Christian book recommendation - The Shack

[9Marksfan]

Semi-disrail:
How is that an actual reason that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was an actual set of events?

Why is the guy named Lazarus?
"Because the story is real."

But... how do you know the story is real?
"Because the guy was given a name."

It's circular reasoning... one of those "logical fallacy" thingies. You can't use circular reasoning as the sole reason that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was an actual set of events. And, further, you can't claim that the parable was an actual set of events because a person was named in it, because you're making a total assumption that people being named suddenly makes them real people, even if told in a medium that allows for fictional characters (note how the parable of Lazarus and the rich man immediately follows four other parables, all with the same overarching theme): Scripture never defines a rule of "Anytime a character in a story is given a name, it means that the entirety of the story is true." People just assume that one simple, but entirely baseless, "rule" when they read the parable... Now, I'm not saying the parable couldn't possibly have been an actual set of events... but a person can't claim it with such adamancy - as many do - based on these two flaws (the "he's named because he's real, he's real becaused he's named" circular logic, and the non-existent "stories containing names = real stories" rule).

Back to topic: I've found this thread greatly informational. I've tried to rep a few of you, but I apparently already have too recently.

Hey. Only one of the authors mentioned wrote anything good. At least both an apple and an NES are good for something

See my reply to GP. The fact that the account contains a man who is named immediately sets it apart from the traditional parable format. Jesus always spoke the truth, so why would we think that the story WASN'T historical? The way he narrated it points strongly to the idea that it was. I think we should agree to differ, othewise we'll derail this thread!

[daughter]

Also, I see that the barren fig tree is mentioned as though it were not an historical event, but "only" a parable... and yet we know that Jesus did in fact curse the barren fig tree. This is an historical event.

[markedward]

Also, I see that the barren fig tree is mentioned as though it were not an historical event, but "only" a parable...

Like I said before, I am not saying it (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man) couldn't possibly have been true... I never said here that it was "only" a parable. What I said was that the whole "name" thing can't be used as the sole reason for claiming it was a true story, because to do so requires circular reasoning on one hand, and a rule (not found in Scripture) that named=real. For example... maybe Christ gave the guy a name because the name he chose had a purposeful meaning behind its selection, and not necessarily because the named individual was real. All I am saying is that the name just cannot be the one and only reason used to claim it's real. Taking one word (a name in this case) from a verse and using it all by itself to build a case as is done here, is no different than taking an individual verse in the Bible out of its context to build a case.

[daughter]

True, but I'm still confused as to the citation of the fig tree. I realise it was a historical event with metaphorical significance... but it is not a parable, is it?

[Athanasius]

Well, in which parables of Jesus' did he claim to know and personally interact with the object of the parables? This in comparison with the foreword to The Shack?

[daughter]

That is a good point Xel... the protestations of accuracy and truth is a literary device that was used in the Da Vinci Code as well now that I think about it.

Markedward... I'm not sure that I'm explaining myself very well to you, so I'll just have to drop it.