Study on the Parables

[icxn]

Ok. I don't want to be disobedient now...

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

 

[Linnorm]

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.

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...

but im sure God teaches all of us very well on all of this..

 

[CaDan]

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

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.

 

[JimfromOhio]

The prodigal son had "accepted" his father's forgiveness. Christ's death for us removes our sin and scrubs clean our consciences. It is time to bury my regrets and start serving Lord Jesus Christ! My heart that has been delivered from sin should not feel regreted but accept Christ's wondrous gifts of relief. My attitude of "returned prodigal" honors and submitting to my father more by rejoicing .

In Luke 15, I was like this prodigal son which God have placed me where I was that I need to get out. God put me at the bottom which made me humbled that brought me to my senses. Like the prodigal son went back to his father with this attitude: "Father, I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son. Take me on as a hired hand."

The prodigal son's father responded with this attitude: "My son is here--given up for dead and now alive! Given up for lost and now found!". I truly believed that God have responded the same way when I decided to go back to Him.

The parable of the prodigal son shows the nature of repentance, and God's readiness to welcome and bless all who return to Him.

Prodigal son was poor in spirit but then he was happy because his actions brought him to to the bottom. With that, he have learned that being humble and lowly in his own eyes have brought him to understand. He mourned but he was happy because his godly sorrow have brought him true repentance with humble mind, and continual dependence for acceptance on the mercy of his father (us with Jesus Christ). God is looking for those with such attitude of mournering have brought them comfort of their past sins because God forgave and forgot them as the Prodigal's father did.

Now... as a Prodigal Christian:
There is a possibility that a prodigal Christian was never saved in first place. Acts 2:39 "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." A prodigal Christian was part of a Christian family and like most Christian families, they have "lost children" (lost sheep) who were taught about Christ but never really accepted Christ from the heart. Backsliding is a slippery slope. However, it is a slope and not a cliff. A prodigal Christian rebelled and back-sliding to their old nature like a prodigal son in the Bible. No matter how we look at whether a prodigal person was saved or not, God woke them up. The parable of the prodigal (backsliding) son shows the nature of repentance, and God's readiness to welcome and bless all who return to Him.

 

[KEPLER]

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.

The parable of the prodigal son shows the nature of repentance, and God's readiness to welcome and bless all who return to 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

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Now that you've said this, I think I may have been confusing or conflating Bailey with some of Wright's stuff...

and thanks!

K

 

[JimfromOhio]

I know there were two sons. One was a prodigal and one stayed with his father. I can say alot about the son who stayed with his father which is more negative than the story about the prodigal son.


Let me sum the son who stayed with his father, when the prodigal son came home, this son got jealous and put pride ahead of love.

 

[CaDan]

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

What strikes me is that even if the prodigal's repentance was not genuine or perfect, IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH for his father to come and meet him

 

[dcyates]

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.

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.

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Sorry I should have responded to this...

Actually, in the book Jacob and the Prodigal, Bailey makes this very point! I highly recommend it!

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[dcyates]

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?

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.

 

[jehovahjireh2007]

I really don't know why I bother. This seems to have become Kepler's thread, not mine.

Derbystudent

 

[nephilimiyr]

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 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.
God's Blessings on you and to everyone who has read what you have said!

but im sure God teaches all of us very well on all of this..

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.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I really don't know why I bother. This seems to have become Kepler's thread, not mine.

Derbystudent

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.... Thank you for bringing up a great topic and one that doesn't have anything to do with the battle between Protestantism and Catholism!

Don't let them get to you or discourage you in anyway. Just remember one thing, just because this is a debate forum doesn't mean you have to engage yourself in it. I'm more than interested in the next parable you wanted to write about!

 

[icxn]

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.

As you wish... and since you won, I have no right to remain here.

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)