The Trees of Eden

[micah7:9]

For my benefit alone  Quote from: Seth on Today at 02:42:49 AM
God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.

Would you mind elaborating on the bold print? I am sometimes slow...thanks :dsunny:

[Seth]

If we look at the context of Psalm 82, it's that the judges of Israel were called gods because God is a judge. That was the manner in which they were gods. The comparison is set up from early in the psalm.

[TheVisitor]

Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.

[TheVisitor]

Would you mind elaborating on the bold print?

I'll have to let you chew on that one a while.  I have to go, talk more later.

[micah7:9]

To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger.

[Seth]

Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.

Well, apples and oranges are at least both fruit  :winkgrin:

The use of the word cherub is specific to me in the sense that it refers to the king that the prophet was told to speak to. That is why you said "that's where it gets a little tricky" when I pointed out who the prophecy is addressed to.

Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all. You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.

The fact that the prophecy is addressed to a man is not tricky. The hypothesis that it is addressed to Satan as well? I agree that gets "tricky."

[micah7:9]

Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.

Well, apples and oranges are at least both fruit  :winkgrin:

The use of the word cherub is specific to me in the sense that it refers to the king that the prophet was told to speak to. That is why you said "that's where it gets a little tricky" when I pointed out who the prophecy is addressed to.

Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all. You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.

The fact that the prophecy is addressed to a man is not tricky. The hypothesis that it is addressed to Satan as well? I agree that gets "tricky."

:happyclap:

[TheVisitor]

Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all.
You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.

No, actually you can't. The truth in the bible lies in proper context that is true. But not only proper context. It also lies between the lines. No amount of studying Greek or Hebrew words will reveal that to you. If one continues to limit the truth to what they can only see with their eyes, and not what he is writing upon your heart you will only see the rhema and not the true Logos of the Word.

If we look at the context of Psalm 82, it's that the judges of Israel were called gods because God is a judge. That was the manner in which they were gods. The comparison is set up from early in the psalm.

True, there is that but I wasn't talking only about those judges.

Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.
Would you mind elaborating on the bold print? I am sometimes slow...thanks.

The prophets were "men of God" born with the Spirit seeing visions from their youth. They were gods. Jesus said so. The witch of Endor said so when she saw Samuel coming up out of the earth. Jesus said no man until His time was greater than John, but the least in His kingdom are greater than he. We have been given the power to become the Sons of God. Not will be, but now are. That makes us gods.
I hope that's enough of an explanation.

[TheVisitor]

To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger

You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.

[Seth]

No, actually you can't. The truth in the bible lies in proper context that is true. But not only proper context. It also lies between the lines. No amount of studying Greek or Hebrew words will reveal that to you. If one continues to limit the truth to what they can only see with their eyes, and not what he is writing upon your heart you will only see the rhema and not the true Logos of the Word.

If you are saying that I need to rely on another teacher to reveal truths which are beyond what is written as a matter of authoritative doctrine, I have to disagree. I want to communicate what I am and what I am not saying.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have interpretations and look for other possible layers of meaning. What I am saying is that I don't take those interpretations as essential doctrine. Is Jesus the Son of God? Yes, because the Bible says so. We don't have to wonder. That is why we don't have lengthy discussions on whether he is the Son of God. In my opinion, it would be illegitimate to disagree on that point because it is so clear.

But with the traditional teaching of Lucifers fall, I find there is legitimate reason to disagree. That's not to say that I don't respect the fact that someone might interpret it to be, but to me it remains an unproved hypothesis, and therefore not something I take as an essential doctrine. I don't even believe it is intrinsic to the gospel message.

[TheVisitor]

But with the traditional teaching of Lucifer's fall, I find there is legitimate reason to disagree. That's not to say that I don't respect the fact that someone might interpret it to be, but to me it remains an unproved hypothesis, and therefore not something I take as an essential doctrine. I don't even believe it is intrinsic to the gospel message.

Well said Seth. Where it comes to the traditional teaching of Lucifer's fall there is so little information it may be "safer" to stay in the literal wording for the most part. Before you can unlock most metaphors you do need some sort of baseline "this always means that" to reference from. Now in this case we can use Eden as a reference point in time. Since I don't believe either of those kings lifetimes went back to the time of Eden, it is a mater of simple logical deduction and taking the Word at face value to say they were not the Cherub that was said to be there. Your use of a possible reverse metaphor calling a man who could not possibly have been there a Cherub would seem to be much more unlikely and more of a hypothesis to me. Loosely calling a man a god like those judges were over the people is a long way from being the same thing as using a specific definition such as a covering cherub. In this case I do not believe I am the one making the case for an unproved hypothesis. This puts me on the "safer" side of literal wording on this one small part, but the rest of my previous statement about the dual nature of the kings I would agree is just speculation at this point.

[Seth]

Since I don't believe either of those kings lifetimes went back to the time of Eden, it is a mater of simple logical deduction and taking the Word at face value to say they were not the Cherub that was said to be there.

Yet I believe I am taking the scripture at face value by saying that the prophecy is spoken to one person only, and therefore the imagery to follow works naturally as metaphors work throughout not only the Bible but pretty much throughout literature itself. The very fact that we disagree shows that the language is not explicit as to the recipient of the prophetic message being Satan, and is therefore a matter of subjective thinking, not objective fact, to say that it was.

Basically, your subjective interpretation doesn't have to become my truth.

[Seth]

What Biblical literalists may or may not realize is that unless the scripture says "this is meant to be taken literally" the assumption of a literal meaning is a subjective analysis. That's fine and dandy to me. We all have our approaches. If the scripture said "thou hast been in Eden, and that should be taken literally" then it's no longer a subjective analysis, but an objective fact as to the intended meaning. If you interpret the Eden reference as literal, you are doing so subjectively. I take it subjectively to be a metaphor. However, my interpretation allows me to take Ezekiel 28:12 at face value when it says, "take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus."

Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that, your literal interpretation has caused you not to take that verse at face value, but to add a concept to the verse not found in the actual words. That is why I say that one person's interpretation does not have to be another person's truth.

[TheVisitor]

Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that...

The verse doesn't have to say that specifically. There is a principle that may be in effect here that would explain this. "To have authority one must be under authority" For example the case with the Centurion. If in a hierarchy the ruler decrees this or that to be done, those under such authority are not even named. It is written the ruler decreed and it was so. In this case by talking to the king of Tyre he could be referring to the powers above him giving him his authority, in this case Satan.
Just a thought. Subjective, objective...? A little of both...? You're ideas on this are just as valid as mine though. I would agree not doctrine material.

[micah7:9]

To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger

You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.

Strong's  Cherub  H3742 Of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure
Young's  Cherub .... one grasped; held fast
I find that BDB defines cherub as how the word is used.

Cherub does not mean messenger and I did not say that. And whether one uses a small "a" or a large "A"  and angel  whether OT and NT is a messenger, yes a minister as well, but not a cherub.
I have found that most cherubs or cheribum were "man made- fashioned" others were seen in visions. There is a heavenly host, but I found no heavenly angels.
Perhaps google would give me a better insight than the Bible? The verses below speak volumes.... you have the cherub and you have the devil..
Eze 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

[rosered]

To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger

You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.

Strong's  Cherub  H3742 Of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure
Young's  Cherub .... one grasped; held fast
I find that BDB defines cherub as how the word is used.

Cherub does not mean messenger and I did not say that. And whether one uses a small "a" or a large "A"  and angel  whether OT and NT is a messenger, yes a minister as well, but not a cherub.
I have found that most cherubs or cheribum were "man made- fashioned" others were seen in visions. There is a heavenly host, but I found no heavenly angels.
Perhaps google would give me a better insight than the Bible? The verses below speak volumes.... you have the cherub and you have the devil..
Eze 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

  I love the descriptives in Ezel 1 and Eze 10   of just what the Cherub    ''represents ''    or is symbolic for    Gods presence
  I find everything  of God  amazing because I was looking into those things right before this   this very post
  and the reason was in Hebrews  , when I was reading   about them I found it really odd that  whomever wrote Hebrews  mentions    the cherubim  refer to something briefly and without going into detail.
saying exactly that !!  cherubim  hebrews   9 ;5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

   they seem to be like the   covering of the  many veils of a diadem [Isaiah 3 ]    and if you look at the word diadem  in Revelation 19    11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

  It gets really  interesting and mysterious      when you see them  used in   Rev 12 as the   satan / adversary NET Glossary: in the Old Testament this refers to the inscribed plate that was tied to the turban of the high priest (Exod 29:6); in the New Testament it refers to a jeweled crown or headband worn as a symbol of sovereignty (e.g., Rev 12:3; 13:1: 19:12)
Diadem [EBD]

the tiara of a king (Ezek. 21:26; Isa. 28:5; 62:3); the turban (Job 29:14). In the New Testament a careful distinction is drawn between the diadem as a badge of royalty (Rev. 12:3; 13:1; 19:12) and the crown as a mark of distinction in private life. It is not known what the ancient Jewish "diadem" was. It was the mark of Oriental sovereigns. (See CROWN.)

Diadem [NAVE]

DIADEM.
Ezek. 21:26.
DIADEM [SMITH]

What the "diadem" of the Jews was we know not. That of other nations of antiquity was a fillet of silk, two inches broad, bound round the head and tied behind. Its invention is attributed to Liber. Its color was generally white, sometimes, however, it was of blue, like that of Darius; and it was sown with pearls or other gems, (Zechariah 9:16) and enriched with gold. (Revelation 9:7) It was peculiarly the mark of Oriental sovereigns. In (Esther 1:11; 2:17) we have cether for the turban worn by the Persian king, queen or other eminent persons to whom it was conceded as a special favor. The diadem of the king differed from that of others in having an erect triangular peak. The words in (Ezekiel 23:15) mean long and flowing turbans of gorgeous colors. [CROWN]
DIADEM [ISBE]

DIADEM - di'-a-dem: There are seven Bible references to the diadem, four in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. The Hebrew words do not mark any clear distinctions.
(1) tsaniph, tsanoph, tsaniphah (all from tsanaph, primarily "to wrap," "dress," "roll") mean a headdress in the nature of a turban or piece of cloth wrapped or twisted about the head. The word is also rendered "hood," "mitre." Job 29:14: "My justice was as a robe and a diadem" (RVm, "turban"); Isa 62:3: "a royal diadem in the hand of thy God."

(2) tsephirah, means "a crown," "diadem," i.e. something round about the head; Isa 28:5 "a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people."

(3) mitsnepheth, means an official turban or tiara of priest or king, translated also "mitre." Ezek 21:26: "Remove the mitre, and take off the crown."

(4) diadema, the Greek word in the New Testament for "diadem," means "something bound about the head." Found 3 t, all in Rev 12:3: "a great red dragon .... and upon his heads seven diadems" (the King James Version "crowns"); Rev 13:1: "a beast .... and on his horns ten diadems"; 19:11,12: "a white horse .... and upon his head are many diadems."

  Its about the true   Heavenly   priesthood and the false one in the earth   that Jesus comes to destroy
oddly enough the Cherub  have the ''form of a mans hand  under their wings ?

Acts 17 ...24"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

   took up some of it and put it into the hands of the man in linen, who took it and ... in the great day, the earth, and all the works that are therein, will be burnt up. ... 8The cherubim appeared to have the form of a man's hand under their wings.


I wonder if the adversity/satan of  lies  is the works of mens hands against the Son of Mans    Hand power     and He is doing the works   though the Cherubim  of Glory  coving the mercy seat

  all the works of mens hands will be burned up  the wood , hay and straw   and the gold and  such will be tested as by fire     

1 Corth 3 ;12...11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire,

and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work....


I found this an     interesting    read    http://bible-mythbusters.com/cherub-cherubim-seraphim.html     
I sure do not understand it  all , just some bits and pieces     of the Whole
  and it is quiet the mystery     to me

[Seth]

Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that...

The verse doesn't have to say that specifically being subject to a common principle; "To have authority one must be under authority" Jesus showed this to be the case with the Centurion. If in a hierarchy the ruler decrees this or that to be done, those under such authority are not even named. It is written the ruler decreed and it was so. In this case by talking to the king of Tyre he is automatically referring to the powers above him giving him his authority, in this case Satan.

MATTHEW 22:46    And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].

All above is your interpretation. You have admitted such. Like I said, your interpretation does not have to be my truth.

[TheVisitor]

Yeah, I had to change a little of the wording of my last post after some time to think.
I would agree this is just one persons interpretation and yours is as valid as mine in that effect.

[Tom]

I haven't been keeping up with the thread because I'm not interested in debating if trees are people or "angels," and I think the figurative vs. literal thing is a matter of personal perspective that is not just about milk vs. meat. I tend to interpret more literally, and I don't believe in pre-Adamic humans. I just read through the thread, and I think Rose brought up a good point in Reply #42 about "Lucifer" which is just another example of the deception of orthodoxy supported by forgery in the translation of scripture. "Lucifer" is used once in the King James Version as an intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew for "howl" (Isaiah 14:12). The same exact Hebrew word is translated "howl" in the King James Version in (Zechariah 11:2). (See the attachments.) Variations of the word are in (Isaiah 13:6; 14:31; 15:2,3; 16:7; 23:1,6,14; 52:5; 65:14). The idea that Satan is a fallen "angel" named "Lucifer" is a lie. There are a few verses used to try to prove the so called "fall of Satan" that is not in scripture. Ezekiel refers to the king of Tyre not Satan (Ezekiel 28:15). The king of Tyre is a man, and Satan is not a man (Ezekiel 28:2,9). Isaiah refers to the King of Babylon in the future day of Israel's restoration not Satan's fall in the past (Isaiah 14:3-20). Then Satan will have been cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:9). The King of Babylon is a man (Isaiah 14:16), and Satan is not a man. Luke refers to Satan's action in response to the casting out of demons in Christ's name not the so called "fall of Satan" (Luke 10:18). "From the beginning is the Adversary sinning." (1 John 3:8) "He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44) Satan, the Adversary, has been the chief messenger of evil from the beginning, but he will not torture the majority of mankind in fire forever. God is operating all according to his will (Ephesians 1:11); God controls Satan (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6); and Satan will eventually lose his power (1 Corinthians 15:24) because Christ's blood on the cross reconciles all on earth and in the heavens to God (Colossians 1:20) who will ultimately be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).   


[attachment deleted by admin]

[micah7:9]

Hey Tom (with a cleat of humor) where did you get your information? Could it be from the Bible?  :2c:

[Tom]

good guess

[eaglesway]

Psalm 1:2
But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers.

Ezekiel 47:12 By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing."

Rev 22:2 On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Isaiah 50:4 The Lord God has given me the tongue of the learned,
that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary:
he wakens morning by morning,
he wakens mine ear to hear as the learned.


Isaiah 61:3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

[micah7:9]

I loved this....... Beautiful....

Isaiah 50:4 The Lord God has given me the tongue of the learned,
that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary:
he wakens morning by morning,
he wakens mine ear to hear as the learned.

[TheVisitor]

Isaiah 61:3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

Trees of righteousness. Thank you eaglesway. I think this got a little sidetracked for a while but this returns me back to the reason for my opening this topic. The point here was not meant to prove the bible speaks of people as trees. That part is irrefutable. My original message was "why" are we being planted as theses trees of righteousness. In the kingdom on earth that is now being set up in the hearts of His people, Jesus the second Adam is restoring everything back that the first Adam lost. That first Eden was a seventh day. A rest. And this seventh day that's upon us now is also His day of rest. The first Eden had its trees with their good fruits teaching the world of His righteousness. He is restoring us back to all that was lost. He repaired the breach of sin that has since Adam separated man from God. We will never forget where He drew us from, how He saved us and redeemed us. After a thousand years of that new heaven on earth, the adversary will be turned loose again to roam the garden. I don't believe Eve will listen his time to the lies, because she will be fortified by His Word having her senses exercised in the discernment of good and evil. This time she'll be waiting and ready for the assault to come...

[micah7:9]

Are you saying we are to be headed back to the Eden of Genesis as the goal? I mean really....Why? The Lord God was finished with that work. He is moving forward. I am aghast! [I hope I spelled aghast properly]