Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life (Lost /Reformed Thread)
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 151 of 203 (490640)
12-06-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
12-05-2008 2:05 PM


Re: The Punisher
Thank you for the exchange ICANT.
I used to hug trees for a living.
ICANT writes:
You sound like a billboard for permissiveness.
Apparently, it may become difficult not to when separating sin from Love.
The God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in Love.
Unless undermined, His testimony is bound to come across as permissive.
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the Truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.
What do you prefer??
Shall the God come to you with a whip to punish and hate you ...
* delight in evil
* easily angered
* self-seeking
* envy
* boast
* proud
* rude
Or in love and with a gentle spirit to discipline and Love you?
* rejoices with the Truth
* no record of wrongs
* always perseveres
* always protects
* always trusts
* always hopes
* never fails
* patient
* kind
Love is not the substance of the law and sin, but rather the opposite of such.
Love does no harm to its neighbor, thus, Love is the fulfillment of the law.
lol - they cannot even stand to be in the same room together.
Further consider, if you will ...
Psalms writes:
I will be glad and rejoice in your love, for you saw my affliction and knew the anguish of my soul.
There is likely a reason we are told the God sees and knows, and not accuses and punishes.
The God sees and knows our affliction and anguish, and even rescues us from it.
It would be a departure from reality to suggest He causes it though.
Note ...
The God's teammates are often referred to as disciples ...
Not punishables - lol.
The God disciplines His children in the ways of locating snares.
Accordingly, the God frees his children from traps.
Somebody else sets them though.
This one punishes the catch.
ICANT writes:
Bailey writes:
Why shall we say the God punishes those He loves, when the opposite is true?
In the book of Hebrews we are told:
Hebr 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
This tells me God chastises all His children.
Thank you for this.
It also tells us all partake of chastisement, yet you ignore that.
Skewed truth ensues ...
Let us include verses 7 & 9 and continue searching Truth in this passage.
Hebrews 12 writes:
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.
9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!
If by chastise, you mean the God does not bless decisions that are not based upon motivating impulses of Love, than I agree.
He does not have a choice ... No choice means no decision ... No decision, no punish.
In what way is sin enforced by the God not making a decision?
We can see it is sin, and its CEO, that punishes if we acknowledge the God does not partake in sin.
If we suppose the God is capable of sinning, we can accordingly assume He employs punishments on its behalf.
There is a spirit who does; it has authority to establish and enforce sins boundaries.
The present opinion does not suggest the God partakes of sin.
The God does not enforce sin; rather, He salvages agape Love.
True Love cannot be forced.
Its principles can be.
And are.
A Holy process and waiting period ensue.
Hence, the salvation of the God's Love.
We know the spiritual authority afforded to the species through sin is an evil force.
So are we to think the God is an evil force, because He enforces the "penalties" of sin?
Such a grandiose stretch of the imagination may lead to a collapsed reality, my friend.
Are the wages of sin not death?
The God pays his children in Life.
He has the authority to do this.
The serpent robs the others of life.
It has the authority to do this.
The God does not.
If so ... dead snake.
Not simply mutilated.
Do you see?
Someone else will slay the serpent.
Someone who the God gives authority.
Someone who Loves you and your species.
Jaywill wisely tells of a mechanism of deputy authority utilized by the God to sustain Love.
Appears the God's deputy, in charge of punishing, is the most cunning and deceitful serpent o' ol'.
Please stop accusing the God falsely brother.
He does nothing but Love you.
Anyone who is not chastised by God is not His child.
Fairly perverted statement, in context.
Unless you have been misunderstood ...
Redundancy is employed to drive the Truth home.
All are chastised, as all are His children.
One who does not accept the provision denies their birthright.
They become His illegitimate children.
As the God is the Father of all, all are chastised.
The verse you provided clearly states the Truth.
If ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers ...
All are chastised.
Some don't respond.
They do not grab ahold of the Life Saver.
Their contentment lies in troubled waters.
They have drowned in confusion.
These ones may not evolve.
They become illegitimate children of the God.
Though some display Him as such, He is not a tyrant.
The God will not force one to live.
Much less with Him.
God does not chastise the devils children.
lol - obviously correct.
The serpent does not have children to chastise.
It has slaves to punish and manipulate with hate.
The slaves are the God's children.
Of whom, the God does chastise.
That is, the God blesses any decisions they enact based upon motivating impulses of Love.
We can evidence the God chastises the slaves of the serpent if we believe the God's Words.
If the serpent had children that rebuked eternal sin, would the God not chastise them too?
So anyone without chastisement belongs to the devil and is lost and will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
Wow - po' lil' buggas ...
Oh wait - you say anyone without chastisement belongs to the devil?
The God says, "... chastisement, whereof all are partakers,"!!
None of the God's children or the serpents slaves can evade chastisement.
The present opinion suggests one who commits eternal sin will sustain eternal punishment.
What does the God say about eternal sin?
Matt 12 writes:
31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
33 "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
Again, a tree is recognized by its fruit ...
ICANT writes:
You say God does not punish, and then go into a long example of Moses where you say:
Bailey writes:
Yet, does it not seem at a grave cost?
The God's discipline was most severe ...
So was Moses punished for disobeying or not?
lol - did you miss the whole point?
When the God is misrepresented as an asshole, the forfeiture of blessings occurs.
Thus, authorizing the serpent to inflict a penalty, or "punishment".
If you are implying they were punished by the God, the present opinion suggests "or not".
Moses and Aaron experienced discipline, and the forfeiture of a potential blessing.
You cannot reasonably blame the God for Moses authorizing the effects of sin.
Well, I suppose you can, but it is rude and unnecessary.
You contend the first man was not punished for disobeying
What was said?
That is surely what was meant.
The present opinion does not consider discipline and punishment equivocal.
Understanding is served well when corresponding meanings are distinguished from one another.
Who puts the children through painful exertion and inflicts penalties?
Which is the one that handles the species severely & roughly?
What spirit inflicts pain, loss, confinement, and death?
Is this not the spirit that punishes and hates?
Respectively, who provides activities and exercises that develop and improve our Love?
Which is the one that employs a state of order and obedience by training us up?
What Spirit provides reprove by way of correction and affection?
Is this not the Spirit that disciplines and Loves?
The serpent punishes and tortures the ones it hates.
The God disciplines and chastises the ones He Loves.
The serpent hates the ones the God Loves.
The God loves all.
Easy math ...
The present opinion evidences the God simply does not have a choice when we sin.
Not until we give Him one by answering His voice.
Authority to bless and discipline are immobilized.
It is out of His Hands until reconciliation occurs.
The serpent ascertains authority to inflict penalty.
Thus, if the God does not have a choice, how can we reasonably state it is His choice to punish us???
When Moses and Aaron strayed from the narrow path of Truth, that opportunity for a blessing was forfeited.
Two points for the serpent.
Though it will not win ...
If the God could bless us when we sin, He would have provided this for Moses.
Unfortunately, He would no longer be the God, as He would be promoting sin.
Do you see?
The present opinion asserts one can consider the God's ability to not bless you, when you sin, a punishment.
As long as it is realized He could not do it even if He wanted to, and for this reason He should not be blamed.
Respectively, all you would be stating is that the God has no choice but to punish you.
Thus, a more accurate statement would be, the God does not have a choice to bless you.
One cannot reasonably blame the God for Moses authorizing the effects of sin.
One can blame Moses or the other spirit that he struggles against.
They are both the immediate cause of the loss, or "punishment".
Not the God.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2008 2:05 PM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 152 of 203 (490684)
12-07-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICANT
12-05-2008 11:55 PM


Re: The spirit of man within him
I am not evading anything.
Okay. I apologize.
I have stated I do not believe the angels have free will.
Okay. I accept that that is your belief. And that is how you are pursuaded.
I will speak up for my understanding of it.
They were not created in the image and likeness of God.
I agree. So I think you are saying here that because they were not created in the image of God and according to His likeness as man (Gen. 1:26) it follows that they have no free will.
I don't see how that necessarily has to follow.
Things spoken concerning some angels definitely reveal choices made.
No where can I find they had a choice.
I find it.
In the Jude passage you had SOME of the angels which did something so bad that they were separated from the rest and placed in an gloomy prison in bonds until judgment day.
Now I know that not all of the angels that followed Satan (Matt.25:41) ended up this way. Some still have relative freedom to be the rulers of this darkness as Paul says. So you have choices on TWO levels at least.
Some of all the angels of God chose to be "his" (the devil's) ... "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41)[/b]. The punisheing fire was designed for them because of thier choice. Both lost sinners and lost angels share the same terrible destiny for their choice. Albeit angels not created in the image of God as in the case of man.
A lot of people believe they have a choice.
Since it makes no difference in eternity as far as mankind is concerned I have already wasted too much time talking about it.
Then drop it and ignore my further replies. But for the sake of those reading along, I will finish my thoughts somewhat on the subject.
jaywill writes:
Incorrect. The section I quoted was concerning the king of Tyre and starts in verse 12.
You are spending a little more time on it. I will respond for the sake of any possible interested readers then.
We are talking about the same Tyrus. Eventhough you refer to it as Tyre.
We are talking about the ruler of Tyrus.
Well, let's here from one commentator, G.H. Pember:
" The first nineteen verses of the chapter contain a very remarkable but somewhat obscure prophecy, consisting of two distinct parts, an address to the Prince of Tyrus, and a lamentation upon the King of Tyrus.
So I might be corrected when I said there were two lamentations. But there are two sections the second of which is called a lamenatation.
Pember goes on:
Now there can be no doubt that these titles refer to two persons, and are not merely different appellations of the same. For in the address to the prince there is nothing which could not be said to a human potentate; but the king is manifestly superhuman. Of the prince it is said the he will be slain by the hands of strangers, and the word translated "slain" means "thrust through" with sword or spear: but the king is to be devoured by fire, and brought to ashes upon the earth.
With regard, therefore, to the first ten verses, there is no reason why we should not apply them to the then reigning prince of Tyre, whose name, as we learn from Josephus, was Ittiobalus ...
Pember goes on to talk about the history of Tyre, Ittiobaulus, and the Chaldeans capture of the island fortress. I don't quote all of that. But this seems significant:
Thus far the prophecy is easily intelligible; anbd we know that a short time after its delivery Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnessar. It is curious, too, to find the Tyrians in later times flattering Herod by exclaiming that his voice was the voice of a god, and not of a man, and so bringing upon him a punishment far more signal than that which befell their own ancient prince (Acts 12:20-23)
Then from verse 12 Pember expounds some of which I will quote:
But the lamentation upon the King of Tyrus (Ezek 28:11-19) does not so readily yeild its meaning: for there are expressions in it which cannot be applied to any mortal. Now to adopt the too common plan of extricating these away as mere figures of speech, is to trifle with the Word of God. We have no right to use so dishonest a method of extricating ourselves from difficulties, a method which enables men to deduce almost any desired meaning from a passage, and makes the whole Bible an enigma instead of a disclosure. We must rather confess, if it be necessary, that we have no clue whatever to an interpretation.
Don't take that the wrong way. I don't mean you are being dishonest. I do think you are honestly mistaken.
[qs] ICANT :
The man that is the prince is the ruler of Tyrus.
The King is the ruler of Tyrus.
G.H. Pember
But there is a kind of pophecy, especially frequent in the Psalms, in which the prophet, speaking first of a contempory matter, is then borne on by the Spirit to some stupendous event of the last times, of which the incident in his own days is a faint type. And if we apply this prinicple to the passage before us, we are struck, upon considering the type, by similarity of the pretension of Ittiobalus to those of Paul's Man of Sin, [b]"who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4). Can, then, the King of Tytrus, as distinguished from his type the Prince, be the great final Antichrist ? Let us try to key, and see if thhe wards fit.
And first: is there any reason why Antichrist should be called the King of Tyre? It would seem so? For Tyre is in Palistine, and in the second verse of this chapter is said to be "in the midst of the seas". Now if we turn to Daniel's prophecy of the Wilful King, we shall find it predicted of that destroyer, that he will enter into the glorious land, and plant the tabernacle of his palace "between the seas" (Dan.11:41-45). This in other words seems to mean that he will invade Palestine and fix his abode at Tyre. [/qs]
So Pember teaches that the King of Tyre lamentation should be applied in human history to the Antichrist of the last days. And behind him as well as all rebellious self exalting kings is the ancient pre-Adamic rebelion of the anointed cherub who became Satan.
Verse 12 is about the final Antichrist and Satan's pre-Adamic rebellion which is the mother of all rebellious and self exalting potentates.
I will not be able to quote everything Pember expounded about this.
But what shall we say of the lamentation itself ? For there are assertions in it which could be true of no mortal, not even Adam. Certainly our first father was in Eden, and in the garden of God; but we are not told that every precious stone was his covering: we know not how he could be called the Anointed Cherub: we do not hear that he was upon the Holy Mountain of God, and walked up and down in the midst of the Stones of Fire. Indeed, so far as we can see, there is but one being of whom some of the expressions in this passage could be used, and that is Satan; the whole of the remainder may be explained of Antichrist."
ICANT
jaywill writes:
You have not explained why there should be a change in the person being addressed, from the prince to the king. And you have not yet explained why there should be a second lamentation.
In Ezekiel 28:2 Ezekiel was told to tell the prince of Tyrus some things.
There was no lamentation mentioned.
Correct. I was wrong to mention two lamentations, I think.
In verse 12 Ezekiel is not told to tell the King anything. He is told to take up a lamentation upon the King of Tyrus.
Lamentation 1. Expression of sorrow; cries of grief; the act of bewailing. Definition taken from 1828 Websters dictionary.
This was a physical act Ezekiel was to do. How he was to accomplish his task is beyond me.
But yes he was to let everyone know this king was a devil.
Pember's explaination of the change of the title from Prince to King is more persuasive to me.
jaywill writes:
. Why would God refer to a Gentile king with the illusion of one of the glorious angelic beings on either side of the holy ark of God ?
God is in control.
I never said that God was not in control. Of course God is in control
God sets rulers in place.
And God set a being in place who was PERFECT from the day he was created.
What human king could that possibly apply to ... Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Tiberius Ceasar, Julius Ceasar, Nepolean, Gobachov, Ronald Reagon, etc. etc. ?
Which human potentate was perfect from the day he was created?
God bring countries to power and then He bring other countries to power to destroy those when they go wrong.
The rebuttal seems misaimed here. Nothing I said suggested otherwise. ICANT is misaiming and breaking down a strawman.
The only purpose God has in the process is for mankind to find Him and seek after Him.
I don't feel the need for further comment because you are changing the point.
He was refering to this man like Jesus was to Judas when He said: "He was a devil from the beginning."
Now we are back on point. I had absolutely no quarrel with God setting up and taking down kings and kingdoms.
The being discribed as the anointed cherub was set by God on the mountain of God in the realm of God's glory and created perfect from day one.
So from day 1 this being was perfect. This is NOT the same as Jesus saying that someone was a devil from the beginning. Rather this is God saying that the being was quite good from the beginning, even perfect in wisdom. It was lifted up in pride because of that. And ONE DAY iniquity was found in it.
We could say from that time it was the Devil, the ORIGINAL Devil. So the analogy with Judas is unconvincing to me.
In other words Ezekiel was to lament and wail about this king being a devil as I see it.
I could be wrong.
jaywill writes:
So this passage persuades me that angels could choose or choose not to be under God's ordinances for them.
That is fine by me.
But I don't see the need of me seeing that they had a choice. I see that they left their residence and moved uptown.
This turkey is done.
Huh? They left their residence and moved uptown? But without any choice to do so? Like robots they moved?
Not too persuasive to this reader. I respect your right to have another view.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2008 11:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Bailey, posted 12-08-2008 8:43 AM jaywill has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 153 of 203 (490759)
12-08-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by jaywill
12-07-2008 9:15 AM


How do you move uptown w/o freewill?
Thank you for the exchange.
jaywill writes:
ICANT writes:
jaywill writes:
So this passage persuades me that angels could choose or choose not to be under God's ordinances for them.
That is fine by me. But I don't see the need of me seeing that they had a choice.
I see that they left their residence and moved uptown. This turkey is done.
Huh? They left their residence and moved uptown? But without any choice to do so?
Like robots they moved? Not too persuasive to this reader. I respect your right to have another view.
Jaywill has presented a strong case ...
The majority of evidence suggests a minor portion of angels enacted decision based within a choice to live at Home with the God or die elsewhere without Him. The present opinion does not put much stock in defective chimeras.
This is not to imply they cannot serve usefully as tools when contemplating a literal, figurative or metaphoric process that attempts to defy Love of the God. That said, the possible existence of angels is not dismissed.
Jude tells of those who might talk smack about angels and illustrates how Michael may have debated with the serpent over Moses' ...
Jude 1 writes:
9 Even the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil and fought over the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him. Instead, he said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”
He also informs us, the God has held in eternal chains those angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their assigned place. They are held in deepest darkness for judgment on the great day.
It is often debated whether Jude 1:14 cites the pseudepigraphical book of Noah's great grandpa, Enoch.
Jude 1 writes:
14 Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about these people when he said,
“Look! The Lord has come with countless thousands of His holy ones.
Being found first in Noah's great grandpa's book, it reasonably follows the author of Jude, at least, was reading Enoch and believed in the prophesies given within the text ...
Constantine, and perhaps others, seemingly did not ...
The messengers, or "watchers", spoken of through out Enoch are mentioned also in Daniel 4 ...
Daniel 4 writes:
13 ... in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven ...
Authoring within apocryphal books of Enoch expound, in part, as to what has taken place.
The word "apocrypha" acquired a negative connotation, at times employed as a synonym for "spurious" or "false" as sixteenth-century controversies over biblical canon developed. The present author feels such does not make it so, or otherwise. These texts are of uncertain authenticity and, falling outside of canon, the authorship may be duly questioned.
That said, below are some potential illuminations from equally potential darkness ...
The ones spoken of seem to be the same angels who are referred to as the Sons of the God in the Book of Genesis. Accordingly, their "sins" filled the Earth with violence and spherical existence was purged as a result of their intervention.
Genesis 6:2 writes:
...the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Richard Cavendish, amongst others, supposes a portion of the watchers are fallen angels which magicians call forth in ceremonial magic. Cavendish mentions that the watchers were so named because they were stars, the "eyes of night." In his book, The Powers of Evil, he makes references to the biblical giants possibly being in relation to the Giants or Titans of Greek Mythology. He refers to the Nephilm in Genesis ...
Genesis 6:4 writes:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days”and also afterward”when the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown
Enoch, a direct descendant of Adam and ancestor of Noah, is believed by many to have been taken away by the God and became known as the angel Metatron.
lol - Metatron went on to play a small role in the movie Dogma.
The introduction to the Book of Enoch tells us that Enoch was "just man, whose eyes were opened by God so that he saw vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the sons of God showed to me, and from them I heard everything, and I knew what I saw, but [these things that I saw will] not [come to pass] for this generation, but for a generation that has yet to come."
It discusses the God coming to Earth on Mount Sinai with his hosts to pass judgement on mankind. It also tells us about the luminaries rising and setting in their order and in their own time; never changing.
Enoch writes:
"Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes."
How all things are ordained by God and take place in his own time. The sinners shall perish and the great and the good shall live on in light, joy and peace.
"And all His works go on thus from year to year for ever, and all the tasks which they accomplish for Him, and their tasks change not, but according as God hath ordained so is it done."
And now, free will ...
The first section of the text depicts the interaction of the fallen angels with mankind; the kingpin Smazz compels the other 199 fallen angels to take human wives to "beget us children" ...
Enoch writes:
"And Semjz, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it."
This results in the creation of the Nephilim (Genesis) or Anakim/Anak (Giants) as they are described in the text ...
Enoch writes:
"And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells [the Ethiopian text gives 300 cubits (135 meters), which is probably a corruption of 30 cubits (13.5 meters)]: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood."
It also discusses the teaching of humans by the fallen angels, namely Azzl ...
Enoch writes:
"And Azzl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjz taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armrs the resolving of enchantments, Barqjl, taught astrology, Kkabl the constellations, Ezql the knowledge of the clouds, Araqil the signs of the earth, Shamsil the signs of the sun, and Saril the course of the moon."
Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel appeal to the God to judge the inhabitants of the world and the fallen angels. Uriel is then sent by the God to tell Noah of the coming apocalypse and what he needs to do.
Enoch writes:
"Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spoke, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world."
The God commands Raphael to imprison Azzl ...
Enoch writes:

"the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azzl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Ddl (Gods Kettle/Crucible/Cauldron), and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azzl: to him ascribe all sin."
God gave Gabriel instructions concerning the Nephilim and the imprisonment of the fallen angels:
"And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the biters and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle"
The God commands Michael to bind the fallen angels ...
Enoch writes:
"And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjz and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 13. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: (and) to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations."
Again, it is good to note these texts are of uncertain authenticity and, falling outside of canon, the authorship may be duly questioned.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jaywill, posted 12-07-2008 9:15 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 12-08-2008 1:02 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 155 by jaywill, posted 12-08-2008 1:24 PM Bailey has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 154 of 203 (490787)
12-08-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bailey
12-08-2008 8:43 AM


Re: Looking for Clarification
Hi Bailey,
Bailey writes:
Enoch, a direct descendant of Adam and ancestor of Noah, is believed by many to have been taken away by the God and became known as the angel Metatron.
Which Enoch are you talking about?
The Enoch who was the firstborn son of Jared, whose firstborn son was Methuselah? Genesis? 5:19-21.
Or,
The Enoch that was the first born son of Cain whose firstborn son was Irad? Genesis 4:17, 18.
Concerning angels you quoted:
Jude 1 writes:
9 Even the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil and fought over the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him. Instead, he said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”
Why would Michael accuse the devil of wrong doings the devil was just doing his job. Michael could not allow the devil to know the burial place of Moses. He would love to have a burial site for Moses. Just think how much milage he could get out of that.
Michael does know that one day he will chain the devil in the lake of fire for 1000 years. He also knows he will defeat him in a battle that is yet to take place after that.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bailey, posted 12-08-2008 8:43 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jaywill, posted 12-08-2008 1:42 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 157 by Bailey, posted 12-09-2008 10:21 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 155 of 203 (490789)
12-08-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bailey
12-08-2008 8:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bailey, posted 12-08-2008 8:43 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Bailey, posted 12-09-2008 11:24 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 156 of 203 (490791)
12-08-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
12-08-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Looking for Clarification
Michael does know that one day he will chain the devil in the lake of fire for 1000 years. He also knows he will defeat him in a battle that is yet to take place after that.
The Devil is chained for 1,000 years BEFORE he goes into the lake of fire. Revelation 19 and 20 speak to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 12-08-2008 1:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 157 of 203 (490875)
12-09-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
12-08-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Looking for Clarification
Thank you for the exchange brother ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Bailey writes:
Enoch, a direct descendant of Adam and ancestor of Noah, is believed by many to have been taken away by the God and became known as the angel Metatron.
Which Enoch are you talking about?
For the record, the present opinion does not percieve Enoch as an angel.
He was truly a man after the God's own heart.
The Enoch who was the firstborn son of Jared, whose firstborn son was Methuselah? Genesis? 5:19-21.
Or,
The Enoch that was the first born son of Cain whose firstborn son was Irad? Genesis 4:17, 18.
The written account of Adam's line will testify to the former.
Noah, the ark builder, is his great grandson correct?
Enoch remained within the sphere for one year of years.
He walked with the God; then he was no more, because the God took him away.
Concerning angels you quoted:
Jude 1 writes:
9 Even the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil and fought over the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him. Instead, he said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”
Why would Michael accuse the devil of wrong doings the devil was just doing his job.
lol - is this a trick question?
Like all, they have two tasks.
Show the Heavens and earth how to Love.
Love, themselves, as the God's neighbor.
The serpent opted for self employment; yet, not in the beginning.
In the beginning, all is One.
Lucifer's job is to display how the God can be Loved.
Michael's job is to encourage it from doing elsewise.
He is extremely busy ...
Michael could not allow the devil to know the burial place of Moses. He would love to have a burial site for Moses. Just think how much milage he could get out of that.
The serpent displays how, all but, the God can be Loved.
It could convince many to worship Moses ol' bones.
No need for an additional denomination.
Very insightful ICANT.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 12-08-2008 1:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 158 of 203 (490878)
12-09-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by jaywill
12-08-2008 1:24 PM


Re: How do you move uptown w/o freewill?
jaywill writes:
Bailey writes:
Again, it is good to note these texts are of uncertain authenticity and, falling outside of canon, the authorship may be duly questioned.
Interestng.
That's all well and good. And your research into apochryphal writings surpases mine (by choice I think).
Acknowledged.
May you, in the Jesus name, continue to pray for your brother.
All well and good. But just keep in mind, I only quoted the Canon of the Old and New Testament for my sources.
Jaywill has provided a strong case, soley from canonical sources.
The present opinion finds such behavior highly commendable.
I did not derive my interpretation from Milton, Dante, or any ancient non-canonical books (Hebrew or otherwise).
Noted.
That Jude may say something found in the book of Enoch, does not bring the book of Enoch into the New Testament Canon of books regcognized as the Word of God.
This is absolutely correct.
Nor does it bring the book of Jude into alternative resource texts of pseudepigraphal or apochryphal nature.
Not the present opinion, or Nicea, can alter reality.
The Holy Spirit will place His Words of Truth where He sees fit.
Paul quoted pagan poets.
He quoted non religious Truths to non religious people.
Paul understood the confusion within religious thought.
It almost killed him; how could he employ it?
The Old Testament writers refered to books like the Wars of the Lord which are not canonical. I don't think that reduces the inspiration of the canonical books.
Not in the least.
Personally, I would not obscure the matter by chasing through references, similartities, or allusions to things written in the pseudepigrapha (spelling?) or the apochrypha.
The present opinion assumes you thankful of all things.
Glory to the God.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by jaywill, posted 12-08-2008 1:24 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2008 1:28 PM Bailey has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 159 of 203 (490891)
12-09-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Bailey
12-09-2008 11:24 AM


Re: How do you move uptown w/o freewill?
Edited.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Bailey, posted 12-09-2008 11:24 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 160 of 203 (491258)
12-12-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by autumnman
11-26-2008 3:22 PM


impressions and ramifications
Thank you for the exchange.
autumnman writes:
In as much as the first humans were originally not in possession of “the knowledge of good and bad” they were also not endowed with “the life” because both of these attributes were possessed only by the “trees in midst the garden.”
The present opinion finds this a very agreeable, as well as note worthy. Jaywill, autumnman, and ICANT have consistently provided tremendous insights within this thread. Perhaps we can regroup some of the most prominent and controversial examples we have contemplated as Truth.
For instance, it is also difficult to evidence that the Adam, personally, was told of the Tree of Life; until he left the Garden.
* The man is told of specifically of trees that provide harm (even if with benefit)
* The God was not hiding anything from the man in a malignant fashion.
* Adam did not choose the 'wrong' tree; serpent cannot accuse of such.
What are the initial, and lasting, impressions and ramifications of these various bits of Truth?
In what way does the garden narrative introduce us to the character of the God?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by autumnman, posted 11-26-2008 3:22 PM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2008 4:04 PM Bailey has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 161 of 203 (491636)
12-18-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Bailey
12-12-2008 11:15 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Bailey, posted 12-12-2008 11:15 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Bailey, posted 12-20-2008 3:54 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 163 by Huntard, posted 12-21-2008 7:51 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 164 by Bailey, posted 12-22-2008 3:20 PM jaywill has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 162 of 203 (491747)
12-20-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
12-18-2008 4:04 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
jaywill writes:
I would like to be able to prove that Adam was told of the wonderful tree of life but for now I am no sure it is provable. It is not explicitly stated that God discussed with Adam the nature of the tree of life. So I am pressed to "prove" that Adam was not totally ignorant about it.
It would be a shame for you to inadvertently present a case the serpent would employ. Please do not feel pressed to reach outside of the Truth, on my account, to 'prove' something that cannot be evidenced. The present opinion suggests concepts not plainly evident in scripture are likely irrelevant to salvation or simply parting from the Truth and potentially effecting such processes adversely.
Jaywill's hearts desire is close to the Truth, no doubt.
So I'd like to a closely related thing and talk about Life as I believe it is meant in the tree of life. I will not quote passages right now. I will sumarize my understanding and belief about the significance of LIFE in "the tree of life" drawing from the entire Bible's revelation.
Real Life is uncreated. Read Life had no beginning and will have no end.
If it can die then it is not the ultimate reality of Life. Life in its ultimate sense cannot die. Any life then which dies is not Life as in tree of life. Real Life is indestrucible. Nothing can overcome Life.
Life in its ultimate nature is a Person - God Himself. God always was. God had no birth. God can have no termination and no death. God can pass through any opposition and come out victorious. He cannot be suppressed, oppressed, or suppressed. God is the uncreated and eternal Life which is indestructlble and impossible to defeat or conquer or put down or end or fight against and prevail.
In Genesis we see a gradual incline of lives. The incline progresses from herbs, vegetation, grass, etc. to more conscious lives. The consciousness grows with the ascending of the pyramid of lives in Genesis.
The development of lives is ascending towards the face of man. The face of man is the most expressive. The grass has no face at all. The fish has a face but no neck. The birds have more of a neck but not a very expressive face. The cattle's neck and face develop more. Eventually we arrive at the face of man for the most expression. Man is on top of the pyramid of created lives in Genesis.
This is very creative, yet seemingly reflective of the Truth. Then you turn around and step in the same hole - lol
Then above man there is mentioned this tree of life.
Yes, this is half of the Truth.
Above man Two Trees are mentioned ... not one. First, they are both mentioned to the reader and no indication of choosing between them is evident. Second, the Tree of Knowledge is presented to the Lovebirds so their awareness of harm is more complete. The God does not inform the Lovebirds of the benefit's contained within either tree until Genesis 3:22. At that point the God concedes their corresponding benefits and eliminates another, yet new, impending danger. This is in stark contrast to simply warning of the other tree's properties.
The Beginning writes:
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
We can evidence the danger of the species being prone to deception around 3:13...
The Beginning writes:
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
And are shortly informed of man's newly acquired ability which is better left to mortals early in Genesis 4 ...
The Beginning writes:
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
In conclusion, two trees are first presented equally to the reader. Next, one tree, containing good and bad, is specifically mentioned to the man in the garden. The 'good' properties of both Trees are witheld likely in an attempt to reduce bias. Finally, human reality is begun and the species is enlightened regarding the Tree of Life; and told of the various benefits both trees possess.
Basically, in the beginning of the Garden they are informed of the tree of knowledge ... at the end of the garden they are informed of the Tree of Life. That is what this copy of the NIV says anyway.
The present opinion finds much humility within the God's reasoning. Any 'god' can tell ya what is 'good' about His 'special' trees. Apparently, it takes the God to tell us what is unfortunate regarding them though. He must not offer the lil' ones candy to gain their trust.
This, I submit, is not a sign of more created lives. This is a sign of the uncreated and eternal life of God Himself.
The present opinion believes the Tree of Life represents the One that established everliving Life and the remnant that clings fast to His Love.
They, too, are the first fruits of a new creation when the Gospel is known. Man must partake of the Tree of Life to become a unified and more fulfilled creation. But, what can be fulfilled that does not first exist? Mankind must first partake of the former Tree, as well, to become a unified creation. The human species cannot unite with the Tree of Life without first partaking of the Tree of Knowledge.
We know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, symbolized within the Tree of Knowledge, we have a building from the God, an eternal house in heaven, symbolized within the Tree of Life, not built by human hands. Meanwhile many groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked like the Lovebirds. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by Life. Now it is the God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Therefore, the present opinion is always confident. It is known as long as we are carbon based, we are away from the God. This school of thought lives by faith; not by sight alone.
It is presented to man as food. Food must be taken in and digested and ingested and assimilated into the body.
Within Genesis, both Trees are presented as food to be taken in and ingested and assimilated into the body; unless we force bias.
The present opinion will attempt not to force bias, as the God did not present any additional bias regarding either tree; excluding the species well being. Supposing both trees are not to be considered 'good' is a direct impartation from the Truth. This is not meant to imply the that one tree does not contain 'bad' as well. The Tree of Knowledge obviously contains both; yet containing both does not cause one to shine brighter than the other. It must reasonably contain good and bad in equal portions.
The Beginning writes:
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Independence from the God provides contrast to His Love.
The God later declares additional properties associated with the Tree of Knowledge, and we can evidence it is both good and bad simply by identifying its name. Yet no one can say it was not good for food without first claiming their truth's is greater than the God's.
The picture here is that the highest created being - Human Being, was meant to take into his being the uncreated and eternal God as his content.
Also pictured here is the fact that no man will do such a thing without first partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
Now there is no way that we could know this just from reading Genesis. But by looking back from the entire Bible, ESPECIALLY the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, enthronement, and glorification of the GOD-MAN Jesus Christ and the New Jerusalem ( which is the climax of His salvation work) some of us ascertain what then is the meaning of tree of life.
God the uncreated, the Holy One, the Glorious One and Righteous One, desired from the beginning of creation - to unite, blend, be in union with, co-inhere, incorporate Himself into Human Being, into man.
That invisible transcendent source of all creation creates then a living VESSEL into which He can dispense Himself to mingle and blend and be made visible to all creation.
And jaywill provides more creatively valuable, and mostly agreeable incites.
In this post I confess that it is hard for me to prove that God told Adam of the significance of the tree of life. But I speak of that significance anyway.
Adam is told of the Tree of Life's signifigance; just not until after he begins to break out of his 'neutral' cocoon.
The God also provides a bias against deceitful murders.
At the climax of the Revelation of the Bible we see this:
"Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter into the gates of the city." (Rev. 14)
Enter into the city and partaking of the tree of life should mean to enter into this union of God and man. This is to enter into a "organic" mingling of the divine and the human that God and man are incorporated to be a blended entity of eternal life - God in man and man in God for man's enjoyment and God's expression for eternity.
Thassa lotta minglin' - lol. We see what a difficult time 'neutral man' had co-minglin' with the God. Perhaps to take from the Tree of Knowledge should mean to enter into a semester of education, so the co-minglin' can eventually take place. The God likely does not get the same satisfaction mingling with scarecrows as he does minglin' with people that know and detest unfulfilled Love.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2008 4:04 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 163 of 203 (491791)
12-21-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
12-18-2008 4:04 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hello Jaywill,
Sorry for this off topic post, but I'd like to call your attention to this thread I made, essentially continuing our discussion from the "anything divine in the bible" thread.
Here it is: http://EvC Forum: objective/subjective morals/conscience? -->EvC Forum: objective/subjective morals/conscience?
I'd love your input.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2008 4:04 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 164 of 203 (491852)
12-22-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
12-18-2008 4:04 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Thank you for the exchange Jaywill.
In this post I confess that it is hard for me to prove that God told Adam of the significance of the tree of life. But I speak of that significance anyway.
Adam is told of the Tree of Life's signifigance; just not until after he begins to break out of his 'neutral' cocoon.
The point of debate here is not to argue semantics; rather to remove an invalid opportunity for the serpent (religion) to accuse.
The conviction of guilt readily available towards the species in such an instance is simply not reasonable; or available. If mankind had a choice between the Two Trees, the species may, though hardly, be convicted by the serpent in such an instance. Yet, as we have proven together, such a dichotomy does not exist within the unmolested Words of the God. Any feeling of guilt or conviction within such an unevidenced dichotomy, appears contrived by man; not the Holy Spirit.
This is not to imply mankind should choose one Tree and not the other, or vise versa. Simply that the God intended for the man to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and then, respectively, the Tree of Life, consecutively in that order. Through Adam and the serpent, all are obligated to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. With this tree we have a choice to die, yet not a choice to dictate and experience our birth. Through Jesus and the Father, all may choose to partake of the Tree of Life. With this tree we have no choice to die, yet a choice to dictate and experience our birth.
The present opinion suggests the undertaking and completion of the God's reality depend upon both Trees being assimilated by the human species.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2008 4:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2008 7:45 PM Bailey has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 165 of 203 (491857)
12-22-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Bailey
12-22-2008 3:20 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Adam is told of the Tree of Life's signifigance; just not until after he begins to break out of his 'neutral' cocoon.
Baily, I don't see how you can have it both ways. Now if you want to be strict to what is written there and point out that we have nothing proving that Adam was told of the significance of the Tree of Life, then be consistent.
It is not explicitly written that he was told either before or after the expulsion from Eden. If you hold my feet to the fire and say there is no passage telling us that, then be consistent. Neither is there any passage telling us of an explanation after his expulsion.
If you speculate that he was told about it afterwards, I can with equal validity speculate that he was told beforehand.
The point of debate here is not to argue semantics; rather to remove an invalid opportunity for the serpent (religion) to accuse.
The conviction of guilt readily available towards the species in such an instance is simply not reasonable; or available. If mankind had a choice between the Two Trees, the species may, though hardly, be convicted by the serpent in such an instance. Yet, as we have proven together, such a dichotomy does not exist within the unmolested Words of the God. Any feeling of guilt or conviction within such an unevidenced dichotomy, appears contrived by man; not the Holy Spirit.
Life and Death are constrasted throughout the rest of the Bible.
There will remain a dichotomy until death, "the last enemy," is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).
This is not to imply mankind should choose one Tree and not the other, or vise versa. Simply that the God intended for the man to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and then, respectively,
God warned man not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are changing the content of the account.
It is one thing to speculate about something which is not mentioned. It is more serious to teach the opposite of what is plainly written.
What God spoke is what He intended. And that was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17)
God hates death more than He hates sin. I won't agree with any suggestion that God spoke for man not to eat but intended man to eat.
When Adam ate, God speaks again "Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen. 3:11)
Your exegesis of the passage is too wild for me. Though you thought through some things rather intently, still I find your treatment of the plain utterances to be wildly taking liberties.
In understanding the Bible it is very important to master the FACTS presented. You have to start interpreting after you are clear about the facts which are presented.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : Wrong Reference - Gen. 2:17 is right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Bailey, posted 12-22-2008 3:20 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Bailey, posted 12-23-2008 11:27 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024