"The rich man And Lazarus..."

It’s definitely not proof. Jesus taught in parables so I’m inclined to believe that it’s a parable. It doesn’t make sense as an historical account. I definitely reject that notion the longer I look at it. A parable can contain names and quotes by people.

Consider that Abraham said they wouldn’t be persuaded if someone raise from the dead. Simply not literally true. The gospel of Christ requires belief in the resurrection. I’m certainly persuaded by Jesus raising from the dead. Are you?

The Jews didn't believe the signs and wonders that Jesus was the Messiah. Did the nation of Israel believe Jesus when he raised Lazarus? Or did they crucify him?

What other parable from Jesus has a NAMED person speaking?

I'll wait. You'll have to go through 50 of them.

Most of the religious establishment, not the nation of Israel, crucified Jesus due to His threats against their temple. The people loved Jesus generally speaking. Many people from the nation of Israel did believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Who knows what exact number is, but Jesus made more disicples than John the Baptist did and John the Baptist baptized everyone in Judea and Jerusalem.

The rich man isn't named in the parabe so he isn't a real person then? Abraham was quoted as speaking to someone who isn't real? See, the inconsistency in your theory just doesn't make sense to me.

One story has nothing to do with the other. I’m asking with respect, why do you feel there must be a different teaching style regarding parables and historical events? Why wouldn’t Jesus’ teaching style be the same regardless? What would be different?

First, off, you said people are named in parables. Yet you can produce NONE of them out of 50 parables Jesus spoke.

Secondly, names, former status in life, wealth, friends, family, and EVEREYTHING else is meaningless for the unsaved dead. This is why the rich man, as opposed to Lazarus, is without identity.

Lazarus won

Really? Can you post the scripture to back this up?

Btw, there was just a little over 500 who actually saw the resurrected Jesus before he ascended. That's the discussion. Even if the rich man's family saw a saint resurrected, they still wouldn't believe.

Why would your faith be shaken?

If it’s a parable as you say, then Abraham never said those words, Jesus did, thus you’re saying Jesus is incorrect in His own teaching.

Show us a parable where Jesus named living people, known by most Jews. The account of Lazarus stands OUT as different than every parable. Jesus used generic descriptions in all of His parables. Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that already.

So whose line of reasoning is faulty?

Click to expand...

Yours.

Thanks for playing

Click to expand...

Sorry you lose.

I'll stick with the Bible.

Click to expand...

Then please read it and become familiar with His parables, vs His accounts of reality.

Y'all can have your man-made traditions.

Click to expand...

Please tell the thread what the point of this so-called parable is? Can you?

An example of an actual parable would be the idiot prodigal son. No names. Just generic descriptions, like father and sons.

And Jesus even mentioned Abraham in conversation with another. So how can THAT be a parable? It's real life.

The man-made traditions are on your side.

btw, why does the claim that it is a real story about real people tshreaten you so much? What do YOU have to lose by admitting it is a real account of 3 people who died and in Hades?

Being a read story only reveals the afterlife of souls before the resurecction of Jesus. That's all. Nothing more.

You deniers seem to have something to hide, or fear. Could you let us know?

Magenta said:
Show me this Biblical rule that says real people cannot be named in a parable.

Hmmm, there is no such verse, is there?

So whose line of reasoning is faulty?
Desperados, the lot of them.

Yes, that too was a real account. Amazing what believers will say about that being impossible to have occurred.

With God, everything is possible!!

lol. Why don't you tell that to Jesus, who DID use that phrase.

Do you think Jesus just made that up on the fly, something that would be totally unfamiliar with the people He was teaching? Really?

Why don't you check with the manuscripts that have been found that date back to the SECOND Century.

Those who are called "theologians and scholars" certainly know HOW to check that rumor out. That they still make their claim only demonstrates that they aren't as scholarly as some think.

Of course not. And that is precisely the point. Jesus was telling a real account of 3 real people who were already dead and in the afterlife in Hades. He was giving us a glimpse of the afterlife before the resurrection.

Since EVERY Jew would have been very familiar with the name of Abraham, describing where Lazarus was would have indicated to the Jews that Lazarus was in Paradise, where Jesus told the one thief he would be when he died. "Today, you will be WITH ME in Paradise".

So even though the phrase isn't in the OT, naming Abraham would show everyone that the poor man was a believer in the Messiah, while the rich man wasn't.

Look up every parable that is labeled a parable. The writers of the gospels would identify when Jesus was speaking in parables. How many use proper names? That's the criteria. And Dr Luke did NOT label the account as a parable.

Yet, you have no idea what kind of "spiritual lesson" was to be learned from the account. You admitted as much.

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus gave us a glimpse of the afterlife in Hades before the resurrection of Jesus.

The authors of the gospels described the parables as parables. Dr Luke did no such thing with the account of Lazarus and the rich man.

Abraham was NAMED and QUOTED Was he a real person?

In a non real story about people, yes, those non real people will speak. It's part of the parable. You are not making any point.

Where do you get that this is a parable? Where did Dr Luke say that it was? It could very well have been a real account of another rich man.

Nehemiah6 said:
And Abraham was also named specifically. This is a historical narrative and only Christ would know the facts and the details.
I'll turn the tables and ask you the same question. What doctrine are YOU trying to protect. I already asked Magenta and am awaiting an answer.

You guys are so desperate to prove this is a parable, you must be hiding something or trying to defend something.

It is simply an account of life in Hades. How does that threaten you?

No, it's an argument where the truth is defended against false teaching.