Something I found on the internet about luke 16:19-31

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Your watchmen, they raise the voice; together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye the Lord returning to Zion” (Isaiah 52:8). It is not stated: They sang, in the verse; rather, the term “together shall they sing” is stated. From here resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All the prophets are all destined to recite song in one voice, as it is stated: “Your watchmen, they raise the voice; together shall they sing.”

The Gemara returns to the topic of the source for resurrection in the Torah. Rava says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Let Reuben live and not die, in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6). This is interpreted: “Let Reuben live” in this world “and not die” in the World-to-Come. Ravina says that resurrection is derived from here: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting disgrace” (Daniel 12:2). Rav Ashi says proof is derived from here: “But go you your way until the end be; and you shall rest, and arise to your lot at the end of days” (Daniel 12:13).

§ Rabbi Elazar says: Any communal leader who leads the community calmly, without anger and honestly, is privileged and leads them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “For he that has compassion upon them will lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them” (Isaiah 49:10). Just as he led them in this world, so too will he guide them in the World-to-Come.

§ The Gemara returns to the topic of the source for resurrection in the Torah. Rabbi Tavi says that Rabbi Yoshiya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There are three that are never satisfied…the grave, and the barren womb, and earth that does not receive sufficient water” (Proverbs 30:15–16)? And what does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, they are juxtaposed to say to you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and also gives forth, with the resurrection of the dead.

And are these matters not inferred a fortiori: If with regard to a womb, into which one introduces the embryo in secret, one removes the baby from it accompanied by the loud sounds of the woman crying out during childbirth, then with regard to the grave, into which one introduces the corpse with sounds of wailing and mourning the dead, is it not right that one removes from it the resurrected dead accompanied by the loud sounds of the resurrected multitudes? From here there is a response to those who say: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah.

The school of Eliyahu taught: The righteous whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to resurrect do not return to their dust, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that he who remains in Zion and he who remains in Jerusalem shall be called holy, anyone who is written unto life in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 4:3). Just as the Holy One exists forever, so too will they exist forever.

92b

Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda: If it was truth, why do you refer to it as a parable, and if it was a parable, why do you refer to it as truth? Rather, it means: In truth, it was a parable. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Not only was it not a parable, the dead that Ezekiel revived ascended to Eretz Yisrael and married wives and fathered sons and daughters. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira stood on his feet and said: I am a descendant of their sons, and these are phylacteries that my father’s father left me from them.

And Shmuel says: These dead that Ezekiel revived were people who denied the resurrection of the dead, as it is stated: “Then He said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say: Our bones are dried and our hope is lost; we are cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). God tells Ezekiel that these were people who had lost hope for resurrection.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are the dead from the Dura Valley (see Daniel, chapter 3). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These corpses filled the area from the Eshel River to Rabat, which constitutes the Dura Valley.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: At the moment that Nebuchadnezzar the wicked cast Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: Go and revive the dead in the Dura Valley. Once Ezekiel revived them, the bones came and struck Nebuchadnezzar, that wicked man, in his face.



THE JEWISH LITERATURE IS FULL (LITERALLY FULL) OF EXAMPLES OF THE EARLY JEWISH TEACHING REGARDING RESURRECTION.

There are many, many, many, many examples from Jewish literature that demonstrate the early Jews did believe in Resurrection. IF you are going to create “historical” theories, these theories must allow the Jews to speak for themselves, rather than to apply your modern beliefs to them and rather than representing your personal view as that of the early Jews.

It is clear from the early Jewish literature that they not only believed in the resurrection, but believed it was a Heresy to deny the resurrection. Maimonides describes resurrection as one of the 13 principles of authentic Judaism. The Torah witnesses to the Jewish belief in resurrection. The Gemara, the Mishna, the early Old Testament epigraphs and other early Jewish literature witness to their belief in resurrection. I see no reason to believe that the Jews did not believe in the doctrine they say they believed in and taught so consistently.

Whether you agree with the Jews or whether you would interpret the scriptures differently than they did, still, they believed what they believed. One belief they held was that of the resurrection of the dead.

Clear
ειφιφιφιω

 

[Miken]

Part 1 of response to POST ONE OF THREE

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi @Miken and other readers


ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY PRIOTIZING A MODERN, PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OVER AN ANCIENT JEWISH INTERPRETATIONS

Miken says : “Authors write to convey meaning. If a verse or passage presents what seems to be a clear straightforward meaning that fits well with what seems to be the clear straightforward meaning of the overall context of the work, it is entirely reasonable to take the meaning at face value.” (post #90&91)

YOUR "face value" meaning is different than the "face value" meaning of early Jews. You have to allow them to have their own opinion about what THEY believed whether or not it is consistent with what YOU think THEY should believe.

Religionists have a multitude of various conflicting interpretations of scripture.
Why is YOUR personal interpretation of scripture to take priority over early Jewish interpretation as an indication of what early Jews believed?

The Jews interpreted their scriptures as proof of their belief in resurrection. Your interpretations are not theirs and your personal interpretations do not indicate what Early Jews believed.

To simply apply your modern interpretation and your modern belief to early Jews doesn’t work.

They were not ‘early Jews’. The early Jews were a thousand years and more before that. As I have documented, there were differences of opinion about whether there was an afterlife at all much less a resurrection and judgment. Those who wrote in the Talmud and later came from a culture in which the resurrection was an article of faith, all other forms of Judaism that disagreed being extinct. Is it surprising that they interpreted everything as supporting the resurrection just as modern conservative Christians interpret the Christian scriptures in terms of their beliefs despite the intended meaning being very obviously different.

I have said all of this before and provided supporting documentation, Yet you continue to ignore it, insisting that the viewpoint of Pharisee based Rabbinic Judaism is the only viewpoint that ever existed.

THE PRIOR MISTAKE OF APPLYING A MODERN, PERSONAL INTERPRETATION TO A TEXT INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE EARLY JEWS THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION.
For example, you interpreted Eccl 9:5 to mean there was no cognizance of spirits.

The Jews tell us they interpreted this same scripture differently than you and demonstrated their belief that spirits of the dead WERE cognizant.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 very clearly states that the dead know nothing. It is quite a stretch to interpret that as the dead knowing things. But when you are on the hook for ‘proving’ resurrection was always the only viewpoint, anything is possible.

REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKE ALL OVER AGAIN
You are making the same mistake regarding the Jewish belief in resurrection.

You are applying your own interpretation to the early Jews and presenting your interpretation as their belief. This sort of bait and switch doesn’t work.

You MUST allow the Jews to have their own voice and their own beliefs and believe that they believed what they said they believed.

For example, Resurrection is one of the 13 pillars of Judaism Maimonides espoused as follows : “I believe by complete faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the time that will be pleasing before the Creator, blessed be His name, and the remembrance of Him will be exalted forever and for all eternity. “ Whether Maimonides is correct or not, we cannot logically deny that he believed in resurrection.

As I have documented, resurrection was not universally held by all Jews until all those who disagreed were no longer around. You only provide support by a supposed universal belief in resurrection among Jews by referring to sources from after that time. Jews or anyone else can believe whatever they want, faith being generally impervious to facts or logic. But if I am asked my opinions, I will give it with supporting evidence. The real early Jews, before Pharisaic dominance, by and large did not believe in resurrection as is obvious from Job and Ecclesiastes. It is not my personal modern opinion. It is obvious from reading what was written before Rabbinic Judaism went to abstruse argumentation that the plain obvious meaning is not the ‘real’ meaning.

ONE CANNOT PRESENT NORMATIVE JUDAISM BY PRESENTING EXCEPTIONS

It also doesn’t work to comment that the saducees (a temporary schism that left no significant literature behind) or the essenes (another schism) didn’t believe in resurrection and then represent that as normative Jewish belief.

The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, which had been around for hundreds of years. Why should not their belief system reflect the earliest thoughts of the Jews? That is, no afterlife, which is also the clear straightforward meaning of the scriptures that dealt with the subject. We know what they thought from what the Pharisees and other writers said about them. They were not a schism and only became temporary because the Romans destroyed the Temple. The Pharisees arose after some non-canonical works appeared talking about resurrection. Why should the Pharisees not be called a schism?

Normative Jewish belief in the post-Temple era is based entirely on what the Pharisees believed, ignoring what other forms of Judaism believed, because in the post-Temple era the Pharisees were the only ones left standing.

But pejorative language and ignoring documentation are useful when one does not have a lot of facts at one’s disposal.

USING DATA THAT UNDERMINES THE THEORY IT IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT
Your quotes consistently do not support your representation of Jewish belief. For example, you quote regarding the sadducees, that “they would not accept the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection (Sanh. 90b; Mark xii. 12; Ber. ix. 5, "Minim"), which was a national rather than an individual hope.” (Miken, in post #90&91)

The very sentence you quote tells us that resurrection was a “hope” of the Jews. While you admit from this quote that they hoped for a “national” rather than an individual resurrection. This type of resurrection is still a belief in resurrection.

Man is that ever a stretch. To the Pharisees, resurrection meant personal resurrection of the dead. To the Sadducees that did not exist. Only the nation of Israel would be restored. The dead were just dead. World of difference but by playing strange word games you want to equate them. Really?

DATA MINING FOR A SINGLE FAVORABLE QUOTE AMONG A SEA OF UNFAVORABLE QUOTES

As we saw, even the data mining for a quote of a single Jew from the middle ages (700 years later than the early Talmud) who, said that in his opinion the dead “have no more reward for the actions that they do from their deaths and onwards,” undermines your claim. While you interpret this quote mean “ It actually says that the dead can get no reward because they cannot act”. This interpretation represents your interpretation, but, as we’ve seen, it does not represent Jewish interpretation.

Just word games. Since the dead know nothing as Rashi states it is difficult to see how they could act. When alive they could receive reward for their actions. When dead they cannot act and therefore cannot receive any reward is the obvious meaning, You must toil before the Sabbath (when alive) because you cannot toil on the Sabbath (when dead).But you ignored that part.

You consistently apply your personal, modern interpretation to the scriptures and then present that as evidence that the ancient Jews did not believe in resurrection. You must allow the Jews to have their own voice, their own interpretation and their own opinion. This is the data you haver not provided.

Ooh, love that pejorative language. The clear straightforward meaning of the passages provided, and do not forget that people write in order to communicate, is that the authors did not believe in a resurrection just like the Sadducees who you do not want to have existed, despite representing those who were in charge of the Temple for centuries before the Pharisees or any literature that plainly points to a resurrection. I have presented data on that but because it does not support what you want to be the case you pretend it did not exist. Jews can believe anything they want. So can Christians, But the actual clear intended meaning of the scriptures does not always support those beliefs and I am not going to pretend it does just because somebody believes that it does.

 

[Miken]

Part 2 of response to POST ONE OF THREE

While you quote Sanhedrin 90b regarding this belief in resurrection (which undermines your claim that they did not believe in resurrection), you could have also quoted the other many, many insistences that the Jews believed in a resurrection that literally surround the single quote you offer.

Last I heard, Tractate Sanhedrin was written by Rabbinic Jews adhering to a belief system based on that of the Pharisees, who were the only Jewish intelligentsia left around after the Jewish War. That has nothing to due with the antiquity of beliefs that did not include resurrection, belief systems that existed before that War,

For examples (from Sanhedrin 90a and beyond) from the William Davidson Talmud.

MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, …

Where is the part about personal resurrection of the dead? Looks more like national salvation.

If we look at the following verse that national salvation interpretation becomes even clearer. (Language from the Hebrew)

Isaiah 60:22 A little on shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation.

Resurrected individuals will each become a thousand individuals or a strong nation? This is obviously talking about the descendants of those now living, not those people personally. That is, national salvation not individual salvation. The Mishna is quote mining to ‘prove’ an article of faith, not deriving the idea from scripture.

GEMARA: And why is one punished to that extent for saying that there is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? The Sages taught in a baraita: He denied the resurrection of the dead; therefore he will not have a share in the resurrection of the dead, as all measures dispensed by the Holy One, Blessed be He, to His people are dispensed measure for measure, i.e., the response is commensurate with the action.

The Sages taught this, not anything from the Torah. This is about Pharisees criticizing their rival Sadducees. It also demonstrates that belief in resurrection was not universal until the Pharisees were the only Jewish thinkers left around.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is the resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from this verse, as it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “And you shall give the teruma of the Lord to Aaron the priest” (Numbers 18:28). And does Aaron exist forever so that one can fulfill the mitzva by giving him the teruma of the tithe? But is it not so that Aaron did not enter Eretz Yisrael, the only place where the people would give him teruma? Rather, the verse teaches that Aaron is destined to live in the future and the Jewish people will give him teruma. From here it is derived that the resurrection of the dead is from the Torah.

It is not the case that the teruma (offering) could only be given in the land of Israel. Before the Temple was constructed, when the Ark of the Covenant was housed in the tent of meeting, offerings would be given there. Aaron and his sons were in charge of the tent of meeting. Offerings would definitely be given to Aaron while he was alive. No need for a resurrection to fulfill this requirement. Lots of language in Numbers 18 about Aaron and his sons and their descendants being entitled to the offerings. It is obviously meant to be in the present and not the future.

Just quote mining again.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the Patriarchs: “I have also established My covenant with them to give to them the land of Canaan” (Exodus 6:4). The phrase: To give to you the land of Canaan, is not stated, as the meaning of the verse is not that God fulfilled the covenant with the Patriarchs when he gave the land of Canaan to the children of Israel; rather, it is stated: “To give to them the land of Canaan,” meaning to the Patriarchs themselves. From here is it derived that the resurrection of the dead is from the Torah, as in the future the Patriarchs will come to life and inherit the land.

Exodus 6:7 I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord.’”

The Lord will give the land to the liberated slaves, not literally to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are being used as a metaphor for the Jewish people. If the land will not be given until the resurrection, then the promise Moses conveys to the slaves is a lie.

More quote mining.

The proof from the Prophets is as it is written: “Your dead shall live, my corpse shall arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of vegetation, and the land shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19). The heretics said to him: But perhaps the prophecy was fulfilled with the dead that Ezekiel revived. No proof may be cited from that verse with regard to any future resurrection.

As I commented earlier, this could be interpreted metaphorically as national resurrection. Note that it is only Jews who are resurrected and for no other reason than that they are Jews. Later Jewish thinking was that the World to Come is for the righteous, including Gentiles who obey the Noachide Laws.

 

[Miken]

Part 1 of response to POST TWO OF THREE

The proof from Writings is as it is written: “And your palate is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those that sleep” (Song of Songs 7:10), indicating that the dead will ultimately rise and speak. The heretics said to him: But perhaps merely their lips will move, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Anyone in whose name a halakha is stated in this world, his lips move in the grave as if repeating the statement cited in his name, as it is stated: “Moving gently the lips of those that sleep.” No proof may be cited from that verse, as it is unrelated to resurrection

.
If ‘those that sleep’ are the dead then the dead are not conscious after all. Inconsistency born of quote mining. And as pointed out, there is no mention of a resurrection.

This exchange continued until Rabban Gamliel stated to them this verse: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord took an oath to your forefathers to give them” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The phrase: To give you, is not stated; rather, it is stated: “To give them,” to the Patriarchs themselves, as in the future the Patriarchs will come to life and inherit the land. From here resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah.

I already dealt with this one. If the land is not given to the free slaves but they have to wait until the resurrection, then Moses lied to them. It is clear that ‘them’ in that passage is ‘children’. This is in accord to what Genesis has to say about it.

Genesis 12:7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”

Quote mining

And there are those who say that it is from this following verse that he said to them his ultimate proof: “But you who cleave to the Lord your God every one of you is alive this day” (Deuteronomy 4:4). Wasn’t it obvious with regard to the children of Israel whom God was addressing, that “every one of you is alive this day”? Rather, the meaning of the verse is: Even on the day when everyone is dead you will live; just as today every one of you is alive, so too, in the World-to-Come every one of you will be alive.

Devarim 4 (From Tanach)
3 Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal Peor, for every man who went after Baal Peor, the Lord your God has exterminated from your midst.
4 But you who cleave to the Lord your God are alive, all of you, this day.
5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord, my God, commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land to which you are coming to possess.

Moses is talking to the Baal Peor is where some of the Israelites married Moabite women and worshiped the Moabite gods. They were all killed. But those who remained faithful were not killed. They are alive. And they are on their way to the land promised to them. That this is literal and not figurative can be seen later in this chapter where Moses predicts the rocky future that is in store for the Jews, like getting scattered throughout the lands (v 27) and idolatry (v 28).

Extrapolating from that straightforward meaning of Moses talking to the people before they reach the land promised to them to make it some kind of metaphor is simply not justified in the text. It is quote mining to justify the one and only allowable Talmudic belief concerning resurrection.

The Romans asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, revives the dead, and from where is it derived that He knows what is destined to be? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to them: Both of those matters are derived from this verse, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and arise; this people will go astray” (Deuteronomy 31:16). This indicates that Moses will die and then arise from the dead and that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows what the children of Israel are destined to do.

The Romans asked: But perhaps the verse should be divided in a different manner, and it should be read: “Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and this people will arise and go astray after the foreign gods of the land.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to them: Take at least a response to half of your question in your hands from that verse, that God knows what is destined to be. The Gemara comments: It was also stated on a similar note by an amora citing a tanna, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, revives the dead, and from where is it derived that He knows what is destined to be? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and arise.”

Devarim 31 (From the Tanach)
16 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold, you are [about to] lie with your forefathers, and ]this nation will rise up and stray after the deities of the nations of the land, into which they are coming. And they will forsake Me and violate My covenant which I made with them.

It is Moses who is about to lie with his forefathers, that is, die. The nation, the Jewish people, are going to fall into idolatry just like Moses predicted earlier. Very clearly not anything about resurrection.

Most egregious quote mining.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: With this following matter, I refuted the books of the Samaritans, as they would say that there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah. I said to them: You falsified your torah and you accomplished nothing, as you say there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah, and the Torah states: “That soul shall be excised; his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31). You interpret the phrase “that soul shall be excised” to mean that a sinner will be punished with death in this world. If so, with regard to the phrase “his iniquity shall be upon him,” for when is that destined to be? Is it not for the World-to-Come, i.e., the world as it will exist after the resurrection of the dead? Apparently, there is a World-to-Come and there is an allusion to it in the Torah.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And let Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, say to the Samaritans that both of those matters can be derived from the phrase “shall be excised [hikkaret tikkaret].” “Hikkaret” indicates that the sinner is excised from this world, and “tikkaret” indicates that the sinner is excised from the World-to-Come. Abaye answered: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, preferred not to cite proof from the compound verb, because the Samaritans would say: The Torah spoke in the language of people, and the compound verb is merely a stylistic flourish.

The word soul (nephesh) can mean soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion and especially:

that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man;
living being;
living being (with life in the blood);

None of this appears to relate to the later concept of a soul as something that survives death, It is about being alive.

Both hikkaret and tikkaret mean ‘cut off’ in this kind of context. Among other things tikkaret is used to describe Zipporah cutting off her son’s foreskin (Exodus 4:25) and cutting down trees (Exodus 34:13). Nowhere that I can find does it appear to involve punishment in an afterlife. This is retrofitting a later belief into an earlier scripture.

§ The Gemara relates: Queen Cleopatra asked Rabbi Meir a question. She said: I know that the dead will live, as it is written: “And may they blossom out of the city like grass of the earth” (Psalms 72:16). Just as grass grows, so too, the dead will come to life. But when they arise, will they arise naked or will they arise with their garments? Rabbi Meir said to her: It is derived a fortiori from wheat. If wheat, which is buried naked, meaning that the kernel is sown without the chaff, emerges with several garments of chaff, all the more so will the righteous, who are buried with their garments, arise with their garments.

Psalm 72 is about blessings laid on Solomon in the anticipation that he will be a good ruler and things will go well in the land.

Tehillim 72 (From the Tanach)
16 May there be an abundance of grain in the land, on the mountain peaks; may its fruit rustle like Lebanon, and they will blossom forth from the city like the grass of the earth.

Quote mining.

The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Leave him, and I will respond to him with a parable. She said: There are two craftsmen in our city; one fashions vessels from water, and one fashions vessels from mortar. Which is more noteworthy? The emperor said to her: It is that craftsman that fashions vessels from water. His daughter said to him: If he fashions a vessel from the water, all the more so is it not clear that he can fashion vessels from mortar? By the same token, if God was able to create the world from water, He is certainly able to resurrect people from dust.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that resurrection of the dead a fortiori from glass vessels: If concerning glass vessels, which are fashioned by the breath of those of flesh and blood, who blow and form the vessels, and yet if they break they can be repaired, as they can be melted and subsequently blown again, then with regard to those of flesh and blood, whose souls are a product of the breath of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so can God restore them to life.
[/QUOTE}

God can do everything. That does not mean that he will do everything. Not a sensible argument except perhaps to someone already ideologically committed to resurrection.

 

[Miken]

Part 2 of response to POST TWO OF THREE

The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will come to life. The way of the world is that those who are alive die. How can you say that the dead will come to life? Geviha ben Pesisa said to him: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will not come to life. If those who were not in existence come to life, is it not reasonable all the more so that those who were once alive will come to life again?

Taken at full face value, this would mean that a person will be born over and over via reincarnation. This is not a good argument for resurrection.

Rava raises a contradiction. It is written: “I will kill and I will bring to life” (Deuteronomy 32:39), indicating that God is capable of reviving the dead. And it is written immediately afterward: “I wounded and I will heal,” which indicates that God will only heal the wounded. Rather, it should be understood: The Holy One, Blessed be He, is saying: What I kill, I bring to life, indicating that God revives the dead. And then what I wounded, I will heal.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “I will kill and I will bring to life.” One might have thought that it means that there will be death for one person and life for one other person, in the typical manner that the world operates. Therefore, the verse states: “I wounded and I will heal.” Just as wounding and healing take place in one person, so too, death and bringing back to life take place in one person. From here there is a response to those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah.

Devarim 32 (From the Tanach)
39 See now that it is I! I am the One, and there is no god like Me! I cause death and grant life. I strike, but I heal, and no one can rescue from My Hand!

Not exactly the same thing.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Then Moses and the children of Israel will sing this song to the Lord” (Exodus 15:1). It is not stated: Sang, in the verse; rather, the term “they will sing” is stated, indicating that Moses will come back to life and sing the song in the future. From here it is proved that resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah. On a similar note, you can say: “Then Joshua will build an altar to the Lord God of Israel on Mount Ebal” (Joshua 8:30). It is not stated: Built, in the verse; rather, the term “will build” is stated. From here, resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah.

Shemot 15 (From the Tanach
1 Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and they spoke, saying, I will sing to the Lord, for very exalted is He; a horse and its rider He cast into the sea.

Moses and the children sang the song. The song goes “I will sing to the Lord”. The reference to the horse and the rider cast into the sea is Pharaoh and his army.

Because a song that they already sang contains the words “I will sing to the Lord” is not anywhere near justifying the idea of resurrection.

Quote mining

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Happy are they who dwell in Your house; they will yet praise You, Selah” (Psalms 84:5). It is not stated: They praised you, in the verse; rather, the term “they will praise you” is stated. From here, resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who recites song to God in this world is privileged and recites it in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Happy are they who dwell in Your house; they will yet praise You, Selah.”

Tehillim 84 (From the Tanach)

5 Fortunate are those who stay in Your house; they will continually praise You forever.

‘Those who stay in your house’ is present tense. It cannot refer to a future resurrection. ‘They will continually praise you forever’ clearly means from now on. This suggests that there will be no end of days or a resurrection. Quote mining a single phrase out of a verse to claim the desired meaning, which Is not the actual one.

 

[Miken]

Part 1 of response to POST THREE OF THREE

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Your watchmen, they raise the voice; together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye the Lord returning to Zion” (Isaiah 52:8). It is not stated: They sang, in the verse; rather, the term “together shall they sing” is stated. From here resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All the prophets are all destined to recite song in one voice, as it is stated: “Your watchmen, they raise the voice; together shall they sing.”

This section of Isaiah prophesizes the return of the Lord to Zion. The tense changes back and forth throughout. V 6 refers to the future. But in V 7 the future is here, the Lord has returned, V 8 has both, the watchmen have raised a voice, having seen the Lord approaching as per V 7, but then it switches back to something that will happen in the future, they will sing when the Lord returns. V 9 tells the ruins of Jerusalem (destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BCE) to sing because the Lord has already redeemed Jerusalem.

With all those changes in tense, pulling a verse out of context here is supposed to somehow prove resurrection? There is no mention of a resurrection. The implication appears to be that when the Lord returns, people will see that.

Yeshayahu 52 (From the Tanach)
6 Therefore, My people shall know My name; therefore, on that day, for I am He Who speaks, here I am."
7 How beautiful are the feet of the herald on the mountains, announcing peace, heralding good tidings, announcing salvation, saying to Zion, "Your God has manifested His kingdom."
8 The voice of your watchmen- they raised a voice, together they shall sing, for eye to eye they shall see when the Lord returns to Zion.
9 Burst out in song, sing together, O ruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord has consoled his people; He has redeemed Jerusalem.

The Gemara returns to the topic of the source for resurrection in the Torah. Rava says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Let Reuben live and not die, in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6). This is interpreted: “Let Reuben live” in this world “and not die” in the World-to-Come.

This is part of what Moses said on his deathbed. Since Reuben, the son of Jacob, died before Moses was born, it is obvious that Moses was not talking about Reuben the person. When you look at the verse in question…

Devarim 33 (From the Tanach)
6 May Reuben live and not die, and may his people be counted in the number.

… a different picture arises. It is the tribe of Reuben, one of the 12 tribes, that Moses is talking about. Reuben the original leader of the tribe was considered sinful and unworthy to be a leader because he had sex with his father’s concubine in his father’s bed. Moses is saying that the tribe of Reuben should be counted among the Israelites despite the reputation of the founder of the tribe and also that they lived way over next to the Moabites, known for leading Jews into idolatry making the Tribe of Reuben viewed with suspicion.

Quote mining

Ravina says that resurrection is derived from here: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting disgrace” (Daniel 12:2). Rav Ashi says proof is derived from here: “But go you your way until the end be; and you shall rest, and arise to your lot at the end of days” (Daniel 12:13).

Daniel is a legitimate explicit reference to resurrection and judgment. The date of final composition can be determined rather precisely by noting which ‘prophecies’ came true and which did not. The career of Antiochus Epiphanes IV in Daniel 11 is very accurate up until 164 BCE. But then Daniel says that Antiochus would go to war with Egypt again and be victorious. At this point, at what would have been the height of his career, the Archangel Michael would come and destroy Antiochus and the resurrection of the dead would take place. Antiochus never went to war with Egypt again. He became ill and died in 164 BCE.

Daniel was written well after the idea of resurrection was becoming well known due to 1 Enoch and some other non-canonical works. It does not demonstrate anything about earlier beliefs.

Daniel is the last book admitted into the Jewish canon when the canonical content of the Ketuvim was finalized at the end of the 1st century CE or the beginning of the 2nd century CE.

§ Rabbi Elazar says: Any communal leader who leads the community calmly, without anger and honestly, is privileged and leads them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “For he that has compassion upon them will lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them” (Isaiah 49:10). Just as he led them in this world, so too will he guide them in the World-to-Come.

Yeshayau 49 (From the Tanakh_
9 To say to the prisoners, "Go out!" and to the darkness, "Show yourselves!" By the roads they shall graze, and by all rivers is their pasture.
10 They shall neither hunger nor thirst, nor shall the heat and the sun smite them, for He Who has mercy on them shall lead them, and by the springs of water He shall guide them.

The prisoners are those Jews held prisoner in the Babylonian Exile. It is God who will have mercy on them and lead them out of Babylon. No human leaders here continuing to lead after a resurrection. No mention of a resurrection at all.

Quote mining

§ § The Gemara returns to the topic of the source for resurrection in the Torah. Rabbi Tavi says that Rabbi Yoshiya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There are three that are never satisfied…the grave, and the barren womb, and earth that does not receive sufficient water” (Proverbs 30:15–16)? And what does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, they are juxtaposed to say to you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and also gives forth, with the resurrection of the dead.

And are these matters not inferred a fortiori: If with regard to a womb, into which one introduces the embryo in secret, one removes the baby from it accompanied by the loud sounds of the woman crying out during childbirth, then with regard to the grave, into which one introduces the corpse with sounds of wailing and mourning the dead, is it not right that one removes from it the resurrected dead accompanied by the loud sounds of the resurrected multitudes? From here there is a response to those who say: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah.

Mishlei 30 (From the Tanach)
15 The leech has two daughters, "Give" and "Give." There are three that are not sated, and four that do not say, "Enough!"
16 The grave, the confined womb, and the earth, which is not sated with water, and fire, which does not say, "Enough!"

Obvious quite mining. The confined (barren) womb never issues forth anything. Neither does the grave. The earth keeps on taking water and does not give it back. Likewise fire, which Rabbi Yoshiva omitted from his quote because he could not fit that into his imagery. Just like the barren womb which never produces a baby, just like the earth which takes water without giving it back, just like fire which consumes and give nothing back – just like all of those, the grave does not give anything back. This passage point away from a resurrection not toward it.

 

[Miken]

Part 2 of response to POST THREE OF THREE

The school of Eliyahu taught: The righteous whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to resurrect do not return to their dust, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that he who remains in Zion and he who remains in Jerusalem shall be called holy, anyone who is written unto life in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 4:3). Just as the Holy One exists forever, so too will they exist forever.

Yeshayahu 4 (From the Tanach)
3 And it shall come to pass that every survivor shall be in Zion, and everyone who is left, in Jerusalem; “holy” shall be said of him, everyone inscribed for life in Jerusalem.

What is the context of this? If we look at the preceding chapter, we see things like:

Yeshayahu 3 (From the Tanach)
1 For, behold, the Master, the Lord of Hosts removes from Jerusalem and from Judah a support and a stay, every support of bread and every support of water;
…
6 When a man shall seize his brother of the house of his father, [saying], “You have a garment, be an officer to us, and this obstacle shall be under your hand,”
7 He shall swear on that day, saying, “I will not be a ruler, while in my house there is neither bread nor clothing; do not make me an officer over the people.”
8 For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, for their tongue and their deeds are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of His glory.
…
18 On that day, the Lord shall remove the glory of the shoes and the embroidered headdresses and the hairnets.
… [much more about all the good things that the upper classes enjoyed being taken away]
25 Your men shall fall by the sword and your heroism in war.
26 And her gates shall lament and mourn, and she shall be emptied out; she shall sit on the ground.

Judah and Jerusalem under siege, military leaders are needed, but the Jews have fallen away from the Lord, upper class degraded, war and death, Jerusalem emptied out.

This is about the war on Judah and the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the upper classes carried off in captivity. A great deal of Isaiah is about the war on Judah by the Babylonians and the Babylonian Captivity and the release from it by the new ruler Cyrus and the return to Judah.

4:3 is not about the end of days. It is about those who did not stray from the Lord not being carried off. They (‘the survivors’) left in Jerusalem will be called holy because they were righteous.

The phrase ‘inscribed for life’ is an interesting one. The literal meaning of the Hebrew phrase is:

קָד֖וֹשׁ יֵאָ֣מֶר ל֑וֹ כָּל־ הַכָּת֥וּב לַחַיִּ֖ים בִּירוּשָׁלִָֽם׃
Holy will-be-called to everyone who-is-recorded among-the-living in-Jerusalem

It is the righteous who were not punished by being taken off to Babylon. Those left in Jerusalem are the holy ones.

Not about resurrection but about history. Quote mining.

92b

Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda: If it was truth, why do you refer to it as a parable, and if it was a parable, why do you refer to it as truth? Rather, it means: In truth, it was a parable. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Not only was it not a parable, the dead that Ezekiel revived ascended to Eretz Yisrael and married wives and fathered sons and daughters. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira stood on his feet and said: I am a descendant of their sons, and these are phylacteries that my father’s father left me from them.

And Shmuel says: These dead that Ezekiel revived were people who denied the resurrection of the dead, as it is stated: “Then He said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say: Our bones are dried and our hope is lost; we are cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). God tells Ezekiel that these were people who had lost hope for resurrection.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are the dead from the Dura Valley (see Daniel, chapter 3). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These corpses filled the area from the Eshel River to Rabat, which constitutes the Dura Valley.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: At the moment that Nebuchadnezzar the wicked cast Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: Go and revive the dead in the Dura Valley. Once Ezekiel revived them, the bones came and struck Nebuchadnezzar, that wicked man, in his face.

This is claiming that Ezekiel is about a resurrection of a limited number of people that took place in the past. It has no bearing on a supposed future resurrection. As I have discussed earlier, Ezekiel 37 is really talking about a future national salvation of the Jews, not personal resurrection.

THE JEWISH LITERATURE IS FULL (LITERALLY FULL) OF EXAMPLES OF THE EARLY JEWISH TEACHING REGARDING RESURRECTION.

There are many, many, many, many examples from Jewish literature that demonstrate the early Jews did believe in Resurrection. IF you are going to create “historical” theories, these theories must allow the Jews to speak for themselves, rather than to apply your modern beliefs to them and representing your personal view as that of the early Jews.


It is clear from the early Jewish literature that they not only believed in the resurrection, but believed it was a Heresy to deny the resurrection. Maimonides describes resurrection as one of the 13 principles of authentic Judaism. The Torah witnesses to the Jewish belief in resurrection. The Gemara, the Mishna, the early Old Testament epigraphs and other early Jewish literature witness to their belief in resurrection. I see no reason to believe that the Jews did not believe in the doctrine they say they believed in and taught so consistently.

Whether you agree with the Jews or whether you would interpret the scriptures differently than they did, still, they believed what they believed. One belief they held was that of the resurrection of the dead.

The only legitimate witness to the idea of a resurrection is from the very late book of Daniel, written shortly after the Book of the Watchers arrives on the scene. Isaiah 26 might be a legitimate reference but it also fits very well with the them found often in Isaiah about national salvation and otherwise is problematic as noted earlier. The extremely poor fit and obvious quote mining and misrepresentation of the other so-called references make it clear that these are not at all legitimate and that such ruses were required because there were no other real references to draw on. Resurrection was an article of faith and had to be justified no matter what.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Miken

BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION WAS NOT THE ONLY BELIEF
Miken said : "Ecclesiastes 9:5 very clearly states that the dead know nothing. It is quite a stretch to interpret that as the dead knowing things. But when you are on the hook for ‘proving’ resurrection was always the only viewpoint, anything is possible." (posts # 102-107)

You are confused. Resurrection was NOT the only viewpoint. For example, Sadducees did not believe in resurrection like the Pharisees, enochian Jews and Dead Sea scroll Jews did..

Stay focused, the debate is about whether the early Jews believed in resurrection or not.

The Jews say they believed in resurrection.
They interpreted the scriptures to support this belief.
They produced a LOT of literature with consistent,. repeated witnesses, over a long period of time to the effect that they believed in resurrection.

Whether you believe the Jews were correct or if you have a different interpretation of scriptures than they did is irrelevant.


THE JEWS BELIEVED IN RESURRECTION, THIS DOES NOT MEAN "UNIVERSAL" RESURRECTION
Miken said : "As I have documented, resurrection was not universally held by all Jews until all those who disagreed were no longer around. You only provide support by a supposed universal belief in resurrection" (posts # 102-107)

Who said anything about a “universal belief” in resurrection? This is incorrect. One cannot claim this belief was “universal” nor can one claim the Jews who believed in resurrection believed all would resurrect

This is why I asked you early on to clarify “WHICH judaism are you referring to and of which time period?” (Clear, in post #46)

Not all Jews believed in resurrection (e.g. the saducees were an exception),
Pharisees and Dead Sea Scroll Jews (circa 70.a.d.) and rabbinic Judaism did and the enochian literature of prior to 300 b.c. demonstrates these Jews held to a belief in resurrection.



THE INTIMATION THAT "REAL JEWS" WOULD BELIEVE AS YOU CLAIM IS POSTURING
Miken said : "The real early Jews, before Pharisaic dominance, by and large did not believe in resurrection as is obvious from Job and Ecclesiastes." (posts # 102-107)

“Real" early Jews?.............Honestly?

You have not given us any literature earlier than 900 a.d. (the masorectic literature is a product of the middle ages) and even then, you have only given us your personal interpretation of that literature and not the Jewish interpretation from the earlier ages.

For example : The Talmudic literature I quoted came from the oral law that was only committed to writing in 300 a.d. but existed much earlier. We know Jewish Enoch (of pre-300 b.c) and the dead sea scroll Jews (of pre-70 a.d.) believed in resurrection as did the pharisees (pre-a.d.) and later rabbinic Judaism (orthodox Judaism) because the left so many witnesses to this claim of their belief in resurrection.

If you don’t have any data other than your personal interpretation of literature of 900 a.d. now is the time to tell us rather than wasting more posts trying to present your personal interpretation as that of the "early Jews" (the "Real early Jews" as you call them).


ANCIENT TEMPLES VERSUS PRESENTING TEMPORARY SCHISMATIC OPINION AS "JEWISH BELIEF"
Miken said : "The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, which had been around for hundreds of years. Why should not their belief system reflect the earliest thoughts of the Jews?" (posts # 102-107)

You cannot use a small schism with a minority opinion that only existed for a short time as representing a vast majority with a conflicting belief that existed over a much longer period.

The SADDUCEES and their minority opinions only existed for a short time (maybe 200-250 years) and they left no significant literature for this short lived group. You cannot take a temporary exception and the honestly present it as the rule for Judaism that existed much longer than that group existed.

RABBINIC Judaism has existed for over 2000 years and is the majority, having significant literature.


A BELIEF IN "RESURRECTION" OF ANY TYPE IS STILL A BELIEF IN "RESURRECTION"
Miken said : "To the Pharisees, resurrection meant personal resurrection of the dead." (posts # 102-107)

A belief in resurrection is a belief in resurrection.
The type and scope of resurrection is a different argument.


THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONES PERSONAL INTERPRETATION IS "THE CORRECT ONE"
Miken said : "But the actual clear intended meaning of the scriptures does not always support those beliefs and I am not going to pretend it does just because somebody believes that it does." (posts # 102-107)

The Jews say they believed in resurrection. Your religious posturing that you know what the scripture actually meant is irrelevant to their belief. Whether their belief is correct, it is still what they say they believed.


IF ISRAEL BELIEVED THAT ONLY THEY WERE RESURRECTED, THIS IS A BELIEF IN RESURRECTION
Miken said : "This is claiming that Ezekiel is about a resurrection of a limited number of people that took place in the past. It has no bearing on a supposed future resurrection." (posts # 102-107)

Again, you are presenting your personal interpretation.

This tells us what YOU believe and why, but it is irrelevant to the interpretation and belief of the early Jews. Your religion is NOT their religion. You must allow them their own beliefs if you are to present THEIR history and THEIR beliefs.

The rest of your post simply had to do with trying to prove the Jewish belief in the resurrection was wrong rather than providing evidence they did not believe what they say they believed.
Nothing in these arguments demonstrated they didn’t believe what they said they believed.

Do you want to try again?

In any case Miken, I hope your own spiritual journey in this life is satisfying and wonderful.

Clear
ειφυφυφυω

 

[Miken]

Part 1 of 2

BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION WAS NOT THE ONLY BELIEF
Miken said : "Ecclesiastes 9:5 very clearly states that the dead know nothing. It is quite a stretch to interpret that as the dead knowing things. But when you are on the hook for ‘proving’ resurrection was always the only viewpoint, anything is possible." (posts # 102-107)

You are confused. Resurrection was NOT the only viewpoint. For example, Sadducees did not believe in resurrection like the Pharisees, enochian Jews and Dead Sea scroll Jews did..

Stay focused, the debate is about whether the early Jews believed in resurrection or not.

The Jews say they believed in resurrection.
They interpreted the scriptures to support this belief.
They produced a LOT of literature with consistent,. repeated witnesses, over a long period of time to the effect that they believed in resurrection.

Whether you believe the Jews were correct or if you have a different interpretation of scriptures than they did is irrelevant.

It appears you are the one confused. I never said it was the only belief system. I have not just claimed otherwise but documented otherwise. In the post-Temple era, the Pharisees were the only Jewish intelligentsia left standing. All those quotes you provided from the Talmud etc. are aimed at trying to demonstrate that personal resurrection was the only belief system ever represented in the Tanach. As I have addressed at great length, those arguments fail big time, quoting way out of context, misrepresenting what was being said, even quoting only parts of sentences when the rest of the sentence points in the opposite direction.

Yes, there were other takes on the matter but the Talmudic and later writings tend to ignore that fact. And the Dead Sea Scrolls are from the Essenes who did NOT believe in a future common resurrection of the body as the Pharisees and post-Temple Judaism does. The Essenes believed that the righteous would live a pleasant afterlife in spiritual form immediately after death. The body just decomposed and served no further purpose. All as I have previously documented.

There were Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished. Those were the early Jews. Stay focused, why don’t you.

Is it that you have nothing else to offer that you misrepresent what I say?

THE JEWS BELIEVED IN RESURRECTION, THIS DOES NOT MEAN "UNIVERSAL" RESURRECTION
Miken said : "As I have documented, resurrection was not universally held by all Jews until all those who disagreed were no longer around. You only provide support by a supposed universal belief in resurrection" (posts # 102-107)

Who said anything about a “universal belief” in resurrection? This is incorrect. One cannot claim this belief was “universal”.

If you bothered to actually read what I said, which you even quoted “As I have documented, resurrection was not universally held by all Jews” you would not be claiming that I said it was universal.

This is why I asked you to clarify “WHICH judaism are you referring to and of which time period?” (Clear, in post #46) Not all Jews believed in resurrection (e.g. the saducees were an exception), Pharisees and Dead Sea Scroll Jews (circa 70.a.d.) did and the enochian literature of prior to 300 b.c. demonstrates these Jews held to a belief in resurrection.

The early Jews are the ones who wrote the Tanach, all of which was written by the middle of the 2nd century BCE. As I have shown at great length, with the exception Daniel and maybe Isaiah 26, the Talmudic claims about the meaning of passages in the Tanakh are not supported by context. Their techniques to avoid the actual meaning of the passages includes ignoring surrounding context, omitting portions of sentences from the quote and sometimes by reversing the blatantly obvious meaning of what is quoted. Example of the latter: a barren womb will produce a child, therefore a grave will produce a living person. Huh? The essential feature of a barren womb is that it will never produce a child. Which is the real point of the passage. There are things that do not give back. Fire consumes but never gives back what is burned. Water poured into the ground does not come back out again. A barren womb will not produce a child. And a grave will not yield a living person.

As I mentioned above and previously documented, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not believe in a bodily resurrection in the future as per Pharisaic belief. The righteous dead immediately became spirits. The body was abandoned forever.

Please identify Enochian literature existing prior to 300 BCE and provide documentation to support your claim.

 

[Miken]

Part 2 of 2

THE INTIMATION THAT "REAL JEWS" WOULD BELIEVE AS YOU CLAIM IS POSTURING
Miken said : "The real early Jews, before Pharisaic dominance, by and large did not believe in resurrection as is obvious from Job and Ecclesiastes." (posts # 102-107)

“Real" Jews?......"Before" the Pharisees?.......Honestly?

You have not given us any literature earlier than 900 a.d. (the masorectic literature is a product of the middle ages) and even then, you have only given us your personal interpretation of that literature and not the Jewish interpretation from the earlier ages.

For example : The Talmudic literature I quoted came from the oral law that was only committed to writing in 300 a.d. but existed much earlier. We know Jewish Enoch (of pre-300 b.c) and the dead sea scroll Jews (of pre-70 a.d.) believed in resurrection as did the pharisees (pre-a.d.) and later rabbinic Judaism (orthodox Judaism) because the left so many witnesses to this claim of their belief in resurrection.

If you don’t have any data other than your personal interpretation of literature of 900 a.d. now is the time to tell us rather than wasting more posts trying to present your personal interpretation as that of the "early Jews" (the "Real Jews" as you call them).

To start off with, you are again deliberately misquoting me as a way of avoiding engaging my arguments. I said the real early Jews were those who wrote the Tanach and not the Pharisees who offered really strange arguments to support their view that resurrection was always inherent in the Tanach, because believing in a future personal resurrection is a graven in stone belief of the Pharisees and there were no other significant Jewish thinkers left around anymore to argue the point.

All copies of the Talmud you can quote from are no more than a couple of centuries old. Can you produce a copy of the Talmud from around 500 CE and prove that it really says the same exact things that you quoted?

The Masoretic Text correlates well with the portions of the Tanach found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It correlates well with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus both dating to the 4th century CE. It also correlates fairly well with the old Septuagint texts. Are you claiming that those who compiled the Masoretic Text deliberately changed it big time to disagree with the Talmud? For example in my discussion of Isaiah 4:2, I referred to the overall context of the section showing that it was about the Siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. Are you saying that the real original text was so radically different that 4:3 has to be about the resurrection? And somehow explained what ‘the survivors in Jerusalem’ could possibly mean in that context.

ANCIENT TEMPLES VERSUS PRESENTING TEMPORARY SCHISMATIC OPINION AS "JEWISH BELIEF"
Miken said : "The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, which had been around for hundreds of years. Why should not their belief system reflect the earliest thoughts of the Jews?" (posts # 102-107)

Because the SADDUCEES and their minority opinions only existed for a short time (maybe 200-250 years) and they left no significant literature of this short lived group. You cannot take a temporary exception and the honestly present it as the rule for Judaism that existed much longer than that group existed.

Ooh, love those pejoratives! Considering the Sadducees as a temporary schismatic group is assuming that the earlier Jewish beliefs were as you want them to be. The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple which was around well before the Pharisees. Why would their ideas not have been the old ones? The Pharisees appeared in the second half of the 2nd century BCE, disagreeing with the Sadducees. Why don’t you call the Pharisees a schismatic group? If the Temple in Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself were not destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducees could have been around a lot longer. Your use of the term ‘temporary’ with the implication that their ideas would not have lasted even if they had survived is merely pejorative and unjustified.

A BELIEF IN "RESURRECTION" OF ANY TYPE IS STILL A BELIEF IN "RESURRECTION"
Miken said : "To the Pharisees, resurrection meant personal resurrection of the dead." (posts # 102-107)

A belief in resurrection is a belief in resurrection.
The type and scope of resurrection is a different argument.

Nonsense. To the Pharisees, resurrection meant personal resurrection of the dead, and all taking place at the same time in the future. That is obvious for the Talmudic quotes you provided. The idea of national salvation is a radically different one NOT involving the resurrection of dead individuals. To claim that the Essenes believed in resurrection of the dead because they believed that the spirits of the righteous continue on is an obvious perversion of the term. Trying to blur the lines so you do not have to answer arguments is not going to work.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONES PERSONAL INTERPRETATION IS "THE CORRECT ONE"
Miken said : "But the actual clear intended meaning of the scriptures does not always support those beliefs and I am not going to pretend it does just because somebody believes that it does." (posts # 102-107)

The Jews say they believed in resurrection. Your religious posturing that you know what the scripture actually meant is irrelevant to their belief. Whether their belief is correct, it is still what they say they believed.

Rabbinic Judaism, which was founded by Pharisees who believed in personal bodily resurrection en masse at some future date, believes in that kind of resurrection. They were not the only Jews.

Posturing … ooh those pejoratives. The meaning of the scriptures is quite clear if you read it for content in context and have at least a pretty good knowledge of the time and culture in which they were written, and not for trying to support preconceived notions about what they are supposed to mean. Some knowledge of the original language helps as well,

If you think any of my understandings are incorrect then address them in detail. Without quoting the Talmud or the like. I have already shown that the Talmudic interpretations totally ignore context, and/or present abstruse arguments that do not match the clear intent of the writings they quote or even claim that the words mean the opposite of what they clearly mean. A barren womb normally produces children therefore the dead will rise. Huh? Oh, it says fire? Can’t do anything with that one so just leave it out.

IF ISRAEL BELIEVED THAT ONLY THEY WERE RESURRECTED, THIS IS A BELIEF IN RESURRECTION
Miken said : "This is claiming that Ezekiel is about a resurrection of a limited number of people that took place in the past. It has no bearing on a supposed future resurrection." (posts # 102-107)

Again, you are presenting your personal interpretation.

This tells us what YOU believe and why, but it is irrelevant to the interpretation and belief of the early Jews. Your religion is NOT their religion. You must allow them their own beliefs if you are to present THEIR history and THEIR beliefs.

The rest of your post simply had to do with trying to prove the Jewish belief in the resurrection was wrong rather than providing evidence they did not believe what they say they believed.
Nothing in these arguments demonstrated they didn’t believe what they said they believed.

Do you want to try again?

Maybe you want to try again. The Talmudic quotes YOU provided have scholars claiming that Ezekiel was talking about an already accomplished resurrection of a limited number of people.

Here are the quotes you provided.

Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda: If it was truth, why do you refer to it as a parable, and if it was a parable, why do you refer to it as truth? Rather, it means: In truth, it was a parable. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Not only was it not a parable, the dead that Ezekiel revived ascended to Eretz Yisrael and married wives and fathered sons and daughters. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira stood on his feet and said: I am a descendant of their sons, and these are phylacteries that my father’s father left me from them.

And Shmuel says: These dead that Ezekiel revived were people who denied the resurrection of the dead, as it is stated: “Then He said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say: Our bones are dried and our hope is lost; we are cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). God tells Ezekiel that these were people who had lost hope for resurrection.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are the dead from the Dura Valley (see Daniel, chapter 3). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These corpses filled the area from the Eshel River to Rabat, which constitutes the Dura Valley.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: At the moment that Nebuchadnezzar the wicked cast Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: Go and revive the dead in the Dura Valley. Once Ezekiel revived them, the bones came and struck Nebuchadnezzar, that wicked man, in his face.

Stop misrepresenting what I say. You are doing that so often one wonders if it is deliberate to avoid dealing with my actual arguments.

Jews or Christians or anyone else are entitled to believe what they believe. That does not mean I am not allowed to express my views on a Scriptural Debates forum when the subject has already been raised. This is not DIR.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO A HISTORICAL REMINDER OF HOW WE ARRIVED TO THE PRESENT POSTS

Hi @Miken;


A)THE FIRST CLAIM REGARDING "EARLY JUDAISM" WAS MADE IN POST #43.

1) Miken in Post #43 “In early Judaism, those who died and who went to Sheol were simply dead and not conscious. There was no personal resurrection.”
Clear pointed out that the Jewish Talmud, a central text to Judaism clearly demonstrates the Jews believed in cognizance of spirits and in resurrection from the dead.

2) Miken IN Post #52 “Judaism is ancient. The Talmud does not qualify as ancient, the components having been written between 200 and 500 CE.”
Miken quotes Ecclesiates 9:5 of approx. 1000 a.d. in support of non-resurrection

The inconsistency here is the claim that data from 200-500 c.e. is not acceptable, but then offering data from 900-1300 a.d. to support the theory. (actually the oldest Talmudic existing literature was written approx. 850-900 a.d.).


3) Clear in #57 points out that Mikens “data” is his personal interpretation of Ecclesiates 9:5 and this is dependent upon Mikens modern personal interpretation. Clear asked for quotes from early jewish literature supporting this interpretation.


4) Miken in #58 quotes Rashi from post 1000 a.d. to support non-resurrection.
Again, This is literature from the middle ages and not from “early Judaism, before the pharisees”.

Miken describes The Mishnah and Gemara from torah “Gemara, written after 200 AD”
This simply indicates the quotes from the Talmud by Clear may represent an older Judaism than Mikens quote from the Jew named Rashi (of 1000 a.d.) post #58 (Talmud is more like 850-900 a.d.)


5) Clear in #61 gives 6 examples of Jewish belief in cognitive spirits from the Jewish Talmudic literature.

6) Clear in posts #62-63 gives 10 talmudic examples demonstrating Jewish belief in cognizant spirits

7) Miken in post #67 clarified his original theory : "My original contention was that the earliest Jewish concept was that the dead are dead. They are not aware. They do not come back. They do not get resurrected. They are just dead”.

Miken then explains his belief that Jewish belief in resurrection only began approx. 3rd century b.c.

8) Clear in posts #77-78 gives more examples that the Jews from the Jewish Talmud believed in resurrection.

9) Miken in post #809 insists the Talmudic literature was written AFTER his ecclesiates literature.

10 Clear in post #81 points out that Mikens quotes come from approx. 1000 a.d. (Rashi), written LATER than the Talmud (written “after 200 a.d.” according to Miken but actually the two are written in a similar age - while The Masoretic was written in 900 a.d. and much beyond.)

Thus Mikens quotes do not come from literature older than the Talmud.

11) Clear in post Gives 50+ examples from Jewish Old Testament epigraphs, from Enoch, from dead sea scrolls (“essenes”), from New Testament Judeo-Christians, and from apostolic fathers that consistently give the same witness to belief in resurrection. For example, the essenes in 4Q said : “…For your glory’s sake You have cleansed man from transgression, …. That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council Frags. 10, 34, 42+ 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 19:10-14

12) Miken, in post #85 said “You insist that because later Jewish writers applied their interpretations based on more evolved concepts to much earlier scriptures that this was necessarily the meaning the original authors intended. The idea of a resurrection was unique to the Pharisees and their followers.

13) Clear in post #89 : Clear explained that Jewish literature does NOT demonstrate the Jews were correct in their belief in resurrection. The literature merely demonstrates their belief in resurrection.
Clear pointed out that none of Mikens quotes comes from literature older than the middle ages (approx. 900a.d. and later). Clear gave 7 more examples of Old testament texts supporting resurrection.

So far only Mikens personal interpretation support the theory that the early Jews did not believe in resurrection.


14) Miken In post 90 & 91
Counters Clears point by claiming that his (Mikens) interpretation is based on “what seems to be a clear straightforward meaning” of his late text and “it is entirely reasonable to take the meaning at face value.”

Miken claims 1 Enoch “date to the 3rd century BCE”.

Miken gives several examples from biblical literature from approx. (900-1300 a.d.) which he feels support his position


15) Clear in posts 99-101

Points out that Mikens interpretation is not the same as the early Jews. Why does a modern interpretation take precedence over an early Jewish interpretation.

Why does literature from 1000 a.d. represent early Jewish thinking more than Jewish literature from 300 a.d.?

Clear gives 25+ new examples from Talmud literature that specific speak of their belief in the resurrection.




16) Miken in post #102-107 responds

Miken admits Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism believed in resurrection : "To the Pharisees, resurrection meant personal resurrection of the dead." (posts # 102-107)

However, Miken says The Talmudic literature does not represent “early jews”

Again Miken offers, a personal, modern interpretation of ecclesiates as "data" regarding early jewish belief./
Miken feels his personal interpretation of these texts is evidence of early Jewish interpretation and beliefs.

Miken says : “The real early Jews, before Pharisaic dominance, by and large did not believe in resurrection as is obvious from Job and Ecclesiastes” (that is, based on Mikens personal interpretation of Job and Ecclesiates and not on a Jewish interpretation)

Miken feels the interpretations of the Talmudic era Jews were faulty and his modern, personal intepretations are to be preferred as representative of ancient Judaism.

Miken points out that “Tractate Sanhedrin was written by Rabbinic Jews adhering to a belief system based on that of the Pharisees,”

I agree with Miken that Pharisaic Judaism is the forerunner of later Rabbinic Judaism and Pharisaic Judaism is not the same as early Judaism.

Miken feels his modern interpretation of “national salvation” represents early Judaism saying : “If we look at the following verse that national salvation interpretation becomes even clearer.”

His interpretation is not a Jewish interpretation based on"real early Jewish" texts but instead is a personal, modern interpretation of texts from the middle ages.

The rest of the posts deal with his disagreement with the interpretations of the Talmudic Jews (and not interpretation by “the early Jews”.)



17) Clear, in post #108

Clear agrees with Miken that the Jews were Schismatic (both Jews and saducees were Schisms of an earlier, different Judaism and multiple “Judaisms” existed in all ages)

Clear Agrees with Miken that not all Jews of all ages believed in a resurrection.

Clear reminds Miken that, though Miken speaks of “real early Jews”, he has, so far, not provided any literature that gives us “real early” Jewish interpretation from any “real early” text to support his claim that “real early” Jews did not believe in resurrection. All, so far is personal interpretation of limited texts from a later era.

Part of the difficulty is though non historians speak of “early Jews” (pre-300 b.d. or so) we do not have their literature that explains THEIR interpretation of early texts.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO



18) Miken in post #109

Miken defines “early Jews” as :”…Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished.”

Part of the difficulty is though non historians speak of “early Jews” (pre-300 b.d. or so) we do not have their literature that explains THEIR interpretation of early texts.

Miken clarifies that “…the real early Jews were those who wrote the Tanach and not the Pharisees who offered really strange arguments to support their view that resurrection was always inherent in the Tanach,…”

I agree with you that the Jewish arguments may seem strange to us (as do some of the arguments among different forum members). Still, one cannot claim that they did not believe what they claimed to believe, and taught and consistently witnessed concerning their belief.

Miken claims : “The Masoretic Text correlates well with the portions of the Tanach found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

Here, I will have to disagree.
Some portions of the Masoretic Text do NOT corelate well but instead show examples of contaminations and missing texts in the Masoretic.

As the early Christian Justyn Martyr claimed in his Debate with the Jew Trypho, there are Jewish narratives that have changed and some of the lost or corrupted data would have made the scriptures more clear. As more of the Dead Sea Scrolls have become translated we are discovering the degree to which the dead sea scrolls show corruption and loss in the Masoretic.

1 SAMUEL 1:11 AS EXAMPLE OF MASORETIC LOSS

MASORETIC Samuel 1:11 READS as follows : “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.”

DEAD SEA SCROLL SAMUEL 1:11 READS as follows : "And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead."

The DSS text of Samuel shows the degree to which text is missing from the corrupted Masoretic.
It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single sentence.

When the text is restored to the the incomplete Masoretic you are using, the corrected versions final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of corruptions to your text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective:

Missing text in your version of the Jewish record written in the middle ages is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.

The DDS has been wonderful as editors try to correct corruptions and deletions from your Masoretic text. This is partly the reason multiple new bibles such as New International Version Bible, "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc ALL prefer the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text written in the middle ages (almost a thousand years later than the DSS).

WE CANNOT TELL WHAT ORIGINAL TEXTS SAID NOR HOW THE EARLY JEWS MAY HAVE INTERPRETED A DIFFERENT VERSION WITHOUT THE SAME DEGREE OF MISSING OR CORRUPTED TEXT

Another problem besides using your personal interpretation of a corrupted text of ecclesiastes as “data” for your theory is that the Dead Sea Scrolls only contain (so far) two small fragments from Ecclesiates, neither of which are the text you need to refer to in order to tell us what the earlier text would have said. Perhaps it’s as corrupt as Samuel in the Masoretic is, perhaps it is not. (There are differences in the two (and only) fragments of dead sea Scroll ecclesiates fragments found in Qumran and the masoretic text).

As the Masorah tells us in it's notes about their creation of the Masoretic bible, the Massoretes made many, many changes to the text from the lists of examples they themselves gave us. When such changes are made to the text and not all changes are catalogued, we cannot tell in many cases which texts were changed and what they originally said.

Some of the changes the Massoretes made were of little consequence, other changes were major.
For example, the Massoretes tell us that the original text of Genesis 1:31 "behold, death was good" was changed to "behold it was very good”.

While the original reading ("death was good") is retained in the Severus Codex and in the Codex of R. Meir, Rashi (the same Rashi of your own quote) supports this reading. It is only the Jewish literature of the period that we can look to in order to tell us how they interpreted that text, why it was changed, and how it related to resurrection. etc.

In any case, no one knows what the original “early Jewish text” was, nor can one provide any Jewish interpretation from the literature of this period similar to the talmud. The examples from the Talmud are examples of how different the Jewish interpretation can be than your own modern personal translation.


So, the question still remains after all these posts.

Readers have already learned that the Talmudic literature from earlier centuries did NOT interpret your example scriptures the same way as you with your personal and modern interpretation.

IF you are going to claim that the “real early Jews” who wrote the Tanach” did not believe in resurrection, after all the posts spent without data to support this theory other than your interpretation of a few texts from the middle ages, do you have any literature from this early Jewish period that tells us what the original texts said and how these original Jews interpreted these texts you are trying to apply your personal modern interpretation to?

In any case Miken, please be at peace regarding our disagreements.

Clear
εισεειακω

 

[Miken]

@Clear

As I mentioned earlier in another thread, I am pressed for time and was unable to get to this sooner. I and still short on free time but will do what I can.

Instead of addressing all your diversions, I will repeat my objections to a number of the quotes from the Talmud. Wherever possible I will provide ancient sources in existence before the Talmud was written and compare it to the Masoretic Text. Let me start off by noting that you demanded Normative Judaism yet reject any context I provided from the MT. Is the Masoretic Text not Normative Judaism? Or maybe you think it was deliberately changed from the original to contradict the Talmud.

Here are some of the quotes you provided and my original responses augmented by quotes from sources earlier than the Talmud to demonstrate that the Masoretic Text in these instances is accurate relative to those early sources.

Here are the sources.

MT is a quote from the Masoretic Text as translated by Chabad.org
GI is a quote from the DDS Great Isaiah Scroll
LXX is a quote from the Septuagint

Before chanting any mantras about modern personal opinion or Normative Judaism or the Masoretic Text is wrong, please address these examples. I can do more but the GI text must be hand copied and the Greek translations take time. The translations provided on the sire are not literal although not inaccurate.

If you address these substantively, I will provide more. If not then the conversation is over.

]
For examples (from Sanhedrin 90a and beyond) from the William Davidson Talmud.

MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, …

Where is the part about personal resurrection of the dead? Looks more like national salvation.

If we look at the following verse that national salvation interpretation becomes even clearer. (Language from the Hebrew)

MT Isaiah 60:22 A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation.
GI Isaiah 60:22 The least of them will become a thousand and the smallest one a mighty nation

Resurrected individuals will each become a thousand individuals or a strong nation? This is obviously talking about the descendants of those now living, not those people personally. That is, national salvation not individual salvation. The Mishna is quote mining to ‘prove’ an article of faith, not deriving the idea from scripture.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is the resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from this verse, as it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “And you shall give the teruma of the Lord to Aaron the priest” (Numbers 18:28). And does Aaron exist forever so that one can fulfill the mitzva by giving him the teruma of the tithe? But is it not so that Aaron did not enter Eretz Yisrael, the only place where the people would give him teruma? Rather, the verse teaches that Aaron is destined to live in the future and the Jewish people will give him teruma. From here it is derived that the resurrection of the dead is from the Torah.

It is not the case that the teruma (offering) could only be given in the land of Israel. Before the Temple was constructed, when the Ark of the Covenant was housed in the tent of meeting, offerings would be given there. Aaron and his sons were in charge of the tent of meeting. Offerings would definitely be given to Aaron while he was alive. No need for a resurrection to fulfill this requirement. Lots of language in Numbers 18 about Aaron and his sons and their descendants being entitled to the offerings. It is obviously meant to be in the present and not the future.

MT Numbers 18
1 The Lord said to Aaron: You, your sons and your father's house shall bear the iniquity associated with the Sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity associated with your kehunah.
2 Also your brethren, the tribe of Levi, your father's tribe, draw close to you, and they shall join you and minister to you, and you and your sons with you, before the Tent of Testimony.

8 The Lord told Aaron: Behold I have given you the charge of My gift [offerings]. I have thus given you all the holy things of the children of Israel for distinction, and as an eternal portion for your sons.
9 These shall be yours from the holiest of holies, from the fire: all their offerings, their meal-offerings, their sin-offerings, their guilt-offerings, [and] what they return to Me; they shall be holy of holies to you and to your sons.
10 You shall eat it in the holiest of places. Any male may eat of it; it shall be holy to you.
11 This shall be yours what is set aside for their gifts from all the wavings of the children of Israel; I have given them to you, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an eternal portion. Any [ritually] clean member of your household may eat it.
12 The choice of the oil and the choice of the wine and grain, the first of which they give to the Lord, to you I have given them.
13 The first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord shall be yours; any [ritually] clean member of your household may eat of it.

The Talmud misrepresents the case. Or are you going to claim that all of this was changed in the 9th century?

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the Patriarchs: “I have also established My covenant with them to give to them the land of Canaan” (Exodus 6:4). The phrase: To give to you the land of Canaan, is not stated, as the meaning of the verse is not that God fulfilled the covenant with the Patriarchs when he gave the land of Canaan to the children of Israel; rather, it is stated: “To give to them the land of Canaan,” meaning to the Patriarchs themselves. From here is it derived that the resurrection of the dead is from the Torah, as in the future the Patriarchs will come to life and inherit the land.

MT Exodus 6:7 I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord.’”

LXX Exodus
6:7 καὶ λήμψομαι ἐμαυτῷ ὑμᾶς λαὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός καὶ γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῆς καταδυναστείας τῶν ΑἰγυπτίωνA

“And I-will-take myself you people mine and I-will-be your God and you will-know that I Lord the God of-you the upon leading-out you out-of oppression the Egyptian.”

6:8 καὶ εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν γῆν εἰς ἣν ἐξέτεινα τὴν χεῖρά μου δοῦναι αὐτὴν τῷ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν αὐτὴν ἐν κλήρῳ ἐγὼ κύριος

“”And I will lead-into you into the land into which I-stretched-out the hand of-me to-give it the Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and I-will-give you it in allotment I Lord

The Lord will give the land to the liberated slaves, not literally to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are being used as a metaphor for the Jewish people. If the land will not be given until the resurrection, then the promise Moses conveys to the slaves is a lie.

More quote mining.

The proof from the Prophets is as it is written: “Your dead shall live, my corpse shall arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of vegetation, and the land shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19). The heretics said to him: But perhaps the prophecy was fulfilled with the dead that Ezekiel revived. No proof may be cited from that verse with regard to any future resurrection.

As I commented earlier, this could be interpreted metaphorically as national resurrection. Note that it is only Jews who are resurrected and for no other reason than that they are Jews. Later Jewish thinking was that the World to Come is for the righteous, including Gentiles who obey the Noachide Laws.

The proof from Writings is as it is written: “And your palate is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those that sleep” (Song of Songs 7:10), indicating that the dead will ultimately rise and speak. The heretics said to him: But perhaps merely their lips will move, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Anyone in whose name a halakha is stated in this world, his lips move in the grave as if repeating the statement cited in his name, as it is stated: “Moving gently the lips of those that sleep.” No proof may be cited from that verse, as it is unrelated to resurrection

.
If ‘those that sleep’ are the dead then the dead are not conscious after all. Inconsistency born of quote mining. And as pointed out, there is no mention of a resurrection.

This exchange continued until Rabban Gamliel stated to them this verse: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord took an oath to your forefathers to give them” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The phrase: To give you, is not stated; rather, it is stated: “To give them,” to the Patriarchs themselves, as in the future the Patriarchs will come to life and inherit the land. From here resurrection of the dead is derived from the Torah.

I already dealt with this one. If the land is not given to the free slaves but they have to wait until the resurrection, then Moses lied to them. It is clear that ‘them’ in that passage is ‘children’. This is in accord to what Genesis has to say about it.

MT Genesis 12:7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”

LXX Genesis 12:7
καὶ ὤφθη κύριος τῷ Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐκεῖ Αβραμ θυσιαστήριον κυρίῳ τῷ ὀφθέντι αὐτῷ

And he-was-seen Lord the Abram and he-said-to Abram the seed of-you I-will-give the land this and he-built there Abram altar to-Lord seen by-him

 

[Clear]

Hi @Miken


REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH BELIEF IN RESURRECTION

REGARDING THE JEWS OF JESUS' TIME AND OF THE ORTHODOX JEWS (RABBINICAL JUDAISM) THAT FOLLOWED
You admit that the Pharisaical movement believed in resurrection.
You admit that the Rabbinic Judaism believes in resurrection.
You admit that the Talmud, as a central representation of Rabbinic Judaism teaches the resurrection.
However, you disagree with their belief and their interpretation of texts by which they support their belief.


REGARDING THE JEWS "A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THE TALMUD WAS FINISHED
Your theory ultimately clarified into the theory that the “real early Jews” did not believe in resurrection.
You defined “real early Jews” as “Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished “ (Miken, in post 109)

However, you have not given us any data from literature actually written “a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished.” Zero. Zip. Nada. Usually theories have data to support them.

Instead of offering data, your last post offered to repeat prior, irrelevant, points. For examples :

Miken said : “I will repeat my objections to a number of the quotes from the Talmud. “ (post #113)

It will not help to repeat irrelevant information. You will simply be pointing out your interpretation differs from theirs. Readers know this already.
What your theory needs is DATA to support your theory that the early jews did not believe in resurrection.

Wishing Jews did not believe what they said they believe is irrelevant.
The Jews from pre-b.c. to Talmudic times said they believed in resurrection and the Talmud speaks to their belief in resurrect and their interpretation of texts support their belief.
You will need to provide DATA to tell us that this millenia long pattern represents a change from prior belief.

Simply repeating your objections to Jewish interpretations is irrelevant to your claim they did not believe in resurrection.
Regardless of YOUR beliefs, the Jews and the Talmud still believed in and taught resurrection.




Miken said : "Wherever possible I will provide ancient sources in existence before the Talmud was written and compare it to the Masoretic Text." (Post #113)

Again, this is probably going to be irrelevant.
You have already offered your personal modern interpretation of the Masoretic text from the middle Ages.
All this demonstrates is that your interpretation is different than the Jewish interpretation.
This still leaves us with Jews believing in and teaching resurrection.
Repeating your interpretation versus their interpretation is irrelevant and a waste of time just as it was the first time.



Miken said : "Let me start off by noting that you demanded Normative Judaism yet reject any context I provided from the MT. (post #113)


What I rejected was your personal modern interpretation as more representative of Jewish belief than the Jewish interpretation of Jewish belief..
Historical context, on the other hand is always good.

The Jews know what they believe better than you know what they believe and The Jewish interpretation is more “Jewish” than your interpretation of what they “should” belief.





Miken quoted “For examples (from Sanhedrin 90a and beyond) from the William Davidson Talmud.
MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, …”

And the Miken asked : “Where is the part about personal resurrection of the dead?.” (post #113)

The part of the Jewish Mishna in this quote that confirm they are speaking of resurrection is the part that says that “the people who have no part in the world to come are those who say ‘there is no resurrection of the Dead’ derived from the Torah.” (I underlined and bolded it in the quote above)





NATIONAL SALVATION IS NOT RESURRECTION

Miken said : "If we look at the following verse that national salvation interpretation becomes even clearer.
MT Isaiah 60:22 A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation.
GI Isaiah 60:22 The least of them will become a thousand and the smallest one a mighty nation
Resurrected individuals will each become a thousand individuals or a strong nation?

Your attempt to imply the Jews believe that Isaiah 60:22 has to do with resurrection is strange.
When Isaiah 60:22 LXX says “The few will become thousands and the least [into] a great nation. I the Lord will gather them in [the] season.

Isaiah is not speaking of resurrection in vs 22, but of the few becoming a nation.
The Jews used verse 21 in the Mishna regarding inheriting the world FOREVER to support their belief in resurrection. Inside of their logic, If there is no resurrection, then there is no forever inheritance of the world.

Your example does not show that the Jews did not believe what they said they believed concerning resurrection.

As with prior posts, the remainder of your posts give us your reasons why you think the Jews were wrong to believe in resurrection.
But none of them support your theory that the Jews did not believe what they said they believed regarding resurrection.

If you want to quote a text from the Dead sea Scroll data and it's literature that relates to both resurrection and Essenic Jewish belief, you could quote 4Q texts such as “ : “…For your glory’s sake You have cleansed man from transgression, …. That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. Frags. 10, 34, 42+ 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 19:10-14
The concept of bodies, "covered with worms of the dead" rising up from the dust to an eternal council (i.e. living forever after) is more related to Isaiah 60 verse 21 (verse twenty one - inheriting the world forever) than the concept that Israel was to increase in numbers to become a great nation on earth (Isaiah 60:22).



OFFERING ONE'S PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVING THE JEWS DID NOT BELIEVE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS AS TO WHAT THEY BELIEVED
For example, the Talmud say regarding proof of resurrection :
The proof from the Prophets is as it is written: “Your dead shall live, my corpse shall arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of vegetation, and the land shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19).

Your response is that “….this could be interpreted metaphorically as national resurrection. “. (Miken in post #113)

It could be speaking of moon aliens, inhabiting planet zargoz.
While I agree that the text could be interpreted twenty different ways, the Jews interpreted it to mean resurrection of the Body.
To simply offer another personal interpretation, or to attempt to show the Jews were incorrect in their interpretation does not prove they did not believe what they say they believed and taught.

Other than saducees, The Jews of which we have record in Jesus time believed in the resurrection. The Jews of the Essenic quote I gave you above believed in resurrection. The Jews of the Rabbinic schools believed in resurrection. The Jews who wrote the Talmud believed in resurrection just as they tell us.

Even if somehow, you could prove the Jewish belief was incorrect, it will not change history, and the historical fact is that they believed in resurrection.

You claim that the Talmud and literature from the time it is written is not ancient enough to represent the "real early Jews".
You define the Early Jews as “Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished “ (post 109).
You claim these "read early Jews" did NOT believe in resurrection but you have not given readers any data from any literature from this period you theory covers, to support this. Not a single quote.

We have many, many, many Jewish witnesses from Jewish literature itself, as to their belief in resurrection and their interpretation of the sacred texts they had in their generation that supported their belief in resurrection.

We are again left where we started. There are many witnesses from the Jews themselves that they believed in resurrection and you have given us no data (not a single bit of data) to support your theory from the time period you describe, to support your theory.


If you do not have any data to support this theory, NOW, would be a very good time to admit this, or to provide data, if you have it before we waste yet more posts on your theory that has, so far, not had supportive data.

Clear
ειακτζφιω

 

[Miken]

1 of 3

Before you start writing replies be aware that I am not going to take the time to read them. You have consistently refused to substantively deal with what I say, engaging in unrelated diversions, gross misrepresentations about what I say, and false claims that I never supplied any data. The truth is that you are unable to deal with my arguments and evidence but unable to let go. As I recently noted, unless you started dealing directly with my arguments the conversation would be over. The conversation is over. It is simply a waste of time.

I predict that you will engage in your stock mantras about modern personal opinion, Normative Judaism, the Masoretic Text is wrong and I never quoted anything. It does not matter, I will not be reading it.

Hi @Miken

REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH BELIEF IN RESURRECTION

REGARDING THE JEWS OF JESUS' TIME AND OF THE ORTHODOX JEWS (RABBINICAL JUDAISM) THAT FOLLOWED
You admit that the Pharisaical movement believed in resurrection.
You admit that the Rabbinic Judaism believes in resurrection.
You admit that the Talmud, as a central representation of Rabbinic Judaism teaches the resurrection.
However, you disagree with their belief and their interpretation of texts by which they support their belief.

I recognize that Pharisaic based Judaism, the only kind to survive post-Temple believes in the personal resurrection of the dead at the end of days. Details vary on who gets resurrected and what exactly happens at the end of days. And I recognize that the early Jewish writings, as seen in the Torah and the Nevi-im did not hold a belief in the personal resurrection of the dead at the end of days. With the notable exception of Daniel and possibly part of Isaiah, composed later than most of the Tanach, this is generally also the case with the Ketuvim.

Again with the exception of Daniel, written post-Enoch, I see the arguments you have quoted from the Talmud that are based on scriptural references to be extraordinarily weak, being out of context, requiring unjustified prior assumption of the belief and even self-contradictory. At the same time there is no reference to clear cases of a non-belief in personal resurrection being ignored, such as Ecclesiastes and Job.

The problem here is that the main scriptural support for the claimed belief is only found in literature that was not included when the canonical form of the Tanach was developed by the early 2nd century CE. These omissions include Enoch and related works and several books that appear in the Septuagint but were not included in the Ketuvim. The contributors to the Talmud were stuck with an inherited belief but could not use the writings that supported that belief.

REGARDING THE JEWS "A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THE TALMUD WAS FINISHED
Your theory ultimately clarified into the theory that the “real early Jews” did not believe in resurrection.
You defined “real early Jews” as “Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished “ (Miken, in post 109)

However, you have not given us any data from literature actually written “a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished.” Zero. Zip. Nada. Usually theories have data to support them.

I have provided material from the Tanach that points clearly to an explicit belief in the idea that dead is dead and there is no resurrection, and to a growing belief in national salvation, that is, the ultimate defeat of all the enemies of Israel and the establishment of a powerful and permanent Jewish kingdom. Aer you denying that I provided these references? Which would be a lie. Or are you denying that these writings were made in an era well before the Talmud was finished? That would be a really remarkable claim and I would demand hard evidence.

What you really mean of course is that what I have presented constitutes strong evidence against your views and therefore cannot be allowed to be relevant.

Instead of offering data, your last post offered to repeat prior, irrelevant, points. For examples :

Miken said : “I will repeat my objections to a number of the quotes from the Talmud. “ (post #113)

It will not help to repeat irrelevant information. You will simply be pointing out your interpretation differs from theirs. Readers know this already.
What your theory needs is DATA to support your theory that the early jews did not believe in resurrection.

The DATA I provided was quotes from the Tanach point very definitely to a lack of belief in personal resurrection and instead the gradual appearance and elaboration of the theme of national but not personal salvation.

The DATA I provided was also the surrounding context of the minimalist quotes found in the Talmud, that context demonstrating that the interpretations are simply unjustified compared to the clear sense of the context, often being at total odds with it. As I have demonstrated, but you deemed irrelevant, the quotes I use from the Tanach correlate very well with genuine pre-Talmudic sources.

But this DATA strongly contradicts your position so you are required to ignore it and pretend it does not exist.

Wishing Jews did not believe what they said they believe is irrelevant.
The Jews from pre-b.c. to Talmudic times said they believed in resurrection and the Talmud speaks to their belief in resurrect and their interpretation of texts support their belief.
You will need to provide DATA to tell us that this millenia long pattern represents a change from prior belief.

Simply repeating your objections to Jewish interpretations is irrelevant to your claim they did not believe in resurrection.
Regardless of YOUR beliefs, the Jews and the Talmud still believed in and taught resurrection.

I have provided DATA repeatedly as described above but apparently your definition of DATA means only those things that can be bent into supporting your position, everything else being mere opinion no matter what support is provided for it. That being your definition you feel under no obligation to actually address any of that provided support.

Your talk of wishing Jews did not believe is something out of left field. I never expressed anything of the sort. I have shown repeatedly that there was a shift in Jewish beliefs about personal resurrection over time. You demand that it never changed despite all the evidence I have given. But again, to you evidence is only what agrees with you regardless of support provided.

Miken said : "Wherever possible I will provide ancient sources in existence before the Talmud was written and compare it to the Masoretic Text." (Post #113)

Again, this is probably going to be irrelevant.

You demanded support that the Masoretic Text was an accurate portrayal of ancient sources. I provided that support by presenting quotes from genuine pre-Talmudic sources that in the areas of concern, there is very good agreement with the MT and that when viewed in context the Talmudic quotes do not mean what they are claimed to mean. Now it is ‘probably irrelevant’. Be careful lugging those goalposts around, you could get a hernia.

You have already offered your personal modern interpretation of the Masoretic text from the middle Ages.
All this demonstrates is that your interpretation is different than the Jewish interpretation.
This still leaves us with Jews believing in and teaching resurrection.
Repeating your interpretation versus their interpretation is irrelevant and a waste of time just as it was the first time.

I did not simply repeat what I said earlier which you ignored. I asked you to finally address what I said, now that I had shown that the MT quotes about the context of the Talmudic one-liners really do match pre-Talmudic sources. But I see from what you say below that you are really desperately avoiding substantively addressing what I actually said.

BTW it is not just my personal opinion. Here is what the Jewish Encyclopedia has to say.

“Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30]. Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii. In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26). The older Hebrew conception of life regarded the nation so entirely as a unit that no individual mortality or immortality was considered. Jeremiah (xxxi. 29) and Ezekiel (xviii.) had contended that the individual was the moral unit, and Job's hopes are based on this idea.

A different view, which made a resurrection unnecessary, was held by the authors of Ps. xlix. and lxxiii., who believed that at death only the wicked went to Sheol and that the souls of the righteous went directly to God. This, too, seem based on views analogous to those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and probably was not widely held. In the long run the old national point of view asserted itself in the form of Messianic hopes. These gave rise to a belief in a resurrection in order that more might share in the glory of the Messianic kingdom. This hope first finds expression in Isa. xxvi. 19, a passage which Cheyne dates about 334 B.C. The hope was cherished for faithful Israelites. In Dan. xii. 1-4 (about 165 B.C.) a resurrection of "many . . . that sleep in the dust" is looked forward to. This resurrection included both righteous and wicked, for some will awake to everlasting life, others to "shame and everlasting contempt."

The reference to Job 14 refers to a wish for resurrection after which sins would be forgotten. But Job then says that these hopes will be dashed. No resurrection. I have discussed this in detail earlier in this thread.

Notice the reference to 1 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch{}which specifically talks about life after death and a resurrection and judgment. But being non-canonical, it could not be referenced by the Talmud.

Miken said : "Let me start off by noting that you demanded Normative Judaism yet reject any context I provided from the MT. (post #113)

What I rejected was your personal modern interpretation as more representative of Jewish belief than the Jewish interpretation of Jewish belief..
Historical context, on the other hand is always good.

As I have shown above in the multi-paragraph introduction to the topic from the Jewish Encyclopedia, is that it is not my personal opinion that the earliest Jewish belief was that there was no personal resurrection. Only gradually did a belief come about concerning personal resurrection.

 

[Miken]

2 of 3

The Jews know what they believe better than you know what they believe and The Jewish interpretation is more “Jewish” than your interpretation of what they “should” belief.

As I have said earlier, people can believe what they believe but I am not required to bow to those beliefs in a Scriptural Debates forum when the subject was already raised.

Miken quoted “For examples (from Sanhedrin 90a and beyond) from the William Davidson Talmud.
MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, …”

And the Miken asked : “Where is the part about personal resurrection of the dead?.” (post #113)

The part of the Jewish Mishna in this quote that confirm they are speaking of resurrection is the part that says that “the people who have no part in the world to come are those who say ‘there is no resurrection of the Dead’ derived from the Torah.” (I underlined and bolded it in the quote above)


NATIONAL SALVATION IS NOT RESURRECTION

Miken said : "If we look at the following verse that national salvation interpretation becomes even clearer.
MT Isaiah 60:22 A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation.
GI Isaiah 60:22 The least of them will become a thousand and the smallest one a mighty nation
Resurrected individuals will each become a thousand individuals or a strong nation?

Your attempt to imply the Jews believe that Isaiah 60:22 has to do with resurrection is strange.
When Isaiah 60:22 LXX says “The few will become thousands and the least [into] a great nation. I the Lord will gather them in [the] season.

Isaiah is not speaking of resurrection in vs 22, but of the few becoming a nation.
The Jews use verse 21 in the Mishna regarding inheriting the world FOREVER to support their belief in resurrection. Inside of this logic, If there is no resurrection, then there is no forever inheritance of the world.
Your example does not show that the Jews did not believe what they said they believed concerning resurrection.

I see that you are unable to address my argument so you chose to separate two consecutive verses, even by inserting an all caps section separator, as if two consecutive verses could not possibly be related and also deliberately avoided one question I asked in the most transparent way and then misrepresented what I said. Getting desperate are?

When I asked where is the part about resurrection, you said that it is in the part that the person who wrote in the Mishnah that everyone must believe in the resurrection. Since I immediately followed up comparing verse 22 to verse 21, it was obvious that I was asking about verse 21. But you did no have an answer so you gave an inappropriate and useless answer.

Let’s compare verses 21 and 22.

MT Isaiah 60
21 And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever, a scion of My planting, the work of My hands in which I will glory.
22 A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation.

And so that you do not go into your song and dance about the Masoretic Text being deliberately altered from the text the Talmud writers used, here is what the Great Isaiah Scroll says. (Dated to 2nd century BCE)

GI Isaiah 60
21 Then your people will all be righteous, they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot the Lord planted, the works of his hands so that I might be glorified
22 The least of them will become a thousand and the smallest one a mighty nation

Virtually all of the wording and obviously the meaning is the same.

Verse 21 introduces ‘your people’ but verse 22 does not further identify who is being discussed. Just ‘a little one’ and ‘a small one’. Plainly it is referring to members of ‘your people’. From the preceding verse. A little one becoming a thousand and a small one he smallest one becoming a strong nation is not referring to personal persecution as I previously argued and as you have just agreed. Despite your other claim, I never said that verse 22 referred to resurrection. I said it did NOT refer to resurrection and that therefore neither did verse 21. But you have no answer to that so you had to avoid the question I asked, separate the two verses and grossly misrepresent what I said.

Also, I never said that the Jews of the Talmudic era or today did/do not believe what they said. All I have said all along is that the scriptural justifications from the Talmud that you provided are extremely poor arguments and do not at all demonstrate what they claim. The fact that they are seriously out of context and/or seriously misrepresent what the scripture is saying even to the point of contradicting the quote provided. Like barren wombs always have lots of babies, therefore the dead will rise from the grave, when connecting graves and barren wombs plainly is meant to show that nothing ever comes out of either.

As with prior posts, the remainder of your posts give us your reasons why you think the Jews were wrong to believe in resurrection.
But none of them support your theory that the Jews did not believe what they said they believed regarding resurrection.

I never said that they did not believe what they said they believed. I only ever said that the individual verses being used to support the position do not in fact support that position at all, again with the obvious exception of post-Enoch Daniel. The verses selected are quote mined way out of context, the arguments about what they mean are strained and even self-contradictory. And as a result of this failure to justify this belief from canonical Jewish scriptures, your claim that this proves that even the most ancient Jewish scriptures held to a resurrection viewpoint is likewise unjustified. When shown material from the earliest scriptures that clearly state that there is no resurrection and that this viewpoint is seen in overall context you brand it a modern personal viewpoint. The Jewish Encyclopedia thinks otherwise as I have shown above. Yet the really bad examples of ‘proof’ in the Talmud are, according to you, to be taken without discussion.

If you want to quote a text from the Dead sea Scroll data and it's literature that relates to both resurrection and Essenic Jewish belief, you could quote 4Q texts such as “ : “…For your glory’s sake You have cleansed man from transgression, …. That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. Frags. 10, 34, 42+ 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 19:10-14
The concept of bodies, "covered with worms of the dead" rising up from the dust to an eternal council (i.e. living forever after) is more related to Isaiah 60 verse 21 (verse twenty one - inheriting the world forever) than the concept that Israel was to increase in numbers to become a great nation on earth (Isaiah 60:22).

What I quoted from the DSS is the Great Isaiah Scroll, which as I have shown is in the sections relevant to the discussion very close to the Masoretic Text. The views of the secretive Essenes were probably not readily available to the Pharisees. And even if it were it would not have been usable since it is not canonical. The Talmudists could have found much more usable quotes in the non-canonical Jewish literature. However that would not have been acceptable. But these resurrection sources would all have been written in the era when viewpoints changed as described in the Jewish Encyclopedia article I quoted.

Here is a more complete rendition of the section you partially quoted, from 1QH XIX:13-17:

“For Your glory‘s sake You have cleansed a man from sin, so that he may sanctify himself for You from all filthy abominations and the guilt of unfaithfulness, so as to be joined with the children of Your truth; in the lot with Your holy ones; so that bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might be raised up from the dust to an et[ernal] council: from a perverse spirit to the understanding which comes from You; so that he might take his place before You with the eternal host and spirits [of truth], to be renewed with all that is and shall be and to rejoice together with those who know in a common rejoicing.”

We can see in here the Essenes obsession with both bodily and spiritual cleanliness. We also see that while Isaiah 60:21 talks about people possessing the land, DSS talks about individuals getting resurrected to a spiritual realm with God. There is no thematic connection between this and Isaiah 60:21.

 

[Miken]

3 of 3 and final

OFFERING ONE'S PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVING THE JEWS DID NOT BELIEVE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS AS TO WHAT THEY BELIEVED
For example, the Talmud say regarding proof of resurrection :
The proof from the Prophets is as it is written: “Your dead shall live, my corpse shall arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of vegetation, and the land shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19).

Your response is that “….this could be interpreted metaphorically as national resurrection. “. (Miken in post #113)

It could be speaking of moon aliens, inhabiting planet zargoz.

Nowhere in the scriptures is there any mention of moon aliens, or inhabiting planet zargoz. But there is definitely mention of national salvation. Or are you also going to say that the Jewish Encyclopedia quoted earlier is wrong because it not what you want it to say? The JE places the date of the section containing this verse as 334 BCE. Although they do not explain this, it is related to the conquest of Israel by Alexandria the Great. This is late enough to represent the beginning of the belief in personal resurrection. The Book of the Watchers with an elaborate geography of Sheol and explicit detailed description of resurrection and judgment came along not too long after that.

After the Alexandrian conquest, the resulting renewal of foreign oppression of the Jews after a long and rather benign period under Persian rule led to a rethinking of older ideas. If there is only one life and that is it, and the oppressors and their collaborators live high on the hog while the righteous live miserably, that is a really raw deal. National salvation is one thing, but what’s in it for me? A future resurrection and judgment for all is a better idea., a way to balance out the injustices of history. We can see the tension even today between the Jewish people regaining control of their kingdom forever and all the righteous dead sharing in a heavenly kingdom immediately or in the future in the various interpretations of Olam HaBa.

While I agree that the text could be interpreted twenty different ways, the Jews interpreted it to mean resurrection of the Body.
To simply offer another personal interpretation, or to attempt to show the Jews were incorrect in their interpretation does not prove they did not believe what they say they believed and taught.

Other than saducees, The Jews of which we have record in Jesus time believed in the resurrection. The Jews of the Essenic quote I gave you above believed in resurrection. The Jews of the Rabbinic schools believed in resurrection. The Jews who wrote the Talmud believed in resurrection just as they tell us.

Even if somehow, you could prove the Jewish belief was incorrect, it will not change history, and the historical fact is that they believed in resurrection.

Of course the writers of the Talmud believed in the resurrection. They were all representing Rabbinic Judaism which was descended from the Pharisees. As I have stated, the problem was that the written source material that would have allowed scriptural justification was almost all non-canonical and not admissible. So for the most part they had to rely on quote mining and misrepresentation because justification from canonical scriptures was hard to come by. Detailed arguments against resurrection could readily be found as I have quoted a number of times.

As keeper of the Temple, the Sadducees derived from a more ancient tradition than the Pharisees, who started in the mid 2nd century CE when the idea of resurrection had already appeared in literature following the renewed oppression of the Jews. The Sadducees did not even recognize the Nevi-im portion of scriptures, suggesting a very old tradition. As I documented somewhere way back, there were also Essenes who believed in a pleasant spirit life for the righteous immediately after death, with the physical body too impure to ever be of any use.

You claim that the Talmud and literature from the time it is written is not ancient enough to represent the "real early Jews".
You define the Early Jews as “Jews writing about their beliefs a thousand years and more before the Talmud was finished “ (post 109).
You claim these "read early Jews" did NOT believe in resurrection but you have not given readers any data from any literature from this period you theory covers, to support this. Not a single quote.

Flatly untrue. I have quoted a number of times from Ecclesiastes and Job including showing that the belief that death is the end fits perfectly within the overall context. These are the most pessimistic works in the scriptures and the only ones that really go into the despair of having only one life and nothing at all after it. Most of the Jewish scriptures are about the foundations of Jewish theology, the history and circumstances of the Jewish people and prophecies about God coming down and making everything OK again sometime in the future.

But of course you are going to say that those are personal modern interpretations despite the language being very clear and explicit. Auto-reject of anything you don’t want to deal with. Not that it matters what you say. I am not listening anymore.

We have many, many, many Jewish witnesses from Jewish literature itself, as to their belief in resurrection and their interpretation of the sacred texts they had in their generation that supported their belief in resurrection.

That there was and is a belief in resurrection in Rabbinic Judaism is obvious. But all the examples of ‘proof’ you provided really suck as I have explained in detail for every single example. The Talmudists are desperately seeking for support where it is hard to find. Only one definite and one maybe turn up and they are both of late origin. That speaks for itself.

We are again left where we started. There are many witnesses from the Jews themselves that they believed in resurrection and you have given us no data (not a single bit of data) to support your theory from the time period you describe, to support your theory.

Absolute bull. I have provided lots of data from the Tanach and other sources that resurrection was a late idea. But you simply ignore anything that you do not want to deal with. Or if pushed you simply say that the Talmudists said it so it must be so and anything that contradicts that is wrong. Like your gross misrepresentation above of what Isaiah is plainly saying and what I said about it.

If you do not have any data to support this theory, NOW, would be a very good time to admit this, or to provide data, if you have it before we waste yet more posts on your theory that has, so far, not had supportive data.

I have presented lots of data. You have ignored it all or diverted attention into some irrelevancy like falsely claiming that I said that the Talmudists did not believe in resurrection – of course they did. Or the claim that the Masoretic Text was drastically rewritten apparently to contradict the Talmud. I have shown that in the passages in question that they match up quite well with pre-Talmudic sources.

Want some more DATA?

MT Ijov (Job)
7:7 Remember that my life is wind; my eye will not return to see good.
7:8 The eye of him who sees me shall see me no more; set Your eyes upon me and I will be here no longer.
7:9 Just as a cloud is consumed and goes away, so will one who descends to the grave not ascend.

From the Septuagint

LXX Job

7:7 μνήσθητι οὖν ὅτι πνεῦμά μου ἡ ζωὴ καὶ οὐκέτι ἐπανελεύσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἰδεῖν ἀγαθόν

be-remembered therefore that spirit of-me the life and no-longer it-will-be-returned the eye of-me to-see good

7:8 οὐ περιβλέψεταί με ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρῶντός με οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου ἐν ἐμοί καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ

Not it-will-look-around me the eye of-you while seeing me the eyes of-you me and no longer I-am-being

7:9 ὥσπερ νέφος ἀποκαθαρθὲν ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐὰν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος καταβῇ εἰς ᾅδην οὐκέτι μὴ ἀναβῇ

just as cloud is-erased from of-sky therefore for man he-should-go down into Hades no longer not he-should-go-up

Comment on this in the Talmud

Tractate Baba Bathra 16b:
As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more. Raba said: This shows that Job denied the resurrection of the dead.

And a comment on the comment from the Jewish Virtual Library

“Rabbah correctly inferred that the author of this passage left no room for resurrection (BB 16a). This accords with the biblical doctrine of *reward and punishment which satisfies the demands of justice during the (first) lifetime of men. When in Hellenistic times the doctrine proved inadequate, "the extension of divine retribution beyond the tomb came as a necessary corollary to the idea of God's justice and the assurance of his faithfulness in fulfilling his promise to the righteous" (G.F. Moore, Judaism, 2 (1950), 319).”

But as I said earlier, I see no reason to talk with you anymore. For the most part you refuse to deal directly with what I am saying, instead engaging in diversions and gross misrepresentation bordering on deliberate blatant dishonesty as in the Isaiah discussion above.

Bye

 

[Clear]

A) REGARDING MIKENS TWO THEORIES


Miken in Post #43 “In early Judaism, those who died and who went to Sheol were simply dead and not conscious. There was no personal resurrection.”

1) Your two theories have to do with early JEWISH historical beliefs.
2) The early Jews had their own beliefs regarding resurrection.
3) The early Jews supported their beliefs by their own interpretations of text.
4) Our own personal modern beliefs and Our own personal modern interpretations do not change or affect their historical beliefs nor their historical interpretations.
5) Because personal modern beliefs and personal modern interpretations do not change historical beliefs and interpretations, OUR beliefs and interpretations are irrelevant.

This is one reason why you did so badly in supporting your theory. You kept offering YOUR belief and YOUR interpretations that were irrelevant. For example :



B) WHOSE INTERPRETATION DO WE PLACE ON DUELING SCRIPTURES IN DETERMINING “EARLY JEWISH BELIEF”?

If the early Jews offer, as evidence of their belief in resurrection, a scripture such as Isaiah who speaks of “the dead who shall arise and the inhabitants of the dust who shall awake and shout for joy.” Isa 26:19

Whose interpretation do we apply to this text in order to understand early Jewish belief, OUR personal, modern interpretation or THEIR early jewish interpretation?

If we honestly want to know what early Jews believed then we will use the early Jewish interpretation


Similarly, consider Ezekiel 37:12-14 “Therefore prophesy and say unto them, thus saith the Lord : Behold O my people, I will open your burying places, and cause you to come up out of your burying places, and bring you to the ground of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Eternal, when I have opened your burying places, and brought you up out of your burying places. And I shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you on your own ground.”

Again the historical principle is similar. If we want to know how early Jews interpreted this text, then early Jewish interpretation takes priority over our personal interpretations.

In such cases, the Early Jews DID tell us in their literature such as the Jewish Talmud, how they interpreted such texts in support of their belief in resurrection. We do not have to like or agree with their interpretations. For example :



C) CRITICISM OF EARLY JEWISH INTERPRETATION DOES NOT NEGATE EARLY JEWISH HISTORICAL BELIEF - THEY STILL BELIEVED REGARDLESS OF OUR DISBELIEF

Often, your “data” consisted of criticizing the justifications the early Jewish literature (e.g. Talmud) made to support their belief in resurrection and you disagreed with their interpretation and use of certain scriptures.

Whether you are justified or not in your criticisms that the early Jews interpreted scriptures as they did, still, this does not mean they did not believe in the resurrection.



D) THE MAJORITY OF JEWS WHO LEFT LITERATURE REGARDING THEIR BELIEFS TELL US THEY BELIEVED IN RESURRECTION – Sadducees did not

You admit that the Pharisaic Jews described in the time of Jesus believed in resurrection.
You admit that the Rabbinic (Orthodox) Judaism also believed in resurrection.
You admit that The Essenic literature such as at least four 4Q fragments 10, 34, 42+ 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 19:10-14 believed in resurrection.
(DSS talks about individuals getting resurrected to a spiritual realm with God. Miken post #116)

We both agree that the schismatic Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. However, the Sadducees, as a temporary schism, did not represent the larger Judaism. For example :



E) THE ATTEMPT TO USE SADDUCEES AS REPRESENTATIVE OF EARLY JUDAISM

In one post, Miken attempted to suggest that the Sadducees might represent “the earliest thoughts” of the Jews.

Miken said : "The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, which had been around for hundreds of years. Why should not their belief system reflect the earliest thoughts of the Jews?" (posts # 102-107)

We have no historical evidence that the schism of Sadducee aristocrats were of great significance or of lasting influence to Judaism.
The historian Josephus tells us that “they have not the people on their side.” (Antt Xiii. 10. 5-6)
And the doctrine of the sadducees “has reached few individual, but these are of the first consideration”. (Antt Xiii. 13. 5)

The Schismatic philosophy of the Sadducees was not adopted by Judaism in the main.

On the other hand, if one considers observance of ceremonial law as the true essence of religious conduct then that essence of Pharisaic Judaism is as old as Judaism in general.



F) THE REPEATED ADMISSION THAT NORMATIVE, ORTHODOX, RABBINIC JUDAISM BELIEVED IN RESURRECTION – (what this admission means)

Multiple times Miken admitted that Pharisaic/Rabbinic/Orthodox Judaism did believe in resurrection.
You admit : “I recognize that Pharisaic based Judaism, the only kind to survive post-Temple believes in the personal resurrection of the dead at the end of days. (Miken in post # 115)
You admit : “Of course the writers of the Talmud believed in the resurrection. They were all representing Rabbinic Judaism which was descended from the Pharisees (Miken , post #116)

This admission comes with logical implications.
Pharisaic/Rabbinic/Orthodox Judaism, in it’s essence is related to the main stream of ancient and later Judaism which DID belief in resurrection.


G) PERSONAL INTERPRETATION MASQARADING AS ANCIENT JEWISH “DATA”

The “data” you claim to provide that “earlier jews” did not believe in the resurrection rests almost ENTIRELY on your personal interpretation of the Masoretic text from the middle ages and NOT on JEWISH interpretation from ANY early Jewish literature.

While personal interpretation IS a way to demonstrate and justify personal belief, it is not how one determines historical JEWISH belief.


Miken, there are reasons why this specific debate went badly for you.
Your tendency to offer personal interpretation in the place of Jewish interpretation was one reason much of your information was irrelevant.



H) THE TENDENCY TO SHUT OUT NEW DATA

Miken said to Clear : “Before you start writing replies be aware that I am not going to take the time to read them.” (post #115).

Though supporting your theory regarding early Jewish belief in conscious spirits and regarding the early Jewish belief in resurrection has been frustrating for you, I hope you will find peace on these issues.

While you may not read my replies or future posts, I will continue to read your posts.
I find some of your ideas are insightful and good.
It was simply your theory that early Jews did not believe in resurrection or cognizant spirits that was a historical issue.
Please do not be frustrated.


I still hope your journey is good and insightful and wonderful.


Clear
ειακακτζω

 

[JW Minister]

Luke 16:19 to 31 is another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep'. For this reason there are many who would like to explain this scripture away as a parable, because then it enables them to ignore the literal interpretation. This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly. This bible study gives plenty of scriptural proof that the scripture about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is not a parable.

[paste:font size="5"]Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.

(2) Every parable has an earthly setting, which the people hearing could relate to, but never a heavenly or spiritual one. In this scripture however, Hades1 (Gtr. hades) (v23), and 'Abraham's bosom' (v22), are not earthly settings, showing that this is not a parable.

(3) Because the settings of parables are always earthly they never include spiritual beings either, although God may be mentioned. The interpretation of a parable may include spiritual beings though, because a parable is a simile, which has a spiritual comparison to it. For example 'the reapers' in the parable of the wheat and tares, are 'angels' in the explanation, and 'the enemy' in the parable is 'the Devil' in the comparison (Matthew 13:39). So if spiritual beings such as angels only appear in a comparison, but never in a parable, then this scripture about the rich man in hell cannot be a parable, because angels are also mentioned (v22). The conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was relating a true story here, either one that happened in the past or it was prophetic; the rich man and Lazarus were people who had or would actually live and die.

(4) If Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which plainly contradicts it. Doctrine should be based on plain statements of scripture, and parables are an earthly story similar to the spiritual truth, and are meant to illustrate it. They are laid alongside spiritual truths as a comparison. Parables should NEVER contradict spiritual truth, and Jesus would never tell one that did.

There are some who would object to this on the basis of this verse, "All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them." (Matthew 13:34). Now looking back in Luke 16 it says, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard these things, and they derided him. And he said to them ... " (Luke 16:14-15). So the argument is that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, and therefore he must have been speaking a parable. This is a failure to rightly divide the word of God on the subject, for if we look immediately before he spoke about the rich man and Lazarus, we see this:

(Luke16:18) "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."

The parallel scriptures that go with this are Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12. We see that prior to these verses in Mark it says, "And in the house his disciples asked him again about the same matter." (Mark 10:10). So when he spoke the scripture in Luke 16:18 he was in the house talking to his disciples, not the Pharisees. After all, he was speaking plain language in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 so on the basis of their argument that he would only speak to the people in parables, he was not speaking to the Pharisees. Matthew confirms that after this statement about adultery (Matthew 19:9) he was speaking to his disciples; "His disciples said to him, ... But he said to them, ... ." (Matthew 19:10-11). So their argument to try and prove that this was a parable, on the basis that he was speaking to the Pharisees, is false.

I found all this on this website: THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

What do you think about all the information on this website?I think it makes it look like the lazarus and the rich man is NOT a parable.

Sorry if I have posted this before.

"Another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep"

This is not what the scriptures support that the dead are alive somewhere.


Ecclesiastes 9:1-18
i* 4 There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion.+ 5 For the living know* that they will die,+ but the dead know nothing at all,+ nor do they have any more reward,* because all memory of them is forgotten.+ 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.


Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going.

God Jehovah would not leave us in the dark to the condition of the dead he tells us the dead are not conscious so the rich man parable has another meaning ,for a complete understanding with scriptural support click this link

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274905

 

[Brian2]

"Another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep"

This is not what the scriptures support that the dead are alive somewhere.


Ecclesiastes 9:1-18
i* 4 There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion.+ 5 For the living know* that they will die,+ but the dead know nothing at all,+ nor do they have any more reward,* because all memory of them is forgotten.+ 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.


Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,*+ where you are going.

God Jehovah would not leave us in the dark to the condition of the dead he tells us the dead are not conscious so the rich man parable has another meaning ,for a complete understanding with scriptural support click this link

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274905

The JW doctrine is not a matter of a sleeping unconscious soul somewhere, it is that the dead go out of existence. This is an unbiblical position.