Witch of Endor

[Monterrey]

Who were these?

Acts 2:29 Peter is claiming that David is still in the grave so not him.

Who then were they?

[Monterrey]

In Daniel 12:13 God tells Daniel to go rest, to go to the grave, and wait for his lot to stand at the end of days.

To rest until he gets to stand with his lot? What does that mean? To stand with others of his Era? Of his nation? .....?

What is the standing and what is the lot?

When is the end of days? What days? Days of the old covenant?

Many questions this AM that I ponder on.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Who were these?

Acts 2:29 Peter is claiming that David is still in the grave so not him.

Who then were they?

I quite agree with you.
I personally do not think those that rose were the patriarchs of old, for several reasons.
The first being the scripture you posted, that David was still in the grave after the event.

Second, if Abraham, Isaac Jacob etc were in that group, surely scripture would have stated, but it only says, "many," but no identities mentioned, and perhaps lastly, how would those alive be able to know if the risen dead were in fact one of the patriarchs, as no one knew what they looked like, as there were no cameras and not even facebook to prove it was really them.

I think the best explanation would be, in that the graves were opened, it would have been some of the recent dead. (that's just my take on it)

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by Bowas

I quite agree with you.
I personally do not think those that rose were the patriarchs of old, for several reasons.
The first being the scripture you posted, that David was still in the grave after the event.

Second, if Abraham, Isaac Jacob etc were in that group, surely scripture would have stated, but it only says, "many," but no identities mentioned, and perhaps lastly, how would those alive be able to know if the risen dead were in fact one of the patriarchs, as no one knew what they looked like, as there were no cameras and not even facebook to prove it was really them.

I think the best explanation would be, in that the graves were opened, it would have been some of the recent dead. (that's just my take on it)

Be honest with you, this has fascinated me for some time. Yet we must acknowledge that this was the first mass resurrection mentioned.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Seriously? What does your Bible say in Matthew 27: 50-53?

How do you teach that, just wondering?

Who were those saints?

Definitely were Old Testament as the New was not in place yet because the day of Pentecost had not happened.

My question has always been... what happened to those saints who had experienced this resurrection?

How many of them were there? Definitely a lot because the Bible says MANY.

How do you teach this?

Oh, ok. Thought you meant resurrected into immortality. These were unnamed dead believers ("OT saints"). Not Patriarchs (who would recognize them? How?) and not resurrected into immortality. Rather, more like Lazarus' resurrection

I made a post awhile back about this. It has to do with Hymenaeus and the issue touched on in 2nd Thessalonians. I think Matthew may havè worded his account very specifically to refute the idea that THE Resurection had already occurred, as apparently some were teaching that.

Matthew 27:51-53 KJV
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; [52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, [53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

I'll try to find that discussion.

[Esaias]

Found one of my older posts:


1. The error of Hymenaeus, and the error among the Thessalonians, and one of the errors addressed in Hebrews ch 6, is due to the event described in Matthew 27:51-53
2. John 3:13 was written to combat those same errors
3. Matt 27:51-53 itself was written to combat the Hymenaean and Thessalonian error
4. The errors mentioned in 1 are that the resurrection had either already happened, or had already commenced.
5. The errors mentioned in 1 were due to reports circulating among certain Jews concerning the event described in Matt 27:51-53
6. Matt wrote a description of the event using particular language in order to both address the error that had developed as well as to CORRECT the error that had developed
7. If Matt 27:51-53 describes people resurrecting as immortal and glorified, then there is a series of major issues that develop regarding the textual integrity of Matthew, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and thus the entire Bible.
8. If Matt 27:51-53 describes people resurrecting as immortal and glorified, then there is a series of major issues that develop regarding the idea of apostolic unity, as it would then become apparent that Pauline Christianity (and likely Johannine Christianity) and Matthean Christianity were at odds concerning a major doctrine about resurrection.

[Monterrey]

Excellent, thanks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Samuel 28:11-12 KJV
Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. [12] And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

Why is everybody assuming she was "shocked"? And "frightened" by the apparent arrival of Samuel? It just says she cried out with a loud voice and was scared ABOUT THE FACT THAT HER CLIENT WAS SAUL. Nothing about being spooked by a ghost. Her crying with a loud voice just means she yelled. Looks to me like she was more upset about having Saul for a client than having Samuel for a seance.

She was scared that her client was Saul because she saw Samuel.

Again, it is the writer of the scripture who is telling the reader it is Samuel.

Also sorry that I had not be here to answer these posts. I'm getting crazy busy.

I greatly appreciate you my brother.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Samuel 28:11-12 KJV
Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. [12]

And when the woman saw Samuel

, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

Why is everybody assuming she was "shocked"? And "frightened" by the apparent arrival of Samuel? It just says she cried out with a loud voice and was scared ABOUT THE FACT THAT HER CLIENT WAS SAUL. Nothing about being spooked by a ghost. Her crying with a loud voice just means she yelled. Looks to me like she was more upset about having Saul for a client than having Samuel for a seance.

The narrator of 1st Samuel supposedly telling us the facts? He is relaying to the readers what is bolded in red? So, therefore we can only ascertain that the woman saw Samuel.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anyways, I think most here in the thread have agreed it was a vision. Maybe not agreeing on the source or purpose of the vision, but a vision nonetheless. (Saul wasn't seeing anything, the witch was.)

Which means yes it WAS Samuel... in the vision. Meanwhile Sammy is dead and resting until the resurrection.

Yes, exactly. That was another thing which may of blew her mind. That instead of speaking from her gut, bowel, stomach, she had a bonafide vision.

The ἐγγαστρίμυθος ἐν Αενδωρ as you pointed out, a ventriloquist, the Latin venterloqui. Which means to speak from your bowel, or stomach. The Greek in this case is Gastromancy, using stomach sounds as the voices of spirits. I guess our bloated witch got more than she bargained for the day Saul came to her door.

I always appreciate you my brother.