Were humans created immortal?

[juvenissun]

If the cross was foreordained from before the foundation of the world, then mankind was going to sin. That doesn't mean sin isn't our own free choice. Every sin is a choice. What we can't manage given our flesh and blood and human desires is consistency. But look at the command they had to obey, this wasn't the Mosaic Law with all its precepts and regulations. This was a simply leave this one tree alone, and they couldn't even do that. It is not that maybe they could have kept that command and lived in paradise, the tree of knowledge shows they could not keep the simplest rule. Of course we needed the cross.

In spite of the bible describing Adam and Eve being made from flesh?

Eve was tripped up by the very same appetites and desires that make us fall. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Compare that with James description of how our own desires trip us up.
James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.


Don't we all learn first hand the difference between good and evil when we do what we know is wrong? It doesn't need a magical tree for that and the bible doesn't say the tree was magical. The bible says their eyes were opened when they sinned, why? Because they sinned and broke their relationship with God and went from life to spiritual death. The power of the tree of knowledge was not in the fruit, it was in their sin.

Between the two issues you commented, I take this one first. Because I am not sure about it.

God ties the eating of the fruit of knowledge and sin together. You can not have one without having the other. But why do you attribute the power of telling good and evil to sin? Is this power clearly labeled on the fruit?

See the tree of knowledge disappeared since the sin. That tree is not in Heaven and will never be seen again. We inherited the power, which tells good from evil. Through the Christ, we now have our sin covered (or washed away?). But, we still have the power of telling the good from the evil. We will keep this power in the Heaven (don't know if we will still have chance to use it).

 

[Assyrian]

Between the two issues you commented, I take this one first. Because I am not sure about it.

God ties the eating of the fruit of knowledge and sin together. You can not have one without having the other. But why do you attribute the power of telling good and evil to sin? Is this power clearly labeled on the fruit?

sure, but did the fruit have that power because it was a magical fruit, or because it was forbidden, and eating it brought a deep personal experience of guilt, regret and the realisation of what they had done. Why do you even need to add magic fruitery to that?

See the tree of knowledge disappeared since the sin. That tree is not in Heaven and will never be seen again.

I don't know when was the last time you saw unclean pork? doesn't mean pigs disappeared.

We inherited the power, which tells good from evil. Through the Christ, we now have our sin covered (or washed away?). But, we still have the power of telling the good from the evil. We will keep this power in the Heaven (don't know if we will still have chance to use it).

Kids aren't born knowing good and evil are they? So why do we talk of a loss of innocence, what changes in people when they lose their innocence? Sometimes it is their own sin that loses them their innocence,other times is is an encounter with the sin and wickedness of others. But each time it is a personal encounter with sin that teaches us what good and evil are.

 

[juvenissun]

sure, but did the fruit have that power because it was a magical fruit, or because it was forbidden, and eating it brought a deep personal experience of guilt, regret and the realisation of what they had done. Why do you even need to add magic fruitery to that?

I don't know when was the last time you saw unclean pork? doesn't mean pigs disappeared.

Kids aren't born knowing good and evil are they? So why do we talk of a loss of innocence, what changes in people when they lose their innocence? Sometimes it is their own sin that loses them their innocence,other times is is an encounter with the sin and wickedness of others. But each time it is a personal encounter with sin that teaches us what good and evil are.

Very well, we touched the problem of the origin of sin.

But, I will simply repeat my question: Gen 2,3 gives us an answer. Sin is sin and knowledge of good and evil is knowledge. They are two different things but God ties them together. However, according to you, it seems all you need in this story is the consequence: sin, but not the cause: the particular tree.

So, if God said to Adam: You should not eat the pepper from the small tree of sadness, everything will still be the same. The tree of knowledge simply does not have any special meaning. Right? Without the special tree and fruit, we will still be able to tell the good from evil, simply because we sinned sometime after we were born.

It does not sounds right to me.

 

[Assyrian]

Very well, we touched the problem of the origin of sin.

But, I will simply repeat my question: Gen 2,3 gives us an answer. Sin is sin and knowledge of good and evil is knowledge. They are two different things but God ties them together.

Aren't they tied together? If you sin you will have the experience of sin, and the knowledge of what it is like and how different regret and guilt are from innocence and a clear conscience.

However, according to you, it seems all you need in this story is the consequence: sin, but not the cause: the particular tree.

No, the cause was God's command and them breaking it. The tree happened to be the subject of God's command, but given the law was a dietary restriction, the subject could just as easily have been any other arbitrary command. The point was their obedience and the knowledge of good and evil the consequence of their disobedience.

So, if God said to Adam: You should not eat the pepper from the small tree of sadness, everything will still be the same.

It is a bit like the image of jealousy Ezekiel saw in the temple in Jerusalem Ezek 8:5, it is not that there was anything magical about the image, it certainly made God jealous, but not by having a magical power over him. It made him jealous because they were worshiping a pagan god. Yet it is called the image of jealous because that is the effect of their sin, erecting a pagan idol in the temple of the Lord. In the same way the effect of being disobedient and eating the fruit would be the knowledge of good and evil.

The tree of knowledge simply does not have any special meaning. Right?

Apart from bringing the knowedge of good and evil when they ate it?

Without the special tree and fruit, we will still be able to tell the good from evil, simply because we sinned sometime after we were born.

It does not sounds right to me.

Can you show me in the bible where it says we were all born with the knowledge of good and evil because of Adam and Eve?

 

[juvenissun]

Aren't they tied together? If you sin you will have the experience of sin, and the knowledge of what it is like and how different regret and guilt are from innocence and a clear conscience.


No, the cause was God's command and them breaking it. The tree happened to be the subject of God's command, but given the law was a dietary restriction, the subject could just as easily have been any other arbitrary command. The point was their obedience and the knowledge of good and evil the consequence of their disobedience.


It is a bit like the image of jealousy Ezekiel saw in the temple in Jerusalem Ezek 8:5, it is not that there was anything magical about the image, it certainly made God jealous, but not by having a magical power over him. It made him jealous because they were worshiping a pagan god. Yet it is called the image of jealous because that is the effect of their sin, erecting a pagan idol in the temple of the Lord. In the same way the effect of being disobedient and eating the fruit would be the knowledge of good and evil.

Can you show me in the bible where it says we were all born with the knowledge of good and evil because of Adam and Eve?

So what you said is: When a baby was born, it is sinless.
Nevertheless, every baby sinned sometime later. There is no exception.

If so, why do you want to be bothered with the idea of born sinless? It does not mean anything. Does it? I guess what you want to say is: flesh "caused" sin. But flesh is not sinful. Is it all you are arguing about?

 

[Assyrian]

So what you said is: When a baby was born, it is sinless.
Nevertheless, every baby sinned sometime later. There is no exception.

If so, why do you want to be bothered with the idea of born sinless? It does not mean anything. Does it?

Are you say there is no point in trying to understand what the bible says about sin and human nature?

I guess what you want to say is: flesh "caused" sin. But flesh is not sinful. Is it all you are arguing about?

We have discussed a range of different topics there so I don't think 'all' works. If you want to go back and discuss the relationship between the flesh and sin, why not quote what I have already said about it and we can discuss that.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you say there is no point in trying to understand what the bible says about sin and human nature?


We have discussed a range of different topics there so I don't think 'all' works. If you want to go back and discuss the relationship between the flesh and sin, why not quote what I have already said about it and we can discuss that.

I don't like to go back and search for something I think I heard (I don't know how to do search in a thread). I am not trying to quote what you said in an article.

So, Adam was mortal in the Garden before sin simply because he is made of flesh. (I guess that was what you said). And his flesh drives him toward sin because flesh is weak. Fruit of knowledge is not important, because it is only a tool without much meaning.

I said: Adam was immortal regardless of his flesh. And the fruit of knowledge is vital. Because without that tree, we will NOT know sin. In other words, if it were a cherry tree, Adam will NOT open his eyes even he sinned.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't like to go back and search for something I think I heard (I don't know how to do search in a thread). I am not trying to quote what you said in an article.

So, Adam was mortal in the Garden before sin simply because he is made of flesh.

Not simply, also because Paul describes flesh as perishable and says it cannot inherit the kingdom of God, also because Paul talks about when Adam was created and says Adam was just like us.

(I guess that was what you said). And his flesh drives him toward sin because flesh is weak.

Certainly tripped Eve up.

Fruit of knowledge is not important, because it is only a tool without much meaning.

Disobedience to God is without meaning?

I said: Adam was immortal regardless of his flesh.

Except you haven't provided a shred of scriptural evidence to back the claim up.

And the fruit of knowledge is vital. Because without that tree, we will NOT know sin. In other words, if it were a cherry tree, Adam will NOT open his eyes even he sinned.

So Adam and Eve munch away on the cherries God forbade them to eat, and even though they know God's command, and they know they were eating from the tree God said not to touch, they would be completely unaware they had sinned and broken God's command?

Jonah 4:11 NET Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong, as well as many animals! So who are these 20,000 people who don't know right from wrong? Hasn't everybody inherited the knowledge of good and evil form Adam?

 

[juvenissun]

Not simply, also because Paul describes flesh as perishable and says it cannot inherit the kingdom of God, also because Paul talks about when Adam was created and says Adam was just like us.

Certainly tripped Eve up.

Disobedience to God is without meaning?

Except you haven't provided a shred of scriptural evidence to back the claim up.

So Adam and Eve munch away on the cherries God forbade them to eat, and even though they know God's command, and they know they were eating from the tree God said not to touch, they would be completely unaware they had sinned and broken God's command?

Jonah 4:11 NET Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong, as well as many animals! So who are these 20,000 people who don't know right from wrong? Hasn't everybody inherited the knowledge of good and evil form Adam?

I see what do you mean. Good for you. That is my weakness. I don't remember the Scripture very well and I usually can not find what I want.

------

The verse of Jonah is good, but does not really apply to the argument. God's word in that verse means someone who has not heard the Name of God. They may still know good/bad, right/evil, just like everyone else in this world (I am sure they have their laws). But they do not know how to compare that to God's standard. We are talking about human nature, but not talking about mission.

About Adam, let me see if I can find a verse for it. I may not be able to. But that does not mean I am wrong. Just like you, who can usually find a verse for an argument. But the verse does not really fit, for most of the time (like the one in Jonah).

 

[Assyrian]

I see what do you mean. Good for you. That is my weakness. I don't remember the Scripture very well and I usually can not find what I want.

------

I find good bible software like e-sword or The Word helps, but you also should consider the possibility there are no verses to back up your ideas.

The verse of Jonah is good, but does not really apply to the argument. God's word in that verse means someone who has not heard the Name of God. They may still know good/bad, right/evil, just like everyone else in this world (I am sure they have their laws). But they do not know how to compare that to God's standard. We are talking about human nature, but not talking about mission.

Paul would disagree with you, although the Gentiles did not know the law of Moses, they did know right from wrong. Rom 2:14 NET For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them.
No the the traditional understanding of the Jonah verse is simple straightforward and makes perfect sense, it is talking about children who have not yet learned right from wrong

About Adam, let me see if I can find a verse for it. I may not be able to. But that does not mean I am wrong. Just like you, who can usually find a verse for an argument. But the verse does not really fit, for most of the time (like the one in Jonah).

So that's two things you need to do, show that my verses don't fit and find scriptures that actually back up your position.

 

[Greg1234]

I see what do you mean. Good for you. That is my weakness. I don't remember the Scripture very well and I usually can not find what I want.

Don't worry about it. It's not that you haven't found anything but all your passages are denounced with Geocentricism. Theirs are exalted as non-geocentric. Don't be afraid to pull out the flat earth card at any point (if you play that way that is).

------

The verse of Jonah is good, but does not really apply to the argument. God's word in that verse means someone who has not heard the Name of God. They may still know good/bad, right/evil, just like everyone else in this world (I am sure they have their laws). But they do not know how to compare that to God's standard.

I agree. The knowledge of good and evil refers to sin born out of separation. The tree of good and evil can also be looked at as the tree of desire (the type that separates one from God).

 

[Assyrian]

Don't worry about it. It's not that you haven't found anything but all your passages are denounced with Geocentricism. Theirs are exalted as non-geocentric. Don't be afraid to pull out the flat earth card at any point (if you play that way that is).

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, or how it addresses Juv's comment.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, or how it addresses Juv's comment.

Allow me to get back to the focus again.

What's included in the meaning of Tree of Knowledge? Is it simply an object to test the obedience of Adam and Eve, or does it have an "additional" meaning on itself?

I guess, the answer is that it has a meaning more than just a testing subject. If so, what is the additional meaning?

The simplest answer is literally expressed by the name of the tree: it makes one be able to tell good from evil. In other words, without having a share of the tree (eat its fruit), one WILL NOT tell good from evil.

Any objection to this simple recognition on the nature of this particular tree?

-----------

To leave a tangled thread for a few days does help to cool one's head off. I am back fully loaded . Watch it.
By the way, agreed or not, I am still addressing the issue related to the OP, which is the immortality of Adam.

 

[Assyrian]

Allow me to get back to the focus again.

What's included in the meaning of Tree of Knowledge? Is it simply an object to test the obedience of Adam and Eve, or does it have an "additional" meaning on itself?

I guess, the answer is that it has a meaning more than just a testing subject. If so, what is the additional meaning?

The simplest answer is literally expressed by the name of the tree: it makes one be able to tell good from evil. In other words, without having a share of the tree (eat its fruit), one WILL NOT tell good from evil.

Any objection to this simple recognition on the nature of this particular tree?

Yes, the bible never says it was a magical tree or that it would have that effect on Adam and Eve through some mystical power give to the very tree. Remember I asked you where the bible say we inherit the knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve? I don't recall you giving an answer, because the bible doesn't tell us anything like that. You think if the tree isn't a magical tree, it is nothing more than a test, but you completely underestimate the power of sin, which has the same effect on our lives when we sin as it did on Adam and Eve, it opens our eyes to our sin and guilt and we die.

-----------
To leave a tangled thread for a few days does help to cool one's head off. I am back fully loaded . Watch it.
By the way, agreed or not, I am still addressing the issue related to the OP, which is the immortality of Adam.

Loaded with full metal book jacketed texts describing Adam's immortality I hope

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, the bible never says it was a magical tree or that it would have that effect on Adam and Eve through some mystical power give to the very tree. Remember I asked you where the bible say we inherit the knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve? I don't recall you giving an answer, because the bible doesn't tell us anything like that. You think if the tree isn't a magical tree, it is nothing more than a test, but you completely underestimate the power of sin, which has the same effect on our lives when we sin as it did on Adam and Eve, it opens our eyes to our sin and guilt and we die.

Loaded with full metal book jacketed texts describing Adam's immortality I hope

The Bible says that right in first beginning. It has a explicit name; It is the only one forbidden; and what the serpent said confirmed its function. It IS a special tree. When Adam eats it, his eyes will open.

How much more clear do you want to read about anything in the Scripture?

 

[Assyrian]

The Bible says that right in first beginning. It has a explicit name; It is the only one forbidden; and what the serpent said confirmed its function. It IS a special tree. When Adam eats it, his eyes will open.

How much more clear do you want to read about anything in the Scripture?

Something that actually says the tree gave them the knowledge of good and evil because it had this intrinsic magical power. Why don't you answer the rest of my post?

The Bible says that right in first beginning.

So?

It has a explicit name;

So is 'the image of jealousy' in Ezek 8:5 but I thought you agreed it didn't have a magical power over God to make make him jealous?

It is the only one forbidden;

So? It is a kosher law, don't eat this food, what is wrong with God starting off with one rule? They weren't even able to keep that, why make loads of regulations?

and what the serpent said confirmed its function.

You are listening to who now?

 

[juvenissun]

Something that actually says the tree gave them the knowledge of good and evil because it had this intrinsic magical power. Why don't you answer the rest of my post?

So?

So is 'the image of jealousy' in Ezek 8:5 but I thought you agreed it didn't have a magical power over God to make make him jealous?

So? It is a kosher law, don't eat this food, what is wrong with God starting off with one rule? They weren't even able to keep that, why make loads of regulations?

You are listening to who now?

You have e-sword, so you use Bible verses either to support or to against another Bible verse. Basically, this is a wrong way of reading the Bible.

The correct way is to have an object (for example, idea) first, then find Bible verses to either support it or to against it.

----------

Anyway. I am going to pursue your another idea. The origin of sin. The Bible says that we are born sinners because Adam sinned. You said that we are not, because Adam is made of flesh, we also are. It is the flesh, not Adam.

Is an infant sinner? I say yes, but I guess you say no.

They key is, again, the self awareness of sin. All a baby does is to want, want, and want. This, is not sinful, and yet IS sinful.

It is the very reason that you say a baby is not born sinful, but I say it is.

Do you see what I am saying (without much explanation)?

 

[Assyrian]

You have e-sword, so you use Bible verses either to support or to against another Bible verse. Basically, this is a wrong way of reading the Bible.

That suggests you actually have verses to support your claims that I need to counter.

The correct way is to have an object (for example, idea) first, then find Bible verses to either support it or to against it.

I read the bible and search the scriptures to try to understand what the writers are saying. If you understand what they are saying, however partially, it is much easier to answer ideas that people have simply read into scripture.

Anyway. I am going to pursue your another idea. The origin of sin. The Bible says that we are born sinners because Adam sinned. You said that we are not, because Adam is made of flesh, we also are. It is the flesh, not Adam.

Is an infant sinner? I say yes, but I guess you say no.

Can you do more than just say yes? Can you find some scriptural support for the claim, some passage that isn't obviously hyperbole anyway.

Rom 7:9 ESV I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Deut 1:39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

They key is, again, the self awareness of sin. All a baby does is to want, want, and want. This, is not sinful, and yet IS sinful.

You sound a little confused here Juv.

It is the very reason that you say a baby is not born sinful, but I say it is.

Do you see what I am saying (without much explanation)?

No. Tell me, these appetites and desires are ones we share with baby chimps and hamsters, do you think they are sinful too?

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, the bible never says it was a magical tree or that it would have that effect on Adam and Eve through some mystical power give to the very tree. Remember I asked you where the bible say we inherit the knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve? I don't recall you giving an answer, because the bible doesn't tell us anything like that. You think if the tree isn't a magical tree, it is nothing more than a test, but you completely underestimate the power of sin, which has the same effect on our lives when we sin as it did on Adam and Eve, it opens our eyes to our sin and guilt and we die.

Knowing what Adam is (the ancestor of man) is enough to provide information on inheritance. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is also known as the tree of desire (the fulfillment of material desire to be more exact) which is what brought about the fall. Partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil separated Adam from life as the desire to be a part of matter is fulfilled.

Loaded with full metal book jacketed texts describing Adam's immortality I hope

Then he would be accused of literalism. That's what the fall is, a descent into matter. Access to the tree of life is immortality. The tree of life as it is given is a continuous process. The seperation of sexes is before man became fully material. Out of himself, a portion of himself was taken molded and manifested. No Darwinism there either. Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation which is also immortality.

 

[Assyrian]

Knowing what Adam is (the ancestor of man) is enough to provide information on inheritance. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is also known as the tree of desire (the fulfillment of material desire to be more exact) which is what brought about the fall. Partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil separated Adam from life as the desire to be a part of matter is fulfilled.

Sounds kind of Lamarckian to me. I have a university degree, so why do my kids need to go to school?

Then he would be accused of literalism.

Hardly, when there are no text that taken literally tell us Adam was created immortal. I am much more likely to accuse him of eisegesis, reading things into the text that aren't there, or simply making unsubstantiated claims. As shernren realised much earlier in this discussion, I am looking at what the literal meaning of the text.

That's what the fall is, a descent into matter.

In what gnostic text? Adam was formed from the dust of the ground - created from matter in the first place.

Access to the tree of life is immortality. The tree of life as it is given is a continuous process.

So the human body God created wasn't immortal in itself, Adam needed the tree of life. Thanks for clearing that up.

The seperation of sexes is before man became fully material. Out of himself, a portion of himself was taken molded and manifested. No Darwinism there either. Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation which is also immortality.

I suppose neo gnosticism does contradict evolution, but that doen't mean your neo gnosticism is right.