52 replies to this topic

[Chris]

gabe, on Apr 17 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Quote

Well, first of all, your "proofs" for your stand on this topic are pretty vague and without any more validity than your own opinion.

I agree. But I would like to challenge you to provide just one example from a pre-captivity text which teaches the eschatological notions in question.

I gave a few actually. The promises to Abraham, to David. I also gave proof of Christ's own words concerning God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is the utterance of Job concerning his own awaking from death, along with the prophecies of David as made mention by the Apostle's sermons in Acts. All these examples come from pre-captivity OT scriptures.

Here's a good starting point.

Cheers.

[gabe]

Quote

I gave a few actually. The promises to Abraham......

This promise did not include the promise of resurrection, did it?

Quote

I also gave proof of Christ's own words concerning God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Christ came five centuries after the Jews adopted the doctrine of the resurrection from the Persians.

Quote

There is the utterance of Job concerning his own awaking from death...

I don't know what verse/passage you have in mind. Are you thinking of the line where Job says that He shall see God while in his flesh?

Quote

... along with the prophecies of David as made mention by the Apostle's sermons in Acts.

"He shall not leave my soul in Sheol...."

Psalm 16 was written after the captivity, as evidenced by its similarity to Isaiah (see 57:5; 62:4; 65:3-7)

Cheers!

Edited by gabe, 18 April 2007 - 12:13 AM.

[Chris]

gabe, on Apr 17 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

Quote

I gave a few actually. The promises to Abraham......

This promise did not include the promise of resurrection, did it?

If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died but God is not the God of the dead....well, Christ's reasoning stands. Unless, of course, you do believe God is the God of the dead.

Quote

Quote

I also gave proof of Christ's own words concerning God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Christ came five centuries after the Jews adopted the doctrine of the resurrection from the Persians.

Do you believe Christ is the Son of God?

Quote

Quote

There is the utterance of Job concerning his own awaking from death...

I don't know what verse/passage you have in mind. Are you thinking of the line where Job says that He shall see God while in his flesh?

Yes.

Quote

Quote

... along with the prophecies of David as made mention by the Apostle's sermons in Acts.

"He shall not leave my soul in Sheol...."

Psalm 16 was written after the captivity, as evidenced by its similarity to Isaiah (see 57:5; 62:4; 65:3-7)

Some offer up this dispute, but that doesn't make it fact. I'll take Peter attributing it to David unless you can offer qualified proof to the contrary.

As to the scholarly approach of Psalm 16 echoing Isaiah -- I offer up that perhaps it is the other way around.

Edited by TwoPutt, 18 April 2007 - 12:43 AM.

[gabe]

Quote

If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died but God is not the God of the dead....well, Christ's reasoning stands. Unless, of course, you do believe God is the God of the dead.

I simply acknowledge that the pre-captivity Jews didn't leave us any writtene vidence that they believed in the resurrection of the dead. All written evidence for this comes afterwards.

Quote

Do you believe Christ is the Son of God?

No.

As for Job's statement that he would see God in his flesh, this does not speak to a resurrection at all, but rather to spiritual revelation in this life. See the context for details.

Quote

Some offer up this dispute, but that doesn't make it fact.

Did you cross-examine the texts I cited?

Quote

As to the scholarly approach of Psalm 16 echoing Isaiah -- I offer up that perhaps it is the other way around.

That would be highly unlikely simply because Psalm 16 is unique among Psalms whilst typical of Isaiah.

[Chris]

gabe, on Apr 17 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

'TwoPutt' said:

Do you believe Christ is the Son of God?

No.

Well, this is more serious IMO than your view of pre-captivity eschatology among the Jews.

[gabe]

Twoputt, I'm not here to discuss my personal beliefs or lack thereof. I wanted to discuss the topic of the thread.

[Chris]

'gabe' said:

Twoputt, I'm not here to discuss my personal beliefs or lack thereof.

Fair enough.

'gabe' said:

'TwoPutt' said:

If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died but God is not the God of the dead....well, Christ's reasoning stands. Unless, of course, you do believe God is the God of the dead.

I simply acknowledge that the pre-captivity Jews didn't leave us any writtene vidence that they believed in the resurrection of the dead. All written evidence for this comes afterwards.

First, you didn't answer if you believe God is the God of dead people or not.

Second, you're not addressing my point.

'gabe' said:

As for Job's statement that he would see God in his flesh, this does not speak to a resurrection at all, but rather to spiritual revelation in this life. See the context for details.

You are stating as fact what is debated among scholars. I disagree with you in that I believe the context is speaking of a bodily resurrection.

'gabe' said:

Did you cross-examine the texts I cited?

Yes.

'gabe' said:

That would be highly unlikely simply because Psalm 16 is unique among Psalms whilst typical of Isaiah.

That is more speculation that even scholars can't agree on. So, until you can offer real proof to the contrary, I'll go with Peter's determination of this Psalm's author.


Perhaps it is that you want a scripture or two where Abraham or Adam uses the same echatological wording as say, Peter or Paul, Daniel or Jesus? If that is the case then I can't help you. However, I have given you scriptural proofs (see my posts above) that the pre-captivity Israelites had an eschatological understanding though it was certainly veiled in certain respects. However, that doesn't invalidate their belief in an 'afterlife' as the proofs are most certainly there. If you wish to discount them or try to explain them away (as it seems you do from your previous post), then I don't know what else to say to you.

Edit: Corrected a grammatical error

Edited by TwoPutt, 18 April 2007 - 05:07 AM.

[gabe]

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.

Let's talk about Job 19:26. Indeed, it does speak to a bodily resurrection. I will concede this. However, I see plenty of evidence that this book was composed during or after the Babylonian exile. Have you examined this evidence?

[Flappie]

You'll need to present it before anyone can examine it.

[Chris]

Flappie's correct, though I have examined "evidence" of this claim and find it lacking. However, present away!

[Steven]

gabe, on Apr 20 2007, 03:41 AM, said:

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.

Let's talk about Job 19:26. Indeed, it does speak to a bodily resurrection. I will concede this. However, I see plenty of evidence that this book was composed during or after the Babylonian exile. Have you examined this evidence?

Lexically Job is unlikely to be earlier than Hannah's song:

1 Sam2:6 He brings down to Sheol and raises up.

But why is this a problem anyway? We know, because 1 Peter 1:11 tells us so, that the OT writers were struggling to search out the gospel in a number of areas. Given that resurrection is dependant on the First Born From The Dead it's hardly surprising that Hannah is the first to clearly state what Christ, Paul and Hebrews read into Abraham's faith.

Even Christ didn't clarify everything until after the resurrection. Why should the Pentateuch?
God bless
S.

[Chris]

Steven, on Apr 26 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

gabe, on Apr 20 2007, 03:41 AM, said:

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.

Let's talk about Job 19:26. Indeed, it does speak to a bodily resurrection. I will concede this. However, I see plenty of evidence that this book was composed during or after the Babylonian exile. Have you examined this evidence?

Lexically Job is unlikely to be earlier than Hannah's song:

What is your understanding of the dating of the Book of Job?

[Steven]

TwoPutt, on Apr 28 2007, 03:32 AM, said:

What is your understanding of the dating of the Book of Job?

That it's deliberately making itself look older than it is --- though the refs to Shabeans [not Sabeans] Chaldeans and Uz are a bit of a giveaway. The commentaries seem to make most sense when they place it with Lamentations. Though a historical Job may well have lived in Abraham's time. And really as it's an Everyman story, the date/place not mattering is what matters

[Chris]

Steven, on Apr 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

And really as it's an Everyman story, the date/place not mattering is what matters

I can agree with that.

[Chris]

Steven, on Apr 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

That it's deliberately making itself look older than it is --- though the refs to Shabeans [not Sabeans]

Are you referring to this....

'NET Bible' said:

tn The LXX has "the spoilers spoiled them" instead of "the Sabeans swooped down." The translators might have connected the word to שְָׁבָה (shavah, "to take captive") rather than שְׁבָא (shÿva', "Sabeans"), or they may have understood the name as general reference to all types of Bedouin invaders from southern Arabia (HALOT 1381 s.v. שְׁבָא 2.c).

'Steven' said:

Chaldeans and Uz are a bit of a giveaway.

Could you elaborate this point a little? What's the connection between a late dating and the mention of the Chaldeans and Uz?

[Steven]

TwoPutt, on Apr 28 2007, 05:19 AM, said:

Steven, on Apr 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

That it's deliberately making itself look older than it is --- though the refs to Shabeans [not Sabeans]

Are you referring to this....

'NET Bible' said:

tn The LXX has "the spoilers spoiled them" instead of "the Sabeans swooped down." The translators might have connected the word to שְָׁבָה (shavah, "to take captive") rather than שְׁבָא (shÿva', "Sabeans"), or they may have understood the name as general reference to all types of Bedouin invaders from southern Arabia (HALOT 1381 s.v. שְׁבָא 2.c).

I wasn't aware that this was what may have happened, was just going by the other Massoretic use of Shabean.

Quote

'Steven' said:

Chaldeans and Uz are a bit of a giveaway.

Could you elaborate this point a little? What's the connection between a late dating and the mention of the Chaldeans and Uz?

Again, aren't they, like Shabean, Jeremiah-era people and place?

There's other issues related to the astrological/scientific terminology that lead commentaries to go for a late date. I can't really say I care greatly ... it's a wisdom book, a drama. Dating it is like dating Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes. Interesting, but unlike say a book of prophecy not essential.

And of course the theatre of a supernatural Adversary would place it nearer the theatre of 1Kings22:22 than the history of Numbers22:22
God bless
S.

Edited by Steven, 28 April 2007 - 06:41 AM.

[Chris]

Steven, on Apr 28 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

Quote

'Steven' said:

Chaldeans and Uz are a bit of a giveaway.

Could you elaborate this point a little? What's the connection between a late dating and the mention of the Chaldeans and Uz?

Again, aren't they, like Shabean, Jeremiah-era people and place?

Well, that's a good question. On a quick word search Sabeans are mentioned three times -- Job, Isaiah and Joel. Chaldeans and Uz are mentioned from the Book of Genesis onward, so I'm not sure what you mean by giveaway.

Quote

There's other issues related to the astrological/scientific terminology that lead commentaries to go for a late date.

Astrological and scientific termonology? That's interesting.

Quote

I can't really say I care greatly ... it's a wisdom book, a drama. Dating it is like dating Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes. Interesting, but unlike say a book of prophecy not essential.

I understand and agree.

Quote

And of course the theatre of a supernatural Adversary would place it nearer the theatre of 1Kings22:22 than the history of Numbers22:22

Perhaps. Then again.....

[Stephanos]

TwoPutt, on Apr 28 2007, 05:32 AM, said:

Steven, on Apr 26 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

gabe, on Apr 20 2007, 03:41 AM, said:

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you.

Let's talk about Job 19:26. Indeed, it does speak to a bodily resurrection. I will concede this. However, I see plenty of evidence that this book was composed during or after the Babylonian exile. Have you examined this evidence?

Lexically Job is unlikely to be earlier than Hannah's song:

What is your understanding of the dating of the Book of Job?

I'm travelling so I don'y have all my refernce material, however on Bibletalks4u....John Popple...doe a study on Job, take 3 makes a pluasible argumentfor Job being around the wandering in the wilderness...

[Chris]

Stephanos, on Apr 29 2007, 05:11 AM, said:

I'm travelling so I don'y have all my refernce material, however on Bibletalks4u....John Popple...doe a study on Job, take 3 makes a pluasible argumentfor Job being around the wandering in the wilderness...

Found Bro Popple's talk here.

[Steven]

TwoPutt, on Apr 30 2007, 04:41 AM, said:

Stephanos, on Apr 29 2007, 05:11 AM, said:

I'm travelling so I don'y have all my refernce material, however on Bibletalks4u....John Popple...doe a study on Job, take 3 makes a pluasible argumentfor Job being around the wandering in the wilderness...

Found Bro Popple's talk here.

Guys, it's Pople, as in "the Pope'll be coming".

I think this illustrates how universal Job is. It could fit in anywhere. It doesn't matter at all, except I notice that sometimes there's a rather legalist (in the full blown Jewish sense) agenda behind dogmatic insistence it must be pre-Abraham, in a few corners anyway.

Back to the thread, Gabe's objection ~ which I think was similar to one I've heard before, namely that God can't raise dead people because no one prior to Hannah said so clearly ~ seems to have vanished.
God bless
S

[Chris]

Steven, on Apr 30 2007, 12:20 AM, said:

Guys, it's Pople, as in "the Pope'll be coming".

Quote

I think this illustrates how universal Job is. It could fit in anywhere. It doesn't matter at all, except I notice that sometimes there's a rather legalist (in the full blown Jewish sense) agenda behind dogmatic insistence it must be pre-Abraham, in a few corners anyway.

I don't insist by any means, but right now I believe it pre-Abrahamic or at least contemporary, though certainly not written before the patriarch.

Quote

Back to the thread, Gabe's objection ~ which I think was similar to one I've heard before, namely that God can't raise dead people because no one prior to Hannah said so clearly ~ seems to have vanished.

[Steven]

Hello Two-Putt (in the kingdom)

TwoPutt, on Apr 30 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

I don't insist by any means, but right now I believe it pre-Abrahamic or at least contemporary, though certainly not written before the patriarch.

I said "sometimes", if it was "always" I'd be condemning myself since I more-or-less lean to what you've just written
S

[gabe]

"steven" said:

That it's deliberately making itself look older than it is

Kinda like how God made the world to appear much older than it is?

FYI, my argument is not that God can't raise the dead. My argument is that the Jews got the idea of resurrection from the Pharisees, er..I mean, the Persians.