The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life (Lost /Reformed Thread)

G.H. Pember argues that the angels who followed Satan had their time to repent of their choice and did not. I think I agree at this time which would suggest something at least about thier ability to choose. I could only suggest that we consider some passages:"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion ..." (See Gen.1:26)God wanted a creature to express what God is and reign for God over God's creation. The creation of man is a way of God expressing Himself. The creation of man is a way of God ruling over His creation through a deputy.We may ask "Didn't God have that before in the angels? Didn't God have this deputy representation before in the being who became Satan?"I would say in some sense yes. This is too deep for me. But the failure of the anointed cherub, an angel, may have been the backround against which the all providencial and foreknowing eternal Creator allowed to happen to launch His closer purpose.God is not seen marrying the angels. But in the end of the Bible this collective God-man is seen as the corporate Wife and Bride of God.This analogy to human marriage must be the way the Eternal One communicates to us the happiness and pleasure it gives the Divine to obtain His heart's desire with a group of people consecrated to His purpose. This we can understand. I think our human marriage is a mirror or reflection of the ultimate reality of God's union with His people. It is a shadow and symbol of a more profound truth (though it has its practical biological puroses also).I always consider New Jerusalem in the last two chapters of the Bible to be the heart's desire of God. This is what it is all for. This is why there is a universe and there is man. And for this New Jerusalem all things have happened.She is on one level, a Bride and Wife for Christ. She is on another level a Body for Christ her Head. She is a dwelling place for God, His house, His temple.Toward God the holy city New Jerusalem is a dwelling place. God lives in her. The saved man also mutually lives in her. Toward Christ the Savior she is His Bride and His wife.There is a place for God to live. There is a romantic counterpart for God in Christ to love.She also reigns in dominion and expresses in tranparent image. God realizes in the New Jerusalem His age old desire to have a corporate man in His image according to His likeness and excercising dominion over His universe.He is Alpha and Omega. Therefore as in the beginning so in the end. God has obtained His heart's desire.Again, this "city" is a dwelling place for God to live in. And this city is a Wife for God in Christ to love.Then we turn also to Ephesians. This city is composed of sons of God which God predestined to have from eternity past before the creation of the universe, before "the foundation of the world""Even as He chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him [God and Father] in love, PREDESTINATING us unto SONSHIP through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4-6)The good pleasure of God's will here is excercised BEFORE the creation of the universe, ie. before the foundation of the world. This should speak of God's eternal purpose. That is the purpose of God before time, matter, energy, and space. Prior to the foundation of the world the good pleasure in God's heart is to have sons of God.This should mean members of the same divine family. This should mean those with the same life of God. I say not simply to have life. For many created creatures have life. But this is to share the life of God. He being the Author and Father of this divine life can dispense this life into other beings. He has chosen to become a man and to create a man and to mingle Himself into this man.All living things seek pleasure. God as the highest and most eternal living one has the most requirement for pleasure. To have His sons collectively as His dwelling place, His family, His Son's Bride and Wife is His plan from before the creation of the universe.Before I continue, let me end this post here.1.) The invisible God wanted to become visible in man His creature.2.) He wants this creature to be united with Him and express His dominion and reign for Him over His creation.3.) He wants this collective and corporate man to be formed into a Bride and Wife, a romantic other, a counterpart for Himself in His incarnation. She is Bride to Christ.4.) She is a temple of God and house of God for the living dwelling place of God.I think this is why God not only created man but also created the entire universe including the angels.Refer also God‘s Economy: recovered by Witness Lee, enjoyed by local churchesEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Pember is very much in the way of offering "proof texts".Books by G. H. Pember -=- Schoettle Publishing Company, Inc.What attracted me to this particular author is that he says nothing without a scriptural basis.Would you like me to quote to you the section in which he proposed the thought of a a time for angels to repent ? It is found in the book Earth's Earliest Ages. Exactly. But He works it out over time in human history. He had a lot of obstacles to overcome you know?It is not that man cooperated? You know that. Adam's rebellion, Cain's murder, the corruption of the people during the flood, the tower of Babel, the long education of Abraham, the trickery of Jacob, the jealousy of Joseph from his brothers, the hesitation of Moses, the failure of Israel, etc. etc. etc.,the apostasy of the Christian church, the decline of the church, the opposition of the Antichrist ...God had a lot of obstacles to overcome. And in the end He overcomes them all to bring in the New Jerusalem. But you are right that from early Genesis He had this desire. Even before the foundation of the world He had it.If He were working with inanimate objects ther would be no problem. But He is working with creatures with strong and active wills who are often not willing to go along with His plan. Yet man never took in the tree of life. He was constituted a sinner and driven away from it. Instead of being filled with the divine life he was filled with death. He needed God's salvation. A perfect man and woman who became united with His enemy and who failed to take in the life of God. They were constituted enemies of God and driven from the tree of life and from paradise. Man was "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18)In His love, faithfulness, and righteousness, God worked through the ages to accomplish His salvation. You're probably right.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Bertot,Autumnman states correctly: I would suggest that reading this text, in this Bible Study, is also helpful in identifying who and what the serpent signifies"And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth, and his angels were cast down with him." (Rev. 12:9)1.) There is an "ancient serpent". This probably refers to the serpent in the garden in Genesis chapter 3 in the earliest ages of man on the earth.2.) This serpent has deceived "the whole inhabited earth". He is a deceiver of all mankind living on the earth. That incidently would include everyone participating in this discussion at one time or another.Thank God we have the Bible and do not need to remain deceived in every matter.3.) That old serpent "IS CALLED THE DEVIL AND SATAN"He is an Advasary within God's kingdom, slandering God to man and slandering man to God.4.) The serpent in Genesis is depected as a dragon in Revelation probably indicating that his power has grown over the years as more and more humans are deceived.Yet even if we say that Satan is not specifically mentioned in Genesis by name, which is true, that little serpent was doing the work of Satan. That is planting doubt in man's mind about God's heart towards man. He planted suspiscion in man's about about God's motives. He slandered God to the uttermost and turns out to be no friend at all to humankind.The amount of effort on this Forum to indemnify Satan from Genesis has been monumental.Some have tried to suggest that Satan latter in Scripture is only God's handy assistant prosecutor. I don't believe this because Jesus said that Satan had a kingdom of his own. This occured when the opposing religionists accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul the prince of demons:"But knowing their thoughts, He [Jesus] said to them, Every KINGDOM divided against itself becomes desolate, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand... And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his KINGDOM stand? But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Matthew 12:25,26,28)Satan's kingdom here is pitted against God's kingdom.Furthermore, it does not really matter if the demon or serpent is representing Satan the prince of demons because to deal with that evil servent is to deal with Satan - "If Satan casts out Satan". He was refering to their misunderstanding of Christ casting out demons - evil spirits. To do so was to "cast out Satan".The bottom line is that the serpent was Satan or close enough to Satan to represent Satan.But some posters want to absolutely divide the New Testament away from the earlier revelation of the Old Testament in a kind of cultural cleansing of the OT text.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not sure I understand these complaints.It was suggested: The expulsion from the garden is punishment enough. Not only so but now the man she desires will "rule" over her.If these two unfortunate by-products are not assigned punishments, they do suggest that the woman by no means came away free from bad consequences for her actions, whether she bore children or not. We can take God's word for it that it was painful. There should not be a need to specifically speak of the pain for each subsequent birth.No "mention" of pain doesn't mean there was none. Nor does no specific further mention of "the sweat of [the] brow" mean that man's labor on the ground was not thereafter troublesome.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT,I have been away from the discussion. But catching up I see this reply from you. Okay, the reference is Psalm 82.

ICANT, Pember's bases for teaching that the opportunity for evil angels to repent occured, is found in Psalm 82. To fulfill the purpose for which God created man, he did need to take the tree of life.All things are not from the human persepective. There is more than just what man needs. There is also what God needs.God for His purpose needs a man mingled with God and man's partaing of the eternal life of God accomplishes this. That is true.Before that God to fulfill His purpose in full for the creation of man needed sons of God who were partakers of the divine nature and life of God.The opportunity to do so was presented to Adam in the tree of life.The man who wants to be in God's eternal purpose needs the life of God. God did so. And Adam was also a cause of this alienation.The angel with the flaming sword was placed there by God in reaction to Adam's wrong choice."And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever ...

​

THEREFORE..... Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ... So He DROVE the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden HE [GOD] PLACED the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (See Genesis 3:22-24)Since God reacted, since God DROVE The man out, and since God placed the angelic obstacle to GUARD the way of divine life, God was an agent in seeing that man was "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18).Such a statement of course does not excuse Adam's rebellious sin of disobedience. Does it ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You asked for the reference. You prefered not to hear the discussion from Pember's reasoning.I am a little undecided on the matter. But Pember's case has some persuasive aspects to it. So I would only be submitting what you previously said you prefered not to see.If you changed your mind then I will quote his discussion on it.But it is rather puzzling to me how you can be so sure about some things when other rather obvious explanations about Genesis 3 you offered some dubious thoughts IMO, like - God was not to be held responsible for man being alienated from the divine life, but only man was.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT, How do you feel about this passage then? If the angels only obey as a programmed automatons then why does Scripture say here that God charges them with error and is reluctant to sometimes trust them ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT,I am a feaster on the Bible and a student too."Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word became the joy and rejoicing of my heart."I eat the Word of God for food and sustenance. It feeds my inward spirit. I also study it. I appreciate you talking about context. But I asked about the words themselves. Okay. You are saying that you are not so sure about those words, whether they are true and trustworthy or not.I'll accept that. So for you Job 4:18 is not too reliable to decide something about angel nature.Well, lets consider another passage then. Now here you have a creature created perfect from the start. Nevertheless he corrupts his way and is charged with sinning - "you sinned".Do you feel that this anointed cherub was only an automaton? Do you think no will of decision was excercised in this being corrupting himself and sinning against God ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT,It seems that you are kind of evading the issue about the will of angels. Apparently you have good reasons - the verse you cannot trust. The other verse is not about an angel.It was not my intention to go into Ezekiel 28 in too much detail but simply seek your thoughts on the choosing will of an angel.But since I am not the type to ignore a challenge to my beliefs I will put the angel will matter aside for a moment and reply to these statements: First of all you are not examining the right place in Ezekiel. This section that you ARE examining ends at verse 11. Then another section starts, not on the prince of Tyre but on the king of Tyre. Ezekiel 28:12 - "Son of Man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah, O you who sealed up perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty." So verses 1 through 11 concern the prince of Tyre. All the things mentioned concerning this prince indeed could apply to a human. Then another section is started, another lamentation, from verse 12. And from that beginning there are some things uttered which would not appropriately be applied to any mortal man. These utterances are more appropriate to a supernatural being.So .... Incorrect. The section I quoted was concerning the king of Tyre and starts in verse 12. You are refering to verse 2 which is in the first section concerning the prince of Tyre. I was quoting the second section starting from verse 12 concerning the king of Tyre. This is a second lamentation.I think what is going on here is that God is lifting the prophetic curtian to the past and exposing the root Rebel behind all earthly rebels.Even if the king of Tyre means a purely human personage, it should not surprise us that God would speak to a man and simultaneously be addressing Satan. For this is what Jesus Christ did in Matthew 16:23."But He [Jesus] turned and said to PETER, Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men."Peter, the man was being spoken to. But Satan the Devil behind Peter's actions was being rebuked. Likewise in Ezekiel 28, even if the king of Tyre was a mortal, God could be speaking to Satan. You have not explained why there should be a change in the person being addressed, from the prince to the king. And you have not yet explained why there should be a second lamentation. It is not credible to me that God would address a Gentile king in an idol worshipping land, " the anointed cherub that covers ". Why would God refer to a Gentile king with the illusion of one of the glorious angelic beings on either side of the holy ark of God ?I take this rather to be an instance of the prophetic past. God is revealing the ancient history of some great anointed cherub who was in the presence of God.There is a difference between the presumption of the prince in the first lamentation and the God appointed station of the king in the second station.It is one thing for a proud ruler to say that he is God. Pharoahs and Ceasars proclaimed this. But the king of Tyre was set by God in his glorious station."You were the anointed cherub that covered [the Ark]; INDEED I SET YOU, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (v.14)This was not then something that a man presumed for himself. This discribes a station which God ordained for him and SET him there.Additionally, in the second lamentation it says that this being was perfect from the moment he was created. There is no human being since the fall of Adam who was perfect from the moment he was created. So this utterance also in verse 15 is much more appropriate to an angelic creation and not a mortal man.I think the error is on the part of those who suggest that God is speaking of a Gentile king as being perfect from the day he was created and of his being the anointed cherub so close to God.The stones of fire may refer to the pavement that Moses and the elders of Israel saw beneath the feet of God in the divine appearance on Mt. Sinai -"And they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet there was [something] like a paved work of saphire, even like heaven itself in clearness." (Exo. 24:10)

​

"And the appearance of the glory of Jehovah was like consuming fire on the top of the mountain, to the eyes of the children of Israel." (v. 17)At any rate this anointed cherub was set by God close to God and in the realm of God's glory. This is a place of divine honor. It is incredulous to me that the prophet would be only speaking in this way concerning a Gentile monarch of a nation that didn't even recognize the God of Israel.So while there are some utterances which we could ascribe to any human being, there is something more going on here. Some things said would apply only to an angelic being.Now back again to the matter of the will of an angel. You have put this matter aside. But I think it is pretty clear that angels had a choice to obey or disobey God.And if you don't like the Ezekiel passage to demonstrate it lets find one which is more obviosly (to you) a reference to an angel's deciding will:"And the angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgement of the great day." (Jude 6) The only thing right now that is important here is that some angels apparently CHOSE to forsake the realm which they were assigned to by God and violate some boundary of thier appointed habitation. God punishes them by securing them in gloomy prisons until the final judgment.So this passage persuades me that angels could choose or choose not to be under God's ordinances for them.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay. I apologize. Okay. I accept that that is your belief. And that is how you are pursuaded.I will speak up for my understanding of it. I agree. So I think you are saying here that because they were not created in the image of God and according to His likeness as man (Gen. 1:26) it follows that they have no free will.I don't see how that necessarily has to follow.
Things spoken concerning some angels definitely reveal choices made. I find it.In the Jude passage you had SOME of the angels which did something so bad that they were separated from the rest and placed in an gloomy prison in bonds until judgment day.Now I know that not all of the angels that followed Satan (Matt.25:41) ended up this way. Some still have relative freedom to be the rulers of this darkness as Paul says. So you have choices on TWO levels at least.Some of all the angels of God chose to be "his" (the devil's) ... "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41)[/b]. The punisheing fire was designed for them because of thier choice. Both lost sinners and lost angels share the same terrible destiny for their choice. Albeit angels not created in the image of God as in the case of man. Then drop it and ignore my further replies. But for the sake of those reading along, I will finish my thoughts somewhat on the subject. You are spending a little more time on it. I will respond for the sake of any possible interested readers then. Well, let's here from one commentator, G.H. Pember: So I might be corrected when I said there were two lamentations. But there are two sections the second of which is called a lamenatation.Pember goes on: Pember goes on to talk about the history of Tyre, Ittiobaulus, and the Chaldeans capture of the island fortress. I don't quote all of that. But this seems significant: Then from verse 12 Pember expounds some of which I will quote: Don't take that the wrong way. I don't mean you are being dishonest. I do think you are honestly mistaken. [qs] ICANT :The man that is the prince is the ruler of Tyrus.The King is the ruler of Tyrus.G.H. PemberBut there is a kind of pophecy, especially frequent in the Psalms, in which the prophet, speaking first of a contempory matter, is then borne on by the Spirit to some stupendous event of the last times, of which the incident in his own days is a faint type. And if we apply this prinicple to the passage before us, we are struck, upon considering the type, by similarity of the pretension of Ittiobalus to those of Paul's Man of Sin, [b]"who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4). Can, then, the King of Tytrus, as distinguished from his type the Prince, be the great final Antichrist ? Let us try to key, and see if thhe wards fit.And first: is there any reason why Antichrist should be called the King of Tyre? It would seem so? For Tyre is in Palistine, and in the second verse of this chapter is said to be "in the midst of the seas". Now if we turn to Daniel's prophecy of the Wilful King, we shall find it predicted of that destroyer, that he will enter into the glorious land, and plant the tabernacle of his palace "between the seas" (Dan.11:41-45). This in other words seems to mean that he will invade Palestine and fix his abode at Tyre. [/qs]So Pember teaches that the King of Tyre lamentation should be applied in human history to the Antichrist of the last days. And behind him as well as all rebellious self exalting kings is the ancient pre-Adamic rebelion of the anointed cherub who became Satan.Verse 12 is about the final Antichrist and Satan's pre-Adamic rebellion which is the mother of all rebellious and self exalting potentates.I will not be able to quote everything Pember expounded about this. Correct. I was wrong to mention two lamentations, I think. Pember's explaination of the change of the title from Prince to King is more persuasive to me. I never said that God was not in control. Of course God is in control And God set a being in place who was PERFECT from the day he was created.What human king could that possibly apply to ... Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Tiberius Ceasar, Julius Ceasar, Nepolean, Gobachov, Ronald Reagon, etc. etc. ?Which human potentate was perfect from the day he was created? The rebuttal seems misaimed here. Nothing I said suggested otherwise. ICANT is misaiming and breaking down a strawman. I don't feel the need for further comment because you are changing the point. Now we are back on point. I had absolutely no quarrel with God setting up and taking down kings and kingdoms.The being discribed as the anointed cherub was set by God on the mountain of God in the realm of God's glory and created perfect from day one.So from day 1 this being was perfect. This is NOT the same as Jesus saying that someone was a devil from the beginning. Rather this is God saying that the being was quite good from the beginning, even perfect in wisdom. It was lifted up in pride because of that. And ONE DAY iniquity was found in it.We could say from that time it was the Devil, the ORIGINAL Devil. So the analogy with Judas is unconvincing to me. Huh? They left their residence and moved uptown? But without any choice to do so? Like robots they moved?Not too persuasive to this reader. I respect your right to have another view.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Interestng.That's all well and good. And your research into apochryphal writings surpases mine (by choice I think).All well and good. But just keep in mind, I only quoted the Canon of the Old and New Testament for my sources.I did not derive my interpretation from Milton, Dante, or any ancient non-canonical books (Hebrew or otherwise).That Jude may say something found in the book of Enoch, does not bring the book of Enoch into the New Testament Canon of books regcognized as the Word of God. Paul quoted pagan poets.The Old Testament writers refered to books like the Wars of the Lord which are not canonical. I don't think that reduces the inspiration of the canonical books.Personally, I would not obscure the matter by chasing through references, similartities, or allusions to things written in the pseudepigrapha (spelling?) or the apochrypha. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Devil is chained for 1,000 years BEFORE he goes into the lake of fire. Revelation 19 and 20 speak to this.

Edited.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would like to be able to prove that Adam was told of the wonderful tree of life but for now I am no sure it is provable. It is not explicitly stated that God discussed with Adam the nature of the tree of life. So I am pressed to "prove" that Adam was not totally ignorant about it.So I'd like to a closely related thing and talk about Life as I believe it is meant in the tree of life. I will not quote passages right now. I will sumarize my understanding and belief about the significance of LIFE in "the tree of life" drawing from the entire Bible's revelation.Real Life is uncreated. Read Life had no beginning and will have no end.If it can die then it is not the ultimate reality of Life. Life in its ultimate sense cannot die. Any life then which dies is not Life as in tree of life. Real Life is indestrucible. Nothing can overcome Life.Life in its ultimate nature is a Person - God Himself. God always was. God had no birth. God can have no termination and no death. God can pass through any opposition and come out victorious. He cannot be suppressed, oppressed, or suppressed. God is the uncreated and eternal Life which is indestructlble and impossible to defeat or conquer or put down or end or fight against and prevail.In Genesis we see a gradual incline of lives. The incline progresses from herbs, vegetation, grass, etc. to more conscious lives. The consciousness grows with the ascending of the pyramid of lives in Genesis.The development of lives is ascending towards the face of man. The face of man is the most expressive. The grass has no face at all. The fish has a face but no neck. The birds have more of a neck but not a very expressive face. The cattle's neck and face develop more. Eventually we arrive at the face of man for the most expression. Man is on top of the pyramid of created lives in Genesis.Then above man there is mentioned this tree of life. This, I submit, is not a sign of more created lives. This is a sign of the uncreated and eternal life of God Himself. It is presented to man as food. Food must be taken in and digested and ingested and assimilated into the body.The picture here is that the highest created being - Human Being, was meant to take into his being the uncreated and eternal God as his content.Now there is no way that we could know this just from reading Genesis. But by looking back from the entire Bible, ESPECIALLY the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, enthronement, and glorification of the GOD-MAN Jesus Christ and the New Jerusalem ( which is the climax of His salvation work) some of us ascertain what then is the meaning of tree of life.God the uncreated, the Holy One, the Glorious One and Righteous One, desired from the beginning of creation - to unite, blend, be in union with, co-inhere, incorporate Himself into Human Being, into man.That invisible transcendent source of all creation creates then a living VESSEL into which He can dispense Himself to mingle and blend and be made visible to all creation.In this post I confess that it is hard for me to prove that God told Adam of the significance of the tree of life. But I speak of that significance anyway.At the climax of the Revelation of the Bible we see this:"Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter into the gates of the city." (Rev. 14)Enter into the city and partaking of the tree of life should mean to enter into this union of God and man. This is to enter into a "organic" mingling of the divine and the human that God and man are incorporated to be a blended entity of eternal life - God in man and man in God for man's enjoyment and God's expression for eternity.