Kelley rightly criticizes the tendency to ignore the culture. "The danger we see in this sort of orientation is that it yields a picture of Jesus not as a wandering Jewish rabbi who instructs disciples, replies to opponents, and stimulates crowds, but rather of an existentialist theologian, wearing a Bultmannian or Heideggerian face, who by parabolic speech dramatizes ontological possibilities for hearers."
He ends the parable of the lost sheep with this...
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:
Chapter 16 continues on with Jesus' stories...
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.
It certainly did. But our thought processes are different than theirs. They spoke funny back then you know? Translations of text affect how we view scripture also. But I agree the core of the stories remain the same. Still doesn't mean we all interpret or agree on subjects.
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
It certainly did. But our thought processes are different than theirs. They spoke funny back then you know? Translations of text affect how we view scripture also. But I agree the core of the stories remain the same. Still doesn't mean we all interpret or agree on subjects.
Oh, there most definitely are other, more murky waters in the Text that we humbly agree "we don't know, but I think....". This isn't one of those.
That they "spoke funny" and thought differently, had different customs, and historically the words had great significance, are all things that should be discovered if we wish to understand what Jesus' words meant to the original hearers. We should do this first, before we attempt to make application today -- or we are just using Jesus' words as a puppet, and we become the master.
Oh, there most definitely are other, more murky waters in the Text that we humbly agree "we don't know, but I think....". This isn't one of those.
That they "spoke funny" and thought differently, had different customs, and historically the words had great significance, are all things that should be discovered if we wish to understand what Jesus' words meant to the original hearers. We should do this first, before we attempt to make application today -- or we are just using Jesus' words as a puppet, and we become the master.
With this I do agree, and will be reading the story today. Thanks for making me think on this subject.
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
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.
Actually you are wrong. There are 3 characters involved. So you mental limit of there being only one "moral truth" is rather shabby.
From the beginning, the word "prodigal" isn't even mentioned in the text. So when you get so restrictive and absolutist on a word that isn't even in there, it raises some red flags.
There are things to learn in the parable regarding the father, the son and the brother that never left.
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.
So you won't give a link to see if you are accurately quoting the actual messaage. These gossip threads are very vindictive. Face book and blogs are the 2011 places to gossip.
The story of the Lost Son, which many have long regarded as a story about the father's prodigal love, was told as a subtle rebuke to Pharisees who listened. But recently one pastor on FB decided it was more about "rules" than anything else.
I'm not sure where said pastor got this from, and it completely disregards the entire context of the Story. The rule-abiding Pharisees were being rebuked (they were the rule-abiding elder brothers in the story), but somehow the parable is about how valuable rules are? Really?
It's amazing to me that such a beautiful story can be twisted in such a way as to make people believe it was about 'rules.' The fact is, we are all that prodigal who rebelled against God. What our exact motivations were are no mystery: selfishness, trusting our way better than God's way. The prodigal didn't come back to make right with God. He came back because it was economically feasible for him. However, before he could get out his scheming, the father was running for Him, throwing himself on him, and ordering up a party. This is Grace.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem with discussing this as an element of the parable. I think the fact that the Bible goes on to say that once he received his money he squandered it with riotous or lawless living, makes the issue of boundaries relevant. I would not make that the ultimate interpretation of the parable...and I'm not sure the poster would either. However, the beautiful thing about scripture is that many different valid points can be made and highlighted in context IMHO.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
So you won't give a link to see if you are accurately quoting the actual messaage. These gossip threads are very vindictive. Face book and blogs are the 2011 places to gossip.
This was a direct quote. Those who are connected with this pastor will recognize that and know it. You can use your discretion to believe if I am lying or not. Either way, it makes for discussion.
Linear Mode
