Talking to the DEAD

[Eliyahu]

Uh, I'm not defending the RCC. In fact, the last thing I had said was for you not to make the same mistake as they, by looking at "the true Church" as an "Organization" (or particular group, as either the RCC or those competing small groups).

For starters here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigenses

Wikipedia quotes various views but it is often biased for RCC. The site which you showed me was not surpirsing me at all since I read it several times before.
If Cathari believed dualism, then they were not the Christians at all. None of your sources have reflected the own writings by Cathari, I am sure. If they can they must present the Cathari's own writings. You can see how RCC killed the people. Can you trust the history written by the murderers?
For example, Paulicians were not heretics at all, but one of their leaders was converted from Manichaean, then RCC charged them with such accusations. But in 1895, there was a discovery of the Key of Truth, which allowed Paulicians to speak for themselves. There was no heresy like that in their statements.
Another example was the Nestorius who was accused as "Nestorian" but the discovery of the Bazaar Heraclides in 1895 revealed that Nesotorius was not such Nestorian as described by RCC.
Therefore we cannot trust any second source for the history for this type of very much controversial issues.

Note, that the link redirects you to the article "Catharism", which is one of those other (related) groups the "Baptist/COC/JW/sabbatarian view of history" claims as its own. Even though it's Wikipedia, a Wiki article is only unreliable when it doesn't have its sources, and this one has a load of sources at the bottom. I had also recently see this somewhere else, but I didn't remember where; but all info on them unanimously says the same thing. The category of this article is even "Gnosticism".

Again you are accusing the True believers of what they never believed or claimed. How could Baptists evolve or emerge since 17c without the previous true believers?
I don't trust Wikipedia at all, sorry. If we check some history which we know already thru other resources, all the time Wikie stated differently.

See, the mistake here is that you are taking every group in history that either agreed with you on one point; if nothing more than opposing the RCC, and claiming it is a "lost true group" and hence predecessor to your church (even if it agreed with one of Rome's "lesser" evils). But the other doctrines they believed were even worse than the RCC. Did Baptists and Bretheren ever believe Satan created the world?

The problem is that we don't have much writings by themselves, and we just hear about some confrontation and arguments between RCC and those "so-called" Heretics. We cannot judge them entirely but what we can be sure is that those groups rejected Idolatry, Papacy, Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Clergy system, etc. As for other doctrines, we need to read their own writings. As I told you Albigenes spent much time for translating Bibles. I don't think the Heretics would do so.

All that means is that a group of Christians lived in the Waldensian Alps before the church organized itself in Roma and the other patriarchates. However, this group changed right along with the rest of the Church; until about the 8th century, when they began pulling away, because of some of the doctrines and practices Rome continued to add. Then, in the 11th century, they stood out even more, and just like the EOC, at that point, the issues were stuff like indulgences, and the papacy. But they were not Baptists or Plymouth Bretheren. They were more like what we would call "Old Catholics".

Indeed, there were some variety of Waldensians, some of them pretended to follow the doctrines of RCC even though they didn't do it internally, just for survival, some other groups in Tyroll area ignored RCC entirely. So, there were some variety apparently. Some Waldensians performed the Infant Baptism, and Martin Luther received the gospel from them.

I've read the Baptist history, and it was the same as COC, JW's and sabbatarians. I used to be a sabbatarian, following somewhat the WCG, who put out a booklet "the History of the Church", using this same outline, and I also have Dodd and Dugger's (CG7-Stanberry/Denver) similar book with the same outline. So I believed that the Waldensians, Albigenses, Anabaptists and all other small groups inbetween were all "faithful", 7th day sabbath and Passover-keeping, non-trinitarian, non-pagan "true Christians". Later on; I bought the SDA book "the Waldensians", and while it was arguing the same premise, it was quite honest, and I saw that the Waldensians were nothing like the SDA, WCG, COC or even the Baptists, but simply Catholics who had priests, nuns, monks, Eucharist liturgy, etc. but simply opposed some of Rome's latest innovations. Right from an SDA book trying to argue that the Waldensian were predecessors to the SDA!
The other groups were even worse. The Anabaptists were the only ones the Baptists, Brethren, (and to a certain extent, the modern sabbatarians) culd trace back to, and even they were very different in many areas. So I could no longer believe this "Baptist view of history".
Again, I don't see how you think I'm defending either RCC or Calvinist history. It's not either one organized group or another; they all form as powerbases around their particular traditions. If there was any "small, underground Church", I have heard of small groups of Christian families around Jerusalem who go all the way back. I don't know if that might have simply been referring to the local Catholics, and no one seems to know about it. But that is where I would look for any "unbroken link". Otherwse, the link is the Word of God, and anyone in any age who believes in Christ and trusts Him for salvation. Organizations/sects actually tend to get in the way.

Simply I trust the Truly Born Again Christians much more than any scholars or any religious leaders who have never been born again, as far as the Christian beliefs are concerned. As for other history, non-Christian can write correctly, but as for the Christian beliefs, non-Christian cannot understand the deep meaning of each word expressed by the Born-agan believers.
Even today, my belief is absolutely rejected not only by RCC but also by many protestants like Presbyterians.

I refuse calling Mary as Mother of God, Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Papacy, Compulsory Celibacy, Clergy System, Prayer to the Dead, Baptismal Regeneration, and so on. If I had lived in the medieval era or in Geneva under Calvin, I would have been condemned as a Heretic, then would have been tortured and killed by RCC or Calvinists, thereafter, they would have accused me of what I never expressed.
We have to develop our spiritual eyes to read thru and beyond the histories written by the murderers and their descendants so that we may find the pure history. I trust Baptist history because when I read theirs, I can easily feel that they were the born-again believers.
That's why I strongly recommend you to read the Pilgrim Church by Broadbent because he wrote it after he traveled quite a lot and investigated for himself.

Are the Baptists Heretics today? maybe still from the viewpoint of RCC.

Sorry to tell you that you seem to be brain washed by the false hostory quite a lot. It is up to you whether you trust the false history or not

 

[BobRyan]

Well "any-way" getting back to the topic from post 141...

Quote:
Agnus-Dei said

If you will concede that the Saints are alive, is it reasonable then to suppose that these same Saints, who prayed for each other and for all Christians while on earth, would lose interest in us once they reach the kingdom of heaven?

That argument has merrit - but it denies what scripture says about the unconscious dormant state of people when they die.

The other problem with that is that the saints on earth did not have MAGIC POWERS to hear all prayers from all the earth -- and so to argue that they continue to have their same role while DEAD would still not grant them magic god-like powers.

And finally - your argument above assumes that we are supposed to talk to the dead instead of obeying Isaiah 8:20.

Quote:
Agnus said
It is clear that even by the early centuries of the Church, intercession of the Saints was a well-established, widely accepted doctrine; -

#1. NOT by the first century saints.
#2. Paul states clearly in his letter to Titus, to Timothy and is sermon in Acts 20 that Doctrinal ERROR was already at work within the church.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - I just started a thread on the history of the "persecuting RCC" in its own self-proclaimed "extermination" of those it opposed.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

#2. Paul states clearly in his letter to Titus, to Timothy and is sermon in Acts 20 that Doctrinal ERROR was already at work within the church.

So you're putting words into Paul's mouth, does Paul elaborate on the specifics of these Doctronal errors, or are you assuming what Paul was alluding too?
-

 

[DHK]

Well "any-way" getting back to the topic from post 141...



That argument has merrit - but it denies what scripture says about the unconscious dormant state of people when they die.

The other problem with that is that the saints on earth did not have MAGIC POWERS to hear all prayers from all the earth -- and so to argue that they continue to have their same role while DEAD would still not grant them magic god-like powers.

And finally - your argument above assumes that we are supposed to talk to the dead instead of obeying Isaiah 8:20.



#1. NOT by the first century saints.
#2. Paul states clearly in his letter to Titus, to Timothy and is sermon in Acts 20 that Doctrinal ERROR was already at work within the church.

In Christ,

Bob

Although Agnus doesn't hold a Scripturally correct positon you cannot counter error with error. I find this both amusing and sad at the same time.
What Scripture teaches "the unconscious dormant state of people when they die." That is a heresy in and of itself. The Bible teaches no such thing as is quite evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. There was no unconsious man yelling up to Abraham: "Send Lazarus they he may wet the tip of my tongue with water for I am tormented in this flame. The resurrection had not yet taken place when Jesus told of that event. He continually referred to Hell as place of torment: where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth, a place of outer darkness, a place where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, a place of eternal torment. This does not lend itself to one being unconscious and unable to feel anything after death.
Likewise heaven is the same way. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is an undeniable truth. You would have us deny the gift of eternal life that Christ promised us in John 10:27-29. "I give unto you eternal life and you shall never persh, an no man shall be able to pluck it out of your hand..."
Eternal means eternal. Eternal doesn't mean: Eternal...unconscious...eternal restored again. That is not what Jesus promised. That is a blatant lie. It is not the teaching of Scripture.

In the OT, we see that Saul, acting on the command of OT law went out and had all the witches put to death. What power do witches have. Through demonic spirits they supposedly raise the spirits of the dead (both saved and unsaved). We know that this is the work of demons--the involvement of the occult. But what was the obvious belief of the Jews? That the spirits of the dead were still alive resting in either paradise or hell--both a compartment of Sheol. If they weren't, they would not be able to be raised by a witch, as even Saull thought was possible. Your argument holds no water. Only the living could be raised. What you teach is heresy. Heresy cannot be used to refute heresy.

 

[Andre]

What Scripture teaches "the unconscious dormant state of people when they die." That is a heresy in and of itself. The Bible teaches no such thing as is quite evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

I suggest that the story of Lazaurus and the rich man is a parable whose purpose is to make a point about the nation of Israel. The following material is not my own words but it represents my throughts about this story:

"The clothing of the rich man identifies him symbolically with the people of Israel, who God chose to be a special people. They were called to be a witness to the nations surrounding them, confirming the blessings available to those who would obey God and keep His laws. Unfortunately, only infrequently did they live up to the high calling given to them by the Eternal. Eventually He had to send them into captivity for their refusal to honor their part of the covenant ratified at Mount Sinai. At the time of Christ, only the remnant of the house of Judah which had returned from the Babylonian captivity continued to have a covenant relationship with God. The rich man in this parable represents the Jews of Jesus' day, exemplified by the religious teachers, the Pharisees and scribes.


In contrast to the rich man, we now see Lazarus. The first thing to note is that he is depicted as a beggar. This is an apt description of the Gentiles who "laid at the gate" of Judah. Paul describes the predicament of the Gentiles before they received Christ in Ephesians 2:12.

EPHESIANS 2:12 Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (RSV)

​

This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the Gentile nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins. They were certainly "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," "strangers to the covenants of promise," and "without hope and without God in the world." The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews."

And so on..

 

[Eliyahu]

Andre's point may be useful partly for understanding the whole truth.

Basically, my understanding about the issue raised by DHK and BR is that the parable of Lazarus may not be applicable to the issue of status of the dead.

Bible tells us many times that the Dead are sleeping, in 1 Cor 11, 15:20, 15:51, 2 Thess 4, Acts 7:60, etc. Also, I mentioned that the dead are not conscious according to Ecclesiastes 9:5.

The parable of Lazarus doesn't specify the timing, and it seems to me that Jesus made some parable which can give us the overview understanding on the judgment of the people. It doesn't tell us that the Judgment was already given and therefore the rich man was suffering. It seems that the timing is before the Judgment, during the OT times as Moses and Prophets are preached. There are several teachings directly from the passage:

1) the rich man went to the Hades ( unbelievers compartment of the Hades) because his name was not recorded in the book of life as his name is not mentioned.

2) Lazarus is the name of the E'lazar in Hebrew translated into Greek, and Elazar was often found to be the tribe of Levites. Levites were not supposed to have any property but to be served by other tribes. Levites were the priests. The rich man had to serve him properly so that he could work for the Lord. The rich man wore the purple cloth to glorify God, but he used his wealth for his own mouth and earthly happiness. The name of the beggar is shown because he was saved and his name was recorded in the book of life.

3) Moses and Prophets have the same effect as the Gospel of the person resurrected from the Dead ( v 31). OT taught Jesus Christ, His Blood and His death.

The whole passage may not be a real story at all but was formulated by Jesus for our understanding the Judgment, because, to Him, even the future and the past can be combined at any time as he can travel any time span.

So, I would still stay with the belief that the Dead are sleeping and the Dead who believed are sleeping in Jesus Christ ( 1 Thess 4:14)

 

[Eric B]

Wikipedia quotes various views but it is often biased for RCC. The site which you showed me was not surpirsing me at all since I read it several times before.
If Cathari believed dualism, then they were not the Christians at all. None of your sources have reflected the own writings by Cathari, I am sure. If they can they must present the Cathari's own writings. You can see how RCC killed the people. Can you trust the history written by the murderers?
For example, Paulicians were not heretics at all, but one of their leaders was converted from Manichaean, then RCC charged them with such accusations. But in 1895, there was a discovery of the Key of Truth, which allowed Paulicians to speak for themselves. There was no heresy like that in their statements.
Another example was the Nestorius who was accused as "Nestorian" but the discovery of the Bazaar Heraclides in 1895 revealed that Nesotorius was not such Nestorian as described by RCC.
Therefore we cannot trust any second source for the history for this type of very much controversial issues.

Again you are accusing the True believers of what they never believed or claimed.
I don't trust Wikipedia at all, sorry. If we check some history which we know already thru other resources, all the time Wikie stated differently.

The problem is that we don't have much writings by themselves, and we just hear about some confrontation and arguments between RCC and those "so-called" Heretics. We cannot judge them entirely but what we can be sure is that those groups rejected Idolatry, Papacy, Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Clergy system, etc. As for other doctrines, we need to read their own writings. As I told you Albigenes spent much time for translating Bibles. I don't think the Heretics would do so.



Indeed, there were some variety of Waldensians, some of them pretended to follow the doctrines of RCC even though they didn't do it internally, just for survival, some other groups in Tyroll area ignored RCC entirely. So, there were some variety apparently. Some Waldensians performed the Infant Baptism, and Martin Luther received the gospel from them.



Simply I trust the Truly Born Again Christians much more than any scholars or any religious leaders who have never been born again, as far as the Christian beliefs are concerned. As for other history, non-Christian can write correctly, but as for the Christian beliefs, non-Christian cannot understand the deep meaning of each word expressed by the Born-agan believers.
Even today, my belief is absolutely rejected not only by RCC but also by many protestants like Presbyterians.

I refuse calling Mary as Mother of God, Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Papacy, Compulsory Celibacy, Clergy System, Prayer to the Dead, Baptismal Regeneration, and so on. If I had lived in the medieval era or in Geneva under Calvin, I would have been condemned as a Heretic, then would have been tortured and killed by RCC or Calvinists, thereafter, they would have accused me of what I never expressed.
We have to develop our spiritual eyes to read thru and beyond the histories written by the murderers and their descendants so that we may find the pure history. I trust Baptist history because when I read theirs, I can easily feel that they were the born-again believers.
That's why I strongly recommend you to read the Pilgrim Church by Broadbent because he wrote it after he traveled quite a lot and investigated for himself.

Are the Baptists Heretics today? maybe still from the viewpoint of RCC.

Sorry to tell you that you seem to be brain washed by the false hostory quite a lot. It is up to you whether you trust the false history or not

Brainwashed by false history? Whose false history? It's not like it's only the Catholics' who say this stuff. I used to get alot of my information on many of those groups from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That isn't Catholic. Then, there is Kelley's Early Christian Doctrines. That isn't Catholic as well.

If we don't have the writings of those groups themselves, then you cannot speculate that they were Baptists or Brethren and that everything we read about every group is all lies by the RCC. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a "small different group" as well. are we lying about them when we condemn their Arianism?
While we're at it, was Arius a true Baptist then? Maybe the RCC lied about him as well. What about the Gnostics altogether for that matter?

I don't even see why the RCC would make up charges against a group anyway. If you went against any of their doctrines, they would pesecute you as a heretic, so trying to pin you with more heresies would not even be necessary.

I think the so-called "Baptist history" is closer to brainwashing, as it must bend history to try to make the Baptist (or some other modern group) the original Church, and this "the RCC made everything all up, and we don't have the original writings of these groups, but we know they were really true [Baptist/Brethren] Christians" is just another method of bending.

How could Baptists evolve or emerge since 17c without the previous true believers?

The Word of Goed was exposed by the invention of printing; so the RCC no longer had a stranglehold on it, and other groups interpreted it for themselves and broke away forming their own Church. This led to groups who were truer to the Gospel, and it also led to more schism and false interpretation as well.

 

[BobRyan]

Although Agnus doesn't hold a Scripturally correct positon you cannot counter error with error. I find this both amusing and sad at the same time.
What Scripture teaches "the unconscious dormant state of people when they die."

Good question. Let's "look at what the Bible says on that point" instead of ignoring it.


Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

By ignoring these texts we are open to the arguments in favor of praying to the Dead that Agnus-Dei has presented.

By paying attention to EACH of the "inconvenient details" listed above we are protected from the errors of praying to the DEAD.

DHK
That is a heresy in and of itself. The Bible teaches no such thing

And of course that is the "other way" to deal with these Bible texts.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is often raised as a point against the the scriptures given above pointing to the unconscious state of the dead --

In that parable Christ points to the lesson that those who ignore the Words of Moses in the OT - will find it hard to accept the Words of Christ "even though one rose from the dead".

DHK said
it is is quite evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. There was no unconsious man yelling up to Abraham: "Send Lazarus they he may wet the tip of my tongue with water for I am tormented in this flame. The resurrection had not yet taken place when Jesus told of that event.

True enough.

In that parable Abraham is in sovereign command of all the dead saints.

In that parable the dead of hell apppeal directly to Abraham for HIS sovereign decision regarding the dead and the resurrection.

in that parable ALL the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's Lap.

In that Parable there is NO PRAYER AT ALL to God -

But that is WHY we never try to make a parable "walk on all fours".

Obviously.

DHK said -

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is an undeniable truth.

It is in fact a false teaching. There is NO TEXT that says it!!

DHK said
In the OT, we see that Saul, acting on the command of OT law went out and had all the witches put to death. What power do witches have. Through demonic spirits they supposedly raise the spirits of the dead (both saved and unsaved). We know that this is the work of demons--the involvement of the occult. But what was the obvious belief of the Jews? That the spirits of the dead were still alive resting in either paradise or hell--both a compartment of Sheol. If they weren't, they would not be able to be raised by a witch,

Just as false gods are NOT real and those who pray to them are praying o demons.

as even Saull thought was possible. Your argument holds no water.

The Jews were often found falling into idolatry and worship of false gods - YOU have argued that this means false gods must be REAL and in this case the dead must really be in spirit form JUST as the witches claim.

Such arguments "from the false doctrines of the dark side" are not a kind of "Bible proof" DHK.

Why do you go there?

The LIVING do not NEED to be raised - they are already alive and here.

the DEAD are the ones that NEED to be raised if you are to speak to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Brainwashed by false history? Whose false history? It's not like it's only the Catholics' who say this stuff. I used to get alot of my information on many of those groups from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That isn't Catholic. Then, there is Kelley's Early Christian Doctrines. That isn't Catholic as well.

If we don't have the writings of those groups themselves, then you cannot speculate that they were Baptists or Brethren and that everything we read about every group is all lies by the RCC. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a "small different group" as well. are we lying about them when we condemn their Arianism?

You sir are indeed fooled on this point.


We do NOT quote Catholics to find the REAL teaching of JW's sir.

If the Caltholics started torturing and murdering JW's we STILL should NOT go to Catholics to find the REAL teaching of JW's. you do not go to the criminal to get a CORRECT view of the VICTIM!!

Why is this concept so difficult for some??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

ERIC B!

You haven't read the History written by the Born again Believer - EH Broadbent who personally investigated all the literatures available for the various groups.

If you cannot trust the Born-Again believers, there is no remedy for that as Jesus said this:
Luke 16:
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


If you would not hear the Born-again believers and their history, you would not believe even the history which may be delieverd by the Martyrs who died in the past history and may be resurrected and go to you.

This is the method of preaching taught by Jesus.
I am sure that you would not believe what the Albigenes and Cathari would say if they come again today and tell the truth according to the Bible truth.

Why did you come to Baptist Board while you don't trust them? Did you come here to civilize them ?

I would give you up!

 

[DHK]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is often raised as a point against the the scriptures given above pointing to the unconscious state of the dead --

In that parable Christ points to the lesson that those who ignore the Words of Moses in the OT - will find it hard to accept the Words of Christ "even though one rose from the dead".

The term "rising from the dead" does not refer to the resurrection. Samuel "arose" from the dead when he appeared to Saul. It means to come back from the dead. It has no reference whatsoever to the resurrection, as that is not the context. The context is one coming back from heaven or hell to warn the rich man's five brothers of the terror of hell. What more convincing evidence would one have (so thought the rich man) if an actual spirit manifested itself and was recognized from the afterlife. But Abraham said the truth. If they would not hear Moses and the prophets neither would they hear even if one came back from the dead.

In that parable Abraham is in sovereign command of all the dead saints.

In that parable the dead of hell apppeal directly to Abraham for HIS sovereign decision regarding the dead and the resurrection.

in that parable ALL the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's Lap.

In that Parable there is NO PRAYER AT ALL to God -

But that is WHY we never try to make a parable "walk on all fours".

No, God is sovereign; not Abraham. That is why it is not a parable.
No, we have an example of one man pleading to Abraham. Learn your theology. God is sovereign; not Abraham. Note that Abraham had no authority to answer the plea of the rich man. Only God could do that.
No. Where does it say that all the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's lap. Where does it say that all the apostles were resting on Jesus bosom? The picture is one of comfort. Who is the one trying to make a story walk on all fours?? I agree there is no prayer to God at all. I never said there was. So why are you making this stuff up?

It is in fact a false teaching. There is NO TEXT that says it!!

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
--Learn your Bible Bob.

The Jews were often found falling into idolatry and worship of false gods - YOU have argued that this means false gods must be REAL and in this case the dead must really be in spirit form JUST as the witches claim.

Such arguments "from the false doctrines of the dark side" are not a kind of "Bible proof" DHK.

It is Bible evidence. It is evidence of what the Jews believed at that time in history. They may have believed wrongly at times. But the proof of their belief in spirits (whether demonic or otherwise) is proof that spirits in general are indeed alive. And why wouldn't they be? Why would Jesus tell us a story of Abraham if Abraham's spirit is "sleeping". Was Christ lying to us, deceiving us? Were the saints in heaven not real that John saw? Who was singing the "song of the redeemed in Revelation four and five? There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that Jews believed in this very unorthodox doctrine of very recent origin called soul sleep.

 

[BobRyan]

It is Bible evidence. It is evidence of what the Jews believed at that time in history. They may have believed wrongly at times. But the proof of their belief in spirits (whether demonic or otherwise) is proof that spirits in general are indeed alive.

As I stated that same argument would "prove that false gods really exist out there in the universe".

Such a form of "proof" is not logical.

And why wouldn't they be? Why would Jesus tell us a story of Abraham if Abraham's spirit is "sleeping".

It is a parable. Abraham is NOT in charge of the dead as much as the parable makes it appear that he is. The dead in hell do NOT pray to Abraham instead of God - as much as the parable makes it appear that this is the case.

Christ said the point of the parable is that those who do not hear Moses will also not hear "the one who rises from the dead". That is the point of the parable NOT that the dead in hell pray to Abraham OR that all the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's lap!

Was Christ lying to us, deceiving us?

No he was telling a parable. You can not make parables walk on all fours.

Were the saints in heaven not real that John saw? Who was singing the "song of the redeemed in Revelation four and five? There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that Jews believed in this very unorthodox doctrine of very recent origin called soul sleep.

the Sadducees believed something far more "terminal" as we see in MAtt 22. This disproves all the "no evidence in history" wild claims.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
DHK said -

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is an undeniable truth.

It is in fact a false teaching. There is NO TEXT that says it!!

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

That is certainly one way NOT to say "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. "

DHK quotes
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
--Learn your Bible Bob.

That is ANOTHER great way NOT to say "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. "

(Reading and paying attention to the details is a great way to avoid the mistake you made there DHK)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

There is every reason to believe that Paul is writing phenonmenologically here - expressing "what the believer experiences". On such a view, are the above texts consistent with the notion that the dead sleep?

Indeed they are.

In terms of what the content of the believer's experience is, he indeed transitions directly from "the body" to being present with the Lord, even though he may sleep for centuries.

These texts are not at all problematic for the soul sleep position.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Quote:
In that parable Abraham is in sovereign command of all the dead saints.

In that parable the dead of hell apppeal directly to Abraham for HIS sovereign decision regarding the dead and the resurrection.

in that parable ALL the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's Lap.

In that Parable there is NO PRAYER AT ALL to God -

But that is WHY we never try to make a parable "walk on all fours".

DHK response is nonsensical -

DHK said
No, God is sovereign; not Abraham. That is why it is not a parable.

What?? how in the world do you get "that is why..." when the parable shows the petition is ONLY going to Abraham when the request is that someone be RESURRECTED and sent to the LIVING.

No, we have an example of one man pleading to Abraham.

Exactly- the wicked in hell praying to Abraham -- asking HIM for the favor of having someone RESURRECTED and sent to the living.

The point remains sir.

DHK

God is sovereign; not Abraham.

HENCE the parable and the fact that we must NOT make it walk on all fours!!

DHK said

Note that Abraham had no authority to answer the plea of the rich man. Only God could do that.

NOT a point made in the parable IF you take the parable as literal. In fact that parable shows NO INDICATION at all of Abraham saying "I am sorry but I have no authority one way or the other on that request. Only GOD can raise the dead - let me put you on hold for a minute while I forward your request to someone that could actually DO something about it".

HENCE the observation that this is a parable INSTEAD of trying to make it walk on all fours.

No. Where does it say that all the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's lap.

Since both Lazarus AND all the dead saints appear to be in Abraham's soveriegn domain and HE ALONE is petitioned to send SOMEONE.

Obviously.

DHK

Where does it say that all the apostles were resting on Jesus bosom? The picture is one of comfort. Who is the one trying to make a story walk on all fours??

Not I sir.

I think we should NOT try to get Lazarus and all the saints "into Abraham's bosom" literally.

Abraham simply is NOT in charge of all the dead saints sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

The term "rising from the dead" does not refer to the resurrection. Samuel "arose" from the dead when he appeared to Saul. It means to come back from the dead..

Saul perceived he was Samuel. It seems that Saul didn't see him in person. The word " Yada" in Hebrew is different from "Raha" (see).
That's why he asked the woman to interpret the whole situation. In 1 Sam 28:11-16, the whole situation is interpreted by the woman diviner. The woman had no power to raise a dead, she just called for a dead by spirit, which may be called " familiar spirit" I don't think Saul spoke with Samuel in person, but the woman diviner mediated between them. In such case of familiar spirit, usually the woman diviner must have spoken to Saul behaving like Samuel.

As for Luke 16, the Lazarus Parable has the limitation to its application to the doctrines. It's a parable. Developing many theological doctrines from the parable over the explicit teachings will be very much risky.
Even BR may be wrong in saying that the rich man could pray to God.
BR said

"The dead in hell do NOT pray to Abraham instead of God - as much as the parable makes it appear that this is the case."

Because there is no repentance in the Hell as the Holy Spirit wouldn't work there and there is no repentance without the Holy Spirit. I don't the dead in the hell will pray to God for the salvation. The parable of Lazarus is just a story formulated and condensed into a short story by Jesus to teach us certain aspects of teachings, and it doesn't cover the whole doctrines.

Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him (1 Thess 3:14).

 

[BobRyan]

Saul perceived he was Samuel. It seems that Saul didn't see him in person. The word " Yada" in Hebrew is different from "Raha" (see).
That's why he asked the woman to interpret the whole situation. In 1 Sam 28:11-16, the whole situation is interpreted by the woman diviner. The woman had no power to raise a dead, she just called for a dead by spirit, which may be called " familiar spirit" I don't think Saul spoke with Samuel in person, but the woman diviner mediated between them. In such case of familiar spirit, usually the woman diviner must have spoken to Saul behaving like Samuel.

1. The claim is that the witch saw Samuel in 1Sam 28 – Saul did not see him – rather Saul asks to have the witch “describe” Samuel to him.
1 Sam 28
12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
13 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.
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.



1 Chron 10:
13So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it,
14and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.


2. In Exodus 7:11-12 – the Bible says the Egyptian magicians turned their staffs into snakes – but only God can “create life”.

8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake."
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake.
11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts:
12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.


3. In Acts 16:16 – the girl the is divining at Philippi has the “spirit of python” in her. But there is no such thing as the Gk god Python.

Spirit of python – (Transliterated puthon)

1. in Greek mythology the name of the Pythian serpent or dragon that dwelt in the region of Pytho at the foot of Parnassus in Phocis, and was said to have guarded the oracle at Delphi and been slain by Apollo

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for Luke 16, the Lazarus Parable has the limitation to its application to the doctrines. It's a parable. Developing many theological doctrines from the parable over the explicit teachings will be very much risky.
Even BR may be wrong in saying that the rich man could pray to God.

I am not arguing that the dead in hell can pray to God. I am just arguing that IF one is going to believe in the dead praying - then they should still be praying to God - (someone who actually can DO something) rather than other dead people.

In Christ,

Bob