@LeeWoofenden In regard to our earlier conversation, it looks like the writer of Hebrews contradicts your assertion that God's people in the Old Testament (prior to Daniel) "did not believe in an afterlife at all". He says that the patriarchs living by faith were content to live as foreigners during their time on earth as they were looking forward to their place in a heavenly country (Heb 11:13-16).

Additionally, when Jesus pointed out that the resurrection is taught in the Torah (Matt 22:23-32), he did so by saying that the Sadduccess were "in error" in their understanding of the scripture - ie they should have been able to have seen what he was pointing out to them.

@bruisedreed The letter to the Hebrews is a highly spiritual reinterpretation of the Old Testament. That's what the New Testament in general does in relation to the Old Testament. It would be more convincing if Abraham and the other major figures in the Old Testament themselves said something about looking forward to an afterlife. I'm not aware of any such passages.

@bruisedreed I also think that the Sadducees were in error about the afterlife. But Jesus' argument was more implicit than explicit as far as the wording of the OT itself. Yes, an afterlife can be read into and dug out of the OT. But it's not easy, and I'm not aware of any clear statements about this in the Pentateuch or the ensuing historical works. Mostly only in Daniel, with perhaps a few hints in some of the other later books.

It seems quite clear from the OT text itself that those OT figures themselves were very much focused on this life, and thought very little, if at all, about any afterlife.

I've just finished reading the section of The Resurrection of the Son of God that deals with Jewish views on the afterlife, leading up to and including the 2nd Temple period. From reading that, I think it's pretty safe to say that the ancient Jews certainly did not have a clear view of life after death. Parts of the OT hint at the possibility of resurrection, but often in poetic terms which would not necessarily be taken as referring to a concrete reality.

By the time of Jesus' birth, some Jews probably had some idea that there might be a resurrection, but there was by no means a theological consensus.

@Flimzy The Sadducees didn't believe in the possibility of resurrection -- that's why they were so "sad-you-see" ...

@LeeWoofenden What if there were a case of someone actually being taken up to heaven? As in 2 Kings 2:1, "When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind ..."

Heaven isn't resurrection exactly. But, it seems to be more of an afterlife than the Sadducees confessed.

That's weird ... why isn't my linkification working properly in that 2nd post?

@svidgen I've never equated heaven with resurrection. I don't see how you could.

In revelation, the wicked are resurrected as well, but as we know, they don't receive heaven.

@svidgen Comma, maybe.

@fredsbend I don't intend to. And admittedly, I'm responding to a response for a comment I haven't seen that wherein "the Jews" writ-large didn't believe in an afterlife -- resurrection is only one form thereof.

text,

nope

@svidgen Markdown breaks in multi-line messages.

On purpose, I think.

Probably. I wouldn't want it to work on multiline.

confirmed.

next.

@svidgen I think Lee has a good point. Resurrection is a null topic in the OT. Yet, you have a good point as well. There's Enoch and Elijah, being taken up instead of dying.

My critical eye sees that more similar to the same way stories of heathen gods deified mortals.

In Job, we have the hero insisting that nothing happens after death, saying "the dead think nothing."

But at the same time, there's the witch of Endor conjuring Samuel. At least, it seemed like Samuel and it spoke the truth. Saul did perish the next day.

Back to Job, I'm reminded that he says it "knows" he will stand in his flesh with his redeemer on the last day.

That certainly sounds like a resurrection.

@fredsbend I'd be hesitant to comment on that, for a few reasons. For one, Job is in a particular genre aimed at explaining one thing in a sort of poetic form: the problem of evil. So, while it may in itself suggest that some Jews didn't believe in an afterlife, I'd argue that drawing such a conclusion is overstepping the "poetic bounds" it creates for itself.

And Job is one of the oldest books.

@svidgen Writers hoping to convey religious truth generally strive to avoid trampling other truths in the process.

But I somewhat agree for another reason.

.. Or rather, that the author creates for it. It's clearly not history. It's not proverb or legislation. It's a wisdom-type book aimed at explaining one thing.

Job was exacerbated and nearing an unjust death. He was flirting with the idea of "curse God and die".

@fredsbend You mean exasperated?

@svidgen @LeeWoofenden Daniel 12:2 seems pretty favorable for a resurrection belief. But Daniel is one of the newest OT books. And if I recall, Chapter 12 is believed by some to be interpolated.

@El'endiaStarman No, he had a medical condition.

@fredsbend TIL that "exacerbate" does have a meaning like "exasperated". It's the second definition on the page.

@El'endiaStarman I didn't know they were nearly synonyms. Though, to me, I would use exacerbate to either refer to an illness or a grave condition worsening, and exasperate as a more mild word to refer to an increase in angst, or other negative feelings.

@fredsbend What threw me off was that you said Job was exacerbated, when I would've said that his disease (or condition) was exacerbated. Exasperate, on the other hand, I apply to people who are (perhaps beyond) frustrated.

@svidgen The Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם shamayim has the primary meaning, "visible heavens, sky." Even the secondary meaning, "Heaven (as the abode of God)" was thought of more as a place above the visible vault of the sky where God dwelt.

@LeeWoofenden Wait. Are you suggesting that God was about to give him a fun ride in the sky instead of taking him up into the capital-H Heavens?

2 Kings 2:1 and similar passages are not saying that Elijah was taken up to heaven as Christians today generally think of it--as another, non-physical realm in which God, the angels, and people who have died have their abode. Rather, the visuals are of Elijah being carried up into the sky, and out of sight, in a tornado. At most he would be seen as having gone to the realm above the dome of the sky to the (physical) place where God and the angels dwelt.

But, I'm not sure I've encountered any critical reading before that comes even close to that interpretation ...

I'm not sure how I'd refute such a reading, other than ... "seriously?"

@svidgen Click on the link for שָׁמַיִם above, and read the definition of the word.

Unfortunately, Christians have read much Christian theology into the OT that was unknown to the original culture and writers of the books of the OT.

@LeeWoofenden Yeah. But, beyond the literal meaning of the word, how is it being used in context in your understanding?

@svidgen Elijah was carried up into the sky by a tornado. That's what the passage is saying.

@LeeWoofenden Ok. But, that's absur.

absurd*

In many languages the word for "sky" and the word for "heaven" are the same.

No, it's not at all absurd. It's what the Bible writer saw.

Have you ever watched The Wizard of Oz?

@LeeWoofenden Yes. Exactly. The sky is a metaphor -- or at the very least -- a primitive understanding of "where the gods dwell," which is in no way unique to Judaism.

Have you ever seen footage of tornadoes picking stuff up and whirling it away?

@svidgen Correct. It became a metaphor. But the primary meaning is sky. And in many places in the Bible it really should be translated "sky" in order to give the correct visuals on which the metaphor is based.

In Revelation, it should be, "And I saw a new sky and a new land, for the old sky and the old land had passed away." The visuals are of the sky and the land going away and being replaced by a new sky and land. Of course, it is a vision, not an actual visual sighting, that John was experiencing.

@LeeWoofenden I think you're missing some larger context here.

The ancient Bible writers didn't have a concept of "the earth" as we do--as a globe suspended in space. They thought of it as a flat disk, and the sky was a dome that spread over it. To get the proper visuals, and the sense in which the original writers wrote these passages, we must put ourselves into their conception of the universe, not anachronistically superimpose our modern conceptions of the universe on their texts.

Not biblical context, cultural context. "The sky"/"The heavens" were "where the gods dwelt" well-before Judaism was an established thing. It didn't "become" a symbol for the divine realm at any point during the evolution of Judaism -- it already was the common understanding of the Godly abode.

@LeeWoofenden Yeah. Exactly. Heaven = Where God is ... By insisting that we replace "heaven" with "sky" is to actually a reduction to a concept that the Jews wouldn't have necessarily had.

@svidgen Yes. It was a common conception of the universe in the ancient world. And it provided the cosmological framework in which the books of the Bible--especially the OT--were written.

Because to us, "the sky" has nothing to do with God. To ancient Jews, "the sky" was heaven.

They weren't distinct things.

@svidgen To them, "sky" was "heaven," and "heaven" was sky. There were not two separate words, as we have in English. There was one word, and it was one concept. And the concept was of a physical realm overhead.

If a prophet gets carried up "in the sky," he's not having a ride, he's going to be with God in an the divine abode.

@LeeWoofenden That's my point exactly.

@svidgen That's what's implied, though it is not directly stated. And for that to happen to someone was a rare thing. Most simply went to sleep in the ground.

It's a reduction in understanding to insist we call it "the sky." When you read those words, and of someone going there, it means afterlife.

@LeeWoofenden Maybe. But, what happens to most isn't what's possible for some.

When the witch at Endor called up the spirit of Samuel, he was not in the sky/heavens. He was lifted up from below, from underground, where he was still resting.

And, I think if you're going to suggest that the Jews didn't believe in an afterlife at all, you've got to prove that none of the cases wherein prophets were taken into heave were intended to mean it in an afterlife sense.

Most people, including most powerful figures in Hebrew history, did not go to the sky/heaven. They returned to the earth from which they had been created.

Again, so what. Not relevant to the point. Afterlife was a concept. It wasn't a Christian invention.

And more importantly, it was present in Judaism -- regardless of "how many" they thought had such an afterlife.

@svidgen They may have had some vague sense that possible there was an afterlife. But what you would have to show is that there are any clear instances or descriptions or even clear indications of an afterlife in any of the earlier books of the OT. Daniel, yes. But the Pentateuch and the other historical books . . . it just isn't there.

Why, oh Lord, did I return to this forsaken place ...

@LeeWoofenden Umm ... but, I did show it. In Kings. In those that you mentioned that I didn't. It's there. You're just refusing to address it.

All of the rewards promised were to be bestowed in this life, either to the people themselves or to their descendants. All the punishments to be meted out were to take place in this life to themselves and to their children after them--if their line wasn't completely cut off as the ultimate punishment.

There simply isn't any effective concept of the afterlife present in the bulk of the OT. That didn't arrive until the later books such as Daniel, and it wasn't developed until the NT. And even in the NT, it is not clearly spelled out, though it is clearly pointed to.

@svidgen You're refusing to put yourself in the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, and to pay attention to the definitions of the words.

@LeeWoofenden I'd argue the same about you!

You're reading later, and Christian, conceptions of the afterlife anachronistically into ancient Hebrew thought.

@svidgen And you would be wrong. It says Isaiah was carried up into the sky in a whirlwind. It says nothing about what happens next.

It says that Enoch walked with God and God took him. It says nothing about what happens next.

There simply isn't any description of any afterlife in the main body of the books of the OT. You're reading into it what isn't there.

When you have several clear indications of people being brought up to heaven in a culture surrounded by cultures that all believed in some sort of afterlife, I think there's a great burden on you to show that it wasn't a prevalent belief -- at least amongst a good portion of the Jews.

@LeeWoofenden No. I'm not. I haven't defined what heaven is in any detail.

@LeeWoofenden @svidgen for what it's worth I agree with both of you. When Heavens is used in the plural it is saying both the sky and the realm above. It is recognizing both the physical have an end the Dwelling Place of God.

Just as Heavens is plural in Revelation 21 which you mentioned earlier Lee

@svidgen If it was a prevalent belief among the Jews, why is there nothing written about it until we hit the late books? If they had such a belief, it would have been reflected in their scriptures. But it wasn't. And meanwhile there are lavish descriptions of the rewards and punishments that will come upon the good and the wicked in this life. See:

@LeeWoofenden And, I think your job in proving that they didn't believe in an afterlife is a much harder job that you're given it credit for. Because again, the sort of default human position is one that believes in an afterlife. These are people that are surrounded by people who all believe in an afterlife. And, there are several clear indications of people going to be with God in heaven. ... That's hard to refute!

@LeeWoofenden Why? ... That's actually an easy one.

@svidgen So far in this discussion two or three verses that use the word שָׁמַיִם, which primarily means "sky," have been quoted. You're going to have to point to something much clearer than that in the narrative sections of the OT to show that there was any clear, effective belief in an afterlife among the ancient Hebrews.

Firstly, because it's a mystery. Secondly, and more obviously, because not everything that's true needs to be written in the Bible ...

In the whole vast narrative section of the OT, there is almost nothing even alluding to an afterlife, let alone any actual description of it, promise that people would live in it after they die, or anything of the sort.

@LeeWoofenden Well, the point it already clear. But, I'm not going to write you a book on the matter.

@svidgen But what's written in the Bible does indicate what people believed, and how they thought of the universe in which they lived. I actually think it's important to pay attention to what the Bible does and doesn't say, and not just to read into it whatever we want to find there. The Bible actually says things. And there are other things that it actually doesn't say. And I think that's important to pay attention to.

@LeeWoofenden Again, this can be largely attributed to preexisting cultural beliefs. If something is already taken for granted, and if it's not essential to doing good, it's not first priority to put in scripture.

Unfortunately, Catholic and Protestant dogma has become so divorced from what the Bible actually says and doesn't say that Christians seem to think they can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. And that makes for poor, sloppy reading of the Bible and bad interpretation and exegesis of the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden It doesn't indicate everything they believed. It's a subset.

@svidgen But the afterlife is present in the NT. There are many passages in the NT that talk about resurrection, eternal life, eternal punishment, and so on. In NT times, there was a definite belief in an afterlife among a large segment of the population, and that is reflected in the text of the NT.

So it's a null argument to say that it's not there because it is "implied." If the people believed it, it would be there. They didn't believe it in any effective way in the OT, and that's why it's not there.

@LeeWoofenden That's precisely the Catholic complaint against Protestants and non-denoms: Interpretation without a solid interpretive lens.

@svidgen But Catholics believe that the church can promulgate doctrine even if it's not in the Bible. Catholicism actually set up Protestantism for its declaration of doctrines such as justification by faith alone and penal substitution that simply are not stated anywhere in the Bible, and are even directly contradicted in the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden That's a good point; but it only confirms my own point. Because, when Jesus first clarifies it for "the Jews," it's in the context of an argument they were having about whether there is an afterlife (implying that yes, some Jews already did believe in an afterlife.)

And when I have arguments with the Protestants here, and point out that those doctrines simply aren't stated anywhere in the Bible, they fall back on similar claims that it is "implied" and can be "understood" from various statements in the Bible.

But, more to the point about heaven in the NT, you'll find that it never declares Heaven as a new teaching, it only clarifies what heaven is like.

Jesus never comes out and says, "You've heard it said, people just die and that's it; but I say, there is an afterlife!"

If those doctrines were actually held and taught by the Bible writers, they would not be merely implied, but stated. But they're not. And that's conclusive that they simply didn't hold those doctrines. Ditto about the afterlife in the narrative sections of the OT.

@LeeWoofenden It's a bit odd that you are essentially denying the allowance for progressive revelation. That maybe you are right, but... So what? Later prophets were given more revelation. It's awkward because your own theological position... Requires progressive revelation. But you aren't giving @svidgen the same benefit.

Whereas, when there are other "gaps" in Jewish teaching, he clarifies it explicitly as a change.

@svidgen A belief in the afterlife had already begun to develop among some segments of Judaism before Jesus and the NT came on the scene. That's very clear from the Gospels. So no, Jesus wasn't introducing a new teaching. He was developing one that had already begun to take hold in the Jewish psyche--although it was (and still is today) denied by some segments of Judaism.

@LeeWoofenden No one's denying that some Jews denied the afterlife.

The minor point I was trying to make is that the belief probably existed in Judaism essentially from the beginning. And if not at it's onset, it was present very early on.

@Joshua I'm not denying progressive revelation. I'm actually affirming it. I'm saying that there was no real concept of an afterlife in the earlier books of the OT, that it began to develop in some of the later books, primarily Daniel, and that it was further developed in the NT. @svidgen seems to be arguing that it was always there, and that there was, in effect, no progressive revelation.

@svidgen But there's no clear evidence for that in the text of the Bible itself.

@LeeWoofenden I'm not denying progressive revelation at all. Maybe you think I have a particular concept in mind for Jewish "heaven." I don't. Christians don't even have a detailed concept of Christian heaven.

@svidgen We can point to clear passages in the NT affirming an afterlife, eternal life, eternal punishment, and so on. Where are the corresponding passages in the narrative (earlier) sections of the OT? They're just not there.

@LeeWoofenden There's also no clear evidence that ancient Jews believed in snot. But, I assure you they did.

@svidgen Snot is not an important theological concept.

But if that sort of thing floats your boat, we do know how they dealt with . . . what comes out the other end.

@LeeWoofenden Indeed.

The books of the OT are extensive enough that we have a pretty clear idea of their culture, beliefs, attitudes, and so on. If an afterlife were a part of that, we'd know it from the text. But it's just not there--not until the later books.

@LeeWoofenden Point taken. But, I'd still argue that heaven is indirectly evident, in a similar fashion to how we know they knew what "snot" was a thing.

Consider it this way: What motive do the Jews have for following the law in slavery in Egypt, having seen their perfectly law-abiding ancestors die in slavery?

@svidgen They did have a concept of sky/heaven. But it was not thought of as a place that the vast bulk of humans ever went. That's why the story of Elijah was so incredible and powerful to them. Something happened to him that rarely happens to any human being, in their conception.

I think there's a solid case to be made, not just in that context, but all across the OT, that the Jews were working for eternal reward. The eternal reward was implicit to following laws that often would have left them in material disadvantage.

@svidgen The Israelites groaned under slavery, and longed for salvation. And for them, salvation had a very pragmatic meaning: being freed from the oppression of their slavery in Egypt. That's the whole point of the Exodus story.

To my sensibilities, it's just absurd to suggest that they were religious for the sake of a better life now. It doesn't really make sense, not only in that they'd have quickly noticed no immediate benefits, but in that they'd have seen their perfectly kind and law-abiding parents die in pain and agony. That they'd see innocent children die in terrible ways, etc...

@LeeWoofenden Yes, there's a larger allegorical meaning there. But, the point is, these folks weren't strangers to shitty conditions and innocent death.

@svidgen I think that would be a very weak case. Read all the sections in Deuteronomy and elsewhere that promise rewards for obeying the Lord and punishments for disobeying them. You will find that to a word, they are all blessings and curses in the material world. Not a word about any eternal reward. The closest it comes is having a never-ending dynasty (for a king) or descendants (for ordinary people). That's about as close to a conception of "eternal life" as they got.

@svidgen As I said in this conversation a day or two ago, I grew up from the time I was ten in a largely Jewish town. And I had several Jewish friends assure me that there was no afterlife, but that people are rewarded or punished in this life for their good or bad behavior. So it's not absurd. And many Jews continue to think and believe the very same way to this very day.

@LeeWoofenden And yet, anyone with half a brain could see how pointless those promises are in this life, in the face of so much suffering. If action A is intended to relieve suffering B and fails to, it's not going to encourage adherence. It will discourage it!

@LeeWoofenden Folks who clearly don't suffer enough!

Further, we know from the Gospels themselves that many Jews denied an afterlife. You may think that's absurd. But those Jews clearly did not. It was a clear, fundamental aspect of their belief system. And still is to many Jews today.

@LeeWoofenden Again, to the NT point, the fact that the Jews debated it requires that many also believed it ...

@svidgen I really think you need to take of your Christian glasses and read the text of the OT in its own context.

@LeeWoofenden Let's not pretend the Jews were any smarter than we are today -- and we've got plenty of folks today who not only deny an afterlife, but deny any absolute truths altogether.

@LeeWoofenden Yeah ... i have.

Fear not, great Woofer.

It's fine for Christians to give allegorical and spiritual interpretations to the OT. But those must be based on a clear understanding of what the OT actually says. Confusing the literal with the allegorical leads to basic confusion about the nature of the Bible.

Sorry. That was mean.

@LeeWoofenden You keep suggesting that I'm mis-reading the OT with a NT lens ... But, I'm quite sure I'm not. I'm quite sure I'd rather have an accurate understanding of the OT so I can accurately contextualize the NT.

@svidgen The one high school friend in particular who was most emphatic about there being no afterlife, and people being rewarded or punished in this life, was also one of the most observant Jews in my hs class. His younger sisters lived in fear and trembling that he'd catch them doing stuff they weren't supposed to do! So this is not a matter of lack of faith, or weak faith. It was and is a part of a clear faith held by a major segment of Judaism historically, and right up to this day.

The Sadducees were not Jewish slackers.

@LeeWoofenden Fine and good. But, it's anecdotal.

It's not a survey of ancient Jewish beliefs. And the existence of P% of Jews in ancient times who didn't believe in an afterlife is itself evidence of (1-P)% of Jews who did.

@svidgen And yet, you still haven't shown me a single passage in the narrative sections of the OT that has any clear description or promise of an afterlife. When you start giving me actual passages that support your views, instead of invoking "implications" and saying it would be "absurd" not to believe this, then maybe I'll believe that you're actually reading the text instead of reading your preconceived notions into the text.

And we already have examples in the OT showing that P is not 1. Hence, the number of OT Jews who believed in an afterlife is greater than 0.

That's it. That's ... not really disputable.

@LeeWoofenden You're welcome to go back and look at the passages that were already linked ...

@svidgen It's only in the NT that we have a clear contrast made between Jews who believe in an afterlife and Jews who don't. Such a contrast is not made in the OT.

@svidgen We already discussed those passages. They had no description of an afterlife, and no promise of an afterlife.

@LeeWoofenden Based on that, I'd be more inclined to argue that a disbelief in the afterlife was more recent than the belief in one, given that we have examples of Jews who were explicitly brought into heaven.

In the NT, by contrast, we have various promises and descriptions of an afterlife. For example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus contains a description of events taking in another, afterlife realm while people are still living in this physical realm. There is no such thing in the OT.

@LeeWoofenden A description thereof is irrelevant. So is a promise thereof. The point is, is an afterlife a possibility? The answer is an absolute yes.

@svidgen Now this is getting just plain silly. You're saying there's absolutely no need for the Bible to actually say something. What the Bible actually says is irrelevant. As long as its a possibility, then we can safely ignore what the Bible actually says.

That's my whole problem with traditional Christian theology. It's completely divorced from what the Bible actually says.

I wouldn't disagree at all that Jews believed "very few" would have an afterlife. But, I would also argue that they all believed it was a possibility.

@LeeWoofenden Don't misread me.

@svidgen Until you show me some places where the OT actually says what you are sure it means, I can come to no other conclusion.

It's clear from the OT that the afterlife is a possibility. That's not deniable, because we can identify individuals who explicitly were given an afterlife.

I actually think that the Bible writers were quite competent and able to say what they meant.

@svidgen No, we can't identify any such individuals. You have not yet shown me a single passage that says that anyone in the OT had an afterlife.

We see Isaiah taken up into the sky by a whirlwind. It says nothing about him having an afterlife.

Where are these people who are given an afterlife?

@LeeWoofenden Yes, it does. Because as you yourself said, "the sky" and "heaven" were the same thing.

It's only the Christian lens that says they're different.

You keep making all these claims without providing a scrap of biblical evidence for them.

Biblical evidence for ... ? ... what? How language works? Yeah. You wont' find that in the Bible, I'm afraid.

@svidgen Yes. A physical place above one's head. The Hebrew שָׁמַיִם does not mean "afterlife." That's simply not in the definition of the word.

I mean, I'm truly sorry. There are some things that are simply not in scripture, because they're already integral to how humans and cultures work.

@svidgen I mean a single passage from the OT (outside of Daniel) that actually says any of the things you're saying it says, or implies, or leaves as a possibility.

It's not at all valid to suggest that we can't make points about scripture from sources outside of scripture.

Kings.

@svidgen That's an argument from lack of evidence. And those are rarely good arguments.

@LeeWoofenden No, it's the contrary.

I prefer to base my understanding of the Bible from what it does say.

@svidgen Then SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

@LeeWoofenden Well yeah. Me too. The point is, the Bible is written in words and within cultures. You can't ignore those, or you're necessarily projecting your own interpretation into it.

Nor can you really ignore humanity itself.

Leave the particular culture aside for a second -- the Bible is written for people in a manner that people can relate to. It necessarily appeals to things inherent to ... people. The desire for eternal life is essential to the human experience.

It's the most sensible and expected thing of all to leave out of scripture.

@svidgen Really, this discussion has become pointless. You're making all sorts of claims about what the Bible must mean. But you're providing zero (0) actual evidence from the Bible itself to support those claims.

Because it's the one thing we're all trying to get.

@LeeWoofenden Well no. That's not true. I've given scriptural evidence, you're just rejecting it.

So at this point I'm going to go do something more useful.

And I believe you need to better show how folks being taken up into "the sky" is not synonymous with heaven, given that that's the more widely accepted interpretation -- probably as it applies to any ancient culture.

And even as I type that, I find it absurd to type, b/c it was your point that "the sky" and "heaven" were the same thing... I'm ... totally baffled at this point as to what your holdup is. It makes no sense to me. You told us all that "the sky" and "heaven" (where God dwells) were the same thing -- and only when it comes to this particular point do we have to convince you that they're the same???

Utterly absurd, man. Udderly.

Pet peeve: When people say "show me the evidence" in the face of evidence they're basically refusing to look at.

@svidgen to be fair, you haven't exactly quoted any verses in...a while. More to the point, the requirement for evidence applies to both positions, and he wasn't quoting much either.

@Joshua OK. But, to be fair, I posted at least 2 that showed evidence of the believe. And furthermore, given the nature of my argument, I really shouldn't have to cite more than one to demonstrate that the belief was present. 1 > 0, you know?

I could go on to state how, in those cases where the belief is represented in the OT, it's represented in a manner that "takes it for granted" -- a point I believe I stated; but, it's moot if you're going to simply filter those versus on the presumption that "the Jews didn't believe in an afterlife." ... You need to examine all the evidence before you make the conclusion.

(And, I stopped looking for evidence, b/c I believe a few others chimed in with examples as well.)

@svidgen If you are debating here with the goal of "winning" and changing people's conclusions and presumptions, you are in the wrong place. If you are doing it to refine your own argument against adversity, then this is the place. Lee likely read your refusal to continue offering additional arguments as either 1) you ran out of them or 2) you weren't trying to debate anymore.

The attitude that 1 > 0 will never fly with those who have already reached a conclusion. Your 1 is dismissed as an interpretational anomaly. Keep in mind I'm truly offering this constructively (from much experience debating Lee even) :)

@Joshua I'm not quite sure why I bothered. I believe there's some level of moral responsibility to debate folks who might engage reasonably, even if no one's visible beliefs are changed. But, I couldn't claim to be a good judge of when that is or when to give up...

@Joshua I disagree with that, of course. Only the stubborn, slothful thinkers refuse a legitimate argument... at least in my experience!

In any case, even if we discount one or two cases as "an anomaly," and aside from the "irony" involved in simultaneously stressing the importance of biblical arguments and discounting a biblical account as an anomaly, we have the luxury of an n>0 situation here.