The Prodigal son

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Talk to any Rabbi. If you do not know a Rabbi you may call your local synagogue. It is also the same understanding you will get talking with a Muslim. If you do not know anyone to ask - try Google with the keywords “ask a Rabbi”.

If you have a reference, please just provide it. If you don't have a reference, please just say so.

You have claimed that "firstborn" doesn't mean "first born". All I'm asking is that you back up your claim with more than merely your say-so.

[changed]

derailing the thread guys!!! LOL, that's ok, I guess it is a thread about the parent/child relationship...

thinking about it, I suppose it is pointless to say who is the eldest as we are all the same age, we are all eternal with no beginning...

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

What is the process through which we become children of God? This is the process:

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 5:7)
7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

I'm not sure how/why Satan is/was considered by some to be a child of God - it seems like in order to be a child of God, you have to make and keep covenants with Him - no covenants = not a child...

I think this also illustrates how family groups are formed:

(New Testament | John 10:11 - 14)
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

they are formed through love, trust, and sacrifice - not through the shepherd getting pregnant

The highest family relationship we form in this life is through marriage - (marriage relationship trumps parenthood/aunts/uncles etc. etc.) and marriage is a relationship of choice - not born into it, we choose our spouse - that is what makes it so special. I see our relationship with our Heavenly Father as being one of choice too - He did not create us out of nothingness, but rather we somehow found one another, and chose to be with one another - mutual approbation.

additional ref's concerning our beginning: link

[martybess]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Also to be perfect and a G-d does not mean that one must not have never had a flaw or sinned. If it did then salvation would not be possible.

- But then when did Christ sin? If he did not I will never become all that a being that never sinned became.

I've sometimes wondered about this, we can become G-d's but we have sinned. If we look at G-d and assume he never sinned then in my thought process we will be lesser g-d's. If he did sin we can become all that he has become.

If we look at Christ as one that has never sinned then how can we ever become all that he has become or will become. If he did sin (if so where and when?) then we can become all that he is or will become.

I guess it really has no bearing on our eternal destiny seeing that we all sin. For us all the cards are all on the table. We have all sinned while on the earth and that will always be a fact. I just can't see becoming what G-d is if we have and he did not. My view G-d and Christ never did and we will always be less. That's ok though, once we get past mortality.

Sorry this is purely speculation and may not be appropriate to speculate about here, I don't know.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Vort

If you have a reference, please just provide it. If you don't have a reference, please just say so.

You have claimed that "firstborn" doesn't mean "first born". All I'm asking is that you back up your claim with more than merely your say-so.

You are misunderstanding my statements - To clarify; I am not saying that it does not mean oldest - I am stating that it does not have to mean the oldest. It can also be understood to mean the most noble or best. If you must have reference - here is a couple. George E. Mendenhall's "Covenant Forms of Israelite Tradition" (1954 - pages 50 - 76) You can also find reference in Ivan Engnell's "Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East" (1967).

I have also stated that this is general knowledge in Middle East cultures. You can talk to any Rabbi or talk to any Muslim from the Middle East.


Something else I would like to make very clear. I am not saying that the parable of the prodigal son is symbolically about Jesus. I am not saying that the parable “should” be understood to reference Christ. What I am saying is that in my personal studies if I speculate (note the word speculate) - I find strong reference and consistence in scripture that would seem to indicate this possibility. What I have not found is any authority that indicates in any way what the parable is or is not a reference in any way to Jesus.

What I do not want to do is argue the points - because, I believe, that would be misleading - even though the points are surprisingly very easy to argue and defend. By presenting arguments as to why this is a possibility many interpret such arguments to mean that it must be the only interpretation and understanding. That I do not believe at all.

Why then would I bring this notion before the forum? Because for anyone (especially non-LDS) to study the ancient scriptures in depth and to understand ancient Middle Eastern culture - they will discover many references that clarify LDS doctrine - such as the doctrine that Jesus and Lucifer are both possible heirs of the Father and as such once (in the pre-existence) were in competition (war) for the control of the divine society of the Kingdom of Heaven. A competition or war that is currently being played out. I believe it is possible that in the parable of the Prodigal Son we are given a possible glimpse into what makes someone great (even divine) in the society of heaven and the Kingdom of G-d and how the seed of rebellion is planted in others that in every other way are arguably greater. The result of such division and compitition is war - a war played out in eternity for the hearts, minds and souls of man


The Traveler

[changed]

Originally Posted by martybess

[B]
I've sometimes wondered about this, we can become G-d's but we have sinned. .

have we all sinned? or have we all transgressed? No one here has a perfect knowledge of things, is ignorance innocence? Perhaps if we learn from it, repent, gain something from it (as the prodigal son perhaps gained humility and an appreciation for what his family had to offer) if it becomes something that allows us to progress - as Adam and Eve eating the fruit... then I would call that a "transgression"... If on the other hand we choose not to repent/learn/change/progress through the experience, then perhaps that is a sin? just speculations!

Edit:
or perhaps if we think we can never escape our sins, we do not fully understand the infinite and complete nature of the atonement... that Jesus really does literally take our sins away...

[changed]

some quotes:

Elder M. Russell Ballard cautioned members of the Church:

We occasionally hear some members refer to Jesus as our Elder Brother, which is a true concept based on our understanding of the premortal life with our Father in Heaven. But like many points of gospel doctrine, that simple truth doesn't go far enough in terms of describing the Savior's role in our present lives and His great position as a member of the Godhead. Thus, some non-LDS Christians are uncomfortable with what they perceive as a secondary role for Christ in our theology. They feel that we view Jesus as a spiritual peer. They believe that we view Christ as an implementor for God, if you will, but that we don't view Him as God to us and to all mankind, which, of course, is counter to biblical testimony about Christ's divinity…

Now we can understand why some Latter-day Saints have tended to focus on Christ's Sonship as opposed to His Godhood. As members of earthly families, we can relate to Him as a child, as a Son, and as a Brother because we know how that feels. We can personalize that relationship because we ourselves are children, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. For some it may be more difficult to relate to Him as a God. And so in an attempt to draw closer to Christ and to cultivate warm and personal feelings toward Him, some tend to humanize Him, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging His Divinity. So let us be very clear on this point: it is true that Jesus was our Elder Brother in the premortal life, but we believe that in this life it is crucial that we become "born again" as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by martybess

- But then when did Christ sin? If he did not I will never become all that a being that never sinned became.

I've sometimes wondered about this, we can become G-d's but we have sinned. If we look at G-d and assume he never sinned then in my thought process we will be lesser g-d's. If he did sin we can become all that he has become.

If we look at Christ as one that has never sinned then how can we ever become all that he has become or will become. If he did sin (if so where and when?) then we can become all that he is or will become.

I guess it really has no bearing on our eternal destiny seeing that we all sin. For us all the cards are all on the table. We have all sinned while on the earth and that will always be a fact. I just can't see becoming what G-d is if we have and he did not. My view G-d and Christ never did and we will always be less. That's ok though, once we get past mortality.

Sorry this is purely speculation and may not be appropriate to speculate about here, I don't know.

I have never stated that Jesus sinned. What I am referencing is the doctrine and concept of Perfect as spoken of in Matt 5:48. Many think perfect means without flaw - ever. I am stating that is not the case. In fact to the ancients that understanding of perfect meant complete and whole. It is interesting to note that the ancient concept of whole and complete is also the meaning of Holy.

What I am stating is that if we define that which is divine as that which has never had any kind of flaw then we exclude all possibilities of any of us becoming "one" with the Father. I believe we should understand that if we cannot accept someone as divine that once sinned or in some other way transgressed (or fallen short or once been weak) but have come to their senses and returned and recommitted themselves - even as servants; then it is us and not them that should not be in heaven. This is what I believe is the heart of the parable of the podigal son.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by martybess

- But then when did Christ sin? If he did not I will never become all that a being that never sinned became.

I've sometimes wondered about this, we can become G-d's but we have sinned. If we look at G-d and assume he never sinned then in my thought process we will be lesser g-d's. If he did sin we can become all that he has become.

If we look at Christ as one that has never sinned then how can we ever become all that he has become or will become. If he did sin (if so where and when?) then we can become all that he is or will become.

I guess it really has no bearing on our eternal destiny seeing that we all sin. For us all the cards are all on the table. We have all sinned while on the earth and that will always be a fact. I just can't see becoming what G-d is if we have and he did not. My view G-d and Christ never did and we will always be less. That's ok though, once we get past mortality.

Sorry this is purely speculation and may not be appropriate to speculate about here, I don't know.

I agree with Changed, I don't understand where this idea comes from that God could have never sinned before. Either we believe the atonement is real and complete or it is not. If we are repentant it is as if we had never sinned.

[applepansy]

This has gone in a strange direction.

Christ atoned for our sins, not for his own. He had to be without sin and perfect to qualify to perform this magnificent service for us.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by applepansy

This has gone in a strange direction.

Christ atoned for our sins, not for his own. He had to be without sin and perfect to qualify to perform this magnificent service for us.

Who said Christ paid for his own sins? I don't think anyone wrote that. My comment, if that is what you are referring to, is just a statement of "white as snow" means just that, sinless. By that atonement we can be like Christ.