Question about God and Jesus

[YoursTrue]

There's no part of the story where God explains to Adam or Eve what right is and what wrong is. Instead the story is specific that neither has knowledge of good or evil UNTIL they've eaten the fruit of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and only at that point "their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked".
That's not what the story says. First, the story doesn't identify the snake with the devil. Second, the snake tells no lies. Third, Eve simply took him at his word. Fourth, the threat was NOT that they would die ─ they were always going to die, implicit in Genesis 3:22-23 ─ but that "in the day that you eat of it you will die". And that simply didn't happen, just as the snake said.

Incidentally, don't you think it's a wholly excellent thing that humans can distinguish good from evil? Don't you think that, though it's only a story, Eve is one of mankind?
He died because that was what he set out to do. The stories agree that his mission was always meant to end in death, and he expressly refuses chances to escape,

But why it was necessary for him to die, I have no idea. Indeed, I even ran a thread on the question why it was necessary for a benevolent and omnipotent God to sacrifice [his] son to [him]self, which after more than 400 posts gave no answer, the ones nearest to reason denying that God was benevolent, and thus presumably simply wilful.
It seems a singularly disastrous outcome for one claimed to be a Jewish "messiah".

As far as knowing right and wrong, let's start at the beginning. If my mother baked a cake and put it in the refrigerator and told me, "Don't eat that cake," I would know it would be WRONG for me to eat that cake until she told me I could.

 

[blü 2]

I’m going to try this w/ you one more time...

Thank you. Fingers crossed before I read on.

How exactly is Isaiah 25:8 going to be fulfilled, where it says Jehovah God will “swallow up death forever”, using the Jewish interpretation of the Messiah?

For an overture, the footnote in my New Oxford Annotated says that the words "destroy", "covering" and "veil" are "reminiscent of Canaanite mythology" ─ implying that the idea was not specific to Judaism.

My own first observation is that it doesn't mention a messiah or the need for a messiah ─ it says it's something God [him]self is going to do.

Its obvious from looking at their (Mosaic) Law, that animal blood sacrifices were required to atone for their sin, yet not completely.... they had to continue offering them.

Animal sacrifices to gods were common in many places, certainly in Graeco-Roman paganism (where on a few days of the year not just the priests but the whole town ate meat ─ you may recall the tale of Prometheus the titan tricking Zeus into choosing as the gods' portion the least edible parts of the sacrifice by covering them with one delicious part). Sacrifice of bulls is mentioned in Celtic lore, and animal sacrifice was common in Norse religion.

But God required those sacrifices, didn’t He? Why? (God’s omnipotence has no bearing on God overlooking sin. He can’t. I think even the Tanakh mentions that.)

This brings up that awkward question, what is "sin"? In the Tanakh, God orders invasive war, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, slavery, women as property and so on. I regard all those things as morally abhorrent ─ don't you?

It should have stressed to the Israelites, seeing all those animals die, the severity of the situation they were in.... they needed a way out. The purpose of the Messiah played a far grander role than even those Jews realized. It went far beyond just the establishment of a Jewish state! It was to accomplish God’s will, part of which was to fulfill Isaiah 25:8, the ‘swallowing up death forever.’ To fulfill this, required the death of the perfect Messiah, to propitiate fully what Adam had lost for his progeny: perfect, everlasting life.

We're doomed to disagree, as adamantly as friends can disagree. God being omnipotent isn't bound by the rules of sacrifice or any other rules regarding [his] relationship with humans ─ [he] can say, "Okay, all is forgiven, I'm establishing a different regime now. No more sacrifices to me, but continue to make sure the poor get a reasonable amount of protein."

And of course we don't agree on the meaning of the Garden story in Genesis either.

Stay well, mon brave!

 

[blü 2]

Do you know what the word messiah means? Or put another way, what is a messiah?

A messiah is a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews who, as the word itself says, has been anointed by the Jewish priesthood. There's also a small number of examples of it being used as an honorific for leaders from other communities who've assisted the Israelites. One of the things associated with the messiah is obtaining (or winning back) the political independence of the Jewish state. (Jesus, as you can see, had none of those qualifications.)

 

[blü 2]

As far as knowing right and wrong, let's start at the beginning. If my mother baked a cake and put it in the refrigerator and told me, "Don't eat that cake," I would know it would be WRONG for me to eat that cake until she told me I could.

Yes, YOU would know.

And so, when I point out that in the story Adam and Eve are expressly denied "the knowledge of good and evil", you'll agree that this means they would have no way of knowing that it was WRONG (or for that matter RIGHT) for them to eat the cake.

As the text says, it was only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit that "their eyes were opened".

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. Fingers crossed before I read on.
For an overture, the footnote in my New Oxford Annotated says that the words "destroy", "covering" and "veil" are "reminiscent of Canaanite mythology" ─ implying that the idea was not specific to Judaism.

That does not mean that the idea was wrong,or eradicated in principle or idea.
Many words are transferred from other languages, and sometimes with different connotations, although similar. For example, biblical words themselves can be translated from the same text, yet the words can have slightly different slants when translated, depending on the translators and culture.
But more importantly, the ideas transmitted by relating history to certain ancient cultures do not have to settle with only one people.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, YOU would know.

And so, when I point out that in the story Adam and Eve are expressly denied "the knowledge of good and evil", you'll agree that this means they would have no way of knowing that it was WRONG (or for that matter RIGHT) for them to eat the cake.

As the text says, it was only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit that "their eyes were opened".

To say their eyes were opened does not mean they then knew right from wrong as God knows it. Eve chose her own standard. Satan lied when he said she would not die. It's interesting that although God did not kill them the very 24-hour day they ate from that tree, they were from that moment on the way to death. The death sentencce was placed. "On that day you will die." Yet God allowed them to keep living as they wanted, choosing for themselves right from wrong. But death was the eventuality. And we know from history and observation that mankind's choices are often limited (choose between bad stuff) or wicked. So -- we're in the situation Adam chose.
Genesis 2 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, YOU would know.

And so, when I point out that in the story Adam and Eve are expressly denied "the knowledge of good and evil", you'll agree that this means they would have no way of knowing that it was WRONG (or for that matter RIGHT) for them to eat the cake.

As the text says, it was only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit that "their eyes were opened".

Their eyes were opened -- because now Eve saw the consequence of choosing for herself without God's guidance and frankly, I don't think they were happy, being cast out of the garden, realizing they were naked and felt ashamed evidently rather suddenely. Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was deceived by the crafty serpent, later identified as the Devil. And crafty he was.
I'm not a psychologist, but as I continue learning about these things, although I suffer the consequence of sin right now, I am happy to say I'm learning.

 

[blü 2]

To say their eyes were opened does not mean they then knew right from wrong as God knows it.

That's as may be, but what's clear is that Adam and Eve were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong ─ because knowledge of good and evil had been withheld from them ─ until they ate the fruit. THEN "their eyes were opened" to good and evil.

Eve chose her own standard.

She couldn't have chosen evil because she had no knowledge, no concept of it. So she couldn't have sinned. Nor is it suggested in the story that in fact she sinned.

Satan lied when he said she would not die.

There is no identification of the snake with Satan in the story. When we later in the Tanakh meet Satan, he's one of the courtiers in God's court eg at the start of Job.

And the snake did not lie. God said "in the day that you eat of it you will die" and the snake said "no you won't" which was exactly how it turned out. They were never meant to live forever, as is made plain and express by God's words in Genesis 3:22-23.

Note that in the story, sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer, are NEVER mentioned ─ NONE of them, not even once. If any of them was intended to be the point of the story, that would make absolutely no sense. To say otherwise is to say things like, The Garden story is about being kind to whales ─ no, whales aren't mentioned either.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's as may be, but what's clear is that Adam and Eve were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong ─ because knowledge of good and evil had been withheld from them ─ until they ate the fruit. THEN "their eyes were opened" to good and evil.
She couldn't have chosen evil because she had no knowledge, no concept of it. So she couldn't have sinned. Nor is it suggested in the story that in fact she sinned.

Again, she actually did have a concept of what was evil, although not having felt ashamed before she did the wrong thing. Jehovah, her creator, told her in essence what was evil by telling her, actually commanding her through Adam, NOT to eat that fruit. Period. She KNEW what she should not do. God put a conscience in her. After she did what Jehovah told her not to do, she felt ashamed. Her "eyes were opened" in a certain sense, not that she now was able to be like God in that particular sense as if she would not die. Satan lied. The one speaking through the serpent certainly had an ulterior motive. Did that one have an ulterior motive or not? If you don't answer that he did have an ulterior motive, I will wonder about you. Not that it's important for me to wonder, but I will.

 

[blü 2]

Again, she actually did have a concept of what was evil, although not having felt ashamed before she did the wrong thing.

That's simply contradicted in the story. She and Adam start out without the knowledge of good and evil.
Then they eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And at that point they acquire knowledge of good and evil, something they did not previously have.

Jehovah, her creator, told her in essence what was evil by telling her, actually commanding her through Adam, NOT to eat that fruit.

The story makes it plain that neither Adam nor Eve had knowledge of good and evil tiell AFTER they ate the fruit.

Period. She KNEW what she should not do.[/qutoe] That's not anywhere near what the story actually says.

God put a conscience in her.

Quote me where it says that.

After she did what Jehovah told her not to do, she felt ashamed. Her "eyes were opened"

What they felt was modesty. Up till then they had no idea it was immodest / wrong to be naked. (This, I think, is a clue that the story is about the infancy of mankind, a narrative link between special creation and the start of Hebrew folk history.)

in a certain sense, not that she now was able to be like God in that particular sense as if she would not die. Satan lied.

As I pointed out, the snake is not Satan, and in the story the snake tells no lies.

The one speaking through the serpent certainly had an ulterior motive.

Or was just being friendly and helpful.

After all, what the snake and Eve each did was of enormous benefit to humanity and what God was trying to do was to keep humanity ignorant. Eve, though only in a story, is a heroine of mankind, and to her we owe the foundation of our own morality, the knowledge of good and evil, which God had intended to withhold. She's right up there with Prometheus who (in his own story) created humans, and brought them fire to use (and tricked Zeus into allowing humans the best parts of sacrificed beasts to eat.

 

[YoursTrue]

]

That's as may be, but what's clear is that Adam and Eve were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong ─ because knowledge of good and evil had been withheld from them ─ until they ate the fruit. THEN "their eyes were opened" to good and evil.
She couldn't have chosen evil because she had no knowledge, no concept of it. So she couldn't have sinned. Nor is it suggested in the story that in fact she sinned.
There is no identification of the snake with Satan in the story. When we later in the Tanakh meet Satan, he's one of the courtiers in God's court eg at the start of Job.

And the snake did not lie. God said "in the day that you eat of it you will die" and the snake said "no you won't" which was exactly how it turned out. They were never meant to live forever, as is made plain and express by God's words in Genesis 3:22-23.

Note that in the story, sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer, are NEVER mentioned ─ NONE of them, not even once. If any of them was intended to be the point of the story, that would make absolutely no sense. To say otherwise is to say things like, The Garden story is about being kind to whales ─ no, whales aren't mentioned either.

actually men were supposed to be kind to the animal creation, so if one reads the garden account properly, with the right mental and spiritual attitude, yes, men were SUPPOSED to be kind to animals. The redeeming statement was issued at Genesis 3:15. No one knew on earth how exactly that was to be fulfilled UNTIL Jesus came along. BTW.
And after.

 

[blü 2]

] actually men were supposed to be kind to the animal creation, so if one reads the garden account properly, with the right mental and spiritual attitude, yes, men were SUPPOSED to be kind to animals. The redeeming statement was issued at Genesis 3:15. No one knew on earth how exactly that was to be fulfilled UNTIL Jesus came along. BTW.
And after.

Interesting way to read Genesis 3:15.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting way to read Genesis 3:15.

Yes - welll -- let me know how you feel that scripture at Genesis 3:15 is to be possibly understood. In other words -- did Moses understand how it would be fulfilled? (No.) But he wrote it down as it was evidently related to him. Now, of course, the question comes up -- how did Moses know these things? I am very sure that Adam related what happened to him and his wife to his children. Which is very likely why Abel offered an offering pleasing to Jehovah, and Cain did not. Two different ways of looking at things. Nevertheless, going back to whether or not Adam and Eve were "innocent" and so did not know right from wrong, Satan convinced Eve that she could live without dying, even though she knew what God had said. "On the day you eat from it, you will" -- (what did God say would happen to her via Adam?) She knew. Adam knew. Eve was deceived the Bible says. Adam was not. The penalty was the same. The serpent convinced Eve she was as good if not better than God. So -- Genesis 3:15 was uttered by God to -- the serpent.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's simply contradicted in the story. She and Adam start out without the knowledge of good and evil.
Then they eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And at that point they acquire knowledge of good and evil, something they did not previously have.
The story makes it plain that neither Adam nor Eve had knowledge of good and evil tiell AFTER they ate the fruit.

Look, I don't want to beat this one to death -- hoping eventually it will die, go back to the ground -- their eyes opening did not show them that they could finally tell good from evil. If that were really true, the world would not be in the trouble it's in. People wouldn't kill each other. People wouldn't be confused and deceived by false reasoning to their detriment. The world wouldn't be on the brink of continual disaster caused by man of one sort or another. Unless, of course, one admits that men either are not capable of making good decisions, or that what the Bible says is also true -- when Jesus said that the ruler of the world was coming to get him. And that the ruler of the world would be cast out.

Thank you. Fingers crossed before I read on.
For an overture, the footnote in my New Oxford Annotated says that the words "destroy", "covering" and "veil" are "reminiscent of Canaanite mythology" ─ implying that the idea was not specific to Judaism.

My own first observation is that it doesn't mention a messiah or the need for a messiah ─ it says it's something God [him]self is going to do.
Animal sacrifices to gods were common in many places, certainly in Graeco-Roman paganism (where on a few days of the year not just the priests but the whole town ate meat ─ you may recall the tale of Prometheus the titan tricking Zeus into choosing as the gods' portion the least edible parts of the sacrifice by covering them with one delicious part). Sacrifice of bulls is mentioned in Celtic lore, and animal sacrifice was common in Norse religion.
This brings up that awkward question, what is "sin"? In the Tanakh, God orders invasive war, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, slavery, women as property and so on. I regard all those things as morally abhorrent ─ don't you?
We're doomed to disagree, as adamantly as friends can disagree. God being omnipotent isn't bound by the rules of sacrifice or any other rules regarding [his] relationship with humans ─ [he] can say, "Okay, all is forgiven, I'm establishing a different regime now. No more sacrifices to me, but continue to make sure the poor get a reasonable amount of protein."

And of course we don't agree on the meaning of the Garden story in Genesis either.

Stay well, mon brave!

What I find is interesting is that you still don't agree despite looking closely at the written word that Eve KNEW (she had to know, common sense tells us that) she was disobeying. While she believed the serpent, you think maybe her mind/conscience was not telling her she was doing something WRONG?? (You and I obviously think differently. Yes -- have a nice time.) I'm wondering about your perception of conscience. Well who knows who's here and what's what.

 

[blü 2]

their eyes opening did not show them that they could finally tell good from evil. If that were really true, the world would not be in the trouble it's in.

They did not have knowledge of good and evil. Then they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that point they obtained knowledge of good and evil.

The story could scarcely be plainer.

And nowhere in the story is there any promise, any suggestion, that the knowledge of good and evil will abolish evil, any more than it will abolish good.

And it's only a story. There was no Garden in reality. We humans are modern Homo sapiens sapiens, one of the many millions of results of 3.7 billion years of evolution.

when Jesus said that the ruler of the world was coming to get him. And that the ruler of the world would be cast out.

Really? Where did Jesus say that?

What I recall reading in each of the three synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom of God would be established on earth within the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience. Have you noticed any 2,000 year old citizens around your way? No, me neither.

What I find is interesting is that you still don't agree despite looking closely at the written word that Eve KNEW (she had to know, common sense tells us that) she was disobeying.

If so, she did not know that it was WRONG to disobey.

While she believed the serpent, you think maybe her mind/conscience was not telling her she was doing something WRONG??[/quot] How could she? She had been expressly denied knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil.

Not till she ate the fruit was she aware of good and evil. So says the story loud and clear.

And as I keep pointing out, not once does the story mention sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death or the need for a redeemer.

Not once.

Not anywhere.

 

[YoursTrue]

They did not have knowledge of good and evil. Then they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that point they obtained knowledge of good and evil.

The story could scarcely be plainer.

And nowhere in the story is there any promise, any suggestion, that the knowledge of good and evil will abolish evil, any more than it will abolish good.

And it's only a story. There was no Garden in reality. We humans are modern Homo sapiens sapiens, one of the many millions of results of 3.7 billion years of evolution.
Really? Where did Jesus say that?

What I recall reading in each of the three synoptic gospels is that the Kingdom of God would be established on earth within the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience. Have you noticed any 2,000 year old citizens around your way? No, me neither.
If so, she did not know that it was WRONG to disobey.

When Adam and Eve "opened their eyes," what is the first thing they noticed after that? That they were naked. Odd, isn't it? That's the first thing it is said they experienced after they ate from that tree. They realized they were naked. Genesis 3, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked."
Only submitting to God's rulership under Christ Jesus will anyone escape the penalty passed on because of Adam.

 

[YoursTrue]

...
Really? Where did Jesus say that?
...

John 12:31
Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 14:30 - I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.

 

[YoursTrue]

They did not have knowledge of good and evil. Then they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that point they obtained knowledge of good and evil.
... If so, she did not know that it was WRONG to disobey.

God is the one that sets the standard for good and evil. God told them it was wrong to eat from that tree. That was the ONLY tree in the garden Jehovah told them not to eat from. They knew God's command. If someone knew he could eat anything he wanted except he was told not to eat a certain food or he would be punished, there could be only two possibilities: one, that he thought he did not need to obey, or that he did not believe the one giving him the direction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is the one that sets the standard for good and evil. God told them it was wrong to eat from that tree. That was the ONLY tree in the garden Jehovah told them not to eat from. They knew God's command. If someone knew he could eat anything he wanted except he was told not to eat a certain food or he would be punished, there could be only two possibilities: one, that he thought he did not need to obey, or that he did not believe the one giving him the direction.

Did you not understand the myth? If you did then you would know that God was at fault.

 

[blü 2]

John 12:31
Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 14:30 - I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.

Odd. My RSV renders that '

νῦν κρίσις ἐστὶν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω​

as

Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out;​

which looks correct to me.

Of course, because of the gnostic tendencies of the author of John, it's hard to know for sure whether when he says ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου / ho arkhōn tou kosmou he means the Romans or the archons of gnostic teaching, the spirits who (are taken to presently) rule the earth, or somehow both..