Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus

[Chaldean_Rite]

Scripture must be read using the Four Senses.

From the Catechism:
**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

I’ve been taught that the rich man is in hell, and when you are in hell, you somehow lose your identity, whereas, in Heaven, or Abraham’s bosom it seems in this case, you have a name.

Some people comment on the dogs as a sign of sympathy for him, but this does not hold with Jewish thought at the time since dogs were seen to be unclean. The dogs, in my opinion, are a sign of the rich mans ignorance for Lazarus.

Some also are confused when they read that the rich man says:27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,
28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments
The reason I say confused is because, from one perspective, this almost looks like a sign of CHARITY, a grace of the Holy Spirit. But this is at odds with what we know about Hell since Hell is devoid of grace. So whats going on?

It is precisely the opposite of love: selfishness. The reason this is so is because of the warning Jesus gave:41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Scandal is the key. This caution to scandal is not only towards children, but everyone. The rich man knows in his heart that the life he led was scandalous to his brethren and if they go to hell, his suffering will increase in Hell. Therefore, what appeared to be divine charity, is actually not. It is simply a form of eternal self-preservation because Hell has various states damnation, like Heaven has various states of glory.

God Bless

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Has the Catholic Church ever taught whether the rich man was in Hell or Purgatory?

 

[Benadam]

Has the Catholic Church ever taught whether the rich man was in Hell or Purgatory?

The Catholic Church rarely makes definitive statements that finalize the enterpretation of particular passages of Sacred Scripture. I am unaware of any about the rich man’s state.

I would like to add a concept I don’t think has been introduced yet.

That there is an evil that having ther full revelation of God that will freely reject Him. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit. That this is the state of souls in hell for me is the only resolution for it’s existence and God as good.

 

[rcjones]

That there is an evil that having ther full revelation of God that will freely reject Him. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit. That this is the state of souls in hell for me is the only resolution for it’s existence and God as good.

We see this in the Gadarene demoniacs, who, though they knew exactly who Jesus was, preferred killing the pigs to bowing to him.

Matthew hints that the scribes and Pharisees were the same. Though they knew exactly who Jesus was, they would rather kill the one who was made to be sin (the abomination, like the pigs) than to bow to him.

 

[Benadam]

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.

There is a Christian saying the source of which I can’t recall. Forgive me for that. It goes; everything ever thought said or done will point to Christ in the end when all is in all, when Christ has gathered all men to Himself.

It should be understood that you assert this is true of Sacred Scripture and the aim of this method. It also needs to be understood that your assertion is that the shadows reveal that reality.

Note: I didn’t parouse your conclusions entirely but I found that the rich man in the bowels of the earth rejecting Lazarus is consistent with Christ’s rejecting of the flesh in allowing it to suffer and the reward of his bodies resurrection…

 

[rcjones]

There is a Christian saying the source of which I can’t recall. Forgive me for that. It goes; everything ever thought said or done will point to Christ in the end when all is in all, when Christ has gathered all men to Himself.

It should be understood that you assert this is true of Sacred Scripture and the aim of this method. It also needs to be understood that your assertion is that the shadows reveal that reality.

You said it better than I.

Note: I didn’t parouse your conclusions entirely but I found that the rich man in the bowels of the earth rejecting Lazarus is consistent with Christ’s rejecting of the flesh in allowing it to suffer and the reward of his bodies resurrection…

Christ has four roles: King, priest, prophet and judge. In the shadows the judge and the prophet die. In this parable, the rich man is the judge. In the shadows, the judges die to indicate that judgment ceases with the grace of Christ. Prophets die to indicate that prophecies cease, that is they have all been fulfilled.

So this parable says that judgment ends with the death of the rich man, and the Priest is now close to Abraham indicating that his intercession (grace) continues.

So when did judgment end? John 3 says that men are judged when the light came into the world. So when the light goes out, judgment ends. Now you know why there was darkness at the cross. It signified the death of the judge.

Oh, but Jesus didn’t come into the world to judge us, however, his perfect life put us to shame. We were called to the same good works but failed to perform. So we are judged by his example.
And judgment ended with his death.