Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

There was no angry church that "excluded" the so called "gnostic" gospels.

Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

Most of the apocropha were written by well intentioned Christians who wanted to "fill in the blanks" as they saw found them in the story of Christ. There were literally hundteds of such documents all over the place by 3rd century and all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons.

This by the way includes the so called "gnostic gospels" which Elaine Pagels professor at Princeton (who coined the phrase "gnostic Gospels" in her book by the same name), changed her mind and says that the documents found in Egypt are NOT gnostic(Including and especially the Gospel of Thomas which she argues is Christian). She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.

The false repitition of the "Church" excluding these "gnostic" gospels due to the volitile message is simply a perfect example of modern people reinventing a history to match their politics or opinions.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity there is nothing resembling the centralized hierarchical Catholic church which forms in the later centuries, there is no "conspiracy" to exclude what are wild opposing texts to Christianity, it is like saying there is a conspiracy to keep the New Testament out of the Torah or Qu'ran.

Excerpt from Elaine Pagels 2004 exchange with Ben Worthington

"In the first place, it seems clear to me that there was already a collection of Paul’s letters, as well as a codex collection of the four canonical Gospels, circulating in the early second century A.D. They were apostolic and sacred texts used for teaching and preaching in the church (see 2 Peter 3.15-16). One of the reasons none of the Gnostic documents were ever recognized as canonical or apostolic texts even in the second century (indeed, they were deemed heretical by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and various others) is precisely because they were so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents.

We really shouldn’t talk about the "exclusion" of Gnostic documents from the canon, because frankly, they were never seriously considered for inclusion (as Bruce Metzger taught me long ago when I took early church history from him at Princeton). Not a single early canon list, or council, or church Father--not even someone like Origen--lists any of these documents as possible sacred texts for early Christians. By their very non-Jewish and non-early Christian character, they excluded themselves. "


"So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."

Why were the Gnostic gospels not included in the bible?
Who made that decision not to include them?
What affiliation did these people have?

Dr. Pagels is very clear on all three of those questions in the excerpts above.

Exclusion is the wrong term according to Dr. Pagels most obviously because the "gnostic gospels" DID NOT EXIST when the Euaggelion became widely used in the late first and early second century. Secondly because had they existed they were obviously in HER words "so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents" they would never have been and again according to her later in time were never considered.


The revisionist history which places such importance on gnosticism as a legitimate option to the Christian community and the Church as "angry" is simply a convenient but erroneous assertion to maintain a strongly held prejudice about the nature of Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.
So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?

[cap'n queasy]

Do you not understand the English language?

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: Do you not understand the English language?


You really enjoy trying to belittle people, don't you?
Typical tactic of a lost person.
I am sure you make Jesus proud with these types of comments.
If you can't add anything legitimate, please move on and annoy others elsewhere, as you are only showing everyone what type of fool you really are.

[connermt]

toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

If we believe christian doctrine about the story of A&E in the garden, God is jealous which isn't a godly characteristic, & is afraid that we will get the true knowledge that he is trying to hide from us so he can control us

[connermt]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Roman wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.
Fundamental breaking point there - I was taught God has control over everything that was, is and will come. The devil can only act within the boundaries that God allows him to act in.
But forget that - are you saying that the devil/serpent was not part of the plan?


Todd,

The Gnostics may have been right. They beleive we created by an imperfect God which may fill int he blanks for the god of the OT. They also beleive that a perfect God exists, the true God, a God of transidentalism which may be related to the merciful god of the NT. I'm starting to believe this in my own faith, it seems to fill in some of the blanks.
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

There was no angry church that "excluded" the so called "gnostic" gospels.

Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

Most of the apocropha were written by well intentioned Christians who wanted to "fill in the blanks" as they saw found them in the story of Christ. There were literally hundteds of such documents all over the place by 3rd century and all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons.

This by the way includes the so called "gnostic gospels" which Elaine Pagels professor at Princeton (who coined the phrase "gnostic Gospels" in her book by the same name), changed her mind and says that the documents found in Egypt are NOT gnostic(Including and especially the Gospel of Thomas which she argues is Christian). She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.

The false repitition of the "Church" excluding these "gnostic" gospels due to the volitile message is simply a perfect example of modern people reinventing a history to match their politics or opinions.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity there is nothing resembling the centralized hierarchical Catholic church which forms in the later centuries, there is no "conspiracy" to exclude what are wild opposing texts to Christianity, it is like saying there is a conspiracy to keep the New Testament out of the Torah or Qu'ran.

Excerpt from Elaine Pagels 2004 exchange with Ben Worthington

"In the first place, it seems clear to me that there was already a collection of Paul’s letters, as well as a codex collection of the four canonical Gospels, circulating in the early second century A.D. They were apostolic and sacred texts used for teaching and preaching in the church (see 2 Peter 3.15-16). One of the reasons none of the Gnostic documents were ever recognized as canonical or apostolic texts even in the second century (indeed, they were deemed heretical by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and various others) is precisely because they were so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents.

We really shouldn’t talk about the "exclusion" of Gnostic documents from the canon, because frankly, they were never seriously considered for inclusion (as Bruce Metzger taught me long ago when I took early church history from him at Princeton). Not a single early canon list, or council, or church Father--not even someone like Origen--lists any of these documents as possible sacred texts for early Christians. By their very non-Jewish and non-early Christian character, they excluded themselves. "


"So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."
#1 The church is always angry at things that challenges their beliefs, regardless of what it is
Quote: Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century. So this must make them legit? :lol:
Quote: all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons. Christianity was a spin off of other previous religions in the area at the time.
Quote: intentioned Christians Now there's a quote for ya' - spelling nothing but trouble. What were these GOOD intentions? Money? Power? Control? Love for the fellow man? :roll:
Quote: She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well. It is lucky for us that she is the know all expert of the subject and trumps everyone else's opinions :tu:Or maybe it is lucky for christians?

[connermt]

toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Do you not understand the English language?


You really enjoy trying to belittle people, don't you?
Typical tactic of a lost person.
I am sure you make Jesus proud with these types of comments.
If you can't add anything legitimate, please move on and annoy others elsewhere, as you are only showing everyone what type of fool you really are.
Good old Capn - always good for a laugh :lol:

[connermt]

The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it


like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.


but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

If god has no control over the devil, then he is not all powerful, which is contrary to christian teaching. I do believe he controls mortals (as you put it).
God wouldn't need to test man - there is nothing that man could or couldn't prove to an all knowing being.
All utter rubbish


it all depends on how you believe.


i think we're given our own lives to live. god doesn't know everything we're going to do(because if he did that would get rid of free will).


and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them.
It all depends on how you believe is a problem with christianity - branching off from this branch to that branch and everyone thinks they are right & everyone else is wrong.
In christianity there is 1 right & 1 wrong - nothing else. But not everyone who is christian can agree with each other 100%

[cap'n queasy]

toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Do you not understand the English language?


You really enjoy trying to belittle people, don't you?
Typical tactic of a lost person.
I am sure you make Jesus proud with these types of comments.
If you can't add anything legitimate, please move on and annoy others elsewhere, as you are only showing everyone what type of fool you really are.

Dude he sat there and explained exactly why the so called Gnostic "gospels" are not legitimate and thus not included in the Bible, and you only response is "So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?".

That makes me wonder if you can understand what he clearly said.

It is a legitimate question.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Do you not understand the English language?


You really enjoy trying to belittle people, don't you?
Typical tactic of a lost person.
I am sure you make Jesus proud with these types of comments.
If you can't add anything legitimate, please move on and annoy others elsewhere, as you are only showing everyone what type of fool you really are.

Dude he sat there and explained exactly why the so called Gnostic "gospels" are not legitimate and thus not included in the Bible, and you only response is "So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?".

That makes me wonder if you can understand what he clearly said.

It is a legitimate question.
Dude - :lol:
The say it without 'better than you' attitude that is so typical "Capn" - arrogant as usual.
Like he said, I am sure Jesus is proud with how you represent christians & their attitudes on here. :tu:

I read Gilbert's post & I commented on its lack of common sense. Not that he really answered the question, which is another christian tactic that's used to avoid the obvious - he just changed the direction the conversation is going.

Fear of change & fear of understanding is one of the many christian's down fall. Congrats - you guys wear it well.

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Do you not understand the English language?


You really enjoy trying to belittle people, don't you?
Typical tactic of a lost person.
I am sure you make Jesus proud with these types of comments.
If you can't add anything legitimate, please move on and annoy others elsewhere, as you are only showing everyone what type of fool you really are.

Dude he sat there and explained exactly why the so called Gnostic "gospels" are not legitimate and thus not included in the Bible, and you only response is "So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?".

That makes me wonder if you can understand what he clearly said.

It is a legitimate question.
Did you read it?
That's fine though - say what you wish. I am done with you.

[Gilbert1908]

connermt wrote:
#1 The church is always angry at things that challenges their beliefs, regardless of what it is
To what church are you referring, as I point out there is no centralized, hierarchical Catholic Church in the first 300 years of Christianity which is long after the Gospels are set and most of the New Testament is collected used as teaching tools.

Quote: Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

connermt wrote: So this must make them legit? :lol: That is not at issue in this thread, the question was specifically about an historically inaccurate description of the inclusion or exclusion of the so called "gnostic" gospels.

connermt wrote: all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons connermt wrote: Christianity was a spin off of other previous religions in the area at the time. Again not relevant to this thread.

connermt wrote: intentioned Christians Now there's a quote for ya' - spelling nothing but trouble. What were these GOOD intentions? Money? Power? Control? Love for the fellow man? :roll: The well intentioned Christians referred to were the authors of documents that were NOT included or not ever considered as part of the New Testament and I am sure their motives varied from all good and selfless to all bad and selfish.

Quote: She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.
[quote="connermt"] It is lucky for us that she is the know all expert of the subject and trumps everyone else's opinions :tu:Or maybe it is lucky for christians?

I thought it may provide a higher degree of credibility if I qouted the person who actually coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" and is a world renown bibilical historian who is well known to challenge traditional Christian/Catholic positions.

I would never say that any single person is the last word on any subject, but on this subject in particular she probably has a bit more respect than me, you or anyone else.

[toddytodd]

[quote="Gilbert1908"] connermt wrote:
#1 The church is always angry at things that challenges their beliefs, regardless of what it is
To what church are you referring, as I point out there is no centralized, hierarchical Catholic Church in the first 300 years of Christianity which is long after the Gospels are set and most of the New Testament is collected used as teaching tools.

Quote: Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

connermt wrote: So this must make them legit? :lol: That is not at issue in this thread, the question was specifically about an historically inaccurate description of the inclusion or exclusion of the so called "gnostic" gospels.

connermt wrote: all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons connermt wrote: Christianity was a spin off of other previous religions in the area at the time. Again not relevant to this thread.

connermt wrote: intentioned Christians Now there's a quote for ya' - spelling nothing but trouble. What were these GOOD intentions? Money? Power? Control? Love for the fellow man? :roll: The well intentioned Christians referred to were the authors of documents that were NOT included or not ever considered as part of the New Testament and I am sure their motives varied from all good and selfless to all bad and selfish.

Quote: She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.
connermt wrote: It is lucky for us that she is the know all expert of the subject and trumps everyone else's opinions :tu:Or maybe it is lucky for christians?

I thought it may provide a higher degree of credibility if I qouted the person who actually coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" and is a world renown bibilical historian who is well known to challenge traditional Christian/Catholic positions.

I would never say that any single person is the last word on any subject, but on this subject in particular she probably has a bit more respect than me, you or anyone else.
You? Yes.
Connermt? Yes.
Me? Yes.
Anyone else? Absolutely not.
Like anything, it is only one person's opinion.
Is it a legitimate opinion? Yes.
Anything other than that? No.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:
So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?

If the "gnostic" gospels were not written at the time the original new tesatment was put together, if they were antithetical to all Jewish and Christian beliefs held by the early Christians, why after 1800 years would they be all of sudden worthy of reconsideration?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
So then is the church going to accept these as ligitimate books in regards to christianity and perhaps place them in the bible?

If the "gnostic" gospels were not written at the time the original new tesatment was put together, if they were antithetical to all Jewish and Christian beliefs held by the early Christians, why after 1800 years would they be all of sudden worthy of reconsideration?

Time of them being written is irrelevant, as the New Testament was written over a course of 100-200 years after the life of Christ. No one was there to see exactly what happened and write it down as it happened.
Nor is the fact that they were discovered 1800, 1900 3000 (whatever) years later.
If they are not in line with current christian standards and mindset, of course they wouldn't be included in the bible. That would be like trying to insert Origin of Species into the bible - oil and water. However, I find it interesting that the four gospels are exact, yet they were still allowed to be included....
However, they are perfectly legitimate writings of a different view of Christ's life - one the church wouldn't want to let be known, as it would uproot modern society as we know it.
Who is to say which is correct, Christian Bible, or Gnostics?

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:
You? Yes.
Connermt? Yes.
Me? Yes.
Anyone else? Absolutely not.
Like anything, it is only one person's opinion.
Is it a legitimate opinion? Yes.
Anything other than that? No.

How is it opinion that these "gnostic" gospels did not exist at the time the New Testatment was written and put together???

How is it opinion that there is "no trace" of gnosticism in the first century?


You can not question the legitamacy of the New Testament based upon when the various documents were written and call into question the legitamacy of the authors and then say that documents which virtually every legitimate scholar on the subject agrees were not written until at least 100 years AFTER the NT is written and being used as a teaching and preaching tool, are somehow MORE TRUTHFUL or More REPRESENTATIVE of a faith you deny has legitiamacy to begin with????

There simply is NO serious scholarship which makes any suggestion that gnosticism was supplanted by the Christianity of St. Peter, St. Paul, Luke, Mark and John.

Feel free to question the content and believability or interpretation of the New Testament etc. but it is simply disingenuous and innaccurate to suggest that there was some kind of "conspiracy" to bump a gnostic wing which simply did not exist at the time!!!.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
You? Yes.
Connermt? Yes.
Me? Yes.
Anyone else? Absolutely not.
Like anything, it is only one person's opinion.
Is it a legitimate opinion? Yes.
Anything other than that? No.

How is it opinion that these "gnostic" gospels did not exist at the time the New Testatment was written and put together???

How is it opinion that there is "no trace" of gnosticism in the first century?


You can not question the legitamacy of the New Testament based upon when the various documents were written and call into question the legitamacy of the authors and then say that documents which virtually every legitimate scholar on the subject agrees were not written until at least 100 years AFTER the NT is written and being used as a teaching and preaching tool, are somehow MORE TRUTHFUL or More REPRESENTATIVE of a faith you deny has legitiamacy to begin with????

There simply is NO serious scholarship which makes any suggestion that gnosticism was supplanted by the Christianity of St. Peter, St. Paul, Luke, Mark and John.

Feel free to question the content and believability or interpretation of the New Testament etc. but it is simply disingenuous and innaccurate to suggest that there was some kind of "conspiracy" to bump a gnostic wing which simply did not exist at the time!!!.
Quote: How is it opinion that these "gnostic" gospels did not exist at the time the New Testatment was written and put together???
That is not what I was referring to. Re-read or see here:
"...but on this subject in particular she probably has a bit more respect than me, you or anyone else."
As to the remainder of your particular post, it is moot in light of this clarification.

[melchizedek22]

"What if the man ate of the Tree of Life and lived forever?"

What if the man smoked the Tree of Life?

[MJB]

toddytodd wrote: MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

Given the account we have in Genesis, what can we suppose would have happened if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think things that god knows would have been known to them and god doesn't want that. Why? I have my ideas, but these ideas seem to contradict the New Testament God of popular christian belief.
Humans have a belief that good will always win and prevail in everything, eventually. What if that was all backwards? Would we even know?
I think it is a possibility and the only way to find out for sure is through research, soul searching and knowledge - which, coincidentally, is something God seemed to wanted to exclude us from.

I don't share that perspective, as, without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to have the understanding necessary to make choices for himself - in particular - to choose to obey God?

Without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to weigh his choices, as to what is good or evil, without the ability to understand the difference?

But my question was actually going to something much simpler than that.

Since it was Satan's desire to thwart God's plan, which is why he tempted Eve in the first place, what can we conclude he would have done if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

[toddytodd]

MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

Given the account we have in Genesis, what can we suppose would have happened if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think things that god knows would have been known to them and god doesn't want that. Why? I have my ideas, but these ideas seem to contradict the New Testament God of popular christian belief.
Humans have a belief that good will always win and prevail in everything, eventually. What if that was all backwards? Would we even know?
I think it is a possibility and the only way to find out for sure is through research, soul searching and knowledge - which, coincidentally, is something God seemed to wanted to exclude us from.

I don't share that perspective, as, without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to have the understanding necessary to make choices for himself - in particular - to choose to obey God?

Without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to weigh his choices, as to what is good or evil, without the ability to understand the difference?

But my question was actually going to something much simpler than that.

Since it was Satan's desire to thwart God's plan, which is why he tempted Eve in the first place, what can we conclude he would have done if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Quote: Without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to weigh his choices, as to what is good or evil, without the ability to understand the difference? Perhaps man makes his own rules governing good and evil?
Maybe that is where god came from....?
Anything is possible.
Quote: Since it was Satan's desire to thwart God's plan, which is why he tempted Eve in the first place, what can we conclude he would have done if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The basis for this comment is an assumed understanding: "Since it was Satan's desire...."
Of course, believing in God, one would most likely need to accept what is written in this regard, however, it is possible (quite possible) that it (the story of Satan's fall and subsequent existence) was a made up story, or even the wrong story.

Humans like to believe good is always more powerful and will triumph over evil. However, how do we know for sure that we don't have it backwards? How do we know that evil isn't more powerful than good the roles of God and Satan are actually reversed - people being an unwitting pawn in it all?

[MJB]

toddytodd wrote: MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

Given the account we have in Genesis, what can we suppose would have happened if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think things that god knows would have been known to them and god doesn't want that. Why? I have my ideas, but these ideas seem to contradict the New Testament God of popular christian belief.
Humans have a belief that good will always win and prevail in everything, eventually. What if that was all backwards? Would we even know?
I think it is a possibility and the only way to find out for sure is through research, soul searching and knowledge - which, coincidentally, is something God seemed to wanted to exclude us from.

I don't share that perspective, as, without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to have the understanding necessary to make choices for himself - in particular - to choose to obey God?

Without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to weigh his choices, as to what is good or evil, without the ability to understand the difference?

But my question was actually going to something much simpler than that.

Since it was Satan's desire to thwart God's plan, which is why he tempted Eve in the first place, what can we conclude he would have done if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Quote: Without a knowledge of good and evil, how is man to weigh his choices, as to what is good or evil, without the ability to understand the difference? Perhaps man makes his own rules governing good and evil?
Maybe that is where god came from....?
Anything is possible.
Quote: Since it was Satan's desire to thwart God's plan, which is why he tempted Eve in the first place, what can we conclude he would have done if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The basis for this comment is an assumed understanding: "Since it was Satan's desire...."
Of course, believing in God, one would most likely need to accept what is written in this regard, however, it is possible (quite possible) that it (the story of Satan's fall and subsequent existence) was a made up story, or even the wrong story.

Humans like to believe good is always more powerful and will triumph over evil. However, how do we know for sure that we don't have it backwards? How do we know that evil isn't more powerful than good the roles of God and Satan are actually reversed - people being an unwitting pawn in it all?

Interesting question, though I would say that if it was actually the opposite, with evil being more powerful than good, the world (as in mankind) would have likely done itself in long ago.

But basing my question on the account (rather than on other ideas) the logical conclusion would be that Satan, in his desire to destroy God's plan, would have told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, if God had told them to.

Now - there are those who assume that God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because of the command he gave them not to eat of it. But one of the things they cannot answer, is why God would place such a tree right in the midst of the garden in the first place, if he did not want them to eat of it.

But - God not only put the tree in the midst of the garden, he did not prevent them from eating its fruit, yet afterward, he drove them out of the garden, specifically, as the record tells us, to prevent them from then eating of the tree of life.

Consider the idea, that it was God's plan that they eat of the forbidden fruit all along, because it was his plan that they experience earth life in a mortal state, and that the reason he then drove them from the garden when they did eat, was so that they could not then disrupt that part of his plan, by eating of the tree of life and live forever.

After all - if God could prevent them from eating of the tree of life when he wanted, he certainly could have prevented them from eating of the forbidden fruit, if and when he wanted.

But God, being more wise and perceptive than Satan, would naturally be savvy enough to know that Satan would counter whatever God said, no matter what he said, so in using the strategy of giving a command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Satan would unwittingly play into God's hands, by tempting them to eat of it, thus bringing about the needed state of mortality.