God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

[Greatest I am]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.
Funny you should mention that, since I just posted the same thing (http://www.facebook.com/richard.a.mcgough/posts/303649809726967) five minutes ago in a Facebook conversation. The conversation went like this:

Richard Amiel McGough
I have no problem with the idea of "justification by faith" but rather the way that "faith" is linked to believing dogmas about the sacrifice of Christ, and worse, the idea that an angry God needed to be "propitiated" before he could forgive. I can forgive every day without killing a sacrificial victim. Am I greater than God? It seems to be a primitive concept of morality where the scales had to be balanced. Someone had to pay for the crime. I find that concept unbelievable.

Gerald Peter Wensveen
Richard, you said, "Someone had to pay for the crime. I find that concept unbelievable." Why? Everyday in courthouses people are paying for the crimes they committed. "If you do the crime you pay the fine or do the time. What is so unbelievable or inappropriate about that? Richard, if somone murders your wife in cold blood would you just instantaneously forgive the murderer and tell the judge to let the murderer of your wife go scott free? Ofcourse not. So what's to beef about when Christ paid our fine and did our time so that we could be forgiven and go free?

Richard Amiel McGough
Gerald, your question backfires on the Gospel. Christians don't have to pay for the crimes they commit. They merely repent and they are forgiven. If a man raped your wife and said he was sorry, would you just let him off? But is that not what God does? The Gospel therefore appears to contradict the idea of justice.

I love synchronicity.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related)

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God's first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL
Great videos DL!

I agree with everything you wrote. The third video is particularly enlightening because it shows that there is no logical, philosophical, theological, or moral justification for the idea that someone had to be tortured to death in order for God to forgive sin.

:thumb:

[MELCHEZEDIC]

The plan of God for man, is seriously misunderstood. The issue's surrounding the redemptive process, and the purpose behind the issue's are about to be made abundantly clear. The promise of the Father is, that in the end the work and will of God would be so plain, that a fool shall not error.That we would plainly see them who did the will of God, and them who did not. The very notion that a loving and caring God, would not at some time make his purpose's and plans openly and completely understood, only goes to show the lack of faith currently present in the last days housholds of faith. The love of many will have become cold, that there would be a great falling away from the faith, and that there would be a great deception. Any premise related to God must first begin with the fact that he is the Elohim of all eternity, the all knowing God. This is to say, that he has always known the beginning from the end, and the end from the beginning. This is true in the garden of Eden, the creation of the Angelic beings who are the host in heaven, and eveyrthing that would happen as a result of all that he has ever created. There is literally nothing that God did know would take place and has intended it to be as it is, from the beginning to the end. Much of what many of you believe to be rediculous, or hard to understand, is just the cover to keep unregenerated man from entering back into the garden. Weather you agree with it or not, the God of heaven and earth has the right to do whatever it is he deems to be of importance to achieve his purposes. He's got no one to explain anything to. Fortunately for us, God is love and spirit.
Before we start at the beginning of the creation, and the story we have been told concerning that creation, I want to make it clear from the start, that I am but one of the many stones that are about to appear, to draw you back to God, and to gather his wheat into his barn / banquet hall / ark. Since many of you seem to be big on using your skills of reason and intellectual insight, let us all come together, to reason with each other. Does it seem reasonable to you, that an all knowing God, would not have known what lucifers reaction to playing second fiddle to man, after man had been placed above the Angels in heaven, which has been God's plan for man from the beginning, and the reason for lucifers rebellion. For a little while, have I created you to be beneath the Angels in heaven, but in the end, you shall rule over the Angels in heaven. This is Gods promise to man. The men and women he choose's among us, to hold this position is ofcourse his right to decide. That at some point in the very near future that what he has said will come to be, is of a truth. The idea that God who created lucifer, and all of the Angelic beings in heaven, would not know what the creation of free will would cause, in man and in the host of heaven, is to me very short sighted for a all knowing God. This being what it must be, let us go on to begin to understand the truth concerning the work and will of God, creation and man. In case some of you are having a hard time keeping up, let me explain that prior to the creation of free will, which was God's answer to lucifers accusation before the throne of God. If the Angels were not created to bid his every word, they would not serve him willingly. Being the highest ranked Angel in heaven at the time of the creation of man, lucifer was made aware of Gods plan to place man over the rule of the Angels in heaven. This would of course include him. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you, that Angels who were previously ruled by the bidding of God, all of a sudden rebelled. Where did the ability to chose come from ?. They who had no choice, now seemingly have a choice. What you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. God is the creator of all things, he created evil and good, night and day, the sun, the moon and the stars. Nothing has been created that God did not create.
The righteousness of God, demanded that he allow all his creation to choose the way they would go, knowing ahead of time, all that would take place as a result. It has all, always been his plan from the beginning. Free will was created for the purpose of revealing what was in the heart of all of his created beings. As the highest ranked Angel in heaven, who above all other Angels, was Gods right hand man, the idea of God creating man to rule over him, was more then he could take. His pride brought him down, as it does for many of us. Pride cometh before a FALL. God knew what lucifer would do, he made his plan depending on his foreknowledge of exactly what lucifer would do. Just as he knows that not all men shall be saved, he also knew that there would be Angels in heaven who would willing serve him. We Will continue later if you so chose. There seems to be a limit to my post, what ever the problem is, what you have been given so far, should give you a bit to chew on for awhile.

[David M]

The plan of God for man, is seriously misunderstood. The issue's surrounding the redemptive process, and the purpose behind the issue's are about to be made abundantly clear. The promise of the Father is, that in the end the work and will of God would be so plain, that a fool shall not error.That we would plainly see them who did the will of God, and them who did not. The very notion that a loving and caring God, would not at some time make his purpose's and plans openly and completely understood, only goes to show the lack of faith currently present in the last days housholds of faith. The love of many will have become cold, that there would be a great falling away from the faith, and that there would be a great deception. Any premise related to God must first begin with the fact that he is the Elohim of all eternity, the all knowing God. This is to say, that he has always known the beginning from the end, and the end from the beginning. This is true in the garden of Eden, the creation of the Angelic beings who are the host in heaven, and eveyrthing that would happen as a result of all that he has ever created. There is literally nothing that God did know would take place and has intended it to be as it is, from the beginning to the end. Much of what many of you believe to be rediculous, or hard to understand, is just the cover to keep unregenerated man from entering back into the garden. Weather you agree with it or not, the God of heaven and earth has the right to do whatever it is he deems to be of importance to achieve his purposes. He's got no one to explain anything to. Fortunately for us, God is love and spirit.
Before we start at the beginning of the creation, and the story we have been told concerning that creation, I want to make it clear from the start, that I am but one of the many stones that are about to appear, to draw you back to God, and to gather his wheat into his barn / banquet hall / ark. Since many of you seem to be big on using your skills of reason and intellectual insight, let us all come together, to reason with each other. Does it seem reasonable to you, that an all knowing God, would not have known what lucifers reaction to playing second fiddle to man, after man had been placed above the Angels in heaven, which has been God's plan for man from the beginning, and the reason for lucifers rebellion. For a little while, have I created you to be beneath the Angels in heaven, but in the end, you shall rule over the Angels in heaven. This is Gods promise to man. The men and women he choose's among us, to hold this position is ofcourse his right to decide. That at some point in the very near future that what he has said will come to be, is of a truth. The idea that God who created lucifer, and all of the Angelic beings in heaven, would not know what the creation of free will would cause, in man and in the host of heaven, is to me very short sighted for a all knowing God. This being what it must be, let us go on to begin to understand the truth concerning the work and will of God, creation and man. In case some of you are having a hard time keeping up, let me explain that prior to the creation of free will, which was God's answer to lucifers accusation before the throne of God. If the Angels were not created to bid his every word, they would not serve him willingly. Being the highest ranked Angel in heaven at the time of the creation of man, lucifer was made aware of Gods plan to place man over the rule of the Angels in heaven. This would of course include him. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you, that Angels who were previously ruled by the bidding of God, all of a sudden rebelled. Where did the ability to chose come from ?. They who had no choice, now seemingly have a choice. What you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. God is the creator of all things, he created evil and good, night and day, the sun, the moon and the stars. Nothing has been created that God did not create.
The righteousness of God, demanded that he allow all his creation to choose the way they would go, knowing ahead of time, all that would take place as a result. It has all, always been his plan from the beginning. Free will was created for the purpose of revealing what was in the heart of all of his created beings. As the highest ranked Angel in heaven, who above all other Angels, was Gods right hand man, the idea of God creating man to rule over him, was more then he could take. His pride brought him down, as it does for many of us. Pride cometh before a FALL. God knew what lucifer would do, he made his plan depending on his foreknowledge of exactly what lucifer would do. Just as he knows that not all men shall be saved, he also knew that there would be Angels in heaven who would willing serve him. We Will continue later if you so chose. There seems to be a limit to my post, what ever the problem is, what you have been given so far, should give you a bit to chew on for awhile.

Hello MELCHEZEDIC

Just one tip; please break up your text into smaller paragraphs and introduce more spaces. This makes reading long posts easier and to reply to. I see this is your first post to the forum, and so let me be the first to say;welcome to the forum.

I agree with your opening statement, but I disagree with your references to Lucifer as highlighted in red above and what else you attribute to Lucifer as a fallen Angel. Where did you come by your doctrine?

Lucifer is only ever mentioned once by name in the Bible;
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In the context of verse 4 of the same chapter;That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon,

Your assumption that Lucifer is a (fallen) Angel of God is wrong. The name of Lucifer might have other pagan associations but in the context of the chapter, Lucifer is identified as the King of Babylon.

You will gather from other threads in which I have posted replies, Satan as a fallen Angel of God is an un-scriptural doctrine, which I expose as such, whenever I find Satan used in the context of a fallen Angel. Angels do the will of God. It is therefore a paradox that has to be explained by you if you say that God's Angels can sin. God's Angels should not be confused with "angels" as in Jude 6 in which the word "angel" applies to men and women. Angels and can be priests, ministers, apostles and anyone who carries God's message as a messenger which is what the word angel means.

Jesus was born a man, he was not God. God gave Jesus full access to His power (the Holy Spirit). Jesus was of flesh and blood, he did not have an incorruptible (spirit body) that the Angels had. In this way, we can see that Jesus did not have the same nature as Angels until after he was resurrected. Jesus was raised to life at the resurrection and given an incorruptible body that can never die. Jesus has now been elevated in status to that which is higher than the Angels and the same body that Jesus has now will be given to those who are raised from the dead and judged worthy to be with Christ in the Kingdom.

It is not in the nature of Angels to rebel. You are placing on Angels human attributes. Jesus said that God's will is done in Heaven. We can conclude that God's Angels do His will in Heaven. Angels are sent from Heaven to do His will. You must alter your line of thinking concerning God's Angels to avoid creating this paradox. I accept the teaching of God and His only begotten Son and not men.

All the best,

David

[Greatest I am]

Great videos DL!

I agree with everything you wrote. The third video is particularly enlightening because it shows that there is no logical, philosophical, theological, or moral justification for the idea that someone had to be tortured to death in order for God to forgive sin.

:thumb:

I blush. Thanks.

I agree with your vie above as well.

Now if I could only develop such eloquence. I hope I am not too old to learn.

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I blush. Thanks.

I agree with your vie above as well.

Now if I could only develop such eloquence. I hope I am not too old to learn.

Regards
DL
Ah ... now I'm blushing ... :lol:

[Silence]

I was raised to believe in the penal substitution model of atonement, but over the years the verses in the bible that go contrary to that view have made me question whether man came up with that idea because he thought that God was like he is. God told Adam the punishment for sin is death. Whether the "mote ta moot" statement was delivered as a threat from an insecure deity who was afraid of disobedience wreaking havoc with His creation or was just a plain statement of fact, is another question that may be colored by man looking at it from one perspective. It is possible that the human rulers who used the "mote ta moot" decree in condemning people were doing it from a different perspective than God did in Genesis.

1 Cor 13:5 says that love "keeps no account of an evil suffered". The King James bible says "love thinks no evil", but this is a poor translation, which makes it seem to say that God does not go around dreaming up ways to do evil. The word they translate as "thinks" actually has more to do with reckoning or keeping account of actual things, not coming up with ideas. Since God is love, He cannot be keeping a legal account of sins that He needs to be paid for.

When He said that eating the fruit would cause death, He meant it. But just like on Paul Harvey's old radio show, there is sometimes "the rest of the story", whether we know it or not. Just because God told Adam that he would die if he ate of the fruit does not mean He is prevented from raising Adam back up. The accounts in Genesis 2 & 3 do not say anything about God raising people from the dead after dying for disobedience, but that doesn't mean God can't do it, or that He needs some kind of payment to be made first. Hebrews 2:2 is an interesting verse - "For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; ....". If every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment (in the Greek it says "a just payment of wages"), then what justice is there in saying that those who received their recompense then are going to receive more later on? This verse says nothing about it being a partial payment.


One of the things that makes people think that God needs sin to be paid for is the fact that Genesis 3 says God clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals. Again, was this for God's benefit and satisfaction or man's? Did God take out His anger by slaying the animals in order to be placated and able to tolerate coming up to Adam and Eve to put the clothes on them?

Could it be that man is the one who needs to be placated for feeling that he was "set up" to fail. That is the tone that Adam has when he says "The woman You gave to be with me gave me the fruit ....". 2 Cor. 5:19 seems to say that it is man that needs to be placated, not God - "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." It says God was reconciling the world to Himself, not that God reconciled Himself to the world. There are more instances like this, but right now I have to go and do some yard work before it gets too hot.

[Greatest I am]

Silence

Would God have been more accurate in telling A & E, not that they would die, but that he would kill them by denying them the tree of life?

Christians call Eden man's fall. Jews, who wrote those scriptures, call Eden man's elevation.

Do you think that to gain the knowledge that makes one as God, --- God's own word in this myth, ---- is a bad thing?

Regards
DL

[duxrow]

:sos:
Eve was taken from Adam's rib as a 'precept' of how the Bride of Christ will be taken from the Body of Christ (church).

Adam's naming of the animals seems likely indicator of high IQ ?? But Hos6:7 calls him treacherous!

Eve hadn't been created when God told Adam not to eat -- so don't blame her. Also, since she was exapatao 'greatly deceived', probably by Adam telling her not to even touch the tree. Likely he hadn't explained about the Tree of Life. You think? :winking0071:

[Greatest I am]

:sos:
Eve was taken from Adam's rib as a 'precept' of how the Bride of Christ will be taken from the Body of Christ (church).

Adam's naming of the animals seems likely indicator of high IQ ?? But Hos6:7 calls him treacherous!

Eve hadn't been created when God told Adam not to eat -- so don't blame her. Also, since she was exapatao 'greatly deceived', probably by Adam telling her not to even touch the tree. Likely he hadn't explained about the Tree of Life. You think? :winking0071:

Good point that prompts the question.

If Eve was deceived by a tempter that God allowed to access her, did she deserve to be punished?

FMPOV, I would be quite the prick if I did that to one of my children.
And I do not think I am that good of a parent.

Regards
DL

[CWH]

Good point that prompts the question.

If Eve was deceived by a tempter that God allowed to access her, did she deserve to be punished?

FMPOV, I would be quite the prick if I did that to one of my children.
And I do not think I am that good of a parent.

Regards
DL

If your son is tempted by money and decided to rob the bank knowing well that it is against the law which warns that robbers will be punished and jailed. He finally decided to take the risk and robbed t he bank knowing that he will be an instant millionaire if he is successful. However, he failed and was caught and punished according to the law, who was to blame? Did the son deserve to be punished?

God Blessed.:pray:

[Silence]

Silence

Would God have been more accurate in telling A & E, not that they would die, but that he would kill them by denying them the tree of life?

Christians call Eden man's fall. Jews, who wrote those scriptures, call Eden man's elevation.

Do you think that to gain the knowledge that makes one as God, --- God's own word in this myth, ---- is a bad thing?

Regards
DL

Hello DL,

Is there a disconnect in the Jewish mind between the need for a Savior and the multiplication of sorrow and pain in childbirth, the husband ruling over his wife, toiling among thorns and thistles in sweat to get something to eat from ground that has been cursed, only to die and return to the dust? The first thing God mentions the "Seed of the woman" doing is having enmity with the nachash and crushing his head, but isn't relief from their sorrow, pain and toil in view also? How can those things be considered "an elevation"?

As for gaining "knowedge of good and evil", does Genesis 3:22 actually say this was accomplished, or could it also be saying "the man has become like one of us (in order to) know good and evil", without stating that it was actually now the case? Why is the lamech in front of the word da-ath? Is that just the way God chose to make clear that the only way Adam and Eve had become like Him was in knowing good and evil? "Behold, the man has become like one of us (only to the point of) knowing good and evil, and now lest he put forth his hand ....". Many bible commentators say that keeping Adam and Eve away from the tree of life was God's way of preventing them from eating of it in their fallen condition (Genesis 3:16 -19) and living forever in that condition.

And whether Adam and Eve actually gained full knowledge of good and evil, there is another aspect that comes into play as far as gaining this knowledge goes. There are few things more tormenting than knowing what should be done and being powerless to do it. Paul talked about this in Romans 7:14 -24. He also talked about the solution to the problem. So in a roundabout way, Eden and the results of what happened there do result in an "elevation" in the long run, but only as a part of the journey, not as a destination.

[Greatest I am]

If your son is tempted by money and decided to rob the bank knowing well that it is against the law which warns that robbers will be punished and jailed. He finally decided to take the risk and robbed t he bank knowing that he will be an instant millionaire if he is successful. However, he failed and was caught and punished according to the law, who was to blame? Did the son deserve to be punished?

God Blessed.:pray:

Money is not knowledge of damned near everything as some think the tree of knowledge is.
I would not punish anyone at any time for see3king knowledge. That is what humans do naturally.

If my son was tempted by a supernatural force given the power by God to deceive the whole world, what chance would he have? None. Neither did Eve.

No chance at all and that is the way your God set her up.

Did she deserve to be punished by your God who let Satan tempt her?

We have a scenario in Eden. No need to create a new one without the supernatural element that makes a huge difference.

No deflection of bobbing and weaving please. Just answer the question based on the myth presented.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Hello DL,

Is there a disconnect in the Jewish mind between the need for a Savior and the multiplication of sorrow and pain in childbirth, the husband ruling over his wife, toiling among thorns and thistles in sweat to get something to eat from ground that has been cursed, only to die and return to the dust? The first thing God mentions the "Seed of the woman" doing is having enmity with the nachash and crushing his head, but isn't relief from their sorrow, pain and toil in view also? How can those things be considered "an elevation"?

As for gaining "knowedge of good and evil", does Genesis 3:22 actually say this was accomplished, or could it also be saying "the man has become like one of us (in order to) know good and evil", without stating that it was actually now the case? Why is the lamech in front of the word da-ath? Is that just the way God chose to make clear that the only way Adam and Eve had become like Him was in knowing good and evil? "Behold, the man has become like one of us (only to the point of) knowing good and evil, and now lest he put forth his hand ....". Many bible commentators say that keeping Adam and Eve away from the tree of life was God's way of preventing them from eating of it in their fallen condition (Genesis 3:16 -19) and living forever in that condition.

And whether Adam and Eve actually gained full knowledge of good and evil, there is another aspect that comes into play as far as gaining this knowledge goes. There are few things more tormenting than knowing what should be done and being powerless to do it. Paul talked about this in Romans 7:14 -24. He also talked about the solution to the problem. So in a roundabout way, Eden and the results of what happened there do result in an "elevation" in the long run, but only as a part of the journey, not as a destination.

So what was it? A fall or an elevation?

Should A & E have remained with their eyes closed to almost all knowledge?

Invoking the N T is foolish at this point.
It was not written till hundreds of years later.

Regards
DL

[Silence]

I don't have a definitive answer to whether what happened in the garden should be considered an "elevation" or a "fall". Thinking about this question the last few days has resulted in coming up with a few ideas about how the whole creation/fall/redemption story could have taken a different course, but still ended up at the same destination that the book of Revelation describes. Kind of like the reverse of what Hollywood does when they make the main body of a film consistent, and then film several different endings. In the scenario I am thinking of, it would be the ending that would be the same, but the preceding parts leading up to the end would take different paths.

Maybe if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life and ignored the tree of "knowledge", we would have a different bible, or maybe no bible at all since "life" seems to be one of the major, if not the only, focus and goal of the bible. Perhaps if they had eaten of "life" from the tree of life which was not prohibited from them, there would have been no need to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps knowledge of good and evil is encompassed by and transcended by, the fruit of the tree of life. Maybe if they had freely partaken of the fruit from the tree of life God would have fed them fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to them taking it for themselves.

Life and power are linked together often in the bible. People say that knowledge is power, but like I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of times where knowledge is not really a help to one who cannot put their knowledge into action. In those cases, their knowledge only serves to bring their powerlessness to their attention. There are times in the bible where God taunts men and dares them to do something either good or evil so that they should be feared. The implication is that man is incapable of doing fearful or wonderful things on the same scale, or as quickly, as God does. The "great feats" that man does accomplish take a long time to develop and involve the efforts of a lot of individuals over many generations.

It does seem unfair that when telling Adam that he would die in the day he ate from the forbidden tree, that He didn't also tell him that eating from the tree of life would cause him to live "L - Olam" (for an unspecified length of time, much longer than a day). That revelation didn't come until after he and his wife had already eaten from the other tree.

[Greatest I am]

I don't have a definitive answer to whether what happened in the garden should be considered an "elevation" or a "fall". Thinking about this question the last few days has resulted in coming up with a few ideas about how the whole creation/fall/redemption story could have taken a different course, but still ended up at the same destination that the book of Revelation describes. Kind of like the reverse of what Hollywood does when they make the main body of a film consistent, and then film several different endings. In the scenario I am thinking of, it would be the ending that would be the same, but the preceding parts leading up to the end would take different paths.

Maybe if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life and ignored the tree of "knowledge", we would have a different bible, or maybe no bible at all since "life" seems to be one of the major, if not the only, focus and goal of the bible. Perhaps if they had eaten of "life" from the tree of life which was not prohibited from them, there would have been no need to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps knowledge of good and evil is encompassed by and transcended by, the fruit of the tree of life. Maybe if they had freely partaken of the fruit from the tree of life God would have fed them fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to them taking it for themselves.

Life and power are linked together often in the bible. People say that knowledge is power, but like I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of times where knowledge is not really a help to one who cannot put their knowledge into action. In those cases, their knowledge only serves to bring their powerlessness to their attention. There are times in the bible where God taunts men and dares them to do something either good or evil so that they should be feared. The implication is that man is incapable of doing fearful or wonderful things on the same scale, or as quickly, as God does. The "great feats" that man does accomplish take a long time to develop and involve the efforts of a lot of individuals over many generations.

It does seem unfair that when telling Adam that he would die in the day he ate from the forbidden tree, that He didn't also tell him that eating from the tree of life would cause him to live "L - Olam" (for an unspecified length of time, much longer than a day). That revelation didn't come until after he and his wife had already eaten from the other tree.

Yes. Full disclosure was missing in God's warning.

As to the tree of life. Have you not noticed that the ancients never bemoan it's loss anywhere in scriptures?
They knew that it was a myth and if you note, elsewhere in scriptures when they use that term, it is just to denote a good life, not an everlasting one.

As to elevation or not.
What would you like to see from your own children?
Would you like them to emulate you or even surpass what you are?
I hope so.
If so, would our heavenly father not want the same for his children?
Or would he want then to forever have their eyes closed and never opened by knowledge that leads to wisdom and Godliness?

Have a look at what their world would be like without the knowledge of good and evil.
Analyze the water scene.
Would you like to live in that type of ignorance of good and evil?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x88zxp_the-time-machine-1960-part-6_news

Regards
DL

[David M]

Hello all

Should God have given Adam and Eve a hundred page contract written in a Word document telling them the precise terms by what He meant by Tree of Life or Tree of Good and Evil and what would be the consequences? This was a simple test, not a test of whether they could understand legalistic jargon.

It does not matter what the trees represented. The eating of the tree did not impart to them any innate knowledge of Good and Evil stored in the tree's fruit. Simply, God said; "Do not" and Eve "Did". Why complicate matters by reading into this story more than there is. I can make conjecture and it is interesting to do so, but conjecture does not change the result. I see no reason not to think Eve deceived herself. The snake could have been real, and who is to say that God did not instruct and Angel to be transformed into a serpent or that an Angel did speak according to God's instruction like Balaam's donkey spoke?

But why blame God when just God's instruction "Do Not" meant Eve's mind went into overdrive. "Why shouldn't I eat? The fruit looks as good as any other fruit which I have eaten. Surely God will not do anything. What does God mean I shall die? Shall I ask God what he means? No, I won't disturb Him, I will eat and find out. Now that did not do me any harm when I ate of the fruit, I will go an take some to Adam and show him that nothing happens."

From what we read elsewhere and the fact that we are drawn away by our own lust, I simply accept that the serpent is a personification of what took place in Eve's mind. Either Adam or Eve could have succumbed to the same wrong conclusion. And why not when they did not know what would happen if they ate of the Tree of Life. God could have said;"here are two trees A and B, but do not eat the fruit of A". Maybe for the first time Eve was using her imagination and reasoning. Eve was probably using her imagination looking at the forbidden fruit while Adam was busy using his imagination to come up with names to give the animals.

All God had to do was designate two trees; one to represent Life and the other Good and Evil. Would it have made a difference if God had said;" do not eat of the Tree of Life"? If the fruit had looked good to eat and Eve desired to eat it, she would have done so. The story makes better sense when Eve learnt and Adam learnt the consequences of their action to name the tree; 'The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'. Had the tree been labelled "B" that tree would have become known as the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because of the experience to Adam and Eve. For the first time they experienced the knowledge that it was evil to disobey God and the knowledge that it would have been good to have obeyed.

Yes, things could be very different today if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, but would that have proven that all men and women (their descendants) would have obeyed God? If people cannot obey God's instruction now, does not that prove God was right to get man and women to fail from the start? We know by God causing Jesus to be born and by correctly guiding him, that it was possible for the human mind to obey God.

Was it possible for mankind to do good if not instructed from the earliest of their understanding. Look what happened in the time of the Great Flood when everyone was doing that which was right in their own eyes. Do parents instruct their children enough not to break the law when they grow older. Do we observe the 30 mph speed limit and do we get upset when prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30 mph zone. Why did it take 30 years before Jesus was ready to begin his ministry. What was Jesus doing for all that time. From a youth Jesus knew he had to do his Father's business. Do we instill in youngsters from a very early age it is their duty to obey God or the laws of the country we lived in?

We need instruction and we need laws to keep most people under some sort of control. The law given to Moses was to be taught to them and as the Apostle Paul says; the law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. In view of the fact that we should teach children the right ways from an early age, we see why Jesus condemned those who prevented little children coming to him. That is why it is one matter to turn ourselves away from God, but it is a more serious matter to turn others away from coming to God.

We are dealing with both simple and complex situations for which we do not have the complete answer. We are unable to match God's power to read people's hearts and so we are unable to make a judgement in the way that God can, so we have to leave matters to Him and concentrate on getting our own lives in order and if we can help other people on the way that is what we should be doing, not doing things against our neighbor that does not help them. We are free to destroy ourselves, and we are very accountable for the destruction of others for what ever reason. God is capable enough of dealing with the wicked and He has said that vengeance belongeth to Him, so we do not have the worry of dealing with wayward people. Society has rejected God and in some ways God is letting man get on with it so we cannot blame God for not intervening and stopping every criminal act.

God even though He does not intervene, the atrocities we see happening around the world and in our neighborhood tests our faith in God. It might be too simplistic for some to accept that God knows everything that has been done. God decides who will be in the Kingdom and who will not, all we should do is leave the judgement to God and know that where a person showed the potential to be obedient even though their life was cut short by another person's abominable act, God will be merciful and raise that person to life again. We do not have to worry about the righteous, we have to worry about ourselves and saving other unrighteous people from the judgment to come.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

I don't have a definitive answer to whether what happened in the garden should be considered an "elevation" or a "fall". Thinking about this question the last few days has resulted in coming up with a few ideas about how the whole creation/fall/redemption story could have taken a different course, but still ended up at the same destination that the book of Revelation describes. Kind of like the reverse of what Hollywood does when they make the main body of a film consistent, and then film several different endings. In the scenario I am thinking of, it would be the ending that would be the same, but the preceding parts leading up to the end would take different paths.

Maybe if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life and ignored the tree of "knowledge", we would have a different bible, or maybe no bible at all since "life" seems to be one of the major, if not the only, focus and goal of the bible. Perhaps if they had eaten of "life" from the tree of life which was not prohibited from them, there would have been no need to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps knowledge of good and evil is encompassed by and transcended by, the fruit of the tree of life. Maybe if they had freely partaken of the fruit from the tree of life God would have fed them fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to them taking it for themselves.

Life and power are linked together often in the bible. People say that knowledge is power, but like I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of times where knowledge is not really a help to one who cannot put their knowledge into action. In those cases, their knowledge only serves to bring their powerlessness to their attention. There are times in the bible where God taunts men and dares them to do something either good or evil so that they should be feared. The implication is that man is incapable of doing fearful or wonderful things on the same scale, or as quickly, as God does. The "great feats" that man does accomplish take a long time to develop and involve the efforts of a lot of individuals over many generations.

It does seem unfair that when telling Adam that he would die in the day he ate from the forbidden tree, that He didn't also tell him that eating from the tree of life would cause him to live "L - Olam" (for an unspecified length of time, much longer than a day). That revelation didn't come until after he and his wife had already eaten from the other tree.

To understand the Fall, one must understand the following:
1. Is it wrong to have the knowledge of good and evil? If it is wrong, why do God have that knowledge?
2. Why must God test Adam and Eve whether they obey His commandment or not?
3. Is it wrong to eat the fruit of the tree of life? No. Then, why didn't God allow Adam and Eve to partake the fruit of the tree of life after they have taken the forbidden fruit and obtained the knowledge of good and evil so that they could live forever?

Genesis 3:22 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.”

The answer lies in the heart of Man. God tested Adam and Eve and found their heart was disobedient to God with no sincere love for God with all their heart soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, there is not much righteousness in Man's heart. No doubt Eve and Adam wanted to be like God, who lived forever and knowing good and evil but their heart is not righteous enough to be awarded eternal life. In other words, they need to learn to be righteous in order to gain eternal life. Imagine Hitler who wanted to be like God, knowing good and evil but bent on evil ambitions to conquer the world. What will the world be like if one is like God, knowing good and evil but bent on doing evil continuously and live forever? It is thus brilliant that God will only give eternal life to righteous men i.e. if Man become righteous, loving God with all their heart, soul and might and love thy neighbor as yourself so that the world will be an excellent place to live.


May God Bless us to be Righteous.:pray:

[Greatest I am]

David

Ok. The tree that makes man into Gods, Gods own words, is not important.

Just important enough to have God murder them by denying them what would save them.
A moral sense is of no impotance to mankind.

Trust between God and man was not important either and God lying by omission to A & E was not important at all.

Have it your way and learn nothing from the opening chapters of God's word. His word holds nothing important.

Never mind that God exploded all over them the first time they did their so called free will instead of doing God's will and dared to show autonomy.

Let`s just move on to where God uses genocide against mankind and has his own son murdered then. Nothing important there either but what the hell. Let`s justify genocide and infantiside on God`s part. We all know he can do no wrong no matter how many babies he murders.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

CWH

If God wanted A & E love then he should not have lied by omission to them nor should he have put the fox in the hen house to eat his new hen, so to speak.

Such a parent deserves nothing in th way of love. He would be a SOB.

Would you do so a despicable thing to your children?

If so, then----------

Regards
DL

[CWH]

CWH

If God wanted A & E love then he should not have lied by omission to them nor should he have put the fox in the hen house to eat his new hen, so to speak.

Such a parent deserves nothing in th way of love. He would be a SOB.

Would you do so a despicable thing to your children?

If so, then----------

Regards
DL

There is no omission. If your child play with fire, you simply ordered him to stop. You don't go and tell him what harm fire can do to him, properties and others. What's the pint of telling your child every harm fire can do? He is probably too immature and young to understand. Is this omission by lying?

Your condemning of God is actually condemning Mankind. A slap in your own face. As Eve wanted to be like God so is Man. Didn't the Bible said "you are gods"? One day perhaps 5,000 years or more later as Man progress technologically, we will be like God capable of producing the suns, planets, animals, plants, humanoids etc. I have no doubt about that ...or... do you think it is impossible? How would you feel if the intelligent humanoids that you created began cursing its creators and his creations? Mankind is actually an evolving god, knowing good and evil. And one day we will conquer death and achieve immortality.


May God Bless us all.:pray:

[Greatest I am]

There is no omission. If your child play with fire, you simply ordered him to stop. You don't go and tell him what harm fire can do to him, properties and others. What's the pint of telling your child every harm fire can do? He is probably too immature and young to understand. Is this omission by lying?

Your condemning of God is actually condemning Mankind. A slap in your own face. As Eve wanted to be like God so is Man. Didn't the Bible said "you are gods"? One day perhaps 5,000 years or more later as Man progress technologically, we will be like God capable of producing the suns, planets, animals, plants, humanoids etc. I have no doubt about that ...or... do you think it is impossible? How would you feel if the intelligent humanoids that you created began cursing its creators and his creations? Mankind is actually an evolving god, knowing good and evil. And one day we will conquer death and achieve immortality.


May God Bless us all.:pray:

It is not a matter of a parent explaining what fire will do.

It is a matter of God holding a blow torch to them till not only their hands were burnt but their whole body.

God murdered them for burning their hands.

Your endorsing his immorality shows yours.

Regards
DL

[CWH]

It is not a matter of a parent explaining what fire will do.

It is a matter of God holding a blow torch to them till not only their hands were burnt but their whole body.

God murdered them for burning their hands.

Your endorsing his immorality shows yours.

Regards
DL

What murder? If one can kill someone and revive him the next day, is that consider as murder? It's the same as letting someone sleep the whole day. God is capable of doing that which humans cannot. And He will forgive those he killed and raised them if they repented. There is no eternal punishment in hell except perhaps for the incorrigible sinners. Forever in the Bible does not mean eternity but a long time in human term. If you love someone forever, do you really mean for eternity in human term?

May God Forgive us. :pray:

[Greatest I am]

What murder? If one can kill someone and revive him the next day, is that consider as murder? It's the same as letting someone sleep the whole day. God is capable of doing that which humans cannot. And He will forgive those he killed and raised them if they repented. There is no eternal punishment in hell except perhaps for the incorrigible sinners. Forever in the Bible does not mean eternity but a long time in human term.

May God Forgive us. :pray:

You fathom the unfathomable do you?

Enough to sell your soul and morals to a myth and hearsay or book say?

If so then---------

Regards
DL

[CWH]

You fathom the unfathomable do you?

Enough to sell your soul and morals to a myth and hearsay or book say?

If so then---------

Regards
DL

If man do not fathom the unfathomable for science, will new discoveries and inventions be produced?

Funny, every religion "myths" be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. seems to teach the same thing about heaven and earth, God, Do good and not evil, the soul and spirit, the punishment in hell and reward of eternal life in heaven, the final victory of good over evil, love others, do unto others what you want others to do unto you, Mercy and Kindness etc. They are telling us that these are not myths but important teachings that will benefit us all on earth and in heaven if we obey and adhere to them.

May God Forgive those who don't know what they are doing. :pray:

[Greatest I am]

If man do not fathom the unfathomable for science, will new discoveries and inventions be produced?

Funny, every religion "myths" be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. seems to teach the same thing about heaven and earth, God, Do good and not evil, the soul and spirit, the punishment in hell and reward of eternal life in heaven, the final victory of good over evil, love others, do unto others what you want others to do unto you, Mercy and Kindness etc.

No one can fathom the unfathomable.

While the God you follow does the opposite and certainly does not do unto others as he threatens eternal purposeless torture in hell.

That is not only immoral but also shows nothing in the way of justice, mercy or kindness.

Hypocricy is a good word for such a God.

Regards
DL

[weeder]

If God was so angry with A+ E then why did he clothe them before removing them from the tree of life?

Why did God plan to rectify the situation if the condemnation was total?

God himself rectified the situation by becoming flesh,to live as a man under his own laws,
(perfectly) and entered in to the realm of death and overcame it.
Death couldnt hold him because he did nothing that warranted death. He therefore holds the keys to that realm.

:Investigate:

[David M]

If God was so angry with A+ E then why did he clothe them before removing them from the tree of life?

Why did God plan to rectify the situation if the condemnation was total?

God himself rectified the situation by becoming flesh,to live as a man under his own laws,
(perfectly) and entered in to the realm of death and overcame it.
Death couldnt hold him because he did nothing that warranted death. He therefore holds the keys to that realm.

:Investigate:

Hello weeder

I don't think God got angry with A & E, God knew they would fail at some time ? I see things differently to you. I cannot see how God could possibly transform Himself from the Spirit that He is, to take on human flesh. God's plan was to provide a man to redeem the human race. As it is written, (1 Cor 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. This means that by one man (Adam) came death to all men, so by one man (Jesus) came the resurrection of the dead.

A & E were clothed with animal skins which meant animals had to be killed for this purpose. The animal skins represented a covering for their sin to which they come exposed to. Later men's sins were covered by the sacrificing of animals. That was the way until Jesus came and animal sacrifices were done away and Jesus was offered as a one-off sacrifice to be a covering for all sinners who repent and believe in him.

It was important that the Son of God was born as a man, so God made Mary, who was a virgin, to conceive and have a son. We must remember that Jesus was a man and grew up and developed in the same way as any other man do, and not some supernatural transformation taking place over 30 years.

Jesus proved a sinless life could be achieved and vindicated God to those who say it is impossible for man to be perfect. God knew what He was doing. Jesus had to overcome man's problem that takes place in his mind causing man to disobey God's instruction. So Jesus proved that by not doing his own will and only doing the will of God, it was possible to live a sinless life. As you say, Jesus could not be kept in the grave because he did not deserve death; only "the soul that sinneth it shall die". Jesus had to be resurrected for God to keep to His promise. What Jesus did was to overcome the nature of man to rebel, which is personified as the devil.

Jesus has been raised from the dead and been exalted to the highest position in Heaven, but we are assured that those who are resurrected will be given the same incorruptible body that Jesus was given after his resurrection. We shall be like Jesus. This is another reason to support the fact that Jesus was not God.

You are right to say that God rectified the situation, but you are wrong (IMHO) to say that it was God who gave Himself. God gave His son who was born and came into existence (and not before) at the time of his birth. If you have not done so already, then read the thread; 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God)and reason this out for yourself.

All the best,

David

[weeder]

Hi there David.

Ill visit the thread and respond to you there :thumb:

[Rose]

It was important that the Son of God was born as a man, so God made Mary, who was a virgin, to conceive and have a son. We must remember that Jesus was a man and grew up and developed in the same way as any other man do, and not some supernatural transformation taking place over 30 years.

Jesus proved a sinless life could be achieved and vindicated God to those who say it is impossible for man to be perfect. God knew what He was doing. Jesus had to overcome man's problem that takes place in his mind causing man to disobey God's instruction. So Jesus proved that by not doing his own will and only doing the will of God, it was possible to live a sinless life. As you say, Jesus could not be kept in the grave because he did not deserve death; only "the soul that sinneth it shall die". Jesus had to be resurrected for God to keep to His promise. What Jesus did was to overcome the nature of man to rebel, which is personified as the devil.


All the best,

David

Hi David,

If Jesus was no more than just a man, why did he need to be born of a virgin without an earthly father? Doesn't that give him an advantage of living a sinless life that no other human had?

Take care,
Rose

[Greatest I am]

If God was so angry with A+ E then why did he clothe them before removing them from the tree of life?

I don't know.

Do J W not dress the children who they will deny a blood transfusion and allow their children to die needlessly?

God may have had the same twisted thinking.

Would you dress your children before causing their death?


Why did God plan to rectify the situation if the condemnation was total?



Because the situation was to be exactly what he planned in his great plan.
It continues. To believers that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[Rose]

Because the situation was to be exactly what he planned in his great plan.
It continues. To believers that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Wow! What a powerfully moving video clip...makes you stop and think!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for sharing DL,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Because the situation was to be exactly what he planned in his great plan.
It continues. To believers that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL
Thanks for sharing that DL. It really helps show how foolish and selfish the "God has a wonderful plan for you life" schtick really is. It appeals only to those who are living in the lap of luxury and don't have a clue about how "God" normally treats most of his "children" (with total disregard for their life and well-being).

One point of detail - the story of Kevin Carter and the child in the photograph may not be entirely accurate. You can read about the conflicting reports in the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for this Richard.

I will check it out.

Regards
DL