Interesting reading, and I had not considered those meanings in the parable before. There is insight and I think that I agree with you about the meaning. That being said, I have a few questions. Also, there are some additional criticisms and extra conclusions you have added which I disagree with, and I'll air them.
I can see how Judah could be the rich man in the parable and recognize the astonishing similarity between 'Lazarus' and 'Eliezar'. It's a cool discovery, however I think a replacement of Jews is not intended. Perhaps reconsider that statement. There is a very rich list in the Pentateuch of later-born sons succeeding firstborns in terms of inheritance: Cain & Abel, Shem & Ham, Jacob & Esau, Ephraim & Manasseh, Hezron & Perez, etc.... To Jews these originally may represent non-spiritual people vs. spiritual receiving God's favor. This was probably a basic 'Sunday school lesson' for Jews and maybe still is. Perhaps Jesus' parable is speaking about this as well. Paul definitely refers to these examples, when he discusses the lost generation (as you brought up). Only he and Peter don't seem to interpret it as Gentile vs. Jew with finality. I think it would not be possible within the framework of Christianity for Jews to lose their favor, assuming an honest, promise keeping God. The 'Remnant' always go on and have more favored descendants. These cannot lose their Abrahamic status. They are fore-ordained 'in Abraham', meaning Scripture says they are included in specific promises specifically made to that man. The worst that should happen is that a part of one generation be lost, as happened once the wilderness. Then things go back to normal. In Acts, Peter does not ever say Israel is lost, but warns those he calls his brothers to save themselves 'from this crooked generation'. Those who listened to Peter, it says they were 'cut to the heart', meaning literally that their hearts were softened. Returning to Paul, he never ever ever says that Jews lose their place, but only that Gentiles can get grafted onto the same family tree as a result of 1 (one) generation's failure.
Post said:
Here, however, is sufficient evidence to set us on the right track of understanding this parable. The accepted Christian interpretation of this par- able is unscriptural and heresy of the darkest kind!
I disagree with calling it "heresy of the darkest kind," which is too strong even if it does seem heresy by some interpretations. Christian texts emphasize love much over and above knowledge. All knowledge is treated as something that only puffs up. Heresy is really much worse than just misinterpreting things, although there may have been true heresy in the past which might have caused damage to information. Even so, clearly people can be born in ignorance, thus showing that to God ignorance is not the worst thing. Heresy is more like false witness against someone -- intentionally harming them for personal gain, specifically against those whom God loves. Mere ignorance or misunderstanding is human, and is covered by love. "Love covers a multitude of sins".
I have seen many people make a big mistake, which is they decide God has stamped them with approval and form a closed group to rear their kids in and sort of try to 'Hold on' to what they've got, which is impossible. There is no guarantee your ows kids/disciples/descendants will benefit from any discovery you make, so don't circle your wagons or start yet another enlightened group. We are all tempted to do that, but its counterproductive. I never fully sought out all of this info the way you have but mostly stumbled into other people's work, though you can see I have made some of my own conclusions and investigations. Spiritual blindness is hardness of heart. They are the same thing, and that's why the knowledge itself isn't as big a deal as it seems. All of the conclusions you've reached have been found many times over, so it is for your own good that you sought them out -- and for my good too because I also benefitted from sharing in the fruit of your labor.