Let’s just take your two examples.....
I've heard this argument before, but I would offer two examples that would refute it, one from the Old Testament and the other from the New Testament. I've previously mentioned the Witch of Endor and the ghost or spirit of Saul (1Sa 28). Whether it was actually the spirit of Saul is not relevant to this discussion. What it proves is that the concept of an immortal soul/spirit/consciousness (whatever you want to call it) existed among the Jews/Israelites well before Greek culture dominated the region.
The witch of Endor?....what is the background story, which puts the whole event in context?
Saul was initially used by God to evict all the spirit mediums from the land because all forms of spiritism were forbidden. (Deut 18:9-12) Don’t you have to ask why? If God did not prevent communication with his prophets whilst they lived, why would he prevent communication with them after they died?
By this stage, Saul had sinned and was spiritually abandoned by his God and his living prophets....these prophets would not speak to him. So desperate was Saul to have an advisor, (one that had always advised him wisely in the past) that this now dead advisor was sought in a way that broke God’s law.
Under cover, Saul found the only spirit medium left in the land.
Read the account and see that only the medium saw and heard “Samuel”....Saul saw and heard nothing but what the woman said were “Samuel’s” words. The demons can impersonate the dead.
If God’s living prophets would not speak to Saul, why would Samuel?
Why would God use spiritism to inform Saul of his intentions, when he had completely forbidden this practice to his people? Does God break his own laws? Would Samuel?
The other is the story of the rich man and Lazarus that Jesus told. Again, whether it's a parable or not is not relevant here.
Again we need to interpret this parable as a first century Jew would have understood it, not as a gentile already programmed with notions of an immortal soul, would have.
Taken literally, the parable makes no sense. Read it again.....but before you do, read also Jesus words in Luke 6:24-25....
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort. Woe to you who are now full, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are now laughing, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for this is the way their ancestors used to treat the false prophets.” (CSB)
Then read Luke 16:14-15....
“The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at him. And he told them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” (CSB)
Now Luke 16: 19-26....
“There was a rich man who would dress in purple and fine linen, feasting lavishly every day. But a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, was lying at his gate. He longed to be filled with what fell from the rich man’s table, but instead the dogs would come and lick his sores. One day the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torment in Hades, he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off, with Lazarus at his side. ‘Father Abraham!’ he called out, ‘Have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this flame!’ “‘Son,’ Abraham said, ‘remember that during your life you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony. Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those who want to pass over from here to you cannot; neither can those from there cross over to us.’” (CSB)
Who are the players in this parable?
The rich man pictured the Pharisees. The beggar pictures the “lost sheep” who were spiritually malnourished because their religious leaders neglected them and treated them like dirt.....these desired to at least have some crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, but was not given any attention by him.
Both “died” and went to two different destinations. The beggar was carried off to “Abraham’s side”....his “bosom”, which in Jewish understanding meant a position of favour, especially when dining, a guest of honour or closest friend occupied the “bosom” position with the host. The “bosom” was also the fold of a man’s garment in which lost lambs were carried to return them to the flock.
This is “Abraham’s bosom”, not God’s. Why is that? (Matt 3:7-10)
Being in company with forefather Abraham meant a complete change in status for those spiritually starving people, who followed Jesus and hung on his every word. They were the ones who showed by their actions that they imitated Abraham’s faith.....whereas the Pharisees were complete hypocrites. (Matt 23:13-15)
The Pharisees were spiritually “dead” to God, and hence in hades (the grave) as Jews had no belief in an immortal soul, this was not talking about souls going anywhere....it was talking about a change in status from God’s perspective....these two changed places....the beggar now occupied the position of favour with God and the rich man was “tormented in hades”.....in his spiritually dead condition. You have to be alive to suffer torment, and Jews did not believe in life after death as the pagans did. No penalty under God’s law involved torture of any kind.
Looking up he saw Lazarus at Abraham’s side and pleaded for mercy saying that he should send Lazarus with a drop of water to cool his tongue...a man supposedly in flames, and a drop of water was going to cool his tongue? Does this mean that heaven and hell are within speaking distance and in the sight of one another?
Abraham then proceeded to tell the rich man that he had all the good things in his life and now it was the beggar’s turn to enjoy God’s favour. But why was the rich man in agony? Christ’s teachings were roasting them as Matt ch 23 affirms.
Why was there then a great chasm between them...”fixed” so that there would not be a crossing over between the two?
It meant that the Jewish system was coming to an end and that the rich man was never going to have God’s favour again. Having been given more than enough proof that Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus himself knowing who was going to put him to death, God now cast off that faithless nation and chose a new nation to serve him (Matt 23:37-39)....this would not be a fleshly nation, but a spiritual one, whom Paul called “the Israel of God”, (Gal 6:16) which was made up of those who bailed out of faithless Judaism and joined themselves to Jesus, and later to the gentiles who also chose to abandon their false worship and follow Jesus, as one United Christian brotherhood. (1 Cor 1:10)
There is one cohesive story, which if you are a genuine Bible student, rather than a student of theology, you will see the whole picture, not just distorted bits of it, designed to tell a whole other tale.
