What was the forbidden fruit

[Colt]

I find the first prophecy about Messiah to remedy the disobedience problem is found at Genesis 3:15.
Messiah will even destroy Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B

According to the Israelites flood story, God already tried to solve the disobedience problem by drowning the entire earth! But he kept the Satan creature alive??? to mislead the whole world all over again???

Also, if "sin" were a matter of eating fruit then any number of the billions of people since Adam would likely eat the fruit! The Israelites wrote these stories for the child like mind of bronze age sheep herders. The narratives were not well thought out.

 

[sealchan]

Some claim it was an apple, some claim a fig but from what I understand the bible doesn't mention what it was, its just called the forbidden fruit

Is this an example of not knowing so the blank is filled in by what we think or what it might be.

I wonder how much of the bible is/has been interpreted that way.

Like the three wise men...three? Wise of Magi? Even a tradition that reveres a thing cannot help but want to change a thing.

I just had a revelation which I realized was also a remembering and renewed understanding of something I read. it lead me to the idea that the central revelation of Christianity is that God Is one of us, that we ARE created in the image of God and that God IS the "apple".

I won't divert your thread further but I will advertise the other thread I just wrote: The Central Revelation of Christianity: God IS the "apple"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Some claim it was an apple, some claim a fig but from what I understand the bible doesn't mention what it was, its just called the forbidden fruit

Is this an example of not knowing so the blank is filled in by what we think or what it might be.

I wonder how much of the bible is/has been interpreted that way.

A key was that disobedience was the "fruit". As soon as they ate they knew what it was to disobey and disappoint their only father, God.

Most serious Bible scholars, amateur or professional, try to avoid adding things to the Bible that it doesn't state.

 

[Sheldon]

I do have memory personally and even can swear I remember the soul beside me and I promised that soul I would protect and do my best to help, and who God allowed to be born in my time but seems I have no chance of saving or guiding anyways.

I remember it now but my proof for it is my own experience.

Yeah I still don't believe you sorry, can you demonstrate anything beyond the bare claim?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
No he didn't - "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

please try again.

My point exactly, it appears the irony is lost on you, maybe look up Hitchens's razor. You made a bare claim, I pointed this out that it could be dismissed in the same manner it was offered, it seems you couldn't be bothered to Google the original Latin, but have made my point precisely anyway.

 

[Sheldon]

According to the Israelites flood story, God already tried to solve the disobedience problem by drowning the entire earth!

Cunningly simple, and this is an omniscient deity again?

 

[Colt]

Cunningly simple, and this is an omniscient deity again?

I can explain, the flood story is a vastly exaggerated genealogical device used by the Israelites when they were attempting to create a line of authoritative "descent" back to the Adam of Mesopotamian lore. Unable to fill the gap...............it occurred to them to drown the entire world during the time of Noah's flood, a local flood legend already commonly known.

 

[Kenny]

My point exactly, it appears the irony is lost on you, maybe look up Hitchens's razor. You made a bare claim, I pointed this out that it could be dismissed in the same manner it was offered, it seems you couldn't be bothered to Google the original Latin, but have made my point precisely anyway.

I think you lost the import of what I said. You offered a bare claim and I opined in the same manner. The Latin, at this point, became irrelevant!

Let me know when you want a real discussion

I feel like you love a merry-go-round

 

[somefruitychristian]

I heard this thread is where the party's at.

Anyways,I feel like if the fruit was forbidden, it wouldn't really still be around right? Think G-man would've locked that up.

 

[Sheldon]

I think you lost the import of what I said. You offered a bare claim and I opined in the same manner.

The other way around, as I said you seem not to have grasped the point I was making, but that was it.

The Latin, at this point, became irrelevant!

Wrong again, the Latin precisely explains the point I was making, which you have failed to understand. Again it is the derivation of Hitchens's razor.

Let me know when you want a real discussion

It would be wasted on you it appears.

I feel like you love a merry-go-round

As I said that's because you failed to understand what the post meant. I suggest you go back, it is what 3 or 4 clicks, find your claim, note it was offered without even the pretence of evidence, as are most of your claims tbh, then note my response, and learn what that Latin phrase means, and why it applies to your post. You just might then grasp why you're on this particular merry-go-round.

Or just keep using vapid ad hominem, while pretending you are remotely interested in debate of course, if that is what you enjoy. An echo chamber for your beliefs. Tell you what I'll save you the 3 clicks of your mouse, <HERE> is a link to your post making a bare claim.

 

[Kenny]

The other way around, as I said you seem not to have grasped the point I was making, but that was it.

No.... may I suggest you make your point clearer with supportive positions? You don't seem to grasp the point I am making so maybe if you start over, you can be clearer in your position?

 

[Sheldon]

No.... may I suggest you make your point clearer with supportive positions? You don't seem to grasp the point I am making so maybe if you start over, you can be clearer in your position?

I did. <HERE> read it.

 

[Kenny]

I did. <HERE> read it.

Respond better, with more cogent and defining positions, here! (before your quoted post)

What was the forbidden fruit

 

[Sheldon]

Respond better, with more cogent and defining positions, here!

I can't simplify it anymore for you sorry, you made a bare claim, one of many as it happens, so Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur was the proper response.

 

[Kenny]

I can't simplify it anymore for you sorry, you made a bare claim, one of many as it happens, so Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur was the proper response.

So... let me translate...

no substance, no cogent reply, no support, no counter to Gen 3:15, just a a blanket decision of "no proof" while not supporting your position with proof.

Like I have said before,

Come back when you have a desire to have an intellectual conversation. (paraphrased)

 

[rational experiences]

Sine frequencies men claim in science statements as human men are fruit shaped.

Natural.

Gods advice. You exist human and are the highest natural form.

Don't change anything.

Or else the sine will become sin.

Knowledge will get you destroyed. As you don't own creation it supports your life form.

Why would you want to change your highest natural form. First. Origin unless you believed you came from a higher place than a human?

Having had the conscious condition I endured conversion not destruction just lowered my being form.

Consciously you would not have realised destruction.

Learnt your lesson yet? No. Still changing earth and it's heavens causing life to die irradiated unnatural deaths.

So realistically do you still believe God taught you when you still exhibit the same bad behaviour you said yourself as dominion owner.... don't change anything?

Man of science says God is not real. As man of science removed the concept sine that he said was gods.

Why he realises sin..destruction converted bodies changed. States today sin was in my past. Wrong. Sines were in your past. You keep increasing sin.

Why we are all dying unnatural deaths.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some claim it was an apple, some claim a fig but from what I understand the bible doesn't mention what it was, its just called the forbidden fruit

Is this an example of not knowing so the blank is filled in by what we think or what it might be.

I wonder how much of the bible is/has been interpreted that way.

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is just that -- the fruit of the tree of the iknowledge of good and evil. It was a one of a kind tree. Asking which known fruits it has misses the whole point.

 

[Sheldon]

So... let me translate...

I think you mean misrepresent if your previous replies are anything to go by.

no substance, no cogent reply, no support, no counter to Gen 3:15,

I don't need to counter an unevidenced assertion about a biblical text, this is the part you seem unable to grasp, and again this was the purpose of the Latin quote.

just a a blanket decision of "no proof" while not supporting your position with proof.

A tautological argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It was your claim, the burden of proof was thus yours, I pointed out you had offered no evidence. Now you're demanding I demonstrate evidence to contradict your unevidenced claim, which of course explains your string of glib vapid responses. Again learn what Hitchens's razor means, and understand what that infers for your bare unevidenced claim. Or don't, I'm easy either way.

Like I have said before, Come back when you have a desire to have an intellectual conversation. (paraphrased)

How appropriate you end with vapid ad hominem. Is that what you think represents intellectual debate?

I added an emoji for you, to simplify things. See I can use ad hominem as well...

Now it's still less than 6 posts since you made an entirely unevidenced claim, and I responded with quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur. I wonder if you can find the intellectual honesty to address it finally? Or perhaps you prefer to keep "shooting the messenger".

 

[Kenny]

I eliminated the irrelevant, fluff, stuff and funny part. ( i know you can't seem to grasp that concept but maybe, just maybe you can grasp the following)

I don't need to counter an unevidenced assertion about a biblical text,

.

Please note... blanket statements (as always) with no explanation of where, what, why et al.

Not evidenced in what what way? I simply said that God provided a remedy. That you may not agree with the scripture, IMV, is irrelevant because it would just be your opinion.

Targum: [JERUSALEM. And it shall be when the sons of the woman consider the law, and perform (its) instructions, they will be prepared to smite thee on thy head to kill thee; and when the sons of the woman forsake the commandment of the law, and perform not (its) instructions, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel, and hurt them. Nevertheless there shall be a medicine for the sons of the woman, but for thee, serpent, there shall be no medicine: but it is to be that for these there shall be a remedy for the heel in the days of the king Meshiha.]

again...

However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They shall make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of the King Messiah.[4]

1. ^ Huckel, T. The Rabbinic Messiah (Ge. 4:7 ), (Philadelphia: Hananeel House, 1998).

and again...

Rabbi Tanchuma and Rabbi Kimchi and the Targumim state this is a Messianic verse.

 

[Sheldon]

I eliminated the irrelevant and funny part.

There was nothing facetious, and the relevance has been demonstrated.

Not evidenced in what what way? I simply said that God provided a remedy.

yet failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence for this claim. It seems you don't even understand it is a bare claim?

That you may not agree with the scripture, IMV, is irrelevant because it would just be your opinion.

I don't need to disagree with an unevidenced claim ABOUT a biblical text. Which of course is, in and of itself, just a bare claim. It seems you can't grasp that, or what "quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur " meant in that context.