Drich,
Interesting that you should identify the prodigal son story as not really fitting in with Christian traditional interpretation. I did much the same thing, but I came up with a rather different story.
I desperately want this not to be a long post so I will be as brief as possible.
Several years ago I read Mark's gospel for reasons that do not really matter now. This took a whole lot longer than I had expected and I ended up with a large amount of cross-referencing to the other gospels along the way. In the end I read the whole of Mark, 70 odd % of Matthew and chunks of Luke - very little John.
I came to the conclusion that Christianity made no sense whatsoever. This depressed me no-end. About 2 billion people call themselves Christian and, having read what I had, I couldn't see a single reason as to why.
It took me a long time to come up with any version of Xtianity that even could make sense. Once I did I felt rather better but it differed from the more traditional Xtian message I knew of.
This looks like a fine opportunity to share that with you now:
Xtianity is based on both the OT and the NT.
The OT is, essentially, the Jewish text.
For the NT to make any sense the OT had to be correct at the time.
Jesus comes to offer a new covenant to the Jews - who had already received a covenant of their own through Abraham.
Abraham's covenant was essentially a rather dodgy real estate deal and a promise. The promise was - follow the rules and your descendants will continue. This is an agreement without end. It is a contract (covenant in biblical speak). Even God cannot unilaterally change its terms (or his word means nothing).
So when Jesus comes to offer a new covenant he is saying to the Jews (only the Jews at this stage): Look at this new deal - its better than the existing one (personal salvation and so on) - why not switch?
Some do. Some don't. Those that don't, however, have to still be covered by the existing covenant (Abraham's) by definition.
Therefore, once Jesus dies (and establishes the new covenant by doing so) we have 2 valid covenants with God - the Jewish covenant and the brand new one with Christ. Jews follow the old one and Christians, once Christ himself has died, can follow the new one. Both, in the logic of the framework, have to be correct for Christianity to be correct.
If we can have 2.......we could have more.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Islam was a third, valid, covenant.
Were this the case then one would expect the second covenant to mention the possibility, although in an abstract way.
For me the story of the Prodigal Son is that mention:
The father is God.
The father's servants are probably the Jews.
The elder Son is Jesus.
The younger son - the Johny come lately to the party, is Mohamed.
Islam supposedly descend from Ishmael. That puts them "in da house"
Ishmael's descendants wander off only to come back later.
When the younger son returns he does so expecting that he can only do it through becoming a servant in the house (rejoining the Jews). When he returns, however, the father (God) rushes out to greet and welcome him. Note how he bypasses the older son, Jesus. Jesus is actually rather pissed off about the whole thing. When he complains to the father it is explained to him that the younger son's inheritance in no way diminishes his own. Everyone can get a place in heaven if they are on one of the 3 paths.
The above explanation, for me, was the best I could come up with that could actually stand. It does mean, however, that there are several paths to God and one is not necessarily better than the other.
It makes the idea of one group attacking another ludicrous - which means a whole lot of history is the story of how wrong man gets it sometimes.
I would be interested in your reaction but please note - this is not actually my belief - merely an academic exercise to try to make sense of any of it, starting from the premise of God.
Interesting that you should identify the prodigal son story as not really fitting in with Christian traditional interpretation. I did much the same thing, but I came up with a rather different story.
I desperately want this not to be a long post so I will be as brief as possible.
Several years ago I read Mark's gospel for reasons that do not really matter now. This took a whole lot longer than I had expected and I ended up with a large amount of cross-referencing to the other gospels along the way. In the end I read the whole of Mark, 70 odd % of Matthew and chunks of Luke - very little John.
I came to the conclusion that Christianity made no sense whatsoever. This depressed me no-end. About 2 billion people call themselves Christian and, having read what I had, I couldn't see a single reason as to why.
It took me a long time to come up with any version of Xtianity that even could make sense. Once I did I felt rather better but it differed from the more traditional Xtian message I knew of.
This looks like a fine opportunity to share that with you now:
Xtianity is based on both the OT and the NT.
The OT is, essentially, the Jewish text.
For the NT to make any sense the OT had to be correct at the time.
Jesus comes to offer a new covenant to the Jews - who had already received a covenant of their own through Abraham.
Abraham's covenant was essentially a rather dodgy real estate deal and a promise. The promise was - follow the rules and your descendants will continue. This is an agreement without end. It is a contract (covenant in biblical speak). Even God cannot unilaterally change its terms (or his word means nothing).
So when Jesus comes to offer a new covenant he is saying to the Jews (only the Jews at this stage): Look at this new deal - its better than the existing one (personal salvation and so on) - why not switch?
Some do. Some don't. Those that don't, however, have to still be covered by the existing covenant (Abraham's) by definition.
Therefore, once Jesus dies (and establishes the new covenant by doing so) we have 2 valid covenants with God - the Jewish covenant and the brand new one with Christ. Jews follow the old one and Christians, once Christ himself has died, can follow the new one. Both, in the logic of the framework, have to be correct for Christianity to be correct.
If we can have 2.......we could have more.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Islam was a third, valid, covenant.
Were this the case then one would expect the second covenant to mention the possibility, although in an abstract way.
For me the story of the Prodigal Son is that mention:
The father is God.
The father's servants are probably the Jews.
The elder Son is Jesus.
The younger son - the Johny come lately to the party, is Mohamed.
Islam supposedly descend from Ishmael. That puts them "in da house"
Ishmael's descendants wander off only to come back later.
When the younger son returns he does so expecting that he can only do it through becoming a servant in the house (rejoining the Jews). When he returns, however, the father (God) rushes out to greet and welcome him. Note how he bypasses the older son, Jesus. Jesus is actually rather pissed off about the whole thing. When he complains to the father it is explained to him that the younger son's inheritance in no way diminishes his own. Everyone can get a place in heaven if they are on one of the 3 paths.
The above explanation, for me, was the best I could come up with that could actually stand. It does mean, however, that there are several paths to God and one is not necessarily better than the other.
It makes the idea of one group attacking another ludicrous - which means a whole lot of history is the story of how wrong man gets it sometimes.
I would be interested in your reaction but please note - this is not actually my belief - merely an academic exercise to try to make sense of any of it, starting from the premise of God.
