Question about atonement....

[sscoulter]

AH, well scripture dosent say he DID eat from the tree, so i guess we both are ""speculating"" yet lets examine, what does the tree of life represent? immortality? resurrection, CHRIST??

Yes we are both speculating he he he. However, he was told to not eat only of one tree in particular in the garden, and we know the other tree was there as well.

Yes indeed, what does the "tree of life" represent? Is it figurative? Is the entire story not literal, but figurative? Was there an actual tree that Eve ate from? I tend to believe it was an actual tree, and that the account of the fall of man is literal, but I am open to other opinions.

if one can partake of resurrection, immortality, eternal life, and loose it then its not what it is. right?

Right, however I am not sure that the "tree of life" is synonymous with "resurrection" per se. Look at these verses:

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Perhaps the tree of life is what we shall have "back", when we oursevles are raised imortal.

But back to your point, I think, you are saying if Adam was "partaking" of the eternal life before, how could he lose it? I am only suggesting that Adam was a creature who was being sustained in the garden by the tree of life, and this was his condition before he sinned. In other words, I don't think there was a physical change in Adam after he sinned. He was sent out of the Garden to die as "dust ye are and dust ye shall return". But if he had not sinned, perhaps he would have lived forever. All this is just speculation.

some fundies say we will have to continually eat from the tree of life in heaven to have immortality  :dontknow: makes no sense to me.

Well no, not if we are raised immortal. It makes no sense that we would have to continue to eat to keep our immortality. But the first man is earthly, the second is spiritual. So if Adam was earthly, but had the tree of life, then who knows he may have lived forever. But God did not intend this to happen, but for man to fall and for man to be redeemed. His intention is for us to be earthly first, and then spiritual.

your thoughts are appreciated. and we should also establish if we think these be literal ""trees""

Eze 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that [were] in the garden of God, envied him

inlove
chuckt

There is so much in the bible that is figurative, I truly do not know. As I said, I tend to believe it was a literal tree. Not the kind we know of now of course, but a tree never the less. If you think about it, it could have been a simple apple tree. If God simply decided to place his one and only law on this particular tree, who am I to judge? Perhaps Adam in his pre-fallen state, knowing no sin, could have just as easily fallen if God had said "don't go past this bush" or "don't climb that mountain" etc.  Perhaps it was not the nature of the actual tree, but the nature of the transgression; which was to do what God said not to do.


Peace.


S

[Tony N]

"Atonement" in the new testament should really be "conciliate" from "katallasso" or one-sided peace. Reconcile "apokatallasso" is where two who were at enmity come together in peace.

(Mat 5:24)  Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled 2643 to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Rom 5:11  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement 2643.

(Rom 11:15)  For if the casting away of them be the reconciling 2643 of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

(2Co 5:18)  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled 2644 us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation 2643;

(2Co 5:19)  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation 2643.

The above verses are from the KJV. Here are the same from the Concordant Literal:

Rom 5:11 Yet not only so, but we are glorying also in God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom we now obtained the conciliation." Note: KJV improperly has "atonement."

Rom 11:15 For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

2Co 5:18 Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation,

2Co 5:19 how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation."

So a one sided peace has been made by God and God entreats mankind to be conclilated (at peace) with Him. When that occurrs then there is reconciliation.

[sscoulter]

"Atonement" in the new testament should really be "conciliate" from "katallasso" or one-sided peace. Reconcile "apokatallasso" is where two who were at enmity come together in peace.

(Mat 5:24)  Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled 2643 to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Rom 5:11  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement 2643.

(Rom 11:15)  For if the casting away of them be the reconciling 2643 of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

(2Co 5:18)  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled 2644 us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation 2643;

(2Co 5:19)  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation 2643.

The above verses are from the KJV. Here are the same from the Concordant Literal:

Rom 5:11 Yet not only so, but we are glorying also in God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom we now obtained the conciliation." Note: KJV improperly has "atonement."

Rom 11:15 For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

2Co 5:18 Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation,

2Co 5:19 how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation."

So a one sided peace has been made by God and God entreats mankind to be conclilated (at peace) with Him. When that occurrs then there is reconciliation.

Hello,

Thanks for the post, and I agree. The word "atonement" is only used one time in the NT (KJV), and it is the same word rendered "reconciliation" in every other instance. Sadly,I see that the whole idea of "atonement" has become one of making a payment of sin debt in the modern orthodox doctrine.

Thanks for the great post!

S

[Doc]

Hey Chuck, where does it say that Adam "never ate from the tree of life"? The tree of life was in the garden, and God only said Adam could not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall, Adam was removed so that he could not eat of the tree of life and "live forever". But I don't see where it says he did not eat of it before the fall.

AH, well scripture dosent say he DID eat from the tree, so i guess we both are ""speculating"" yet lets examine, what does the tree of life represent? immortality? resurrection, CHRIST??

if one can partake of resurrection, immortality, eternal life, and loose it then its not what it is. right?

some fundies say we will have to continually eat from the tree of life in heaven to have immortality  :dontknow: makes no sense to me.

your thoughts are appreciated. and we should also establish if we think these be literal ""trees""

Eze 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that [were] in the garden of God, envied him

inlove
chuckt

Actually, it does indirectly state that he didn't eat from the tree of life. Otherwise that whole context of  "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever" statement makes no sense. If they'd already eaten from the tree, there'd be no point in preventing them from eating of it.  :2c:

[sscoulter]

Actually, it does indirectly state that he didn't eat from the tree of life. Otherwise that whole context of  "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever" statement makes no sense. If they'd already eaten from the tree, there'd be no point in preventing them from eating of it.  :2c:

Unless after sinning, and his fall, that eating of that tree would somehow make him restored. Just speculation of course, but I don't think in his fallen state it would be wrong to say "lest they eat...". It doesn't mean they had not eaten before. And the tree was in the garden, yet we have no record of God forbidding them from eating from it.

I guess we will have to wait and see lol.


S

[Doc]

Actually, it does indirectly state that he didn't eat from the tree of life. Otherwise that whole context of  "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever" statement makes no sense. If they'd already eaten from the tree, there'd be no point in preventing them from eating of it.  :2c:

Unless after sinning, and his fall, that eating of that tree would somehow make him restored. Just speculation of course, but I don't think in his fallen state it would be wrong to say "lest they eat...". It doesn't mean they had not eaten before. And the tree was in the garden, yet we have no record of God forbidding them from eating from it.

I guess we will have to wait and see lol.


S

Yeah, I suspect that where my thought was going on that is that he didn't want them to live forever in their fallen state, but  whether they had to keep eating from it (if they already had) to live forever, or only had to eat from it once, is certainly speculation based on the account we have...

[ScarletWren]

That will be fascinating to discover if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was literal or not.  Certainly it is difficult to believe that the fruit in itself provided any such knowledge, but to me, it would be the fact that they were told NOT to eat of it, and in the breaking of that law, they at last understood what it was to obey and disobey and the consequences.  I would think that Adam and Eve may have done many acts that would constitute sin once the law was given, but since it seems no law was given up to that point, they couldn't be convicted or feel guilty.  This is all conjecture, of course, and likely to be wrong.  If it was not a literal tree, what would it be?  Since the tree of life is Jesus, would the other tree be Satan?  Or just our carnal minds?   Did Adam and Eve have any other mind but carnal?  Is that why Eve was the one who was deceived, because she had no other mind to argue with about eating it, but Adam was not deceived and that is why he is the one held accountable for us all inheriting mortality?  Just a simple question, right?

A site I've gone to has it's author proposing that the 'tree' was a grape tree and was included in the curse to be made to crawl on its belly and thus became a vine.  He cites many verses where the grape is an inherent part in sin, especially when the juice becomes wine.   And the nazirite vow includes not drinking wine, I believe. An interesting theory but certainly just that, interesting.  Isn't other fruit found on a vine?  Rasberries?  And strawberries?    This guy does have some other fascinating theories also, especially in connection with the differences in the 4 gospels.  He relates it to the differences in the classes of believers, One to the church of pentecost, filled with tares, two to two different classes of overcomers, and John, he contends, is indicative of the millenial kingdom.  He does make some very interesting observations in his writings along those lines, but you have to read some prepatory material regarding the two sons of fresh oil. 

The guy is Gary Naler, and like I said he has some really interesting points and then some of his articles get really 'out there'.  Anyone ever read any of his writings? 

I believe there are multiple causes/reasons for the atonement/sacrifice of Christ.  He became sin, and removed it from us in that we are no longer accountable for our sin, yet that in no way relieves us of having to undergo removal of the taint of personal sin, isn't that what the fire is for?  I believe it also is God's supreme sacrifice for us, for putting us through all of this.  He purposed to make us qualify as sons by having to endure and receive evil, as well as at times being the perpetrator of it, some in less conspicuous ways than others, but we all have done some form of evil in our lives.  So this was His way of showing us how much He loves us, in spite of everything we go through. And what hope it brings us, to look upon an empty cross, our savior conquered death for us, providing us the assurance of life beyond the grave, and a life much grander in purpose and quality than what Adam and Eve experienced in the garden of Eden.

Just some of my thoughts.  Since I really don't have anyone to share my thoughts with in my everyday life, you guys get the brunt, lol.  But then, you don't have to read them. 

Peace!

[rosered]

 
Hi Scarlet Wren ,

  wow , you always  make me think sis !

   some  good thoughts there  :thumbsup: I thank you for sharing them

  and I have heard  of  Gary Naler but t has been years lol
   :HeartThrob:  rose

[ScarletWren]

Hi Rose,

You are always so kind.  It's nice to have a cheerleader.   :bgdance:

I enjoy reading your thoughts also.