yes i agree, my intention was to make clear that this is definitely not any kind of proof text for how the scriptures use the term "spirit". and i also perfectly agree with you about this being some kind of supernatural manifestation. though i think what paidion suggested is more than just plausible, it may be more likely than how you or i interpret this passage.look2jesus wrote:I did find it surprising that the word “elohim” was used. That said, given the circumstances (that she was a medium; that Saul asked her to call up Samuel; and that SOMETHING appeared to her), I’m not sure that the term she used is all that important. The word was used, at times, to refer to the judges of a town and Samuel was one of the greatest Judges. It’s hard to know what the woman meant by the use of elohim, but, regardless, it’s obvious that some kind of supernatural manifestation appeared.
God made it clear to his people that they were not to engage in necromancy or soothsaying. should we therefore conclude that the pagans that practiced these things could really do what they thought they were doing? no that would be nonsense, just as it is nonsense to conclude that when Ye'hovah told his people not to worship baal or molech that God therefore believed these characters were real. while i think paidion's response maybe likely, i lean more towards 1 samuel 28 simply describing a temporary resurrection of samuel by God. mainly for the same reasons you laid out, as you said, "samuel himself", how is it not begging the question to go beyond what's written and assume the writer meant the immaterial spirit of samuel?
i think it is what the scriptures would have us conclude. consider what God told adam,look2jesus wrote:... What I’ve often wondered is “why Monism” in the first place? One hardly, I think, would come to that view simply reading through the text...
it seems plain to me that humanity's constitution is spelled out from the beginning to be from the dust. i understand that in the mind of the dualist (as i once was) this, "it seems plain.." sounds plainly simplistic, but i don't think so. for me ending up at a monist understanding of man's constitution started with seeing that union with Christ by the resurrection was the constant and redounding promised hope of the christian and not heaven. but it wasn't until much later that i began to notice a huge difference between my usage and how the scriptures used words like body, soul, spirit, mind, heart, strength, wisdom, anger, grief, and so on. in studying these differences out, i became convinced that the percieved evidence for an immaterial soul in the bible was quite poor. and i found it to be unnecessary, and an extra piece that we don't need. i think we can understand the rich range of human experience on earth and indeed just as well explain our experience with God, without having to evoke a person within the person.gen 3:19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. [emphasis mine]
thanks for joining the discussion john, nice to meet you brother.
grace and peace always...