Info about the Garden and the Trees

 A question from a reader about the garden of Eden and the 2 trees. His English is broken, but that is okay.

Maregaal Yaakov,

Do you know who are the tree next to the tree of life,,, known as the tree of knowledge of good and bad,,,,,who is that tree,??

Johannes Roos,
Hey, good evening. This myth in the Jewish bible is borrowed from Babylonian, Assyrian, Urartu cultures. The tree of life in those cultures is basically a tree that gives eternal life to those that eat if it. Most of the time we see kings eating from it and the gods of those cultures are nearby whoever king it is. Whether we originally had something like this in our polytheistic days is very hard to say, because we actually committed suicide culturally speaking by discarding our polytheism. Nonetheless..... Here is the basic teaching of the Torah, theologically speaking

Adam and Eve were in the garden in the "East."

"East" of where? particularly Jerusalem, the City of HaShem.

Adam was told he may eat of any tree in the garden that had fruit, which included that tree of life.

They were also told there is just one tree that they must not eat from and that was the tree of knowledge.

Hashem uses the word, "surely" in the statement, "...the day you eat of it you will surely die." Keep this in mind.

Now because the tree of life is there and it grants eternal life, it goes without saying that mankind, that being Adam and Eve at that point, were destined to die in the normal manner of life and their only way to escape death was to take of the Tree of Life. However, before they got the chance to eat of the Tree of Life the serpent came and persuaded them to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil first.

And, when they did Hashem fulfilled the word, "surely" unto them by putting cherubim in the way/path to guard them from reaching out and grabbing the fruit of the Tree of Life which was the only way for them to escape death,  thus they "surely" died in due course.

And because of this one particular sin several things happened as a consequence in this mythology all at once.

1. why there are weeds.
2. why we humans work so hard to get food when the beasts of the field don't have to work so hard as it seems
3. Why women have a hard time with labor compared to the animals.
4. Why women have a hard time with pregnancy and conception when compared to the other animals
5. Why we die even though we are made in His image.
6. Why the serpent has no legs or why it will slither on the ground
7. Why humans are the only specie to wear clothes
8. Why mankind are generally scared of snakes

The story moves on because it is a myth and so Genesis speaks about Adam's kids and how Israel came about in due course.

The story moves on so fast that it doesn't mention it still exists somewhere or it stayed around till the flood and the flood killed the tree, even though its supposed to grant eternal life.

In the myth where we borrowed it from, the standing serpent is a diety in ancient Sumer. Possibly Ningishzida or
Ninazu

Maregaal
2/21/2022
11:09 pm

Paul, the messiah and the Gospel of John

 A conversation with a Islamic gentleman about:

Paul; the Gospel of John; James - the very brother of Jesus; and what the true Jewish messiah must be like; and...

Maregaal:
If Jesus was truly the messiah that the whole Jewish world was waiting for.... then why didn't John the Baptist start following him? 

Why didn't he have a single follower or disciple before the baptism?

Or, why didn't he, the apostles, James, or John the baptist ever write anything down?

If any of the 15 people (Jesus; John the B.; the 12; and James) did write anything... Nothing survived

***************

Ross Goodwin:

Maregaal Yaakov,

Those are all great questions and ones that I don’t have answers too but I do have my opinion 😁 and my opinion is that how do we know that John didn’t follow Jesus if all we have to go by is the New Testament which has been proven is an unreliable source at best? The Disciples of Jesus were probably illiterate as most people were up until just a couple of hundred years ago. Obviously I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I know there was no mention of the Messiah dying in the Torah and there were things left undone as far as prophecy goes but we believe that Jesus was saved from Crucifixion and will return one day to bring peace on Earth and complete the prophecy.

***************

Maregaal:

Ross Goodwin,

as a Jewish dude, that has no horse in this race....

Sound theolgy is way better than theology that trips over itself time and time again, as Christiandom does.

Even, though I personally don't accept Islamic views of Jesus being saved from Crucifixion historically.... Islamic views flow better and is more acceptable in many ways theologically.

Ummm, regarding your question....

There is a ton of homework to learn for certain things, but as a Jewish dude.... One can see right from the get-go that John was not written 1) by a Jew and 2) not by an eyewitness.

A Muslim with your more Jewish wavelength in pure monotheism can see or should see that something is very wrong with John.

Right at the very beginning we see that Jesus was actually the one creating the world, not God. This Jesus in John is this logos/demiurge creature or being God created. Being actually created according to Paul first and then John second, which John was written way after Paul died. Paul is the first author of the NT.

This logos/demiurge theology or philosophy was floating around from about 50 bce to at least 150 bce and possibly beyond... Over time Arius (from Alexandria) the "heretic" got it right, whereas the rest of the Nicene council got it wrong.

You might want to research demiurge / logos.

The premise of the whole book is false.... God does not even have a son, let alone sending a son into the world.

In John, not one single law of Moses commandment is mentioned, whereas in the other 3 gospels, there are plenty.

In John, salvation is not like the Jewish and Islamic way, by being set apart and holy, walking upright and keeping the commandments faithfully, so it is your righteous deeds and correct doctrine that grants you salvation.

In John's gospel, salvation is based on Paul's theology, where Torah observance has nothing to do with it at all, but a mere belief that Jesus is the one that God sent into the world and who made atonement for you by making himself an atonement offering for sin.

This is why the Islamic faith is sooooo heretical in the eyes of Christians, because they outright deny the whole entire process of how atonement was made, the sacrifice of his very body and the shedding of his blood.....

Jesus is supposed to be like all the other atonement offerings that were made in the past with actual animals and their blood given to make atonement, like this, but far better.

Christians, thanks to Paul alone.... make God into a major 🅜︎🅐︎🅙︎🅞︎🅡︎ hypocrite and they don't even see it.

Because human sacrifice is an abomination to the Almighty. Yet, they claim He never changes, yet God suddenly goes against His ways and accepts a human sacrifice for the atonement of the world.

The gnostics were people that based things on "knowledge." So we see John is gnostic in nature, because it is based on a certain knowledge.

Jesus, in reality, was a first century orthodox Jew, among all the different flavors of Torah observant Jews of the time.

The true messiah of Judaism must set up a theocratic monarchy, way better than the beginnings of the Ottoman  Empire, for they were a theocratic Monarchy. Thus, all his disciples and people must be Torah observant. We get this type of Jesus in Matthew and with James who became the head of the sect after Jesus died. We see this in Acts 21:20, how he and all with him were strict Torah observant people. Paul in this set of passages decieves James to make it appear he is still Torah observant.... However, when he goes to the Temple, the people know who he is and he almost gets killed because of being a true apostate that he was.

Maregaal

2/18/2022

Question by Bart Ehrman: My Response

 

Nothing of the sort in reality. But here is an educated guess:

The people deemed him as either the Christ or were hoping he would be such.... never anointed though.

A sect leader to a point... because the messiah must never die (just not scriptural), when he did, James took over as sect leader... and his crowd still kept Torah, but with greater zeal and inline with Jesus' personal teaching.

Then an apostate came around, hearing rumors about Jesus, knowing nothing of Jesus/Yeshua.... but trained in goofy philosophies.... deemed Jesus as this stupid logos/demiurge character.... so Jesus BECAME [in Paul's eyes] this pre-existing being that was created as the first of God's works at creation... but he was made with great power so in turn Jesus or this logos created everything else for God, but he himself was not a God. In time, this logos, was born naturally through the natural sperma way (Romans 1:3)... born under the law so he could be counted as worthy and blameless, made atonement for Israel under that system, then rose to usher in a new covenant by abolishing that barrier that separates Jew from Gentile (the law or Torah) and made them both into the "true Israel" based on Faith in God who gave his son as a sacrifice for sin.

___________________________

Del Preston responded to me:

logos? I think your confusing John and Paul

____________________________

I responded back to Del:

actually Im not....here is what paul writes...

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist," Col 1...

Paul considered him a pre-existing being and a created creature like everyone else below God...

Paul, however, did NOT believe he was God though

Whereas, the Gospel of John takes the logos or demiurge doctrine to another level

___________________

Del Preston writes back:

good point, yet some believe copyists change the nature of Paul’s writings by inserting teachings more palatable.  Like Paul saying there is no distinction among humans then later telling women to stay quiet and keep their head covered- in the same letter

____________________

I wrote back to Del:

the entire books of 1 & 2 timothy are.... but then a certain demiurge passage gets changed to "God"

Hold on...
____________________

1 Tim 3:16
King James verses NIV....

NIV follows old texts

KJ
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [[God]] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NIV
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: [[He]] appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

___________

By me to add to what I said above:

 Again, here is what Paul writes...

1 Cor 15
27For he [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus] feet. But when he [God] saith all things are put under him [Jesus], it is manifest [clear or obvious] that he [God] is excepted [or: not included[, which [who] did put all things under him [Jesus].
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him [Jesus], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

_________________

Then I added this too:

Sorry, as a Jew... I really hate Paul. Don't see how a so-called Pharisee could utter the things he did. Just not biblical.


MAREGAAL
2/14/2022

"Original Sin" doctrine who Invented it?

PAUL INVENTED THE DOCTRINE OF "ORIGINAL SIN," not St. Augustine

WHY DR. LITWA AND GOOGLE MUST BE REJECTED

You will see why they need to be rejected through this letter I wrote

**********************

Jim,

You been watching a lot or too much of these shows and dont know reality or something.

I even brought up "original sin" on one of the shows here, where my question was a part of the program and the scholar mentioned that St. Augustine was the first to bring up "original sin." The scholar was Dr. M. David Litwa.

I would have to debate that because he (Augustine) gets the idea from Paul himself. Like: didn't the scholar know that? Paul himself, maybe, did not coin the phrase "original sin" but the doctrine came from Paul and that is very clear.

Here is what Google says when you type up:

"St. Augustine and Original Sin"

"Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God."

I say BS to Google and to Litwa for not knowing...


Here is what Paul wrote:

Romans 5
12¶Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead....
.... Therefore as by the offence of one  came upon all men to condemnation

...19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners

This is the true author of the "original sin" doctrine, not St. Augustine.

Here it is again:
1 Cor 15
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Here again, or continued from Romans 5....

ROMANS 7
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.
9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;
23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?
25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

SO LETS BE CLEAR....

PAUL  invented the doctrine of Original Sin.

Because sin didn't exist before Adam taking the fruit... he was good, according to Paul. But once he ate of the fruit he became a sinner.... and that sin was passed on to all his descendants. Adam was the first, thus that is the "original sin" doctrine and this "sin" or "spiritual stain" is passed on, according to Paul.

LITWA must be REJECTED and google.

I asked the question in the
"Dating Luke-Acts in light of Marcion" episode @ 1:01:27 (time)

Maregaal

#originalsin