I have been thinking just lately that certain people are forever holding up Jesus as the shining light, and urging us all to look to the bible as a guide.

I tend to think there is a little inconsistency with this.

If we really wanted to learn from what Jesus said, then we shouldn't be looking at the commentary on his life written by those who recorded their versions after his death, but from what he said.

I don't mean to denigrate any of the authors of the Gospels in saying this. If any of you asked me about my mother now (several years after her death) I'm probably going to paint you a more rosy picture of her than when she was a live. In some ways I might unintentionally make her seem larger than life, because she was a pretty amazing woman. Some of the things she did and said might appear to me NOW to carry more weight than they did at the time.

What I'd like to do is discuss the parables that are attributed to Jesus, and discuss what they might mean to us.

The prodigal son is one I'm thinking about. In recent years I have come to a very different interpretation from what I was told the story was about when I was young. I am curious about how self professed christians here interpret that story - and exploring what it might say about Jesus, that he told this story.

One of the thoughts that has crossed my mind is ... how does the tale of the Prodigal Son fit with the 'Tough Love' that many christian parents I have met recommend for dealing with teenagers who go off the rails?

Anyone got any thoughts?

On the issue of Gospel accuracy there are lots of things you can say. An example is that, while the content of the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) was probably said by Jesus it was probably not said in the form that Matthew describes. Frankly in history the people would not have had enough time to sit and just listen to Jesus. But I still believe he said those things sometime during his ministry so that is all that matters to me. I use a very Paul like view of the Gospel which looks at Jesus and says the most important thing is that he was crucified, died, buried, and rose from the dead.

I view the prodigal son as telling us a lot about the nature of God and our relationship to Him. It's a metaphor for God and his unending grace. People are the son in the story. We can so totally stray from what God wants that we can ruin our lives and give up all God has given us, but if we return and ask forgiveness God will take us again and celebrate our return.

As for the tough love thing you would have to clarify this for me. I don't think the prodigal son is a illustration on how to raise kids if that's what you mean. I believe that sometimes loving your kids means punishing them for what is wrong.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Here's the parable as recored by Luke in case anyone wants to read it over:

There has been quite a bit of scholarly research on what Jesus said, in fact there was a Bible put out which had text in three different colors for the things Jesus probably didn't say, the things He might have said, and the things that scholars think He probably did say.

Another work on that subject is JESUS: What He Really Said and Did by Stephen Mitchell. On page 143 Mitchell mentions THE FIRST COMING: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, which is a work I have recommended to several people on this site.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

You are talking about the Jesus seminar which was a load of crap. If you read it most of the things they judged he didn't say have to do with final judgment. They had there own agenda and are not biased.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Hey daisym, if you're not yet sick of me from that other thread I'll try an interpretation.

The parable of the prodigal son is the third of a set of three parables recorded (and IMO probably actually told) back-to-back-to-back. There's a story about a lost sheep, a story about a lost coin and then the story of the "lost son". They're all in Luke 15.

I think non is spot-on about it being a metaphor of God's grace. All the son had to do was come back home and even though he had wasted all his father had given him, his father immediately and completely forgave and welcomed him back.

Just before all three of the "lost (something)" parables, Luke writes that,
So there were two rather different groups of people listening in, and I suspect that Jesus was addressed both of them by giving the father in the story two sons.
The first, I think, represented "the tax collectors and 'sinners'", people who didn't feel very close to God and were often accused of the worst sorts of sin and told by the religious elite that God hated or was disgusted by them.
For them the story meant that God still loved them, and if they came "home" to Him he would immediately forgive whatever they'd done wrong and welcome them back with joy.

But I think the oft' forgotten second son in the story was also important. He represented the religious elite who were "muttering" about Jesus at the beginning. The idea that God would open Himself up to people who had committed such henious sins and wasted their lives was anathema to them and they refused to accept it the way the second son refused to accept his father's treatment of his returned brother.
They wanted judgement when all the father was giving was love.
I think the father's comments to the second son were aimed straight at the religious establishment.

Hmmm, I don't know. I would think that this story doesn't have any "tough love" in it. Just the opposite in fact; loves of love and lots of grace, but no real "toughness".
But, as non said, I doubt it was really about parenting. The sons in the story were almost certainly adults.

Golly, seems like every Christian has a different take on the religion, it's no wonder that they have been killing each other for centuries. Nice of you to characterize your fellow Christians' work as a "load of crap". Does that include Stephen Mitchell's work too? Have you read it?

There is so much baggage and so little proof that, as a non-Christian, I just have to question the validity of the whole thing. I think Thomas Sheehan makes a good case for the whole basis of Christianity being firmly founded on a misinterpretation of Jesus' message by Peter in the days right after Jesus death.

In the end, if all the self-identified "Christians" would just keep their religion to themselves, practice it in their own lives, and stop trying to make everybody else live by their mixed up bag of contradictory precepts, concepts, notions, ideas, and outright nonsense we would all be able to lead much more peaceful lives.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

No i have not read the Mitchell's book so I cannot say either way. What is the gist of the book?

Sorry about my reaction to the Jesus seminar but i resent it for many reasons. I view it as bad scholarship and bad reading of the Bible that results in nothing positive. We all have our own little subjects that bring out some strong reactions here the Jesus Seminar happens to be one of mine.

You are right that not all Christians agree. Even Dil and I probably don't agree on the finer points of doctrine. It's a hard message and that gives you lots of different interpretations. One of the purposes of the Church is that we are supposed to try and figure it out together. Again you are right, there is little proof, but I have faith that the Holy spirit keeps the church moving in a generally right direction. I would be interested in what you see as a misinterpretation by Peter. It would make for an interesting discussion As for keeping to ourselves it depends on what you mean by this. If you mean some of the people in the Christian right who want to force people to live according to "Christian values" then I agree. But if you mean that Christians stop doing mission work and stop being public about their faith then i have disagree. You are right it is a bag of contradictions (Luther would use the word Paradox). It goes against a lot of human reason what I believe, but that's part of the faith.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

This parable is not about discipline.

__________________
Anyone ask Hillary what kind of underwear she wears, yet?

Lt. Gov Diane Denish on Bill Richardson "The governor, she said, "pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg."

I don't think we'll ever know what Jesus really said. People were a lot less literate than now so they probably didn't write down what he said accurately. In addition to that I know things have been lost in translation as the Bible has been translated from language to language.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I can't summarize the book for you, he wrote a whole book detailing his research and his conclusions, it didn't come to a "conclusion" as much as it simply looked at the documentation and support for Jesus' teachings and tried to winnow out the things that may very well have been added in later.

Thomas Sheehan's book is quite a bit larger and more complex than Mitchell's, I would not even begin to try to discuss it with someone who had not read it. It's available from Amazon, it's not particularly costly--I just looked and there are copies for as little as $3.30. THE FIRST COMING: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity by Thomas Sheehan.

There's a fine line between the two, if your practice requires passing laws to force others to adhere to your beliefs and as the majority you have the votes to do it, then I am against that. But if you are living by the teachings of Jesus, loving thy neighbor, turning the other cheek, returning good for evil, and minding your own business, then I've no problem with that.

There is a difference between a "contradiction" and a "paradox". A contradiction is saying one thing and then saying something that contradicts your first statement. "Thou shalt not Kill" and "Suffer not a witch to live," would be an example of a contradiction. A paradox is a logical fallacy: If God can do anything, then He can make a rock so big that He can't pick it up. Loving your enemies, returning good for evil, loving others as yourself, all can be seen as paradoxical behaviors, but are not inherently contradictory.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

I still think that people who read the bible are missing a more important point...

The bible is a political book based on the combined mythologies of people from the ancient Middle East. It was bound in it's final form after the Council of Nicea, at which they discarded books that disagreed with Constantines view of what Christianity should be. He doubtlessly threw out gospels and books that had as much historical relevancy as the current version. And finaly that nothing in the book is literal truth, it is a book of mythology from which we can learn some lessons. Lessons about the lives of early Jews, and some of the basic principles of ancient and barbaric people. If Jesus even lives, he may have been the great moral philosopher of his time but he is not so great as some prominent Greeks before him.


I won't mention the horrible truths of religion that I have seen, but will leave that for others to decide.

Then we are agreed no problem.


ah ok I see where we are getting at. Well we must remember that the Bible was written by humans there is going to be some weird stuff.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

hmmm - well thats all interesting guys. And thanks Dil for posting the parable in full.

my take on it is this:

cultures like that of Judea 2000 years ago rely a lot on morality tales as a means of transmitting messages about how we should act in the world. there are often layers within layers on many parables, myths and legends.

Judean culture - like virtually every other in that world at the time, was extremely patriarchal. Fathers had the power of life and death over other family members, and in the 'normal family of the time - the prodigal could be expected to get short shrift from his parent.

The father giving him his inheritance ahead of time may not have been that unusual if he were to go out and make his fortune, and there would have been an expectation that he should make his father proud.

coming back as a prodigal loser, most likely he should have warranted punishment.

I think Jesus' parable was more likely to be indicating that he believed there were other approaches to the relationships that we have, and that these, rather than the patriarchal discipline mode found in the old testament, was a way to look at the world that he was promoting. If we take into account that, although quite clearly an educated man he mixed socially with people from all walks of life - including harlots - it appears that he is promoting a new way of thinking.

Jesus was more likely a man ahead of his time than a deity, IMO. Of course - there may well have been qualities that he had that resulted in several of his followers revering him as something more than mortal, and therefore having a different recall of many events than would otherwise be the case.

As for the second son I think his resentment, and the father's subsequent dismissing of his complaint (which should to most of us appear to be quite legitimate) suggests that Jesus was probably a bit of a commie at heart - as does his lifestyle.

Thats my take.

Its a lovely story - it tells us to welcome those in need with love rather than criticism, it tells us that even when we think we don't deserve to be treated fairly, in actual fact we do, and it tells us that when others have less than us, regardless of why, that remaining bitter and resenting our 'share' of the good things gong to others leads to unhappiness.

As for 'tough love' .... I have seen first hand that this is a favoured approach among many christians. Should your teenaged/young adult child go off the rails and do drugs etc - you turn your back on them, pray for them that they may pull through. To do otherwise is seen as counterproductive.

In contrast - those who have made it through these challenges - in my experience - have been the ones whose families - while being firm in refusing to accept the behaviours, were there for these young people. And in the end - these kids have a better chance of pulling through. Its our connection with others that helps us in the end - and even big grown up booffy kids who are strung out on smack still have the heroes they had as children - and a lot of the time - those heroes are their parents. And those are the people who have the most power to pull them through.

why did the prodigal son go back to his father when he was in need?

because it was as true in those days as it is now. our parents are, in the end, more important than virtually anyone else.

No, no, Non, my brothers--and quite a few others--have told me that the Bible is the Word of God, kept pure down through the ages by the Hand of God and every word in it is the literal Truth spoken by God.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.