Let's Talk About Hell (6)

[createdtoworship]

is not even one such text outside of claims made by witches or in parables.

In 1Samuel 28 the witch (servant of satan) is instructed by the king to "conjure up for me whomever I request" -- this is a conjuring exercise. And the witch alone claims to SEE the being she is conjuring up for the king.

In this witches tale - God tells His prophets NOT to speak to Saul at all - but the WITCH claims to have power over the dead saints - power to conjure them up - power to get them to speak to Saul against the direct command of God.

Some believe the witch -- even to this day... some choose instead to believe God.

Let each make up their mind on whether to base their faith in the claims of witches.

God says in Isaiah 8 that we are not to go to the dead on behalf of the living.[/CENTER]

I have studied this text extensively, firstly the witchcraft is never condoned, it is simply used by God in the same way the lie of rahab was used by God to save Israel with the scarlet chord. Secondly, there was a legitimate prophecy given from the mouth of samuel, one last prophecy to reveal to saul who would be the next king, and that name was even given. All this came to pass exactly as foretold. So if this was just some witches trick , why did God allow a prophecy to be foretold?

Matt 12 does NOT say that Jonah spoke after dying so that is a dead end for your argument.

no argument there, I am unsure why that verse was chosen

Elijah never died - according to 2Kings 2.

Moses was resurrected by the time of Matt 17 according to Jude 7's reference to the book "The Assumption of Moses".

Another dead end for your argument from the Bible.

often quoting Jewish apocryphal pseudepigraphica? Bad habit for theologians, just do a google search for "problems with pseudepigrapha."

Secondly, there is a reason why those books were left out of the Bible.

Thirdly, you say "another dead end for your argument from the Bible" but you quote extra biblical sources. How nice.

In Matt 22 your entire argument is shot in the foot because in that chapter Christ argues that the PROOF of the future resurrection lies in the fact that God is NOT the God of the dead. Christ is arguing that the ONLY way God could claim to be the God of Abraham at any point after Abraham dies - is for there to be a future resurrection.

Is argument is based on the soul-slee-state of the saints in death because without it - God could claim to be the "God of the dead WITHOUT a future resurrection"

this argument makes no sense at all. God is the God of abraham, and since Abraham is with God right now, God is not the God of the dead anymore. Even before ANY resurrection has taken place at all!

The Luke 16 parable of praying to the dead has Abraham as the Sovereign of all saints in heaven. To Abraham alone is the prayer and plea made. From Abraham alone comes the response that he will not permit someone to be resurrected. Notice however that in that parable the agreed upon point is that CONTRARY to the 1Sam 28 claims of the witch - the ONLY way that the dead can minister to the living is for one of them to be resurrected!!Notice that the moral of the parable is NOT the praying to the dead is the thing to do - or that Abraham is really in charge of all dead saints. Rather in Luke 16 the moral of the parable is stated at the end "if they will not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen though one were to rise from the dead".


Luke 23
-- The thief's request "Remember me WHEN you come in your kingdom"

oh yeah and how many parables name a specific name of someone in them? None ? Thats right. A parable will usually have a few characteristics if you watch carefully. It will never name someone as that will limit the audience. It will always use generalized terms, like "a farmer" or a "widow" or a "merchant". So that right there is evidence enough for this not to be a parable. And secondly, did Christ say this was a parable. He usually does. And thirdly, did Christ give an interpretation of the parable, He usually does (to those He elects). So yours is the argument without any support. You assume this is a parable, but thats all it is an assumption.

-- Jesus' reply "Verily I say to you today you WILL be with me in paradise"

Jesus says in John 20:17 on the day of His resurrection "do not touch me for I have not YET ascended to My Father" -- He had not yet gone to paradise on the day of His resurrection.

most interpret Christ having decended to the lower parts of the earth to abrahams bosom and having let captivity captive. Also remember all the old testament saints that resurrected when Christ resurrected? Why do that if christ hadn't yet proclaimed the good news to them about the cross? This is why they waited until the resurrection and didn't resurrect prior at the crucificxtion . Your view creates a contradiction in the verse "today you will be with me in paradise" a direct contradiction.

There is not ONE text in all of scripture that says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." -- no not even one....no not even in 2Cor 5:6-10.

INSTEAD of that - Paul says in 2Cor 5 that there are THREE states of man - the first one is alive in this decaying tent.
The second is is - unclothed -- no tent at all.
The third one is at the resurrection where we get an immortal body "made in the heavens" - an eternal one.

HE says he would like to BE absent from the present decaying tent (body) AND TO BE present with the Lord in that eternal heavenly body that is given at the resurrection. But Paul does not say "To be absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord" -- not even once in all of scripture.

that was a typo, it should say "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the lord" that IS in the Bible in the KJV, "home, or tent" is actually not in the original greek, sorry. And


here is barnes notes on the Bible:

And willing rather to be absent from the body - We would prefer to die. The same idea occurs in Philippians 1:23. "Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better." The sense is, that Paul would have preferred to die, and to go to heaven; rather than to remain in a world of sin and trial.

To be present with the Lord - The Lord Jesus; see the note on Acts 1:24; compare Philippians 1:23. The idea of Paul is, that the Lord Jesus would constitute the main glory of heaven, and that to be with him was equivalent to being in a place of perfect bliss. He had no idea of any heaven where the Lord Jesus was not; and to be with him was to be in heaven. That world where the Redeemer is, is heaven. This also proves that the spirits of the saints, when they depart, are with the Redeemer; that is, are at once taken to heaven. It demonstrates:

(1) That they are not annihilated.

(2) that they do not sleep, and remain in an unconscious state, as Dr. Priestley supposes.

(3) that they are not in some intermediate state, either in a state of purgatory, as the Papists suppose, or a state where all the souls of the just and the unjust are assembled in a common abode, as many Protestants have supposed; but,

(4) That they dwell with Christ; they are with the Lord (πρὸς τὸν Κυρίον pros ton Kurion). They abide in his presence; they partake of his joy and his glory; they are permitted to sit with him in his throne; Revelation 3:21.

The same idea the Saviour expressed to the dying thief, when he said, "today shalt thou be with me in paradise;" Luke 23:43.

That is true - but in 2Cor 12 Paul is not talking about someone who died. He is talking about himself.

regardless, it was an out of body experience. Where the soul leaves and goes to another place.

Paul says in Phil 1 that he desires to "Depart AND be with Christ" - but he does not say that to depart IS to be with Christ as if the act of dying alone accomplishes what we are already told in 1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15 will only happen at tDhe 2nd coming.

Because the soul sleep state leaves the soul unaware of time - there is no time that passes for the "dead in Christ" of 1Thess 4. It would appear to the dead person as if at the moment of death - they were present at the resurrection of 1Thess 4.

I believe your view means the wicked die (go to sleep) only to be resurrected (right away, in your timeless view) only to be condemned (right away) back to the same grave they resurrected from . Why not just leave them in the grave the first time. God wouldn't waste time and resources in this way.

Apocalyptic symbols.

The body does not sleep in death - it decays and is destroyed - it turns to dust and does not come back. This decaying tent of 2Cor 5 does not come back.

The earthly body of 1Cor 15:35-37 dies and does not come back for as Paul says
35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

nice touch, but no. The apocalyptic symbols of revelation become literal once interpreted in light of daniel. Else you would have me believe that the end of the world is symbolic. That the judgement of the world, the seals, the cups and bowl judgements are all only symbolic? Please.

In Matt 10:27-28 Christ says that this decaying tent is killed - is destroyed in the first death. But in the 2nd death - God alone is able to "Destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

lastly, death doesn't mean annihilate or why would we need to destroy BOTH the body and the soul....if death meant the defeat of both simultaneously?

in Christ,

Bob

In the Grip of Grace,

gradyll

 

[createdtoworship]

(that was a lie, I do)

but whatever

There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea that the bodies of the wicked will be somehow destructible -- indeed, our upcoming cite from Mark can only support this idea!
...Holding states that the idea that "kill" and "destroy" are parallel "seems all too obviously a measure of desperation without any linguistic support." He writes, "all too obviously"! I dare say that it is *obvious* that the two words *are* parallel in this passage, and further "linguistic" evidence can be found all over the NT as "destroy" and "perish" are used to mean "die" or "kill."

Needless to say, this assertion proves nothing at all. WK is simply pulling a "Pinnock Punch" by only answering that he begs to differ and being non-specific thereafter. That really isn't enough -- but it does reflect the lengths to which annihilationism proponents must go to defend their doctrine.
# Matt. 12:31-2//Mark 3:29
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

The ways around this verse are multi-fold. Some fall back on the argument that this is a sin that could only be committed in that time and place (rather than describing, as we have argued elsewhere, the sin of disbelief), but this would still leave open that eternal punishment exists, at the very least for those few people who committed this sin in the first century. Another tack is to say as Fudge does that [Fudg.FTC, 181]:
To say that the sin is never forgiven is not the same as saying it's perpetrators will always endure conscious torment for committing it. It is possible in our society for a convicted murderer to be pardoned. But if he is not forgiven, the form of his punishment is beside the point. He is no more pardoned if he is executed for his crime than if he spends 100 years in prison.

It seems to me that this explanation begs the question. If a special point is made that a sin is "never" forgiven, then it seems to me to imply that the person will always be around to experience the non-forgiveness. One could argue as Fudge has, of course, but to do so makes the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous. Why make a special point to say that a sin in never forgiven in given time periods, unless one will be around to fully experience those time periods?

Hayes [Cro.4VH, 105], trying to soften the passage in favor of a purgatorical stance, says, "One could ask what meaning this text could have if it were not possible that some sins could be forgiven in the next world." I think Hayes is missing the point of the hyperbole here, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that this verse allows for forgiveness of some sins. That would still leave one very much unforgivable sin, and that is still DISBELIEF. There is simply no getting around eternal punishment in this way.
annihilationism reply: Holding writes: "It seems to me that this explanation begs the question. If a special point is made that a sin is "never" forgiven, then it seems to me to imply that the person will always be around to experience the non-forgiveness. One could argue as Fudge has, of course, but to do so makes the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous."
*HOW?* Holding is continually going about in this article SIMPLY STATING THINGS. That is all he does here - "it seems to me" - no elaboration or hard evidence, just "it seems to me." I mean, why in the world would Fudge's argument (which is perfectly reasonable) "make the whole point of Jesus' teaching superfluous"? I suggest that it is because Holding has commited a serious logical fallacy BY ALREADY ASSUMING WHAT JESUS "WHOLE POINT" IS.

I am, as I have noted elsewhere, not accustomed to breaking down simple arguments like this, but for the sake of WK I will try. Jesus' teaching becomes "superfluous" because if a person "ceases to exist as" a person, then they will not be around for the entirety of the "age to come". Hence, why stress that they will never be forgiven? Why not stop by saying that they will not (rather than "never") be forgiven, unless the point has to do with a timeframe or eternity? The former would fit perfectly with the annihilationism position, but the latter only makes sense in the context, as I have said, of someone being around to never be forgiven.
# Matt. 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Up until now, our verses have been a bit vague, or softened by a parallel; this is where the banana really hits the fan. Pinnock [Cro.4VH] objects to the use of this verse, saying that it gives no indication that the eternal destiny involves conscious suffering; therefore, he says, we have the "freedom" to interpret this verse as not indicating such a thing. I think it is quite plain that Pinnock here is simply trying to insert a concept into the text that is in no way implied, nor indicated by the social background data. (Significantly, his only answer to the counter that the "eternal life" being conscious must indicate a parallel to the "eternal (punishment)" being conscious is, "I beg to differ." [!] Obviously: "Begging" the question is really the only way to get around what is quite evident in the text!)

Shaw [Shaw.LAD, 72] is more vague when he argues that the length of the aionios must be determined by context; hence, he argues, allowing that fellowship with God means a "duration of aeon of God Himself" (that is, forever), so it is that "the character of the existence out of or apart from fellowship with God" determines a non-eternal punishment. May I frankly say that this argument by Shaw makes absolutely no sense at all, which is perhaps why he doesn't bother to explain it! He has assumed an equation of "God everlasting = life everlasting", but has offered no initial corollary for the counter-equation, only the secondary corollary: What is it that equals, "not punishment everlasting"?

A much better argument comes from Williamson [Will.EDEP, 85] who, following a somewhat preterist eschatology, suggests that Matt. 25:46 was already fulfilled in the events of 70 AD, and that the "goats" are the Jews while the "sheep" are the Gentiles! I'll borrow a phrase from Pinnock here: Such an argument may have worked well in 1883 when Williamson wrote, but with the reconstitution of the Jewish nation, it somewhat loses its force. Even so, and even allowing for a preterist interpretation, it seems unlikely that, at least, Matt. 25 and onward can be fit into 70 AD, but rather, with the age following 70 AD, which ends with the final judgment. (See my essay here.)

Finally, we here come to a second argument used to deflect the force of aionios as meaning "forever". Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 41ff] argues that the word may be read in a qualitative sense as well as a quantitative sense -- i.e., refer to both duration and character of what the word modifies. This much we find agreeable, and Fudge provides some good examples of places where aionios seems to have only a qualitative meaning (Heb. 6:2. 9:12). Thus, for example, verses speak of "eternal judgment"; but the "judgment" itself is a one-time event, whereas the results of it are what is eternal; "eternal redemption" took place in one event, but its results continue forever, and so on. This, so we are told, should serve as an interpretative key to Matthew's "eternal punishment."

The problem I see with this verse has to do with the fact that some of these words, including "punishment," do not indicate in and of themselves something with a single and solitary point of action with only results (rather than actions) that persist. Our only real clue for this verse is the parallel phrase for eternal life -- and we have seen that attempts to dis-establish the parallel do not work. At best it can be argued that the word for "punishment" here (kolasis) has a sense of "pruning" or "stopping short one's development" and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fudg.FTC, 197]. But then again, the only other use of the word in 1 John 4:18 carries the strong implication of retribution.
annihilationism reply: Such a phrase construction using "aionios" (= "eternal") occurs only SIX TIMES in all the NT, out of 70 uses of "aionios" itself. These six occurences are Matt. 25:46; Mark 3:29; 2 Thes. 1:9; Heb. 5:9; 6:2; 9:12. Since the verse in Matthew is our point of contention, let's look at the other five occurences.
In Mark 3:29, the phrase "eternal sin" is used. Surely "eternal sin" does NOT mean that the one who is guilty continues sinNING forever! No, it is meant to tell us that the RESULTS of the sin in question remain forever, not the act itself -- if you doubt this, see the parallel in Matt. 12:32.
In 2 Thes. 1:9, we see "eternal destruction" spoken of by Paul. My point here would be the same as on Matt. 25:46. There IS an act of "destroyING" obviously, but we are not told that it is "aionios" -- rather, we are told that its RESULTS ("destrucTION") are.
In Heb. 5:9, the author uses "eternal salvation." Does this require us to understand that Jesus is "eternally savING" believers? Certainly not! Hebrews, more so than any other NT book, makes it clear that salvation was accomplished "once for all." What this phrase DOES tell us is that the finished work of salvation is "aionios" in its RESULT.
In Heb. 6:2, we read "eternal judgment." Again, we know from many passages that the Final Judgment is NOT an ongoing process at all, but an event. God in Christ will not forever be "judgING" anyone. The phrase in this verse simply means that the RESULTS of God's judgment remain "eternally."
Finally, in Heb. 9:12 is the phrase "eternal redemption." Is Christ eternally redeemING His people? Again, verse 25 of this very chapter makes it clear that He is NOT. As with the above verses, the RESULTS of Christ's redeeming are "aionios" -- this is further shown in this very verse by use of the word "obtainED," which is PAST TENSE.
Now, in the above cases it is clear that the act/process placed alongside "eternal" occurs in a FIXED PERIOD OF TIME and is NOT an ongoing action. What is true in these cases is that the RESULT of the original action IS ongoing (= "aionios" = "eternal"). To summarize: Because they commited the sin in question (an accomplished action), the result (no forgiveness) is described in the words "eternal sin." In 2 Thes 1:8, Jesus will engage in an act of punishING, but it ends (note the PAST TENSE "punishED" in v. 9) -- the resulting "destrucTION" is "eternal." Jesus' work of "saving" and/or "redeeming" us is an accomplished event -- done "once for all." But the RESULTS - that is, the "salvaTION" (Heb. 5:9) and/or the "redempTION" (Heb. 9:12) - are "eternal." The word "judging" would describe what God will do at the last day, but what is said to be "eternal" in Heb. 9:12 is His FINISHED act of "judgMENT."
Of course, the sixth verse left out above is Matt. 25:46. YET THIS VERSE IS NO DIFFERENT. Like the other five, this verse pairs "aionios" with a NOUN signifying a completed act/process. I must disagree with you on your grammer -- "punishMENT" is NOT a "perfectly natural way to express 'punishment that will be ENDURED forever.'" There is no hint whatsoever in the word "punishMENT" itself which signifies any type of ENDURANCE. In fact, just the opposite -- the word signifies a COMPLETED action.
Fudge writes that the argument "that 'eternal' must refer to the RESULT of the 'life' and of 'punishment' alike (i.e., your 'parallel idea - W.K.) overlooks the difference between an ordinary noun ('life') and a noun FORMED FROM A VERB INVOLVING PROCESS ('punishment')" (Fudge, TFTC, p. 121, fn. 85). The grammer which recognizes this distinction is also endorsed by the late John W. Wenham and Philip E. Hughes.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have printed this extensive argument by WK to show, again, to what irrelevant lengths the annihilationism position must go to be defended. Once again, all that is done here is question-begging -- it is assumed without any justification that "punishment" is in exactly the same category as "sin" and "salvation". (I do not agree with all the examples above, incidentally, but we need not concern ourselves with that.) My question is: In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion? It is not found anywhere; it is a rule created by the annihilationism position.

At the risk of being anachronistic by dealing with English rather than Greek, let me use a comparable word to "punishment" to make a point. Annihilationism would have us believe that "punishment" refers here to a completed process that is eternal in its results. But let us say that, rather than eternal punishment, we were to be sentenced to eternal entertainment. It is a word paired with aionios, we will say, and it is a noun "formed from a verb involving process". Following annihilationism "logic" someone sentenced to "eternal entertainment" would begin eternity by, say, watching a few back episodes of the Three Stooges, then have it turned off from there on. "I thought this was eternal entertainment!" you would cry. "Sure it is!" Gabriel answers. "You can remember what those Stooges episodes were like and laugh about them for the rest of eternity!" Sounds like false or misleading advertising to me -- and that is what the above annihilationism argument regarding the word "punishment" is. It is a twisting of the normal meaning of a word to suit a given position. Of course, if annixers could show somewhere that the Greek word behind "punishment" refers somewhere to an "experience" that included under the rubric of the punishment an effect not actually experienced by the one punished, but merely a result of the punishment, then they might begin to have a case -- but so far, all I have seen from WK and his annihilationism cohorts is question-begging.
# Mark 9:43-8 (cf. Is. 66:24)
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

In using this verse, Jesus alluded to the OT passage noted above. This verse in Isaiah was interpreted to refer to the torments of eternal punishment both in rabbinical sources and in the Jewish apocryphal works like Judith.

Against the use of this verse, Pinnock objects that Judith (and presumably any other works) "should not determine the meaning of Isaiah or Mark." [Cro.4VH, 155] It shouldn't? Since when have the tenets of critical analysis been abandoned simply for the sake of eliminating a troublesome teaching? Nowhere else is it said that rabbinic and apocryphal sources "should not determine the meaning" of something in the NT. Why is that the case here? If this is abandoned then Wisdom of Solomon and Philo are out the door for understanding the Trinity.

A stronger argument notes that the bodies in question are said to be "carcasses" and therefore could not possibly be suffering. This is a valid point that should be considered seriously, for the word used here is clearly one used only of corpses (cf. 2 Kings 19:35//Is. 37:36). On the other hand, it is just as obvious that this verse does not support annihiliationism: In fact, if we note vv. 22-23, the indication is that just as the righteous continue to come for worship forever, so it is that they will continue to go forth and see these who are outside of the city. We are therefore faced with the paradox [Bern.FH, 171] of dead bodies that perpetually burn, with no indication of consciousness, but we are certainly not given any sense of annihilation. We are left only with 1) later interpretive methods which did use this verse to indicate eternal punishment, 2) the fact that Jesus applies the name "Gehenna" (the perpetually-burning garbage dump) to this place, and 3) this question: If eternal consciousness is not in view here, then why is there an option presented of entering hell with a whole body? If the person is not conscious, what is the point? I conclude that the data is marginally in favor of the interpretation of eternal punishment in Mark.
annihilationism reply: Here again, the source of the figure is the Old Testament. These words are obviously taken from Isaiah 66:24. In Isa. 66, the wicked are "consumed" (v. 17) in contrast to the righteous, who will live eternally (v. 22) in a new earth (v. 22) where ALL will worship God (v. 23 - compare Eph. 1:10, etc.). Finally, verse 24 uses the same figures used in Mark -- but note that the "undying worm," far from signifying ongoing existence, instead refers to "CARCASES" (also used by Isaiah in 34:3). Once again, the source of these figures used in the Gospels is the OT, and once again we see that ACCORDING TO THEIR ORIGINAL INSPIRED USAGE BY THE PROPHETS they signify NOT "perpetual torment" but rather DESTRUCTION -- real death, plain and simple.

I need only make the point here that if WK wishes to stress that Mark had to use Isaiah in exactly the same way as Isaiah did, then all typological prophecy is out the window. It was my acknowledgement above that Isaiah cannot be used by itself to support eternal, conscious torment. However, it is also clear that some later Jewish interpreters used this verse typologically in favor of eternal torment. The evidence of this verse being coupled with admonitions about the "whole body" (a point WK failed to address) leans slightly in favor of the traditional position.
# 2 Thess. 1:8-9
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.

Unlike many of our verses, this passage uses the word olethros rather than one of the apo- words above. However, it still has the meaning of destruction, punishment, ruin and death. (cf. 1 Tim. 6:9-10) I have thus far seen no arguments against this verse that we have not already covered elsewhere in some form, but we can add that since Paul here describes the punishment as being "shut out from the presence of the Lord", there is a strong inmplication that the persons in question will exist and continue to exist [Pet.TRA, 555]. (Note that this refers to the loss of fellowship with God and has nothing to do with God's omnipresence as such.) It is therefore perhaps the strongest verse against annihilationism, and the least able to be re-interpreted.
annihilationism reply: Holding's theory of "different kinds" of God's presence is a make-shift argument nowhere supported in the text. The fact that the wicked are also excluded from God's "power" does not help his case one bit, as God's "power" would be REQUIRED to sustain their existence if "perpetual torment" were true. The fact that they are EXCLUDED from the very power REQUIRED to sustain their existence proves that their final end is DESTRUCTION, just as the text states. Also, the word for "power" or "might" is 'ischus' and it = "ability, might, strength, power." How can the wicked exist forever when they are clearly EXCLUDED from God's 'ischus'? Far from being "perhaps the strongest verse against annihilationism," it is one of the strongest *requiring* it!

If there is any speaking here of "two kinds" of God's presence -- I prefer to say, two "degrees" of it -- then it is done here by Paul first and me by derivation. At the same time, WK does nothing to show how the first part of the verse squares with annihilationism. The active voice of the verb in this passage suggests a continual existence for those who are "shut out"; the preposition here (apo) literal implies separation by distance, not annihilation at all. WK's objection concerning the second part would work just fine if he could show that the Bible teaches that God's "power" (ischus) is indeed in a constant sustaining relationship with humanity, but as we are given no cites to prove this, little can be said, and I find no proof of this in any of the 11 places where the word is used. But I don't see why the sustaining power, even if in this sort relationship, has to be in a continual relationship as opposed to one, let us say, that allows for a "single shot" of power at a given point that lasts in effect through eternity -- so that one might say that those in torment, though therefater "shut out/away" from God and the majesty of His power, nevertheless continue to live.
# Jude 7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Some also try to cite this verse to favor annihilationism, for it is argued that Sodom and Gomorrah were totally destroyed, and they no longer suffer. It is also added that since these cities are cited as an "example" [Fudg.FTC, 286 - who notes that the word is used in secular sources to mean samples of corn or produce] that therefore, reality must follow example: Eternal fire here refers to the results, not to the course of events. This is possible, but one should recall that in earthly terms, there really would be no suitable "example" of an eternal fire that could be called upon. The closest possible analogy to an "eternal fire" for the Jew would be the legendary, perpetually-burning Gehenna garbage dump, and even that of course would eventually go out! So the fact that an earthly example is used here does not mean that we can discount a teaching of eternal punishment.

(I need not say anything about WK's analysis here, since I didn't find any direct support for eternal conscious punishment in Jude 7 anyway.)
# Rev. 14:9-11
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

There is little that is presented that is new against these verses. Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 298] cites parallel terms in Isaiah used in relation to the destruction of Edom; thus he says Revelation must describe a complete destruction and annihilation. But this begs the question of whether Isaiah is using "eternal" language hyperbolically to describe Edom's fate, and since he is describing events on earth as opposed to those in heaven, one may argue that there is a strong likelihood that this is what Isaiah is doing.

Pinnock [Cro.4VH, 157], after devoting a few words to cheap psychologization of his opponents, makes the astonishing claim that these is no indication of how long the suffering described in this verse is to last. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 180ff] tries a different tack, arguing that this refers to earthly events, for "torment is suffered while the worship of the beast is in progress," and he figures that no one will worship anything while in torment. This is quite clearly a case of linguistic gymnastics that doesn't pass scrutiny, for verses 9-10 clearly indicate that this is something that is foretold of those presently worshipping the beast. Williamson also argues that because the torment takes place "day and night," this event must also be taking place in time, for an angel previously declared that time would be no more -- or so Williamson says; the verse he relies on is Rev. 10:6, which in the KJV reads:
And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer...

But as a more modern version shows, this is the actual meaning:
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!"

The reading used by Williamson, as Barr shows [Barr.BWT, 78n], does not fit the context of the passage. Modern versions like the NIV correctly capture the sense of this verse referring to the time of completion of the divine purpose -- not to the end of the institution of time. (Otherwise, Williamson says nothing about the "forever and ever" part of the original passage.)

As a counter, it should also be noted that Revelation uses the phrase "day and night" to refer to things that occur continuously. (4:8, 7:15, 12:10) Even Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 300] must argue at a stretch by admitting that while it "may be true" that the suffering will last day and night (always), this may not mean that there are not times when it will not occur -- just that it does not occur on a fixed schedule (i.e., just during the day, but not at night)!

Finally, it should be noted that while annihilationists admit that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are clearly tormented forever [Pinn.DFI, 257], and thus suffer eternal punishment, they will argue that those thrown into the lake of fire with them do not necessarily suffer the same eternal fate! Once again, this is obvious question-begging. There is no support in the text for the idea that others in the lake of fire will suffer any differently.

view of Revelation is a misreading of the book (another discussion).

 

[createdtoworship]

# Rev. 20:12-15, 21:8
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire...But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Some argue that this verse points to annihilation. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 146] offers parallels in the NT that indicate that we already suffer the "first" death in this life in the sense of being in sin, so that the "second" death must be the last, and annihilation; otherwise, he concludes, this verse would be describing a third death. The problem with this interpretation is that Revelation descibes this second death as taking place after the passing away of the old earth and the bringing on of the new Jerusalem -- and, also, after the stopping of death and pain. This means that what Williamson sees as the "second" death has already been eliminated by the time he supposes it is to happen. What he is actually doing here is mixing language used in different ways by different authors and assuming that they always mean the same thing when they use similar word-concepts!

The same author [ibid., 154] also tries to argue that, if eternal punishment is true, then because this verse says that the fearful and unbelieving "shall" have a place in the lake of fire, then anyone who in the past did not believe (meaning everyone!) shall be in the lake of fire! Like the interpretation of the verse above, this reading of the text (which he also applies to Mark 16:15-6) is so incredible that I hardly think it needs detailed refutation. If it is not more clear that these verses refer to those who are "fearful and unbeliving" at the time, then how else is this concept to be expressed? (It does not say, "All who were ever fearful and believing, but those who are.)

Other than this, there are the usual arguments: That the verse does not specify conscious suffering, etc...things which, being speculated out of thin air, can have no reasonable answer.
annihilationism reply: For times sake, I cut & paste some past comments made elsewhere on Rev. 20:10 & Satan, much of which would also apply to 14:9-11. I would preface this by saying that Holding's "linear chronological" view of Revelation is a misreading of the book (another discussion).

This is WK's only comment on Rev. 14, and it serves to prove nothing -- I agree that Revelation is not always viewable as linear-chronological, but WK has not even bothered to show why, in the case of the verses given, there is no linear chronology.
Rev. 20:10 is clearly the best verse in favor of the traditional view, at least on first glance. I clung tenaciously to this very passage for a long time after I watched my other "proof texts" for the traditional understanding fall by the wayside. I will not dogmatically state that Satan as an angelic spirit-being will not suffer "perpetual torment." Taken alone, this one verse certainly SEEMS to say that. If so, this hardly affects the many passages pointing to the ultimate DESTRUCTION of lost HUMANITY. In other words, if my case for the annihilation of the wicked is solid up to Rev. 20:10, then that case cannot be toppled on the basis of this one verse -- a verse dealing with abstract apocalyptic symbols and a spirit-being who is NOT human. That being said, I hardly think that Rev. 20:10 MUST be interpreted this way. IF the case for the destruction of the wicked is Biblical (and I believe it is - see below), then there is ANOTHER WAY to interpret Rev. 20:10 --- FROM SCRIPTURE ITSELF. I offer the below points for consideration.
FIRST, I believe that there is some evidence that Satan's end will be the same as that of the wicked, i.e. absolute destruction. Both Isa. 27:1 (in light of Rev. 12:9 & 20:2) and Jer. 10:11 (w/ the info. provided in 1 Cor. 8:5 & 10:20) both suggest a real DEATH for Satan and his demons. Heb. 2:14 implies destruction for Satan. In Mark 1:24, Jesus encounters some demonic spirits who EXPECTED "utter destruction" at an appointed time. The major passage in this connection would be Eze. 28:18-19, if this passage has ref. to Satan as many believe. We read: "... therefore will (God) bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall DEVOUR thee, and (God) will BRING THEE TO ASHES upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thus shalt thou be a terror, AND NEVER SHALT THOU BE ANYMORE." This passage certainly calls to mind Rev. 14:10-11 and 20:10.

The above is yet another mass of confusion and irrelevant citations. Once again, since I do not see myself as obliged to both explain and refute my opponent's position, little can be said in some cases. However:
* Is. 27:1 -- Satan is not mentioned in this passage at all; the enemy here is "Leviathan" -- a word used symbolically to represent all of God's enemies. This would likely include Satan, but to conclude from this verse that Satan will be "absolutely destroyed" means we would also have to conclude that God lives in a house and that the earth talks (26:21), that God runs His own personal vineyard (27:3) and likes fighting weeds (27:4). In other words, one can hardly read this text with a full literal sense, nor give it preference over other verses that do contain a more literal sense.
* The verses in Revelation, Jeremiah, and 1 Corinthians have no applicability at all, much less does WK explain why they support his position.
* Mark 1:24 uses the word apollumi -- a word we have seen offers WK no support.
* Ezekiel 28:18-19 may indeed refer to Satan -- or, it may use language used to describe Satan to also describe the prince of Tyre, who is regarded as extremely wicked. But most likely, the passage does not refer to Satan at all, and WK is simply following a popular interpretation of the Christian church uncritically. This particular interpretation which sees Satan as the focus first gained currency in the 3rd and 4th century; the fact that it is not derived from Jewish exegesis of the passage is enough to call it into question. But there is also more than enough evidence to see it as referring only to an earthly ruler: The reference to the ruler as a "cherub" no more means an actual cherub is in view than it means a dragon or a giant tree is actually in view in the next chapters about Pharaoh -- and this point is made even stronger by the fact that cherubs were a key symbol of Phoenician and Tyrian iconography. But regardless of what the interpretation is, let it be noted that in modern versions, these verses are rendered in the past tense -- this describes something that has already happened. If anything, then, these verses show that language of permanent death/destruction can be used figuratively!
SECOND, concerning the "beast" and the "false prophet," some have interpreted these as being apocalyptic SYMBOLS like the many other symbols found in the OT prophets and in Revelation. Even if they are actual beings, the word "are" in Rev. 20:10 is an INSERTED word, supplied by the translators but not by the the text itself (KJV signifies this by putting the word in italics for the reader). Further, there is no "day and night" in eternity, is there? The THIRD, and most important, point concerns the phrase "forever and ever." Given these points, Rev. 20:10 can be understood apocalyptically as well as literally. Again, even if taken literally (ignoring the OT usage) - this verse says NOTHING about the NATURE of the fate of the wicked.

To some extent this is also a confused mess: We are not told what the significance of the added "and" and of the "forever and ever" is. (My own KJV indicates that it is the "are", not the "and", that is inserted.) Little else can be said, since no justification is given for regarding these things as merely symbols; this is so far nothing but an act of desperation on WK's part, a way to reach for any possible interpretation that might help him. The only points to address are:
* Re "day and night" -- the language here simply implies that there will be no respite from the torment. It is a phrase used elsewhere in Revelation to describe something perpetual (4:8, 7:15; things that are also "in eternity", as WK puts it!).
* Re "the nature of the fate of the wicked" -- the passage clearly indicates that torment will be the fate of those in the lake of fire! It cannot be said any more clearly!
Furthermore, I believe that "second death" means just what it says! As Philip Hughes wrote: "It would be hard to imagine a concept more confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying. This, however, is the corner into which Augustine (in company with and many others) argued himself." (THE TRUE IMAGE, p. 403).

If Hughes is confused, I suggest he consult Genesis 3, where he will find a "death" which means existing without literally dying. Just extend it into eternity, and your confusion is solved. (My answer here, as in many places, is short, but how much needs to be said to refute such convoluted and tortuous explanations as these, composed as they are mostly of window dressing?)

WK closes with a listing of verses that he supposes to support the annihilationism position. I have addressed some of these or some form of them already; as for the rest, since WK does not even bother explaining HOW these verses support his position, I will not bother to address them. It is not my responsibility to both explain and answer my opponents' arguments. I look only at this one closing paragraph he offered:
The eschatological goal of God's plan is expressed in Eph. 1:10. This is IMPOSSIBLE apart from either UNIVERSALISM (clearly refuted by many scriptures) or THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED. Since God has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Eze. 33:11), are we to believe that they will forever be TORMENTED in His presence (remember, God is OMNISCIENT), especially in light of passages like Rev. 4:11? (see also Dan. 7:13-14; Eph. 2:7; Phil'p. 2:10; Col. 1:20; Rom. 11:36; Rev. 21:8,27). Also worthy of consideration is the fact that GLORIFICATION happens to the saved only, so God would have to sustain the wicked FOR ALL ETERNITY (per Acts 17:25,28 and Col. 1:15-17) in order for them to undergo such perpetual concious torture!

This argument by WK involves an illicit exegetical jump. Sure, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but the wicked do indeed die, and that hardly means that the eschatological goal cannot be fulfilled: The goal is not God's "pleasure" but righteousness. The laundry list of verses afterwards are mostly inapplicable, or else fail to take into account that from a Jewish standpoint, harmony is achieved in the universe as long as things are in their proper place. So, if the wicked are in eternal torment, and that is where they belong, things are indeed reconciled in line with verses like Col. 1:20.
One final point here: "death" itself is cast into the Lake of Fire per Rev. 20:14. What is the result of this? ANSWER: "death" is DESTROYED (1 Cor. 15:26), i.e., "death" is "no more," having "passed away" per Rev. 21:4. Now, why would we believe that it would be any different with anything else cast into that same "Lake of Fire"?

A little Greek and context goes a long way! The word in 1 Cor. 15:26 -- which is in a passage that has to do with resurrection and physical bodies, not eternal issues -- means "be voided, abolished, rendered idle". In other words, physical bodies will no longer die. It is an exegetical jump to connect this "death" with the "death" of Rev. 20:14, although it is probable that physical death is an aspect of the "death" of Revelation. One way or another, this says nothing either way about eternal, conscious torment for the wicked, and if anything, works in favor of it.
|

It's Not Fair! : Outcries Against Eternal Punishment

Other than those we have already noted above, there are a few extra-scriptual arguments, mostly "by outrage", that have been called to the fore against eternal punishment:

1. The "finite sins" argument. In our reply to D terp wiz, it was pointed out (following Anselm) that eternal punishment is justifiable on the grounds that any sin against an infinitely holy God amounts to requiring an infinite price. In reply critics argue that finite sins should not require an infinite price, but in terms of actually explaining why, all that is offered is incredulity. Pinnock [Cro.4VH, 39], for example, in between ad hominems and cheap psychological sessions, gushes forth: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution?" No, it isn't clear at all, and Pinnock offers no reason to think so. In response to the argument above re an infinite price, he only argues that while this argument "worked" in the Middle Ages, it "will not work as an argument today" (Is truth told by the calendar? Is it dependent upon our reception of it?) because:
We do not accept inequality in judgments on the basis of the honor of the victim, as if stealing from a doctor is worse than stealing from a beggar.

 

[createdtoworship]

We see now, at least, where Robert Price derives his analogical impairments from. To compare any human, doctor, beggar, or plumber, with the infinite holiness of God is ludicrous to say the least.
2. The unhappy saints argument. This argument asks: How can those who make it into eternal joy be happy knowing that the unsaved are locked forever into eternal torment? It's another heartbreaker, but one suggests that we will, at that point, see things exactly as God sees them -- and realize the justness of the condemnation.
3. The spirit of the belief argument. Williamson [Will.EDEP, 3ff] devotes much space to arguing that Christianity's "spirit of love and kindness" operates against eternal punishment, and cites specifically the parable of the lost sheep and that of the Prodigal Son as indicating a more universalist position. But he fails to note that the lost sheep parable specifies that "lost sheep" is compared to one who repents -- and that the Prodigal Son had to return to the Father, and was welcomed upon his return.
4. The namecalling arguments. Finally, there are those last-ditch attempts to sway by emotion which include comments like this from Pinnock and Shaw [Cro.4VH, 88; Shaw.LAD, 74ff]: Eternal punishment means "God is a sadistic torturer", God is a loser in the battle for souls, etc. In response, I can only say that all who choose Hell, do so of their own will. God "tortures" no one; they have selected their fate; hell is "a condition brought upon the sinner by his persistent self-will" [Chan.LH, 29] -- they won't like the darkness, but they hate the light even more. C. S. Lewis rightly said that the doors of Hell would be locked from the inside!

|

Blow Out the Candle: Verses Used in Favor of Annihilationism

There is a small set of verses that have been used to support annihilationism. Here we will look at those.

* Is. 65:17 "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
* Rom. 8:19-23 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

It is argued that since these verses (and others) indicate that the entire universe will be in harmony, then it is impossible that a place like Hell could exist where there would be creatures stored who are not in harmony with God, or that there is any possibility that God will "lose" the battle for souls [Bern.FH, 212; Will.EDEP, 70; Shaw.LAD, 74ff]. But Crockett points out [Cro.4VH, 63] that this is imposing our modern view of what constitutes "harmony" on a text written prior to our time. Within an ancient Jewish context, so long as the wicked were "put in their place," so to speak, then harmony is achieved; it is only when they are "out running loose" that things are considered unharmonious. Furthermore, one might just as well argue that annihilation equates with disharmony, for it "means the unmaking of free, created agents (and)...the taking away of that freedom which defines the structure of the moral relationship between God and man." [Chan.LH, 27]
* Matt. 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn."

Verses like this one, which refer to a destiny of fire, are often called upon in support, for it is reasoned that fire annihiliates what it consumes. But this is not true: Fire does not destroy matter, but converts it to another form [Blan.WHH, 230 -- note that this is not a question of God's capability to annihilate matter, as some suggest; Fudg.FTC, 431], and moreover, it is presupposed that the substance of what is in the fire is such that it is indeed annihilated, which begs the question of what actually happens. And in this particular case, if it is argued that the analogy should be taken to the furthest extent possible, then the righteous will be ground up and made into bread!

It should be pointed out again as well that in terms of earthly parallels, there is no perpetual fire on earth that contains objects that are never consumed by the fire. Our writers are after all constrained by what images they had available!
* Matt. 5:26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Amazingly, this verse is used by annihilationists (and also universalists) to suppose that at some point the person might "pay the last penny" and "get out of jail"! Such an argument fails to account for the reality of debtor's prison: In such cases, barring intervention, the person never pays the last penny, because they can't get out of prison to make money to pay the debt! If this happened a relative would have to get you out by selling their own land, which is where any analogy to eternity breaks down. (Fudge [Fudg.FTC, 165] supposes that since death releases someone from prison, then this verse can still support annihilation; but Jesus never says, "you will not get out until you die" -- and could not say it, because the problem again is the lack of an earthly parallel to an eternal prison. No other metaphor is available!)
* Finally, Pinnock [Cro.4VH] uses a number of verses that refer to corruption, death, or perdition for the wicked (Matt. 3:10, 12; 1 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:28; Rom. 1:32, 6:23; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3; 3:37; Heb. 3:6-7, 10:39) that either do not specify any sort of time frame or else refer to judgments on earth. But in not one case do these verses indicate anything like annihilation.

|

Conclusion

The doctrine of eternal punishment, though seldom mentioned in Scripture, seems quite clearly Scriptural, even if it does happen to be unpopular. Admittedly one can play with the data and claim that some unsaid condition or twist on the language applies to the text; but given the social background data and the agreement of the early church on this subject, one must conclude that it is extremely unlikely that the NT can be read any differently. When it comes down to reading things into the text, I have found that both sides of this issue have done some "fudging" -- but it is the annihilationists who have the bigger plate of brownies by far.

To close, a personal word. When critics like Pinnock and Shaw fudge the data and then accuse proponents of holding their position so that they can carry the "ultimate big stick" [Cro.4VH, 39; Pinn.DFI, 246; Shaw.LAD, 78] to threaten people with, or say that the early church only adopted the view to stem heresy and get some comfort out of persecution, or inject emotion into the issue and claim to be quite proud of having done so, they are not only engaging in cheap psychoanalysis, they are also being extremely unhelpful. In 18+ years as a Christian I have not once wielded this "stick" in anyone's face; many people in my own family reject Christianity in part because of someone else in my family who did wield the bat of eternal punishment. How then does Pinnock suppose that I have come to believe this doctrine? One must face the fact that eternal punishment is taught in the Bible, and deal with it. Whether you choose to do so with acceptance, or my means of paste and scissors, is up to you. Exegeting it out of existence is not a viable option.
|

Sources

1. Barr.BWT - Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. SCM Press, 1962.
2. Bern.FH - Bernstein, Alan E. The Formation of Hell. Cornell U. Press, 1993.
3. Blan.WHH - Blanchard, John. Whatever Happened to Hell? Crossway, 1995.
4. Buis.DEP - Buis, Harry. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957.
5. (Remaining source cites mysteriously lost...contact me if references are needed. And while you're at it, get me a ballpeen hammer for my A drive...)




I GUESS I COULD HAVE POSTED THE LINK BUT TO LATE NOW:



HERE IT IS

Annihilation Refuted Part 2

 

[BobRyan]

I have studied this text extensively, firstly the witchcraft is never condoned, it is simply used by God

In this case God would have to CAUSE one of His dead saints to come at the beck and call of a witch - to make it appear that the witch - the servant of satan - was making valid claims about her powers over dead saints. Her powers to bring up anyone she wished.

He would have to CAUSE the event where the Prophet speaks to Saul on behalf of God even though Scripture ITSELF says that such a thing had been strictly forbidden by God.

And when 1Chron 10:13 reports on this the text says that in going to the WITCH Saul made God "his enemy" by the mere act of going to her with the request "CONJURE UP for me whomever I ask".

Christians that appeal to this witch's claims AS IF God Himself is the power "behind the witch" giving her power over dead saints to violate the word of God at every step -- are mistakenly making Satan's argument for him.

in the same way the lie of rahab was used by God to save Israel

Rahab had the ability to lie - in real life - and could do so without God giving her supernatural ability.

The witch had no power at all to conjure up dead saints - all she could do was to be duped by her own familiar spirit who would also dupe the unwitting guests into believing she had that power.

The text itself sets the context saying that those who work with familiar spirits to call up the dead were an abomination to God and were under death sentence AND the text tells us that God strictly forbade any of HIS prophets to talk to Saul which is why Saul had to resort "to a witch" as if Satan could "Get around God".

Rahab's example is not one of trying to "get around God".

Secondly, there was a legitimate prophecy given from the mouth of samuel, one last prophecy to reveal to saul who would be the next king, and that name was even given. All this came to pass exactly as foretold. So if this was just some witches trick , why did God allow a prophecy to be foretold?

By this time Samuel had already anointed David as king - and by going to the witch Saul had fully cut himself off from God as even 1Chronicles 10 points out. Satan knew that. His servant - his familiar spirit and the witch were working together with what Satan already knew.

By contrast the text says that when it came to GOD's OWN prophets -- (so not witches and demons) -- God forbade THEM to minister to Saul, or to speak to Him at all. This is what the text says itself.


One of the dangers to this whole idea of inventing a Bible doctrine about "an immortal soul of man" (a statement never found in all of scripture) is that it leads to appeals to prayers to the dead or conjuring up the dead by witches as IF this was something God was working to cause to happen so as to honor and fulfill the false claims of the witches.

That is the clue for the bible student that you are wayyyy down the wrong road once you have to make those kinds of arguments.

By contrast God said "The living know that they will die -- but the dead know not anything" Eccl 9:5 "in that very day their thoughts perish" Ps 146:4 -- no wonder then both Christ and the Sadducees are in agreement on the point "god is NOT the God of the dead" Matt 22.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Elijah never died - according to 2Kings 2.

Moses was resurrected by the time of Matt 17 according to Jude 7's reference to the book "The Assumption of Moses".

Another dead end for your argument from the Bible.
​

often quoting Jewish apocryphal pseudepigraphica? Bad habit for theologians, just do a google search for "problems with pseudepigrapha."

Secondly, there is a reason why those books were left out of the Bible.

Thirdly, you say "another dead end for your argument from the Bible" but you quote extra biblical sources. How nice.

1. Jude is the one quoting from the pseudepigraphica in Jude 7 - not me. Your argument is with him.

2. You do not seem to object to the fact that Elijah is taken directly to heaven in 2Kings 2 even though you just argued that he was dead in Matt 17.

Your resulting problem is that you make no distinction between the bodily appearance of the dead (as you claim Moses to be in Matt 17) and the living who never died at all - as the Bible says about Elijah in 2Kings 2 and as we see him in Matt 17.

Thus you wipe out every argument there ever could be for the resurrection.

Secondly you turn Matt 17 into yet another seance - another case of conjuring up the dead - so that now in your model both God and the devil are at work -- such that God helps the devil do it in 1Sam 28 and God himself does it in Matt 17 without resurrection - just conjuring up the dead.

Better to stick with the Bible details where Jude affirms events in the book "the Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7 such that no seances are going on here at all.

Notice that even in the parable of Luke 16 it is asserted that the dead would need to be resurrected if they want to speak to or minister to or warn the living about something.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 22 your entire argument is shot in the foot because

1. in that chapter Christ argues that the PROOF of the future resurrection lies in the fact that God is NOT the God of the dead.

2. Christ is arguing that the ONLY way God could claim to be the God of Abraham at any point after Abraham dies - is for there to be a future resurrection.

His argument is based on the soul-sleep-state of the saints in death because without it - God could NOT claim to be the "God of the dead WITHOUT a future resurrection"

this argument makes no sense at all. God is the God of abraham, and since Abraham is with God right now,

Again you just shot your own argument in the foot.

Look at the details in Matt 22 - it is NOT a case of Christ being asked to "prove that Abraham is alive with God right now" rather Christ himself says "REGARDING THE RESURRECTION" - it is a debate about the PROOF of the future resurrection.

Your response above shows that the man-made-idea of life IN death in a kind of immortal-soul model gets AROUND the need for a future resurrection because God can be the god of the dead by virtue of the fact that the dead are in fact alive with GOD NOW - no need at all for a future resurrection.

By contrast - IN THE TEXT - we find that the Sadducees were faced with their own accepted view that God is NOT the god of the dead - and in full agreement with that point it was proven to them that therefore there MUST be a future resurrection if God is claiming to Moses (long after Abraham had died) that God was the God of Abraham.

The NT points out that the Pharisees accepted the resurrection and were well known to debate with the Sadducees on this point - yet THEY see that the Sadducees were put to silence by Christ's irrefutable argument FOR THE RESURRECTION.

You took the way out that is much expected -- which totally denies the need of resurrection at all - undoing Christ's entire argument for IT!

Surely this is a clue for the Bible student reading Matt 22 and forced to re-evaluate his man made assumptions about immortal soul of man.

God is not the God of the dead anymore. Even before ANY resurrection has taken place at all! l

Again - you shoot your own argument by pointing out that your view would totally undo Christ's entire argument for the resurrection.

[FONT=&quot]28 ""In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.''
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, ""[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 ""For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
31 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But regarding the resurrection of the dead[/FONT][FONT=&quot], have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
32 " I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He is not the God of the dead but of the living[/FONT][FONT=&quot].''
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
34 But when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees[/FONT][FONT=&quot], they gathered themselves together.[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

The Luke 16 parable:

1. praying to the dead has Abraham as the Sovereign of all saints in heaven.

2. To Abraham alone is the prayer and plea made.

3. From Abraham alone comes the response that he will not permit someone to be resurrected.

3. Notice however that in that parable the agreed upon point is that CONTRARY to the 1Sam 28 claims of the witch - the ONLY way that the dead can minister to the living is for one of them to be resurrected!!

4. Notice that the moral of the parable is NOT the praying to the dead is the thing to do - or that Abraham is really in charge of all dead saints. Rather in Luke 16 the moral of the parable is stated at the end "if they will not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen though one were to rise from the dead".


​

oh yeah and how many parables name a specific name

That is not the criteria for parables as we see in Judges 9:8-12.

We cannot simply make up rules - in this case the details of Abraham as sovereign over all dead saints and the prayers to the dead "details" are so blatant that even our immortal-soul believing Bible scholars are quick to point out that this is a parable.


Note that in the example in Judges of the trees going out to elect a king -- there is no "this is a parable" prefix.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[createdtoworship]

In this case God would have to CAUSE one of His dead saints to come at the beck and call of a witch - to make it appear that the witch - the servant of satan - was making valid claims about her powers over dead saints. Her powers to bring up anyone she wished.

He would have to CAUSE the event where the Prophet speaks to Saul on behalf of God even though Scripture ITSELF says that such a thing had been strictly forbidden by God.

And when 1Chron 10:13 reports on this the text says that in going to the WITCH Saul made God "his enemy" by the mere act of going to her with the request "CONJURE UP for me whomever I ask".

my questions are two fold. Did rahab lie for israels armies? And secondly was she STILL in Christs' lineage and honored as such? So God not only used her, He rewards Her!

AND is placed in Hebrews Hall of faith FOR HER LIE!

Hebrews 11:31
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
Christians that appeal to this witch's claims AS IF God Himself is the power "behind the witch" giving her power over dead saints to violate the word of God at every step -- are mistakenly making Satan's argument for him.

Rahab had the ability to lie - in real life - and could do so without God giving her supernatural ability.

The witch had no power at all to conjure up dead saints - all she could do was to be duped by her own familiar spirit who would also dupe the unwitting guests into believing she had that power.

The text itself sets the context saying that those who work with familiar spirits to call up the dead were an abomination to God and were under death sentence AND the text tells us that God strictly forbade any of HIS prophets to talk to Saul which is why Saul had to resort "to a witch" as if Satan could "Get around God".

Satan asked for supernatural ability to destroy Job, and God gave it!

Necromancy is a supernatural ability as is levetation and spirit channeling that is been given to satan, I am unsure if He asks permission every time in using it, or a one time deal but no power satan has is without God's allowance. Also I point to revelation 20-21 when satan is released, God had a perfect world, why let the demon out of the bag? Because it was God's way of granting evil it's chance to tempt the righteous. This is the same thing. It's a temptation to lie when we read about rahab, it's a temptation to do witchcraft when we hear this account. But it doesn't mean God doesn't allow the evil one to tempt us to make us stronger.

Rahab's example is not one of trying to "get around God".

she could have trusted that God would send angels to protect israel! But she lied.

By this time Samuel had already anointed David as king - and by going to the witch Saul had fully cut himself off from God as even 1Chronicles 10 points out. Satan knew that. His servant - his familiar spirit and the witch were working together with what Satan already knew.

Saul was still king however, and the Davidic Kingdom was not accepted in any one's eyes.....still a prophecy none the less. Secondly why didn't God condemn the false prophet if it was just satanic?

By contrast the text says that when it came to GOD's OWN prophets -- (so not witches and demons) -- God forbade THEM to minister to Saul, or to speak to Him at all. This is what the text says itself.

but why didn't God condemn the false prophet samuel if it was just satanic?

One of the dangers to this whole idea of inventing a Bible doctrine about "an immortal soul of man" (a statement never found in all of scripture) is that it leads to appeals to prayers to the dead or conjuring up the dead by witches as IF this was something God was working to cause to happen so as to honor and fulfill the false claims of the witches.

thats a strawman fallacy

That is the clue for the bible student that you are wayyyy down the wrong road once you have to make those kinds of arguments.

thats a poisoning the well fallacy

By contrast God said "The living know that they will die -- but the dead know not anything" Eccl 9:5 "in that very day their thoughts perish" Ps 146:4 -- no wonder then both Christ and the Sadducees are in agreement on the point "god is NOT the God of the dead" Matt 22.

so now God is on the same side as legalists huh? Nice

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 23:43 – Jesus says the malefactor will be in paradise with him “today”.

Luke 23
-- The thief's request "Remember me WHEN you come in your kingdom"

-- Jesus' reply "Verily I say to you today you WILL be with me in paradise"

Jesus says in John 20:17 on the day of His resurrection "do not touch me for I have not YET ascended to My Father" -- He had not yet gone to paradise on the day of His resurrection.

most interpret Christ having decended to the lower parts of the earth to abrahams bosom and having let captivity captive.

Best to stick with the Bible. There are only three texts in all of scripture that mention paradise and not one of them says that "paradise is in Abraham's bosom" nor do any of them say that "Paradise is the grave" or any such thing.

Rather Paul tells us that "Paradise is in the third heaven" 2Corinthians 12:2-4 and that it is where the Tree of Life is (Rev 2:7) these are the only two reference points in all of scripture for the mention of "Paradise" that you find in Luke 23.

As you point out - man-made-traditions have a long string of non-Bible ideas that they wish to use to get around these Bible texts - but here again is such a simple case. Just 3 texts. No possibility of lousing it up with man made traditions.

Also remember all the old testament saints that resurrected when Christ resurrected? Why do that if christ hadn't yet proclaimed the good news to them about the cross?

1. Christ did not proclaim the good news to anyone while he was in the grave - in fact when HE arose from the dead He would not even let Mary touch him - until after He had been to His Father - up in the third heaven.

2. In John 8 Christ claims "Abraham saw my day and was glad" and in Galatians 3 Paul says the Gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham.

3. In Heb 4:1-2 Paul says that the "Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to them also".

In 1Cor 10 Paul says they all drank from the same spiritual Rock and that Rock is Christ.

In Hebrews 11 - the OT saints are displayed as the giants of faith - and as you just pointed out - in Matt 17 both Elijah and Moses are WITH CHRIST -- before He dies. And in your thinking they are both dead so I am not sure how this Matt 27 reference gets you to the idea that they needed more Gospel preached to them before they could be in that relationship with Christ - pre-cross.

Your view creates a contradiction in the verse "today you will be with me in paradise" a direct contradiction.

Not so -- the thief places the context in the future so also does Christ leave it there.

Luke 23
-- The thief's request "Remember me WHEN you come in your kingdom"

-- Jesus' reply "Verily I say to you today you WILL be with me in paradise"

So now with some punctuation it is even clearer --

Luke 23
-- The thief's request "Remember me WHEN you come in your kingdom"

-- Jesus' reply "Verily I say to you today, you WILL be with me in paradise"

Christ's point in saying it "Today" is that this was the low point for him - at the hour when He was treading the winepress alone - rejected by God and suffering as our substitute - even then - He could give the promise of eternal life.

As Peter said in 1Peter 1:13 NT saints "Fix their hope completely on the grace to be brought to us AT the revelation of Jesus Christ"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 – Paul explains that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

There is not ONE text in all of scripture that says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." -- no not even one....no not even in 2Cor 5:6-10.

INSTEAD of that - Paul says in 2Cor 5 that there are THREE states of man - the first one is alive in this decaying tent.
The second is is - unclothed -- no tent at all.
The third one is at the resurrection where we get an immortal body "made in the heavens" - an eternal one.

HE says he would like to BE absent from the present decaying tent (body) AND TO BE present with the Lord in that eternal heavenly body that is given at the resurrection. But Paul does not say "To be absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord" -- not even once in all of scripture.

that was a typo, it should say "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the lord" that IS in the Bible in the KJV

Indeed - but you quoted it the way many popular preachers re-write it -- as 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 – Paul explains that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

You will hear this text the wrong way far more often than the right way - and that is because there is such a huge difference they cannot afford to let it read as it does - the edit is required to make their point that at the very moment that we are in the unclothed absent from body state -- then at that instant we are at home with the lord for TO BE absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord.

It is a very powerful statement in their favor when quoted incorrectly.

Paul insists in 2Cor 5:1-8 that there are three states of man - the first one being clothed in this decaying tent.

the decaying shell is seen in 2Cor 4
2Cor 4:
14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,
18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.



14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,

The contrast between that decaying tent and the heavenly body that is given at the 2nd coming and resurrection (as stated already to the Corinthians - in 1Cor 15) is seen here -

2Cor 5:1

For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

(NASB)


Call it decaying "house" if you prefer.

Paul argues that we look forward to the day when God will provide our new eternal body - in the heavens -- the one already described in 1Cor 15 as given to the saints at the resurrection.

So in the state of soul-sleep the "dead know not anything" Eccl 9:5 not even the passing of time. And for the person who dies -- it is a moment until they are at the 1Cor 15 resurrection where as Paul says in 1Thess 4 "The dead in Christ rise first".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[he-man]

In Matt 22 your entire argument is shot in the foot because 1. in that chapter Christ argues that the PROOF of the future resurrection lies in the fact that God is NOT the God of the dead.
2. Christ is arguing that the ONLY way God could claim to be the God of Abraham at any point after Abraham dies - is for there to be a future resurrection.His argument is based on the soul-sleep-state of the saints in death because without it - God could NOT claim to be the "God of the dead WITHOUT a future resurrection" Again you just shot your own argument in the foot.
Look at the details in Matt 22 - it is NOT a case of Christ being asked to "prove that Abraham is alive with God right now" rather Christ himself says "REGARDING THE RESURRECTION" - it is a debate about the PROOF of the future resurrection.
Your response above shows that the man-made-idea of life IN death in a kind of immortal-soul model gets AROUND the need for a future resurrection because God can be the god of the dead by virtue of the fact that the dead are in fact alive with GOD NOW - no need at all for a future resurrection.

By contrast - IN THE TEXT - we find that the Sadducees were faced with their own accepted view that God is NOT the god of the dead - and in full agreement with that point it was proven to them that therefore there MUST be a future resurrection if God is claiming to Moses (long after Abraham had died) that God was the God of Abraham.

The NT points out that the Pharisees accepted the resurrection and were well known to debate with the Sadducees on this point - yet THEY see that the Sadducees were put to silence by Christ's irrefutable argument FOR THE RESURRECTION.

You took the way out that is much expected -- which totally denies the need of resurrection at all - undoing Christ's entire argument for IT!

Surely this is a clue for the Bible student reading Matt 22 and forced to re-evaluate his man made assumptions about immortal soul of man.

Again - you shoot your own argument by pointing out that your view would totally undo Christ's entire argument for the resurrection.

[FONT=&quot]28 ""In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 But Jesus answered and said to them, ""[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]30 ""For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But regarding the resurrection of the dead[/FONT][FONT=&quot], have you not read what was spoken to you by God:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32 " I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He is not the God of the dead but of the living[/FONT][FONT=&quot].''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 But when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees[/FONT][FONT=&quot], they gathered themselves together.[/FONT]

Absolutly, that is why it says they had not yet received the promises

Hebrews Chapter 11 v13
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Rahab had the ability to lie - in real life - and could do so without God giving her supernatural ability.

The witch had no power at all to conjure up dead saints - all she could do was to be duped by her own familiar spirit who would also dupe the unwitting guests into believing she had that power.

The text itself sets the context saying that those who work with familiar spirits to call up the dead were an abomination to God and were under death sentence AND the text tells us that God strictly forbade any of HIS prophets to talk to Saul which is why Saul had to resort "to a witch" as if Satan could "Get around God".

Satan asked for supernatural ability to destroy Job, and God gave it!

God did not give Satan any power in Job 1 and 2 that he did not already have - and God did not grant any super powers to the witch -- nor did God grant any super powers to Rahab so she could lie.

All them used their existing abilities to do what they did. In the case of the witch of Endore - she used a familiar spirit's ability to "mutter and peep" as the bible says.

Necromancy is a supernatural ability

No it is not. God is not going around granting anyone the power to communicate with the dead - because the dead know not anything. neither does God grant the wooden idols of the pagans - super powers.

God is not in the business of making Satan's realm of deception "appear to work".

In Job 1 Satan does NOT complain that God "failed to give Satan powers" but rather that God has set a hedge a wall about Job and Satan with all of his supernatural power cannot get passed it.

Very different from "please grant me some super powers so I can do damage".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

my questions are two fold. Did rahab lie for israels armies? And secondly was she STILL in Christs' lineage and honored as such? So God not only used her, He rewards Her!

That an unsaved person can choose to use their own real abilities in a way that serves God is not in question.

That God is in inclined to supernaturally enable witches and satanists to make it appear that their deceptive false claims are legit - is not even remotely a teaching of scripture.

The text of 1Sam 28 states explicitly that God chose not to allow His prophets to speak to Saul - so there is no way to then argue "except through witches given the power over dead saints".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 22 your entire argument is shot in the foot because

You took the way out that is much expected -- which totally denies the need of resurrection at all - undoing Christ's entire argument for IT!

Surely this is a clue for the Bible student reading Matt 22 and forced to re-evaluate his man made assumptions about immortal soul of man.



[FONT=&quot]28 ""In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.''
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, ""[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 ""For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
31 "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But regarding the resurrection of the dead[/FONT][FONT=&quot], have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
32 " I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He is not the God of the dead but of the living[/FONT][FONT=&quot].''
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
34 But when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees[/FONT][FONT=&quot], they gathered themselves together.[/FONT]

In true effective debate style tactic - Jesus finds common ground (The truth that God is not the god of the dead) and then leads the Sadducees to truth on the subject of the resurrection.

so now God is on the same side as legalists huh? Nice

God is not the God of the dead anymore. Even before ANY resurrection has taken place at all! l

Again - you shoot your own argument by pointing out that your view would totally undo Christ's entire argument for the resurrection.

This is the ONE time in all of scripture where Christ stoops to actually engage in point by point debate such that he silences His opponents.

He choose the subject of the state of the dead and the future resurrection.

Those who want to cling to man made traditions about men having immortal souls should flee Matt 22 like the plague because here is where Christ lays it out for us and it is not a pretty picture for the immortal-soul man-made tradition. There is no way to cling to that error and still have in Matt 22 "irrefutable proof of the future resurrection" to a Sadducee. It is totally impossible!

No wonder scholars like John Stott totally gave that up!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Call it decaying "house" if you prefer.

Paul argues that we look forward to the day when God will provide our new eternal body - in the heavens -- the one already described in 1Cor 15 as given to the saints at the resurrection.

So in the state of soul-sleep the "dead know not anything" Eccl 9:5 not even the passing of time. And for the person who dies -- it is a moment until they are at the 1Cor 15 resurrection where as Paul says in 1Thess 4 "The dead in Christ rise first".


in Christ,


Bob

Bob,

1 Sam 28 - Saul wickedly has Samuel summoned from the dead - someone forgot to tell the writer of this OT book and apparently Saul that the dead are unaware because Saul talks with Samuel.

Luke 16, - Rich man and Lazarus - , someone forgot to tell Jesus that the dead are unaware.

Matt 17, Mar 16, Luke 9 - Transfiguration - Either someone forgot to tell the Apostles the dead are unaware, or they lied about what they saw - or the Three Apostles obviously forgot to tell the Gospel writers that the dead are unaware when they recounted this story. In that last case it would be unclear how the "unaware" dead could be talking to others.

Matt 27, - Dead rose and walked around the city - you would think if they were unaware zombies that the writer would have mentioned it when he wrote that they "appeared" to many.

In fact my understanding is that in most zombie encounters it is more proper and usual to be described not as the person "appearing" but that "it" just looks like them. Also makes it easier to blow it's heads off.

Rev 5 - in Saint John's vision the Saints offer prayers of saints to God - someone forgot to tell the Apostle John that the dead are unaware - else he would not have depicted them doing something interactive with others,

 

[LutheranMafia]

Moses was resurrected by the time of Matt 17 according to Jude 7's reference to the book "The Assumption of Moses".
​

You've completely lost me. How does the following refer to The Assumption of Moses?

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7
​

Thus you wipe out every argument there ever could be for the resurrection.

Jesus' resurrection? This is so non-sequiter that you sound dissociative.

Secondly you turn Matt 17 into yet another seance - another case of conjuring up the dead - so that now in your model both God and the devil are at work -- such that God helps the devil do it in 1Sam 28 and God himself does it in Matt 17 without resurrection - just conjuring up the dead.

"God helps the devil do it", that is an extremely contrived strawman. Your characterization of the opposing argument is polemic and intellectually dishonest.

Better to stick with the Bible details where Jude affirms events in the book "the Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7 such that no seances are going on here at all.

Better to stick with some non-Biblical book that I've never heard of? How convincing!

Notice that even in the parable of Luke 16 it is asserted that the dead would need to be resurrected if they want to speak to or minister to or warn the living about something.

This is an utterly distorted characterization of verse 31. Verse 31 says nothing of the sort. All it says is that the living will not listen to the dead about salvation, nothing more.

 

[LutheranMafia]

3. Notice however that in that parable the agreed upon point is that CONTRARY to the 1Sam 28 claims of the witch - the ONLY way that the dead can minister to the living is for one of them to be resurrected!!
​

That is entirely false, this is not stated anywhere in Luke 16. All that is stated is:

"if they will not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen though one were to rise from the dead".

Your first statement in red is not in any way supported by the second statement in red, which is all that genuinely comes from the Bible.

That is not the criteria for parables as we see in Judges 9:8-12.

We cannot simply make up rules - in this case the details of Abraham as sovereign over all dead saints and the prayers to the dead "details" are so blatant that even our immortal-soul believing Bible scholars are quick to point out that this is a parable.

Even if it is a parable, your argument is like saying that because the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable, that Samaritans never really existed. Your argument is that if it is a parable then it is not real. To my mind that is simply holding the Bible in contempt, dismissing it whenever you don't like what it says. Are you also saying the Lazarus and the rich man never existed? Your logic works the same here, it's a parable so it must all be just a silly fantasy. What a respectful way to approach the Bible!

 

[LutheranMafia]

No it is not. God is not going around granting anyone the power to communicate with the dead - because the dead know not anything. neither does God grant the wooden idols of the pagans - super powers.

If it is impossible then why forbid it? If it is a deception and not in fact communication with the dead, then why doesn't the Bible specifically say that anywhere? It makes no sense to forbid a non-existent deception and then never once specify what the reality of the deception is, nor ever even clearly state that it is a deception.