Wow, Shelby used to write some long posts, and I thought Tammy was verbose... (Sorry tec )
The "Tree of Life and its meaning"
by EdenOne 169 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
tec
Thank god for time zones.
Or you could just be honest and prove your claim/accusation. Problem is, even you know that you cannot do this. (back up your claim that is... I am sure you could be honest about that if you really wanted to be)
How could they "take in" his teachings in Eden? (What with him not having taught anyone anything yet.)
Is there a particular reason that He could not teach in Eden? In any case, you have left out the part about how they could eat from him... and receive (take into themselves... like what we do when we eat)... eternal life. Something they were not denied until after they disobeyed and ate from the tree that God warned them would cause them to die.
Am I missing something here?
I don't know. I don't know what you are finding hard to understand.
If we are told that we can eat from Christ; indeed we are told to eat his flesh and drink his blood... why is it so hard to grasp that they could have eaten from Him then?
Wow, Shelby used to write some long posts, and I thought Tammy was verbose... (Sorry tec )
; )
Out of the heart's abundance... the mouth speaks. (or in this case, the fingers type, lol)
Peace,
tammy
-
LucidChimp
"Is there a particular reason that He could not teach in Eden?"
Well, I don't know what your theology is... I'm only versed [kinda] in WT theology and that of your average Christian. I don't think your system of belief is either. (Oh, and a bit of the biblical unitarian stuff)
I don't think any of them have Jesus romping about with his dad in the breezy part of the day. Far as I know.
"In any case, you have left out the part about how they could eat from him"
Um, when you said... Hold on while I find it... "By eating... taking into themselves/receiving from Him... his fruit, teachings, holy spirit (the water of life).", I thought you were clarifying what you meant. That is to say - that taking in his teachings IS eating from him.
If that is not what you are saying - since you just made a distinction between the two - then what do you mean by "eat from him"?
Please assume I'm an idiot who finds it hard to understand things which aren't spelled out to him.
"I don't know. I don't know what you are finding hard to understand. If we are told that we can eat from Christ; indeed we are told to eat his flesh and drink his blood... why is it so hard to grasp that they could have eaten from Him then?"
I think I'm finding it hard to understand you because I don't know where you are swithching from metaphorical language to literal... Or back again. Or even if you are, switching I mean.
When it comes to the emblems I have no trouble. (Eat bread/literal - eat jesus/metaphor)
Genesis 3 v 22 gives the impression that the "fruit of life" could just be taken, even by the unworthy, and eaten to grant everlasting life. Isn't that a bit like someone stealing some of the emblems and scoffing them to get saved on the sneak? (If we're talking about a literal tree that they had to be prevented from eating)
Where does the physical tree end and christ begin? (And do I detect "death" behind the tree of knowledge... He gets about in your belief system)
(I don't expect you to answer every point btw, just trying to explain the roots of my confusion)
-
adamah
Lucid Chimp asked-wouldn't that mean both trees were trees of knowledge and god has information control issues?
Actually, the tree they ate from in the account was called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad", and the fruit bestowed MORAL knowledge ("wisdom", the ability to determine morality on one's own, deciding right from wrong) to those who ate it. One they gained wisdom, their "eyes had become opened", and they gained a new insight as a result.
That is beyond dispute, as the omniscient narrator of the Genesis account explains exactly why Eve saw the fruit as desirable to eat: she wanted to possess the wisdom that it promised to give.
(Although most JWs are completely unaware of that little fact, since the NWT, unlike ALL other mainstream and popular Bible translations, actively tries to BURY the evidence of Eve's seeking to obtain wisdom for herself and her hubbie, since the WTBTS deviates from BOTH of the Hebraic sources (Babylonian and Masoretic texts) and instead makes the eyebrow-raising choice to rely on the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew-to-Greek translation. Why? Seemingly for doctrinal purposes as discussed in my blog article).
It's one of the reasons JWs are strongly-discouraged from using alternate non-approved translations of the Bible, since they tried to hide the problematic elements of the account, as discussed in the article.
Lucid Chimp asked- And if the tree is Christ - why would god want to stop them having his[christ's] "fruit"?
Good question!
If TEC is now claiming the fruit of the Tree of Life is a symbol that foreshadowed the life-giving properties of Christ, then whatever are Xians to do with the passage in Genesis 3:15 wherein God spoke to Eve, cursing her for disobedience? Ignoring the concept of both Adam and Eve being punished, Eve's seed is widely considered as the prophecy which supposedly foreshadows the hope encapsulated in the Christ's redemption:
"I will put animosity between you and the woman, and between your descendant and her descendant; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel." Is that not foreshadowing Christ now, or are the Jews (you know, the guys who wrote the story Xians later stole and inserted their interpretation onto it?) correct? They've always said it's just an explanation of why women are fearful of snakes, and their offspring will have to pay for her disobedience? Simply put, It's a "snakes" origins story (and also explains why they crawl).
But per TEC's proposed interpretation, lemme see if I've got this right:
Adam ate the wisdom fruit without permission, so God blocked access to the fruit of the Tree of Life, NOT giving life itself, but the fruit supposedly symbolizes the teachings of Christ. Anyone see a SLIGHT problem with time sequencing?
HOW the Hades could Adam and Eve be blocked from partaking of Christ's teachings by a flaming sword, when the account was set 4,000 yrs BEFORE Jesus even was born and walked the Earth? That makes NO gobsmacking sense, as the linear nature of time already manages to take care of the problem for God (unless Jesus and his teachings time-traveled).
Per traditional Xian theology, Christ had to die to redeem mankind to pay for Adam's sin (a debt supposedly owed to God, BTW: I suppose God couldn't just outright forgive the debt, just like the Hebrews had to do when they observed Jubilee every 49 yrs, releasing their fellow Jews from their debts?). ANYWAY, Adam's sin meant "perfect" blood had to redeem mankind from the sin committed by "perfect" Adam (although Christ's death on the Cross is YET another bungling of Jewish traditions, since the 'redeemer of blood' didn't spill his OWN blood when avenging his kin's death: he was the one DOING the killing of the murderer. Also, Adam didn't KILL anyone, and hence his disobedience wasn't a crime involving bloodshed)!
Traditional Xian theology is a mess, and completely garbles the ancient Jewish traditions upon which it is premised, so TEC may have a point: her interpretation might have some benefit to Adam and Eve, since God's attempts to block them from accessing Christ's teaching was actually a display of mercy, a blessing in disguise, as if God was lovingingly trying to save them from the goofy and incomprehensible World of Xian theology!
Adam
-
tec
But per TEC's proposed interpretation, lemme see if I've got this right:
You don't. Perhaps you should reread and discuss the points stated with me. If something is unclear, then I can clarify.
Also... you do understand that Christ is firstborn over all creation. He was there in the GoE. He was there BEFORE Adam, before the angels. He came as a man when he was born as a man. But He existed from the beginning.
Peace,
tammy
-
Band on the Run
Tammy does have a guru who called herself AGuest. AGuest put on phony airs and told people what to believe based on voices she hears. What is sad for Tammy is that Tammy has alwasy been the lesser figure in the relationship. There seems to be no known reason for this phenomena. Tammy is much sweeter. If you want to read utter drivel for many pages day after day, just search for AGuest threads. They complained that they were not free to post here. There captures were too low. They have their own website. Brace yourself if you able to reach it.
The website has to do with this dude with a funny name. Despite some glancing reality to Jesus in the canonical gospels, it deals with mostly psuedo ancient Israelite ideas.
Everyone should receive one AGuest's blessings and peace at least once in their life. You will be very grateful that you never have another.
-
DATA-DOG
I'm down with the GOE being a spiritual realm, like Asgard. Things make more sense when viewed from that perspective. I liked on scholars view that the serpent was not a literal snake, nut a serpentine being, or cherub. The thing that lost me was how the Genesis account says " wild beast." Why would a cherub be called a beast. I have thought that perhaps A&E had spiritual bodies and received physical ones after sinning. Still the were formed from dust, so that seems like a funny thing to do if you make a spirit being.
I guess what I am saying is...I give up.
DD
-
tec
I'm down with the GOE being a spiritual realm, like Asgard. Things make more sense when viewed from that perspective.
Agreed.
I liked on scholars view that the serpent was not a literal snake, nut a serpentine being, or cherub. The thing that lost me was how the Genesis account says " wild beast." Why would a cherub be called a beast.
You might be interested to know that the same word used here as wild beast (or wild animal in other versions) is the same word used that translated to the four living creatures that Ezekiel saw in chapter one of the book of Ezekiel.
On this site, you can see the meaning of the word as well, if you scan down, all the different places that word was translated as something else:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?page=8&strongs=H2416&t=NIV#lexResults
Translation often comes down to what the scribes (translators) believed was meant.
I have thought that perhaps A&E had spiritual bodies and received physical ones after sinning. Still the were formed from dust, so that seems like a funny thing to do if you make a spirit being.
I though this once also. But spirit body is not 'ghost' (as we understand ghost to mean). It is just a different kind of body, and A/E could move between the spiritual and physical realms. Until they were given THIS body - with sin and death in it -that can only be in the physical realm.
'stardust' comes to mind also... or at least the 'stuff' of this physical realm, which was not meant from the beginning to be unable to access the spirtual realm. So... just a different body than the one we currently possess.
I guess what I am saying is...I give up.
You don't have to know everything all at once, love. I sure don't! No one ever told you that you had to know everything... and Christ said that the Spirit will lead us INTO all truth. Meaning it doesn't come all at once. We cannot bear all that He has to tell us (I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it... John 16:12), certainly not all at once.
Don't worry so much that you allow yourself become frustrated and so give up.
Just follow Him as YOU can. Listen to Him and do as He has taught (If anyone loves me they will obey my commands...) and then have faith that he will keep his promise (... then my Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with them) ... and don't worry. Trust that he has heard you if you are asking for truth, and for ears to hear, and that he will answer you as He knows the time is right... and as He knows that you can bear.
"Do not let your hearts become troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." John 14:1
"Ask and it WILL be given; seek and you WILL find; knock and the door WILL be opened." Matthew 7:7
Put faith in His words, love, just as you would put faith in Him. He always speaks true.
Peace and much love to you Datadog.
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
adamah
TEC said-
Also... you do understand that Christ is firstborn over all creation. He was there in the GoE. He was there BEFORE Adam, before the angels. He came as a man when he was born as a man. But He existed from the beginning.
You DO understand that you're talking old extra-Biblical fantabulations now, relying on concepts which first-emerged in some of intertestamental literature (eg Book of Enoch, which attempted to fill in the gaps of the Torah, by adding plots and details that the original authors left out, so as to support developing Xian eisegesis), and even gnostic works, but none of which actually made it thru the canonization process to enter into the Bible?
TEC, you cannot cite ANY scriptures out of the Bible to prove the FIVE conceptions you've claimed in your post (and don't even bother with John 1: you don't understand what the original meaning of the phrase, "the Word" actually is, and hence you don't understand it's not saying what you and others may want it to mean).
Adam
-
adamah
Data Dog asked- The thing that lost me was how the Genesis account says " wild beast." Why would a cherub be called a beast.
Good question.
Jews place much importance on orderliness, and interpret the story as a disruption of the Divine 'pecking order' or chain of command that occurred when the "lower" creations (animals) upset the apple cart by outwitting the higher humans, who were SUPPOSED to place THEM under their dominion; hence the animals took a fall and were cursed (which served as justification for killing animals to use for sacrificial purposes to atone for sins of humans). Of course, snakes were the most-cursed of the animals ("the beasts of the fields"), and snakes were thus explained as a perennial source of fear for women, and cause of suffering for all of her descendents.
So if the serpent WAS a mere creation of flesh and blood, then why would God create the serpent as the "cleverest of the beasts of the field", such that it could even communicate with the humans to deceive and manipulate them?
And if the serpent was supposedly Satan (which is the Xian interpretation, which Jews, who wrote the story, reject), then why would God give spirit beings the capability to hijack the lower creations, yet hold them responsible and punish them for becoming possessed?
Either way you cut it, it makes no sense; it can be dismissed as being based on PRIOR existing tales that were adopted by the Yahwist, one of the authors of the story in Genesis.
Data Dog asked- I have thought that perhaps A&E had spiritual bodies and received physical ones after sinning. Still the were formed from dust, so that seems like a funny thing to do if you make a spirit being.
Few readers understand that Genesis 1 is much older, being written in poetic form, reflecting a style found in ancient Judea; Genesis 2 is NARRATIVE, and written 400 yrs later, in a different stylistic form that reflects idioms used later in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The later editors wanted to keep BOTH, since they served different purposes which weren't inconsistent. Hence why the accounts contain MANY contradictory details (eg did God fashion humans out of dust using his hand as in Genesis 2, or merely by Divine utterance, as in Genesis 1?). Early listeners weren't bothered by such contradictory details, since they knew poetry when they heard it spoken in their native language, and the story of the individual humans (Adam and Eve) begins in Genesis 2.
Fast-forward 3,000 yrs, and you still have many believers who want it to either be literal, or for it to have added symbolism it was never originally written to have (and use a defense of. "But it's metaphorical!", even though they cannot cogently explain their own cockamamie interpretations).
Bottom line is, it's as fictional as any other story from the ancient World that contains talking animals as a literary device (where talking animals were a new popular literary device in 500BC, eg Aesop's Fables); it's certainly not worth dying over an old imaginative fairy-tale.
Adam