So why didn't Christ correct the 'superstition' or the 'Babylonian myth' that there is conscious existence after death?
When Jesus said, "I am the vine" everyone understands that he was not saying he is made out of wood, but rather that he was using a figure of speech; a metaphor, a sustained metaphor. We understand the difference between literal and figurative.
However, at least a vine is something that actually exists. You are essentially asking us to believe that Jesus used a superstitious myth that is not only supposedly contrary to Biblical teaching, but also purportedly describes a non-existent state of existence; namely, two men in conscious existence after they died.
It is evident from you posts they you have already concluded from what you have been taught by some group (I don't yet know which one - probably some Millerite or Russellite group or offshoot) based on some proof texts that the Bible teaches the annihilation of the wicked, or that there is no conscious existence after a person dies. You then use what you have already concluded that the Bible teaches on the subject as a controlling presupposition when you look at Luke 16.
I do not know what the extent of your knowledge of Scripture but I'm pretty sure nothing I say is going to change what you think the Bible teaches on the subject of conscious existence after death. However, I don't believe it is even possible for you to give a coherent account of
1. what is essentially a contradiction in terms, i.e., a non-existent state of existence2. and why Christ would even use in the first place the aforementioned contradiction in terms that you claim is a 'superstition' or 'Babylonian myth' that there is conscious existence after death, which you claim he did as a 'precedent', and why he would use such a superstitious myth which is supposedly contrary to Biblical teaching without correcting it.
Cordially,
[[I do not know what the extent of your knowledge of Scripture ]]
On this subject I am giving the accounts of bible scholars on the issue- bible scholars that have far more experience with scriptures than you or I- I listed the reasons why Jesus would have used an analogy that was commonly taught to point out that their false teachings were completely off track.
This parable was actually a VERY deeply Jewish parable, and not simply just an account of three people, the rich, the poor and Abraham-
The poor man rising from the dead to ‘go to the brothers’ was symbolic of Jesus rising from the dead (and you said this parable didn’t reflect anything real? It did- it was a prelude to coming events where even the rising of Christ would not convince the Jewish people that He was the Christ, just as someone raised from the dead would not convince the rich man’s brothers that God is real- so steeped In their sin were they- just like the Jews)
[[1. what is essentially a contradiction in terms, i.e., a non-existent state of existence]]
You need to explain Why Christ would be prevented from using their own teachings against them? They were teaching myth- Christ used their myth against them to show that it was riddled with errors- He turned their myth around to actually use it to give subtle but distinctly Jewish meanings, and to foretell of future events- Paul taught using a pagan myth to illustrate a point- The claim that people In the bible, including Christ, aren’t allowed to use fiction to make a point is simply not true-
[[It is evident from you posts they you have already concluded from what you have been taught by some group]]
no sir, not ‘some group’ by a myriad of bible scholars and theologians regarding this issue- it has been understood that this parable is nothing more than a parable for a very long time- and not just by ‘some group’ - many different denominations who teach salvation through Christ alone have come to this same conclusion for the reasons I’ve posted
[[based on some proof texts that the Bible teaches the annihilation of the wicked,]]
I have never even suggested that the wicked get annihilated not that or that there is no conscious existence after a person dies.- Not sure where you are getting the idea that I did- but you are mistaken if that is the impression you’ve got—
[[but also purportedly describes a non-existent state of existence; namely, two men in conscious existence after they died.]]
That is not the point I’ve made at all- the issue is not about consciousness after death- the issue being discussed is whether or not the rich man parable is a literal event that took place, or a figurative one for the purpose of illustrating a point-
[[So why didn’t Christ correct the ‘superstition’ or the ‘Babylonian myth’ that there is conscious existence after death? ]]
His listeners and Christians then and now realize there is consciousness after death because that is what the bible teaches- the parable’s main points were not about consciousness, but about many things really- It is no mistake that this parable starts off with “And there was a certain man”- “Certain” Was a Jewish term used to describe men of importance- rich people, scholars, etc- The Pharisees fancied themselves to be ‘certain men’- people who were really important- Christ used this opening line to drive home the point although the Pharisees felt they were important, and due honor and respect, they were really nothing, and Christ was warning them that their haughty attitudes were going to lead to their downfall and end up in hell
Christ was a brilliant parable teller- and the more we study the parables, them ore we realize we haven’t even begun to realize just how deep they really were- He didn’t use words and phrases lightly- but used the Jews own customs and false teachings against them - and these false teachings and customs were so Jewish centric that there was no way the Jews could miss the point IF their minds were not so clouded by sin
Even Christ’s miracles were drenched in Jewish customs and teachings so that they could NOT honestly deny He was the Savior- His miracles weren’t just simply acts of supernatural events- They held very specific Jewish meanings and connotations