Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: The Parable of the Fig Tree

  1. #21
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is "Satan", and the Serpent spoke to the woman saying in so many words, "Hey, didn't God say you can eat from ALL the trees of the garden", then aren't the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge two separate beings? It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge that spoke to the woman, it was the Serpent pointing to that Tree and deceiving the woman into partaking of it. The Serpent was a controlled agent of Satan who deceived the woman into the unholy union with him. Isn't this a more accurate account?

    The Woman and The Man could freely engage and discuss with all the other trees [mankind]; but they were told do not engage this certain one. Of course they could eat food from whatever Yehovah had provided. And the Woman was told, by her admission - not to have sex with a certain man.

    I believe the Man called The Shining One is the same as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    And it is obvious that Chavvah had sex with this Tree [man].
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #22
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    When you say "freely engage", does that mean have sex? Having sex (touching, eating, etc.) with other "trees" was "okay" with God for both the man and the woman?

    Gen. 2

    3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

    When were the man and woman created then? He makes it a point to detail each day in which He created this and that, and yet, when He created the most important man and woman whereby the Son of Man Yehoshuah would be born, He is silent as to which day He created them? According to this discussion, it could not have been on the sixth day nor the seventh day (rest). When then?

    Are the men and women who were created on the sixth day considered "beasts of the field"? From what seedline are they and were they deemed inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?



    Gen. 2

    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    This was after God created the man so these "beasts of the field" were not created on the sixth day. How many different "beasts of the field" are there which are "manlike", when were they created and are they ALL inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?

  3. #23
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    When you say "freely engage", does that mean have sex? Having sex (touching, eating, etc.) with other "trees" was "okay" with God for both the man and the woman?

    Gen. 2

    3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

    When were the man and woman created then? He makes it a point to detail each day in which He created this and that, and yet, when He created the most important man and woman whereby the Son of Man Yehoshuah would be born, He is silent as to which day He created them? According to this discussion, it could not have been on the sixth day nor the seventh day (rest). When then?

    Are the men and women who were created on the sixth day considered "beasts of the field"? From what seedline are they and were they deemed inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?



    Gen. 2

    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    This was after God created the man so these "beasts of the field" were not created on the sixth day. How many different "beasts of the field" are there which are "manlike", when were they created and are they ALL inferior to the man and woman ("Adam and Eve")?


    Eve was told she could not touch just one tree. And if you have even read just a small portion of the Scripture you would know the Bloodline was the most important thing. so that Yehoshuah could come into this world - absent spot - absent defilement.

    I am positive that both The Man and The Woman spoke and engaged in commerce with other beings. But they were told do not do so with The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I am equally positive these did not MIX with other races. They did not commit Adultery.


    Examining contemporaneous dictionaries does not neatly resolve the matter. For instance, the 1792 edition of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun "commerce" narrowly as "[e]xchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick", but it defines the corresponding verb "to commerce" more broadly as "[t]o hold intercourse."[3] The word "intercourse" also had a different and wider meaning back in 1792 than it does now.

    And we are informed that Satan was in the Garden and that his Bough [Tree] was above the other [trees] due to his traffick [commerce]. He was able to bring increase into his Bough from many different streams [commerce].


    The ones that were brought before Eth-ha-aw-dawm are domesticated cattle. Remember The Man was a farmer and would need farm animals in his labor.

    And Yes, some of them created on the sixth day are in fact called beasts of the field. These are with nephesh. I leave it to you to decide that one. I will just say that some of the races go back a lot longer than the Hebrews. Some as many as 10k or more years. While it can easily be shown we are in year 6000 +/- from the Garden.

    Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


    here "beast" is chay - which means - living creature. In context why would it be necessary to say a man is smarter than an animal. That just makes no sense to this writer. So yes, I accept that mankind is sometimes referred to in Scripture as "beast of the field".

    --------------------------------------

    You make a point, concerning sequence. Yet, clearly Yehovah Elohiym created the races of man and then later he created The Man and The Woman. Now, Yehovah Elohiym may have done that Act on the Same day or he may have done it after the seventh day. Because if you check out that word "all" that you bolded, it can just mean he rested from his work. It in no way implies that his work was over or complete.

    Because when we get to The Man the second use of the word "not" CLEARLY means this man did not exist.

    --------------------------------------

    I shall endeaver to be more Strict with my words. But for the sake of dispelling confusion, when I wrote engage in the foregoing response, i did not mean to have sex with. Fact is The Man and The Woman were expressly told "Have nothing to do with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". And The Woman was told do not have sex with this one.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-10-11 at 09:37 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #24
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    The confession of both the man and the woman when confronted by God was "I did eat" not "I did touch". So, if "touching" (having sex) is different than "eating" (???), then the confessions of both were not of the sexual nature; what precisely did they confess to doing? What precisely is "eating"? They apparantly were allowed to "eat" from every tree save one; I don't believe God told them to have sex with any and all trees. Therefore, what was the actual act which was permitted with every tree except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    I did "EAT" was the confessed sin.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    The confession of both the man and the woman when confronted by God was "I did eat" not "I did touch". So, if "touching" (having sex) is different than "eating" (???), then the confessions of both were not of the sexual nature; what precisely did they confess to doing? What precisely is "eating"? They apparantly were allowed to "eat" from every tree save one; I don't believe God told them to have sex with any and all trees. Therefore, what was the actual act which was permitted with every tree except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    I did "EAT" was the confessed sin.
    To each his own, I suppose. Yet the report was given - I wish to present you as Chaste Virgins, not as Chavvah was beguiled by The Satan. That word beguiled meaning to "wholly seduce."

    Plus, we got one heck of a problem, why isn't Cain in The Man's Geneology? And why isn't The Man in Cain's geneology?

    As with anything in this life to each his own. I shall agree that we now disagree. I have presented for the Reader five studies with ample supporting documentation from the Word. I have not relied upon the traditions of man to make my argument. I strongly suggest to the Reader to do their OWN research and come to their own opinion.

    The Woman then is a LIAR because she said she was told not "to touch" that certain Man. Yet, I suppose Paul, the scholar of scholars, being able to ORALLY recite Torah before he was 12 years old, came to the finding that The Woman was not a Chaste Virgin in regard to The Satan, the Devil. Shall we nullify the rest of scripture, too? God forbid.

    I have made my case, the reader can discern for themselves. Those fig leaves were over their groins, yes?

    Shalom,

    mj


    Yet the sin was they spoke to, they listened to The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I know they ate an apple. Yeah right. Maybe it was a mushroom?
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-11-11 at 12:40 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  6. #26
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    The point I am questioning is the definition of "eat". Clearly "eating" and "touching" are not the same thing; why speak and admit to each action separately if they are the same act?

    What I am attempting to decipher is what precisely is the act of "eating" which was approved by God for every tree save one.

    It is becoming obvious to me that there was a sex act involved to produce the seed that was Cain; one with a very different nature than that of Abel. That still does not clear up the use of the word "eat", and since "I did eat" was the confessed sin and the question from God Him Self: "And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?", then what is meaning of "eat"?

    To "touch" is to "lie with" or have sexual intercourse, but that is not what God questioned of the man and that is not what either the man or woman confessed to.

    "I did eat." was the confession.

    Can you see the my point here? I am not dismissing that the woman had intercourse with someone other than "Adam" in order to produce Cain and I don't think we disagree as much as you think. However, if we are to determine truth here, then we must understand and comprehend the use of words which, as we see, have some discrepencies according to which act was deemed as "eating".

  7. #27
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    The point I am questioning is the definition of "eat". Clearly "eating" and "touching" are not the same thing; why speak and admit to each action separately if they are the same act?

    What I am attempting to decipher is what precisely is the act of "eating" which was approved by God for every tree save one.

    It is becoming obvious to me that there was a sex act involved to produce the seed that was Cain; one with a very different nature than that of Abel. That still does not clear up the use of the word "eat", and since "I did eat" was the confessed sin and the question from God Him Self: "And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?", then what is meaning of "eat"?

    To "touch" is to "lie with" or have sexual intercourse, but that is not what God questioned of the man and that is not what either the man or woman confessed to.

    "I did eat." was the confession.

    Can you see the my point here? I am not dismissing that the woman had intercourse with someone other than "Adam" in order to produce Cain and I don't think we disagree as much as you think. However, if we are to determine truth here, then we must understand and comprehend the use of words which, as we see, have some discrepencies according to which act was deemed as "eating".
    I do see your point. I too have struggled with this one. Yehoshuah was born in Beth-leham [house of bread] and that is where Rachel [lamb of God] died. Yehoshuah many times speaks of eating the bread of life. And we see a spirit man in the gulf with deep shame asking Abraham for some water. This is not drinking water - this is knowledge.

    Quick Tangent: That man was Rich his whole life; snapped his fingers and it was given to him whatever he desired and now he finds that he is on the other side of the gulf and the most important thing he could have had cannot be his now. So he is in a spiritual hell of sorts in his own mind - Why O' why did he make the choices he made and now if he could just have some "water" to quench his thirst. What is water to a Spirit Man?

    Maybe this was not so much a tangent as I thought. Yehoshuah saying to eat and drink of his body. What is the body of Yehoshuah? The Word of Yehovah.

    I suppose this is the point that causes so much of US v. THEM proganda. In my opinion, granted I said my opinion - I think that The Man and The Woman disobeyed Yehovah Elohiym by having ANYTHING to do with the Man known as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We see that the Woman reports that that tree was good for wisdom so I imagine they both sat before this one and listened to his Stories.

    Yehovah said have nothing to do with this one. So I can see that to "eat and drink" can be an Idiom for to gain Knowledge. And there were also trees in the garden that were just that "trees" for food to sustain the flesh.

    So we have before us:

    Spiritual Food - for the Mind
    Fleshly Food - for the Body

    ---------------------

    I contend that these two partook of the Spiritual Food from the Tree they were commanded not to have anything to do with; and, Chavvah, definitely had sex with this one. I am unsure if The Man just joined in a threesome or did he engage in a homosexual act. That is not clear to me. The Man may not have "touched" this Man at all. His report being he ate; not that he touched. Yet we find that BOTH of them put fig leaves over their groins. And that is a problem for me. Why would The Man need to cover up his groins?

    AJ, we have no foundation unless we can test it and it is found not wanting. So we examine with a critical eye to see if the doctrine is true or not. As such, keep em coming. I am debating where to go next. Maybe the fallen Angels. Or, maybe the Law and the Promise.

    I was recently told that many, many are reading this site. So that is a blessing indeed.

    Shalom,
    mj
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  8. #28
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    I do see your point. I too have struggled with this one. Yehoshuah was born in Beth-leham [house of bread] and that is where Rachel [lamb of God] died. Yehoshuah many times speaks of eating the bread of life. And we see a spirit man in the gulf with deep shame asking Abraham for some water. This is not drinking water - this is knowledge.

    Quick Tangent: That man was Rich his whole life; snapped his fingers and it was given to him whatever he desired and now he finds that he is on the other side of the gulf and the most important thing he could have had cannot be his now. So he is in a spiritual hell of sorts in his own mind - Why O' why did he make the choices he made and now if he could just have some "water" to quench his thirst. What is water to a Spirit Man?

    Maybe this was not so much a tangent as I thought. Yehoshuah saying to eat and drink of his body. What is the body of Yehoshuah? The Word of Yehovah.

    I suppose this is the point that causes so much of US v. THEM proganda. In my opinion, granted I said my opinion - I think that The Man and The Woman disobeyed Yehovah Elohiym by having ANYTHING to do with the Man known as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We see that the Woman reports that that tree was good for wisdom so I imagine they both sat before this one and listened to his Stories.

    Yehovah said have nothing to do with this one. So I can see that to "eat and drink" can be an Idiom for to gain Knowledge. And there were also trees in the garden that were just that "trees" for food to sustain the flesh.

    So we have before us:

    Spiritual Food - for the Mind
    Fleshly Food - for the Body

    ---------------------

    I contend that these two partook of the Spiritual Food from the Tree they were commanded not to have anything to do with; and, Chavvah, definitely had sex with this one. I am unsure if The Man just joined in a threesome or did he engage in a homosexual act. That is not clear to me. The Man may not have "touched" this Man at all. His report being he ate; not that he touched. Yet we find that BOTH of them put fig leaves over their groins. And that is a problem for me. Why would The Man need to cover up his groins?

    AJ, we have no foundation unless we can test it and it is found not wanting. So we examine with a critical eye to see if the doctrine is true or not. As such, keep em coming. I am debating where to go next. Maybe the fallen Angels. Or, maybe the Law and the Promise.

    I was recently told that many, many are reading this site. So that is a blessing indeed.

    Shalom,
    mj
    You know me well enough by now brother; I have to "keep em coming" because I have already tossed out most of what I was taught, or thought I knew, so I must be diligent after the truth, knowledge and keys to the Divine mysteries I seek.

    It sounds like we are coming to some more common ground here with the interpretation of this account. I believe that the "eating" of the "tree" was the willful discourse and taking in of the word of the being that God warned and commanded not to. That makes the most sense and it really fits in well with all of the other uses of the word "eat" prior to that passage and throughout the scriptures. God commanded not to "eat" of the "tree" becuase He knew the subtilness and cunning of this being and He knew that "taking in" of this being would lead to defilement and further sin. The subsequent sex act (touching) of the "tree" by the woman was the result of the first disobedient act; "eating of the tree". I don't believe that "Adam" had any sexual contact with the "tree" because that is just too unnatural an act to engage in for the pure "First Adam" whereby the seed of the savior would be brought from. I believe the man willfully took part in discourse (did "eat"), as did the woman, and then, to keep, save or redeem his wife he "touched" her within a short time after her encounter with the "tree". This would be considered an unclean act since the woman had just had intercourse with someone else.

    This also explains the twin brothers being born; "thy seed" and "her seed" from two different fathers who had intercourse with the woman within a short period of time.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    You know me well enough by now brother; I have to "keep em coming" because I have already tossed out most of what I was taught, or thought I knew, so I must be diligent after the truth, knowledge and keys to the Divine mysteries I seek.

    It sounds like we are coming to some more common ground here with the interpretation of this account. I believe that the "eating" of the "tree" was the willful discourse and taking in of the word of the being that God warned and commanded not to. That makes the most sense and it really fits in well with all of the other uses of the word "eat" prior to that passage and throughout the scriptures. God commanded not to "eat" of the "tree" becuase He knew the subtilness and cunning of this being and He knew that "taking in" of this being would lead to defilement and further sin. The subsequent sex act (touching) of the "tree" by the woman was the result of the first disobedient act; "eating of the tree". I don't believe that "Adam" had any sexual contact with the "tree" because that is just too unnatural an act to engage in for the pure "First Adam" whereby the seed of the savior would be brought from. I believe the man willfully took part in discourse (did "eat"), as did the woman, and then, to keep, save or redeem his wife he "touched" her within a short time after her encounter with the "tree". This would be considered an unclean act since the woman had just had intercourse with someone else.

    This also explains the twin brothers being born; "thy seed" and "her seed" from two different fathers who had intercourse with the woman within a short period of time.
    It is so simple; yet so few will see it. Thank you for this concise and precise description of events. The interesting thing for me, at least, is taking notice that there was law prior to Sinai.

    I am so glad that you see this. Now realize the only TWO types of assemblies that Yehoshuah was okay with taught who claimed to be Yehudah and do lie but are of Satan. Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9. Are we starting to "count" the number of his name? We must start in the Garden.

    Perhaps a Study of the 1st and 2nd influx of the Angels are now appropriate. I am up for whatever. I am just glad that this opportunity has presented itself.

    We can learn the symbolism of 3*3*3 = 27 - Book of Daniel. And we shall learn about the 2nd attack on The Woman's Holy Seedline.


    Shalom,
    mj

    Thank you for the perspective of being "unclean". You are exactly right. The Man trying to redeem her - amazing - would have made himself unclean as well.

    We see later in the 2nd Man - the Son of Man that Joseph refuses to "know his wife" until after she gives birth and her time of healing has passed.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-12-11 at 02:31 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  10. #30
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    It is so simple; yet so few will see it. Thank you for this concise and precise description of events. The interesting thing for me, at least, is taking notice that there was law prior to Sinai.

    I am so glad that you see this. Now realize the only TWO types of assemblies that Yehoshuah was okay with taught who claimed to be Yehudah and do lie but are of Satan. Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9. Are we starting to "count" the number of his name? We must start in the Garden.

    Perhaps a Study of the 1st and 2nd influx of the Angels are now appropriate. I am up for whatever. I am just glad that this opportunity has presented itself.

    We can learn the symbolism of 3*3*3 = 27 - Book of Daniel. And we shall learn about the 2nd attack on The Woman's Holy Seedline.


    Shalom,
    mj

    Thank you for the perspective of being "unclean". You are exactly right. The Man trying to redeem her - amazing - would have made himself unclean as well.

    We see later in the 2nd Man - the Son of Man that Joseph refuses to "know his wife" until after she gives birth and her time of healing has passed.
    I'm ready when you are.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •