![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/JesusTransfiguration3-scaled.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a056th refutation<\/a>\u00a0of Banzoli\u2019s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn\u2019t write\u00a0one single<\/em>\u00a0word<\/em>\u00a0in reply.\u00a0Why<\/em>? He says it\u2019s because my articles are\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak . . .\u00a0only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Despite this childish rationalizing, he remarkably concluded at length that my refutations are so\u00a0\u201centertaining\u201d<\/span>\u00a0that he will\u00a0\u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cone by one.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He has now replied to me 14 times<\/em> (the last one dated 1-22-23<\/a>), and I will (rest assured) counter-reply to any and all arguments<\/em> (as opposed to his never-ending insults) that he makes in direct response to me. I have disposed of the main droning themes of his ubiquitous slanderous insults in several Facebook posts: see them listed under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page<\/a>. I plan (by God\u2019s grace) to completely ignore them henceforth, and heartily thank him for providing me with these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).<\/p>\n Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s article, \u201cOs mortos intercedem pelos vivos? (Refuta\u00e7\u00e3o a Dave Armstrong)\u201d<\/a> [Do the dead intercede for the living?\u00a0(Rebuttal to Dave Armstrong<\/em>] (11-19-22). He was mainly responding to my article, Reply to Banzoli\u2019s \u201cAnalyzing the \u2018evidence\u2019 of saints\u2019 intercession\u201d<\/a> (9-22-22).<\/p>\n Dave, who never wrote a single line to prove theism<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n One of my first major apologetics efforts was to prove and defend the divinity \/ deity \/ Godhood of Jesus<\/a> and the Holy Trinity<\/a> from the Bible: back in 1982 \u2014 likely before Lucas was born. I have a huge web page on those topics<\/a> and a book devoted to it: Theology of God: Biblical, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism and Christology<\/i><\/a> (2012); also another that devotes more than a hundred pages to those topics: Mere Christian Apologetics<\/em> <\/a>(2002). My largest effort when I began doing apologetics in 1981 (and still one of my biggest writing \/ research projects ever, after 41 years), was a systematic refutation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, who deny that Jesus is God (see that study<\/a>): including their falsehood about souls and annihilationism (held by Banzoli).<\/p>\n As for theistic arguments, I massively deal with those on my Science & Philosophy web page<\/a> and my huge<\/em> Atheism page<\/a>. My third book directed towards atheists (The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible<\/em><\/a>) is to be published this March 20th by Catholic Answers Press. Unlike Banzoli, who is only self-published<\/em>, as far as I can tell \u2014 and in desperate<\/em> need of a professional editor \u2014 , I have over twenty \u201cofficially\u201d published books. My new book literally and directly came about as a result of a year-and-a-half of intense discussions and debates with atheists in their own environments: as did my brand-new book that I just finished. See also my large collection of articles: Bible & Archaeology \/ Bible & Science<\/a>.<\/p>\n My other two books intended primarily for atheists are Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism<\/em> <\/a>(2002) and Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? <\/a><\/em>(2010). I just completed a fourth that I have high hopes of getting officially published as well: Anti-Bible: Refutations of XXX Alleged Biblical Contradictions<\/em><\/a> (see also my large web page devoted to alleged biblical contradictions<\/a>).<\/p>\n So that\u2019s four books from me critiquing atheism and defending theism (one now 21 years old) vs. two for Banzoli. Yet according to him, I \u201cnever wrote a single line to prove theism\u201d<\/span><\/span> and my \u201cwhole poor life consists of attacking evangelicals literally 24 hours a day (by his own admission, this is his \u2018job\u2019).\u201d<\/span>\u00a0 This is the fantasy world that he lives in: often sadly characterized by an inverse relationship to the truth.<\/p>\n Dave even goes so far as to say that I \u201cfalsely claim to be evangelical\u201d,<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right. As one who was a fervent evangelical myself, for 13 years, and an apologist and evangelist then as well, and a sociology major, I know for a fact that historic Protestant evangelicals \u2014 by any reasonable, informed definition of the term and going by their own creeds and confessions and systematic theologies \u2014 do not<\/em>:<\/p>\n 1) assert that there is no hell and that unsaved persons are annihilated.<\/p>\n 2) assert that there is no such thing as a soul.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am just as duty-bound to defend the nature of the belief-system of my fellow Christian Protestant evangelicals \u2014 whom I greatly admire and respect<\/a> \u2014 as I am to defend the true nature of Catholicism. No one deserves to be misrepresented. Banzoli distorts and twists both and falsely claims to be in one of the categories. This must be opposed.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t follow this calling in order to be rapturously loved by one and all. I did in order to share and defend God\u2019s truth, come what may. Those who are being corrected almost never appreciate or accept it, and they lash out, as we see Banzoli doing with all his silly, mindless insults in this article (and thirteen others in response to me) that I have mostly ignored. Please pray for him, that God will open his eyes to the fullness of biblical and Christian and Catholic truth.<\/p>\n I suppose this is because I deny the immortality of the soul, which just goes to show how poor Dave\u2019s knowledge of Protestantism is, for if to deny the immortality of the soul is to be \u201cfalsely evangelical\u201d, then even Luther was one\u201d false evangelical,\u201d and Dave should stop quoting him as a Protestant on his blog!<\/span><\/p>\n Well, he did and he didn\u2019t, as so often. He was self-contradictory. This was noted in the article, \u201cA Re-examination of Luther\u2019s View on the<\/a> I would simply note that Banzoli himself admitted on page 18, in the Introduction to his book on the soul, that belief in the immortality of the soul is held by \u201cnearly all the Christians in the world.\u201d<\/span> That includes Protestant evangelicals. If indeed, Luther was wrong on this issue, as Banzoli is, even his own Lutherans didn\u2019t follow him in the error.<\/p>\n it suffices to show that, even if the dead were alive in the afterlife, they would not have knowledge of what is happening on earth or a sufficient degree of consciousness to intercede for the living<\/span><\/p>\n They certainly have a strong awareness of what is happening on the earth:<\/p>\n Hebrews 12:1 <\/strong>(RSV) Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n T<\/i>he Greek word for witness<\/em> is martur, <\/i>from which is derived the English word\u00a0martyr.\u00a0<\/i>The reputable Protestant Greek scholars Marvin Vincent and A. T. Robertson comment on this verse as follows:<\/p>\n [T]he idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer\u2019s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith . . . watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid (Marvin R. Vincent,\u00a0Word Studies in the New Testament.\u00a0<\/i>4 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1946, IV, 536).<\/p>\n \u201cCloud of witnesses\u201d\u00a0(nephos marturon)\u00a0<\/i>. . . The metaphor refers to the great amphitheater with the arena for the runners and the tiers upon tiers of seats rising up like a cloud. The\u00a0martures\u00a0<\/i>here are not mere spectators\u00a0(theatai),\u00a0<\/i>but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience (11:2, 4-5, 33, 39) to God\u2019s fulfilling promises as shown in chapter 11 (Word Pictures in the New Testament.\u00a0<\/i>6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, V, 432).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (not to mention countless other problems, such as the lack of omnipresence or omniscience to know what everyone prays everywhere and intercede for each of them at the same time, which would make them gods and not men).<\/span><\/p>\n All this requires is being outside of time<\/em> (not all knowledge or presence everywhere) which would be, so it is reasonable to assume, the result of being present in heaven, where \u2014 as many Christian philosophers and theologians believe \u2014 it is an eternal \u201cnow\u201d. I wrote about this in my article: \u201cHow Can a Saint Hear the Prayers of Millions at Once?\u201d <\/a>[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 10-7-20]:<\/p>\n The question then becomes: Are we creatures\u00a0also<\/i>\u00a0outside of time (or do we at least\u00a0transcend<\/i>\u00a0earthly time in some fashion?) when we get to heaven and enter eternity? Many philosophers of religion have thought so, on the grounds that heavenly eternity (for creatures) is not endless succession of time, but rather, the cessation of time as we know it from a particular point forward (rather like a ray in geometry).<\/p>\n There are many mysteries about heaven, but who can say what it will be like \u2014 including our experience of time or lack thereof? It\u2019s certainly\u00a0possible<\/i>\u00a0that we could be outside of time: not eternally like God, but from the moment we get to heaven.<\/p>\n If human beings can invent computers that are able to produce extraordinary amounts of information and answers and solutions in a split second, is not an omniscient God great enough to enable his creatures to hear prayers in a way that transcends our earthly existence? It seems likely that heaven is a different dimension, or has more dimensions, and time is part of that framework.\u00a0 . . .<\/p>\n We know heaven will be extraordinary and that we will have glorified bodies, and that now we only \u201csee through a glass, darkly\u201d as Paul stated (1 Corinthians 13:12), and that \u201ceye has not seen\u201d (1 Corinthians 2:9) etc. what God has prepared for us. Paul wrote how he was \u201ccaught up into Paradise\u201d and \u201cheard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter\u201d (2 Corinthians 12:3-4).<\/p>\n Thus, saints hearing millions of prayers is no \u201cproblem\u201d for God at all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Bible says that Moses and Samuel still pray for us:<\/p>\n Jeremiah 15:1<\/b>\u00a0Then the LORD said to me, \u201cThough Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God casually mentions this to the prophet Jeremiah. He doesn\u2019t say they shouldn\u2019t<\/em> pray. He simply (in effect) answers a hypothetical prayer from them on this topic with a \u201cno.\u201d If it were impossible for a dead saint to intercede to God for those on earth, God could never have spoken in this fashion; or else He would have asserted the contrary: \u201cMoses and Samuel cannot stand before me and intercede!\u201d or suchlike.\u00a0Banzoli replies to this later in his paper:<\/p>\n Note that the text\u00a0does not\u00a0say that Moses and Samuel stood before God or interceded after death;\u00a0rather, it says that\u00a0even if<\/i> they were, God would not answer them (which means they were<\/em>n\u2019t<\/i>\u00a0).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The thought is that \u201ceven the greatest intercessors and prayer warriors cannot persuade Me not to judge in this case, since the time is ripe for judgment.\u201d That\u2019s not a denial of the possibility<\/em> that Moses and Samuel could intercede after their deaths; rather, it\u2019s expressing the thought that \u201ceven if they<\/em> asked me not to judge, I still<\/em> would, having decided to.\u201d This appears to be too subtle for Banzoli to grasp, judging by his droningly repetitive and groundless objection to it, but I trust that my readers will be able to understand the argument. Sometimes (this is the case for all of us), we have to read something a few times before it sinks in.<\/p>\n If Moses and Samuel were alive at that moment as disembodied souls in Paradise, they would obviously be praying for Israel, as this is what these two prophets always did for the people in life and what they would not fail to do after death.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly. And God would still have the prerogative to judge anyone who took their rebellion against Him too far.<\/p>\n In this case, the text would say that\u00a0despite<\/i>\u00a0their intercession, God did not answer them.\u00a0But what the text says is exactly the opposite:\u00a0even if<\/i>\u00a0they did that \u2013 which they don\u2019t, because they are dead \u2013 God would not answer them.<\/span><\/p>\n It means the same thing: \u201cdespite\u201d = \u201ceven if they<\/strong><\/em> [the great prayer warriors] prayed\u201d.<\/p>\n The only difference is that here we are not dealing with a\u00a0logical impossibility<\/i>\u00a0(that is, with something\u00a0ontologically<\/i>\u00a0impossible), but with something impossible from a biblical perspective (unless Moses and Samuel were resurrected to be in the presence of God and intercede for the people ).<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not in the slightest<\/em> biblically \u201cimpossible.\u201d<\/span> Samuel appeared after death to Saul and told him a prophecy about his own impending death and judgment. If he can prophesy after death, he can certainly also pray. Moses (along with Elijah) appeared with Jesus when He was transfigured (I visited the spot where this happened), and was \u201ctalking with him\u201d (Mt 17:3). If he can do that, he can surely pray for us on earth. And Jeremiah 15:1, correctly understood, minus this heretical soul sleep predisposition, teaches the same about both of them.<\/p>\n In other words, Israel\u2019s wickedness had reached such a level that even if Moses and Samuel were standing before God interceding for the people, God would not hear them.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly! We agree<\/em>! Stop the presses! It doesn\u2019t prove that they couldn\u2019t utter such prayers at all or that they no longer exist. Banzoli simply projects that onto the passage (eisegesis). I can think of at least two passages with the same sort of dynamic:<\/p>\n Ezekiel 14:14, 16<\/strong> even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD. . . . [16] even if these three men were in it, as I live, says the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters; they alone would be delivered, but the land would be desolate.<\/p>\n Matthew 11:21<\/strong> \u201cWoe to you, Chora\u2019zin! woe to you, Beth-sa\u2019ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In both cases, God is not talking about an absolutely impossible<\/em> scenario, but rather, a possible<\/em> one where He says what would have happened if this possible thing had actually occurred. Likewise with Jeremiah 15:1.<\/p>\n he clearly doesn\u2019t know what exegesis is and must never have consulted Hebrew in his life and looked up cross-references.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is just one example among countless ones, of Banzoli\u2019s endless insults sent my way. I simply document<\/em> it. There is clearly no need to reply<\/em> to such an asinine lie.<\/p>\n it was not Samuel\u2019s soul, but a demonic spirit impersonating Samuel.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Demons don\u2019t give true prophecies. They lie. There is not the slightest hint in the text that it is a demon in play. The Bible calls this spirit \u201cSamuel.\u201d<\/p>\n This part in the book has 24 pages, so I won\u2019t tire the reader by transcribing everything here\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I already dealt with this topic, against Banzoli and also another anti-Catholic over fifteen years ago, and in two additional papers:<\/p>\n #13 (Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul \/ Moses & Elijah at Jesus\u2019 Transfiguration)<\/a>\u00a0[12-1-22]<\/p>\n Communion of Saints, Scripture, & Anti-Catholic Doug Mabry (With Emphasis Particularly on the Saul and [Dead] Samuel Incident)<\/a>\u00a0[7-8-07]<\/p>\n Samuel Appearing to Saul: Argument for Communion of Saints?<\/a>\u00a0[7-1-07]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Samuel Appearing to Saul (Witch of Endor)<\/a>\u00a0[5-6-17]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Banzoli claims that even the \u201cbest\u201d<\/span> arguments for the immortality of the soul are \u201cridiculously embarrassing\u201d<\/span> and that his book\u2019s arguments \u201creally are insurmountable.\u201d<\/span> Modesty and humility are clearly not his strong suits. He\u00a0objects to this counter-argument of mine:<\/p>\n Isaiah 38:18-19<\/strong>\u00a0For Sheol cannot thank thee, death cannot praise thee; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for thy faithfulness. [19] The living, the living, he thanks thee, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children thy faithfulness.<\/span><\/p>\n Psalm 6:5<\/strong>\u00a0For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Many Protestant commentators hold that the above two passages express a lack of energy or will power in Hades \/ Sheol, as opposed to non-existence or unconscious \u201csleep.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Note that Dave does not even exegete the texts \u2013 if he has actually read them \u2013 he simply limits himself to saying what certain \u201cProtestant commentators hold\u201d, as if that in itself relieves him of the responsibility of explaining the texts through a decent exegesis.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay; let\u2019s look more closely at them. Do they prove that there is no consciousness at all in Sheol? I provided several other passages that contradict such a notion, and he addresses some of those further down in his reply. For now, I will simply analyze the above passages. I would say that the doctrine of the afterlife slowly developed in Jewish thought. It wasn\u2019t significantly or sufficiently clarified until after the Old Testament was completed.<\/p>\n At this point (Isaiah lived in the eight century BC and Psalm 6:5 was from David, who died c. 970 BC) Sheol (later known as Hades) tended to be a very shadowy, mysterious place, and there was relatively little distinction between the righteous and the wicked who went there after death.\u00a0But Isaiah elsewhere describes conscious communication in Sheol (14:9-11), which is why I cited that passage. Isaiah doesn\u2019t consistently portray soul sleep. This gives us reason to believe that 38:18-19 is likely merely figurative poetry, and that the doctrine was still very \u201cfuzzy\u201d and poorly understood in his time. Isaiah also wrote:<\/p>\n Isaiah 26:19<\/strong>\u00a0Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is hardly a shadowy temporary existence in Sheol and then annihilation.\u00a0Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a> observes, regarding Isaiah 38: \u201cThe thought of spiritual energies developed and intensified after death is essentially one which belongs to the \u2018illuminated\u2019 immortality (2 Timothy 1:10), of Christian thought.\u201d Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/em><\/a> adds:<\/p>\n International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em> (\u201cSheol\u201d<\/a>) expands upon this:<\/p>\n It is, as the antithesis of the living condition, the synonym for everything that is gloomy, inert, insubstantial . . . It is a \u201cland of forgetfulness,\u201d where God\u2019s \u201cwonders\u201d are unknown (Ps 88:10-12<\/a>). There is no remembrance or praise of God (Ps 6:5<\/a>;\u00a088:12<\/a>;\u00a0115:17<\/a>, etc.). In its darkness, stillness, powerlessness, lack of knowledge and inactivity, it is a true abode of death; hence, is regarded by the living with shrinking, horror and dismay (Ps 39:13<\/a>;\u00a0Isa 38:17-19<\/a>), though to the weary and troubled it may present the aspect of a welcome rest or sleep (Job 3:17-22<\/a>;\u00a014:12<\/a>\u00a0f). The Greek idea of Hades was not dissimilar.<\/p>\n Yet it would be a mistake to infer, because of these strong and sometimes poetically heightened contrasts to the world of the living, that Sheol was conceived of as absolutely a place without consciousness, or some dim remembrance of the world above. This is not the case. . . . The state is rather that of slumbrous semi-consciousness and enfeebled existence from which in a partial way the spirit might temporarily be aroused. Such conceptions, it need hardly be said, did not rest on revelation, but were rather the natural ideas formed of the future state, in contrast with life in the body, in the absence of revelation. . . .<\/p>\n There is no doubt, at all events, that in the postcanonical Jewish literature (the Apocrypha and apocalyptic writings) a very considerable development is manifest in the idea of Sheol. Distinction between good and bad in Israel is emphasized; Sheol becomes for certain classes an intermediate state between death and resurrection . . . (cf. another article in the ISBE: \u201cEschatology of the Old Testament\u201d<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nState of the Dead,\u201d<\/a> written by Seventh-Day Adventist Trevor O\u2019Reggio in 2011. As an author of a book about Luther<\/a> and editor of a second volume of his quotations<\/a>, and webmaster of a very large web page devoted to him, I wrote about Luther and soul sleep<\/a> in an article that is now almost exactly fifteen years old.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n