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

Jaywill writes:Post 53. Wow, as comprehensive, exhaustive and always scriptural as ever. Its always a enjoyment to read others and especially YOUR post. I do however, question your contention on this one point. Not saying your wrong, but would like to see your scriptural justification for believeing this point concerning angels. Thanks as alwaysD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Jaywill writes: Whoops Sorry, I shouldnt need to be reminded of this point, but we do often get carried away with persons. When I do make it there, I see myself as one of those people that will always be in counsel by Michael, Moses, Paul or God himself for some stupid infraction. While most believers will rule over angels I sure I will be one of those that gets a good chariot parking or door opening position. But then why should heaven not be like my life? I understand now the import of your initial statment. I was assuming that because you used angels in the same context of any "creature", I was assuming you meant that they possed a less than full ability to understand or were were lacking in a full capacity of free will, as I have heared others indicate before.As you did not indicate in your post fully why do you think God created man in the first place? Aside from the fact that he is different from the angels as you have forceably demonstrated, why create man in the first place? I have my own understanding, but would like to hear yours Would you ever consider this to be anthropomorphic language, due to the fact that that Christ was fully God, before during and after his glorification. While he gave up his glory in heaven, he never ceased ofcourse to be God, even as a man? "In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". We lose none of the sacrifice as a result of anthropomorphic understanding, since the main import is that God sacrificed himself for man. I have heared this before but I am not sure I agree with it totally, although I have no way of saying it is not true scripturally, because this is not one of those things that is not touched upon in the scriptures. Example I think we often make the mistake, as Ihave heard others say that the angels have no redemption if they sin. This is ofcourse assumed because Satan fell. It is my belief that any creature created with free will is subject to the mercy of God. If Satan were to repent, it would be possible for him to come home, its simply that he will not, and as God is omniscient he knows he will not.It may be a bit of an assumption to assume that the blood of Christ does not extend to all creatures with free will, like the mercy of God and the blood of Christ extended both before the cross and after. All that may be required is a believers heart. Since it is clear that angles can make mistakes, it is not unreasonalble to assume that there must be some forgivness process. This may be a bit of a strech, but I believe it is the blood of Christ (God). Ofcourse I may be very wrong in this context and will wait for your reply.In this context as well, I often hear people say that we will be free of our free will there. I think this is also an unwarrented assumption. Since for me to enjoy heaven and to know why I am there it would be necessary to know who I was, where I came form and why Iam there, correct? Heres another strech. I believe we will still make mistakes there and that the blood of Christ will follow us there as well. Im not sure I agree with this but what the hay, its not an important enough point for two brothers in Christ to get bothered about. Ill let you explain it up there as I am sure you will be one of my many bosses anyway. why should life there be any different than it is here for me. You may very well be right. I would replace the word Satan with "Cavediver". Wait a minute, did I think that or write it out loud? Whoops sorry. You are probably correct. Again however, why in your estimation do you think he created a creature such as man in the first place? Without getting into the discussion about potential to stray ultimately, eternal punishment and free will and all of that and I certainly not want to take it in that direction and I wont. Good start. If this is your start I cant wait to see the finish. Thanks again.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Jaywill quotes and writes:"According to his good pleasure" has always been my uderstanding as to why he created as well. No other explanation outside of the context of your present post seems to be reasonable. I love defending againdt the humanistic positions that follow from this explanationMight I add again, that is the best I have ever heared it expressed or explained. You really should be writing a book or for some mag somewhere.D Bertot

The ICANT man wites:While it is not my interest get in a heated debate with another brother in Christ, I would seee that humans having a choice as secondary to why God created in the first place. I suppose though I may not be seeing your total point. I crtainly do not agree with this but like I said I do not wish to get in a heated debate over what may be a cavil. What say ye? The possibilty of sin is analytical to the proposition of free will. Again I do not agree, since even God has the possibilty of commiting sin. "He was in all points tempted as we, yet without sin" There would be no need to do this is if the possibilty were not there. It would simply be a joke to demonstrate this aspect if the possibility were not there.
You cant program a choice and Satan made a choice. If he did not then, God has no reason to punish him, correct?
I totally disagree. My brother in Christ is getting after me, which is perfectly fine, as he should, but i still love him.I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate otherwise than what i have indicated. We are made perfect in Christ now my friend, but that doesnt mean we dont make mistakes.. being made perfect does not mean not making mistakes, it means, "blessed is the man to whom God does not imput sin", charge to his account. I am both perfect and imperfect right now in Christ. I know it sounds illogical but it is not.Here it is from the NT. John says, "If we (Christians)say have no sin we decieve ourselves and make God a liar. If we do sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the father Jesus Christ the rightteouss".Therefore we are both imperfect and perfect at the same moment.Again he says, "If (free will) we (Christians) walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another AND the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin", that is presently.Therefore I am both perfect and complete presently and still imperfect that I still make mistakes occasionally or even alot.Now I am not implying that one can continue in sin presently and know it and still recieve the blood of Christ. Notice John said IF, we walk in the light. If implies the free will to exercise it and follow through, although occasionally stumbling throug ingnorance and simply being human.Heb 10:25 If we sin willfully after that we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remains no more a sacrifice for sin.Now I know or THINK atleast you are approaching this form a Calvanistic view point of once saved always saved, therefore you will have a bit of a different perspectiv than myself, since I do not accept that doctrine.We simply have to assume that because there was rebellion that perfection has to do with God and his application to us, not surrounding or states of being. While heaven and everything created is perfect, all created beings with free will are not, so problems arise, correct? You may be correct here brother. As the scripture does indicate that we will be like him. But I still dont see how being a programmed robot, so to speak can be included in that "being like him" I certainly cannot demonstrate it otherwise except to work form a logical standpoint, so if you are right, then so be it. Maybe its one of those things beyond our comprehension. Anywho thanks for your response.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

ICANT writes:I simply dont see how you can see choice in men but not Satan or angles. Actually it is yourself that would need to provide a scipture indicating that angels are programmed beings. If they are why is God going to punish some of them? Arent they just doing what they were programmed to do like Judas? Should he not punish the lion for killing the deer?"The soul that sins it will die" What did Satan do to deserve death and banishment and ultimately eternal punishment? Why would it not be God that gave them a choice? If they did not eat of the tree before that time, they were making a choice not to, correct?Could God not make a choice before Satan existed? What does Satan have to do with a choice one way or another.Do you have any sugggested reading of persons with this same ideology? Im off to work and will see you losers later, ha ha.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The crops are in Boy: writes:You argument is faulty because it assumes that because sentence was passed on Satan, it was not on the others, but it was, which would make them accountable.Free will is not therefore negate where punishment is ascribed Aplay on the words decieve and ttempt do not help your case. Dont make me get after you again, ha haDont you remember that Adam and eve tried this very defense to no avail. AM I will not let you represent in a courtroom, ha haD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writes: My much more educated brothers in this manner, have I think responded to your previous statements, in the following post and statements below. So I willl let you continue your discourse with them on these matters as they are dealing with them more specifically and directly.I would add this one point though. If they began to die physically and were cast out of the garden and died spiritually, how is it that you dont think they were punished. Also,could she not at some other point experience the pain of child bearing. I dont think God menat it for that exact moment.Jaywill writes: ICANT writes:AM writes:Lets just take a wild nutty koo koo guess as to who might be represented or behind the serpents actions.However, since I know how you approach the text and I promised when you returned we would discuss it as a metaphor, just state plainly then what you beliee the writer was trying to convey, if that is ok with the thread originator, ICANT and JaywillD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM, Jaywill and ICANT, I am off to work, but will return to your latest comments this evning. Hopefully, the Jay man and others will keep it going as they always do a great job.Your ideologies are certainly interesting and I do naturally have some questions in that connection.D Bertot

AM writes:Complaints or assertions, notwithstanding, I think you are obligated to address the fact that you asserted Adam and Eve were not punished, correct?Jaywill writes:Jaywill answered your ASSERTION. What would your response be to your earlier contention?Further bertot writes: AM writes: Jaywill's comments and mine speak directly to the issue, if you asked a question or made a comment that directly relates to the text at hand, correct?While you presented other points, you did make certain assertions which I would assume were in the context of your exegesis, that would further corroborate you interpretations, correct?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

ICANT writes:The text you seek would ofcourse be any text that implies or directly states that any creature with free will disobeyed God, man or angel and God imposed punishment on that CREATURE."Him that knoweth to good and doeth it not, it is sin"Satan is called by Jesus the father of liars. Is lying a sin?He is also called the great deciever. Is it a sin to decieve someone?How could these terms be applied to a creature that is simply programmend with no free will?As I stated before, it would be incumbent on you to provide a passage that states that angels are nothing more than robots.It is interesting that a person of your understanding would adopt such a position..Further you agreed earlier that any creature created with free will would be subject to Gods mercy and justice, correct?It would be silly to asume that Satan was one day in love with God and the next hated and was jealous of God. All of this must have happened over a long period of time, where Gods mercy was extended and then rejected by Satan to the point of his expulsion. Is this not a reasonable explanation to the amount of scripture and knowledge we have available, both about this particular issue and the way and manner that God deals with creatures of free will, overall. Would God be so unreasonable that he did not even give this free will creature the opportunity to repent."The lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness, but is not willing that any should perish, but that all would repent and come to a knowledge of the truth".Certainly this would be the same principle he applied to even the rebellious angels, correct? Why should it be any different?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writes:Do you base this contention on your own assumptions or do you have some specific knowledge of that time period or that situation in particular that you can be so emphatic about this principle? Or you just going by what you see presently in nature?At other times you state: If you do not know excally what the author is trying to convey, how could you be SO specific about any of the particulars in that situation, assuming for a moment it may have been a real situation, given the omnipotence of God? Does not the serpent suggest that God was not accurate in conveying to Eve that she would die? Does he not accuse God of only telling Eve half truths? Dis he not say to Eve, "Did God really say you cannot eat of any tree in the garden"? I would suggest that implying that God was lying is the same as accusing him, correct? Thats assuming that this angelic fallen host had not corroborated with or taken the form of a serpent. A creature of free will could be an adversary of God at any time. Your working way to hard and being way to literal for someone who deals in symbolism and metaphors. How and what the sciptures represent Satan by is much less important than the fact that the entirity of scripture make is abundantly clear he is Gods adversary. Time or space would not allow such a duplication of those passages.What exacally is you point in ths instance other than to contend for a symbolic or metaphorical explanation to the text? I think we all understand that you percieve a metaphorical interpretation and we are willing to examine that perspective. How ever you keep making assertions and statements that clearly are in conflict with the given text. Extrapolations and ideas that directly contradict the given text may get in the way of you trying to explain what you BELIEVE the author is trying to convey, correct?I am willing to examine your beliefs about the text as a metaphor, however, you cant expect us to ignore obvious statments which imply contradiction and error. Perhaps you could simply state what it you believe that the entire text is saying without adding commentary. This may assist us from getting bogged down.Example, if I were to understand the story of the rich man and Lazurus in Luke 16 as a parable( which I do not) I might be able to imply and apply several different meanings and explanations other than a literal story. OK, now what do I do with this interpretation, how do I apply it, what is its implication for me, how in your estimation do I get back to the tree of life. When will I know that I have arrived or accomplished this task or goal, or can I know anything that will let me know I have gotten any closer to the tree of life?Since you imply that your interpretaion may not be correct are there others that would suggest another path or better explanation or interpretation. Not being facicious here just trying to see what any possible end result might be with this approach. Do you understand? Are you implying that if we keep and perserve the earth that we will have accomplished the authors or Gods wishes, or both?Where does Jesus give us the explanation of how to get back into the garden, as you seem not to indicate that here, but simply assert it? Agreed, but help us out here alittle. At the end of all your musings there should e some result, purpose or reason for atleast some of your conclusions, correct, other than to just say,oh well thats just my interpretation of this very nice piece of literature.If not then we become like, Onfire, Straggler, Cavediver and others observing and explaining physical properties, to no end other than to say, oh well thats just the way it is, there is no reason or purpose here, but gee isnt it nice.I think even as a deist you would agree that it is only by inspiration from God himself that we will ever understand any of the ultimate questions to the answers of life, correct. Observations and musings will only get you to a certain point. If that is the case, maybe you believe there is some ultimate or fine purpose to even the authors musings in your interpretation of the Eden narrative.Draw a hard conclusion on what the author is intimating in relation to your belief in God. This could be done early, with explanation following or it could be done later after explanation. Quit apologizing and making concessions about you lack of ability to understand or explain things, as I am sure you have some formal thought about "all of this", so to speak.Discovering together, however, means that you must be open to other views and view points, that will move outside the eden narrative to other parts of scripture and ideologies, correct?Please proceed after you have answered a few of these questions concerning the implications of your interpretations.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

ICANT writes:I must confess this is becoming a bit of an odd discussion to me, at present. I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that simply because it is not stated anywhere that Satan was or was not given a choice that he did not have a choice considering the fact that God banished him and will eventually punish him for his rebellion.Question. Would God punishing a creature eternally for a choice he did not make or have be just?Question. Does rebellion and overthrow by Satan involve intellect and planning? Would not these actions imply or even directly indicate a will and most certainly a free will to choose not to do the thing he was banished for in the first place?Again, as you have not answered these questions, why would God punish a being for something that he himself created the being to do and that being has no choice one way or another? This ideology sounds much like Jonathan Edwards, 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God', philosophy.Further you have only asserted that Satan is a programmed creature but have not provided any passages that indicates this assumption. Should we be that literal in our undertanding of scripture. While the scriptures tell us that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, it does not tell us the specifics or the mechanics of exacally how this was accomplished. Should we therefore assume that this may not be the case because the exact mechanical details are not provided.If Satan was not or did not have a choice then the punishment makes absolutely no sense and makes God an illogical, unmerciful monster with no sense of reason or justice. Is the expression, "I will ascend to the highest heaven and be like the most high" a decision produced by free will.Is Satans discourse and entering into an agreement in the book of Job a decision making process and free will exercised by Satan, or did God put the words in his mouth. Was his bargin with God only metaphorical or did it really happen in you estimation. If it did, was the expression from Satan, that Job obeys you because you put up a hedge around him, Satans thinking or did God program this into his mind?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writes:I intended to go through this item by item but as I read it Ifind it not necessary to do so,due to the fact that we have rehearsed all of this before. Further, it is not that I do not understand you meanings from the exegesis and the interpretation you are implying, its simpy that there is a more root problem that proceeds this type of approach.As I read your paragraphs it became very clear that you are taking a very literal and humanistic approach to the text, which disallows the possibility of direct intervention in the affairs of men, to a literal explanation of the characters of Adam and Eve, the serpent being a literal serpent and the exclusion of the supernatural, as you yourself indicate in a specific statement.Certainly when one starts with this type of approach, one is almost certain to include only natural and physical explanations in exegetical interpretations, as your verbage above certainly implies.For example, there may indeed be many other interpretations of what the "serpent of the field" may represent, other than yours depending on what symbolism one chooses to employ, correct? Example, why MUST the serpent represent the most basic aspects of the heavens or the earth? True and all of your expalnations and interpretations may indeed be correct, IF, the narrative is to only be taken as a literal expalnation of human existence and all of the specific words and terms used were meant in only a literal and not spiritual fashion and connection, correct?Example, it would be very easy to do the very samething with the story of the rich man and Lazurus in Luke chapter sixteen, if one percieves it in a metaphorical or symbolic fashion. The bossom of Abraham it is suggested is not literally Abraham and not that Abraham actually said anything in these statements, but that they should be taken as symbolic in character implying some spiritual meaning, correct.I understand all of your implications and meanings, based on the type of approach you are advocating and in a metaphorical understanding it is even very beautiful. I simly do not start with a non-supernatural approach in this connection, which may lead me to another explanation to the words, terms, concepts or ideas. Why would I need to do this? Even if I do agree that it represents this very thing, there are to many other terms concepts and ideas that may not be able to taken as literal, or dont have to be taken as literal, correct?Example what does the discourse in the narrative represent?Yours is a beautiful and even plausible approach, if one chooses the metaphorical approach,yet the rest of the scriptures tend to have a different understanding of the narrative.Ill finish in the morning, but please continue with your exegesis.I will give a few examples from the Synoptic Gospels: Perhaps you could help me here, I am failing to see how any of these verses speak to the tree of life directly. Jesus said many things, like "I am the way,the truth the life and NO MAN comes to the father but by ME". "I and the fther are one", "except ye believe in me you will die in your sins". Was Jesus also indicating in these verses and quotes that he was the only way back to the tree of life, or I am I to assume you believe these verse as well. Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter. So then only the verses from Christ the Judeo-Christian Messiah that agree with or tend to support the narrrative should be accepted and not verses from him that seem to be in conflict with the "wisdom of the ancients", should be considered as interpolations and untrutstworthy as actual statements from Christ, correct?As you seem not only to indicate but directly state in the following quote from yourself: Then you state: Wow, this is a huge admission. What about Jesus makes you believe he and he alone understood the Eden narrative? Is is possible to trust his other statements and his claims to Messiahship and his clear claims to Diety?Are you saying that these Gospels are inspired by God or only that certain verses that tend to agree with the narrative are inspired? Not trying to cause confusion here, just need some clarification in this respect?The Eden narrative and metaphorical appraoach to it is the only possible starting point for all understanding to its content, correct? Yet this is what the Christ, the Judeo-Christian Messiah, the only one that gets the Eden narrative correct and his assigned followers directly believed, correct?And no it does not imply that the serpent of the field was not formed as a breathing creature of the field. The fallen angel was in cooporation with the breathing creature of the field or had taken on the form of that creature, as he takes on the form af an angel of light, or is described as a dragon, or whatever else, correct? Pain that has not been experienced, yet promised can be experienced at a later date, correct? If the squadron cammander promises me that I will be serving time in the stockade, do I need to feel that pain then, at that moment, to experience it later? Your statement seems to be a fnacy way to sidesteping a very simple point, Gods promise of pain was experienced later and thus his promise was fulfilled, atleast according to the corrupted version of the text and not the inspired one you are using. By all means do so. Perhaps inbetween interpreting the narrative, you could give a few brief answers to these seeming contradictions or atleast misunderstandings. Fair enough?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Whew, that was a close one I thought you had got torked off and left or something. Good to have you back.Bertot

ICANT writes:Yep, trying to do this at 3:00 in the morning sometimes doesnt work. Im one of those that will stay up till 2 or 3 three then get back up with the kids at six thirty. I have heared this will kill you eventually, so I am hoping it will get me to heaven quicker, without being directly responsible for my demise. Thanks again for your comments, I dont know what I would do without your and Jaywills assistance. But now with regard to that evil Autunman, just kidding there nature boy,I even find some assistance in your understanding of things.What I meant to say above was would God punish something he did not give the ability to choose otherwise? That would make him an illogical monster. While I agree with most of this it really has nothing to do with our subject at hand. Even stupidity is a choice, because it ignores known facts. Rebellion of Satans category certainly required some thinkingThe Heart is the mind in the scriptures. God created a perfect creature, he did not create Satans thoughts or actions. No what God created was completely perfect and Good. The expression that God created evil is to be understood as an exaggeration. The same as when Christ said:"I have not come to bring peace but a sword".The only true evil is a product of the free will of creatures with free will. Chrit was not saying he literally brought strife, but that which he taught would result in strife with creatures with free will. God is not saying he himself is evil or creates it directly. That however, that was created perfect, still has the potential to choose evil, so God is indirectly responsible, but not directly responsible for creatures actions that possess the ability to choose.The creation of free will, secondly only to the creation of salvation is a the single greatest gift fo God. The creation of free will and Gods edicts by its side allows man to choose and exonerates Gid from any accusation of guilt. In other words one would have to totally disregard and dismiss free will to accuse god of any wrong doing. This simply cannot be done.Theoretically and in reality, it is possible for any and all humans to live a perfect life without sin, this is just the nature of free will,but none have or ever will, but the possibility exists as such. Where do you find in the Bible God telling or instructing Satan to disobey or over throw him, as you state you dont see anywhere where an angel did that except which he was told to do.Yes, Jesus did have a choice to reject Gods wishes for the cross. That is the whole point of John chapter 17, i believe, correct? "Not my will but thine be done". Do you believe Christ was really contemplating not doing this, I do, because he knew what was involved. Yet unlike myself, he had enough courage to proceed. I would have folded like a halmark card.You almost seem to make the whole of creation a big play with all of the parts already decided before free will is even given a chance. True, God knows the results but that is not the same as saying he dictated the results. Wow. I think you are missing the whole point of free will and Christs sacrifice. He not only had a choice, he exercised it.But as a brother in Christ I forgive you Calvinism.D BertotD Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.