It is not about the GWTJ, but what happens before it. And i already refuted the specious attempt by Smith in the link you posted, as another poster had tried that just before you. Thus i had provided the links to my posts earlier on.
And if you had been a Jew living at that time you would have interpreted that story completely differently than we interpret it today. This is actually true of a LOT of the bible. Sometimes we need to stop listening to our teachers and get back to studying the word on our own.
That is what you need to do, as it is you who sent me to some Smith, but the fact is that Lk. 16 cannot even be simply speaking about the Jews vs. the Gentiles even if it is a parable, for as said, in parables you have know physical things corresponding to spiritual things, but if annihilationism is true then there cannot be any postmortem torment in Hell, which would render this to be science fiction, which the Lord never used. Instead, if the rich man represents the Jews, then the "place of torment" that they go to would be a spiritual Hell. But the careful details of the story and use of real names points to it being a real story.
You did offer a refutation. Sorry, I didn’t see it because it was not addressed to me. I’ve not been reading the whole thread, but only responding to those that address me personally.
However, I disagree with your refutation. It reminds me of my teacher that, when I use revelation 7 as a “probable” description of the result of the rapture (i.e. mid-trib), he insisted that it was Rev 4. He literally argued that when John was caught up in the spirit to heaven that it was a metaphore for the rapture. People use a lot of that sort of thinking when interpreting scripture to meet their viewpoints. Catholicism does it when it interprets the mention of Jesus’ brothers and sisters to mean “cousins” because it is necessary to support their view that Mary died a virgin.
One can come up with all sorts of arguments regarding what the story of Lazarus and the rich man means (One I came across said that it was a prophesy regarding the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead), but using it as a description of the eternal plight of the lost and saved is the least convincing. It has other real meanings.
It’s ok to disagree with Smith, but he brings up some good points that need to be considered. Even the one regarding the connection to the real Lazarus has some interesting info.
...but if annihilationism is true then there cannot be any postmortem torment in Hell, which would render this to be science fiction...
And it doesn’t use real names. It uses a real name and oddly does not name the other. Interesting, if you ask me. ;-)