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

[Clear]

Hi @Miken

Clear said : “Job 14 is irrelevant to supporting your theory since it does not tell us the dead in sheol / hades / etc. were unconscious. It merely says man does not come back after leaving this life for sheol / hades.”
Miken explained : “It supports my contention that early Jewish belief did not include the idea of personal resurrection. Which makes it totally relevant to my argument.”

Thank you for the additional explanation. You are correct and I was wrong on the relevance. I apologize.

I had mentally divided the issues into 1) cognizance of spirits of the dead and 2) resurrection from the dead. I wrongly assumed you were referring to cognizance. Your explanation makes it clear that in the references that I thought were irrelevant, you were trying to refer to resurrection and NOT the cognizance of the spirit. I now see why you thought they were relevant.


RETURNING TO MORTALITY AFTER DEATH VERSUS PROGRESSING ON FROM DEATH TO RESURRECTION
While I very much agree that the two texts indicate a man did not return back to mortality once they were dead, this does not mean a man did not go forward to a resurrection with a different body. A return to mortality is not the same as resurrection. These are two different issues.

Are you assuming that Job 14 and Job 7 refer to resurrection instead of a return to mortality?
If so, can you explain why you interpret these texts as referring to resurrection from the dead (which is possible in this theology), rather than referring to a return to mortality (which is not normally possible)?



THE RETURN OF SPIRITS TO GOD FROM WHENCE THEY CAME
Clear said : “Ecclesiates 12 is irrelevant and doesn’t support your theory since it does not tell us the dead in sheol / hades / etc. were unconscious. It merely says the dust returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God. It does not tell us the spirit that returns to God is unconscious.”
Miken explains : “Ecclesiates 12 says that the spirit returns to God not to Sheol.”

Yes, it does say that. Sheol / Hades / World of Spirits / etc. was not the end of the line, but it was simply a way-station for spirits on their one-way return journey back to God.

The Judeo-Christian theological model was that a spirit entered the body and gave the body life and intelligence. The Spirit/body (soul) is born into and experienced mortality as a unit and for a limited period of time. Then, upon the death of the Body, the spirit left the body and went to Sheol where they awaited resurrection and an ultimate return to God whence it originated. Sheol was merely a way-station just as mortality was. Sheol / Hades / world of spirits / etc. was like a bridge that one crosses over, but one did not make their home there.



REGARDING ECCLESIATES 9 AND THE THEME OF THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD BEING “NON-COGNISANT”.

Miken said : “In conjunctions with Ecclesiastes 9 “the dead know nothing” it is clear that the dead are not conscious and do not communicate wherever they are.
Clear said : “…you offered us YOUR interpretation that it means the dead are “unconscious and non-communicative” and not the ancient JEWISH interpretation of the text. The early Jewish literature specifically discusses THEIR interpretation of this verse and it does NOT support your interpretation. Can you provide us Jewish literature that shows how they interpreted this specific text and we can discuss that literature?

For example, the discussions in the Talmud discuss at some length what this scripture may have meant since Talmudic Judaism DID believe spirits were cognizant. The discussions never assume a non-cognisant spirit, but rather what it was the dead did not know and what the limitations of their knowledge was and what their other capabilities were.

For example Miken, you quoted Rashi who said that the living “do not know anything, and they have no more reward for the actions that they do from their deaths and onwards”.

What sorts of “actions” do the dead “do from their deaths and onwards.”? If the dead are capable of actions after death according to Rash, then they must have cognizance. This was the core dilemma described in the Talmudic literature. The Jewish rabbis take the position that “since we know the dead are cognizant and communicate with one another, how do we justify this belief with the version of text in Ecclesiates 9 they had at the time”. Obviously the scriptural text they were working with was not original (the Masoretes give us example lists of multiple changes they themselves made to the bible as examples) but they did not know what the original said. For example, they did not have the various versions of the Torah that were described present in Hilkiahs time period.


Regarding your example of Ecclesiates 9 : The Jews spent a great deal of time discussing how to justify their belief in cognizant, communicative spirits and how to justify this belief to Ecclesiates 9. Their literature gives multiple examples of the dead who are both cognizant and communicative with each other as example of rectifying Ecclesiates with this belief. For examples from the Jewish Talmud :

They describe two funerals of dead rabbis coming to a bridge at the same time. The dead rabbis discuss who of the two deserve to pass over first. This makes clear the Jewish belief that the dead speak to each other.

The prohibition of walking through a cemetery with tefillin on the head and reading from torah is because it reminds the dead of things they can no longer do. (Rabbis Hiyya and Yonatan). The dead may be aware temporarily, of certain elements of what is happening in this life.

The Sons of R. Hiyya discuss what sort of pains their dead Father knows about. They ask themselves, does he know OUR pain or does he only know his own pain? The base belief is that their father is cognisant and the issue is how MUCH he can know or feel or think.

The story of the Farmer who is aware of spirits talking to each other in a cemetery discussing future weather events (which the farmer takes advantage of in planting his crops). The issue here is how much and what type of things the dead are aware of.

The example of the dead that know what is said in their presence (i.e. the presence of the spirit before it departs). Even RAV discusses his eulogy that is to be given upon his death and wants certain things said “For I will be standing there”. RAV believes his spirit will be cognizant and able to hear the sermon.

For example, certain of the acts of religious obligation are prohibited because of their effect on the dead. In fact they use Proverbs 17:5 (He who mocks the poor affronts his Maker) as a justification for this.

I will go into greater detail on the examples later. But these are examples of the jewish belief in the cognisance of spirits. This does not prove the Jews were correct in their belief or not. The Talmud simply reflects their belief of cognisant spirits of the dead and how they rectify this belief with Ecclesiates 9.

The point is that you cannot use your own modern theology and plug it into ancient Judaic thought. The ancients had their own interpretations and applications of scriptures. This is why when you bring up Ecclesiates 9, YOUR interpretation and application is different than that of the Jews. This is part of the reason that I did not see it’s relevance to your claim, because it had a different meaning and a different interpretation to the ancient Jews, as they themselves tell us.


I am at work, typing between appointments and will have to get back to you with greater detail on these examples of Jewish belief in the cognizance of spirits whose bodies have died and then will give you some examples from the literature regarding resurrection of these cognizant spirits.


In any case Miken, I like some of the points you made and hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful. Again, I admit that your references had relevance. I simply didn't see that you were using them to refer to resurrection rather than a return to mortal life at the time. Your explanation was helpful to clarify. Thank you.


Clear
νεσετζω

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

@Miken and other READERS :

Obviously one cannot really describe with accuracy the amount and type of vast early Judeo-Christian literature dealing with the world of spirits into which the spirits of mankind go after they die and their spirits are separated from their bodies. However, some examples can be given that demonstrate the early doctrines regarding this place.

Because of the interest and study in this area, I thought you would appreciate a couple of examples from the Jewish Talmud regarding the early Jewish Doctrine of this world of spirits where the early Talmudic literature confirms the model of a cognizant and communicative world of spirits after death.




THE JEWISH TALMUD ASSUMES COGNIZANT SPIRITS OF THE DEAD AND THE DISCUSSION REGARDS WHAT AND HOW MUCH THE DEAD ACTUALLY KNOW

In the typical Talmudic style, much of the teaching includes examples of quaint anecdotes that reflect underlying assumptions and doctrines of a cognizant world of spirits.

For example :

Mo’ed Qatan 25b, refers to a story about the deaths and burials of Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Hamnuna.

Both were having their bodies being “brought up to there” (presumably to Israel) during their funerals at the same time. The two coffins and separate funeral processions came to a narrow bridge simultaneously and the spirits of the Dead Rabbis proceeded to argue with one another over who should cross the bridge first. After the matter was resolved. (R. Huna crossed first) A child nearby “opened [his mouth] in praise of the deceased”. The Talmud relates the words of the child since the eulogy had it’s own importance to the story.

The separation of the spirit from the world is described in violent language (the body is "Robbed”). Though the spirit is described as righteous, and God joyous at the arrival of this spirit in the world beyond, still, there was something about death that was lamentable. This sets the stage for further stories about trying to comfort the dead and not frustrate ("mock") them for no longer being alive.

In Talmudic discussions regarding Death and Burial (Berakhot 17b-19b) it is made clear that the deceased were believed to know and to feel. In fact many of the religious obligations the jews felt, were because the dead were cognizant.

For example : Mishna Berakhot 3:1 announces a general exemption from religious obligations for the person whose dead relative lies unburied before him.

The many mitzvahs that surround the taking care of dead bodies and what is and is not allowed, often, have more to do with the opinion and feelings of the dead, than any effect they have on the living. For example, various acts normally considered religious obligations are prohibited in the cemetery because of their potential effect on the spirits of the dead. (e.g. making the dead more sad, or more frustrated, etc.)

For example : A person should not walk in the cemetery with tefillin on his head And a Torah scroll on his arm, and read therefrom. And if he does so, He transgresses [the scripture which says], “He who mocks the Poor affronts his Maker” (Prov. 17:5)

David Kraemer, Professor of Talmud and Rabbinics explains that “Certain acts normally considered religious obligations are prohibited in the cemetery not because of an alternative obligation (as in the cases above) and not because of ritual impurity (as we might expect), but because the one who wears the tefillin in the presence of the buried dead as though “mocks the poor and affronts his Maker.” “The poor” is obviously understood to refer to the deceased. Performing religious obligations in his immediate presence is by extension called “mocking.” How are we to make sense of this fanciful interpretation – of the application of this verse to the deceased? There is only one reasonable answer: The deceased must know what is done in his presence and so, if he sees you doing what he can no longer do, you are unwittingly mocking him. Because this is true, we must be sensitive to how the deceased may feel. Our actions in the presence of the deceased should be directed by this sensitivity. “ “…the motivation is concern for the deceased. If we eat in his presence, bless in his presence, enjoy the pleasures of life of the living in his presence, we are being insensitive and foul, mocking him and affronting his maker. “

The same principle exists in many other examples in the Talmud and some of the discussion exists to explain what Ecclesiates 9:5 must have meant to the early Jews when it said “the dead know nothing”.

The doctrine was orthodox that the dead obviously did know things and are cognizant and communicative. This explains the existence of the many discussions regarding how the scripture was to be interpreted given the accepted doctrine of cognizant spirits.


For example, the Talmud says : R. Hiyya and R. Yonatan were out walking in a cemetery. The blue Fringe [=the ritual fringers, called zizt] of R. Yonatan was dragging. R. Hiyya said to him: Lift it, so that they [the dead] don’t say “Tomorrow they Are coming to be with us and now they mock us! He said to him: “And to they know this much? But is it not written, ‘And the dead Know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)?” He said to him: “If you have read, You have not repeated; if you repeated, you did not read a third time; If you read a third time, they did not explain it to you. ‘For the living’ Know that they will die’ – this refers to the righteous who are called Living even in their death…’And the dead know nothing’ – this Refers to the wicked who, even in their lives, are called dead…”

Since, the Jewish Talmud previously expounded the Jewish position that the dead are cognizant, the current issue is how much the dead know about what is going on in the world of the living.


The first point is that the dead can know of our actions and, thus through the reminder that they can no longer do what we are able to do, we feel regret and angst and frustration. Naturally R. Hayya refers to the scripture : “the dead know nothing”.

In this talmudic story, one must not “drag our fringes over their heads,” and thus remind the dead of the religious acts we can do but that they cannot. Then, to demonstrate what it is that the dead do know and what they do not know, other stories follow.

As another example from the Talmud, : The sons of R. Hiyya went out into the city. Their learning became too “heavy” for them and they took pains to recall it. One said to his fellow: “Does our father know of this pain?” The other said to him, “From where would he know? And isn’t it written, ‘His sons will become heavy and he does not know’ [Job 14:21]? The other responded to him: “And does he not know? And isn’t it written, ‘when his flesh is upon him [even after death] it will hurt and his soul will mourn for him’ (ibid., v.22)! And R. Isaac said, “The worm is difficult [painful] for the dead as a needle in the Flesh of the living.” [Thus, the logic follows that the dead do have knowledge] They say [in response, trying to defend the view of R. Yonatan], “they do know of their own pain; of the pain of others they do not Know.”

The stories leave us with some clarity and some confusion (which further stories must then clarify).

Thus far we are shown that the dead know certain things.

Things of their own experience they may have awareness of, but of the experience of others, they may not have. (The restorationists and historians will here realize that the Talmud has not yet drawn on the concept of Sheol / Hades having different areas for different individuals who may have different knowledge levels…)

Another story that tries to demonstrate the types of knowledge that the dead may have and the type of knowledge of which they “know nothing”.

“It once happened that a certain pious person gave a dinar to a poor person on the eve of the New Year, during years of scarcity, and his wife became angry with him. He went and slept in the cemetery, and he heard two spirits [of the dead] speaking to one another. One said to the other: My friend, come, let us roam the world, and we will hear from behind the curtain [of heaven] what sort of punishment is voming to the world. Her friend said to her: I cannot, for I am buried in a mat of reeds. But you go and tell me what you hear.

She went and roamed and returned, and her friend said to her: My friend, what did you hear from behind the curtain? She said to her: I heard that anyone who sows seed during the time of the first rain, hail will destroy it. So he [the pious man who had overheard all of this] went and sowed during the time of the second rain. Everyone else’s crop was destroyed, but his was not.

The following year, this same pious man returned to the same cemetery and again took away good advice. His wife, amazed at his good fortune, asked him how this happened, whereupon he told her the whole story. Shortly thereafter, the wife got into an argument with the mother of the young woman who was buried in the reed mat, insulting her for permitting her daughter to be buried in such a fashion. News of this incident got back to her dead daughter so, the next year, when the pious man returned for information concerning the upcoming crop season, the spirits refused to talk. Aware that they were being overheard, they decided to keep quiet. “

The Talmudic logic as to HOW the spirits found out that the man was listening to them (since they "know nothing" of him listening to them) was through another living person, who knew of argument between the two women, who had died and then, as a dead spirit, then related this information to the other two dead spirits.

In all of these stories, the Bavli Talmud confirms that the dead are cognizant and aware. The issues and questions then, concern what they know and how that knowledge is obtained. This portion of the Talmud does not handle the differentiation between spirits who inhabit “lower Hades” versus those in other areas of Hades/Sheol (since the conditions are different).

Again, the basic point is, that early Talmudic parallels, early mishnas, early lectionaries, early versions of biblical books, pseudoepigraphs, Dead Sea scrolls, nag hamadi libraries, oxyrhynchus and other Judeo-Christian literature, offer a consistent description of early belief that the spirits of the dead remain cognizant, once the bodies die.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


REGARDING JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE - JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WITNESSES

It is not just Jewish literature that witnesses to the earliest belief/orthodox but Christian literature as well. The belief in a separate spirit placed into an earthly body was a shared doctrine in a vast genre of sacred early Jewish and Christian literature. Let me give you other examples and you can see how the doctrine exists in Judaic versions and then continues on, uninterrupted into the early Christian literature.

I have given examples from the Talmud but want to make sure the point is well established that the concept both of spirit/body dualism was standard doctrine, and that this doctrine is simply assumed in the early literature when other points are being made.

For example, the Talmud (at Shavat 153a) tells another story regarding a man, Rav who directs a colleague to “heat up” his eulogy when he (Rav) dies. That is, the colleague is to express his grief with fervor, encouraging others to feel sorry for Rav at his death, for “I (Rav)will be standing there.(at the eulogy)”. This concept that the dead are cognizant, (given their interpretation of the comment that the dead “know nothing” of what is happening to those who are alive) relates to the Jewish tradition that the spirit stays with the body for a time after death before they are inseparable.

In this case the Talmud insists the deceased do know what is said about them, at least for a period of time. It is partly this principle that underlies the Jewish insistence that Ritual and casual conduct must be sensitive to the experience of the dead. This is partly what is meant by “honoring the dead”.

Thus the talmudic rule was that “A dead person who has no comforters, ten people [should] go and sit in his place. “. An example is given that “ A certain person died in the neighborhood of Rab Judah, and he had no comforters. Each day, Rav Judah would take ten people and sit in his place. He [the deceased] appeared to him in his dream and said to him, “may your mind rest [=may you be comforted] for you have put my mind at rest.”

The concept of the dead, being aware that others mourn their death and they are missed was a part of honor bestowed upon the dead.

While the teaching is clear that the dead know what is being said temporarily (until they “know nothing” of what happens in the social world), the various opinions vary on how long this time period is. Some opinions are that the deceased knows everything that is said in their presence until the sealing stone is placed over the resting-place and another might insist the spirit knows everything that is said until the flesh has completely deteriorated.

Since the separation of a person by death is both a separation of the living from the dead and a separation of the dead yet cognizant spirit from his family and friends, both the living AND the dead were said to mourn this separation from their loved ones. Thus the Talmud records “A person’s soul mourns for him for all of shiva [=the seven days], as it says ‘and his soul mourns for him’ (job 14:22). The reference to Job is a Talmudic example of a spirit that has sons who are having children but the spirit mourns that it is separated from the life of its body which allowed it to witness and celebrate such things.

However, just as death is a separation of the dead person from living relatives, it was also seen as a reunion of the dead person with other relatives who died before. Thus the early theme regarding the rejoining of one's ancestors. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other patriarchs are "gathered to their people" after death (see Gen. 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:33; Deut. 42:50; 2 I. 22:20). In contrast, the wicked are "cut off (carry-out) from their people" (Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14).

This concept of reuniting with others underlies and intertwines with other confirmations that they believed the dead are cognizant and converse with one another. The example is given that one rabbi explained to another Rabbi that before he died, Moses was instructed by God that, once Moses died, and once Moses reached the world of the dead, he was to tell the other dead that God had kept his promises to them and Israel (since the others may not have known specifics happening in the world of the living.) :

"For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that the dead converse with one another? Because it says: And the Lord said unto him: This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying.... The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Say to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: The oath which I swore to you I have already carried out for your descendants. Thus Moses was to tell the other dead that God had honored his promises to them. "

In Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, we read that the spirit is a guest in the body, thus it was important to take care of the body (which God had made in the divine image). This concept extended to the Sages who saw the body and spirit as being in a partnership of equal responsibility for actions. In fact, there are polemics in the Talmud created specifically to defend this doctrine to others. For example, one anecdote, (c.f. tractate Sanhedrin) has the Emperor Antoninus trying to convince Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi that the body and spirit can each excuse each other for sin by claiming that the transgression is the fault of the other, because one, without the other is lifeless.

Rabbi Yehudah then offers a parable to explain why Antonius’ is wrong. Yehudah relates that there were “Two guards–one blind and one lame–are in a garden. Together, they are able to steal some fruit from a high tree. When caught, each claims that he is obviously unable to commit the crime due to his disability. In the end, the orchard owner places the lame man on the back of the blind man, and they are judged as one. Similarly, God judges the actions of the body and spirit in partnership after returning the spirit to the body at resurrection.”

Thus the Talmud clearly supports the teaching that the spirit not only exists separately from the body, but also exists in a fully conscious state in an ethereal realm (Ketubbot 77b, Berakhot 18b-19a, etc) and that is it cognizant and that it has free will as moral responsibility and the ability to learn. Again, these sorts of assumptions are often simply built into the language. For example, when informing another explaining to a person looking for “Abba the father of Samuel” the person asks “where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.”

This is important since the early Christian literature describes the education and learning and experiences that continue to go on in the world of spirits.

I am at work and will stop here and correlate these Jewish teachings with Christian teachings on the same point a bit later....

Clear
ειτζτωειω

 

[Neuropteron]

Hi,

If Lu 16:19 was literal, then a drop of water could travel from heaven all the way to a fiery hell, not evaporate and be sufficient to quell the thirst of a person agonizing in a blazing fire. It has to be a parable.

Cheers.

Does it matter if it is a parable or not? The people Jesus was speaking to knew what He was speaking about, a conscious existence after this life in hades where people are either comforted or suffer for what they have done in life, while awaiting the final judgement.
Jesus spoke of this place of comfort when He told the thief on the cross that he would be in paradise with Jesus on that day.
(and yes the comma goes before "today" because Jesus used the phrase "truly I tell you" many times in the gospels without adding "today" to the phrase.)[/QUOTE]

Hi,
Yes it does matter, one definition support the hellfire theory, the other does not. The Jews in Jesus did not subscribe to the understanding that sinners would be experience eternal torture, this theory was adopted later. The scriptural understanding is that the dead are non-exitent, thus have no consciousness.Ecc 9:5 "For the living are conscious that they wll die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". Many other scriptures supports this understanding.
Cheers.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In order to understand the passage in question we must consider the resurrection of dead men. Like when Jesus was speaking about how Moses taught that the dead do in fact rise. God can be the God of the dead because the dead rise. In other words, God is not the God of the dead because the dead rise from the dead. God calls things that be not as though they were. Abraham is dead, but God doesn't see it that way because Abraham is most certainly going to live by being raised from the dead.
.
If you can't grasp the language you'll get nowhere.

The same language is being used by Jesus when he says that man can not kill the soul, but God can. Even though man can take your life(soul), he can not destroy it completely based on the FACT that God raises the dead.

The problem in discussing these things with those who see through immortal soul glasses is that they don't understand that dead means dead. In other words, men don't die, only their bodies do, they say.

For example, when Paul says "it is Jesus Christ who died", people who see through immortal soul spectacles hear Paul saying "it is Jesus Christ's BODY ONLY that died.
Therefore, they deny that Jesus Christ himself died. In fact, they deny that anyone has died.

They cant hear Moses or the prophets and are like the Pharisees of the parable.

God did NOT tell Adam "your body is dust and to dust your body will return" NO! . The exact words are "YOU(Adam) are dust and to dust YOU(Adam) shall return.

If they can hear Moses, they would not be deceived by the doctrines of men.

Jesus says that Moses taught the resurrection of the dead. And not that man has an immortal soul.

When Jesus says "I lay down my life", immortal soul believers hear him say "I lay down the life of my body only".
Therefore, they must qualify most of what they say by adding words to the words.

To them, Jesus Christ did not lay down his life, but only the life of his body.

Well first of all...
What do you considered the resurrection of the dead to be?
Who are the dead?
Who does the dead represents?

Well first there is no dead to God..
As stated in
Matthew 22:32--" I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living"

Therefore God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

In John 5:25-29,
25--"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live"
( Okay so who's the dead here?
The dead being in reference to those who do not believe in God...the hour being the second coming of Christ Jesus...So at the coming of Christ Jesus those that do not believe in Jesus Christ....but do hear the voice of Jesus Christ....As Disciple Paul written in 1 Thessalonians 4:16--"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the Trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first"
Therefore those that are dead...the dead being in reference to those people who do not believe in Jesus Christ shall rise first to be taken to the Judgement day first )

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice"

( Here we find all which are in the graves shall hear his voice....take note that back at the time Jesus Christ was here on earth... People believed that when a person dies..the grave holds them captive in the grave.....But after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ...The grave no longer holds anyone in the grave...
As disciple Paul written in
1 Corinthians 15:55--"O death, where is your sting, O grave, where is your victory"

Therefore the grave no longer as the victory over anyone no more...only a dead body corps that lays in the grave....but the spirit that's within the body at death returns back to God...so the grave no longer holds no one...but only a dead body corps..which will return back to the dust of the earth from where it was taken from)

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation"

The proper Hebrew translation for the word ( damnation ) is Judgement..
For no one is committed to Damnation..until they have come before the Great White Throne Judgement of God's first.... Revelation 20:11-12,
11--"And I saw a Great White throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them"

12--"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works"

Therefore there is no one committed to Damnation until they stand before the Great White Throne Judgement of God's first )
Therefore the dead are those who do not believe in God. ....they are Spiritually dead to God..
For they have no Spiritual awareness of God...so they are Spiritually dead to God.

In speaking of the body that dies returns back to the dust of the earth and the spirit that's within the body returns back to God who gave it.....As written in
Ecclesiastes 12:7--"Then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it"

So seeing that the spirit shall return back to God who gave it...
To return back to God....means we were with God before we came to be in this body of flesh and blood...

Like a baseball player....they start at home base and after hitting the ball they run around to all the bases and then return back to the home base do they not?

So likewise after we die our spirit that's within our body of flesh and blood... returns back to God..
So our starting point is God and then after we die we return back to God..

 

[LightofTruth]

Well first of all...
What do you considered the resurrection of the dead to be?

Immortal soul believers say that the resurrection of the dead is when the immortal soul is joined to a body.

The really is that the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of the dead people. It's when the dead who sleep in the dust are awaked from their sleep of death having either an immortal body or a body that will suffer a second death of which there is no more resurrection.

 

[Miken]

@Clear

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. I gave scriptural quotes to that effect. After the first form of the canonical scriptures was firmly established (the Law and the Prophets as mentioned several times in the NT) some new ideas came along. One of these was the idea of personal salvation rather than just national salvation. The idea that the unrighteous should profit, while the righteous were downtrodden, and that's the whole story seemed rather unsatisfactory. Personal salvation by resurrection and reward for the righteous made living a miserable life more bearable and the temptation to sin less compelling. That begins to appear perhaps in the 3rd century BCE. The first definite reference to that in canonical literature (as later organized} is in Daniel 12, written in the first half of the 2nd century BCE. As I recall, but would need to delve deeply into my storehouse of notes to find, the Aramaic Targums, written after ideas began to change, modify older literature to insert references to an afterlife that is not in the original.

While Talmudic literature is an interesting subject, it does not bear on my original contention about early Jewish beliefs.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Immortal soul believers say that the resurrection of the dead is when the immortal soul is joined to a body.

The really is that the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of the dead people. It's when the dead who sleep in the dust are awaked from their sleep of death having either an immortal body or a body that will suffer a second death of which there is no more resurrection.

Maybe you should read
Ecclesiastes 12:7--"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return back to God who gave it"

Therefore according to what God is saying..
The body of flesh and blood returns back to the earth..
And the spirit which is inside of the body shall return back to God who gave it..

I will guarantee God will be right and you will be wrong..
Nice try though..

 

[LightofTruth]

Maybe you should read
Ecclesiastes 12:7--"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return back to God who gave it"

Therefore according to what God is saying..
The body of flesh and blood returns back to the earth..
And the spirit which is inside of the body shall return back to God who gave it..

I will guarantee God will be right and you will be wrong..
Nice try though..

The spirit which returns to God is the breath(same word) of life that was breathed into the man which he then became a living soul just like the beast of the field are living souls with the same breath of life.

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath (spirit); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecc 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Ecclesiastes agrees with the words of Moses:

Man is that image that was formed from the dust of the ground. God breathed the BREATH(SIPIRIT) of life into the man and the man became a living soul just like animals are called living souls. And just like animals, man dies and returns to dust. And the breath of life returns to God who gave it.

"they have all one breath(spirit); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:"

If man and beast have all one spirit and man's spirit is immortal then so too is the spirit of beast.

So why does the writer say that the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of beasts goes downward?

If they have the same spirit, it has to refer to the resurrection of the dead, because man's spirit will return tp him at resurrection of the dead. But animals are not resurrected and therefore their spirit does not return to them.

Ecclesiastes 12:7--"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return back to God who gave it"

"The spirit" = "the breath"

It's the same word 'ruach' in both passages (Ecc 12:7 and Ecc 3:19).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ecclesiastes 9
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun
Definitely unconscious and non-communicative. Also sounds a lot like dead forever.
Ecclesiastes 12
7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
The spirit does not go to Sheol, it goes back where it came from.






Job 7
7 “Remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
8 The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more;
while your eyes are on me, I shall be gone.
9 As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;
10 he returns no more to his house,
nor does his place know him anymore.

No return from death.

Job 14 is often used as proof of an old belief in a resurrection, but it is actually the opposite. Job wishes he could be hidden away and brought back to life when God’s wrath has passed. But this is a vain hope. It is not going to happen.

Job 14
7 “For there is hope for a tree,
if it be cut down, that it will sprout again,
and that its shoots will not cease.
8 Though its root grow old in the earth,
and its stump die in the soil,
9 yet at the scent of water it will bud
and put out branches like a young plant.
10 But a man dies and is laid low;
man breathes his last, and where is he?
11 As waters fail from a lake
and a river wastes away and dries up,
12 so a man lies down and rises not again;
till the heavens are no more he will not awake
or be roused out of his sleep.
13 Oh that you would hide me in Sheol,
that you would conceal me until your wrath be past,
that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man dies, shall he live again?
All the days of my service I would wait,
till my renewal should come.
15 You would call, and I would answer you;
you would long for the work of your hands.
16 For then you would number my steps;
you would not keep watch over my sin;
17 my transgression would be sealed up in a bag,
and you would cover over my iniquity.
18 But the mountain falls and crumbles away,
and the rock is removed from its place;
19 the waters wear away the stones;
the torrents wash away the soil of the earth;
so you destroy the hope of man.
20 You prevail forever against him, and he passes;
you change his countenance, and send him away.
21 His sons come to honor, and he does not know it;
they are brought low, and he perceives it not.

I find at Ecclesiastes 12:7 that one's spirit is a neuter "IT" and thus Not a living spirit person.
So, "IT" returns to God in the sense that any future life prospect now lies in God's safe hands.
Kind of like a foreclosed house does Not move or go anywhere but "IT" returns to the hands of the owner.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.................The really is that the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of the dead people. It's when the dead who sleep in the dust are awakened from their sleep of death having either an immortal body or a body that will suffer a second death of which there is no more resurrection.

I find those who have a first or earlier resurrection are resurrected to heavenly life like the people of Revelation 2:10; 5:9-10; 20:6; Luke 22:28-30.
The rest of the resurrected dead (Acts 24:15) are classed as righteous or unrighteous ( Not as wicked deserving of ' second death ' - Psalms 92:7)
The righteous and unrighteous are resurrected with mortal bodies as Adam had.
Mortal Adam could only have everlasting life on Earth as long as he did Not break God's Law.
So, those who have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection back to live life on Earth will have the same original opportunity to live forever on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall. They can inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Could it be we are trying to interpret it in a modern day interpretation vs a Hebraic understanding with the wording of its time?
My understanding is that "sleep" refers to the body as it is temporarily separated from the soul.
According to another midrash, sleep, like death, temporarily separates body and soul (Genesis Rabbah 14:9)
body-soul
I believe that God is a God of the living and not of the sleeping.

Because of the coming Resurrection is why I find God considers people as living. Notice the future tense as used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
Until 'Resurrection Day' ( meaning Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years ) the dead sleep in death.
None of the people listed in Hebrews chapter 11 saw the ' promise ' - Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39.
Because of what Jesus learned from the Hebrew Scriptures is why Jesus teaches sleep in death - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
The living do Not need a resurrection because they are alive.So, if the dead are alive they don't need a resurrection.
Moral Adam was a living soul ( Genesis 2:7) at death Adam because a dead soul or a life-less soul.

 

[Miken]

I find at Ecclesiastes 12:7 that one's spirit is a neuter "IT" and thus Not a living spirit person.
So, "IT" returns to God in the sense that any future life prospect now lies in God's safe hands.
Kind of like a foreclosed house does Not move or go anywhere but "IT" returns to the hands of the owner.

In Hebrew nouns have an inherent grammatical gender regardless of any actual gender. This can be masculine, feminine or common. Common is not the same as neuter. It is used when the referent can be grammatically masculine or feminine gender. There is no neuter in Hebrew.

In Ecclesiastes 12:7, the word נְתָנָֽהּ׃ – usually translated as ‘gave it’ - is the verb ‘gave’ with the giver (God) represented as masculine as the corresponding noun is, and what is given (spirit) is represented as feminine. The word spirit in that same verse is common gender.

The word ‘spirit’ ר֚וּחַ appears in Ecclesiastes 3:12 in the same context as in 12:7. There it is common gender. Likewise in 11:5.

I have no idea what to make of this. Can someone who knows Hebrew above my strictly amateur level help out here?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The spirit which returns to God is the breath(same word) of life that was breathed into the man which he then became a living soul just like the beast of the field are living souls with the same breath of life.

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath (spirit); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecc 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Ecclesiastes agrees with the words of Moses:

Man is that image that was formed from the dust of the ground. God breathed the BREATH(SIPIRIT) of life into the man and the man became a living soul just like animals are called living souls. And just like animals, man dies and returns to dust. And the breath of life returns to God who gave it.

"they have all one breath(spirit); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:"

If man and beast have all one spirit and man's spirit is immortal then so too is the spirit of beast.

So why does the writer say that the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of beasts goes downward?

If they have the same spirit, it has to refer to the resurrection of the dead, because man's spirit will return tp him at resurrection of the dead. But animals are not resurrected and therefore their spirit does not return to them.

Ecclesiastes 12:7--"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return back to God who gave it"

"The spirit" = "the breath"

It's the same word 'ruach' in both passages (Ecc 12:7 and Ecc 3:19).

Had you read in 1 Corinthians 15:39-40,
39--"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds"

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another"

Therefore the Celestial being the Celestial man of heaven.
The Terrestrial man of the earth.

Therefore the Spirit which inside of the body of flesh and blood..
When a person dies the body returns back to the dust of the earth and the Spirit that's inside of the body of flesh and blood returns back to God who gave the Spirit .

Which is the Celestial man of the heavenly.

The Terrestrial man after he dies the body returns back to the earth from where it was taken from the earth.
And the Celestial Spirit man returns back to God who gave it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In Hebrew nouns have an inherent grammatical gender regardless of any actual gender. This can be masculine, feminine or common. Common is not the same as neuter. It is used when the referent can be grammatically masculine or feminine gender. There is no neuter in Hebrew.
In Ecclesiastes 12:7, the word נְתָנָֽהּ׃ – usually translated as ‘gave it’ - is the verb ‘gave’ with the giver (God) represented as masculine as the corresponding noun is, and what is given (spirit) is represented as feminine. The word spirit in that same verse is common gender.
The word ‘spirit’ ר֚וּחַ appears in Ecclesiastes 3:12 in the same context as in 12:7. There it is common gender. Likewise in 11:5.
I have no idea what to make of this. Can someone who knows Hebrew above my strictly amateur level help out here?

I also find the neuter word "it" as found at Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25 in connection to God's spirit "it". (Psalms 104:30)
Also, in the Christian Greek Scriptures I find "it" at Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26.
(Note: the newer King James changed "it" to him )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Had you read in 1 Corinthians 15:39-40,
39--"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds"
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another"
Therefore the Celestial being the Celestial man of heaven.
The Terrestrial man of the earth.
Therefore the Spirit which inside of the body of flesh and blood..
When a person dies the body returns back to the dust of the earth and the Spirit that's inside of the body of flesh and blood returns back to God who gave the Spirit .
Which is the Celestial man of the heavenly.
The Terrestrial man after he dies the body returns back to the earth from where it was taken from the earth.
And the Celestial Spirit man returns back to God who gave it.

I find at 1 Corinthians 15 that the chapter is addressed to: Jesus' brothers ' (Matthew 25:40 )
Thus, we are directed to specific persons in this chapter.
Verses 35-36 what is sown is Not made alive unless one dies first.
In other words, death comes before the gift of life ( aka resurrection).
This is further brought out about Jesus death at Romans 6:3-5.
God gives a body as He sees pleased to do so - 1 Corinthians 15:38
* There are 'physical bodies' ( terrestrial verse 40 ) physical resurrection for those who died before Jesus' died - John 3:13; Acts 2:34
* There are 'celestial bodies' or heavenly spirit bodies for Jesus' brothers'. People like those of Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 2:10; Daniel 7:18.
Those called to heavenly life put on immortality as Jesus has.
Those who have that first or earlier resurrection are as Jesus was resurrected in a spirit body ( verse 44 ) - Revelation 20:6
The ' natural' body ( verse 44) is the physical body people will have when they are resurrected back to live life on Earth.
Those called to eternal life on Earth are mortal as Adam was mortal.
They can only have everlasting life on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
These can be part of the humble meek people who will inherit the Earth as Jesus promised from Psalms 37:9-11. (Proverbs 2:21-22)

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Miken



THE JEWS KNEW MORE ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS THAN MIKEN KNOWS ABOUT THEIR BELIEF

Miken said : "My original contention was that the earliest Jewish concept was that the dead are dead. They are not aware." (post #67)

And my contention is that the early Jews knew more about what they believed than you know about their beliefs. The mere fact that their literature witnesses so often and in such detail to their belief that the dead are cognizant and aware and have emotions is evidence of their belief.



JEWISH LITERARY WITNESSES TO THE EARLY JEWISH BELIEF IN COGNIZANT SPIRITS OF THE DEAD

I gave you and forum readers multiple examples from the Jewish Talmud that tell us that the Jewish claims to believe in cognizant spirits represents what they believed rather than your claim to know what they believed.

For examples : I gave you an example from Mo’ed Qatan 25b, refering to the deaths and burials of Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Hamnuna where cognizant spirits of Dead Rabbis discussed whose funeral procession was to have priority.

I gave you examples from Talmudic discussions regarding Death and Burial (Berakhot 17b-19b) where the Jews to witness their belief that cognizant spirits of the deceased had emotions and knowledge and access to certain information.. The Talmud is full of literary witnesses that many of the religious obligations the jews felt, were because the dead were cognizant.

For example : Mishna Berakhot 3:1 and other examples show that many mitzvahs that surround the taking care of dead bodies often, have to do with the cognizant emotions of the spirits of those who died.

I gave the example from the Talmud of the two rabbis walking through the cemeteryin reference to the prohibition that : A person should not walk in the cemetery with tefillin on his head And a Torah scroll on his arm, and read therefrom. And if he does so, He transgresses [the scripture which says], “He who mocks the Poor affronts his Maker” (Prov. 17:5)

The reason for this rule is that Performing certain religious obligations in the immediate presence of the dead, is by extension called “mocking. It was seen as a mocking the dead, partly because it was a reminder to the cognizant spirit of the dead, of things the spirit can no longer do.



THE JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF ECCLESIATES 9:5 VERSUS MIKENS’ INTERPRETATION

You offered your single example of non-cognisance by quoting Ecclesiates 9:5 and then offering your personal interpretation. However, the Talmud speaks directly to Ecclesiastes and the Jewish Interpretation. You offered YOUR interpretation and then attempted to represent the Jews as having YOUR interpretation instead of offering us THEIR interpretation, which is different than yours. Offering our own personal interpretations as though they were the same as the ancients, is not how historical knowledge is to be gained.


JEWISH DOCTRINE REGARDING WHAT THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD KNOW AND WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW

The Jewish Talmud tells us that the orthodox doctrines was that the dead obviously did know things and are cognizant and communicative. I gave you MANY examples from the Jewish Talmud that witnesses to their authentic belief on Ecclesiates 9:5. And importantly, the examples dealt specifically with their interpretation of Ecclesiates 9:5 which was DIFFERENT than your belief you tried to represent as theirs.

For example, the Talmud says : R. Hiyya and R. Yonatan were out walking in a cemetery. The blue Fringe [=the ritual fringers, called zizt] of R. Yonatan was dragging. R. Hiyya said to him: Lift it, so that they [the dead] don’t say “Tomorrow they Are coming to be with us and now they mock us! He said to him: “And to they know this much? But is it not written, ‘And the dead Know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)?” He said to him: “If you have read, You have not repeated; if you repeated, you did not read a third time; If you read a third time, they did not explain it to you. ‘For the living’ Know that they will die’ – this refers to the righteous who are called Living even in their death…’And the dead know nothing’ – this Refers to the wicked who, even in their lives, are called dead…”

I gave examples where the Talmudic position was that the spirits of the dead are cognizant, and so the issue discussed progresses into how much the cognizant spirits of the dead know about what is going on in the world of the living.

I gave you examples from the Talmud that answered the question as to what type of knowledge the cognizant spirits of the dead know and how much knowledge the cognizant spirits of he dead knew.

For example, The Talmud discussed the sons of R. Hiyya. Concerning the dead father, one brother asked concerning their own difficulties, “Does our father know of this pain?” The other said to him, “From where would he know? And isn’t it written, ‘His sons will become heavy and he does not know’ [Job 14:21]? The other responded to him: “And does he not know? And isn’t it written, ‘when his flesh is upon him [even after death] it will hurt and his soul will mourn for him’ (ibid., v.22)! And R. Isaac said, “The worm is difficult [painful] for the dead as a needle in the Flesh of the living.”

The conclusion they come to is that the cognizant spirits of the dead “know of their own pain; of the pain of others they do not Know.”

Another example from the Talmud was of the Farmer who, by his own experience, learned that the cognizant spirits of the dead know about some punishments that are coming to the world of the living. The Talmudic example concludes that these cognizant spirits of the dead can know something of the living through hearing from other spirits who recently died and can pass information along to them.

At Shavat 153a, the Talmud witnesses in personal terms regarding what the great Jewish Leaders believed. For example, the great Rabbi Rav, speaking of his belief, he makes specific requests to a colleague regarding the eulogy the colleague is to give at Ravs’ death. He asks he colleage to express grief with fervor and to encourage others to feel sorry for Rav. Rav tells the colleague specifically that “I (Rav)will be standing there.” at the eulogy”.

The great Rav is another witness, expressing the Jewish belief that he, himself will not only be present at his own funeral, but that he will be able to hear his own eulogy and he will still have emotions and feelings of satisfaction (or dis-satisfaction) concerning things said about him at his eulogy own.

Rav is certainly aware of Ecclesiates 9:5, but he interprets it according to the early Jewish beliefs and not according to YOUR belief.


In such examples, the Talmud insists the deceased do know what is said about them, at least for a period of time. It is partly this principle that underlies the Jewish insistence that Ritual and casual conduct must be sensitive to the experience of the dead. This is partly what is meant by “honoring the dead”.

If such examples were not enough to confirm the belief that the spirits of the dead are cognizant, the Talmud confirms of this belief with multiple examples. For example, the talmudic rule was that “A dead person who has no comforters, ten people [should] go and sit in his place. “.

Certain rules such as this were not for the benefit of the living, but for the benefit of the cognizant spirit of the dead. To comfort that spirit (who may be aware of such honor given him or her). Another confirming witness from the Talmud is as follows :

“ A certain person died in the neighborhood of Rab Judah, and he had no comforters. Each day, Rav Judah would take ten people and sit in his place. He [the deceased] appeared to him in his dream and said to him, “may your mind rest [=may you be comforted] for you have put my mind at rest.”

Such examples of cognizant spirits, confirm the Jewish belief that the comforters were believed to be noticed by the spirits of the dead and that the a spirit can be comforted by things said in a eulogy or by people who mourned them.

The Talmud even notes that the cognizant spirit (“soul”) of the dead mourns for his or her own death. Thus the Talmud records “A person’s soul mourns for him for all of shiva [=the seven days], as it says ‘and his soul mourns for him’ (job 14:22). The reference to Job is a Talmudic example of a spirit that had sons who are having children but the spirit mourns that it is separated from the life of its body which allowed it to witness and celebrate such things.

I offered examples demonstrating that in such Jewish beliefs, just as death is a separation of the dead person from living relatives, death was also seen as a reunion of the dead person with other relatives who died before.

This was reflected in the early theme regarding the rejoining of one's ancestors. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other patriarchs are "gathered to their people" after death (see Gen. 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:33; Deut. 42:50; 2 I. 22:20). In contrast, the wicked are "cut off (carry-out) from their people" (Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14).


This concept of reuniting with others underlies and intertwines with other confirmations that they believed the dead are cognizant and converse with one another. Yet another example is given where one one rabbi explained to another Rabbi that before he died, Moses was instructed by God that, once Moses died, and once Moses reached the world of the dead, he was to tell the other dead that God had kept his promises to them and Israel (since the others may not have known what had happened in the world of the living.) :

"For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that the dead converse with one another? Because it says: And the Lord said unto him: This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying.... The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Say to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: The oath which I swore to you I have already carried out for your descendants. Thus Moses was to tell the other dead that God had honored his promises to them. "

Taking such information to the spirits of the dead, comforting, witnessing to others who are dead are among the actions those who die and enter sheol / Hades / World of spirits can do for one another. In your own example, Rashi speaks of “…the actions that they [the dead] do from their deaths and onwards…”. Only cognizant spirits can perform cognizant actions.

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

In Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, we read that the spirit is a guest in the body, thus it was important to take care of the body (which God had made in the divine image). This concept extended to the Sages who saw the body and spirit as being in a partnership of equal responsibility for actions. In fact, there are polemics in the Talmud created specifically to defend this doctrine to others. For example, one anecdote, (c.f. tractate Sanhedrin) has the Emperor Antoninus trying to convince Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi that the body and spirit can each excuse each other for sin by claiming that the transgression is the fault of the other, because one, without the other is lifeless.

Rabbi Yehudah then offers a parable to explain why Antonius’ is wrong. Yehudah relates that there were “Two guards–one blind and one lame–are in a garden. Together, they are able to steal some fruit from a high tree. When caught, each claims that he is obviously unable to commit the crime due to his disability. In the end, the orchard owner places the lame man on the back of the blind man, and they are judged as one. Similarly, God judges the actions of the body and spirit in partnership after returning the spirit to the body at resurrection.”

Thus the Talmud clearly supports the teaching that the spirit not only exists separately from the body, but also exists in a fully conscious state in an ethereal realm (Ketubbot 77b, Berakhot 18b-19a, etc) and that is it cognizant and that it has free will as moral responsibility and the ability to learn. Again, these sorts of assumptions are often simply built into the language. For example, when discussing a person named “Abba”. Speaking of “Abba the father of Samuel” the person asks “where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.”

These are very specific discussions of specific doctrines and specific examples that offer us some degree of detail, not only concerning a vague concept of “cognizant spirits” in sheol / Hades / the World of Spirits, but they are very detailed and specific beliefs that demonstrate a mature and organized system of beliefs concerning the cognizance of the spirits of the dead. The Jewish literature describes their own beliefs and these beliefs are not the beliefs you tried to represent them as having.

In all of these stories, the Bavli Talmud confirms that the dead are cognizant and aware.
Again, the basic point is, that early Talmudic parallels, early mishnas, early lectionaries, early versions of biblical books, pseudoepigraphs, Dead Sea scrolls, nag hamadi libraries, oxyrhynchus and other Judeo-Christian literature, offer a consistent description of early belief that the spirits of the dead remain cognizant, once the bodies die.

If you do not have any specific data that supports your theory then I will assume that the issue of what the early Jews say they believed about cognizant spirits of the dead is settled and will move on to the early Jewish belief in the resurrection of those cognizant spirits out of sheol / Hades / world of spirits. I am busy this morning and will post later today.


Clear
ειτωτωτωτωω

 

[Miken]

I also find the neuter word "it" as found at Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25 in connection to God's spirit "it". (Psalms 104:30)
Also, in the Christian Greek Scriptures I find "it" at Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26.
(Note: the newer King James changed "it" to him )

Numbers 11 does not appear to be talking about spirit in the sense of soul but as a special empowerment from God.

Numbers 11
16 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. 17 And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.
…
24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it.

In the Hebrew, the word for Spirit is common gender.

Psalm 104 is talking about animals (“creatures great and small” v.25)

Psalm 104
29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

The word ‘breath’ in v.29 and the word ‘Spirit’ in v.30 are the same word in the Hebrew. They are both masculine gender.

Romans 8
16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
…
26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The Greek word for spirit is pneuma (πνεῦμα) which is grammatically neuter. In Greek, as in Hebrew and a number of other languages, nouns have a grammatical gender independent of any actual gender.

It does not seem to me that any of the above relates to actual gender – neuter or otherwise – in the sense of spirit as being the individual soul of a person that returns to God as per Ecclesiastes 12:7 if that is indeed what is meant.

 

[Miken]

POST TWO OF TWO

In Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, we read that the spirit is a guest in the body, thus it was important to take care of the body (which God had made in the divine image). This concept extended to the Sages who saw the body and spirit as being in a partnership of equal responsibility for actions. In fact, there are polemics in the Talmud created specifically to defend this doctrine to others. For example, one anecdote, (c.f. tractate Sanhedrin) has the Emperor Antoninus trying to convince Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi that the body and spirit can each excuse each other for sin by claiming that the transgression is the fault of the other, because one, without the other is lifeless.

Rabbi Yehudah then offers a parable to explain why Antonius’ is wrong. Yehudah relates that there were “Two guards–one blind and one lame–are in a garden. Together, they are able to steal some fruit from a high tree. When caught, each claims that he is obviously unable to commit the crime due to his disability. In the end, the orchard owner places the lame man on the back of the blind man, and they are judged as one. Similarly, God judges the actions of the body and spirit in partnership after returning the spirit to the body at resurrection.”

Thus the Talmud clearly supports the teaching that the spirit not only exists separately from the body, but also exists in a fully conscious state in an ethereal realm (Ketubbot 77b, Berakhot 18b-19a, etc) and that is it cognizant and that it has free will as moral responsibility and the ability to learn. Again, these sorts of assumptions are often simply built into the language. For example, when discussing a person named “Abba”. Speaking of “Abba the father of Samuel” the person asks “where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.”

These are very specific discussions of specific doctrines and specific examples that offer us some degree of detail, not only concerning a vague concept of “cognizant spirits” in sheol / Hades / the World of Spirits, but they are very detailed and specific beliefs that demonstrate a mature and organized system of beliefs concerning the cognizance of the spirits of the dead. The Jewish literature describes their own beliefs and these beliefs are not the beliefs you tried to represent them as having.

In all of these stories, the Bavli Talmud confirms that the dead are cognizant and aware.
Again, the basic point is, that early Talmudic parallels, early mishnas, early lectionaries, early versions of biblical books, pseudoepigraphs, Dead Sea scrolls, nag hamadi libraries, oxyrhynchus and other Judeo-Christian literature, offer a consistent description of early belief that the spirits of the dead remain cognizant, once the bodies die.

If you do not have any specific data that supports your theory then I will assume that the issue of what the early Jews say they believed about cognizant spirits of the dead is settled and will move on to the early Jewish belief in the resurrection of those cognizant spirits out of sheol / Hades / world of spirits. I am busy this morning and will post later today.


Clear
ειτωτωτωτωω

Again you are using Talmudic references written up to a thousand years after the texts I referenced - Ecclesiastes. The concept of cognizant dead does not appear there. (The dead know nothing, and they have no more reward Eccl 9:5) Neither was there a concept of personal resurrection as per Job.s lament in Job 14. The notion of national salvation at some indefinite time in the future was not good enough when the evil were rewarded and the good suffered in the one and only life there was. So the idea appeared of personal salvation based on how one lived.

You are not addressing this.