Bible Study Cover to Cover

You brought this up - I simply suggested you were mistaken in regards to whether the Lovebirds were, in any way shape or form, aware of the Tree of Life before they tasted the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge; they were not, but I understand that this is your set up for 'the phall' and it cannot be contrived any other way. That the Tree of Life is significant within scripture is a given as far as I am concerned.The idea that the Lovebirds somehow snubbed their nose at the Tree of Life or, as many suggest, 'chose the wrong tree' is simply a fallacy. We both know it.The Lovebirds were told of one specific tree; you may safely debate that they should not have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, but suggesting they could have eaten from the Tree of Life instead is "Jaywill's Bible"; not the Holy One. That said, being that the Lovebirds were not aware of the Tree of Life, they could only have eaten from it accidentally. I stress this only to drive home the point that eating from the Tree of Life was not a conscious option for the couple during their stay in the Garden.You suggest they were 'placed in front of the Tree of Life' within the Garden and, so, you apparently enter into agreement with a small powerful group of stoic ascetic war-mongering celibates with a knack for abusing the power attached to hierarchical authority. Unfortunately, you exit a plain, logical, honest understanding of God's words; one that God may desire to bestow upon you.The war-mongering stoic ascetics suggested the interpretation to create their guilt trip. If you are a free man in the grace of Yeshua's Almighty Father, you do not need to accept or peddle the ascetic guilt trip. You do not need to 'make God's word null and void' by 'maintain[ing] your traditions' 'handed down among you'. Let the scripture speak to you for a change, instead of telling it what you heard it wanted you to say. Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.In both Mark and Matthew's gospel Yeshua is portrayed as rejecting the 'clean-unclean' and food laws associated with books such as Leviticus, calling them, like Jeremiah before him, 'human commandments'. Granted, these passages are likely purged from Luke's gospel, who's author proves not to be one of those who supported radicalism, but rather, as his treatment of Paul proves, a backwards looking reactionary when it came to dogmas of all sorts. Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.It was Augustine's dogma, being a dogmatic and a theologian, that suggested Yeshua died as a 'righteous' Levite animal sacrafice to establish another tyrannical reign of orthodox dogmatism over the planet; and that the sacred instructions of the crucified HaMashiach, it naturally followed, were that the church should learn a lesson from the crucifixion, noting carefully how it was done, and thus be well equipped to start crucifying, according to estimates, between hundreds of thousands or even millions of human beings for the sake of church dogmas.Augustine set the stage for the future witch hunts and crusades of the church, by demanding the death penalty be imposed on those who questioned church dogmas. After all, what church would ever be fully equipped without sacraments and rosaries and the ever present, and required, hammer and a box of nails. Augustine was no radical, but rather the reactionaries reactionary and a dogmatic to the core, truly earning any acclaim as the father of 'original sin'.His theology of the 'the Levite whole offerings sacrifice of Christ' to institute a system of dogma and sacraments into the church completely missed the obvious point in the Gospels, the Prophets, and the epistles and smacks of insult towards the life works of Yochan the Immerser and Yeshua the Anointed One who were clearly given authority to, once again and finally, establish the remittance of sins through repentance and water baptism. That many 'church fathers' were entirely void of the Ruach HaKodesh goes without saying.But, as the gospels themselves stated, God hid the truth about the crucifixion from the wise and the clever and revealed it all to those who were as simple as little children, and that excluded Augustine. Hopefully it does not evade all who try to reconcile his words and deeds with the words and deeds of Yeshua the Anointed One.Speaking of lil' ones, even the tiniest of infants was not safe from the cruel damnations of Augustine, who preferred church dogmas to human babies, and would rather have preserved the meaning of a church sacrifice than allow even one helpless infant to escape the fires of hell without being required to participate in dogmatic church rituals.He, and all who follow in his footsteps, practice nullification of the radical prophetic traditions of the Bible in favor of the doctrine of 'divine inspiration of Holy Scripture'. Even though it may be true that this belief is carried on today in many churches, it is no less true that it was this dogma that got Yeshua HaMashiach, and others, crucified and prophets dispatched to the wilderness; apparently a small detail that did not bother Augustine, and does not bother certain churches either, or so it would appear.As far as your desire to place the Lovebirds in front of the Tree of Life within the Garden narrative, the Bible itself disagrees with the interpretation regardless; in as much as such an interpretation is not supported within a plain reading of the text or without the power of suggestion.There appears to be a way to partake of the Tree of Life, but by the looks of things, it cannot be done without first partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and becoming more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua. You are, of course, free to provide any verse that remotely suggests the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life. Genesis 2:9 confirms the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was pleasing to look at and good for food. The conclusion of the Bible confirms the last tree cannot be had without the first ... One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spEdited by Bailey, : grammar

My how fast you skip over the Lev 17:11 which declares this: This shows that you neither understand the central truth of all of Scripture - the blood covenant as given by God for man to receive atonement for his sins, nor care one whit as you continue to mock the God of the Bible.

Baily, my replies will hopefully be brief. Since we have had this debate before, I won't comment too extensively.I essentialy showed the central importance of the tree of life at the end of the Bible. Since God is recovering what was lost and putting man BACK on the track from which he strayed, this to me shows that the tree of life was just AS important in the BEGINNING as it is in the END.Why Adam did not first partake of it is, I admit, a mystery. But I don't think that unawareness was the reason. If in Genesis 3:22-24 God expresses concern that the disobedient and polluted Adam may now put forth his hand and eat of the tree of life and live forever, well then, it must have been a genuine possibility that Adam WAS aware of it.According to your theory since Adam was not aware of it didn't even know about it or that it was there, God should not have been concerned. Adam should have just continued in unawareness.Saying that the awakening of the knowledge of good and evil in Adam made him aware doesn't make too much sense to me. I like the way you assert that we both know something.The text of the story definitely reveals that they made the WRONG choice. I think you have to be blind to see otherwise. The woman was rebuked. The man was rebuked. And the serpent was rebuked.How you can glean from Genesis chapter 3 that they did not make a bad choice is a mystery to me. They were told of one specific tree NOT to eat of. Before the barrier of the flaming sword which turn each direction guarding the way to the tree of life, what other obstacle is there in the story suggesting that they could not partake of it?The exclusion to the tree of life is ALL AFTERWARDS. Show me where it is written that there was a problem of partaking of it BEFORE their poor choice.Any Bible will show you that. Not just mine. Use your own Bible. Where's the passage forbidding them to partake of the Tree of Life before Genesis 3:22-24? Hmmm, "Jaywill's Bible?" I am STILL looking for this "Lovebirds" designation. Is that "Baily's Bible"? There is no verse saying that it was not a conscious option BEFORE Genesis 3:22-24.At best you have a speculation going on here.Now think logically. In the closing pages of the Bible you have this: This suggests that redemption "wash their robes" is the key to reinstating man's right to partake of the tree of life. Now redemption came in because man sinned. Where did man first sin? There in Genesis when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.I think all in all the evidence suggests that right there at his disobedience he lost the right to partake of the Tree of Life. Genesis 3:22-24 strogly implies the same.Now we are dealing with symbolic matter of which I do not want to lose track. The tree of life represents the life of God Himself. God created a human vessel into which He desired to dispense Himself as life that God and man might be mingled together.The Man of Life is Jesus Christ. The mingling of God and man is seen in Jesus Christ. And what God meant by Man was really sons of God like Jesus Christ.The cherubim stands for the glory of God.
The sword stands for the righteousness of God.
The flame of the sword stands for the holiness of God.God had a three fold demand upon the fallen Adam. Man was not excluded from partaking of God and being joined to God by the demand of God's glory, the demand of God's righteousness, and the demand of God's holiness.The man moved from an innocent existence, a neutral existence to an existence advasarial to God. Man has now joined the opposition party. Man is now an enemy of God. Yet God loves man still. And the rest of the Bible is about His plan to bring man back to His good graces for the partaking of God Himself as the eternal life.This God of glory appeared to Abraham to call out a called race to spearhead God's redemption of all the families of the earth.Abraham is therefore like the divine reply to Adam in the Old Testament. Adam is the head of the created race. Abraham is the head of the called race. Wow. That sounds really serious. So believing that it was not until Genesis 3:22-24 that man was excluded from partaking of the divine life of God makes me - war-mongering, stoic, part of a small powerful group of war mongers abusing of power and given to hierachical authority.Isn't this quite a leap Baily? I mean, really! Emphasizing the wonderful redemption of Jesus to wash our robes that we may have right to the tree of life is not peddling a guilt trip.The redemption is about God obliterating the guilt. The blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanses us from all sin.You're getting kind of irrational here. So I don't think I will respond to the comments below this.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Not really. Leviticus 17 is quite a short chapter being only sixteen verses, so it only made a brief note on it. 17:10-12 is a proclamation to not eat blood, and yes, one of the several verses dealing with not eating blood gives a quick justification for the commandment.It doesn't look to me like any other covenant mentioned in the Torah. And it isn't like I skipped over the concept of sacrifice and atonement. Yes, maybe. If you hadn't noticed I've only read up to Numbers in the OT (though I've read through the NT previously).Of course, it might be that your understanding is also limited. I'm skeptical that there is any 'central' 'truth' to the collection of books beyond that which people like to read into it. Of course, I'm sure you are absolutely convinced you KNOW the TRUTH etc which is why I rarely bother to reply to you.However, I am also not the kind of person that believes my knowledge of a subject is infallible. The first time I went through Genesis taking notes - an early reader pointed out that I had missed Genesis 28 - Jacob's Ladder! Talk about a critical failure!Anyway - I am going to be reading other holy books, some of which have a grounding in the Old Testament - when I get to them, I'll try and remember all the allusisons, references and interpretations that have their origins in these works. But I'm not going to comment on them until I get to those later works - including the Book of Mormon, The Apocryphal stuff, the Qu'ran and so on. It is impossible to read them all simultaneously - I have to go in an order. I appreciate that Christians interpret the whole OT through a NT lens, as Muslims interpret them both through a Qu'ranic lens.So, if/when I get to John 6 I might reference the unusual contrast between the admonition not to drink the blood of the sacrifices and Jesus' eat my flesh/drink my blood refrain if I happen to remember back this far. Maybe it would been an idea to raise that this is a verse that Christians love to harp on about, but I won't lose sleep over not doing so. If the character is real, he's a big boy and has faced a lot worse than anything I can dish out. Not only that, but I'll get my just reward for my 'mocking'. If he's not real, it doesn't matter.So it all balances out, so don't stress too much about it.If you have any substansive comments about my observations of Leviticus, or any of the previous books I read through - I'm happy to hear them. Alternatively - if you are just going to sit at the back of the class throwing popcorn and quoting verses from the book of proverbs while acting like some kind of elitist biblical master verily I say unto you, you have your reward and I'll put you back on /ignore.

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Hope all is well with you ...I will attempt to deliver my points in a more succinct and salient fashion, as I have an obvious tendency to swerve all over the road, and hopefully you will not shy away from difficult and challenging facts and questions. Further points may be addressed in a separate post, providing time allows. By the Grace of God, the Augustinian doctrines and rational you seem to have consciously adopted in place of the words of Yeshua the Anointed One, and His fellow prophets, continue to evade me.Where do we stray, if not into the confusion of religion? Yet, without this painful lesson delivered by the confusion of religion, mankind may always assume a serpent is as wise as their Father. It is hard for me to imagine that God desires such a scenario, that being naive children, else He may have created/adopted various cherubim as family members instead of creating a new creation in His image.What is lost besides, as you often say, 'neutrality'? If God desired more 'neutrality', again, we may suppose He could have manifested more cherubim.I will tell you what is gained by the Almighty's choice to allow the serpent to deceive/beguile Eve, as well as Adam's choice to keep his Promise to his Father and not abandon his wife (even when faced with death) - the opportunity for the Almighty Father of Yeshua the Anointed One to begin displaying the Grace He freely offers, to those who will recognize and accept it for what it is.That such an awesome opportunity cannot begin to transpire until after the usurper/serpent/religion/HaSaTaN lays the tracks for the railroad of deception, and causes the ones the Father loves to transgress His Law, is seemingly a given.It appears as though the Almighty Father desires for us to recognize the Grace He freely offers, yet, how can it be recognized without, first, a 'sin'. I can assure you the Grace of God is not often recognized as such when painted and peddled as punishment by the innumerable disciples of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/relligion. Do you recognize that the Grace of Yeshua's Father is as prevalent in early Genesis as it is in the latter Unveiling?lol - the Lovebirds are threatened with immediate death, yet they do not immediately die! Nevertheless, mankind begins his escapades of murder and mayhem, yet the Almighty Father of Yeshua the Anointed One insures murderers cannot ascertain continuous life without undergoing metanonia, and in doing so, saves many lives. If The One Who Loves His Children did not shoo the Lovebirds from the Garden, that confused lil' boy Cain they spawned may have murdered either (or both) of us. Providing the Almighty Father did not employ a cherubim to guard the Tree of Life, we may be in a similar situation. If the cherubim did not light the Tree of Life up like an emergency beacon, what is to say it could ever have been located? The Grace of God abounds - can I get an amen!We see, shortly after the 'phall' of all mankind - and well before the faith of Abraham, that God immediately recognizes the righteousness of various characters such as Able, Seth etc.. The list goes on ...More importantly, all future individuals now have a viable chance to differentiate the Father from the usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion.Why would the Father desire to put mankind 'back on the track' of 'neutrality' 'from which [mankind] strayed', when this is the state that fostered the Lovebird's original deception? The fact that the Two Trees are rooted next to each other and never separated from one another, but rather mankind is separated from them, seems to indicate that they are both necessary to a process that the Almighty has initiated. The fact that both, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, are mentioned specifically as being pleasing to the eye and good for food shows me that both Trees in the Garden were just AS important in the BEGINNING as they are in the END.Point blank, all who deny that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is any less 'good for food' than the Tree of Life contradict scripture.It seems many have been taught, and continue to teach, that the diploma (ToL) can be received without partaking in any classes (TotKoG&E); evidently, life does not appear to work that way. Until this is realized, or the Father finally loses His temper (which isn't likely, considering his patience and all), the religious doctrines of HaSaTaN will likely continue to vilify the siblings of Yeshua HaMashiach.What is it, exactly, that you so vigorously disagree with about Yeshua's statements below?Are you so dull?

​

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Don't worry about my stressing out. The stress will be all yours as described in Proverbs 14:12: At least you are truthfull when you recognize that you will get your "just reward" for mocking God, if as "you" say He's real. Yes, God has faced a lot worse than you and other unbelievers can dish out. The final enemy to be overcome is the one (satan) who steals, kills, and destroys, but Christ has come that you might have eternal life, and have it more abundantly.BlessingsEdited by John 10:10, : No reason given.Edited by John 10:10, : added paragraphEdited by John 10:10, : spelling error

Thank you for the exchange jaywill. Agreed. There is, as well, no verse indicating that the Lovebirds were at all aware of the Tree which yields fruit that causes continuous living, as you seem to vicariously acknowledge. I am assuming their unawareness as a logical conclusion indicated by their not 'partaking'; kinda like you somehow assume the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life, only a lil' more logical - lol.I say this to you in a loving spirit, however it is received, yet with a certain amount of confidence that I mustered up when you said, 'Why Adam did not first partake of it is, I admit, a mystery.'. You followed with, 'But I don't think that unawareness was the reason.'. I would politely disagree and further suggest this scenario as a perfectly logical conclusion that does not contradict scripture, plain reason or the spirit that the Father has given me. I think it is clear to you, as well as an honest audience, that if that is the case, that is, at best, all either of us have going on here.My primary point here is the Lovebirds were directly, and perhaps more assuredly, aware of One of the Two Trees specifically mentioned by name to the reader; this scenario being the case at the time of the fulfillment of the decree for Adam to leave his Mother/Father to join his wife which occured at Eve's deception. It should be recognized that in Adam's doing so, a decree was fulfilled and, additionally, Eve was not abandoned.There seems little reason to ignore these conclusions. Ok. Let us think logically together, if you are not so opposed as many fundamentalists are.Does the Bible hint at or indicate, at all, as to what color the robes will be after they have been washed?If so, may the color of the robes better enable one to suggest the substance that they have been washed in?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
My responses here will be brief ... Why must it be a genuine possibility that the Lovebirds were aware of the Tree of Life - simply because the Father expressed concern?An expression of concern on the Father's part does not indicate awareness on the children's behalf. Consider the Tree of the Knowledge; the children are, first, unaware of it's existence, and, secondly, the Father expresses concern and informs them of it.In these regards, the Almighty's concern seems to suggest that, as long as the couple remain in the Garden, a genuine possibility must exist for the Lovebirds to eventually stumble upon the Tree of Life and then take from it unwittingly; and that the Almighty cares enough about the confused children to prevent that from taking place.I am suggesting that the Father may express His concern, perhaps even more so, providing His children were unaware of the Tree of Life and the dangers it currently presented to them.Without any indication from scripture, as you freely admit does not exist, why should one assume the couple in the Garden were aware of the Tree of Life before their Father expresses His concern for them and informs the couple of the Tree? lol - it should be recognized that the first part of the sentence above is 'my theory' (Adam was not aware of it didn't even know about it or that it was there)...And that the second part is jaywill's logical extention thereof, of which, I agree, would surely seem to make little sense (God should not have been concerned. Adam should have just continued in unawareness).Your supposing that the Father should not have been concerned, if the children were unaware, seems to suggest that you are privy to at least two baseless assumptions ...1) the Lovebirds could not have unwittingly stumbled upon the Tree of Life while out exploring the Garden.2) the Father could care less if they did.Yet, we know the Father is concerned about the possibility of accidents via unawareness, as He clearly makes the Lovebirds aware of obstacles in the Garden, as well as various obstacles that will be encountered outside of the Garden. The above comment appears to, agreeably, makes lil' sense; hopefully you are not attempting to pawn those sentiments onto me - lol.It appears fairly obvious that the Lovebirds become aware of the Tree of Life, and the danger it presented to them, when their Father first informs them (Gen. 3:22-24).I would further suggest that the Father decided to finally inform His children of the Tree of Life, although more importantly - the danger it presented to them, so they did not think they were being punished as they were led out of the Garden.In light of this, it becomes easy to assume the Lovebird's exile from the Garden was a protective measure, as they would have likely percieved it, and not a punishment in any capacity, as usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion often suggests.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Hope all is well with you & yours ... It is. No. It simply makes you a disciple of Augustine, or at least Augustinian doctrine ...I would also add that 'exclusion' (your term) and 'unaware' (my term) are not interchangeable. The definitions have separate meanings and each will provide distinct implications.I do not suggest the Lovebirds were 'excluded' from the Tree of Life before Gen 3:22-24, but rather that they were simply 'unaware' of that Tree until those verses.You were probably not aware that I just passed gas (pardon me); that does not imply I was somehow excluding you from this fact. lol - I said you 'entered into agreement' with the war-mongerers ... not that you are one!There is a decision everyone, who appreciates the life work of Yeshua, must make for themselves ...Follow the Anointed One, or follow the war-mongerers who usurp His authority. The two are mutually exclusive. Ok. Yet, preaching Augustine's slanderous theory, that a piece of fruit can - and has - cast mankind into damnation, completely disagrees with the plain and faithful teaching of Yeshua HaMashiach. This is important ...There is little doubt, in my mind, that a few points are ot and that the presentation could have been delivered in a more tactful fashion.Nevertheless, please share with me, exactly, which 'comments below' you find to be irrational and, more importantly, untrue:1) You do not need to 'make God's word null and void' by 'maintain[ing] your traditions' 'handed down among you'.

​

2) Let the scripture speak to you for a change, instead of telling it what you heard it wanted you to say.

​

3) Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.

​

4) In both Mark and Matthew's gospel Yeshua is portrayed as rejecting the 'clean-unclean' and food laws associated with books such as Leviticus, calling them, like Jeremiah before him, 'human commandments'.

​

5) Granted, these passages are likely purged from Luke's gospel, who's author proves not to be one of those who supported radicalism, but rather, as his treatment of Paul proves, a backwards looking reactionary when it came to dogmas of all sorts.

​

6) Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.7) It was Augustine's dogma, being a dogmatic and a theologian, that suggested Yeshua died as a 'righteous' Levite animal sacrafice to establish another tyrannical reign of orthodox dogmatism over the planet ...

​

8) ... and that the sacred instructions of the crucified HaMashiach, it naturally followed, were that the church should learn a lesson from the crucifixion, noting carefully how it was done, and thus be well equipped to start crucifying, according to estimates, between hundreds of thousands or even millions of human beings for the sake of church dogmas.

​

9) Augustine set the stage for the future witch hunts and crusades of the church, by demanding the death penalty be imposed on those who questioned church dogmas.

​

10) After all, what church would ever be fully equipped without sacraments and rosaries and the ever present, and required, hammer and a box of nails.

​

11) Augustine was no radical, but rather the reactionaries reactionary and a dogmatic to the core, truly earning any acclaim as the father of 'original sin'.

​

12) His theology of the 'the Levite whole offerings sacrifice of Christ' to institute a system of dogma and sacraments into the church completely missed the obvious point in the Gospels, the Prophets, and the epistles and smacks of insult towards the life works of Yochan the Immerser and Yeshua the Anointed One who were clearly given authority to, once again and finally, establish the remittance of sins through repentance and water baptism.

​

13) That many 'church fathers' were entirely void of the Ruach HaKodesh goes without saying.

​

14) But, as the gospels themselves stated, God hid the truth about the crucifixion from the wise and the clever and revealed it all to those who were as simple as little children, and that excluded Augustine.

​

15) Hopefully it does not evade all who try to reconcile his words and deeds with the words and deeds of Yeshua the Anointed One.

​

16) Speaking of lil' ones, even the tiniest of infants was not safe from the cruel damnations of Augustine, who preferred church dogmas to human babies, and would rather have preserved the meaning of a church sacrifice than allow even one helpless infant to escape the fires of hell without being required to participate in dogmatic church rituals.

​

17) He, and all who follow in his footsteps, practice nullification of the radical prophetic traditions of the Bible in favor of the doctrine of 'divine inspiration of Holy Scripture'.

​

18) Even though it may be true that this belief is carried on today in many churches, it is no less true that it was this dogma that got Yeshua HaMashiach, and others, crucified and prophets dispatched to the wilderness; apparently a small detail that did not bother Augustine, and does not bother certain churches either, or so it would appear.

​

19) As far as your desire to place the Lovebirds in front of the Tree of Life within the Garden narrative, the Bible itself disagrees with the interpretation regardless; in as much as such an interpretation is not supported within a plain reading of the text or without the power of suggestion.

​

20) There appears to be a way to partake of the Tree of Life, but by the looks of things, it cannot be done without first partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and becoming more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua.Hopefully you will brave a reply, but if not I would encourage you to meditate on this verse from the church testaments (1 John 3:10) ... This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammar

quote:

---

I would also add that 'exclusion' (your term) and 'unaware' (my term) are not interchangeable. The definitions have separate meanings and each will provide distinct implications.

​

I do not suggest the Lovebirds were 'excluded' from the Tree of Life before Gen 3:22-24, but rather that they were simply 'unaware' of that Tree until those verses.

---

I grew up with the dogma, and there are still things I've missed. We've assumed or been taught that the Lovebirds knew about the tree of life because the narrator mentioned it. We aren't taught to read the Bible as we do other books. In any other book we don't assume the characters know what the narrator knows.The A&E story doesn't say the Lovebirds were ever told the tree of life was different than any of the other trees as you pointed out in Message 93. They may have unknowingly eaten from the tree of life, but it isn't obvious that they knew that the tree was the only thing that allowed them to live "forever".Fascinating. We learn something new every day.

quote:

---

3) Yeshua HaMashiach, as portrayed in the gospels, continued and culminated the early radical tradition of the Prophets by rejecting the cherished religious dogmas of the time; his disciples must do no less.

---

Some Christians do forget that Jesus was battling the Jewish dogma of the time. Many still miss the spirit of the issue.

quote:

---

6) Nevertheless, Yeshua speaks of the religious right and these timeless verses continue to say it all ...

​

How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lipservice, but their hearts are far from me.

​

They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.'

​

You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions.

​

How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...

​

In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void.

​

And you do many other things just like that.

​

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.

---

Amen

quote:

---

This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God. (1 John 3:10)

---

Nicely done.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I am not sure if you understand me.God created the first man. He was not guilty of anything. He was innocent. Actually he was part of the "very good" creation of God.This man was put in a neutral position between God and Satan. He as not an evil man put between God and Satan. He was not a sinner put between God and Satan. He was a good, innocent, and neutral man placed between these two sources of existence. The choice was Adam's to move from that neutral position to position aligned with God or aligned with God's enemy.How was this choice presented to this neutral man? In this way: Is the Tree of Life explicitly mentioned? No it is not.Is Satan explicitly mentioned. No he is not.But consider. Adam was commanded to guard the garden: It is my opinion that the presence of another voice in the garden slandering God's motive and directly contradicting what God had instructed, should have given Adam concern. To keep the Garden should have signaled that something was out of place with this lying agent and some "keeping" and some "guarding" of the garden was in order.Instead Adam fell under the suggestions of this alien agent and was usurped by him. Adam fell and joined the opposition party. There should be no doubt that the serpent was part of an opposition to the Creator: Adam and Eve moved from their neutral and innocent position and aligned themselves with the oppostion party against God. Now they are no longer neutral. And we their discendents are no longer neutral. We are born enemies of God. Okay. I can see your point in this. This is what Barnhouse called "the parodox of the fortunate fall."I don't think I have any objection to this understanding. Man falls into the Satanic nature. Man thinks this is a minor problem that he can fix and come back to God. Man needs a major education to realize that the Satanification of mankind is not a minor problem.For God to drive home to man the seriousness of man's fall, He gives man His Law. "You think you only have a minor problem which youy can easily solve? Okay, Here's My Law. Keep this!"The Law exposes the power of sin in man. The Law of God exposes the inability of man to live unto God righteously. The Law of God even causes the sin in man to rebell even more, and that on general priciniple. The Law not only exposes the sin nature. It actually activates it too causing it to rebel against the law for pure rebellion's sake. I can only comment a little because I have some problem following your ultimate point.But from our side grace is free. From God's side it is not free. A tremendous price was paid that we might receive grace. And this grace is over the forgiven sinner and within him. Grace is a very large subject.But John says this: The Law was given through Moses. Grace is really a person. Grace came through Jesus Christ. When Jesus came to us grace came to us. Grace and reality came with the Person of Jesus when He came.Now compare these two passages. One says that sin worked in Paul. The other says that grace worked in Paul. The net effect is that sin is personified. And grace is also personified. Each is like a person living and working in Paul. One is exceedingly evil and is Satan himself. The other is Christ Himself as the life giving Spirit, indwelling and working in man.Here are these passages: One passage says "no longer I ... but sin that dwells within me." And the other passages says "yet not I but the grace of God which is with me."In passage sin is working in the sinner Paul. In the other passage the grace of God is causing Paul to labor more abundantly than all the other apostles. It is not longer Paul but Christ who lives in Paul. It is not Paul in himself but the grace of God that is with Paul.Grace came to him when Jesus came to him. He simply went far to cooperate with the indwelling grace. He did not nullify it by continuing to live out his old manner of life. He sought to live in a new sphere, in a new realm of the indwelling Jesus in him. Grace in him accomplished so much. Grace in him overcame sin and also labored extensively for the service of God.All who receive Jesus receive this same grace. The second part of your comment I understand more than the first.I think the result of the Tree of Life would have been the same as the indwelling Grace of God which come through regeneraion in Christ. I believe that the Tree of Life signified God coming into man. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil joined man to Satan.God's salvation is to bring man back, not to the neutral position, but to the Divine life as signified in the tree of life.On this side of the incarnation of Jesus this Divine life is Jesus Himself. Today we needn't worry about the Tree of Life. This divine life is in the Son of God. This life is Christ. For us today the tree of life is Jesus Christ.We humans are out of the realm of a tree in a garden for the imparting of God's divine life. The imparting of God's divine life is in Jesus Christ.I have to go now.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have not read the exhaustive writings of Augustine.
And Christ being the life is in the Gospel of John. There is no need to wait three centuries to hear Augustine say something about it.Saying Jesus Christ is the reality of the Tree of Life today is not in the least due to the influence of Augustine. That he said something like this or even said this does not make me a disciple of Augustine.At most perhaps we both recognize the same truth in Scripture. But I have not poured over Augustine's voluminous writings to derive such a thought.This is not to disparage Augustine one bit. I learned many of these things from Witness Lee. IE. "The Experience of Life" is one of many books on the subject that continues to help me. Also "The Tree of Life", another book all about the subject.Who we are following is not important. What is important is that we follow the revelation that is in the Bible.

Adam and his wife were driven from the garden. When they looked behind them they saw that the tree of life was guarded by the cherubim of glory with a flaming sword which turned in every direction.Regardless of what you say I see it this way:1.) The center of the universe was the earth.
2.) The center of the earth was the Garden of Eden.
3.) The center of the Garden of Eden was the Tree of Life.Therefore the tree of life was the center of the universe.It was not coincidental or a side show. God created man in the image of God that man might be filled with God. Man is a vessel. Man is a vessel designed to contain God as the indwelling divine and uncreated life.In the prophet Jeremiah God charges that Israel has forsaken Himself the fountain of living waters to hue out worthless cisterns which contain no water. Whether it is living waters or fruit of the tree of life, the symbolism refers to God to be internalized by man. God wants from the creation, to dispense Himself in to man's being because man is a special living vessel designed to contain God.In the prophet Isaiah God again reminds us that the house which He really seeks is not of stone and wood but within man: Here God looks not to anything else in creation to be His house. He looks to be "housed" in man. That is a man who is humble and contrite and regards the word of God. He looks to this kind of man to find His house and His rest.So I repeat. From the beginning of the creation of man, God intended to dispense Himself into man. Sometimes we see this expressed as "living waters". Sometimes we see it expressed as the Dweller living and resting in man His "house". The profound concept is the same. We are vessels and God intends to impart Himself into us.In the New Testamen the Apostle Paul says that he and his co-workers are earthen vessels and Christ is the excellent treasure within them: Our created being is therefore the earthen vessel. The Triune God is the treasure of divine life seeking to come into our earthen vessel if we will open up to Him.You want to study the Bible ? This is a central theme in the Bible.An expression of concern on the Father's part does not indicate awareness on the children's behalf. Consider the Tree of the Knowledge; the children are, first, unaware of it's existence, and, secondly, the Father expresses concern and informs them of it.At the end of the Bible we see a temple and a city. Actually the entire city is the temple. More importantly the entire city is the Holy of Holies of the temple of God. This is very significant. It was in the innermost chamber of the temple and the tabernacle, the Holy of Holies that the glory of God dwelt.The Bible culminates with a city which is the eternal enlarged Holy of Holies. Right here we see this: Man was a vessel before the tree of life to receive God as eternal life in the beginning. And in the end the corporate man, the redeemed human family is collectively the enlarged city as the Holy of Holies, a perfect cube as the living place where the Shekina glory of God resides. Immediately after Adam and his wife has eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the way to the tree of life is cut off to them.Man being joined to God's enemy Satan, disqualifies him from participating in the eternal plan of God. So man needs redemption through Christ. Man needs salvation. The rest of the Bible is this story of God's salvation to bring man back from sin and death to the life of God.So the Bible closes with a call for the redeemed man to partake of the tree of life and enter into the eternal city. What I admit is that the fuller significance of the tree of life is gleaned from the rest of the Bible. The matter is very profound and it needs the rest of the revelation of the Bible to make it clear.This does not mean that the tree of life, and thus the divine life of God, was of little importance in the story of the creation of man. There are two crucial truths which are not at all a matter of assumption.1.) After man had taken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God excluded him from partaking of the tree of life and expelled man from Paradise.2.) At the end of the Bible there is the blessing on those who "wash their robes that they might have right to the tree of life".These two truths should express the centrality and importance of the tree of life in God's eternal purpose. It should be noticed that man was warned of death. And man was excluded from the tree of life. The matter of life verses death is so central to Genesis.Though it may not be too clear from reading Genesis it becomes clearer in the rest of the Bible. The ultimate Life in the universe is not man's life. It is even not man's everlasting life. The ultimate Life in existence is the Life of God. That is the uncreated and eternal Life which is a Person.The tree of life represented this uncreated and divine Person. He presents Himself in the form of fruit or food. This is because food is something man takes into himself and assimilates into himself. God would not simply inject Himself into man. He must be "eaten" by man. In other words man is to take God in by enjoyment as a matter of fulfilling his hunger.But there was a counterfeit. There was a competition. Man was created a vessel and placed at the juncture of these two competing sources of existence. He may be joined to God as the divine eternal life. Or he may disobey and be usurped by death - that is the one who is opposed to God and who is a dynamic withdrawal into sin and death - Satan the Devil.God would not give man up though. So the rest of the Bible is the story of His salvation to bring man back to partaking of Himself as the divine life. First the sinful man must be redeemed and forgiven. This is speculation on your part. I may not be able to point to God's specific instructions informing man of the tree of life. But then neither can you point to the opposite case.At best you are speculating. I think I have more ground because at least we are told the tree of life was in the midst of the garden. The greater weight of importance, I think, is on the tree mentioned first - the tree of life in the middle of the garden. The other tree is more coincidental for it is the "other" tree. It is the "other" way that is not God's way. If it had been God's way then there would not have been God's warning that man was not to partake of it.So all the other trees and especially the tree of life in the middle of the garden are purpose of God. Man partook of the "other" tree in disobediance. And that is where the curse came in. Man was invaded by the evil spirit and the earth was cursed. To say that man missed his calling would be an understatement.The Apostle Paul speaks of the spirit that now operates in the children of disobedience, in other words the childen of the disobedient father of the human race Adam. So the evil spirit as the evil authority of the air began to operate in man. This rendered man dead in offenses and sins and caused also the earth to come under a curse.But I hate to end on such a negative note. Paul goes on to tell the believers: [qs]"But God, being rich in mercy because of His great love which He loved us, even when we were dead in offenses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (v.4,5) And so forth. /qs It was protective and a punishment as well. It is only that God does not give up and has a plan of salvation.That is was a punishment is seen clearly in 17-18 in chapter 3. And in verse 23 He "drove the man out" of the Paradise. That is not escorted, that is drove ... out. It is kind of rude and course.However, God did also promise them a Savior. And He clothed their nakedness. And He cared for them still. But there was punishment for disobediance. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope all is well in your camp ... This is true and often times we can easily pass over certain curiousities, perhaps otherwise given credence, by extending to our interpretaions of scripture the many courtesies various heterodox literary techniques can afford. Other times, even when we are making attempts to be honest in our interpretations as opposed to simply parroting ingrained cultic assumption, we may hastily overlook certain curiousities which seem to sneak by almost unannounced.For example, after all that took place on the second day - if that day was good, why was it not worth being commented on in regards to as such? Even the day jaywill's ancestors supposedly joined forces with usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion was blessed by the Almighty.What was it about the creation of that ol' firmament and its employment in distinctly dividing those various waters that caused Monday to pale in comparison to the rest of the week? Why did the Father name the firmament and decide against naming the distinct waters; what may the notion that Heaven separates them mean to us? What exactly are those distinct waters doing north and south of Heaven and what may be going on in this Heaven within the midst of those waters?These may or may not be valuable insights and questions, being that value is in the eye of the beholder and all, but I believe it to be true that there are many more, finer quality, gems within scripture that are available to those who are willing to thankfully sift through the seemingly endless mines of dogmatic assumption. Let us not be fearful in all things, but instead, encouraged and thankful ... as were the Prophets before us. Indeed. It is not obvious or clearly indicated that the Lovebirds knew of the Tree of Life's intrinsic properties or its location, though the reader is informed of the Two Trees location side by side. The couple is spoken to briefly in regards to one specific Tree and that Tree, as we all know, was not the Tree of Life.I have noticed many fundamentalists often maintain a tendency to object scripture in these points and, I personally think, this occurs more often out of a spiritual complaceny or anxiety than spiritual or intellectual honesty and discipline. At times, it is almost as though they feel that musty ol' 'phall' doctrine must be defended at all costs, and so these obvious facts are refuted - and exchanged for speculation and assumptions - as if that theoretical foundation of incoherence was somehow hinging on the Lovebird's choice between the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge. In this vein of reason, though it may be a clotted vein, the couple in the Garden must consciously reject the Tree of Life to become the ultimate filthy lil' satanified pigs.If we are honest we see this is not the case at all, but rather that any 'wrong' decision must be made between the Lovebird's two obvious choices; eat from the Tree of the Knowledge or do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge. If we are extra honest - and lend any credence as to what Eve and her Father felt transpired - we may acknowledge that the choices were, ultimately, be deceived or do not be deceived - which can be a tricky predicament for any naive children. And so, we begin to see that, removing any awareness about the Tree of Life from the Lovebird's perception does not interfere with the dearly beloved 'satanic filthy pig' doctrine.It is of course, first, the very words in Genesis, telling us that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was good for food, as were the entire variety of other Trees in the garden, such as the Tree of Life, etc ...The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)... in addition to a, second, less ambiguous and more final declaration, attributed to Yeshua the Anointed One, that devour the 'original satanified filthy sinful pig' theory peddled by many of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion's confused disciples.Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?The curious, yet seemingly awkward, dilema that seems to present itself is; who have so many Christians believed and who will they continue to trust, if they will not trust the Judeo-Christian Holy Book or believe the words attributed to the world's Mashiach, Yeshua? lol - if we are not careful! It seems unfortunate, but have faith ...It may not pass by continuously.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Part of your response seems more emotional. I would respond.The fact that man was, as I say, Satanified, does not mean that there is nothing good in man. He is like damaged goods.Think of a radio which has been discarded into the gutter. Instead of playing music it plays only static noise because of its malfunction.The creation of man itself was pronounced as "very good". So even in fallen humans there is something of a residue of the good creation left.Your caricature of 'original satanified filthy sinful pig' seems more your emotional resentment of the doctrine of the fall of man.Now I will address your other interesting point: Yes, Jesus teaching about the need for inward moral cleansing was put forth to counter festidious rules about hand washing. That is true. And eating of a physical bad tree is not so much a problem to us today. That is unless you are speaking perhaps of Cocaine addiction or Tobacco addiction.This does not render the disobedient eating of the TOKGE as not a historical fall of man into sin. It could be that the tree represented a line over which Adam must not cross. When he did his world and his being were invaded by the evil spirit.I do not pretend to understand everything about this. But it does seem that Paul speaks of the sin dwelling in the flesh. Something happened to man's body as a result of the disobedience of Adam. This is mostly brought out in Romans chapter 7 where Paul diagnosis the plight of sinful man.Here are some select verses which prove that something entered into the body of man. Paul seems to indicate that in his members, in his fallen flesh there is a sin principle driving him to disobey the law of God. And with that law of God he does agree with his mind.So I believe that the taking in of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have had an effect on man's body. Probably the sinful flesh we have now is corrupted and unlike the original body God created for us.James also indicates a problem in the sinful man's physical members: Man was not created with this problem in his members. Where then did it come from? And when did it start? The most logical and biblical answer I can think of is when the first man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The body is called the "body of sin" ( Romans 6:6)And Paul says the passions of sin operated in out members to bear fruit unto death: So the glorification of the body - the redemption of the body, seems to be the final freeing of whatever got into mankind from Adam's ingesting of the forbidden tree.The point is made though there are many many other passages which reveal these things.