The Parable of the Fig Tree

[Anthony Joseph]

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?

[Anthony Joseph]

Also, if the woman (Chayyah - Life) is the "mother of ALL living" then what of the other living beings (races) prior. Does not ALL mean ALL? I looked up the word Chay, Chi and hay for "living" Strong's H2416 and it is used and applied throughout the scripture to describe "life" except for plants.

[Michael Joseph]

Also, if the woman (Chayyah - Life) is the "mother of ALL living" then what of the other living beings (races) prior. Does not ALL mean ALL? I looked up the word Chay, Chi and hay for "living" Strong's H2416 and it is used and applied throughout the scripture to describe "life" except for plants.

Chavvah Mother of all Flesh - NO
Chavvah Mother of all Spiritual Living - Yes. [in this Age, save Election]

The Elect are presanctified and are alive in Yehoshuah [justified in 1st Age = Common Fig]
The rest are born into this flesh Age [2nd] Dead in Yehoshuah - a Test - will these by free will choose Life? The Woman bringing forth Yehoshuah [by her waters].

[Michael Joseph]

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].

[Anthony Joseph]

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")?

[Michael Joseph]

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.

[Anthony Joseph]

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.

[Michael Joseph]

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?

[Anthony Joseph]

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".