Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[MissBrattified]

The text doesn't say that the son left "because" of the rules; the only accurate way to put it is that he "left the rules." He left because he wanted to pursue his own will, rather than the will of his father. In doing that, he left the rules, and the rule maker, behind. He left behind boundaries.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree, tstew. Boundaries are a legitimate part of the discussion. Rebellion in general is the rejection of boundaries, whether they be God's boundaries or man's.



Unless he specified that, it isn't a fair assumption to make [that he's referencing manmade rules]. He could just as easily be talking about God's commandments.




RM - since Socialite didn't specify you were the author, and only quoted a small portion of something posted publicly for the sake of discussion, I think he is within bounds. There's no really good reason not to respond to an accusation, and is often the best way to resolve conflict. Also, a soft answer turns away wrath--that's in Proverbs, too.

What you'll find more often than not (around here) are people with this mentality:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I don't take anyone's word for anything regarding spiritual matters; His Word has the final say--always. I'm sure you feel the same way.



Socialite, this answers your assertion in Post #42:

"...We all know (those who are familiar with this FB pastor), his intent has much to do with standards, and that's what he read into this story."



I would say that he left the Father's house out of selfishness, and rebellion was a necessary step to achieve his goals. Either way, he tossed aside boundaries, and I agree that it's a legitimate point to bring out, although I think the most important point to be made is that The Father always meets repentance with a party.



I absolutely agree. There are layers and layers of lessons to be uncovered in every Bible story and parable. It would be short sighted to say that we can only pull out the most generic truth from each one and apply that one to our lives.



I appreciate you coming here and weighing in with your side of the conversation. Just be aware that Socialite didn't reveal your identity - you did - so try not to be *too* angry about it. I would like to read/watch/hear the whole *sermon* in context--or was it just a post?

Anyway, we're all better people when our ideas and thoughts can face analysis and questions. The occasional challenge is good for us.

[Socialite]

The prodigal son left the Father's house in rebellion against "the rules" and the "rule maker". The prodigal is you and I, he is Adam. He left for the same reason we all do. Either way, that's not in the story. Stick to the story.
That's why the older brother (who also had problems...but not that he was a Pharisee...lol...that was funny) What's funny is your post-modern biblical hermeneutics.

claimed to keep them. "I've labored...I've served...I've obeyed...unlike JR. Why did he come home? The "rules" didn't change...neither did the "rule maker" You've made rules a central part of a story where they weren't. NICE!

He decided that he could handle living with the Father's rules as long as he could enjoy Daddy's fried chicken. What's so "distorted" and "twisted" about this application of the story? How about the fact that this is never what it was about?? The focus wasn't Daddy's rules. It was firstly about a Prodigal God who loves us despite our failings, and secondly, if see anything in "JR" it's our rebellion against God PERIOD --

Finally...someone stated that the message of the parable is simple...one dimensional...simply stating one truth or couldn't be applied to more than one thing. That's completely ridiculous. Even Jesus referred to it at least 38 Old Testament Characters on more than one occasion to illustrate different lessons of spiritual truths. One scripture in the Bible can teach 100 lessons. As long as it does not contradict and supports other scripture. And you, sir, are a post-modern interpreter. You don't believe his words meant something in particular to the audience that heard it, but that it's some prose we chew on, and write on it like a great chalkboard, reading how WE perceive it, and what it means to US.

I understand some see separation differently than I do...I accept that. I have no ax to grind with those that do. We all believe in Biblical separation at some level...hopefully. Yeah, we believe it on a biblical level. Called out from being selfish, self-indulgent, liars, thieves... you know, the popular stuff. It's simply a matter of where that line is drawn.

Christianity was never supposed to be a list of rules...neither was it supposed to be absent of all of them. That's funny, you just turned one of the most beautiful parables into an entire commentary about rulesIt's funny to me when I'm referred to as an ultra-conservative. If I am...we are in major trouble...ha.In light of all your other Christian brothers and sisters, You most definitely are.

Bottom line is... Just like the story of the Prodigal...When you reject God's rules...you're headed for famine. (Yet another application of twisting text to mean something different than...yada yada...) At least you're aware of what you're doing. That's popular preaching that day... "That was soooooo good beau. You just raped the mess out of that Text, but man it was sooooooooooo creative. Who cares what the words meant, we care what you think it means... talk about tithing in the Prodigal.Talk about giving to the poor. Any topic you want. Why don't you guys quit using biblical texts and just make up your stories?



Have a wonderful evening...

May yours be just as wonderful.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You claim to have no ax to grind and use the term "Sloppy Grace."

No I don't think Jesus said anything about Spirit filled churches more creative license with the the text.

No matter how much you insist that it says it, there is nothing to indicate the son left because of the rules, but keep saying it maybe you can convince us.

It is a well accepted principle that a parable is designed to teach one truth not as many as you want to shove into it. Jesus using peoples lives to demonstrate a principle is not the same as twisting the story he told to make a point to make your own.

Would love to hear you teach on the Good Samaritan or the ten virgins.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The text doesn't say that the son left "because" of the rules; the only accurate way to put it is that he "left the rules." He left because he wanted to pursue his own will, rather than the will of his father. In doing that, he left the rules, and the rule maker, behind. He left behind boundaries.

The "WHY" isn't the subject of the story. Period.

We can speculate, but really, you and I are both the Prodigal. We are Adam. We are sinners. The point is, the Prodigal was a sinner. He tried living life his own way. Reading "rules" into this story molests the picture and distorts it into a completely different picture.

The only "rule abider" in the story is the elder brother. Coincidentally, I believe this is who the story was primarily directed to, the elder brother Pharisees and "righteous" Jews who hated that Jesus was hanging with sinners.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Socialite View Post
Tstew, I respectfully disagree.

No matter the reason, the lost Son left because he wanted to live for himself, he rebelled against God, etc. That's all of us. We all know (those who are familiar with this FB pastor), his intent has much to do with standards, and that's what he read into this story. That's taking liberty, that he should at least offer that he's speculating. The most harmful thing was not his speculation of why the son left, but why the son came back.

Post-modernism is alive and well in Biblical interpretation

MB SAID:
Unless he specified that, it isn't a fair assumption to make [that he's referencing manmade rules]. He could just as easily be talking about God's commandments.

Sorry, MB... his rant about the few, the proud, the Apostolics actually fortified what I suspected. But technically, you are correct.

[Socialite]

Quote:
Finally...someone stated that the message of the parable is simple...one dimensional...simply stating one truth or couldn't be applied to more than one thing. That's completely ridiculous. Even Jesus referred to it at least 38 Old Testament Characters on more than one occasion to illustrate different lessons of spiritual truths. One scripture in the Bible can teach 100 lessons. As long as it does not contradict and supports other scripture.
I absolutely agree. There are layers and layers of lessons to be uncovered in every Bible story and parable. It would be short sighted to say that we can only pull out the most generic truth from each one and apply that one to our lives.

Well, that's you "pot o' gold Apostolics." Dig out a new treasure each time.

Fact is, in application, there are a myriad of ways we apply a story. In discovering authorial intent, what was originally heard to the audience, this is not always the case. Jesus had a specific purpose, intent and mission. He wasn't saying 5,000 things. He was declaring one thing: the Kingdom of God.

To suggest the story of the lost son is about how family relationships deter people from faith, about obeying rules, about anything outside of the father's prodigal, extravagant love to sinners --- contrasted with those who consider themselves righteous --- is to miss his point entirely.

In most parables, Jesus actually tells us what they mean.

I've bought-in to the "layers" fluff for many years. There are loopholes in that a mile long that destroy the value, and leave behind few checks and balances in biblical interpretation.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The "WHY" isn't the subject of the story. Period.

We can speculate, but really, you and I are both the Prodigal. We are Adam. We are sinners. The point is, the Prodigal was a sinner. He tried living life his own way. Reading "rules" into this story molests the picture and distorts it into a completely different picture.

The only "rule abider" in the story is the elder brother. Coincidentally, I believe this is who the story was primarily directed to, the elder brother Pharisees and "righteous" Jews who hated that Jesus was hanging with sinners.

I disagree, Socialite. There are valid points to be brought out regarding the prodigal son's choices. When you analyze a text and try to figure out the whys, you can learn things that will keep you from making the same mistakes yourself--not just find out that God is merciful if you DO make the same mistakes. (And of course, that IS a crucial part of this story, no argument there.)

I do agree with your conclusions about the elder brother and Jesus' intent with that part of the story. Ironically, in order for you to draw that conclusion, you must try to derive more meaning from the parable than just the wonderful mercies of God similar to how RM derived meaning regarding the prodigal's rebellion.

So which is it? A story about the grace of God? Or a story meant to illustrate the horrid attitude of the rule-abiding Pharisees? Btw, there's nothing in the story to indicate that the father was any less merciful to the older brother because of his attitude than he was to the younger son for his errant ways. God forgives bad attitudes just as quickly as bad behavior.

Luke 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

Luke 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

[Socialite]

This just may have sparked a new thread on biblical interpretation.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well, that's you "pot o' gold Apostolics." Dig out a new treasure each time.

Fact is, in application, there are a myriad of ways we apply a story. In discovering authorial intent, what was originally heard to the audience, this is not always the case. Jesus had a specific purpose, intent and mission. He wasn't saying 5,000 things. He was declaring one thing: the Kingdom of God.

To suggest the story of the lost son is about how family relationships deter people from faith, about obeying rules, about anything outside of the father's prodigal, extravagant love to sinners --- contrasted with those who consider themselves righteous --- is to miss his point entirely.

In most parables, Jesus actually tells us what they mean.

I've bought-in to the "layers" fluff for many years. There are loopholes in that a mile long that destroy the value, and leave behind few checks and balances in biblical interpretation.

I'm opposed to proof texting, so if that's what you're referring to then we're in agreement. However, I think the Bible is much more complex than what you propose, and I think it is highly likely that God did weave many layers of wisdom into every little verse. But hey, if you have all those "simple truths" figured out, then by all means--write a commentary and the rest of us can just stop studying and go by your interpretation. (Lest we be guilty of the "fluff" approach.)