Some points/questions please?
1)
I have seen no biblical evidence that the Pharisees believed that anyone was conscious after death. Scripture itself says no such thing. Would you please share what source you are using for this assumption? The reason I am asking is because I suspect this is one of those things that is oft repeated without being checked. Source, please? If you think you have a scripture, read it carefully first please.
2) Other than my question above, our question has nothing to do with Pharisee or Sadducee. Let's try to avoid red herrings.
3) There is a difference in something being hidden, compared to flat-out contradicting what was already given by God through the holy scripture. Consider also Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." It is also written that God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2) and that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine..." The "scripture" that they are talking about specifically includes the Old Testament.
4) Did you read that excerpt from "Discourse to the Greeks" where Josephus describes what he believes hell is like? The details he gives are far too elaborate and descriptive making it clearly obvious that the source is not scripture. What he says certainly isn't from the gospel, so where does he get his information from? Besides this, his description actually conflicts with Jesus's parable of Lazarus and the rich man in a few places. Do you suppose that it might be wise to consider that Jewish traditions and/or folklore might not always be on target?
Titus 1:14 KJV
(14)
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
If there was no such thing as Jewish fables, why would there me a mention like this in Titus?
5) There is nothing extreme in saying that contrasting Jewish fable with Greek fable makes a good setting for the parable on hand. May I also point out that "Lazarus and the rich man" is spoken in the same style as parables, introduced in the same fashion as other parables, surrounded by other parables, and that there is no indication from Jesus that this is anything but another parable? To me, an attempt to dismiss this one story as "not a parable" seems more desperate.
ECT theologians usually acknowledge the story as parable, but seeing as this passage provides about 40% of the argument for all ECT arguments, instead affirm that even if it is a parable, it must be meant to teach eternal conscious torment. But they allow it status among the rest of the parables.
6) If one reads the Bible from Genesis onward in canonical order, you will find many and numerous bits that describe death as the absence of consciousness. God introduces the subject himself in Genesis, when he plainly spells out for Adam what will happen when he dies - he came from the dust, and shall return to the dust. What you won't find is anything (either before or after) the parable of Lazarus to give weight that it is an real actual setting. To make such an assumption you'd have to set aside all the previous scripture (and some of what comes after as well.)
So yes, it would be an entirely new doctrine and/or revelation.
7) I am a bit confused as to your list of scriptures here. Of the five, I don't know why you gave four of them, and the fifth we already reviewed.
Job 19:25-27 ... does nothing for your point. Job prophesies the resurrection of the dead and that God himself will stand on the earth.
Psalm 49:12,20 ... man perishes in the same fashion as the beasts. Unless we assume all dogs go to heaven, I'm not sure why you gave this.
Psalm 73:24 ... What does "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory" have to do with the state of death?
Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"
Lon, I really don't know what you are thinking here. There's nothing in any of those passages to suggest death is anything other that the cessation of thought, love, hatred, envy, and being.
1 Samuel 28:15 "The ghost of Samuel" passage. There's two aspects here. First, respected theologians from many different angles agree this was not Samuel, but a devil. This is as easy to find as Wikipedia:
If you read the King Jame's Daemonologie, the topic is discussed by the characters there, and this dialogue also agrees that "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" and that an apparition summoned through necromancy is a fake, and that the souls of the dead lie in rest until the resurrection.
Aside from that, even if you were to believe the witch and the apparition, Samuel doesn't say he came from a place of bliss and happiness like the "Abraham's bosom", the spirit says "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" "Disquieted" means that he was quiet, and now is no longer. So even if a witch could bring up the souls of the dead, the spirit itself said its former state was "quiet"
So I'm not sure where you were going with these. Can you offer explanation?
8) Can you also please explain what you mean by this, below? Did you mean a different passage? Because Job's prophecy of the resurrection and Christ's return hardly is at odds with my hermeneutic.
Just in case we have different translation, here's what my bible says:
Job also says quite a few other things about the state of death - if we are looking at Job, are we allowed to consider the rest of what Job himself says? Because back when I did the Genesis forward copy-down-all-death-reference study, the book of Job was a gold mine.
9) Someone can "read" without being much of a "reader." Paul was a writer, Apollos was a speaker. No need for astonished blue face emotes.
10) Your argument for the validity of "orthodox" as a measure might be more persuasive had the orthodox side not taken to persecuting and/or killing their opponents that disagreed with them on this topic.
Regardless, it is written that a man cannot have two masters. Either we agree that the scripture alone is our source of doctrine, or that tradition decides what we believe. We can't pick both, or we will favor one over the other.
So this may feel like I am pressing you, but I am hoping you can confirm that "scripture only" is our accepted and agreed upon standard.
11) Would you do me a favor, and take a close look at the "ECT Fathers" link you just provided? This is one of the typical examples of irresponsible ECT propaganda. It's plainly inaccurate and attempts to claim anyone and everyone, regardless of whether the claim has merit. For example, let's pull up the first on on the list, with the quote from Ignatius of Antioh 110 AD (you posted this so please read carefully):
Did you see that?
The result of departing into unquenchable fire is to suffer death. There's nothing about eternal conscious torment or being conscious while dead in that passage, yet "Please Convince Me" Jim Wallace (I have actually talked with him before) attempts to claim him as "Eternal Conscious Torment" support. He does this because he needs people from that time period.
When you place a person into a fire and quench the fire, you might save some of the dead body from being consumed. If you do not quench the fire, they will be completely burnt up.
Lon, speaking frankly, pulling up a link from Jim Wallace (of all people) and using that as evidence that "the early fathers were eternal conscious torment" when it is clearly insufficient on its face, without having asked to compare the doctorate research paper I mentioned... . You need to look carefully at what you present to make sure it's being above board.
Here's a list of earlier fathers (earlier than Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) that were not "Immortal soul" or "Eternal conscious torment"
The aforementioned Henry Constable essays also has his own research with similar agreement (one of them did, I saw the chart again today). Eternal Conscious Torment and "immortal souls" creep into the writings with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
Now I will grant that the idea may have been setting in before then, as evidenced by Justin's warning to the Jew that there there might be some who called themselves Christian, but blaspheming against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by saying their souls went to heaven when they died.... because there must have been some like that for Justin to make such a comment.
Justin said "call them not Christian" as they were a minority sect outside of proper orthodox Christianity.
(The definition of orthodox changes with the times, Lon)
Anyway, moral of the story Lon, make sure to look carefully at what someone "claims" is support for ECT before passing it on as proof. The support attempts for ECT are often less than fair or objective in their zeal.
If I seem a bit frustrated it's because I've seen this all too many times. Someone sees the word "fire" or "unquenchable" and claims it's proof someone believed that people burned without end while conscious. It's like they get so excited at the prospect of support that they no longer critically analyze the material.
No offense meant, honest.
- there are also points of view within each category and sometimes crossovers. In a more liberal context I draw from the entire library (collective) also of Spiritualist Philosophy and spirit-communications, and modern day psychical research, mediumship, afterlife/NDE studies, etc....I believe all must be considered, even though this particular thread is seeking to determine if ECT is 'biblical' or not, but as I've shared, this term or determiniation is arbritary for the most part because anyone can deem anything 'biblical', and that doesn't always mean much because so many passages are open to 'interpretation', let along 'translation' issues. At best 'biblical' means whatever one deems to be within the 'biblical-canon' of only 66 books, standardized by 'tradition'. And they are still arguing overing semantics. - this extends right into our definitions in their full metaphysical dimensions of 'denominations' of 'life' or 'death', and then what each language brings to the 'fore' concerning each particular term, further 'coordinated' within any given 'context'.
