JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:18 pmDid I
say Luke 16:19-31 is different than every other parable in any way?
OK, I'm not sure what game you're playing at the moment, but there are several answers depending on what you're fishing for (unless it's just the last word).
The current discussion hinges on a statement made by
onewithhim:
onewithhim wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:57 pmLuke 16:23 is the only place where people can point to to try to support their doctrine that Hades is a place of conscious torment. This section of Scripture has been shown to be METAPHORICAL in nature, and absolutely not literal.
Everything else in the account is metaphorical.
Since you were continuing the argument and never said anything different, I assumed that was the basis of your argument as well. If it is, neither you nor she has justified why the details of all of the other metaphorical parables nevertheless reflect reality.
If that's
not your argument, then you made several statements with a similar theme:
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:09 am.... in one parabel (fictional story) give by Jesus to illustrate the stubborn heart conditions of the religions leaders alive in his day, not any afterdeath torture.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:24 pm
* Parables about sheep are not usually about sheep, parables about losing coins are not usually about losing coins, so why is a parable about losing your life about losing your life?
The point about parables is they usually teach moral issues rather than shed light on literal "physical" realities. Their point lies in attitude and principles, they are about love, jealous, goodness, evil. So (for example) the parable about the hired workers may be about jealousy, hard work, mercy and rewards but NOT about what happens To people after a day's work.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:03 pmSo in your example, when Jesus said the word "
sheep" he meant "
humans". Jesus was not giving a lesson in animal husbandry but telling a story to teach (not about literal sheep) but about people . He was saying one word "sheep" but it was "code" for "people". Why? That there was
something about literal real sheep that he was applying to the object of his illustration(the people).
If those reflect the entirety of your argument, then your argument is a
non sequitur and is invalid. The underlying allegorical meaning of a story has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the literal details do or don't reflect reality.
The claim that
onewithhim made is at least
logically valid (i.e. that the details in metaphor themselves, regardless of underlying meaning, can't be used to draw conclusions about reality) and would be meaningful to the argument if true (or probably true). Neither of you has provided any support aside from the assertion itself, however. On the other hand, I pointed out that it's decidedly
not true for every other New Testament parable; all of the mundane details accurately reflect the real-world details of the objects involved. If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is different, you'll need a better reason than "Jehovah's Witnesses think so."
So, that should bring you back up to date and is maybe helpful to anyone else trying to follow this thread (God help him or her). Perhaps you'd be kind enough to return the favor and tell us which of these arguments you're making, or if not one of these, please state your argument as completely and concisely as you can.
Then offer some support for it.
