But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Lu 16:29
....synonymous with, fulfillment of:
For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little. Isa 28:10
Abraham's proclamation was not a good place to be, it was an awful place to be. Relegated to the letter only is a hopeless situation.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The rich man requested Abraham send Lazarus from the dead to warn his brothers, Abraham tells him they have Moses and the prophets, which means the scriptures. The rich man objects as though this is insufficient evidence to believe and says if one rose from the dead, they will listen to him. Abraham says that if they will not listen to the scriptures, then they will not listen if someone rose from the dead.
So even a miracle would not convince or persuade the rich man's brothers to repent. This shows that believing involves the will, it is a choice.
....and you don't get even the tiniest bit of a hint of a prophetic allusion to another greater resurrection soon to come upon that audience?
Of course I get that it alludes to Christ, ALL the scriptures do.
Only in your flesh centric imagination Winman.
No, it is absolutely clear from scripture itself, if they would not believe scripture, they would not believe a miracle. The problem isn't that God hasn't presented sufficient evidence to believe, the problem was they did not want to believe, it was a heart problem, a problem of their will.
I've neither quoted from the Sermon on the Mount nor pulled anything from context.
It is true that the rich man should have helped the beggar who died, but this has nothing to do with the five brothers not believing if Lazarus returned from the dead. Abraham is saying the scriptures are sufficient evidence for any man to believe, if a man does not believe the scriptures, he will not believe a miracle either.
So, you don't JUST believe because the evidence is overwhelming, you can choose not to believe even if supernatural, miraculous evidence is provided. It is a matter of the will, not evidence.
If he had the law written in his heart he would at least have had the desire to help the poor man, his actions show that he did not. The actions of the good Samaritan INDEED showed that he did have the law written in his heart, and the Jews, who had the law and were hearers of it, who also referred to Samaritans as dogs, stepped to the other side of the road and walked on by.
All men have the law written on their heart and conscience (Rom 2:14-15), but men can suppress that knowledge. The rich man knew better, but he was only concerned with his own welfare and comfort in life.
...and I'm sure the prophetic message within that parable also escapes you because of your flesh centric approach.
And you would be wrong. Again.
Again, only in your imagination. That's what you want to get out of it.
It is plain as day that my interpretation is accurate.
Albert Barnes said:
11.God gives us sufficient warning to prepare for death. He has sent his Word, his servants, his Son; he warns us by his Spirit and his providence; by the entreaties of our friends and by the death of sinners; he offers us heaven, and he threatens hell. If all this will not move sinners, what would do it? There is nothing that would.
12.God will give us nothing farther to warn us. No dead man will come to life to tell us of what he has seen. If he did we would not believe him. Religion appeals to man not by ghosts and frightful apparitions. It appeals to their reason, their conscience, their hopes, their fears. It sets life and death soberly before people, and if they “will not” choose the former, they must die. If you will not hear the Son of God and the warnings of the Scriptures, there is nothing which you will or can hear. You will never be persuaded, and will never escape the place of torment.
Albert Barnes interpreted this passage EXACTLY as I did. He did not see your "wacky" interpretation in this passage whatsoever.