[
Replying to onewithhim in post #73]
While I understand your perspective, there are a few points to consider:
The Text Itself: The narrative in 1 Samuel 28 directly refers to the figure as Samuel without questioning his identity. The text does not imply that the witch was fooling Saul or that it was a demon impersonating Samuel. If the writer believed it was a demon, it would likely have been indicated, especially given the gravity of the situation.
Inerrant Reading: If we take the Bible as inerrant, the plain reading of the text suggests that it was indeed Samuel speaking. The addition of external reasoning (that Saul was deceived or that a demon was involved) doesn’t emerge from the text itself but from a theological interpretation.
Necromancy vs. Divine Judgment: 3. GPT. Saul Violated a law claimed to be "God’s Law": While it’s clear that Saul violated a law by consulting a medium, the nature of this law itself is under question, especially since the text establishes that it was Samuel who was contacted. The law against necromancy, found in Deuteronomy 18:10-12, forbids consulting mediums and the dead. Yet the narrative presents Samuel as truly speaking, which raises questions about whether the law might be man’s law paraded as God’s law, used to enforce religious authority.
o Religious Authority as a Medium: This suggests that religious institutions historically positioned themselves as the only legitimate intermediaries between God and humans. Individuals seeking a direct connection with God were either forced to rely on sanctioned religious figures (priests, prophets) or face condemnation for seeking alternative means (mediums, spiritists). In both cases, there’s a dependency on human intermediaries, and trust in these intermediaries becomes central to maintaining a connection with God.
o Jesus and the Scriptures: This dynamic can also be observed in how the Church positioned the Bible as the primary medium for accessing God’s will, rather than emphasizing a direct relationship with Jesus. Although Jesus’ teachings were often about direct faith in God and personal spiritual understanding, the Church maintained the Bible as the authoritative medium. Even Christians today, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, support the idea that the Bible serves as the essential intermediary between God and humans, requiring believers to defer to scripture for divine guidance.
o The Dilemma of Intermediaries: This leaves individuals, much like Saul, choosing between trusting human intermediaries or risking condemnation for seeking an alternative path. When trust in the religious system or the Bible breaks down, it raises the question: Are we cut off from God entirely? If the connection to God is so dependent on intermediaries, what happens when those intermediaries—whether religious figures or the Bible itself—are seen as fallible or misleading? This presents a broader issue about how humans connect to God and whether that connection can ever be truly direct or if it always requires mediation.
o Dependency on Authority: Ultimately, both the Bible and religious institutions serve as gatekeepers to God for many Christians. This creates a structure where individuals are expected to trust one type of medium (the Bible or the Church) over another (like spiritists or personal experiences), leading to a reliance on those institutions. But when that trust is broken, the individual’s relationship with God becomes vulnerable, raising deeper theological questions about whether God can be accessed directly without these intermediaries.
This may beg the question: “Can one have a relationship with God through Jesus without ever laying eyes or ears upon the rest of the Bible?”
If we reflect on Jesus' teachings, much of his message emphasized a direct relationship with God, often without requiring strict adherence to religious law or text. For example, Jesus preached faith, love, and mercy as central to one’s connection with God (Matthew 22:37-40), focusing on the spirit of the law rather than its literal interpretation.
This raises the possibility that a relationship with God, as Jesus emphasized, might not require the mediation of the Bible or religious institutions. If one can live according to the core values Jesus taught, it suggests that the connection to God could be direct, without needing to rely on scripture or intermediaries.
This question challenges the idea that the Bible must be the primary medium through which we access God. If Jesus himself is seen as the ultimate mediator, then it's conceivable that a person could cultivate a relationship with God through Jesus without ever interacting with the Bible.
This brings into focus the idea of whether personal faith and living by Jesus' example is enough, or whether Christians must always defer to the Bible as the only authoritative guide. It invites further exploration into what it means to have a direct connection with God and whether religious texts are essential for that relationship.
Harmonizing Other Texts: I agree that considering other scriptures is essential, but the contradiction between Ecclesiastes 9:5 (where the dead "know nothing") and 1 Samuel 28 (where Samuel is depicted as speaking) remains unresolved unless you reinterpret the 1 Samuel passage, which conflicts with the plain reading of the text.
or anyone involved here. I don't believe it's productive to continuously focus on the same issues. My time is valuable.
