Clivedurdle

As Adam and Eve were prevented from eating the tree of life and were originally created mortal - having to eat of the tree of life to gain immortality - there is no eternal punishment to save us from - because we have always been mortal!

Sorry, what was the purpose of Jesus's death and resurrection then? Maybe the Albigensians were right about God being an imposter!

Jack the Bodiless

...Yes, this is a resurrection of an old thread, but I've stumbled across something pertinent to it. From here:
So, God's lie about the fatal effects of magical food go way back to a Sumerian original. The difference is that En-ki lies about magical food to deny immortality to humanity, but gives knowledge voluntarily, which the chief god Anu diapproves of (though Anu apparently wanted us to have immortality). In Genesis, this becomes a lie to deny knowledge to humanity (which the serpent helps us to gain), and more drastic action to stop us gaining immortality too.

judge

Well funnily enough Augustine differentiated with mortale and moritorius

Mortale (Capable of Dying), Mortuum (Dead), and Moriturus (Destined to Die).

Lunawalk

One question I had Did God command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life along with the tree of good and evil?

Jack the Bodiless

No, that seems to have been overlooked.

There was only one type of magical food in the Sumerian version, which conferred immortality. In the Genesis reworking, another is introduced (and the "toxic lie" is transferred to it), but the author seems to have goofed by not accounting for the status of both.

seven8s

Yes, even unto this day, though I think they now are called the living dead.

Apparently not. Did Lord God?

They suffered a death in the mind of an inerrantists. But then again that’s what happens when you can’t think for yourself. Spirit is thought, an invisible energy that manifests through the objective (conscious) and subjective (subconscious). One without the other is powerless.

No big deal if that is what you believe, it would last only temporary if there is no singularity of purpose.

Perhaps we don’t know how to read...............

First you keep confusing God with Lord God........but assuming you mean Lord God..........

Not a good argument. Why then would he put the tree(s) there in the first place? Ah, but God didn’t, Lord God did, silly me. God made man, in His image, male (subconscious-provider-first-) and female (conscious-discernment-second) and said it is good. In Gen1 God makes no thing that He doesn’t say ‘it is good’. So who is Lord God? Creator of Adam. Taker of Eve.


Note that Genesis 2:9 states: “Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees to grow that were delightful to look at and good for food(a period can be added here), with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (NAB)�. Or......................

“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; (there is a period here with a comma for additional info of the same subject ‘trees’, not of necessity pleasant or good) the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (KJ’s)�.



As well note the following: The TOL is coupled with the various trees by the word ‘with’ implying that the TOL, like the various trees is delightful to look at and good for food. Is it? I would argue that upon careful inspection the verses don’t say what the TOL looks like and the TOK isn’t even placed let alone it’s appearance described. It simply states that it exists, perhaps in thin air (illusion). It’s placement in the context of the sentence is an after thought with the word ‘and’ (NAB). The TOL has no descriptive value, other then being in the ‘midst’, which if it were other then ‘pleasant to the sight and good for food’ (like the various trees) Eve did not eat of it. Again the TOK is an after thought (thin air) with no description period. Eve is screwed, known (not meaning to be vulgar) no matter which tree she eats from, various or otherwise.

From the NAB and the KJ’s & NAB she eats from a tree that is beautiful, good for food (thought) so that she (conscious) may be wise. That she ate from anything other then the various trees is an illusion in that she didn’t eat from a tree other then one that was beautiful, good and made one wise. Note the following from OP;

Spreading his seed...........................the first imposter.


Which we all know is dust, illusion, right? Don’t forget; the story does not say that Adam was taken from the dust, earth of the garden which begs the question which dust, soil or earth. And answers, any. And whatever happened to Eve? She remained behind with her (new) husband...............Lord God, because she was taken from Adam. Which is another whole story................

In truth the story can be sliced in hundreds of ways, looking for the object-ive through the subject-ive. Thought the story initially stinks (bdellium), there’s gold that’s incorruptible, and that’s eternal (lapis lazuli), which simply means never changes, or onyx (polished stone) as in onyx: Origin Greek onux ‘fingernail’ (claws=ROFL). And isn’t it Lord God who likes his stone (alters) rough, black? Perhaps that is why there are two rivers that run in the story that are true to this day, while the other two remain illusion.

Perhaps now we know why Jews stone graves. :rolling:

edit seven8s; fixed sentence

Lunawalk

I was asking because you could say They eat from the tree of life and thats why they could live to almost one thousand years. If God did not want them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why would he put it there in the first place saying it an poison tree. I guess the author of Geneses wanted to explain why people have a sense of right and wrong or why death is in the world.
I don't think that it was put in as an test of their loyality to him because God said they will die from eating from the tree not that he would kill them. So it strange that he would put that tree in the garden in the first place.

chimaira

it is a sprituelle death, if it eats "fruit" it is that they had needs for mortal!!!

danrael

I would like to throw a monkey wrench into all of this and relate an alternate version of the Temptation and Fall of Man, which, for various reasons, I believe to be the original, unsullied version, and the Christian version a corrupted work. Unfortunately, I cannot cite the source, since I heard this story years ago on a radio program, and vaguely remember that it might be Persian in origin. Those who read these lines will be subjected to a rare treat, as few have heard this one. (If anyone out there knows its origin, please let us all know). I do, however, remember the key points of the story. (One note before I begin: In the Christian version, please note that the end result is shame and separation from God, with the focal point being disobedience to God's commandment, and the resulting stain of Original Sin being passed on to all of mankind.) OK. So here goes:

As in the Christian story, God instructs Adam & Eve that all in the Garden is theirs to enjoy, but of of a certain tree's fruit, they are not to partake. "Okee, dokee", they agree, and God goes away. Now here is where the story takes a different turn: In the next scene, God re-appears to Adam & Eve IN THE FORM OF A SERPENT (no, not THE serpent), in order to INSURE that they eat of this "Forbidden" Fruit. What? But God just got through telling them NOT to eat the fruit! This story would mean that God is lying, and everybody knows that God does'nt lie, right? Right?.... So, to continue: Well, imagine you are Big Daddy, and you tell your children that they can have any toys they want in the room, but they are not to open the big box in the corner of the room, OK children? OK, Big Daddy! Daddy leaves the room. Where is the FIRST place the children are going to go? Of course! So what would be the point, unless, of course, Big Daddy WANTED them to go into the box, er, eat the fruit. But why, especially under the threat of some kind of death, whether spiritual or physical is not really the point, but the point being that when something is forbidden, it becomes much more desirable. So what is so desirable about this so-called "fruit" which is taken even though the result is inevitable death? Must really be something! Well, remember the serpent, and what he said to Adam & Eve: that God does not want them to eat of it because they would SEE AS GOD SEES. You see, Adam & Eve do not have God consciousness; they only have human consciousness, so they percieve Reality with Ordinary mind. In order for God to have REAL communion with man, either He would have to come down to their level, or bring them up to His. Now think of the "fruit" as a symbol of Higher Consciousness, as fruit is the end result of all of the efforts of a tree, or organic life, so Higher Consciousness is the end result of all of the efforts of spiritual life.
By giving Man the gift of Higher Consciousness, the bond of Man to God is assured, otherwise Man would forever remain Man, and God, God, and 'round and 'round we go. But think of it: not only does God give Man this gift, but Man actually comes to the Realization that HE is God, and God is he. (not egotistically, of course, so Christian, go away!). Now look at the end result, as compared with the Christian version: God and Man have achieved true Union, which is really the point, is it not? Disobedience is not the issue, here. Did God lie? God knew EXACTLY what He was doing when He told them NOT to eat of the fruit; that is the device He needed to use to achieve His ends. After all, who will hold Him accountable? HIS father? Let's not be ridiculous, nor too serious! Can't we allow God just a tiny bit of rascality here, a scosh of playfulness? Let's not forget that being God must include Pleasure and Mirthfulness, or what would be the point, sitting up there all icy and all? How do you think He brought the world into being? By seriously planning and Thinking about how to do it? Hardly! Nay! He was PLAYING. Playing? Playing what? Are you saying God is irresponsible? No! Playing a GAME. No, not just any game, but the most difficult game of all: The Master Game. Awakening to his own true identity, the Supreme Identity, the greatest Joy of all, Radiant, Pure, and Absolute Joy! So God commits a little Sin in order to get his children to take his gift, the greatest gift of all. Won't you forgive God this little infraction, considering what is at stake here? And, Oh, please stop trying to tease out the argument about "spiritual" vs. "physical" death, etc.: these are just convenient classifications which the Rational Mind uses as crutches in a feeble attempt to get a handle on the Ultimate Reality which is God. Do you really "think" there is a difference between the two? Remember, you are using the Rational Mind to try to figure this out, which is limited in comparison to Universal, or Big Mind. But back to our story: one last comment: please also note that in this version, there is no Sin, no Disobedience, and so no reason for Repentance, no Salvation, no need for a Crucifixion, or a place of Punishment. Just Pure,
Radiant, Unconditional Love and Absolute Joy. After all, would'nt you agree that God's Love is Unconditional? That is to say, that He is giving Man a gift with no strings attached? He is not saying: "Now, I will give you the gift of Heaven if you all just do as I say and be Good." That is Conditional Love, or acually, just a Contract, and not real Love at all. (Of course, that IS what He is saying, but He does'nt really MEAN it, in the context of this other version, so let's not hold Him to it, OK? Can you keep a secret? Shhhhhh) But if I just give you something simply and purely because I LOVE you, then that is Unconditional Love, the kind of Love that God is all about. What does God care whether you are obedient or not? No wonder A & E revolted! They were reminding God of His Unconditional Love! I pass this gift on to all of you. Thank you for listening.

"God became Man, that Man might become God." Meister Eckhart

PS: Oh, yes, about the serpent. As I understand it, in most cultures of the world, the serpent is a symbol of Divine Wisdom, but in the Christian culture, well, how dare he divulge those secrets, anyway?! What a devil!

PPS: Now, what if, behind the scenes of our wonderful story, God and Satan have actually made a pact of some sort, whilst up front, they are making it APPEAR as if they are mortal enemies, putting on the greatest dramatic act the world has ever known, without flinching an eyelash. On the edge of yer seats, except that it is happening in the Real World!

danrael

Excellent point!! No one is saying that spiritual death is bad. Maybe it is necessary in order to continue, to pass from one state to another. So spiritual death is no death at all, but, instead, a surrendering of one's holding on, which really is death-like. So then, God is wanting to pass from one state (the spiritual) to another (the physical) in order to PARTAKE OF and ENJOY the world He just finished creating! (and the Word BECAME flesh, etc.) "...and God so loved the world" (ie, the flesh), etc., or, as Chimaira says: "it is that they had needs for mortal!!! Amen. Apparently, God found the flesh a desirable enough state that He decided to transform Himself into it. In the Hindu world, the Godhead enters into the world and acts within it, all in the dreamworld. That is to say, what we call reality is, to the Hindu, the result of the dreaming Godhead. He is dreaming all of this and partaking of it at the same time. You and I are manifestations of that dream. Each of us is part of the Godhead indulging in this creative dream. When he awakens, He walks in the Radiant Awakened state and the dream disappears. Then He goes to sleep, and the dream starts all over again, over and over again, endlessly.

"Are we spirits trying to be human, or humans trying to be spiritual?" a Zen saying.

"Am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" a Chinese saying

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek." Zen saying