Intressant.Har inte tänkt på en sak då det gäller begravning.Prästen säger alltid till den som har dött att Jesus ska väcka dig vid den yttersta dagen.Prästen talar till den som har dött.
Ei se ollut Samuel vaan paholainen. Saul ei nähnyt kyseistä henkeä mitenkään, vaan noita välitti mitä henki sanoi. Paholainen on aina pelottava näky, myös noidille jotka ovat olleet aina tekemisissä niiden kanssa.
@Tuomo Tams tuo on vain sinun kokemuksesi, mutta useilla entisillä saatananpalvojilla ne ovat olleet pelottavia kokemuksia, vaikka kuinka olivat henkeen ja vereen vannoutuneita vakaumukseensa. Toisekseen tuosta kohdasta mainitaan ensimmäisessä aikakirjoissa, että Saul kävi kysymässä neuvoa vainajahengiltä, eikä Jumalalta. Aikakirjoissa oltaisiin mainittu Jumalan väliintulosta, jos se oli sitä, mutta mainitaan vain vainajahenget. 10:13-14 " [13] Niin kuoli Saul, koska hän oli ollut uskoton Herraa kohtaan eikä ollut ottanut vaaria Herran sanasta, ja myös sentähden, että hän oli kysynyt vainajahengeltä neuvoa, [14] mutta ei ollut kysynyt neuvoa Herralta. Sentähden Herra surmasi hänet ja siirsi kuninkuuden Daavidille, Iisain pojalle." Eli aikansa historioitsijat eivät tulkinneet tuota tapahtumaa Jumalan väliintulona, vaan yksinkertaisesti vainajahengiltä kyselynä. Muutenkin tuohon aikaan henki joka tuli maasta tulkittiin paholaisena.
@Tuomo Tams kyseessä on Saulin näkökulmasta kerrottu tulkinta, eli fokalisointi, kolmannesta persoonasta kerrottu näkökulma. Kirjoittaja ei pyri kertomaan että kyseessä oli Samuel, vaan että Saul tulkitsi hengen Samueliksi, vaikka ei ollut. Tällä samalla tyylillä kerrotaan 1 Samuelin 4:5-11 Filistealaisten jumalasta ikään kuin se olisi elävä, vaikka onkin kiveä. Kertojan tapa tuoda ironiaa kuinka epäjumaluuksiin sekaantuminen näyttää äkkiä oikealta, mutta ei loppujen lopuksi olekaan. 11. Does the narrator say Samuel appeared? A number of commentators reason that the real Samuel must have appeared This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to refect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm. Similarly, in the En-Dor scene the narrator frst focalizes to the medium’s point of view using a verb of perception: “And the woman saw Samuel” (28:12). No doubt that was her perception. Twice Saul asks what she sees, and twice she tells him, the second time zooming in on a detail that he asked about (28:13-14a). Then the narrator then focalizes to Saul using a verb of perception: “Saul knew/perceived that it was Samuel.” A verb of seeing would not be appropriate because Saul did not see anything, but had to ask thewoman what she saw (28:13-14), and his perception was provided by what she told him. For example, he identifes Samuel by her description of his clothing (28:14), which seems too trusting when Saul has just disguised himself using other clothing (28:8). Then, in Saul’s perception, Samuel speaks to him, Saul answers, and Samuel speaks again. No doubt this is what he perceived to be happening, but then he fell to the ground and nothing more was exchanged. The importance of this to the subject of our paper is that some narrations refect the views and perceptions of the medium and of Saul, and should not be taken out of context as if they simply stated the view of the authoritative narrator. They should be read as part of an artful interplay of focalizations, with the medium’s perceptions strongly infuencing Saul’s. Again, poor Saul is asking: Sha’ul has to sha’al. 74 The reader feels the force of the deception that destroyed Saul, which makes the story and its lesson even more dramatic and memorable. because the narrator tells us that Saul “knew” (NIV) or “perceived” (KJV) “that it was Samuel” (1 Sam 28:14), and then that “Samuel said to Saul” and “Samuel said” (28:15, 16). I submit that this is an example of focalization, the technique in which the narrator temporarily adopts the point of view of a character. It is well accepted among literary scholars that an otherwise omniscient narrator can put aside that privilege for a time to adopt “the perspective of one of the characters, and see ‘through his or her eyes.’”66 Alter shows that hinneh “(the familiar ‘behold’ of the King James Version) is often used to mark a shift in narrative point of view from third-person omniscience to the character’s direct perception.”67 He notes: The biblical narrator…often uses the term [hinneh] to mark the crossover between his perspective and that of a character, the “Behold” becoming in effect part of the unspoken inner speech of the personage, especially at moments when something unexpected or untoward is seen.68 Weiss adds: When the Bible speaks about the protagonists, it embodies . . . their state of mind, through the structure and style of the description. It is as if at that moment the Biblical author identifes with the actors in the story and speaks from their hearts and minds-not in their words, but in his own.69 This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to refect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm.
@Tuomo Tams kuten tuossa aiemmin jo laitoin tekstin viittauksen. Kyseessä oli epäjumalan palvelus rituaali ja ilmestymistapa "Samuelilla", viittaa epäjumalan, eli paholaisen ilmestymiseen. Kyseinen artikkeli on yliopistotason eksegeettinen tutkimus, jossa otetaan kulttuuri, uskonto ja kirjoitustyylit huomioon. Ei tehdä nopeaa länsimaalaistavaa eisegeesiä. Täytyy selittää pois nuo tavat mitenkä noita puhuu ensiksi "Samuelista". Käyttää monikossa "jumalat" nousevat maasta. Käsittääkseni Raamatun Jumala on monoteistinen? Lueppas nyt tarkkaan ajatuksella argumentit ja kuvaelma mitä siinä tapahtuu. 2. The medium speaks as a polytheist The medium tells Saul, “I see ’elohim (‘gods’, KJV) coming up from the earth” (28:13). The term ’elohim can be translated as a singular (God or god) or plural (gods), usually depending on context,21 but here the medium uses it with a plural verb: “they are coming up.” This is consistent with polytheism: the Philistines use ’elohim with plural grammar (4:8), and it is used in describing the worship of gods other than Yahweh (8:8; 26:19).22 Saul’s reply ignores her plural, and uses the singular: “What does he look like?” (28:14). Saul is a monotheist. The medium then perhaps changes her story to suit her audience, or perhaps focuses on just one of the apparitions she sees arising,23 and says, “An old man is coming up” (28:14). Many commentators do not mention the change from plural to singular, while some see it merely as an anomalous grammatical change without rhetorical effect, but it reveals that two different religious paradigms are in confict in this conversation. This misunderstanding produces irony when Saul complains to an apparition who has just been called ’elohim (plural) that ’elohim (singular, and parallel to the term “Yahweh”) is no longer answering him and so he has“called on you” (28:15). He has just exchanged the ’elohim of Yahwism for the ’elohim of Canaanite religion as a source of guidance. 3. The meal is part of the ritual Meals have received more attention in biblical studies in recent years,24 and this one is fully described in an otherwise economical narrative,25 which suggests something more than mere nutrition is going on. When the medium kills the calf (the violence creating chilling atmospherics), the verb is not xb;j;) (= slaughter, butcher, slay . . . animals for food, BDB370) but xb;z*: (= slaughter for sacrifce, BDB256). Of the word’s 129 uses, 127 clearly refer to ‘cultic ritual slaughter’.26 Sacrifce (mainly described using this word but also by synonyms) is an important motif in the book of Samuel, beginning with the faithful sacrifce of Elkanah (1:3, 4, 21); then the abuse of sacrifce by Eli’s sons (chap. 2), a sin whose guilt cannot be removed by sacrifce (3:14). Saul is called to kingship at a sacrifcial meal (chap. 9) and enthroned after sacrifce (chap. 10-11). His frst disobedience is sacrifcing for himself (13:8-14) and his second involves the excuse of using the animals for sacrifce (15:15, 21) though Samuel fres back that obedience is better than sacrifce (15:22). Saul’s kingship, begun at a sacrifcial meal, now ends at one (chap. 28).27 The meal may also form part of a covenant ritual. Reis28 argues this was a ritual meal, citing Leviticus 19:26, “Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practise divination or sorcery.” The parallelism suggests eatingthe blood is related to sorcery. Maimonides saw eating this bloody meal as a ritual of witchcraft: They thought it was the food of the spirits [the dead]; by eating it, man has something in common with the spirits, which join him and tell him future events. . . . They imagined that . . . love, brotherhood and friendship with the spirits were established, because they dined with the latter . . . ; that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming events, and be favourable to them. . . . The Law . . . forbade the eating of blood, and emphasized the prohibition in exactly the same terms as it emphasizes idolatry.29 Grintz30 distinguishes between two offences: that of eating blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10,13,14; Deut 12:16,23; 15:23), which is based on the idea of the life being in the blood, and the offences of eating “on” or “upon” (l[ or la) the blood (Lev 19:26; 1 Sam 14:32, 33, 34 [la] and Ezek 33:25 [l[]), which he claims is based on the identifcation with witchcraft due to the parallelism between the frst and second clauses of Lev 19:26.31 The En-Dor narrative spends three verbs on the preparation of matzah bread (28:24), a constituent of a sacrifcial offering (e.g. Lev 2:4, 11). In considering eating in the cultic context of worshipping foreign deities, one recalls Israel’s earlier encounter with Moabite worship. In Num 25:1-3, Israel “ate and bowed down before these gods” (’elohim), with tragic results. The psalmist describes the Moabite incident in these terms: “They joined themselves to Baal-Peor and ate the sacrifces of the dead” (106:28). This matches recent fndings that the Moabites regarded their dead as divinized, and that their worship involved sharing food generated by sacrifce, presumably in an attempt to secure blessing and guidance. Yet the psalmist goes further, describing a time when Israel left orthodox Yahwism and “sacrifced their sons and their daughters unto devils” (NIV “demons”), and then parallels this in the next verse with sacrifcing them “to the idols of Canaan” (Ps 106:37- 38). This parallelism equates the idols of Canaan with devils (c.f. also Deut 12:31). Deut 32:16-18 also speaks of sacrifcing to strange gods who are devils,32 not Israel’s known ’elohim (Yahweh) but foreign ’elohim (gods).
@Tuomo Tams research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204&context=theo_papers Tuossa on koko artikkeli aiheesta, niin voit itse ladata ja lukea kyseisen aiheen. On kannattavaa lukea akateemista materiaalia, ei vaan populaarista versiota, niin päivittyy missä nykyään mennään.
rajakokemuksissa,ihmiset tapasi rakkaat läheiset ihmiset.Taivaassa tavataan näinhän sanotaan.Eräs tuttuni näki unen jossa kuollut 99v.Lähetti minulle terveiset,sanoinkin hänelle kun kävin elävänä katsomassa,"tuolla tavataan".Hän katsoi ylös..hyvä ihminen pääsi varmaan taivaaseen💞
Totisesti, totisesti minä sanon teille: joka kuulee minun sanani ja uskoo häneen, joka on minut lähettänyt, sillä on iankaikkinen elämä. Hän ei joudu tuomittavaksi, vaan hän on siirtynyt kuolemasta elämään. Johannes 5:24 FINRK Olemalla hyvä ei taivaaseen päästä, vaan uskomalla Jeesukseen..
Eihän vanhematkaan tarvitse lapsensa kiitosta mutta se on rakkauden osoitus vanhemmilleen ja varmasti tuntuu lämpimältä.Jumala on rakkauden jumala ja kiitos ja palvonta on vain osoitus rakkaudesta takaisin hyvää Jumalaa kohtaan.
Intressant.Har inte tänkt på en sak då det gäller begravning.Prästen säger alltid till den som har dött att Jesus ska väcka dig vid den yttersta dagen.Prästen talar till den som har dött.
Eikös raamattu kirjoitettu jo uusiksi vastaamaan nykyistä marxilaista ihmiskäsitystä uudissanoineen.
Jumalan sanasta ei mitään saa ottaa pois eikä sinne lisätä. se on niin ja aamen.
Kuolleiden läheistemme puolesta rukoileminen ei ole meiltä pois eikä Jumala meitä siitä rankaise. Jumala on armollinen ja armahtaa. Muistakaa se.
Näin se on ja aamen. Ei ole mitään lisäämistä.
Raamattu kehottaa rukoilemaan kuolleiden puolesta esim. 2 Maccabilaiskirja12:42, 2 Tim. 1:18. Raamattu ei kiellä rukoilusta kuolleiden puolesta.
Luterlaisessa messussa rukoillaan aina edesmenneitten rakkaitten puolesta, olen tätä aina ihmetellyt, olen samaa mieltä Pasi Turusen kanssa
Ei se ollut Samuel vaan paholainen. Saul ei nähnyt kyseistä henkeä mitenkään, vaan noita välitti mitä henki sanoi. Paholainen on aina pelottava näky, myös noidille jotka ovat olleet aina tekemisissä niiden kanssa.
@Tuomo Tams tuo on vain sinun kokemuksesi, mutta useilla entisillä saatananpalvojilla ne ovat olleet pelottavia kokemuksia, vaikka kuinka olivat henkeen ja vereen vannoutuneita vakaumukseensa. Toisekseen tuosta kohdasta mainitaan ensimmäisessä aikakirjoissa, että Saul kävi kysymässä neuvoa vainajahengiltä, eikä Jumalalta. Aikakirjoissa oltaisiin mainittu Jumalan väliintulosta, jos se oli sitä, mutta mainitaan vain vainajahenget. 10:13-14 " [13] Niin kuoli Saul, koska hän oli ollut uskoton Herraa kohtaan eikä ollut ottanut vaaria Herran sanasta, ja myös sentähden, että hän oli kysynyt vainajahengeltä neuvoa, [14] mutta ei ollut kysynyt neuvoa Herralta. Sentähden Herra surmasi hänet ja siirsi kuninkuuden Daavidille, Iisain pojalle."
Eli aikansa historioitsijat eivät tulkinneet tuota tapahtumaa Jumalan väliintulona, vaan yksinkertaisesti vainajahengiltä kyselynä. Muutenkin tuohon aikaan henki joka tuli maasta tulkittiin paholaisena.
@Tuomo Tams pointtina on kertoa keneltä kysyi neovoja. Selkeästi lukee vainajahengiltä. Ei mainita Samuelia eikä Jumalaa. Vain henget.
@Tuomo Tams kyseessä on Saulin näkökulmasta kerrottu tulkinta, eli fokalisointi, kolmannesta persoonasta kerrottu näkökulma. Kirjoittaja ei pyri kertomaan että kyseessä oli Samuel, vaan että Saul tulkitsi hengen Samueliksi, vaikka ei ollut. Tällä samalla tyylillä kerrotaan 1 Samuelin 4:5-11 Filistealaisten jumalasta ikään kuin se olisi elävä, vaikka onkin kiveä. Kertojan tapa tuoda ironiaa kuinka epäjumaluuksiin sekaantuminen näyttää äkkiä oikealta, mutta ei loppujen lopuksi olekaan.
11. Does the narrator say Samuel appeared?
A number of commentators reason that the real Samuel must have appeared
This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For
example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception)
that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective:
it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their
perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told
us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations
(free indirect speech) to refect a character’s perception. For example, in 1
Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it
were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The
narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or
focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen
on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and
both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon
was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a
living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate
the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the
consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within
their religious paradigm.
Similarly, in the En-Dor scene the narrator frst focalizes to the medium’s
point of view using a verb of perception: “And the woman saw Samuel”
(28:12). No doubt that was her perception. Twice Saul asks what she sees,
and twice she tells him, the second time zooming in on a detail that he asked
about (28:13-14a). Then the narrator then focalizes to Saul using a verb of
perception: “Saul knew/perceived that it was Samuel.” A verb of seeing would
not be appropriate because Saul did not see anything, but had to ask thewoman what she saw (28:13-14), and his perception was provided by what she
told him. For example, he identifes Samuel by her description of his clothing
(28:14), which seems too trusting when Saul has just disguised himself using
other clothing (28:8). Then, in Saul’s perception, Samuel speaks to him, Saul
answers, and Samuel speaks again. No doubt this is what he perceived to be
happening, but then he fell to the ground and nothing more was exchanged.
The importance of this to the subject of our paper is that some narrations
refect the views and perceptions of the medium and of Saul, and should not
be taken out of context as if they simply stated the view of the authoritative
narrator. They should be read as part of an artful interplay of focalizations,
with the medium’s perceptions strongly infuencing Saul’s. Again, poor Saul is
asking: Sha’ul has to sha’al.
74 The reader feels the force of the deception that
destroyed Saul, which makes the story and its lesson even more dramatic and
memorable.
because the narrator tells us that Saul “knew” (NIV) or “perceived” (KJV)
“that it was Samuel” (1 Sam 28:14), and then that “Samuel said to Saul” and
“Samuel said” (28:15, 16). I submit that this is an example of focalization,
the technique in which the narrator temporarily adopts the point of view
of a character. It is well accepted among literary scholars that an otherwise
omniscient narrator can put aside that privilege for a time to adopt “the
perspective of one of the characters, and see ‘through his or her eyes.’”66
Alter shows that hinneh “(the familiar ‘behold’ of the King James Version)
is often used to mark a shift in narrative point of view from third-person
omniscience to the character’s direct perception.”67 He notes:
The biblical narrator…often uses the term [hinneh] to mark the crossover
between his perspective and that of a character, the “Behold” becoming
in effect part of the unspoken inner speech of the personage, especially at
moments when something unexpected or untoward is seen.68
Weiss adds:
When the Bible speaks about the protagonists, it embodies . . . their state of
mind, through the structure and style of the description. It is as if at that
moment the Biblical author identifes with the actors in the story and speaks
from their hearts and minds-not in their words, but in his own.69
This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For
example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception)
that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective:
it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their
perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told
us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations
(free indirect speech) to refect a character’s perception. For example, in 1
Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it
were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The
narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or
focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen
on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and
both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon
was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a
living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate
the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the
consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within
their religious paradigm.
@Tuomo Tams kuten tuossa aiemmin jo laitoin tekstin viittauksen. Kyseessä oli epäjumalan palvelus rituaali ja ilmestymistapa "Samuelilla", viittaa epäjumalan, eli paholaisen ilmestymiseen. Kyseinen artikkeli on yliopistotason eksegeettinen tutkimus, jossa otetaan kulttuuri, uskonto ja kirjoitustyylit huomioon. Ei tehdä nopeaa länsimaalaistavaa eisegeesiä. Täytyy selittää pois nuo tavat mitenkä noita puhuu ensiksi "Samuelista". Käyttää monikossa "jumalat" nousevat maasta. Käsittääkseni Raamatun Jumala on monoteistinen?
Lueppas nyt tarkkaan ajatuksella argumentit ja kuvaelma mitä siinä tapahtuu.
2. The medium speaks as a polytheist
The medium tells Saul, “I see ’elohim (‘gods’, KJV) coming up from the earth”
(28:13). The term ’elohim can be translated as a singular (God or god) or plural
(gods), usually depending on context,21 but here the medium uses it with a
plural verb: “they are coming up.” This is consistent with polytheism: the
Philistines use ’elohim with plural grammar (4:8), and it is used in describing
the worship of gods other than Yahweh (8:8; 26:19).22 Saul’s reply ignores
her plural, and uses the singular: “What does he look like?” (28:14). Saul is a
monotheist. The medium then perhaps changes her story to suit her audience,
or perhaps focuses on just one of the apparitions she sees arising,23 and says,
“An old man is coming up” (28:14). Many commentators do not mention
the change from plural to singular, while some see it merely as an anomalous
grammatical change without rhetorical effect, but it reveals that two different
religious paradigms are in confict in this conversation.
This misunderstanding produces irony when Saul complains to an
apparition who has just been called ’elohim (plural) that ’elohim (singular, and
parallel to the term “Yahweh”) is no longer answering him and so he has“called on you” (28:15). He has just exchanged the ’elohim of Yahwism for the
’elohim of Canaanite religion as a source of guidance.
3. The meal is part of the ritual
Meals have received more attention in biblical studies in recent years,24 and
this one is fully described in an otherwise economical narrative,25 which
suggests something more than mere nutrition is going on. When the medium
kills the calf (the violence creating chilling atmospherics), the verb is not
xb;j;) (= slaughter, butcher, slay . . . animals for food, BDB370) but xb;z*: (=
slaughter for sacrifce, BDB256). Of the word’s 129 uses, 127 clearly refer to
‘cultic ritual slaughter’.26 Sacrifce (mainly described using this word but also
by synonyms) is an important motif in the book of Samuel, beginning with
the faithful sacrifce of Elkanah (1:3, 4, 21); then the abuse of sacrifce by Eli’s
sons (chap. 2), a sin whose guilt cannot be removed by sacrifce (3:14). Saul is
called to kingship at a sacrifcial meal (chap. 9) and enthroned after sacrifce
(chap. 10-11). His frst disobedience is sacrifcing for himself (13:8-14) and
his second involves the excuse of using the animals for sacrifce (15:15, 21)
though Samuel fres back that obedience is better than sacrifce (15:22). Saul’s
kingship, begun at a sacrifcial meal, now ends at one (chap. 28).27
The meal may also form part of a covenant ritual. Reis28 argues this was
a ritual meal, citing Leviticus 19:26, “Do not eat any meat with the blood still
in it. Do not practise divination or sorcery.” The parallelism suggests eatingthe blood is related to sorcery. Maimonides saw eating this bloody meal as a
ritual of witchcraft:
They thought it was the food of the spirits [the dead]; by eating it, man has
something in common with the spirits, which join him and tell him future
events. . . . They imagined that . . . love, brotherhood and friendship with
the spirits were established, because they dined with the latter . . . ; that the
spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming events,
and be favourable to them. . . . The Law . . . forbade the eating of blood,
and emphasized the prohibition in exactly the same terms as it emphasizes
idolatry.29
Grintz30 distinguishes between two offences: that of eating blood (Gen
9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10,13,14; Deut 12:16,23; 15:23), which is based on
the idea of the life being in the blood, and the offences of eating “on” or
“upon” (l[ or la) the blood (Lev 19:26; 1 Sam 14:32, 33, 34 [la] and Ezek
33:25 [l[]), which he claims is based on the identifcation with witchcraft due
to the parallelism between the frst and second clauses of Lev 19:26.31
The En-Dor narrative spends three verbs on the preparation of matzah
bread (28:24), a constituent of a sacrifcial offering (e.g. Lev 2:4, 11).
In considering eating in the cultic context of worshipping foreign deities,
one recalls Israel’s earlier encounter with Moabite worship. In Num 25:1-3,
Israel “ate and bowed down before these gods” (’elohim), with tragic results.
The psalmist describes the Moabite incident in these terms: “They joined
themselves to Baal-Peor and ate the sacrifces of the dead” (106:28). This
matches recent fndings that the Moabites regarded their dead as divinized, and
that their worship involved sharing food generated by sacrifce, presumably
in an attempt to secure blessing and guidance. Yet the psalmist goes further,
describing a time when Israel left orthodox Yahwism and “sacrifced their
sons and their daughters unto devils” (NIV “demons”), and then parallels this
in the next verse with sacrifcing them “to the idols of Canaan” (Ps 106:37-
38). This parallelism equates the idols of Canaan with devils (c.f. also Deut
12:31). Deut 32:16-18 also speaks of sacrifcing to strange gods who are
devils,32 not Israel’s known ’elohim (Yahweh) but foreign ’elohim (gods).
@Tuomo Tams research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204&context=theo_papers
Tuossa on koko artikkeli aiheesta, niin voit itse ladata ja lukea kyseisen aiheen. On kannattavaa lukea akateemista materiaalia, ei vaan populaarista versiota, niin päivittyy missä nykyään mennään.
rajakokemuksissa,ihmiset tapasi rakkaat läheiset ihmiset.Taivaassa tavataan näinhän sanotaan.Eräs tuttuni näki unen jossa kuollut 99v.Lähetti minulle terveiset,sanoinkin hänelle kun kävin elävänä katsomassa,"tuolla tavataan".Hän katsoi ylös..hyvä ihminen pääsi varmaan taivaaseen💞
rajakokemus oletteko puhuneet kasvotuksin edesmenneen kanssa.minä olen.ei ole kuin yksi rakkaus,kaikki muut ihmisten haluamaa hallintaa
Totisesti, totisesti minä sanon teille: joka kuulee minun sanani ja uskoo häneen, joka on minut lähettänyt, sillä on iankaikkinen elämä. Hän ei joudu tuomittavaksi, vaan hän on siirtynyt kuolemasta elämään.
Johannes 5:24 FINRK
Olemalla hyvä ei taivaaseen päästä, vaan uskomalla Jeesukseen..
ihmisten keksimä kirja,jolla hallitaan
höh
Tämäkin kaveri niin aivopesty että luulee puhuvansa totta.mihin jumala tarvitsee ihmisen kiitoksen uskomattoman typerä ajatus
einari palje mikä tässä oli sinun mielestä väärin tai raamatun vastaista?
Eihän vanhematkaan tarvitse lapsensa kiitosta mutta se on rakkauden osoitus vanhemmilleen ja varmasti tuntuu lämpimältä.Jumala on rakkauden jumala ja kiitos ja palvonta on vain osoitus rakkaudesta takaisin hyvää Jumalaa kohtaan.