Yes.
Paradise is not a technical term. It's an adjective.
Technically, paradise is a noun.
So you can use the three instances to see if they all are trying to convey a single idea. And they are.
You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm not the one saying there are multiple paradises.
The paradise Jesus spoke of is/was the place of the righteous dead.
So you say. But the proof is lacking. This is the only, I repeat, the only instance where the place of the dead is called "paradise". Notice that you use the definite article in your statement. I'll come back to that later.
It is elsewhere refered to as Abraham's bosom.
So you say. But again, the phrase "Abraham's bosom" is only used a single time in the whole bible. It might be "the place of the righteous dead", but it might be the place where the saints will be after judgment. The text is used as a story to convict the pharisees of their hypocrisy, and it starts out the same way as the parable of the wicked steward in the same chapter, just a few lines earlier. As a parable, it is possible that it isn't intended to convey truths about the afterlife, but truths about the current life for those pharisees.
What was the truth being conveyed? It appears to be that if they won't listen to Moses (and Jesus is implying that they haven't), then they won't listen if someone returns from the dead (and Jesus is implying that they won't).
The implication being that it is where Abraham was, which makes sense since Abraham was a righteous dead guy.
Or it's a story about the state of Abraham and Lazarus-type poor people in the resurrection.
Or it's a story the is intended to convey to the pharisees how far their self-righteousness will get them.
Jesus didn't give the meaning of the parable. To assume that your meaning is what Jesus intended is to miss the purpose of the story.
Seems pretty straight forward.
What? Why assume there is one and only one place that qualifies as a paradise?
For one, the word is used 3 times in the New Testament. In two cases it represents the place where God is. In the third (to the thief) it seems to represent the same thing. If it represents the place where God IS, then when Jesus told the story to the Pharisees, God wasn't there. Perhaps that was why He called it "Abraham's Bosom", since God wasn't there. But you've assumed that it was called "Paradise" even before Jesus got there.
When Jesus told the thief he would be with Jesus in Paradise, it was in response to the thief's plea about Jesus in His kingdom. Surely the thief would think of Jesus's kingdom and paradise as the same place, right? But not the place of the dead.
Where is it refereed to as a "shadowy realm of the dead"?
It's a bunch of spirits that used to have bodies, that someday will have bodies again, and that currently have the same kind of features bodies have, like "bosoms" and "fingers" and "tongues", but without bodies. That seems kind of "shadowy" to me.
Edited to add:
Plus Job calls it shadowy:
Job 10:21 KJV - Before I go [whence] I shall not return, [even] to the land of darkness and the shadow of death;
Job 10:22 KJV - A land of darkness, as darkness [itself; and] of the shadow of death, without any order, and [where] the light [is] as darkness.
And it is only "part of Hades" in the sense that it's a place where dead people go. It is not a compartment of Hell, as we think of Hell today.
I'm not arguing with you about that. But the rich man was tormented in flames, which is exactly what we think of as Hell today. You are saying they are all (Lazarus, Abraham, and later the thief and Jesus) in the same place, only in a different compartment.
And there's something odd about the rich man being already tormented in the flames prior to judgment, don't you think? If God were fair, wouldn't He first judge the man, then, having judged him fairly, start the torment? Therefore the judgment must have already occurred. But Jesus said judgment comes after resurrection.
John 5:27 KJV - And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 5:28 KJV - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 KJV - And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Because you say so?
If Jesus called it paradise, then that's what it is.
I agree. If Jesus called something "paradise", then that's what it is. Now let's look at what he called by that noun. First, he didn't call it "paradise", but "the paradise". From what I understand, the definite article in New Testament Greek isn't always translated into English, because it's used a little differently. Oftentimes, when a non-specific noun is first introduced in a passage, it is introduced without the definite article. (The British still do something like this, for instance, when they say "I have to go to hospital", without the definite article.) Then (in Greek, but not necessarily the British), once introduced, later uses of the word will include the definite article. It seems to be a way of saying "that hospital that I mentioned previously." In this case, the definite article is included at the first (and only) mention of "paradise". That means Jesus wasn't speaking of some general concept of paradise, but of a specific paradise. If specific, and if it is where His kingdom is, then it would definitely NOT be in a compartment of the grave/Hades, or Hell, or any place except something like where Paul was taken to--and probably the same place, since both of those uses include the definite article.
I see no conflict, whatsoever.
The word Hades is not an English word. You are using it as though it is synonymous with the English word "Hell", which it is not.
I'm using it as it is described. A place of torment in flames. Reread the text if you need to.
If there is an English equivalent, (which there isn't a perfect one) it would be "grave". In other words, its a place, populated with physically dead people. That, and it seems clear that its separated from the Father's presence.
As I said, not the type of paradise one would expect Jesus to refer to.
My last post.
What?
Just as the whole Earth prior to the fall of Adam, as well as Eden itself, was a paradise,
You haven't been reading your bible very carefully, have you??
Genesis 2:8 KJV - And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:10 KJV - And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
2:8 tells us that the Garden was in Eden, and 2:10 tells us that the river came OUT from Eden to water the Garden. With those two verses, we know for sure that the whole earth wasn't a garden. The word most bibles translate "garden" was translated in the Septuagint as "Paradise".
the entire New Earth is going to be a paradise!
Not "a paradise", according to the bible, but "the paradise". And whether it is the whole earth or not is unclear. Be careful about letting your preconceptions cloud your study of the biblical texts.
Heaven is already a paradise and it too will be destroyed
Most of heaven that we know about is NOT a paradise. There are stars and black holes and vacuum of space. Hard to grow stuff there. There is a part of heaven that Paul visited, called "the third heaven", which he also called "the paradise"
2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV - I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:4 KJV - How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Or here it is in the Young's Literal Translation showing the definite article, if that helps:
2 Corinthians 12:2 YLT - I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven;
2 Corinthians 12:4 YLT - that he was caught away to the paradise, and heard unutterable sayings, that it is not possible for man to speak.
If Paul associates "the third heaven" with "the paradise", that seems to work well. But he doesn't, and nowhere else in the bible does either, associate all heavens with "the paradise", unless you care to offer some reference.
and recreated into a brand new paradise both with and without the paradisaical New Jerusalem in it. In fact the term "Heaven" is very often a synonym of "paradise".
True, because we think of "heaven" as the place where God dwells. But Paul specifies that it isn't all of "the heavens", but only "the third heaven".
This is all true on its face. Presuming that there is only one paradise is simply ridiculous.
Because you say so, in spite of what the bible actually says? hardly convincing.
