Metanoia....wrongly translated as 'repentance' ?
Metanoia....wrongly translated as 'repentance' ?
I haven't noticed the son repenting.
He was just hungry and longed for good food.
In my view the son did repent in that he "changed his mind"...so that's what I'm referring to. He came to his senses, and realized how good he had it back at his 'father's house'. Beyond how we are defining terms within 'context',...I'd have to revisit the parable, if you want to split hairs
He did, indeed, decide to apologize, but apology isn't repentance. Nothing shows us he reven realized he did something wrong. Plus, his father did not let him say a word. I see his father's forgiveness as absolutely unconditional.
Again, back to how we define 'terms', and the parable itself while telling the story may not provide additional details, so we'd have to guess at some things, reading 'between the lines'. (also important here is how we translate
'metanoia'...which does not necessarily equate to the English equivalent of the word 'repentance').
He forgave the son before... actually he forgave him before the son left with the money. The father didn't have to give him the money that way, and he could severely punish him for the offense.
I'd have to revisit the parable again beyond my current memory, but you see we have some info. and are lacking info. as well, beyond what we assume or 'figure' into the story. I love allegory as you know,....being eclectic, esoteric, gnostic, theosophist type (don't forget New Thought too)....but perhaps a thread just on Jesus parables would be cool. Just a thought :surf:
Interestingly, we only seem to have Jesus presented as teaching in parables, but not many examples of his original apostles teaching by this method, much less them even repeating or mentioning Jesus parables! Interesting eh? Which may indicate the writers of the gospels were carrying over a teaching tradition from earlier Rabbis within Judaism, and/or maybe the traditions of the Vedic/Buddhist teachers....if they did indeed 'teach in parables', unless this is unique to Jesus alone (which some more liberal theologians might debate). But heaven forbid we stir up controversy,...but such more historical studies are pertinent, with a keen skepitical eye looking at the evidence.
I add to my former posts here, that the crucifixion as being a kind of 'blood sacrifice atonement' is not Jewish except a Christainized interpretation of some passages be inflected (read into) OT passages,...since traditional Orthodox Jews reject almost ALL the so called Messianic prophecies Christians use in the OT that they assume point to Jesus, but that's another thread. The concept of vicarious blood-atonement can be questioned on principle alone, since even though Mosaic law incorporated animal sacrifices, some later prophets rejected the profuse slaying of animals that effected no repentance or change of heart in the people, while the 'belief' that another could atone for your sins was also rejected (then again human sacrifice is totally rejected in Judaism). Even with the Jewish temples no longer operating,....Jews can just as surely by their prayers, repentance, good works...walk in righteousness and peace with God, since God accepts such as pleasing to him. Since there is no temple standing,...no animal sacrifices can be offered, and even if such a 3rd Temple is ever built, I'd still question the efficacy of animal sacrifices, so we're really left with the obvious inquiry if 'God' really REQUIRES BLOOD to effect atonement. NOTE: this is only within some older ancient religious cults and belief-systems (priesthoods, mystery religions, occult practices)...where sacrifices are held to have some kind of power to effect something. And still, if we hold to the symbolic meaning of blood, in any atoning or cleansing way,....its something accepted by 'faith' alone. So was a crucifixion absolutely necessary to enable the Father to forgive his children, when they could just ask our loving Heavenly Father for forgiveness and simply repent :idunno:
The only times I see repentance mentioned in the Bible is before major wars and battles.
I see it quite a few times in the gospels, with John the Baptists preaching and Jesus and his original apostles teaching.....which is basically begun with "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". It would seem then that repentance (a change of mind) is pretty key in receiving the good news which calls for a 'change of mentality' - you can search out the meaning of
'metanoia' here. The book of Acts also has some apostles saying "Repent"...then adding their own message thereon. Plenty of examples in the OT show that prayer and repentance are efficacious and acceptable to God,....the re-turning to righteousness. All the blood sacrifices on earth are to no avail, if there is no real repentance of transformation of heart/mind in the individual or the nation. God abhorred and was sickened with all the blood sacrifices given by wicked priests and people, that it was a stench in his nostrils. (See Isaiah).
