God's Secret Law In Eden.

[bornagainathiest]

For anyone who's interested, here's a few more thoughts on the issue of human mortality vs. eternality.

 

1.

The established Christian doctrine of God's eternal nature runs (as far as my limited understanding) like this.

God doesn't require a location in space or a duration in time to exist.  He somehow eternally exists 'outside' and 'beyond' of space and time, in a manner beyond human understanding.  He is Uncreated, but all other things, like heaven and the physical universe, are created.  Yet, he also exists within every place and time he creates, without being tied to or affected by whatever happens in these places and times. 

 

2.

Every created being (angel or human) is different from God and requires some kind of domain, time or location to exist within.  Events occurring within these times and locations do affect these created beings.  Even immortal beings like angels cannot escape the effects of what happens to them in whatever domain they inhabit.  Likewise, humans cannot escape the effects of whatever happens to them in the physical universe they inhabit.

 

3.

The angels were created immortal, but were never eternal, like God.

 

4.

Adam and Eve were created mortal and were only enabled to become immortal by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.  Once they disobeyed God they forfeited their right to eat from that tree and were punished with physical and spiritual death and spiritual separation from God.  This is the current 'fallen' state of the entire human race.

 

5.

God incarnated Himself as Jesus to take away the punishment of death and the spiritual separation from God. Those accepting and believing in his completed work of sacrifice and restoration, cease to be spiritually dead to God and alienated from him.  They are Born Again into a new and better relationship than Adam and Eve ever had with God in Eden. 

 

6.

Those who are Born Again of the Holy Spirit now share in a spiritual aspect of God's eternal nature.

However, they cannot be said to be eternal, as He is eternal.  They are clearly not Uncreated, as he is Uncreated.  They clearly cannot exist everywhere and everywhen, as He did/does/will do.  Nor can they exist nowhere and nowhen, as He did/does/will do.  They clearly had a specific point of origin in time and space. 

 

7.

Perhaps the only way angels and humans can be said to be eternal is like this. 

Since God is All-knowing, the sum of everything he knows never changes.  Therefore, humans and angels exist as eternal thoughts in the mind of God.  Which means that 'before' he created anything, we existed only as thoughts in His all-knowing mind.  Then, once he created the universe for us exist within, we could cease to be his immaterial thoughts and go on to become real beings, with our own independent physical existence.

 

A similar state of affairs would apply to the angels.

Once god had created heaven for them to exist within, they ceased to be just thoughts within his mind and were given independent existence.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Many thanks for the kind words, Human!  

 

To answer your question...

 

I've only thought as deeply as this about these matters... since ...I deconverted from Christianity.

 

While I was a Christian I put the Biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and many unspeakable acts of evil by a supposedly 'good' God down to my flawed and un-spiritual understanding of the scriptures.  I now see that by transferring the fault to myself, I was excusing God and His holy book from what is now plainly apparent to me.  That the Bible is the flawed and faulty words of flawed and faulty men - not the perfect and inerrant word of an equally perfect and flawless God.

.

.

.

 

I'm now looking forward to your comments H, whenever you'd like to make them.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[The Holy Ghost]

You people put way too much thought into this. In order to understand it, you must believe it. For Heaven's sake don't THINK about it! You'll ruin the whole surprise!

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

You people put way too much thought into this. In order to understand it, you must believe it. For Heaven's sake don't THINK about it! You'll ruin the whole surprise!

 

Exactly. Don't think, just believe. That's always how it works in The Cult, isn't it?

[The Holy Ghost]

 

You people put way too much thought into this. In order to understand it, you must believe it. For Heaven's sake don't THINK about it! You'll ruin the whole surprise!

 

 

Exactly. Don't think, just believe. That's always how it works in The Cult, isn't it?

We don't know anything about a "Cult".

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

We don't know anything about a "Cult".

 

 

Christianity is "The Cult". That is what I was referring to.

[The Holy Ghost]

 

We don't know anything about a "Cult".

 

 

Christianity is "The Cult". That is what I was referring to.

Which is what?

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

We don't know anything about a "Cult".

 

Christianity is "The Cult". That is what I was referring to.

Which is what?

 

 

You're omniscient. Figure it out.

[The Holy Ghost]

 

 

 

We don't know anything about a "Cult".

Christianity is "The Cult". That is what I was referring to.

Which is what?

You're omniscient. Figure it out.

If you could smell that fart I just let, you would understand why We are omni-POTENT that's for sure!

 

Oh my Lord! I may have just shit my sheet!

[RipVanWinkle]

Was it merely by chance that Adam and Eve did not  have eternal life by eating in the garden of Eden before they ate from the tree of good and evil? God did not tell; them of the tree of life which was also in the Garden. So they could have by chance eaten from the tree of life before the tree of knowledge. Had they done so they would have had eternal  life. So why didn't god tell them of the tree of life to begin with?

Was eternal life a ,mere matter of chance? Unless I am missing something it appears god could have avoided punishing people in hell simply by telling  A and E of the existence of the tree of life  straight away.

 

After all nobody had sinned yet. A and E would be pure. So no sacrifice would have been necessary. Was (Is?) god so viscous that he deliberately withheld the knowledge of the  existence of the tree of life and placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden in order to manipulate the "sinful" course taken by A and E?  He could have avoided the need to sacrifice his own son and the misery of people everywhere. What the hell?  bill

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Was it merely by chance that Adam and Eve did not  have eternal life by eating in the garden of Eden before they ate from the tree of good and evil? God did not tell; them of the tree of life which was also in the Garden. So they could have by chance eaten from the tree of life before the tree of knowledge. Had they done so they would have had eternal  life. So why didn't god tell them of the tree of life to begin with?

Was eternal life a ,mere matter of chance? Unless I am missing something it appears god could have avoided punishing people in hell simply by telling  A and E of the existence of the tree of life  straight away.

 

After all nobody had sinned yet. A and E would be pure. So no sacrifice would have been necessary. Was (Is?) god so viscous that he deliberately withheld the knowledge of the  existence of the tree of life and placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden in order to manipulate the "sinful" course taken by A and E?  He could have avoided the need to sacrifice his own son and the misery of people everywhere. What the hell?  bill

Bill, I was taught the the tree of life had a causative effect upon eternal life; but did not automatically grant it from one meal.  In other words, had Adam and Eve been permitted to stay in the garden, they would have, by default, still had access to the tree of life.  Continued eating of its fruit would have allowed them to live forever.  This is why god cast them from the garden and re-planted the tree of life either in heaven, or on the new earth (or maybe both).  Having access once again to the tree of life is how dead and/or raptured christians will have eternal life.

 

As to god's silence on the subject of the tree of life's existence in the garden, I would agree that it does tend to suggest that god really wanted Adam and Eve to sin.

[RipVanWinkle]

Interesting. When we look at Genesis 3.21-23 it appears that what you were taught was an apologists' attempt to amend Genesis to suit their own purposes.

Genesis 3,21-23says:

                                  "The man has 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. So the Lord banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After

                                    he drove the man out, he placed the east side of the Garden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing sword back and forth to guard the way

                                    to the tree of life."

It seems that the above scripture meant that Adam only had to eat from the tree one time. Notice that god's discussion with himself relates exclusively to Adam, not

to Eve. I guess, in god's infinite wisdom, Eve was never to be allowed to have eternal life. If any of you men had any doubt this should settle whether you would want to go

to heaven or not.  bill

[Storm]

Interesting. When we look at Genesis 3.21-23 it appears that what you were taught was an apologists' attempt to amend Genesis to suit their own purposes.

Genesis 3,21-23says:

                                  "The man has 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. So the Lord banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After

                                    he drove the man out, he placed the east side of the Garden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing sword back and forth to guard the way

                                    to the tree of life."

It seems that the above scripture meant that Adam only had to eat from the tree one time. Notice that god's discussion with himself relates exclusively to Adam, not

to Eve. I guess, in god's infinite wisdom, Eve was never to be allowed to have eternal life. If any of you men had any doubt this should settle whether you would want to go

to heaven or not.  bill

Yes William, I noticed this too. In Romans 5:12 says that through on man sin entered the world. No mention of Eve. So it wasn't Eve's eating of the apple that caused sin to enter the world. It wasn't her persuading Adam to eat the apple. It was when Adam ate the apple that sin entered the world. Such a low brow view of women that Christians have that they don't even realize it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Interesting. When we look at Genesis 3.21-23 it appears that what you were taught was an apologists' attempt to amend Genesis to suit their own purposes.

Genesis 3,21-23says:

                                  "The man has 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. So the Lord banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After

                                    he drove the man out, he placed the east side of the Garden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing sword back and forth to guard the way

                                    to the tree of life."

It seems that the above scripture meant that Adam only had to eat from the tree one time. Notice that god's discussion with himself relates exclusively to Adam, not

to Eve. I guess, in god's infinite wisdom, Eve was never to be allowed to have eternal life. If any of you men had any doubt this should settle whether you would want to go

to heaven or not.  bill

Maybe that part was meant to be metaphor. 

[bornagainathiest]

Careful there ...you guys!
 
Look what Paul wrote here.
 
1 Timothy 2 : 11 - 15, NIV.
 
11. "A woman should learn in all quietness and full submission."
12. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet."
13. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
14. "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
15. "But women will be saved thru childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Careful there ...you guys!

 

Look what Paul wrote here.

 

1 Timothy 2 : 11 - 15, NIV.

 

11. "A woman should learn in all quietness and full submission."

12. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet."

13. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

14. "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

15. "But women will be saved thru childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

 

Whoa!  Does this mean that women are not save by grace or good works, but through having kids?  That would imply that Mother Theresa is in hell!

[bornagainathiest]

Don't ask me, Prof! 

 

I just posted that quote because of what you, Storm and Bill wrote about Eve.

.

.

.

 

If you want a definitive answer you'll just have to ask the Holy Spook. (Who will guide you into all truth... Not!)

 

If you want to wait forever for an answer, just ask Ironhorse.

 

If you want a string of gibberish for an answer, just ask 1AAT1.

 

If you want a gracious, grace-filled and graceful answer, just ask End3.

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Don't ask me, Prof! 

 

I just posted that quote because of what you, Storm and Bill wrote about Eve.

.

.

.

 

If you want a definitive answer you'll just have to ask the Holy Spook. (Who will guide you into all truth... Not!)

 

If you want to wait forever for an answer, just ask Ironhorse.

 

If you want a string of gibberish for an answer, just ask 1AAT1.

 

If you want a gracious, grace-filled and graceful answer, just ask End3.

 

 

Yeah...

 

We definitely need better christians around here.  I'm going to PM The Holy Ghost about it right now... maybe that will be more effective than prayer.

[Storm]

Wait a second there BAA... (begin sarcasm font here)

 

Are you saying that the bible says two contradictory things about whether or not Eve caused mankind to be forever corrupted by sin???

 

Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" and later on Romans 5:19 says the following "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." But the same supposed author says the following in I Timothy 2:14 " And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

 

How can this possibly be? What possible crazy scenario can someone make up to tie these two situations together so that they fit within the full scope of what the bible teaches about what happened to humans in regard to the fall? (end sarcasm here)

 

In all seriousness, how do these reconcile? If only Eve had sinned and Adam had been able to resist the temptation, what would have happened then? I think it is certainly clear in the bible that Eve's transgression was not equal to Adam's transgression. Could this be more a result of Eve being deceived and that Adam apparently chose to take despite the fact that he knew it was wrong? So, god gave Eve a slight break, but Cursed the whole entirety of humanity because of Adam's act of willful disobedience. Life sure was different in pre-law christianity.

[bornagainathiest]

Wait a second there BAA... (begin sarcasm font here)

 

Are you saying that the bible says two contradictory things about whether or not Eve caused mankind to be forever corrupted by sin???

 

(Begins using faux innocent font here)  Me?  I'd never imply any such thing, Storm.  God's perfect and inerrant Word?  Contradictory? 

 

Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" and later on Romans 5:19 says the following "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." But the same supposed author says the following in I Timothy 2:14 " And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

 

How can this possibly be? What possible crazy scenario can someone make up to tie these two situations together so that they fit within the full scope of what the bible teaches about what happened to humans in regard to the fall? (end sarcasm here)

 

Don't shoot the messenger...  ask Paul!  

He (supposedly) wrote these two, mutually-exclusive Bible passages.  I'm just telling it like it is.  Quoting what's there.

 

In all seriousness, how do these reconcile?

 

In all seriousness... they don't.  

 

Ok, they do if you have faith.  

But if you go down that road, then you're using faith to confirm faith.  As Hebrews 11 :1 says...  "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."  So, if you don't see two passages of the Bible agreeing with each other - no problem!  If you don't see something, don't bother looking for evidence, just have faith, confidence and assurance in what you DON'T see. Ok?

 

If only Eve had sinned and Adam had been able to resist the temptation, what would have happened then? I think it is certainly clear in the bible that Eve's transgression was not equal to Adam's transgression. Could this be more a result of Eve being deceived and that Adam apparently chose to take despite the fact that he knew it was wrong? So, god gave Eve a slight break, but Cursed the whole entirety of humanity because of Adam's act of willful disobedience. Life sure was different in pre-law christianity.

 

Oy vey!

[bornagainathiest]

Wait a second there BAA... (begin sarcasm font here)

 

Are you saying that the bible says two contradictory things about whether or not Eve caused mankind to be forever corrupted by sin???

 

Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" and later on Romans 5:19 says the following "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." But the same supposed author says the following in I Timothy 2:14 " And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

 

How can this possibly be? What possible crazy scenario can someone make up to tie these two situations together so that they fit within the full scope of what the bible teaches about what happened to humans in regard to the fall? (end sarcasm here)

 

In all seriousness, how do these reconcile? If only Eve had sinned and Adam had been able to resist the temptation, what would have happened then? I think it is certainly clear in the bible that Eve's transgression was not equal to Adam's transgression. Could this be more a result of Eve being deceived and that Adam apparently chose to take despite the fact that he knew it was wrong? So, god gave Eve a slight break, but Cursed the whole entirety of humanity because of Adam's act of willful disobedience. Life sure was different in pre-law christianity.

 

Hey Storm!

 

I've done a bit more thinking about your above post and I reckon I need to take some of my comments back.

Maybe Romans 5 : 12 - 19 (Adam disobeyed and trespassed) and 1 Timothy 2 : 11 - 15 (Eve was deceived and sinned first) can be reconciled if we factor in the misogynistic view the Jews and the early Christians had of women.  These two passages are helpful in understanding what I mean.

 

1 Peter 3: 1 - 7

3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

 

Ephesians 5 : 22 - 24.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

Now, if this is how the likes Paul and Peter understood the relationship between Adam and Eve, things make much more sense.

So, even though Eve was deceived and sinned first, sin and death first came into the world by the actions of one man - Adam.  Why?  Because Adam was the head of his wife, Eve, just as Christ is the head of the church.  Therefore, HE was ultimately the responsible one, not her, even tho' she was deceived first and sinned first.  Let's also not forget that she wasn't created as his equal.  She was made for Adam as a helpmate, because none of the animals were suitable helpmates for him in working and taking care of God's garden.  In scripture, Eve's status is definitely inferior and subordinate to Adam's.

 

When she came to him and offered him the forbidden fruit, as her lord and master, he could have refused to eat and he could have rebuked her for disobeying God and listening to the serpent.  But he didn't.  He could have stayed loyal and trusted in God.  But he didn't.  He could have exercised his superior moral and spiritual strength to resist temptation.  But he didn't..

.

(If this sounds horribly sexist and paternalistic Storm - that's because it is.  This isn't my p.o.v.  This is Biblical Christianity.  Women aren't considered the equal of men in this hopelessly antiquated worldview.  The words, "weaker partner" don't do full justice to the original NT Greek.  http://biblehub.com/greek/asthenestero__772.htm  

"Weaker vessel" is a better translation.  Weaker as in more fragile, more brittle and more likely to fail.  This was weakness, not in the physical sense, but moral and spiritual weakness.  In other words, more easily deceived, more likely to sin and lacking in the moral and spiritual strength needed to resist temptation.)

 

Anyway, I submit that it was because Adam didn't keep faith with God and took the forbidden fruit from her, that Paul held him responsible for bringing sin and death into the world.  Therefore Paul could then compare Jesus with Adam in Romans 5.  He could compare the actions of one man with another.  He could claim that death came via one man and eternal life thru the other. That kind of symmetry makes for a far stronger sermon than if he'd compared Eve to Jesus.  Full credit to Paul for carefully crafting his words in this way.  Having studied under Gamaliel and also being a 'Pharisee of Pharisees' he knew the power of words and how to write persuasively.  Ok, he had to scapegoat Eve to get his point across, but since women were of less importance than men, that's no real problem.  

(No!  I don't agree with this, either.).

 

So, even though (technically speaking) Eve was the very first to sin, the full responsibility for the Fall is down to Adam.

This harmonizes Romans 5 with 1 Timothy 2 and removes the apparent contradiction.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA, I think you oughtta offer your services as a paid consultant to CARM or Reasonable Faith.

[Storm]

That certainly is a logical explanation. I understand it and realize that its probably very true for most Christians. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I made an interesting comment in my last post, which was this:

 

"If only Eve had sinned and Adam had been able to resist the temptation, what would have happened then? I think it is certainly clear in the bible that Eve's transgression was not equal to Adam's transgression. Could this be more a result of Eve being deceived and that Adam apparently chose to take despite the fact that he knew it was wrong? So, god gave Eve a slight break, but Cursed the whole entirety of humanity because of Adam's act of willful disobedience."

 

Upon thinking about this more, I find it very peculiar that the bible only makes a passing statement about Adam's eating of the fruit. Genesis 3:6-7 says the following:

 

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."

 

Doesn't it seem odd that the author goes into detail about Eve's temptation and her "decision making process" (if you want to call it that), but only makes a simple statement that she gave him the fruit and he ate it. There is so much information that is left out.

 

What if he really didn't know that it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What if she just brought a bunch of apples and gave him one that he assumed was an approved piece of fruit? The bible makes no mention of the specifics of that event. It only says she gave it to him and he ate it.

 

This might be the most lame story I have ever read. And to think that the fate of humankind rests on the premise of this story. You would think that there would have been more to the story to explain why our world exists as it does. There is no explanation as to why Adam chose to eat the fruit. No light is shed on any conversation that may have occurred between Adam and Eve. Did Adam willfully choose to eat or was he conned by his wife?

 

Looking further down in the passage in verse 17, you see that when God is cursing Adam and Eve, he makes the following statement:

 

"Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:..."

 

This appears to imply that Eve told him he could eat it. Or at the least, that they discussed it. So I suspect that there was a willfulness on Adam's part to eat the fruit.

 

It just seems very weak and deceptive to make the story of the fall of mankind be so simple and trivial. Where is the struggle that Adam dealt with when faced with the decision to disobey god, but having to take into account being pressured by his wife as well? Why not include this in the story? Or maybe it wasn't a struggle at all. Maybe Adam just didn't comprehend the entirety of the situation and as you explained in the OP, he was incapable of following this law and he was destined to fail from the start. Too much is left out of this story to make it even remotely plausible ,in my opinion.

 

The potential for me to rot and burn in hell for eternity is based entirely on a story that could have been written by a 7 year old.

 

I notice later that after god curses them both, he goes back to being the "good parent" and makes them clothes out of skin. This may be an indication that death existed pre fall. While it is understood that the fall happened, why would god all of the sudden kill some animals so that Adam and Eve could wear clothes? Suspicious if you ask me.

 

Its been fun dissecting this story. I have learned a great deal just in this exercise.

 

Thanks, BAA, for sharing this and helping me, and I am sure others, see the craziness that is christianity.

[bornagainathiest]

Wow!  

 

Ummm... I'm a little short on time asap, Human.  

I'll get back to on this when more of that precious stuff is available.  Oh and thanks v. much for taking such an interest and contributing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[littlewanderer]

Wow is right. That is some interesting reasoning on Humans Part. I'm looking forward to reading the responses.