Prodical Son Question

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

But Christ isn't speaking of differing glories here. He is speaking of the Fathers kingdom where he and the Son will dwell.

Yes, yes, but I'm conjoining the principle taught here with the wider gospel.  

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Sunslight said:

They are all good arguments in favor of a modern LDS paradigm. The parable however covers no such glories but rather to teach about finding that which was lost or saving that which is lost. That represents every single one of us who get lost and must return to the fold.

Of course.  The parable in itself and by itself is a point of comfort and hope for all those who must repent. Which is all of us.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

am saying that beyond this, failing to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus

Is there any reason to assume the prodigal, now he has returned, will not be valiant in the testimony...especially since he has seen what living without that testimony will be and rejected it?

[Sunslight]

22 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, yes, but I'm conjoining the principle taught here with the wider gospel.  

I'm not sure it applies as the principle being taught is different. 

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2020 at 1:01 AM, Calm said:

Is there any reason to assume the prodigal, now he has returned, will not be valiant in the testimony...especially since he has seen what living without that testimony will be and rejected it?

Of course a real prodigal could repent and in the end be valiant and regain the highest blessing!  But the parable isn't teaching that, even if it is true. It leaves that possibility out because a parable isn't supposed to be a discourse. The parable is trying to teach the importance of love and repentance, and that even those who wander from righteousness can come back and should be welcomed with open arms.  It's also clear from the language of the parable, that while those who blow everything can come back, they are not entitled to every blessing that the father has.   What I have been trying to do in my posts in this thread is that this parable perfectly coincides with the teachings of the plan of salvation as elucidated in Doctrine and Covenants 76, wherein those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus receive the highest glory, those who are not valiant are nevertheless entitled to a degree of glory, just not the highest. 

Now, if we want that more complete course, we could argue on the prodigal's behalf, as follows.  What Jesus could have added was the prodigal's subsequent efforts to repair his condition.  Perhaps he managed to earn some funds on his own with whatever labor he was able to perform, and maybe he was able to put together some kind of wealth generating activity (bought a few sheep, for example) and perhaps when died he left an inheritance to his own children, after all! 

But that is not what the parable is trying to teach, even if it is a correct principle.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2020 at 1:20 AM, Sunslight said:

I'm not sure it applies as the principle being taught is different. 

See my response to Calm.

[Sunslight]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course a real prodigal could repent and in the end be valiant and regain the highest blessing!  But the parable isn't teaching that, even if it is true. It leaves that possibility out because a parable isn't supposed to be a discourse. The parable is trying to teach the importance of love and repentance, and that even those who wander from righteousness can come back and should be welcomed with open arms.  It's also clear from the language of the parable, that while those who blow everything can come back, they are not entitled to every blessing that the father has.   What I have been trying to do in my posts in this thread is that this parable perfectly coincides with the teachings of the plan of salvation as elucidated in Doctrine and Covenants 76, wherein those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus receive the highest glory, those who are not valiant are nevertheless entitled to a degree of glory, just not the highest. 

Now, if we want that more complete course, we could argue on the prodigal's behalf, as follows.  What Jesus could have added was the prodigal's subsequent efforts to repair his condition.  Perhaps he managed to earn some funds on his own with whatever labor he was able to perform, and maybe he was able to put together some kind of wealth generating activity (bought a few sheep, for example) and perhaps when died he left an inheritance to his own children, after all! 

But that is not what the parable is trying to teach, even if it is a correct principle.

 

 

Several principles that are perhaps misunderstood. The first is that the parable isn't teaching any doctrine about the three degrees. There isn't some layered deep doctrine here. Christ is using typical scenarios that the people would have been accustomed to to teach a heavenly principle. There isn't a special firstborn birthright in Gods plan with us. In the parable the whole kingdom gets transferred to the firstborn son as was that custom of the day. But in Gods plan There is no special designation as such. We cannot assume either that the firstborn Son represents Christ either. Christ is using this story to relate a principle and the three degrees of glory has no bearing on what is being taught.

The other misunderstood or less understood principle being taught here is that the three parable being taught in this chapter deal with Christ coming into the world to save the sinner and bring them back to the Father and that true glory and happiness is in saving others into the same glory that all share alike.

[Kevin Christensen]

stargazer said:

Quote

It's also clear from the language of the parable, that while those who blow everything can come back, they are not entitled to every blessing that the father has. 

So what does the Father in the Parable mean in granting the embrace, the shoes, the robe, the ring, the feast and the rejoicing?   Is the parable a celebration of the Faithful son?  I notice that one of the most important and self-defining things that the Father has is joy in the return of the Lost Son.  (Compare, "This is my work and my glory: to Bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," that is self-giving, not, "to ensure sure that I have more stuff and rank than people who have not been as perfect as me," that is, personal accumulation as a means of keeping score and measuring worth. ) And at the end of the parable, that joy is an offered gift that the Faithful son has to that point refused out of his own sense of offended justice.

Until he accepts the joy he will not have all that the Father has.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 7, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
Added sentence.

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Several principles that are perhaps misunderstood. The first is that the parable isn't teaching any doctrine about the three degrees.

You know, I've written a few times already that the parable isn't teaching about the three degrees.  Why do you insist that I am?  

What I AM doing is looking at the parable in the light of DC 76. And I am also noting that the what is taught in the parable agrees with what is taught in DC 76.  And that together they help us understand the gospel, i.e. the plan of salvation, better than if we look at them in isolation.

Quote

There isn't some layered deep doctrine here. Christ is using typical scenarios that the people would have been accustomed to to teach a heavenly principle. There isn't a special firstborn birthright in Gods plan with us. In the parable the whole kingdom gets transferred to the firstborn son as was that custom of the day. But in Gods plan There is no special designation as such. We cannot assume either that the firstborn Son represents Christ either. Christ is using this story to relate a principle and the three degrees of glory has no bearing on what is being taught.

I'm very certain that I haven't said that the firstborn son in the parable represents Christ. Where did you get that idea?

The gospel is not taught in one parable.  Parts of the gospel are taught in one parable.  Other parts are taught in other places.  We gain a more complete understanding of the gospel by combining them all into a coherent whole.

Quote

The other misunderstood or less understood principle being taught here is that the three parable being taught in this chapter deal with Christ coming into the world to save the sinner and bring them back to the Father and that true glory and happiness is in saving others into the same glory that all share alike.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't misunderstand this at all.  But you clearly don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

So, what do you understand about this "same glory that all share alike"?  Which glory is that?  You really have me confused here.  It is as if you believe the parable of the prodigal son is teaching that both the prodigal and the faithful son receive the same reward.  Which makes no sense because the parable directly contradicts this.  So why are there a Terrestrial and a Celestial glory if we all share the same glory alike?  For example, DC 132 specifically singles out King David, who, if there ever was a prodigal it was he, repents and returns -- and nevertheless loses his exaltation.  And inherits a lesser glory, not whatever glory it is that is the "same glory that all share alike."

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Stargazer

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Sunslight said:

In the parable the whole kingdom gets transferred to the firstborn son as was that custom of the day.

It is not a Kingdom, but a family estate and biblical (Deu 21) law gave the firstborn*** son a double portion to care for any widows of the father as well as unmarried sisters.   The prodigal son thus asked for his share of the estate early...likely a third of the value of the estate, thus everything left would come to the eldest son when the father died as it was his share (likely whatever was current value of the two thirds of the original estate value).

***"firstborn" was not always eldest son, depended on whether wife or concubine, status of wife, or father designating "firstborn" for another reason

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/inheritance-laws-in-ancient-israel

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not a Kingdom, but a family estate and biblical (Deu 21) law gave the firstborn*** son a double portion to care for any widows of the father as well as unmarried sisters.   The prodigal son thus asked for his share of the estate early...likely a third of the value of the estate, thus everything left would come to the eldest son when the father died as it was his share (likely whatever was current value of the two thirds of the original estate value).

***"firstborn" was not always eldest son, depended on whether wife or concubine, status of wife, or father designating "firstborn" for another reason

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/inheritance-laws-in-ancient-israel

Good points

Edited February 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Sunslight said:

 There isn't a special firstborn birthright in Gods plan with us. In the parable the whole kingdom gets transferred to the firstborn son as was that custom of the day. But in Gods plan There is no special designation as such. We cannot assume either that the firstborn Son represents Christ either. Christ is using this story to relate a principle and the three degrees of glory has no bearing on what is being taught. 

....The other misunderstood or less understood principle being taught here is that the three parable being taught in this chapter deal with Christ coming into the world to save the sinner and bring them back to the Father and that true glory and happiness is in saving others into the same glory that all share alike

Please then explain "The Church of the Firstborn" if the phrase is meaningless in the restored Church, and the rewards are all equal.

Edited February 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Sunslight]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You know, I've written a few times already that the parable isn't teaching about the three degrees.  Why do you insist that I am?  

What I AM doing is looking at the parable in the light of DC 76. And I am also noting that the what is taught in the parable agrees with what is taught in DC 76.  And that together they help us understand the gospel, i.e. the plan of salvation, better than if we look at them in isolation.

I'm very certain that I haven't said that the firstborn son in the parable represents Christ. Where did you get that idea?

The gospel is not taught in one parable.  Parts of the gospel are taught in one parable.  Other parts are taught in other places.  We gain a more complete understanding of the gospel by combining them all into a coherent whole.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't misunderstand this at all.  But you clearly don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

So, what do you understand about this "same glory that all share alike"?  Which glory is that?  You really have me confused here.  It is as if you believe the parable of the prodigal son is teaching that both the prodigal and the faithful son receive the same reward.  Which makes no sense because the parable directly contradicts this.  So why are there a Terrestrial and a Celestial glory if we all share the same glory alike?  For example, DC 132 specifically singles out King David, who, if there ever was a prodigal it was he, repents and returns -- and nevertheless loses his exaltation.  And inherits a lesser glory, not whatever glory it is that is the "same glory that all share alike."

 

 

Once again you are trying to introduce the three glories into the parable and it isnt what is being taught. As I said before, in the parable of the lost sheep, does the one lost sheep that is found receive the lesser glory while the 99 get higher glory? The principle here being taught in this chapter is about repenting and being redeemed. The value of what is saved remains the same.

The lost sheep is found, it's still a sheep and part of the fold. The lost piece of silver is found and retains its same value. The son returns and repents and is still the Son. The parables all relate to every single one of us whom the Savior saves. That is the joy that is being taught here, not the three glories.

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please then explain "The Church of the Firstborn" if the phrase is meaningless in the restored Church, and the rewards are all equal.

The parable isn't teaching about Christ the firstborn. The Church of the Firstborn is a different topic than what is being discussed. The parable is teaching about the joy being equal in sharing alike, rejoicing over the saved.

[Meadowchik]

I think this speaks most deeply to the love a parent can have for their children, and when they model that love to them, they in turn can learn to love each other better.

[Calm]

The parable did not have to bring the son asking for his inheritance early, he could have asked for something else that allowed him financial independence, so I think there is a deep significance to what asks for and then dispenses with carelessly.

I think it would at the very least bring to mind in the Jewish listeners the story of Esau who sold his birthright (the double portion, patriarch of the clan position) for pottage that was gone in a few minutes and left hm hungry again in a few hours. 
 

From what I have read it wasn’t the asking for their inheritance early that was problematic, that was not a rare occurrence and there is no indication that by doing so, the son wanted to supplant the father or even was wishing him dead as some have interpreted it. 
 

I think the red flag is more likely his removal from the community to live among strangers. He is turning his back on where he belongs for a seeking of worldly pleasure and fame (through buying of his friends). His inheritance has been turned into something meaningless, of no lasting value and leaves him with less than nothing because now he is known as a fool and looked on with contempt openly. 
 

—————

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12680-repentance

This article states a repentant sinner is given a more “exalted eminence” than he who has never sinned. I wonder if that was a belief current in Jesus’ community as that might explain why the eldest son went to the feelings of being treated as less than when he saw the celebration for the return of his younger brother. 
Jewish ideas of repentance:

Quote

No man need despair on account of his sins, for every penitent sinner is graciously received by his heavenly Father and forgiven. "The Holy One, blessed be His name, said to Jeremiah: 'Go, tell Israel that they return.' Jeremiah told them. Said Israel:'With what countenance shall we come before God? Are not these hills and mountains, on which we served other gods, standing there? We are overwhelmed with shame.' Jeremiah brought back to God what they had said. Again God said to Jeremiah: 'Go, tell them, if ye return to me, do ye not return to your Father in heaven? As it is said, "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born"'" (Jer. xxxi. 9; Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, xxv. 165). Nor is it ever too late, even on the day of death, to return to God with sincere repentance (Ḳid. 40b; "Yad," l.c. ii. 1), for "as the sea is always open for every one who wishes to cleanse himself, so are the gates of repentance always open to the sinner" (Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, xxv. 157; Deut. R. ii.; Midr. Teh. lxiii.), and the hand of God is continually stretched out to receive him (Pes. 119a; Deut. R. ii.). Nay, the repentant sinner attains a more exalted spiritual eminence than he who has never sinned (Ber. 34b; "Yad," l.c. vii. 4). It is therefore a grievous sin to taunt the repentant sinner by recalling his former sinful ways (B. M. 58b; "Yad," l.c. vii. 8).

[Calm]

Some other possible context:

Quote

The entire history of mankind is accordingly viewed by the Rabbis in the light of repentance. "God waits for every sinner, be he as wicked as Pharaoh, until he repents" (Ex. R. ix. 9, xii. 1); He waits also for the heathen nations (Cant. R. v. 16; Weber's "Jüdische Theologie" [p. 67] misrepresents the facts). God waited before He destroyed the generation of the Flood, the generation of the builders of the Tower of Babel, the men of Sodom, and the Egyptians, giving them time to repent (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 5; Gen. R. xxxii. 10, xxxviii. 13, xlix. 10-11;Wisdom xii. 10-20). So God sent Abraham to lead the heathen world to repentance (Gen. R. xxx. 5); and the Messiah, according to one rabbi, is called "Hadrak" because he shall lead all mankind to repent of their sins before God (Cant. vii. 5, with reference to zech. ix. 1).

It seems the surprise of the parable would not be the welcoming back of the son by the father, that would be expected if the father is seen as a metaphor for God. 

One twist is that it is the younger son who treats his inheritance frivolously this time as opposed to previous well known biblical stories where the younger son is the wiser and respectful one who honors his family and God ( Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau).  Maybe this was to cause listeners to consider how they might be assuming they were righteous, yet were actually wandering because of treating their relationship with God carelessly. 
 

———

One view of Cain is seen as repentant:

Quote

All the great sinners in the Bible are presented in the Haggadah as types of repentance. Not Adam, who tried to cover his transgressions (Gen. iii. 12)and did not forthwith repent, but Cain, who confessed and forsook his evil way (Gen. iv. 13-16); not Saul, who tried to cover his sin (I Sam. xv. 14), but David, who confessed and forsook sin (II Sam. xii. 13), obtained mercy (Midr. Teh. c., with reference to Prov. xxviii. 13). Cain the transgressor was made "a sign" for repentant sinners (Gen. R. xxii.), and through him his father, Adam, learned of the efficient power of repentance (Midr. Teh. l.c. comp. Wisdom x. 1). Thus Adam is described as a great penitent, devoting himself for weeks, together with Eve, to fasting and doing penance in the waters of Gihon, Tigris, or Jordan (Pirḳe R. El. xx.; Vita Adæ Evæ, vii. 6-8). Ishmael likewise was repentant (B. B. 16b; Gen. R. xxx.).

Other types of repentance for the haggadist were: Reuben (Pesiḳ. 159b; Gen. R. lxxxii. 12, lxxxiv. 18; comp. Shab. 55b; Test. Patr., Reuben, 1); Achan (Josh. vii. 1-20), who showed repentants the way by confession (Lev. R., with reference to Ps. 1. 23); David, who by his his repentance has become a teacher and witness to all repentant sinners ('Ab. Zarah 4b-5a; Midr. Teh. xl, 2, li. 3; Tanna debe Eliyahu R. ii.). Ahab is a type of repentance (Yer. Sanh. x. 28b; Pesiḳ. 160b); Manasseh is depicted in the oldest Midrash as the typical penitent sinner. Especially significant are his words in the Prayer of Manasses: "Thou, O Lord, . . . hast promised repentance and forgiveness to them that have sinned against Thee, . . . that they may be saved"; not "to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against Thee; but . . . unto me that am a sinner" (Yer. Sanh. l.c.; Sanh. 103a, b; Pesixḳ. 162a; see Didascalia; Manasseh). Yokaniah (Pesiḳ. 162-163; Lev. R. x. 5) and Josiah (Shab. 56b) were repentant sinners. God endeavored to persuade Jeroboam I. to repent, but he refused to do so (Sanh. 101a). However, heathen like Balaam repented (Num. R. xx. 15); Rahab the harlot became a penitent sinner (Tanna debe Eliyahu Zuṭa xxii.); and the men of Nineveh became types of repentance (Pesiḳ. 161a). God forgave the people of Israel the sin of the golden calf only that they might teach the world repentance ('Ab. Zarah 4b).

 But there was also the Cain as evil interpretation:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3904-cain

Edited February 8, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Once again you are trying to introduce the three glories into the parable and it isnt what is being taught.

For the last time, I am not introducing the three degrees of glory into the parable!  I am simply trying (and obviously failing) to show that the parable of Prodigal Son helps illuminate the three degrees of glory, in that it implies the Terrestrial and the Celestial Kingdoms. Without naming them of course.  Or are you saying that we must look at verses in the scriptures in isolation, that they stand alone, independent of other verses?

17 hours ago, Sunslight said:

As I said before, in the parable of the lost sheep, does the one lost sheep that is found receive the lesser glory while the 99 get higher glory? The principle here being taught in this chapter is about repenting and being redeemed. The value of what is saved remains the same.

This is a red herring. The parable of the lost sheep does not focus on the sheep, but on the shepherd. The subject matter is not the same, so obviously it has nothing to do with salvation or exaltation. It has to do with the relative value of Father's children, and how it is important to care for them all, and how we should be diligent in seeking to bring back the lost to the fold, and finding that coin. Because they are all valuable. 

17 hours ago, Sunslight said:

The lost sheep is found, it's still a sheep and part of the fold. The lost piece of silver is found and retains its same value. The son returns and repents and is still the Son. The parables all relate to every single one of us whom the Savior saves. That is the joy that is being taught here, not the three glories.

Yes to the sheep and the coin. They carry the same message. 

But the father in the prodigal son does not go looking for his son, and so the subject of the parable is not the same as the others. The message of this parable is that we should rejoice that the sinner has repented, and we welcome him back. But that is not the only message in the parable. The second message in the parable is that while it is possible for a prodigal to come back, the prodigal may have disqualified himself from a higher glory by his actions -- which is what the father in the parable explains to his faithful son.  And this agrees with the principles taught in D&C 76.

But if you want, you're perfectly entitled to believe that the parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with the distinction between salvation and exaltation. 

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

For the last time, I am not introducing the three degrees of glory into the parable!  I am simply trying (and obviously failing) to show that the parable of Prodigal Son helps illuminate the three degrees of glory, in that it implies the Terrestrial and the Celestial Kingdoms. Without naming them of course.  Or are you saying that we must look at verses in the scriptures in isolation, that they stand alone, independent of other verses?

This is a red herring. The parable of the lost sheep does not focus on the sheep, but on the shepherd. The subject matter is not the same, so obviously it has nothing to do with salvation or exaltation. It has to do with the relative value of Father's children, and how it is important to care for them all, and how we should be diligent in seeking to bring back the lost to the fold, and finding that coin. Because they are all valuable. 

Yes to the sheep and the coin. They carry the same message. 

But the father in the prodigal son does not go looking for his son, and so the subject of the parable is not the same as the others. The message of this parable is that we should rejoice that the sinner has repented, and we welcome him back. But that is not the only message in the parable. The second message in the parable is that while it is possible for a prodigal to come back, the prodigal may have disqualified himself from a higher glory by his actions -- which is what the father in the parable explains to his faithful son.  And this agrees with the principles taught in D&C 76.

But if you want, you're perfectly entitled to believe that the parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with the distinction between salvation and exaltation. 

The parable doesn't illuminate section 76 and the three glories. People need to stop doing this. It's teaching a different principle that is unrelated to lower and higher glories. One cannot simply think that all the people mentioned in the parable belong to differing glories. For example,  who would the hired servants represent in the story? What glory would they go to?

You can see it's not about different glories but rather about the principle of repentance and the joy that God's kingdom has in rejoicing over the repentant.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Sunslight said:

The parable doesn't illuminate section 76 and the three glories. People need to stop doing this. It's teaching a different principle that is unrelated to lower and higher glories.

Well, you and I will have to disagree. 

13 hours ago, Sunslight said:

One cannot simply think that all the people mentioned in the parable belong to differing glories. For example,  who would the hired servants represent in the story? What glory would they go to?

Don't do that. Not everything in a parable is significant, which you clearly understand, as do I, so please don't try to go all reductio ad absurdam on me. The parable uses a real-life situation to illustrate an eternal principle. And more than one principle can be drawn from it. But the real-life trappings like the servants, the pigs, the gambling, and the food brought out for the celebration are window-dressing, intended to help tell the framing story.

13 hours ago, Sunslight said:

You can see it's not about different glories but rather about the principle of repentance and the joy that God's kingdom has in rejoicing over the repentant.

Yes, it is about what you say. But just because you can't see another message that someone else does see doesn't mean that other message isn't present.

You may respond to this post if you want, and if you do I'll let you have the last word.

[Sunslight]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, you and I will have to disagree. 

Don't do that. Not everything in a parable is significant, which you clearly understand, as do I, so please don't try to go all reductio ad absurdam on me. The parable uses a real-life situation to illustrate an eternal principle. And more than one principle can be drawn from it. But the real-life trappings like the servants, the pigs, the gambling, and the food brought out for the celebration are window-dressing, intended to help tell the framing story.

Yes, it is about what you say. But just because you can't see another message that someone else does see doesn't mean that other message isn't present.

You may respond to this post if you want, and if you do I'll let you have the last word.

One of the problems with trying to read things into Christ's parables is that one can almost make anything fit if they either twist things enough or stretch the analogy too far. Christ did indeed layer meanings but in this instance he had no intention of relating differing glories into the parable. 

I find it interesting that you say don't do that with how the servants fit in but yet you are doing the same thing. Should I say don't do that back at you?

As another poster has mentioned, who is Christ's audience and what is the context? The audience is the lost, the sinners, the publicans, the Pharisees and scribes. He is speaking to them. In this context they all are analogous to the sheep, the silver, and the two brothers. Many commentators have argued the older and on the surface, obedient son, may represent the scribes and Pharisees. Now, who knows, but, the whole principle Christ is teaching here is that repentance restores one to their original status and value with God. It's not teaching anywhere here that they lose some merit or some value, or are partially restored back. In fact it's the opposite. It is for this very reason that the glories aren't being taught here.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

One of the problems with trying to read things into Christ's parables is that one can almost make anything fit if they either twist things enough or stretch the analogy too far. Christ did indeed layer meanings but in this instance he had no intention of relating differing glories into the parable. 

Well I have kind of sworn off this board for arguing about the bizarre confusions one finds here that are wastes of time to correct over and over and over like this one but had to come back to say something about this.

How the heck do you presume to know what Christ "layered in" or not??   Who are you to tell me that YOU are the arbiter of what constitutes "twisting" or "stretcheing"?

We are here to find inspiration where we find it.  It is obvious that you are from a fundamentalist background, and that is fine but there is much you need to learn about letting the Lord lead you.

The temple is not about hand shakes- it is infinitely expandable and the greatest revelation mankind has ever received but NONE of it is "literal".

 

[The Nehor]

On 2/8/2020 at 10:12 AM, Calm said:

Some other possible context:

It seems the surprise of the parable would not be the welcoming back of the son by the father, that would be expected if the father is seen as a metaphor for God. 

One twist is that it is the younger son who treats his inheritance frivolously this time as opposed to previous well known biblical stories where the younger son is the wiser and respectful one who honors his family and God ( Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau).  Maybe this was to cause listeners to consider how they might be assuming they were righteous, yet were actually wandering because of treating their relationship with God carelessly. 
 

———

One view of Cain is seen as repentant:

 But there was also the Cain as evil interpretation:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3904-cain

Left out the version where Cain is cursed by God and becomes a vampire.

[The Nehor]

Jesus has words for those concerned about their relative standing amongst those who reign in his kingdom.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Left out the version where Cain is cursed by God and becomes a vampire.

That's because I was just linking to a Jewish version, not the Stoker/Twilight ones.