Yes, it is literal and is presented as such. Those who differ do so because they are involved with aberrant theology.
Again insulting and offer no scripture to back your comment.
This is not a parable. Parables teach a single kingdom principal or truth. Parables never include proper names. Parables never included lessons on the after life. Parables are never prophetic (as you later claim). Nothing suggests this is a parable but those who disagree with the obvious content of this parable will try to allegorize this into something other than what it ostensibly is.
Here you say parables
never use proper names but later on you say the proper names used in the parable that I pointed out is unrelated. It actually is very related. The comment that you made about parables
never using proper names. Real simple, are there Biblical parables that use proper names? There is only one right answer. Yes.
You then say parables are never prophetic. Wheat and tares parable, prophetic. Unless you believe the harvest has already happened? The virgins without oil, did that prophecy about endtimes happen too? We missed the wedding eh? The amount of parables that deal with endtimes is so huge I am not sure how you can think they are not prophetic?
Everything suggests this is a parable. Crazy things like scripture all point the the obvious that is exactly what it is. Christ never spoke to the pharisees except in parable. If you want to claim that he revealed these things to them without parable, then it is not I whom you disagree with.
Some think this is prophetic? Now you are off in the deep of the murky mire of twisted scripture. Like pounding a square peg in a hole, you force this to mean something else other than what it clearly is.
Just being insulting here without scripture to back it.
Again, you have not done your homework. Luke 14 is not connected to Luke 16. Luke 15 describes a public scene, quite u
nlike the scene of Luke 14. Again you point to the rock and then the tree attempt to prove they are related. This is Frankenstienian theology.
There are direct comparisons and components that do relate. Besides my main comment was this was when and where this discourse began and continued thru to the rich man and Lazarus subject which we are discussing. If you read it you will see many related images and that this indeed is when the discourse began.
Yet again you insult me, instead of showing thru scripture where I err.
This is almost not worth a response. You claim a story of talking trees proves the story of the Lazarus and the rich man can't be real. Again, you point to one thing, then another and claim there is a connection between them. The story of Lazarus and the rich man do not have talking trees or brambles, so why even bring this up? The really sad part of this, is that you do this, through your post. It is nothing more than classic misdirection. It proves nothing.
I did no such things. The reason I use that fantastical parable as an example is because some people claim all parables have only literal components. Talking trees is obviously not literal. Thus I made the point I was trying to, and I used scripture to do it.
Again you finish with insults instead of proving your point with scripture.
Here again, you take a phrase and turn it into a rule that does not exist. Have you ever wondered why the rich man is not named in this story? I will help you out with this one. Jesus said in Matt. 7:23 "
I never knew you! Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." The rich man is never named because Christ "never knew him" not because he did not exist.
I did no such thing, I simply noted the repetition of similar things in parable.
You claim that Christ (the creator) literally did not know the name of an actual person in what you say is a literal story? Best of luck with that.
Again you point to something unrelated to make your case. The parables Jesus told are not the same as parables in the old testament. But let's go along with this line of reasoning. The two girls mentioned in Eze. 23 are identified in verse 4 as being Samaria and Jerusalem. The rich man is never identified as anything but the rich man. So your logic once again fails.
Here we are back to proper names being used in parable, and again you say is is unrelated. How can a parable using proper names, be unrelated to the issue that is about whether proper names are used in parable?
Ah now you seem to sway on the point. There are proper names in parables, but you defend your prior inaccurate denial of such by claiming Old Testament parables are different.
How are they different? I thought Christ is the word.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Luke 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
2Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
2Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Your comment about rich man being unnamed while Lazarus and Abraham were named is unfounded. If you take time to read the whole study before responding you will see the rich man represents not a single person as does Lazarus.
Just as the virgins represents a group, like the wheat/tares or the sheep/goats.
So if we reject your version of this story we will be "Thrust out" or "Cut off"? So you are now claiming to be an inspired prophet of God and if we reject your interpretation of this scripture we are rejecting the message of God? So you have arrived at perfection? If we reject your interpretation we are "highminded"?
That's not even close to what I said, I simply pointed out similar parables that show a pattern with this parable. The passages contain warnings and imagery of where we don't want to end up. I did not write the parables I simply noticed the pattern and mentioned it.
This is incredibly arrogant of you! You have set yourself above all others. You lack humility, to say the least!
I wont go any further than this for now. Later I may return to this post and show you more of how you are wrong.
How did I set myself above others? Writing a Bible study does not indicate I am arrogant. I used the word "we" thus including myself. You twist my remarks and the insult me again.