The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

People will believe any sort of craziness, stretching what needs to be stretched, making up what needs to be made up, so they can hate what they need to hate. Nothing happened in 538 AD except in fanciful history but that doesn't stop that date from being critical to their theory about how the Catholic Church is evil evil evil. That's their gospel in a nutshell. Not about how the creator of the universe became a man, suffered and died for our redemption, and offers us the hope of glory with him. Just the screed about the evils of the Catholic Church.

People fear what they don't understand, I guess... How on earth does someone get from the parable of the wealthy man and Lazarus to Catholicism being evil? I mean, you would really have to look at the text with a squint...

 

[cgaviria]

People will believe any sort of craziness, stretching what needs to be stretched, making up what needs to be made up, so they can hate what they need to hate. Nothing happened in 538 AD except in fanciful history but that doesn't stop that date from being critical to their theory about how the Catholic Church is evil evil evil. That's their gospel in a nutshell. Not about how the creator of the universe became a man, suffered and died for our redemption, and offers us the hope of glory with him. Just the screed about the evils of the Catholic Church.

The catholic church teaches to pray to the virgin mary. The catholic church teaches to pray to saints. The catholic church believes it has the right to decide what is right and wrong. How is this not evil?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The catholic church teaches to pray to the virgin mary. The catholic church teaches to pray to saints. The catholic church believes it has the right to decide what is right and wrong. How is this not evil?

The conspiracy runs even deeper. The same Catholics (maybe proto-orthodox is a better term) who developed and believed in early hagiography and Marian devotion were the ones who chose the canon of Scripture you consider holy.

 

[cgaviria]

The conspiracy runs even deeper. The same Catholics (maybe proto-orthodox is a better term) who developed and believed in early hagiography and Marian devotion were the ones who chose the canon of Scripture you consider holy.

you're absolutely right. Which is why we must also analyze the versions of the manuscripts that some of our english translations are based out of that were handed down to us. Its important to get into deep study and research, otherwise you're merely just believing what "you're told" by the mainstream churches of today.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

you're absolutely right. Which is why we must also analyze the versions of the manuscripts that some of our english translations are based out of that were handed down to us. Its important to get into deep study and research, otherwise you're merely just believing what "you're told" by the mainstream churches of today.

It starts by abandoning the notion that anything was handed down to you. You're not altogether that important. Christians simply believed things and they happened to be written down and they happened to be prayed and they happened to form their liturgies.

Also, most textual analysis will suggest that we simply don't have originals, they don't exist, what this means is that at any given time in history Christians were using and praying copies of copies. This makes them sacred as lex orandi lex credendi. The original manuscripts don't exist anymore, never will again and don't altogether matter, all that matters is the continuation of the Eucharistic prayer.

 

[cgaviria]

It starts by abandoning the notion that anything was handed down to you. You're not altogether that important. Christians simply believed things and they happened to be written down and they happened to be prayed and they happened to form their liturgies.

Also, most textual analysis will suggest that we simply don't have originals, they don't exist, what this means is that at any given time in history Christians were using and praying copies of copies. This makes them sacred as lex orandi lex credendi. The original manuscripts don't exist anymore, never will again and don't altogether matter, all that matters is the continuation of the Eucharistic prayer.

You can believe whatever you want, but regardless of the "copies of the copies" that we do have, there is still enough truth in our translations to determine correct doctrine. And the fact remains that these texts we are reading were authored by men having the spirit of God, so not just any men writing mere words on parchments. These are inspired texts. So we ought to listen and read and study it and see what these men are really trying to say, not really what the churches of today are saying. Going into deep study and research helps confirm matters.

Do you not believe these scriptures are sacred and to be adhered to fully?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You can believe whatever you want, but regardless of the "copies of the copies" that we do have, there is still enough truth in our translations to determine correct doctrine. And the fact remains that these texts we are reading were authored by men having the spirit of God, so not just any men writing mere words on parchments. These are inspired texts. So we ought to listen and read and study it and see what these men are really trying to say, not really what the churches of today are saying. Going into deep study and research helps confirm matters.

Do you not believe these scriptures are sacred and to be adhered to fully?

The texts you believe inspired were collated by those you believe weren't. That's a problem for you, one I don't believe that you, or anyone even remotely close to your camp, has ever solved. Studying them is great! I have about a quarter of my library devoted to biblical studies. It's just important to remember that studying them included academia, these are ancient texts and their interpretation implies a great incorporation of scholarship.

 

[cgaviria]

The texts you believe inspired were collated by those you believe weren't. That's a problem for you, one I don't believe that you, or anyone even remotely close to your camp, has ever solved. Studying them is great! I have about a quarter of my library devoted to biblical studies. It's just important to remember that studying them included academia, these are ancient texts and their interpretation implies a great incorporation of scholarship.

No, the texts were authored by apostles. And before that they were authored by prophets. And before that they were authored by Moses. The catholic church has merely passed down texts, but they themselves did not author them.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

No, the texts were authored by apostles. And before that they were authored by prophets. And before that they were authored by Moses. The catholic church has merely passed down texts, but they themselves did not author them.

And your evidence?

 

[cgaviria]

And your evidence?

Do you really believe that it was the catholic church that authored all these texts 1,700 years ago? When in fact these texts, at least the texts of the old testament, have been passed down by the Jews for at least 3,000 - 4,000 years before that? How do you think the Jews had their own government and laws? It was by the old testament texts that they had way long ago before even the catholic church came into existence. So therefore it stands to conclude that these men, regardless of what they did in history, merely passed down these same texts, but interpreted it them as they wanted.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Do you really believe that it was the catholic church that authored all these texts 1,700 years ago? When in fact these texts, at least the texts of the old testament, have been passed down by the Jews for at least 3,000 - 4,000 years before that? How do you think the Jews had their own government and laws? It was by the old testament texts that they had way long ago before even the catholic church came into existence. So therefore it stands to conclude that these men, regardless of what they did in history, merely passed down these same texts, but interpreted it them as they wanted.

I think that much of the Old Testament was written during the Persio-Hellenistic period and mostly by priests. I don't buy the old nineteenth century idea that there was significant social friction between the prophets and the priests, I think they intersected one another and at times were one another. I think that much of the New Testament is pseudonymous and that St Paul was a Pharisaic Jew, all his life. Albeit, I don't view there to have been very much of a distinction between the final author of the NT and the early patristics, as far as I'm concerned there's pure and simple continuity. Where my Catholicity comes through is that I don't think that any of these texts exist in a vacuum and that the only way we can discern them in any conceivable manner is through their continual reception history. If, as you do, one were to simply pick them at random and being trying to make sense of them by reading 21st century politics into them one would be reading these texts very awkwardly.

 

[cgaviria]

I think that much of the Old Testament was written during the Persio-Hellenistic period and mostly by priests. I don't buy the old nineteenth century idea that there was significant social friction between the prophets and the priests, I think they intersected one another and at times were one another. I think that much of the New Testament is pseudonymous and that St Paul was a Pharisaic Jew, all his life. Albeit, I don't view there to have been very much of a distinction between the final author of the NT and the early patristics, as far as I'm concerned there's pure and simple continuity. Where my Catholicity comes through is that I don't think that any of these texts exist in a vacuum and that the only way we can discern them in any conceivable manner is through their continual reception history. If, as you do, one were to simply pick them at random and being trying to make sense of them by reading 21st century politics into them one would be reading these texts very awkwardly.

Regardless of the dates of the manuscripts discovered, there is no doubt that most of the texts come from antiquity, even before the catholic church. I am sure you would agree with this. I choose to believe everything these texts say because of historical accounts outside of these texts pointing to their accuracy, and even in how I perceive the order of things that do exist. I see not just scientific cause and effect, but I see wisdom in the way things were made. These texts bring to light how all these things were made and why they were made and why they were made the way they were. It explains everything and it is beautiful.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Regardless of the dates of the manuscripts discovered, there is no doubt that most of the texts come from antiquity, even before the catholic church. I am sure you would agree with this. I choose to believe everything these texts say because of historical accounts outside of these texts pointing to their accuracy, and even in how I perceive the order of things that do exist. I see not just scientific cause and effect, but I see wisdom in the way things were made. These texts bring to light how all these things were made and why they were made and why they were made the way they were. It explains everything and it is beautiful.

I find that there are specific Judaisms which antedate Catholicism and yet inform and form it. Certainly the "Catholic Church" didn't exist yet antecedence to it existed. You will not find anything within Catholicism or indeed our more neglected brethren the Orthodox Catholics and Orientals which hasn't existed within the wide spectrum of Judaisms.

 

[cgaviria]

I find that there are specific Judaisms which antedate Catholicism and yet inform and form it. Certainly the "Catholic Church" didn't exist yet antecedence to it existed. You will not find anything within Catholicism or indeed our more neglected brethren the Orthodox Catholics and Orientals which hasn't existed within the wide spectrum of Judaisms.

As impressive as your words seem, mine are alot simpler.... these texts come from antiquity, from people closer in time than we are to the events they recorded, so if anything, it stands to reason that we should listen to them more than people who exist now that are further away from these events. Whats one reason these texts matter so much? Because in them are the answer to overcoming your own death, which would render your life futile if you are not able to overcome it. In these texts we have the answer to how to overcome it. Just as Jesus Christ overcame his death so are his followers able to overcome their deaths. In it is the answer to eternal life.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The catholic church teaches to pray to the virgin mary. The catholic church teaches to pray to saints. The catholic church believes it has the right to decide what is right and wrong. How is this not evil?

I'm a bit dumbfounded by the question.

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that you can seek intercession from Mary and the other saints. Christians from the earliest days have been asking for intercession from the saints.

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that some things are wrong and even sinful. A Church founded by Jesus SHOULD teach that some things are evil. For example, a Church founded by Jesus should teach that abortion is evil and sinful. Does your group consistently do that? Or is it strangely tolerant of evil and sinful things?

Your presumption of evil colors what you post. Try to get over it. Put Ellen White aside and look around.

 

[cgaviria]

I'm a bit dumbfounded by the question.

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that you can seek intercession from Mary and the other saints. Christians from the earliest days have been asking for intercession from the saints.

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that some things are wrong and even sinful. A Church founded by Jesus SHOULD teach that some things are evil. For example, a Church founded by Jesus should teach that abortion is evil and sinful. Does your group consistently do that? Or is it strangely tolerant of evil and sinful things?

Your presumption of evil colors what you post. Try to get over it. Put Ellen White aside and look around.

Seeking intercession from Mary and the saints is evil, and they are also dead, so how could they intercede for you? there is only one intercessor, and it is Jesus Christ, who was resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

How do you know which group I am part of? Don't think for one minute that what I'm saying just applies to the catholic church.

 

[lutherangerman]

I would suggest the Lazarus from Luke is the same as the Lazarus from John's Gospel. Basically Jesus is making things into a little story. As it seems, Lazarus was poor and needy and through Jesus' friendship and Him resurrecting him after he had died, he came to Abraham's bosom - he enjoyed a faith like Abraham's. The rich man was an acquaintance of him (maybe he stands for all the rich people that did not help the Lazarus people). Being rich and not being given to love, they could not relate to the faith Lazarus now enjoyed, and instead burned in fear and shame and spiritual pain and envy. They could not yet drink from the Living Water that may have given them the same joy that Lazarus had, the joy of knowing that death is not the end. Remember that Lazarus was really dead for three days, so he probably then knew something about what death was like. He knew about the afterlife and was recalled from it. (Some christians believe that after death our spirits stay on Earth for a short while until they are buried - we arrive in Heaven a bit later. I don't know about the timespan, but it would be more than 3 days to two weeks or so.)

 

[Wgw]

you're absolutely right. Which is why we must also analyze the versions of the manuscripts that some of our english translations are based out of that were handed down to us. Its important to get into deep study and research, otherwise you're merely just believing what "you're told" by the mainstream churches of today.

The justification for relying on the Athanasian Canon of 27 New Testament books rather collapses if one regards St. Athanasius as an evil figure seeking to corrupt Christianity. Although such a view would allow you to dispense with John 1:1-14 and various other texts you find inconvenient. One might at that point exclusively beloeve in the apocrypha of the Nag Hammadi library, since St. Athanasius included none of it in his canon, therefore, it must be right, eh?

 

[cgaviria]

The justification for relying on the Athanasian Canon of 27 New Testament books rather collapses if one regards St. Athanasius as an evil figure seeking to corrupt Christianity. Although such a view would allow you to dispense with John 1:1-14 and various other texts you find inconvenient. One might at that point exclusively beloeve in the apocrypha of the Nag Hammadi library, since St. Athanasius included none of it in his canon, therefore, it must be right, eh?

Were the old testament books themselves not passed along by pharisees and scribes and disobedient children of Israel even before them? The passing down of the texts by sinful men does not invalidate the words in them that were authored by men before them that had the inspiration of the Spirit. Neither do I "conveniently" discard any verse in the common canon of the 27 NT books, except two suspicious verses pertaining to the trinity that contradict all things to be done in the name of Jesus Christ alone.

 

[Wgw]

Were the old testament books themselves not passed along by pharisees and scribes and disobedient children of Israel even before them? The passing down of the texts by sinful men does not invalidate the words in them that were authored by men before them that had the inspiration of the Spirit. Neither do I "conveniently" discard any verse in the common canon of the 27 NT books, except two suspicious verses pertaining to the trinity that contradict all things to be done in the name of Jesus Christ alone.

However, given the disagreements over canonicity of various Pauline epistles, you cannot make the case that you are not reliant on the Athanasian canon. What is more, your rejection of Matthew 28:19 is entirely arbitrary, and unsupported even by liberal textual criticism that rejects the Comma Johanneum, the longer ending of Mark, et cetera. For good reason: there is no manuscript evidence.