TLC

You can disagree that it doesn't contain a promise of an afterlife, but simply put, I don't believe that's Adam's perspective of it. Might either of us ascertain the words of (our) salvation in what is there? No, I don't think so. I think it was specific to them, at that time. So much so, in fact, that intricate details of it aren't necessarily vital to know or understand. Namely because we don't know what their life (and thoughts) might have been like prior to that time, and what changes had just occurred in their minds as a result of eating that which God had instructed Adam not to eat. So, even if it were possible to more fully or completely flesh out "the gospel of Adam's salvation" (for lack of any better way to say it)... if it doesn't much apply or work to achieve salvation for any of us in this day and time, aside from possibly confusing or misleading some, what effect would it have?

Well, it seems to me that what you are looking for has changed, and the asking has evolved into something different than you first asked. What initially started off as the first indication of anything that can unequivocally be referred to as an afterlife, is now trying to establish not only when it might have first appeared, but what it was that led to it (i.e., the "gospel" for it) and who knew it. Not that it's uncommon for that to happen, or that I mind the change, but it's not like you've been asking "multiple times" for the same thing...

Okay then, perhaps you'll allow me to suggest something else. (Because phrased as you put it, the difficulty isn't so much in your question, as it is in what I think you might consider or allow as being a "gospel.") As I see it, the first mention of a gospel (for salvation) is (concealed as it may be) in the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and Adam's response to it in verse 20. Granted, it is without a doubt, veiled language. Nevertheless, that's where it is written. There is no other reason for Adam to then start referring to her as "the mother of all living," except that he believed what God said about her (and her seed), and that alone (i.e., believing what God said) was (at that point in time) the basis for salvation. How much did Adam know or understand about what was said? I don't know. But whatever it was, he evidently believed it, as indicated in his new name for her, "Eve." So, it appears (to me) that whatever he knew or understood of it was "the gospel whereby a man is saved" until such a time as more was said or revealed. As more was revealed, what could be believed also changed, thereby changing the basis for salvation. Maybe you think I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong. But, that's how I see it.

Probably not, if it was hidden. Is there any doubt that God can have certain things written in such veiled language it insures that no one can or will understand the real meaning of it before its time (or in hindsight)? Maybe this is difficult to comprehend, but there is plenty of scriptural evidence that this occurred. Take, for example, what is written in Luke 18:31-34. (Which, in hindsight, doesn't have the slightest appearance of being "veiled." It reads as plain as day to us. Yet, none of his apostles understood it at the time.) So, I'm inclined to think that if you insist on disallowing or excluding all observations made in retrospect, you simply aren't going to find much (or make much sense out of what is found.) That said, if Job is thought (or accepted) as being the earliest of the historical writings, Job 14 (to me, at least) lays out a pretty clear picture of his belief in an afterlife. But if casting Job aside, I also see a similar belief in what Moses wrote (if accepting that he did) about Abraham. There's no other reason (that I know of) that better or more logically explains why Abraham would do what he did (or rather, nearly did) with his only begotten son, Isaac. Perhaps that's because my mind is so conditioned to think of or see it from a perspective of what is written in other scriptures, nothing else makes any sense to me. But, that's how I see it... and after reviewing (and discarding) numerous other ways to look at it, I'm plum out of angles and can't "invent" some perspective from which to think of it.

Well, I have to think that most thought that there was eternal life contained (somewhere) within the law (of Moses), as the whole Passover deal was act of salvation and a foreshadowing of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. John 5:39.

Good point, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. But likewise to what's been alluded to previously, even if it were somehow or in someway "written in the stars" (so to speak), there's no way to know how much anyone might have read or understood of it. It might be that the "signs" of or in the heavens only came into view (i.e., being revealed and understood) at specific points or times in history.

Sure, I don't disagree that how it is approached makes a difference. (Which seems so obvious and forthright, I'm nearly puzzled why you speak of it as a "concession" of some sort.) What I objected to, however, was your claim that to handle it as I did wasn't "logical," or that it was akin to getting away with something significantly less than anything that could be deemed logical...

Well, it appears that you prefer to equate believing in the existing of God, and/or that God can (or ever has) reveal(ed) the truth to a man, with trying to "get away with" something... "theologically." Because if God can and ever has revealed the truth to a man, then it's perfectly reasonable and entirely logical to think that what He is able to reveal is accurate and true, regardless of whether what it refers to has already occurred thousands of years prior, or was yet to occur thousands of years in the future. Just because it's not "your position" and belief, or that you can't see the coherency of it, doesn't mean that it's illogical. But, I suppose whenever anyone doesn't (or can't) recognize that their own systematizing and "awareness" of logic likewise resides (as it does for all of us) on a foundation of certain accepted premises, they are inherently (and inescapably) "right in their own eyes." In other words, some people are (at best) only able or willing to identify as logical when it fits with (or within) their own baseline presumptions. Yes, that's the issue. There just isn't much to indicate what all they might have known. Some things - said to be revealed later, for the first time - they must not have known. So, in a sense, it'd might be easier to add up what all they probably didn't know. However, as mentioned in the last post, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what or how much they knew that was the basis for salvation, but whether or not they accepted whatever God revealed as being true or "real." Agree, we don't know how he knew it, or how all God might have operated in that day and time. At best, we might learn how God can and/or does operate in our own day and time and life, and how (or why) we believe (accept) that as being true or "real." Granted, there may be similarities. But there's sufficient reason to know that there's also some differences. I guess I might have a hard time wrapping my head 'round it too, if all I could go by or rely on was the chronological order it was written in. But if you think about it "logically"... what other reason can make a lick of sense why Abraham would be tested in the manner that he was when asked to offer Isaac as a sacrifice? Can you make any more sense out of that little(?) episode there in Gen. 22? (Because I can't.) __________________ P.S. As for Willbur's puff of wind in the discussion, I've come to regard his last post as the only blurb he could spit out after pulling his foot out. (snarky cuts both directions, ya knows...)

Although it appears to be rather plainly written that there was a promise of eternal life even before this world (or age) began (Titus 1:2), the extent to which it might have been known and/or was and wasn't revealed to various men throughout the annals of history (not to mention how much of that anyone did or didn't believe) isn't as obvious. So answering the question asked is, in a certain sense, complicated by a lack of not knowing what all Job did or didn't know about God's promise of eternal life. (And he evidently knew something of it.) However, in another sense, it is made simple by understanding that whatever he did have and know about it, he believed. In other words, he trusted God, and took him at his word. And that, to the best of my understanding, was the basis for his salvation.

Hmmm.... Given that I think his basis for salvation isn't that same as it is for anyone living today, that perspective doesn't make it so easy to answer. Quite frankly, I haven't given this that much thought before. (And even if I had, I honestly don't know how sure I'd be in whatever could be said about it.) If Job lived in a day and time before Abraham, as seems likely, there's a whole bunch of stuff that we don't know, including just how God might have operated or worked with man in that day and time. Perhaps there's some things (like "without faith it is impossible to please him") that would also be relevant to Job, but I suspect it was a far simpler time and such a list is going to be very short

Agreed, there is indeed the indication of a confidence, or an expectation, or an assurance. I suppose then your question might not have meant to be so much what (or how) it is, but why it is. Would you care to clarify?

I don't see that he did, or why he would. But, likewise with Abraham. And neither do I consider or think of myself as worthy of said promise. In short, I don't believe personal worthiness is the right criteria for anyone for the attainment of said promise (not even the LJC.)

Yes, good verses. Seems I skipped over them when moving on from the earlier verses in Job.

Whether it was intentional or not, I find what you might refer to as being interesting to avoid makes this more difficult to respond to. Namely because of several things that seem (to me, at least) to be rather obvious: Whatever God revealed to certain men (be it Adam, Enoch, Abraham, etc.), we have no record of any of it being recorded until Moses, hundreds of years later. Not everything that God might have done or made to known any of these men before Moses, is recorded by Moses. Certain details that would undoubtedly remove ambiguity and provide additional clarity occasionally appear to be intentionally omitted from what is written in scripture (e.g., Dan.12:9.) If God was capable of revealing (and did reveal) to Moses what and/or why these earlier men did what they did, then He is likewise capable of revealing it in either the same or greater detail to the writers of scripture long after Moses. Therefore, if the primary objective is to identify when the belief in an afterlife began to surface (as it appears to be, given your earlier post), I don't see the point of requiring it to be specifically identified and spelled out as such in something that Moses wrote. Moses reveals the story of Abraham, and the incident of his offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice (as was requested by God.) But certain details are missing. However, the writer of Hebrews (which I believe is Paul) later reveals some of these missing details, which helps explain the incident further, and why Abraham so willingly acted as he did. (see Hebrews 11:17-19, which seems to rather plainly reveal that Abraham, having received a vision or revelation of some sort, believed that after Isaac was killed, God would raise him from the dead.) If by chance Abraham is actually the first to be fully persuaded of this, perhaps it is the reason why he is referred to as the father of all who subsequently would likewise believe.

I do think there are earlier references to an afterlife, Raf, but as for any of them being deemed "unambiguous," well... that's another matter. No doubt the Sadducees were quite adept with the ambiguity angle, whenever or wherever the Pharisees pointed out a reference to a resurrection of any sort. But setting aside the "unambiguous" request (which I'm somewhat inclined to think unlikely to be found), it might be interesting to seek out the "least ambiguous" references. Given that criteria, I'd go right straight to Abraham, who I think may have been the first to believe in resurrection (or perhaps, the resurrection of the Messiah), and of life after death. It would probably take a little bit of scripture build up to paint a clear enough picture, but it seems there's just no other explanation that's as reasonable or sensible as to why he would so willingly sacrifice the life of his only son, Isaac. And from that perspective, I'd have to strongly disagree that the belief in an afterlife only surfaced late in the theological development of the Hebrew religion, as it places it right smack dab at the start of it. As for Moses and anything that's written in the law, the sacrifices were a figure of that which was yet to come. I suppose that when two goats were chosen, and lots cast between them as to which would be sacrificed and which would later be loosed in the wilderness, the scapegoat (that carried away all the sins of the people) might be a certain foreshadowing of life after death. As a caveat to this, I'm actually not persuaded that Adam didn't also know and believe in an afterlife, as I am of the opinion that it was part of God's original plan for man. What I'm not so sure about, however, is how much of that plan was (and wasn't) revealed to Adam.

There are, of course, other verses (such as Romans 6:9, 1Cor.15:22,53-54, or Philip.3:21) that unequivocally refer to an afterlife, or another (eternal) kind of life, but I presume you were asking for any that might be found in earlier writings. Interestingly enough, however, is the notion that not all life is (or needs to be) identical and/or exactly the same. But just how any (eternal) life might differ is neither clear nor certain. Jesus Christ said "In my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2), while Paul spoke of certain rewards that could be added (or not added) to the next life (1Cor.3:14-15.) If in this present world we see such vast variances of temporal life, should we think God is somehow restricted to less, or not capable of even more, for the eternal? So, while the essence of salvation might start with, be capsulized in, and simply summarized as "the attainment of eternal life," it doesn't seem to effectively grasp what may be the whole truth of it. In other words, I'm not particularly convinced or persuaded that "salvation" has the exact same meaning (or end result) for all mankind throughout the scriptures, which may also help explain (at least in part) why "the good news" of said salvation appears to have some differences when revealed to different people, at different times.

Okay, if you want to pass on that, then pop on over to Dan.12:13. (Though, I suspect several probably reside in Psalms somewhere.)

If one were convinced that the heavens that be would remain and be "forever and ever," I suppose they might think Job thought likewise. But that's not what I see as Job's perspective on the matter. Hence, in the preceding verse 12, it seems to say that after a certain (undefined) length of time, the heavens would be no more, after which men shall awake (from death) and be raised out of their sleep. That the heavens will be no more at a certain point in time is attested to further in numerous other places throughout the scriptures.

If this were an any day, everyday, discussion, I'd be inclined to simply let the "call upon His name" being spoken of in reference to God slide by. However, considering the doctrinal format of the discussion, I'm compelled to point out that the scriptural basis for your statement clearly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lord who is called upon (and not God.) So, regardless of whether it's Budda or Muhammad or Confucius in persona, salvation still centers upon the one (and only one) whom God has set as the propitiation for sin, the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, think or say whatever you want, Wilbur... no man (that means, no exceptions) cometh unto the Father, but by the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no alternate way, path or belief system that finds a way around or gets you there.

No, I actually don't see it as being off topic (...and even if I thought it were, given it was the first response in days to the topic, I'd have no issue with discussing it.) It's certainly not parked in the "unequivocally" camp, but if we were talking "indications" only, I suppose a case could be made for the mentioning of seed in Genesis 1:12. (Seed representing a certain patterning in the natural world of there being "life after death.") However, if we want to jump straight to the unequivocal part, it would probably be Job 14:14.

If there's any doubt concerning the emphasis on financial prosperity, this is the pic (below the ad for selling his own book) on said website that actually stirred up a few thoughts on the matter...

The truth... stir up a hornet's nest? Never.

It's hard to miss the redundant emphasis on financial prosperity... as if that's a key aspect of having and believing the truth, knowing the Lord, and/or living a Christian life. But then, if the adherents to the message have "the abundant life," well... then all the easier it is to teach and talk about sharing that abundance, eh? It's so easy to quote Christ and say that the laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7), and to say that it applies to a minister of Christ... but what does the example of Paul, who was plainly made a minister, attest to? Did he take wages of or from others? Does he, anywhere in all of his writings, teach (or implicitly condone) such a thing? I think not. To live a quiet and peaceable life (in all godliness and honesty) seems to be a far, far cry from the "prosperity" that is (and so often was) promoted elsewhere... Ah, but who is Paul, that anyone should ever think or want to follow his example?

Perhaps it can be said, and be shown from scripture, that faith (aka, believing) is, and always has been, required for any man to be saved. However, it does not appear that what man is to believe in order to be saved has always been the same. Consider, for example, the record of such men as Able, or Enoch, or Noah. Did they need to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in order to be saved? Not hardly, as it seems the revelation of a coming Messiah that would necessarily die and rise again hadn't even been given yet. When and/or how often did whatever man was instructed to believe change? Or, do you suppose that it has never changed? What do some of you think in regards to this?

This is nothing that vpw or TWI taught, and it's certainly nothing that mainstream Christianity teaches... so, I'm curious who (or from where) you might have picked this line of thinking up from. Not that I disagree entirely with it, as I too believe that the church of today started with Paul (and not on the day of Pentecost.) However, I suspect that Israel was set aside after the council's (and hence, Israel, as a nation) rejection of Jesus as the Christ after Stephen powerful testimony in Acts 7.