ST. JOHN 11:26

[glorydaz]

Glory has a problem with "smack talk."

Oh, it's fine for you to smack talk, but you don't like it when I do it.

That's a shocker. :chuckle:

Tell me Glory, where is this alleged "rule of parable names" written? In a Dispensationalism handbook? Yes, that's right, it's the Scofield Reference bible where that rule was writ...

Are you ever going to learn not to "reword" or "read into" what someone says? I get my knowledge about parables from reading the Scripture and rightly dividing. You know, like the different meanings of "death" or the difference between the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and the "Gospel of Grace". I don't need rules for simple discernment issues.

The hilarious part is that the Scofield reference bible contradicts its own "rule" in Ezekiel 23, calling it the parable of Aholah and Aholibah.

Ezekiel 23:4 KJV
(4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

Apparently parables do use proper names. Do you have any other authority for your alleged rule, Glory?

Broaden your search, hypocrite.

You might even try studying Jesus' parables.

Or just take the first thing you google.

The Old Testament employs the broader category of mashal, which refers to all expressions that contain a comparison. ... The stories of Jesus are linked with the heritage of the prophetic parables in the Old Testament (Isaiah 28:23-29; Isaiah 5:1-7; 1 Kings 20:39-43; Ecclesiastes 9:13-16; 2 Samuel 12:1-4).​

In the interim unknot your panties and try to get over yourself.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh, it's fine for you to smack talk, but you don't like it when I do it.

That's a shocker. :chuckle:

Are you ever going to learn not to "reword" or "read into" what someone says? I get my knowledge about parables from reading the Scripture and rightly dividing. You know, like the different meanings of "death" or the difference between the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and the "Gospel of Grace". I don't need rules for simple discernment issues.



Broaden your search, hypocrite.

You might even try studying Jesus' parables.

Or just take the first thing you google.

The Old Testament employs the broader category of mashal, which refers to all expressions that contain a comparison. ... The stories of Jesus are linked with the heritage of the prophetic parables in the Old Testament (Isaiah 28:23-29; Isaiah 5:1-7; 1 Kings 20:39-43; Ecclesiastes 9:13-16; 2 Samuel 12:1-4).​

In the interim unknot your panties and try to get over yourself.

Got it, no authority for your claim other than a hollow "rightly dividing the word of truth" mantra.

 

[glorydaz]

Got it, no authority for your claim other than a hollow "rightly dividing the word of truth" mantra.

My "authority" matches your "authority"....plus I have the authority of the righteousness of Christ. He didn't make up a story about the afterlife that was not based on absolute truth....as you claim.

 

[glorydaz]

Got it, no authority for your claim other than a hollow "rightly dividing the word of truth" mantra.

It's called Scripture.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

 

[way 2 go]

It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the word "parable."

Death and Hades is a place for spirits which eventually give up their dead
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

 

[Derf]

Rosenritter believes in Soul Sleep. That is a cult belief.

Is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to scripture, or is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to traditional beliefs?

I know that some cults hold to it, but some cults also hold to some Christian truths (like "Jesus Christ lived in history"), and those truths aren't made false by their holding them.
[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] pointed out that the Old Testament is replete with references to death as "sleep" and as the person not retaining cognitive ability. Is it really the case that the story of Lazarus and the rich man can undo a good part of the OT's words on death?

This is a fairly important doctrinal issue, and it deserves a fair hearing, imo. And, also imo, just relying on traditional views of death is not sufficient.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to scripture, or is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to traditional beliefs?

Both, but mainly because of the former.

I know that some cults hold to it, but some cults also hold to some Christian truths (like "Jesus Christ lived in history"),

Even the demons believe that, and tremble.

and those truths aren't made false by their holding them.

Agreed.

Rosenritter pointed out that the Old Testament is replete with references to death as "sleep"

Something which those of us who reject "soul sleep" acknowledge, and even use as our own defence of being alive after death and fully aware of what is going on around them.

Sleep is used multiple times in the Bible as a euphemism, "a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing," for death.

And likewise death is used figuratively to describe (even today) to describe sleep (or tiredness, even; eg: "he's dead on his feet", also Revelation 1:17)

and as the person not retaining cognitive ability.

There are plenty of scriptures that contradict this assertion.

For example, Revelation 6:9.

Is it really the case that the story of Lazarus and the rich man can undo a good part of the OT's words on death?

Even if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was JUST a parable, one would do well to remember that parables are based on reality, not fiction or fantasy.

But I believe that that story is also something that actually happened, because of what is said throughout the Bible, in particular, about the laws concerning cities of refuge, mentioned in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20, and many other places in the Old Testament, all of which describe a place to wait until, and this is the most important part, the "death of the high priest."

For Jewish believers prior to Israel being cut off, but after Christ's DBR, who was the High Priest? (Hint: Priest and King according to the Order of Melchizedek)

Jesus Christ, who is both Priest and King.

Sheol, also known as Abraham's Bosom, was the place of refuge in Hell for the faithful to wait until...

You guessed it...

The death of Jesus Christ.

Who, while in the grave, preached to them for three days, offering them salvation from hell.

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

http://store.kgov.com/20150405-where-was-jesus-for-those-three-days/

If you would like, I will gladly give you money to purchase that sermon and listen to it.

This is a fairly important doctrinal issue, and it deserves a fair hearing, imo. And, also imo, just relying on traditional views of death is not sufficient.

:thumb:

 

[Derf]

Death and Hades is a place for spirits which eventually give up their dead
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

You can't just have "Death and Hades" as such a place. "The Sea" is included as well. Are you saying that the sea is also a place where souls are kept until judgment?

I'm not sure what the options are for what the sea, death, and hades are referring to, but it is interesting that all three are mentioned somewhat equally in Rev 20:13 (and they are also considered gods of Greek mythology, for whatever that's worth):

"Hades"-god of the underworld
"Thanatos"-god of death
"Thalassa"-goddess of the sea

It is also interesting that only 2 of the three are thrown into the lake of fire. Thalassa escapes.

Unless we want to entertain the idea that some souls are held in "Hades", some in "Death", and some in "the Sea", then we might want to consider what these are suppose to mean. For instance, perhaps "Hades" includes all those whose bodies were buried. And perhaps "the Sea" is all those whose bodies were dumped into the sea, or who drowned and weren't recovered. I'm not sure about "Death", so I'll hazard the guess that it is everybody that wasn't either buried or drowned/dumped in the sea, so it would included cremated bodies or those which animals ate or those that rotted on the surface of the ground.

If read in this context, then when one of those places "gives up the dead" that is in it, it means they were resurrected. It also clears up the problem of Thalassa escaping the lake of fire--"the Sea" is more of a neutral party, with good (shipping, travel, vacations at the beach) aspects as well as bad (hurricanes, drownings, sea monsters). The other two are exclusively related to death.

 

[Derf]

Both, but mainly because of the former.



Even the demons believe that, and tremble.



Agreed.



Something which those of us who reject "soul sleep" acknowledge, and even use as our own defence of being alive after death and fully aware of what is going on around them.

Sleep is used multiple times in the Bible as a euphemism, "a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing," for death.

...

There are plenty of scriptures that contradict this assertion.

For example, Revelation 6:9.



Even if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was JUST a parable, one would do well to remember that parables are based on reality, not fiction or fantasy.

But I believe that that story is also something that actually happened, because of what is said throughout the Bible, in particular, about the laws concerning cities of refuge, mentioned in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20, and many other places in the Old Testament, all of which describe a place to wait until, and this is the most important part, the "death of the high priest."

For Jewish believers prior to Israel being cut off, but after Christ's DBR, who was the High Priest? (Hint: Priest and King according to the Order of Melchizedek)

Jesus Christ, who is both Priest and King.

Sheol, also known as Abraham's Bosom, was the place of refuge in Hell for the faithful to wait until...

You guessed it...

The death of Jesus Christ.

Who, while in the grave, preached to them for three days, offering them salvation from hell.

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

http://store.kgov.com/20150405-where-was-jesus-for-those-three-days/

If you would like, I will gladly give you money to purchase that sermon and listen to it.



:thumb:

Good post, JR!

I'm not unfamiliar with what you've written (thanks for the offer for the sermon--that's very kind), and I tend to think of it as the traditional view. I like the association with the cities of refuge.

I think it's a good possibility that there had to be a special accounting of those that were faithful in the Old Testament such that when Jesus died, their sins were taken care of, but I'm also not immune to the possible use of "Sheol" for burial place or a state of death. And an "accounting" isn't necessarily the same as some kind of storage place for souls.

I am especially uncomfortable with the name "Abraham's Bosum" being used in this manner, since the only use of it is in the story of Lazarus, and only where Abraham was in the story himself, thus, the reference to "Abraham's bosom" (no caps this time) is reasonably accounted for just by the fact that Lazarus was now with Abraham and being comforted, not that it was a name of a place.

Not so for the term "paradise" that Jesus promised to the thief on the cross, which I'm sure Bob mentions in his sermon. That story, obviously not parabolic, contains elements that seem to be referring to 1) a place (Paradise), 2) a time (today), and 3) cognizance/relationship ("you'll be with Me").

Some of the things I struggle with are:
1. Judgment day. Why have one if everybody is already in the place of torment or comfort they are destined for? The rich man was already in torment, but is that fair without a judgment taking place? And if that judgment has already taken place, why do we need another one later on?
2. Torment. If the dead are in torment without real bodies, what is that like? Do our souls feel pain without bodies? Some has posited that "hell" is more mental than emotional pain--anguish over what we didn't do in the time we had to do it.
3. Resurrection. If everybody is eventually resurrected, but everybody was already able to see, hear, feel pain, and relate to people prior to resurrection (all of which are in the Lazarus story), of what use is the resurrection? Seems like it is unnecessary.
4. Resurrection of the damned. Even if resurrection of the saved is still necessary, why of the damned? Seems like a waste of time, power, and materials to recombine all of the elements in every human person's body just to destroy them all in the lake of fire, especially if the preliminary judgment has already taken place anyway.

Finally, to reply specifically to one of your points:

And likewise death is used figuratively to describe (even today) to describe sleep (or tiredness, even; eg: "he's dead on his feet", also Revelation 1:17)

It's interesting that you bring this up, because your usage is one that helps to understand why "death" is used to describe a state where the person is not functioning correctly. But if all the functions are still available, how can that be "death"?

 

[glorydaz]

Is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to scripture, or is it a cult belief because it is antithetical to traditional beliefs?

I know that some cults hold to it, but some cults also hold to some Christian truths (like "Jesus Christ lived in history"), and those truths aren't made false by their holding them.

[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] pointed out that the Old Testament is replete with references to death as "sleep" and as the person not retaining cognitive ability. Is it really the case that the story of Lazarus and the rich man can undo a good part of the OT's words on death?

This is a fairly important doctrinal issue, and it deserves a fair hearing, imo. And, also imo, just relying on traditional views of death is not sufficient.

Rosenritter did not point out "cognitive" inability from the OT, but read the soul sleep doctrine INTO what was written. King Solomon speaks of man's truths and things done "under the sun". So when you read about what the dead know...it's of all those things done under the sun. They have no "portion for ever IN ANY THING THAT IS DONE UNDER THE SUN. If you ignore that, you've missed it all.

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

Rosen does the same thing with Paul's verse about being absent from the body and present with the Lord. It's clear to all those who don't fall for the lie of "soul sleep". In point of fact, man is comprised of more than just a body, but that is denied at every turn.

 

[Rosenritter]

And likewise death is used figuratively to describe (even today) to describe sleep (or tiredness, even; eg: "he's dead on his feet", also Revelation 1:17)

So "dead on his feet" is meant to describe someone that is aware of their surroundings? And "Fell at his feet as dead" is meant to support "death living" why?

There are plenty of scriptures that contradict this assertion.

For example, Revelation 6:9.

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

Even if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was JUST a parable, one would do well to remember that parables are based on reality, not fiction or fantasy.

Judges 9:14-15 KJV
(14) Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.
(15) And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.


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

But I believe that that story is also something that actually happened, because of what is said throughout the Bible, in particular, about the laws concerning cities of refuge, mentioned in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20, and many other places in the Old Testament, all of which describe a place to wait until, and this is the most important part, the "death of the high priest."

I don't see the connection.

Sheol, also known as Abraham's Bosom, was the place of refuge in Hell for the faithful to wait until...

One problem with that proposal is that there isn't a single passage equating "Abraham's Bosom" with "Sheol."

The death of Jesus Christ. Who, while in the grave, preached to them for three days, offering them salvation from hell.

Sounds like a misreading of 1 Peter 3:18 as if "but quickened by the Spirit" was missing from the passage, with substituting "souls" for "spirits" in 1 Peter 3:19..

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

http://store.kgov.com/20150405-where-was-jesus-for-those-three-days/

If you would like, I will gladly give you money to purchase that sermon and listen to it.

Would you be willing to email me a transcript?

 

[glorydaz]

Would you be willing to email me a transcript?

"Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly." :TomO:


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

 

[way 2 go]

You can't just have "Death and Hades" as such a place.

yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

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

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

"The Sea" is included as well. Are you saying that the sea is also a place where souls are kept until judgment?

no

 

[Rosenritter]

yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

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

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

no

The "Lazarus and the rich man" parable doesn't have any mention of spirits in it.... though there is mention of eyes and tongues.

 

[Derf]

yes Hades is a place for spirits , just because the Sea is mentioned in the sentence does not change the nature of Hades

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

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


no

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

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

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

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

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

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all! Again of Tiresias:— [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he alone should be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades. Again:— The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamentng her fate, leaving manhood and youth. Again:— And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth.

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

 

[Derf]

Rosenritter did not point out "cognitive" inability from the OT, but read the soul sleep doctrine INTO what was written.

"Cognition" is the act of gaining knowledge, or the state of knowing, so that is the primary thing [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] was pointing out.

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

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

Rosen does the same thing with Paul's verse about being absent from the body and present with the Lord. It's clear to all those who don't fall for the lie of "soul sleep". In point of fact, man is comprised of more than just a body, but that is denied at every turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

 

[Rosenritter]

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

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

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

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

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

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all! Again of Tiresias:— [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he alone should be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades. Again:— The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamentng her fate, leaving manhood and youth. Again:— And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth.

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

You left out the generally accepted "Hades" of Greek literature. In this Gentile hell the dead exist in various forms, some being punished with unusual torments, such as water that receded when they tried to drink, fruit that raised up higher when they tried to reach for it, and so forth. Achilles was supposed to have been dipped in its river Styx as an infant (with only his ankle protruding.)

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

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

 

[Rosenritter]

"Cognition" is the act of gaining knowledge, or the state of knowing, so that is the primary thing @Rosenritter was pointing out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Derf]

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

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



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

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

Then I suppose [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] will appreciate the questions I brought up, assuming the apparition to be the real Samuel. I've been involved in other conversations about the Samuel story, too. I have a hard time getting past the idea that a faithful narrator of the story would not at some point tell us it was a demon pretending to be Samuel. And I have a hard time getting past the idea of an unfaithful narrator of stories, that God has inspired to write the "truth", writing it in his own unfaithful sort of way. Would a faithful narrator call the Devil "Samuel", not once but 3 times?

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

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

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

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

 

[Rosenritter]

Then I suppose @glorydaz will appreciate the questions I brought up, assuming the apparition to be the real Samuel. I've been involved in other conversations about the Samuel story, too. I have a hard time getting past the idea that a faithful narrator of the story would not at some point tell us it was a demon pretending to be Samuel. And I have a hard time getting past the idea of an unfaithful narrator of stories, that God has inspired to write the "truth", writing it in his own unfaithful sort of way. Would a faithful narrator call the Devil "Samuel", not once but 3 times?

The context of the story already relates that they are calling on a woman who summons devils (familiar spirits) and the bible is known for its economy of words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I broke something trying to use the search (the server went into time-out mode for several minutes and still came up with nothing.) I'll try some narrower searchers and get back on this.

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

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

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

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