With all due respect, your assertion that Paradise as representing an intermediate state or realm of the dead did not originate until centuries after the Apostles tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. When was F19 T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 72. 2. Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. written, anyway?
It is apparent to me that you didn't seem fit to quote some of my other statements concerning this. How about this one: "The word Paradise is of Persian origin. It was incorporated into the Hebrew language during the time of Persian influence, and passed into the Greek language through its extensive use by Xenophon (c. 430–350 BC)."
I have to admit that after I posted the article I realized that I left out a rather important word in one of the sentences I made. And it is my own fault that I didn't post a correction immediately after that post. Here is the way it should have read: "This Christianized doctrine originated with men a couple of centuries after the Apostles, and is not taught in Scripture." By leaving out that word what I meant was not put forth, and was misleading - my fault and I'm sorry for that misunderstanding.
Your own authority, Bullinger, with whom you are in agreement about the state of the dead, contradicts you and acknowledges that this belief was current among the Jews of Jesus' day:
Bullinger is no more my authority than he is yours. Just because I may quote from someone else does not, in any way, mean that I hold him as an authority, nor do I necessarily agree with all that person says. I only quote to show that others have reached, by the quote, what I have found out in my own studies. You should understand that, for you quoted from him. Should I call him your authority? Absolutely not!
So which is it, contemporary or "centuries later"?
It is both. Contemporary with the time of Jesus, and even earlier - around 400 years earlier by my reckoning. And centuries later concerning the time period that this teaching of pagans was incorporated into Christian thought. Is that satifactory to you?
I said: "Corinthians 12:4 where Paul says he was “caught up into Paradise;” probably equivalent to the “third heaven” of vs. 2, which many biblical scholars suggest signifies being in the very presence of God in heaven (although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges)."
Paul acknowledges no such thing. The problem you have, and cannot answer is this; if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, how could Paul, as a honest man, much less an Apostle say that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?
I think you are nit-picking here. What I said in the brackets is the same thing you said in your last line, but not in the same words.
I quoted: “And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).
And again I quoted: “And said to him the Jesus, Indeed I say to thee today, with me thou shalt be in the Paradise” (marginal reading in The Emphatic Diaglott, by B. F. Wilson in the 1800's).
Further, with all due respect to you as a person, the fact that you are quoting the New World "Translation" of the Holy Scriptures as having any credibilty as a "translation" is pathetically ignorant. Fred Franz, et al knew about as much Greek and Hebrew as my cat.
Credibility is not why I quoted from the JW's bible. I quoted from it to show that translators have also understood what I found out in my studies. I hope you noticed that I quoted from more than one translation to show the same thing. I am hardly a follower of the JW's. I wonder who should be calling who a pathetically ignorant person? Jumping to conclusion is the only exercise some people get.
The issue does not turn on punctuation for us as it does for you. "Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it." The punctuation of the verse is of little consequence to orthodox Christians. Our theology is not impacted negatively if the comma occurs after "today" instead of before.
A discussion of some of the assertions that you have repeated can be found here: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Your quote from that Web site explains a lot to me. Yet, when reading the commentary on this topic, and more later down the page, I notice that their view is Platonic, and follows the view introduced into Christianity a couple of hundred years after Jesus walked the earth. Jesus never taught what that view teaches. I care not to discuss that in this thread.
I think the meaning is now fairly clear, depending on precisely what you mean by "Christianized" doctrine, but I obviously disagree with the notion that Biblical doctrines concerning the hereafter are the result of pagan adulteration centuries later.
(although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges).
I said,
The problem you have, and cannot answer is this; if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, how could Paul, as a honest man, much less an Apostle say that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?You said, ...I think you are nit-picking here. What I said in the brackets is the same thing you said in your last line, but not in the same words.
Your words in parens are not not the same thing as my question at all. It doesn't make any difference whether it was a vision or a revelation as opposed to a literal journey. Obviously, if it was a literal journey then the issue is decided that it is not impossible for a man to live outside of his body, and the doctrine that you call pagan and you hate is actually not pagan at or unscriptural at all. Now, even it was a vision, or a revelation, can you please tell me how, if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, as you like to think, then can you please tell me how Paul could be considered an honest man, not even to mention, an Apostle, and he still say with a straight face TWICE in the same passage that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body? If it were impossible how could he still say as an honest man that he couldn't tell which it was? If it is impossible there is no question as to which it was.
2 Corinthians 12
1I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. 3And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations...
Credibility is not why I quoted from the JW's bible. I quoted from it to show that translators have also understood what I found out in my studies.
Fred Franz and his buddies were not "translators" by any stretch the imagination, they had zero qualifications, and their "translation" is not a translation at all, but only contrived to serve certain heretical beliefs.
I am hardly a follower of the JW's. I wonder who should be calling who a pathetically ignorant person? Jumping to conclusion is the only exercise some people get.
I didn't say you were a follower of the JW's. Why do you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion that you were a JW? I don't like to engage in this type of verbal sparring, but please either show me where I said that you a JW, or in the alternative, retract your false accusation that I jumped to the conclusion that you were a JW. I most certainly did not.
Anyone can be ignorant. I myself am ignorant of many things. However, as just some FRiendly advice from one ignoramus to another; now that you know or have reason to suspect that the NWT put out by the JW's is dubious, you might want to carefully reconsider using it as a credible source, or in any way staking your beliefs upon it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that's hardly a recommendation for relying on it.
Cordially,