Meat Once saved always saved?

[Daniel DeLuca]

It’s the same thing, one is just a foreshadowing of the other.

Nope! I Cor 1 is clearly talking about the rewards received, and how our works will be tried by fire. The wood, hay, and stubble is burned up. It clearly says that he himself WILL BE SAVED, but only as though one who barely escapes the fire. That's the old passage our Catholic friends try to use to bolster their claim that there is some sort of purgatory, but we don't know how long that purgatory is gonna last.

 

[Mojo]

God’s Judgement is the same thing in the after life as this life, the difference is a matter of degrees.

Now that you've kicked up the dust and thrown your tantrum, are you going to explain the degrees?

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

You guys have to stop having conversations in your heads. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. God’s Judgement is the same thing in the after life as this life, the difference is a matter of degrees. How did you get back to a works based salvation from that? Again?

You are tethered to that one idea and so are condemned (metaphorically not spiritually don’t let’s do that again) to always circle this one point. You can’t leave that one idea, simply keep running around it. You’ve worn a circular rut around this one point and like the horse the pushed the mill for its entire life can’t stop walking around this circle.

It’s very discouraging to think you’re having one conversation and then find out that no, it’s the same one. An idea that I think is both noxious and ridiculous keeps getting ascribed to me no matter what I’m talking about.

For the last time, works based salvation is stupid, almost as stupid as continually accusing someone of believing in it despite all evidence.

This is the last time I’ll say this to you. I have a hard time believing you’re not smart enough to understand but I would hate to have to accuse you of being deliberately deceitful for some disturbing purpose of your own: NO ONE HERE BELIEVES IN WORKS BASED SALVATION. No. One. Here.

If you can’t accept that then at least stop accusing of something we have denied time and again. You’re smart enough to understand our stance and surely you can’t be underhanded enough to continually accuse us falsely. Just stop. Move on.

Every Torah keeper here from the venerable @steve to the learned @PeteR to the new super star @Pacman and everyone in between had denied this accusation. We will not continue to be under a false condemnation from you or anyone else.

It just comes across as double talk. You are not saved by your works, but if you don't do those works, you are not saved. OK. That sounds like what @FollowingHim said. Did the works save you, or were they merely evidence that you were truly saved? I think we all agree with the latter stance, but then we keep hearing from one side that we will lose something that we haven't even gained and won't gain until the hereafter. In that case, what have we been saved from? If someone is saved from eternal damnation, what kind of salvation is that, if in the end, they still end up there?

 

[tps26]

what have we been saved from? If someone is saved from eternal damnation, what kind of salvation is that, if in the end, they still end up there?

I think you guys are reaching some frustration here because you have a unified underlying assumption that the wages of sin is something other than death. Namely hell. But if so, which one?
There are five "hells".
1. Sheol: is the grave, the unseen. So only death is in view here.
2. Hades is the Greek equivalent, so again we're just talking death.
3. Gehenna is a real valley outside Jerusalem that you can visit today. I understand that it will again become a burning trash pit in the millennium, and corpses will be put there. (Corpses are dead bodies, btw).
4. Tartarus is mentioned once by Peter in reference to a place where some spirits have been temporarily placed, and where Jesus went after his ressurrection to talk to them.

...so we have run out of hells in the Bible, and we still don't have a place, other than the grave, for my grandmother who never acknowledged what Jesus and God did. Somehow four different words got haphazardly translated into a completely different word.
But what's the 5th hell I mentioned? This one isn't in the Bible. This is the one Christians make up in their minds to put people in who are less righteous than they are. And just like the concept of hell vanishes from the Bible when you know the four mistranslated words, this one will vanish when you understand grace.

So what if the wages of sin is death after all? The dead know nothing. Death is death. It is not life in another place. If death was life in another place we wouldn't need a ressurrection. Death is the cessation of existence, and this is why ressurrection is so vastly important. There is no work, or knowledge, or wisdom in sheol where you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

What died on the cross? Did Jesus die, or did only his body die? Are you saved by flesh and blood alone? If the wages of sin is not death but eternal conscious torment in "hell", then why is Jesus not still there? Whatever you have wrought in your mind for your fellow sinners is what you believe Jesus paid. If it's eternal then so is his payment, and you have no risen savior. If the wages of sin is death, then it's a different story because God raised Jesus from the dead. And if He can raise Jesus then He can raise you too. That's the assurance we have in Christ.

A final word, check out references to "eternal" in your interlinear and see that the Greek word is aionion which is properly transliterated into its English equivalent eonion, which does not mean eternal but age-lasting. God's judgments are remedial and they are limited, just like your discipline of your own children, judgments always lead someplace.

Right now salvation is only through faith (as opposed to sight) because death is in your future. You hope that you will live again, and faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. If you don't have faith, then you don't have assurance in your heart of a ressurrection beyond the reach of death. It doesn't mean you won't be ressurrected, just that you are ignorant of it. Is someone without faith saved from death? Ask them. To their knowledge, no. If you believe in the ressurrection, then you are saved. If you don't beleive, from your limited perspective you are not saved because you can not see it yet, nor do you have the faith to "see" it in the future.

So in a sense, losing your faith is "losing" your salvation because it moves from being a reality in your perspective to no longer being a reality in your perspective.

Ultimately God is the savior of all mankind. And just as everyone was condemned in Adam, so everyone is made alive through Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:18

It is the same "all", you can't have one without the other.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I think you guys are reaching some frustration here because you have a unified underlying assumption that the wages of sin is something other than death. Namely hell. But if so, which one?
There are five "hells".
1. Sheol: is the grave, the unseen. So only death is in view here.
2. Hades is the Greek equivalent, so again we're just talking death.
3. Gehenna is a real valley outside Jerusalem that you can visit today. I understand that it will again become a burning trash pit in the millennium, and corpses will be put there. (Corpses are dead bodies, btw).
4. Tartarus is mentioned once by Peter in reference to a place where some spirits have been temporarily placed, and where Jesus went after his ressurrection to talk to them.

...so we have run out of hells in the Bible, and we still don't have a place, other than the grave, for my grandmother who never acknowledged what Jesus and God did. Somehow four different words got haphazardly translated into a completely different word.
But what's the 5th hell I mentioned? This one isn't in the Bible. This is the one Christians make up in their minds to put people in who are less righteous than they are. And just like the concept of hell vanishes from the Bible when you know the four mistranslated words, this one will vanish when you understand grace.

So what if the wages of sin is death after all? The dead know nothing. Death is death. It is not life in another place. If death was life in another place we wouldn't need a ressurrection. Death is the cessation of existence, and this is why ressurrection is so vastly important. There is no work, or knowledge, or wisdom in sheol where you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

What died on the cross? Did Jesus die, or did only his body die? Are you saved by flesh and blood alone? If the wages of sin is not death but eternal conscious torment in "hell", then why is Jesus not still there? Whatever you have wrought in your mind for your fellow sinners is what you believe Jesus paid. If it's eternal then so is his payment, and you have no risen savior. If the wages of sin is death, then it's a different story because God raised Jesus from the dead. And if He can raise Jesus then He can raise you too. That's the assurance we have in Christ.

A final word, check out references to "eternal" in your interlinear and see that the Greek word is aionion which is properly transliterated into its English equivalent eonion, which does not mean eternal but age-lasting. God's judgments are remedial and they are limited, just like your discipline of your own children, judgments always lead someplace.

Right now salvation is only through faith (as opposed to sight) because death is in your future. You hope that you will live again, and faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. If you don't have faith, then you don't have assurance in your heart of a ressurrection beyond the reach of death. It doesn't mean you won't be ressurrected, just that you are ignorant of it. Is someone without faith saved from death? Ask them. To their knowledge, no. If you believe in the ressurrection, then you are saved. If you don't beleive, from your limited perspective you are not saved because you can not see it yet, nor do you have the faith to "see" it in the future.

So in a sense, losing your faith is "losing" your salvation because it moves from being a reality in your perspective to no longer being a reality in your perspective.

Ultimately God is the savior of all mankind. And just as everyone was condemned in Adam, so everyone is made alive through Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:18

It is the same "all", you can't have one without the other.

What is the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20?

 

[steve]

I’m sorry if I missed it, but I don’t see the following story represented in your explanation, @tps26

Luke 16:22-26 (KJV) 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Not only do dead men tell no tales, they drink no water.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Nope! I Cor 1 is clearly talking about the rewards received, and how our works will be tried by fire. The wood, hay, and stubble is burned up. It clearly says that he himself WILL BE SAVED, but only as though one who barely escapes the fire. That's the old passage our Catholic friends try to use to bolster their claim that there is some sort of purgatory, but we don't know how long that purgatory is gonna last.

This seems only tangentially related at best. How does this have anything to do with whether or not God’s Judgement on Earth is the same the same thing as His Judgement after death? And frankly if we want to do this start another thread. I don’t want to derail this one further. It’s not that major of a point.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now that you've kicked up the dust and thrown your tantrum, are you going to explain the degrees?

Tantrum? You’re going to try and infantilize it? You have apologies to offer and statements to retract. You repeatedly accused others falsely. You don’t need to be trying to distract with minor arguments on an almost wholly unrelated discussion. You certainly don’t need to double down with insults and condescension.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It just comes across as double talk. You are not saved by your works, but if you don't do those works, you are not saved. OK. That sounds like what @FollowingHim said. Did the works save you, or were they merely evidence that you were truly saved? I think we all agree with the latter stance, but then we keep hearing from one side that we will lose something that we haven't even gained and won't gain until the hereafter. In that case, what have we been saved from? If someone is saved from eternal damnation, what kind of salvation is that, if in the end, they still end up there?

You’re being deliberately obtuse. You are purposely conflating two separate things; salvation and how Christ followers should then live. You know you’re doing this. You know it’s dishonest. You should also know by now that this is not a place where you will get away with nothing more than sophistry and an abundance of words.

If you claim that there is no standard of behavior that is required of a Christian after salvation than you’ve never read the Bible. You have read the Bible so you know that there is. We’ve talked repeatedly about Acts 15, which Mr. Apostle “The Simple Minded Lose Their Salvation In My Writings Which Simple Statement Made By Peter Should Give the Lie to the Once Saved Always Saved Lunacy” Paul Saved By Grace himself signed on to enthusiasticmy.
Seriously Daniel, when it comes to things sounding contradictory once saved always saved is clearly contradicted by two passages of scripture which clearly state it’s possible to give up one’s salvation and that is the only authority I will ever acknowledge. And I would never dare contradict that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now that you've kicked up the dust and thrown your tantrum, are you going to explain the degrees?

Let me go a step farther, you have accused many of us here of believing a clear and heinous heresy, that our actions have any bearing on entering in to salvation. This is a charge that Paul equates with deliberate deceivers looking to sow discord in the church and drive new believers from salvation. You have equated us with some of the worst actors of the New Testament. This vile lie has been repeated by you and others despite all the evidence and all the protestations and reasoning that could be offered.
If you continue in this slanderous lie then you are casting yourself in a negative light. Salvation is only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. And He will not allow slanderers and liars in to His Kingdom.

 

[FollowingHim]

I must say that @The Revolting Man is correct that nobody here believes in works-based salvation, this has been repeated over and over again, and there should be no need for anybody to bring up that point again because it's been done to death. We all agree we're saved by grace. We also all (I think) agree that there are some sort of standards of behaviour expected of Christians - we're supposed to try and avoid sin, even though we will be forgiven for the sins we fail to avoid. We simply disagree on what specific acts would be sinful. This is detail, and is furthermore off-topic from this discussion.

@tps26, I do like your explanation of all this as it seems a clear and simple understanding of death and the resurrection - but like others I then remember the Lazarus account, and the lake of fire, both of which do appear to contradict it. Your take on those would be very interesting.

 

[tps26]

What is the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20?

Thankfully we don't have to guess, in Revelation 20:13-15 we are told directly what the lake of fire is: "And the sea gives up the dead in it, and death and the unseen give up the dead in them. And they were condemned, each in accord with their acts. And death and the unseen were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death– the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

The lake of fire is the second death. What is the second death? It is just like the first death, but more of it. How long could a human survive in a lake of fire? Not long, it would kill them. Only three characters are said to be tormented in the lake of fire for the eon of the eons (note that this is a limited time). These are the Adversary, the wild beast, and the false prophet. I suppose as spiritual superpowers they don't just die instantly like a human would. They are being refined for what follows, for all things are out of God, and all things are to God.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21-29 we get a peak beyond these events:

"21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.
25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)"

What happens to dead people when death is abolished?
There is only one thing left for them, life. They are made alive again. Even dead people who died in the lake of fire (which is the second death). God will be All in all.

Notice that those who die the second death do not live through the new heavens and earth, but are given life at the consummation which follows. There are still consequences and judgements they face, but I hope you appreciate the difference between the unconsciousness of death during an amazing eon that you miss out on, and being consciously tortured forever.

God is fair, and God is good.

More to follow on the rich man vs. poor man parable when I get a chance to write...

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I must say that @The Revolting Man is correct that nobody here believes in works-based salvation, this has been repeated over and over again, and there should be no need for anybody to bring up that point again because it's been done to death. We all agree we're saved by grace. We also all (I think) agree that there are some sort of standards of behaviour expected of Christians - we're supposed to try and avoid sin, even though we will be forgiven for the sins we fail to avoid. We simply disagree on what specific acts would be sinful. This is detail, and is furthermore off-topic from this discussion.

@tps26, I do like your explanation of all this as it seems a clear and simple understanding of death and the resurrection - but like others I then remember the Lazarus account, and the lake of fire, both of which do appear to contradict it. Your take on those would be very interesting.

I generally agree with how you stated this argument, but I don't see righteous living as a requirement, so much as a result of the salvation that has been given. It is because we have been given a new heart that we no longer desire to walk in darkness, but rather to walk in the light as He is in the light, as stated so eloquently in I John.

 

[FollowingHim]

Thankfully we don't have to guess, in Revelation 20:13-15 we are told directly what the lake of fire is: "And the sea gives up the dead in it, and death and the unseen give up the dead in them. And they were condemned, each in accord with their acts. And death and the unseen were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death– the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

The lake of fire is the second death. What is the second death? It is just like the first death, but more of it. How long could a human survive in a lake of fire? Not long, it would kill them. Only three characters are said to be tormented in the lake of fire for the eon of the eons (note that this is a limited time). These are the Adversary, the wild beast, and the false prophet. I suppose as spiritual superpowers they don't just die instantly like a human would. They are being refined for what follows, for all things are out of God, and all things are to God.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21-29 we get a peak beyond these events:

"21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.
25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)"

What happens to dead people when death is abolished?
There is only one thing left for them, life. They are made alive again. Even dead people who died in the lake of fire (which is the second death). God will be All in all.

Notice that those who die the second death do not live through the new heavens and earth, but are given life at the consummation which follows. There are still consequences and judgements they face, but I hope you appreciate the difference between the unconsciousness of death during an amazing eon that you miss out on, and being consciously tortured forever.

God is fair, and God is good.

More to follow on the rich man vs. poor man parable when I get a chance to write...

So you are saying there are two resurrections from the dead. First, everyone is resurrected, to judgment. Then, those not in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire, and destroyed. Then, all of them are resurrected a second time.

I completely agree with the first resurrection, that's clear from scripture. I also agree that the lake of fire is the second death, and I'd be comfortable if you stopped there and were simply teaching annihilationism.

But the second resurrection you speak of is pure conjecture. Because death is to be abolished, you assume that means that all must come back to life. I don't see any reason to think that. Surely if nobody dies any more, death has been abolished. There's no need for a whole new resurrection to make that true.
Is animal death to be abolished, along with human death? If so, does that mean that every animal that has ever lived must be resurrected (or recreated really) for death to be no more? This seems illogical to me.
Do you have any scripture to directly support that idea of a second resurrection?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I generally agree with how you stated this argument, but I don't see righteous living as a requirement, so much as a result of the salvation that has been given. It is because we have been given a new heart that we no longer desire to walk in darkness, but rather to walk in the light as He is in the light, as stated so eloquently in I John.

So why was Paul doing the evil that he would not do rather than than the good that he would do?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Thankfully we don't have to guess, in Revelation 20:13-15 we are told directly what the lake of fire is: "And the sea gives up the dead in it, and death and the unseen give up the dead in them. And they were condemned, each in accord with their acts. And death and the unseen were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death– the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

The lake of fire is the second death. What is the second death? It is just like the first death, but more of it. How long could a human survive in a lake of fire? Not long, it would kill them. Only three characters are said to be tormented in the lake of fire for the eon of the eons (note that this is a limited time). These are the Adversary, the wild beast, and the false prophet. I suppose as spiritual superpowers they don't just die instantly like a human would. They are being refined for what follows, for all things are out of God, and all things are to God.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21-29 we get a peak beyond these events:

"21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.
25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)"

What happens to dead people when death is abolished?
There is only one thing left for them, life. They are made alive again. Even dead people who died in the lake of fire (which is the second death). God will be All in all.

Notice that those who die the second death do not live through the new heavens and earth, but are given life at the consummation which follows. There are still consequences and judgements they face, but I hope you appreciate the difference between the unconsciousness of death during an amazing eon that you miss out on, and being consciously tortured forever.

God is fair, and God is good.

More to follow on the rich man vs. poor man parable when I get a chance to write...

What does the phrase “...be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” In Mark chapter 9 mean? It doesn’t sound like you just fall asleep there.

 

[tps26]

I’m sorry if I missed it, but I don’t see the following story represented in your explanation, @tps26

Luke 16:22-26 (KJV) 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Not only do dead men tell no tales, they drink no water.

My apologies for not writing a personal response to this but due to time constraints I am just going to paste the below response to your question, written by Martin Zender. He can come off a little confrontational, but his points are good. The basic premise is that parables are parables.
-------------------

"Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally, you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom of Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham’s chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you’re going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham’s chest for eternity, then you’re going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear grubby clothes and get dogs to lick our cold sores. We’ll be on our way!

I’m curious. Since this is a five-fold parable, beginning in chapter 15, why don’t you make the Prodigal Son in 15:11-32 literal? At the end of the parable, the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don’t you take that death literally? Using your system of interpreting parables literally, you can use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that, after people die, they go off to a far country, spend all their money on whores and alcohol, then end up in a pig sty eating indigestible corn."

 

[Mojo]

Let me go a step farther, you have accused many of us here of believing a clear and heinous heresy,

I'd like to see some quotes of all my infractions. I've given Mea culpas in the past and will do so as needed, but you continue to obfuscate. Explain your position on degrees of judgment and I'll be satisfied. I think it's pertinent to defining the issue.

If you look back in this thread, I said I was an agnostic on this whole issue, but leaned in the direction of soul security. But, if you're going to refute others' ideas, then explain yourself. My line of questioning was to help me better understand your position, because it's confusing to me right now. It seems to be so nuanced that it makes it almost indistinguishable from a works based salvation.

But, if you look closely at my position over the years, and just within this thread, I defend the proposition that Torah folks (with some exceptions) believe in Grace salvation, so save your ammunition for somebody else.

 

[steve]

My apologies for not writing a personal response to this but due to time constraints I am just going to paste the below response to your question, written by Martin Zender. He can come off a little confrontational, but his points are good. The basic premise is that parables are parables.
-------------------

"Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally, you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom of Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham’s chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you’re going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham’s chest for eternity, then you’re going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear grubby clothes and get dogs to lick our cold sores. We’ll be on our way!

I’m curious. Since this is a five-fold parable, beginning in chapter 15, why don’t you make the Prodigal Son in 15:11-32 literal? At the end of the parable, the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don’t you take that death literally? Using your system of interpreting parables literally, you can use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that, after people die, they go off to a far country, spend all their money on whores and alcohol, then end up in a pig sty eating indigestible corn."

When Yeshua said “There was a certain man......”, then there was a certain man. If not, then he wasn’t telling the truth. Pulling out all of the stories and calling them parables so that we can pick and choose what to believe doesn’t cut it in my book.
When he said “in Abraham’s bosom”, then on some level it has meaning. Just because the meaning is presently above our pay grade doesn’t give us the right to pitch it.
He talked over the heads of people all the time and didn’t expect them to be arrogant enough to require that they be able to parse it.


John 6:53 (KJV)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

It had meaning, just not the obvious meaning.

 

[Joleneakamama]

It was a parable folks. The point was that "hearing Moses and the prophets" equates to belief in Jesus, and if they won't hear they will NOT be persuaded even if one rose from the dead. This was true. They bribed the guards to say His disciples stole the body. What is Abraham's bosom anyhow? What is all the symbolism (purple and fine linen) why are there 5 brothers he wants warned? What is the gulf that is fixed so people cannot change sides?
Why does Abraham call the rich man son?
This is one look at it.