Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[daqq]

Definitely leaves room for the possibility. :cheers:

And as late evening was progressing the vessel was in the midst of the sea, already many stadia distant from the land, and he himself was alone upon the land. But the vessel was being distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary to them. And seeing them striving, rowing tortuously, the Ι̅H came toward them in the fourth watch of the night, walking upon the sea. Moreover he was of the determination to draw up along side them; but when they saw him walking upon the sea, they assumed he was a Phantasma, and they all cried out: for they all saw him, and were terrified, and cried out, saying, It is a Phantasma!

But immediately the Ι̅H spoke to them, saying, Θαρσειτε εγω ειμι! μη φοβεισθε!

 

[Derf]

No, that's not it. What distinguishes Joshua's Long Day from the ghost of Samuel is that the bible clearly says that the LORD performed a miracle for Joshua. What distinguishes the sundial moving backwards from the ghost of Samuel is that the bible clearly says this was a sign of the prophet of the LORD. What clearly distinguishes the parting of the Red Sea from the ghost of Samuel is that the bible clearly says that this was accomplished by the LORD.

In contrast, the accounting of the ghost of Samuel was at a seance, and there is nary a mention of a miracle of the LORD. Normally you wouldn't have to say that the sun stopping in the sky was a miracle of God, but it said it. Considering the setting of a seance, if there was a miracle of God involved, it would have been essential for this to be mentioned.

I think you've missed the ramifications of your view. If the woman brought up a demon or some other apparition that was NOT Samuel, but something in her power, and then the demon predicted the future correctly (Saul's and Saul's sons' deaths and defeat for the nation of Israel), then it affirms the practice of divination, and grants to demons what only God can do, as is apparent in Is 46:10.

So I think that drives you to your next choice, that either God spoke to Saul through a demon, or the demon's prediction was his own, but it was a mere guess. The accuracy of the prediction speaks for itself, imo, so I'll just consider whether God spoke through a demon. I don't know of any cases where that happened. Maybe you can suggest some. The best I can think of is when God allowed a lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his false prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:21. But even there, the spirit did not speak the words of God.

It's more of an argument of where the burden of proof belongs, and what should be assumed by default.

Thank you for telling me what scripture means when it doesn't say something.

When Jesus was assuring his disciples that he was not a spirit, he pointed out that he had solid flesh and bones. Whatever it was that appeared to the witch in the presence of Saul, it was invisible, because Saul had to ask what it looked like. If it had been in the flesh, how would it have been invisible?

I addressed this already, at the end of my post. I don't claim it as the only solution, but a possible one. If Samuel was not buried at Endor, which he wasn't (1Sa 28:3), then it is unlikely that Saul could have seen the "gods" coming up from the earth bringing Samuel--it was too far away and he couldn't see through the walls of the witch's abode. A seer, however, possibly can "see" events in other locations through the familiar spirit's "sight", however that might work. A distinction can certainly be made between a demon's knowledge of the present compared with his knowledge of the future.

I can still see this either way. If a devil was speaking through the mouth of the medium as Samuel, she would be "back" to be able to "come unto Saul" after if left her. I don't see the text excluding either possibility.

Perhaps, but since you like arguments from silence, I'll use one here. In no other places in the scriptures where demons are controlling a person's speech does it use such language. In the demoniac of Gadara, it's hard to tell who's doing the talking, except by what is said. Even the text is unclear, making it seem like the man is talking, but the demons' words are coming out of his mouth.
[Luk 8:27-28 KJV] 27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in [any] house, but in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
But as you know and will likely hit me over the head with, it's an argument from silence.

The Bible also says "thou shalt not surely die" - which is a lie, the first lie, and the origin of lies. If you wanted to suggest that we couldn't trust scripture, I would say that it is already understood that we are supposed to use discernment, rightly dividing the word. That you don't trust the words of devils or spirits raised by necromancy is part of the package. Regardless, our clue here is simple. Scripture doesn't tell us this is a legitimate Samuel. Rather, it tells us that Saul perceived it was Samuel, and henceforth, when it calls it Samuel, it is with the given definition that this is according to Saul's perception.

Paul tells us specifically not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to see if they honor God. Does this spirit give us anything to indicate that it honored God? How does it fare on this test? (See 1 John 4:1)

You disappoint me, RR. I made specific reference to the distinction between narration and quotation. You do see that if scripture quotes an entity when that entity is lying, the scripture is still accurate. Whereas, if all quotes were altered so that nobody ever lied, in order to avoid your scenario above, the scriptures would be lying. But if the narrative is false, then the authors of the bible MUST NOT HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. In fact, in your example above, the fact that we know the serpent lied is because the narrative gives us the background for the quotes.

But, let's take a less drastic approach. Less say, just for grins, that the whole bible is not now being called into question, but only the little section we are in now. I'll start the story in vs. 3, since 1 and 2 talk about David and Achish. What is the first thing we find out? Samuel is dead and buried in Ramah. We will acknowledge that as true, since it is a repeat from 1Sam 25:1. But the next thing this author tells us is that Saul had put away those with familiar spirits. Is that true? This is the only place that tells us so. Maybe Saul didn't put them away, and that's why this medium is still around.

Spoiler

If this little old woman with a familiar spirit was hiding out from the authorities, then she was a "small medium at large".

And how do we know that this story was really about Saul? Maybe it was about David, or one of Saul's sons.
How do we know the woman really had a familiar spirit?
How do we know that Saul came to her at night, in disguise?
How do we know the LORD didn't answer Saul when he inquired of Him?
How do we know that the woman saw anything at all? or heard anything at all?
...

We know all these things because we trust the narrative. If we can't trust it, then it is of no use to us for any part of the story--its entire credibility is lost.

a) Did it say that it was raised by the LORD, and not by the witch?
b) Did it condemn witchcraft and necromancy? If not, why not? In life Samuel had said to Saul that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" (1 Samuel 15:23)
c) When Samuel wouldn't prophesy for Saul while he was alive, and the prophets of God wouldn't prophesy for him afterwards either, why does this spirit choose to break the policy that God had set in motion?

I'd say that this spirit fails the test.

But the spirit you're putting to the test is not the spirit in the story, it's the spirit telling the story. And that's the Holy Spirit. Are you sure you want to put THAT spirit to the test?

You don't have to see a thing to bow down to it. Many people bow towards a direction of the compass several times a day in prayer without seeing a specific thing. If a big voice boomed out of the sky and you had no direction to fix on, you could also bow down just as well.

Agreed, my argument is weak on this point. Rather, my argument mainly rests on the veracity of the scriptural narrative. Yours, however, rests on a perception of other scriptures and an application to these. Thus my foundation is more sure than yours, as it is not based on my perception, just on the clear reading of the text.

But again, why would this spirit allow Saul to bow down to it? Loyal prophets and angels put on the brakes and say "don't bow down to me, worship God" in other instances.

That's a good question. Are there other cases where men of God allowed people to bow down to them in the bible? Yes there are. David allowed it on a number of occasions. Does David fail your test for loyal prophets? Peter called him a prophet (Acts 2:30). Bowing down to a person in authority over you appears to be acceptable, giving honor where honor is due. Since Samuel anointed Saul, and gave direction through much of his reign, Samuel was certainly in authority over Saul. Angels are apparently not in the hierarchy over humans.

And Isaac, in blessing Jacob, endorsed the idea that it was ok for others to bow down to him. I think this is probably messianic, but it also applied prior to Christ. This seemed to be a way of speaking that gave (or promised) higher or kingly authority to one over another.
[Gen 27:29 KJV] 29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed [be] every one that curseth thee, and blessed [be] he that blesseth thee.
Are you saying Jacob should never have allowed anyone to bow down to him after his father said it should happen?

I will grant that the donkey was able to see the angel of the LORD before its rider did. That would tend to support would be that the apparition was a spirit rather than a solid flesh and blood form.

I'm not firm on the firmness of the apparition. But there's little to suggest what form Samuel was in, if it was really Samuel. Can it be "really" Samuel if there's no substance? I admit my inadequacy here.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hello Derf. Thank you for the thought-out reply. I won't quote all but I will try to be concise myself:

I think you've missed the ramifications of your view. If the woman brought up a demon or some other apparition that was NOT Samuel, but something in her power, and then the demon predicted the future correctly (Saul's and Saul's sons' deaths and defeat for the nation of Israel), then it affirms the practice of divination, and grants to demons what only God can do, as is apparent in Is 46:10.

It wouldn't have taken a military genius to predict that Saul and his sons were likely to be killed the next day. The situation was bad enough for Saul to panic and seek out the medium. Nor does Isaiah 46:10 say that a successful prediction is the sole realm of God. Even without inside information, any human (or devil) can make its own prediction, which may or may not actually happen.

I have heard that people that seek out divination often do get catastrophic results, and that these results are often very accurate. By stepping into their turf one finds themselves outside the protection of God, and subject to whatever license these devils may have been given.

We do not have many examples from scripture to reference here, but consider the case of Job. God told the devil that he could do whatever he wanted to afflict Job, but not to touch his life. Job a righteous man loved by God, whereas Saul was departed from God and in open rebellion, seeking the council of witches and familiar spirits. I doubt that God would have issued a "do not take his life" restriction on Saul at this point.

Job 1:12 KJV
(12) And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Is it any great prophecy to issue a "you will die" statement, when you have the power and the permission to do what you want with this man? No, it's not. Kings and even mafia bosses still do the same. How much more does this apply when devils have previously been given reign to plague Saul before, and then he has the gall to visit a witch?

I am skipping past our speculations of whether this was an invisible spirit or an invisible zombie, because I think it's less relevant. Likewise guesses about whether the voice came through the mouth of the medium or from seemingly empty air aren't really deciding evidence one way or the other. They are good for checking the details but it doesn't answer whether the spirit was Samuel the prophet of God or Samuel of Satan.

Your point on the question of whether the narrative is accurate is a better point. But again, it isn't as if the text itself doesn't already define "Samuel" within the context of the passage.

1 Samuel 28:14 KJV
(14) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

Far from the narrative telling us that this ghost is Samuel, it limits the application of "Samuel" to being from Saul's perspective. Thus, the integrity of the narrative is not in danger here.The question is whether Saul perceives correctly or not.

Hebrew is not a naturally wordy language. Wick Stick had a bit posted about Hebrew on the Joshua's Long Day thread. Much fewer words, and the style of Hebrew is that one is to approach it with a check-sum like approach. I would rather save a review of the checksum collection for a next post. It's awfully late here and our posting tends to run a bit long anyways.

P.S. For fun I thought I'd look up what the Catholic church had to say on this. You weren't making an argument of tradition (kudos) so it's really more for Evil Eye with his theory that "rejecting the ghost of Samuel" was part of a new trend that denied the supernatural.

The National Catholic Register comments:

Both the Old and New Testaments witness to a belief in ghosts. In 1 Samuel 28, of course, we are told of Saul’s encounter with the Witch of Endor, who summons Samuel to predict Saul’s fate. The Church Fathers were largely unanimous in calling this a demonic apparition, not a true vision of the risen soul of Samuel.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ghosts-and-the-catholic-church-pointing-to-the-permanence-of-the-soul

Anyway, let's continue this next day or such?

 

[Derf]

Hi Rosenritter. Youve done a fine job of making your answer concise. I hate to mess it up with my verbosity.

Hello Derf. Thank you for the thought-out reply. I won't quote all but I will try to be concise myself:

It wouldn't have taken a military genius to predict that Saul and his sons were likely to be killed the next day. The situation was bad enough for Saul to panic and seek out the medium. Nor does Isaiah 46:10 say that a successful prediction is the sole realm of God. Even without inside information, any human (or devil) can make its own prediction, which may or may not actually happen.

I have heard that people that seek out divination often do get catastrophic results, and that these results are often very accurate. By stepping into their turf one finds themselves outside the protection of God, and subject to whatever license these devils may have been given.

We do not have many examples from scripture to reference here, but consider the case of Job. God told the devil that he could do whatever he wanted to afflict Job, but not to touch his life. Job a righteous man loved by God, whereas Saul was departed from God and in open rebellion, seeking the council of witches and familiar spirits. I doubt that God would have issued a "do not take his life" restriction on Saul at this point.

I agree with your assessment in the normal case of a random personage. However, this was "the Lord's anointed", as David pointed out on occasion. He had a permanent "do not take his life" restriction on him. Maybe that's why Saul ended up taking his own life, because the Philistines couldn't.

Is it any great prophecy to issue a "you will die" statement, when you have the power and the permission to do what you want with this man? No, it's not. Kings and even mafia bosses still do the same. How much more does this apply when devils have previously been given reign to plague Saul before, and then he has the gall to visit a witch?

Without the lifting of the "do not take his life" restriction, the "you will die" is not as assured as you make it out to be, nor the addition of Saul's sons and the defeat of the Israelites. These things are in God's hands, as they are God's people. Maybe God's protection was evidently removed already in a way the demon might have known, but such is speculation that is convenient to your position, not nearly confirmed anywhere strongly enough to overcome the clear statements of the narrative.

I am skipping past our speculations of whether this was an invisible spirit or an invisible zombie, because I think it's less relevant. Likewise guesses about whether the voice came through the mouth of the medium or from seemingly empty air aren't really deciding evidence one way or the other. They are good for checking the details but it doesn't answer whether the spirit was Samuel the prophet of God or Samuel of Satan.

I object to your foregone conclusion that Saul saw nothing at any time. The best we know is that he saw nothing at the first, for which I've provided a reasonable explanation. The rest is conjecture.

Your point on the question of whether the narrative is accurate is a better point. But again, it isn't as if the text itself doesn't already define "Samuel" within the context of the passage.

1 Samuel 28:14 KJV
(14) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

Far from the narrative telling us that this ghost is Samuel, it limits the application of "Samuel" to being from Saul's perspective. Thus, the integrity of the narrative is not in danger here.The question is whether Saul perceives correctly or not.

The narrative is buried in the rest of the book of I Samuel, which defines "Samuel" as more than a demon impersonating Samuel. The narrative never confirms your assumption that it was a "ghost", either, as I mentioned before. These are the things that make it difficult to come to a different conclusion than the one you've already arrived at. These are the things that add to scripture.

Hebrew is not a naturally wordy language. Wick Stick had a bit posted about Hebrew on the Joshua's Long Day thread. Much fewer words, and the style of Hebrew is that one is to approach it with a check-sum like approach. I would rather save a review of the checksum collection for a next post. It's awfully late here and our posting tends to run a bit long anyways.

I think such a review will be interesting, but I wonder if it will reveal more than is in the scripture already, which I believe your interpretation requires.

P.S. For fun I thought I'd look up what the Catholic church had to say on this. You weren't making an argument of tradition (kudos) so it's really more for Evil Eye with his theory that "rejecting the ghost of Samuel" was part of a new trend that denied the supernatural.

The National Catholic Register comments:

I also saw a reference to Hebrew scholars' view of the passage, see spoiler (from Khouse.org). Unfortunately, they give no source, and the arguments are no more extensive, and maybe less so, than what we've discussed already. The Apocrypha suggests the author of Sirach believed it was Samuel: "[Samuel] after he died prophesied and made known to the king [Saul] his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy..."
(Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 46:20)

Spoiler

The Rabbinical View

The traditional rabbinical view is that these verses record a genuine appearance of Samuel that God Himself brought about. There are at least five arguments that favor this view:

1)The medium was surprised, indicating that something happened that she was not expecting;

2)Saul identified the figure as Samuel and bowed down in respect for the prophet. It is unlikely that Saul, who knew Samuel so well, would have been easily tricked by an impersonation;

3)The message that Samuel spoke was clearly from God;

4)The Biblical text itself says that the figure was Samuel. It is clear that the intent of the Scripture is for the reader to understand that Samuel actually appeared to Saul.

5)A similar appearance of one returned from the dead occurred at the Transfiguration.

I'm not averse to appeals to tradition, as long as all traditions are taken into account. The church father and reformation leaders are one such tradition, the Apocrypha another.

The following is an excerpt from an article that gives the different church fathers' views. It's at the end here, as I just now found it. How accurate the assignments are, I don't know.

Spoiler For this it is important to turn to the Church fathers and see what they have to say about this account in 1 Samuel 28. It is apparent that there has been much conjecture about the appearance of Samuel and it is safe to categorise all opinion into the following three categories and by which fathers they were preached! 1. Samuel was resuscitated by the woman: Justin Martyr, Origen, Zeno of Verona, Ambrose, Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, Dracontius, and Anastasius Sinaita.1 2. Either Samuel or a demon in his shape appeared at God's command: John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Pseudo-Justin, Theodore bar Koni, and Isho'dad of Merv 2 3. A demon deceived Saul and gave him a forged prophecy: Tertullian, Pseudo-Hippolytus, "Pionius", Eustathius of Antioch, Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, Pseudo-Basil, Jerome, Philastrius, Ambrosiaster, and Pseudo-Augustine.3 Note: References supplied I, ii, iii are supplied in order for validation purposes and they have been extracted from a research article by K. A. D. Smelik in his article entitled: The Witch of Endor: I Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis Till 800 A.D. Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 160-179 1 Justin, Dialogus *** Tryphone Judaeo 105 (PG 6,721); Origen, In librum Regum homilia II (Kleine Texte 83), cf. also comm. on John 20,42 (GCS10,385); Zeno of Verona, Tractatus I,xvi,4 (PL11,376); Ambrose, comm. on Luke 1,33 (PL15,1547); Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 11,3 (CCSL44,81-6), De cura gerenda pro mortuis XV,18 (CSEL41,651f), De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus VI (PL40, 162f), De doctrina Christiana II,xxiii,35 (CCSL32.58), cf. also his epistle 43 (CSEL 34/2,105); Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 1,36 (CSEL 1,37); Dracontius, Carmen de Deo II,1,324ff. (PL60,797); Anastasius Sinaita, 154 Quaestiones, 39 and 112 (PG89,581ff. and 764). Perhaps this is also the view of Evodius, cf. his letter to Augustine (CSEL44, 492). 2 John Chrysostom, Comm. on Matthew VI,3 (PG 57,66), Comm. on the letter to Titus 111,2 (PG 62,678); Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Quaest. in I Reg. 28 (PG 0,590), Quaest. in IParal. introduction (PG 80,808); Pseudo-Justin, Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos5 2 (PG 6,1296f. - may be written by Theodoret,c f. Altaner,P atrologie, 340); Theodore bar Koni, Quaestiones( CSCO5 5,222ff.);I sho'dado f Merv,c omm. on Samuel (CSCO229,81ff.). 3 Tertullian, De Anima, 57,8f. (CCSL2,866f.) (In the spurious Carmen adversus MarcionemI II,126ff.-CCSL2,1437-however, Samuel is praised, because ,,he retained propheticr ightsa lso afterh is rest");P seudo-Hippolytus,I n Regesf ragm. (GCS 1,123), not writtenb y Hippolytus,b ut by an unknowna uthor,c f. Bardenhewer. Geschichted er altkirchlichen Literatur 11, 582 and H. Achelis, Hippolytstudien (TU16,4)122ff.; ,,Pionius", cf. n. 2; Eustathius, De Pythonissa (K1.T. 83); Ephraem, comm. on Samuel, 28 (in Opera Omnia, ed. P. Benedictus, ser. Syr. I [Rome 1737] p. 387-90) - cf. however, n. 3 - Nisibian Hymn, 42,6 (CSCO 240,38f.) and 57,15f (CSCO 240,86), Contra Julianum, (CSCO174,86f) and the abstract of a sermon (CSCO 363,63); Gregory of Nyssa, De Pythonissa (K1.T.83); Evagrius Ponticus, Cephaleia Gnostica VI,61 (Patr. Or. 28, 242f.); Pseudo-Basil, comm. on. Is. 8,19/22 (PG 30,497); Jerome, comm. on Matth. 6, 31 (PL26,46), comm. on Ez. IV,13,17f. (PL25,114), cf. however his comm. on Is. 111,7, 11 (PL2 4,106); Philastrius,D iversarumH aereseonl iber 26,1f. (CCSL9,226f.);A mbro-siaster, Quaestiones Veteri et Novi Testamenti 27 (CSEL 50,54ff.) and Pseudo-Augustine, De mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae II,11 (PL35,2179).

So, I guess the bottom line is that there is disagreement about what it was, and therefore it will be hard to come to an agreement on what it signifies in the ECT discussion. If it was not Samuel, then nothing much can be derived from it for ECT discussions. If it was Samuel, then either it was his spirit or an actual physical manifestation of him, but it suggests that Samuel's essence was brought up from below ground--from the grave or some other place. His consciousness beforehand is in doubt, imo, though if he was "disquieted", maybe that means he was not conscious.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hi Rosenritter. Youve done a fine job of making your answer concise. I hate to mess it up with my verbosity.

Good use of spoiler tags later on. It helps. I will try to help with the conciseness again.

I agree with your assessment in the normal case of a random personage. However, this was "the Lord's anointed", as David pointed out on occasion. He had a permanent "do not take his life" restriction on him. Maybe that's why Saul ended up taking his own life, because the Philistines couldn't.

Without the lifting of the "do not take his life" restriction, the "you will die" is not as assured as you make it out to be, nor the addition of Saul's sons and the defeat of the Israelites. These things are in God's hands, as they are God's people. Maybe God's protection was evidently removed already in a way the demon might have known, but such is speculation that is convenient to your position, not nearly confirmed anywhere strongly enough to overcome the clear statements of the narrative.

I don't see where there was an official "do not take his life" decree. I recall David making that interpretation and applying it to himself on more than one occasion, but to imply that this was a rule enforced on all living things is also speculation? I believe David could have slain Saul both those times.

I object to your foregone conclusion that Saul saw nothing at any time. The best we know is that he saw nothing at the first, for which I've provided a reasonable explanation. The rest is conjecture.

Objection accepted in good graces. I believe that Saul saw nothing. Others that I respect say that Saul saw with his eyes later in the summoning , including King James I that I already mentioned as supporting that this "Samuel" was the devil. I grant that this is not conclusive, but also note that it does not ultimately affect our question.

The narrative is buried in the rest of the book of I Samuel, which defines "Samuel" as more than a demon impersonating Samuel. The narrative never confirms your assumption that it was a "ghost", either, as I mentioned before. These are the things that make it difficult to come to a different conclusion than the one you've already arrived at. These are the things that add to scripture.

The narrative of the book of Samuel sees no need to give an explicit statement in one regard or the other. My argument has been that it is implicitly obvious that God would not heed the call of a medium, that God was not speaking to Saul, that the normal summoning of a seance is not something to be trusted, and that the narrative expects that this is already assumed, and it does not give us any reason to believe that this seance was an exception, a holy thing instead of a damnable abomination.

I also saw a reference to Hebrew scholars' view of the passage, see spoiler (from Khouse.org). Unfortunately, they give no source, and the arguments are no more extensive, and maybe less so, than what we've discussed already. The Apocrypha suggests the author of Sirach believed it was Samuel: "[Samuel] after he died prophesied and made known to the king [Saul] his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy..."
(Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 46:20)

I have said (and still agree) that the scripture does not give support for the dead existing in a life state, either in the preset or for eternity. Apocryphal books, on the other hand, are a different matter. These are not scripture and are considered outside of the inspired canon.

I'm not averse to appeals to tradition, as long as all traditions are taken into account. The church father and reformation leaders are one such tradition, the Apocrypha another.

The following is an excerpt from an article that gives the different church fathers' views. It's at the end here, as I just now found it. How accurate the assignments are, I don't know.

There were names all over the place there.... good research.

So, I guess the bottom line is that there is disagreement about what it was, and therefore it will be hard to come to an agreement on what it signifies in the ECT discussion. If it was not Samuel, then nothing much can be derived from it for ECT discussions. If it was Samuel, then either it was his spirit or an actual physical manifestation of him, but it suggests that Samuel's essence was brought up from below ground--from the grave or some other place. His consciousness beforehand is in doubt, imo, though if he was "disquieted", maybe that means he was not conscious.

I was saying that weeks ago, but people still wanted to fight about it...

For example, even if I were wrong, and a witch actually sucked Samuel out of nothingness to Saul, it doesn't mean he was conscious beforehand or afterwards, and it still doesn't relate to whether God will truly destroy the wicked in the judgement. Even if I was wrong in this one case, there won't be any witches left after the judgment to suck people out of nothingness after the White Throne, would there?

And if I am right, that doesn't change that there are still Eternal Conscious Torment guys (John Calvin, for example) who also agree with me (yet perhaps only in this one thing) that this Samuel was a demonic fraud. It doesn't answer our question one way or the other.

However, I do think there is much to be gained from being able to discuss a thing rationally without tearing each other apart. We practice in one area and it carries over into the next.

 

[Derf]

Congratulations, RR. Between us we've managed to stall one of the more active long-term threads.:first:

I don't see where there was an official "do not take his life" decree. I recall David making that interpretation and applying it to himself on more than one occasion, but to imply that this was a rule enforced on all living things is also speculation? I believe David could have slain Saul both those times.

I'll just mention this and move on: All God's people have an "official 'do not take his life' decree". Saul was no exception. Even the evil spirit that plagued Saul was "from God" (1 Sam 16:23).

I have said (and still agree) that the scripture does not give support for the dead existing in a life state, either in the preset or for eternity. Apocryphal books, on the other hand, are a different matter. These are not scripture and are considered outside of the inspired canon.

I agree with your second statement, but that's not how I was using the Apocryphal reference. Our discussion was on traditional understanding of the demon/vision/ghost/Samuel, and you cited church tradition. I cited jewish tradition, older than the church tradition. You can't deny me my citation without relinquishing yours. And mine may hold more weight, being older and closer to the event.

Your first statement I'm not so sure about, but I agree there's not very much support for it. Certainly the old testament doesn't have anything that I can think of. If the new testament does, it's either because more has been revealed to us about it (certainly possible), or because something has changed (also possible, since Jesus changed the whole outcome of death).

In keeping with that idea, can we look at the ECT passages with the idea that death has been completely defeated? If death has been defeated, then is life the only alternative? Thus, for the most part, everybody that deserves death as the wages of sin will have received those wages prior to the judgment. I'm intrigued by your idea that the judgment is a way for God to reveal the unbelievers' sins to them, explain the coming punishment (whatever form it will take), and offer the final choice to people. I don't see this as biblical, mind you, and I can think of at least some scripture that indicates judgment based purely on what was done in the first life (before resurrection).

But, as I've mentioned previously, if the dead are raised merely for more death, the judgment seems superfluous, which requires the "one more chance" model to make it sensible.

What seems more likely to me is that if the wages of sin are death, and death has already occurred, then justice is satisfied--judgment is already accomplished. So a resurrection following death means that death has no more power--it is no longer needed, and the judgment is not to determine if the person should die in the same sense as before--that particular judgment has already taken place (at the time of Adam, when all men had to/have to die).

So if a death of that sort is no longer binding--it has been swallowed up in victory--what kind of death is the "second death". It must be a different kind of death. And if you define that first death as no more physical, mental, emotional capability, then does the second death have to have some kind of physical or mental or emotional capability?

I think this is where the idea of spiritual death versus physical death jumps back into play in some people's minds. It is a mechanism to make sense of passages that don't quite make sense without it, just like people think to make sense of God's decree, "in the day you eat of it you will die", by saying the death was a spiritual death to be followed by a physical death. I don't find such machinations necessary, as the "day" in that case could easily be an era rather than a 24-hour day.

But the idea of a distinction between the physical and spiritual identity holds some merit if we say the first death is a physical death and the second death is a spiritual death. That would then mean that whatever the state of the spirit between the physical death and judgment (asleep or awake), it still exists, to be finally done away with (or tormented for eternity if it can't be done away with) in the second death.

I'm more tempted to go with the idea you espouse that the person that dies is really dead and no longer conscious at all, but when resurrected regains both his conscious thought and his physical reality, including the ability to fell pain. And if you couple that with the idea that death has been defeated and can no longer have any hold on these resurrected people, a second type of death is necessary--not one that will remove all consciousness, because that has already been done and defeated. So then, what's left, but a conscious "death". Yes, it is an oxymoron, but the situation seems to call for it.

What then is this new death a penalty for, since the old death we are considering to have been a complete payment for sin? And why is an everlasting "death" morally acceptable as a penalty for this new offense. I would propose that the new offense needs to be of eternal significance, much greater than the offense of eating from the wrong tree, or even killing and stealing from our neighbor, or even having another god before the true God (if I can be so bold as to suggest that such is a "lesser" sin to this new offense). I think that new offense is the rejection of the sacrifice of Christ--the death of God offered for our benefit. Now that is worthy of eternal punishment, don't you think? When Jesus became flesh--an eternal sacrifice already--and then suffered and died for our sakes, it sure seems like rejecting such would be a monumental offense.

 

[Rosenritter]

Congratulations, RR. Between us we've managed to stall one of the more active long-term threads.:first:I'll just mention this and move on: All God's people have an "official 'do not take his life' decree". Saul was no exception. Even the evil spirit that plagued Saul was "from God" (1 Sam 16:23).

I appreciate your explanation (and take on this) and as such I'd rather not rack my brain for possible exceptions to discuss. David seemed to understand that he shouldn't kill Saul, so let's go with that.

I agree with your second statement, but that's not how I was using the Apocryphal reference. Our discussion was on traditional understanding of the demon/vision/ghost/Samuel, and you cited church tradition. I cited jewish tradition, older than the church tradition. You can't deny me my citation without relinquishing yours. And mine may hold more weight, being older and closer to the event.

If I cited tradition, it wasn't in the realm of "this is proof and deciding factor" but rather to give pause to the assumption that "no one else has ever said this before." Some people do give tradition more value, and as such I am willing to bring it up for the purpose of gaining attention long enough so that there is opportunity to bring in (what I believe to be) the only deciding factor that matters: scripture.

As to whether Jewish tradition should receive as much consideration as Christian tradition, that is a mixed bag. The bible tells us that "Jewish tradition" had opportunity to see corruption as early as there were Jews: Judah took his family to Egypt, when his descendants left they willingly embraced idolatry just days after seeing the miracles of God destroy that nation, and the tribe of Dan was among the first to adopt heathen priests upon entering the promised land. The Bible may be Jewish, and Jewish tradition may be Jewish, but it doesn't follow that either historic or surviving Jewish tradition is a perfect lens for the Bible.

As to Christian tradition? Falls in much the same category as Jewish tradition. It's adopted a lot of pagan (and philosophical) elements and beliefs. There's also a lot of misinformation as to what Christian tradition and belief has been through the centuries. Go to a modern church where they praise Martin Luther, and typically they will have no idea where Luther stood on issues like these.

Your first statement I'm not so sure about, but I agree there's not very much support for it. Certainly the old testament doesn't have anything that I can think of. If the new testament does, it's either because more has been revealed to us about it (certainly possible), or because something has changed (also possible, since Jesus changed the whole outcome of death).

As said above, I am comfortable with the "scripture is what counts" view. Reference to tradition is my technique to stall a "tradition is the unanimous champion" presumption long to bring the fight to this ground.

In keeping with that idea, can we look at the ECT passages with the idea that death has been completely defeated? If death has been defeated, then is life the only alternative? Thus, for the most part, everybody that deserves death as the wages of sin will have received those wages prior to the judgment. I'm intrigued by your idea that the judgment is a way for God to reveal the unbelievers' sins to them, explain the coming punishment (whatever form it will take), and offer the final choice to people. I don't see this as biblical, mind you, and I can think of at least some scripture that indicates judgment based purely on what was done in the first life (before resurrection).

The New Testament gives us different times when death is defeated.
1) Jesus defeated death on the cross
2) Paul speaks of death being defeated when the saints are resurrected from the dead
3) Revelation speaks of death being defeated when death itself is cast into the lake of fire

But, as I've mentioned previously, if the dead are raised merely for more death, the judgment seems superfluous, which requires the "one more chance" model to make it sensible.

Although I do believe the real purpose of judgment is to provide righteous judgment (not a mere sentencing) I will say that I still think that the plan makes sense even without that. "Closure" is the term I'm looking for. Having a publicly known judgment that all can see and observe (not hidden or secret) is important that people understand the justice that was done. For example, if hypothetical Sir Righteous Saint of Holiness is destroyed in hell fire, I think God would want us to know why, that it wasn't a random ruling or a quirk injustice. That's an example of what I mean by closure. For us, the living, not the dead.

What seems more likely to me is that if the wages of sin are death, and death has already occurred, then justice is satisfied--judgment is already accomplished. So a resurrection following death means that death has no more power--it is no longer needed, and the judgment is not to determine if the person should die in the same sense as before--that particular judgment has already taken place (at the time of Adam, when all men had to/have to die).

Death is defeated for the saints, who are raised, made immortal, and on whom the second death has no more power. But death still has a use for the rest of the dead that are not yet raised. After all, it's kept around until the absolute last: "the last enemy that is destroyed" is death. As such it's still around until that time.

So if a death of that sort is no longer binding--it has been swallowed up in victory--what kind of death is the "second death". It must be a different kind of death. And if you define that first death as no more physical, mental, emotional capability, then does the second death have to have some kind of physical or mental or emotional capability?

...

I think this is where the idea of spiritual death versus physical death jumps back into play in some people's minds. It is a mechanism to make sense of passages that don't quite make sense without it, just like people think to make sense of God's decree, "in the day you eat of it you will die", by saying the death was a spiritual death to be followed by a physical death. I don't find such machinations necessary, as the "day" in that case could easily be an era rather than a 24-hour day.

I think that "spiritual death" is someone's idea because they are trying to read Genesis without understanding grammar. The Old Testament has multiple instances where a king makes a pronouncement in that same format, "This day shalt thou..." and the thing obviously isn't intended to be fulfilled in that day. That's sufficient to prove the flexibility and intended application of the Hebrew in Genesis. "The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" doesn't say a thing about the day of death. It's the day the pronouncement is fixed.

I say this because ever time I've challenged someone's assumption of "spiritual death" they inevitably point to Genesis, and then completely ignore that their "proof" isn't supported by the actual words as they are used elsewhere in similar context in scripture. It's not a biblical term so someone invented it somewhere along the line.

the idea of a distinction between the physical and spiritual identity holds some merit if we say the first death is a physical death and the second death is a spiritual death. That would then mean that whatever the state of the spirit between the physical death and judgment (asleep or awake), it still exists, to be finally done away with (or tormented for eternity if it can't be done away with) in the second death.

I'm more tempted to go with the idea you espouse that the person that dies is really dead and no longer conscious at all, but when resurrected regains both his conscious thought and his physical reality, including the ability to fell pain. And if you couple that with the idea that death has been defeated and can no longer have any hold on these resurrected people, a second type of death is necessary--not one that will remove all consciousness, because that has already been done and defeated. So then, what's left, but a conscious "death". Yes, it is an oxymoron, but the situation seems to call for it.

I'm going to point back to your opening, about it being understood by any true child of God that there was a universal "thou shalt not kill" restriction.... on anyone. You moved past a legalistic view and into a spiritual view there. With that same spirit, does it make sense to you, does it match the revealed character of God in Jesus, that he would keep anyone alive for an infinite duration for the sole purpose of being tormented, without possibility of repentance or reprieve?

This is the same God that says in Ezekiel 33 that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The wicked are slain because they must be slain, not because it pleases him. Yet the "kept alive for the sake of torment with no other purpose" demands that God torments people for infinity for no other reason than pleasure.

What then is this new death a penalty for, since the old death we are considering to have been a complete payment for sin? And why is an everlasting "death" morally acceptable as a penalty for this new offense. I would propose that the new offense needs to be of eternal significance, much greater than the offense of eating from the wrong tree, or even killing and stealing from our neighbor, or even having another god before the true God (if I can be so bold as to suggest that such is a "lesser" sin to this new offense). I think that new offense is the rejection of the sacrifice of Christ--the death of God offered for our benefit. Now that is worthy of eternal punishment, don't you think? When Jesus became flesh--an eternal sacrifice already--and then suffered and died for our sakes, it sure seems like rejecting such would be a monumental offense.

Real death is already an eternal punishment with eternal significance.

Let's go back to the character of God revealed through his law. In all the crime and punishment section of the Old Testament, even if we allow that sometimes there was "torment" as a punishment for sin (such as being beaten with a rod or stripes) the nature of that torment was always such as there was recovery. One didn't die from it, you came back from it and were forgiven and with a fresh slate. That torment was redemptive in nature. Some crimes were more severe than others. So what was the ultimate punishment under that law? Was there anything that said one was to be whipped, tormented, mocked.... for as infinite duration as possible, keeping the victim alive for as long as possible to make it more unbearable?

Or those that were killed, were they allowed to die normally? Was the cross the punishment prescribed by God, or was it the invention of the cruel Romans who served Zeus and Appollo?

 

[Caino]

Hell is Biblical but untrue. Just thought I would reiterate that.

 

[daqq]

Hell is Biblical but untrue. Just thought I would reiterate that.

Perhaps it should also be reiterated that "Biblically speaking" aionion fire is prepared for "the Devil and his angels", (not literal human beings).

 

[KingdomRose]

Hell is Biblical but untrue. Just thought I would reiterate that.

Yes, "Hell" is Biblical, but it has been misrepresented by church leaders, for their own agenda. Three Greek words have been translated as "hell" even though they are not all the same ("Hades," "Gehenna," and "Tartarus"). "Hades" is always mankind's common grave. "Gehenna" is something else....a burning dump outside Jerusalem that symbolizes complete deterioration (nothingness). "Tartarus" is mentioned only once, at 2 Peter 2:4, and is not a place but a darkened spiritual condition.

Yet all of these words are translated as "hell."

I agree that "Hell" the way it is taught today by the clergy of most churches is not true. None of those Greek words refer to a place that literally burns, to gobble up wicked people and roast them forever. The whole concept of torturing people without end is untrue, and it is sadistic and blasphemous to accuse God of creating a place like that.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, "Hell" is Biblical, but it has been misrepresented by church leaders, for their own agenda. Three Greek words have been translated as "hell" even though they are not all the same ("Hades," "Gehenna," and "Tartarus"). "Hades" is always mankind's common grave. "Gehenna" is something else....a burning dump outside Jerusalem that symbolizes complete deterioration (nothingness). "Tartarus" is mentioned only once, at 2 Peter 2:4, and is not a place but a darkened spiritual condition.

Yet all of these words are translated as "hell."

I agree that "Hell" the way it is taught today by the clergy of most churches is not true. None of those Greek words refer to a place that literally burns, to gobble up wicked people and roast them forever. The whole concept of torturing people without end is untrue, and it is sadistic and blasphemous to accuse God of creating a place like that.

Actually, the word Hades does have an application that can refer to "a place that literally burns to roast people forever." It's usually not used in that application, but it is used in that sense in the parable of Luke 16.

 

[daqq]

Actually, the word Hades does have an application that can refer to "a place that literally burns to roast people forever." It's usually not used in that application, but it is used in that sense in the parable of Luke 16.

Hades is also a personal noun or proper name, an ancient Greek god of the underworld, and it is used in the same manner in the Apocalypse, "Death and Hades", (Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8), which are names of allegorical spiritual entities. It is possible therefore that one can be walking "in Death", or be "in Hades", just as in the opposite way one may be walking "in Messiah", (for example, this understanding may be a possibility in the parable of Luke 16:19-17:2).

 

[Caino]

Imagine if we went through and fixed all the areas of the scripture that have suffered from human influence, speculation, editing and redaction?

 

[daqq]

Imagine if we went through and fixed all the areas of the scripture that have suffered from human influence, speculation, editing and redaction?

When you go through and "fix" it you are redacting it.
What else do you think I am doing? (and we all do the same thing). :chuckle:

Mark 14:38-43
38 Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
39 And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words.
40 And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; [which implies that a vision is about to ensue, just as with the transfiguration event, cf. Luke 9:32] and they knew not whether to even answer him.
41 And he came the third time, and said to them, "καθευδετε το λοιπον και αναπαυεσθε απεχει", that is to say, "You yourselves go on sleeping through what remains and take your rest: it is sufficient" – The hour is come, behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners!
42 Arise, let us be going, behold, he that betrays me is at hand.
43 And straightway, while he yet spoke, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

Here is where knowing and understanding the Testimony of the Master comes into play: which ones rose up as he commanded them in Mark 14:42? Was it the anthropon carnal men, whose "eyes were heavy", whom he had just commanded to sleep on through what remains? or was it the andres-gibborim which are the counterpart spirit man? The anthropon carnal men were told to sleep through what remains while the andres men were commanded to rise up in the vision, (yes, the vision, like the transfiguration). These are the massive implications of the statement, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". Moreover I have not corrected or redacted the Greek, but rather, only the anthropon carnal man English "physical only" understanding of the passage which is offered for a fee in all English translation-interpretations, and yet, a whole carnal minded physical blood atonement religion has just been demolished. :chuckle: :chuckle:

 

[freelight]

Hard to fix an old wineskin with so many new patches......

Hard to fix an old wineskin with so many new patches......

Imagine if we went through and fixed all the areas of the scripture that have suffered from human influence, speculation, editing and redaction?

Well, its been 'craft-work' since day one, no matter what degree of inspiration, the message still got 'sifted' thru the human mind-vat, mythology, culture-reverb, personal opinions/preferences and agendizing of the day and times of the writing, then later reverbed as needed, so it might be hard to tell whats what without serious research,....but of course your concern is noted. Perhaps this is why other inspired texts and messages since those times, adding fresh new insight, understanding and even progressive revelation...may assist us in the journey forward.

Anyone confining 'God' to a book, is limiting him, although some books may be a better representation of truth and wisdom, of course. Truth however is not static but living, so with progressive revelation and evolution of consciousness, the enterprise of learning (which must include new revelation, knowledge, wisdom) is ongoing.

My commentary on the insanity of ECT has already been well vented here (portal page)

 

[Rosenritter]

Imagine if we went through and fixed all the areas of the scripture that have suffered from human influence, speculation, editing and redaction?

The scriptures don't need "fixing."

 

[daqq]

The scriptures don't need "fixing."

The ENGLISH versions certainly do.

 

[freelight]

A book about 'God' written by MEN......

A book about 'God' written by MEN......

The scriptures don't need "fixing."

He was just asking a rhetorical question. While some may have a 'high opinion' of scripture,...its not without its problems, mistakes, contradictions, imperfections, human tampering, creative doctoring, etc. Now you can believe in some divine inspiration making it "thru" the imperfect human vessels who got revelation and the scribes who wrote it down, BUT to believe there have been no redactions, rewrites, ommissions/interpolations, doctoring, 'editing' of the texts is a 'stretch' and takes some pretty fantastic "faith" IMO. This is why I've shared earlier that determining IF the doctrine of ECT is 'biblical' is limiting it to a particular 'context', being arbitrarily subject to so much subterfuge and translation, because the Bible only has so many passages even dealing with the subject of heaven, hell, karma and the afterlife. Much is open to speculation, and so much can be learned also from current research into NDE's, OBE's, the Afterlife and consciousness studies. - what cannot be known can only be 'hypothesized' or surrendered to a state of 'agnosis'.

Hence any layman, theologian can argue for or assume a doctrine is 'biblical', but that doesnt really say much beyond one's own qualifications/assumptions. - so one has to judge the doctrine on other grounds such as logic, reason, philosphical/ethical integrity, etc. Just because something is in the 'Bible' does NOT make it true, much less integrous. - all else is but a hodge-podge of word-translations, preferential reading and cherry picking.

 

[freelight]

The ENGLISH versions certainly do.

But the problem with translating one language INTO another has inherent problems already with 'distortion' of original meanings/values because of it being a 'translation'. Some loss or imperfection of the original sense is modulated, changed, transformed.

 

[daqq]

But the problem with translating one language INTO another has inherent problems already with 'distortion' of original meanings/values because of it being a 'translation'. Some loss or imperfection of the original sense is modulated, changed, transformed.

Yep, and there is no escaping that fact, and therefore those who put their trust in any English translation, (or any other translation into another language besides English), without doing their own studies in the original languages, put their trust in some other man or men, (translator-interpreter or team of translator-interpreters). And anyone who believes there is no "interpretation" going on in translation is fooling themselves. It is not possible to make a "word-for-word" precise translation from any one language into another and there are manifold places in just about every passage, section, or page, where interpretive decisions must be made by whoever is reading and-or rendering the text. These are just plain simple facts.