Talk:Parable of the Prodigal Son
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Can we get a proper citation for this verse, including verse number and Bible translation? I assume it's KJV, but one shouldn't have to assume. Canonblack 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Criticism
An anon. had added the following:
- "This parable has suggested to some that it is not necessary to live virtuously in life, or do anything worthy of salvation. One may do as one pleases, providing one repents their sins in the moment before death.
I have removed it for the moment, on two grounds: (i) it should be incorporated into the discussion of repentance in the Interpretation section but in any case (ii) the vague "suggested to some" will not do. Before incorporating this, we should know where that line of criticism comes from - what author(s) or what body of opinion? seglea 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interpretations
I just read this article for the first time, and I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked at the interpretations expressed. In conversing with people from a wide variety of religious (Christian) traditions, all who are familiar with the parable have considered it to be about the eldest son. Reading the text of the parable, this is rather obvious. I have heard many sermons preached about this parable, but few of those have concentrated on the unfaithful son. Any reader who reads with comprehension will see that the parable is clearly about the faithful but bitter eldest son, who instead of rejoicing at the return of his "lost" sibling responds with jealousy at the seemingly "royal" treatment his prodigal brother receives. The father's first words in responding to his bitter eldest son -- "Thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" -- form the crux of this parable. I am amazed that they were left out of the original summary, and have added them in, along with brief treatment of the underlying theme.
I haven't removed anything, but I think someone ought to rewrite this article to emphasize the nature of the parable as being directed toward the eldest son, not toward the so-called "prodigal". I would do it myself; but frankly, the intensity of my visceral response to this article suggests that I may not be the most unbiased person to do the deed. I will do it if no one else wants to, but I'd prefer if someone else did. Spoxjox 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- All you need is something a little better than "in conversing with people from a wide variety of religious (Christian) traditions, all who are familiar with the parable"... Like a source... If this interpretation or inference is a legitimate one, finding it in a published source shouldn't be too hard... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Baloney. There is not one single citation in this article. It's all interpretation. Requiring that I cite my source is absurd, given that NO ONE has cited any sources. It's textual interpretation. Go and READ THE TEXT. It says exactly what I wrote. I'm not making anything up, CS. It's all right there. Spoxjox 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Fair enough. To further your effort, I have added in more fact tags. Spoxjox 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Has there been any investigation of the metaphoric interpretations of this parable? E.g. God is the father and the sons represent the Jews and gentiles? Mimizhusband 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Authorship
Since this is only found in Luke, shouldn't this sentence: "In the story told by Jesus..." be rewritten as "In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells the story...".
The authorship of Luke is disputed enough, which compounded with the debate as to how accurately the gospels relate what Jesus actually said seems to demand this kind of treatment. In fact, there are no claims that Luke (whoever he was) actually met Jesus (if he did exist). This treatment as fact of Jesus relating this story seems POV. I have made the change. QEDQED 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Luke, the author, claims in the first chapter that he is writing a letter to a possible friend named Theophilus. The fact he never claims to have met Jesus is obviously true, he admits his information came from all primary sources. Only first hand accounts, and eye witnesses. He claims to do this to find the "truth" in what all others were talking about, strangely enough, his account of the Gospel harmonizes with Matthew's and Mark's account. Matthew, a man who did experience it as it happened.
[edit] explanation for my deletions
I am removing from the main section a great deal of interpretation of the parable that, as Spoxjox has pointed out, is both unsourced and questionable. The fact tags have been there for months. I am also removing the last paragraph of the Publicans and Pharisees section; it too has had a fact tag for months, and also seems to be drifting off-topic. I'm leaving the two other (also unsourced) paragraphs in this section because I don't have an opinion on them and they haven't had fact tags. But I am putting a {sources} tag on that section, and I have no objection if anyone else wants to remove them. --Allen 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
