Then the Father said to the woman, What is this you have done?
And the woman replied, The serpent deceived*, me, and I ate.
14 ~ So the Father said to the serpent, Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all the wild beasts and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 ~ And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring;
Her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel.
16 ~ To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband, but he will want to dominate you.
Instead, the Father says 'what is this you have done?', which is followed by 'To the woman he said'.
After this period of question and answer, does the Father even deny that the woman was indeed deceived?
The proof is in the text EMA - how will you argue that it was someone other than the serpent who has 'done this'?
Will you even attempt to argue that 'this' does not refer back towards the 'deception', that the woman suggests occured?
I hope not ...
In the end, after all, the Father does not seem to suggest that she is being untruthful or that she disobeyed to simply spite the rule.
Although this is the much used attempt you have offered here to extricate them. Was there no pronouncement of punishment for the other two?
You tell me ...
Again, the Father does not precede Eve's pronouncement with a direct possessive clause. Conversely, Adam is addressed directly for obeying his wife.
However, his punishment is deflected to the ground where the serpent is bound to slither all the days of its life, after receiving direct physical mutilation.
But to Adam he said, Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
A curse is placed upon the ground; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Speaking of stopping short, why do you think the Father did not say 'because you have listened to your wife, you are no longer in a relationship with me'?
Based on his son Cain's direct conversations with the Father pertaining directly to guidance (Genesis 4:6), as well as, the provision of clothing the Lovebird's received directly from their Father (Genesis 3:21), it seems more than safe to arrive at the conclusion that the Father didn't remit his guidance and provision at all, as it seems that some would have us believe for some strange reason.
you stopped short, like most cherrie pickers
Hey, why the ad hominems ol' boy? Eh, no biggie - they do provide a certain sense of comfort ...
Btw, I like cherries as much as the next guy, and so, like it or not - you gotta share lol
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Regarding early apologetic discourse as it relates to soul, separations and death ...
Thank you for the exchange purpledawn ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
purpledawn writes:
Thanks for the background.
Thank you for all your diligent searching ...
I'm still trying to get a clear definition of spiritual death. It seems to vary.
Death supposedly refers to separation, but I haven't gotten a clear picture of what the spiritual portion is referring to.
Any clues?
Verse twenty nine within the third chapter of Mark's booklet (or the later rendition within Luke's booklet) comes to mind.
Of course, that seems to effectively open up a separate can of worms though.
I also stumbled across some early christian meanderings which hardly seem of use. What I mean is, they go on and on without offering scriptural support. Mostly anyway, with a few exceptions here and there, such as Ignatius in a couple spots. Keep in mind, this jazz was completely contrived prior to 400 CE.
I've decided to post them. Perhaps those perusing the thread can see just how little early christians were worried about employing scripture as a witness.
Justin Martyr: The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved." (Justin Martyr, Chapter X.The Body Saved, and Will Therefore Rise)
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XVIAnalogy of Death and Sleep, and Consequent Argument for the Resurrection. And let no one think it strange that we call by the name of life a continuance of being which is interrupted by death and corruption; but let him consider rather that this word has not one meaning only, nor is there only one measure of continuance, because the nature also of the things that continue is not one. For if each of the things that continue has its continuance according to its peculiar nature, neither in the case of those who are wholly incorruptible and immortal shall we find the continuance like ours, because the natures of superior beings do not take the level of such as are inferior; nor in men is it proper to look for a continuance invariable and unchangeable; in as much as the former are from the first created immortal, and continue to exist without end by the simple will of their Maker, and men, in respect of the soul, have from their first origin an unchangeable continuance, but in respect of the body obtain immortality by means of change. This is what is meant by the doctrine of the resurrection; and, looking to this, we both await the dissolution of the body, as the sequel to a life of want and corruption, and after this we hope for a continuance with immortality, not putting either our death on a level with the death of the irrational animals, or the continuance of man with the continuance of immortals, lest we should unawares in this way put human nature and life on a level with things with which it is not proper to compare them. It ought not, therefore, to excite dissatisfaction, if some inequality appears to exist in regard to the duration of men; nor, because the separation of the soul from the members of the body and the dissolution of its parts interrupts the continuity of life, must we therefore despair of the resurrection. For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep, seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time, and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life; and for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states, as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life. If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution, and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution, such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body.
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XIII.Continuation of the Argument. Confident of these things, no less than of those which have already come to pass, and reflecting on our own nature, we are content with a life associated with neediness and corruption, as suited to our present state of existence, and we stedfastly hope for a continuance of being in immortality; and this we do not take without foundation from the inventions of men, feeding ourselves on false hopes, but our belief rests on a most infallible guaranteethe purpose of Him who fashioned us, according to which He made man of an immortal soul and a body, and furnished him with understanding and an innate law for the preservation and safeguard of the things given by Him as suitable to an intelligent existence and a rational life: for we know well that He would not have fashioned such a being, and furnished him with everything belonging to perpetuity, had He not intended that what was so created should continue in perpetuity. If, therefore, the Maker of this universe made man with a view to his partaking of an intelligent life, and that, having become a spectator of His grandeur, and of the wisdom which is manifest in all things, he might continue always in the contemplation of these; then, according to the purpose of his Author, and the nature which he has received, the cause of his creation is a pledge of his continuance for ever, and this continuance is a pledge
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XV.Argument for the Resurrection from the Nature of Man. But while the cause discoverable in the creation of men is of itself sufficient to prove that the resurrection follows by natural sequence on the dissolution of bodies, yet it is perhaps right not to shrink from adducing either of the proposed arguments, but, agreeably to what has been said, to point out to those who are not able of themselves to discern them, the arguments from each of the truths evolved from the primary; and first and foremost, the nature of the men created, which conducts us to the same notion, and has the same force as evidence of the resurrection. For if the whole nature of men in general is composed of an immortal soul and a body which was fitted to it in the creation, and if neither to the nature of the soul by itself, nor to the nature of the body separately, has God assigned such a creation or such a life and entire course of existence as this, but to men compounded of the two, in order that they may, when they have passed through their present existence, arrive at one common end, with the same elements of which they are composed at their birth and during life, it unavoidably follows, since one living-being is formed from the two, experiencing whatever the soul experiences and whatever the body experiences, doing and performing whatever requires the judgment of the senses or of the reason, that the whole series of these things must be referred to some one end, in order that they all, and by means of all,namely, man’s creation, man’s nature, man’s life, man’s doings and sufferings, his course of existence, and the end suitable to his nature,may concur in one harmony and the same common experience. But if there is some one harmony and community of experience belonging to the whole being, whether of the things which spring from the soul or of those which are accomplished by means of the body, the end for all these must also be one. And the end will be in strictness one, if the being whose end that end is remains the same in its constitution; and the being will be exactly the same, if all those things of which the being consists as parts are the same. And they will be the same in respect of their peculiar union, if the parts dissolved are again united for the constitution of the being. And the constitution of the same men of necessity proves that a resurrection will follow of the dead and dissolved bodies; for without this, neither could the same parts be united according to nature with one another, nor could the nature of the same men be reconstituted. And if both understanding and reason have been given to men for the discernment of things which are perceived by the understanding, and not of existences only, but also of the goodness and wisdom and rectitude of their Giver, it necessarily follows that, since those things continue for the sake of which the rational judgment is given, the judgment given for these things should also continue. But it is impossible for this to continue, unless the nature which has received it, and in which it adheres, continues. But that which has received both understanding and reason is man, not the soul by itself. Man, therefore, who consists of the two parts, must continue for ever. But it is impossible for him to continue unless he rise again. For if no resurrection were to take place, the nature of men as men would not continue. And if the nature of men does not continue, in vain has the soul been fitted to the need of the body and to its experiences; in vain has the body been lettered so that it cannot obtain what it longs for, obedient to the reins of the soul, and guided by it as with a bridle; in vain is the understanding, in vain is wisdom, and the observance of rectitude, or even the practice of every virtue, and the enactment and enforcement of laws,to say all in a word, whatever is noble in men or for men’s sake, or rather the very creation and nature of men. But if vanity is utterly excluded from all the works of God, and from all the gifts bestowed by Him, the conclusion is unavoidable, that, along with the interminable duration of the soul, there will be a perpetual continuance of the body according to its proper nature.
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XVIAnalogy of Death and Sleep, and Consequent Argument for the Resurrection. And let no one think it strange that we call by the name of life a continuance of being which is interrupted by death and corruption; but let him consider rather that this word has not one meaning only, nor is there only one measure of continuance, because the nature also of the things that continue is not one. For if each of the things that continue has its continuance according to its peculiar nature, neither in the case of those who are wholly incorruptible and immortal shall we find the continuance like ours, because the natures of superior beings do not take the level of such as are inferior; nor in men is it proper to look for a continuance invariable and unchangeable; in as much as the former are from the first created immortal, and continue to exist without end by the simple will of their Maker, and men, in respect of the soul, have from their first origin an unchangeable continuance, but in respect of the body obtain immortality by means of change. This is what is meant by the doctrine of the resurrection; and, looking to this, we both await the dissolution of the body, as the sequel to a life of want and corruption, and after this we hope for a continuance with immortality, not putting either our death on a level with the death of the irrational animals, or the continuance of man with the continuance of immortals, lest we should unawares in this way put human nature and life on a level with things with which it is not proper to compare them. It ought not, therefore, to excite dissatisfaction, if some inequality appears to exist in regard to the duration of men; nor, because the separation of the soul from the members of the body and the dissolution of its parts interrupts the continuity of life, must we therefore despair of the resurrection. For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep, seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time, and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life; and for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states, as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life. If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution, and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution, such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body.
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter 18, But if each of these things belongs to man by nature, and he requires food for his life, and requires posterity for the continuance of the race, and requires a judgment in order that food and posterity may be according to law, it of course follows, since food and posterity refer to both together, that the judgment must be referred to them too (by both together I mean man, consisting of soul and body), and that such man becomes accountable for all his actions, and receives for them either reward or punishment. Now, if the righteous judgment awards to both together its retribution for the deeds wrought; and if it is not proper that either the soul alone should receive the wages of the deeds wrought in union with the body (for this of itself has no inclination to the faults which are committed in connection with the pleasure or food and culture of the body), or that the body alone should (for this of itself is incapable of distinguishing law and justice), but man, composed of these, is subjected to trial for each of the deeds wrought by him; and if reason does not find this happening either in this life (for the award according to merit finds no place in the present existence, since many atheists and persons who practise every iniquity and wickedness live on to the last, unvisited by calamity, whilst, on the contrary, those who have manifestly lived an exemplary life in respect of every Virtue, live in pain, in insult, in calumny and outrage, and suffering of all kinds) or after death (for both together no longer exist, the soul being separated from the body, and the body itself being resolved again into the materials out of which it was composed, and no longer retaining anything of its former structure or form, much less the remembrance of its actions): the result of all this is very plain to every one,namely, that, in the language of the apostle, "this corruptible (and dissoluble) must put on incorruption," in order that those who were dead, having been made alive by the resurrection, and the parts that were separated and entirely dissolved having been again united, each one may, in accordance with justice, receive what he has done by the body, whether it be good or bad.
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XX.Man Must Be Possessed Both of a Body and Soul Hereafter, that the Judgment Passed Upon Him May Be Just. For either death is the entire extinction of life, the soul being dissolved and corrupted along with the body, or the soul remains by itself, incapable of dissolution, of dispersion, of corruption, whilst the body is corrupted and dissolved, retaining no longer any remembrance of past actions, nor sense of what it experienced in connection with the soul. If the life of men is to be utterly extinguished, it is manifest there will be no care for men who are not living, no judgment respecting those who have lived in virtue or in vice; but there will rush in again upon us whatever belongs to a lawless life, and the swarm of absurdities which follow from it, and that which is the summit of this lawlessnessatheism. But if the body were to be corrupted, and each of the dissolved particles to pass to its kindred element, yet the soul to remain by itself as immortal, neither on this supposition would any judgment on the soul take place, since there would be an absence of equity: for it is unlawful to suspect that any judgment can proceed out of God and from God which is wanting in equity. Yet equity is wanting to the judgment, if the being is not preserved in existence who practised righteousness or lawlessness: for that which practised each of the things in life on which the judgment is passed was man, not soul by itself. To sum up all in a word, this view will in no case consist with equity.
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XXII.Continuation of the Argument. In addition to what has been said, is it not absurd that, while we cannot even have the notion of virtue and vice as existing separately in the soul (for we recognise the virtues as man’s virtues, even as in like manner vice, their opposite, as not belonging to the soul in separation from the body, and existing by itself), yet that the reward or punishment for these should be assigned to the soul alone? How can any one have even the notion of courage or fortitude as existing in the soul alone, when it has no fear of death, or wounds, or maiming, or loss, or maltreatment, or of the pain connected with these, or the suffering resulting from them?
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XXIV.Argument for the Resurrection from the Chief End of Man. "For such an end as this, I suppose, belongs to beasts and cattle, not to men possessed of an immortal soul and rational judgment."
177 CE Athenagoras the Athenian: Chapter XXV.Argument Continued and Concluded. Nor again is it the happiness of soul separated from body: for we are not inquiring about the life or final cause of either of the parts of which man consists, but of the being who is composed of both; for such is every man who has a share in this present existence, and there must be some appropriate end proposed for this life. But if it is the end of both parts together, and this can be discovered neither while they are still living in the present state of existence through the numerous causes already mentioned, nor yet when the soul is in a state of separation, because the man cannot be said to exist when the body is dissolved, and indeed entirely scattered abroad, even though the soul continue by itselfit is absolutely necessary that the end of a man’s being should appear in some reconstitution of the two together, and of the same living being. And as this follows of necessity, there must by all means be a resurrection of the bodies which are dead, or even entirely dissolved, and the same men must be formed anew, since the law of nature ordains the end not absolutely, nor as the end of any men whatsoever, but of the same men who passed through the previous life; but it is impossible for the same men to be reconstituted unless the same bodies are restored to the same souls. But that the same soul should obtain the same body is impossible in any other way, and possible only by the resurrection; for if this takes place, an end befitting the nature of men follows also. And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the final cause of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is, and of His decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For the large number of those who fail of the end that belongs to them does not make void the common lot, since the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each.
190 CE Clement of Alexandria: But we must as much as possible subject the soul to varied preparatory exercise, that it may become susceptible to the reception of knowledge. Do you not see how wax is softened and copper purified, in order to receive the stamp applied to it? Just as death is the separation of the soul from the body, so is knowledge as it were the rational death urging the spirit away, and separating it from the passions, and leading it on to the life of well-doing, that it may then say with confidence to God, "I live as Thou wishest." (book 7 chapter 12)
200 CE Tertullian: Such severance, however, is quite natural between the soul and the body; for when the body is deserted by the soul, it is overcome by death. The soul, therefore, is endued with a body; for if it were not corporeal, it could not desert the body. (chapter 5, A Treatise on the Soul)
200 CE Tertullian: Chapter XXVII.Soul and Body Conceived, Formed and Perfected in Element Simultaneously. How, then, is a living being conceived? Is the substance of both body and soul formed together at one and the same time? Or does one of them precede the other in natural formation? We indeed maintain that both are conceived, and formed, and perfectly simultaneously, as well as born together; and that not a moment’s interval occurs in their conception, so that, a prior place can be assigned to either. Judge, in fact, of the incidents of man’s earliest existence by those which occur to him at the very last. As death is defined to be nothing else than the separation of body and soul, life, which is the opposite of death, is susceptible of no other definition than the conjunction of body and soul. If the severance happens at one and the same time to both substances by means of death, so the law of their combination ought to assure us that it occurs simultaneously to the two substances by means of life. Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.
200 CE Tertullian: I must here also remark, that if souls undergo a transformation, they will actually not be able to accomplish and experience the destinies which they shall deserve; and the aim and purpose of judicial recompense will be brought to nought, as there will be wanting the sense and consciousness of merit and retribution. And there must be this want of consciousness, if souls lose their condition; and there must ensue this loss, if they do not continue in one stay. But even if they should have permanency enough to remain unchanged until the judgment,a point which Mercurius gyptius recognised, when he said that the soul, after its separation from the body, was not dissipated back into the soul of the universe, but retained permanently its distinct individuality, "in order that it might render," to use his own words, "an account to the Father of those things which it has done in the body; " chapter 33
200 CE Tertullian: Chapter LI.Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body. But the operation of death is plain and obvious: it is the separation of body and soul. Some, however, in reference to the soul’s immortality, on which they have so feeble a hold through not being taught of God, maintain it with such beggarly arguments, that they would fain have it supposed that certain souls cleave to the body even after death.
200 CE Tertullian: Chapter LII.All Kinds of Death a Violence to Nature, Arising from Sin.Sin an Intrusion Upon Nature as God Created It. Such, then, is the work of deaththe separation of the soul from the body. Putting out of the question fates and fortuitous circumstances, it has been, according to men’s views, distinguished in a twofold formthe ordinary and the extraordinary.
200 CE Tertullian: Chapter LVI.Refutation of the Homeric View of the Soul’s Detention from Hades Owing to the Body’s Being Unburied. That Souls Prematurely Separated from the Body Had to Wait for Admission into Hades Also Refuted. There arises the question, whether this takes place immediately after the soul’s departure from the body; whether some souls are detained for special reasons in the meantime here on earth; and whether it is permitted them of their own accord, or by the intervention of authority, to be removed from Hades at some subsequent time? Even such opinions as these are not by any means lacking persons to advance them with confidence. ... For surely the soul which had no willingness to die might well prefer as tardy a removal to Hades as possible. It will love the undutiful heir, by whose means it still enjoys the light. If, however, it is certain that injury accrues to the soul from a tardy interment of the bodyand the gist of the injury lies in the neglect of the burialit is yet in the highest degree unfair, that should receive all the injury to which the faulty delay could not possibly be imputed, for of course all the fault rests on the nearest relations of the dead. They also say that those souls which are taken away by a premature death wander about hither and thither until they have completed the residue of the years which they would have lived through, had it not been for their untimely fate.
200 CE Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh. For some, when they have alighted on a very usual form of prophetic statement, generally expressed in figure and allegory, though not always, distort into some imaginary sense even the most clearly described doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, alleging that even death itself must be understood in a spiritual sense. They say that which is commonly supposed to be death is not really so,namely, the separation of body and soul: it is rather the ignorance of God, by reason of which man is dead to God, and is not less buried in error than he would be in the grave. chapter 19
250 CE Ignatius: The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. (book 2 ch 34)
250 CE Ignatius: And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God. He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, "He that believeth in Me is not condemned," that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; "that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. "For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God." (book 5 ch 27)
260 CE Methodius: whether it sojourns with us, partaking of death, or whether it is gifted with an endless immortality; what condition awaits us when we shall have separated from our bodies relaxed in death; whether we shall retain our perceptions, or have no recollection of our former sensations or of past memories; book 1, Oration on the Psalms
307 CE Lactantius: And the force of this is not that it altogether annihilates the souls of the unrighteous, but subjects them to everlasting punishment. We term that punishment the second death, which is itself also perpetual, as also is immortality. We thus define the first death: Death is the dissolution of the nature of living beings; or thus: Death is the separation of body and soul. But we thus define the second death: Death is the suffering of eternal pain; or thus: Death is the condemnation of souls for their deserts to eternal punishments. This does not extend to the dumb cattle, whose spirits, not being composed of God, but of the common air, are dissolved by death. Book II. Of the Origin of Error.
307 CE Lactantius: But, indeed, hereafter man must be both wise and happy without any evil; but this cannot take place as long as the soul is clothed with the abode of the body. But when a separation shall have been made between the body and the soul, then evil will be disunited from good; and as the body perishes and the soul remains, so evil will perish and good be permanent. Then man, having received the garment of immortality, will be wise and free from evil, as God is. chapter 5 Book VII. Of a Happy Life.
307 CE Lactantius: For the soul even in opposition to the body desires the worship of God, which consists in abstinence from desires and lusts, in the enduring of pain, in the contempt of death. From which it is credible that the soul does not perish, but is separated from the body, because the body can do nothing without the soul, but the soul can do many and great things without the body. Chapter XI.Of the Last Times, and of the Soul and Body.
307 CE Lactantius: Therefore, although they are joined and connected together from birth, and the one which is formed of earthly material is, as it were, the vessel of the other, which is drawn out from heavenly fineness, when any violence has separated the two, which separation is called death, then each returns into its own nature; that which was of earth is resolved into earth; that which is of heavenly breath remains fixed, and flourishes always, since the divine spirit is everlasting. Chapter XII.Of the Soul and the Body, and of Their Union and Separation and Return.
The Twelve Patriarchs: For fornication is the destruction of the soul, separating it from God, and bringing it near to idols, because it deceiveth the mind and understanding, and bringeth down young men into hell before their time. The Twelve Patriarchs, I.The Testament of Reuben Concerning Thoughts
The Clementine Homilies: "For there is every necessity, that he who says that God is by His nature righteous, should believe also that the souls of men are immortal: for where would be His justice, when some, having lived piously, have been evil-treated, and sometimes violently cut off, while others who have been wholly impious, and have indulged in luxurious living, have died the common death of men? Since therefore, without all contradiction, God who is good is also just, He shall not otherwise be known to be just, unless the soul after its separation from the body be immortal, so that the wicked man, being in hell, as having here received his good things, may there be punished for his sins; and the good man, who has been punished here for his sins, may then, as in the bosom of the righteous, be constituted an heir of good things. Since therefore God is righteous, it is fully evident to us that there is a judgment, and that souls are immortal. Homily II., Chapter XIII.Future Rewards and Punishments.
The Clementine Homilies: "I am anxious that you should become of the same mind as your wife and children, in order that here you may live along with them, and in the other world, after the separation of the soul from the body, you will continue to be with them free from sorrow. Homily XV.
The Clementine Homilies: And what is death but the separation of soul from body? There is therefore no pain when there is harmony. For death does not even at all belong to those things which substantially exist: for death is nothing, as I said, but the separation of soul from body; and when this takes place, the body, which is by nature incapable of sensation, is dissolved; but the soul, being capable of sensation, remains in life and exists substantially. Homily XIX., Chapter XX.Pain and Death the Result of Sin.
Now then, I'm making no attempts to slight these fellas, but rather to the contrary, my intention - more or less, is to show off their creative sides ... However, it may become evident that this is what a good portion of apologetic discourse relies on - scripturally unsupported philosophical musings.
In all fairness, even that's not to say the entire mumble is unfounded within scripture, but rather plainly, evidently unsupported upon delivery.
But, then again, is that not what christian apologists and 'getics are mainly about?
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thank you for the exchange purpledawn ... I hope things are well with you and yours.
purpledawn writes:
Thanks for the clarification between a sacrifice and an offering.
This tells me they still had a relationship with God.
I'd be glad if that may have assisted towards your conclusion, along with the provision of clothing the Lovebird's received directly from their Father (Genesis 3:21) after the landscape was cursed with thorns and thistles and Cain's direct conversations with the Father pertaining directly to guidance (Genesis 4:6).
Is it worth noting the directprotection he receives after failing to master his sin ( Genesis 4:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)?
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : emphasis
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to keep the way to the tree of life.
These sentries - or 'cherubim', and the 'flame of the sword' they employed, which turns every way, are said to 'shamar' the way to the 'Tree of the Life'.
Curiously, according to the NASB word usage, this verb 'shamar' is only used in accordance with any 'defense' one time - and it wasn't within this verse ... In light of the actual text, it seems the Father didn't employ angelic sentries to defend the orchard's entrance, but rather to keep and preserve the way to it.
... immortality recended, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that immortality was not exsistent in them before hand, which the plain text certainly indicates.
The plain text does not appear to indicate that at all EMA; again, why else would they have needed the Tree of Life? There is no mention of 'recended'.
Perhaps, a more comprehensive overveiw may be in order so as to demonstrated 'that immortality was not exsistent in' the Lovebird's lives 'before hand'.
The Hebrew word for 'dust' of the ground (Heb. עפר (aphar), Gk. χοος choos: dry loose earth) is employed in Gen. 2:7, which may enlighten the hearer or reader to the idea that The Eden narrative is proverbial. As an aside, the material that mankind is formed from within the narrative also seems to indicate that the Deity (יהוה אלהים) needn't be anthropomorphized into an anthrōpos (Gk. ανθρωπος : a human being).
One may also note that 'aphar' - or dust, is a substance of the ground which would not exist after the whole surface of the ground is 'irrigated', as happens to be the case in Gen. 2:6, and it is, as well, a substance of the ground that typically defies being 'formed', as it is in Gen. 2:7. After all, it is golems which are supposedly conjured from mud, mire or clay - otherwise knwown as 'tit'; as opposed to dust or 'aphar' ...
Now, in the same way that the entire human species, male and female, are addressed collectively in Gen 1:27 as 'adam' (את־האדם), the continued employment of the Hebrew term throughout Gen. 2:7, 8, 15 & 3:24 (את־האדם) logically denotes the entire human species as well. So, when 'the archetype of the human species' (האדם) receives the 'breath of mortal life' (נשׁמת חיים) in Genesis 2:7, it receives nothing more or less than every other 'breathing brute animal species' (נפשׁ חיה). Such an interpretation is in clear accordance with the BDB Lexicon of the Old Testament (pg. 659), as well as in Genesis 7:22 ...
quote:Everything on dry land that had the breath of life* in its nostrils died.
That is, all creatures that inhabit the dry land are endowed with the Father's 'breath-spirit of mortal life' (נשׁמת־רוח חיים). In the end of the matter, any lack of disclosure regarding the Tree of the Life does not seem to revolve around a premise of innate immortality. It is for these reasons that one may safely assume and come to understand that 'adam' - as 'the archetype of the human species' (האדם), is indeed, from the very moment of its initial inception ...
A mortal brute animal that is subject to physical death. 'Original deception' or 'original sin' need not apply; at least, according to the text ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited 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. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Re: Regarding an original display of intractability ...
Bailey
After all, disobedience is defined as the trait of being unwilling to obey. Now, was Eve unwilling, or was she deceived?
LOL, Stop it man your killing me, let me deal with one liberal positon (Purpledawn)at a time. No one has to listen to a drug dealer either, you choose to. EAM
Again, the story does not give enough information. I have shown from the text that they were not immortal. They needed the tree of life to live forever. God states that very clearly. That is why he expelled them from the garden.
We have now two things involved here, the question of immortality and immortality as a spiritual quality, hence Spiritual death in the Garden.
Youve got yourself in a bit of a pickle concerning whether they were immortal or not. Your two latest contentions, that there is not enough information and we dont know if they ate, both fall short of the text and common sense. watch this,
The text clearly states that these two trees were in the garden, he then says you may eat freely of all but one, and he designated which one. You would have to add to these words to assume they did not know of its location. Now the simplest reading according to the plain text would indicate they certainly were aware of the tree of life.
They appearently were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, but I dont remember the text stating that God told them its location , DO YOU?
You would need to go beyond what is written to assume they did not, since the text CLEARLY INDICATES THAT GOD WAS AWARE OF ITS PRESENCE AND DID NOT CARE IF THEY ATE OF IT, OR NOT.
Did you CATCH that? God was aware of its location, but was not concerned whether they ate of it or not, before the fall. that is, why would he put it there and not make a provision to not eat of it, if there was a chance they may chance upon it. Your contentions in this connection make no sense and they violate the plain text.
Your problems only gets worse in this connection. Since after the Fall he was clearly concerned about its existence to them, this would indicate that they previously knew of its existence and location,. For if they were not aware of its existence or its location before hand, what are the chances they may find it as they were being expelled
Next, since he gives no command to NOT eat of it before the fall, but certaily designates it as a part of the Garden, it does not have the same significance before as it does afterwards, I WONDER WHY, Hmmmm.
Are you begining to see the problem you have involved yourself in here? It will do you no good to ASSUME, that they were not aware of its presence or had not ate of it, Because that is what you will have to do (assume)to ignore the plain INDICATIONS of the text.
Again, it is irrelevant whether they knew of its location or not, God knew and was unconcerned as to whether it was a problem, before the fall. Atleast that is what the text CLEARLY indicates, wouldnt you agree? It is you that is adding to the story to fit your theory.
So yes, there is enough information in the text to clear up these points, your just ignoring it, because you are coming to the text with a preconcieved theory and refuse to let it go.
They needed the tree of life to live forever. God states that very clearly. That is why he expelled them from the garden.
But the tree of life was in the garden before they "Needed it", as you put it. Do you mean to imply that, God gave them a command to eat ("of every tree")including the tree of life, which was there when the command was issued, but was not really serious?
The tree of life and the initial commands concerning it can only make sense after the fall. you are involving yourself in the worst form of logical contradiction
Sure they needed the tree to live forever, that is, after the fall. God and the text state that very plainly.
Since I have now demonstrated that the text CLEARLY indicates immortality before the fall, because of NO command to NOT eat of it, and a command to eat of all others, including the tree of life, also in the garden, it only remains to be seen whether immortality could be considered a spiritual quality. I would say yeah in this connection.
They lost a spiritual quality, that God would not give them back at present, physically, therefore they died spiritually by loss of this quality. Which is further indicated by a DIIFENATE distinction and changed relationship from that which they previously had.
You would need to ignore all of these simple points and the plain text to make you theory fit.
Was the tree of life in the garden, while they were there?
Was a command issued to not eat of its fruit?
Why was a command not issued concering its fruit, if it would produce immortality.
Conclusion. Immortality was already a part of thier nature, otherwise God would have given a command concering its fruit as well. This makes perfect sense if you do NOT ignore the plain and simple text.
You are reading into the text while I am making logical sense of the text EAM
quote:The text clearly states that these two trees were in the garden, he then says you may eat freely of all but one, and he designated which one. You would have to add to these words to assume they did not know of its location. Now the simplest reading according to the plain text would indicate they certainly were aware of the tree of life.
They appearently were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, but I dont remember the text stating that God told them its location , DO YOU?
You would need to go beyond what is written to assume they did not, since the text CLEARLY INDICATES THAT GOD WAS AWARE OF ITS PRESENCE AND DID NOT CARE IF THEY ATE OF IT, OR NOT.
Did you CATCH that? God was aware of its location, but was not concerned whether they ate of it or not, before the fall. that is, why would he put it there and not make a provision to not eat of it, if there was a chance they may chance upon it. Your contentions in this connection make no sense and they violate the plain text.
Make sure when you use the word "it" that the noun it represents is clear.
In the first paragraph of what I've quoted, you say that God told them they could eat freely of all trees but one and he told them which one. We know this is the tree of knowledge. You say we would have to add to the text to assume they didn't know of "its" location. The word "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge. Then you say that according to the simple reading A&E were aware of the tree of life.
Knowing where the tree of knowledge is located doesn't mean A&E knew where the tree of life was located or that is was a tree of life.
In the next two paragraphs you do the same thing. You say they were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, and then in the next sentence you say that the text clearly indicates that God was aware of "its" presence and did not care if they ate of it or not.
The "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge, but we know God did care whether they ate from that tree or not.
Now in the last paragraph you state that God was aware of "its" location ....
Please be careful with your "its" and make sure they clearly refer to the noun. Also make sure you have the right noun.
Back to the tree of life. From Message 94: The narrator tells us that both trees are in the Garden. We know that A&E were allowed to eat from any tree except the tree of knowledge. What we don't know is if A&E did eat from the tree of life or knew that it was a tree of life.
I agree that in the story God didn't care whether A&E ate from the tree of life or not. It was not prohibited. What we don't know is whether they did eat from the tree or if they knew whether the tree provided immortality.
quote:Your problems only gets worse in this connection. Since after the Fall he was clearly concerned about its existence to them, this would indicate that they previously knew of its existence and location,. For if they were not aware of its existence or its location before hand, what are the chances they may find it as they were being expelled
A&E were expelled to prevent them from partaking of the tree. The story still doesn't tell us whether A&E knew that that specific tree provided immortality.
quote:Are you begining to see the problem you have involved yourself in here? It will do you no good to ASSUME, that they were not aware of its presence or had not ate of it, Because that is what you will have to do (assume)to ignore the plain INDICATIONS of the text. It is you that is adding to the story to fit your theory.
I'm not assuming they were not aware. I'm saying the text doesn't tell us. We can't tell from the text. Just because God knew and the narrator knew, doesn't mean A&E knew.
quote:So yes, there is enough information in the text to clear up these points, your just ignoring it, because you are coming to the text with a preconcieved theory and refuse to let it go.
Actually, you are assuming they knew. You are assuming that because the narrator knew and God knew, that A&E must have known. The text does not provide that information.
quote:But the tree of life was in the garden before they "Needed it", as you put it. Do you mean to imply that, God gave them a command to eat ("of every tree")including the tree of life, which was there when the command was issued, but was not really serious?
If what you typed, is what you're reading, then I can see our problem.
Genesis 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
God did not order them to eat from every tree except one. He said they may eat freely of any tree. They were allowed to eat from any tree they wanted except the tree of knowledge. They didn't have to eat from all the trees. That's why I said the text doesn't tell us if they ate from the tree of life or if they knew it was the tree of life.
Now both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the middle of the garden. (Genesis 2:9). When Eve corrected the snake she said: "We may eat fruit from the tree in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." (Genesis 3:2-3) So if I were going to speculate whether they ate or not, I would say they probably stayed away from the middle and probably hadn't eaten from the tree.
Then the Father said to the woman, What is this you have done?
And the woman replied, The serpent deceived*, me, and I ate.
14 ~ So the Father said to the serpent, Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all the wild beasts and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
Your not paying attention. I said choose another word for A&Es disobedience
Oops - mah bad ... I was thinking of another term for the origins of the 'phallTM'.
Anyway, how about 'original intractableness'? As in, our first example of the trait of being hard to influence or control.
After all, disobedience is defined as the trait of being unwilling to obey. Now, was Eve unwilling, or was she deceived?
LOL, Stop it man your killing me, let me deal with one liberal positon (Purpledawn)at a time.
It's not a liberal position, but rather a question in relation to your request to choose another name for the orchard incident.
Nevertheless, it would seem that if the woman was indeed unwilling, then she maliciously spites the rule.
So then, I'm simply asking; did the woman spite the rule maliciously or was she deceived?
Take your time friend ...
No one has to listen to a drug dealer either, you choose to.
You're appearing to suggest an impression that Eve may have possessed an ability to differentiate a benevolent pharmacist from a malevolent peddler.
How would she do that without the the Knowledge of the Good and Evil?
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Dear friend, Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
But the tree of life was in the garden before they "Needed it", as you put it. Do you mean to imply that, God gave them a command to eat ("of every tree")including the tree of life, which was there when the command was issued, but was not really serious?
God did not order them to eat from every tree except one. He said they may eat freely of any tree. They were allowed to eat from any tree they wanted except the tree of knowledge. They didn't have to eat from all the trees. That's why I said the text doesn't tell us if they ate from the tree of life or if they knew it was the tree of life.
Now both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the middle of the garden. (Genesis 2:9). When Eve corrected the snake she said: "We may eat fruit from the tree in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." (Genesis 3:2-3)
EMA - while considering how literal you attempt to consider the text of the Eden narrative, I'm wondering two things.
1) Do you suppose the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge was good for food?
2) Do you consider lying to be a sin?
Please, afford me answer ...
One Love
Dear friend, Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Make sure when you use the word "it" that the noun it represents is clear. In the first paragraph of what I've quoted, you say that God told them they could eat freely of all trees but one and he told them which one. We know this is the tree of knowledge. You say we would have to add to the text to assume they didn't know of "its" location. The word "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge. Then you say that according to the simple reading A&E were aware of the tree of life.
Knowing where the tree of knowledge is located doesn't mean A&E knew where the tree of life was located or that is was a tree of life.
In the next two paragraphs you do the same thing. You say they were aware of where the tree of knowledge was, and then in the next sentence you say that the text clearly indicates that God was aware of "its" presence and did not care if they ate of it or not.
The "its" refers back to the tree of knowledge, but we know God did care whether they ate from that tree or not.
Now in the last paragraph you state that God was aware of "its" location ....
Please be careful with your "its" and make sure they clearly refer to the noun. Also make sure you have the right noun.
Thanks, but it is of no consequence to the argument.
Back to the tree of life. From Message 94: The narrator tells us that both trees are in the Garden. We know that A&E were allowed to eat from any tree except the tree of knowledge. What we don't know is if A&E did eat from the tree of life or knew that it was a tree of life.
I agree that in the story God didn't care whether A&E ate from the tree of life or not. It was not prohibited. What we don't know is whether they did eat from the tree or if they knew whether the tree provided immortality.
If God didnt care before why would he care afterwards, what changed to cause this change in Gods decision.
A&E were expelled to prevent them from partaking of the tree. The story still doesn't tell us whether A&E knew that that specific tree provided immortality.
the expellsion for the purposes of not eating of the tree of life, was a SECONDARY consideration as to the purpose of thier leaving in the first place Watch how it follows logically. If this is the primary reason, then it would follow that God should not have put the TOL in there in the first place, them in there in the first place, or both of these together, if he did not want them to eat of it. But you have already admitted that he did not care, now you say he does, which is it?
The TOL and its application to them was not the same before the sin as it was afterwards.
Further, it is irrelevant whether they knew of its properties, since God did and he did not care if they ate of it. The whole your diggingis getting deeper.
God did not order them to eat from every tree except one. He said they may eat freely of any tree. They were allowed to eat from any tree they wanted except the tree of knowledge. They didn't have to eat from all the trees. That's why I said the text doesn't tell us if they ate from the tree of life or if they knew it was the tree of life.
This is a quibble and a cavil and it has nothing to do with the point, or the force of the argument I have set out, or that the text has set out. On one point you are correct, I should have said "May EAT", but this also has nothing to do with the point at hand.
Watch it flow logically. Whether they knew of it (TOL) and whether ate of it, (TOL),is also irrelevant. What is relevant, is that GOD knew of its properties, location and accesiblity to them and allowed them access to it, not being concerned if they ate of it or not. Knowing all these facts,it is REASONABLE TO ASSUME that it could do nothing for them, that they did not already possess.
Conclusion, something changed to change Gods mind about the TOLs application to them, and its accesiblity to them, which was of no concern previously.
Whether you agree or not, this interpretation certainly addresses the plain and simple text and its direct conclusions.
After the sin, God changed his mind from an anthropomophic stand point.
Now both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the middle of the garden. (Genesis 2:9). When Eve corrected the snake she said: "We may eat fruit from the tree in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." (Genesis 3:2-3) So if I were going to speculate whether they ate or not, I would say they probably stayed away from the middle and probably hadn't eaten from the tree.
Bottom line: The text just doesn't tell us.
This theory might work if it were not for two major points. God was AWARE it was there, and told them they MAY eat of every tree except one. Your argument seems to imply that he was serious about all the trees but figured that they would not find the tree of life, or hoped that they would not chance upon it. Your theory defies simple logic and the plain and simple text.
Question, if they found the tree and ate of it before the problems started would it have made them immortal?
Question? Since God knew of its location and its (TOL)potential, was he not serious about the instruction to freely eat of all but one?
If God was concerned about the tree after the sin and whether they ate of it, to not live forever, Why would he NOT be concerned about it before the sin since he claerly gave them the right and ability to find it.
Even if we assume they were simply mortal, wouldnt the tree provide immortality in either instance?
Since you seem to believe they were mortal before and after,our biggest problem is going to be explaining why he cared afterwards and not beforehand. Do you mean to imply that God was not interested in them becoming immortal before hand, but was afterwards?
Even if, we assume that your contention about them not being immortal prior to the sin is true, why would God not be concerned about them eating of it, before the problems started. Wouldnt the same result of immortality occur, if they ate, before as well as afterwards? Yet, God seems to not care beforehand. Your theory ignores simple logic and the plain text.
Thus your bottom line and its implications are not support by the text
quote:Thanks, but it is of no consequence to the argument.
Clearly conveying one's point is very important to the argument. That's how we avoid misunderstandings.
quote:If God didnt care before why would he care afterwards, what changed to cause this change in Gods decision.
Read the story. They now had knowledge of good and evil like God. (Genesis 3:22-23) If you're looking for theological answers, they aren't in the text.
quote:the expellsion for the purposes of not eating of the tree of life, was a SECONDARY consideration as to the purpose of thier leaving in the first place Watch how it follows logically. If this is the primary reason, then it would follow that God should not have put the TOL in there in the first place, them in there in the first place, or both of these together, if he did not want them to eat of it. But you have already admitted that he did not care, now you say he does, which is it?
The TOL and its application to them was not the same before the sin as it was afterwards.
Further, it is irrelevant whether they knew of its properties, since God did and he did not care if they ate of it. The whole your diggingis getting deeper.
Nope. Genesis 3:22-23 is very clear. God banished A&E from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As I've said, while they were clueless God didn't care if they lived forever. After they gained knowledge of good and evil, God did care if they lived forever. Again the story is very clear.
quote:This is a quibble and a cavil and it has nothing to do with the point, or the force of the argument I have set out, or that the text has set out. On one point you are correct, I should have said "May EAT", but this also has nothing to do with the point at hand.
It isn't trivial. There is a big difference between must and may. The argument you were making was based on must. Your stance did not support the idea that they had a choice.
EMA writes:
Paradise of PERFCTION, lost, immortality recended, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that immortality was not exsistent in them before hand, which the plain text certainly indicates. Your response that you dont like that will not cut it. Your response that we dont know if they ate of the tree of life before hand is nonsensical.
quote:Watch it flow logically. Whether they knew of it (TOL) and whether ate of it, (TOL),is also irrelevant. What is relevant, is that GOD knew of its properties, location and accesiblity to them and allowed them access to it, not being concerned if they ate of it or not. Knowing all these facts,it is REASONABLE TO ASSUME that it could do nothing for them, that they did not already possess.
Your logic is full of potholes. No, it isn't reasonable to assume the tree of life was useless to A&E. The simple reading doesn't support that assumption. The text (Genesis 3:22) very clearly states that if they ate of it they would live forever and God didn't want that after they gained knowledge.
quote:Conclusion, something changed to change Gods mind about the TOLs application to them, and its accesiblity to them, which was of no concern previously.
Whether you agree or not, this interpretation certainly addresses the plain and simple text and its direct conclusions.
After the sin, God changed his mind from an anthropomophic stand point.
Yes, God changed his mind concerning the tree of life because they gained knowledge. The story does not support the idea that Adam and Eve weren't human upon creation and changed to human after eating. If you disagree, show me the words in the text that support this idea.
quote:This theory might work if it were not for two major points. God was AWARE it was there, and told them they MAY eat of every tree except one. Your argument seems to imply that he was serious about all the trees but figured that they would not find the tree of life, or hoped that they would not chance upon it. Your theory defies simple logic and the plain and simple text.
God being aware, doesn't make A&E aware. My speculation is more logical than yours. The point is that the text doesn't tell us if A&E knew there was a tree of life or if the tree of life provided eternal life and it doesn't tell us if they ate from it prior to eating from the tree of knowledge.
quote:Question, if they found the tree and ate of it before the problems started would it have made them immortal?
According to Genesis 3:22, yes.
quote:Question? Since God knew of its location and its (TOL)potential, was he not serious about the instruction to freely eat of all but one?
God said they could eat freely from any tree but one, the tree of knowledge.
quote:If God was concerned about the tree after the sin and whether they ate of it, to not live forever, Why would he NOT be concerned about it before the sin since he claerly gave them the right and ability to find it.
When he gave them the right and ability to find it, they didn't have knowledge. After they gained knowledge, God did not want them to live forever. This isn't rocket science.
quote:Even if we assume they were simply mortal, wouldnt the tree provide immortality in either instance?
Yes.
quote:Since you seem to believe they were mortal before and after,our biggest problem is going to be explaining why he cared afterwards and not beforehand. Do you mean to imply that God was not interested in them becoming immortal before hand, but was afterwards?
Even if, we assume that your contention about them not being immortal prior to the sin is true, why would God not be concerned about them eating of it, before the problems started. Wouldnt the same result of immortality occur, if they ate, before as well as afterwards? Yet, God seems to not care beforehand. Your theory ignores simple logic and the plain text.
Asked and answered. Knowledge.
quote:Thus your bottom line and its implications are not support by the text
Wrong. The text does not support the idea that A&E weren't mortal upon creation. The text is very clear about why God changed his mind about the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-23)
My bottom line was that the text doesn't tell us if A&E ate from the tree of life before expulsion or not. You haven't shown otherwise.
How does all this tie in with idea that the word translated as die refers to Spiritual Death? The simple reading does not support the idea of spiritual death and your "logic" hasn't shown otherwise.
If you have a point that on topic, get to it.
Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected typo. The "text does support" changed to "the text does not support"
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Read the story. They now had knowledge of good and evil like God. (Genesis 3:22-23) If you're looking for theological answers, they aren't in the text.
Your assumption here is that they had no knowledgeof good and evil entirely. This is a common misunderstanding. The expression needs to be understood in light of the PLAIN and SIMPLE text and context. Answer this question, did they have the capacity to understand a simple command before the fall? Wasnt thier capacity to understand already there before the fall.,
Hence the statement, "let us make man in our image"., "In the image of God created he him, in the image of God created he them", implies at least this quality initially
Are you prepared to say they could not understand Gods simple commands? Also, look at the very elaborate discourse Eve involves herself in with the Serpent BEFORE THE FALL.
Therefore the expression, "Knowledge of good and Evil", must have reference to something besides the total misunderstanding of a thing or lack of complete knowledge.
You are wrong again, the expellsion and banishment from the tree of life was a result of sin. Being denied acess to the TOL, was punishment for the sin and has very little to do with Knowledge of good and evil. It has to do with the fact that man must now pay for his sin and there would be NO EASY SOLUTION or a simple ignoring of his actions that changed the relationship.
Hence the expression, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin"
hence God banished them from the tree of life because of sin, not because of something they had gained as a result of that sin. Your getting the hart before the corse.
Your right all the answers arent going to be in one text. Now you are starting to understand
Nope. Genesis 3:22-23 is very clear. God banished A&E from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As I've said, while they were clueless God didn't care if they lived forever. After they gained knowledge of good and evil, God did care if they lived forever. Again the story is very clear.
Ah, your finally coming around to the truth. So,now you admit directly or indirectly here that they might have been immortal before the fall. Thanks for this small admission. so, if as you indicate above the very real poosibility exists that they were immortal, this would in and of itself be a spiritual aspect and that they lost (died) to that advantage, hence spiritual death.
EAM writes:
"The whole your diggingis getting deeper."
It is about 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning when i am composing, I just saw that, wow. That expression "bag of hammers", comes to mind.
It isn't trivial. There is a big difference between must and may. The argument you were making was based on must. Your stance did not support the idea that they had a choice.
My argument was never based on MUST, but we will let that go.
Your logic is full of potholes. No, it isn't reasonable to assume the tree of life was useless to A&E. The simple reading doesn't support that assumption. The text (Genesis 3:22) very clearly states that if they ate of it they would live forever and God didn't want that after they gained knowledge.
Immortality was recended because of sin, not because the knowledge of good and evil. Let me demonstrate. before the fall they had a basic knowledge of right and wrong, that is they had a decision
making process, (Bailey notwithstanding), as is indicated in Verse 11 of chapter 3: "hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I COMMANDED thee, thou shouldest not eat"
The command was given before the Sin, which demonstrates beyond any doubt they had a basic understanding of right and wrong, otherwise God would not issue a COMMAND, if they did not have the CAPACITY to understand it or obey it, ( Bailey notwithstanding), correct?. He certainly would not punish them if they could not understand the command. The expression "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is one of DEGREE , not complete lack of ability to understand this or that.
Knowledge of good and evil is the aspects of good and evil, not the ability to understand the difference betwwen right and wrong
there eyes were opened to the full spectrum of what constituted Good and Evil, not the complete ability to NOT understand anything at all.
Hence, immortality and access to the TOL was recended due to the DISOBEDIENCE, not because they now had a complete panoramic view of Good and Evil, ONLY.
So yes the simple reading supports your contention, AFTER the fall. before the fall God made the tree available to them , now watch, with NO CONCERN OF ITS ABILITES OR CAPABILITES TO THEM. Now, the contention that they did not have COMPLETE knowledge of good and evil is clearly saparate from this point.
It is both reasonable and textual to assume that if they had access to it, that it would not have any affect to them if they were already immortal. This is further supported by the fact God gave a specific direction to eat of any tree they decided.
Yes, God changed his mind concerning the tree of life because they gained knowledge. The story does not support the idea that Adam and Eve weren't human upon creation and changed to human after eating. If you disagree, show me the words in the text that support this idea.
I already have, several times and you are not paying attention "Of every tree thou MAYEST FREELY eat, except the tree of knowledge of Good andEvil"
Now watch it flow logically. If the tree of life gave immortality, it is reasonable and TEXTUAL to assume that, (A). they already had this and didnt need it and the tree wouldnt do any more for them, than they already had, or (B). God already knew they were immortal and issued a command that allowed them to eat of a tree with no concern of its affects on them.
Now watch this. All of this was BEFORE they had sinned, not AFTER they knew of Good and Evil.
Conclusion. Therefore, whether you agree or not the TEXT clearly supports the idea of IMMORTALITY before the fall, even if it does not DIRECTLY state that they were or were not immortal.
Now notice your only objection to this LOGIC and textual support is that we dont know if they ate of it, which I have demonstrated is irrelevant, and that we dont know if they knew where it WAS OR NOT, which is also irrelevant, as applied to the logic I have provided. Your two contentions are cavils not arguments.
Notice you said. "If you disagree with this show me the words in the text that SUPPORTS this idea".
I just did.
God being aware, doesn't make A&E aware. My speculation is more logical than yours. The point is that the text doesn't tell us if A&E knew there was a tree of life or if the tree of life provided eternal life and
it doesn't tell us if they ate from it prior to eating from the tree of knowledge.
The text tells us that there were two trees in the garden and that God made them and the others AVAILABLE to them, by stating, Of every tree thou mayest freely eat, except....... Why would one need to assume that they were unaware of the TOL since it was in the garden along with the others that God FREELY offered to them
Only a person with an agenda or a preconcieved idea would make an assumption that violates the text and common sense. you have the nerve in accusing others of not abiding by the simple text. Yours is a doozy.
God being aware is really all that matters since he was offering something, with only exception and full knowledge of what the humans could and could not do.
A person is more than justified in drawing the conclusions I have, since the text support them
Wrong. The text does support the idea that A&E weren't mortal upon creation.
i beg to differ. Since the text states that man was created in Gods image and that he had the ability to make decisions before the fall, coupled with the fact that God MADE available a tree of life with no concerns as to whether they ate of it, implies that knowledge of good and evil was not the reason for God keeping them away from this specific tree. It follows therefore that , access to the tree, which God gave with no concerns would do nothing more for them, than they already possessed
My bottom line was that the text doesn't tell us if A&E ate from the tree of life before expulsion or not. You haven't shown otherwise.
I believe I have with the greatest of ease
How does all this tie in with idea that the word translated as die refers to Spiritual Death? The simple reading does not support the idea of spiritual death and your "logic" hasn't shown otherwise.
If you have a point that on topic, get to it.
How many times do I need to demonstrate it. They possessed immortality, they lost this (died) to this aspect. Immortality is a spiritual attribute they were alive physically from an immortal standpoint. When they sinned they die to this aspect, thus they died spiritually
I have clearly demonstrated this using only the Adam and Eve text presently and initially.
Further Christ restored this physical immortal state by his death and ressurection. Before his death he was like Adam after the fall, after his ressurection he restored what Adam once was and what he had lost. Thats why he is called the second Adam.
He showed them his scares and he was hungry, but he was now different in that he could move at the speed of thouhgt, appear and disappear at will, his physical body was now immortal again. Paul says, "the corruptible will put on incorruptible and the mortal shall obtain on immortality."
It started and lost with Adam and was regained and completed in Christ.
hence it does not matter whether they ate of the tree or not. if living forever was a concern before the fall, he would have never given them DIRECT access to it and if denying them living for ever AFTER THE FALL was based on them obtaining knowledge of good and evil one would ask why he even gave them ANY intelligence at all to make a decision on the Tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
even the simplest of persons can see that denying them access to the tree of life after the fall is not based in this assumption, it makes no sense.
the only logical reason for denying them access then becomes the reason that they were trying to REGAIN what they had lost by an easy means. or atleast they might attempt it.
your contentions therefore fall to the ground, like a large tree
Your CONTENTIONS are based in the worst form of assumtions and disregard for simple logic,not to mention the text.
quote:Your assumption here is that they had no knowledgeof good and evil entirely. This is a common misunderstanding. The expression needs to be understood in light of the PLAIN and SIMPLE text and context. Answer this question, did they have the capacity to understand a simple command before the fall? Wasnt thier capacity to understand already there before the fall.,
I'm not assuming they did or didn't already know of good and evil. According to the story they didn't. Understanding commands doesn't mean one knows the difference between right and wrong. Toddlers understand commands, but don't automatically know the difference between right and wrong.
quote:Hence the statement, "let us make man in our image"., "In the image of God created he him, in the image of God created he them", implies at least this quality initially
That statement isn't part of the A&E story. It is a later Priestly story of creation.
quote:Are you prepared to say they could not understand Gods simple commands? Also, look at the very elaborate discourse Eve involves herself in with the Serpent BEFORE THE FALL.
Therefore the expression, "Knowledge of good and Evil", must have reference to something besides the total misunderstanding of a thing or lack of complete knowledge.
It isn't lack of complete knowledge. It is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Two very specific things. (I type tree of knowledge or just knowledge because I don't want to type tree of knowledge of good and evil every time I have to answer the same question for you. We know which tree we are talking about and what it imparts. So when I say knowledge, I'm not just talking about general knowledge, I'm still talking about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.)
quote:You are wrong again, the expellsion and banishment from the tree of life was a result of sin. Being denied acess to the TOL, was punishment for the sin and has very little to do with Knowledge of good and evil. It has to do with the fact that man must now pay for his sin and there would be NO EASY SOLUTION or a simple ignoring of his actions that changed the relationship.
Read the story. The punishments were for their disobedience. The banishment was to keep them away from the tree of life. It was a secondary result due to what they gained when they disobeyed.
The snake was punished because he coerced the woman into eating from the tree. (Genesis 3:14-15)
The woman was punished for eating from the tree. (Genesis 3:16)
Adam was punished for listening to his wife and ate from the tree. (Genesis 3:17-19)
Because they now knew about good and evil like God, they were cast out of the Garden to keep them from the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-23)
The story doesn't say their relationship with God changed for the worst.
quote:Your right all the answers arent going to be in one text. Now you are starting to understand
And you aren't apparently. The simple reading has one meaning. Anything else we add to it is just that, addition. We change it to fit the theology of the time. Everything you're dragging into the story is later theology and would have meant nothing to the original audience of the story. You're looking for answers to current theological questions.
At the time the A&E story was probably written, blood sacrifices to forgive sin weren't part of the culture. Notice Cain didn't provide a sacrifice for forgiveness and God didn't kill him for murdering his brother. Sacrifice wasn't the point of the stories.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
Nope. Genesis 3:22-23 is very clear. God banished A&E from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As I've said, while they were clueless God didn't care if they lived forever. After they gained knowledge of good and evil, God did care if they lived forever. Again the story is very clear.
Ah, your finally coming around to the truth. So,now you admit directly or indirectly here that they might have been immortal before the fall. Thanks for this small admission. so, if as you indicate above the very real poosibility exists that they were immortal, this would in and of itself be a spiritual aspect and that they lost (died) to that advantage, hence spiritual death.
I've been very patient concerning your dishonest representation of my statements. I've chalked it up to major comprehension issues. Please pay attention to what I have written.
My statement doesn't refer to whether they were immortal or not. As I said later in the post, the text does not support the idea that A&E weren't mortal upon creation. I did not indicate a possibility in my statement.
quote:My argument was never based on MUST, but we will let that go.
Sure it was.
EMA writes:
But the tree of life was in the garden before they "Needed it", as you put it. Do you mean to imply that, God gave them a command to eat ("of every tree")including the tree of life, which was there when the command was issued, but was not really serious? Message 126
quote:Immortality was recended because of sin, not because the knowledge of good and evil.
Incorrect. Genesis 3:22-23
quote:Let me demonstrate. before the fall they had a basic knowledge of right and wrong, that is they had a decision making process, (Bailey notwithstanding), as is indicated in Verse 11 of chapter 3: "hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I COMMANDED thee, thou shouldest not eat"
The command was given before the Sin, which demonstrates beyond any doubt they had a basic understanding of right and wrong, otherwise God would not issue a COMMAND, if they did not have the CAPACITY to understand it or obey it, ( Bailey notwithstanding), correct?. He certainly would not punish them if they could not understand the command.
Wrong. Giving a command doesn't prove they knew the difference between right and wrong. We teach toddlers commands before they really understand the language. They don't know right from wrong.
quote:The expression "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is one of DEGREE , not complete lack of ability to understand this or that.
Knowledge of good and evil is the aspects of good and evil, not the ability to understand the difference betwwen right and wrong
there eyes were opened to the full spectrum of what constituted Good and Evil, not the complete ability to NOT understand anything at all.
Hence, immortality and access to the TOL was recended due to the DISOBEDIENCE, not because they now had a complete panoramic view of Good and Evil, ONLY.
The text doesn't support your theory. God is very clear why he expelled them from the garden. (Genesis 3:22-23)
quote:It is both reasonable and textual to assume that if they had access to it, that it would not have any affect to them if they were already immortal. This is further supported by the fact God gave a specific direction to eat of any tree they decided.
You're spouting logical nonsense. Nothing you've said shows that, per the simple reading, A&E were immortal and were changed to mortal.
quote:I already have, several times and you are not paying attention "Of every tree thou MAYEST FREELY eat, except the tree of knowledge of Good andEvil"
Now watch it flow logically. If the tree of life gave immortality, it is reasonable and TEXTUAL to assume that, (A). they already had this and didnt need it and the tree wouldnt do any more for them, than they already had, or (B). God already knew they were immortal and issued a command that allowed them to eat of a tree with no concern of its affects on them. ...
Conclusion. Therefore, whether you agree or not the TEXT clearly supports the idea of IMMORTALITY before the fall, even if it does not DIRECTLY state that they were or were not immortal.
(C). They were mortal and if they ate from the tree they would live forever.
I've countered this theory, move forward. You making up scenarios that aren't supported by the text itself. We can make up anything we want.
Upon creation, Adam and Eve were mortal, but unbeknownst to them; one of the trees in the garden grew a fruit that would allow them to live forever. A&E gathered fruits and nuts for their daily meals, but the garden was so large they hadn't tried half of the fruits available to them. Unfortunately, before they cold taste all the fruits of the garden, Eve was waylaid by the crafty snake and was persuaded to partake of the fruit from the forbidden tree. Eve shared the forbidden fruit with her husband. Needless to say, God was angry. He doled out punishment on the snake, Eve, and Adam. Now that the people knew as much about Good and Evil as God did, God didn't want them to live forever. So before A&E could sample the life giving fruit, God removed them from the garden.
It's easy to make up a story for either side. The text doesn't support the idea that they were immortal.
If Adam and Eve were immortal, the tree of life was a useless prop in the story. It served no purpose before or after they disobeyed.
But the tree of life does have a part to play in the story. Because A&E could gain immortality from the tree of life (which would only be possible if they were mortal), they were removed from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. The tree of life was essential to the storyline.
quote:Now notice your only objection to this LOGIC and textual support is that we dont know if they ate of it, which I have demonstrated is irrelevant, and that we dont know if they knew where it WAS OR NOT, which is also irrelevant, as applied to the logic I have provided. Your two contentions are cavils not arguments.
Notice you said. "If you disagree with this show me the words in the text that SUPPORTS this idea".
I just did.
You applied logic to your own made up conditions, not what is in the text.
The A&E text is the stuff written in the Bible, not what you type in your post.
The actual text you provided from the story only states that they are allowed to eat from any tree they want except one. That's it. The rest you made up.
quote:The text tells us that there were two trees in the garden and that God made them and the others AVAILABLE to them, by stating, Of every tree thou mayest freely eat, except....... Why would one need to assume that they were unaware of the TOL since it was in the garden along with the others that God FREELY offered to them
The text doesn't tell us if A&E knew that the fruit from one of the trees would allow them to live forever or if they knew where it was located. The narrator and God knew, but the text doesn't tell us whether A&E did or didn't know. We can't assume either way. It isn't in the text. Why is that so difficult to understand?
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
My bottom line was that the text doesn't tell us if A&E ate from the tree of life before expulsion or not. You haven't shown otherwise.
I believe I have with the greatest of ease
Only by making up your own conditions, but not from the text.
quote:How many times do I need to demonstrate it. They possessed immortality, they lost this (died) to this aspect. Immortality is a spiritual attribute they were alive physically from an immortal standpoint. When they sinned they die to this aspect, thus they died spiritually
Once would be nice. So spiritual death hangs on the assumption that Adam and Eve were immortal when first created.
The simple reading doesn't support that assumption without adding to the storyline. As I showed above, I can make an assumption that they were mortal by adding to the storyline. It is a Just So style of story. The story can be adapted to fit whatever theology you want.
The simple reading supports the idea that A&E were mortal. The need for them to be immortal is from Christian Theology, but isn't supported by the simple reading of the text.
quote:hence it does not matter whether they ate of the tree or not. if living forever was a concern before the fall, he would have never given them DIRECT access to it and if denying them living for ever AFTER THE FALL was based on them obtaining knowledge of good and evil one would ask why he even gave them ANY intelligence at all to make a decision on the Tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
even the simplest of persons can see that denying them access to the tree of life after the fall is not based in this assumption, it makes no sense.
The only reason for this gobbledygook you call logic, is to support your own theology. It isn't based on the simple reading of the story.
quote:Your CONTENTIONS are based in the worst form of assumtions and disregard for simple logic,not to mention the text.
Oddly enough, your lack of logic has actually made my point concerning the A&E story at least.
The word translated as die only refers to physical death. Attaching it to a spiritual death is a later theology (Christian) based on the assumption that A&E were immortal. Christianity needs A&E to be immortal to support the theology you expressed above: Further Christ restored this physical immortal state by his death and ressurection.
You are projecting a later theology onto a very old story that really has nothing to do with theology. It is a just so style of story talking about the development of man, not a fall.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:I also stumbled across some early christian meanderings which hardly seem of use. What I mean is, they go on and on without offering scriptural support. Mostly anyway, with a few exceptions here and there, such as Ignatius in a couple spots. Keep in mind, this jazz was completely contrived prior to 400 CE.
Great information. Thanks Bailey.
quote:In all fairness, even that's not to say the entire mumble is unfounded within scripture, but rather plainly, evidently unsupported upon delivery.
But, then again, is that not what christian apologists and 'getics are mainly about?
I do think that Paul's creative style of writing is misunderstood today and can easily be manipulated to support later theology.
Just because Paul personifies sin in his writings doesn't mean the use of the word sin by Ezekiel is personified. Just because Paul uses death figuratively, doesn't mean the word die as used in Genesis 2:17 or Ezekiel 18:20 is figurative. The time, purpose, and audience of the writing has to be taken into account.
EMA has made it clear that the idea of spiritual death concerning Genesis 2:17 hangs on the assumption that A&E were created immortal. Unfortunately the simple reading doesn't support that assumption.
The reality of the texts of the OT (Torah and prophets) is that the soul cannot be separated or suffer separate from the body while the person is alive. Poetic writings can be interpreted otherwise. It is difficult for people today to read the old scriptures without the influence of later theology. Even without the later influence it is difficult to understand the creative writings of an ancient culture. We are devoid of the news of the time to understand the slang and idioms the audience understood easily. Due to the research of scholars we can gain insight into the basics of the time, but we are still missing the character of the people.
We lose so much over time.
This thread has been enlightening. Thanks again for your research.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
If what you typed, is what you're reading, then I can see our problem.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
