Adam/Eve Jesus and the tree of knowledge of good and Evil

I ask one question

Was Adam PBUH ignorant about what god told him about the tree ?

IF god didn't tell him about the tree , so he was ignorant. So there is no blame on him.

And if he knew about what comes if he eats from it , then he was not completely ignotrant , he had some knowledge about the result.

So , if he had knowledge above the result , then how could a tree of knowledge help him ?

Knowledge is absolute and comprehensive.It doesn't add up with ignorance.

God didn't want and he did keep Adam ignorant about the result. He knew about the result , he may was curious.

So the tree was not the tree of knowledge.

But it is common to see people think like that

In west , religion and science are told to be confronting , so there is no wonder that god confront knowledge.

reply to post by mideast


Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil...because once you learn the difference between good and evil you are condemned to do evil actions and think evil thoughts.

Its reverse psychology..."don't think of a black cat" and what do you go and think of..a black cat.
Hers another example...who do you think take the lords name in vein more than anyone else? Hindus, Buddhists or Christians..because only one of those groups is specifically told not to.

The fact is you were taught what evil is...thou shalt not do this..thou shalt no do that...from the same book that says your supposed to stay ignorant of what good and evil are.

Its a trap. The Bible is a trap..Religion is an even bigger trap.

If you believe in being ripped off, manipulated and conned then you can buy into all that BS.

A con artist would tell you that you should trust him on his word alone and the bible calls people who question "miracles" doubting Thomas. No critical thinking allowed in the Bible. Get it. The SHEEP and the SHEPARD. Get it.

Further more...The bible was not written by God..it is not the word of God...its the word of many of men. God does not use a pen and paper and if God wanted to communicate to us people God would perform a miracle like he did for Moses with the 10 commandments.

Because supposedly those 10 commandments were not normal 3 dimensional objects, but hyper dimensional objects, where the letters carved into the tablets went straight through to the other side, and when the tablets were flipped around the words still read in the same direction...and where letters like "O" should just be holes they retained a stone center that floated within the spaces...which is of course IMPOSSIBLE TO DO..UNLESS YOUR GOD.
Or unless its all made up...

reply to post by TheBlackHat

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil...because once you learn the difference between good and evil you are condemned to do evil actions and think evil thoughts.

Its reverse psychology..."don't think of a black cat" and what do you go and think of..a black cat.

That is an illusion , I can control the result of my thoughts and I choose what I want to do.

There is a confrontation , witnesses and lawyers talk about their intentions , but I am the one who decides what I want , what I like , what I do.

Satan makes people irresponsible about what they do. They put the blame on the instruction. But it won't stick to it. The blame is on none-ignorant who discovered the truth.

But the loops of illusion are not something simple.

reply to post by TheBlackHat

The bible was not written by God..it is not the word of God

Bible is not the root of the problems , people are the problem.

There are enough basic facts in religions which shows the truth to people.

But they ignore it and bring all the problems to the world as we see.

Don't blame the tree , don't blame the instructions , don't blame your wisdom , but blame yourself.

For me the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolise the illusion of the ego to think it knows right from wrong without the whole story from all views. It is simply duality.

The souls wanted to try to guess right from wrong with small human minds and limited perception without being guided by synchronicity so you disconnected from ONE (petname for god) by creating selfish egos that are in the way for you to connect again and use your third eye. And now there is a lot of disconnected ones who cannot find their way home.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by TheBlackHat

 

The bible was not written by God..it is not the word of God

Bible is not the root of the problems , people are the problem.

There are enough basic facts in religions which shows the truth to people.

But they ignore it and bring all the problems to the world as we see.

Don't blame the tree , don't blame the instructions , don't blame your wisdom , but blame yourself.

Religion contains to much dogma and small minded ideas of what is right and wrong that humans have said is the truth of god. The only rule that humanity seem to agree on is to obey the golden rule or face the consequences.

Many priest are now days failing to follow that rule and will face the consequences when they get to face what they have created. The excuse: but this book that described you told us to do it like this is not a very good excuse is it.

How does the so called unconditional love that god has work? It seems like god loves everybody at a distance waiting for the soul to become ready for mutualism(symbiosis).

For instance I have a sister that I cannot be around since she causes to much trouble and play a lot of mind games with her surrounding that causes a lot of roller coasters of emotion. I can love what she might become one day but I cannot say I even like her or hate her right now. I am totally indifferent to her and that is ok for me.

God might love a person unconditionally from a distance but that does not mean it can stand to have the person in it's presence since having that persons soul around might cause trouble. God seems to despise the ego in different forms. Grace seem to me to be conditional because if not every soul on this planet filled with bliss/chakra right now.

I do however believe that god will never give up on a soul but wait patiently for the soul to get it so god can give you that connection.

reply to post by LittleByLittle

How does the so called unconditional love that god has work?

do you realize you answered your own question?

I do however believe that god will never give up on a soul but wait patiently for the soul to get it

reply to post by LittleByLittle

I do however believe that god will never give up on a soul but wait patiently for the soul to get it so god can give you that connection.

You don't believe in Hell, then?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

I do however believe that god will never give up on a soul but wait patiently for the soul to get it so god can give you that connection.

You don't believe in Hell, then?

edit on 20-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I do but not the biblical version. From my point of view you are in hell when your ideal world you want is too different from the world you exist in. This brings a state of mind (deep depression) where you are disconnected from everything around you and alone and feel like everything around you is less than perfect even unclean sometimes. A state of the ego where you frankly do not see humans around you as souls that are evolving anymore because you only see the worst in them. This is how I describe what a demonic being is. A person who is feeling totally alone (disconnected) with everything around it an enemy. That duality view/disconnection creates hate towards everything that is around the person that is different. Duality always do. It is a quite painful experience.

From my ideal mind perspective this place is still a crappy place but at least now I have my answers of why I am here. Sometimes you have to experience the worst of things before you can experience the best of things.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Jesus is the light

Genesis 1:3 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

1 Thessalonians 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.

John 1:4-8 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The bible definitely calls Jesus the firstborn, He may have created heaven and earth before he created "light/love/Jesus" but he considers Jesus as a son, hence born.

Since you believe me wrong answer the following question and provide scripture for your answer.

Can you tell me what the light in Genesis 1:3 and why the term "US" in the creation account?

I have provided an answer for both of these questions. Neither of my answers conflict with any passage in either the OT or NT. You merely believe I'm wrong because you don't agree. You have not proven anything that I say is incorrect and not in agreement with scripture.

Until you can prove that you can answer these questions more effectively maybe you should accept the fact that I at least could be right.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop attacking my knowledge of scripture as if I have no clue what it says. You and others keep doing this and I really don't understand what you base your claims on. Other than I don't agree with you.

Until you can tell me exactly what I say that is against Christ and provide scripture to prove me wrong I would suggest that you stop attacking my interpretation and start to study it instead. In this way if I am wrong than you could correct me, but if I am right?

reply to post by jmdewey60


You claim to have a great understanding of scripture but constantly debate whether we can even trust all scripture. You tell people to go a read books outside of scripture so that they understand scripture. I think you even told me I should do bible study with others.

The bible says that no one is to be your teacher because the Holy Spirit will teach all men all things. The bible says all scripture is God breathed. I believe every word in the bible is the inspired word.

From a logical standpoint who is likely to have the right interpretation of not just the bible but any book.

The one who discards some of the book as lies and thus is required to go to other books to find the truth?
Or the person who believes that every word is the truth and trust the promise that the Holy Spirit will come to me and teach me all things?

Since you have discarded much of the book as corrupted it is impossible for you to reconcile all scripture to the truth, it is because of this that you have created your own truth that is sufficient for you.

My truth is the bible, inspired and protected by the father so that we may have the truth in its entirety. Since I know God is love and my understanding points to a loving father, I will have to stick to what I believe.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Why do I keep getting accused of Cherry picking? I have made it abundantly clear on many occasion that I am a young earth creationist who believes that every word in the bible is the truth from God. How could I hold onto that belief and still cherry pick?

My personality, extremely logical, a perfectionist, possibly even a little OCD about being perfect. Add to that the sheer amount of time I have invested in reading/listening/studying the scriptures. If I found even one verse that contradicted the whole of what I believe, I would be without faith.

Quite honestly I couldn't cherry pick even if I wanted to. Although I have spent much time in the word and living my life as close to possible as Christ has instructed, these concepts don't come from me, but rather to me. I am not any smarter or wiser than any of you. God simply reveals the scripture to me so that I may understand. This is what the bible says will happen if one has faith.

Nothing that I say is against anything in the bible. It is only against the church, but I can show you in every example the exact scripture the church is misinterpreting and then prove how the church accepts ideas that blatantly contradict other passages.

You don't want to believe me not because of what I say, but because what me being right would mean to you. If I am right you would have to accept the gift of interpretation and the teaching from the Holy Spirit.

If I am right if you pursue love you won't need me because the spirit of love will enter you and teach you all things just like he taught me. In this way you will "know" for yourself. No one can help you "know" God only God can choose to reveal himself to you.

reply to post by mideast


The tree is the knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree could have been an apple tree, the metaphor is far more important here. If you look at the description of Eden it could be assumed that at least on a subconscious level ADAM had knowledge of good, and therefore he knew that breaking the command was at least against what is good.

It is not until one does wrong or someone does wrong to them that they truly begin to understand evil. So simply disobeying revealed to ADAM the knowledge of Evil, which is why they became ashamed to be naked in God's presence.

Being naked in God's presence alone is not evil, but that they now recognized the evil that can come from being naked, lust.

Everything happens by the will of God, meaning God put a test in front of them that they were designed to fail. He knew what they would do but yet tested them anyway. Why would God create something that he was only going to hate? God is love and it was his intention that by giving us this knowledge we could become like him. We were made to be like him, this is what is promised in the bible.

reply to post by windword


This question is more for fun than anything. Don't you find yourself a little presumptuous telling me what a book that you don't believe in says? I mean from a spiritual standpoint wouldn't it be hard to understand something that you don't believe to be true? After all you are not even looking to see if it could be true anymore.

Sorry just had to point that out for a little fun.

Believe me I have had a time or two looking into alternative accounts that appear to mirror stories in the bible. There are several fundamental flaw in doing this.

1. The contents of the bible are unchanged based on archeoligal evidence for about 2000 years. Almost every extra biblical source claiming to predate the bible simply has no evidence that it existed in its current form for anything more than the past 1000 years or so.

2. In the case where we have stone tablets, you will find that these stories are often times the ones closest resembling biblical text. Then an incorrect assumption is made. You claim Moses is simply retelling known history. The bible itself explains why this is not the best assumption. The bible makes no mention of what type of spiritual knowledge was bestowed on those who lived prior to the flood.

So rather than saying Moses simply borrowed those stories, it could be said God simply retold them to a generation who was unaware of them. The differences in the stories could be explained quite simply. The bible is accurate, the stones predating the bible were real stories handed down by oral tradition that have been slightly altered by the time someone decided to engrave it in stone. This belief actually strengthens not weakens my faith.

Maybe it is impossible to describe "what is love"
But everyone knows it when they feel it, so is a description really necessary?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with "God", and the Word was "God".

And . . so?
It's pretty clear in what you quoted that the Logos was God.
Logos is here being used as a philosophical term, meaning the driving force behind the universe.
Rather than getting into a debate over what that force is, John simply stated that God is.

It's also been established that "God" is composed of a Holy Trinity that is distinct within itself but a united entity to all others.

The belief in a trinity was not something established by a committee, but something integral to Christianity since its inception.
The particulars of how the Trinity functions on a heavenly level is what was debated and to modern man it should be easy enough to realize that sort of thing is beyond human comprehension. That is, the "how it works" part is, not the "who is it" part. That was always universally known and accepted by the early Christians.

Jesus was one of the three elements, which means he was there in the beginning because all three elements were engaged in their union long before the universe was born.

Arianism believes that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

It says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with "God", and the Word was "God".

And . . so?
It's pretty clear in what you quoted that the Logos was God.
Logos is here being used as a philosophical term, meaning the driving force behind the universe.
Rather than getting into a debate over what that force is, John simply stated that God is.

It's also been established that "God" is composed of a Holy Trinity that is distinct within itself but a united entity to all others.

The belief in a trinity was not something established by a committee, but something integral to Christianity since its inception.
The particulars of how the Trinity functions on a heavenly level is what was debated and to modern man it should be easy enough to realize that sort of thing is beyond human comprehension. That is, the "how it works" part is, not the "who is it" part. That was always universally known and accepted by the early Christians.

Jesus was one of the three elements, which means he was there in the beginning because all three elements were engaged in their union long before the universe was born.

Arianism believes that.

edit on 20-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with "God", and the Word was "God".
In the beginning was love, and love was with God, and love is God.

Notice in the NT it is always "THE WORD" of God and never "THE WORD(S)" of God. Implying ONE word, LOVE, and the love of this world is Christ.

reply to post by sacgamer25

You claim to have a great understanding of scripture but constantly debate whether we can even trust all scripture.

I don't make that claim. I do work at it though, studying the Bible, and it involves reading a lot of what other people write about it, rather than just looking at the Bible itself.
I don't "constantly debate" that since the only people who would take the other side have been banned for a while now.
"Trust" is something that can be used in a lot of ways. I trust that the books of the New Testament were written before the Fourth Century AD. I trust that the Old Testament was written sometime in that same century, and were not Medieval inventions made to trick people.
I don't trust that the titles given to the books always accurately describe them, or the normal attributions as to their authors are always correct. Regardless of that, each book reflects the belief of at least one person at the time that it was written.
I don't place the same weight on all books as to their authority, for example, a book written by Paul, over a forgery made to look like Paul had written it.
Jesus after his resurrection and ascension, gave a special spirit by breathing on his disciples in order to found his church. The books written by those individuals, and Paul, a latecomer but someone who communed with the risen Christ, I would include, are to me especially authoritative over all other books in the Bible.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Jesus after his resurrection and ascension, gave a special spirit by breathing on his disciples in order to found his church. The books written by those individuals, and Paul, a latecomer but someone who communed with the risen Christ, I would include, are to me especially authoritative over all other books in the Bible.

edit on 20-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I agree with you that more importance needs to be placed on the first at least 4 books in the NT. But I say this for a different reason than you might think. I believe the first 4 books hold all the wisdom necessary to find God. But I believe the rest is written in such a way that the truth is only revealed to those who God wants to.

Understand that I did not choose this, but rather God choose me. I only say this because I don't feel superior in any way. And in some ways I may be inferior; my path was not the easiest. But the truth is the books after the 4 gospels can be very confusing. You really have to be able to throw away everything you have ever believed the bible says and be open to really listening.

Even then it may be impossible to understand anything after the first 4 gospels without the Holy Spirit guiding you from within.

reply to post by sacgamer25

The bible says that no one is to be your teacher because the Holy Spirit will teach all men all things. The bible says all scripture is God breathed. I believe every word in the bible is the inspired word.

I think this is a homemade verse that you created by splicing parts of verses together, then changing the grammar to suite yourself.
There is a verse in John 16 where Jesus is preparing his disciples for his departure and says the spirit will come and will "guide you into all the truth."
That was specific to the ones he was talking to, including the person who wrote the book where that quote is found, so the New Testament comes from what Jesus was describing.
In Matthew, Jesus says not to let people call you rabbis. Again, he is talking to his disciples.
Also if you look at the rest of the verse, Jesus seems to be saying that the point is more practical and means not for one of the disciples to make the rest as if they were now his disciples.
I think that you are applying the things said to the Apostles to yourself in an inappropriate way.
2 Timothy says this thing that you are extracting a tidbit from and making into a slogan. The proper way to understand what he was saying (whoever wrote that) is that this was way down the road in the development of church officialdom and things were being drug up from the past to use as ammunition to combat factions from forming, one of those is to claim that you are following what had been the original message by the Apostles. As proof of that, and the very notion of the correctness of following that, you have a book fabricated purporting to have been written by Paul, and addressing that very issue.
The point I am getting at is that by the time what you are partially quoting was written, the authentic letters of Paul were published and well known and accepted as 'scripture', so when it uses that word, it means the early form of the New Testament because the context describes the Gospel as taught and written about by the Apostles.