Comments on: Biblical Anthropology and the Mind-Body Debate, Part 1 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/ Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:00:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Travis Love http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-2785 Travis Love Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:53:00 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-2785 Most translations says Saul "perceived" it to be Samuel because Saul had to ask the witch what SHE say not Saul. He could not have fully known, plus like I said, even if I accepted the premise, the prophecies were not all fulfilled. Most translations says Saul “perceived” it to be Samuel because Saul had to ask the witch what SHE say not Saul. He could not have fully known, plus like I said, even if I accepted the premise, the prophecies were not all fulfilled.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-2774 MSH Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:59:29 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-2774 Saul identified him as Samuel. Saul identified him as Samuel.

]]> By: Travis Love http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-2751 Travis Love Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:52:05 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-2751 @MSH I would have to contend with the part of Samuel actually being him. Because it says when she saw "samuel" that she saw an old man in a robe but does not say it is him or any real specific quality of the real person. Plus assuming I accept the premise that it was in fact Samuel, this brings up problems. One, it would be admitting that witches have the power in themselves to raise "spirits". Two, if God was the one raising Samuel "for His glory" as some commentaries put it, God would be violating His own law against associating with necromancers. Three if it was Samuel speaking, and speaking to the woman as she was the mediator. Samuel then would be breaking the commandments thus sinning after death and revoking any rights to "paradise". Four, Samuel in life was a true prophet and spoke for the Lord, but this "spirit" could not have been one because in fact ALL the prophecies in which it spoke did NOT come to pass. In 2 Sam. 2:8 we find that one of Saul's son's lived and became king for a short time. If this "Samuel" was speaking the words of God, they ALL would have come to pass. @blop I am not a JW, and I also take the view that the Greek doesn't have comma's. The fact you feel the statement "truly, truly, I tell you today..." to be logically ridiculous is not a valid argument against it. It would make Jesus a liar if we take the sentence the traditional way, because Christ did not defeat death for another three days. Thus being the first fruits of the dead (for example's sake). As a side note, as far as I am aware "paradise" is always attributed to an earthly garden; namely Eden. @MSH I would have to contend with the part of Samuel actually being him. Because it says when she saw “samuel” that she saw an old man in a robe but does not say it is him or any real specific quality of the real person. Plus assuming I accept the premise that it was in fact Samuel, this brings up problems.
One, it would be admitting that witches have the power in themselves to raise “spirits”. Two, if God was the one raising Samuel “for His glory” as some commentaries put it, God would be violating His own law against associating with necromancers. Three if it was Samuel speaking, and speaking to the woman as she was the mediator. Samuel then would be breaking the commandments thus sinning after death and revoking any rights to “paradise”. Four, Samuel in life was a true prophet and spoke for the Lord, but this “spirit” could not have been one because in fact ALL the prophecies in which it spoke did NOT come to pass. In 2 Sam. 2:8 we find that one of Saul’s son’s lived and became king for a short time. If this “Samuel” was speaking the words of God, they ALL would have come to pass.

@blop I am not a JW, and I also take the view that the Greek doesn’t have comma’s. The fact you feel the statement “truly, truly, I tell you today…” to be logically ridiculous is not a valid argument against it. It would make Jesus a liar if we take the sentence the traditional way, because Christ did not defeat death for another three days. Thus being the first fruits of the dead (for example’s sake). As a side note, as far as I am aware “paradise” is always attributed to an earthly garden; namely Eden.

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1594 MSH Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:47:04 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1594 @Ken Hamrick: I'll have a look; I'll be returning to the mind-body thing this weekend. @Ken Hamrick: I’ll have a look; I’ll be returning to the mind-body thing this weekend.

]]> By: Ken Hamrick http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1586 Ken Hamrick Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:33:01 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1586 Many of the usual problems with traducianism have been solved. I've recently written an article refuting Turretin that might interest you: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/content.php?40-Turretin-on-Traducianism-Refuted Many of the usual problems with traducianism have been solved. I’ve recently written an article refuting Turretin that might interest you:
http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/content.php?40-Turretin-on-Traducianism-Refuted

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1463 MSH Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:29:46 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1463 <p>@Lisa:</p> you're welcome! @Lisa:

you’re welcome!

]]> By: Lisa http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1460 Lisa Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:09:08 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1460 Mike, thanks so much for your reply. I hope you understood in my initial post, I was stating that I do NOT understand all this in a scholarly way (at all)...hence why I posted. It seems to me that we lose much by only reading one version of the Bible. I wish I knew Hebrew (the older one - pictographs I think it's called - would be really amazing to learn) so I could delve into the texts like you do. But alas, I'm in no position to learn it so I'll have to rely on the Holy Spirit to show me some of the finer points in thought/reasoning that you speak about in your response to me. I have been investigating the difference between Hellenistic thinking and the Hebrew mindset....very different to each other! Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I'm going to try and digest it now! lol YHWH bless you brother! Mike, thanks so much for your reply. I hope you understood in my initial post, I was stating that I do NOT understand all this in a scholarly way (at all)…hence why I posted.

It seems to me that we lose much by only reading one version of the Bible. I wish I knew Hebrew (the older one – pictographs I think it’s called – would be really amazing to learn) so I could delve into the texts like you do. But alas, I’m in no position to learn it so I’ll have to rely on the Holy Spirit to show me some of the finer points in thought/reasoning that you speak about in your response to me. I have been investigating the difference between Hellenistic thinking and the Hebrew mindset….very different to each other!

Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I’m going to try and digest it now! lol
YHWH bless you brother!

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1458 MSH Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:33:31 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1458 @blop2008: I can't find this - ? @blop2008: I can’t find this – ?

]]> By: blop2008 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1450 blop2008 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:30:50 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1450 Mike: Ok. Now what about Jonathan Molina's question regarding the punctuation in Luke 23:43? Mike:

Ok. Now what about Jonathan Molina’s question regarding the punctuation in Luke 23:43?

]]> By: MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/01/biblical-anthropology-and-the-mind-body-debate-part-1/#comment-1440 MSH Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:03:22 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=541#comment-1440 <p>@blop2008:</p> Christ spent three days in the grave (= "heart of the earth"). During that time, he also descended to that part of hell where the spirits are imprisoned (cf. the OT and later Jewish theology of where the original offending sons of God are imprisoned). This place, I would suggest, is not terrestrial (on planet), but is a cosmic geographical term. It was thought by ancients to be deep within the earth because it was considered to be the polar opposite of where God is (up - way up). @blop2008:

Christ spent three days in the grave (= “heart of the earth”). During that time, he also descended to that part of hell where the spirits are imprisoned (cf. the OT and later Jewish theology of where the original offending sons of God are imprisoned). This place, I would suggest, is not terrestrial (on planet), but is a cosmic geographical term. It was thought by ancients to be deep within the earth because it was considered to be the polar opposite of where God is (up – way up).

]]>