What the Bible Really Says About Mediumship

Posted on 27 January 2014, 10:54

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 to&ether
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