Today Godspell

[ADiosgracias]

I didn’t know that a person who is in hell can speak with someone in heaven (the rich man with Moses) and also that man seems to have good filings and cares for his brothers on earth. Is that correct?

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Not everything in the Bible is meant to be read literally, especially so with the parables.

 

[Della]

I didn’t know that a person who is in hell can speak with someone in heaven (the rich man with Moses) and also that man seems to have good filings and cares for his brothers on earth. Is that correct?

Actually, the rich man was talking with Abraham. :tiphat:

Some theologians say that parables are just that, not real history and so are only meant to convey a central point, not give us one-on-one types or interpretations. Still, it is possible the rich man was in purgatory not hell, since he shows concern for those still living. We cannot really say for certain, only the Lord knows if he was describing real people as an example or not.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It seems pretty clear, to me at least, that the rich man was in what we know as hell while Abraham and Lazarus were in what we call the “Limbo of the Fathers” (please don’t say “we no longer believe in Limbo”- it’s the Limbo of Infants you are thinking of and even that remains a theological option, which in the end is all it ever was.)

I do not know if there can be any communication between those in heaven and those in hell, but in this case we seem to be looking at a case of what in the end are two “parts” of hell.

Regarding the natural goodness remaining in the rich man, I don’t think this should come as a surprise. Most everyone who goes to hell will have a significant degree of natural goodness in them at the moment of their deaths. Why should that goodness automatically disappear once they die? It might be that because of the experience of hell the damned go through a process of losing that goodness until at last they are much worse than they were when they died (that idea has been called Anti-Purgatory), but I’m not sure I buy it, and even if it were the case the rich man would have just recently died and so could have still held on to a natural love for his family even if he was later to lose it.

Not that I think the story likely literally happened, but at the same time I don’t think Jesus would introduce elements into a parable that would so confuse the listeners and later generations about nature of hell.

 

[clmowry]

I do not know if there can be any communication between those in heaven and those in hell, but in this case we seem to be looking at a case of what in the end are two “parts” of hell.

I believe you are correct.

Jesus descended into Hell to retrieve these righteous souls, or so I’ve been taught.

Chuck

 

[GEddie]

The term hell is really Greek Hades, which, despite being distinct from Heaven, is simply the “place of the dead” (like Hebrew Sheol). There is no reason to believe it to be the place of spiritual punishment, as, although it has pains of sense, so does Purgatory.

I have no problem with it being a real event and not a parable. Parables has explanations, this story does not. Proper names are never used in parables.

And the purpose of a parable is to make what is difficult easier on the mind. There’s no reason to turn a lesson on “helping the poor” into a puzzling afterlife account, if that account did not have truth to it.

ICXC NIKA