Consulting or calling up the dead

Post Reply
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:10 am

Paidion, As you acknowledged "Paul understood that it would be immediate for him" therefore is Paul's understanding correct for he did'nt get that idea from the OT as we all can agree. Since he was taught by Christ in Arabia ( i believe) should'nt we believe Paul?
Of course we should believe Paul. It was immediate for him, and it will be immediate for us.
After our death, the next thing of which we will be aware will being present with the Lord, even if temporally speaking, it takes place 3000 years after our death.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by steve » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:42 pm

Suzana wrote:
But I don’t think anyone has addressed my question on the implications of the dual nature of man in reference to Paul’s trip into heaven, possibly minus his body.
RND then claimed that he and Paidion had both addressed it. I cannot find the place where they did so. They both wrote posts about the other statement of Paul about being "absent from the body" and being "present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:1-8)—which is not only a different passage, but even quite a different subject.

However, Suzana's question (which, ironically, was based upon RND's self-defeating quotation of 2 Corinthians 12:2-3—see on page 3 of this thread) raises a more serious objection to RND and Paidion's position than even 2 Corinthians 5 does. The fact that Paul is speaking of an actual experience that either he or another man had undergone fourteen years previously, and that Paul could not decide whether the experience was an "out-of-body experience" or not, strongly suggests that Paul thought of out-of-body experiences as being in the category of "not an impossibility" (otherwise he would have known that this instance was not a case of such).

If Paul thought it possible that he (or someone else) had visited the "third heaven" and "Paradise" without having taken their bodies along on the trip, then what part of that person was consciously in heaven without their body? Perhaps we can say that Paul avoids the word "soul" or "spirit" in the passage, but that is irrelevant. There is a conscious self of some kind that Paul felt was capable of being apart from the body (even in heaven) and this part can see and hear things in heaven without (necessarily) being "in the body." This fits reasonably well with the idea that the body and the soul are separable entities. It does not seem to jibe with any alternative view, as near as my present understanding can grasp.

Suzana and I are still interested in hearing an actual response, rather than a dodge, concerning this verse.

There has been some discussion here about the correct punctuation of the promise Jesus gave to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). Did Jesus say, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Today..." or was it, "Verily, verily, I say unto you today,..."? It would seem to me redundant for the comma to come after the word "today." If I count correctly, there are fourteen times in the gospels that contain Jesus' using the phrase "I say unto you..." It was a fairly common prelude to a solemn declaration. There is no other case where He redundantly added "today" as part of the phrase (as if His hearers did not know which day it was that they were hearing Him speak, and needed to be told that it was actually that very day).

If Jesus did add additional, unnecessary words to His usual statement when speaking to the thief on the cross, He must have just been feeling unusually chatty at that moment, and decided to use more words than usual to make the same point. I would have imagined that, given His condition at the moment, He would have been inclined to speak as briefly as possible to make His point. But then I have never been in that condition (hanging on a cross, I mean), so I might be mistaken.

The thief had mentioned a time in which he hoped he might find blessing—"Remember me when you come into your kingdom." Perhaps the thief thought the kingdom might be someday far off. Jesus seems to be addressing the very point about which the man was concerned. He was telling him that the day of His coming into His kingdom, and the thief coming along with Him, was to be "Today." "Today you will be with me in Paradise." This makes considerable more sense to me.

RND has asked whether the thief got to heaven before Jesus. I think not. Jesus and the thief got to Paradise the same day, if Jesus' words are to be regarded as fulfilled. The identification of Paradise with heaven, in this case, is not required. Jesus' later declaration to Mary Magdalen, "I have yet to ascend to my Father," has been much misunderstood, I think. But that can await a more opportune time to be discussed.

On another note. You may have noticed that I have not contributed to the forum as much lately. I still visit and read what is being posted by others. However, it seems that the quality of discussion is not as mature as it once was, and it is sometimes annoying. Those who have been posting here for a long time still seem to be maintaining a high standard, and I appreciate that. However, somehow we seem to have picked up a few new participants who either have a chip on their shoulder, or else who want to push a denominational party line, without their providing any actual analysis of the biblical texts (or maybe they think that what they are providing is analysis, which is perhaps even more alarming!). What I am referring to as immaturity is the cocky, self-confident, and even abusive responses some newer members present to the calm and reasonable questions and cross examinations of others.

I am not sure exactly how to remedy this, without, perhaps, doing what they do in amusement parks, where they have a line drawn at a certain height and say, "If you are not taller than this line, you cannot go on this ride." I almost want to say, "If you are not grown-up enough to talk like a Christian to other Christians, you don't belong on this ride." It would be a real shame if the naughty little boys in the classroom, who want to put girls' pigtails into inkwells, were to drive away those who actually came here looking for an education.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by RND » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:15 pm

steve wrote:RND then claimed that he and Paidion had both addressed it. I cannot find the place where they did so. They both wrote posts about the other statement of Paul about being "absent from the body" and being "present with the Lord" (2 Cor.5).
The whole thread Steve shows where Paidon and I have addressed that man does not have an "inner man" or being that floats away upon death.
However, Suzana's question (which, ironically, was raised by RND's self-defeating quotation of 2 Corinthians 12) raises a more serious objection to RND and Paidion's position than even 2 Corinthians 5 does. The fact tat Paul is speaking of an actual experience that either he or another man had undergone fourteen years previously, and that Paul could not decide whether the experience was an "out-of-body experience" or not, strongly suggests that Paul thought of out-of-body experiences as a possibility (otherwise he would have known that this instance was not a case of such).
I've read Revelation a few times Steve. I have no doubt "out-of-body" experiences are not only a possibility, but a reality. However, an "out-of-body" experience is not physical death.

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses."
Suzana and I are still interested in hearing an actual response, rather than a dodge, concerning this verse.
No dodge, it was addressed in other aspects of the discussion. I included 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 because I thought everyone knows, from the obvious context Paul is using, that Paul is not talking about physical death here, i.e. as one poster insisted "it is also Paul that spoke of our 'inner man'". This is the only point in Paul's letters where he discusses the "inner man" and it is related to being in vision, not death.

Paul is singleing out a specific instance of him being in a "vision." The vision was so vivid and realistic that he was unable—at the time—to tell whether he was taken bodily to heaven, or whether he was merely seeing it in his mind's eye. But the Word of God provides the clear answer. John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I won't speak for Paidon, just myself here but in this thread I included much information about how speaking to the dead is equivalent to taking with demons. Many verses and clarifications using both the scripture and the Strong's concordance. People are free to make up their minds and accept whatever it is they believe. I just happen to think that there is a mountain of Biblical evidence that is insurmountable when it comes to this topic.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by steve » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:59 pm

RND,

I am sorry that I was still editing my post when you responded, because it appears that your response was to my first draft. I added further points since then (I often hastily post my first draft, and then make corrections and additions after reading the posted version). I think you may wish to respond to the completed version.

You wrote:
The whole thread Steve shows where Paidon and I have addressed that man does not have an "inner man" or being that floats away upon death.
Yes, you have "addressed that man does not have an 'inner man'." Addressing a point only means that you have brought it up and mentioned it. It is not the same thing as saying the point has been in any sense established, or that further challenges can now be waved-off. Perhaps you believe that the thread demonstrates such a point. An objective reader would have to say that the whole thread shows that this is the belief of some who post here (e.g., you and Paidion). That is not the same thing as saying that the position has been demonstrated to be correct. For that to happen, there needs to be more than bare affirmation and assertion. There needs to be solid and convincing exegesis of the passages that others find ambiguous, as well as plausible answers to questions raised in cross-examining your views. Paidion has always attempted to provide that kind of response. I am not always convinced that his exegesis is the best possible, but he is at least taking the right approach.

I am not sure what to say about your responses. I know you are a Seventh-Day Adventist, and many times you simply assert an SDA point as if we are all obligated to believe it, rather than demonstarting to us that it represents the best analysis of the relevant data. I mean no ad hominem here, but I think that the kind of people that follow cult-like movements (I do not label SDA as a cult, but it is a cult-like movement in that it follows a human authority and her interpretations and revelations concerning doctrine) often believe that everyone else is of the same temperament as themselves. That is, they think that other people all are looking for confident and unsupported declarations of authority from human teachers, and that nothing else is required in the way of biblical evidences.

What may not be obvious to you (perhaps because you spend a fair bit of time on the "Catholicism" thread, where argumentation sometimes exhibits this cult-like quality as well) is that this forum largely attracts people who are not looking for pontifications, but for intelligent conversation with the Bible as the central authority for teaching. If you have spent a long time in the SDA church, you may very well have learned to settle for mere declarations and proof-texting without serious cross-examination of doctrinal beliefs. This might be your idea of "biblical argumentation." However, it looks kind of silly in the free-thinking atmosphere of an internet discussion board like this one. We weren't all spiritually starving before you arrived, and desperately awaiting a guru who could quote portions of Bible verses without deep consideration of their meaning, so that we could finally know what to believe about things. Maybe you could have benefited by reading some of the threads that have been posted here over the years to kind of get a feel for the quality of analysis and respectful dialogue we are looking for here.

One very minor correction...

You wrote:
This [2 Corinthians 12] is the only point in Paul's letters where he discusses the "inner man" and it is related to being in vision, not death.
Actually, 2 Corinthians 12 does not make mention of "the inner man." However, Paul speaks of that topic in 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:16. Peter mentions the same concept in 1 Peter 3:4.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by RND » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:21 pm

steve wrote:RND,

I am sorry that I was still editing my post when you responded, because it appears that your response was to my first draft. I added further points since then (I often hastily post my first draft, and then make corrections and additions after reading the posted version). I think you may wish to respond to the completed version.
No sweat.
You wrote:
The whole thread Steve shows where Paidon and I have addressed that man does not have an "inner man" or being that floats away upon death.
Perhaps you believe that the thread demonstrates such a point. An objective reader would have to say that the whole thread shows that this is the belief of some who post here (e.g., you and Paidion). That is not the same thing as saying that the position has been demonstrated to be correct. For that to happen, there needs to be more than bare affirmation and assertion. There needs to be solid and convincing exegesis of the passages that others find ambiguous, as well as plausible answers to questions raised in cross-examining your views. Paidion has always attempted to provide that kind of response. I am not always convinced that his exegesis is the best possible, but he is at least taking the right approach.
Which is code for I don't. No biggie. I made an observation about the thief on the cross in this thread as well. I like asking questions, great way to get answers.
I am not sure what to say about your responses. I know you are a Seventh-Day Adventist, and many times you simply assert an SDA point as if we are all obligated to believe it, rather than demonstarting to us that it represents the best analysis of the relevant data.


Is that what you think Steve? I place information to give the yin to most everyone's yang. Take it for what it's worth. But honestly, what you believe doesn't change what I believe.
I mean no ad hominem here, but I think that the kind of people that follow cult-like movements (I do not label SDA as a cult, but it is a cult-like movement in that it follows a human authority and her interpretations and revelations concerning doctrine) often believe that everyone else is of the same temperament as themselves. That is, they think that other people all are looking for confident and unsupported declarations of authority from human teachers, and that nothing else is required in the way of biblical evidences.


Is that much different that what you purport as your authority? People look to you as a scholar and a teacher. I, as well as most SDA look at the writings of EGW the same way. I certainly don't hold anything she ever said above the Bible. That said, I should let you know that I have always had problems with the "standard faire" Christian belief of the state of the dead long before I became an Adventist.

Two other minor points. If you believe in the soon return of Jesus Christ to gather His bride you are by nature an "Adventist." Two, if you look into the definition of the word "cult" each and every Christian is the "member" of a "cult."
What may not be obvious to you (perhaps because you spend a fair bit of time on the "Catholicism" thread, where argumentation sometimes exhibits this cult-like quality as well) is that this forum largely attracts people who are not looking for pontifications, but for intelligent conversation with the Bible as the central authority for teaching.
Me too. I suppose that is why I fine it so surprising that a number of of poster don't rely on it more for there arguments and dissertations.
If you have spent a long time in the SDA church, you may very well have learned to settle for mere declarations and proof-texting without serious cross-examination of doctrinal beliefs.
Ha! I've studied the Bible for about 3 years. If you have something to address ask, I'll answer. I'll even use the Bible!
This might be your idea of "biblical argumentation." However, it looks kind of silly in the free-thinking atmosphere of an internet discussion board like this one. We weren't all spiritually starving before you arrived, and desperately awaiting a guru who could quote portions of Bible verses without deep consideration of their meaning, so that we could finally know what to believe about things.
Yes, that's why I was very surprised to see a number of people that have very similar views as I do. Many it seems are quite informed as to the truth of the Bible and have seen past the minutia.
Maybe you could have benefited by reading some of the threads that have been posted here over the years to kind of get a feel for the quality of analysis and respectful dialogue we are looking for here.
I've been quite respectful to all I have posted with. I have definitely provided proof from the Bible for my beliefs. Look Steve, I know you don't like me because I'm a SDA, and it's cool. It comes with the territory frankly. Name calling is only the half of it. A level of respectful dialogue is mutual. Not everyone here has always been "super nice" and "super loving" to me either, so trust me, it works both ways.

BTW, just so you know, I have never received a PM from any mod here for my supposed "bad manners" or "etiquette" Steve so I can only assume that I haven't been a huge problem here that any of the mods have felt a need to address. I am direct, to the point, and have little patience for those that ignore the obvious when it come to scripture. And yes, I know for sure this is an area I need to work on.

Peace out and much love Brother Steve! :D
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:04 pm

Steve wrote: If Paul thought it possible that he (or someone else) had visited the "third heaven" and "Paradise" without having taken their bodies along on the trip, then what part of that person was consciously in heaven without their body?
That would be a sensible question if we are already convinced that Paul “spiritually” or “soulishly” left his body and made a trip to heaven. If Paul himself had been convinced of that, it seems rather strange that he wasn’t sure whether he was inside his body or outside it. Has anyone “in the body” ever physically gone to heaven? Would that be even possible? Would the human body be able to endure the upper atmosphere of even the first heaven?

It seems to me that Paul didn't actually go to heaven either in the body or outside it. What Paul appears to really be asking is whether the vision took place while he was awake or asleep. Our dreams and other experiences while asleep are considered to be “outside the body”, whereas is we have such revelations or experience while awake, we are “in the body”.

Phillip’s translation renders it this way:

I don’t know whether it was an actual physical experience, only God knows that.

And I don’t know how valid Phillip’s interpretation is. God knows. But right now, I see no way that Paul could have had “an actual physical experience” of going to heaven, that is have an "in body" experience of going to heaven.
There has been some discussion here about the correct punctuation of the promise Jesus gave to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). Did Jesus say, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Today..." or was it, "Verily, verily, I say unto you today,..."? It would seem to me redundant for the comma to come after the word "today." If I count correctly, there are fourteen times in the gospels that contain Jesus' using the phrase "I say unto you..." It was a fairly common prelude to a solemn declaration. There is no other case where He redundantly added "today" as part of the phrase (as if His hearers did not know which day it was that they were hearing Him speak, and needed to be told that it was actually that very day).
The word “today” was not necessarily redundant. Rather it was probably a figure of speech, just as it is in our day. Though we don’t say, “I’m telling you today” as I think Jesus said; rather we say, “I’m telling you right now”.

However, if we are presuming redundancy here, couldn’t the “common prelude in the gospels that contain Jesus' using the phrase ‘I say unto you...’” also be declared redundant? Of course, you correctly explain why it isn’t. “It was a fairly common prelude to a solemn declaration.” I think I have correctly explained why “I’m telling you today” was used. It is probably also a prelude to a solemn declaration, even though it is uniquely so used in the gospels.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by RND » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:29 pm

steve wrote:One very minor correction...

You wrote:
This [2 Corinthians 12] is the only point in Paul's letters where he discusses the "inner man" and it is related to being in vision, not death.
Actually, 2 Corinthians 12 does not make mention of "the inner man." However, Paul speaks of that topic in 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:16. Peter mentions the same concept in 1 Peter 3:4.
Steve, I'm very aware of this. I was referring to another poster's view of Paul's "inner man." Generally 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is used in connection with referring to the inner man of Paul.

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p34272

2Cr 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day.

Seeing that [man] is in brackets it was not in the original text I look for other applications that seem to make the best sense. I think the NIV does real well: "Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day."

Same with Ephesians 3:16:

"I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,"

And again with 1 Peter 3:4

"Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

To me none of these verses are conclusive that when we die this "inner man" floats away to heaven. In fact, the scriptures seem clear that we are not aroused out of the grave until the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 and 2 Thess 4:13-17. These seem very consistent with the entire scripture, not just certain parts. Job 14:10-15 comes to mind.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by steve » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:28 pm

RND,

You wrote:
To me none of these verses are conclusive that when we die this "inner man" floats away to heaven. In fact, the scriptures seem clear that we are not aroused out of the grave until the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 and 2 Thess 4:13-17. These seem very consistent with the entire scripture, not just certain parts. Job 14:10-15 comes to mind.
To my knowledge, there has never been an evangelical Christian who denied the final resurrection. Unlike some, however, most Christians have seen no contradiction between believing in a final resurrection on the last day, on the one hand, and believing in a disembodied interim state of the dead, on the other. Therefore, references to the resurrection as arguments against the interim state are lost in the debate, unless it can be shown that this concept and the other are mutually exclusive.

You wrote:
Is that much different that what you purport as your authority? People look to you as a scholar and a teacher.
I do not think that they do so in the way I am referring to. If they do, then I would object to it. It does not appear to me that anyone at this forum holds to every doctrine that I espouse, nor that they hold to any doctrine that I espouse simply because I advocate it. I don't think that I have (nor profess to have) "authority" of that sort. I only see myself as a participant in the dialogue, not the one who is to be quoted as the authority. In this respect, I see no parallel between the mentality of those at this forum and those who look to Ellen G. White as a prophet.

You wrote:
Two other minor points. If you believe in the soon return of Jesus Christ to gather His bride you are by nature an "Adventist." Two, if you look into the definition of the word "cult" each and every Christian is the "member" of a "cult."
I am not sure that I am an adventist, even by your broadened definition. But talking about the lexical definitions of words like "Adventist" and "cult" is often irrelevant in a context where they have taken on specialized meanings in general usage.

You wrote:
Ha! I've studied the Bible for about 3 years. If you have something to address ask, I'll answer. I'll even use the Bible!
If I want to know your opinions, I certainly will not be slow in asking you, and if you use the Bible responsibly, I will be grateful for that. On the other hand, if I want to know what the Bible teaches, I usually consult thinkers who have studied it for more than three years (though I am not above listening to the insights of a new convert). Those who have studied longer are easier for me to listen to, because they are usually less sure of themselves than novices sometimes are.

You wrote:
Look Steve, I know you don't like me because I'm a SDA, and it's cool. It comes with the territory frankly. Name calling is only the half of it.
If I decide that I do not like you (I haven't yet), then it will not be because you are SDA. The label has never, in itself, caused me to dislike anybody. There are personalities that I personally find unpleasant. Sometimes they are found in SDA people, and other times in people of a variety of other institutions. I have seen it, in retrospect, even in myself—especially in the early years of my ministry. It is the attitude that one's personal beliefs at their present stage of learning reflect the highest and most enlightened marker of spiritual insight and biblical interpretation available, and that all that is necessary to cure the ills of the church is to convince the rest of the benighted saints of those views that one personally holds. Some SDA's who have had this attitude have, by their contributions, marred the spirit of a number of previously fruitful and open biblical dialogues and spiritual conversations which I have observed. They have not been ill-intentioned. They honestly believe that they are doing God a service. They have usually just been embarrassingly clueless that their manner of talking down to people (in many cases, people more knowledgeable than themselves) would be amusing, if it were not so inappropriate.

I am glad you have told me how long you have studied the Bible. Knowing you are young in the faith helps me to put your comments in perspective, and to view them more charitably.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by RND » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:56 pm

steve wrote:To my knowledge, there has never been an evangelical Christian who denied the final resurrection. Unlike some, however, most Christians have seen no contradiction between believing in a final resurrection on the last day, on the one hand, and believing in a disembodied interim state of the dead, on the other. Therefore, references to the resurrection as arguments against the interim state are lost in the debate, unless it can be shown that this concept and the other are mutually exclusive.
Well that leads to a few other questions then Steve.

What is the point or necessity for those that float away coming back to earth for the resurrection and getting a "new body?" Is there any scripture, one, that could shed some light on this?

What is the purpose for both Peter and Paul to suggest that, "the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom?" Wouldn't it just be easier to leave those already in heaven there for judgment? What purpose is served in "bringing them back?"

I actually have lots of others but maybe these will suffice for now.
I do not think that they do so in the way I am referring to. If they do, then I would object to it. It does not appear to me that anyone at this forum holds to every doctrine that I espouse, nor that they hold to any doctrine that I espouse simply because I advocate it. I don't think that I have (nor profess to have) "authority" of that sort. I only see myself as a participant in the dialogue, not the one who is to be quoted as the authority. In this respect, I see no parallel between the mentality of those at this forum and those who look to Ellen G. White as a prophet.
Would you mind providing the quote where I ever said EGW was a "prophetess?" I see her writings as educational and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the Calvinist that post here must somehow be in agreement with the Calvin that burned Michael Servetus at the stake who was burned alive for denying that the Son of God was eternal?
I am not sure that I am an adventist, even by your broadened definition. But talking about the lexical definitions of words like "Adventist" and "cult" is often irrelevant in a context where they have taken on specialized meanings in general usage.
Let's see.

Ad⋅vent⋅ist
   /ˈædvɛntɪst, ædˈvɛn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ad-ven-tist, ad-ven-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Also called Second Adventist. a member of any of certain Christian denominations that maintain that the Second Advent of Christ is imminent.

Steve, I'm guessing you believe Christ's second advent is soon?

cult
   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

I'm assuming you believe Jesus Christ was a person, espoused ideals and has a "manifested by a body of admirers."
If I want to know your opinions, I certainly will not be slow in asking you, and if you use the Bible responsibly, I will be grateful for that. On the other hand, if I want to know what the Bible teaches, I usually consult thinkers who have studied it for more than three years (though I am not above listening to the insights of a new convert). Those who have studied longer are easier for me to listen to, because they are usually less sure of themselves than novices sometimes are.
What's the cut-off? 10 years? 20? 30? I've discussed things regarding the Bible with people that have studied 30 years that have never pondered some of the things I have learned.

Have you found wisdom and her children yet Steve?
If I decide that I do not like you (I haven't yet), then it will not be because you are SDA. The label has never, in itself, caused me to dislike anybody. There are personalities that I personally find unpleasant. Sometimes they are found in SDA people, and other times in people of a variety of other institutions. I have seen it, in retrospect, even in myself—especially in the early years of my ministry. It is the attitude that one's personal beliefs at their present stage of learning reflect the highest and most enlightened marker of spiritual insight and biblical interpretation available, and that all that is necessary to cure the ills of the church is to convince the rest of the benighted saints of those views that one personally holds. Some SDA's who have had this attitude have, by their contributions, marred the spirit of a number of previously fruitful and open biblical dialogues and spiritual conversations which I have observed. They have not been ill-intentioned. They honestly believe that they are doing God a service. They have usually just been embarrassingly clueless that their manner of talking down to people (in many cases, people more knowledgeable than themselves) would be amusing, if it were not so inappropriate.
Well, they say it does take "two to tango" Steve. Placing blame on one or two is unnecessary and uncalled for. If I'm "ill-informed" by anything, please, by all means let me know. I'll do the same.
I am glad you have told me how long you have studied the Bible. Knowing you are young in the faith helps me to put your comments in perspective, and to view them more charitably.
Thanks Steve, I appreciate your willingness to be charitable. I'll do the same for you as well. Whether it's 3 years or 30 we all have something to learn and no one has cornered the market on truth.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Consulting or calling up the dead

Post by steve7150 » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:57 pm

Of course we should believe Paul. It was immediate for him, and it will be immediate for us.
After our death, the next thing of which we will be aware will being present with the Lord, even if temporally speaking, it takes place 3000 years after our death.



Paidion, Do you really think Paul would say "to die is gain" if he thought he would be laying in the grave for some undefined length of time? Honestly , you know that does'nt add up, therefore the only other realistic possibility is that if you are correct then Paul is wrong.

Now changing gears, in the parable of Lazarus and the Richman they both died and their bodies were presumably in the grave yet Jesus said "the angels carried Lazarus off to be in Abraham's bosum." What was carried off to be in Abraham's bosum? I think it was Lazarus's "inner man" or "spirit man", do you think it was his corpse?

Post Reply

Return to “The Pentateuch”