Since it's October, anybody miss Lisa Ruby?

[ALAYMAN]

Ok, a thread on witches shall we then?

The witch at Endor from 1 Samuel 28....was Samuel's appearance from the dead an actual awakening/appearance of the dead prophet of God, or something else? Explain your answer please.

 

[voicecrying]

The account says it was Samuel, so I'm going with that.
Moses & Elijah appeared & talked with Jesus which is additional support that it really was Samuel in 1 Samuel 28.

 

[AverageJoe]

Ok, a thread on witches shall we then?

The witch at Endor from 1 Samuel 28....was Samuel's appearance from the dead an actual awakening/appearance of the dead prophet of God, or something else? Explain your answer please.

I think the Bible makes it quite clear that it is indeed Samuel, not just some "familiar spirit." The Bible clearly states that it is Samuel speaking when he is speaking to Saul.
vs 12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice:
vs 15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?
vs 16 Then said Samuel

 

[Ransom]

The witch at Endor from 1 Samuel 28....was Samuel's appearance from the dead an actual awakening/appearance of the dead prophet of God, or something else? Explain your answer please.

It was the actual prophet Samuel. If it was only an individual in the narrative that identified the apparition as Samuel, we might be able to say they were mistaken. But the narrator himself identifies the apparition as Samuel, and makes no effort to explain it as a deception. Unless someone wants to make a case that the author of the book is an unreliable narrator, that should settle the matter.

The only people I've ever seen try to make a serious case that the apparition was a deceiving spirit impersonating Samuel, are cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh-day Adventists, who begin with the assumption that the dead have no existence between their death and the general resurrection. It doesn't help their theology when an actual dead prophet appears to Saul to pronounce the judgment of God upon him. Hence it wasn't Samuel, just "Samuel."

 

[ALAYMAN]

I subscribe to the "it was actually Samuel" school of thought as well, for much of the same rationale as provided in the good answers provided thus far, but I still have that Captain Obvious fly-in-the-ointment question of how to explain the prohibition of the consulting of mediums for Israel but God setting that aside for this exception. The writing was already on the wall for Saul, so I don't quite understand what is gained (theologically) by reaffirming what was already clearly transpiring in the transition of kingdom power.

 

[Bob Jones V]

It was actually Samuel.

 

[Ransom]

Obvious fly-in-the-ointment question of how to explain the prohibition of the consulting of mediums for Israel but God setting that aside for this exception.

As I see it, the sin was Saul's in consulting the medium, not God's for responding to him. He could have sent Samuel to judge Saul any time he wanted. But this particular point in time was, shall we say, especially dramatic. By consulting the witch, Saul had reached the bottom of the moral pit he had been digging for himself, and he had run out of chances to climb out.

 

[Bob Jones V]

Ok, a thread on witches shall we then?

The witch at Endor from 1 Samuel 28....was Samuel's appearance from the dead an actual awakening/appearance of the dead prophet of God, or something else? Explain your answer please.

Who is Lisa Ruby? That name sounds familiar, like she was a poster here, but it was 10 years ago when I left the forum.

 

[AverageJoe]

I subscribe to the "it was actually Samuel" school of thought as well, for much of the same rationale as provided in the good answers provided thus far, but I still have that Captain Obvious fly-in-the-ointment question of how to explain the prohibition of the consulting of mediums for Israel but God setting that aside for this exception. The writing was already on the wall for Saul, so I don't quite understand what is gained (theologically) by reaffirming what was already clearly transpiring in the transition of kingdom power.

Apparently Saul felt like consulting something or someone HOLY, and though he knew it was against the law and prophets, he, instead of consulting another prophet of God, consorted with the highways of the devil. He knew better, but, he didn't care, which pretty much sums up his whole time in the position of the king!

 

[Ransom]

Who is Lisa Ruby? That name sounds familiar, like she was a poster here, but it was 10 years ago when I left the forum.

Lisa Ruby was a poster, mainly on the previous version of this forum, but also briefly on this one at the beginning--which was early 2012, so you might have just missed her.

As Lamer alludes to in the OP, she was strongly opposed to Hallowe'en. But not primarily for its ties to pagan tradition, occult-themed costumes, or anything relatively sane like that. Oh, no. She was certain that Cadbury and Hershey and the other candy manufacturers actually allowed real witches to come and place curses on Hallowe'en candy, and therefore it was actually spiritually dangerous to collect and eat it on Hallowe'en because it would put the bang shang-a-lang on you.

This opened her up to a flood of ridicule, because that is the natural consequence of being ridiculous, and eventually she shook the dust off her feet and wrote a screed on her Web site ("Liberty to the Captives," which may or may not still be active, I couldn't be bothered to look) about how we were all Luciferians who mocked Real Christians™ by talking about Harry Potter, listening to rock music, and putting occult symbols like runes and inverted crosses in our avatars.

She and her husband had apparently come out of the occult in some fashion, and it's an unfortunate tendency that I've frequently seen in Christians with occult or New Age backgrounds, that they see a symbol with occult connotations and assume that it's always being used that way. Symbols and words frequently have multiple connotations. An example is the triquetra, the Celtic knot used for the NKJV Bible;s logo, which KJV-onlyists frequently accuse of being an occult symbol. Which it may well be in some contexts, but not when it's on the spine of the Bible--for ancient Celtic Christians, its three interlocking arcs, distinct yet inseparable, symbolized the Trinity. But Ruby would doggedly refuse ever to admit of any alternative explanations to her own, and would accuse those offering them of being "Luciferians."

So all those occult symbols, runes, inverted crosses, and vampires in our avatars? Well, that was all true, because I did it. When she said a particular symbol or emblem was occultic, I found a familiar instance in which it was used benignly, and made it my avatar. A circled dot is occult? Fine, my avatar is the Target or RAF logo now. Runes are bad? The Bluetooth symbol is a Futhark rune. Vampires? I don't specificallly remember that one, but it was either Bela Lugosi or Keifer Sutherland.

She and her husband weren't attending church, either. The ostensible reason was that they were all run and/or infiltrated by Freemasons and witches. There was an article on her Web site about how Christians should avoid being baptized in those churches because they were unwittingly being cursed by witches or secretly initiated into the occult or something. I honestly have my doubts she was really trying very hard to find a "legitimate" church.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

She sounds like a fruitcake.

 

[Ransom]

Roughly Gail Riplinger levels of fruitcakery.

 

[Bob Jones V]

Lisa Ruby was a poster, mainly on the previous version of this forum, but also briefly on this one at the beginning--which was early 2012, so you might have just missed her.

As Lamer alludes to in the OP, she was strongly opposed to Hallowe'en. But not primarily for its ties to pagan tradition, occult-themed costumes, or anything relatively sane like that. Oh, no. She was certain that Cadbury and Hershey and the other candy manufacturers actually allowed real witches to come and place curses on Hallowe'en candy, and therefore it was actually spiritually dangerous to collect and eat it on Hallowe'en because it would put the bang shang-a-lang on you.

This opened her up to a flood of ridicule, because that is the natural consequence of being ridiculous, and eventually she shook the dust off her feet and wrote a screed on her Web site ("Liberty to the Captives," which may or may not still be active, I couldn't be bothered to look) about how we were all Luciferians who mocked Real Christians™ by talking about Harry Potter, listening to rock music, and putting occult symbols like runes and inverted crosses in our avatars.

She and her husband had apparently come out of the occult in some fashion, and it's an unfortunate tendency that I've frequently seen in Christians with occult or New Age backgrounds, that they see a symbol with occult connotations and assume that it's always being used that way. Symbols and words frequently have multiple connotations. An example is the triquetra, the Celtic knot used for the NKJV Bible;s logo, which KJV-onlyists frequently accuse of being an occult symbol. Which it may well be in some contexts, but not when it's on the spine of the Bible--for ancient Celtic Christians, its three interlocking arcs, distinct yet inseparable, symbolized the Trinity. But Ruby would doggedly refuse ever to admit of any alternative explanations to her own, and would accuse those offering them of being "Luciferians."

So all those occult symbols, runes, inverted crosses, and vampires in our avatars? Well, that was all true, because I did it. When she said a particular symbol or emblem was occultic, I found a familiar instance in which it was used benignly, and made it my avatar. A circled dot is occult? Fine, my avatar is the Target or RAF logo now. Runes are bad? The Bluetooth symbol is a Futhark rune. Vampires? I don't specificallly remember that one, but it was either Bela Lugosi or Keifer Sutherland.

She and her husband weren't attending church, either. The ostensible reason was that they were all run and/or infiltrated by Freemasons and witches. There was an article on her Web site about how Christians should avoid being baptized in those churches because they were unwittingly being cursed by witches or secretly initiated into the occult or something. I honestly have my doubts she was really trying very hard to find a "legitimate" church.

Dang, what lunacy. I hope she is actually regenerated and the Lord does Phil 1:6 on her.

 

[ALAYMAN]

As I see it, the sin was Saul's in consulting the medium, not God's for responding to him. He could have sent Samuel to judge Saul any time he wanted. But this particular point in time was, shall we say, especially dramatic. By consulting the witch, Saul had reached the bottom of the moral pit he had been digging for himself, and he had run out of chances to climb out.

Interesting perspective.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lisa Ruby was a poster, mainly on the previous version of this forum, but also briefly on this one at the beginning--which was early 2012, so you might have just missed her.

As Lamer alludes to in the OP, she was strongly opposed to Hallowe'en. But not primarily for its ties to pagan tradition, occult-themed costumes, or anything relatively sane like that. Oh, no. She was certain that Cadbury and Hershey and the other candy manufacturers actually allowed real witches to come and place curses on Hallowe'en candy, and therefore it was actually spiritually dangerous to collect and eat it on Hallowe'en because it would put the bang shang-a-lang on you.

This opened her up to a flood of ridicule, because that is the natural consequence of being ridiculous, and eventually she shook the dust off her feet and wrote a screed on her Web site ("Liberty to the Captives," which may or may not still be active, I couldn't be bothered to look) about how we were all Luciferians who mocked Real Christians™ by talking about Harry Potter, listening to rock music, and putting occult symbols like runes and inverted crosses in our avatars.

She and her husband had apparently come out of the occult in some fashion, and it's an unfortunate tendency that I've frequently seen in Christians with occult or New Age backgrounds, that they see a symbol with occult connotations and assume that it's always being used that way. Symbols and words frequently have multiple connotations. An example is the triquetra, the Celtic knot used for the NKJV Bible;s logo, which KJV-onlyists frequently accuse of being an occult symbol. Which it may well be in some contexts, but not when it's on the spine of the Bible--for ancient Celtic Christians, its three interlocking arcs, distinct yet inseparable, symbolized the Trinity. But Ruby would doggedly refuse ever to admit of any alternative explanations to her own, and would accuse those offering them of being "Luciferians."

So all those occult symbols, runes, inverted crosses, and vampires in our avatars? Well, that was all true, because I did it. When she said a particular symbol or emblem was occultic, I found a familiar instance in which it was used benignly, and made it my avatar. A circled dot is occult? Fine, my avatar is the Target or RAF logo now. Runes are bad? The Bluetooth symbol is a Futhark rune. Vampires? I don't specificallly remember that one, but it was either Bela Lugosi or Keifer Sutherland.

She and her husband weren't attending church, either. The ostensible reason was that they were all run and/or infiltrated by Freemasons and witches. There was an article on her Web site about how Christians should avoid being baptized in those churches because they were unwittingly being cursed by witches or secretly initiated into the occult or something. I honestly have my doubts she was really trying very hard to find a "legitimate" church.

You have given enough corroboration to her authentic personality, but at the time she haunted the FFF I figured she absolutely had to be a troll.

 

[Ransom]

You have given enough corroboration to her authentic personality, but at the time she haunted the FFF I figured she absolutely had to be a troll.

As time marches on, it's getting harder to tell the difference between satire and reality. Hence the continued applicability of Poe's Law.

 

[Ekklesian]

Ok, a thread on witches shall we then?

The witch at Endor from 1 Samuel 28....was Samuel's appearance from the dead an actual awakening/appearance of the dead prophet of God, or something else? Explain your answer please.

I agree with Matthew Henry's reasoning. It was a devil.

That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Eccl 3 21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, "Let them be deceived." That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. ​

​

...​

​

I. The spectre, or apparition, personating Samuel, asks why he is sent for (v. 15): Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? To us this discovers that it was an evil spirit that personated Samuel; for (as bishop Patrick observes) it is not in the power of witches to disturb the rest of good men and to bring them back into the world when they please; nor would the true Samuel have acknowledged such a power in magical arts: but to Saul this was a proper device of Satan's, to draw veneration from him, to possess him with an opinion of the power of divination, and so to rivet him in the devil's interests.​

​

...​

​

​

III. It is cold comfort which this evil spirit in Samuel's mantle gives to Saul, and is manifestly intended to drive him to despair and self-murder. Had it been the true Samuel, when Saul desired to be told what he should do he would have told him to repent and make his peace with God, and recall David from his banishment, and would then have told him that he might hope in this way to find mercy with God; but, instead of that, he represents his case as helpless and hopeless, serving him as he did Judas, to whom he was first a tempter and then a tormentor, persuading him first to sell his master and then to hang himself.​

​

As to the appeal to the narrative naming Samuel: The Genesis narrative tells us it was a serpent that tempted our first parents, but no one doubts it was the Devil.

 

[AverageJoe]

I agree with Matthew Henry's reasoning. It was a devil.

That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Eccl 3 21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, "Let them be deceived." That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. ​

​

...​

​

I. The spectre, or apparition, personating Samuel, asks why he is sent for (v. 15): Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? To us this discovers that it was an evil spirit that personated Samuel; for (as bishop Patrick observes) it is not in the power of witches to disturb the rest of good men and to bring them back into the world when they please; nor would the true Samuel have acknowledged such a power in magical arts: but to Saul this was a proper device of Satan's, to draw veneration from him, to possess him with an opinion of the power of divination, and so to rivet him in the devil's interests.​

​

...​

​

​

III. It is cold comfort which this evil spirit in Samuel's mantle gives to Saul, and is manifestly intended to drive him to despair and self-murder. Had it been the true Samuel, when Saul desired to be told what he should do he would have told him to repent and make his peace with God, and recall David from his banishment, and would then have told him that he might hope in this way to find mercy with God; but, instead of that, he represents his case as helpless and hopeless, serving him as he did Judas, to whom he was first a tempter and then a tormentor, persuading him first to sell his master and then to hang himself.​

​

As to the appeal to the narrative naming Samuel: The Genesis narrative tells us it was a serpent that tempted our first parents, but no one doubts it was the Devil.

Yet, the Bible doesn't tell us it's an abhorrition...it tells us it was Samuel...Implication is everything. Could it have been a demon? Possibly, but I think that would have been clear if the alleged demon hadn't given Saul accurate information...information only Samuel, in his prophetic capacity could have given. Matthew Henry is known to be wrong on several things...he's wrong on this.

 

[Ekklesian]

Yet, the Bible doesn't tell us it's an abhorrition...it tells us it was Samuel...Implication is everything. Could it have been a demon? Possibly, but I think that would have been clear if the alleged demon hadn't given Saul accurate information...information only Samuel, in his prophetic capacity could have given. Matthew Henry is known to be wrong on several things...he's wrong on this.

No one agrees 100% with every commentator. Matthew Henry is wrong about Jephthah's daughter. He thinks she burned. I should start a thread on that.

But it's hard to argue that a necromancer could call up the spirit of any dead man good or evil. They don't have the keys to death and hell. And were Samuel sent by God, at the behest of the witch, could he justly call it being disquieted? And would God disquiet His saints that have passed into eternity?

Second of all, though Israel lost the battle, and some cities, Israel was not delivered into the hand of the Philistines.

 

[AverageJoe]

No one agrees 100% with every commentator. Matthew Henry is wrong about Jephthah's daughter. He thinks she burned. I should start a thread on that.

But it's hard to argue that a necromancer could call up the spirit of any dead man good or evil. They don't have the keys to death and hell. And were Samuel sent by God, at the behest of the witch, could he justly call it being disquieted? And would God disquiet His saints that have passed into eternity?

Second of all, though Israel lost the battle, and some cities, Israel was not delivered into the hand of the Philistines.

Then you don't seem to take the Scriptures at face value...