In posts
#137 and
#139, I went into great detail on my view of this story.
Ok, i read them.
You attempted to make an allegory out it. An allegory is not a parable. These are distinctly different forms of Hebrew literature.
Trying to assign meaning to all the details to make them represent something else is an allegory and there is no possible way that Jesus had any of those things in mind that you described. There is no possible way that you could prove that he did. It is simply your imagined opinion that are not at all persuasive for so many reasons it is just not necessary for me to explain.
A parable would require you to identify the main lesson. You started to explain it in Part 2 because frankly it is too obvious to miss but you messed it up by adding things that the text does not say. You put words in the rich mans mouth and thoughts in his head that it is impossible to prove that he meant and we know he didn't say them since we have his words before us to read.
You said...
"the rich man then pleads for Lazarus to be allowed to visit his father's house to warn his five brothers of the consequences of
continuing in their current path of hypocrisy and indifference to the well-being of the common people. Jesus specifically mentions the five brothers to even more directly point His message toward the currently ruling high priest family, which at that time had five brothers serving in the position of high priest. Abraham retorted that honoring his request was not necessary because his brothers already had the warnings from Moses and the Prophets. But the rich man persists and claims that if Lazarus is raised from the dead and personally brings the message of warning to his brothers, then they would repent of their actions. But Abraham is not convinced of the rich man's claim and replies that there is no use to send Lazarus because the brothers have already refused to believe the warnings personally delivered to them by the Man whose death and resurrection was predicted in the writing of Moses and the Prophets. If they would not believe the Man written about by Moses and the Prophets, then what would be the point of sending Lazarus, a lowly beggar to try to convince them of their error?"
However, what the rich man ACTUALLY said was that he wanted Lazarus to warn his brothers so
that they would not come to this place of torment. It is important that you stick to what he said, and not what you think he meant.
You added your own ideas about what the rich man wanted to warn his brothers about instead of the plain words of the text which you should have stated.
"so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ "
Therefore, if we stick to the text, then the Lesson is that Moses and the Prophets (scripture) warned of a place of torment for the wicked dead and if they do not believe what Moses and the prophets said about the place of torment for the wicked dead then they will not believe if one comes back from the dead (Lazarus, to warn them ABOUT THIS PLACE OF TORMENT. as the rich man had in mind).
You have no authority to change the objective of the rich man from WARNING ABOUT THIS PLACE OF TORMENT and making the rich man say some made up diatribe about other things he did not say to Abraham.
Your attempt to change the lesson to something that is not stated in the text is not the way you read a parable.
Also you can't make up a long Allegory and then call it a parable and change the rules between Allegory and parable until you have forced it to say whatever you want it to say. This is the stuff that Christian cults do. No biblical scholar will support making a parable an allegory and call it a parable. That is just ignorance of hebrew forms of literature.
If you want to argue that it is an Allegory then use that as your arguement. If you want to argue that it is a parable then please understand the difference. A parable uses something common to the listeners and makes a point that is easier to grasp because of the parable than it would have been by just making the statement alone. In this case the main point, the "Gotcha" moment, the "Ah Ha, I see it now" comes from the statement that If they don't believe the scriptures they won't believe if they see something supernatural like one coming back from the dead. But in this case it is specifically stated that what they will not be convinced about is the warning about a place of torment. That is what he wanted Lazarus to warn them about. That is what they should be able to know by reading Moses and the Prophets. And if they don't respect the scriptures that warn about a place of torment for the wicked dead then sending Lazarus won't change there mind and ultimately they won't believe if Jesus rises from the dead.
But be assured of this, whether you apply it to the rich mans five brothers who serve no other purpose than unnamed characters in a parable or whether you apply it to the whole body of unbelieiving Jews, there is a place of torment for the wicked dead warned about in Moses and the Prophets.
Those that take head to these warnings in the scriptures and believe God's word will believe in Jesus, and repent and escape that terrible fate but those who disrespect the scripture and don't care about what it says will not believe even if one comes up from the grave and is seen by them. They might be frightened for a minute but they will go back to their old ways ungenerated unless they come to the Word of God and let it change them.
There is a place of torment for the wicked dead and Moses and the prophets warn of it. Only those that believe the scriptures will escape, and no supernatural visits from ghosts will do the kind of heart change that the scriptures will do in the believer.
1
