Now, I know that came from Wikipedia but it seemed to be the best description of Sheol that I could find. A person can fall into 1 of 2 camps on this one:
1. Sheol was a place for both the righteous and unrighteous dead, or,
2. Sheol was only a place where the unrighteous dead went, and still go, to await final punishment at the Great White Throne judgment.
Most Biblical commentators that I normally reference (John MacArthur, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Darby, John Gill, Matthew Henry and John Wesley to name a few) teach that Sheol, more commonly called Hades, is the place of the unrighteous dead. Paradise was the opposite and was the destination of the righteous dead.
Paradise and Heaven are usually taught as being the same place, separate from Sheol/Hades. Furthermore, I never said or suggested that I didn't believe that Elijah and Enoch escaped death as we know it. One was pretty much "beamed" to Heaven, and one got a one-way trip via flaming chariot ride.
And there are sub-theories around this, like a putative transition from the neutral/good part of Sheol to heaven and paradise.
It would satisfy a lot of human curiosity to know more about the details but I think such detail would cause us to miss out on larger issues. God hasn’t spelled them out beyond the scriptures, and we can only speculate on likelihoods.
So, with that understanding of the spirit in which my replies to you are intended, it seems you're being very broad with Christianity and applying AD to BC without acknowledging the profound impact of the birth, life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ upon Judaism and those believers who became the first Christians.
Paradise ceased to exist after Jesus Christ freed the righteous dead and led them from captivity there. Understanding the impact of that will lead to understanding the basis of the various Christian commentaries upon the matter. Hellenized concepts of heaven and hell when applied to the Old Testament Sheol of Judaism have led to all manner of vagueness and confusion.
You yourself have cited scripture pertaining to Lazarus and the rich man. Where do you suppose Lazarus was if not Paradise or Abraham's Bosom if such a level or “compartment” was merely a later addition or supposition? It's no such thing it's scriptural, right there in black and white. Parable or literal, the teaching remains clear.
Was Lazarus in hell? No. Was he dead? Yes, clearly so. Jesus Christ brought him back from death. Where was he? Same place but separated. The rich man was in great torment but Lazarus was not.
That place was Sheol. That is the Old Testament belief and the Old Testament reality. That reality changed as a result of Jesus Christ, not just due to His actions but via His very being.
What came before was not wiped out or negated or retroactively altered in some way, though. It was. What was, was not changed. That is the seeming source of confusion.
I've not even gone into the implication that Enoch and Elijah were assumed bodily into heaven. Regardless of their righteousness they were still subject to sin and therefore corrupt. Scripture is clear that corruption cannot be in the presence of the Lord. So, there's a problem with what you've posited on this as well.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, the traditional belief, among conservative southern Protestants at least with which I am very familiar, that Enoch and Elijah never died is more grounded and defensible from a scriptural basis than what you've attempted here thus far.
Whether or not the two of them will be the two witnesses of prophecy remains to be seen, but they are the only two candidates in scripture who fit. Assuming there are other, unnamed and unknown individuals who will fulfill this role is just as much a conjecture, really conjecture much more so because there is no scriptural grounding to be found for that assumption.
Does this make at least some level of sense?