0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
62 vues8 pages
The document discusses different perspectives on mediumship and what the Bible says about communicating with spirits of the dead. It notes that some Bible passages are used by fundamentalist Christians to argue against mediumship, but other passages suggest testing spirits and discerning messages from them. The document argues that a closer examination shows the Bible contains many examples of mediumship and spirit communication through prophets and other mediums. It suggests modern revelation through mediums offers teachings consistent with Jesus and can help interpret scripture. Overall, the document aims to reconcile the Bible with the possibility of valid modern mediumship if messages are properly tested.
The document discusses different perspectives on mediumship and what the Bible says about communicating with spirits of the dead. It notes that some Bible passages are used by fundamentalist Christians to argue against mediumship, but other passages suggest testing spirits and discerning messages from them. The document argues that a closer examination shows the Bible contains many examples of mediumship and spirit communication through prophets and other mediums. It suggests modern revelation through mediums offers teachings consistent with Jesus and can help interpret scripture. Overall, the document aims to reconcile the Bible with the possibility of valid modern mediumship if messages are properly tested.
The document discusses different perspectives on mediumship and what the Bible says about communicating with spirits of the dead. It notes that some Bible passages are used by fundamentalist Christians to argue against mediumship, but other passages suggest testing spirits and discerning messages from them. The document argues that a closer examination shows the Bible contains many examples of mediumship and spirit communication through prophets and other mediums. It suggests modern revelation through mediums offers teachings consistent with Jesus and can help interpret scripture. Overall, the document aims to reconcile the Bible with the possibility of valid modern mediumship if messages are properly tested.
http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaetymn/entry/what!the!bibe!reay!says!about!mediu mship "hen my #$undamentaist,e%an&eica,'born(a&ain)$riends * whate%er name be attached to them * become aware o$ my interest in mediumship, they e+press concern that , am bein& in$uenced by -atan himse$. .hey cite /euteronomy 10:12(11, which they interpret to say that we shoud not consut the dead and 2ccesiastes 3:5, which says that the 'dead know not anythin&.) 4ut how are we to reconcie those 5d .estament in6unctions with passa&es in the 7ew .estament, such as 1 John 4:1, which says we shoud 'test the spirits as to whether they are o$ 8od)9 :ow are we to test them i$ we shoudn;t be takin& with them and i$ they know nothin&9 <nd what about 1 =orinthians 12:10 that says some are &i%en the &i$t o$ 'discernin&) what the spirits ha%e to say9 "hy discern i$ they know nothin&9 .hen, there;s 1 .hessaonians 5:21, which says to 'test them a and hod on to what is &ood,) whie 1 Peter 1:5, tes us that we shoud add 'knowed&e) to our $aith. :ow are we to interpret Joe 2:20(23, which says, ',t sha come to pass a$terwards that , wi pour out my spirit upon a $esh> and your sons and your dau&hters sha prophesy, your od men sha dream dreams, your youn& men sha see %isions, and aso upon the ser%ants and upon the handmaids in those days , wi pour out my spirit.)9 ,$ the 4ibe is to be interpreted iteray, then why do =hristian eaders i&nore a o$ those 5d .estament teachin&s, such as puttin& to death both persons in an aduterous reationship ?/eut. 22:22@, stonin& to death stubborn and rebeious chidren ?/eut. 21:10(21@, acceptin& poy&amy ?/eut. 21:15@, sanctionin& sa%ery ?Ae%. 25:44@, not eatin& she$ish ?Ae%. 11:10@, or not ha%in& one;s hair trimmed ?Ae%. 13:27@9 =eary, much o$ the 4ibe has been distorted o%er the centuries in the %arious transations. <ccordin& to /r. Bobert <. Corey, a pro$essor o$ <poo&etics and :ermeneutics at Perry 4ibe ,nstitute, the word nephesh is used 754 times in the :ebrew 4ibe, but it takes on 10 di$$erent meanin&s, ran&in& $rom 'sou) and 'the dead) to '$ish) and 'do&s,) whie the 8reek word aion is $ound in the 7ew .estament 100 times and is &i%en 10 di$$erent meanin&s, incudin& '$ore%er,) 'a&es,) 'occasionay,) and 'ne%er.) "hat we read in the 2n&ish 4ibe as 'e%erastin& punishment) meant 'a&e(on& prunin&) in the ori&ina 8reek. <thou&h , ha%e not been abe to con$irm this with a 4ibe schoar $amiiar with :ebrew, , reca readin& somewhere that the :ebrew word $rom which 'dead) is deri%ed meant 'spirituay dead) and re$erred to earthbound spirits. .hus, those passa&es cited abo%e ikey re$erred to earthbound ?ow(e%e@ spirits. .hat is, earthbound spirits know nothin& and we shoud not speak with earthbound spirits. Much of orthodoxy clearly interprets Scripture in a self-serving, self-stultifying way and does not grasp the fact that the foundation of the Bible is similar spirit communication coming through mediums of one kind or another. f we were to expunge all accounts of the apparently paranormal from the pages of the Bible, we would be left with an intolerably emasculated volume,! =anon ?/r.@ Cichae Perry o$ the =hurch o$ 2n&and wrote. .he more modern re%eation has come to us in the same way that the ancient re%eation did * throu&h mediums o$ one kind or another, e%en thou&h those ancient mediums, whether cair%oyants, trance types, direct %oice types, automatic writers, or e%en near( death e+periencers, mi&ht ha%e been caed prophets, seers, saints, or e%en sa%iors ?or were transated as such@. "hat the ancients caed an 'an&e o$ the Aord) mi&ht now be re$erred to as a 'spirit &uide.) "here it is written that 'his eyes were opened and he saw a %ision,) mi&ht be transated today as sayin& the person was a cair%oyant. .he method by which Coses recei%ed the .en =ommandments mi&ht today be caed 'direct writin&) or 'automatic writin&.) ,n ,saiah 0:1, we read: '.hen the Aord said to me, D.ake a ar&e tabet and writeE;...; seemin&y a re$erence to automatic writin&. ,$ the e%an&eicas accept that ar&ument, which most don;t, they point to Be%eation 22:10, in which John supposedy says that 8od wi punish anyone who adds or takes away anythin& $rom the 4ibe. <nd, yet, in John 1F:12(14, we are tod that there is much more to earn. ', ha%e much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 4ut when he, the -pirit o$ truth, comes, he wi &uide you into a the truth. :e wi not speak on his own> he wi speak ony what he hears, and he wi te you what is yet to come.) 4ut the word, at east then, was not yet ready $or it. <re we to assume that the word is sti not ready $or it and wi ne%er be ready $or it9 ,$, as $undamentaists beie%e, -cripture is the inerrant word o$ 8od ?%is(G(%is the inspired word o$ the spirit word manipuated by man@, we must concude that 8od acked in communicati%e skis or in the abiity to $oresee the con$usion concernin& the con$ictin& interpretations &i%en to the 4ibe a$ter numerous transations. '.hey Hthe ancient words o$ -criptureI ha%e $reJuenty binded us $rom seein& and enterin& the e+perience they seek to describe because these words are aways imited by their time, their cuture, and their apprehension o$ reaity,) John -heby -pon&, a bishop o$ the 2piscopa =hurch, recenty wrote.
,$ =hristian eaders were to cosey e+amine the newer messa&es, they woud reaiKe that the basic teachin&s o$ Jesus * Ao%e thy nei&hborE, /o unto othersE, and Lou reap what you sow * are aso the teachin&s emer&in& $rom the modern re%eation. Coreo%er, many o$ the current messa&es pay homa&e to Jesus and su&&est that he pretty much $unctions in what mi&ht be caed '=hairman o$ the 4oard) on the 5ther -ide. "ith proper testin& and discernment, numerous new teachin&s edi$y and cari$y -cripture, o$$erin& us an&ua&e that is not mudded and be$udded by human hands and brains. Perhaps the best &uide in this respect is Catthew 7:1F: '4y their $ruits ye sha know them.) <so, the 21rd chapter o$ Pro%erbs, se%enth %erse, which reads, 'Mor as he thinketh in his heart, so is he..) ,t is di$$icut to read the wisdom that has come throu&h so many credibe mediums in recent centuries and beie%e that the spirits communicatin& this in$ormation are attemptin& to misead us, as they o$$er a much more sensibe and more appeain& a$teri$e en%ironment * one that can be reconcied with a o%in& and 6ust 8od rather than a crue, capricious, %indicti%e, and wrath$u one or one who woud o$$er a humdrum hea%en or horri$ic he. Mrom this new re%eation we disco%er a /i%ine pan * one o$ attainment and attunement, o$ &radua spiritua &rowth, o$ e%oution o$ spirit throu&h pro&ressi%ey hi&her ?in %ibration@ panes. ,n a nutshe, it puts 'i$e) into the a$teri$e. Cichae .ymn is the author o$ .he <$teri$e Be%eaed: "hat :appens <$ter "e /ie is pubished by "hite =row 4ooks. :is atest book, Besurrectin& Aeonora Piper: :ow -cience /isco%ered the <$teri$e is now a%aiabe on <maKon and other onine book stores. Paperback Ninde 7e+t bo&: Mebruary 3 . =omments , ha%e yet to meet any peope, $undamentaist =hristian or otherwise who when their eyes or hands o$$end them, puck out their eyes or cut o$$ their hands. /idn;t Jesus say to do this rather than the whoe body be cast into :e9 Pease hep me to understand. ( <5/ <mos 5i%er /oye, "ed 5 Meb, 15:4F Aoyd, Nardec was e+tremey speci$ic about mischie%ous and maicious spirits bein& e%er ready to communicate. .hey were no doubt no di$$erent in bibica timesOO Aes :arris Aesie :arris, "ed 5 Meb, 12:1F <ddendumP, &ot a chance to ook up the speci$ic od testament mediumship story that my de%out Jewish $riend mentioned, and it;s, ah, we, a tad more ne&ati%e than what , presented. .he character who consuted the medium in the story was not portrayed as a ri&hteous man. :e was Nin& -au, who resorted to seein& a medium when 8od re$used to tak to him because he had disobeyed 8od, in that he did not 'carry out :is $ierce wrath a&ainst the <maekites) ?a Juestionabe command in the $irst pace, i$ it was reay comin& $rom a 6ust and o%in& 8od, but that;s another topicE@. ,$ ,;m readin& the passa&e ri&ht, the medium was supposed to be surprised when a rea spirit appeared, that o$ the dead Nin& -amue. <$ter risin& up out o$ the &round ?they beie%ed that a the dead resided under&round in :ades in that era, at east unti Jud&ement day@, -amue tod -au in no uncertain terms that he was irritated at bein& disturbed, and proceeded to accuratey predict -au;s de$eat in batte ?-amue 20: F(20@. <$ter my Jewish $riend re$erred to this passa&e ?without readin& it to me, or sayin& anythin& about the &oodness or e%i o$ the characters@, he smied and said somethin& to the e$$ect that 'there was a ot o$ mediumship &oin& on then,) in a manner that communicated to me that , coud rea+ about my new a&e incinations with him. ,n any case, , stand corrected on that story. 5n the other hand, the ne&ati%e press on mediumship that , came across this mornin& onine, in the $orm o$ endess $undamentaist =hristian artices about -au and the medium ?'.he "itch o$ 2ndor), they ca her@, run in stark contrast to what -te%an /a%ies says about mediumship and Jewish cuture in the 1st century. Mor e+ampe, says /a%ies, Phio, a we(to(do Jewish historian at the time o$ Jesus, 'Einsists emphaticay and repeatedy that a prophet is a person whose primary persona is on occasion repaced whoy by another persona> in the an&ua&e , am usin&, Phio beie%ed that prophets are, by de$inition, spirit(possessed. :is %iew o$ the matter is competey in keepin& with anthropoo&ica theory o$ spirit(possession, psychoo&ica theory o$ spirit(possession, and with the concusions o$ many schoars o$ :ebrew 4ibe prophecy.) ?Mrom ''Jesus the :eaer: Possession, .rance, and the 5ri&ins o$ =hristianity) by -te%an /a%ies, p.43@. -o where do those bibica %erses that re6ect mediumship come $rom9 .o me, it makes sense that some cautionary words about mediumship woud be in any sacred or mystica book. , ha%e heard common(sense warnin&s about channein& e%en $rom '7ew <&e) contemporaries o$ mine, who simpy say that you ne%er reay know who you are takin& to, they mi&ht be ower e%e spiritsPit;s possibe to be ed astray i$ you take what a medium says too seriousy. Cy /ad used to say that $reJuenty, e%en about what his own spirit &uides said when he in%ited them to take o%er his %oca chords in trance. <ccordin& to /a%ies, amost e%ery cuture that has beie$s in channein& ?and there are manyO@ has a cassi$ication $or positi%e spirits ?'<n&es) in 4ibica terms@ and ne&ati%e spirits ?'/emons) in 4ibica terms@. 5$ course there wi be warnin&s about mediumshipO ,t woud be irresponsibe $or there not to beO , think there is another historica $actor at pay here, thou&h. =onsider the be&innin& phrase o$ /euteronomy 10:10(12: 'Aet no one be $ound amon& you who sacri$ices his son or dau&hter in the $ireE) and it then &oes on to ist a bunch o$ other 'abominabe) practices that are aso in the =anaanite cuturePincudin& mediumshipP6usti$yin& 8od;s wrath a&ainst the =anaanites by istin& a the e%i thin&s they do. "hat , see in /euteronomy 10:10(12 is either an acti%ist burb a&ainst chid sacri$ice ?and , say that as a positi%e thin&, acknowed&in& that such cas to end chid sacri$ice coud we ha%e come $rom 8od, or some other positi%e spirit bein& channeed at the timeO@, orPthis passa&e coud be simpy war propa&anda, paintin& the $ace o$ the enemy into somethin& e%i. , mean, durin& "ord "ars , and ,,, how o$ten was -aurkraut ?one o$ the &reatest &i$ts o$ 8ermany to humankind, ,C:5@ deni&rated in <ied propa&anda $ims, ri&ht aon& with rea and ima&ined atrocities ?itte did we know at the time what horribe atrocities we woud actuay unco%er at the end o$ "ord "ar ,,, but that;s another story@. .his is a to say that i$ you are &oin& to approach the 4ibe ike the Pharisees, who Jesus criticiKes $or bein& too itera and rue(bound, you wi end up creatin& a sorts o$ rues that can make sense in one conte+t, and be downri&ht harm$u or oppressi%e in another, but you; end up in%okin& them bindy on both types o$ occasions. 8i%en a the bessin&s that mediumship has brou&ht to my i$e, , consider mediumship to be an occasion where the baby shoud not be thrown out with the bathwater. .hat bein& said, , know many $undamentaist =hristians who use the 4ibe we, and i%e &ood i%es by approachin& it iteray. -ti, it;s hard $or me not to come to the concusion that i$ , were to take it as iteray as some do, , woud ha%e to reJuest $or&i%eness $rom 8od $or beha%in& ike a Pharisee. ,n the end, it;s a a matter o$ baance. ,n the words o$ /an Mo&eber&, '5ne day we; a understandE) .hanks a&ain, Cichae, $or this iuminatin& post, and $or your bo& in &eneraO Aoyd, .ue 4 Meb, 21:11 "hat timin&, CichaeO .he %ery day you posted this artice, , was &ettin& ready to &o $etch a particuar book $rom the ibraryP 'Jesus the :eaer: Possession, .rance, and the 5ri&ins o$ =hristianity) by -te%an /a%iesPso that , coud read it a second time. /a%ies makes a con%incin& historica/anthropoo&ica case that trance possession was commonpace amon& Jewish prophets in the $irst century, and that Jesus was %ery ikey a trance channeer himse$. <thou&h /a%ies $a%ors materiaistic e+panations ?$or e+ampe, possession as mutipe personaity disorder@, he communicates spirituay(oriented e+panations with uncanny respect and accuracy. 4oth my parents were trance(possession channeers $rom the year 13F0 unti they passed o%er, and $rom my e+perience, /a%ies appears to know what he;s takin& about in describin& how a trance(possession session mi&ht ha%e proceeded between Jesus and his $oowers. <s $or the '5d .estament) ?the .orah, i$ you are Jewish@, a de%out and conser%ati%e Jewish &enteman , know recenty pointed out to me a passa&e where mediumship was practiced by a ri&hteous man and apparenty sanctioned by 8od. .hanks $or this post, Cichae. Neep up the &ood workO Aoyd, .ue 4 Meb, 03:03 4ibica history * the history o$ the =hristian bibe itse$ * is $rau&ht with many embarrassin& &aps. ,t is commony presented as one &orious continuous history * and it isn;tO Mar $rom bein& handed down by a deity as a $ait accompi, it was hoty disputed $or centuries unti =onstantine &ot sick o$ the sJuabbin& and directed that a uni$orm doctrine be drawn up and it was * not by an&es or mystic re%eations but by the %ery human priests to whom the task $e. .he &reat stickin& point had been the de$inition o$ the members o$ the .rinity. <$ter considerabe %ery human ar&ument, a doctrine was a&reed on. 'Be%eations $rom 8od)9 7opeOO .ry =onstantine se%era hundred years down the trackOO Aes :arris, Con 1 Meb, 1F:07 ,n the eary days o$ =hristianity, there were numerous teachers who preached on the basis o$ caims o$ ha%in& recei%ed re%eations directy $rom 8od, 6ust ike the prophets o$ od. .hose who were attemptin& to consoidate the new rei&ion and brin& e%eryone toðer under one set o$ do&mas ?and to be $air, keep =hristianity $rom bein& wiped out in its in$ancy@ didn;t appreciate di%er&in& %iewpoints. .hey made a decision that no re%eations or prophecies spoken by anyone a$ter the time o$ the apostes coud be considered %aid. 8od had spoken, and then :e had shut up $or a time. ,t was a biKarre doctrine, and it;s hard to ima&ine how peope coud beie%e it, but it seemed necessary to the Powers .hat "ere at the time. ?Pease correct me i$ , am rememberin& my Pa&es, 2hrman, etc. inaccuratey.@ 2ene 8usch, Con 1 Meb, 07:13 .his is an e+ceent artice. :ere;s another &reat website: http://6amesepad&ett.com/ Jan, Mri 11 Jan, 10:41 .hanks a&ain, CikeO Jane Natra, .hu 10 Jan, 01:17 < %ery &ood artice, e+ceent rebuttas to the $undamentaists hurin& accusations o$ -atanism. , beie%e the &ospe o$ Jesus because it says to do 6ustice to the poor, the dispossessed, the i and the imprisoned, to &i%e to them at cost to yourse$, to o%e your nei&hbor as yourse$ and to o%e your enemy and to pray $or them. , can;t ima&ine any medium tein& me somethin& more important than that. ,t;s aso why , beie%e the Jewish prophets, the 4uddhist -uttas, etc. , don;t think it;s true because Jesus said it, , beie%e he said it because it;s true. <nthony Cc=arthy, "ed 23 Jan, 10:47 LesO Cuch $ood $or thou&ht hereO , am tempted howe%er to add a $urther detai. Cy contention is that as sou and sou aspects, we are somethin& ike 33Q spirit and 1Q materia bein&. -o it woud make more sense $or spirit to be testin& the credibiity o$ physica bein&s rather than the other way aroundO 4ut since we materia bein&s ha%e the audacity to be puttin& spirit to the test, perhaps we mi&ht try e+painin& this $oowin& seance meetin& e+perience: Cy &reat &randmother ?whom , ne%er met@ knew and decared that , had i$ted down a hea%y book earier that day ?a ar&e iustrated John 4rown 4ibe with brass casps ... the hea%iest book that , possess@, decarin& that she had &i%en it to her &randdau&hter /orothy ?who died youn& so that we ikewise ne%er met@, on her 5th or Fth birthday. < per$ecty correct. , had indeed i$ted down and re$erred to the 4ibe earier> and, ne+t day, on readin& a $aded inscription it is cear that it was indeed presented to /orothy January 1314 by her &randmother on her Fth birthday. , i%e F0 mies distant $rom the seance meetin& house and no one present was con%ersant with my eary $amiy history. .here are o$ course countess comparabe episodes that eJuay cannot be o&icay denied. .hose o$ us who re&uary sit in seance wi ha%e ampe direct proo$ o$ spiritua status Juo, and wi not be concerned with Dtestin&;. .he ma6ority o$ scientists do not do this, and so, pre$er to con$ine their thinkin& to inteectua mode that beon&s to that 1Q o$ bein& that is physica. 8eor&e 2 Coss, "ed 23 Jan, 15:43 2+ceent and to the point. .he sub6ect matter %ery cear and o$ &reat use in any ar&ument. .hank you /erek Aynas, "ed 23 Jan, 14:25 Aes, one word ( briiant. 2+acty my opinion on the matter o$ =hristianity and its 'hoy) book. $enriK, .ue 20 Jan, 12:21 .here are some $undamenta $aws with the =hristian bibe that no(one can answer. -tart readin& and start countin& the %erbatim Juotations attributed to the many characters that appear, incudin& the centra $i&ure * whose name coud ne%er ha%e been Jesus, by the wayO < this was in a pace and at a time when iteracy simpy didn;t e+ist beyond a $ew hoy men and a $ew scribes. 7aKareth was a sma settement o$ se%era hundred, perhaps a thousand. :ow many woud ha%e been abe to read and write9 Perhaps a Babbi or twoO 2%en merchants coud not read and write. Let we $ind hundreds o$ thousands o$ direct Juotations throu&hout the entire book, such that it woud ha%e needed an army o$ scribes accompanyin& e%eryone to whom the Juotations were attributed. 5N, that;s a probem, so et;s e+amine the ori&ina documents $rom which this ocean o$ direct attributions are drawn * oh dearO :ouston, we ha%e a probemO .here aren;t any. -cenario < bunch o$ $airy ordinary but Juite cra$ty humans create a rei&ion based on a deity that they ha%e created in their own ima&e and with notions that mi&ht be wish$u thinkin& or a desire to contro others * or bothO Beports o$ %isions, mystic ocations, a &ood ima&ination and oJuacity were a that was needed. 4ecause most o$ the popuation is iiterate, they $ind that it is %ery easy to $ri&hten peope into $oowin& their dictates by re$errin& to mystic matters that no(one can e%er check. .hey structure their rei&ion in accordance with their own %iews and present them as di%ine instructions, rein$orced with dire threats $or non(compiance. ,n an a&e rampant with many %en&e$u &ods, this was easiy accompished. 4ut there is a probem. .here are a $ew peope who appear to be abe to communicate with entities, at east some o$ which once i%ed and they $ind nothin& to support the ocay manu$actured rei&ion * o$ten the opposite in $act. "hat;s to be done9 2asyO Just write in a $ew more rues and prohibitions. ,$ possibe, attribute them to some ima&inary deity or other. Probem so%edOO =oncocted Juotations attributed to ima&inary deities pre%ai. 5n top o$ the non(e+istent scribes needed to record e%erythin& attributed to the bibica characters, we now &et transators whose knowed&e o$ :ebrew is sketchy at best. "hen such transators are peope who hod preconcei%ed rei&ious %iews, it isn;t hard to work out which way bias ies. .he opportunity to sip in a bit more materia here and there woud ha%e been hard $or many to resist. .o this day, nothin& has chan&ed. Aearned discourses are conducted on this meanin& or that meanin& o$ bibica statements $or which there is absoutey no contemporaneous historic $oundation. Aes :arris Aesie :arris, .ue 20 Jan, 00:51