Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus

[Strategery]

Neither is it taught then that they can ask for such, so we seem to be in a dilemma here; but considering it is hell and not Purgatory, it makes for common sense that they cannot ask nor receive relief.

You keep saying it’s common sense, even though that isn’t true. It’s speculation. .

There’s no indication as well that those in heaven can move freely in Purgatory apart from God Himself.

The church does teach that a purified soul can and does move from Purgatory to Heaven. The passage doesn’t say anything about moving freely, it says the chasm can’t be crossed.

Aside - why aren’t you willing to accept this explicit statement, yet you are willing to speculate that someone in hell can’t ask for relief, which is neither explicitly stated in scripture nor taught by the Church? To me that seems like a disconnect in logic.

Because not listening does not necessarily mean not doing, which would be different. One would not listen but act (see Jesus’ parable on this one).

How can one act faithfully if one does not believe? If one acts but doesn’t listen, those acts are not the fruits of faith.

We are not told of his state at the time he died; we are only shown his relation with Lazarus…

We are also shown his relationship with Abraham, who is at Lazarus’ side, across the chasm from the rich man.

 

[Milliardo]

You keep saying it’s common sense, even though that isn’t true. It’s speculation.

I disagree–it is merely logical conclusion once one reflects on it.

The church does teach that a purified soul can and does move from Purgatory to Heaven.

Yes, there is no doubt about that; there is however some question regarding souls moving from heaven to Purgatory, as would Abraham would do to cross the chasm. Only God has the prerogative to do so.

Aside - why aren’t you willing to accept this explicit statement, yet you are willing to speculate that someone in hell can’t ask for relief, which is neither explicitly stated in scripture nor taught by the Church? To me that seems like a disconnect in logic.

Because it is common sense that a soul in hell has no chance for relief, hence there isn’t any logic in them asking for such, or else we’ll have to say that we can pray for them as well since they are able to ask for relief. That we can’t pray for them should then show us that they cannot ask for relief, as there is no point in them doing so (they can’t get relief anyway).

How can one act faithfully if one does not believe? If one acts but doesn’t listen, those acts are not the fruits of faith.

In one of Jesus’ parables, there is a son, if I am correct, who did not listen to his father but later repented of it and did as he was asked to; the same then can be said of his brothers, that they may have listened but not heard, but could act later out of humility. As we don not know either way (since no further details have been given of them), we then venture into speculation here…

We are also shown his relationship with Abraham, who is at Lazarus’ side, across the chasm from the rich man.

Yes, as noted by Scott Hahn, it is interesting that Abraham calls him, “My child”; as he noted, if the rich man is in hell, why call him as such, and not address him as one who is condemned and reprobate? A soul in hell then would not be addressed as such by Abraham.

 

[rcjones]

ME: The rich man is the divine nature of Christ. He wears the color purple which is that of the judge. Gold is the color of kings, but they also wear purple because they too sit in judgment. He wears the fine linen burial clothes of Christ and is called “son” by the Father…

This claims that the rich man is actually Christ because he’s wearing purple. This rich man neglected the beggar in life, following death was separated across a chasm from Abraham, is being tormented by flames, asks for a drop of water, has his request denied by Abraham, and so on. This analysis asks me to believe that the person who did all these things is Christ. Very difficult to believe. Would the divine Christ need to ask Abraham for anything? “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

You obviously have missed the discussion about shadows. “In the shadows” refers to a hermeneutic with which you are unfamiliar.
The shadows exist in double entendre (double meaning). The shadow does not say that the rich man is Christ in reality. It says that word play has painted a picture of Christ.

Me: Lazarus also represents Christ, but in the role of the priest and in the flesh. Lazarus comes from Eliezer who was the high priest. Being “full of sores” hints at leprosy which represents sin, as Christ was made to be sin for us.

This is a similar stretch. The person described is a beggar at the door, who ends up in Abraham’s bosom.

Without understanding the double entendre word play, and the way shadows are discerned, saying it is a stretch is an unfounded opinion.

Me: Bread is the word of God, and Christ in the flesh only had a portion of the divine word that he had in the heavenlies since he had “emptied himself”. And the “dogs”, those who return to their own “vomit” and sin, opened his wound. The word for “licked” is “separation” and is the same imagery of the parting of the water, splitting of the rock and tearing of the veil.

These assertions aren’t scriptural. Christ was fully god and man. The Word came to life and walked the earth. You’re claiming that the incarnate Word only had a portion of the word. This is contrary to the nature of Christ.

Once again you are swinging at windmills. The shadows do not deny in the least way that Christ is fully God and fully man. What is asserted is that the image painted is the same as painted by Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Only that the baby Jesus was not omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent by choice. He decided to face temptation in everyway as a man.

The vomiting/licking/separation/tearing of the veil string is a conjecture trail that has no basis in scripture or tradition.

Pr 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

621 apoleicw apoleicho ap-ol-i’-kho
**from 575 **and leicho (to “lick”); ; v
AV-lick 1; 1

575 apo apo apo’
a primary particle; ; preposition

AV-from 393, of 129, out of 48, for 10, off 10, by 9, at 9, in 6, since + 3739 5, on 5, not tr. 16, misc. 31; 671

1. of separation **
   1a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, …
   1b) of separation of a part from the whole**
   1b1)** where of a whole some part is taken **
   1c) of any kind of **separation **of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
   1d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
   1d1) physical, of distance of place
   1d2) temporal, of distance of time
2. of origin
   2a) of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
   2b) of origin of a cause

Me: It came to pass that both natures of Christ died and the priest was carried to the Father (to continue to make intercession for us) and the judge role of Christ remained dead. This is the same imagery of the axe being removed from the brook. Judgment being removed from the water.

The rich man’s plea, has the double meaning of :24. And he called and said, Father, have mercy on me and send the High priest , that he may immerse the uttermost parts of the works of the dual natured man in the word and “end my judgment” for I am setting like the sun in a flash…

I don’t understand this search for hidden meaning when there is so much to be taken from the words that are there.

Thank you for admitting this. Once you know the hermeneutic it is not much of a search. The shadows of Christ pop out everywhere.

It’s a digression/stumbling block that takes one away from the teaching at hand.

Thanks for your opinion. Mine is that it is a picture of Christ hidden in riddles that God himself says He speaks in.

If they are really there, and the meaning is attached to the words as I have briefly demonstrated in this response and have demonstrated extensively elsewhere, then they are as much a part of the word of God as the literal meaning.

I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see Christ in the scriptures.

Catholics and Jews have suggested that the scriptures have four layers of meaning. I believe I am showing sensus plenior, or sod.
THey are verifiable since the meaning is attached to the words. There is also a set of rules discerned from the scriptures that make them impossible to be human invention.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Strategery]

I disagree–it is merely logical conclusion once one reflects on it.

You state as fact what is not fact. It is not a logical conclusion. People ask for things all the time even though they can’t have them. We see that demonstrated throughout life literally thousands of times.

Yes, there is no doubt about that; there is however some question regarding souls moving from heaven to Purgatory, as would Abraham would do to cross the chasm. Only God has the prerogative to do so.

I’m not following you here. We’ve established that a soul can move from heaven to Purgatory. Yet Abraham and the rich man are separated by a chasm that can’t be crossed. How do you reconcile that?

Because it is common sense that a soul in hell has no chance for relief, hence there isn’t any logic in them asking for such, or else we’ll have to say that we can pray for them as well since they are able to ask for relief. That we can’t pray for them should then show us that they cannot ask for relief, as there is no point in them doing so (they can’t get relief anyway).

This is the same leap as before. You’re assuming that because they can’t get relief, they wouldn’t ask. That’s not common sense, it’s speculation. .

In one of Jesus’ parables, there is a son, if I am correct, who did not listen to his father but later repented of it and did as he was asked to; the same then can be said of his brothers, that they may have listened but not heard, but could act later out of humility.

Sure they could. However, Abraham is on record that they won’t. I’m with Abraham.

Yes, as noted by Scott Hahn, it is interesting that Abraham calls him, “My child”; as he noted, if the rich man is in hell, why call him as such, and not address him as one who is condemned and reprobate? A soul in hell then would not be addressed as such by Abraham.

We have no idea whether Abraham, the father of Israel, would address a condemned soul as his child. To state unequivically that he wouldn’t is speculation by Hahn to make his point. .

Disclaimer: I have nothing at all against Hahn, he’s a great apologist, but like all humans, he isn’t always right.

 

[Strategery]

You obviously have missed the discussion about shadows. “In the shadows” refers to a hermeneutic with which you are unfamiliar.
The shadows exist in double entendre (double meaning). The shadow does not say that the rich man is Christ in reality. It says that word play has painted a picture of Christ.

Fair enough. Given that, there really isn’t much for us to discuss.

Cheers!

 

[mapleoak]

Neither is it taught then that they can ask for such, so we seem to be in a dilemma here; but considering it is hell and not Purgatory, it makes for common sense that they cannot ask nor receive relief.

We have to make a big assumption without Church teaching that souls in hell cannot be wanting of relief, but rather enjoy their suffering, in order to justify that it is purgatory rather than hell in the story.

There’s no indication as well that those in heaven can move freely in Purgatory apart from God Himself.

The passage clearly states that there is an impassible chaos, indicating that souls in hell cannot be helped, further supported by the fact that the rich man could not even get the smallest relief. Souls in purgatory can be helped through prayers of the Church Militant as well as direct aid from the Church Triumphant.

We are not told of his state at the time he died; we are only shown his relation with Lazarus.

And we further have to make another big assumption about the state of his soul at the thime he died just so we can justify that it is purgatory rather than hell, rather than to accept the more plausible correlation between lack of charity and loss of heaven that Christ was pointing out.

Seeing in this case that the Catholic Church has left this passage open to interpretation, we are free to agree or disagree with the Church Fathers on this.

And yes, it is great discussion–nothing wrong with that.

 

[rcjones]

Fair enough. Given that, there really isn’t much for us to discuss.

Cheers!

The reason that I post them is to discuss them. They are observations, for which I am soliciting examination.

Since the first step in seeing them is to mechanically observe the double meanings of words, the first level of legitimate critique would be to challenge those double meanings.

Also a challenge of whether the root, homographs, synonyms, etc are appropriate sources for alternate meaning.

The second step in seeing them is the shadow replacements. Shadows must be the same everywhere in the scripture. So a donkey is always a prophet.

I would hope people would ask to see justification for shadows. There are so many, and validation required examining every scripture that has them, that there is plenty to discuss.

The third step is discerning and solving the riddles. This is done by “plowing with the heifer”. This is the first place that personal biases can sneak in. Good shadow exegetes can discern the difference between what the word says and what he thinks it says. There is plenty of room at this level to challenge personal biases,

Since the shadows are not translations, but pointers to ideas, verbalizing them so that others see the same idea is a real challenge, and there is a lot of room for discussing this.

The way I verbalized the shadow was insufficient and did not prevent you from jumping to conclusions that I was not making. There is plenty of room for discussion in the semantics so that such misunderstandings don’t happen.

And finally, after there is a sufficient sampling of shadows that are explained well and understood in how they were generated and verified, then the discussion of whether they truly exist as scripture or are accidental, can take place as well as how well they correlate with everything else we know of Christ.

So I hope you will look at my other posts and feel free to discuss them at many levels.

 

[Strategery]

The reason that I post them is to discuss them. They are observations, for which I am soliciting examination.

Since the first step in seeing them is to mechanically observe the double meanings of words, the first level of legitimate critique would be to challenge those double meanings.

Also a challenge of whether the root, homographs, synonyms, etc are appropriate sources for alternate meaning.

The second step in seeing them is the shadow replacements. Shadows must be the same everywhere in the scripture. So a donkey is always a prophet.

I would hope people would ask to see justification for shadows. There are so many, and validation required examining every scripture that has them, that there is plenty to discuss.

The third step is discerning and solving the riddles. This is done by “plowing with the heifer”. This is the first place that personal biases can sneak in. Good shadow exegetes can discern the difference between what the word says and what he thinks it says. There is plenty of room at this level to challenge personal biases,

Since the shadows are not translations, but pointers to ideas, verbalizing them so that others see the same idea is a real challenge, and there is a lot of room for discussing this.

The way I verbalized the shadow was insufficient and did not prevent you from jumping to conclusions that I was not making. There is plenty of room for discussion in the semantics so that such misunderstandings don’t happen.

And finally, after there is a sufficient sampling of shadows that are explained well and understood in how they were generated and verified, then the discussion of whether they truly exist as scripture or are accidental, can take place as well as how well they correlate with everything else we know of Christ.

So I hope you will look at my other posts and feel free to discuss them at many levels.

I apologize for ending so bluntly.

I personally am wary of this type of analysis. In my opinion (and it is just that, nothing more or less) there’s a risk of “chasing rabbits” – interpreting a chain of thought or meaning that isn’t actually there. The rules or steps of interpretation are rules of men, and we all run risks following those.

Again, I didn’t mean to be so dismissive. As you guessed, I’m not up to speed on this subject. I’ll add to the list of things I need to study.

Thanks!

 

[rcjones]

I apologize for ending so bluntly.

I personally am wary of this type of analysis. In my opinion (and it is just that, nothing more or less) there’s a risk of “chasing rabbits” – interpreting a chain of thought or meaning that isn’t actually there. The rules or steps of interpretation are rules of men, and we all run risks following those.

Again, I didn’t mean to be so dismissive. As you guessed, I’m not up to speed on this subject. I’ll add to the list of things I need to study.

Thanks!

I am pleased to meet you and appreciate your willingness to edit responses. You show that there is in fact a real person who is thoughtful behind the ASCII text.

You are not alone in not being up to speed. What I am proposing has only been seen accidentally by people like C.E. Macintosh, Arthur Pink, Clement, etc. Many see hints of it but don’t know how to dig them out.

What I am proposing is a fantastic idea that there is a second layer of the Bible that is discernible by all and has been hidden for 2000 years.

I am not so crazy to not understand that that claim should not just be accepted, but that it should be examined very closely by many people .

That’s why I am here. So you are not any farther behind than anyone else. And the view of skeptics willing to take a close look at it is more valuable to me than a plethora of people who just accept it.

 

[Static]

If sources have been checked showing that there is no support against souls in hell asking for relief, do these same sources support the opposite ?

If hell is believed to be total separation from God, does this total separation exclude intercession from the old testament saved, saints that are waiting for Jesus to open the gates of heaven ?

Those who go to hell, put themselves there by choice. They have never asked for mercy, nor will they ever.They are stuck on evil forever. Does this sound like the rich man ?

Even if it were possible for Abraham to cross the chasm, why would he want to pass from comfort into torment ? ( vs.25 )

Is it not an assumed that the rich man committed a mortal sin ? What different changes to the story would there be if we knew it was a venial sin committed ?

If heaven is to be the promise of total happiness, how could one be happy if he knew that he had a lost one in hell being tormented eternally that he could talk to on possibly a daily basis ?

Really didn’t mean for this to turn out to be one question after another, it just turned out that way because I didn’t know any other way to word it, sorry.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[mapleoak]

If sources have been checked showing that there is no support against souls in hell asking for relief, do these same sources support the opposite ?

I don’t think such sources exist. But I could be wrong.

If hell is believed to be total separation from God, does this total separation exclude intercession from the old testament saved, saints that are waiting for Jesus to open the gates of heaven ?

The idea of total separation is a mystery in itself. Does it mean absolutely no contact of any sort including dialog? Or does it mean never coming into the presence of the beatific vision? Would it seem odd that Satan, a creature who is damned and cast into hell, would be permitted to contact Jesus in the desert and tempt Him no less?

Those who go to hell, put themselves there by choice. They have never asked for mercy, nor will they ever.They are stuck on evil forever. Does this sound like the rich man ?

But they are also tormented eternally by the utter permanence of their choices made on earth and the inability or helplessness to change those choices, knowing full well, it was their own choice.

Even if it were possible for Abraham to cross the chasm, why would he want to pass from comfort into torment ? ( vs.25 )

Not sure. Couldn’t same could probably apply to either purgatory or hell?

Is it not an assumed that the rich man committed a mortal sin ? What different changes to the story would there be if we knew it was a venial sin committed ?

I would think Jesus probably would have given some indication that rich man died repentant, but still had to make expiation for his sin.

If heaven is to be the promise of total happiness, how could one be happy if he knew that he had a lost one in hell being tormented eternally that he could talk to on possibly a daily basis ?

I don’t know if this is possible or not. Only that it is possible that God made the provision for Abraham to speak to the rich man for the purposes of instruction.

Really didn’t mean for this to turn out to be one question after another, it just turned out that way because I didn’t know any other way to word it, sorry.

Sorry for answering some of your questions with some questions of my own.

 

[Static]

Hey map,

I think if we believe that there can be intercession from hell, then there is no hell. It would have to be called something else.

The hell bound chose eternal separation from God, they wanted nothing to do with Him during their earthly life & chose to have nothing to do with Him in the afterlife. They don’t have a care in the world ( or the next ) The rich man caring about others would lead to the belief that he is elsewhere.

I can’t explain why the devil was permitted to contact Jesus from hell because I can’t find that in the text about the temptation in the desert. .

In Mt 26:24, It would of been better that Judas was never born than to betray Jesus. To me, to have never been born is to not exist. If you go to hell it is as if you never existed because you chose to be separated from God. If you don’t exist, then you could not ask for intercession using the terms father, or son or brothers as has been already said.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Strategery]

Hey map,

I think if we believe that there can be intercession from hell, then there is no hell. It would have to be called something else.

Not addressed to me, but I’ll play. At least in my case, I was talking about a request for intercession (ie, the rich man asking for a drop of water). This request was denied, so there was no intercession.

I can’t explain why the devil was permitted to contact Jesus from hell because I can’t find that in the text about the temptation in the desert. .

I think Satan can move, being a spirit. Check Job 1:6-7:

6 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, Satan also came among them.
7 And the LORD said to Satan, “Whence do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming the earth and patrolling it.”

And 2 Peter 5:8:

8
Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour.

 

[Benadam]

I can’t explain why the devil was permitted to contact Jesus from hell because I can’t find that in the text about the temptation in the desert. .

forgive me for butting in: I

I think the last words about the devil after he had exhausted his means of tempting the Lord are and I paraphrase:*** He departed to return at the appointed time.***

---

That indicates to me that the devil’s evil desires were put to use for a good work of the Lord. The devil is bound by time and just as the powers of nature were meant to serve man I think the souls in hell could possibly be used not of their own will to serve man just as the devil was in the desert.

 

[Benadam]

**

**If heaven is to be the promise of total happiness, how could one be happy if he knew that he had a lost one in hell being tormented eternally that he could talk to on possibly a daily basis ? **

**IMO

Because in heaven we will share in God’s justice, will, mercy and everything will be as it should be to us as it is to God. Also our bond with that person will be seen in the light of God’s love and what we see and how we defined our love for other’s their love for us and the bonds that were forged on earth will be measured weighed. Who they are to us on earth will not be who they are to us in eternity.

 

[rcjones]

That indicates to me that the devil’s evil desires were put to use for a good work of the Lord.

There are three related passages concerning the wilderness that we often overlook.

Aaron went into the wilderness to meet Moses and kissed him.
Israel went into the wilderness to sacrifice.
Jesus went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan.

These are the same story.

Aaron is a shadow of Christ who met Moses as a shadow of God in the wilderness and ‘kissed’ which also means ‘burned’. Just as Israel, which is called the ‘son of God’ went into the wilderness to burn the sacrifice.

The apparent problem is that Jesus met Satan there. This is the riddle: How did Jesus meet God in the wilderness and sacrifice?

The answer is that “Obedience is better than sacrifice”, so his obedience in the face of temptation by Satan was a better sacrifice as mentioned in Hebrews.

Letting scripture interpret scripture, as foreign as it is to us, is the key to the shadows.

 

[Static]

Not addressed to me, but I’ll play. At least in my case, I was talking about a request for intercession (ie, the rich man asking for a drop of water). This request was denied, so there was no intercession.

I didn’t know this was a game, I should of read more of the posts.
( Just kiddin’ ! I couldn’t resist )

So, what you are saying is that unless the answer is yes to a request it can’t be considered interceding ? I mean, I don’t really know. The reason I ask is because God doesn’t always say yes to our prayers, whether we pray straight to Him or use other avenues , right ? They ( Abraham & rich dude ) were close enough to communicate with each other. If the saved & the condemned are this close to each other, how can one enjoy the eternal happiness that is promised ?

I think Satan can move, being a spirit

That’s kinda the point I was getting at.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Static]

****IMO

Because in heaven we will share in God’s justice, will, mercy and everything will be as it should be to us as it is to God. Also our bond with that person will be seen in the light of God’s love and what we see and how we defined our love for other’s their love for us and the bonds that were forged on earth will be measured weighed. Who they are to us on earth will not be who they are to us in eternity.

I’m sorry. I’m not following. Is what you are stating here talking about the afterlife between someone in heaven & someone in
hell ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[mapleoak]

What is the score? Who’s winning?

I think if we believe that there can be intercession from hell, then there is no hell. It would have to be called something else.

We can safely assume that since not only is the devil is in hell, but he is also able to roam the earth, tempt people to sin, and otherwise mingle with man on earth, intercession from and to those in hell may not be entirely out of the question.

The hell bound chose eternal separation from God, they wanted nothing to do with Him during their earthly life & chose to have nothing to do with Him in the afterlife.

I do not believe that those in hell want nothing to do with God. Rather they suffer the eternal torment of a total and permanent wanting for God. A desire which can never be fulfilled or satisfied in even the slightest degree. They know this to be of their own choosing. This alone would shadow out all the other bodily torments they are afflicted with.

I can’t explain why the devil was permitted to contact Jesus from hell because I can’t find that in the text about the temptation in the desert. .

But he would have be able to in some fashion otherwise how would he tempt?

In Mt 26:24, It would of been better that Judas was never born than to betray Jesus. To me, to have never been born is to not exist. If you go to hell it is as if you never existed because you chose to be separated from God.

A souls ultimate end is to be united with God to praise Him forever. The desire for this union is a property of the soul and cannot go away. In hell that desire cannot be satisfied.

 

[Benadam]

I’m sorry. I’m not following. Is what you are stating here talking about the afterlife between someone in heaven & someone in
hell ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

I’m saying that in as much as we are able( and in a state of glory it is much more than we can imagine) we will see things as God see’s them and nothing will seem unjust, or unmercyfull, and everything God wills we will. Everything perfectly in place.