Just a thought about the Tree of Knowledge

[simpleas]

Then why was there a tree of eternal life in the Garden? I don’t get that part…

I think the tree of life was to be eaten so that they could remain with the gift of immortality, once they had eaten from the forbidden tree, God no longer allowed them access to the tree of life:

…*23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
*

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by davidv

We don’t. Where does the text of Genesis say God became angry?

The punishment they received?

Although, I thinking now that although they had to be punished, God could not have felt angry/become angry, he just cursed them without any human emotion, because he isn’t human? But needed to punish them in a human way…that only human could understand?

 

[grannymh]

I think the tree of life was to be eaten so that they could remain with the gift of immortality, once they had eaten from the forbidden tree, God no longer allowed them access to the tree of life:

…23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

That sounds like the first definition in Scott Hahn’s Catholic Bible Dictionary.

 

[TaurusRex]

So these two innocent hearts - bumpkins or children in many ways - are outsmarted by an angelic intellect, and they and all men for all time after suffer for it?

Now I’ve heard it said, “They knew in their hearts it was wrong.” How? They hadn’t eaten from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil yet. We think they should’ve seen it, but that seems like armchair quarterbacking. We have seen violence and corruption and depravity and so on, and we have experienced the consequences of sin - they hadn’t. They hadn’t seen or felt or done any of those things. Ever.

How would they know disobeying would make God angry? Again, it had never happened before. Had he given them any sense of what consequences would actually look like? “On that day you will die.” What did that mean? They’d never seen anyone die before.

There might be some simple obvious answer to these questions, I’ve just never seen it brought up in these conversations about the Garden, so it seemed worth hearing people’s thoughts.

No, they were outsmarted by their own pride.

By knowing God, who they spoke with daily.

We don’t. Where does the text of Genesis say God became angry?

How many of you actually believe that Adam and Eve (aside from that there was supposedly a woman before Eve) were the first man and woman on earth
And that this is not just a story part of the Bible?

Another member long ago also tried to say that original sin was “pride” where I argued that original sin is immoral sex …
love and sex for pro-creation is good in the view of the Catholic Church;
But infidelity in marriage to have sex for pleasure and all other deviant forms of sex are considered grave and immoral sins.

As far as “you shall surely die” could have been a warning against sexually transmitted diseases.

That joke I told has a double kick to it;
that is, “pear/pair” apple/pear.

 

[rinnie]

Ok so the tree version is so easily understood for Child and adult alike, so simple, one would not really have to question it if it is taken literally. (Adam ate fruit from a actual tree and consumed it, breaking the command of God…IE disobedience…)

I was considering what the trees in the garden actually represent. From history, especially ancient history, the people of those times told of how God/s came from the sky and gave them knowledge on how to live etc.
Could the trees, as with the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent other knowledge, IE knowledge all humans would need in order to survive spiritually and bodily together.
Note God doesn’t say to eat of the tree of life, yet we know it is there in the garden, but he does say to eat of any of the trees except the tree of good and evil.
So thinking beyond trees, the story could be stating the “trees” were “tools” in respect of various knowledge man needed, that he/she could freely “consume” gaining a higher intelligence (spiritual) and that eating from the forbidden tree would “derail” this process.

Obviously eating from the forbidden tree could have been unavoidable, because in gaining knowledge one generally wants more of it. I could be wrong…

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

It is not a question of gaining more knowledge. The point is they disobeyed God. God said do NOT do it. They sinned by not obeying God.

The devil said if you eat it you can be god. That is the sin, trying to be God. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

 

[TaurusRex]

PS:
Adams first wife was “Lilith”.

 

[grannymh]

The punishment they received?

Although, I thinking now that although they had to be punished, God could not have felt angry/become angry, he just cursed them without any human emotion, because he isn’t human? But needed to punish them in a human way…that only human could understand?

Personally, I have gone from the idea of “punishment” to the reality that losing the State of Original Holiness and Justice and the preternatural gifts is the natural result of Original Sin. I think that the “curse” could be the explanation of the natural results flowing from disobedience. When we look at the original relationship between Adam and his Creator, we find some very natural strict strong requirements.

 

[rinnie]

How many of you actually believe that Adam and Eve (aside from that there was supposedly a woman before Eve) were the first man and woman on earth
And that this is not just a story part of the Bible?

Another member long ago also tried to say that original sin was “pride” where I argued that original sin is immoral sex …
love and sex for pro-creation is good in the view of the Catholic Church;
But infidelity in marriage to have sex for pleasure and all other deviant forms of sex are considered grave and immoral sins.

As far as “you shall surely die” could have been a warning against sexually transmitted diseases.

That joke I told has a double kick to it;
that is, “pear/pair” apple/pear.

I don’t know where to begin here Lets start out with this, Yes Eve was the first women on earth. The bible tells us that she was created from Man and became WOman.

Next let me explain to you what you shall surely die. When we are in a state of sin, our souls are called dead. When we repent and confess sin that is how we clean our souls and they become alive again.

When God said you would die, he meant by your soul not your body.

In the Catholic faith when we are in a state of mortal sin, our soul is dead, lost.

 

[grannymh]

How many of you actually believe that Adam and Eve (aside from that there was supposedly a woman before Eve) were the first man and woman on earth
And that this is not just a story part of the Bible?

Another member long ago also tried to say that original sin was “pride” where I argued that original sin is immoral sex …
love and sex for pro-creation is good in the view of the Catholic Church;
But infidelity in marriage to have sex for pleasure and all other deviant forms of sex are considered grave and immoral sins.

As far as “you shall surely die” could have been a warning against sexually transmitted diseases.

That joke I told has a double kick to it;
that is, “pear/pair” apple/pear.

The Catholic teaching is that the Original Sin of disobedience shattered the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Check it out. Did you notice that Adam and Eve immediately lost their State of Original Justice aka State of Sanctifying Grace? It is normal to consider that State as a relationship with God. Because Adam is original, we then have the base of the original relationship. However, common sense would point to the status of both participants in the original relationship.

 

[grannymh]

PS:
Adams first wife was “Lilith”.

I remember her. She is the ex-wife in the Frasier TV comedy.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by TaurusRex

How many of you actually believe that Adam and Eve (aside from that there was supposedly a woman before Eve) were the first man and woman on earth
And that this is not just a story part of the Bible?

That is part of my “investigation” there are a number of creation stories, some I have come across do speak of the first man/woman, although they can be considered gods/goddess.

Another member long ago also tried to say that original sin was “pride” where I argued that original sin is immoral sex …
love and sex for pro-creation is good in the view of the Catholic Church;
But infidelity in marriage to have sex for pleasure and all other deviant forms of sex are considered grave and immoral sins.

As far as “you shall surely die” could have been a warning against sexually transmitted diseases.

As far as I am aware losing trust in God and disobeying his command is what original sin is…to quote the CCC :

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness

That joke I told has a double kick to it;
that is, “pear/pair” apple/pear.

Yes I did get your joke, I forgot to comment on it

 

[simpleas]

It is not a question of gaining more knowledge. The point is they disobeyed God. God said do NOT do it. They sinned by not obeying God.

The devil said if you eat it you can be god. That is the sin, trying to be God. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

Yes, disobedience. But to be like God would mean gaining some form of knowledge, it even states in the bible that man becomes like one of us with knowledge of good and evil.

 

[simpleas]

Personally, I have gone from the idea of “punishment” to the reality that losing the State of Original Holiness and Justice and the preternatural gifts is the natural result of Original Sin. I think that the “curse” could be the explanation of the natural results flowing from disobedience. When we look at the original relationship between Adam and his Creator, we find some very natural strict strong requirements.

Just a thought…

Wouldn’t that imply that man was just a natural being to begin with, that “man” existed as a non spiritual being, was given the gifts you state above from God and then loses them from disobedience. In that case there was no punishment, no curse, just a loss of gifts they once enjoyed and wouldn’t regain ever in this life.

 

[davidv]

Just a thought…

Wouldn’t that imply that man was just a natural being to begin with, that “man” existed as a non spiritual being, was given the gifts you state above from God and then loses them from disobedience. In that case there was no punishment, no curse, just a loss of gifts they once enjoyed and wouldn’t regain ever in this life.

I don’t see anything in granny’s post that would imply that. What did you see?

 

[simpleas]

I don’t see anything in granny’s post that would imply that. What did you see?

From Grannymh’s post :

I think that the “curse” could be the explanation of the natural results flowing from disobedience.

If the curse is an explanation of natural results that arise from the disobedience then that seems to imply to me that man was naturally just a being. Adam/Eve’s natures didn’t change, they lost gifts that God had even them, gifts that “lifted” them up as spiritual beings.

 

[davidv]

From Grannymh’s post :

I think that the “curse” could be the explanation of the natural results flowing from disobedience.

If the curse is an explanation of natural results that arise from the disobedience then that seems to imply to me that man was naturally just a being. Adam/Eve’s natures didn’t change, they lost gifts that God had even them, gifts that “lifted” them up as spiritual beings.

I still don’t see it.
Not only that, the conclusion is directly contrary to one of several foundational truths of our Catholic faith.

 

[grannymh]

From Grannymh’s post :

I think that the “curse” could be the explanation of the natural results flowing from disobedience.

If the curse is an explanation of natural results that arise from the disobedience then that seems to imply to me that man was naturally just a being. Adam/Eve’s natures didn’t change, they lost gifts that God had even them, gifts that “lifted” them up as spiritual beings.

I believe I know where the disconnect is. My guess is that it is possibly close to my stumbling block in this CCC 396 sentence. "A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. "

 

[simpleas]

I believe I know where the disconnect is. My guess is that it is possibly close to my stumbling block in this CCC 396 sentence. "A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. "

So if man is not living this friendship in free submission to God, man isn’t a spiritual creature, but just a creature. Sounds a bit wrong, because we believe everyone has a soul and so in some way is a spiritual creature because everyone is made in the image of God (soul). Not everyone is in friendship with God the way our church teaches, but in their own faithful way.

 

[fhansen]

So if man is not living this friendship in free submission to God, man isn’t a spiritual creature, but just a creature. Sounds a bit wrong, because we believe everyone has a soul and so in some way is a spiritual creature because everyone is made in the image of God (soul). Not everyone is in friendship with God the way our church teaches, but in their own faithful way.

396 says that* all* men are spiritual creatures. Because he’s spiritual, *and *a creature, made in God’s image, he can remain in friendship/communion with God only as he freely, consciously, remains in submission to Him.

BTW, if the decision isn’t free, the friendship will not be authentic. And yet unless this free submission takes place, man exists in a state of injustice, outside of that friendship.

 

[grannymh]

So if man is not living this friendship in free submission to God, man isn’t a spiritual creature, but just a creature. Sounds a bit wrong,

Of course it is wrong. It is just as wrong as God changing His nature, the so-called confusion in Catholicism, the obvious denial of some basic Catholic doctrines, the big happy tent, and other dumb things.