Resurrection and relics

[Kendall K. Down]

The subject for discussion in this morning's service was "resurrections
before Christ's" and the author gave a supposedly complete list of the
few resurrections reports in the Old Testament, plus those performed by
Jesus before His death and His own resurrection.

There was, however, one omission, which I spotted immediately and no one
else noticed. I gleefully pointed to 2 Kings 13:20, 21 and suggested,
with my tongue carefully positioned, that this was Scriptural
endorsement for relics.

Needless to say, mere mention of the "R" word brought an immediate
reaction and whatever the discussion leader had carefully prepared went
by the board as most of the 40 minutes was spent arguing about that passage.

I wonder what people here think of the incident?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mike Davis]

In an attempt to enter the spirit of your question, it seems to me quite
the same as others - including Christ's raising of the widows son, and,
obviously Lazarus'- though I confess that I've not dwelt upon OT
examples before.

The only point I would make is that all the previous ones (before Jesus)
ended in a further death to await the Second Coming. So they were merely
illustrations of temporary power given to some individuals.

Was there any general point made other than that? If, not what was the
point of the discussion?

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/10/2022 16:34, Mike Davis wrote:

> The only point I would make is that all the previous ones (before Jesus)
> ended in a further death to await the Second Coming. So they were merely
> illustrations of temporary power given to some individuals.

Actually not so. Moses was resurrected to eternal life and appeared to
Jesus at the Transfiguration.

> Was there any general point made other than that? If, not what was the
> point of the discussion?

I'm not sure what point the leaflet proposing the subject had in mind -
I didn't read that far. On the whole the dicussion seemed to feel that
resurrection has been God's way of dealing with the pain and problem of
death. Given that, with the exception of Moses, they were restored to
life temporarily, they serve as types of the General Resurrection at the
Second Coming, guarantees of its reality, so to speak.

[Mike Davis]

On 30/10/2022 19:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 30/10/2022 16:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> The only point I would make is that all the previous ones (before
>> Jesus) ended in a further death to await the Second Coming. So they
>> were merely illustrations of temporary power given to some individuals.

> Actually not so. Moses was resurrected to eternal life and appeared to
> Jesus at the Transfiguration.

Sorry? You're saying that Moses (and presumably, Elijah) was resurrected
to eternal life BEFORE Jesus' death?

If that's not what you mean, please quote c&v.

>> Was there any general point made other than that? If, not what was the
>> point of the discussion?
>
> I'm not sure what point the leaflet proposing the subject had in mind -
> I didn't read that far. On the whole the dicussion seemed to feel that
> resurrection has been God's way of dealing with the pain and problem of
> death. Given that, with the exception of Moses, they were restored to
> life temporarily, they serve as types of the General Resurrection at the
> Second Coming, guarantees of its reality, so to speak.

M
--
Mike Davis

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjmj30$8su5$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 19:25:21 +0000:

> On 30/10/2022 16:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>> The only point I would make is that all the previous ones (before
>> Jesus) ended in a further death to await the Second Coming. So they
>> were merely illustrations of temporary power given to some
>> individuals.
> Actually not so. Moses was resurrected to eternal life and appeared to
> Jesus at the Transfiguration.

This doesn't follow. The resurrection will be a new thing, which means
it will not be on the pattern of the these resuscitations which are
documented in the bible.

The only reasoned conclusion I can see is that there has been exactly
one resurrection to eternal life in the person of Jesus in the history
of the world. That of Jesus. All resurrections to eternal life are in
the future. This means Moses and Elijah will receive their new eternal
resurrected bodies at the general resurrection. The spirit of Moses may
have appeared at the transfiguration it is doctrinally unwise to insist
on bodily identity for the three figures traditionally mentioned (who
are assumed to have transcended death.)

This is my hindu background speaking but the body is incidental and as
much as a tool as the mind. The bodily characterestics which are
assumed are not fundamental to the identity of the god created soul
which is what is in a relationship with God. To insist on seeing the
holes may have been necessary for Thomas to believe, but I wouldn't
expect Jesus to have holes in New Jerusalem, when the purpose of the
earthly body has been achieved.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/10/2022 21:21, Mike Davis wrote:

> Sorry? You're saying that Moses (and presumably, Elijah) was resurrected
> to eternal life BEFORE Jesus' death?

Tut tut. You really need to read your Bible. Elijah did not die, he was
taken up living into heaven (as, presumably, was Enoch).

However both Moses and Elijah were alive before Jesus' death and spoke
to Him on the Mount of Transfiguration. The alternatives are that they
weren't real, just some sort of "virtual" Moses and Elijah created for
the occasion, or that they were "popped" into existence in some mini
resurrection and then shoved back in the grave as soon as their chat
with Jesus had ended. Neither seems terribly likely to me.

Elijah's translation in a fiery chariot is adequately described in Kings
- I trust you were aware of that? Moses' resurrection is alluded to in
Jude, where Michael disputes with the devil about the *body* of Moses -
not his spirit or soul or something. Although not time is given for this
dispute, it was clearly before the Transfiguration.

All of which raises the interesting question of what would have happened
to Enoch, Moses and Elijah if Jesus had backed out of Calvary. Would
they have had to die eternally? Would God have made some special
provision? Is it possible that their conversation with Jesus was
specifically to remind Him of how much they had hanging on His
successful completion of "Mission Earth"?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/10/2022 03:27, Madhu wrote:

> This doesn't follow. The resurrection will be a new thing, which means
> it will not be on the pattern of the these resuscitations which are
> documented in the bible.

Ah, so Moses was not resurrected, he was resuscitated. And, of course,
Putin did not invade the Ukraine, he merely carried out a special
military operation.

> The only reasoned conclusion I can see is that there has been exactly
> one resurrection to eternal life in the person of Jesus in the history
> of the world. That of Jesus. All resurrections to eternal life are in
> the future. This means Moses and Elijah will receive their new eternal
> resurrected bodies at the general resurrection. The spirit of Moses may
> have appeared at the transfiguration it is doctrinally unwise to insist
> on bodily identity for the three figures traditionally mentioned (who
> are assumed to have transcended death.)

But Scripture specifically says that Michael disputed about the *body*
of Moses - not his soul or spirit, but his body.

Personally I see deep significance in the choice of Moses and Elijah to
speak to Jesus. They represent the entirety of the redeemed - those who
will be resurrected and those who will be translated.

> This is my hindu background speaking but the body is incidental and as
> much as a tool as the mind. The bodily characterestics which are
> assumed are not fundamental to the identity of the god created soul
> which is what is in a relationship with God. To insist on seeing the
> holes may have been necessary for Thomas to believe, but I wouldn't
> expect Jesus to have holes in New Jerusalem, when the purpose of the
> earthly body has been achieved.

The Christian view is that man is made of body, soul and spirit. The
soul (or personality) receives its impressions and gives its responses
through the body. Without the body it is as unconscious as a memory
stick with all your computer's programs and data on it - you cannot
write to it, you cannot read from it without the computer (body).

There is no specific verse to say so, but my understanding is that Jesus
retains the marks of the crucifixion and will do so at least for the
beginning of eternity. I doubt they are gaping wounds, more like scars.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjnjqn$ea3h$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 04:44:07 +0000:

> On 31/10/2022 03:27, Madhu wrote:
>> This doesn't follow. The resurrection will be a new thing, which means
>> it will not be on the pattern of the these resuscitations which are
>> documented in the bible.
>
> Ah, so Moses was not resurrected, he was resuscitated.

Oh come on, Moses died. He was neither resuscitated nor resurrected. If
either had happened it would have found a prominent mention in the OT.

>> The only reasoned conclusion I can see is that there has been exactly
>> one resurrection to eternal life in the person of Jesus in the history
>> of the world. That of Jesus. All resurrections to eternal life are in
>> the future. This means Moses and Elijah will receive their new eternal
>> resurrected bodies at the general resurrection. The spirit of Moses may
>> have appeared at the transfiguration it is doctrinally unwise to insist
>> on bodily identity for the three figures traditionally mentioned (who
>> are assumed to have transcended death.)
>
> But Scripture specifically says that Michael disputed about the *body*
> of Moses - not his soul or spirit, but his body.

Indeed the matter was about the disposal of the corpse. Over where the
dead body would be buried. Once buried there was a danger that the
Isralites would resort to grave worship, which would be in accordance to
Satan's wishes for mankind (to engage in grave worship). Which is why it
was arranged that no one knows where the grave is. Not that he didn't
have a grave.

I can't spot where the bible says "God buried Moses" (probably through
Michael) perhaps it was rabbinic commentary, or from the apocrypha.
Surely the imagination of the apocrypha-authors is not a guide for a
doctrine of resurrection, even if apparently endorsed in the epistle.
Mythology present in the bible is OK.

> Personally I see deep significance in the choice of Moses and Elijah
> to speak to Jesus. They represent the entirety of the redeemed - those
> who will be resurrected and those who will be translated.

Samuel died. He was not resurrected or resuscitated. Yet he put in an
appearance in spirit when conjured. The same mechanism would suffice
for the moses and elijah.

[Mike Davis]

Excellent point! (I was going to make similar comments to those above,
but Madhu has made the main points.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/10/2022 14:09, Madhu wrote:

> Oh come on, Moses died. He was neither resuscitated nor resurrected. If
> either had happened it would have found a prominent mention in the OT.

Perhaps it wasn't known in the Old Testament and only came to light on
the Mt of Transfiguration. After all, I don't suppose either visitant
was wearing a name badge large enough to be read at a distance, so the
disciples must have asked Jesus, "Who are they?" and then, when Jesus
mentioned Moses, raised the same objection you are - "But he's dead!"
only to be told that in fact he had been resurrected.

> Indeed the matter was about the disposal of the corpse. Over where the
> dead body would be buried. Once buried there was a danger that the
> Isralites would resort to grave worship, which would be in accordance to
> Satan's wishes for mankind (to engage in grave worship). Which is why it
> was arranged that no one knows where the grave is. Not that he didn't
> have a grave.

Deuteronomy 34:5, 6 is the verse you are looking for. "He" refers back
to "Yahweh" Whose word had been fulfilled by Moses' death.

Hmmm. Just checking on-line I find that your idea about the location of
the grave is not as outlandish as I thought, for there are many others
who propose it. Nevertheless, I believe that you and they are wrong. We
*know* that Moses appeared at the Transfiguration, that he did so in
company with someone who had gone up bodily into heaven and to Someone
Who was in a body, which leads me to believe that Moses also was in a
body. As Moses indubitably died, he must have been resurrected at some
point and Jude's reference is as good as any other.

> Samuel died. He was not resurrected or resuscitated. Yet he put in an
> appearance in spirit when conjured. The same mechanism would suffice
> for the moses and elijah.

Actually, I don't believe that Samuel did put in an appearance. An evil
spirit, masquerading as Samuel, appeared and deceived Saul. It is hardly
likely that God would allow witch - whom He had sentenced to death - to
call up (or down) one of God's saints.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/10/2022 17:52, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Samuel died. He was not resurrected or resuscitated. Yet he put in an
>> appearance in spirit when conjured.  The same mechanism would suffice
>> for the moses and elijah.

> Excellent point!  (I was going to make similar comments to those above,
> but Madhu has made the main points.)

No, it is a fatuous point - as you must acknowledge if you take the
trouble to actually think.

* The witch of Endor was not a servant of God and should, if God's will
had been carried out, have been put to death.

* Saul was put to death for the sin of consulting this witch. (1
Chronicles 10:13)

* Samuel was a righteous man, a prophet. He was in heaven or sheol or
wherever you think, but he was in a place where the righteous go.

Now, putting all that together, do you really think that one of the
devil's servants would be allowed to drag Samuel out of his resting
place? Would God allow the devil to manipulate Samuel against his will
before his death? If not, why would God allow it after his death?

Do you think that after you die, you are in danger of being summoned by
any two-bit spiritualist down to her darkened drawing room to answer
(with one knock or two) inane questions about where Aunty Ida left her will?

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjp9fi$idhk$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:59:46 +0000:

> On 31/10/2022 17:52, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> Samuel died. He was not resurrected or resuscitated. Yet he put in an
>>> appearance in spirit when conjured.  The same mechanism would suffice
>>> for the moses and elijah.
>
>> Excellent point!  (I was going to make similar comments to those
>> above, but Madhu has made the main points.)
>
> No, it is a fatuous point - as you must acknowledge if you take the
> trouble to actually think.

Not at all. I believe (and I'm not alone, and I;ve expounded on length
in ukrc) that God with his sovereign will worked an exceptional miracle
in this case because of the principals involved and the it was spirit of
Samuel was genuinely prophesied delivering what Saul wanted. and Saul
did repent.

It was God with his sovereign free will who sent the evil spirit to Saul
and God dealt with him as he desired.

> * The witch of Endor was not a servant of God and should, if God's
> will had been carried out, have been put to death.
>
> * Saul was put to death for the sin of consulting this witch. (1
> Chronicles 10:13)

Moses was put to death without the benefit of entering Canan for his
sins. God's actions and will are demonstrated.

> * Samuel was a righteous man, a prophet. He was in heaven or sheol or
> wherever you think, but he was in a place where the righteous go.
>
> Now, putting all that together, do you really think that one of the
> devil's servants would be allowed to drag Samuel out of his resting
> place? Would God allow the devil to manipulate Samuel against his will
> before his death? If not, why would God allow it after his death?

It was God who did it, not the devil's servant. I bet the witch was as
suprised as anyone at what happened.

> Do you think that after you die, you are in danger of being summoned
> by any two-bit spiritualist down to her darkened drawing room to
> answer (with one knock or two) inane questions about where Aunty Ida
> left her will?

This sort of specious reasoning only helps the adoption of shady axioms
which in turn lead to bad doctrine about other matters - in this case
the resurrection.

There are a whole bunch of incidents set out in the Saul incident to
feed our prejudices against Saul and thereby miss the subtleties which
are present.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/11/2022 01:27, Madhu wrote:

> Not at all. I believe (and I'm not alone, and I;ve expounded on length
> in ukrc) that God with his sovereign will worked an exceptional miracle
> in this case because of the principals involved and the it was spirit of
> Samuel was genuinely prophesied delivering what Saul wanted. and Saul
> did repent.

So God worked a special miracle in response to a witch's incantations? I
suppose that anything is possible, but on a scale of 1 to 10 I would put
the probability of God doing any such thing around -75.

And given the statement in 1 Chronicles 10:13, I gravely doubt that Saul
repented.

> It was God with his sovereign free will who sent the evil spirit to Saul
> and God dealt with him as he desired.

The ancients had no knowledge of psychology, so depression had to be "an
evil spirit". In this case, Saul was depressed because his conscience
was troubling him; he knew that he no longer had any right to be king
but was too proud to give it up and it was the conflict between
conscience and pride that produced the "evil spirit from the Lord".

In other words, far from being "an evil spirit", it was actually the
Holy Spirit working on Saul's conscience, but when Saul resisted and
rejected the Spirit's pleadings, it became for him "an evil spirit".

> Moses was put to death without the benefit of entering Canan for his
> sins. God's actions and will are demonstrated.

It's a bit hard to say that a man of 120 was "put to death". Allowed to
die, yes.

> It was God who did it, not the devil's servant. I bet the witch was as
> suprised as anyone at what happened.

You mean, she went through all those incantations and rituals without
any expectation that they would work? She summoned the devil and got God
instead? I agree that that would be surprising - so surprising that I
don't believe it.

>> Do you think that after you die, you are in danger of being summoned
>> by any two-bit spiritualist down to her darkened drawing room to
>> answer (with one knock or two) inane questions about where Aunty Ida
>> left her will?

> This sort of specious reasoning only helps the adoption of shady axioms
> which in turn lead to bad doctrine about other matters - in this case
> the resurrection.

I'm glad you see the foolishness of your position. God's saints are not
at the beck and call of the devil's servants.

> There are a whole bunch of incidents set out in the Saul incident to
> feed our prejudices against Saul and thereby miss the subtleties which
> are present.

Or which you imagine are present. Your imaginings are contradicted by 1
Chronicles 10.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjq6ja$ne11$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 04:16:43 +0000:

> I'm glad you see the foolishness of your position. God's saints are
> not at the beck and call of the devil's servants.

That is a false reading of what was said. I'm not conviced with the
arguments you;ve presented and there is no point going on.

Given the attention that the bible gives to the works of satan,
(i.e. none), I'm happy to assume that what it documents here is the work
of God, as it does in most of the other places.

Many contexts in the OT (like the human sacrifice of isaac, dividing and
walking between the entrails) do have the taste of being "pagan" or
demonic, but the bible documents them, to me this indicates that it is
God who is involved, despite contradictions, and not the devil.

AFAIK There are no cases of demonic impersonations in the bible. I'm
afraid you may be projecting the seances of victorian england back onto
this situation.

> Or which you imagine are present. Your imaginings are contradicted by
> 1 Chronicles 10.

I believe Samuel is inspired while Chronicles is the sanitised
propaganda work of court-sycophants. (There are other differences in
the accounts. A careful reading would show that technically Saul did
not in fact kill himself but done in by an Amelekite who expected a
reward from satan. But for this discussion I should say it was God who
killed him)

[steve hague]

I've heard it speculated that God moved the still living Moses forward
in time to meet Jesus, then sent him back again. There's no evidence of
course, but I like the idea.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 31/10/2022 19:59, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 31/10/2022 17:52, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> Samuel died. He was not resurrected or resuscitated. Yet he put in an
>>> appearance in spirit when conjured.  The same mechanism would suffice
>>> for the moses and elijah.
>
>> Excellent point!  (I was going to make similar comments to those
>> above, but Madhu has made the main points.)
>
> No, it is a fatuous point - as you must acknowledge if you take the
> trouble to actually think.

'Think'?! I did!

> * The witch of Endor was not a servant of God and should, if God's will
> had been carried out, have been put to death.

She did what Saul requested - the Bible says she called Samuel up and he
'came' - I thought you believed what the Bible says. I don't really see
that as being sillier than phoning someone in, say, Australia for
advice, except we are forbidden to call up spirits.

> * Saul was put to death for the sin of consulting this witch. (1
> Chronicles 10:13)

That's selective quoting! Among a lot more serious sins... "Saul died
because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the
Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of
the Lord." 1 Chron 10:13-14a

> * Samuel was a righteous man, a prophet. He was in heaven or sheol or
> wherever you think, but he was in a place where the righteous go.
>
> Now, putting all that together, do you really think that one of the
> devil's servants would be allowed to drag Samuel out of his resting
> place? Would God allow the devil to manipulate Samuel against his will
> before his death? If not, why would God allow it after his death?

What does the Bible say?

> Do you think that after you die, you are in danger of being summoned by
> any two-bit spiritualist down to her darkened drawing room to answer
> (with one knock or two) inane questions about where Aunty Ida left her
> will?

I don't know. Nor do you. But I don't believe that Moses & Elijah were
'conjured up' by Jesus - He just appeared in their presence (or strictly
vice-versa). They may have been non-corporeal.

Today, being 'All Saints' (and tomorrow 'All Souls') in traditional
church liturgies, gives rise to thoughts about 'where are they now?'
before the Last Judgement. And that doesn't mean their bodies, it means
their existence as individuals created by God. They are possibly
'outside time'; which could be an answer to the Samuel / Elijah issues.

Happy feast day!! ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/11/2022 05:45, steve hague wrote:

> I've heard it speculated that God moved the still living Moses forward
> in time to meet Jesus, then sent him back again. There's no evidence of
> course, but I like the idea.

You mean, moved him forward in time in the moments before he died, set
him up on the Mount of Transfiguration, then moved him back again and
buried him?

1. It sounds unnecessarily complicated.

2. It would require Moses to be still alive when Michael and satan are
disputing about his body.

3. I can't imagine what Moses would have to say by way of encouragement.
His time would be taken up in asking "Where am I?" "Who are you?" "What
do you mean 'we are now 1400 years later'?" and utterly failing to
understand any of the answers.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/11/2022 05:13, Madhu wrote:

> Many contexts in the OT (like the human sacrifice of isaac, dividing and
> walking between the entrails) do have the taste of being "pagan" or
> demonic, but the bible documents them, to me this indicates that it is
> God who is involved, despite contradictions, and not the devil.

1. The Bible documents many things that were contrary to God's will -
David having it off with Bathsheba, for example.

2. If God was involved in Saul's seance, it would be a bit hard to claim
that Saul was killed for taking part!

> AFAIK There are no cases of demonic impersonations in the bible. I'm
> afraid you may be projecting the seances of victorian england back onto
> this situation.

He he! Of course there is a demonic impersonation right at the very
beginning, when the devil impersonated a snake. The Egyptian magicians
are another instance of demonic impersonation. I know people will say
that they were just clever conjurers, but you don't drum up a trick like
casting down your staff and it turns into a serpent at the drop of a
hat. You have to prepare, get your illusion and the required
paraphanalia to the right place, etc.

Believe me! I do a bit of conjuring and given warning and a suitable
budget could easily saw my wife or yours in half, then join her back
together again. Come upon me without warning and present me with your
wife and a saw and the answer is No, not unless you want her permanently
in two pieces.

> I believe Samuel is inspired while Chronicles is the sanitised
> propaganda work of court-sycophants. (There are other differences in
> the accounts. A careful reading would show that technically Saul did
> not in fact kill himself but done in by an Amelekite who expected a
> reward from satan. But for this discussion I should say it was God who
> killed him)

The last resort of someone with a weak case is to claim that the Bible
is not trustworthy.

The Amelekite hoped for a reward from David, not from satan. Actually, I
don't believe he did kill Saul; he merely hoped for a reward from
claiming to have killed David's enemy.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/11/2022 13:16, Mike Davis wrote:

> She did what Saul requested - the Bible says she called Samuel up and he
> 'came' - I thought you believed what the Bible says.  I don't really see
> that as being sillier than phoning someone in, say, Australia for
> advice, except we are forbidden to call up spirits.

Certainly *someone* (or something) came and claimed to be Samuel.
Interestingly, this pseudo Samuel tells Saul, "to morrow shalt thou and
thy sons be with me." Do you really believe that Saul, the unrepentant
sinner, ended up in the same location as Samuel, the faithful prophet of
God?

>> * Saul was put to death for the sin of consulting this witch. (1
>> Chronicles 10:13)

> That's selective quoting! Among a lot more serious sins... "Saul died
> because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the
> Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of
> the Lord." 1 Chron 10:13-14a

I read it that consulting the medium was the culminating sin of all the
ones listed.

>> Do you think that after you die, you are in danger of being summoned
>> by any two-bit spiritualist down to her darkened drawing room to
>> answer (with one knock or two) inane questions about where Aunty Ida
>> left her will?

> I don't know. Nor do you.

I disagree. I know that the devil has no power over me in this life; I
firmly reject the idea that as soon as I am dead the devil can call me
down from heaven (your idea of the afterlife) to appear in a medium's
drawing room.

> But I don't believe that Moses & Elijah were
> 'conjured up' by Jesus - He just appeared in their presence (or strictly
> vice-versa). They may have been non-corporeal.

I completely agree. They were not conjured up by Jesus; they were sent
down from heaven to encourage Him as He neared the time for His death.
As Elijah was taken up bodily into heaven, just as we will be if we are
still alive when Jesus comes again, at what point was he killed and
turned into a ghost?

> Today, being 'All Saints' (and tomorrow 'All Souls') in traditional
> church liturgies, gives rise to thoughts about 'where are they now?'
> before the Last Judgement.  And that doesn't mean their bodies, it means
> their existence as individuals created by God. They are possibly
> 'outside time'; which could be an answer to the Samuel / Elijah issues.

Much easier just to accept what the Bible consistently teaches: the
living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything. They are
asleep in Jesus until the resurrection promised by Scripture and the Creeds.

> Happy feast day!! ;-)

I'm glad to say we were not trouble by trick'n'treaters last night.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjs1rf$rn0b$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:08:00 +0000:

> The last resort of someone with a weak case is to claim that the Bible
> is not trustworthy.

Right. You have rejected Samuel and Kings as untrustworthy intepreting
them to mean something that is not in the text and appealed Chronicles
with an irrelevant argument,

All to feed your fancy that Moses was bodily resurrected to eternal life
even before Jesus. According to you Jesus resurrection would be
patterned on Moses resurrection, and the arguments of Paul (about Adam)
about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus would be bullshit and
worthless, and would rightly apply to Moses.

I'll stop here, becauae I realise the bible does not say this, but it's
just your fancy,.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjs2ef$rn0b$3 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:18:08 +0000:

> I disagree. I know that the devil has no power over me in this life;

This is a dictum of the local church, that Christians cannot be
demonised but what happened to Saul and Judas can happen to any
christian.

> I firmly reject the idea that as soon as I am dead the devil can call
> me down from heaven (your idea of the afterlife) to appear in a
> medium's drawing room.

Except it was not the devil who raised Samuel temporarily. It was the
act of God in bringing a vision of Samuel to Saul. The apparition of
Samuel spoke no lies to Saul and enagaged in no deceptopn as is expected
when Satan and his devils are involved.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjs2ef$rn0b$3 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:18:08 +0000:

>>> * Saul was put to death for the sin of consulting this witch. (1
>>> Chronicles 10:13)
>
>> That's selective quoting! Among a lot more serious sins... "Saul
>> died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word
>> of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not
>> inquire of the Lord." 1 Chron 10:13-14a
>
> I read it that consulting the medium was the culminating sin of all
> the ones listed.

If you read Samuel/Kings you;ll see that Saul did inquire of the Lord,
but God didn't respond because he had apparently abandoned him. Whose
fault was that? Saul was desperate. Yet he didn't turn to some other
god or to Satan, he only turned to his own "preceptor" Samuel for
guidance, who unfortunately was dead. He wasnt seeking the mediums for
some blackmagic help. He wanted to inquire of God and the medium was the
only option open to him.

Despite the opinion of the court author of the chronicles the facts are
present in Samuel/Kings if you care to accept them. Saul's violations
are not that terrible as you make out to be - Saul was God's anointed,
even as David repeatedly cries out, and how God saw it fit to deal with
Saul through the medium is presented in the text of Samuel/Kings.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 01:11, Madhu wrote:

> This is a dictum of the local church, that Christians cannot be
> demonised but what happened to Saul and Judas can happen to any
> christian.

Only if they, like Saul, refuse to be obedient to God's word or are
thieves like Judas.

> Except it was not the devil who raised Samuel temporarily. It was the
> act of God in bringing a vision of Samuel to Saul. The apparition of
> Samuel spoke no lies to Saul and enagaged in no deceptopn as is expected
> when Satan and his devils are involved.

The Scripture specifically says that God refused to answer Saul, now you
are claiming that in response to a witch, God reversed His decision and
not only answered Saul but rousted Samuel out of heaven and sent him
down to Saul.

And yes, the devil did tell lies, for Saul and Samuel were destined for
very different fates - one a righteous prophet of God, the other a king
clinging onto power in rebellion against god's decree.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 01:07, Madhu wrote:

> Right. You have rejected Samuel and Kings as untrustworthy intepreting
> them to mean something that is not in the text and appealed Chronicles
> with an irrelevant argument,

No more than I "reject" Genesis when I say that it was the devil who
temped Eve, not a snake. It looked like a snake, but it was really the
devil - and in the same way, whatever it was that appeared to the witch
may have looked like Samuel, but it was really the devil.

You might try addressing the reasons I give for that opinion.

> All to feed your fancy that Moses was bodily resurrected to eternal life
> even before Jesus. According to you Jesus resurrection would be
> patterned on Moses resurrection, and the arguments of Paul (about Adam)
> about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus would be bullshit and
> worthless, and would rightly apply to Moses.

Not at all, because Moses did not die for *our* sins; he died for his
own sins. His resurrection has no salvific effect (I never thought I
would use that word in a serious conversation!)

And why this concern over Moses being resurrected to eternal life and no
concern over Enoch and Elijah both being translated to eternal life?

[steve hague]

Would moving someone forward in time and then back again be difficult
for God? Why do you think it would have been in the moments before Moses
died?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 04:18, Madhu wrote:

> If you read Samuel/Kings you;ll see that Saul did inquire of the Lord,
> but God didn't respond because he had apparently abandoned him.

God had rejected Saul from being king, but Saul refused to accept the
Divine decree. Not only did he refuse to step down, but he did his best
to kill God's appointed successor. *That* is why God would no longer
speak to him.

> Whose fault was that?

Saul's, if you read the text.

> Saul was desperate. Yet he didn't turn to some other
> god or to Satan, he only turned to his own "preceptor" Samuel for
> guidance, who unfortunately was dead. He wasnt seeking the mediums for
> some blackmagic help. He wanted to inquire of God and the medium was the
> only option open to him.

But mediums were a forbidden option - and summoning the dead *is* black
magic.

> Despite the opinion of the court author of the chronicles the facts are
> present in Samuel/Kings if you care to accept them. Saul's violations
> are not that terrible as you make out to be - Saul was God's anointed,
> even as David repeatedly cries out, and how God saw it fit to deal with
> Saul through the medium is presented in the text of Samuel/Kings.

Saul had been God's anointed. He was not any longer and the reason why
God did not answer him is because there was only one thing God would say
to him: Step down from the throne. But Saul had made it obvious that he
would not obey, so what was the point in God repeating Himself?

[Mike Davis]

On 01/11/2022 21:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> I'm glad to say we were not trouble by trick'n'treaters last night.

J John's latest blog is an absolutely brilliant analysis of Halloween -
I expect it will appear on his blog shortly. Keep your eye on :
https://canonjjohn.com/blog/archive/

If it doesn't appear shortly I'll send you a copy privately.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[steve hague]

Samuel would not be on my list of party guests, prophet or not. He
hacked an unarmed prisoner to death (Sam15:32) in his mercy. This would
be considered murder in civilised parts, but no-one seemed to bat an
eyelid when a righteous prophet did it.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 18:48, steve hague wrote:

> Samuel would not be on my list of party guests, prophet or not. He
> hacked an unarmed prisoner to death (Sam15:32) in his mercy. This would
> be considered murder in civilised parts, but no-one seemed to bat an
> eyelid when a righteous prophet did it.

It depends on what Agag was guilty of. Given the way the Amalekites
behaved in Ziklag some years later, I do not find it hard to believe
that Agag richly deserved what happened to him - and the fact that God
had condemned the whole lot of them to death merely confirms that belief.

So it all depends on whether you would have invited Pierpont Morgan to
your party. It would certainly be a different dinner table conversation
from the ordinary.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 08:09, steve hague wrote:

> Would moving someone forward in time and then back again be difficult
> for God? Why do you think it would have been in the moments before Moses
> died?

I thought that is what you were claiming. I can't really see the point
of letting Moses die, then resurrecting him, then moving him forward in
time. Why not just resurrect him at the time needed?

It all sounds unnecessarily complicated. My understanding - that he was
raised to life within a relatively short time of his death and has been
living in heaven ever since - is much simpler and, I believe, more logical.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 14:27, Mike Davis wrote:

> J John's latest blog is an absolutely brilliant analysis of Halloween -
> I expect it will appear on his blog shortly. Keep your eye on :
> https://canonjjohn.com/blog/archive/

Lots of heroes of the faith, nothing about Halloween.

You need not fear, however. Our house has a total lack of pumpkins out
the front, plastic skeletons, bats or ghouls.

On the other hand, it is an interesting experience to drive through
Hungary on Hallow Eve and see lights flickering in every cemetery, as
people tidy up the family graves in preparation for the festival and
leave lights burning all night.

[steve hague]

I wasn't claiming anything, I just liked the idea of time travel in the
Bible.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/11/2022 14:27, Mike Davis wrote:

> If it doesn't appear shortly I'll send you a copy privately.

Mike has sent me a copy of a blog posted by someone or other, for which
I am grateful, as I cannot find it on the individual's website. He
points out four evils with Halloween.

It teaches that evil is external - demons, witches, monsters. There is
no insight into the evil within the human heart.

It teaches that evil is ugly - when we all know that evil far too often
appears "normal" or even attractive.

It teaches the evil is trivial - the scariest witch is merely someone
dressed up who is actually quite nice underneath. In fact evil is a
serious matter and deserves to be taken seriously.

Finally, it teaches that evil cannot be defeated. No matter what you do,
the witches and hobgoblins will be back next year. The best you can hope
for is that a few sweets will keep the powers of evil from playing nasty
tricks on you.

In his penultimate paragraph, the author says, "The common criticism of
Halloween is that it raises dark and troubling matters. That, actually,
is not the real problem. Questions such as ‘What does happen after
death?’ ‘Where does evil come from?’ and ‘Who – or what – ultimately
runs the universe?’ need to be asked. The tragedy is that having raised
these questions, the only answers Halloween gives are lies. Our children
deserve better and more honest answers. So let’s raise these questions
and answer them."

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <tjq6ja$ne11$1...@dont-email.me> :

Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 04:16:43 +0000:

> The ancients had no knowledge of psychology, so depression had to be
> "an evil spirit". In this case, Saul was depressed because his
> conscience was troubling him; he knew that he no longer had any right
> to be king but was too proud to give it up and it was the conflict
> between conscience and pride that produced the "evil spirit from the
> Lord".
>
> In other words, far from being "an evil spirit", it was actually the
> Holy Spirit working on Saul's conscience, but when Saul resisted and
> rejected the Spirit's pleadings, it became for him "an evil spirit".

[I let this pass at that time because I didn't have the energy. I still
believe your argument is flawed on more than one level and that
appealing to modern psychology is a two-edged sword that will "shoot
yourself (sic) in the foot" when it comes to the events of the 1st
century Judea.... but the point of this post is the following]

I came across a posting on the a.c.c newsgroup from December 2nd, titled
"God's Refinement Or Satan's Attack?" which talks of some deliverence
exponent named Pagani. I didn't read further than the usenet posting,
but it had this bit.

* <pbnioht0931h8fnu4ehjaiki3i4rovbemc @4ax.com>
|Pagani says if there is anyone we should look at, to define the
|difference between mental illness and demonic attacks it is King Saul.
|
|"When it's a malevolent entity, its goal is to always destroy
|you. Leading a person to committing the act of suicide. When it's
|emotional it leads to this perpetual place of depression or
|instability," Pagani says.
|
|When there is a dark entity influencing someone, the goal is to push
|them off of the deep end.
|
|The difference with mental health is that it often feels like anguish
|and doesn't lead to the place of destruction.
|
| https://www.charismanews.com/culture/90816-can-demons-cause-mental-health-issues-and-negative-thinking

Would you consider a diffence between mental illness and demonic attack?

[Mike Davis]

On 04/12/2022 14:57, Madhu wrote:
> * "Kendall K. Down" <tjq6ja$ne11$1...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 04:16:43 +0000:
>> The ancients had no knowledge of psychology, so depression had to be
>> "an evil spirit". In this case, Saul was depressed because his
>> conscience was troubling him; he knew that he no longer had any right
>> to be king but was too proud to give it up and it was the conflict
>> between conscience and pride that produced the "evil spirit from the
>> Lord".
>>
>> In other words, far from being "an evil spirit", it was actually the
>> Holy Spirit working on Saul's conscience, but when Saul resisted and
>> rejected the Spirit's pleadings, it became for him "an evil spirit".
>
> [I let this pass at that time because I didn't have the energy. I still
> believe your argument is flawed on more than one level and that
> appealing to modern psychology is a two-edged sword that will "shoot
> yourself (sic) in the foot" when it comes to the events of the 1st
> century Judea.... but the point of this post is the following]

Like you, Madhu, I considered responding to KD's post, and didn't want
to revisit some previous arguments. But I certainly wouldn't disagree
that Saul entertained evil spirits and showed classical signs of
depression that could be demonically motivated. When dealing with cases
of 'obsession' (the technical term for those afflicted by spirits, but
not 'possessed' - where the spirit is in control), it helps to invite
the Holy Spirit to reveal to the minister the source (or 'entry-point')
of the obsession.

I haven't watched the link you give (- haven't got 27 mins at present),
but would agree with the Saul comment, though I would NOT agree (through
lack of experience*) that possessing spirits *always* want to destroy
the host.

* As you know the RCC has 'exorcists' who are trained and deal with true
possession, I prefer to be obedient to that advice, but that doesn't
mean that - having been trained by various exorcists - I (with the help
of the HS) can't distinguish between obsession and possession.

I certainly agree that somewhere along the line Saul had periods of
possession - such as his determination to kill David. (I guess the
spirits had some idea what would happen if David became king.)

>
> I came across a posting on the a.c.c newsgroup from December 2nd, titled
> "God's Refinement Or Satan's Attack?" which talks of some deliverence
> exponent named Pagani. I didn't read further than the usenet posting,
> but it had this bit.
>
> * <pbnioht0931h8fnu4ehjaiki3i4rovbemc @4ax.com>
> |Pagani says if there is anyone we should look at, to define the
> |difference between mental illness and demonic attacks it is King Saul.
> |
> |"When it's a malevolent entity, its goal is to always destroy
> |you. Leading a person to committing the act of suicide. When it's
> |emotional it leads to this perpetual place of depression or
> |instability," Pagani says.
> |
> |When there is a dark entity influencing someone, the goal is to push
> |them off of the deep end.
> |
> |The difference with mental health is that it often feels like anguish
> |and doesn't lead to the place of destruction.
> |
> | https://www.charismanews.com/culture/90816-can-demons-cause-mental-health-issues-and-negative-thinking
>
> Would you consider a diffence between mental illness and demonic attack?

I certainly would - though mental disturbance can be an opportunity for
demonic intrusion.

I have mentioned here on several occasions that traumatic experiences
can often lead to demonic obsession. Indeed the first time I realised
this was after a dramatic personal demonic attack trying to stop my
getting to a prayer meeting where a member had just had a car accident
and was certainly afflicted by demons. I recognised the attack on me and
was able to lead the deliverance prayer, for the sufferer.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/12/2022 14:57, Madhu wrote:

> Would you consider a diffence between mental illness and demonic attack?

Certainly, though it can be hard to tell the difference.

I am sure I have said before that the "evil spirit from the Lord" which
troubled Saul was, in fact, the Holy Spirit pricking his conscience and
the conflict between conscience and intention resulted in depression.

Many years ago I was called in the middle of the night to visit someone.
The call said, "Xxxx has gone mad!" By the time I got there - and I did
hurry! - the police and ambulance had arrived and Xxxx was taken off to
the local mental hospital.

It turned out that he had been having an affair with a younger lady from
the chapel, and the conflict between conscience and actions resulted in
a mental breakdown.

As far as Saul and the witch of Endor, I only just noticed yesterday
that the supposed "Samuel" said, "Tomorrow thou and thy sons shall be
with me".

If this really was Samuel, called down from heaven (or wherever he had
been in a state of blessedness), would Saul, who was rejected by God and
in such a state of sin that God would not communicate with him, really
end up in the same place as one of God's faithful prophets? It seems to
me that this consideration is a fatal objection to the notion that the
spirit really was Samuel.

On the other hand, if - as I maintain - it was an evil spirit
masquerading as Samuel, then it was guilty of a Freudian slip, because a
lost Saul certainly ended up in the abode of the devil and his angels.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/12/2022 18:13, Mike Davis wrote:

> I have mentioned here on several occasions that traumatic experiences
> can often lead to demonic obsession. Indeed the first time I realised
> this was after a dramatic personal demonic attack trying to stop my
> getting to a prayer meeting where a member had just had a car accident
> and was certainly afflicted by demons. I recognised the attack on me and
> was able to lead the deliverance prayer, for the sufferer.

Praise the Lord.