• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question about God and Jesus

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What happened then after God said everything was 'good 'to then what we see after 'the fall ' . And do we need the exact words you mentioned to convey the same thing ?
Whoever is claiming that the Garden story of Genesis is about the Fall of Man, such that all humans are born with "origin sin" simply hasn't read the Garden story.

It never mentions sin.

or original sin

or the Fall of Man

or death entering the world

or spiritual death

or the need for a redeemer,

NOTHING of that is present in the story.

In the story God states his reasons for chucking Adam and Eve out.

Note carefully that there is NO mention of sin, disobedience, or even fault ─

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
I've emphasized the key word. So now you know why, in the story, humans were expelled from the Garden.
Benevolence? which verse or verses are you thinking of . Could you share from scripture what you mean ?
It's a very usual claim that God is benevolent. It's often said that [he]'s SO benevolent ─ "God so loved the world" ─ that [he] sent [his] own son to solve the problem. My earlier thread, and this one, wondered why any death should be necessary for such a god ─ "almighty" ie omnipotent ─ to spill blood to achieve whatever was [his] purpose.

As I remarked in my first post here, the only reasons that sounded even faintly sensible were those who rejected the "benevolent" idea, preferring a take along the lines of "I'm the boss and I do whatever I want."
 

John1.12

Free gift
Whoever is claiming that the Garden story of Genesis is about the Fall of Man, such that all humans are born with "origin sin" simply hasn't read the Garden story.

It never mentions sin.

or original sin

or the Fall of Man

or death entering the world

or spiritual death

or the need for a redeemer,

NOTHING of that is present in the story.

In the story God states his reasons for chucking Adam and Eve out.

Note carefully that there is NO mention of sin, disobedience, or even fault ─

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
I've emphasized the key word. So now you know why, in the story, humans were expelled from the Garden.
It's a very usual claim that God is benevolent. It's often said that [he]'s SO benevolent ─ "God so loved the world" ─ that [he] sent [his] own son to solve the problem. My earlier thread, and this one, wondered why any death should be necessary for such a god ─ "almighty" ie omnipotent ─ to spill blood to achieve whatever was [his] purpose.

As I remarked in my first post here, the only reasons that sounded even faintly sensible were those who rejected the "benevolent" idea, preferring a take along the lines of "I'm the boss and I do whatever I want."
Did I say ' original sin '? I don't use that term at all.
 

John1.12

Free gift
Whoever is claiming that the Garden story of Genesis is about the Fall of Man, such that all humans are born with "origin sin" simply hasn't read the Garden story.

It never mentions sin.

or original sin

or the Fall of Man

or death entering the world

or spiritual death

or the need for a redeemer,

NOTHING of that is present in the story.

In the story God states his reasons for chucking Adam and Eve out.

Note carefully that there is NO mention of sin, disobedience, or even fault ─

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
I've emphasized the key word. So now you know why, in the story, humans were expelled from the Garden.
It's a very usual claim that God is benevolent. It's often said that [he]'s SO benevolent ─ "God so loved the world" ─ that [he] sent [his] own son to solve the problem. My earlier thread, and this one, wondered why any death should be necessary for such a god ─ "almighty" ie omnipotent ─ to spill blood to achieve whatever was [his] purpose.

As I remarked in my first post here, the only reasons that sounded even faintly sensible were those who rejected the "benevolent" idea, preferring a take along the lines of "I'm the boss and I do whatever I want."
You only quote 1 verse ( 22) ?
 

John1.12

Free gift
How was Eve deceived, do you say? Everything the snake told her was exactly true.
Because Gods command was not to eat of that 'fruit ' .
1 Timothy 2:14

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Did I say ' original sin '? I don't use that term at all.
It doesn't mention ordinary sin either. It doesn't mention the fall of man /// and so on.
You only quote 1 verse ( 22)
No, if you look you'll see I set out the text of Genesis 3:22 and 3:23 ─ here they are again:

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
1 Timothy 2:14
The NT has no power to change the meaning of the Tanakh. If you want to know what the Tanakh means you ask your Jewish friends, not the Christian ones.

For example, Jesus bears not the slightest resemblance to a Jewish messiah, not being a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood (the anointing being what 'messiah' refers to); instead he opened the door to two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism, in no small part fueled by quotes from John.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Eve “was mistaken “?
You’re so adamant about what is “specifically” stated in the text, but here you add stuff.

blu2, it’s disheartening when I show you that what Jehovah God said about not eating the fruit was a “command” — twice its described as a command — but you gloss over it. Your desire to impugn God’s honesty is not lost on me.

I was trying to restrict my replies only using the Hebrew Scriptures (not the ‘NT’), but really, you have no respect for any of the Scriptures, and certainly no respect for the Hebrew / Christian God, Yahweh.

So I’m not going to continue trying to reason w/ you on this subject....you won’t accept outright, specific Scriptural statements; it’s a fruitless endeavor.

So long. Maybe we can engage on another topic, but I don’t know.
At least someone else notices that. I have been trying to point that out repeatedly now, for some time... sadly, to no avail. :(
 

John1.12

Free gift
It doesn't mention ordinary sin either. It doesn't mention the fall of man /// and so on.
No, if you look you'll see I set out the text of Genesis 3:22 and 3:23 ─ here they are again:

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
The NT has no power to change the meaning of the Tanakh. If you want to know what the Tanakh means you ask your Jewish friends, not the Christian ones.

For example, Jesus bears not the slightest resemblance to a Jewish messiah, not being a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood (the anointing being what 'messiah' refers to); instead he opened the door to two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism, in no small part fueled by quotes from John.
//It doesn't mention ordinary sin either. It doesn't mention the fall of man /// and so on.// Why would it need to mention those terms in Genesis ?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
//It doesn't mention ordinary sin either. It doesn't mention the fall of man /// and so on.// Why would it need to mention those terms in Genesis ?
In order to justify the Christian notion of "original sin".

If you don't agree with the doctrine of original sin, then your interest, I dare say, will be historical rather than theological.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What else would "beguiled' indicate?
I simply said what's correct ─ it was NOT given to Adam as a command but as a warning. Its command nature is not evident the only time Adam was actually told it.
...
OK, let me understand something. Genesis 2 DOES say that God told Adam to not eat the fruit from that tree or else he would -- ?? what?? And verse 16 says God COMMANDED, or ordered Adam NOT to eat from that tree. Or else -- the consequence would be --
So the question really is: what did Adam choose to do? I won't go into any other further details right now. One can obey or disobey anything a superior says, either way, yes or no. He can beat around the bush, steal or lie behind the superior's back. But he may suffer the consequences of not listening (disobeying). So what were the consequences of Adam eating that fruit?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
OK, let me understand something. Genesis 2 DOES say that God told Adam to not eat the fruit from that tree or else he would -- ?? what??
Yes, Genesis 2:16 says God "commanded" Adam, but the message to Adam is phrased as a warning, not as a command. Genesis 2:17 says ─

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." [RSV]​
So the question really is: what did Adam choose to do? I won't go into any other further details right now. One can obey or disobey anything a superior says, either way, yes or no. He can beat around the bush, steal or lie behind the superior's back. But he may suffer the consequences of not listening (disobeying). So what were the consequences of Adam eating that fruit?
The point is that Adam (and, shortly, Eve) had no knowledge of good and evil (as the name of the tree and the unfolding of the story make clear).

Therefore they did not know right from wrong because that knowledge had been withheld from them.

Therefore they were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong.

And without that intention, that consciousness of wrongdoing, you can't sin.

They simply had no way of knowing that, whether it was a warning or a command, disobeying it was wrong,

And that remained the case until AFTER they'd eaten the fruit.

This view is reinforced by God's conduct ─ "sin" is never mentioned, not even once.


By the way, do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that humans know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong,

Or would you prefer humans to remain as they're portrayed at the start of the story, without any inkling of the concept of good and the concept of evil?

My own view is that awareness of right and wrong is at the roots of our humanity and morality. So Eve, although she's just a character in a story, is symbolically a heroine of humankind,
 

John1.12

Free gift
In order to justify the Christian notion of "original sin".

If you don't agree with the doctrine of original sin, then your interest, I dare say, will be historical rather than theological.
I believe as it says in Genesis ,and then what is said about what happened there, in the NT .
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe as it says in Genesis ,and then what is said about what happened there, in the NT .
I don't believe they're more than folk stories. in particular, I think the Garden story is a narrative (not historical) link between the creation story and the beginning of Hebrew folk history, and is symbolically the childhood of mankind up to adolescence (eating the fruit), the age where the pressure starts for you to find a partner and a job.

But separately from that, the story is incapable of justifying the Christian notion of "original sin" and the "fall of man" ─ it very simply is NOT about those things.
 

John1.12

Free gift
I don't believe they're more than folk stories. in particular, I think the Garden story is a narrative (not historical) link between the creation story and the beginning of Hebrew folk history, and is symbolically the childhood of mankind up to adolescence (eating the fruit), the age where the pressure starts for you to find a partner and a job.

But separately from that, the story is incapable of justifying the Christian notion of "original sin" and the "fall of man" ─ it very simply is NOT about those things.
If I keep it in simple terms . Genesis starts with a 'very good 'creation ,then it goes bad . When we get the NT of course we see many things expounded upon . The NT reveals many things from the Old . Some as prophecies some concealed. Of course if I approached the bible as a 'folk story 'I would see it that way .
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If I keep it in simple terms . Genesis starts with a 'very good 'creation ,then it goes bad .
I still think it's most likely a story about the infancy of mankind. It's often struck me how often the image of God is like your father when you were four. It certainly never mentions sin or a Fall or death entering the world ─ these are all later inventions.
When we get the NT of course we see many things expounded upon . The NT reveals many things from the Old.
I'd say that if you want to know what the Tanakh means, ask one of your Jewish friends. Christian theology is seriously unrelated. If you were Jewish and accustomed to praying directly to your God, why would you suddenly think Jesus as intermediary was a good idea? Especially since, to the best of my understanding, there's no Jewish concept of original sin, no everpresent and automatic punishable offense attributed to you on the books from the moment you're conceived.
 

John1.12

Free gift
I still think it's most likely a story about the infancy of mankind. It's often struck me how often the image of God is like your father when you were four. It certainly never mentions sin or a Fall or death entering the world ─ these are all later inventions.
I'd say that if you want to know what the Tanakh means, ask one of your Jewish friends. Christian theology is seriously unrelated. If you were Jewish and accustomed to praying directly to your God, why would you suddenly think Jesus as intermediary was a good idea? Especially since, to the best of my understanding, there's no Jewish concept of original sin, no everpresent and automatic punishable offense attributed to you on the books from the moment you're conceived.
//It certainly never mentions sin or a Fall or death entering the world ─ these are all later inventions.// I find it strange your looking for those words . As if they make the difference. We see things go from good to bad . That is the ' fall ' . We can easily see the before and after in the narrative.
 

John1.12

Free gift
I still think it's most likely a story about the infancy of mankind. It's often struck me how often the image of God is like your father when you were four. It certainly never mentions sin or a Fall or death entering the world ─ these are all later inventions.
I'd say that if you want to know what the Tanakh means, ask one of your Jewish friends. Christian theology is seriously unrelated. If you were Jewish and accustomed to praying directly to your God, why would you suddenly think Jesus as intermediary was a good idea? Especially since, to the best of my understanding, there's no Jewish concept of original sin, no everpresent and automatic punishable offense attributed to you on the books from the moment you're conceived.
I have Jewish friends who are Christian, who readily see and understand the OT in light of the Nt . Which is the point . The NT reveals the OT in light of Jesus revelation .
. Hebrews 1 .

1¶God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
//It certainly never mentions sin or a Fall or death entering the world ─ these are all later inventions.// I find it strange your looking for those words . As if they make the difference. We see things go from good to bad . That is the ' fall ' . We can easily see the before and after in the narrative.
We're not looking at a report from history of some or other golden age ─ instead we're looking back at a myth of a golden age. Times differ, enough for us to have occasions when we remember things as better (for us) and worse (for us). Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Greece, Rome, and so on, had their years in the sun and then declined. No wonder they all had versions of a remembered golden age.
I have Jewish friends who are Christian
Curious. If I may ask, under what circumstances may a Jew be a Christian? Or are we talking fringe here?
who readily see and understand the OT in light of the Nt . Which is the point . The NT reveals the OT in light of Jesus revelation.
We must then agree to disagree. I find that view untenable. I can't see how Jesus could have been called a messiah in the Jewish sense, for a start, having nothing in common with the Jewish understanding of the word, and being nominal founder of a religion that has been guilty of more and more systematic and often murderous antisemitism than any other,.
 
Top