I would say: a) the voluntary death scenario (all death is voluntary, mankind is voluntary), b)the cross scenario (the status quo, represents all suffering) , d)the "resurrection" scenario (awakening from status quo) d)the parable of the prodigal son (the entire story of all mankind, beginning to end, including Jesus) e)the "lords supper" (destroying one reality, "Christ", for many imaginations, for mankind) f)changing the meaning of death to "sleep", raising a girl from dead/sleep g)baptism (when man - and man's world - is washed away, all that is left standing is Christ/reality). If these can be interpreted rightly, one is well on their way to the experience of the so called resurrection. There can only be one reason for not interpreting the parables rightly. It means the interpreter is still invested in the status quo, still valuing the very basic principles that make the material worlds turn. Given that bias, the interpreter will never make the mental/psychological leap necessary to grasp anything Jesus meant. I surprise Christians by insisting that everything Jesus said and did was a parable, including the cross/resurrection scenario. Actions and miracles were parables too. As such, he was indeed a teacher for the students who are ready. Actions may be called parodies. The most important parody to understand is how Jesus represented life/truth itself, which i call "reality", but sometimes call "Christ". While no man can be the one reality, one man can represent, through parody, the one invisible reality that no eye has ever seen. As all words and actions were parables, there is nothing executive about the shedding of any quality or quantity of blood. Again, as a parody, the shedding of blood represents the killing of reality, by stealing it's essence from it. By appropriating that essence (drinking the blood), man seems to exist, but never goes beyond an "appearance" (an image). So what exactly is man's relationship to Christ? It can be described by taking one loaf of bread, and destroying it into pieces. As such, man's relationship to Christ/reality is a converse relationship, much the way the sun and the moon have a converse relationship. You can have the pieces, or you can have the one loaf, but you cannot have both. Continuing this theme: To provide for man (to make man), you must destroy Christ first (break the bread). Conversely, to restore Christ, you must wash man (and man's world) away. This is the meaning of baptism. Man represents dirt on the body of Christ, so-to-speak. Mankind is completely unnecessary and unwanted inasmuch as it makes Christ "unclean". So, Jesus, depending on his actions, represented either Christ (the entire reality), or all mankind (the entire unreality, the material worlds). While on the cross, Jesus represented all mankind, and what the existence of mankind does to the reality of Christ (remember the converse relationship). If you can understand this, then a surprising fact jumps out: man is actually a substitute for reality (Christ)...not the other way around. While man substitutes for Christ, man will suffer. The universal symbol of man's suffering is the cross scenario, but could include any traditional death scenario. The roots of man's suffering: Man is the voluntary (remember, death is voluntary) product of an imaginative process. As such, man is an image. An image is an appearance. An appearance is a matter of perception. Perception is a function of faith. Faith is a function of imagination. As such, man is an unreal manifestation that puts itself out as reality (as existing). This is man's domain. Man abides in a domain (imagination) which has a converse relationship to the domain of Christ (reality). As such, man's domain is at war with the domain of Christ. You can have reality (Christ), or you can have an imaginative world full of men, but you cannot have both. As man voluntarily perpetuates participation within man's domain, main remains at war with reality (flesh against spirit). When man claims for himself titles such as "life", he is actually usurping the qualities of reality (Christ). If the domain of imagination is against reality, then man is in danger so long as man continues to usurp the titles/conditions/qualities of Christ. The prime conditions that man "steals" from Christ are: life, existence, reality. Taking these qualities upon himself (sitting upon the throne of god, so-to-speak), man functionally substitutes for Christ (takes Christ's place, mocks Christ, pretends to be Christ). While man substitutes for Christ, man will suffer, because the entire world of imagination is against reality. Man's problem is that while reality itself cannot be harmed, man can indeed be harmed, as the non-real entity that he is. In the domain of imagination, existence itself is cause for attack and destruction. Everything that imagination would do to Christ (if it only could) it does to man, Christ's substitute. There, then, is the full interpretation of the cross scenario, in which Jesus represented the fate of all mankind, while mankind maintains the status quo. It is not a threat. It is simply a graphic picture of all past, present, and future sufferings of man. In addition, the death of any man, in any scenario, represents the so-called "death of Christ". To reiterate something i've said elsewhere, the life of man is the death of Christ (converse relationship). Further, the so-called "death" of man is a parable/parody of the death of Christ. Imagination demands the death of Christ as it must defend itself against reality. But man, as Christ's substitute, is the only reachable target of the demands of imagination. Consequently, man dies, but Christ, untouchable by imagination, remains unchanged, unharmed. The resurrection is a miraculous parody of what happens when man abandons the domain of imagination, and it's "laws". It is not man that resurrects. It is only Christ that resurrects, just as it is only Christ left standing after baptism. Therefore, the only way to participate is to abandon one's identity as "man" (or anything else), and identify with Christ, as Christ. While Christians reject this notion, they will continue to not participate, and misguide anyone truly seeking the meaning of the parables. There is no punishment for non participation (in the resurrection) other than the status quo. As it has been said, those who do not believe "are condemned already". Once it is understood that this is hell, you can see the status of condemnation (man's entire condition). While Christians continue to hold on to their lives (as mankind, or anything else), they continue to not follow the example of Jesus, who did embrace his identity as Christ/reality/life/truth. To regain that status, he did sacrifice any other identity. By insisting that Christ can be a hybrid existing in both worlds ignores the meaning of all his parables and examples. Only a man, still holding onto manhood, would insist that Jesus took a body with him to his original state of being. The confusion perhaps arises because as one man, Jesus represented all men; and as one man, represented the entirety of reality (heaven, Christ, everything). This is not a hybrid, but simply a method of teaching, by way of parable/parody. Christians have yet to realize that by representing all men, all men are able to follow his path to his original state of being, arriving as one reality colloquially called "Christ". The parable of the prodigal son is not the story of any man, or of any tribe among men, or any other subgroup of man. Rather, it is Jesus' own story of his own odyssey from life, to "death" (remember, a live man is a dead Christ), to life again. The story of the prodigal is the story of leaving, suffering, and returning again. As representative, this also represents the history of all mankind. Understood this way, the genesis of mankind cannot be what the Jews were told through traditional stories of genesis. The genesis of man must be the same genesis as Jesus. If the genesis is the same, and the intervening circumstances are the same, then the destiny must also be the same. Again, there can only be one motivation for rejecting this interpretation of the parable. All other genesis stories are a way to maintain distance from the original state of being, maintain a wandering existence, and refuse the right of return. Graham will be born again, but not exactly as he was expecting. Graham will remain within the domain of the prodigal son, which is the domain of reincarnation...and re-re-incarnation...ad infinitum...ad nauseum. Yes, he will get his wish to be incarnated again. But he will be born to die, just as all incarnations are born to die. Graham has misled the sheep. The "punishment" (depends on your point of view) is the status quo. Reincarnation is part of the status quo...is how man's suffering is perpetuated...until man decides to participate in the voluntary (free) nature of Christ. Hell is not a punishment; it is what you get when you attempt to destroy Christ, through your imagination, in favor of your own reality. It's important to remember that both death, and a rejection of death, are voluntary (a choice). Nobody forced the prodigal son to leave home. The prodigal son represents a "parody" of Christ. As a parody, the prodigal son represents all mankind, and all man's material worlds. Functioning as a parody (parable), Jesus functioned as all mankind. Understood by mankind, man, and man's world, will come to an end. The term "Christ" is a misnomer, to the extent it has been misunderstood. Jesus did not go around calling himself Christ, as reality has no name. The term "Christ" substitutes for the actual reality, personified (as if it had a name). It does not matter what it is called, so long as the parables are understood: The reality is the self. Once understood, a mind is ready for the experience. The experience itself has no words to describe, let alone a name to describe it. I can assure you, Jesus was not the Jewish notion of Messiah, and rejected that notion himself. At best, he could represent a parody of a Messiah, representing some vague notion of "salvation". But i assure you, the salvation Jesus spoke of is not what man wants, while man participates in man's domain.