Jesus is God - walking in the Garden

[Wootah]

Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

Revelation 1:12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.

Now if you read on the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Both images are pictures of God walking in His garden, tending to it. He found Adam and Eve with fault and removed them from the garden and in Revelation Jesus threatens to remove any lampstand that falters as well.

Revelation 2:5 If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

So in Genesis the Lord God is walking in the garden and in Revelation the Lord God is walking in the garden.

Is this proof that Jesus is the Lord God?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you Transponder,

I'm no theologian nor Bible expert, so this is question rather than an argument.

I am also no theologian or bible expert, and thank you for the question.

But isn't the tree of life an image of the law and gift of God?

Is that something theologians and bible experts teach? I don't know how they come up with the law part of that. Certainly eternal life is a gift from God, but the one from whom we must eat in order to have eternal life is Christ Jaheshua, who is Himself the LIFE.

I apologize, Transponder, because the link I posted to is in a part of the forum you can't respond; I will re-post here.

On another forum, someone had asked if Christ was the Tree of Life from the Garden. I responded on that forum, but thought I would also share the truth as my Lord Jaheshua has taught me, in here as well.

Christ is indeed the Tree of Life from the Garden (of Eden). If Adam and Eve had reached out and eaten from the Tree of Life in the Garden, they would have lived forever, yes? Well, Christ tells us that we must eat from HIM to have eternal life and so, to live forever (see John 6:32–58)… and He also tells us that He is the Life (see John 14:6; 11:25):

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

“I am the Resurrection and the Life.”

Some of those passages from John 6:

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

and,

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”



God did not give us two different things from which we may eat and live forever. God gave us His Son: Christ Jaheshua (Jaheshua meaning JAH saves/savior of JAH). Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life (and so also the Tree of Life). The spirit reminds me that my dear Lord is also described as having branches in Him:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch IN ME that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes it to make it even more fruitful.”


Christ is the Tree of Life.

**

You mentioned:

Life and immortality (though it isn't clear whether Adam was immortal or not). Jesus, even if actually God, is not that law or gift,

You are right that He (Christ Jaheshua) is not the law (the law is love), but He is the LIFE, and the One from whom we must eat in order to live forever.

but the means by which that which was lost can be regained.

He is that as well.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

They do point to the tree of life as relating to doing the right (and getting life) rather than anything to do with Jesus, which doesn't seem to pop up in image until Noah sacrifices to God. I don't see either views put up by Bible savants because the only regular point of the Tree of life is that it is a prop in the scenario to excuse God for the problem of evil and blame it all on men.

Now, with your point, there is a problem, because in current mainstream Christianity, Jesus does not give Life, that is immortality. Since those who go to Hell and burn for eternity are immortal, too, aren't they? But it gets complicated because in the original Judaic messianism, people did not go to heaven or hell
and live in heaven or suffer in Hell immortally, but God's people got life on earth and the others were eliminated.

So the Biblical term is not used to mean something else. Jesus saving is called 'Life' which it isn't but is slightly shifted to mean 'immorality of the kind you might like'.

The tree of Life is like the apples of the hespieides; if you keep eating it, you live forever. But, if you sin, you are banned the garden so can't eat it any more and you lose immortality.
Which applied even to the Righteous like Abraham, who still died. Paul's idea was that Jesus would remove sin by supreme sacrifice, but everyone still died and would wake to the sound of the Trump, not go to heaven or hell forever. So the the Theology has become foxed, and Biblequotes can't tell us anything as we have lost the context.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you Transponder,

I'm no theologian nor Bible expert, so this is question rather than an argument.

I am also no theologian or bible expert, and thank you for the question.

But isn't the tree of life an image of the law and gift of God?

Is that something theologians and bible experts teach? I don't know how they come up with the law part of that. Certainly eternal life is a gift from God, but the one from whom we must eat in order to have eternal life is Christ Jaheshua, who is Himself the LIFE.

I apologize, Transponder, because the link I posted to is in a part of the forum you can't respond; I will re-post here.

On another forum, someone had asked if Christ was the Tree of Life from the Garden. I responded on that forum, but thought I would also share the truth as my Lord Jaheshua has taught me, in here as well.

Christ is indeed the Tree of Life from the Garden (of Eden). If Adam and Eve had reached out and eaten from the Tree of Life in the Garden, they would have lived forever, yes? Well, Christ tells us that we must eat from HIM to have eternal life and so, to live forever (see John 6:32–58)… and He also tells us that He is the Life (see John 14:6; 11:25):

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

“I am the Resurrection and the Life.”

Some of those passages from John 6:

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

and,

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”



God did not give us two different things from which we may eat and live forever. God gave us His Son: Christ Jaheshua (Jaheshua meaning JAH saves/savior of JAH). Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life (and so also the Tree of Life). The spirit reminds me that my dear Lord is also described as having branches in Him:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch IN ME that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes it to make it even more fruitful.”


Christ is the Tree of Life.

**

You mentioned:

Life and immortality (though it isn't clear whether Adam was immortal or not). Jesus, even if actually God, is not that law or gift,

You are right that He (Christ Jaheshua) is not the law (the law is love), but He is the LIFE, and the One from whom we must eat in order to live forever.

but the means by which that which was lost can be regained.

He is that as well.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

They do point to the tree of life as relating to doing the right (and getting life) rather than anything to do with Jesus, which doesn't seem to pop up in image until Noah sacrifices to God. I don't see either views put up by Bible savants because the only regular point of the Tree of life is that it is a prop in the scenario to excuse God for the problem of evil and blame it all on men.

The Tree of Knowing Good and Bad might be used to do that, but how does the Tree of Life do that?

Now, with your point, there is a problem, because in current mainstream Christianity, Jesus does not give Life, that is immortality.

Two points here (and I am not overlooking the fact that you are connecting your point to 'immortality in hell'):

1 - Mainstream Christianity is not the source I would ever look to in order to know what is true. Mainstream Christianity (or any sect/denomination in that religion) claims many things that are false. How then can it be a trustworthy source of truth? The One I look to for truth is Christ Jaheshua.

2 - Christ absolutely does give life - eternal life. Just look at some of the quotes above. These are all about eating from Christ and living forever. You know... the very same thing as eating from the Tree of Life and living forever.

Since those who go to Hell and burn for eternity are immortal, too, aren't they?

You are correct to point out the flaw in that logic... but only of those who claim that people go to hell and burn/suffer for eternity. Because then they would indeed be immortal, having received immortal life/existence (albeit a real sucky immortal life/existence). How then is Christ granting eternal life if everyone receives it regardless? But that is an example of a false teaching in "mainstream (or otherwise) Christianity".

No one goes to hell and suffers eternal existence in torment.

But it gets complicated because in the original Judaic messianism, people did not go to heaven or hell and live in heaven or suffer in Hell immortally, but God's people got life on earth and the others were eliminated.

I doubt there is that much agreement in what constitutes 'original Judaic messianism', but people were believed to receive a resurrection to live upon this earth. There always existed a heaven (the spiritual realm) and a "hell" - translated from sheol (the world of the dead, where the dead slept until the resurrection). I accept both of those things. The Kingdom is upon the earth; those who reign with Christ reign upon the earth (Rev 5:10). (there is a bit more to that, but for this conversation, it might be enough).

I don't think much is said (or agreed upon) in Judaism about what was meant to happen to people OUTSIDE of Israel.

Regardless, the point is that there is no such thing as living forever in eternal suffering in hell.

Eternal life means just that - eternal life - which is indeed from Christ.

The tree of Life is like the apples of the hespieides; if you keep eating it, you live forever. But, if you sin, you are banned the garden so can't eat it any more and you lose immortality.

There are many similar stories in other religions because they are coming from/copying/adding to/taking away from the same source. I didn't know this one though, so thanks.

Which applied even to the Righteous like Abraham, who still died. Paul's idea was that Jesus would remove sin by supreme sacrifice, but everyone still died and would wake to the sound of the Trump, not go to heaven or hell forever. So the the Theology has become foxed, and Biblequotes can't tell us anything as we have lost the context.

Theology is foxed because men create it based on their own reasoning (including their own biases), and without context (as you said), and without relying upon Christ. But you can still ask God and/or His Son for the truth of the matter. And you can still look at those quotes and see that if one eats from the Tree of Life, one lives forever, and that if one eats from Christ - who is the Life and who is described as having BRANCHES in Him - one lives forever.




Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

I don't see why it is important to believe any messenger of God not to be regarded as anything other than an ambassador and emissary and thus equal in terms of listening to and reasoning with and deciding whether the entity is who he claims to be.

Testing the spirits seems to be required as well as a knowledge of the God and whether the messenger is giving expected teachings or changing root principles without reasonable explanation.

People tend to get carried away by the letter of the law, forgetting that what is required is that we simply love one another and forgive one another, therefore being suitable ambassadors to God with all that arguing and humdrum and competativeness removed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you Transponder,

I'm no theologian nor Bible expert, so this is question rather than an argument.

I am also no theologian or bible expert, and thank you for the question.

But isn't the tree of life an image of the law and gift of God?

Is that something theologians and bible experts teach? I don't know how they come up with the law part of that. Certainly eternal life is a gift from God, but the one from whom we must eat in order to have eternal life is Christ Jaheshua, who is Himself the LIFE.

I apologize, Transponder, because the link I posted to is in a part of the forum you can't respond; I will re-post here.

On another forum, someone had asked if Christ was the Tree of Life from the Garden. I responded on that forum, but thought I would also share the truth as my Lord Jaheshua has taught me, in here as well.

Christ is indeed the Tree of Life from the Garden (of Eden). If Adam and Eve had reached out and eaten from the Tree of Life in the Garden, they would have lived forever, yes? Well, Christ tells us that we must eat from HIM to have eternal life and so, to live forever (see John 6:32–58)… and He also tells us that He is the Life (see John 14:6; 11:25):

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

“I am the Resurrection and the Life.”

Some of those passages from John 6:

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

and,

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”



God did not give us two different things from which we may eat and live forever. God gave us His Son: Christ Jaheshua (Jaheshua meaning JAH saves/savior of JAH). Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life (and so also the Tree of Life). The spirit reminds me that my dear Lord is also described as having branches in Him:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch IN ME that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes it to make it even more fruitful.”


Christ is the Tree of Life.

**

You mentioned:

Life and immortality (though it isn't clear whether Adam was immortal or not). Jesus, even if actually God, is not that law or gift,

You are right that He (Christ Jaheshua) is not the law (the law is love), but He is the LIFE, and the One from whom we must eat in order to live forever.

but the means by which that which was lost can be regained.

He is that as well.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

They do point to the tree of life as relating to doing the right (and getting life) rather than anything to do with Jesus, which doesn't seem to pop up in image until Noah sacrifices to God. I don't see either views put up by Bible savants because the only regular point of the Tree of life is that it is a prop in the scenario to excuse God for the problem of evil and blame it all on men.

The Tree of Knowing Good and Bad might be used to do that, but how does the Tree of Life do that?

Now, with your point, there is a problem, because in current mainstream Christianity, Jesus does not give Life, that is immortality.

Two points here (and I am not overlooking the fact that you are connecting your point to 'immortality in hell'):

1 - Mainstream Christianity is not the source I would ever look to in order to know what is true. Mainstream Christianity (or any sect/denomination in that religion) claims many things that are false. How then can it be a trustworthy source of truth? The One I look to for truth is Christ Jaheshua.

2 - Christ absolutely does give life - eternal life. Just look at some of the quotes above. These are all about eating from Christ and living forever. You know... the very same thing as eating from the Tree of Life and living forever.

Since those who go to Hell and burn for eternity are immortal, too, aren't they?

You are correct to point out the flaw in that logic... but only of those who claim that people go to hell and burn/suffer for eternity. Because then they would indeed be immortal, having received immortal life/existence (albeit a real sucky immortal life/existence). How then is Christ granting eternal life if everyone receives it regardless? But that is an example of a false teaching in "mainstream (or otherwise) Christianity".

No one goes to hell and suffers eternal existence in torment.

But it gets complicated because in the original Judaic messianism, people did not go to heaven or hell and live in heaven or suffer in Hell immortally, but God's people got life on earth and the others were eliminated.

I doubt there is that much agreement in what constitutes 'original Judaic messianism', but people were believed to receive a resurrection to live upon this earth. There always existed a heaven (the spiritual realm) and a "hell" - translated from sheol (the world of the dead, where the dead slept until the resurrection). I accept both of those things. The Kingdom is upon the earth; those who reign with Christ reign upon the earth (Rev 5:10). (there is a bit more to that, but for this conversation, it might be enough).

I don't think much is said (or agreed upon) in Judaism about what was meant to happen to people OUTSIDE of Israel.

Regardless, the point is that there is no such thing as living forever in eternal suffering in hell.

Eternal life means just that - eternal life - which is indeed from Christ.

The tree of Life is like the apples of the hespieides; if you keep eating it, you live forever. But, if you sin, you are banned the garden so can't eat it any more and you lose immortality.

There are many similar stories in other religions because they are coming from/copying/adding to/taking away from the same source. I didn't know this one though, so thanks.

Which applied even to the Righteous like Abraham, who still died. Paul's idea was that Jesus would remove sin by supreme sacrifice, but everyone still died and would wake to the sound of the Trump, not go to heaven or hell forever. So the the Theology has become foxed, and Biblequotes can't tell us anything as we have lost the context.

Theology is foxed because men create it based on their own reasoning (including their own biases), and without context (as you said), and without relying upon Christ. But you can still ask God and/or His Son for the truth of the matter. And you can still look at those quotes and see that if one eats from the Tree of Life, one lives forever, and that if one eats from Christ - who is the Life and who is described as having BRANCHES in Him - one lives forever.




Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Thank you. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was of course the prop or symbol for sinning, but the tree of Life was the prop or symbol of what was taken away from them for sinning.I don't see Jesus as giving back immorality, but salvation. The tree is the object lost; Jesus the method of finding it.

I have to go by mainstream Christian dogma and individual persona takes on Jesus are just that - individual. Though I accept that in your beliefs, Jesus might equate to Life. Though, as I said, in the heaven and Hell concept,they have eternal life already. Jesus doesn't give them immortality but a chance to escape a nasty one.

So you reject the Christian threat of Hell. But espouse the idea of heaven?There has to be some reason why you believe in Your brand at least of Christianity. Without hellthreat or the promise of heaven, it has nothing to offer.

I can see that 'oblivion' might equal the withholding of 'Life' because of sinning. I suppose one could argue that (absent hellthreat, which I repeat is still part of mainstream Christianity) Jesus is offering Life, not just escape from Hell and one might see him as a symbol of the tree of life, or the tree as a symbol of him.

If so, in your take on Christianity, your argument holds.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

I don't see why it is important to believe any messenger of God not to be regarded as anything other than an ambassador and emissary and thus equal in terms of listening to and reasoning with and deciding whether the entity is who he claims to be.

Testing the spirits seems to be required as well as a knowledge of the God and whether the messenger is giving expected teachings or changing root principles without reasonable explanation.

People tend to get carried away by the letter of the law, forgetting that what is required is that we simply love one another and forgive one another, therefore being suitable ambassadors to God with all that arguing and humdrum and competativeness removed.

I'm giving the thanks as it sounded like you were suggesting that one could test whether a divine emissary was from god by (in Wootah's view) seeing whether it agreed with Wootah's beliefs. A Muslim might take a different view.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #15]

I'm giving the thanks as it sounded like you were suggesting that one could test whether a divine emissary was from god by (in Wootah's view) seeing whether it agreed with Wootah's beliefs. A Muslim might take a different view.

That would have more to do with the "People tend to get carried away by the letter of the law, forgetting that what is required is that we simply love one another and forgive one another, therefore being suitable ambassadors to God with all that arguing and humdrum and competitiveness removed." part of my post.

A Muslim might have the same view as the part (in bold) I emphasized above.

Same for a Jew or for that matter a Pagan, or any other type of theist personality which believes in the idea of God essentially being Loving and Forgiving, regardless of the "name" tagged to the entity.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #16]

Sorry.When you posted: " I don't see why it is important to believe any messenger of God not to be regarded as anything other than an ambassador and emissary and thus equal in terms of listening to and reasoning with and deciding whether the entity is who he claims to be." I thought you were talking about an ambassador From God (The image of the "If God himself came down atheists would deny it" (same for an ambassador from God).

But as ambassadors to god, Play Nice' is a simplified form of humanist ethics as opposed to religious pushing to become as dominant as successful empires, and as often using the same methods to Spread the Faith.

As to whether there is a 'god' and it knows or even cares about our ethics and doings, that is a matter of Faith or belief,as iswhether it even wants ambassadors from us.

Angel "He says to wait"

Human messenger. "How long?"

"One day."

"Ok, I can live with that"

"Which is a thousand ages to you".

[William]

I thought you were talking about an ambassador From God

In the sense that one loves and forgives behaving as God behaves, which is why I wrote "any other type of theist personality which believes in the idea of God essentially being Loving and Forgiving"

(The image of the "If God himself came down atheists would deny it" (same for an ambassador from God).

Specifically why I did not include atheists when I wrote the above in reply to your statement "A Muslim might take a different view."

But as ambassadors to god, Play Nice' is a simplified form of humanist ethics as opposed to religious pushing to become as dominant as successful empires, and as often using the same methods to Spread the Faith.

Ambassadors to/from/for/of et al. That is why I wrote "regardless of the "name" tagged to the entity" and "with all that arguing and humdrum and competitiveness removed"

As to whether there is a 'god' and it knows or even cares about our ethics and doings, that is a matter of Faith or belief, as is whether it even wants ambassadors from us.

That is the materialist philosophical perspective yes? The OP Author (Wootah) is asking "Is this proof that Jesus is the Lord God?"

The same question could be asked of individuals claiming to be representatives of God - theists.
The theist might argue that they are not claiming to "be God" but as we clearly observe, there is conflict about whether Jesus was claiming to being God or simply claiming to be a representative of/for/from/to et al.

There is also conflict re "where does love and forgiveness" (human decency) derive?" to which a loving and forgiving theist would accept that any atheist genuinely practicing such, is representing God regardless, so it is a non-issue between such a theist and such an atheist.

[TRANSPONDER]

Apart from all the other flummery, claiming that any atheist trying to be moral is somehow validating God is simply not the case. They are going with the natural hypothesis of origin of morals, which is better based on biological evidence that theist claims are.

The attempt to hi -jack the whole debate with an unsubstantiated faithclaim while apparently cutting out any response, is not to your credit and will not work.

The Gish Gallop is related, and I have seen this so often on Dillahunty and other phone - in shows when the theists plonk down a faithclaim and then go on to ague based on that. Of course that has to be queried, but the believer seems to think what they need to do is recite a string of faithclaims and not let the other side get a response in/. Like I say, this will not work.

[boatsnguitars]

Genesis 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

Revelation 1:12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.

Now if you read on the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Both images are pictures of God walking in His garden, tending to it. He found Adam and Eve with fault and removed them from the garden and in Revelation Jesus threatens to remove any lampstand that falters as well.

Revelation 2:5 If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

So in Genesis the Lord God is walking in the garden and in Revelation the Lord God is walking in the garden.

Is this proof that Jesus is the Lord God?

Is he talking about literal lampstands?