The useless (?) tree of life (moved)

Prince Lucianus · Jul 10, 2008

In conclusion, Jesus ate before and after his resurrection.
This means, immortals according to the bible still need to eat and breath.

To KCDAD. There are creatures on earth with extremely long lifespans which might under the right circumstances be immortal, but they still need to eat. Now if I would create a being and wanted it to live forever (or call it a place with no death) then it would be logical to me that food and oxygen would not be needed. A place without death is a place without death, not a place without death if you follow certain physical rules.

Lucy

gaara4158 · Jul 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
And Jesus ate.And ate.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.

So you're saying that Adam, created immortal in God's image, still might have died if he stayed underwater too long?

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

KCDAD said:
It's a story...

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

Hi. That is possible. Could it be called a type of hyperbolic parable?

Both YHWH and JESUS spoke many parables to the OC Hebrew Israelites in the Bible, and many people had dreams and visions [such as those in Isaiah and Daniel for example]

One of those Parables JESUS spoke I have in my siggy concerning the "hellfire" JESUS spoke of. Thoughts?

Isaiah 28:11 And with stammering/deriding lip and in-tongue, another He shall speak to the people, this.

Ezekiel 17:2 Son of adam, propound thou a riddle and speak thou a probverb/parable unto house of Israel:

http://foru.ms/t4437955-lazarus-and-the-rich-man.html

It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE, like the facets of a diamond, as they turn each scintillates with new brilliance. Each was illustrating a view point of one great truth, and together they compose a whole. And this parabolic discourse of Jesus is continued into chapter sixteen of Luke, including the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The truth is that all five stories are each a fractional part of the complete parable, and when we read, "He spoke this parable unto them," this embraces the entire collection of symbol-pictures which in their completeness constituted the parable which He spoke. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

ooops........DP.......

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

KCDAD said:
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?

From I can see, Jesus didn't need to eat food.
Remember the story of JESUS at the well of the Samaritan woman and the response JESUS gave to His disciples when they asked about Him not eating, then later on mentioned to the Jews about the Manna in the wilderness?

John 4:31 In the meantime, the disciples were requesting Him saying--"Rabbi! be Thou eating!". 32 The yet He said to them "I food am having to be eating of which ye not aware/know". 33 Said then the disciples toward one another--"no any brings Him to be eating"? 34 Is saying to them the Jesus "My food is that I should be doing the will of Him of the One sending Me, and I shoud be perfecting/finishing of Him the work".

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'.......... 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Miracle Storm · Jul 10, 2008

Prince Lucianus said:
Eating is at least a sign that you're not immortal.

Lucy

How do you come to that conclusion..
afterall isn't there supposed to be feasting in heaven..and isn't their lives in heaven supposedly eternal..-immortal?

ETA..

Prince L said:
In conclusion, Jesus ate before and after his resurrection.
This means, immortals according to the bible still need to eat and breath.

Teach me not to read the entire thread and still comment..sowwy.

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

Miracle Storm said:
How do you come to that conclusion..
afterall isn't there supposed to be feasting in heaven..and isn't their lives in heaven supposedly eternal..-immortal?

ETA..

Teach me not to read the entire thread and still comment..sowwy.

Greetings MS. The Christ-ian book of Revelation has the same symbolism presented in it as the OC Hebrew Scriptures [such as Ezekiel].

I found this verse interesting in Reve 22 while doing a translation of it. Notice the "wood/tree" is doing Fruits, 12, and the "leaves" of it are for the healing of the Nations. I have a study on this, but thought I would thrown this out there for discussion:

Revelation 22:2 in midst of the broad-place of her, and of the river hence and hence, a wood/tree/xulon <3586> of life, doing fruits twelve, according to a month, each rendering the fruit of it, and the leaves of the wood/tree/xulou <3586> into Healing of the nations;

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Miracle Storm · Jul 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Are you following the conversation here? Let me bring you up-to-date:

Jesus ate often after His Resurrection, therefore ---

Immortals indeed eat, therefore ---

Lucifer, the anointed cherub, ate, therefore ---

The Tree of Knowledge was possibly reserved for the angels, not man.

Where do you find that Lucifer ate? Because he was in the garden you make that assumption?

Out of curiousity since this is your beliefs..
Do they have comodes and T.P. ...and possibly some air freshener up in heaven?

I'm just sayin'..

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

Miracle Storm said:
Where do you find that Lucifer ate? Because he was in the garden you make that assumption?

Out of curiousity since this is your beliefs..
Do they have comodes and T.P. ...and possibly some air freshener up in heaven?

I'm just sayin'..

It's a "dirty job" but someone has to do it

God-free · Jul 10, 2008

KCDAD said:
It's a story...

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

Does this mean we can finally be rid of that pesky 'original sin' theory?
And, wouldn't this mean that everything that followed can be disregarded as well?

~Barbara

Miracle Storm · Jul 10, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
Greetings MS. The Christ-ian book of Revelation has the same symbolism presented in it as the OC Hebrew Scriptures [such as Ezekiel].

I found this verse interesting in Reve 22 while doing a translation of it. Notice the "wood/tree" is doing Fruits, 12, and the "leaves" of it are for the healing of the Nations. I have a study on this, but thought I would thrown this out there for discussion:

Revelation 22:2 in midst of the broad-place of her, and of the river hence and hence, a wood/tree/xulon <3586> of life, doing fruits twelve, according to a month, each rendering the fruit of it, and the leaves of the wood/tree/xulou <3586> into Healing of the nations;

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The only thing I notice from this Scripture is that there is now two trees of life mentioned on each side of the river..

The rest I have no idea what it is supposed to mean even looking at my NIV version..Most of revelations has always been one big riddle to me..But I used to always read it anyway when I was christian because I believed I would be blessed for doing so.(rev 1:3)

At one point you thought the tree represented Jesus...correct?
What is your belief now that it says there are two trees?

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

Miracle Storm said:
The only thing I notice from this Scripture is that there is now two trees of life mentioned on each side of the river..

The rest I have no idea what it is supposed to mean even looking at my NIV version..Most of revelations has always been one big riddle to me..But I used to always read it anyway when I was christian because I believed I would be blessed for doing so.(rev 1:3)

At one point you thought the tree represented Jesus...correct?
What is your belief now that it says there are two trees?

I have a few views. JESUS proclaimed that He was both in Heaven and on Land at the same time.
The 2 trees could symbolize the Nations of "judah" and "israel" as they are mentioned in revelation and YHWH promised in the OC to bring them together as one Nation.

It could also represent one tree in "heaven" and one tree on land.

The gospel of John is just simply a unique Gospel and why I read thru it so much. This is the only place JESUS quotes from a passage in the OC about "jacob's ladder" and I haven't really got to study on that much yet because of Translations. Interesting dream!!!

Genesis 28:12 And he is dreaming, and behold! and a ladder being set-up landward, and top of it touching heavensward: and behold! messengers of Elohim ascending-ones and descending-ones in him. [John 1:51]

John 1:51 And He is saying to him "Amen, Amen I am saying to ye, from now ye shall be seeing the Heaven having opened/anewgota <455> (5757), and the messengers of the GOD, ascending and descending upon the Son of the Man". [Genesis 28:12]

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the Heaven having be opened/anewg-menon <455> (5772) and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling. 14 And the armies, the in the heaven, followed to him on horses, white, having been inslipped/dressed linen, white, clean,

Mythunderstood · Jul 10, 2008

I believeAdam & Eve were created as mortal beings. They were created with reproductive systems to be fruitful and multiply. Why would an immortal being need to reproduce? If people never died, we would have a severe overpopulation problem.

Why was a "tree of life" available in the garden if not to offer immortality to a mortal being? Why would an already immortal being need or care about the tree of life?

After the "fall" (eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), Adam and Eve were prohibited from accessing the "tree of life" (immortality). These mortal beings were thus sentenced to carry out their original intended lives including eventual deaths. Death entered the normal order for mankind by the removal of the Tree of Life rather than by the direct effect of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Death entered the world through the consequences of Adam's actions. This is also consistent with the proclamation made by God that death would follow Adam's sin. It did. They were the walking dead after the tree was removed from their reach. They were doomed to die the day they lost access to the Tree of Life.

"And the LORD God said, "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 the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

God placed an angel to guard the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from it for the simple reason that if they had begun to eat from this tree their mortal natures would not have effected them. No Tree of Life= No immortality. We never had an immortal nature.

Aren't the implications that if we have always been born "mortal" then there was never any curse of "original sin"? Consequently, there was never any need for anyone to die for us to remove or save us from such a curse?

~Wisdom Seeker~ · Jul 10, 2008

Washington said:
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 always believed that the Tree of Knowledge was what made human beings sentient. (And not either of the two theories you suggested.) And that the death that is spoken of, was never a physical death. But, a death to the blissful ignorance that comes with not being encumbered with self awareness.

I believe that what is written was never intended to be taken literally, but was a parable for something with a much deeper meaning. The tree is not really a tree. The fruit is not really a piece of fruit. etc.

God-free · Jul 10, 2008

This is one of the things that drove me from Christianity. If the Bible was intended to mean something, why isn't it written in such a way that it's meaning can be understood by everyone? This is one of those questions I could never get a cogent answer to. Everyone who reads the Bible says it means something different. There's no consistency at all. Just a lot of woo talk from people who want to believe they are so special that the entire universe was 'created' just for them. Isn't this the Mt. Everest of arrogance?[/rant]

~Barbara

AV1611VET · Jul 10, 2008

God-free said:
If the Bible was intended to mean something, why isn't it written in such a way that it's meaning can be understood by everyone?

Good point, Barbara; let's see if we can find a verse that sums the whole Bible up.

1 John 5:12 said:
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

There you have it --- 19 one-syllable words; so easy a child can understand.

God-free · Jul 10, 2008

Oh, pu-leeze! Is that the best you can do? I guess there's no reason to keep printing all those Bibles then. The trees would thank you if they could. How about answering the question I actually asked.

~Barbara

Miracle Storm · Jul 10, 2008

~Wisdom Seeker~ said:
I always believed that the Tree of Knowledge was what made human beings sentient. (And not either of the two theories you suggested.) And that the death that is spoken of, was never a physical death. But, a death to the blissful ignorance that comes with not being encumbered with self awareness.

I believe that what is written was never intended to be taken literally, but was a parable for something with a much deeper meaning. The tree is not really a tree. The fruit is not really a piece of fruit. etc.

How do you choose which parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?
adam was he the first man...eve was she created from his rib..Is heaven really heaven..is hell really hell..is jesus really the son of god...was mary truly a virgin...what about satan..the resurrection...ascension into heaven..

there is a reason christians do not agree... I wonder if it is because the "holy spirit" gives people such 'discernments' to view something as simple as trees and fruit as figurative of something much bigger and deeper meaning...

I also wonder why in the bible a tree can't just be a tree and a fruit a fruit..
I'm just sayin'

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Good point, Barbara; let's see if we can find a verse that sums the whole Bible up.
There you have it --- 19 one-syllable words; so easy a child can understand.

Yeah that will make them understand alright.

Ephesian 3:17 To dwell the Christ thru the Faith in the hearts of ye in Love, having been rooted and having been founded,
18 That ye should be being strong to be grasping/apprehending together to all the Saints what the breadth and length and height and depth ,
19 To know the transcending of the knowledge love of the Christ , that ye may be being filled into all filling of the God

Reve 21: 16 And the City four cornered is-lying, and the length of Her as much as even the breadth. And he measures the City to the reed on stadia twelve thousands the length and the breath and the height of Her equals is
17 And he measures the wall of Her, hundred forty four of cubits, measure of a Man, which is of a Messenger.

Washington · Jul 11, 2008

KCDAD said:
It's a story...
There is/was no tree. There was no Adam and no Eve.

Yes, I know, but others don't agree.

Mythunderstood said:
I believeAdam & Eve were created as mortal beings. They were created with reproductive systems to be fruitful and multiply. Why would an immortal being need to reproduce? If people never died, we would have a severe overpopulation problem.
Why was a "tree of life" available in the garden if not to offer immortality to a mortal being? Why would an already immortal being need or care about the tree of life?
After the "fall" (eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), Adam and Eve were prohibited from accessing the "tree of life" (immortality). These mortal beings were thus sentenced to carry out their original intended lives including eventual deaths. Death entered the normal order for mankind by the removal of the Tree of Life rather than by the direct effect of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Death entered the world through the consequences of Adam's actions. This is also consistent with the proclamation made by God that death would follow Adam's sin. It did. They were the walking dead after the tree was removed from their reach. They were doomed to die the day they lost access to the Tree of Life.

But this is part of the conundrum, because Gen. 2 16-17 indicates A&E were immortal to begin with. If they were not then why would god say ". . . 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." There is no reason to tell someone that if they do X then Y will surely happen, when Y is going to happen whether they do X or not. If A&E were mortal then god's warning is quite hollow and quite unnecessary. If I told you that if you eat fruit you will grow old, a reasonable retort would be, "So what? I'm going to grow old regardless. Your warning is silly"

Wisdom Seeker said:
I always believed that the Tree of Knowledge was what made human beings sentient. (And not either of the two theories you suggested.) And that the death that is spoken of, was never a physical death. But, a death to the blissful ignorance that comes with not being encumbered with self awareness.

Interesting belief, but one I fail to see any support for.

The useless (?) tree of life (moved)

Old Goth

Gen Alpha Dad

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

...

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

...

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

One of many moral atheists

...

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Open to the possibility of god, but not convinced

INFP the Healer

One of many moral atheists

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

One of many moral atheists

...

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency