First, let's get this one thing out of the way, and I don't know how much clearer I can make it: ahem, ahem, clearing my throat here.
You said, and I quote, "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." Where did I ever state otherwise? Look at what I typed and get your facts straight before accusing me of saying something which I did not! You're arguing against something I didn't say. Let it go.
Second, let's go on to this:
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.
Now you're getting your Lazarus's mixed up. Don't forget there were 2, the beggar named Lazarus over which we're arguing about now and Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha. The two are mutually exclusive and not the same person. Which one are talking about? If you're thinking they're the same person, you're gravely mistaken, and from the sound of those paragraphs that's what you're trying to say.
Third, there are some other things you stated. They are:
1. "Paradise ceased to exist after Jesus Christ freed the righteous dead and led them from captivity there." Chapter and verse please, reference your source.
2. "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." Again, they were under different covenants, different dispensations. We can't take the Dispensation of Grace and apply to either one, the Dispensation of Conscience or the Dispensation of the Mosaic Law, especially Enoch.
Concerning Enoch, Hebrews 11:5 says, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." The word "translated" means "to translate, or transport." The word "pleased" means "to gratify entirely." Enoch gratified God so much, so entirely, that he took him out of the world. Don't you think that if God had a problem with Enoch and the possibility of a sin problem that He would have taken him out of the world? He loved God so much that he formed a bond with Him that was what God wanted from Adam and Eve. As such, He took him to Heaven without having to see death. End of story, case closed.
Now notice what the Word doesn't say. It doesn't say that the Lord God took him, or them (Enoch or Elijah), just so they could come back again and die a physical death.
This whole thing started because I argued that Enoch and Elijah will not the two witnesses in Revelation, and has now evolved into a huge theological debate. Dude, I can keep this up forever, how about you?
You’ve gotten very nasty despite my efforts to keep it above board and civil, so it ends here. There’s your answer.
Have a nice evening.