Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

The pastor referenced in this thread is good guy, who is thriving in the UPCI culture. So go easy on him, I got to see him at Landmark, when I was a Youth Pastor back in the early 90's he stayed with me. He has paid his dues and has planted and grown a church.

His name was omitted from the thread. So it's not personal.

But what he said is a great example of how distorted our interpretation of passages can get -- just to prove a point for our pet doctrines.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

It is interesting that some people can't see the story has many points in it. Not just one. I have heard a lot of different sermons on that passage.
I don't think God blesses threads which attack his called servants.

Yes a clear mind sees the story does indeed begin with rebellion. With any good sermon, it would be easy to find 10 Pentecostals to play fruit inspector and try to shred it.

Ahh... a post-modern Bible interpreter. Many meanings... and it can mean whatever you want it to. Heck, scripture is just a playground for creativity. Build whatever you want out of them.

Definitely not a conservative, authorial intent exegesis. There was an audience, there was a point, there was an emphasis on the story --- and it had nothing to do with the prodigal coming back because he had a change of heart about rules. The irony is that's exactly the elder brother thinking -- not the prodigal.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Cindy

So according to some he distorted scripture. Are we the thought police? We did not write the scripture, neither are we God. Who are we to say someone else's thoughts are wrong?

So scripture can mean whatever you wish it to? Or did it mean something to the original hearers?

This is how wacky things happen. They use the story as a theater stage to support any read-into the parable any idea they have. Then some even take the story and stretch it out for 5 hours with "what ifs" --- taking the analogous story farther than it was intended.

Each parable teaches a single moral truth -- a primary truth. Can there be secondary implications yes? Can there be 20 different meanings? I don't believe so. These were said to a people, and to an audience for a reason. Not to sit around like beatniks and make up your own interpretation.

Conservative hermeneutics proceeds on the premise that language is meaningful and that the words in God's biblical communication carry "historical, cultural, spiritual, and moral meaning and values."5 As an interpreter approaches the Scriptures, he is conscious of the words and endeavors to discover the meaning carried by them. Sometimes Jesus supplied the interpretation (e.g., Matt. 22:14; 25:13), and on other occasions the Gospel writer made an editorial comment. Often the key to interpretation can be found in the prologue to the parable (e.g., Luke 18:1, 9; 19:11). Other times the epilogue gives a clue to the proper interpretation (Matt. 25:13; Luke 16:9). And in some parables the prologue and epilogue form an interpretive parenthesis around the story (e.g., Matt. 18:23–24, 35; Luke 12:16–21).


Jesus often told parables to answer a question, meet a challenge, or invite the hearers to change their thinking. To discover the need that prompted the parable is a significant step toward unlocking its meaning within its original context. Often that need in the original historical and/or literary audience is shared by current readers. Thus the supporting braces for the bridge of application can begin to be formed at this point in the interpretive process. The need may be seen in the material that introduces the parable (e.g., Luke 18:1) or it may not be revealed until after the parable is told (e.g., 16:8). Zuck suggests nine kinds of occasions or purposes that led to Jesus' parables, with examples of each: parables in answer to questions, parables in answer to requests, parables in answer to complaints, parables given with a stated purpose, parables of the kingdom given because of Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah, parables following an exhortation or principle, parables that illustrate a situation, and parables with the purpose implied but not stated.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...es_bailey.html

[Socialite]

Next, I will prove there is a purple-spotted dragon that is each of ours avowed enemy -- by using the parable of the lost coin

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Socialite

So scripture can mean whatever you wish it to? Or did it mean something to the original hearers?

This is how wacky things happen. They use the story as a theater stage to support any read-into the parable any idea they have. Then some even take the story and stretch it out for 5 hours with "what ifs" --- taking the analogous story farther than it was intended.

Each parable teaches a single moral truth -- a primary truth. Can there be secondary implications yes? Can there be 20 different meanings? I don't believe so. These were said to a people, and to an audience for a reason. Not to sit around like beatniks and make up your own interpretation.



http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...es_bailey.html

No, I am saying you are guilty of what you are accusing this preacher of according to some. Distortion, just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right and he is wrong. YOU can be wrong, you know? And you can be as sarcastic as you like, still doesn't make you right.

[Socialite]

And if you do take liberty with a text, to support an otherwise-biblically supported principle, you should be honest that this is only your opinion and probably not true, but a "let's pretend." Jesus wasn't preaching the power and beauty of rules - sorry.

So pithy statements with your name signed at the end don't make it any truer

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Cindy

No, I am saying you are guilty of what you are accusing this preacher of according to some. Distortion, just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right and he is wrong. YOU can be wrong, you know? And you can be as sarcastic as you like, still doesn't make you right.

I could be wrong. Sure. I could be wrong that Jesus is God too.

But based on VERY basic hermeneutic principles, this FB pastor took liberty and made claims about a story that simply aren't true -- nor do they fit the overall context of what Jesus was saying... and who he was saying it do.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I could be wrong. Sure. I could be wrong that Jesus is God too.

But based on VERY basic hermeneutic principles, this FB pastor took liberty and made claims about a story that simply aren't true -- nor do they fit the overall context of what Jesus was saying... and who he was saying it do.

I agree with some of this. But not all, but we apply a lot of what Jesus said to our lives in our context of this century. And interpretations do differ, yet the text remains true.

[Socialite]

The story begins with this:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

So we know our audience...

He ends the parable of the lost sheep with this...

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent

You tell me who he's probably referring to

Then the Story of the Lost Coin...

Then the Story of the Lost Son...

Which ends with this:

“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

Chapter 16 continues on with Jesus' stories...

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

Suggesting the son had issues with rules and then figured the rules were good misses, and yes, distorts the impacting message of the story Jesus told. The story wasn't a rubix cube, pick-your-interpretation, it had some very clear meanings to the original audience.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I agree with some of this. But not all, but we apply a lot of what Jesus said to our lives in our context of this century. And interpretations do differ, yet the text remains true.

Who cares if the Text is the same if people interpret however they wish?

We wouldn't have one single, coherent truth claim about God with that sort of post-modern thinking.