. 25 Then Saul said to David, Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt still prevail. So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.​

1 Samuel 27:4 And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more again for him.​

And don't ASSUME, as you are so wont to do, that I believe Saul's repentance was adequate or accepted by God. I merely mention it because you don't seem to know anything about this chapter.
If Saul's heart was genuinely ready then God would know it, and sending Samuel may be what Saul needed here at the end of his life. I'm afraid it's no more than what we saw with Judas, but that's not for me to say.

1 Sam. 28:20 Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night.​

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you even pay attention to what I've said?

I actually stop paying much attention when you start making stuff up and calling it scripture.

Have you ever read the Book of Samuel that we're talking about? This is what Samuel told Saul the last time he saw him, and he was grieved because of what Saul had done. He didn't see Saul again until the day of Saul's death when God brought him up from Abraham's bosom.

Like that, there. Where in heck does the Bible say that Samuel ascended / descended to Abraham's bosom? It doesn't say anything of the sort. There's little point in attempting to respond to your irate diatribe when you get off on the wrong foot so early, then base all of your conclusions on a faulty premise.

At this point I've given up attempting to respond to you in the normal logical manner. If you insist on being Ms. Snark, then Ms. Snark you shall be. There's not much to be gained by trying to speak to an angry man (or woman.)

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't have to make things fit. I merely read the Scripture....including the above in yellow where the LORD REPENTED that He had made Saul a king over Israel. Must I show you other places in the word where God changed His plans because of man's repentance or prayer?

I suspect that you have a very short memory, that you don't read when you are angry, and do not remember the story of Saul and Samuel well. Or all combination. Here's the context:

Num 23:19
(19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:28-29
(28) And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
(29) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.



If you do not understand what that means, then the onus lies upon you to reconcile the meaning. I am speaking in the sense of scripture, in the same way that Samuel spoke to Saul, so there is no point in claiming righteous indignation when I use the passage in the same context and meaning.

1Sa 28:6
(6) And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.


So, when the LORD will not answer Saul but dreams, or Urim, or by prophets, does seeking out witches with familiar spirits seem consistent with the theory that Saul was repentant towards God? Saul did not repent, but your theory seems to be that the LORD was wearied, as a man, and finally now sent a prophet. Frankly, that's completely out of character.

And don't ASSUME, as you are so wont to do, that I believe Saul's repentance was adequate or accepted by God. I merely mention it because you don't seem to know anything about this chapter. If Saul's heart was genuinely ready then God would know it, and sending Samuel may be what Saul needed here at the end of his life...

So just to clarify, your theory is that God thought that if one were to come back from the dead, that they might repent? Glory, this doesn't even seem consistent with what you say you believe already. If you believe that "Lazarus and the rich man" is a literal truth, then doesn't it already say something in this regard?

Luk 16:30-31
(30) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
(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.

Ironically, even "Lazarus and the rich man" doesn't acknowledge ghosts coming back from the dead. The interpretation that the character of Moses has is "rising from the dead" (resurrection) rather than "returning as a ghostly messenger."

Back to the original question, though. I asked where the scripture itself stated that the ghost of Samuel was repeating the words of the LORD in his dialogue with Saul. As in "And Samuel thus spoke the words of the LORD unto Saul, saying ..." or so forth. Something where the author of the book itself authenticates the phantom as legitimate, or failing that, where the ghost itself claims to be sent by the LORD to speak to Saul. I didn't see either of those. But if I understand correctly, you are not claiming this type of support?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

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.

Isaiah 19:3
Isaiah 8:19
Deuteronomy 18:10f

No problem. Each of these verses shows you that the dead can be "called up" and not one of them says what you are saying about "Demons" impersonating the dead.

In fact, not one verse says what you are saying because it isn't in the Bible. It is a cult teaching of all soul sleep doctrine based groups. No where is your theology of ghosts being anything other than the dead conscious souls of the deceased, taught in scripture.

You are moving the goal post and changing context to support what isn't there.

You have no need to apologize for "refuting me", because you have been refuted and are now being intellectually dishonest about contextual meaning.

I don't understand the possibility of annihilation at the making of all things new because I want to. I understand it because it is in scripture. I also acknowledge that ECT is a scriptural possibility. You are making scripture out to fit your idea, instead of fitting your ideas to scripture.

Ghosts were discussed by Jesus Himself. That's the final word with a Capital W.

In reference to your apology...

 

[glorydaz]

I actually stop paying much attention when you start making stuff up and calling it scripture.



Like that, there. Where in heck does the Bible say that Samuel ascended / descended to Abraham's bosom? It doesn't say anything of the sort. There's little point in attempting to respond to your irate diatribe when you get off on the wrong foot so early, then base all of your conclusions on a faulty premise.

At this point I've given up attempting to respond to you in the normal logical manner. If you insist on being Ms. Snark, then Ms. Snark you shall be. There's not much to be gained by trying to speak to an angry man (or woman.)

Gotta be projecting since I'm quite content.

 

[glorydaz]

I suspect that you have a very short memory, that you don't read when you are angry, and do not remember the story of Saul and Samuel well. Or all combination. Here's the context:

Num 23:19
(19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:28-29
(28) And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
(29) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.



If you do not understand what that means, then the onus lies upon you to reconcile the meaning. I am speaking in the sense of scripture, in the same way that Samuel spoke to Saul, so there is no point in claiming righteous indignation when I use the passage in the same context and meaning.

1Sa 28:6
(6) And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.


So, when the LORD will not answer Saul but dreams, or Urim, or by prophets, does seeking out witches with familiar spirits seem consistent with the theory that Saul was repentant towards God? Saul did not repent, but your theory seems to be that the LORD was wearied, as a man, and finally now sent a prophet. Frankly, that's completely out of character.

[/COLOR]

So just to clarify, your theory is that God thought that if one were to come back from the dead, that they might repent? Glory, this doesn't even seem consistent with what you say you believe already. If you believe that "Lazarus and the rich man" is a literal truth, then doesn't it already say something in this regard?

Luk 16:30-31
(30) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
(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.

Ironically, even "Lazarus and the rich man" doesn't acknowledge ghosts coming back from the dead. The interpretation that the character of Moses has is "rising from the dead" (resurrection) rather than "returning as a ghostly messenger."

Back to the original question, though. I asked where the scripture itself stated that the ghost of Samuel was repeating the words of the LORD in his dialogue with Saul. As in "And Samuel thus spoke the words of the LORD unto Saul, saying ..." or so forth. Something where the author of the book itself authenticates the phantom as legitimate, or failing that, where the ghost itself claims to be sent by the LORD to speak to Saul. I didn't see either of those. But if I understand correctly, you are not claiming this type of support?

I was correct.....you don't listen.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I suspect that you have a very short memory, that you don't read when you are angry, and do not remember the story of Saul and Samuel well. Or all combination. Here's the context:

Num 23:19
(19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:28-29
(28) And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
(29) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.



If you do not understand what that means, then the onus lies upon you to reconcile the meaning. I am speaking in the sense of scripture, in the same way that Samuel spoke to Saul, so there is no point in claiming righteous indignation when I use the passage in the same context and meaning.

1Sa 28:6
(6) And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.


So, when the LORD will not answer Saul but dreams, or Urim, or by prophets, does seeking out witches with familiar spirits seem consistent with the theory that Saul was repentant towards God? Saul did not repent, but your theory seems to be that the LORD was wearied, as a man, and finally now sent a prophet. Frankly, that's completely out of character.

[/COLOR]

So just to clarify, your theory is that God thought that if one were to come back from the dead, that they might repent? Glory, this doesn't even seem consistent with what you say you believe already. If you believe that "Lazarus and the rich man" is a literal truth, then doesn't it already say something in this regard?

Luk 16:30-31
(30) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
(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.

Ironically, even "Lazarus and the rich man" doesn't acknowledge ghosts coming back from the dead. The interpretation that the character of Moses has is "rising from the dead" (resurrection) rather than "returning as a ghostly messenger."

Back to the original question, though. I asked where the scripture itself stated that the ghost of Samuel was repeating the words of the LORD in his dialogue with Saul. As in "And Samuel thus spoke the words of the LORD unto Saul, saying ..." or so forth. Something where the author of the book itself authenticates the phantom as legitimate, or failing that, where the ghost itself claims to be sent by the LORD to speak to Saul. I didn't see either of those. But if I understand correctly, you are not claiming this type of support?

I want to distance myself from this defense of "soul sleep". While I have explained the clear dispensational presence of Annihilation in scripture at the close of it all and the new Heaven and New Earth, I do not support reframing the clear biblical evidence of the dead going to be with Christ that are "in Christ", or the dead that are apart from Christ being Concious in scriptural passages that are clear.

To redefine what happened to Saul is absolutely impossible. Can you please quote a verse that says it wasn't Samuel? Just one? In Exodus, when false magic of deceit was used, the fake snake was eaten by the snake that God miraculously brought forth from the staff. We see scripture assisting us in what is real and what is fake.

So, one verse that supports your argument that ghosts don't exist. Just one. Not an argument constructed of misdirection and misquotation, that is deep within a large post, but one verse that supports that the dead aren't speaking in scripture from Sheol, the bosom of Abraham or heaven? Just one that says exactly what you are saying that is in the same location as the passages that refute you?

As for your claims against the disciples thinking Jesus was a ghost, twice... Jesus corrected the disciples when they were wrong. Could you please find that passage for me?

I refuse to allow Lazarus and the rich man to be used as a post judgment passage, because it is dispensationally within the age of grace, but in it, Jesus acknowledges the consciousness of the deceased and the ability for the deceased to communicate with the living.

In the parable, the deceased Rich Man asks to warn his brethren, but Jesus then says if one who returns from the dead through resurrection can't convince them...

Note that... Jesus doesn't say the Dead are unconscious. He says that the Dead speaking to the living is far less convincing than the Dead ressurecting to be living again and communicating. He then emphasizes that if the resurrected can't convinve the Rich Man's brethren, the Rich Man's communication from the realm of the dead won't help.

Annihialation at the close of judgment? Sure. This is enormously possible.

Soul sleep? Not scriptural and only generated with verses taken out of context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Isaiah 19:3
Isaiah 8:19
Deuteronomy 18:10f

No problem. Each of these verses shows you that the dead can be "called up" and not one of them says what you are saying about "Demons" impersonating the dead.

In fact, not one verse says what you are saying because it isn't in the Bible. It is a cult teaching of all soul sleep doctrine based groups. No where is your theology of ghosts being anything other than the dead conscious souls of the deceased, taught in scripture.

You are moving the goal post and changing context to support what isn't there.

You have no need to apologize for "refuting me", because you have been refuted and are now being intellectually dishonest about contextual meaning.

I don't understand the possibility of annihilation at the making of all things new because I want to. I understand it because it is in scripture. I also acknowledge that ECT is a scriptural possibility. You are making scripture out to fit your idea, instead of fitting your ideas to scripture.

Ghosts were discussed by Jesus Himself. That's the final word with a Capital W.

In reference to your apology...

I think you may be a bit too superstitious. Your "proof" is more like circular reasoning. The use of the word "necromancer" or "witch" does not prove that ghosts are the after-remains of human people, and likewise the use of the word "spirit" does not mean that it is the spirit of a dead person. You have a certain meaning (in your mind) of what that means, and when you see the word "ghost" or "spirit" or "witch" you're acting like that's a proof of what you were trying to prove. That's a type of circular logic.

You stated your standard of proof at "irrefutable" - and if your version of "irrefutable" simply means that you can argue without having conclusive evidence, that puts everything else you might believe suspect as well. Do you have any place where the canonical bible says that the dead exist as ghosts? Or that ghosts are literally the spirits of dead people? I know you don't because I've read the whole collection. It's not there.

On the other hand, if you wanted to resort to non-canonical books, you might be able to gain something there. For example, the Book of Jasher has a funny story where Joseph is crying and runs to his mother's grave, and she chides him for being whiny as a ghostly voice from beyond the grave. But there's a lot of strange things in the Book of Jasher, and there's a good reason why it isn't accepted as inspired scripture. Limit yourself to the books that are inspired, and there's no support for what you're trying to say.

Understand that you have the burden of proof in this regard. If you say you have "irrefutable proof" then you need to have a solid item that tells us that ghosts and spirits that mess with our realm include people who were dead. Not a reference to the superstitions of the heathens, or the beliefs of a fallen king of Israel. The forbidding of necromancy does not say anything as to what those spirits are.

If your standard of proof is not sound in the little things, then how can you be trusted with the greater things?

P.S. Seeing as we are told straight out in black and white that "the dead do not even know that they are dead" you would need something very very definite to have a legitimate entrance into this question.

P.P.S. I understand that Sith Lords don't specialize in logic. Why bother when you can force-choke your way through any argument?

 

[Rosenritter]

To redefine what happened to Saul is absolutely impossible. Can you please quote a verse that says it wasn't Samuel? Just one? In Exodus, when false magic of deceit was used, the fake snake was eaten by the snake that God miraculously brought forth from the staff. We see scripture assisting us in what is real and what is fake.

The snakes weren't fake in that instance. What we had was that the power behind the sign given to Moses was superior to the powers behind the signs given by the magicians. Funny you should mention that, by the way. Yesterday, saw a site discussing the "spirit of Samuel" and after weighing back and forth, it said "Samuel was the Ghost" and the reason it gave was that "Satan cannot produce miracles." And here you are bringing the topic of demonic miracles to the mention for a different reason.

So, one verse that supports your argument that ghosts don't exist. Just one.

I never said ghosts don't exist. I said that "ghosts" being "the remains of dead people" is a demonic hoax. By assigning "dead people" to "ghosts" in your definition, you are dipping into circular reasoning, which is why you're stuck in this rut of thinking yourself irrefutable.

Not an argument constructed of misdirection and misquotation, that is deep within a large post, but one verse that supports that the dead aren't speaking in scripture from Sheol, the bosom of Abraham or heaven? Just one that says exactly what you are saying that is in the same location as the passages that refute you?

Only one? Ecc 9:5 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.
If the living know that they shall die, then it is strongly implied that "not any thing" includes that the dead don't even know that they are dead. The concept of ghosts that you speak of usually have some sort of "thing" that they know, including that they are dead, or at least were formerly alive.

As for your claims against the disciples thinking Jesus was a ghost, twice... Jesus corrected the disciples when they were wrong. Could you please find that passage for me?

How is it relevant? Yes, Jesus confirmed that he was not a ghost or spirit. The point being was that his disciples were frightened of him when they thought he could be a ghost. If a ghost was a legitimate representation of the dead person, why should they be scared of a dead Jesus?

Luk 24:36-37
(36) And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


Apparently, a "ghost that appears as Jesus" would be something to be feared, because it's not the real Jesus.

Mat 14:25-26
(25) And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
(26) And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.


Granted, in the example above one could argue that it was stormy and the features of Jesus might not be clear. But the first example was in the midst of them, in clear detail, without weather conditions.

I refuse to allow Lazarus and the rich man to be used as a post judgment passage, because it is dispensationally within the age of grace, but in it, Jesus acknowledges the consciousness of the deceased and the ability for the deceased to communicate with the living.

Jesus does not acknowledge that the dead are conscious in the parable of Lazarus, because the context of the passage is a parable, not a teaching on the state of the dead. You'll have to leave that out of your arsenal of proofs for the moment.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

#NOPE

#NOPE

The snakes weren't fake in that instance. What we had was that the power behind the sign given to Moses was superior to the powers behind the signs given by the magicians. Funny you should mention that, by the way. Yesterday, saw a site discussing the "spirit of Samuel" and after weighing back and forth, it said "Samuel was the Ghost" and the reason it gave was that "Satan cannot produce miracles." And here you are bringing the topic of demonic miracles to the mention for a different reason.




I never said ghosts don't exist. I said that "ghosts" being "the remains of dead people" is a demonic hoax. By assigning "dead people" to "ghosts" in your definition, you are dipping into circular reasoning, which is why you're stuck in this rut of thinking yourself irrefutable.



Only one? Ecc 9:5 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.
If the living know that they shall die, then it is strongly implied that "not any thing" includes that the dead don't even know that they are dead. The concept of ghosts that you speak of usually have some sort of "thing" that they know, including that they are dead, or at least were formerly alive.



How is it relevant? Yes, Jesus confirmed that he was not a ghost or spirit. The point being was that his disciples were frightened of him when they thought he could be a ghost. If a ghost was a legitimate representation of the dead person, why should they be scared of a dead Jesus?

Luk 24:36-37
(36) And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


Apparently, a "ghost that appears as Jesus" would be something to be feared, because it's not the real Jesus.

Mat 14:25-26
(25) And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
(26) And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.


Granted, in the example above one could argue that it was stormy and the features of Jesus might not be clear. But the first example was in the midst of them, in clear detail, without weather conditions.



Jesus does not acknowledge that the dead are conscious in the parable of Lazarus, because the context of the passage is a parable, not a teaching on the state of the dead. You'll have to leave that out of your arsenal of proofs for the moment.

I think you may be a bit too superstitious. Your "proof" is more like circular reasoning. The use of the word "necromancer" or "witch" does not prove that ghosts are the after-remains of human people, and likewise the use of the word "spirit" does not mean that it is the spirit of a dead person. You have a certain meaning (in your mind) of what that means, and when you see the word "ghost" or "spirit" or "witch" you're acting like that's a proof of what you were trying to prove. That's a type of circular logic.

You stated your standard of proof at "irrefutable" - and if your version of "irrefutable" simply means that you can argue without having conclusive evidence, that puts everything else you might believe suspect as well. Do you have any place where the canonical bible says that the dead exist as ghosts? Or that ghosts are literally the spirits of dead people? I know you don't because I've read the whole collection. It's not there.

On the other hand, if you wanted to resort to non-canonical books, you might be able to gain something there. For example, the Book of Jasher has a funny story where Joseph is crying and runs to his mother's grave, and she chides him for being whiny as a ghostly voice from beyond the grave. But there's a lot of strange things in the Book of Jasher, and there's a good reason why it isn't accepted as inspired scripture. Limit yourself to the books that are inspired, and there's no support for what you're trying to say.

Understand that you have the burden of proof in this regard. If you say you have "irrefutable proof" then you need to have a solid item that tells us that ghosts and spirits that mess with our realm include people who were dead. Not a reference to the superstitions of the heathens, or the beliefs of a fallen king of Israel. The forbidding of necromancy does not say anything as to what those spirits are.

If your standard of proof is not sound in the little things, then how can you be trusted with the greater things?

P.S. Seeing as we are told straight out in black and white that "the dead do not even know that they are dead" you would need something very very definite to have a legitimate entrance into this question.

P.P.S. I understand that Sith Lords don't specialize in logic. Why bother when you can force-choke your way through any argument?

Nope

Twisted Scripture, Verses Ripped From Context About the Spiritually Blind and a box of Chocolates will get you.... $1.50

So... I'm mic dropping. Your ability to go on and on isn't in question, but you are officially out of gas and all over the map to avoid the plain facts. You'll need to ask for theological directions around "those parts of scripture"... because your conclusions are up chocolate creek without a Popsicle stick.

In LayMan's Terms,

To be specific, if you call life after death, before the 2nd Coming "superstitious", I hate to see how you process Matthew 27:52.

Let me guess... Luke 23:43 is a delayed promise from Jesus that you redefine what "Today" means... oh... and John 14:3 had nothing to do with Jesus preparing Heaven for us during the 3 days before His resurrection that the Bible clearly discusses.

You didn't even touch the verses about absent from the Body, present with the Lord, or that He led captives captive, specifically when He is recorded in Peter as having Ministered to the Spirits while He was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the Spirit... that I posted the first time around. You simply glossed over what Jesus said and didn't say and generated a bunch of diatribe that is kin to Soul sleep doctrine that isn't supported by any part of scripture.

You can't even explain the difference between Sheol and the bosom of Abraham!

Puuuuuuu-llllleeeeeaaaaassssseeeeeeee...

Buh-Bye!!!

Yup

John 11:23-27 is the end of this silly debate.

"Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."​

Jesus to Martha... Not just the ressurection, but never die

Rosenritter to all... What Jesus really meant was...

Evil.Eye.<(I)>to Rosenritter...

P.S. I know you'll have an answer, but I'm preemptively pointing out that it's... how did Solomon say it... "Nothing new, under the Sun"... as in... just copy this and insert it as my auto response...

Spoiler

Explaining how soul sleep doctrine is false and biblically deceptive to Rosenritter...

 

[way 2 go]

 

[Rosenritter]

Evil Eye, that post of yours was moronic. I can't even see text for the multitude of absurd graphical smack-talk. I'm going to scroll back and see if I can find any text in there. Then I'm going to respond to that one bit only, and give you a chance to respond like a reasonable intelligent person.

To be specific, if you call life after death, before the 2nd Coming "superstitious", I hate to see how you process Matthew 27:52.

1. Your tactic here is called a "straw man" - that is, you invent an argument for your opponent that they didn't make, in order to easily attack it. Can you find any place where I said that God has not ever raised someone who had died back to working physical life before the judgment of Doomsday?

Acts 20:9-12 KJV
(9) And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
(10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
(11) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
(12) And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Same explanation. God raised them to life. What is hard about this? No ghosting required.

2. Second, you have switched topics. The topic was the nature of ghosts: are they created spirits, or the remnants of living men and women? Your diversion (of the dead being raised to physical life) is irrelevant to the question at hand.

If your understanding is "I would hate to see how you handle..." something so ... (how do I say this) ... not needing any explanation? and your previous unfounded statements you self-declare as "irrefutable" ... then the measure of your reality seems more like a measure of your opinion. If you actually have questions, would you like to try again without the smack-talk?

 

[Rosenritter]

Lest ye be wise in your own conceit...

Let me guess... Luke 23:43 is a delayed promise from Jesus that you redefine what "Today" means...

No, the text means exactly what it says, as properly translated in the older English translations and including the King James:

Luke 23:42-43 KJV
(42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The promise is given and writ into divine commandment law that day. Unless you are misreading the passage as if it were translated "you will be with me in paradise this day" you would recognize this as being a normal style of speech that you will find used elsewhere in the scripture as well. Now, if you have something in you other than posting arrogant Youtube clips, answer this honestly please:

1 Samuel 18:21 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.

When Saul speaks in 1 Samuel 18:21 above, he then commands his servants to speak secretly with David. And David sends messages back by the same servants. And then Saul speaks back by his servants. And then it says that "the days were not expired." So far all this is according to Saul's plan...

... and then David gathers together some friends, goes deep enough into enemy territory to find two hundred enemy soliders, kills them, removes their foreskins, and returns to Saul, tells the story, presents the trophies... and only then, the conditions being met, Saul gives him Michal his daughter to wife.

Was Saul mistaken when he spoke in 1 Samuel 18:21? Thou shalt this day be my son in law in one of the twain. The conditions he set obviously couldn't have been accomplished in a single day. In this style of speaking, is the promise made that day, or is the fulfillment of that promise guaranteed to happen that day?

I realize that Americans particularly have trouble with this bit of grammar (they subconsciously transpose "will" with "shall") but there's an even more obvious example waiting in the wings if you're having a bit of trouble with this one.

Now back to the subject of honest discussion: would you like to try a more reasonable approach? Hint: a reasoned logical approach does not necessitate virtual animated cheerleaders from pop culture.

 

[Rosenritter]

You didn't even touch the verses about absent from the Body, present with the Lord, or that He led captives captive, specifically when He is recorded in Peter as having Ministered to the Spirits while He was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the Spirit... that I posted the first time around. You simply glossed over what Jesus said and didn't say and generated a bunch of diatribe that is kin to Soul sleep doctrine that isn't supported by any part of scripture.

1. When I responded earlier, I specifically said that I was choosing one point only to respond towards, to point out that if your logic was fatally flawed in that one spot, that your arguments were likewise suspect in all. Specifically, I picked a point where you called yourself "irrefutable" when you lacked scriptural support, and the argument was certainly refutable. You seemed to be convinced that the status of a thing being "your opinion" made it irrefutable.

2. If you take objection to something I say, then quote it specifically, and show how it necessarily generates contradiction. Don't just off at the mouth and spam the boards with Jedi mind tricks or summon the spirit of Bill Murphy to help you out.

So I'm going to make a (possible flawed) assumption that you're going to be reasonable. Let's test it out. I'll try to turn your accusation into a set of questions.

a) What is the supposed problem with "absent from the body" compared to "present with the Lord?"

b) What is the supposed problem with Psalm 68:18 and how does that relate to whether the dead have a conscious existence as ghosts?

c) Where does Peter say that Jesus ministered to spirits while he was dead? That sounds like a badly mangled version of 1 Peter 3:19. If that is what you meant, please start by quoting the passage with the actual words of scripture (which in this case, have quite a different meaning than the Evil Eye Paraphrase.)

Now, do you see how this is supposed to work? One person asks questions, and gives the other person a chance to respond. And that response further gives the original person a chance to respond, and the whole bit of putting words in people's mouths and smack-talking gets left by the wayside.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can't even explain the difference between Sheol and the bosom of Abraham!

One is the Hebrew term for the unseen realm and/or state of death, the equivalent of the Greek hades. The other is a figurative reference for the Jewish reward after death, taken from Jewish folklore.

Difference explained. A rhetorical question, do you tire of making accusations that are so easily deflected? These careless attacks are both irresponsible and inaccurate. Do you feel that I have been treating you this way?

 

[Rosenritter]

John 11:23-27 is the end of this silly debate.

"Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

Jesus to Martha... Not just the ressurection, but never die

If you use a translation with accurate English, it says "shall never die" not "will never die"

John 11:26 KJV
(26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

That state of being untouched by death is fulfilled in the future. This is confirmed by both Paul and Jesus as not being fulfilled until the resurrection of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 KJV
(54) So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
(55) O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Luke 20:35-36 KJV
(35) But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(36) Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Revelation 21:4 KJV
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

If we are using the scripture for our guide to doctrine, we are told that death exists (and we are subject to that death) until it is abolished by resurrection unto eternal life. "He that believeth in me shall never die" does not mean that belief grants immunity to death in the here and now, it means that those that believe shall be granted eternal life in the resurrection in the world to come.

Jesus and Paul both confirm that we are subject to death until the blessed resurrection of the dead, and at that time, we are no longer touched by death. Are these passages new to you? I don't think they should be.

The end of silly debate? I certainly hope so. Would you be willing to try intelligent respectful and thought-out debate instead?

 

[Rosenritter]

 

[way 2 go]

.

 

[glorydaz]

One is the Hebrew term for the unseen realm and/or state of death, the equivalent of the Greek hades. The other is a figurative reference for the Jewish reward after death, taken from Jewish folklore.

Difference explained. A rhetorical question, do you tire of making accusations that are so easily deflected? These careless attacks are both irresponsible and inaccurate. Do you feel that I have been treating you this way?

"These careless attacks"....stating that you can't explain something you clearly can't?

I can see you are treating others much worse than they treat you. Are you that blind to your own words?