I LOVE this conversation. Even if I was previously right, that the dead are 100% lifeless upon death of the body, this conversation is still making face scriptures that i always secretly felt were poorly and inadequately explained away. Based on the little I heard, I am leaning toward Sam's view although Dustin made some great points as well. I look forward to more debate on this topic. I also love the respect in the disagreement between all three of you. May YHWH bless y'all in Yeshua's mighty name :)
I lean more towards Dr. Smith's POV but this has been a very provocative talk. I would say I was intrigued by the fact of Jesus basing his parables on things that were "real", that his listeners could relate to. However, if Jesus was borrowing a well-known "story" ....that, too, would have been "real" to his listeners.
There is no consensus even among the Jewish Rabbis regarding the Witch of Endor. The Torah explicitly forbids practices such as magic, necromancy, idolatry, and witchcraft, not only because they are effective but because they can lead to harmful consequences. This can be likened to the sin of pharmakeia. The prohibition against pharmakeia arises not from its potential to connect individuals to the divine realm, but rather from the fact that it does so in a way that may expose them to demonic influences, as demons operate on an intermediary spiritual plane. This perspective likely explains why some argue that the spirit summoned was not Samuel, but rather a familiar spirit for the reason that it was done through immoral means. While it is true that the prophecy came to pass, it's important to keep in mind that demons can occasionally deliver accurate prophecies as well. (Acts 16:16-18)
Is this consciousness related to immortality? At the fall God made it clear he no longer wanted man to live forever, we are mortal and can put on immortality. For the conscious view, would the judgement need to have taken place, putting the rich man in torment, a household is still alive. Isn't the message that if they didn't listen to Abraham and Moses, Jesus rising from the dead will not influence them.
I disagree with Dustin on using an existing similar story from an Egyptian folk tale to brush off or play down the fact that Jesus spoke a parable about 2 dead men conversing with each other preresurrection. Dustin is indirectly implying that Jesus did something akin to a modern preacher telling a parable which involves Santa Claus coming down chimneys and giving good gifts to good children and coal to bad children (a completely pagan folktale), and then naming Santa Claus "Moses" as a reference to the prophet Moses (in order to make a connection to the bible using names of real historical biblical figures). Do you not see the problem with this? Because essentially what Dustin is implying, is that Jesus borrowed from an Egyptian folktale, named one of the characters in that folktale Abraham, and then proceeded to narrate the impossible events in that folktale to teach things that are actually true. But this presents a number of problems: 1. Believability: If the Jews that Jesus was speaking to were aware that this was an Egyptian folktale, they would perceive Jesus as teaching them pagan mythologies. Even though parables are generally understood to be fictional, the events usually described in them are nonfictional, and aren't contrary to reality. In other words, they are "based on true stories", or based on things that actually exist in reality and can happen. For example, the parable of the sower sowing seed is based on real life everyday activities and objects e.g sowing, sower, seed, thorny grounds, rocky grounds, birds of the air etc. And everything that Jesus describes in that parable does and/or can happen e.g birds eating seeds that fall out on the open, or thorns "choking" plants. So "dead men talking" (with at least one of them described to have "raised his eyes while in Hades"), if known to be impossible, would make His teaching less credible, not more. Again, it would be just as believable as a modern preacher naming Santa Claus "Moses" and narrating a parable about "Moses" coming down chimneys and giving good gifts to good children and coal to bad children, to teach children about the importance of doing good. 2. Confusion: If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus describe impossible events, then we would have to wonder about the reliability of other new ideas and/or teachings that Jesus introduced in His parables e.g "the Son of Man sending His angels to gather stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness and throwing them into the fiery furnace where there is gnashing of teeth", at the end of the parable of the sower. We would have to start asking, "What part of that is fact, and what is completely made up and impossible, that Jesus is only using to teach a lesson? Is it the fiery furnace? Is it the gnashing of teeth? Will the Son of Man return but then not send His angels to gather stumbling blocks and throw them in the fiery furnace? And if so, then why did Jesus say that? To scare people straight even though He knew that what He was saying was impossible?" 3. Unbelief: Many people think that unbelief means rejecting everything that Jesus says, but even rejecting some of what He says counts as unbelief. For example, Thomas believed everything that Jesus taught except the part where He taught that He would rise again after 3 days (which He also used parables to teach e.g "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days..."). And Thomas was told, "Do not be unbelieving", because he hesitated to believe that Jesus had actually risen. You have to wonder if playing down the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as an Egyptian folktale that describes impossible events would also get the rebuke, "Do not be unbelieving".
The "clone" problem exists only if we consider our identity as an "essence" that exists independently of God. If we see our identity as a relational phenomenon, then the problem does not exist. In fact, the Christian life consists in the transformation of our identity through our relationship with Christ. Our identity in the resurrection will be the culmination of that transformation. Apart from our new birth in Christ there is no identity. Life eternal is possible only because we are truly transformed in Christ, there is no identiy to maintain outside the transforming power of God in Christ. Human beings are dust with a breath of life given by God, not self-existent and autonomous creatures outside of God. We exist because of God, We exist in God, not as independent entities. Simply put, the only identity that can subsist forever is that in the sphere of our relation with Christ, not the one that is self-referential. We are as we are in Christ, not as some supposed permanent essence of ours.
I LOVE this conversation. Even if I was previously right, that the dead are 100% lifeless upon death of the body, this conversation is still making face scriptures that i always secretly felt were poorly and inadequately explained away.
Based on the little I heard, I am leaning toward Sam's view although Dustin made some great points as well.
I look forward to more debate on this topic. I also love the respect in the disagreement between all three of you. May YHWH bless y'all in Yeshua's mighty name :)
I lean more towards Dr. Smith's POV but this has been a very provocative talk. I would say I was intrigued by the fact of Jesus basing his parables on things that were "real", that his listeners could relate to. However, if Jesus was borrowing a well-known "story" ....that, too, would have been "real" to his listeners.
Samuel was dead. What the medium saw and communicated with was the "familiar spirit," i.e. a demon who was familiar with Samuel.
There is no consensus even among the Jewish Rabbis regarding the Witch of Endor. The Torah explicitly forbids practices such as magic, necromancy, idolatry, and witchcraft, not only because they are effective but because they can lead to harmful consequences. This can be likened to the sin of pharmakeia. The prohibition against pharmakeia arises not from its potential to connect individuals to the divine realm, but rather from the fact that it does so in a way that may expose them to demonic influences, as demons operate on an intermediary spiritual plane. This perspective likely explains why some argue that the spirit summoned was not Samuel, but rather a familiar spirit for the reason that it was done through immoral means. While it is true that the prophecy came to pass, it's important to keep in mind that demons can occasionally deliver accurate prophecies as well. (Acts 16:16-18)
Is this consciousness related to immortality? At the fall God made it clear he no longer wanted man to live forever, we are mortal and can put on immortality. For the conscious view, would the judgement need to have taken place, putting the rich man in torment, a household is still alive. Isn't the message that if they didn't listen to Abraham and Moses, Jesus rising from the dead will not influence them.
I disagree with Dustin on using an existing similar story from an Egyptian folk tale to brush off or play down the fact that Jesus spoke a parable about 2 dead men conversing with each other preresurrection.
Dustin is indirectly implying that Jesus did something akin to a modern preacher telling a parable which involves Santa Claus coming down chimneys and giving good gifts to good children and coal to bad children (a completely pagan folktale), and then naming Santa Claus "Moses" as a reference to the prophet Moses (in order to make a connection to the bible using names of real historical biblical figures). Do you not see the problem with this?
Because essentially what Dustin is implying, is that Jesus borrowed from an Egyptian folktale, named one of the characters in that folktale Abraham, and then proceeded to narrate the impossible events in that folktale to teach things that are actually true. But this presents a number of problems:
1. Believability: If the Jews that Jesus was speaking to were aware that this was an Egyptian folktale, they would perceive Jesus as teaching them pagan mythologies. Even though parables are generally understood to be fictional, the events usually described in them are nonfictional, and aren't contrary to reality. In other words, they are "based on true stories", or based on things that actually exist in reality and can happen. For example, the parable of the sower sowing seed is based on real life everyday activities and objects e.g sowing, sower, seed, thorny grounds, rocky grounds, birds of the air etc. And everything that Jesus describes in that parable does and/or can happen e.g birds eating seeds that fall out on the open, or thorns "choking" plants. So "dead men talking" (with at least one of them described to have "raised his eyes while in Hades"), if known to be impossible, would make His teaching less credible, not more. Again, it would be just as believable as a modern preacher naming Santa Claus "Moses" and narrating a parable about "Moses" coming down chimneys and giving good gifts to good children and coal to bad children, to teach children about the importance of doing good.
2. Confusion: If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus describe impossible events, then we would have to wonder about the reliability of other new ideas and/or teachings that Jesus introduced in His parables e.g "the Son of Man sending His angels to gather stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness and throwing them into the fiery furnace where there is gnashing of teeth", at the end of the parable of the sower. We would have to start asking, "What part of that is fact, and what is completely made up and impossible, that Jesus is only using to teach a lesson? Is it the fiery furnace? Is it the gnashing of teeth? Will the Son of Man return but then not send His angels to gather stumbling blocks and throw them in the fiery furnace? And if so, then why did Jesus say that? To scare people straight even though He knew that what He was saying was impossible?"
3. Unbelief: Many people think that unbelief means rejecting everything that Jesus says, but even rejecting some of what He says counts as unbelief. For example, Thomas believed everything that Jesus taught except the part where He taught that He would rise again after 3 days (which He also used parables to teach e.g "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days..."). And Thomas was told, "Do not be unbelieving", because he hesitated to believe that Jesus had actually risen. You have to wonder if playing down the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as an Egyptian folktale that describes impossible events would also get the rebuke, "Do not be unbelieving".
The "clone" problem exists only if we consider our identity as an "essence" that exists independently of God. If we see our identity as a relational phenomenon, then the problem does not exist. In fact, the Christian life consists in the transformation of our identity through our relationship with Christ. Our identity in the resurrection will be the culmination of that transformation. Apart from our new birth in Christ there is no identity. Life eternal is possible only because we are truly transformed in Christ, there is no identiy to maintain outside the transforming power of God in Christ. Human beings are dust with a breath of life given by God, not self-existent and autonomous creatures outside of God. We exist because of God, We exist in God, not as independent entities. Simply put, the only identity that can subsist forever is that in the sphere of our relation with Christ, not the one that is self-referential. We are as we are in Christ, not as some supposed permanent essence of ours.