Thanks for the exchange EMA. Hope things are well ...
EMA writes:
purpledawn writes:
At the time the warning is given, the reader has no indication that A&E would live forever. The story does not imply that A&E knew about the tree of life.
The trees were there and aparently they did know, because God said let us go down and stop them. Why would he need to worry about it if they were unaware.
Why would one need to worry about stubbing their toe, if they knew how things were arranged, as well as, where they were going?
One Love
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:
EMA writes:
First this was done through the blood of Bulls and Goats, (ADAM NEEDED NO SACRIFICES before the fall because there was no sin. afterwards these sacrifices served as a mediator, but forgiveness was not complete, it was only rolled forward to the perfect sacrifice which removed the sins completley and forever ...
There is no mention in the story of A&E that they (A&E) made sacrifices to God. The fist mention of sacrifice is when Cain and Abel make offerings to God. These are not sin offerings these are offerings given for worship or devotion, or a gift showing respect or gratitude.
Two lil' quibbles here - one is with EMA's guilt/sin offering concept; the other dealing with offerings and sacrifices in general ...
The first being, the Father does not appear to have made request of, much less - required any, 'sin offerings' according to the witness of the Nevi'im ...
Within chapter seven, at verse twenty two of his booklet - while speaking to Yisraeli tribesmen as our Father's representative, our brutha Yirmi declares ...
'When I spoke to your ancestors after I brought them out of Egypt, I did not give them commands regarding burnt offerings and animal sacrifices'.
quote:JPS TaNaKh For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;
New American Standard Bible(1995) For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
GOD'S WORD Translation(1995) When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not tell them anything about burnt offerings and sacrifices.
King James Bible For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
American King James Version For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
American Standard Version For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:
Bible in Basic English For I said nothing to your fathers, and gave them no orders, on the day when I took them out of Egypt, about burned offerings or offerings of beasts:
For I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Darby Bible Translation For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt;
English Revised Version For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Webster's Bible Translation For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:
World English Bible For I didn't speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Young's Literal Translation For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice,
Brutha Yirmi then makes his condemnation of the guilt/sin offering concepts - found within the law books, explicit in the passage that follows (8:8) ...
'How can you say, ‘We are wise, and our Father's ToRaH is with us’? Lo & behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie'.
quote:JPS TaNaKh How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of HaShem is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes.
New American Standard Bible(1995) "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
GOD'S WORD Translation(1995) " 'How can you say that you are wise and that you have the LORD's teachings? The scribes have used their pens to turn these teachings into lies.
King James Bible How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
American King James Version How do you say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? See, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
American Standard Version How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.
Bible in Basic English How is it that you say, We are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? But see, the false pen of the scribes has made it false.
Douay-Rheims Bible How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
Darby Bible Translation How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.
English Revised Version How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.
Webster's Bible Translation How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
World English Bible How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely.
Young's Literal Translation How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.
As well, the Father does not appear to have made request of, much less - required any, 'sin offerings' according to the witness of the Tehellim ...
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
Secondly, there appears to be no mention of a 'sacrifice' at all in the the story of the Lovebirds or the Sibling Rivalry.
Granted, the first mention of an 'offering' - or minchah, is established within Cain and Able's approach to the Father.
Please note; these offerings - while some consider them 'sacrificial' at times, are most always bloodless and voluntary.
Now, the first mention of a 'sacrifice' - or zebach, occurs at Gen 31:54, when Yacov offers a sacrifice.
Considering how seldomly and slightly the word used for sacrifice even lends itself the essence of an offering and vice versa...
It should become quite clear by the NASB Word Usage that an 'offering' - or 'minchah' is not at all the same as a 'sacrifice' - or 'zebach'.
Has anyone ever heard of the 'sacrifice plate' being passed at a church service? Probably not, seeing as an offering and a sacrifice are not equivocal.
So then, according to the testimony of Cain and Able as found in the witness of the common bible, they made nosacrifice - much less a blood sacrifice.
The two brother's each appear to have made a bloodless offering - a voluntary 'donation, gift or tribute' towards the Father. I'm in agreement with the one who suggests it does not seem proper to assign whatever definition one so desires to a word, just because it seems to suit their religious position a tad.
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.
Thanks for the exchange purpledawn. I hope things are well with you ...
purpledawn writes:
I think we're still talking about Ezekiel 37:9 and the dead bones. You stated that they had left God spiritually.
Peg writes:
Ezekiel said that Isreal had become a pile of dead bones becauas they had been unfaithful to God....they were dead in Gods eyes because they left him spiritually. They still dwelt in the promised land, but they were not worshiping him, therefore they were 'spiritually' dead.
You're saying that by not worshiping God that they are spiritually dead. That is a different definition that what you have given before. I'm asking for clarification. Earlier you said it was the removal of the Holy Spirit.
What does the word spiritual in the phrase "spiritual death" refer to?
If it deals with worshiping practices, what in the text shows that all the Israelites weren't worshiping God?
For the record, the following opinion shouldn't necessarily imply that I'm in agreement with Peg's various and vague definitions of 'spiritual' death.
The following assesment may be considered an attempt towards evidencing that the Yisraleites were not worshiping the Father in a commendable fashion. Now, as I understand things, brutha Ezekiel lent his service to Yisraeli tribemen for roughly 22 years, from 592 to 570 BCE, during their Babylonian captivity.
There's the sense that, for some time before this stretch of captivity, during the later years of the monarchy their priesthood fell into a bit of a rut. They seem to have taken the Father's kindness for granted during this stretch, as if assuming that the Father's covenant with their forefathers was irrevocable.
This assumption apparently contained the notion that, the ownership of their land was permanent as long as 'God was in their midst' - an idea they seem to have come to think was occuring as long as the Yerusalem Temple stood in Yerusalem (ie. levitical catholicism's martial law - providing the Vatican stands, etc.).
I gather, at this point, that this widely held assumption led those within this specific tradition to believe that they were immune to any foreign captivity; an obvious farce. For, as we see - yet, to their bewilderment, the nation becomes exiled from that land to live in Babylonian captivity as Yerusalem is captured.
Ultimately, it seems they may have become bitter, cynical and a bit disillusioned. Perhaps they wondered - 'How could this have happened'? Is the Father impotent before Babylonian idols? Perhaps, the Father became busy and forgot about us? To these ones, brutha Ezekiel is called to bring the Father's message.
So then, I conclude this message was delivered to various practitioners that had been convinced - yet, much more so to a priesthood that was making every effort and had consciously chosen, while setting out deceiving others towards doing much the same, to rebel against the Father's notions of social justice.
The Father said to me, Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Yisrael, to the rebellious nations who have rebelled against me;
Both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day.
4 ~ The sons to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted - even stern of face and hard of heart, and you must say to them,
‘This is what the sovereign Father says.’
These peculiar priests and particular practitioners are then repeatedly described as a rebellious house or a house of rebellion (2:5, 2:6, 2:8, etc.).
In otherwords, perhaps, a dead ol' pile o' bones ....
As Peg begins to mention in Message 102, the nasty habits of idolatry displayed and promoted by a good portion of the Yisraelite priests and their deceived practitioners seem to take the most prominent place in brutha Ezekiel's charge against the depraved. As a matter of fact, idols are mentioned more often throughout the booklet of Ezekiel - over fifty times, than in any other book of the common roman bible. Chapter eight goes on to describes the idol worship of Yisrael being openly promoted right in the temple by their very leaders - and supposed shepherds. At verse seventeen the Father asks the prophet ...
Do you see this, son of man? Is it is trivial matter for the house of Yuhdea to do detestable things they are doing here?
Are idols something other than the things we create to take care of our needs in an attempt to justify our own selfish desires (ie. my religion has some of the most fantastic blood magik tricks in the universe, and so, my perverse behavior is overlooked, while you burn in hell for your kindness, etc.)? Are they something other then artifacts, ideologies and notions intended to take care of our needs, self-created in an attempt to circumvent our dependency on the Father righteous discernment and provision (ie. my country has some of the most powerful and wealthy allies on the planet, while the military presence it has accumulated is fucking huge and unstoppable, and so, you'll never defeat me evildoer, etc.)? Is it any wonder why idol worship in Yisrael was always connected with their foreign alliances?
Chapter sixteen then goes on to describe Yisrael’s idolatry in the most graphic of terms.
Because your wealth - even your lust, was poured out and your nakedness was uncovered in your prostitution with your lovers,
and because of all your detestable idols,
and because you have slaughtered your children as blood sacrifices to your gods,
37 ~ therefore, take note: I am about to gather all your lovers whom you enjoyed, both all those you loved and all those you hated.
I will gather them against you from all around, and I will expose your nakedness to them, and they will see all your nakedness*.
38 ~ I will discern you as an adulteress and a murderer - as one who sheds blood, deserves*. I will avenge your bloody deeds with furious rage*.
39 ~ I will give you into their hands and they will destroy your chambers and tear down your pavilions.
They will strip you of your clothing and take your beautiful jewelry and leave you naked and bare.
40 ~ They will summon a mob who will stone you and hack you in pieces with their swords.
41 ~ They will burn down your houses and execute judgments on you in front of many women.
Thus I will put a stop to your prostitution, and you will no longer give gifts to your clients*.
42 ~ I will exhaust my rage on you, and then my fury will turn from you.
Then I will calm down and no longer be angry.
What were these Yisraelites searching for, if not an easy way to make a living and to accomplish a certain sense of safety, as well as, security outside of the Father's parameters? Regardless, they found religious - or 'spiritual', bondage; which led them straight into captivity ... physical bondage. Instead of trusting the sensible way to accomplish their feats, they trusted their idols and met defeat because of their lack of, and disregard for, the Father's knowledge.
Didn't Hoshea say something about, 'My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests'?
As an aside, all the way throughout Ezekiel, the Father continually addresses the prophet as 'Son of man' and the phrase is employed within his booklet roughly eighty times; more than five times as often as all the other books within the Original Testaments combined. Curiously, Joshua the Anointed One also referred to himself as the Son of man quite often and this title of sorts actually dominates his self-reflective discussions, particularly in the booklet of John.
Also, considering how verse thirty relates to - especially the last portion of, verse thirty six above ...
It seems worth noting that, before Joshua the Anointed One was hunted down by certain religious dogmatics (Matisyahu 26:4; Mark 14:1; Luke 13:31, 22:2 ) and finally murdered by Caesar's ruthless militia as a result of the pleading on behalf of the ruling sects of Yuhdea, the ritual atonement killing of the Anointed One, apparently based on a legalistic regulation of the 'ToRaH of Moses', was instituted by the supposed prophet and certified high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa (John 11:48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53) as some sort of an alleged whole offering blood sacrifice, according to the witness of the common roman bible.
In the end, how sick were the hearts of Rome and Yuhdea, when they performed that act?
Anyway, brutha Ezekiel’s message isn't so different from his older contemporary, brutha Yirmiyahu and, likewise, Ezekiel and Yirmiyahu's messages are, both, not too terribly estranged from their predecessor, the prophet Isaiah. Actually, the first few verses of brutha Isaiah's booklet, beginning with the Father's lament regarding the tribal Yisraeli folk who had evolved towards theocratic monarchism, seem to provide a concise overview of Ezekiel's booklet ...
Listen, O heavens, pay attention, O earth! For the Father speaks:
I raised children, I brought them up, but they have rebelled against me!!
3 ~ An ox recognizes its owner, a donkey recognizes where its owner puts its food; but Yisrael does not recognize me, my people do not understand.
Right after this, verses four, five and six begin to describe the unfortunate condition of that nation, which one may safely assume is either the direct result of a lack of the Father's knowledge, if not the utter disregard of that knowledge. Naturally, verses seven and eight progress to describe the Father's righteous discernment towards the Yisraelites nation state, based on their behavior. Then, verse nine begins to provide a certain message of hope and it's following verses effectively identify various practices that seem to repress that hope, while finally topping this treat with some savory admonition ...
If the armies - who are unable to disregard the Father*, had not left us a few survivors,
We would have quickly become like Sodom, we would have become like Gomorrah.
10 ~ Listen to the Father's word, you leaders of Sodom! Pay attention to our Father's rebuke, people of Gomorrah!
11 ~ Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices? says the Father.
I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
12 ~ When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this — animals trampling on my courtyards?
13 ~ Do not bring any more meaningless - even worthless, offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate iniquity and sacred celebrations!
14 ~ I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
15 ~ When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way;
When you offer your many prayers, I do not listen, because your hands are covered with blood.
16 ~ Wash! Cleanse yourselves! Remove your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong,
17 ~ Learn to do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!
Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of the widow!
18 ~ Come, let us reason together and let’s consider your options, says the Father.
Though your sins have stained you like scarlet - as the color of blood, you can become white like snow;
Though they are as easy to see as a crimson red, you can become white like wool.
19 ~ If you have a willing attitude and obey, then you will again eat the good crops of the land.
So then, not only is this a rather concise overview of brutha Isaiah's booklet, but it is also one that may easily be regarded towards brutha Ezekiel's booklet as well. The possible exception may be that Ezekiel's booklet adds another principle - the principle of individual responsibility (Ezekiel 18:20), which was also touched on by brutha Yirmiyahu (Yirmiyahu 31:30), as well as, by purpledawn - repeatedly, within this thread and others.
The prophets continually speak about a person’s responsibility, towards social justice, before the Father. Perhaps this is a form of positive worship?
Nevertheless, the one who stands before the Father will give account of our their life; not of the crunked up lives of others.
And so, mangod idle's aside, if the prophets gave a clue - it was that the soul that keeps a sinnin' ... it'll die.
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.
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.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : added note
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.
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.
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 ...
™ Version 4.2
(1)