Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no shorter ascent to the royal and Divine mansions...than through subduing the five passions hostile to obedience, namely: disobedience, argumentativeness, self-gratification, self-justification and pernicious high opinion of oneself...Disobedience is the mouth of hell; argumentativeness its tongue, whetted like a sword; self-gratification is its sharp teeth; self-justification its throat; high opinion of oneself, which casts one into hell, is the belching of its all-devouring belly. But he who, through obedience, conquers the first, by one stroke cuts off all the rest and with one stride reaches heaven. - St. Gregory of Sinai
nephilimiyr said:Many Christians today just don't know what it means to party, to be joyous in the Lord. Some people need to be told that it's ok to have a spirit of joy, to laugh at things and situations and just enjoy life with their families and friends.
KEPLER said:Yep. I have that article, in fact for everyone's benefit, here is a direct link to it:
Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels, by Kenneth E. Bailey.
Puts the silly Jesus Seminar stuff to rest.
Glad you brought it up!!!
Kepler
We can't "find ourselves" any more than a sheep or a coin can. There's a reason those two episodes come first!!! The coin did not return to the woman, the woman searched for and found it. The sheep did not return to the flock, the Shepherd went out and found it.The parable of the prodigal son shows the nature of repentance, and God's readiness to welcome and bless all who return to Him.
CaDan said:Not at all.
Dr. Bailey has merely demonstrated that the equivalent of chreiai are easily preserved in an oral tradition. There is little dispute of that.
When we turn to writings, however, we see the elaboration of chreiai as described, for example, by Burton Mack.
p.s. That was a really good exegesis of Luke 15.
KEPLER said:Jim, with all due respect --
As I said before, there is actually no such thing as a "Parable of the Proigal Son". At the very least, call it the "Parable of the Two Lost Sons". (It's not really a parable; it's a portion of a parable).
The son's return has NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. His return is NOT -- in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM true repentence. His true repentence is in receiving what the Father gave him.
We can't "find ourselves" any more than a sheep or a coin can. There's a reason those two episodes come first!!! The coin did not return to the woman, the woman searched for and found it. The sheep did not return to the flock, the Shepherd went out and found it.
And in spite of the fact that the son started home, his Father went out and RAN to him while he was "yet a long way off..." And in truth, the Son was NOT returning to his father...he was returning to his father's household. He was NOT interested in a relationship, he was interested in alleviated his own hunger. He was after a short-term material benefit. His father gave him something completely unexpected.
Peace, bro.
Kepler
Great point. In fact, the Land was considered so precious that something I think worth noting is, not only does the text tell us that the father divided 'the inheritance' or 'his property' between them, but the term used is thn bihn , or "his life" (the root ofbihn is 'bio', from which we get such words as 'biology', the study of living things); he divided his life between his two undeserving sons.visionary said:Cashing it in, has a lot more implication than even you presented. The inheritence of the Israelites to the land was the promised land. It extremely important to keep it in the family even if it meant giving it to the daughters.
Which was another reason the widow married the brother. So for the son to sell his inheritence was like Esau selling his birthright for lentil soul.
visionary said:Cashing it in, has a lot more implication than even you presented. The inheritence of the Israelites to the land was the promised land. It extremely important to keep it in the family even if it meant giving it to the daughters.
Which was another reason the widow married the brother. So for the son to sell his inheritence was like Esau selling his birthright for lentil soul.
Although Kepler's response to this is fully adequate, might I be so bold as to further point out that in the ancient world repentance consisted of a heck of a lot more than simply saying you feel bad about what you did wrong (or didn't do right, as the case may be) and 'Gee whiz, golly, I'm really sorry, it'll never happen again'. Rather it meant making right or otherwise fixing what you had done wrong. If I stole five sheep from you, I'm not truly repentant if all I do is tell you I'm sorry without giving you back your five sheep.icxn said:Let's assume for a second that the son was really sorry for what he did. What else do you expect him to say? How many Christians throughout the centuries said those words in contrition and repentance? Are you (or Mr. Bailey) saying that they were all tricksters?
That's perfectly alright, in fact I thank you for your input and please keep going because we also need to hear more of what you're saying just as much as what I said.Linnorm said:The lord Has said that Sorrow is the Spirit that destroys men the most.... Sorrow is the flip side of cheerfulness... God has said that Sorrow grieves the Holy Spirit... and God has said that there is a time for everything... we should not be laughing at certain things and situations.. and we should not "enjoy life" if we are living a life that God Hates and sometimes our enemies are those of our own house.. our mother.. our sister..ect. and we cannot enjoy life with our friends if we are smoking speed or weed or sinning against the Lord who calls us to have a life of purity...
I just wanted to add some more to what you have said for the help of the Chruch made not with hands...
That's true but we all don't always listen to Him. I know I got this problem with the flesh that does war with the Spirit/spirit.but im sure God teaches all of us very well on all of this..
I haven't read through all the posts that I have missed in the last couple days but I thought you did a fine job in your OP and if it helps....derbystudent said:I really don't know why I bother. This seems to have become Kepler's thread, not mine.
Derbystudent
As you wish... and since you won, I have no right to remain here.dcyates said:Although Kepler's response to this is fully adequate, might I be so bold as to further point out that in the ancient world repentance consisted of a heck of a lot more than simply saying you feel bad about what you did wrong (or didn't do right, as the case may be) and 'Gee whiz, golly, I'm really sorry, it'll never happen again'. Rather it meant making right or otherwise fixing what you had done wrong. If I stole five sheep from you, I'm not truly repentant if all I do is tell you I'm sorry without giving you back your five sheep.
The younger son here neither says nor does anything to indicate that he's going to make things right with regard to how he wronged and dishonoured his father and family. The phrase 'came to (one)self' is not used anywhere else to indicate repentance. Coupled with the fact that, given the cultural context, Jesus seemed to deliberately paint the younger son as being as thoroughly horrible a son as could be imagined--indeed, one could almost hear the gasps of horror elicited from his audience with virtually every sentence--it's entirely in keeping that this son remain a unrepentant scoundrel right to the end.
Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there, any wondering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teachings. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go and request the dialogue in silence," he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: "Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."
"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.
"Well," explained the traveler, "first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here." With this, the traveler left.
"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
"I understand you won the debate."
"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."
"Tell me the subject of the debate," asked the elder one.
"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but the unrepentant scoundrel ran out and that ended it!" (Zen Koan)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?