Wow! One is carried by the angels and the other one is just buried. How telling. By the way, this is also thoroughly Jewish. Judaism taught that, upon death, everyone's soul goes to Shoel where the righteous abode in Abraham's bosom, in bliss, and the unrighteous were just there, unhappy. Our dear Luke did not believe in heaven, and being with the risen Christ—yet.
But, what's the moral of the story? It's Luke's typical "rich is evil" message. But, rich is evil if it is used for evil ends.
Any blessing we receive can be used for good, in God's name, or for evil ends. Luke seems to believe that wealth and lack of care and compassion go hand in hand, and he may well be right, but wealth itself has nothing to do with it. One can be poor and evil too.
But I still don't see the answer to my question? Pontius Pilate would have been interested to know how did the man he sent to his death came back to life! If I were Pilate, I would be seriously concerned for my health! Talk about an instant Pauline-style conversion!
Of course, none of the Sanhedrin were upset either. don't you think this would have been a newsworthy item even as a rumor? I do.
Of course, we learn that the Roman guards were paid off and obeyed instructions from Jewish elders and no one was alarmed. I seriously doubt Roman soldiers could have been summoned by Jewish elders or persuaded to follow their instructions. Its' a simplistic way to deflect the issue of questions and alarms going off if Christ's presence were noticed after the Resurrection. My words versus yours. That's all. It's no evidence at all. It does not answer the question.
One more thing, going back to rich man and the beggar. You quote
Think about it: what would be more persuasive to a human being? Of course, Luke is cleverly narrating this but there is no doubt that someone who rose from the dead would be more convincing to human psyche. Otherwise, why all the miracles?
According to the Gospels, Jesus received His following precisely because of the miracles and not by preaching Moses. If He didn't perform the miracles why would anyone have believed Him?
Sorry, dear Kosta . . . but I still persistently find a LOT of ASSUMPTIONS in virtually all your posts.
Doesn’t per se make them evil . . . but when such a plethera of assumptions are stated as fact . . . I tend to quickly lose interest.
“According to the Gospels, Jesus received His following precisely because of the miracles and not by preaching Moses. If He didn’t perform the miracles why would anyone have believed Him?”
They didn’t believe him even with the miracles until the only miracle that mattered; the resurrection. It authenticated who he was and what he said. All the other miracles were just, in the words of Mel Brooks’ Frankenstein, “doo-doo”, if the resurrection had not taken place.
The world looked on the miracles selfishly for personal satisfaction, entertainment and financial well being. It did not occur to them that they were manifestations of the proximity of the kingdom.
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Luk 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long [season], because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.