Jim Larmore

Bernard, I'm a bit surprised you would make an assumption like this based on what I've read of your work, This is not saying anything of the sort. This happens when you take a verse out of context. The passage if you read the few verses before and after is talking about the Sadducee's non belief in the resurrection. The verse says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are indeed dead and that God is a God of the "Living" and that they are wrong about their belief in the resurrection.

With regard to Mark 14:51-52, if its an angel it doesn't indicate it is, the entire Bible always leaves us with no questions when it comes to angels and says its an "angel". An angel is not a departed soul anyway, they are ministering spirits created by God just like we are created by God, only they are Holy and a lot higher order of life form than we are at this time. I looked at a commentary on this verse and it says that the naked young man was probably John Mark or the author of the book . Many times they did't referr to themselves directly but alluded to a person. John did this several times when he said the "disciple Jesus loved" but it is clear he was referring to himself.

Jim Larmore

Dr.X

The passage in 1Sam28 about Saul consorting with the witch of endor ( wasn't this the name of the moon the empire was attacking in Star Wars??) tells us of a seance (m.s.) that occurred between a dethroned king and a witch. This does not prove an after-life of a soul or souls. The spirit who came up was in the likeness of Samuel but if you read in Rev 16:14 you see that demons can work miracles and I'm sure has the power to immulate a sleeping person who passed away. This will be a powerfull form of deception in the last days.

The parable of the rich man a Lazarus is just that a PARABLE. It doesn't say anything about souls living forever or living outside of the body, it teaches of a man paying for the deeds of his life. We could claim rediculous things if we took all parables as fact. they are for the most part symbolic of a lesson to be taught unless Jesus actually says so it shall be in the last days and He doen't say that here at all.

Jim Larmore

Steve,

I need to add this to answer your other question, I believe there were probably Jews who believed in the immortality of the soul, but the canonized scripture does not teach this at all. The helenistic influence alone during the time of Christ would have caused many to be exposed to that belief. Josephus alludes to it in his writings.

You made a statement earlier when we were discussing Moses' resurrection that Jesus was not the "first fruits" then.?? Moses, Elijah and Enoch all fall into the catagory of "special" men who are now alive, Enoch and Elijah never tasted death, Moses was resurrected. The first fruits came about only after the plan of salvation was completed and that didn't happen until Jesus died on the cross. If the plan of salvation would have failed these men would have lost their place in paradise. ( now this is a item that could be debated)

Steven Carr

I would imagine there was indeed some Hellenzation of Jewish theology.

But Moses was resurrected before Jesus died on the cross?!?

I wonder why Elijah's perishable flesh and blood entered the kingdom of Heaven, when Paul says flesh and blood is perishable and will never enter the kingdom of Heaven (unlike flesh and bones, of course)

Oh, by the way, I love the idea that Grant Jeffery is going to tell you who these sceptics were who were saying in 1960 or 1961 that Pontius Pilate never existed. What makes me think you will not get names out of him.....

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
The passage if you read the few verses before and after is talking about the Sadducee's non belief in the resurrection. The verse says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are indeed dead and that God is a God of the "Living" and that they are wrong about their belief in the resurrection.

Are you claiming Jesus is saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead to prove there is resurrection?
Certainly, saying the God is the God of the living when the mentioned patriarchs are believed dead would defeat the argument.
Where does it say the threesome is believed dead anyway?
And if Moses & Elijah can appear before on the mountain, the readers would be convinced the three patriarchs are alive also.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

And so was Enoch and Elijah taken to heaven before the plan of salvation was consummated, this doesnt negate the 1st fruits spoken of in the scriptures. I don't believe Elijah was perishable per se' when he entered into heaven. I believe he was given a glorified body like we will all receive when Jesus comes if we accept Him and His plan of salvation.

When Jesus died on the cross His sacrifice forever settled the sin problem's outcome. This allowed Jesus and those resurrected at His crusifxion to become the true "first fruits" of His sacrifice. Sin has been a great cosmic experiment that I believe all of creation ( the unfallen planets in the universe) has been witnessing since its origin.( I know this is an ipse dixit ed) Satan was lucifer, one of the most powerful angels in heaven, when sin entered his being it set off a sequence of events that as of to date have been collasal and will culminate at the 2nd comming of Christ and then 1000 years later when Hell-fire destroys Satan , his angels and every one of us who cut ourselves off from the life giver, the creator of the universe. Christ had to come and be sacrificed to satisfy the requirement of the law of God, otherwise all of humanity would have been condemned to death, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Jim Larmore

What I'm saying is you can't say from the verse that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, as a matter of fact it says when speaking of touching the dead. This inferrs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead. You have to be dead to be resurrected, at any rate Jesus was telling the Sadducees they were wrong about their non-belief in the resurrection, this is the crux of the issue being stated here. When He is making the statement of God is a God of the living He is saying God's focus is on the people who are alive not the ones who have gone to sleep and are waiting for the resurrection.

Bernard Muller

Jim Larmore wrote:
When He is making the statement of God is a God of the living He is saying God's focus is on the people who are alive not the ones who have gone to sleep and are waiting for the resurrection.

But God himself allegedly said he is the God of Abraham, etc., during the Exodus. Do you interpret that as God thinking Abraham was dead or alive then!
And why would Jesus cite dead persons to "prove" resurrections?

Best regards, Bernard

goodthink

The OT starts out with a concrete belief in no immortal soul and ends up believing in it. Why? because the bible is a collection of competing works, that do not always agree and often come together at odds.

The reason we see abraham and moses at the transfiguration of Christ is because the author(s) wanted to show a lineage to the reader. Here Jesus is confiring with the patriarchs of the covenants. The first was with abraham, the second moses and the third... jesus. Its a symbolic invention. That's why the same authors then make confusing claims about resserctions and the like.

Morever, enoch, by way of extra-cannocial scripture, took the names of jesus after his transfiguration. So a case could be made for reincarnation and the like, or the transmigration of the soul(s) of various peoples whom god uses over and over again .

However, the jews withing the r and p narratives were largely hellenised and began accepting the idea of a permanant soul that continued after this life time. It no wonder the issue is confusing. The topic should only be discussed within the confines of a single book and author.

reagrds,


goodthink

Doctor X

Wow . . . so much.

Jim:

. . . except that that never happened. I am writing about the history of religion, not the mythic history of religion--for example, it is clear some of the biblical flood myths were based on Babylonian/Sumerian myths. That is history.

Also, the serpent is not Satan . . . though he might be "a satan" in that he is a stumbling block. . . .

Yes, flattery will get you everywhere.

You just have to be willing to look at the evidence and be careful when making absolute proclamations. Most people here understand that even the most scholarly posters cannot read everything on every topic. The problem comes when someone gets "huffy" and just retreats to proclaming he is "right" and everyone who disagrees is "wrong" because!

As for fallacies, if I harp upon them it is because they "make sense" too easily.

Now:

Simply shows that Lucas does not have anything original.

If proves the belief in it was not uncommon. That is the issue. As for quoting Revelation, you really cannot retroject conceptions back centuries to explain the text. If you wish to now argue whether or not souls actually exist this becomes a different topic from whether or not the writers of the texts believed in them.

--J.D.