Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poor Satan, so misunderstood.
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 301 (439300)
12-08-2007 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rrhain
12-08-2007 4:38 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the words, 'THENCE' and 'PARTED' here. The garden was parted [seperated from] the river; one was not on the physical earth realm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. You ignored your own text. The river parted into four. Those four rivers are here on earth. Therefore, the thing happens here on earth.
The river was parted [seperated] from Eden; it went 'out of Eden' [seperated from Eden], and became 4 heads 'after' this parting:
Gen. 2/10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Took man' [from where? - from the physical earth he was created in], and placed him in the [separated] garden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the earth he was created in WAS THE GARDEN. Therefore, the garden was on earth.
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
The garden is "east." Not in another dimension. Not in a spiritual realm. It's simply "east." It's here on earth.
East, and Easterly Wind, refers to something else in the OT, as with a strong easterly wind which split the sea of reeds: it denotes an unnatural act or event. That the garden of Eden is not on earth is signified by the putting of man there from where he was formed - namely from earth. It becomes grammatically unsustainable to say this means taking one from the same place and putting him in the same place, but not so that he was taken from the earth where he was formed, and placed elsewhere - namely in Paradise. Also, on earth there are no talking serpents, nor do angels bar man from anyplace on earth, as with eden [the texts]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE.
Exactly, and 'to find him a wife' means Eve was not yet seperated from Adam, and yet played no character role in the scene at this time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The OT is contextual, not chronological].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The story of Genesis 2 is chronological. Adam is created. God notices that Adam is alone. God creates animals in an attempt to find a wife for him. None of the animals are suitable, therefore god creates Eve.
One of the rules of understanding the OT is it is not chronological but contextual. This does not mean things are not listed in their chronological order, as with Genesis 1/1, but that the context transcends. Here, extensions of the first chapter is in ch 2 or even elsewhere, where it is placed for its other contextual aspect. There are also rules which govern allignments of texts to each other, when they appear in different places.
While in ch 1 the generic created life forms are listed, chronologicslly and contextual to this created chronology, this chapter does not expound that the animals predated Eve's seperation from Adam; this is explained in ch 2, where we find that Adam confronts the animals and names them - while Eve is yet not emergent. Eve is seperated 'after' Adam and the animals scene.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but w/o any contradictions with the conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.
Your evidence?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
their chronological emergence in the six cosmic days [not earth-calendar 24 hour days].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The days in Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. That's what "evening and morning" means: A literal, 24-hour day.
The sun's luminosity did not appear till the 4th cosmic day: so how can you allocate hours to the first three days? You will find that the OT calendar does NOT include the creational days, and Israel is specifically told when the first day of the first month will begin, observed as the first NY - namely after the creation days. That the days and nights you refer to are not 24-hour days is also supported in the psalms of David ['A 1000 years are but a day to YOU/God']. The OT calendar is regarded the world's most accurate and exacting, with no errors or contradictions in all its 1000s of dates and dob and dod's; the inclusion of ch 1 as 24 hour historical days will corrupt this calendar.
quote:
You're right that Genesis 1 and 2 don't make any sense when placed next to each other. That's because they're separate, distinct creation stories from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text. For an even clearer and more startling example of this hatchet job of an editing, see the story of Noah. Two stories of a flood are told in parallel. That is why Noah does things like enter the ark twice, the fact that the animals come in both "twos" and "sevens," that the ark comes to rest twice, etc.
There is hatchet job. Everything in ch 1 and 2 are perfectly alligned. This debate has been well handled generations ago with scholars. There is no two creation stories. Ch 2 pointedly begins with 'AND' - signifying a continueing narrative.
See also, 'AND' which is the first word also of Exodus, and a response to the last statement in the previous chapter, namely of Pharoah's decree to kill the first born hebrew male children. This is followed by the appropriate responsa, namely the arrival of Moses from his parent's marraige and his birth: 'And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi'. The 'AND' is a contnuation of the previous statement and narrative, in the two chapters. The same applies with gen 1 & 2.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, nor does the messiah need resurrecting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.
The messiah is to be a man - an ordinary one, subject to all man's traits, same as with Moses, also a messiah of his generation. The criteria for a Messiah ID is listed copiously in Isaiah, whereby all factors must be evident. I agree this has not happened according to the OT rendition, while the NT demands a totally different premise.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2007 4:38 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2007 7:02 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 62 of 301 (439315)
12-08-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rrhain
12-08-2007 4:38 AM


A progressive revelation
No, it doesn't. For precisely the reason that the serpent was nothing more than an animal, no connection to god, not supernatural, not the devil.
There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism.
You say that because you don't believe that the divine revelation of God includes the books of the New Testament. The New Testament tells us that the ancient serpent is the Devil and Satan. I believe this.
So we agree to part ways on this matter.
However, you go on to say that the serpent was nothing more than an animal. But it talked with the woman.
Something is up with a talking serpent, don't you think? But even more noticable are the things which it SAYS.
It implies that God does not have the couple's best interest at heart. That is advasarial. That is devilish. Or do you think it is quite okay for the talking animal to place doubts about the motives of God's heart into the woman?
The talking animal also lies. They would die as God told them they would. The talking animals lies and says that they will not surely die. That is also advasarial to God, challenging His authority and it is devilish. Surely you don't think it is quite alright to accuse God of lying?
The talking animal of yours also seems to have the inside story. He does know something extraordinary for a mere snake, don't you think. I mean the part about their eyes being opened was true. Their eyes were indeed opened when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Explain to us HOW this animal KNEW this. Now be reasonable. Man was given dominion over all the other creatures, right? Then what is up with one of the creatures having the "inside story" on God's ways that even MAN does not have?
Where did the animal get this information? It turned out to be true.
My answer is that behind this serpent is Satan and he had much previous experience. In the long pre-Adamic ages of the universe he had PREVIOUS experience. The indication of the supernatural is indeed there. It is only in SEED form. It is further developed in OTHER books of the Bible.
After all the very name of the book "Genesis" implies things in thier initial stage. All the initial seeds of truth in "Genesis" are further developed in other books of this revelation from God to man. And those INCLUDE His special relationship with Israel, a relationship to them as a chosen people which I do not deny.
See, there you go trying to force a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text. The serpent mentioned in Revelation is not the same character as the one mentioned in Genesis.
As I have said above, here we just part ways. The revelation of God to me includes Matthew to Revelation as well as Genesis to Malachi. You reject this. I understand that. But I will continue to stand upon what God tells us about the serpent in other books of the Bible.
And incidently, we needn't really go to the New Testament to gather some facts about supernatural rebellion against God. You say that the Devil is non-existent in the Hebrew Bible?
Well, in Ezekiel (not the New Testament) we have a prophecy about a being created perfect from the day he was made:
"You were on the anointed cherub who covered [the Ark]; indeed I (God) set you, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
YOU WERE PERFECT IN YOUR WAYS FROM THE DAY YOU WERE CREATED (my emphasis), UNTIL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS WAS FOUND IN YOU.... So I cast you out as profane from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O COVERING CHERUB, from the midst of the stones of fire. " (Ezek. 28:14-16)
What man was "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created? Maybe Adam in some sense. But who since then? What mortal qualifies to be discribed as perfect in his ways from the day he was created? King David wrote:
" Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
So what mortal was perfect in his ways from the day he was created? The Gentile Prince of Tyre ? I don't think so. Was a Gentile Prince ever the anointed cherub and compared to the glorious beings which covered the propitiatory cover of the Ark of the Covenant? Would God use such a glorious symbol for a Gentile official of Tyre?
I believe that the prophecy is of the "prophetic past" and speaks really not of a mortal but of a supernatural being. The ancient Day Star (Lucifer in Latin) who became Satan the Devil is the best candidate. And this is not a New Testament passage.
1.) The Prince or King of Tyre was not in Eden in Genesis as far as we are told.
2.) The Eden must be a pre-Adamic Eden (some paradise situation other than and probably before the Genesis Eden.
3.) The walking in the midst of the stones of fire reveals closeness to God. This description may be of the precious stones with the glory of God like a burning fire seen by Moses, Aaron, and many others in Exodus 24:10 and 17.
4.) The mountain of God from which the anointed cherub was cast should indicate something of the government of God.
We also have the Old Testament passage of the Day Star in Isaiah 14.
"How you have fallen from heaven O Daystar, son of the dawn!"
I believe that this is also is a reference to the prophetic past. The dawn refers to the early ages of the creation of the universe. That is before the earth became waste and void in Genesis 1:2.
This Daystar does have a throne, so he is some kind of high official. But he seeks to exalt his throne above the throne of God. He seeks to be like the Most High. He is obviosly an ADVASARY against God in God's own realm.
"But you, you said in your heart; I [the Daystar - Lucifer] will ascend to heaven; Above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly in the uttermost parts of the north. I will ascend above the heights ofthe clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. "
The best candidate for this prophecy is a supernatural being.
So a full biography of Satan is not given in Genesis. We have to wait for latter books to reveal to us more about his past and his motives.
There are many things in Genesis which are disclosed in their elementary aspects. The Sabbath, the priesthood, and the offerings are not exhaustively elaborated on in early Genesis. We wait for subsequent books to fill in more details. So why should the Devil not be treated in a similar manner in Genesis?
This enemy of God is progressively made more and more naked as the Bible continues other books. And in the New Testament he is exposed to all the light. Just because we get a partial glimmer of him as the serpent in Genesis gives you no ground to say "Oh, there is no Devil and no Satan in the Hebrew Bible."
I'll have to stop this post here.
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 60 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2007 4:38 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by IamJoseph, posted 12-08-2007 9:03 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2007 8:02 PM jaywill has replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 301 (439341)
12-08-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jaywill
12-07-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Alive but not well
You did a lot of Bible thumping here but the question I would ask is, why would God create a Satan at one point in time just to kill it at another?
A rather useless exercise.
If we have evil among us then God is the creator of this evil.
If all of His works are Perfect as scripture indicates then this evil is also Perfect. Why destroy it. If we did then the tree of knowledge is also destroyed. God has declared this tree to be good.
How ignorant do you want us to be? How many of God's Perfect works should we discard as useless?
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jaywill, posted 12-07-2007 3:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 12-08-2007 3:36 PM Greatest I am has not replied

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 64 of 301 (439346)
12-08-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
12-08-2007 3:46 AM


Re: Satan is good.
I would suggest that most people do not understand religion.
To think that any one religion is the holder of the one true God is foolish.
God is a God of inclusion, not exclusion.
When He creates souls, He plans to save all of His Perfect works, not just a select few.
Those who believe that their religion is --the one--, are due for a rude awakening.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2007 3:46 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 65 of 301 (439384)
12-08-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Greatest I am
12-08-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Alive but not well
You did a lot of Bible thumping
I consider that disrespectful. Rephrase your question and I'll respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Greatest I am, posted 12-08-2007 10:47 AM Greatest I am has not replied

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


Message 66 of 301 (439388)
12-08-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
12-08-2007 4:23 AM


Yes. That's how I know that Jesus isn't the Messiah. He fulfills none of the prophecies of the Messiah clearly delineated in the Jewish texts.
For one thing, the Messiah doesn't die. Jesus died. Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.
Or are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
You have not seen the significance of all those sacrifices of blood? You have no insight into the propitiatory offerings.
You don't see the consecration offering and it significance. You fail to realise the peace offering and its significance. The sin offering and the trepass offering, as to their true meaning, you don't see.
You better run with Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. When the Messiah comes will He surpass Jesus Christ? In deeds? In words? In absoluteness for the will of His Father? In sinlessness? in purity? In glory?
There is no one either in the rest of the Bible or in human history up to this moment, who can compare with Jesus Christ. No one comes close.
Jesus of Nazareth occupies a class of human beings of which there is only ONE member. I think you should reconsider and speak more with some of your kinsmen Jews who have come to believe in Yeshua the Messiah.
I do not at this time have time to consider some of the prophecies which reveal His death and resurrection. But I would say that He can be trusted when He Himself expounds that His death and rising on the third day was told in the Scriptures.
I know Jews who would fervently disagree with you that Jesus is not the Messiah. Don't think things could not change for the Jews.
The Berlin Wall can come down. The Soviet Union can disperse. And Israel can turn to Jesus as the Messiah. Don't think it cannot happen.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2007 4:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2007 8:14 PM jaywill has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 67 of 301 (439459)
12-08-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jaywill
12-08-2007 8:41 AM


Re: A progressive revelation
quote:
You say that because you don't believe that the divine revelation of God includes the books of the New Testament. The New Testament tells us that the ancient serpent is the Devil and Satan. I believe this.
The NT should also stand on its own vindication, while the OT understanding does not depend on this. The statement the serpent is only related to another animal is incorrect not by virtue of the NT, but on the veracity of its own writings.
It is clear animals do not talk and walk on this planet. Thus the text says they were removed to a enigmatic realm, then cast down to this realm again, which realm was then barred by angels swirling firey swords. If the text is deliberated, the NT is not required here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jaywill, posted 12-08-2007 8:41 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2007 6:31 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 68 of 301 (439562)
12-09-2007 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by IamJoseph
12-08-2007 9:03 PM


Re: A progressive revelation
The NT should also stand on its own vindication, while the OT understanding does not depend on this. The statement the serpent is only related to another animal is incorrect not by virtue of the NT, but on the veracity of its own writings.
It is clear animals do not talk and walk on this planet. Thus the text says they were removed to a enigmatic realm, then cast down to this realm again, which realm was then barred by angels swirling firey swords. If the text is deliberated, the NT is not required here.
I'm sorry. But I don't quite follow what you mean here.
I understand that for centries readers of Genesis did not derive quite all the things which the New Testament in Romans or Revelation derive from Genesis. Nor were they responsible for that wisdom before God. For centries the significances which New Testament believers elaborate upon on this side of the death and resurrecion of Christ, were not known to those ancient readers. Nor did God hold them responsible for wisdom not applicable to that dispensation of His salvific work.
The living Spirit of God still used what understanding they did have to edify them within a certain realm. They saw something of the ways of God in the account. They saw something of importance of obeying God's commandments in the account. They saw something of the origin of humans in the account. And for these things God held them accountable. He did not hold them accountable for revelation which had not yet been revealed to them.
They had insight from the Spirit of God appropriate to that stage of God's progressive revelation and outworking of His salvific operation.
Now we come to the times after the incarnation, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The living Spirit of God Who is responsobile for the writing of the accountm shines more light upon the significance of the story. And men of God, utterly consecrated to God, receive this light.
Then this deeper wisdom from the Holy Spirit is appropriate to God's people in this further dispensation. It does no harm to earlier interpretations. It only extends and deepens God's people's insight into His heart and His ways.
There is yet more light and more truth to break forth from the word of God. He is a living God and He is eternal. The depth of truth in the Bible is unfathomable. It is exhaustless. The Spirit of God can illuminate deeper layers of meaning in the Genesis story.
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is of tremendouns importance. It is not some trivial matter. His conquering Satan is not a trivial matter. No man was so free from self interest and so absolute for the will of God as to allow the devil no ground, no foothold, no advantage to stir him away from God's will:
"I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and in Me he has nothing.
But this is so taht the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father commanded Me, so I do. " (John 14:30,31)
The ruler of the world is the Devil and Satan. He had a foothold in the hearts of many people before this time. Now it is testified that in the Son of God Satan had no hold, no advantage. In Christ the Devil had nothing. The ancient serpent was totally under His feet. And Christ undoes Satan's work through His death and resurrection.
With this new victory the Holy Spirit now illuminates deeper truths in the Genesis account which previous generations may have neither seen nor were they responsible TO see.
This deeper wisdom does not harm to previous wisdom from God. It does not contradict previous wisdom from God. It is however more appropriate to this latter dispensation of the outworking of His world wide salvation.
So, some of us disciples of Jesus, expound the Genesis in a new way. And the Bible tells us now, that serpent was the Devil and Satan who deceives the whole inhabited earth. And Christ the seed of the woman, the virgin born Savior of the world crushed his head on the cross and had His own heel bruised in that crucifixion, in His great love for us.
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 67 by IamJoseph, posted 12-08-2007 9:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 12-09-2007 7:44 PM jaywill has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 69 of 301 (439686)
12-09-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jaywill
12-09-2007 6:31 AM


Re: A progressive revelation
There is only one antidote for bad/evil/satan/devil/etc - or what is percieved of this. It is the law. Faith and belief do not perform the same trick, nor the joining/belonging in any particular religious group or ideology - unless one has no means of observing the law, and is restricted by some factor - then prayers/mercy become applicable.
That only freedom and free will becomes required as the precedent, and thereafter the law kicks in, is seen in the freedom of slaves in Egypt, followed by the giving of the Law at Sinai.
It is a fundamental error to assume the law of Sinai does not foster the highest form of love, and is usually termed fire and brimstone - eronously. The requirement of love is nowhere better displayed and illustrated than in the OT. Love must have two precedent factors before it, as seen in the listings of the 10 commandments: HONESTY [not to take the name in vain refers to honesty]; and RESPECT [honor thy parents/the hoary/the wise, etc]. For what is love w/o honesty and respect as its foundation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2007 6:31 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2007 10:20 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 70 of 301 (439710)
12-09-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by IamJoseph
12-09-2007 7:44 PM


A God-man verses a Good-man
There is only one antidote for bad/evil/satan/devil/etc - or what is percieved of this. It is the law. Faith and belief do not perform the same trick, nor the joining/belonging in any particular religious group or ideology - unless one has no means of observing the law, and is restricted by some factor - then prayers/mercy become applicable.
The dichotomy in Genesis is not between GOOD and EVIL. Good and evil are on the same tree. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is not the tree of the knowledge of evil.
The contrast in Genesis is not with a tree of knowlegdge of good verses a tree of the knowledge of evil. Both the knowledge of good and evil are on the same tree which will bring man into death.
The contrast is between the knowledge of good and evil and the divine life of God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil are opposed to the tree of life.
This means that not only man's evil opposes God. Even man's good can ALSO be in rebellion and opposition to God.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually a tree of death. So we may say the real contrast is between life and death. Put another way, the contrast is between independence from God the source of life, leading man into death, and dependence upon God becoming one with God as a son sharing His life and nature.
God's way was to impart His life into man. God's way was to take the good man that He created and join him to Himself in a union of the divine with the human; a mingling of the Creator with the creature; a blending of the uncreated with the created; a "organic" oneness of God and man.
The tree of life represented a life union in which the divine nature is imparted into man. What does this man of life look like? How can we tell what a man of the tree of life would look like? The answer is that we have to look at the God-man Jesus Christ. He is the universal incorporation of the Divine and the human. God wanted a God-man. From the very beginning of man's existence God wanted a man united, blended, with the divine life which is God Himself.
What did happen? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is "the other way". It does not really matter what it is called. It was the way not prescribed by God. It was the way warned against by God. It was the way NOT of God's choosing. It was the way leading to death.
God's way leads to eternal life. The OTHER way, no matter how attractively named, no matter how nobely packaged, no matter how appealing, desireable, or compelling - leads away from God as life. This tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought man into a union with Satan - pure and simple.
Now we can talk about the law.
Man has now become infested with Satan. Man is in a union with the enemy of God. Man thinks that this is a minor problem that he (man) can fix up. Man does not realize the depths to which he has fallen away from God. But man thinks he can solve the problem with his good.
In order for God to impress upon man the degree to which man has been corrupted God gives man His Law. God says "Oh, you think that you are alright. You think that it is a minor mishap and that you can still meet my eternal purpose for you. Here then is My Law. Keep this Law."
The law is like the medicine which taken in causes the cancer within to be visible. The Law of God exposes the depths of man's pollution and corruption. Man has been joined to Satan. And the Law of God exposes that man is incurable and only good for condemnation.
Please meditate on just this much. Reply if there is something you wish to reply to. Then I will continue.
It is the tree of life in the middle of the garden verses the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps, this was a contest between God and the Devil similar to the book of Job. Perhaps the name "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was the name that Satan gave to it.
Just as God and Satan had a contest over the man Job, there was a contest over Adam and Eve. There was a triangular situation with God at one point Satan at another point and Adam in the middle, neutral, ready to turn one way or the other according to his free will.
God's way was to dispense His life into Adam to make Adam a God-man. The OTHER way was of Satan, to be independent, to withdraw from God. To rebel against God under a exceedingly attractive name which was partially true.
Now man had the knowledge of good and evil. But he had not the power to perform the good. Nor did he have the power to resist the evil. Man was Satanified.
The salvation unvieled in the Bible is the redemption and deification of man's being through Christ the Son of God, the divine life.
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 69 by IamJoseph, posted 12-09-2007 7:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 12-10-2007 3:03 AM jaywill has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 71 of 301 (439725)
12-10-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by jaywill
12-09-2007 10:20 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
quote:
The contrast is between the knowledge of good and evil and the divine life of God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil are opposed to the tree of life.
I think this makes a lot of sense, specially with the wording in the texts. Also, this alligns with the duality factor, which is seen pervasively in Genesis [heaven/earth, light/darkness, day/night, male/female]. Basically, there is no 'ONE' [singularity] in the universe; thus the Creator is only declared as ONE - the singularity is unique and transcendent.
I think this duality represents the choice factor, pervasive in all places and levels, of two alligned and counter-parts of each other, and the hovering conrol factor is the ONE. This also represents an intergration, which when cosidered well, negates any form of randomity. Here, even religions and belief systems have to be alligned yet counter-parts; this causes commonality and division; both are requited for the subsistance of all things, and a religion cannot survive w/o this counter aspect from the status quo, or that no other religion equals it. So the tree of knowledge represents this duality.
quote:
What did happen? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is "the OTHER way". It does not really matter what it is called. It was the way not prescribed by God. It was the way warned against by God. It was the way NOT of God's choosing. It was the way leading to death.
This becomes very complex, yet its answer can be simple. The first factor in the preamble is that nothing whatsover escapses God's knowledge or sanction to exist. Freedom of choice is bestowed and it is limited [probably for our own protection, increasing as we develop], and it can only subsist where there is an opposing factor, which brings us to the 'laws', or where a moral/ethical decision has to be made. There is no freedom of choice outside this premise, and the reason other life forms do not have it - they cannot sin because they make no moral/ethical decisions.
The next factor is what is percieved as bad to us, may be not bad from a higher POV, and what we thought was good may likewise not be so. The serpent represents the counter negative opposing force, and impacts everything we do, on all levels. No doubt we may feel and experience suffering in the instant of this impact, but IMHO, it does not represent a counter force to the Creator, but a force deliberately created to serve a purpose: it is a counter to the other force [positive/negative]. Sometimes, peoples and nations undergo exile and persecution - yet 1000s of years later, it becomes the only thing which saved them, and all in that region not exiled become lesser for it, if not non-existent anymore. Thus, judgement is of the Lord, as the saying goes.
Another example is, a saturated sinner may be better than a very devout soul: who knows the awesome impact the sinner was placed in, while the devout one may not have been subject to overwhelimg temptation: here, the sinner can come up trumps - because on one occassion he helped a prositute for no self motive or reward, and expended a great deal in this regard - rendering this act greater than the whole life of the devout. We are not privy to the big picture.
quote:
The law is like the medicine which taken in causes the cancer within to be visible. The Law of God exposes the depths of man's pollution and corruption. Man has been joined to Satan. And the Law of God exposes that man is incurable and only good for condemnation.
Please meditate on just this much. Reply if there is something you wish to reply to. Then I will continue.
There is no freedom w/o the law, because freedom comes from, and is protected by the law. I don't think man is incurable: despite all the bad seen, there is progress and elevation - but the bad is more noticeable. Also, it is not the act of performing a bad which is the critical factor; it is only how we act after the bad - else mercy, forgiveness, etc has no meaning. Everyone has to and will sin - it does not mean everyone is bad and to be foresaken. We see this in the adam/eve story; there is a blessing hidden in the punishments listed: humans were still made the dominant and pivotal factor of creation, and thus responsibility was also attached. We have to judge humanity accumutively, not individually only. I don't thing man is incurable, even if he remains incurable and keeps ever failing: he was obviously not made to be perfect, and given new, testing situations all the time. an was born and inherited certain dispositions, and will be judged according to those factors. In 99% of the cases, man is innocent when probed deeper: we never chose to be here.
quote:
God's way was to impart His life into man. God's way was to take the good man that He created and join him to Himself in a union of the divine with the human; a mingling of the Creator with the creature; a blending of the uncreated with the created; a "organic" oneness of God and man.
These are particularised and preferred beliefs; and the result is that everyone is subject the the law, no matter which belief system they are attached to. A bad christian is not better than a good hindhu; etc. This comes into another topic, and maybe we need a thread asking: THE MESSAGE - OR THE MESSENGER?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2007 10:20 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 9:04 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 73 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 12:23 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 72 of 301 (439750)
12-10-2007 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by IamJoseph
12-10-2007 3:03 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
These are particularised and preferred beliefs; and the result is that everyone is subject the the law, no matter which belief system they are attached to. A bad christian is not better than a good hindhu; etc. This comes into another topic, and maybe we need a thread asking: THE MESSAGE - OR THE MESSENGER?
Why is the law of God not mentioned in Genesis?
Why did God not spend considerable time to teach Adam how to obey the law of God?
Why was there not a contrast between the forbidden tree and the law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 12-10-2007 3:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 12-11-2007 7:21 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 73 of 301 (439790)
12-10-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by IamJoseph
12-10-2007 3:03 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
I don't think man is incurable:
If you are speaking of God Himself curing the man through His salvation, I agree.
If you are talking about man himself being able to cure the condition of his heart according to God's (not man's) standard, I cannot agree.
We need the salvation of a new birth and a new heart because
God has declared:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is incurable; Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart and test the inward parts, ..." (Jeremiah 17:9,10a)
Did you see that? God declares the human heart "incurable".
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 12-10-2007 3:03 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 1:14 PM jaywill has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 301 (439794)
12-10-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jaywill
12-10-2007 12:23 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
jaywill writes:
God declares the human heart "incurable".
Mm hmm.... Now, what was the topic? "Poor Satan, so misunderstood."
Interesting that your own quote (with a little extra context) doesn't mention Satan at all:
quote:
Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Jer 17:11 As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.
Notice verse 10: "I try the reins", not some character called "Satan".
(And isn't verse 11 reminiscent of Job, reminding us that what we have is not our own?)

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 12:23 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 3:42 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 75 of 301 (439824)
12-10-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
12-10-2007 1:14 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
Ringo writes:
Mm hmm.... Now, what was the topic? "Poor Satan, so misunderstood."
Interesting that your own quote (with a little extra context) doesn't mention Satan at all:
Since Ringo wants to ignore that the Bible is one revelation Ringo is ignorant of the fact that it is Satan operating in man that has made him corrupt:
" ... you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all conducted ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh , doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath ..." (Eph. 2:3)
The RULER of the authority of the air is an evil spirit, the devil who is "operating IN the sons of disobedience". Satan is the evil spirit and ruler operating in fallen man.
Of course Ringo is likely to want to separate the New Testament away frm the Old Testament as far as possible. He is likely to chime in "Oh that has NOTHING to do with Genesis."
sigh ... Regardless of this bogus and illegitimate excuse, even the Solomon in the Old Testament speaking by the Spirit of God tells us virtually the same thing as what Jeremiah wrote about the heart of man:
"Surely there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and does not sin." (Eccl. 7:13)
The assessment of the wise man Solomon is that no one does good and does not sin.
"Then I saw all labor and all skill in work, that it is man's jealousy for his neighbor. This also is vanity and chasing the wind." (Ecc. 4:4)
Here again is not the New Testament speaking. But the Old Testament telling us that everyone covets, is jealous of his neighber and therefore has broken the 10th commandment of God - "You shall not covet."
Then Solomon tell us that man was not created this way, but somehow has sought out deceitful ways:
"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecc. 7:29)
Of course now. God created man and pronounced that everything He made was "very good" (Gen.1:31). Things went wrong from the time Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The man made upright then became deceitful and sought out many schemes. Just because Ringo doesn't WANT to listen to the New Testament prophets that it is the evil spirit operating in man, doesn't make it not relevant or not true.
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, : Evil spirit not Spirit and other dreadful typos.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 1:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 5:31 PM 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