King Saul - heaven or hell??

[smaller]

And you base that very personal opinion on what?
At the time of Saul and Samuel, the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life had not yet been revealed.

Eternal life was trotted out in Gen. 2:9

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I will point out once again that any prophet of God would NOT have placed any emphasis on the grave, or just physical death."

And you base that very personal opinion on what?

The real question is WHY would any prophet of God emphasize placement of the body when they KNOW where their soul will be after death? Please answer that.

At the time of Saul and Samuel, the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life had not yet been revealed.

I've already refuted that from Heb 11:26, and v.27 doesn't refute what v.26 says.

There was a universal, extra-Biblical, belief that the spirit continued after the death of the body. That belief is not the equivalent of the Biblical teaching of eternal life.

Such a view then removes any sense of needing salvation in the life after death. So please how one of those early OT people got saved if they knew nothing of the soul and and afterlife.

(1) He didn't refer to Moses and the prophets when speaking to the pharisees about eternal life. There is no such scripture.

Please consider: John 5:39-40
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. NIV

Apparently you're not aware of much Scripture. By "Scriptures", Jesus WAS referring to Moses and the prophets.

(3) There is absolutely no evidence in scripture that Moses had any conception of eternal life.

Then explain what Heb 11:26 means.

The promise to Israel for keeping the Law was that they would "live long and prosper" in the land which God gave them. (Deu 5:33; 11:8-9) But there was absolutely no suggestion of eternal life.

Without life after death, there would be no need for salvation. Which doesn't make any sense to me, or a whole lot of others.

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked this:
"Then cite the post #s to show this confusion."

Pick practically anything you have posted.

This kind of cop-out response to a question about actual evidence only shows the fact that there isn't any evidence.

If such could be found in "practically anything" I've posted, then it would have been VERY EASY to cite a few posts to prove your claim.

But an empty claim cannot be proven or even defended when there is no evidence.

Do you really think that no one could easily see through that dodge?
Please just answer the question instead of trying to dodge it.
Yes, English is a second language for me.
No, English is not a second language for me.
pick one[/QUOTE]
I'll remind you of what I said in post #72:
"I'll wait to answer AFTER evidence is provided to show this so-called confusion that you've noted."

You've dodged my challenge. So why should I respond to your condescension?

 

[FreeGrace]

And which direction would Saul go to be with Samuel?
And which direction would one go to be with Jesus?

Until Jesus went to Sheol and personally took all believers with Him to the Father (in heaven), no OT believer was "with Jesus". So the comment about "direction" is irrelevant.

The only point was that Saul went to be with Samuel, where he was after physical death.

 

[Sinthesis]

The real question is WHY would any prophet of God emphasize placement of the body when they KNOW where their soul will be after death? Please answer that.

Nobody is talking about placement of the body. 'The Grave' is synonymous with Sheol. 'In Death' is synonymous with Sheol. We know from 1Samuel 31 what happened to Saul's body, and it wasn't with Samuel's.

Until Jesus went to Sheol and personally took all believers with Him to the Father (in heaven), no OT believer was "with Jesus". So the comment about "direction" is irrelevant.

The only point was that Saul went to be with Samuel, where he was after physical death.

So now you know that Sheol is not Heaven. Sheol is where disembodied souls are kept: no corpses. What you don't know is if Jesus has since taken both Samuel and Saul to Heaven. So this particular argument doesn't support OSAS.

 

[Jim Parker]

ANd exactly were was Samuel?

OOOPS!
That's WHERE was Samuel, not "were was Samuel." :dunce

 

[Jim Parker]

You've dodged my challenge. So why should I respond to your condescension?

I asked you if English was a second language for you and you dodged it by demanding an answer to another question before you would answer.
Go to the playground if you want to play games.

 

[FreeGrace]

Nobody is talking about placement of the body. 'The Grave' is synonymous with Sheol. 'In Death' is synonymous with Sheol. We know from 1Samuel 31 what happened to Saul's body, and it wasn't with Samuel's.

Are you familiar with how many "compartments" there are in Sheol? And which compartment Samuel went to? And which compartment Saul went to?

So now you know that Sheol is not Heaven.

I've always known that.

Sheol is where disembodied souls are kept: no corpses.

Again, are you familiar with the various compartments in Sheol?

What you don't know is if Jesus has since taken both Samuel and Saul to Heaven. So this particular argument doesn't support OSAS.

What I do know is that Saul was WITH SAMUEL.

Let me ask this simple and straightforward question.

In the account of a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus, in which Lazarus died first, would it be said that the rich man was WITH Lazarus when he died afterward?

I look forward to your answer.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"You've dodged my challenge. So why should I respond to your condescension?"

I asked you if English was a second language for you and you dodged it by demanding an answer to another question before you would answer.
Go to the playground if you want to play games.

It is your responses that are quite childish.

 

[JohnDB]

Are you familiar with how many "compartments" there are in Sheol? And which compartment Samuel went to? And which compartment Saul went to?


I've always known that.


Again, are you familiar with the various compartments in Sheol?


What I do know is that Saul was WITH SAMUEL.

Let me ask this simple and straightforward question.

In the account of a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus, in which Lazarus died first, would it be said that the rich man was WITH Lazarus when he died afterward?

I look forward to your answer.

OK...

Just to clarify...

Are you now claiming that there was a Mythology about Sheol?

 

[FreeGrace]

OK...

Just to clarify...

Are you now claiming that there was a Mythology about Sheol?

I'm always glad to clarify. I never consider mythology when discussing Scripture. I see no point in it.

I hope Sinthesis explains his understanding of Sheol.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm always glad to clarify. I never consider mythology when discussing Scripture. I see no point in it.

I hope Sinthesis explains his understanding of Sheol.

OK but it's really necessary.
The Bible was written in a time in world history when paper, pen, and ink were very expensive. No one sent letters but instead sent messengers to relate information.
So when the Bible was written a lot of "known" information was left out of the writing. Mostly "commonly known" information such as anthropology and customs as well as geography. All the "of course" stuff usually included today that we don't give a second thought about writing down was left out then.
It makes the stories in the Bible seem rather flat and without depth that is required to make a riveting story today.
But if you actually know the anthropology and sociology and geography the stories become rich and colorful and fantastic.

Which is why hermeneutics is a blend of art and science and not just linguistics to determine what the Bible says and why it says what it says in the manner it says it in.

Which is why the discussion keeps centering (for several of us who have looked at this discussion) around the mythology of Sheol.

 

[smaller]

OK but it's really necessary.
The Bible was written in a time in world history when paper, pen, and ink were very expensive. No one sent letters but instead sent messengers to relate information.
So when the Bible was written a lot of "known" information was left out of the writing. Mostly "commonly known" information such as anthropology and customs as well as geography. All the "of course" stuff usually included today that we don't give a second thought about writing down was left out then.
It makes the stories in the Bible seem rather flat and without depth that is required to make a riveting story today.
But if you actually know the anthropology and sociology and geography the stories become rich and colorful and fantastic.

Which is why hermeneutics is a blend of art and science and not just linguistics to determine what the Bible says and why it says what it says in the manner it says it in.

Which is why the discussion keeps centering (for several of us who have looked at this discussion) around the mythology of Sheol.

I detest the methods you propose above. They are championed by many, but a certain guy, N.T. Wright, because he has umpteen degrees in history, makes the same claims above, forcing the scriptures to be run through anthropology and history filters.

I find such postures generally worthless and limited by man, sifting. When anyone says we really can't understand the Bible unless we have a properly degreed historian tell us what it really means, PASS.

Anyone who knows anything about history knows that any analysis of same is entirely subjective according to the academics applying their forms of sifters.

 

[FreeGrace]

OK but it's really necessary.
The Bible was written in a time in world history when paper, pen, and ink were very expensive. No one sent letters but instead sent messengers to relate information.
So when the Bible was written a lot of "known" information was left out of the writing. Mostly "commonly known" information such as anthropology and customs as well as geography. All the "of course" stuff usually included today that we don't give a second thought about writing down was left out then.
It makes the stories in the Bible seem rather flat and without depth that is required to make a riveting story today.
But if you actually know the anthropology and sociology and geography the stories become rich and colorful and fantastic.

My view is that the Holy Spirit knew exactly what to write to communicate just what God wanted all generations to understand.

I cannot imagine that mythology was involved in any way in the writing of Scripture.

Which is why the discussion keeps centering (for several of us who have looked at this discussion) around the mythology of Sheol.

If mythology were true, where did that truth come from? God Himself. The claim has been made that people before Christ had no concept of life after death until the writings of Daniel, which was around 400 BC.

But that can't make sense. The whole issue of salvation is BASED on the after life. That would mean that God made no provision for salvation or how to obtain it before Daniel's writings. That would lead to the conclusion that no one could have had eternal life until Daniel's writing.

But since the author of Hebrews wrote 11:26 and what Moses was looking ahead to, we know that view cannot be right.

 

[JohnDB]

I detest the methods you propose above. They are championed by many, but a certain guy, N.T. Wright, because he has umpteen degrees in history, makes the same claims above, forcing the scriptures to be run through anthropology and history filters.

I find such postures generally worthless and limited by man, sifting. When anyone says we really can't understand the Bible unless we have a properly degreed historian tell us what it really means, PASS.

Anyone who knows anything about history knows that any analysis of same is entirely subjective according to the academics applying their forms of sifters.

2Peter 1:5-9 would seem to disagree with you on this.

 

[smaller]

2Peter 1:5-9 would seem to disagree with you on this.

There is worldly wisdom and there is spiritual wisdom. They are not the same genre, nor do they mix well, if at all.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

People who believe they can make Gods Word bow down before their historical analysis are only fooling themselves.

 

[JohnDB]

My view is that the Holy Spirit knew exactly what to write to communicate just what God wanted all generations to understand.

I cannot imagine that mythology was involved in any way in the writing of Scripture.


If mythology were true, where did that truth come from? God Himself. The claim has been made that people before Christ had no concept of life after death until the writings of Daniel, which was around 400 BC.

But that can't make sense. The whole issue of salvation is BASED on the after life. That would mean that God made no provision for salvation or how to obtain it before Daniel's writings. That would lead to the conclusion that no one could have had eternal life until Daniel's writing.

But since the author of Hebrews wrote 11:26 and what Moses was looking ahead to, we know that view cannot be right.

I understand completely. But that's where all this study comes into play.
The Old Covenant was very different in function from the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant If a person followed the Law then God would bless them in finances, children, wives and respect amongst his friends. Job is an example of this (before he lost and after his pleas)

That was what God promised them...and to former slaves this was more than enough.

Where God never promoted this notion of Sheol (similar to the Greek mythology of Hades but not the same) He did find it a handy reference to convey principles and clarity... kinda like using a star wars reference to convey a truth.

Imagine a person who only can earn the equivalent of $20 a year...that's the best they can ever hope for.
If you offered them $100 to wash your car they would be suspicious...and if you gave it to them they would be incredulous... overjoyed beyond reason would be an understatement. The car would always be shiny. The guy would threaten anyone who dared even breathe on the car. His whole family would come and help protect the cars cleanliness... probably some neighbors too.

But if you offered this guy a million dollars they would have no understanding of what you were giving them. It wouldn't compute in their heads. It's beyond their understanding. And the car would be dirty...and stay that way.

This is the same thing as what God really offers us with Heaven. As Americans we can comprehend such wealth....we live in a wealthy country. But God is still offering us more... Heaven. (But I'm digressing)

So this is the reason why God didn't reveal everything to the Hebrew slaves...it was beyond what they could comprehend. As former royalty Moses may have had a notion of what was in store...but the average person he ruled over couldn't stand to even hear God's voice. They wanted Moses to speak to God for them. God scared them to death...they knew that they weren't"good enough" to even have a conversation with God. (If only we had more attitudes similar today)

So...yes. that's why we study. That's why we imagine ourselves in other people's lives...to understand why the Bible says what it says. It's not to change it...it's to fully understand it.

 

[Sinthesis]

Are you familiar with how many "compartments" there are in Sheol? And which compartment Samuel went to? And which compartment Saul went to?

Again, are you familiar with the various compartments in Sheol?

Please enlighten us, with scripture.

In the account of a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus, in which Lazarus died first, would it be said that the rich man was WITH Lazarus when he died afterward?

Yes. Both dead in Sheol awaiting resurrection. One likely comforted in anticipation of resurrectionand judgment because of his faith in God, the other likely tormented in anticipation of resurrection and judgement. Until Jesus finished His redemptive work, nobody was saved in the way that salvation for all was made possible by Christ's work. They were simply held captive until they would be freed by Christ. This is why Samuel and Saul can't be used to promote OSAS. They couldn't be saved until Jesus' resurrection defeated death.

... And wasn't Saul a rich man?

 

[Jim Parker]

I said this:
"You've dodged my challenge. So why should I respond to your condescension?"
It is your responses that are quite childish.

OK.
If you say so.
But, you still have not answered my question; you're still dodging and playing games instead of being forthright with a simple yes or no answer.
So what? Who cares? It don't mean nuthin'.

 

[Jim Parker]

Are you familiar with how many "compartments" there are in Sheol?

I like the music department.
Got my eye on a Les Paul.