The Prodigal Son examined
- Thread starter Macabeus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It doesn't make any difference to me what you think.
I am here to report,not offer up verses to support a doctrine.
I apologize for mistaking you for marcello.
I already told you what happened but you are still all offended and holding my mistake hostage.
Get back to me when you can openly debate the topic,not whatever personal deficiencies you transcrbe to myself.
You need to move on past that.
You know what i posted concerning the meaning of those parables,and you can not refute it,so you spin off in going personal.
I am here to report,not offer up verses to support a doctrine.
I apologize for mistaking you for marcello.
I already told you what happened but you are still all offended and holding my mistake hostage.
Get back to me when you can openly debate the topic,not whatever personal deficiencies you transcrbe to myself.
You need to move on past that.
You know what i posted concerning the meaning of those parables,and you can not refute it,so you spin off in going personal.
And yet nicodemus was wrong when he applied " born again" to some natural Jewish context.
What i am seeing is a methodology to place Jesus in A non prophetic box.
IOW, he didn't realize we would have his words as our bible,so he gave the real bible to paul.
So every concept of Jesus HAS TO BE confined to a " then only" prism.
Thus " who was his audience"& "what was the setting".
My "mistake" is reading it like it is alive and living,and to me
What i am seeing is a methodology to place Jesus in A non prophetic box.
IOW, he didn't realize we would have his words as our bible,so he gave the real bible to paul.
So every concept of Jesus HAS TO BE confined to a " then only" prism.
Thus " who was his audience"& "what was the setting".
My "mistake" is reading it like it is alive and living,and to me
have not been supporting any doctrine. I offered a simple exegesis of the text based on context.
You do not know my doctrine, because your description of it was light years off.
I do not even know what doctrine you think I am "supporting". You keep saying absurdities and crediting them to me.
I don't care about you mistaking me for Marcelo, and I did not bring it up again after you explained it. Go back and look. How is it that I am holding it hostage.
Your position CONTRADICTS JESUS' WORDS>
a. You say it is impossible that Jesus would liken unbelieving religious leaders to sons, because their father is the devil.
b. Yet Jesus likened religious leaders to sons in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32
c. Therefore, your argument not only seeks to refute me, it inadvertantly seeks to refute Jesus.
You are the one who has been personal and issued false accusations by the bushel. Heres a list of some of the false accusations you've made.
1. You said that I need to make the gospel irrelevant to modern believers. No basis whatsoever for making that statement.
2. You accused me of rejecting the fact that Jesus said that one son represents sinners and one jewish leaders in the vineyard. I never rejected it at any time.
3. You accused me of believing that God changed His mind about the gospel. I never said any such thing.
4. You accused me of believing that God changed His mind about the gospel being to the Jew only. I neither said God changed His mind, nor did I ever say the Gospel was for the Jew only.
5. You accused me of believing in two gospels. Totally false.
6. You accused me of using a special looking glass to interpret the Bible. False, unless by looking glass you meant CONTEXT.
7. You accused me of having a one dimensional view.
8. You accused me of making things up.
9. You accused me of not taking parts of the Bible seriously. False accusation.
10. You accuse me of "cunningly" transposing doctrine onto a text.
You have been deeply personal in your attacks and you have been guilty of TEN FALSE ACCUSATIONS that you can't back up. I challenge you to back up any one of these ten statements of yours by showing that I did or said any of these things.
Pick any one
And to say that I have failed to debate the point but have only used personal attacks is an eleventh false accusation. I have answered every one of your objections with scripture.
and to say I personally attacked you is false, because I did not. I was responding to your blatant and excessive caricaturing me. The only wise thing for you to do would be to withdraw the ten false accusations listed above. But you probably won't, because you already have your mind made up about what I believe.
If you want to know what I really believe on the heretical things you have accused me of, ie accusations 1,3,4,5,6 which are heretical views in my book, and you accused me of them, read my posts in the thread "is the Jewish God and the Gentile God the same"
these are some of my statements there.
God chose Israel to receive His oracle's and through whom to bring Messiah into the world, but it was always His intent to be both the glory of His people Israel and a Light to the Gentiles
God does not change. His eternal purpose is immutable. What appears to us as change is actually the progression and gradual growth of what God ordained in eternity
Abraham and Noah and others found favor with God through faith. That is the same thing as Grace, is it not?
We are not under the Old Covenant, but under the New. But the New Covenant does not abolish or overthrow or cancel out the moral law. RATHER, the New Covenant ESTABLISHES the moral requirements of the moral law.
etc
You do not know my doctrine, because your description of it was light years off.
I do not even know what doctrine you think I am "supporting". You keep saying absurdities and crediting them to me.
I don't care about you mistaking me for Marcelo, and I did not bring it up again after you explained it. Go back and look. How is it that I am holding it hostage.
Your position CONTRADICTS JESUS' WORDS>
a. You say it is impossible that Jesus would liken unbelieving religious leaders to sons, because their father is the devil.
b. Yet Jesus likened religious leaders to sons in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32
c. Therefore, your argument not only seeks to refute me, it inadvertantly seeks to refute Jesus.
You are the one who has been personal and issued false accusations by the bushel. Heres a list of some of the false accusations you've made.
1. You said that I need to make the gospel irrelevant to modern believers. No basis whatsoever for making that statement.
2. You accused me of rejecting the fact that Jesus said that one son represents sinners and one jewish leaders in the vineyard. I never rejected it at any time.
3. You accused me of believing that God changed His mind about the gospel. I never said any such thing.
4. You accused me of believing that God changed His mind about the gospel being to the Jew only. I neither said God changed His mind, nor did I ever say the Gospel was for the Jew only.
5. You accused me of believing in two gospels. Totally false.
6. You accused me of using a special looking glass to interpret the Bible. False, unless by looking glass you meant CONTEXT.
7. You accused me of having a one dimensional view.
8. You accused me of making things up.
9. You accused me of not taking parts of the Bible seriously. False accusation.
10. You accuse me of "cunningly" transposing doctrine onto a text.
You have been deeply personal in your attacks and you have been guilty of TEN FALSE ACCUSATIONS that you can't back up. I challenge you to back up any one of these ten statements of yours by showing that I did or said any of these things.
Pick any one
And to say that I have failed to debate the point but have only used personal attacks is an eleventh false accusation. I have answered every one of your objections with scripture.
and to say I personally attacked you is false, because I did not. I was responding to your blatant and excessive caricaturing me. The only wise thing for you to do would be to withdraw the ten false accusations listed above. But you probably won't, because you already have your mind made up about what I believe.
If you want to know what I really believe on the heretical things you have accused me of, ie accusations 1,3,4,5,6 which are heretical views in my book, and you accused me of them, read my posts in the thread "is the Jewish God and the Gentile God the same"
these are some of my statements there.
God chose Israel to receive His oracle's and through whom to bring Messiah into the world, but it was always His intent to be both the glory of His people Israel and a Light to the Gentiles
God does not change. His eternal purpose is immutable. What appears to us as change is actually the progression and gradual growth of what God ordained in eternity
Abraham and Noah and others found favor with God through faith. That is the same thing as Grace, is it not?
We are not under the Old Covenant, but under the New. But the New Covenant does not abolish or overthrow or cancel out the moral law. RATHER, the New Covenant ESTABLISHES the moral requirements of the moral law.
etc
Who's doing that? I haven't seen anyone in this thread do that. Please tell me who you are referring to
Who is applying born again to a natural jewish context in this thread? No one that I know of.
Who said such a thing? Where? What post number?
Where? Where did any one confine anything to a "then only" prism?
Considering context is not the same as confining a text to a "then only" prism. That is your error. You are arguing a false dichotomy, ie we either have to ignore context, ie audience, setting, purpose, occasion, etc or we are confining the text to a then only setting. That is both a false dichotomy AND a strawman extraordinaire.
You are making false assumptions about what is being said. You need to step back and throw away your preconceptions about me and others (because they are wrong) and just read what we are saying without apriori prejudice.
I think you are transposing other people's beliefs whom you have talked to onto me, but I assure you, the nonsense you accused me of believing in the some of the ten points in the last post above are light years removed from what I believe. You have deeply misunderstood my words.
Anyways, blessings to you and yours.
Who is applying born again to a natural jewish context in this thread? No one that I know of.
Who said such a thing? Where? What post number?
Where? Where did any one confine anything to a "then only" prism?
Considering context is not the same as confining a text to a "then only" prism. That is your error. You are arguing a false dichotomy, ie we either have to ignore context, ie audience, setting, purpose, occasion, etc or we are confining the text to a then only setting. That is both a false dichotomy AND a strawman extraordinaire.
You are making false assumptions about what is being said. You need to step back and throw away your preconceptions about me and others (because they are wrong) and just read what we are saying without apriori prejudice.
I think you are transposing other people's beliefs whom you have talked to onto me, but I assure you, the nonsense you accused me of believing in the some of the ten points in the last post above are light years removed from what I believe. You have deeply misunderstood my words.
Anyways, blessings to you and yours.
This is really S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G the parable of the Prodigal Son. Since both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were wayward and disobedient, and subjected to God's wrath and judgment, you have obviously misunderstood the parable.
Just like the lost sheep and the lost coin, the lost Prodigal represents sinners who have not repented and turned to God, but are eventually saved. As to the brother who was resentful, it would appear that it applies to the Pharisees who believed that they were in God's good graces yet resented that Christ was mingling with the publicans and sinners.
Just like the lost sheep and the lost coin, the lost Prodigal represents sinners who have not repented and turned to God, but are eventually saved. As to the brother who was resentful, it would appear that it applies to the Pharisees who believed that they were in God's good graces yet resented that Christ was mingling with the publicans and sinners.
-
1
- Show all
Ok,sort of plausable,but again,the prodigal came FROM the father. He was Whole at the beginning of the story. Left in rebellion and was RE-ESTABLISHED.
So....the huge elephant in the room is WHERE the story begins.
The produgal was;
1 family
2 whole
3 possessed an inheritance
4 possessed brethren with same status.
5 his father is God,in the story
6 the protocol of the story has the possession of inheritance before the testator's death as legitimate (no objection from the father)
7 his brother was older,and in the story never left.
All that points directly to a saved person departing his christian inheritance,or pulled into the world through sin,(willingly departing for pleasure sake) and finding himself in the inevitable hog pen.
The only other "half plausable" application is the younger as the jew and the older as the gentile ( "all israel shall be saved")
The problem there,again,is the starting place has to be corrupted.
So....the huge elephant in the room is WHERE the story begins.
The produgal was;
1 family
2 whole
3 possessed an inheritance
4 possessed brethren with same status.
5 his father is God,in the story
6 the protocol of the story has the possession of inheritance before the testator's death as legitimate (no objection from the father)
7 his brother was older,and in the story never left.
All that points directly to a saved person departing his christian inheritance,or pulled into the world through sin,(willingly departing for pleasure sake) and finding himself in the inevitable hog pen.
The only other "half plausable" application is the younger as the jew and the older as the gentile ( "all israel shall be saved")
The problem there,again,is the starting place has to be corrupted.
The Pharisees actually belonged to the house of Judah. There was no Pharisee who didnt belong to Judah.
The rest, especially the sinners (prodigals) Jesus was reaching out to belonged to house of Israel. Relaise this...Jesus had not yet commssioned Paul to reach out to gentile at this stage. He was speaking the parable to all of Israel. In that he wanted them to be united as ONE kingdom. Not split and brother against brother.
It is no stretch...but if you think so, well thats you. Keep an open mind. I cant make you see if you dont really want to see.
The rest, especially the sinners (prodigals) Jesus was reaching out to belonged to house of Israel. Relaise this...Jesus had not yet commssioned Paul to reach out to gentile at this stage. He was speaking the parable to all of Israel. In that he wanted them to be united as ONE kingdom. Not split and brother against brother.
It is no stretch...but if you think so, well thats you. Keep an open mind. I cant make you see if you dont really want to see.
Yes, and it is a no brainer that the UNBELIEVING chief priests and elders, who the second son in THAT parable represents DO NOT have the starting point that you are trying to IMPOSE on the sons in the parable of the Prodigal. Neither does the elder son or the prodigal, who represent the scribes and pharisees and the publicans and sinners in the other parable have the starting point that you are trying to impose, unless you are talking about the fact that they are Israelites, Got it yet?