Raf

Welcome, Lanikaiga. I was a Bronx believer for a while, but WordWolf and I did spend some time at a fellowship in Manhattan whose coordinator ditched our TWI offshoot and made a beeline for the NYCoC. Good to have you around.

You don't need confirmation to proceed on this thread

So "salvation" was my word, using it in the context of this conversation, not the Psalmist's.

I can tell you didn't look up the verse.

Slight addendum: Psalm 49:15, in context, strongly implies trusting in the Lord (Yahweh) for salvation. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it is implicit enough as to be undeniable (it says people who trust in wealth, themselves or others will perish. The implication that trusting in the Lord will "redeem me from the realm of the dead" is inescapable).

Psalm 49:15, for example, is explicit when it comes to salvation, but not about how. Leviticus is explicit about animal sacrifices for atonement, but the promise of eternal salvation is not explicitly attached to it. It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to tie the two concepts together. But an animal sacrifice is not a gospel. It's a deed. It's works, by the most obvious definition of the word. My search continues.

"Concealed" is the key word in your proposal there, seeing as I asked, multiple times, for something unambiguous. Genesis 3:15 contains no promise of an afterlife. Nor does it say anyone who believes that promise will be saved. Genesis 3:20 discloses nothing about Adam believing something resulting in salvation. He believed Eve would have children. Ok. But that does not address my question in the slightest, in my personal opinion. [My mission in this thread, by the way, is not to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches, but merely to ascertain it objectively. Whether I believe what the Bible teaches is irrelevant. I'm just trying to see what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place].

We've been over this. Job lays out a belief in the afterlife with no explanation whatsoever of a "gospel" whereby a man is "saved." So while we can say that he believed himself to be saved, we cannot say why. My question is not a difficult one. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Chronologically speaking, when is the first biblical reference to "salvation" by means of "believing" or "obeying" or "conforming to" or whatever the appropriate word is, accepting a "gospel"? If you want to go with Titus, be my guest. But I don't consider that a satisfying answer. I can write a book tomorrow saying that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever. That doesn't prove Abraham knew any such thing. Now if Moses wrote that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever, we'd be in business. Accepting something as a matter of faith is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate it objectively. I see "salvation" in Job in practical terms, but not articulated as such, and I see no "gospel whereby a man is saved." When does that pop up? Genesis? Where? Exodus? You can't use later documents to prove what earlier documents were hiding. Well, you CAN. But why? Whatever.

That is, again, an observation made in retrospect. Is there any indication that this "foreshadowing" is what it meant to the people who were living through it?

Pride of the Yankees "Ain't gonna be no rematch." "Don't want one."

Chockfull, would we not need to establish that Moses, et al, agreed with Bullinger on the Witness of the Stars? I agree, if Bullinger is correct, that would be valuable info. But that's a big IF. I suspect most Christians don't even agree with Bullinger on his thesis.

Yes yes yes, but my question as it related to this thread was: when was the idea of "salvation" first expressed in the Bible. And you can answer that in one of two ways. If you go with the believer's perspective, you can cite Titus as evidence that it was there all along. And I would have no Biblical argument against that. But if you go the dispassionate historian's route, you can't use Titus as evidence of what people knew or believed hundreds/thousands of years earlier. (That's why I called it a concession, TLC, because you noted Titus but seem to agree with me that it doesn't prove earlier believers knew what the epistle to Titus would later say). So I'm definitely NOT trying to sap Titus of Biblical authority. I'm just trying to see how early the idea of "salvation" is expressed in the Bible. Job is REALLY early, but there's no "how". What is the earliest Biblical evidence of "do/think/believe/obey this, and you will be saved"? I don't know the answer to that, but if we're going to ask "The Gospel Whereby A Man Is Saved - Has It Changed?" can we agree that we need to first establish where such a promise began in the first place? Titus can give you a Biblical answer, but questioning whether Moses, Joshua, and even Job KNEW what was later written in Titus is still fair from a historical standpoint. Moses, after all, could not quote Titus. Where is it written in the OT that there even was such a thing as a "gospel whereby a man is saved"? What's the earliest reference? I'm really not trying to argue or cast aspersions on anyone's belief. I hope you guys don't see it that way.

His snark was directed at the conversation. Yours was directed at him. See the difference? Good. Now knock it off. I think I made myself very clear both by putting "get away with that" in quotes and by clarifying later that it does depend on how you approach the information. Yes, if you believe in God, you can Biblically use Titus to prove that Job knew salvation was available and how to receive it. But, as I said, I think you're conceding that you can't make the same argument without making that presupposition.

I don't think it's appropriate to read later documents back into earlier ones when it comes to establishing what people knew and when they knew it. You might be able to "get away with that" theologically, but not logically. In other words, the fact that Titus says there was a promise of eternal life before this world/age began does not establish that those who lived through Genesis knew it. I think you concede that point, but I wanted to make it more explicit. Regardless, we know Job believed in a life after this one, and we know he expected it for himself. We have no idea how he knew that or how he could "claim" it for himself, there being (probably) no "scripture" at all at the time he lived. But clearly it was an early belief. If you believe all scripture to be inspired by God, then I agree that Titus gives you a Biblical answer, of sorts, to my questions. But if you don't (and I don't), then you have to go chronologically by what's written and when to determine when and how this belief in an afterlife (and, by extension, a belief in salvation and its "requirements") emerged. P.S. The mods received a couple of complaints about a post on this thread. It was my belief that the post in question is gently poking fun at the discussion, not disrespecting it. Either way, it's not really off topic (and I'm usually pretty aggressive about what's on and off-topic, particularly when I'm engaged in the discussion).

My question is: Job appears to have believed he would be raised again (hence, he was saved). What was the basis of that belief?

Maybe "worthy" was the wrong word, but he seems confident he will be raised. Assured. Not that he deserves it. But expects it.

How would Job have considered himself worthy of the promise of an afterlife?

Job 19:25-26 seems pretty unambiguous to me, and it's my understanding that Job is fairly early, so my hypothesis would appear to be incorrect.

For an "afterlife" reference in Genesis, you would satisfy my request for a reference in Moses, since he* wrote Genesis. I would be pleased to see such a reference, either explicit or by implication. The interesting thing here is to avoid "backreading," (for lack of a better word). That is, we KNOW there are later references to an afterlife, so we are inclined to read them into earlier verses, even though the original writers or readers would not necessarily have done so. That's why I'm looking for something unambiguous. A reference can be implicit and unambiguous, of course. And again, all this does relate to your original question in that the concept of "salvation" requires a promise of an afterlife. (Not that you suggested I was off topic, but you're not the only person reading this thread).

I'm not questioning whether the Bible speaks of an afterlife. It obviously does. I'm questioning WHEN that belief began to surface. I submit it was rather late in the theological development of the,Hebrew religion. I could be wrong. Does Moses make an unambiguous reference to an afterlife?

This game is rigged.

That's a lot less ambiguous.

As I read the whole chapter, verse 12 does not actually look like it's looking forward to a later promise. Rather, it looks very much like this awakening you mention will never take place at all. Mind you, this is Job speaking in despair, so it's not quite doctrine. I asked for an unequivocal reference to an afterlife. I humbly submit that Job 14 is equivocal at best, and at worst it reflects an active belief in no afterlife at all.

I think, in context, Job 14:14 comes off more as "wishful thinking" than a promise that this is going to happen. It really seems there like Job is lamenting that an afterlife is not the case. But I could easily be wrong.

Honest question, and I don't mean to be all "questioning faith atheist" about this one: Where is the first indication in the Bible of anything that can unequivocally be referred to as an "afterlife," a life subsequent to someone's death? Let me know if you think my question is off topic, and I'll move it. But I do think it relates directly to the issue of "salvation," seeing as salvation would be, by definition, the promise of a favorable afterlife.