u/Keith502

I tried looking the question up on Google and different AI sources, but the answers I got were unclear. Someone I was talking with on Reddit suggested to me that a fable is a story that has fantastical elements, and features talking animals; and a parable is a story about the earthly and mundane that has a spiritual meaning. However, I noticed some flaws with these definitions. "The boy who cried wolf" is often considered a fable, yet it contains no fantastical elements, and involves no talking animals. On the other hand, the story of Adam and Eve is typically interpreted as a historical event, yet it does contain fantastical elements and talking animals.

Stories from Jesus such as "The prodigal son", "The good Samaritan", and "The parable of the ten virgins" are categorized as parables, and they are all earthly, grounded stories. However, the story of "Lazarus and the rich man" has some fantastical or supernatural elements, but is often still categorized as a parable.

At the same time, one might consider a story in Hinduism called "The story of Narada and Vishnu". This is a story where the devoted sage Narada asks the god Vishnu to teach him about maya, the concept of illusion. Vishnu agrees to teach Narada, but he first tells Narada he is thirsty, and asks Narada to fetch him some water. Narada complies. But before he is able to complete his task he becomes sidetracked, and ends up living an entire lifetime doing various things which have nothing to do with his initial task. After having lived an entire lifetime of events, Narada encounters a disaster which is about to claim his life. In his distress, he cries out to the gods for help. At that moment, Narada finds himself back at the very location of his initial task, with Vishnu telling him that only a few minutes have passed, and then asking, "Where is my water?" In that moment, Narada acknowledges that he has finally come to understand maya.

This story contains some fantastical elements, and it teaches a religious lesson, similar to the parables of Jesus. I would personally categorize this story as a parable. But can a Hindu story be a "parable", or is the word "parable" only reserved for the stories of Jesus? Is a "parable" a religious term in general, or only Christian?

Are there any categorical definitions for the terms "parable" and "fable", or do the terms merely have heuristical definitions? In other words, do "parable" and "fable" have strict, mutually exclusive definitions? Or do the words lack any clear-cut distinction between them, and hence can only be categorized roughly based on broad rules-of-thumb?

I tried looking the question up on Google and different AI sources, but the answers I got were unclear. Someone I was talking with on Reddit suggested to me that a fable is a story that has fantastical elements, and features talking animals; and a parable is a story about the earthly and mundane that has a spiritual meaning. However, I noticed some flaws with these definitions. "The boy who cried wolf" is often considered a fable, yet it contains no fantastical elements, and involves no talking animals. On the other hand, the story of Adam and Eve is typically interpreted as a historical event, yet it does contain fantastical elements and talking animals.

Stories from Jesus such as "The prodigal son", "The good Samaritan", and "The parable of the ten virgins" are categorized as parables, and they are all earthly, grounded stories. However, the story of "Lazarus and the rich man" has some fantastical or supernatural elements, but is often still categorized as a parable.

At the same time, one might consider a story in Hinduism called "The story of Narada and Vishnu". This is a story where the devoted sage Narada asks the god Vishnu to teach him about maya, the concept of illusion. Vishnu agrees to teach Narada, but he first tells Narada he is thirsty, and asks Narada to fetch him some water. Narada complies. But before he is able to complete his task he becomes sidetracked, and ends up living an entire lifetime doing various things which have nothing to do with his initial task. After having lived an entire lifetime of events, Narada encounters a disaster which is about to claim his life. In his distress, he cries out to the gods for help. At that moment, Narada finds himself back at the very location of his initial task, with Vishnu telling him that only a few minutes have passed, and then asking, "Where is my water?" In that moment, Narada acknowledges that he has finally come to understand maya.

This story contains some fantastical elements, and it teaches a religious lesson, similar to the parables of Jesus. I would personally categorize this story as a parable. But can a Hindu story be a "parable", or is the word "parable" only reserved for the stories of Jesus? Is a "parable" a religious term in general, or only Christian?

Are there any categorical definitions for the terms "parable" and "fable", or do the terms merely have heuristical definitions? In other words, do "parable" and "fable" have strict, mutually exclusive definitions? Or do the words lack any clear-cut distinction between them, and hence can only be categorized roughly based on broad rules-of-thumb?

What is the point of this story? Why does it juxtapose the condition of the rich man with the condition of poor Lazarus? Why does it say that Lazarus died and went to the good place, while the rich man died and went to the bad place? One would assume it is because Lazarus was a good man, and the rich man was greedy, selfish, corrupt, uncompassionate, etc. But the problem is that Jesus gives us no such details about the moral status of either man. Jesus never tells us that the rich man ignored or neglected Lazarus, or that he even knew that Lazarus was there. So what is the reason that the two men go to their respective fate in the afterlife? What is the purpose of describing their fates? What exactly is this story trying to say?

I have noticed in the New Testament a certain dichotomy in how people speak about death. From my interpretation, it seems as if there are two separate outlooks on death. One outlook involves viewing death as "sleep". Presumably, this kind of death specifically involves the soul of the dead person going to the underworld -- either Sheol or Hades -- and existing in a state of unconsciousness. There are a number of verses that indicate this outlook on death:

>Matthew 27:52 - The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,

>John 11:11-14 - These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.

>1 Corinthians 15:6 - Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

>1 Corinthians 15:20 - But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

>1 Thessalonians 4:14 - For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

>1 Thessalonians 4:15 - For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

>Luke 8:52 - And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.”

The kind of death indicated in these verses appears to be a more shallow or incomplete kind of death. But there are other verses that suggest a deeper, more permanent kind of death. The first verse that comes to mind is the famous verse John 3:16 -

>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

On its face, this verse makes no sense. It suggests that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish, i.e. die. But of course we know this is absurd. Jesus himself perished, all of Jesus's disciples perished, all of the people that Jesus preached to or performed miracles upon all eventually perished. Every apostle or church father or pope has perished. Every Christian who has ever lived throughout history, until the present day, has ultimately perished. So in order for this verse to make any sense, the word "perish" must have some deeper meaning to it.

I found out that the Greek word for "perish" here is the word transliterated as apollymi. It is a word that in many other contexts is used to mean "to destroy", "to lose", "render useless", "to come to ruin", etc. This terminology seems to suggest a deeper form of death than the death indicated by the "sleep" terminology. We can even see a direct juxtaposition of these two terms in 1 Corinthians 15:16-19, showing the contrast in meaning between them:

>For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

What these verses seem to suggest to me is that early Christians looked at death as essentially a "two-tiered" system. Everyone was invariably subject to the first tier of death. But the second tier of death was more controversial. The first tier of death was spoken of in terms of "sleeping", which naturally implies the potential of one being "woken up". This phenomenon of being woken up from the first tier of death is, I presume, the Resurrection, which is foretold to occur on Judgement Day. But the second tier of death appears to preclude this "awakening". The second tier of death -- often articulated by the word "to perish", or apollymi -- presumably involves either permanent unconsciousness from which there is no awakening for all eternity, or some kind of complete destruction or annihilation of one's very soul.

Is my theory correct? Did the early Christians look at death within a two-tiered framework as I've described? Is this an accurate description of the way that the early Christians discussed death?