Was it really the spirit of Samuel that talked with King Saul or something else?

GingerBeer · Nov 2, 2019

mmksparbud said:
The bible says she is a medium. It says we are not to talk to the dead, it says having a familiar spirit is punishable by death

All that is true yet Saul did not punish the medium with death, Samuel did speak to Saul, and Saul died as per the prophetic message delivered by Samuel to Saul in the Medium's presence.

GingerBeer · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
Again, it was written from the character's perspective.

So you say. The author doesn't say anything like that. The story is written as the story teller intended. No fake is mentioned. Samuel did speak to Saul according to the story.

GingerBeer · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
If you believe one word in the Bible is in error, then it is all false, and not true.

Then believe what the story says. "Then Samuel said to Saul" if one of those words is in error you say the whole bible is in error. Samuel said to Saul, believe it or abandon the scriptures is the choice you put before yourself. Make your decision.

Kilk1 · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;" (1 Chronicles 10:13) (KJV).

"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;" (1 Chronicles 10:13) (AKJV).

"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;" (1 Chronicles 10:13) (WBT).

"So Saul died for his trespass against the Lord [in sparing Amalek], for his unfaithfulness in not keeping God’s word, and also for consulting [a medium with] a spirit of the dead to inquire pleadingly of it," (1 Chronicles 10:13) (AMPC)

"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;" (1 Chronicles 10:13) (BRG)

This is something I never have considered before. It seems some translations see this as a reference to the medium, while others see this as saying what the medium conjured up was a false spirit. Because the passage in which this takes place directly says that "Samuel" is the one who was there, I still lean on the Samuel side. However, I'm currently open to this other interpretation. If 1 Chronicles 10:13 teaches that it wasn't Samuel, it would seem to be pitting itself against the passage itself which does say Samuel was the one.

mmksparbud · Nov 2, 2019

GingerBeer said:
All that is true yet Saul did not punish the medium with death, Samuel did speak to Saul, and Saul died as per the prophetic message delivered by Samuel to Saul in the Medium's presence.

No, Saul had a problem with obedience to God. It was not Samuel but an apparition from Satan, and Satan can get some things right and it was a pretty sure bet, having talked to a medium and to the dead, that Saul would die in the battle---anyone could have seen that one coming! Mediums are known to get on average anywhere from 25-75% of their predictions right. Only God gets 100%.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 2, 2019

Kilk1 said:
This is something I never have considered before. It seems some translations see this as a reference to the medium, while others see this as saying what the medium conjured up was a false spirit. Because the passage in which this takes place directly says that "Samuel" is the one who was there, I still lean on the Samuel side. However, I'm currently open to this other interpretation. If 1 Chronicles 10:13 teaches that it wasn't Samuel, it would seem to be pitting itself against the passage itself which does say Samuel was the one.

It is not foreign of Scripture to speak from the perspective of the characters or things involved. Here is a clip from an article that explains this.

"A writer can show a character’s views and perceptions either in that character’s own words (direct speech) or in a focalized narration (free indirect speech), but the effect is very similar. Even if the character’s views and perceptions are wrong, the dependable, reliable biblical narrator has the flexibility to use focalization when it suits a purpose, such as letting the reader enter a character’s “mind and . . . secret motives or ‘participate in the experience with the protagonist.’”70 These shifts in point of view can be marked by the use of hinneh (“behold”),71 but also “verbs of perception (‘to see,’ ‘to hear,’ ‘to know’) can be important indicators of specific focalizations,” though “the context is decisive.

This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to reflect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm.

Similarly, in the En-Dor scene the narrator first focalizes to the medium’s point of view using a verb of perception: “And the woman saw Samuel” (28:12). No doubt that was her perception. Twice Saul asks what she sees, and twice she tells him, the second time zooming in on a detail that he asked about (28:13-14a). Then the narrator then focalizes to Saul using a verb of perception: “Saul knew/perceived that it was Samuel.” A verb of seeing would not be appropriate because Saul did not see anything, but had to ask the woman what she saw (28:13-14), and his perception was provided by what she told him. For example, he identifies Samuel by her description of his clothing (28:14), which seems too trusting when Saul has just disguised himself using other clothing (28:8). Then, in Saul’s perception, Samuel speaks to him, Saul answers, and Samuel speaks again. No doubt this is what he perceived to be happening, but then he fell to the ground and nothing more was exchanged."

Source used:
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=auss

Think of it like when a person says the seen their dead loved one. Did they really see their dead love one? Perhaps it was only a dream? Perhaps it was an evil spirit masquerading as their love one? Perception does not = reality always. Remember, Satan can appear as an angel of light and he can deceive (See 2 Corinthians 11:14).

I hope this helps;
And may God bless you today.

mmksparbud · Nov 2, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Then believe what the story says. "Then Samuel said to Saul" if one of those words is in error you say the whole bible is in error. Samuel said to Saul, believe it or abandon the scriptures is the choice you put before yourself. Make your decision.

And what are you going to believe---the bible or what a medium can do?

Ecc_9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Job 7:9 As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.
Job 7:10 He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.

The Righterzpen · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, the other stuff is not worth mentioning, but I do disagree with this statement, friend.

"And I certainly agree with the point the article made that the demonic world has no authority over the saints." ~ The Righterzpen.

Will you still disagree when I've explained my point here? (We'll see. A test of your maturity maybe?) I suspect you are a bit hasty to say you disagree with someone; before you actually absorb and understand what they are saying.

(Thus the comment: "The other stuff is not worth mentioning."

Because, there's no Scriptural basis to disagree with the hypothesis that this demonic entity (which could conceivably actually have been Satan himself) would call himself "the name of god"; which is what the name "Samuel" means.

So... I'm giving you a bit of an admonition to exercise patience and read carefully.

The point the article made, (from the study you quoted) which was the basis I'd made this statement, in the context of a witch allegedly calling up Samuel; was that the demonic world had not the power to raise the saints from what ever local they are in, post death. (Depending on which side of the atonement in earthy time one is talking about; i.e. one from "Abraham's bosom", or one from "paradise" in heaven / "the new Jerusalem", or what ever the reference may be.)

One who is within the kingdom of Satan does not have the authority or power to order an action from someone in the kingdom of God; because that person has been translated out of the kingdom of Satan. Which is true regardless of whether or not that saint is dead or alive.

Satan may desire and attempt to get a saint to do something; but he has no power or authority to cause that action.

Colossians 1:13
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Now I'm assuming here, you would not disagree with this verse?

One of the references you quoted was the book of Job. Note though in the passage that you quoted; Who ultimately gave Satan the authority to bring to pass all the calamity that transpired upon Job's possessions?

Bible Highlighter said:
12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

So the fact that Job's children died in these disasters; was solely in the power of God. Job himself acknowledges that one's life span is in the authority of God's hand; and therefore acknowledging that God is actually the One who took his children; not Satan.

Job 14:5
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Other Scripture acknowledge this too.

...nor is He [God] served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor He made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and He allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.
(Acts 17:25,26)

Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)

Our God is the God of salvation; and to God the LORD belongs escapes from death. (Psalm 68:20)

My times are in Your hand; deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors. (Psalm 31:15)

Another passage you quoted was Luke 22:31; (which now has me curious to research this passage to see what it really means). We need the entire context though.

Luke 22:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

Now of my curiosity to know what this verse means; I looked it up. Satan has "desired" (demanded / or begged for) you (Peter) that he may "sift" (to throw into the air that the chaff fly away) Satan assuming that all Peter's convictions are only "chaff" and that this sifting process will overthrow Peter.

Remember though the conversation Peter and Jesus had when Jesus asked him "Who do you say I am?" Peter says: "You are the Christ; the son of the living God" Jesus responds to this with: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter's conviction came from the Father. Keep that in mind; because that is important in the context of this passage!

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Now this is a fascinating verse! Jesus says He's petitioned (the Father) on Peter's behalf that his "faith" (faith, belief, fidelity - as to put trust in something) "fails" (ceases) not; and when you are "converted" (to turn, to return, most often in the context of returning to God. This is almost akin to the concept of repentance; although repentance is to turn away from sin.) strengthen your brethren.

Now note Peter's response:

33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

Peter is reacting out of an emotional response to all this discussion about Jesus being killed. Note Jesus is not speaking in reference to, or questioning whether or not Peter is emotionally attached to Him. He's letting Peter know that Satan is trying to overthrow Peter's belief (trust) that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter has religious zeal, but does he have security of faith? That is the test he will be put too.

There is another verse that references those who try to take the kingdom (of God) by force; which is what Peter is reacting too. (You leaders trying to kill the only hope we really have; because we know this man is come from God. You yourselves know this and we know you know this, because as Nicodemus, an authority of your own council has declared: "We know you come from God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him.")

Peter also lacks understanding of what's really going on; (Christ is not here to set up a political kingdom) but I think Jesus has come to a certain realization at this point, as to why they "just don't get it". They have been set to "slumber" because of the magnitude of what's going on; and also the fact that Jesus understands He has to endure this alone.

So Peter is convinced that he is willing and will die for the kingdom of God. Jesus is explaining to Peter (in a round about way) that at this point and at this time; you won't and you can't.

34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

So was Peter "sifted"? In a certain respect "yes"; yet in the final answer "no". (If he had been "sifted" to the point of "failure of faith"; he would have died.) Peter was a dude with a Marine Corps "Semper fi" mentality. He had the guts, willingness and conviction to die; but for the sake of his own eternal security; God allowed his courage to fail him. So ultimately it wasn't "faith" that failed Peter; (faith actually comes from God - as demonstrated in this situation by what Jesus said to Peter) because Jesus interceded for him on that behalf; but it was Peter's human courage that failed.

Was Peter afforded a glimpse into the reality of the profound darkness that Jesus faced in the task of accomplishing the atonement? My guess here is "yes"; because the nature of that darkness really had to do with the wrath of God. Many men stand against the wiles of satanic evil, to the cost of their own lives; but no sinners' courage stands to the wrath of God!

Which again; who (or WHO) is ultimately in charge of the... "narrative".

Bible Highlighter said:

One cannot turn aside after satan if they are already in his grip.

Click to expand...

Which is true; but why are they "in his grip". Let's take a look at these other passages you quoted.

Bible Highlighter said:
"and do not give the devil a foothold." (Ephesians 4:27).

If you are instructed not to give him foot hold; does he have the authority or power to take it?

Bible Highlighter said:
"Put on all of God’s armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil." (Ephesians 6:11).

The metaphor used here is warfare. Saints are dawning armor that's both offensive and defensive. The different pieces of armer referred to, are given metaphoric symbols: (the girdle of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, feet shod with the gospel, the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit.) These are tools of preparedness to fight a war. Later on, I'll explain what the war really constitutes.

Regardless though; that asked of you as a soldier? The rules of who's army do you follow. Who's command are you under? Who has the final authority and power in your life?

Hint: it's not your enemy.

Bible Highlighter said:
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (1 Peter 5:8).

Now this begs the question of whom can Satan devour? Can Satan ultimately devour someone who is not in his kingdom? (He can attack them, (or actually counter attack) yes; but can he devour them?) Think about that theologically. If Satan had the power to devour at his own will; he'd be more powerful than God.

Bible Highlighter said:
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
15 For some are already turned aside after Satan." (1 Timothy 5:14-15).

If they have already turned aside after Satan; were they really in God's kingdom to begin with? Now I realize this opens a whole other series of theological questions to be hashed through. These questions more turn on an individual's understanding of salvation; God's sovereignty and their role in the Kingdom.

Bible Highlighter said:
"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Corinthians 2:11).

Let's take a closer look at this verse. To "get advantage of" does not mean rule of domain or authority over. If you are taken prisoner in a war; you are still subject to the regulations of your own military.

So what does this verse mean?

"to get advantage of" is also translated "to defraud", "make a gain" on or "get advantage". If we were to put this verse in the context of a battle; it would be as the enemy has gained some ground that you once held. This does not necessarily mean that he has captured any of your soldiers; but that he has taken towns that you once occupied.

The context of this, in this letter, has to do with persecution and the truth of the gospel being proclaimed. Now they face adversity; both in form of physical persecution, as well as falsehood going forth which both come from "the enemy" (i.e. kingdom of Satan).

Now why is this adversity coming from the kingdom of Satan? Basically because "God will build His church and the gates of hell will not withstand."

Now a lot of people think that verse has to do with the church defending it's-self from Satan. That verse though is not couched in defensive language; its couched in offensive language. The "gates of hell" are not assailing the church. The church is assailing the gates of hell and plundering the kingdom of Satan; is what's actually happening.

God has ransomed His people from eternal punishment and He is "stealing" them back out of the kingdom of Satan. Satan aint happy about that; yet all this proves WHO ultimately has dominion!

So again; I make the statement "The demonic world has no authority over the saints".

Do you understand now why I made that statement and why it is correct?

Bible Highlighter said:
Heaven's War has a great message and some decent action and special effects for a Christian film. It uplifts the gospel in a really cool way, too. I think you will enjoy it.

PS - I watched this movie last night.

The basis of the plot line: (There is an incredible darkness in DC) is absolutely true. Don't know if you know what Q-Anon is but; if you are familiar with that "political phenomena", (it's a world wide movement actually) you'll know what I'm talking about.

Theological problems I saw in that movie:

Granted; I will say that the premise by which the movie was presented; is probably so because it would actually be more difficult to present it as it should be.

1. It's not the responsibility of angels to open anyone's eyes. That's the Holy Spirit's job.

2. That message (actually the message of redemption) does not come through angels.

3. The war is more an offensive war than it is a defensive war. I thought that movie put way too much emphasis on the alleged power of the kingdom of Satan. Its setting is a post resurrection scenario. Christ is now given all power and domaine. What does the war in the spiritual realm really look like? We do get some indications of that from the Scripture. The vision of Joshua when God allowed him to see the angelic armies who were also engaged in this very real material battle. The message was: "You've already won the victory; now go take the land". The vision of the "Valley of dry bones". They came to life and they are an exceeding great army. That army is the household of God.

So although I appreciate what the movie was attempting to show forth as far as the spiritual battle is a real one. It did so from "the wrong side". And if it had been presented from the correct perspective; it could have showed forth a much more powerful message as to how and why that victory was had.

4. It totally left out the sovereignty of God and presented with a skewed version of how someone actually becomes redeemed. The character's conversion was too "wooden" and too contrived. "I (this angel Gabriel) open the door and if you will just see....."

Well, redemption doesn't work that way. When God cuts the lights on; BOOM! the awakened sinner KNOWS THE LIGHTS ARE ON!

Side note here on Gabriel:
Do you know what Gabriel's name means? It means "God man". Do you know what a theophany in the Old Testament was? They were pre-incarnate physical manifestations of Christ.

The word "angel" is also translated "messenger" and sometimes by context of the Bible passage; we know that messenger is a human one.

Michael means: "Who most assuredly is God". So "Michael the arch-angel" is the "chief messenger" of the gospel. He's visionary theophany of Christ. Now is there actually a created angelic entity named "Michael" or one name "Gabriel"? Maybe / probably / seems reasonable to me; for if we have a demonic entity (or even Satan himself) who answers to "Samuel" (name of God / god); yeah, I can see faithful angelic entities bearing names of theophoric references to Christ.

Now seeing how Michael and Gabriel are depicted as "ranking" in the angelic host; that was another thing about the portrayal in the movie that just didn't cut it. Gabriel and Michael are pretty powerful entities!

So, for what ever my opinion of the movie is worth. LOL There it is.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 2, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Then believe what the story says. "Then Samuel said to Saul" if one of those words is in error you say the whole bible is in error. Samuel said to Saul, believe it or abandon the scriptures is the choice you put before yourself. Make your decision.

Yes, this was written from Saul's perspective.

Do you read the following verse as Dagon being a real god in the story?

"When the people of Ashdod got up early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on his face before the ark of the LORD. So they took Dagon and returned him to his place." (1 Samuel 5:3).

So based on this text, if we were to stick to your style of interpretation, Dagon would be a real person or being here that fell on his REAL face, and they took HIM (not an it or statue) to HIS place.

GingerBeer · Nov 2, 2019

I think I will leave the chat now. Have fun with soul sleep.

d taylor · Nov 2, 2019

mmksparbud said:
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Every angel mentioned in the bible has a male name. They were created as messengers of God, that is what the word angel means. God only allows sex within marriage, we neither marry nor given in marriage at the resurrection---which means no sex. What makes you think God would create billions of creatures, with the "equipment" to have sex, yet not give them a way to have it? He created all creatures on earth to reproduce and said for them to be fruitful and multiply, according to their kind---there is no instance anywhere where angels were given that command. They are not our kind. The bible says we were created lower than the angels. Even if they were to have the "equipment" for it, what makes you think a human female would be able to conceive for we are under the command---under our kind also. A woman can have sex with a dog---there will be no human/puppies.
Not to mention that fallen angels have no respect for the rules of God in heaven, why would they have respect for God's command to "marry"---they wouldn't have bothered to marry anyone, they'd just take them and the bible has no qualms about stating when that happens. It is not biblical, nor does it make sense logically. It means fallen--it means mighty---mighty fallen --Men of God who fell and married women who were not women of God. It is how the Jews read it and how the Targums read it.

." Giants were in the earth in those days; and also when, after that the sons of the mighty had gone in unto the daughters of men, there were born from them giants who from of old were men of name."

From the Targum of Onkelos. Look up Targums if you do not know what they are. Wether from the bible or from the
Targums---THEY WERE MEN. Not half/breed angels.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The verses you posted were about marriage nothing about reproduction in those verses.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 2, 2019

GingerBeer said:
I think I will leave the chat now. Have fun with soul sleep.

*Sigh*

I told you before I don’t believe in full head on soul sleep, friend.

Anyways, may God bless you.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 2, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
Will you still disagree when I've explained my point here? (We'll see. A test of your maturity maybe?) I suspect you are a bit hasty to say you disagree with someone; before you actually absorb and understand what they are saying.

(Thus the comment: "The other stuff is not worth mentioning."

Because, there's no Scriptural basis to disagree with the hypothesis that this demonic entity (which could conceivably actually have been Satan himself) would call himself "the name of god"; which is what the name "Samuel" means.

So... I'm giving you a bit of an admonition to exercise patience and read carefully.

The point the article made, (from the study you quoted) which was the basis I'd made this statement, in the context of a witch allegedly calling up Samuel; was that the demonic world had not the power to raise the saints from what ever local they are in, post death. (Depending on which side of the atonement in earthy time one is talking about; i.e. one from "Abraham's bosom", or one from "paradise" in heaven / "the new Jerusalem", or what ever the reference may be.)

One who is within the kingdom of Satan does not have the authority or power to order an action from someone in the kingdom of God; because that person has been translated out of the kingdom of Satan. Which is true regardless of whether or not that saint is dead or alive.

Satan may desire and attempt to get a saint to do something; but he has no power or authority to cause that action.

Colossians 1:13
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Now I'm assuming here, you would not disagree with this verse?

One of the references you quoted was the book of Job. Note though in the passage that you quoted; Who ultimately gave Satan the authority to bring to pass all the calamity that transpired upon Job's possessions?

So the fact that Job's children died in these disasters; was solely in the power of God. Job himself acknowledges that one's life span is in the authority of God's hand; and therefore acknowledging that God is actually the One who took his children; not Satan.

Job 14:5
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Other Scripture acknowledge this too.

...nor is He [God] served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor He made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and He allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.
(Acts 17:25,26)

Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)

Our God is the God of salvation; and to God the LORD belongs escapes from death. (Psalm 68:20)

My times are in Your hand; deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors. (Psalm 31:15)

Another passage you quoted was Luke 22:31; (which now has me curious to research this passage to see what it really means). We need the entire context though.

Luke 22:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

Now of my curiosity to know what this verse means; I looked it up. Satan has "desired" (demanded / or begged for) you (Peter) that he may "sift" (to throw into the air that the chaff fly away) Satan assuming that all Peter's convictions are only "chaff" and that this sifting process will overthrow Peter.

Remember though the conversation Peter and Jesus had when Jesus asked him "Who do you say I am?" Peter says: "You are the Christ; the son of the living God" Jesus responds to this with: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter's conviction came from the Father. Keep that in mind; because that is important in the context of this passage!

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Now this is a fascinating verse! Jesus says He's petitioned (the Father) on Peter's behalf that his "faith" (faith, belief, fidelity - as to put trust in something) "fails" (ceases) not; and when you are "converted" (to turn, to return, most often in the context of returning to God. This is almost akin to the concept of repentance; although repentance is to turn away from sin.) strengthen your brethren.

Now note Peter's response:

33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

Peter is reacting out of an emotional response to all this discussion about Jesus being killed. Note Jesus is not speaking in reference to, or questioning whether or not Peter is emotionally attached to Him. He's letting Peter know that Satan is trying to overthrow Peter's belief (trust) that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter has religious zeal, but does he have security of faith? That is the test he will be put too.

There is another verse that references those who try to take the kingdom (of God) by force; which is what Peter is reacting too. (You leaders trying to kill the only hope we really have; because we know this man is come from God. You yourselves know this and we know you know this, because as Nicodemus, an authority of your own council has declared: "We know you come from God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him.")

Peter also lacks understanding of what's really going on; (Christ is not here to set up a political kingdom) but I think Jesus has come to a certain realization at this point, as to why they "just don't get it". They have been set to "slumber" because of the magnitude of what's going on; and also the fact that Jesus understands He has to endure this alone.

So Peter is convinced that he is willing and will die for the kingdom of God. Jesus is explaining to Peter (in a round about way) that at this point and at this time; you won't and you can't.

34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

So was Peter "sifted"? In a certain respect "yes"; yet in the final answer "no". (If he had been "sifted" to the point of "failure of faith"; he would have died.) Peter was a dude with a Marine Corps "Semper fi" mentality. He had the guts, willingness and conviction to die; but for the sake of his own eternal security; God allowed his courage to fail him. So ultimately it wasn't "faith" that failed Peter; (faith actually comes from God - as demonstrated in this situation by what Jesus said to Peter) because Jesus interceded for him on that behalf; but it was Peter's human courage that failed.

Was Peter afforded a glimpse into the reality of the profound darkness that Jesus faced in the task of accomplishing the atonement? My guess here is "yes"; because the nature of that darkness really had to do with the wrath of God. Many men stand against the wiles of satanic evil, to the cost of their own lives; but no sinners' courage stands to the wrath of God!

Which again; who (or WHO) is ultimately in charge of the... "narrative".

Which is true; but why are they "in his grip". Let's take a look at these other passages you quoted.

If you are instructed not to give him foot hold; does he have the authority or power to take it?

The metaphor used here is warfare. Saints are dawning armor that's both offensive and defensive. The different pieces of armer referred to, are given metaphoric symbols: (the girdle of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, feet shod with the gospel, the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit.) These are tools of preparedness to fight a war. Later on, I'll explain what the war really constitutes.

Regardless though; that asked of you as a soldier? The rules of who's army do you follow. Who's command are you under? Who has the final authority and power in your life?

Hint: it's not your enemy.

Now this begs the question of whom can Satan devour? Can Satan ultimately devour someone who is not in his kingdom? (He can attack them, (or actually counter attack) yes; but can he devour them?) Think about that theologically. If Satan had the power to devour at his own will; he'd be more powerful than God.

If they have already turned aside after Satan; were they really in God's kingdom to begin with? Now I realize this opens a whole other series of theological questions to be hashed through. These questions more turn on an individual's understanding of salvation; God's sovereignty and their role in the Kingdom.

Let's take a closer look at this verse. To "get advantage of" does not mean rule of domain or authority over. If you are taken prisoner in a war; you are still subject to the regulations of your own military.

So what does this verse mean?

"to get advantage of" is also translated "to defraud", "make a gain" on or "get advantage". If we were to put this verse in the context of a battle; it would be as the enemy has gained some ground that you once held. This does not necessarily mean that he has captured any of your soldiers; but that he has taken towns that you once occupied.

The context of this, in this letter, has to do with persecution and the truth of the gospel being proclaimed. Now they face adversity; both in form of physical persecution, as well as falsehood going forth which both come from "the enemy" (i.e. kingdom of Satan).

Now why is this adversity coming from the kingdom of Satan? Basically because "God will build His church and the gates of hell will not withstand."

Now a lot of people think that verse has to do with the church defending it's-self from Satan. That verse though is not couched in defensive language; its couched in offensive language. The "gates of hell" are not assailing the church. The church is assailing the gates of hell and plundering the kingdom of Satan; is what's actually happening.

God has ransomed His people from eternal punishment and He is "stealing" them back out of the kingdom of Satan. Satan aint happy about that; yet all this proves WHO ultimately has dominion!

So again; I make the statement "The demonic world has no authority over the saints".

Do you understand now why I made that statement and why it is correct?

PS - I watched this movie last night.

The basis of the plot line: (There is an incredible darkness in DC) is absolutely true. Don't know if you know what Q-Anon is but; if you are familiar with that "political phenomena", (it's a world wide movement actually) you'll know what I'm talking about.

Theological problems I saw in that movie:

Granted; I will say that the premise by which the movie was presented; is probably so because it would actually be more difficult to present it as it should be.

1. It's not the responsibility of angels to open anyone's eyes. That's the Holy Spirit's job.

2. That message (actually the message of redemption) does not come through angels.

3. The war is more an offensive war than it is a defensive war. I thought that movie put way too much emphasis on the alleged power of the kingdom of Satan. Its setting is a post resurrection scenario. Christ is now given all power and domaine. What does the war in the spiritual realm really look like? We do get some indications of that from the Scripture. The vision of Joshua when God allowed him to see the angelic armies who were also engaged in this very real material battle. The message was: "You've already won the victory; now go take the land". The vision of the "Valley of dry bones". They came to life and they are an exceeding great army. That army is the household of God.

So although I appreciate what the movie was attempting to show forth as far as the spiritual battle is a real one. It did so from "the wrong side". And if it had been presented from the correct perspective; it could have showed forth a much more powerful message as to how and why that victory was had.

4. It totally left out the sovereignty of God and presented with a skewed version of how someone actually becomes redeemed. The character's conversion was too "wooden" and too contrived. "I (this angel Gabriel) open the door and if you will just see....."

Well, redemption doesn't work that way. When God cuts the lights on; BOOM! the awakened sinner KNOWS THE LIGHTS ARE ON!

Side note here on Gabriel:
Do you know what Gabriel's name means? It means "God man". Do you know what a theophany in the Old Testament was? They were pre-incarnate physical manifestations of Christ.

The word "angel" is also translated "messenger" and sometimes by context of the Bible passage; we know that messenger is a human one.

Michael means: "Who most assuredly is God". So "Michael the arch-angel" is the "chief messenger" of the gospel. He's visionary theophany of Christ. Now is there actually a created angelic entity named "Michael" or one name "Gabriel"? Maybe / probably / seems reasonable to me; for if we have a demonic entity (or even Satan himself) who answers to "Samuel" (name of God / god); yeah, I can see faithful angelic entities bearing names of theophoric references to Christ.

Now seeing how Michael and Gabriel are depicted as "ranking" in the angelic host; that was another thing about the portrayal in the movie that just didn't cut it. Gabriel and Michael are pretty powerful entities!

So, for what ever my opinion of the movie is worth. LOL There it is.

I will have to start other threads to address these other topics. I am also limited on time because of work. So I am not sure when I will be able to give you a proper reply to your comments on the verses I posted. Needless to say my quick assessment of what you wrote about the enemy vs the saints does not align with what the Scriptures plainly say and is pretty far out there in left field somewhere.

Kilk1 · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
It is not foreign of Scripture to speak from the perspective of the characters or things involved. Here is a clip from an article that explains this.

"A writer can show a character’s views and perceptions either in that character’s own words (direct speech) or in a focalized narration (free indirect speech), but the effect is very similar. Even if the character’s views and perceptions are wrong, the dependable, reliable biblical narrator has the flexibility to use focalization when it suits a purpose, such as letting the reader enter a character’s “mind and . . . secret motives or ‘participate in the experience with the protagonist.’”70 These shifts in point of view can be marked by the use of hinneh (“behold”),71 but also “verbs of perception (‘to see,’ ‘to hear,’ ‘to know’) can be important indicators of specific focalizations,” though “the context is decisive.

This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to reflect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm.

Similarly, in the En-Dor scene the narrator first focalizes to the medium’s point of view using a verb of perception: “And the woman saw Samuel” (28:12). No doubt that was her perception. Twice Saul asks what she sees, and twice she tells him, the second time zooming in on a detail that he asked about (28:13-14a). Then the narrator then focalizes to Saul using a verb of perception: “Saul knew/perceived that it was Samuel.” A verb of seeing would not be appropriate because Saul did not see anything, but had to ask the woman what she saw (28:13-14), and his perception was provided by what she told him. For example, he identifies Samuel by her description of his clothing (28:14), which seems too trusting when Saul has just disguised himself using other clothing (28:8). Then, in Saul’s perception, Samuel speaks to him, Saul answers, and Samuel speaks again. No doubt this is what he perceived to be happening, but then he fell to the ground and nothing more was exchanged."

Source used:
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=auss

Think of it like when a person says the seen their dead loved one. Did they really see their dead love one? Perhaps it was only a dream? Perhaps it was an evil spirit masquerading as their love one? Perception does not = reality always. Remember, Satan can appear as an angel of light and he can deceive (See 2 Corinthians 11:14).

I hope this helps;
And may God bless you today.

This is a side of the story I've never considered. I currently can see it either way, but thanks for showing this other side to me!

mmksparbud · Nov 2, 2019

d taylor said:
The verses you posted were about marriage nothing about reproduction in those verses.

Apparently you did not read the post. No sense in posting if you do not read the post is there?
IyIt is off topic and I will not dicuss further since you do not read the posts anyway.

d taylor · Nov 2, 2019

mmksparbud said:
Apparently you did not read the post. No sense in posting if you do not read the post is there?
IyIt is off topic and I will not dicuss further since you do not read the posts anyway.

I simple ask you to show a verse from the Bible showing that angles can not reproduce.
There is not one, so instead you gave me your opinion. Which i was not looking for opinions.

mmksparbud · Nov 2, 2019

d taylor said:
I simple ask you to show a verse from the Bible showing that angles can not reproduce.
There is not one, so instead you gave me your opinion. Which i was not looking for opinions.

If you can not figure out what Jesus meant by there is no marriage in heaven, we will be like the angels means---then I can't help you.

The Righterzpen · Nov 2, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
Needless to say my quick assessment of what you wrote about the enemy vs the saints does not align with what the Scriptures plainly say and is pretty far out there in left field somewhere.

Not sure why you say this; seeing how I pretty much just quoted you Scripture; but - I guess if you want to conclude that Satan is capable of getting the final say over God; that's your prerogative. Basically what you're disagreeing with boils down to one simple conclusion; either God is sovereign or He's not.

d taylor · Nov 3, 2019

mmksparbud said:
If you can not figure out what Jesus meant by there is no marriage in heaven, we will be like the angels means---then I can't help you.

You seem to not understand that angels are all male, of course they would not marry in heaven because there are no female angels to marry. But when the angels (fallen) left their domain and came to earth, they under a plan directed by satan. They sought after human flesh (women).
Jude:
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

If what you say in Genesis 6 was between human men and human women, why did this only produce male births. In any normal marriage between a human male and human female both sexes are birthed. But the marriage in Genesis 6 between the sons of God and human females produced only males, no females where born.

Eventually if that would have keep going, there would have been no female to bring the Messiah into the world.

You also keep emphasizing that these were mighty men. The nephilim, were men half angel men and half human men.

Is not the angel Gabriel a man. It says so in Daniel.
yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.

mmksparbud · Nov 3, 2019

d taylor said:
You seem to not understand that angels are all male, of course they would not marry in heaven because there are no female angels to marry. But when the angels (fallen) left their domain and came to earth, they under a plan directed by satan. They sought after human flesh (women).
Jude:
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

If what you say in Genesis 6 was between human men and human women, why did this only produce male births. In any normal marriage between a human male and human female both sexes are birthed. But the marriage in Genesis 6 between the sons of God and human females produced only males, no females where born.

Eventually if that would have keep going, there would have been no female to bring the Messiah into the world.

You also keep emphasizing that these were mighty men. The nephilim, were men half angel men and half human men.

Is not the angel Gabriel a man. It says so in Daniel.
yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.

So you believe God has given billions of angels the ability and desire to have sex and nobody to have it with? That's pretty cruel---no wonder they fell! As I said, even if they could, they are created higher than we are---they are not human, we are not their kind and we human women can not give birth to anything other than humans, that is a command from God that we can not override. Why would God even give these angels the equipment to have sex if there was nothing to have sex with? God does not do useless. It makes absolutely no sense.
Context:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It is saying there are men that have crept into the church that are ungodly. He then says to remember how God did not save the people that did not believe after He had taken them out of Egypt, but destroyed them. And the angels that left their 1st estate he has resrved for punishment. And Even Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner---it is the surrounding cities in like manner as Sodom and Gomorrah that went after strange flesh---not the angels. It was not only Sodom and Gomorrah that were destroyed, but the surrounding cities also.

As for only men, doesn't matter for they were a patriarchal society and only men were important. Females were only mentioned when needed for the story. Same thing can be said if it was angels that fathered these guys for females were involved and whether men or angels---there would ordinarily have been females. Why would the angels have produced only males? And there are, according to scripture---some angels with wings---no offspring with wings were mentioned. I am not the one that keeps calling the Nephilim men---0the bible does.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Nowhere where these people called anything other than men. Not half angels, not mixed men, just men.

Gabriel is an angel, as such, he has a male name. And? He is not up there having sex with anyone, nor is he down here having sex with anyone. Angels can appear as human. That doesn't mean they are men, they appear as men. As when they appeared to Lot. They were angels, but appeared as men. When angels appear as themselves, without veiling themselves----men have a tendency to fall flat on their faces and even faint from the sight.
They have been in the presence of God and their light we can not endure. Even with Moses, just being with God, His face would shine so bright that the Jews pleaded with him to veil himself for they could not look upon him.
God did not destroy mankind to protect the bloodline---God very clearly says why they were destroyed---

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

I already quoted the Targum of Onkelos---it says MEN. not half breeds of some sort.

Was it really the spirit of Samuel that talked with King Saul or something else?

Was it really the spirit of Samuel that talked with King Saul or something else?

Yes. It really was the spirit of Samuel.

No. It was a demon.

No. The witch was merely lying.

I don't know.

Other. Please explain.

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads