DJ: "Did you come up with this conclusion on your own or are sharing here with us what you were persuaded by someone else to believe to be true as to the meaning of "Abraham's bosom" at Luke 16:22?"
Van: "Actually, I heard a tape on the subject by Larry Urbaniac (IBSA) that convinced me. He picked this up from O. J. Sellers, whose church affiliation I am unaware of. So there is no cult association with this perspective on Luke 16, at least not that I am aware of, if that's what you are inquiring about."
DJ: So what does a "perspective" that someone else (other than Jesus') that evidently convinced you that he was right have to do with your statement that "Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable"? I was responding to what you wrote, and I wasn't discussing whether Sellers had a "cult association" or not, so why do you mention this? Either you are going to defend your comment or you going to behave as if you didn't make it, and I'm fine with that.
Your question was ambiguous DJ. I answered the question I believed you were asking about the origin of the viewpoint i.e. how I came to believe this Lukian account represents satire. It would have been more clear if you simply asked why I don't accept Luke 16:19-31 as a parable.
Actually there are a number of reasons that suggest this account is not be a parable. Firstly, Jesus’ parables are usually identified for us by the gospel writers themselves; this one is not. Secondly, gospel parables tend to center on one clear concept or point out one clear truth; this one does not. Thirdly, the parables of Jesus all involve everyday common events and possible human experiences; this one does not. Lastly, there are no other parables of Jesus where one finds personal names weaved into the story. The Rich Man and Lazarus then does not readily fit the mold of parable.
It's best to assume others are doing their best to answer the questions you ask.
Vander
