Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Ksen - But didn't the same Holy Spirit that inspired the OT also inspire the NT? If so, then wouldn't he have known what was going to happen in the NT?
Certainly, the God-inspired writers of the Old Testament had a sense for what was to come. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Is. 9:6).
But was the writer of Ecclesiastes writing prophecy? Was he writing about what the future would hold? Or was he writing about the state of things when he was writing? I don’t think it’s true or Scripturally sound to say that all OT writers had complete awareness about what the NT was going to be about. The prophets had a clue, but even they weren’t completely aware. Here's the passage that Havoc at least thinks is critical. I don't know if you read it the same way he does. The whole chapter is in my post #3260.
Ecl 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
It seems clearer to me in the context of the whole chapter, but even just in looking at these verses it doesn’t sound like the author is saying that this state of affairs is something commanded by God. The passage clearly says, the dead have no “more a portion FOREVER in ANY THING.” It doesn’t make a distinction between spiritual or physical death, and it certainly doesn’t allow for a person that has died physically to come back to life. It says after death, NO MORE IMPACT ON THIS WORLD. Now, we all agree that Jesus Christ violated this. So did Lazarus – he died, and then after he died he had an impact on this world by being returned to life. So, my point is that this passage in Ecclesiastes is NOT Law, it is not even a description of a state of affairs that God supports. Christ proves this. If it was Law, Christ would not have violated it. Christ is no lawbreaker.
My whole purpose in this line of argument is to show that the OT passages that are being used as “proof” that God has commanded we have nothing to do with the communion of saints that have passed through physical death show no such thing. The OT passages that have been put forward are very specific about forbidding contact with the dead, or in the case of the passage above about saying that the dead have nothing to do with our world. But it seems obvious to me in light of the NT that this entire argument breaks down. The saints that have passed through death are NOT DEAD. So any passages from the OT that deny interaction between the living and the dead DON’T APPLY, because the dead aren't dead.
No one has put forward a specific OT passage that says that “those who are alive in spirit but physically dead have nothing to do with those who are physically alive” or a specific NT passage that says “those who are alive in Christ but have passed through physical death are cut off from the communion of saints who are physically alive.” Without this kind of Scriptural teaching, how can it be claimed that the Orthodox belief that the saints who have passed through physical death are as much a part of the living Body as the believers that are still physically alive is wrong, let alone "a deliberate breaking of God's Law"?
Ro 12:5 - So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
I’m not arguing at the moment that if I’m right you necessarily have to accept prayer to the saints. I’m just trying to get us to agree that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that those who have EVERLASTING LIFE, but have passed through physical death, are separated from us. We are members “one of another.”
Jenny knows I wasn't thrilled about having a second child, and why:) Mack tells her all the time if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have had her:) Fortunetly, and only by the grace of God, my children have grown up very well balanced and mature dispite the handicapp of having us as their parents:)
Becky
Becky
Hi JH - Just to ask you about this one point, don't you agree that, for example, the Apostle John explained things in great detail and in many different ways to his followers (which according to tradition included Ignatius) than he put in his Gospel? I'm not even talking about any "secret events" like "the true story about how Jesus spent his 20's in India studying with the yogis." I just mean going over with his disciples in great detail exactly what he meant. Don't you agree that this would have given these disciples a vastly greater appreciation for what the Christian Way is than any person could possibly have if all they had was the written work alone?
In other words, which is better?
A - The written Gospel of John, OR
B - The written Gospel of John AND the Apostle John himself to explain exactly what he meant?
Becky
Are you honestly proposing that the Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, STOPPED having an impact on the physical world when He was in the tomb?
Becky
Not to bad over here in the getto with all the new drive by's, I wonder if they think were nuts? I bet they ain't never seen nothing like this before, the other threads have trouble getting 200 post total for the whole thread.
How did the kid do tonight with the song?
BigMack
Every morning @5:00am -
1) Frozen strawberries blended with milk, vanilla and a little sugar - or
2) 1 Bannana plus crushed ice and that froth stuff - or
3) Cold applesauce with cinnamon sugar on top.
No morning sickness (except in husband). Recipe for success right?
Second child (only 11 months later mind you)....mean looks whenever I suggested anything of the sort.
There are two theories of dealing with pregnant women.
.
.
Neither of them works.
BigMack
#3386 Havoc - Christ didn't appear again to have any part in what was going on here on earth until After he rose again from the grave. And He is still alive.
I don't think these two statements match up. The first is your paraphrase of Ec. 9:6. "Once in the grave, men don't..." No exceptions for "oh, but once men come out of the grave all bets are off."
Your second statement makes the exception. You say that Christ has a part in what happens here because he's not in the grave anymore, even though He was. And this exception is critical. It's not even hinted at in Ecclesiastes. It's a change. The grave is no longer binding.
You learn fast:)
Becky
Neither of them works.
Yeah, and you can't kill em either. :)
BigMack
I've read through the chapters you've quoted from, and I don't see a direct correlation to the Christian reality. The OT Revelation spoke to the reality present before the coming of Christ. Most of that reality is still the same. But certain crucial parts are different.
I don't see any indication in the OT passages you quote that the spirits with which contact is forbidden are ALIVE. They are quite specifically stated to be DEAD. I don't see the distinction in ANY of these passages that you make when you state:
You refuse to deal with the fact that the commands regarding communicating with the dead are speaking of those who are no longer physically with us - whether spiritually alive or not.
Where do these passages, or the dictionary definitions of terms like necromancy, distinguish between physically dead but spiritually alive? If possible (hint, I don't think it is) please show Scripture that clearly makes the distinction you make when you claim "the commands regarding communicating with the dead are speaking of those who are no longer physically with us - whether spiritually alive or not." Otherwise, I cannot but conclude that your claim has no basis in Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.