Garden of Eden

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
good morning Agers, how are you?

Good morning...I'm fine thankyou :]

Originally posted by Agerg
Good morning...I'm fine thankyou :]

ummm wanna buy a phone? 😀

Originally posted by whodey
Oh, I forgot. The next time I read the NT I will cross out the portions Christ talks about his Father, (which might end up being half the text), and also cross out where he talkes about an after life. Then everything else I guess I can assume is legite, right?

As for expunging the notion of private property, left wingers are still in battle over bringing ...[text shortened]... topia to fruition, not Whodey. However, like Whodey they are on their own journey back to Eden.

Here's a basic guide for you: everything dealing with the afterlife, the death and resurrection, and the more supernatural elements of the bible, were made up after Jesus' death. You should either ignore those parts outright, or read them metaphorically. The parts about condemning the rich and building a better world in the here and now are authentic and can be taken at face value. It's really that simple.

The difference between my quest for "Eden" and yours is that mine is obtainable (at least in theory), while yours is not. Humans lived without private property, as hunter-gatherers, for 95% of their history. The Fall, private property, and civilization occupy only the last 5% of human history. There is every reason to believe (or hope) that a synthesis between the two may be found. We can never undo civilization and return to "Eden", but we may be able to find a happy medium between the two. Your quest for "Eden", by contrast, consists entirely of "pie in the sky." It is wholly unobtainable.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Here's a basic guide for you: everything dealing with the afterlife, the death and resurrection, and the more supernatural elements of the bible, were made up after Jesus' death. You should either ignore those parts outright, or read them metaphorically. The parts about condemning the rich and building a better world in the here and now are authentic and can be taken at face value. It's really that simple.

So let me get this straight. They nailed Christ to a cross, martyred all his disciples save one, and then threw the rest of Christ's followers to the lions all because they wanted to build a better world by living like hunter gatherers devoid of private property?


Er....um.....right. 😏

Originally posted by rwingett
The difference between my quest for "Eden" and yours is that mine is obtainable (at least in theory), while yours is not. Humans lived without private property, as hunter-gatherers, for 95% of their history. The Fall, private property, and civilization occupy only the last 5% of human history. There is every reason to believe (or hope) that a synthesis between ...[text shortened]... r "Eden", by contrast, consists entirely of "pie in the sky." It is wholly unobtainable.[/b]

But your our Eden exists. Castro awaits you!!

Originally posted by whodey
But your our Eden exists. Castro awaits you!!

Uh...not quite. Try again.

As I've said before - my interpretation of the kingdom is not a political solution, despite your inability to see beyond that limitation. It is the transcendence of politics.

Politics is a product of the private property/ownership mentality and the ensuing dualistic view of nature wherein the self is seen as being separate, apart from, and in opposition to, the wholeness of the universe (and from 'god', in the pantheistic sense). When mankind is made whole again, when his self-imposed separation from nature is overcome, when the limiting distinctions between 'mine and thine' are abandoned, then politics will have been transcended and the kingdom will be made apparent.

Originally posted by whodey
So let me get this straight. They nailed Christ to a cross, martyred all his disciples save one, and then threw the rest of Christ's followers to the lions all because they wanted to build a better world by living like hunter gatherers devoid of private property?


Er....um.....right. 😏

As I've said several times, we cannot live like hunter gatherers anymore. The Fall and civilization cannot be undone. The best that can be hoped for is a synthesis, or a reconciliation, between our pristine hunter-gatherer past and our fallen civilized present.

It may be that The Fall was necessary, however. It may be that it was necessary for us to go through this period of tribulation so as to reach a better future. The fruit from the 'tree of knowledge' may have been a gift that we just didn't know how to handle properly at the time.

I will give you a couple passages from the bible, whodey, and show you how to properly interpret them:

Genesis 2:15-17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

This passage shows Adam as a gatherer (if not necessarily a hunter). The tree of knowledge represents technology. As long as Adam (mankind) sticks to his simple gathering existence, he will be relatively happy. But Adam eats from the tree and begins using technology, specifically agriculture. For this he is cursed.

Genesis 3:17-19
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

This represents Adam (mankind) using technology to transition from a (hunter) gatherer existence into an agricultural one. As a result The Fall is complete. He is expelled from Eden. His son, Cain, represents a fully civilized and agricultural society, with all its attendant division of property, division of labor, hierarchies, social stratification and oppression. Is it any wonder that the Lord is not pleased with Cain's offering?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your insults aside, i dont think that you do, for you post is simply one long list of idolatrous and non nonsensical incoherent elements. Sorry to be so blunt.

Take this fist point the entire city is the holy of holies,

First it makes no account of the fact that only the high priest only was allowed to enter into the holy of holies, to make ...[text shortened]... nts of the old temple and their significance, strange for someone who professes to know so much.

=====================================
your insults aside, i dont think that you do, for you post is simply one long list of idolatrous and non nonsensical incoherent elements. Sorry to be so blunt.
=====================================

I do not mean to offend personally. I think you've made a good effort in the last few months to be more civil. I apologize for the personal tone.

But then again, you don't know how your "sorry jaywill .... thus and such" sounds to me. Let me re-phrase my comment and just say there is no need for you to be "sorry".

================================
Take this [first] point the entire city is the holy of holies,
===============================

That is the point of Revelation 21:16.

" And the city lies square, and its length is as great as the breadth ... the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. "

==================================
First it makes no account of the fact that only the high priest only was allowed to enter into the holy of holies,
==============================

Yes, in that passage it does not mention that point. But if you know the Old Testament well you understand that. And if not, Hebrews 9:7 reminds the new covenant believers:

"But into the second, only the high priest [enters], once a year [and] not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people."

A special intimacy with God Almighty reserved only for the high priest of the old testament is in eternity available AS an entire "city".

======================================
to make atonement not only for himself, but on behalf of the nation of Israel the priesthood included, Naturally this arrangement prefigured that of the Christ, entering into the presence of God himself with the value of his sin atoning sacrifice, with the single difference that Christ did not need to atone for himself, being sinless.
================================

I agree. However, the New Testament exhorts the believers in Jesus Christ to come forward into the Holy of Holies themselves on this side of the redemption of Christ:

"Having a great High Priest over the house of God, Let us come forward to [the Holy of Holies] with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22)

The writer does not mean for us to come forward to the physical innermost chamber in the earthly temple. But it is a coming forward to a most intimate fellowship with God Himself. So the New Jerusalem, being the square shaped Holy of Holies, signifies the instensification of what the believers should be enjoying today.

It is simply a fullest possible taste of what the Christians are foretasting today - the presence of God.

The writer of the book of Hebrews tells the church that the old temple was a figure for the present time. And while the old temple had its standing in Judaism, the way into the reality of the Holy of Holies still was not available to man.

" The Holy Spirit [thus] making this clear, that the way of the [holy of] Holies has not yet been manifested while the first tabernacle hs its standing, WHICH IS A FIGURE FOR THE PRESENT TIME ..." (Heb. 9:8.9a my emphasis)

The physical symbol is now superceded. Man can in reality enter into the presence of God through the Holy Spirit and the redemption of Christ. This is why the veil of the temple separating the Holy Place from the most sacred Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom at the death of Jesus (Matt.27:51).

Now the forgiven sinner in the new testament age can enter into the presence of God. The New Jerusalem as a sign in Revelation, merely reinforces this and reveals that the entire body of the redeemed, as a holy city, are all living constantly in the presence of God. The city IS the Holy of Holies.

Receive the Lord Jesus and we can begin to enjoy the presence of God intimately, personally, corporately, subjectively.

And how much more so when our mortal is swallowed up in divine life (2 Cor. 5:4) [/b]

===================================
Secondly it makes no attempt to explain why the curtain was now rent in two, making it possible for others to follow into the presence with God which was initially barred to members of the priest hood, nor does it explain the significance of this.
=======================================

You are simply not putting the facts together well. This requires experience.

I am sorry to have insulted you personally. But you are taking the letter without putting the facts of the whole Bible together to grasp what is revealed here.

====================
Lastly it does not explain the position of those who are in the temple courtyard, and who are not priests. Who or what they prefigure and what their position is in relation to God, Christ and the priesthood.
===================================

In that particular passage it does not. In other portions of Revelation 21 and 22 it does talk about the nations surrounding the New Jerusalem. And it does speak of the benefit they derive from the light of the city and the healing of the leaves of the tree of life which is in the city.

These things contain some symbolism. And in this short post it is impossible to elaborate fully.

But it is not wrong to say that the redeemed as priests of God and therefore someones of course must benefit from their priestly service to God.

It is not wrong to say that. To suggest that only 144,000 people participate in this is wrong. And I do not want to go back into a debate about the 144,000.

==========================
I do not deny Jaywill that there is a correlation between the holy of holies and New Jerusalem, however, its simply that the measurement are in perfect proportions, a cube to be exact, reflective of the perfection of the heavenly arrangement itself, for that is what both the temple and the tabernacle pre figured as Paul explains.
==========================

============================
You have ignored to explain any of the elements of the old temple and their significance, strange for someone who professes to know so much.
=============================

I have not covered many things. Ignored, for space sake, in this medium. There is so much to talk about here. I think I would exhaust your reading ability.

God is speaking to His people in these last days and opening up the book of Revelation very much. I would give the glory to Him.

I hope that you would surpass us in insight. That would be splendid if I could be taught by you.

Do you still deny that Christ is God incarnate ? If so, there is no way I can submit for a moment, to such teaching.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
immortality is different from everlasting life, subtle i know, but there is a difference.

An acute observation Robbie, I agree. Still, the GoE as described in the denomination I am familiar with is "close enough for rock n roll"; I'd take it in a heartbeat. Or, to paraphrase the Pink Floyd lyric goes, If Someone sent the Promised Land, I'd grab it with both hands" 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
your insults aside, i dont think that you do, for you post is simply one long list of idolatrous and non nonsensical incoherent elements. Sorry to be so blunt.
=====================================

I do not mean to offend personally. I think you've made a good effort in the last few months to be m ...[text shortened]... incarnate ? If so, there is no way I can submit for a moment, to such teaching.[/b]

Do you still deny that Christ is God incarnate ? If so, there is no way I can submit for a moment, to such teaching

Yes i do. The mere fact Jaywill that Christ entered into the holy of holies, into the presence, symbolically of God himself testifies to this fact, otherwise he would be entering into the presence of himself, to present the value of his sacrifice, to himself, which is neither logical nor reasonable. If you really want to learn about the temple and its significance you should read Albert Eldersheim book on the subject, The temple, its ministries and service, which you can find free in the following link (not a watchtower.org publication)

http://www.abideinchrist.com/links/books.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you still deny that Christ is God incarnate ? If so, there is no way I can submit for a moment, to such teaching

Yes i do. The mere fact Jaywill that Christ entered into the holy of holies, into the presence, symbolically of God himself testifies to this fact, otherwise he would be entering into the presence of himself, to present the value of ...[text shortened]... llowing link (not a watchtower.org publication)

http://www.abideinchrist.com/links/books.html

===================================
The mere fact Jaywill that Christ entered into the holy of holies, into the presence, symbolically of God himself testifies to this fact, otherwise he would be entering into the presence of himself, to present the value of his sacrifice, to himself, which is neither logical nor reasonable.
=====================================

Hebrews 1:8 in drawing a comparison between Jesus Christ and the angels, records this:

"But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom." (Heb 1:8)

The point the writer is making is that Jesus Christ the Son of God is superior to any of the angels. He is God incarnated.

You may complain that this is not reasonable. But this is the revelation of the Bible. And the expression "God the Son" is reasonable if you include in your reasoning that the Son as God is what we are taught in Hebrews 1:8, as well as many other places in Scripture.

It is reasonable if you include in your reasoning "Is anything too hard for Jehovah?" (Genesis 18:14)

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
The mere fact Jaywill that Christ entered into the holy of holies, into the presence, symbolically of God himself testifies to this fact, otherwise he would be entering into the presence of himself, to present the value of his sacrifice, to himself, which is neither logical nor reasonable.
===================== you include in your reasoning "Is anything too hard for Jehovah?" (Genesis 18:14) [/b]

yes he is superior to every angel, it does not necessitate that he is God incarnate, you are postulating Jaywill, and yes all things are possible for God, but none of these even remotely addresses the incongruities of your assertion. God is the father, Christ the son, they are different entities, its a very pure and simple truth. Indeed if we are to assume they are one and the same, then Christ prayed to himself for strength???, Christ hands back the kingdom to himself???, Christ enters in the presence of himself???, Christ subjects himself to himself, Christ is the head of himself etc etc its all really quite illogical and unreasonable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes he is superior to every angel, it does not necessitate that he is God incarnate, you are postulating Jaywill, and yes all things are possible for God, but none of these even remotely addresses the incongruities of your assertion. God is the father, Christ the son, they are different entities, its a very pure and simple truth. Indeed if we are t ...[text shortened]... himself, Christ is the head of himself etc etc its all really quite illogical and unreasonable.

================================
yes he is superior to every angel, it does not necessitate that he is God incarnate,
===============================

It is not for me to determine what is the necessity. It is for me to believe what the word of God has said.

"But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..." (Heb. 1:8)

It is not for me to tell God - "That is not necessary!"

===============
you are postulating Jaywill,
================

I am quoting.

=================
and yes all things are possible for God, but none of these even remotely addresses the incongruities of your assertion.
====================

I assert that Hebrews 1:8 says "But of the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..."

I am asserting that the text of the New Testament here, does not say "But of the [Father]". I assert that in THIS case it says "But of the SON, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ...."

===========
God is the father, Christ the son, they are different entities, its a very pure and simple truth.
========================

And the pure and simple truth is ALSO, that the word of God says "But of the SON, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..."

=============================
Indeed if we are to assume they are one and the same, then Christ prayed to himself for strength???,
===================================

I have previous shown you from the book of Zechariah, that Jehovah of hosts, is both the Sender and the One being sent (Zachariah 2:8-11).

I don't think I will go over these passages again with the same person today.

The Triune God has a side to Him that He is passing through two becomings in order to dispense Himself into man.

Becoming # 1 - "The Word became flesh ..." (John 1:14)

Becoming # 2 " The last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)

Jehovah economically passed through these two becomings in His eternal purpose to join Himself to man as man's divine and eternal life.

Jesus Christ is the branching out of Jehovah and the fruit of the earth. In His incarnation He is Jehovah God branching out of eternity and into humanity. And as the fruit of the earth He is the one who became like us, a man living on the earth.

"In that day the Branch of Jehovah will be beauty and glory, and the Fruit of the earth, excellent and splendour, to those of Isreal who have escaped." (Isaiah 4:2)

Jehovah God branches out of eternity into time. He branches out in incarnation as the Word that was God who became flesh. And as a man in incarnation He is the glorious "fruit of the earth".

The "child ... born" is "the Mighty God".
The "Son ... given" is the "Eternal Father."
See Isaiah 9:6.

But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever."

Mind you not just for 1,000 years is His throne. But the Son's throne is the throne of "God" forever and ever.

=========================
Christ hands back the kingdom to himself???, Christ enters in the presence of himself???, Christ subjects himself to himself, Christ is the head of himself etc etc its all really quite illogical and unreasonable.
===================================


It is "WONDERFUL" . It is full of wonder.
"For a child is born to us, A son is given to us;
And the government Is upon His shoulder;

And His name will be called WONDERFUL Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." ( See Isaiah 9:6)

He is WONDERFUL!

And He is the joining of God and man, the Firstborn Son of many brothers (Romans 8:27,28)

Originally posted by jaywill
================================
yes he is superior to every angel, it does not necessitate that he is God incarnate,
===============================[/b]

It is not for me to determine what is the necessity. It is for me to believe what the word of God has said.

"But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..." Firstborn Son of many brothers [b](Romans 8:27,28) [/b]

you know Jay, i am not going to even argue with you, God also said of King David, your Kingship will be indefinite,

(2 Samuel 7:15-16) . . .As for my loving-kindness, it will not depart from him the way I removed it from Saul, whom I removed on account of you.  And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.”’”

does that make David God incarnate, hardly, well just stop the postulating Jay, just stop it!

You have once again diverted the issue, in this case the temple arrangement and made it one of an entirely different nature. untill you can explain the significance of the holy of holies, the high priest, the Levitical priesthood, the court of gentiles etc, you cannot claim to have any understanding of the heavenly arrangement of which it foreshadowed nor of the book of revelation, and no amount of postulating on the divinity of Christ can mar that fact!