Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
After the Incarnation, Jesus.
Before, the Preincarnate Logos; the Divine Son.
A somewhat silly question; of course He is.
No. I do not accept Sabellianism.
Jesus was born. There was a time when Jesus was not. See my explanation above.
A very odd question. What gave you the idea that I could have possibly thought otherwise?
No. Jesus was born. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation, of which without we cannot possibly have salvation or the Christian religion. I am referring to the preincarnate Logos; the Divine Son.
Theophany.
Jesus is the Tree of Life. The Bible seems clear.
Mind you, you seem to imply that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are not God in the above statement. Clarify?
Jesus was born. So He must not be in the Garden.
And, again, He is not a tree. Whatever kind the tree is.
If you are picking, then replace God with Father. Then it should be clear.
Excuse me; I meant the preincarnate Word, who would Incarnate as Jesus. Same Person; just preincarnate.
And, again, He is not a tree. Whatever kind the tree is.
If you are picking, then replace God with Father. Then it should be clear.
It isn't picking; it is a genuine concern. Now that you have clarified, I have no issue.
__________________ President of the WACCAV To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. For You are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and You relent at human suffering. O Lord, according to Your great goodness You have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against You, and in the multitude of Your mercies You have appointed repentance for sinners so that they may be saved.
-Prayer of Manasseh verse 7 (NRSV) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For those who take the creation narrative literally: If there was no physical death before the fall of humanity, what was the purpose of the tree of life? Was it necessary?
The Tree of Life was apparently necessary if Adam expected to live forever. However, he sinned and God punished him by kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and more importantly keeping them from partaking of the Tree of Life. Thus, death came into the world because of the sin of Adam.
Question for you:
Why do you reject the Bible's teaching that physical death entered the world through Adam (or mankind if you prefer)?
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Cor 15:20-22 NKJV
The above passage is clearly speaking of physical death. Look at verse 21 which will confirm what I'm saying. Is it referring to a physical resurrection? Yes, it is. Therefore, if one is reading the context correctly they will understand that verse 21 is speaking about physical death.
"And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:11-17 NKJV
I am not saying Jesus is not in the Garden, if Jesus, God, Spirit are together there. I am saying that Jesus should not be the tree, which sits there, while God and Spirit may go wherever They like to.
I stick with some literal meanings of a tree. A tree is something which has basic properties of a tree. For example, it does not move around.
Aren't you limiting the power and ability of the pre-incarnate Christ? I don't take the tree literally, but if I did I would not see the tree being fixed in place as any limitation to Christ filling the universe, after all Catholics believe the bread and wine at mass is the literal body and blood of Christ, but they don't think that means Christ is stuck on the altar.
The biggest problem with a literal tree, at least a literal tree that isn't somehow actually Christ, is theological. It means there exists some other means of receiving everlasting life, we could have everlasting life through Christ and his sacrificial death on the cross, or there is this fruit tree. It undermines the idea the Christ is the only source of everlasting life.
But I don't think Christ was ever literally incarnated (or inlignated?) as a tree, either a vine (any more than we are literal branches) or a tree of life, it is a beautiful picture of the the cross by which we would receive everlasting life, and a prophetic promise of the life we would have through Christ.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 27th August 2009 at 05:53 AM.
Aren't you limiting the power and ability of the pre-incarnate Christ? I don't take the tree literally, but if I did I would not see the tree being fixed in place as any limitation to Christ filling the universe, after all Catholics believe the bread and wine at mass is the literal body and blood of Christ, but they don't think that means Christ is stuck on the altar.
The biggest problem with a literal tree, at least a literal tree that isn't somehow actually Christ, is theological. It means there exists some other means of receiving everlasting life, we could have everlasting life through Christ and his sacrificial death on the cross, or there is this fruit tree. It undermines the idea the Christ is the only source of everlasting life.
But I don't think Christ was ever literally incarnated (or inlignated?) as a tree, either a vine (any more than we are literal branches) or a tree of life, it is a beautiful picture of the the cross by which we would receive everlasting life, and a prophetic promise of the life we would have through Christ.
Put the words in context:
Gen2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The two trees were mentioned together with other plants in the Garden within one verse. So, it has to mean true plant. If so, then the tree is not the "preincarnate Word". If the function of the tree of life implies God, then why would it use a figure like tree to represent it? I am sure there are better choices than a tree. For example, may be something like a living fountain (spring, river, etc.), or something similar to wind.
The power of giving life is from God. If God says eat that rock, or drink that water, and you will live forever, that does not mean the rock or the water needs to be God Himself.
--------
A side question to Assyrian: Is there anything in Gen 1 to 3 you are willing to take literally? My guess is none. If so, your theology can work without these three chapters. Because all the metaphoric interpretations about these three chapters can also be made from later Books and chapters.
The Tree of Life was apparently necessary if Adam expected to live forever. However, he sinned and God punished him by kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and more importantly keeping them from partaking of the Tree of Life. Thus, death came into the world because of the sin of Adam.
You say the tree of life was apparently necessary for Adam to live forever which leads me to think you are saying that he would have died without it. Surely, you aren't saying that there was already physical death? Nor are you advocating, as Assyrian refutes, that there are actually two means to eternal life: God's Word and a tree?
Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan
Question for you:
Why do you reject the Bible's teaching that physical death entered the world through Adam (or mankind if you prefer)?
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Cor 15:20-22 NKJV
The above passage is clearly speaking of physical death. Look at verse 21 which will confirm what I'm saying. Is it referring to a physical resurrection? Yes, it is. Therefore, if one is reading the context correctly they will understand that verse 21 is speaking about physical death.
"And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:11-17 NKJV
As I've said before, I don't know whether the narrative means to include physical death. Given passages like:
"Sleeper, awake!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
(Ephesians 5:14)
that make it sound like we were already dead, it isn't clear to me that the death Adam earned physical death from his transgressions. That aside, even if you are right, all of this regards only human death.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You say the tree of life was apparently necessary for Adam to live forever which leads me to think you are saying that he would have died without it. Surely, you aren't saying that there was already physical death? Nor are you advocating, as Assyrian refutes, that there are actually two means to eternal life: God's Word and a tree?
Of course, I wasn't saying there was already physical death. And that last question is a just a ploy on semantics. A dishonest ploy at that. All life comes from God.All things are possible with God.
As I've said before, I don't know whether the narrative means to include physical death. Given passages like:
"Sleeper, awake!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
(Ephesians 5:14)
that make it sound like we were already dead, it isn't clear to me that the death Adam earned physical death from his transgressions. That aside, even if you are right, all of this regards only human death.
Well, if you wish to ignore the immediate context then that is up to you if that is how you like to read the Bible.
Gen2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The two trees were mentioned together with other plants in the Garden within one verse. So, it has to mean true plant.
I don't see why. You are making the mistake that an allegorical interpretation means every little detail has to have a symbolic meaning, it is certainly true that you get highly allegorical stories and highly allegorical interpretations especially in Medieval times where every single detail has a symbolic meaning, but that doesn't mean every allegory and parable has to work that way, what was the meaning of the pigs in the parable of the prodigal son, what about the husks that ate? Medieval allegorists did find meanings in them, but does that mean they were right or did they just take the parable too far? If there is not symbolic meaning in the pigs and the husks, does that mean the story isn't a parable? Actually the context of the parable is Jesus be criticised for eating with tax collectors and sinners, maybe the riotous living' of the prodigal is referencing real parties that the tax collectors and sinners threw. Does that mean the prodigal son is literal? Figurative language in the bible is much more creative and free than literalists realise.
If so, then the tree is not the "preincarnate Word". If the function of the tree of life implies God, then why would it use a figure like tree to represent it? I am sure there are better choices than a tree. For example, may be something like a living fountain (spring, river, etc.), or something similar to wind.
Water and wind is more often a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus referred to himself as a source of living water and a tree, as well as bread, door, shepherd, a road. John calls the preincarnate word, well, 'the word', John the baptist called him a lamb, Proverbs refers to him as a woman called Wisdom, Paul and Genesis refer to him as the seed.
There are so many different symbolic figures for Christ, you want to criticise Genesis for not picking what you think is the best one? Since Jesus was to die on a tree and it is by abiding in him that we bear fruit, and given that in Genesis the seed of the woman was to be bitten by the snake and crush its head, I think the choice of symbols in Genesis for the preincarnate word is very powerful since the reason for his incarnation, his death on the cross, was foreordained before the foundation of the world.
The power of giving life is from God. If God says eat that rock, or drink that water, and you will live forever, that does not mean the rock or the water needs to be God Himself.
Like I said, that gives you two source of everlasting life, God in Christ, and a fruit tree. It really undermines the uniqueness of Christ, which as I said is a theological problem. But I don't think a literal tree could be the source of everlasting life. John 6:27Do not labour for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal. Fruit perishes when you eat it, as Jesus pointed out about food making people unclean, it goes into the stomach and is expelled. Literal fruit cannot give eternal life. It needs to be something spiritual. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
--------
A side question to Assyrian: Is there anything in Gen 1 to 3 you are willing to take literally? My guess is none. If so, your theology can work without these three chapters. Because all the metaphoric interpretations about these three chapters can also be made from later Books and chapters.
Does that make the bible fractal? Some people come to know Jesus simply through a single gospel. John was probably the only person in the in the New Testament who could have had a complete New Testament. We have four gospels, Jesus taught the same truths in multiple parables. The most important teachings are repeated again and again, in fact if a doctrine depends on a single passage it is probably suspect. 'Baptism for the dead' anyone? Personally I look for my creation accounts in Gen 1-3, Job 38, Psalm 104, Prov 8 and avidly read all the figurative and allegorical interpretations we get of these accounts, Psalm 90, Romans 5, 1Cor 15, Heb 3&4. Jesus taught his disciples how to interpret all the reference to himself throughout the OT. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Where do you see references to Christ in the Genesis Creation accounts?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
After the fall access to the tree was blocked off because it would have worked. Gen 3:22 Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden. Two sources of everlasting life, Christ and a tree.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
