Lying Spirits

[William]

Tam [Self proclaimed Christian and "Slave of Christ"] had this to say about my compilation of data and how the data forms a picture of what probably happens in "The Afterlife"

Peace to you,

Hells exist according to those who have experienced them and came back to tell the tale.

My Lord does not teach the 'system' that you describe, and so I cannot accept it. But even if I had not been taught anything on the matter from Him, you have provided no reason or evidence to accept the statement that you made. I certainly mean no offense, and I respect your right to your belief. But there are many other things that can be considered instead of accepting that they had a real experience of a hell in an afterlife of their own making.

There have been claims of people going to hell (or to heaven) that have been recanted as lies (lies told to sell books; get publicity; lies that were pressured upon them by others, etc.) That is a fact. People also dream (I see no reason why a person could not dream during a near-death experience). So they might simply be relaying their experience from a dream of their own making (or nightmare, as it were). And even if it were a vision, that does not mean that they understood the meaning; they may have inserted their own belief system onto the meaning of their dream or vision.

And here:

Perhaps you can ask your lord to give you an experience of visiting a few of those aspects of afterlife [alternate realities] so that you have something in which to gauge by in order to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Nope. Not gonna do that. Forget it.


I will not ask Christ to show me some other claim or teaching... especially not when Christ has already taught me the truth on His Father's house, and on where we go when we die, and the resurrection (first and second). I will remain in my Lord's word, because I am HIS disciple. Doing as suggested above would be no different than me asking Christ - the TRUTH - to show me a lie, a deception. Not only can He not do that (He is not a deceiver - the deceiver would be the Adversary, the father of lies)... asking to be shown a deception could leave a person vulnerable to being deceived by a lying spirit.

So what does the bible say about these so-called "Lying Spirits" [Search "Lying Spirits Bible"] Results:

"And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:20-23, KJV

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1, KJV

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Isaiah 5:20, KJV

"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."
Isaiah 66:4, KJV

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
2 Corinthians 11:13-15, KJV

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,"
2 Thessalonians 2:8-9, KJV

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
John 8:44, KJV

"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
2 Corinthians 2:11, KJV

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"
Ephesians 2:2, KJV

"Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another."
Ephesians 4:25, KJV

Tam argues that 'because it is not explained in the bible' the way I think the "afterlife" works, that this implies that I am therefore either influenced by a Lying Spirit or I am a Lying Spirit myself deceived and a deceiver.

I think that when Christians encounter anything which is contrary to the way Christendom has taught them to think, and they [differently] interpret the bible [as the different branches of Christendom do], then this is more like the type of [behavioral] evidence you would expect to encounter in relation to Lying Spirits because lies are often the underlying reason for confusion.

So, is Christendom [the tree] and Christian Denominations [the branches] lying to us about what happens in the afterlife?
Are Christians [is Christendom] concealing the truth from us [lying] by claiming that they follow the truth and everything else is therefore lies?

Are all lies derived from evil?

and.

If one tells part of the truth but conceals/hides all of the truth about any particular thing, is this lying?

[Difflugia]

I get that you think there's a difference between God passively allowing something and actively doing it, but that doesn't change anything. According to Micaiah, God actively sent the lying spirit.

I see you believe you are the one who judges that.

I just believe that the authors of the Bible wrote what they meant to write.

Perhaps you'd care to justify why Micaiah meant something other than what he said?

[William]

I get that you think there's a difference between God passively allowing something and actively doing it, but that doesn't change anything. According to Micaiah, God actively sent the lying spirit.

I see you believe you are the one who judges that.

I just believe that the authors of the Bible wrote what they meant to write.

Do you believe that what the authors wrote, did not come from a Lying Spirit? Not that the authors meant to lie, but that they were told a lie that was called "The Truth"...and they believed it and wrote it down...

[Difflugia]

Do you believe that what the authors wrote, did not come from a Lying Spirit? Not that the authors meant to lie, but that they were told a lie that was called "The Truth"...and they believed it and wrote it down...

I believe that there is no such thing as a "spirit," lying or otherwise. I also believe that most of the Bible is fiction of one sort or another, in the sense that it is meant to convey a story of history. That is sometimes in conjunction with facts of history, but not always and never consistently.

That said, I think that when the authors wrote something, they intended readers to understand it as it was written, within the context that it was written. That's not to say that it's always a straightforward thing to discern, but at the same time, playing word games to harmonize texts separated by gulfs in time, space, and culture is unlikely to shed any real light on meaning.

[William]

Do you believe that what the authors wrote, did not come from a Lying Spirit? Not that the authors meant to lie, but that they were told a lie that was called "The Truth"...and they believed it and wrote it down...

I believe that there is no such thing as a "spirit," lying or otherwise. I also believe that most of the Bible is fiction of one sort or another, in the sense that it is meant to convey a story of history. That is sometimes in conjunction with facts of history, but not always and never consistently.

That said, I think that when the authors wrote something, they intended readers to understand it as it was written, within the context that it was written. That's not to say that it's always a straightforward thing to discern, but at the same time, playing word games to harmonize texts separated by gulfs in time, space, and culture is unlikely to shed any real light on meaning.

So the beliefs you get from exposure to the stories contribute to the meaning you therefore derive from said stories. Since the stories make mention of lying spirits, what can be said about what it was the author was actually referring to - in the authors own way?

For surely the author was referring to something regarded as solid and real [to the point it could be mentioned].

Perhaps in our language he was simply referring to liars...human beings?

We name this "That" and we name that "This"
But no one knows what "It" really is.

[Difflugia]

So the beliefs you get from exposure to the stories contribute to the meaning you therefore derive from said stories. Since the stories make mention of lying spirits, what can be said about what it was the author was actually referring to - in the authors own way?

Aside from the very end of 2 Kings, the Deuteronomistic history (Judges, Samuel, Kings) appears to have been earlier, sometimes polytheistic stories that were redacted during Josiah's reign, some years prior to the Exile. This redaction asserts monotheism, but seems to have been done during a transitional period where that wasn't always assumed or fully accepted in the way that it was by the later prophets, Chronicles, and "Priestly" source.

To the story-teller of 1 Kings 22, the god Yahweh rules over a host of divine beings, but is himself sovereign, unchallenged, and unchallengeable. As an anthropomorphic god, he delegates tasks to his divine underlings, but is nevertheless ultimately responsible for their conduct. Prophets were considered to speak the words of a spirit that gave them words. In the monotheistic Bible, this was usually the Spirit of Yahweh (note, for example, that in Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh says of dream-interpreting Joseph, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?"). In 1 Kings 22, we see an in-between time when there were still multiple spirits that could influence prophets, but that they were nevertheless directed by the sovereign Yahweh.

Here the text is a bit confusing, I'm guessing because the original is somewhat polytheistic. As it is, the text doesn't exactly make sense; if they're already seeking the "Yahweh's word," why do they need to find "a prophet of Yahweh?" (1 Kings 22:5-8):

Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Please inquire first for Yahweh’s word.”

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Should I go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or should I refrain?”

They said, “Go up; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.”

But Jehoshaphat said, “Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh, that we may inquire of him?”

The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

My guess is that the original version of the story was of Yahweh alone being correct among the many gods of Israel, perhaps by having the power to overturn the decree of the "four hundred" others, but the redacted version has shifted the haughtiness of the competing gods onto the king of Israel. We now have a king of Israel that thinks that by picking and choosing prophets that tell him what he wants to hear, he can be assured of Yahweh's blessing. What the king of Israel doesn't realize, however, is that Yahweh directs all spirits and that the conflicting information from the other prophets is all a part of Yahweh's plan to humiliate him and bring about his death on the battlefield.

To sum up, then, all prophets will speak the words that Yahweh wants them to and every prophet's source of information is Yahweh himself. If those prophets conflict with or contradict Yahweh's chosen mouthpiece, then that's all a part of God's plan, too.

For surely the author was referring to something regarded as solid and real [to the point it could be mentioned].

Definitely. The core of the story is that the prophets of the king of Israel were telling the king that he would win the war, but the lone prophet loyal to Yahweh was predicting destruction. Though that conflict appeared to the king to be Yahweh's weakness, Yahweh was entirely in command of the situation and delivered the king to his death.

Perhaps in our language he was simply referring to liars...human beings?

This kind of allegory does appear in the Bible, but to my reading, doesn't really fit the context here at all. The story being told isn't one of liars, but of doubters. Never doubt the power of Yahweh, for the entire sphere of the divine is under his control, even (or perhaps especially) when it seems otherwise.

[William]

So the beliefs you get from exposure to the stories contribute to the meaning you therefore derive from said stories. Since the stories make mention of lying spirits, what can be said about what it was the author was actually referring to - in the authors own way?

Aside from the very end of 2 Kings, the Deuteronomistic history (Judges, Samuel, Kings) appears to have been earlier, sometimes polytheistic stories that were redacted during Josiah's reign, some years prior to the Exile. This redaction asserts monotheism, but seems to have been done during a transitional period where that wasn't always assumed or fully accepted in the way that it was by the later prophets, Chronicles, and "Priestly" source.

To the story-teller of 1 Kings 22, the god Yahweh rules over a host of divine beings, but is himself sovereign, unchallenged, and unchallengeable. As an anthropomorphic god, he delegates tasks to his divine underlings, but is nevertheless ultimately responsible for their conduct. Prophets were considered to speak the words of a spirit that gave them words. In the monotheistic Bible, this was usually the Spirit of Yahweh (note, for example, that in Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh says of dream-interpreting Joseph, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?"). In 1 Kings 22, we see an in-between time when there were still multiple spirits that could influence prophets, but that they were nevertheless directed by the sovereign Yahweh.

Here the text is a bit confusing, I'm guessing because the original is somewhat polytheistic. As it is, the text doesn't exactly make sense; if they're already seeking the "Yahweh's word," why do they need to find "a prophet of Yahweh?" (1 Kings 22:5-8):

Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Please inquire first for Yahweh’s word.”

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Should I go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or should I refrain?”

They said, “Go up; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.”

But Jehoshaphat said, “Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh, that we may inquire of him?”

The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

My guess is that the original version of the story was of Yahweh alone being correct among the many gods of Israel, perhaps by having the power to overturn the decree of the "four hundred" others, but the redacted version has shifted the haughtiness of the competing gods onto the king of Israel. We now have a king of Israel that thinks that by picking and choosing prophets that tell him what he wants to hear, he can be assured of Yahweh's blessing. What the king of Israel doesn't realize, however, is that Yahweh directs all spirits and that the conflicting information from the other prophets is all a part of Yahweh's plan to humiliate him and bring about his death on the battlefield.

To sum up, then, all prophets will speak the words that Yahweh wants them to and every prophet's source of information is Yahweh himself. If those prophets conflict with or contradict Yahweh's chosen mouthpiece, then that's all a part of God's plan, too.

For surely the author was referring to something regarded as solid and real [to the point it could be mentioned].

Definitely. The core of the story is that the prophets of the king of Israel were telling the king that he would win the war, but the lone prophet loyal to Yahweh was predicting destruction. Though that conflict appeared to the king to be Yahweh's weakness, Yahweh was entirely in command of the situation and delivered the king to his death.

Perhaps in our language he was simply referring to liars...human beings?

This kind of allegory does appear in the Bible, but to my reading, doesn't really fit the context here at all. The story being told isn't one of liars, but of doubters. Never doubt the power of Yahweh, for the entire sphere of the divine is under his control, even (or perhaps especially) when it seems otherwise.

Ah I see - so when you wrote "I believe that there is no such thing as a "spirit," lying or otherwise." what are you referring to? Because you write this:

Prophets were considered to speak the words of a spirit that gave them words. In the monotheistic Bible, this was usually the Spirit of Yahweh (note, for example, that in Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh says of dream-interpreting Joseph, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?")

Is the god not a "spirit"?

[Difflugia]

Ah I see - so when you wrote "I believe that there is no such thing as a "spirit," lying or otherwise." what are you referring to? Because you write this:

Prophets were considered to speak the words of a spirit that gave them words. In the monotheistic Bible, this was usually the Spirit of Yahweh (note, for example, that in Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh says of dream-interpreting Joseph, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?")

Is the god not a "spirit"?

Perhaps I'm confused about what you were asking or I was confusing and shifted too often between narrative points of view. I think these things are true:

• In real life, there's no such thing as gods or lying spirits. There's no possible way that you can have a lying spirit in you. Since this subforum assumes the "authority of the Bible," I wouldn't normally have entered that into the discussion, but I thought you were asking about my personal beliefs.
• The person that wrote 1 Kings 22 did think that lying spirits were real, though, and that Yahweh will send them into prophets to further his plans.
• The person that wrote Genesis 41 believed that prophecy was mediated through the indwelling of divine spirits, so that's reflected in the dialog that he or she imagined for Pharaoh.

The claim that I was originally addressing was that God doesn't send lying spirits, which is unambiguously contradicted by the Bible: "Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets." The counterargument was apparently that God didn't really send the spirit into the prophets like the Bible says, but just allowed it to go on its own initiative.

[William]

Ah I see - so when you wrote "I believe that there is no such thing as a "spirit," lying or otherwise." what are you referring to? Because you write this:

Prophets were considered to speak the words of a spirit that gave them words. In the monotheistic Bible, this was usually the Spirit of Yahweh (note, for example, that in Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh says of dream-interpreting Joseph, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?")

Is the god not a "spirit"?

Perhaps I'm confused about what you were asking or I was confusing and shifted too often between narrative points of view. I think these things are true:

• In real life, there's no such thing as gods or lying spirits. There's no possible way that you can have a lying spirit in you. Since this subforum assumes the "authority of the Bible," I wouldn't normally have entered that into the discussion, but I thought you were asking about my personal beliefs.
• The person that wrote 1 Kings 22 did think that lying spirits were real, though, and that Yahweh will send them into prophets to further his plans.
• The person that wrote Genesis 41 believed that prophecy was mediated through the indwelling of divine spirits, so that's reflected in the dialog that he or she imagined for Pharaoh.

The claim that I was originally addressing was that God doesn't send lying spirits, which is unambiguously contradicted by the Bible: "Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets." The counterargument was apparently that God didn't really send the spirit into the prophets like the Bible says, but just allowed it to go on its own initiative.

Righto - so the god [God] allowed the authors to write it as they saw it, even if how they saw it wasn't how it actually was...is this what you are getting at?

[Difflugia]

Righto - so the god [God] allowed the authors to write it as they saw it, even if how they saw it wasn't how it actually was...is this what you are getting at?

I'm not sure that it is. This is no longer a theological discussion, but a literary one.

I think the authors wrote a fictional story that carries an intended meaning and they meant it to be understandable. It may be "based on a true story," perhaps, but it's fiction and intentionally so as far as details are concerned. No god is involved because gods aren't real.

The author did believe that Yahweh was a real god, though, and was writing (or redacting) a story to allegorically explain what he or she believed to be Yahweh's real power. One particular way that the author imagined that power being manifested is in sending a lying spirit into genuine (in the story) prophets so that they would mislead the king of Israel.

[William]

Righto - so the god [God] allowed the authors to write it as they saw it, even if how they saw it wasn't how it actually was...is this what you are getting at?

I'm not sure that it is. This is no longer a theological discussion, but a literary one.

I think the authors wrote a fictional story that carries an intended meaning and they meant it to be understandable. It may be "based on a true story," perhaps, but it's fiction and intentionally so as far as details are concerned. No god is involved because gods aren't real.

How do you know that gods aren't real? [assuming a 'god' created this universe/this universe is a creation]. iow - How do you know this universe is NOT a creation?

The author did believe that Yahweh was a real god, though, and was writing (or redacting) a story to allegorically explain what he or she believed to be Yahweh's real power. One particular way that the author imagined that power being manifested is in sending a lying spirit into genuine (in the story) prophets so that they would mislead the king of Israel.