Don't you agree that a parable involving events, occurrences, and persons which are patently impossible is a rather poor and misleading parable? And that a parable which the listeners KNOW could not possibly be true would likely miss its mark ENTIRELY?
It's like a sitting president saying "Now, when President Rooseveldt heard that the Germans had dropped the nuclear bomb on San Diego, he didn't go on Youtube and say..."
In other words: If one wishes to explain a deeper truth, it is allowable to employ such literary techniques as allegory by saying "There was once a master who had three servants..." even though it isn't your intention to claim that there were four actual, existent persons. But if you mention, in the course of a narrative, actual persons by NAME, then you shouldn't put words in their mouths, as Jesus did in the story about LAZARUS and the rich man, or put words in ABRAHAM's mouth, claiming that he rebuked the rich man and told him that he would not send LAZARUS to warn the rich man's relatives.
I mean: Could you imagine a great contemporary teacher and political thinker saying "Now it came to pass that FDR was on the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' ride in Disneyland and he was sitting next to Abraham Lincoln. Now Lincoln had always felt that..."
It would simply DEFY belief, and make the whole story incredible.
Jesus and His listeners obviously BELIEVED that, after death, the souls of the departed retained consciousness, and could converse with one another - even SEE one another (one in Heaven, another in torment) - and express wishes.
Regards,
Yes, I do. However the Eastern mind and storytelling is different than the Western mind and storytelling. The audience were familiar with the circumstances and people involved in Jesus' parables. They understood the meaning easily. The Lazarus and Abrahams' bosom allegory would likewise be recognized by the audience for what it is - an illustration of the horrors of Hell and not a literal event.