1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

URGENT! PLEASE HELP! Are the spirits that try to communicate will us ALL demons?

Discussion in 'After-Death Communication' started by peachy4, Oct 23, 2016.

  1. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Mediums don't summon the dead and never have. They provide a way - a channel if you wish - for willing discarnate individuals to communicate with those in the physical world. That may be philosophical (teaching) mediumship, evidential mediumship or healing mediumship. Mediumship may come in various 'flavors', the means being less important than the end.

    There has always been the risk of Astral deceivers during trans-dimensional communication and even seasoned practitioners can be duped and misled. But not ALL mediums - spiritual mediums - are gullible or easily deceived and we should not heed only one source of information; other sources will tell different stories.

    I have to declare that I'm not keen on New Ageism and channeling and there are no experts on reincarnation, only experts - perhaps - on the ideas about reincarnation. Humankind really has little understanding about the way it works.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2018
  2. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    I know Jesus didn't mention communication with the dead being wrong, but I am not aware of it anywhere in the Bible either. Does it only exist in the minds of some people of the church and that is why it is frowned upon? The same goes for reincarnation.
     
  3. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    I'll disagree with this one. Although I've never attended a sitting, I've read plenty of transcripts of them, and it's quite common to begin with some kind of invitation to the spirits to approach. In my book, this counts as summoning, or inviting, if you prefer. The point is to convey that a group of incarnates are present and desiring to communicate with discarnates.

    Based on my reading ab0ut this stuff, I think many mediums--perhaps most--start out as passive parties to this process. Their awareness of spirits intrudes on their ordinary consciousness, often unwelcome.

    I agree. Even Swedenborg described the activities of deceivers. There is, however, the problem of determining just how anyone is able to determine what is deception and what isn't. For example, one very well scrutinized case involved George Pellew apparently becoming the "control" for Mrs. Piper. This is described in detail in Deborah Blum's well researched book Ghost Hunters. Although the Pellew personality was able to answer many questions about Pellew's personal life, and was recognizable in communication style, he was utterly unable to comment on the kinds of things that the actual Pellew was preoccupied with when he was alive. It would be like getting communication from someone who claimed to be Leonard Bernstein, sounded like Bernstein, and knew many things about Bernstein's life, but couldn't say much of anything about music. Just as the investigators of Mrs. Piper were frustrated by this sort of thing, it raises many questions about how much we can really know about who is doing the communicating.

    And I absolutely agree that more than a single source should be consulted. Personally, I've done quite a lot of reading on this subject, for close to 30 years. I don't claim that Joe Fisher gets the last word. I do think, however, that his story is noteworthy. There are many books written by "ex-occult" types who have become religious. He's not one of them. It's also interesting how, after his disillusionment with his Toronto circle, he visited other mediums, some of them well-known, and recorded his impressions. He did this not as a Skeptic or debunker, nor as a religious partisan, but as someone trying very hard to come to grips with experiences that shook him very badly.
     
    enby and Amore like this.
  4. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    The most often-cited Biblical passage about mediumship is Leviticus 19:31, "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." Also 1Chronicles 10:13, "So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium..." In the New Testament, I don't think we see specific mention of mediums, as that terms is generally used, but we do see condemnation of what we'd call "psychics", or those who have a "spirit of diviniation."

    As for reincarnation, as far as I know the Bible is silent on the topic, except for the one passage in Hebrews 9:27, "it is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment." There are some passages that seem to imply or presuppose reincarnation, such as when the disciples of Jesus ask him about the man born blind (John 9), "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" If he was born blind, how could he have sinned in this life? Some of the early church Fathers, such as Origen, took reincarnation seriously, although Origen also said he would repudiate the idea if and when the church ruled definitively against it, which it eventually did.
     
  5. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I learned all of this in college, and I graduated 50 years ago this year! I know there was more, but what I recall is that:

    1) They removed every reference that they recognized as referring to reincarnation. They didn't get all of it, but what remains is somewhat more obscure.

    2) They added passages on end-times and church-building. What they added in generally toward the back of each Gospel, and when you know it isn't true you realize that it does stick out and contradict what He said about love, forgiveness, spiritual growth, and so on.

    My Liberating Jesus is a recent explanation.
     
  6. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    You forgot to mention: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." (1 JN 4:1) If we are not supposed to communicate with spirits, then why would there be this New Testament admonition that we had better know who we are talking with?? In fact, the Old Testament contains many references to people consulting with people that we used to think were dead; it just doesn't suit the clergymen's need to keep control of their flocks to ever point these passages out. And since the OT was already ancient writings at the time of Jesus, and since it is self-evidently not believed by anyone on earth to be all the infallible and eternal Word of God, and since anyway Jesus says in the Gospels that He was replacing the entire OT with God's Law of Love, I think we can safely ignore it!
     
  7. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    What I learned 50 years ago when I majored in earth Christian history in college was that indeed they did edit the writings. My teacher - back then a very old woman - had made this a particular area of study. I remember being surprised at the time that the Council would be so open about their editing! And I am not surprised to see now that this whole area has been whitewashed.

    But the plain fact is that this issue is extremely important! Jesus told us things 2000 years ago about God, reality, love, forgiveness, death, the afterlife, and the meaning and purpose of human life that agree precisely with what the dead now tell us! But the dead also say that He did not talk about sheep-and-goats, end-times nonsense, or God's judgment. All of that was in vogue in 325, and the Council of Nicaea added it as part of its church-building efforts. Period.
     
  8. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    If energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed we are transforming the energy that created the information in the Bible. If someone wants to say they are adhering to the Bible they should go back to the way of life in Bible times, because many things we do these days are "sinful". I think I heard there are over 300 rules we overlook in our time. I feel we are trying to create a place where every vibration of Consciousness can live together. Look at the rainbow. There are definite borders to every vibration.
     
  9. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    If this happened, you should be able to cite a source for your claim. As I said, what the Council did was extensively documented.
     
    bluebird likes this.
  10. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
  11. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    Are people today fearing to consider the nothingness that creates our earth? This may only be my understanding of what I am hearing others say. I consider the possibility that it is based on nothing but rays of light. What do you believe?
     
  12. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    I'm inclined to agree. Even though the earliest surviving complete NT text dates from shortly after the Council of Nicaea, there are many, many complete or partial copies from well before the Council, not to mention numerous NT quotations of the sayings of Jesus from the church Fathers. If Jesus said things about the afterlife that were subsequently removed from the gospel texts, there would be a "paper trail" showing it. But there just isn't.

    Of course, on matters having to do with how the church should be organized and run, Jesus had next to nothing to say. All of that comes from Paul, and opinions vary to this day on how "inspired" his views should be considered. But you'd have a hard time arguing on the basis of textual evidence that, for example, Jesus didn't believe in the existence of Satan. Satan may not exist, but Jesus clearly believed that he did. I don't think we can airbrush that out of the gospels. The parable of the Sower occurs in each of the synoptics. In Mark, considered to the oldest gospel, the "evil one" is named Satan. There are numerous other references to Satan by Jesus in the gospels. A heavy burden of evidence rests on anyone who claims that all of these were later additions to the texts. As far as I'm concerned, the only real question is whether Jesus got this right or wrong.
     
  13. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    You seem to be assuming the interpretation of the parable given to the disciples has the same likelihood of being an actual saying of Jesus as the parable itself, which is far from obvious.
     
  14. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    Since both the parable and the interpretation are attributed to Jesus, and there is no textual variant that differs on this point, I have no reason to doubt that those are, in fact, the words of Jesus. Whether it's obvious or far from obvious depends on one's standards of obviousness. I'm not aware of any evidence that Jesus didn't give the interpretation. And of course that's hardly the only instance where Jesus refers directly or indirectly to Satan. So why exactly should I think that Jesus didn't believe that Satan exists, or existed?
     
  15. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    That's not the point of view of New Testament scholars, who usually seem to think the parables themselves are pretty certainly things Jesus said, but that the interpretations are likely later additions. Below is a link to a paper which takes this point of view on the Parable of the Sower. And there is in fact a textual variant if you count the Gospel of Thomas.

    https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...s/bible-interpretation/the-parables-of-jesus/
     
  16. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    That's certainly the position of Koester, which rests on a number of dubious assumptions, notably the authenticity of the gospel of Thomas, of which there's ample reason, and precedent, to be skeptical. Moreover, it's one thing to argue that Matthew and Luke expand on what Mark wrote, but in this instance Koester has to claim that Mark is already doctored. He offers no actual evidence for this claim, other than the comparison to Thomas. And once again, that's hardly the only reference to Satan by Jesus. Earlier in Mark's gospel Jesus replies to the charge that his power comes from Beelzebub. He doesn't deny the reality of this being; he actually expands on it, by comparing Satan to "the strong man" who rules over the kingdom of evil. He's not speaking in parables. And of course there are other references in the other gospels. I have to say, it's hard to make much sense of Jesus's expression of his own "kingdom" mission without seeing it in opposition to the established kingdom of the "evil one." That pretty much is the message of Jesus. He is taking back the kingdom from the enemy, and the enemy is not a mortal being like us. We can argue about many details but it's hard to argue about that.
     
  17. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    My original source is an unpublished scholar who has been dead for the better part of fifty years. My more recent sources include these:

    1) I have spent more than forty years researching the afterlife, and especially reading century-old communications received through deep-trance mediums. As the veil thins, too, we are more able to ask these questions directly. And the dead consistently tell us (among many other things) that Christianity is invented and is not based in the teachings of Jesus (it's a first-century Jewish sect, actually); that God never judges anyone; that Armageddon never will happen; and that everyone gets to the same entirely non-religious afterlife. They enthusiastically validate the teachings of Jesus on God, love, forgiveness, and the meaning and purpose of our lives; but they do not validate the judgmental stuff, the sheep-and-goats, and the other church-building nonsense that's tucked into the back of some of the Gospels.

    2) Simply look at the books themselves! They are internally contradictory until you remove the stuff that was added later. As I've said elsewhere, the Council of Nicaea didn't have to tell us that it edited the Gospels, and the dead didn't have to say it either. Either they did in fact edit the words of Jesus, or Jesus was inconsistent and self-contradictory.

    Gene, Jesus is real! And He brought us the truth. It is a wonder that we still have His words today, after two translations and 2000 years; it's a literal miracle. But Christianity is NOT real. It is nothing but a fancy package, and I am grateful for that package because the perfect words of Jesus could not have survived the early persecutions otherwise. But we don't need those wrappings anymore! It is time now to throw the false wrappings away and begin to live the incomparable gift that always was inside them.
     
    Bill Z likes this.
  18. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    That is what I believe. People talk about "The Word of God" being in the Bible, but I have discovered a more intimate location of God's Living Word, and that is my mind. It is in everyone's mind, and it keeps maturing if we allow it to face new ideas!
     
  19. dingodile

    dingodile Member

    That brings us full circle, though, doesn't it? The OP asked whether the spirits who communicate via trance mediums are ALL demons. That raises the question of whether, and how, we can know the identity of the communicators. Likewise, Biblical criticism raises the question of whether, and how, we can know the identity and trustworthiness of the gospel writers, as well as some of the other NT authors. As I see it, there is room for doubt on both sides. If, for example, the traditional Christian message is true, one can readily see that the very thing that you claim the dead consistently tell us about Christianity, would make sense as a demonic message. That doesn't show that it is a demonic message, only that it makes sense that demons would consistently teach that Christianity is invented and not based on the real teachings of Jesus. We have to decide whom to trust, and we have to do so in the absence of independent modes of verification.

    Communicators may say they are ex-mortals, but we have no way to know that they are who they say they are. They may claim to be X and seem to know things that only X could know, but we are not in a position to say whether, in fact, only X could know those things. They may sound and act like X, but again we are not in a position to know how the limits of the ability of discarnates to impersonate people. Similarly, two of the gospels purport to be written by eyewitnesses to the events described. Can we verify this? Only very circumstantially. Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is the most ambitious attempt to date to support the eyewitness claim. It's an impressive work but it hardly puts all doubts to rest.

    So we must choose, and arguably the choice is a very important one. Maybe it makes sense to follow the advice of Pascal and ask what are the consequences, for either choice, of choosing wrongly. If we choose to believe the putatively dead communicators and they are not who they say they are, what then? Where does that leave us? If we choose to believe the gospel writers and they are not who they say they are, what is our situation?

    I wish I had an easy answer, but I don't.
     
    enby likes this.
  20. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    We seem to have abandoned the discussion of what happened at the Council of Nicea, because it seems to have no relevance to the points people were actually trying to make. I suggest forgoing mention of it unless it does.
     

Share This Page