Yes, Aaron is right on.

The tree was not theirs (Adam and Eve's). It didn't belong to them. By eating of it, they were violating the principle of respecting the property of another. What sort of society would heaven be if people did not respect that which belongs to somebody else?

Now the only way that Adam and Eve could know what was theirs and what wasn't was if someone told them.

I still don't know why you asked this question:



I've asked you for clarification about this a couple of times now. What were you thinking when you wrote this?

You are implying it wasn't God who commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. What is about the following commands that make you think it wasn't God who commanded them?

Leviticus
24:13, 14, 24 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers
15:35, 36 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

MM, we've been through this many times.

What I'm saying is that all that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ. If we think we see something different than what Jesus Christ revealed, then what we think is wrong, not what Jesus Christ revealed. That's been my point. Rather than modify our view of who Christ is by our misunderstandings, we should modify our misunderstandings by what we see revealed in Christ.

The "God" of the Old Testament WAS Jesus Christ. Since the Fall, all communication from heaven has been through Jesus. So what we find in the OT is a revelation of Jesus/God as well as the record in the NT.

So God put it there, in the middle of the smorgasbord so to speak, but not for them to eat. OK, I can live with that.

But Aaron said much more than that.


I'll ask the question again, to help you see what Aaron said: If God didn't give that "annoying rule" of not eating that fruit, would there have been a problem with eating that fruit?


I was thinking that you might notice that God put it there for a purpose other than eating. And the risk involved much more than indigestion. We'll see if we can get there from here.

The God of the Old Testament was misunderstood:



Jesus Christ came to clear away the cobwebs.



The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God.



The problem is that man has a different view of the God of the OT and Jesus Christ. When people usually do is try to form a composite image of God, one-half OT God, which they see as severe and harsh, exacting revenge on those who dare to defy His will in the least respect, and one-half Jesus Christ, whom is seen in a more positive way. Rather than allowing the image of Jesus Christ modify the "misapprehension" of the OT God, one's image of God becomes a melange.

A:Here's the noteworthy sentence from Aaron: If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by.

Do you still think that is "right on"?

T:Yes, Aaron is right on.

A:So God put it there, in the middle of the smorgasbord so to speak, but not for them to eat. OK, I can live with that.

But Aaron said much more than that.[/quote]

You asked me if I "still" agreed with this: "If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by."

I don't know why you put in the word "still," but I answered your question, which is yes, I agree.



Arnold, this is condescending. I understood what Aaron said, and I agree with it, and I explained why (a critical point in my explanation being that more is involved than the simple breaking of a rule).

Here's a similar explanation by Ty Gibson:



This is what I heard Aaron saying, and I agree with his point (as well with what Ty Gibson wrote here).



Arnold, this is condescending too. Have I been condescending to you? Do you think this is OK?



Your question seems odd to me. Here's a similar question:



Isn't the implication that I wanted you to read this? When you asked:



then is not the implication that God wanted them to eat that fruit? Is this what you meant to imply?

That may be so. But I don't believe that Samuel the prophet was mistaken when he said Saul was in trouble with God for not killing all the Amalekites. Do you think Samuel was correct?

I think Samuel was correct, but that this story, and many others (there's a lot of violence in the OT) are misunderstood, not being interpreted in the light of what Christ has revealed in regards to God's character.

Tom, your whole theory about God commanding people to kill sinners and Jesus' revelation of God fails to address the truth. Ellen's insight about Jesus' revelation of God was never intended to prove your point, namely, that it wasn't God who commanded people to kill sinners, or that unfavorable circumstances forced Him, against His will and desire, to command people to kill sinners. The idea that God compromised the truth to accommodate the perverted desires of sinners is absurd. The Bible is too plainly worded to be mistaken or misunderstood. Listen to what Ellen said about it:

The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}

You believe Jesus revealed everything we can know about God, and yet Jesus Himself testified, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He deferred certain things to the Holy Spirit. But not even the Holy Spirit can reveal to sinners all there is to know about God. Sinners are simply incapable of comprehending certain things about God. One of them is what God must refer to as His "strange acts" for the simple and obvious reason sinners lack the ability to understand His "strange acts".

At times, it is God's will and purpose to employ the elements of nature to cause death and destruction: Listen:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80}

You, however, believe Satan caused these things to happen, that they are evidences of his power, that he designed them to make God look bad, and that anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived. Your basis for disregarding the obvious meaning of what Ellen wrote about it is the fact Jesus, while He was here, never commanded anyone to kill sinners and never employed the element of nature to cause death and destruction. It amazes me you do this. It even amazes me even more that you insist Ellen expects us to interpret passages like this one the way you do.