[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You are right that Jesus didn't bring the revelation, as it was already a belief before, however Jesus and Paul themselves believed in it, as it was a correct interpretation. Some "scholars" believe that it came from external religion influences, the same way they explain names for angels in the book of Daniel. I prefer to believe in the authority of the Scriptures. I prefer to believe that the idea, if was endorsed by Jesus and Paul, was the result of going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife because of the increase awareness of afterlife during the captivity, looking for hope.

You are admitting that the belief in two compartments of hades, separated by a gulf, while allowing for communication between both sides by the dead, with one of those compartments known as "Abraham's Bosom", was ALREADY A KNOWN BELIEF in the first century. And that there was a place called Paradise up in heaven. You then claim Jesus and Paul both believed these things.

But then you say that the people who believed these things came to those beliefs by "going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife"? Please point us to the Scriptures they went "deeper into", and how those Scriptures teach a two-compartment hades with conscious dead communicating back and forth, one place of which was called Abraham's Bosom, and of a place called Paradise up in heaven.

Then, after you have done that, can you please explain how apparently these beliefs were unique Pharisaic beliefs, imported from heathenism, and how they do not fall under the title "Jewish fables" to which we are not to give heed (Titus 1:14)?

For example, resurrection and how would happen was not 100% clear and explicitly taught in the OT as it is in the NT. You had to dig deep to see it, to the point that there was a major religious group, the Sadducees, that didn't believe in it. And Jesus used a no very obvious passage to defend it (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The Pharisees were right.

The Pharisees believed that the wicked would not undergo resurrection, but would remain in hades forever. Only the righteous would be resurrected.

Are the Pharisees right? Or wrong? According to Jesus, they are wrong (see John 5:28-29). What else are they wrong about? How would we know? If doctrine doesn't come from the Bible, then we have no way of knowing what is correct or not.

I suppose you would say that Jesus endorsed the doctrine of the Pharisees. Even though He flatly contradicted the single key tenet of their eschatology (that the wicked dead are NOT raised, only the righteous are). But did He endorse their doctrine?

Is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus an endorsement of Pharisaic doctrine concerning the afterlife? Or was the story a case where Jesus took a Pharisaic idea and turned it around to expose and judge them? Using their own parables against them? Which is more likely?

The Sadducees did not come up with their denial of resurrection and of the spirit because the Old Testament is "vague and unclear". (If it was vague and unclear how did the Pharisees come up with the correct view - which was actually incorrect about the fate of the wicked, and which mimicked standard Greek and other heathen views, with the exception of the resurrection of the righteous?) I submit to you that the Sadducees simply CONTRADICTED THE WORD OF GOD. Jesus in His defense of the resurrection said they are in error NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES nor the power of God. This implies that if one DID know the Scriptures, one would not err concerning the fact of resurrection. Which means the old testament scriptures are NOT so vague and unclear as to leave everyone in the dark.

But you are actually suggesting that a supposed divine truth about the intermediate state was discovered by people APART FROM THE WORD OF GOD. The Pharisees developed intertestamental views on the afterlife due to exposure to Greek beliefs and philosophy coupled with gnostic mysticism. It is extremely unlikely that the divine truths about the nature of death, the afterlife, the location of the dead, the size and structure of "place where the dead go", etc were revealed to Pharisees APART from the Word of God. Rabbinic fables more accurate that the actual SCRIPTURES???? I don't think so.

The old testament is not vague about the intermediate state. It is EXPLICITLY CLEAR:

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. ..(Ecc 9:10)

There is nothing vague about this declaration whatsoever. The idea that the truth about the afterlife was all vague and unclear in the old testament, but then lo and behold it becomes crystal clear in the NT when the NT restates Pharisaic beliefs developed during the Exile and Greek and Roman occupation and Hellenization, is to my mind simply absurd. The Old Testament Scriptures teach the truth about the nature and constitution of man, the intermediate state, and the resurrection. The NT takes those truths and centers them in the Christ who was crucified and rose again.

Now let's think a moment about the Lord's reply to the Sadducees. He says God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He then says God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto Him.

How does this have anything to do with resurrection?????

A believer in a naturally immortal conscious soul existing after death would take the passage to mean that they are alive right now, they really aren't dead, they are off in the afterlife still carrying on in some fashion. But Jesus specifically chose THAT passage and THAT logical assertion to PROVE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. If Jesus believed as you do then how would that passage ever be taken to be a proof text for a future resurrection? How would it ever come to mind as a proof text for a future resurrection?

Yet it makes PERFECT SENSE from the viewpoint of conditional immortality and "soul sleep". The fact that He is God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and is not the God of the dead but of the living, requires a resurrection! Abraham etc must come to life, and must become immortal, otherwise God is in fact the God of the dead, and not of the living. The text, as a proof of the RESURRECTION, only really makes sense from the point of view of "soul sleep" and conditional immortality. Someone who believed in the immortal conscious soul after death would simply not even conceive of using that passage and that logical premise ("not God of the dead"). In THEIR mind those two things would simply mean Abraham is floating around in heaven or somewhere, alive and well just non physical, RIGHT NOW. But Jesus saw it as a proof of the resurrection.