The useless (?) tree of life (moved)

[Washington]

A common understanding of the tree of knowledge in Genesis is that it was put there to function as a means by which mankind could gain free will. Others have suggested that it was a means by which man could earn, and not merely receive, "absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created." In any case, one of the major outcomes of Adam and Eve's action was the loss of immortality. As god said in Gen 2: 16-17.

16"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
​

So, as I understand it, up to that time A&E were not subject to death, ever!. They were destined for immortality.
However, the tree of knowledge was not the only magical tree in the garden. There was also the tree of life, but we only find out about it because A&E really blew it with the tree of knowledge. In Genesis 3:22 the Bible has god telling us

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
​

So, a couple of points and a question.

1. As I pointed out, if eating from the tree of knowledge would mean A&E would know death, then it would appear that they already had immortality, which would seem to make the tree of eternal life superfluous.

2. Even having been burdened with mortality, the tree of eternal life was made off limits to A&E, which would also seem to make the tree superfluous---obviously no one else ever ate from it.

The Question. Why did god even bother planting such a tree in the first place? In the beginning it wasn't needed, and later on, when it was needed, or was at least desirable, it was taken out of service.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Question. Why did god even bother planting such a tree in the first place? In the beginning it wasn't needed, and later on, when it was needed, or was at least desirable, it was taken out of service.

Greetings. According to the Christian NT, the "staruos" of JESUS became the new Wood of Life.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 13:29 and when they did complete all the things written about Him, having taken down from the wood/xulou<3586>, they laid Him in a tomb;

Reve 2:7 The one having an ear let him hear! what the Spirit is saying to the Assemblies. To the one conquering, I shall be giving to him to be eating out of the wood/xulou<3586> of the Life which is in the Paradise of the God [Revelation 22:14]

 

[Washington]

Greetings. According to the Christian NT, the "staruos" of JESUS became the new Wood of Life.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 13:29 and when they did complete all the things written about Him, having taken down from the wood/xulou<3586>, they laid Him in a tomb;

Reve 2:7 The one having an ear let him hear! what the Spirit is saying to the Assemblies. To the one conquering, I shall be giving to him to be eating out of the wood/xulou<3586> of the Life which is in the Paradise of the God [Revelation 22:14]

So what?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So what?

So what what? I gave my Biblical view and if you got anything to add, feel free.

 

[Miracle Storm]

I wonder why he would have planted either..makes for a good story though don't you think..

Greetings. According to the Christian NT, the "staruos" of JESUS became the new Wood of Life.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 13:29 and when they did complete all the things written about Him, having taken down from the wood/xulou<3586>, they laid Him in a tomb;

Reve 2:7 The one having an ear let him hear! what the Spirit is saying to the Assemblies. To the one conquering, I shall be giving to him to be eating out of the wood/xulou<3586> of the Life which is in the Paradise of the God [Revelation 22:14]

I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion LLOJ..
The tree was an actual tree in eden..as far as I know that didn't change.

The verse in acts which you are speaking is when he was taken down from the cross/tree..

The one in revelations is again speaking of the tree of life in eden/paradise..

 

[Washington]

So what what? I gave my Biblical view.

But it didn't address either of my points or my question. Or wasn't that your objective? If not, I would prefer that you not muck up the thread with irrelevancies.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But it didn't address either of my points or my question. Or wasn't that your objective? If not, I would prefer that you not muck up the thread with irrelevancies.

Yes sir Boss!!! But first tell me how my post was irrelevant since the Christ-ian NT mentions the Tree of Life also, and us Christ-ians also go by the New Testament of the Bible in case you didn't notice. [the Muslims and Jews of course do not]

Genesis 2:9 And YHWH 'Elohiym is causing to sprout from the ground every of tree being coveted to sight, and good for food. And a tree/wood of the lives in midst of the garden, and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Reve 22:14 Happy the ones rinsing the robes of them, that it shall be the authority of them on the tree/wood of the Life, and to the gates they may be entering into the city.

 

[AV1611VET]

A common understanding of the tree of knowledge in Genesis is that it was put there to function as a means by which mankind could gain free will.

Either that, or it was food for the angels --- thus it was off-limits to Adam and Eve.

Ezekiel points out that Lucifer "hung out" there ---

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God...

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Eating is at least a sign that you're not immortal.

Lucy

 

[NewToLife]

Orthododox Christian teaching states that man is in fact not immortal by nature, what immortality is intended for us is by grace and not nature. The Tree of Life was the source of immortality whilst humanity remained within the garden and as such was far from useless. As already noted the Tree has at this point in time been superceeded by Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eating is at least a sign that you're not immortal.

Why? Jesus ate often, and after His resurrection, every time you see Him mentioned, He eats.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

You mean that Jesus can be compared equally to Adam and Eve?
Completely same circumstances, completely same physiology? Didn't Jesus die?

Lucy

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean that Jesus can be compared equally to Adam and Eve?

Jesus is called the Second Adam in song and the Last Adam in Scripture.

Completely same circumstances, completely same physiology?

Jesus was 100% human.

Didn't Jesus die?

Yes, but I emphasized "after His resurrection."

 

[KCDAD]

A common understanding of the tree of knowledge in Genesis is that it was put there to function as a means by which mankind could gain free will. Others have suggested that it was a means by which man could earn, and not merely receive, "absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created." In any case, one of the major outcomes of Adam and Eve's action was the loss of immortality. As god said in Gen 2: 16-17.

16"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
​

So, as I understand it, up to that time A&E were not subject to death, ever!. They were destined for immortality.
However, the tree of knowledge was not the only magical tree in the garden. There was also the tree of life, but we only find out about it because A&E really blew it with the tree of knowledge. In Genesis 3:22 the Bible has god telling us

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
​

So, a couple of points and a question.

1. As I pointed out, if eating from the tree of knowledge would mean A&E would know death, then it would appear that they already had immortality, which would seem to make the tree of eternal life superfluous.

2. Even having been burdened with mortality, the tree of eternal life was made off limits to A&E, which would also seem to make the tree superfluous---obviously no one else ever ate from it.

The Question. Why did god even bother planting such a tree in the first place? In the beginning it wasn't needed, and later on, when it was needed, or was at least desirable, it was taken out of service.

It's a story...

There is/was no tree. There was no Adam and no Eve.

 

[KCDAD]

Why? Jesus ate often, and after His resurrection, every time you see Him mentioned, He eats.

Read this over and over and over until it sinks in.... why destroy that which is not necessary to destroy?

Food, Jesus... ???

Why the need to describe "resurrected Jesus" eating?

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Jesus is called the Second Adam in song and the Last Adam in Scripture.

I know, but that doesn't mean they're completely the same physically. Jesus is god, Adam isn't.

Jesus was 100% human.

And 100% god.

Yes, but I emphasized "after His resurrection."

I can live with that.

The biblical story is that Adam & Eve were made for Eden. There was no death in Eden (biblical claim) so when you can't die, you neither have to eat nor breath. Creating a creature which needs to eat and breath is simply mortal to begin with.

Lucy

 

[KCDAD]

I know, but that doesn't mean they're completely the same physically. Jesus is god, Adam isn't.

And 100% god.

I can live with that.

The biblical story is that Adam & Eve were made for Eden. There was no death in Eden (biblical claim) so when you can't die, you neither have to eat nor breath. Creating a creature which needs to eat and breath is simply mortal to begin with.

Lucy

Is there a difference between having an unlimited life span and being vulnerable to death? (Without cellular degeneration, couldn't the body live forever? Unless, of course, it is eaten by a wandering lion or coyote)
Aren't cancer cells immortal in that sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read this over and over and over until it sinks in.... why destroy that which is not necessary to destroy?

Food, Jesus... ???

Why the need to describe "resurrected Jesus" eating?

Are you following the conversation here? Let me bring you up-to-date:

1. Jesus ate often after His Resurrection, therefore ---
2. Immortals indeed eat, therefore ---
3. Lucifer, the anointed cherub, ate, therefore ---
4. The Tree of Knowledge was possibly reserved for the angels, not man.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know, but that doesn't mean they're completely the same physically. Jesus is god, Adam isn't.

And Jesus ate.

And 100% god.

And ate.

The biblical story is that Adam & Eve were made for Eden. There was no death in Eden (biblical claim) so when you can't die, you neither have to eat nor breath. Creating a creature which needs to eat and breath is simply mortal to begin with.

Well I guess we'll have to find out when we get to Heaven what would have happened if they refused to eat or breathe. Or we could just test it ourselves in Eternity Future.

 

[elman]

A common understanding of the tree of knowledge in Genesis is that it was put there to function as a means by which mankind could gain free will. Others have suggested that it was a means by which man could earn, and not merely receive, "absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created." In any case, one of the major outcomes of Adam and Eve's action was the loss of immortality. As god said in Gen 2: 16-17.

16"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
​

So, as I understand it, up to that time A&E were not subject to death, ever!. They were destined for immortality.
However, the tree of knowledge was not the only magical tree in the garden. There was also the tree of life, but we only find out about it because A&E really blew it with the tree of knowledge. In Genesis 3:22 the Bible has god telling us

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
​

So, a couple of points and a question.

1. As I pointed out, if eating from the tree of knowledge would mean A&E would know death, then it would appear that they already had immortality, which would seem to make the tree of eternal life superfluous.

2. Even having been burdened with mortality, the tree of eternal life was made off limits to A&E, which would also seem to make the tree superfluous---obviously no one else ever ate from it.

The Question. Why did god even bother planting such a tree in the first place? In the beginning it wasn't needed, and later on, when it was needed, or was at least desirable, it was taken out of service.

I think the symbolism here is that we have hope for eternal life if we walk and talk--have a relationship with the source of life, but if we separate ourselves from the source of life, we are left to the destiny of a mortal, the grave. Jesus is our hope for grace and life. He is the river of life and He is the tree of life. I think it is all symbolism for our hope of eternal life as a gift from a loving Creator.