The Tree of Life

[theFijian]

There could be more than two ways to having everlasting life (for example, angels are created to last). But for us, there is only one way. I don't see any theological problem on this.

The theological problem is your theology is not Christocentric.

Luke 24:17 - And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Christ started with Genesis 1, and didn't miss out the Tree of Life.

 

[juvenissun]

The theological problem is your theology is not Christocentric.

Luke 24:17 - And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Christ started with Genesis 1, and didn't miss out the Tree of Life.

For human beings, including Adam, Jesus the Lord is the only way to the eternal life. Why is this not Christ centered? Why should the tree of life have to be the same as Jesus Christ? In fact, simply logic says they are NOT the same. What is the advantage to force the two into one? Save you some trouble of finding a good interpretation?

 

[Johnnz]

Symbolic language is common on both Testaments. Jesus said He was the true vine, the light of the world, the bread of life. The Book of Hebrews refers to OT typology.

That the tree is in Genesis and Revelation is significant in my opinion and understanding of Scripture.

John
NZ

 

[theFijian]

For human beings, including Adam, Jesus the Lord is the only way to the eternal life. Why is this not Christ centered?

Divorcing Christ from pre-eminence over all of his Creation is not Christ-centred.

Why should the tree of life have to be the same as Jesus Christ?

Why should it not be? Pointless question really

In fact, simply logic says they are NOT the same. What is the advantage to force the two into one?

I'm not forcing anything; when we look at scripture in a Christ-centred way, as Christ himself did, then it leaps off the page. If your logic leads you to deny Christ's pre-eminence over creation and leads you to invent other sources of eternal life then your logic is severely flawed.

Save you some trouble of finding a good interpretation?

I'm simply following Christ's method of interpretation. ie. a Christocentric hermeneutic rather than a literalism-centric one.

 

[Calminian]

There could be more than two ways to having everlasting life (for example, angels are created to last). But for us, there is only one way. I don't see any theological problem on this.

Based on the same logic, the healing leaves might also mean to be applied to another domain which we are not sure on what it is. My speculation is the domain of Millenniums, which is always a mystery to me.

I think you've hit on it here, Juv. We can attain eternal life by keeping the law perfectly. This isn't feasible now, but it was in the garden before we had a sin nature, and before we were aware of multiple laws. For at that time we had access to the tree. Sin banished us from that source. Now Jesus Christ is our only path to eternal life, so He in essence has become our tree of life. This is very plain language for us and the ancients to understand.

But it was very astute of you to point out angels. They had a choice before them and those that chose wrong apparently found themselves with a very permanent fate. I don't know that they had access to a tree of life, themselves, or if they needed that for eternal life. But whatever means God gave them for eternal life, they lost access to it when they rebelled.

But the fact that Jesus is called the tree of life, no more allegorizing the tree in the Garden, than it does a loaf of bread. For He's called that too. He's also called living water. Does this mean water is just an illusion?

Such notions are not christ-centered reasoning, they are just bad deductive logic.

 

[ChetSinger]

Neat thread, and one of my favorite topics.

I'm with Aquinas on this one. He argued that the tree was real, and that Adam would've had to eat from it periodically to keep his body from decaying. So if Adam hadn't been eating from the tree at the time of the Fall, he eventually would have. And not just once, but repeatedly.

So it wasn't a "magical" tree. Aquinas argued it was a physical tree, whose fruit dispensed physical sustenance that warded off decay. Unlike the angels, Adam was made of matter. Without help, entropy alone would eventually wear him out (and it did, after 900 years).

I think the compounds he ingested from the tree were designed to sustain him indefinitely, provided he consumed them when necessary and didn't do anything stupid enough to get himself accidentally killed.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Just wondering what peoples views are. Did anyone actually eat of the Tree of Life in the garden?

i think it originates in another babylonian/sumerian myth. it was included in the bible because it gives some sort of doctrine of the fall from grace, which is useful to try and figure out why everything is in such a fallen condition.
i think there is a deeper mystery about that, which we are not told about.

 

[southcountry]

Real garden, real tree, real snake, real commandment, real rebellion, real fall, real curse, real savior came in the flesh, real death on the cross for our sins, real resurrection from the dead in 3 days, real ascension into heaven and a real promise to return.

Do you think all was created in 6 (24 hr) days?

 

[southcountry]

I think you've hit on it here, Juv. We can attain eternal life by keeping the law perfectly. This isn't feasible now, but it was in the garden before we had a sin nature, and before we were aware of multiple laws. For at that time we had access to the tree. Sin banished us from that source. Now Jesus Christ is our only path to eternal life, so He in essence has become our tree of life. This is very plain language for us and the ancients to understand.

But it was very astute of you to point out angels. They had a choice before them and those that chose wrong apparently found themselves with a very permanent fate. I don't know that they had access to a tree of life, themselves, or if they needed that for eternal life. But whatever means God gave them for eternal life, they lost access to it when they rebelled.

But the fact that Jesus is called the tree of life, no more allegorizing the tree in the Garden, than it does a loaf of bread. For He's called that too. He's also called living water. Does this mean water is just an illusion?

Such notions are not christ-centered reasoning, they are just bad deductive logic.

Are you LDS?