Life after Death in Ancient Israel.

[fallingblood]

Recently, I have been researching and writing a book on suffering. Throughout my research, I have spent a considerable amount of time on the wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible (especially Job). For me, this is some of the most interesting aspects of the Hebrew Bible, and I think it is also a portion that many tend to skip over.

Throughout my research, one thing kept sticking out though. That is the lack of belief in an afterlife. Such a stance causes problems in regards to why people suffer. Unlike the commonly held belief of many Christians, which holds that one is rewarded in the afterlife, which justifies suffering in this life.

Yet, when dealing with the topic of suffering in the Hebrew Bible, we get a very different pictures. For instance, in the story of Job, Job states that we only have this one life to live. The implication is that after we die, it is all done.

However, even with Job, it is not quite that easy. In Job 14:13 we actually catch a glimpse of Job hoping for an afterlife. Contrary to the common idea at that time, Job speculates on a vague possibility that he may live again. However, Job quickly brushes away such an idea, and accepts what was the common thought at that time: when you died you died (which is the general idea portrayed in Job, as Solomon Freehof points out in his commentary on Job). As Raymond Scheindlin writes in his commentary of Job, even though Job has a vision of an afterlife, it is quickly dismissed, as he knew there was no afterlife.

It is not just in Job that we see this suggestion that the life we have now is the only life there is. Qoheleth is another great example of this doubt in an after life. Chapter 3:19-21 states that we all die, and return to dust, just like animals do. In death, there really is no difference between humans and other animals, as we all go to the same place (we turn into dust). As Kathleen O'Connor points out, the author did not have the benefit of a notion in life after death. In fact, such a notion doesn't appear until the very end of the OT period. For those who observed death, all just returned from where they came, the Earth (as in dust to dust).

So there is no need for a belief in an afterlife to explain anything, even within religious traditions.


Edit** I just want to make it clear that what I'm saying here isn't true of all Israelites, throughout all history. I'm talking about a specific period of time, which would be around the time in which this wisdom literature was written. As briefly alluded to, later on, a different notion did form, one of an after life (which throughout the Bible, takes on different forms).

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I am not sure of an afterlife myself. Regarding the Hebrew Bible though- it does contain vague references to life after death. It says that the witch of Endor called up Samuel. It also seems to hint at reincarnation in Psalms.

 

[fallingblood]

I am not sure of an afterlife myself. Regarding the Hebrew Bible though- it does contain vague references to life after death. It says that the witch of Endor called up Samuel. It also seems to hint at reincarnation in Psalms.

And there is the talk of a resurrection as well. As you pointed out, there are different views expressed in the Hebrew Bible. However, the earliest seems to point to a lack of belief in the after life, and at time, almost an agnostic outlook.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Well, it seems to me that anyone who died would simply go to Sheol and that's it. Isn't that where Samuel was when the Witch called him up?

But this should be a very interesting discussion which will show that the Bible is not one single, harmonised text. It's got many varying views!

 

[Shermana]

Looking at 3 Enoch, which apparently was widespread enough to be copied meticulously for quite awhile, we see that the 2nd century Jews did in fact apparently have a view that the afterlife was very real and that the wicked were punished. Unless the author of 3 Enoch came up with these concepts based on Christian influence, which I would think would be silly since its a majorly Jewish-only work, I think its clear that the Ancient Jews did in fact believe in an afterlife and that this notion that Sheol = "metaphor for death" is a very recent construct. Judging by the Midrash and Gemarra, I think its quite clear the Israelites had a concept of the Afterlife and that it was the mainstream view until the Sadducees took over for a brief while.

Heck, looking at FIRST Enoch we see the same thing more pronounced. If 1 and 2 Enoch aren't an indication that the ancient Jews had a concept of the afterlife, at least among the sects that adopted the book (and apparently it was very widespread in the early days), its quite clear that the Jews did in fact have this idea. To say otherwise would have to ignore these works as well as other Jewish writings at the time, particularly commentaries. The Kabala tradition itself, which is arguably older than the current Talmud, is much about the Afterlife. In regards to whether it works in the "traditional" Hebrew canon, that can only help you figure out whether Jews of the Dark ages A.D. held such a view.

Looking at some of the DSS documents, we can see what is most likely a clear cut view of a literal firey hell.

The Talmud is chock full of references to hell.

The common argument that "Gehenna" was just a reference to a valley of burning and nothing more is a recent invention and has no basis.

The Apocrypha, of which apparently at least the DSS Ancient Jews went by, clearly refers to the Afterlife, such as in 2 Esdras and Wisdom of Solomon, even hinting at reincarnation!

So this common idea that Hell was invented by the Christians I think we can toss out the window once extra-canonical texts are considered.

The very fact that in the Canonical writings that dead spirits are referred to as "shades" and that Samuel's soul could be called up from the dead should end the debate quickly.

2 Maccabees contains references to the concepts of the spirits of the dead intervening. This concept probably didn't just come out of nowhere, like the other references.

The very fact that the Israelites are prohibited from seancing with the dead should be clear enough that they certainly did believe in the existence of these spirit-beings. It would be silly to prohibit acting on something that doesn't actually exist.

As for Qoholeth, it should be noted that this book was very heavily contested as to its acceptance, and part of that contestation was for its seeming lack of belief in an afterlife. I don't take it as Canon, and many Jews back then didn't either.

If you don't believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, how can any Theist explain the horrible hells that many are born and die into? Isn't that a bit, umm, Selfish (not necessarily the right word) to assume that God would give a good deal to one person and a horrible, mind-bogglingly horrific deal to another?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Whoever wrote Ecclesiastes seemed pretty agnostic about an afterlife Shermana

 

[fallingblood]

Looking at 3 Enoch, which apparently was widespread enough to be copied meticulously for quite awhile, we see that the 2nd century Jews....

I should have made this more clear in the OP (and I have now gone back and made this clear), I'm not talking about all time periods. Yes, a belief in the afterlife did develop. In fact, various beliefs developed. However, just because later on there was a belief in the afterlife, that doesn't mean there always was.

As for Qoholeth, it should be noted that this book was very heavily contested as to its acceptance, and part of that contestation was for its seeming lack of belief in an afterlife. I don't take it as Canon, and many Jews back then didn't either.

It still reveals Jewish beliefs from that time though. Dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

If you don't believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, how can any Theist explain the horrible hells that many are born and die into? Isn't that a bit, umm, Selfish (not necessarily the right word) to assume that God would give a good deal to one person and a horrible, mind-bogglingly horrific deal to another?

It's not too hard to explain. I wrote about this in a different thread awhile back (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/130311-suffering-divine-speeches-job.html). It simply is a part of the world that God created, one of diversity.

 

[Shermana]

I should have made this more clear in the OP (and I have now gone back and made this clear), I'm not talking about all time periods. Yes, a belief in the afterlife did develop. In fact, various beliefs developed. However, just because later on there was a belief in the afterlife, that doesn't mean there always was.

I think what we can tell is that the oldest known beliefs involved an afterlife and the later developments were the ones that did away with it. I think there's sufficient evidence that the Sadducees were a relatively revolutionary sect in this regard, and until then, there's pretty much no evidence of any kind of non-afterlife view, especially in regards to the OT text that directly implies there are souls and an afterlife, like with Samuel and the Torah commandment to not Seance with the dead. So I'd say it's rational to conclude that the earliest beliefs we know of had the afterlife view and the anti-Afterlife view was a much later reaction that had no real (as yet known) precedent. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that the Jewish writings besides the late-era Qoholeth (which again, was heavily contested) had any intention of denying an afterlife, and that the wordings for "Sheol" and "Gehenna" were very much meant to be taken as literal and corresponding to the other religions of the day.

It still reveals Jewish beliefs from that time though. Dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

Not necessarily. It reveals one particular view that was heavily contested, in the late-era during the time of the rise of the proto-Sadducee movement. What we can see is that the view of the afterlife was well entrenched within the earliest Jewish writings, so to assume they didn't believe in such earlier is a wild, baseless guess, whereas to assume they did at the time of the Torah and of Isaiah and Chronicles and Samuel, is completely grounded. Qoholeth would thus represent a "break" in the pattern, possibly corresponding to a time when Greek Philosophy was shucking the Afterlife concept. And even then, there's debate as to whether it actually denies the Afterlife or is only referring to the physical body.

It's not too hard to explain. I wrote about this in a different thread awhile back (http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/130311-suffering-divine-speeches-job.html). It simply is a part of the world that God created, one of diversity.

I'll check it out, but I'd guess that calling a person born into rape-slavery "diversity" as opposed to "Karmic reincarnation" would run into more problems than the latter.

 

[Pegg]

the writers of the scritpures were inspired by God and therefore what they wrote about death must have been the truth. Shermana has pointed out the book of Enoch which states there is some kind of afterlife, but that is not part of the hebrew scriptures.

Job 34:15 All flesh will expire together, And earthling man himself will return to the very dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Job 10:9 Remember, please, that out of clay you have made me And to dust you will make me return.


The only teaching the bible offers with regard to an 'afterlife' is that of the 'resurrection'...this is not really an afterlife in the sense of living on after one dies though. A resurrection means a 'rising from the dead' or being brought back to life in the flesh.

Daniel 12:2 And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence

Job 14:13 O that in She′ol you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!

Isaiah 26:19 “Your dead ones will live. A corpse of mine—they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully, YOU residents in the dust!


We are not immortal. When we die, we perish and cease to exist...our consciousness is gone until such time as God creates for us a new body and restores our life to it.

 

[Levite]

Recently, I have been researching and writing a book on suffering. Throughout my research, I have spent a considerable amount of time on the wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible (especially Job). For me, this is some of the most interesting aspects of the Hebrew Bible, and I think it is also a portion that many tend to skip over.

Throughout my research, one thing kept sticking out though. That is the lack of belief in an afterlife. Such a stance causes problems in regards to why people suffer. Unlike the commonly held belief of many Christians, which holds that one is rewarded in the afterlife, which justifies suffering in this life.

Yet, when dealing with the topic of suffering in the Hebrew Bible, we get a very different pictures. For instance, in the story of Job, Job states that we only have this one life to live. The implication is that after we die, it is all done.

However, even with Job, it is not quite that easy. In Job 14:13 we actually catch a glimpse of Job hoping for an afterlife. Contrary to the common idea at that time, Job speculates on a vague possibility that he may live again. However, Job quickly brushes away such an idea, and accepts what was the common thought at that time: when you died you died (which is the general idea portrayed in Job, as Solomon Freehof points out in his commentary on Job). As Raymond Scheindlin writes in his commentary of Job, even though Job has a vision of an afterlife, it is quickly dismissed, as he knew there was no afterlife.

It is not just in Job that we see this suggestion that the life we have now is the only life there is. Qoheleth is another great example of this doubt in an after life. Chapter 3:19-21 states that we all die, and return to dust, just like animals do. In death, there really is no difference between humans and other animals, as we all go to the same place (we turn into dust). As Kathleen O'Connor points out, the author did not have the benefit of a notion in life after death. In fact, such a notion doesn't appear until the very end of the OT period. For those who observed death, all just returned from where they came, the Earth (as in dust to dust).

So there is no need for a belief in an afterlife to explain anything, even within religious traditions.

It's hard to say precisely what the beliefs surrounding death and potential existence after were in Ancient Israel, simply because the only materials we have that deal with the concept in the Biblical Era are the documents of the Tanach. Leaving aside questions of fundamental factual historicity and taking them for what they are, these still document Ancient Israelite culture over hundreds of years, during which various combinations of monolatry and monotheism existed in tension and open warfare, and even monotheistic YHVHism seems to have evolved significantly in form.

What it seems like is that there was at least some belief in an afterlife realm called She'ol (contrary to many popular translations, the word does not mean "the grave"). People are often described as being sent "down to She'ol," which would seem to indicate that it was perceived as a literal underworld; and people both good and bad are described as going there. Robert Alter and other scholars as well have hypothesized that these factors indicate that She'ol may have been comparable to the Greek Hades or Erebus, in that everyone went there, though there were appropriate areas for the wicked and for the righteous, and in that it was under the earth.

That at least some in the Biblical era held the belief that spirits went down to She'ol after death seems inarguable in light of 1 Samuel 28:3 et seq., wherein the wise-woman of Ein Dor summons up the spirit of Samuel for Saul, and the language used repeatedly reflects the ideas that Samuel has been brought up from under the earth, and his rest has been disturbed.

Nonetheless, it has also been argued (persuasively, I think) that She'ol was apparently less pleasant for the righteous than the Elysian Fields, or perhaps even the Fields of Asphodel, in Hades, were described as being. Psalm 115:17 says lo ha-metim yehallu Yah, v'lo kol yordei dumah ("The dead do not offer praise to YHVH: no, none of those who descend to silence;"), and this concept seems to occur in several other places in the Tanakh also: that the souls of the dead may yet exist in the netherworld, but they have no cause for rejoicing there.

What it seems possible to argue is that Ancient Israelites did believe in an afterlife, of sorts, but not in one they were in any hurry to get to.

The wisdom literature is relatively late in the body of Tanachic writings; mostly from the end of the Biblical period. And given that we have an incredibly limited amount of theological writing from the bulk of the Second Temple Era, we can only guess at what the transition from Ancient Israelite religion to Second Temple Judaism looked like, theologically. It is entirely possible that by the time the wisdom literature is being written, there is widespread disenchantment and dissatisfaction with the concept of She'ol and its attendant theology and metaphysics. Perhaps the authors of the wisdom literature reject the notion of an afterlife at all. It is also possible that what is being seen in the wisdom literature is the foundation of the deeply central orientation of modern Judaism on life in this world, and away from focus on afterlife and other worlds. Not, of course, that Rabbinic Jews don't believe in afterlife and another world-- most of us do, and have. But Rabbinic Judaism-- and, we think, Second Temple Judaism also-- is deeply concerned with actions and choices that we take and make in this world, and is infinitely less interested with what may happen after. The authors of the wisdom literature may be laying the groundwork for this philosophy: they may believe in an afterlife, but simply deem it of little concern and relevance to their daily lives. Or it might be that they had other beliefs entirely, which are simply unclear to us, and will remain so in the absence of further textual material.

It is notable, though, that Job is unique. The theology of Job is really unlike that of the rest of the Tanach. The major revolution in Torah theology comes in the Deuteronomic material, which presents a theology deeply different from the previous authors' offerings. The wisdom literature eats away at Deuteronomic theology, but Job takes it a step further. It is for that reason (among others) that some of the Rabbis felt that Job was the last Biblical book written (prior to Esther)-- though of course some of the Rabbis also argued it was the earliest, so take my point with a grain of salt. But in the end, I wouldn't judge Job in the same category with anything else in the Tanach. I also, truth be told, cordially dislike Job-- my wife is the Job scholar in the family, not I. But I do admit that his theology was revolutionary in its time.

 

[Shermana]

the writers of the scritpures were inspired by God and therefore what they wrote about death must have been the truth. Shermana has pointed out the book of Enoch which states there is some kind of afterlife, but that is not part of the hebrew scriptures.

It's not part of the post dark age Masoretic Hebrew scriptures you mean to say? Because it was apparently very, very widely accepted, the many Church Fathers like Iraneus and Clement and others wouldn't have accepted it if it wasn't already so widely circulated by the Jews.

Job 34:15 All flesh will expire together, And earthling man himself will return to the very dust.

Of course we all return to the dust. In the body that is.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.

Again, This brings up the issue as to whether Qoholeth represents Hebrew thought at the time, and it was heavily contested. As I said to FB, it may have very well been written as a correspondence to the Greek Philosophers ditching the Afterlife concept at the time.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Again, we all return to the dust. In the body that is.

Job 10:9 Remember, please, that out of clay you have made me And to dust you will make me return.

None of these verses imply anything more than the body returning to the grave. And such uses totally ignores what it says about the prohibition from speaking to the dead and Samuel's soul rising from the Grave. I know you've responded before that you say it was really a demon, but this view has no precedent.

The only teaching the bible offers with regard to an 'afterlife' is that of the 'resurrection'...this is not really an afterlife in the sense of living on after one dies though. A resurrection means a 'rising from the dead' or being brought back to life in the flesh.

That's not true, as I've shown, it wouldn't prohibit speaking to the dead if it weren't possible to do so. Mind as well prohibit talking to pink elephants and dancing with unicorns.

Daniel 12:2 And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence

Indeed, this matches up with the concept of the Millenial kingdom, but in no way means that everyone in the Earth is asleep and waiting, it's talking about a specific time period.

Job 14:13 O that in She′ol you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!

How does that verse prove anything you're saying?

Isaiah 26:19 “Your dead ones will live. A corpse of mine—they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully, YOU residents in the dust!

Same thing, how does that verse disprove my point? It's talking about a specific time.

We are not immortal. When we die, we perish and cease to exist...our consciousness is gone until such time as God creates for us a new body and restores our life to it.

I totally believe that "new bodies" are created. Except its for everyone who dies and within a short time frame, depending on their deeds.

How does your view fit people who are born into starvation and slavery?

Or the part in Revelation where it says "The dead were judged according to their deeds"?

 

[Pegg]

It's not part of the post dark age Masoretic Hebrew scriptures you mean to say? Because it was apparently very, very widely accepted, the many Church Fathers like Iraneus and Clement and others wouldn't have accepted it if it wasn't already so widely circulated by the Jews.

those church 'fathers' are wrong to include non inspired writings as part of their teachings. They were influenced by pagan greek ideas and that is why they liked the apocrypha because those writings happily express pagan doctrines.

incorporating them into christianity or judaism only creates contradictions between what is written in the canon and what is taught in churches.

None of these verses imply anything more than the body returning to the grave.

if people are still alive in another place, why speak of bringing them back to life ???

 

[Shermana]

those church 'fathers' are wrong to include non inspired writings as part of their teachings. They were influenced by pagan greek ideas and that is why they liked the apocrypha because those writings happily express pagan doctrines.

Who gets to decide which writings are inspired exactly? Who gets to call them "Pagan doctrines"? Can you name a single cite that says Enoch is talking about "Pagan" Doctrines? It seems you're presuming what the Israelites believed based on the dark-age Masoretic canon, and even then, these "Pagan" concepts have rough parallels in most Rabbinical writings. Are you prepared to call those Rabbinical writings "pagan"? Also, feel free to prove that they were influenced by Pagan Greek ideas.

incorporating them into christianity or judaism only creates contradictions between what is written in the canon and what is taught in churches.

You mean the post 4th century Canon? I don't see the problem.

if people are still alive in another place, why speak of bringing them back to life ???

You mean alive as a spirit in Sheol? If we return to dust in the body, that doesn't mean the Spirit does, and the Spirit/Soul is in fact referred to quite often. Even Jesus refers to Souls.

I assume you're not going into get into how you think Samuel's conjured soul was really a demon here?

 

[Pegg]

Who gets to decide which writings are inspired exactly? Who gets to call them "Pagan doctrines"?

the contradictions speak for themselves. If you want to uphold the book of Enoch over the writings of Moses or Solomon or any of the other prophets, you are free to do that. But I wont.

You mean alive as a spirit in Sheol? If we return to dust in the body, that doesn't mean the Spirit does, and the Spirit/Soul is in fact referred to quite often. Even Jesus refers to Souls.

what is the nephesh?

to the hebrews, the nephesh (soul in english) was the living breathing individual. So if the soul was going down into 'sheol' (the grave or hell in english) then the soul is what returned to the dust.

And that is why the prophet Ezekiel said that the 'soul will die'
Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

I assume you're not going into get into how you think Samuel's conjured soul was really a demon here?

if i stick with the writings of the hebrew scriptures, i dont have to wonder how samuel could have been brought up from the grave (sheol) because I would know that mankind do not exist in any form after they die.

So the only logical explanation is that it wasnt Samuel at all. It was a spirit...that of one of the wicked angels.

 

[Shermana]

the contradictions speak for themselves. If you want to uphold the book of Enoch over the writings of Moses or Solomon or any of the other prophets, you are free to do that. But I wont.

I think I've clearly shown that there are no contradictions. I will ask you again: Are you prepared to call the Rabbinical writings that are roughly similar to the afterlife notions espoused in Enoch based on "Pagan" doctrines? It's not a matter of holding the writings of Enoch over Moses or Solomon, so because there are plenty of other authors of the "OT", I don't see why I'm holding Enoch "over" them, it's a matter of your interpretation of what Moses and Solomon says (and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Solomon did NOT write Qoholeth, despite your insistence) and your attempt to assert that your interpretation is the correct one in the face of the writings that clearly say otherwise. You say there's a contradiction here, yet you say that the command to not "Talk to the spirits of the dead" is about Demons? That I would call not only a contradiction but twisting the text from its plain meaning.

And like I said earlier, it's debatable as to what exactly Qoholeth says in the first place. If anything, your view that Moses really meant to say "Demons" instead of "Spirits of the dead", IMO, is placing your own interprets over the plain face text of what Moses says. To say that Moses would call demons "Spirits of the dead" ultimately makes Moses a liar, does it not? Does it not make the author of Samuel a liar when he deliberately says that Samuel's soul is in fact Samuel's soul?

what is the nephesh?

That would be a good thread topic, what is the Human "Spirit"/soul? It's your "Angel" self, your "Divine" self, your "Heavenly" self, the part of you that sits in the body and pilots the machine of flesh and does not die unless destroyed by God Himself

to the hebrews, the nephesh (soul in english) was the living breathing individual. So if the soul was going down into 'sheol' (the grave or hell in english) then the soul is what returned to the dust.

Can you prove that the ancient Hebrews did not regard the soul as I do? As Levite explained, Sheol does not mean "Grave", but in fact more or less corresponds to the same concept of "Hades" that the Greeks had, only LATER did it come to mean some metaphor for "the grave" and not by the Orthodox generally but by the liberals. So the soul going to hades makes perfect sense in my view.

And that is why the prophet Ezekiel said that the 'soul will die'
Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

Another example of interpretation issues, it's saying that the soul will in fact die, it will experience Bodily death, if it sins.

if i stick with the writings of the hebrew scriptures, i dont have to wonder how samuel could have been brought up from the grave (sheol) because I would know that mankind do not exist in any form after they die.

You mean if you stick with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, nice of you to say that my book has "Contradictions", apparently yours has contradictions when you do NOT take into account this view.

So the only logical explanation is that it wasnt Samuel at all. It was a spirit...that of one of the wicked angels.

Logically according to your presumptive assumptions you mean.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Blood: As always I'm a fan of your work.


Job 19: 25“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.

26“Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!

yeah, this guy doesn't believe in an afterlife

Psalms 16: 9-10

9Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will dwell securely.
10For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

What's this? Another reference to immortality in OT wisdom literature? It can't be


Here's more from Job this time in ch. 14:10. The KJV translates this in away which implies that Job understood there was life after death.

But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?

1769 Oxford King James Bible "Authorized Version"

 

[Pegg]

I think I've clearly shown that there are no contradictions. I will ask you again: Are you prepared to call the Rabbinical writings that are roughly similar to the afterlife notions espoused in Enoch based on "Pagan" doctrines?

without getting into any arguments, i think any writing which contradicts the hebrew scriptures is based on what is pagan.

It's not a matter of holding the writings of Enoch over Moses or Solomon, so because there are plenty of other authors of the "OT", I don't see why I'm holding Enoch "over" them, it's a matter of your interpretation of what Moses and Solomon says (and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Solomon did NOT write Qoholeth, despite your insistence) and your attempt to assert that your interpretation is the correct one in the face of the writings that clearly say otherwise.

if the scripture says that the soul dies, there is no need for further interpretation...its a statement of fact. It simply says what it says and you can either skirt around it and claim that it doesnt mean what it says, or you can accept the fact that souls dies.

For me, i'm more then happy to accept what the scripture states as a matter of fact because I believe it to be the truth.

You say there's a contradiction here, yet you say that the command to not "Talk to the spirits of the dead" is about Demons? That I would call not only a contradiction but twisting the text from its plain meaning. And like I said earlier, it's debatable as to what exactly Qoholeth says in the first place. If anything, your view that Moses really meant to say "Demons" instead of "Spirits of the dead", IMO, is placing your own interprets over the plain face text of what Moses says. To say that Moses would call demons "Spirits of the dead" ultimately makes Moses a liar, does it not? Does it not make the author of Samuel a liar when he deliberately says that Samuel's soul is in fact Samuel's soul?

If Samuel was dead, it means he didnt exist according to Ps 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish

the spirit is not linked to our consciousness as is seen in the above verse. When the spirit goes out, the conscious thought processes associated with a living breathing person 'ceases' because the spirit is not the consciousness of the person.

So if samuel was dead, no one could speak to him because his thoughts would have perished with his physical body. The only spirits that are living according to the scriptures are those of the heavenly realm. And why do you think it was to a 'witch' (one who consults the demons) that Saul went to speak to the dead? If witches could really raise a persons spirit, why did God condemn the practice and decree that all witches be cast out of the land?

Obviously the witch of endor was not using the power of God to raise the spirit...she was using the power of the demons which is why God condemned the practice of divination, sorcery and witchcraft.

That would be a good thread topic, what is the Human "Spirit"/soul? It's your "Angel" self, your "Divine" self, your "Heavenly" self, the part of you that sits in the body and pilots the machine of flesh and does not die unless destroyed by God Himself
Can you prove that the ancient Hebrews did not regard the soul as I do?

Of course. The proof is found in the very meaning of the words they used for spirit, soul.

Ruach/Nesha·mah′ (spirit) means breath.
nephesh (soul) means living creatures...both animal and human.
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath(heb. nesha·mah&#8242 of life, and the man came to be a living soul (Heb., lene′phesh chai·yah′ - literally, living creature)

you can create a new meaning for these words if you like, but you cannot change the fact that the original meaning of these words are known. So when moses wrote the above, he is basically saying that the physical living man/animal is a soul, and the breath/spirit within him constitutes his life force. If you believe that Moses was writing under inspiration from God, then you have to agree that what he wrote constitutes truth and reality as explained by our maker....dont you think our maker knows our makeup better then we do?

As Levite explained, Sheol does not mean "Grave", but in fact more or less corresponds to the same concept of "Hades" that the Greeks had, only LATER did it come to mean some metaphor for "the grave" and not by the Orthodox generally but by the liberals. So the soul going to hades makes perfect sense in my view.

The Greek Septuagint translators use the word “Hades” to translate the Hebrew word sheʼohl′, commonly rendered “Sheol.”
I agree that hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, but hades in the Greek scriptures is used in relation to 'death'. So it doesnt refer to a single grave (Gr., ta′phos), or to a single tomb (Gr., mne′ma), or to a single memorial tomb (Gr., mne·mei′on), but to the common grave of mankind, where the dead and buried and remain unseen.
It has nothing to do with an afterlife.

 

[Shermana]

without getting into any arguments, i think any writing which contradicts the hebrew scriptures is based on what is pagan.

You mean your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. Just go ahead and say it that you think the Rabbinical commentaries are pagan influenced and be done with it, what are you afraid of?

if the scripture says that the soul dies, there is no need for further interpretation...its a statement of fact.

It's a fact that you interpret the soul dying to mean the soul itself dying and not experiencing death in the flesh. Which contradicts a great deal of things that Jesus says about the Soul, which you must render into metaphor to not contradict your own views.

It simply says what it says and you can either skirt around it and claim that it doesnt mean what it says, or you can accept the fact that souls dies.

I accept the fact that you are trying to assert your interpretation as if its fact and that any other interpretation is "Skirting around it". Do you speak Hebrew? If not, then kindly admit that your translation and interpretation is just that, yours. If the soul dies, then it is experiencing bodily death. That's my opinion. I'm not asserting its necessarily guaranteed fact, I'm saying I believe its the most likely interpretation.

For me, i'm more then happy to accept what the scripture states as a matter of fact because I believe it to be the truth.

You mean your interpretation of what the scripture states. You really need to qualify it as such, your bold assertions and statements about counterviews are getting very close to Prosletyzing, if not already.

If Samuel was dead, it means he didnt exist according to Ps 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish

Wait, weren't you just saying that you go by what the scripture says at plain face value? You're calling the author of Samuel a liar. And the author of the Torah by saying there aren't actually spirits of the dead to talk to. Anyways, Psalm 146:4 does not say that "he" is his spirit necessarily. His body goes to the ground, the spirit is what goes out. How does the spirit even go out if there's no spirit to begin with? Gotcha! And before you say its referring only to his breath, it's quite clear that Spirit can refer to more than just Breath.

the spirit is not linked to our consciousness as is seen in the above verse. When the spirit goes out, the conscious thought processes associated with a living breathing person 'ceases' because the spirit is not the consciousness of the person.

According to your interpretation you mean.

So if samuel was dead, no one could speak to him because his thoughts would have perished with his physical body. The only spirits that are living according to the scriptures are those of the heavenly realm. And do you think it was to a 'witch' (one who consults the demons) that Saul went to speak to the dead? If witches could really raise a persons spirit, why did God condemn the practice and decree that all witches be put to death?

So again, you're calling the author of Samuel a liar, and you also don't seem to accept the possibility that the "Spirit goes out" implies that he has a spirit, you have to say that it "goes into the ground" as in "he" is the same as the spirit, even still, this would involve a spirit of his leaving him. Thus , he has a spirit. Now if you want to believe that its referring to the Spirit itself after it says the Spirit goes out when it says "He goes into the ground", that's your deal, but please stop acting as if your view is Gospel truth and other interpretations are not "scriptural" unless you can effectively prove that there's no possibility of my rendition being correct. So good luck with that. Now as for your thing about "If witches really could raise a persons" spirit, do you not realize that you have just justified my OWN position and weakened yours? I don't know if you understand the implication of what you asked. Obviously God condemned the practice because it is POSSIBLE to do so. I'm scratching my head why you would even ask that, it's like you just handed the debate to me.

Obviously the witch of endor was not using the power of God to raise the spirit...she was using the power of the demons which is why God condemned the practice of divination, sorcery and witchcraft.

So again, you're calling the author of Samuel a liar to suit your own Theological opinions. Why do you suppose the Witch of Endor was wrong in the first place? Because you're not supposed to summon Spirits of the dead.

Why would the Torah even say "Spirits of the dead" if there are no such thing as "Spirits of the dead"? You'd have to call the author a liar if you say they don't exist. The Hebrew is quite clear. "Spirits of the dead". The dead.

Of course. The proof is found in the very meaning of the words they used for spirit, soul.

You mean your interpretation of it.

Ruach/Nesha·mah′ (spirit) means breath.
nephesh (soul) means living creatures...both animal and human.
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath(heb. nesha·mah&#8242 of life, and the man came to be a living soul (Heb., lene′phesh chai·yah′ - literally, living creature)

Yes, the soul is directly connected to the Holy Breath, no problem there.

you can create a new meaning for these words if you like,

I'm creating new meanings? No no no, YOU are the one going by completely revisionist, recent definitions of the word. I'm going with the classical definition. And that definition is basically shared by much of the Midrash writers, who I'd like you to be honest and just flat out admit you believe they were all influenced by Pagan doctrines until the modernists showed them their error.

but you cannot change the fact that the original meaning of these words are known

Known to who? You? Apparently the definition changes among who its "known" by. Again, your comments are getting very close to Prosletyzing.

So when moses wrote the above, he is basically saying that the physical living man/animal is a soul, and the breath/spirit within him constitutes his life force. If you believe that Moses was writing under inspiration from God, then you have to agree that what he wrote constitutes truth and reality as explained by our maker....dont you think our maker knows our makeup better then we do?

I think your interpretation of what Our maker had Moses say is way off and you are discounting the classical definition to suit your revisionist Theology.

The Greek Septuagint translators use the word “Hades” to translate the Hebrew word sheʼohl′, commonly rendered “Sheol.”

They chose that word for a reason.

I agree that hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, but hades in the Greek scriptures is used in relation to 'death'. So it doesnt refer to a single grave (Gr., ta′phos), or to a single tomb (Gr., mne′ma), or to a single memorial tomb (Gr., mne·mei′on), but to the common grave of mankind, where the dead and buried are unseen.
It has nothing to do with an afterlife.

Basically your argument is because Sheol is used to refer to the grave, therefore it cannot mean the afterlife. Excellent logic. (Cough). I suggest a logic class.

Too bad for you, most of the early Rabbinical writers disagree.

 

[rusra02]

I am not sure of an afterlife myself. Regarding the Hebrew Bible though- it does contain vague references to life after death. It says that the witch of Endor called up Samuel. It also seems to hint at reincarnation in Psalms.

The Bible clearly condemns witchcraft, and talking with the dead. (Leviticus 19:31) Therefore, I believe the apparition that spoke to Saul was not Samuel, but a wicked spirit pretending to be him.
Rather than hoping in life of an immortal soul, the Hebrew Bible presents a consistent hope of a return to life for those who die. Prophets of God resurrected people in the nation of Israel. Isaiah 25:8 promises God "will actually swallow up death forever, and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces."
Everlasting life is spoken of frequently in Psalms (133:3, 37:29) Job did express belief in a return to life at Job 14:13-15. These are but a few of the many references to a hope for the dead found in the Hebrew Scriptures. With Christ's coming, God's purpose for the dead "has been made clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death but has shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news." (2 Timothy 1:10)

 

[outhouse]

The wisdom literature is relatively late in the body of Tanachic writings; mostly from the end of the Biblical period. And given that we have an incredibly limited amount of theological writing from the bulk of the Second Temple Era, we can only guess at what the transition from Ancient Israelite religion to Second Temple Judaism looked like, theologically. It is entirely possible that by the time the wisdom literature is being written, there is widespread disenchantment and dissatisfaction with the concept of She'ol and its attendant theology and metaphysics. Perhaps the authors of the wisdom literature reject the notion of an afterlife at all. It is also possible that what is being seen in the wisdom literature is the foundation of the deeply central orientation of modern Judaism on life in this world, and away from focus on afterlife and other worlds. Not, of course, that Rabbinic Jews don't believe in afterlife and another world-- most of us do, and have. But Rabbinic Judaism-- and, we think, Second Temple Judaism also-- is deeply concerned with actions and choices that we take and make in this world, and is infinitely less interested with what may happen after.

excellent reply

they just shifted focus and the concept evolved the way the whole religion had done since formation, but the absense doesnt mean belief in such was.

What it seems possible to argue is that Ancient Israelites did believe in an afterlife, of sorts, but not in one they were in any hurry to get to.

exactly.


there are clue's completely through most of the books that show this to be true