Are we immortal or not?

[jeremiah]

hello l2j,

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.

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.

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?

... 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...

i think it is what the scriptures would have us conclude. consider what God told adam,

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]

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.

thanks for joining the discussion john, nice to meet you brother.
grace and peace always...

[Paidion]

I looked up various translations of I Samuel 28:13 to see how they translated the Hebrew word "elohim". Here are the results:

"a god" — ASV, Darby, ESV, Rotherham, RSV, WEB, NWT

"gods" — AV, Douay, Webster, YLT, Septuagint (the Greek equivalent of "gods")

"god-like being" — Jewish Study Bible

"a divine being" — NASB

Only ONE translation available to me renders the word as "a spirit" and that is the NKJV. I cannot understand why the translators thought it should be "a spirit".

Jeremiah, that's a good idea you have that God may have temporarily raised Samuel to life. But wouldn't that contradict the following:

He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the preeminence (Colossians 1:18 )

If Samuel had been raised from the dead, then Christ wouldn't have been the firstborn from the dead, would He? However, it is possible that Samuel did not experience a true resurrection, but was resuscitated as was Lazarus who had been dead for four days.

In the Old Testament, angels were sometimes called "gods". If my view that demons are fallen angels is correct, then this "god" that the medium saw might have been a fallen angel. If this demon had impersonated Samuel, then Saul saw it as Samuel. That's why it is written that Saul "perceived that it was Samuel." In other words, Saul had asked the medium to bring up Samuel, and then when he saw the impersonation, he believed that it WAS Samuel. The writer goes on with the story, calling the demon "Samuel" since that is who Saul thought it was.

[mattrose]

I assure you that though I consider myself "a hard-line monist", I do NOT believe we are "just a bunch of material". Even a bicycle is not "just a bunch of material." You can dismantle a bicycle and pile up the components and you have "just a bunch of material", which in its entirety is NOT a bicycle. It will become a bicycle only if someone reassebles it.

I do agree with you that there is a "spiritual aspect" of a human being. (I prefer to call it a metaphysical aspect). Adam was purely material until God breathed the breath of life (or the "spirit" of life) into that body. That made the body alive, and it therafter possessed this "spiritual aspect." The living Adam had self-awareness. He was conscious.

The brain is physical, but the mind is somehow metaphysical. In a post-graduate course in philosophy at the University of Manitoba, I tried to make a case for "The metaphysical self" as opposed to the human being being purely physical, being much not much different from a sophisticated robot.

Good stuff! We are, in my opinion, in basic agreement about these things

The root of our discussion seems to be whether or not this metaphysical aspect is such that it is separable from the body and thus can survive death. I think not. I can't see how an aspect of a person could survive death...

Let me suggest a couple of speculative possibilities

1. I've mentioned several times the 'download' metaphor. Let me quote NT Wright
"John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom."

Sure, that doesn't answer all questions (in fact, it probably provokes more), but it is a metaphor worth exploring, I think.

2. We might be given temporary bodies to host our metaphysical aspect. I know Randy Alcorn, in his popular book 'Heaven' suggested this. It does seem to fit with a number of passages we have mentioned.

3. One could push the 'we are the body of Christ' idea to its edges by insisting that, when we die, we do have a 'body' to inhabit (the body of Christ) even prior to resurrection day. This confuses me, but could merit further attention.

All this to say, there may be answers to your quite legitimate question.

[look2jesus]

If I recall correctly, the temporary resurrection scenario is what Glenn Peoples thought possible. I think the monist is left with few other reasonable options. But, there are a few things that are problematic with this view, to my mind.

First, I believe it is unwarranted to assign to the words of the author meaning derived from the characters in the story, especially since in the telling of the story there is a clear delineation between the authors words (the narration of the story) and what the characters in the story are recorded as saying. This same tactic has been used by some to argue that John, in John 5:18, did not actually mean that Jesus broke the Sabbath--he was only relating what the Pharisees "thought" Jesus was doing. This is a form of eisogesis, I think, and breaks very basic rules of storytelling.

Second, in the context, we are led down a very specific path on our way to Samuel's arrival. The author let’s us know Samuel is dead; that Saul is in trouble and is desperate; that he's looking for someone who can communicate with the dead (because God isn't listening to him); and lo, and behold, just such a person is located in En Dor; the woman does what mediums do and calls up the dead man (and it can’t be ignored that a medium is typically engaged in calling up a spirit, not resurrecting people). The writer is clearly giving us the ‘impression’ that what he is describing is what we all think of when we think of a medium and what they do—whether it was a thing pleasing to God, or not.

Third, I would point out that the woman could see Samuel, where Saul apparently couldn’t see him. She had to describe to Saul what she was seeing, at least initially, while Samuel was “coming up”. So consideration of the question of what form Samuel consisted in should be given at the time the woman saw him and before he spoke to Saul?

Fourth, the writer points out that Samuel's body was buried in Ramah, but that he appeared in En Dor. I hope no one was standing over his grave at the time the woman called him up...they might've messed up their drawers!

Fifth, when Samuel says to Saul that the next day Saul and his sons would be “with me”, this could indicate an ability to perceive things in the place where Samuel was—some sort of conscious awareness. He could have easily stated that Saul would be “where I am”, to indicate the place of the dead. This, admittedly, is speculative, but it might add weight to the argument.

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?

In the case of the comparison you made, we are specifically told by God's prophets that false Gods are not real, Molech etc. However, are we told in scripture that spiritists and necromancers cannot really do what they purport or attempt to do? In this case, I think we can "conclude" that it is, at the least, a possibilty. Obviously it is a strange story and more details would have been more helpful to us in answering this question. But to suggest a resurrection might have occured is trying way too hard to avoid an inconvenience to one's belief's, imo.

l2j

[jeremiah]

Hello Paidion,

Yes i think that if what was going on there was a temporary resurrection then it is more like (though definitely not the same as) what happened to Lazarus or the widow's son. Which maybe better described as temporary resuscitation. Jesus being the firstborn from the dead, i think is wholly other than these. All the others still retained natural bodies, unlike Jesus, who was raised a spiritual body never to die again.

Hello l2j,

First, I believe it is unwarranted to assign to the words of the author meaning derived from the characters in the story, especially since in the telling of the story there is a clear delineation between the authors words (the narration of the story) and what the characters in the story are recorded as saying...

Would you please restate this? I'm not really sure what you mean to say here, or what exactly you're referring to.

grace and peace...

[look2jesus]

Hello Jeremiah,

The quote you posted of mine was in response to something Paidion had written:

In the Old Testament, angels were sometimes called "gods". If my view that demons are fallen angels is correct, then this "god" that the medium saw might have been a fallen angel. If this demon had impersonated Samuel, then Saul saw it as Samuel. That's why it is written that Saul "perceived that it was Samuel." In other words, Saul had asked the medium to bring up Samuel, and then when he saw the impersonation, he believed that it WAS Samuel. The writer goes on with the story, calling the demon "Samuel" since that is who Saul thought it was.

To make my point more clear, notice that Paidion suggested that the writer of the story called the demon, which was impersonating Samuel, "Samuel", since that is who Saul thought it was. This is what I think is unwarranted and a form of eisogesis. I don't believe there is any legitimate basis for "reading into" the mind of the author/narrator a meaning derived from the characters he is telling us about. So, for example, when the author states, "When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice", he is telling us who the woman actually saw, regardless of who or what the woman thought she saw or regardless what Saul thought he perceived. This is the author in narration mode. This is also why, as the writer quotes the woman using the word "elohim", that we really can't derive too much from her use of that word. We're not told by the writer how she understands the meaning of that word. It could well be that she would use that word to describe a spirit in the sense that we think of spirits. Or she might have understood it as a resurrected body, I suppose, just for arguments sake. The point is, we're not told by the author what the woman understood about what she was seeing; we only have what he quoted her as saying. But, again, regardless of what she understood about what she was seeing, the author let's us know, in no uncertain terms, that it was definitely Samuel.

Now, since it is established in the story that it was Samuel, and not someone else, we are left to decide whether this was Samuel in the flesh, or the spirit of Samuel, either of which might be legitimate ways of interpreting the fact that the writer says that Samuel was there in En Dor. I outlined reasons why I thought the resurrection scenario was implausable. 1) There is some period of time, it would seem, that Samuel was not visible to Saul, even though the woman could see him--this sounds to me like a spiritual presence of some kind, not a physical one; 2) unless you want to argue that Samuel was in a "glorified" resurrected body like Jesus had, you need to account for his apparent "coming up" in the presence of Saul and the medium--it's not at all apparent that Samuel walked in from outside; 3) Samuel's body was in Ramah, so how did he arrive in En Dor--it seems that you would have to argue that God raised him from the dead at Ramah, and then miraculously transported him to En Dor (similarly to what he did with Phillip in the book of Acts); 4) the entire context (Saul seeking a medium; finding one; her "calling up" Samuel; Samuel appearing there) leads us in the direction of seeing this exactly as it is portrayed--a medium calling up a spirit. Additionally, I would be interested in what you think happened to Samuel after he was finished speaking with Saul. Did he live on, as Lazarus did, only to be buried again--whenever it was he died again? Did God transport him back to Ramah and then kill him and put him back in his grave? What happened to Samuel next? Obviously, Samuel told Saul that the next day Saul would be with him. Did he just expire on the spot while his body disappeared like the wicked witch from the Wizard of Oz?

Brother, if you're comfortable seeing this as a resurrection, or anything other than a spiritual appearance of Samuel, you're welcome to that view. It may be that you see overwhelming evidence in the rest of scripture that forces you to rule out what, on it's face, appears to be an encounter between the spirit of a dead man and a living, breathing man. As I said before, this resurrection scenario seems forced and unreasonable to me but I remain open to other thoughts or ideas which might afford more weight to the argument for Monism. Peace and Love, and all that

l2j

[Paidion]

On the same basis, L2J, I suppose you believe Moses and Elijah actually appeared to Peter, James, and John, since the author Matthew states that they did:

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with him. (Matthew 17:1-3)

Yet, Jesus called the whole experience a "vision" which Peter, James, and John had had:

Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the son of man is risen from the dead." (Matthew 17:9).

So is it "eisogesis" to suggest that these three apostles were having a vision of the transformation of Jesus and the appearance of Moses and Elijah? Isn't this exactly what Jesus Himself stated that their experience was?

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the son of man is risen from the dead." (Matthew 17:9).

So is it "eisogesis" to suggest that these three apostles were having a vision of the transformation of Jesus and the appearance of Moses and Elijah? Isn't this exactly what Jesus Himself stated that their experience was?

You might want to check the accounts of the transfiguration in Mark and Luke where a different Greek word is used for "seen". And if horama can not mean something actually seen then there was no burning bush (Acts 7:31).

That the transfiguration account was only a vision seems doubtful. Luke says they woke up to see Jesus glorified and Moses and Elijah. Seems both Jesus' glorification and the two men were a vision or actual. On what grounds would you separate the two?

[jeremiah]

hello L2J,

In the case of the comparison you made, we are specifically told by God's prophets that false Gods are not real, Molech etc. However, are we told in scripture that spiritists and necromancers cannot really do what they purport or attempt to do?

No, but so what. It does not follow that we can therefore conclude necromancers are able to truely do what they think they are doing. You're arguing from silence. Were humans supposed to wait until one of God's prophets told them that Molech was not real before they could conclude Molech wasn't real? No, and whatever power necromancers and spiritists believe they posses is immaterial to what actually occurs.

It may be that you see overwhelming evidence in the rest of scripture that forces you to rule out what, on it's face, appears to be an encounter between the spirit of a man and a living, breathing man.

Yes, that is the case, and i would add, it only looks like such an encounter if one defines "the spirit of a man" as substance dualists do.

hello Homer,

If matt 17, mk 9, and lk 9 are not describing a vision, then how did Peter, James, and John know who the other two men they saw were?

grace and peace to y'all.

[Paidion]

You might want to check the accounts of the transfiguration in Mark and Luke where a different Greek word is used for "seen". And if horama can not mean something actually seen then there was no burning bush (Acts 7:31).

Hi Homer, I did expect someone to suggest that ὁραμα (horama) could mean something other than a supernatural vision. But I didn't anticipate that anyone would use Mark's account as an indication that it might be otherwise. Mark records Jesus as having said that they should tell no one "the things they had seen" rather than "of the vision".

Now as they came down from the mountain, He commanded them that they should tell no one the things they had seen, till the son of man had risen from the dead. (Mark 9:9)


That account doesn't contradict the probability that it was a vision, since when one experiences a supernatural vision, he does SEE THINGS!

The Greek word "ὁραμα" occurs 12 times in the New Testament: in the verse in question, and 11 others. In 10 of the others, the word clearly refers to a supernatural vision.


1. Acts 9:10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision , "Ananias." and he said, "Here I am, Lord."

2. Acts 9:12 "And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight."

3. Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius!"

4. Acts 10:17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision [of the sheet with the clean and unclean animals] which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate.

5. Acts 10:19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you."

6. Acts 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me."

7. Acts 12:9 So he went out and followed him, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision .

8. Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."

9. Acts 16:10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

10. Acts 18:9 Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent..."

So we are left with a single verse which might be understood not as a "vision" but as a "sight". Indeed virtually all translators render it as "sight."

Acts 7:31 When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight.

But why could it not be that Moses marveled at the VISION? So what if there were no physical burning bush! Why could the Lord not have given Moses a vision so that the bush APPEARED to be burning? Whatever Moses experienced it was certainly supernatural. The angel appeared to him within the bush, and it looked to Moses as if he appeared within the "fire" which he saw. But if it were a real fire, why was the bush not consumed?

When we examine both the account in Exodus and the reference to it in Acts, we can see no reason why the burning bush couldn't have been a vision with the LORD speaking to him and He did in the other visions.

... the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn." So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush... (Exodus 3:2-4)

Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the vision, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord ...(Acts 7:30,31)