What was the Tree of Life

juvenissun · #31 28th August 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

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.

God makes angels live forever. But I don't think angels ever partake anything from God, or of God.

To live forever is not the purpose. To live forever with God is.

What is wrong if sinful Adam ate the fruit again? What is wrong if a sinful Adam live forever? Is a sinful angel also live forever? The problem is on the first part of the verse 22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, .... That is the problem. A sinful Adam can not live "with God" forever, which is the status of Adam in the Garden.

So, the fruit of life which kept Adam from death (in the Garden) has nothing wrong in theology as a source of life. To live forever without being with God is nothing good at all.

Assyrian · #32 28th August 2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

God makes angels live forever. But I don't think angels ever partake anything from God, or of God.

Apart from his act of creating them. If angels are immortal it is a gift from God.

To live forever is not the purpose. To live forever with God is.

What is wrong if sinful Adam ate the fruit again? What is wrong if a sinful Adam live forever? Is a sinful angel also live forever? The problem is on the first part of the verse 22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, .... That is the problem. A sinful Adam can not live "with God" forever, which is the status of Adam in the Garden.

So, the fruit of life which kept Adam from death (in the Garden) has nothing wrong in theology as a source of life. To live forever without being with God is nothing good at all.

Maybe not, but you still have two source of everlasting life, and that sounds so wrong to me. Literalism take from the uniqueness of Christ and his gift of eternal life.

Incidentally, it also relegates the gospel of grace to second best. God's original plan was for Adam and Eve to live forever in fellowship with him through their own works of obedience and righteousness.

Willtor · #33 28th August 2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

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.

Then tell me how you reconcile the tree of life as a necessity when there is no death. As for the second point, I think it's a legitimate question. Of course all life comes from God. And yet there is this tree that you think is not figurative.

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

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.

That's a passive-aggressive non-response.

juvenissun · #34 29th August 2009, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Apart from his act of creating them. If angels are immortal it is a gift from God.

Maybe not, but you still have two source of everlasting life, and that sounds so wrong to me. Literalism take from the uniqueness of Christ and his gift of eternal life.

Incidentally, it also relegates the gospel of grace to second best. God's original plan was for Adam and Eve to live forever in fellowship with him through their own works of obedience and righteousness.

I don't think so. God's plan for Adam, from the beginning to the end, is to see him stumble upon satan. To me, that is the sole purpose of the Garden. And somehow, it is the reason for the single tree of life in the Garden.

There is not two-source for everlasting life. The tree of life is from God. And the tree of life is functional only to human. God is still the only source of life.

Assyrian · #35 29th August 2009, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I don't think so. God's plan for Adam, from the beginning to the end, is to see him stumble upon satan. To me, that is the sole purpose of the Garden. And somehow, it is the reason for the single tree of life in the Garden.

You are probably quite an unusual Creationist then, most seem to think God's original intention was for A&E to live in fellowship with him, but gave them free will, they messed up everything and plan B had to be brought in. Personally I don't think it was God's intention so much that they stumble upon Satan, but to stumble on their own fleshly desires and ambitions, Gen 3:6 the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. We needed to learn that we cannot follow God in our own strength, even the simplest rule like don't touch that fruit. We needed the gospel of grace from the moment God first gave us a command to obey.

There is not two-source for everlasting life. The tree of life is from God.

If the tree is not God, unless pantheists have it right, God's creation is a separate and distinct thing from God himself, then even though God created the tree, it is separate from him once created, and we have two courses of everlasting live, God and a creation.

And the tree of life is functional only to human. God is still the only source of life.

So animals could not live forever?

juvenissun · #36 29th August 2009, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

You are probably quite an unusual Creationist then, most seem to think God's original intention was for A&E to live in fellowship with him, but gave them free will, they messed up everything and plan B had to be brought in. Personally I don't think it was God's intention so much that they stumble upon Satan, but to stumble on their own fleshly desires and ambitions, Gen 3:6 the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. We needed to learn that we cannot follow God in our own strength, even the simplest rule like don't touch that fruit. We needed the gospel of grace from the moment God first gave us a command to obey.

If the tree is not God, unless pantheists have it right, God's creation is a separate and distinct thing from God himself, then even though God created the tree, it is separate from him once created, and we have two courses of everlasting live, God and a creation.

So animals could not live forever?

Don't forget that God has a bigger problem to deal with: the satan. To have Adam and Eve live with God forever does not solve that problem. Adam is part of God's perfect plan to defeat satan.

In the New Heaven, there are many trees of life. The fruit is good, and the leave is also good. Like a question asked by Shernren, what are those trees there for?

Many fables in other religions have the same description: some type of food served in heaven as snack for gods, but the food is also able to make a normal human being immortal. In the New Heaven, everything is perfect. Even the tree and the fruit are also perfect. It does not mean to prolong the life of us in the Heaven. It is just there as part of the perfect world.

I don't think Adam and Eve will die if they did not eat the fruit of life before they sinned. But eating the fruit can only make them function better. May be that God puts ONE tree of life in the Garden is to symbolize that the Garden is similar to the Heaven, but is not exactly the same.

Also, I think there would not be any tree of knowledge in the Heaven. This also illustrates the purpose, and the nature of the Garden. (what would happen if an angel ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Of course, angels will not do that.)

Assyrian · #37 29th August 2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Don't forget that God has a bigger problem to deal with: the satan. To have Adam and Eve live with God forever does not solve that problem. Adam is part of God's perfect plan to defeat satan.

Interesting concept if speculative. It kind of undermines the wonder of creating mankind in his image, the incarnation, and choosing us in Christ to be his bride from before the foundation of the world.

In the New Heaven, there are many trees of life. The fruit is good, and the leave is also good. Like a question asked by Shernren, what are those trees there for?

The healing of the nations according to Revelations. But don't forget Revelation is a book of allegory and symbols, ther really isn't going to be a seven horned lamb or a cubic space city. You have to ask yourself what the trees symbolise in the book of Revelation and whether that is what they meant all along in genesis.

Many fables in other religions have the same description: some type of food served in heaven as snack for gods, but the food is also able to make a normal human being immortal. In the New Heaven, everything is perfect. Even the tree and the fruit are also perfect. It does not mean to prolong the life of us in the Heaven. It is just there as part of the perfect world.

Ah, CS Lewis! You have not been forgotten.

CS Lewis: The story of Christ is simply a true myth, One must be content to accept it in the same way, remember that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths, i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there.

OK, I'll see your Ambrosia and raise you one Fountain of Youth

John 4:13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty forever. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Is this a literal spring that gives everlasting life?

John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

I don't think Adam and Eve will die if they did not eat the fruit of life before they sinned. But eating the fruit can only make them function better.

Yet it was called the tree of life not the tree of optimal nutrition. Kind of suggests A & E weren't really perfect either.

May be that God puts ONE tree of life in the Garden is to symbolize that the Garden is similar to the Heaven, but is not exactly the same.

But the tree in the garden could really have let A&E live forever, so it wasn't just symbolic, unless of course that part of the story is symbolic too.

Also, I think there would not be any tree of knowledge in the Heaven. This also illustrates the purpose, and the nature of the Garden. (what would happen if an angel ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Of course, angels will not do that.)

But a third of them do have a personal experience of what it is to rebel against God, they do have the knowledge of good and evil. Would the tree have given the knowledge of good and evil to either Adam and Eve or any passing angels, if they had not been forbidden to eat it? A&E only really knew about good and evil because they disobeyed God. Maybe God really did give mankind their first command as a taboo, do not touch the God's sacred tree, but any command he gave them would have been a tree of knowledge of good and evil waiting for them to taste the forbidden fruit. Paul's tree of knowledge was the command not to covet. Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Zadok7000 · #38 22nd September 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Willtor

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?

Tree of Life = Jesus.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil = Satan.

Does that make me a "non literalist"?

Assyrian · #39 22nd September 2009, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Zadok7000

Tree of Life = Jesus.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil = Satan.

Does that make me a "non literalist"?

Sounds like it

Welcome to the club.

I would say instead that the Snake = Satan
while the tree of Knowledge of good and evil = personal experience of sin.
I think you can read the tree of life as Jesus or the cross or the eternal resurrection life we have through and the cross

Zadok7000 · #40 23rd September 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Sounds like it Welcome to the club.

I would say instead that the Snake = Satan
while the tree of Knowledge of good and evil = personal experience of sin.
I think you can read the tree of life as Jesus or the cross or the eternal resurrection life we have through and the cross

Indeed, Satan is the serpent as well.