The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[Jim]

No, Jesus was speaking about material wealth. There is no other way to understand giving all you sell to the poor.

My, you grasp for straws to avoid saying I was right.
Hypocrite.

Such a ridiculous interpretation could only come from someone intent on destroying the truth of God's word.

 

[armylngst]

Again, God is NOT logical. Logic is the philosophy of man not God. There is nothing logic in what Jesus taught the Jews. The logical way to be rich is to accumulate wealth. But Jesus says, "if you want to be rich give away all you have."

The logical way to be exalted is to publish yourself and to exalt yourself that way. But God says, "if you want to be exalted, humble yourself and I will exalt you."

The logical way of life and living according to the world's logical mindset is to live it up to the fullest, while God says "to gain your life you must die to yourself."

No, God is not logical. He is paradoxical.

Little pieces. God is logical. We have a philosophical thing that we call logic, however, logic is also present in math and science, and it isn't philosophical there. Cause and effect. That isn't philosophical, it is something you can directly observe. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is logic, and logical, and again, can be directly observed. That car over there in the corner cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. That is, again, logic, and it can be directly observed. If the car is invisible, it did not cease to exist. You just don't realize that it is there. So, that means logic is not connected to you. You are not the foundation of logic. It exists IN NATURE. However, given the nature of logic, it cannot be material, and must be immaterial. Therefore, since it is not connected to any single mind within creation, it cannot be a part of the mind of man, or a part of creation. Since it is immaterial, it must have a foundation in the mind, and the only mind that is left, having removed all others, is the mind of God. Therefore, not only is God logical, God IS the basis of all logic. As such, the only way to understand your so-called gotcha statements, is to look at them from God's level.

If you are rich on Earth, how does God see that? Does that put you in God's league? Does that make you rich in God's valuation? Can you compete with God in terms of wealth? Jesus told the rich young man to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and he would have treasure in heaven. (You really need to present Jesus in purity and truth.) Treasure in heaven has immeasurable worth next to what we have on Earth.

Which is worth more? To have the whole world, to be exalted to the highest position in the world, to be known and famous to every last person living on Earth, yet lose your soul, or to have the God who created it all, exalt you above all others? What good is it for you to be known and revered by every last person on Earth, if you stand before God and He says, I don't know you, go away. Does that at all seem logical to you?

And to the last statement, what good is it to live, if by living and saving our own lives, we lose our life? Ourself is sinful, corrupt and damned. However, if we lose our lives for His sake, we gain/save it. So it would seem logical that to gain our life, we must die to ourselves and die FOR HIM. (Dying to self not being literal, but forsaking our wants and desires to seek after His.)

God is logical. It is YOU, who apparently by nature, are illogical.

 

[armylngst]

No, that is incorrect. The word "good" in the creation narrative merely means "to specification."

You really should look up words instead of giving it your own meaning.
3 good, excellent of its kind:

a. of the several creations, וירא אלהים כי טוֺב and God saw that it was good, excellent Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25 (P); טוֺב מאר כל אשׁר עשׂה והנּה Genesis 1:31 (P) God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very excellent. So

It doesn't mean perfect or holy or sinless or moral. The word "good" means "to specification" meaning after God created something and it came out to specification of the way He wanted it to be created He says so. We say the same thing when we bake a meal from a recipe that comes out good, it comes out as specified by the recipe and we say, "yum, that's good." There's another Hebrew word that has moral connotations and meaning and it is NOT used here in the creation narrative. All creation is fallen short of God's glory. It is sinful. And what is "sinful"?

So, for God to create something EXCELLENT that excels all else, it must be sinful? It isn't excellent if it isn't sinful? Other meanings of this word in Hebrew include beautiful, and most outstanding. So, while it is not moral, it seems to be included by the sheer magnitude of the word. God did not create anything that missed the mark, or better stated, God didn't create anything sub-par.

Sin is lack of conformity to the character and nature of God. Since God cannot create Himself in Himself He had to create the universe and bring time-space into existence and in that "petri-dish" bring into existence His Plan of Man.

Again, none of what you said actually means anything. It doesn't matter what YOU say, as God is the expert on God, not you. Sin is, again, explicitly defined as, "to miss the mark/standard". That has nothing to do with conformity, and everything to do with... not missing the standard. It is not conformity to the character and nature of God, as you will NEVER be omnipotent, so please, stop with the make believe. (Omnipotence is part of the nature of God, as is omnipresence, and omniscience.) God did not have to create the universe. I mean, the only bit we get in Genesis about the creation of the universe is several words. "and He created the stars also."

Man was created from previously created matter (dust/dirt of the ground), while Jesus Christ is "Lord from heaven."
One is of the earth, earthy; the other is the Lord from heaven. The first Adam was sinful in his creation which is why he sinned for sin comes from sinner; and the last Adam (Christ) was not created but born of God.

No, man is the created being. Christ is the Lord from heaven who was born holy. Sin does not come or is committed by a sinless Person: Jesus.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35.

Jesus was holy and did no sin. Adam was created sinful and sinned. God is teaching a distinction between the first man (Adam) and the last Adam (Christ.) Adam sinned because he was sinful ("missing the mark.") Jesus Christ was holy and committed no sin neither was guild found in His mouth. This biblical teaching is foundation and paramount to understanding the great distance of character between Adam and Christ.

No, I understand Jesus' command to "love your enemies." While you misinterpret Jesus entirely.

Jesus is speaking to Jews. He brings up a precept God gave to the children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle after God placed the tribes in lots around the Tabernacle. Three tribes were situated to the north of the Tabernacle, three tribes were placed by God to the west of the Tabernacle, etc. From the air it took the shape of an "X" or cross. Then God commanded the children of Israel:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:17–18.

"Thy brother" was a member of the same tribe.
"Neighbor" was a member of a tribe living next to another tribe.
"Children of thy people" is a member of ANY tribe, and,
"Neighbor" again, is a member of a tribe living next to another tribe.

In Matthew Jesus is teaching the Jews the following when He brings up the subject of "love" God originally commanded the children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:43–45.

If you know anything about Jewish history, then you would know that after the death of Solomon the kingdom divided. Ten northern kingdom tribes called "Israel" against two southern kingdom tribes called Judah, and each claiming rightful heir to Solomons throne. In Scripture, these two kingdoms warred against each other several times before they were both defeated by Assyria and Babylon. Moses promised the children of Israel God would send Jesus as a "Prophet like unto me [Moses.]"
John the Baptist said in John 1:31 Jesus was sent and appeared (manifest) to Israel. And in the first century AD there were still animosities against the twelve tribes. Jesus as King of the Jews is trying to teach unity and forgiveness among His subject but His words would not be fulfilled until He possesses the throne of David after Armageddon.

In Matthew 5:43 Jesus brings up the Levitical command of God He gave to Israel on love. What Jesus is teaching the Jews must be understood in the context in which it was given: TO THE JEWS.
It was not given to Gentiles but today Gentiles interpret "neighbor" as someone living next to you in an apartment complex or a family living next to another family on a suburban city block. That is the wrong interpretation of Jesus' teaching to the Jewish multitude in Matthew 5.
Also in Matthew 5 Jesus brings up the Law on "killing" and in "forswearing's," and the Law of retribution of "eye for an eye," etc.
In Matthew 5 Jesus is teaching the children of Israel on things contained in the Law of Moses which Laws were given to Israel NOT Gentiles. To interpret Jesus and insert "Gentiles" into His teaching is a violation of the Law and of Jesus teaching of the Law on love. God commanded Israel to love Israel. God never commanded the Jews to love Gentiles.
But that is how His words are misinterpreted today.

The bottom line is Christ possesses all authority (Matthew 28:19-20) and God gives Him the glory not man.
The angels that sinned were locked up before God created man and there is no such thing as "by sinning Adam gave up his dominion" and all that other false understanding of the Biblical text. Christ is central to the Biblical record and NOT man. But you give way too much glory to man and "Satan." Christ doesn't share His authority with man. There is no conflict of interest. All dominion from the beginning was given to the Son of God.

To be honest, it isn't even worth my time to talk about how wrong the above is. However:
1. Jude
"6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2 Peter
"4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

Adam had dominion, as God gave it to Adam, and made a statement of it. Did God lie? Man obviously no longer has dominion, but Satan does. I mean, cause and effect. By man's sin, Satan became the Prince of the Power of the Air. He took over. However, God is still the Creator, and as such is like the King of creation, whereas Satan is one who God has given a time to be in charge, but God could end him at any time. (And does end him... see Revelation for spoilers.)

Peter was speaking of two events that are related, and Jude shows this. The angels kept not their first estate, and, according to Jud, Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for doing the same thing. In like manner they gave themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh. That goes back to Noah's flood, where it starts with saying that the sons of God went in to the daughters of men. Sons of God in the Old Testament speaks to angels. So angels, perhaps through possession, sinned. Sodom and Gomorrah, how is it the same? They, even after being blinded, fought to get to the door to "know" the angels staying with Lot. They even refused Lot's daughter. (That was a sin on Lot's part, but it showed the absolute degeneracy of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.) Hence it says "going after strange flesh".

Sinful, fallen man is NOT the image of God. I already gave you Biblical proof as to who the image of God is:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:15–16.

Again, you seem to REFUSE to recognize that the meaning of the word image in the Old Testament, and the meaning of image given in Colossians 1:15 ARE NOT THE SAME. Two completely different ideas. One speaks to likeness, having aspects, but not a copy. The other speaks of a copy, a duplicate, everything is present in the image that is present in the original. A facsimile. Adam was created in the image and likeness (take the two together) of God, and was NOT any kind of duplicate. He contains aspects of God, that some people say are fingerprints of God. As an example I gave, if another "god" came by and saw us, they would recognize who made us. Jesus, on the other hand, and the word image used in Colossians 1:15, is a duplicate, a copy, containing all God is, which is simple to understand because Jesus is God. Two completely different ideas.

So, a simple yes or no question for you. Did God lie when He said let us create man in our own image and likeness, and then had the author who wrote Genesis write that God did it? (This is NOT a rhetorical question. YES or NO.)

Christ is the image of God, and there is no better image of a Father than a Son.

Again, the word SON and the word IMAGE in relation to Jesus (different words than used for Adam...completely different) refer to Jesus as being the same substance as God. In other words Jesus and God, Jesus and the Father, are inseperable. It helps that Jesus Himself said this.

Anybody who knew who Jesus was learned it personally by interacting with Him or by word of mouth as news of Him was publicized across Israel.
And "demons" are not fallen angels. They do not have creative powers to change their nature. Besides this, the angels that sinned were locked up to await judgment.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:4.

Man is on his own on the planet and always has been. There is no such thing as "the devil made me do it." The angels that sinned were all locked up. I don't understand how you can see these proofs and reject the Scripture.

Reason is not logic Are not the same thing.

Reason IS logic. Reasoning is having an argument, and having a conclusion that follows from the premises that makes up the argument. Something that is rational (logically speaking) is called sound reasoning. Something that is irrational (illogical) is called unsound reasoning.

That's right. Man is NOT like God and for this reason he is fallen short of God's glory. He is fallen SHORT and the word for this is "sin."

Man is not like God because man is a created being. You don't even have to get to fallen short of God's glory. Man is a created thing, GOD IS NOT. Right there is an uncrossable chasm. However, Adam was sinless at his creation. That is, he had no sin. He lived without sin until... HE SINNED. Then he was no longer sinless, but sinful. (Funny how that reasoning works.) Genesis even tells us what happened when he sinned. Nothing says that Adam became less Godlike. It doesn't have to. Genesis was pretty specific in stating that Adam was created by God. The changes that occurred are the curses God placed upon the serpent, Adam, and Eve, but prior, their eyes were open (now knowing the difference between good and evil), and they realized they were naked. In other words, they were overcome by the shame/embarresment of not having clothes.

Wow, you are so infected with false teaching on many levels. I think you should put down those theology books and other false devotionals and study the Word of God the way Saul did it: under the anointing and with a good Scripture. There are many translations that are flawed and corrupt translations and you need to get yourself a KJV because that is the best English translation for English-speaking people. All these new-age, modern translations made from the Greek version of Westcott & Hort and all just bad, corrupt, translations.
Study under the anointing. Let God direct your thoughts and your understanding of His Word and throw away all those theology books that have it wrong. All you need is a good translation and the Holy Spirit. He will guide you into all truth, but if your reliance is upon other people's bible studies and not your own anointed study then you will end up with believing false things and lies about the One True God.

What theology books. You would do better if you didn't let Satan infect your learning. You have thrown out whole portions of the Bible since they don't line up with your beliefs. You have explicitly stated that both Jesus and God LIED, and somehow that seems to tell me that it isn't God teaching you. How did people in churches founded by Paul learn? Well, they had Paul, Peter and others there to give them theology books and devotionals. I mean, their theology books are in our Bible. And others don't solely rely on the Bible either. John MacArthur, just as an example, had over 50 years of 8 hours a day study of the BIble. (A requirement he gave the church when they asked him to become a pastor in 1969.) He has read books written by many other people, and through the gift of discernment, learned what the BIble teaches. He then, as a pastor, as God has called some to do, teaches others. Where did Apollos, one of the boldest preachers of God in Paul's day, learn to be so bold and true? He was dragged aside by two members of the church, Aquilla and Priscilla, who used the Bible to teach him of God properly. He already had knowledge, but it was incomplete. As far as explicit lies about the One True God, you have given quite a few. I have pointed them out, but you refuse to acknowledge, and continue in your error. Reading what you wrote above, it is no mystery where these errors came from. There is a reason why God wants Christians in church and under a pastor. If God didn't want that, He wouldn't have bothered calling people to be pastors to feed and oversee His flock, and to hold them to a higher standard. That is, if they lead people falsely, they are accountable.