The useless (?) tree of life (moved)

[Washington]

So? Others think elections mean something. Others think the personal income tax is legal. Others think governments care about the people. Others think aliens are visiting out planet. Others think the first moon walk was done in TV studio. Others think that the first man was born from an ape. Others think that Tory Spelling is a celebrity. Others think that David Letterman is funny. Others think that schools actually teach you something you couldn't learn on your own. Others think that race is real. Others think that homosexual marriage will destroy our society. Others think that increased carbon in the atmosphere causes warmer temperature and others think that warmer temperatures causes more carbon to be trapped in the atmosphere, and others think that it is spirally out of control and others think who cares?

I don't care what other people think... except as a curiosity and as a way to explore other points of view.... but when I get to L, M and N, I am not going to worry about those who are still debating concepts at A, B and C.

How can people still be arguing about Adam and Eve? Have they no sense at all? There is no way ... under God, over God around God or any other way that mankind could have been started as Genesis is interpreted by some to indicate.

IT IS A MORALITY PLAY ABOUT MANKIND and SOCIETY... not a history lesson. Why would Adam have sexual organs? How could he have muscles and bones strong enough to stand up as an adult? Callouses? Skin tough enough to withstand the sun? These are all aging issues. How could he speak? How could he see and recognize shapes and colors? These are learned issues. Who taught him? How could he be lonely? How could the animals be created to solve his loneliness when they were created BEFORE he was?

Of course I know the answer: GOD DID IT!!!!! Which is interpretted to mean: I have no brain or ability to reason.

Coming from someone who has over 11,000 posts, the irony here is pretty amusing, which also helps explain why you've disabled the search function for your previous posts.

 

[Miracle Storm]

How do decide which parts of the newspaper are true or which parts of President Bush's speeches are true? How do you decide which parts of Dateline or 60 minutes, which parts of People or The National Enquirer, which parts of the History Channel or the Internet are true?

I'm just saying...

Your just saying...? Sayin' nothing that had to do with my post.. You're just sayin..? Looked more like asking to me..
Do the things you mentioned speak in code? Are we supposed to determine which parts are literal and what is figurative..
When they speak of a tree..should I assume it is a tree or something deeper? When they speak of taxes..should I assume I am going to be paying them..Or they really mean something deeper..?
Many believe the bible to not only have the parables (which of course it does) but then believe parts of the bible to be figurative and parts literal, then others believe it totally literal..and even others believe it only to be god's poetry..
Most christians don't agree how to interpret the bible..
That's what I'm sayin'

Responding to my questions with with questions did not answer my question..
How do you choose what is figurative with "deeper meaning" and what is literal?

Donkeys talking..bushes on fire, but not burning..red sea parting...angel of death that took all the first borns..virgin mary..a star guiding the way to a babe..heaven..hell..healings...water to wine...whole world flood..rained fourty days..fourty nights..trees bearing fruit that brings knowledge of good/evil as well as sin/death..Trees bearing fruit that bring eternal life..

Is it just what is common sense to you?

 

[Miracle Storm]

If it's "just a story" and if "There is/was no tree" and if "There was no Adam and no Eve" then there is no 'original sin'. 'Self' is what each of us IS. Of course, we're selfish and self centered and individually identifiable. That's our nature. Among us are individuals who are of the "me gimme mine now" variety. Also among us are individuals who will put their own self interests aside for the sake of another. But no-one is, or ever has been, completely selfless and this does not make them 'sinful'.


Since, in your own words, the Adam and Eve story is "just a story" and it never happened, I see no reason to believe that anything else in the Bible should be taken as truth. I live a decent life. I'm good to myself and others. I may not be perfect (no-one is) but I'll not spend another moment, of the only life I'll ever have, as a Christian. The message that

1.) I was born a sinner (bad),
2.) that I'll always be a sinner (bad),
3.) that I'm not, and never will be, worthy of (bad) grace and redemption unless I accept, as my savior, a man who claimed to be the son of a supernatural deity and was executed thousands of years ago

is repugnant. To tell people that they will spend eternity suffering the effects of the fire and brimstone of hell if they don't accept Jesus' love is akin to, but immeasurably worse than, a schoolyard bully saying to another child "I like you. Be my friend or I'll break your legs."

God is not in the punishing business??? Which version of the Bible have you been reading?

~Barbara

QFT

As for your questions: 1) Why does the tree of life have to be superfluous? Could it be that they were made mortal and not immortal? Could it be the tree of life gave them continued life? What do you think the tree actually is? I realize it's spiritualizing the whole text but could it possibly be that the tree of life was God himself? Christ?

2) You say, "But if the tree were Christ then were they cut off from Christ when they were thrown out of the garden?" Only to the degree of physical life/death. We will once again eat from the tree in a time yet to come. And just as the tree (He) sustained the lives of A & E will also sustain us . . . forever!

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Go Cards!

If you believe the tree is christ or even only representative of what do you then make of two trees of life on each side of the river in revelations?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Probably nothing at all.To burn?Ya --- by reducing everything to smoke and ashes.I've got siggys disabled. I'm tired of reading cheap rhetoric and seeing every Tom, Dick, and Harry venerated by armchair worshippers.

Oh ok .
Here it is

Reve 20:15 And if anyone not was found in the Scroll of the Life having been written, he was cast into the Lake of the Fire. [Matthew 13:50]
Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained in the Flame, this."
26 "And on all of these, between Us and Ye a GREAT CHASM hath been established,................."

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/a...hams_bosom.htm
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible.......relatives will be able to look across the gulf and see their loved ones in the torment of the fiery regions. ....
http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity.........

 

[AV1611VET]

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity.........

There's a lot of Theology in that story.

For instance, did Adam and Eve go to Heaven when they died? Moses and Aaron? Joshua? David? Samuel? Anyone in the Old Testament?

No --- they did not.

Instead, they went to a "waiting area" called Paradise to await Jesus' resurrection.

This is why Jesus is referred to as ---

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead...

God set it up that no one will get to Heaven except through His [resurrected] Son, Jesus Christ.

Since Paradise was next to Hell proper, the whole area is referred to collectively as "Hell". Paradise is now next to Heaven.

This is why we see:

• The witch of Endor being able to summon people up.
• Jonah praying from Hell - (he actually died in the whale's belly).
• The story of the rich man and Lazarus.
• Paul being beaten to death @ Lystra (Acts 14), then coming back to life and mentioning Paradise in his epistle (2 Corinthians 12).

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

QFT



If you believe the tree is christ or even only representative of what do you then make of two trees of life on each side of the river in revelations?

In my understanding it's not TWO trees or multiple trees but rather ONE tree in the middle of the river. The river flows on "either side" of THE TREE. Singular.

Go Cards!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In my understanding it's not TWO trees or multiple trees but rather ONE tree in the middle of the river. The river flows on "either side" of THE TREE. Singular.

Go Cards!

That could be correct. Did anyone mention the similarity to that of Ezekiel 47:12? That is one truly AWSOME chapter in the Bible [ I didn't punctuate it as I took it from the Hebrew the way it was]

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Ezekiel 47:12 And on the river he shall grow up on bank of him from this and from this every of tree for food not shall decay leaf of him and not he shall come to end fruit of him for months of him he shall make firstfruit that waters of him from the sanctuary they are going forth and becomes fruit of him for food and leaf of him for healing

Revelation 22:2 in midst of broadplace of her, and of the river hence and thence, a tree/woodxulon <3586> of life doing fruits, twelve according to a month each rendering the fruit of it, and the leaves of the tree/wood/xulou <3586> are into a cure of the nations;

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

That could be correct. Did anyone mention the similarity to that of Ezekiel 47:12? That is one truly AWSOME chapter in the Bible

Exactly! It's fitting to the thought of Jesus being that tree. In heaven Jesus is the temple, the light, the tree that gives life -- He is in heaven what He longs to be in our hearts . . . everything!

Go Cards!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Exactly! It's fitting to the thought of Jesus being that tree. In heaven Jesus is the temple, the light, the tree that gives life -- He is in heaven what He longs to be in our hearts . . . everything!

Go Cards!

Get yer Fishing Poles out!!! Go Cards!!!

Ezekiel 47:9 And becomes every of soul of living one which is roaming to every which and watercourses is coming, there the fish shall live and becomes many very that they come there-ward the waters, these, and they shall be healed and life which all will come there-ward the watercourse.
10 And becomes they stand on him fishers from `Eyn Gediy and unto `Eyn `Eglayim spreading out for nets they shall become to species of her and she shall become fish of them as fish of the sea, the great, many exceedingly.

 

[Mythunderstood]

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"

Whether created mortal or immortal, did Adam and Eve actually die that day? The verse actually says: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Either way, they didn't die on that day. So was god wrong, or did he lie? Maybe he meant that starting that day, they would be cut off from that which would have kept them alive: the "tree of life".
The "tree of life" would have kept them alive (made them "immortal"). They were not immortal to begin with.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The whole thing was a prank from the start.

It was Yahweh's practical joke on the human race.

Yep. It was such a great practical joke, billions of Muslims, Christians and Jews fell for it.

Daniel 12:1 `And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people ESCAPE, every one who is found written in THE BOOK.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah yet cries-out over the Israel "if-ever may be the number of the sons of Israel as the sand of the sea, the Remnant shall be being Saved".

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

...........This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family). The evidence presented here is purely biblical, although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons. ...........

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

The whole thing was a prank from the start.

It was Yahweh's practical joke on the human race.

I can almost hear God laughing now:

"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them." - Ps. 2

Go Cards!

 

[Mythunderstood]

To me, it appears that genesis is trying to explain through the adam and eve story, why we die, why women have painful labor, why men must work, etc. Nowhere in Genesis or even the OT is the concept of original sin even mentioned, or is it suggested that it is anything other than physical death. I guess that is why the Jews don't believe in the concept of original sin since it is not presented this way in genesis.



Curiously <sarcasm>, the first mention of the concept of original sin was not mentioned until the fifth chapter of Romans, written by Paul. According to Paul, humanity was cursed because Adam sinned when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As Paul puts it:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
  (Rom. 5:12).

• ...or as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive
  (1 Cor. 15:22).

• (Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

Despite these claims on the part of Paul, where are we to find the basis for them in Genesis? In that text, God pronounces all sorts of condemnations and curses upon Adam, Eve and the Serpent - working for their food, pain in childbirth, being stepped on, etc. Here is the relevant passage for reference:

• The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to the man he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
  (Genesis 3:14-19)

At no point do we see anything that might qualify as a curse of “Original Sin” to be handed down to all of Adam’s descendants. Sure, their lives are supposed to become much more difficult than what they had heretofore experienced; but where in all of that is the “Sin” being passed along? Even more importantly, where is there any indication that this sin must be “redeemed” eventually by Jesus?

Christianity is anxious to portray itself as the logical and theological progeny of Judaism, but if Christianity simply invents a concept and tacks it on to Jewish stories, it’s hard to see how that goal is accomplished.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

At no point do we see anything that might qualify as a curse of &#8220;Original Sin&#8221; to be handed down to all of Adam&#8217;s descendants. Sure, their lives are supposed to become much more difficult than what they had heretofore experienced; but where in all of that is the &#8220;Sin&#8221; being passed along? Even more importantly, where is there any indication that this sin must be &#8220;redeemed&#8221; eventually by Jesus?

Christianity is anxious to portray itself as the logical and theological progeny of Judaism, but if Christianity simply invents a concept and tacks it on to Jewish stories, it&#8217;s hard to see how that goal is accomplished.

Hi and intereting thoughts. Have ya ever read the book of Isaiah?

I consider that book a mini-bible in some some ways. The whole Christ-ian NT draws from the OT.

One may ask then what was the purpose of Jesus even coming to the Jews/Israel? Just to play patty-cake with them?

Isaiah 60:1 Arise! Shine!; that Thy light came, and glory of YHWH on you He radiates.
2 For behold!, the darkness is covering land, and gross-darkness peoples; and over you YHWH is being radiant, and His glory over you is appearing.
3 And Nations go to Thy light, and Kings to brightness of thy rising/radiance. [Matt 4:16/John1:3,4]

Matt 4:16 The people, the one-sitting in darkness perceived a Light, great.
And/also to-the ones-sitting in part and shadow of death, a Light springs-up to-them. [Isaiah 60:2,3]

John 1:3 All-things thru Him became and apart-from Him became not-yet one-thing which has become
4 In Him life was, and the Life was the Light of the men.

 

[KCDAD]

God-free;47797865
Since, in your own words, the Adam and Eve story is "just a story" and it never happened, I see no reason to believe that anything else in the Bible should be taken as truth.

Exactly! Well put, If there be any untruth in anything, all of it is false. So you disregard all newspaper articles, all books, all teachers, all advice from any friends.... That's it. You found the secret of life!

I live a decent life. I'm good to myself and others. I may not be perfect (no-one is) but I'll not spend another moment, of the only life I'll ever have, as a Christian. The message that

1.) I was born a sinner (bad),
2.) that I'll always be a sinner (bad),
3.) that I'm not, and never will be, worthy of (bad) grace and redemption unless I accept, as my savior, a man who claimed to be the son of a supernatural deity and was executed thousands of years ago

is repugnant.

Sin is not bad, it is normal. Why was it so easy for Jesus to say "your sin is forgiven"? Because sin meant nothing to him. He was talking about their guilt and shame they had been carrying around their whole lives.

You got serious problems that are completely curable... you are not bad, you are human.


Who are you trying to convince, with all this, anyway: me or yourself?

To tell people that they will spend eternity suffering the effects of the fire and brimstone of hell if they don't accept Jesus' love is akin to, but immeasurably worse than, a schoolyard bully saying to another child "I like you. Be my friend or I'll break your legs."

So... take it up with Paul, not Jesus. Jesus never said anything like that.

God is not in the punishing business??? Which version of the Bible have you been reading?

The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions...and several English translations... and you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To tell people that they will spend eternity suffering the effects of the fire and brimstone of hell if they don't accept Jesus' love is akin to, but immeasurably worse than, a schoolyard bully saying to another child "I like you. Be my friend or I'll break your legs."

So... take it up with Paul, not Jesus. Jesus never said anything like that.

Umm correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it JESUS that talked about hellfire and not Paul or, am I misreading you here. Paul never mentioned it that I know of.
​

 

[KCDAD]

Coming from someone who has over 11,000 posts, the irony here is pretty amusing, which also helps explain why you've disabled the search function for your previous posts.

I haven't disabled anything. If it is disabled, and I will check, it is glitch and I will undo do it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Washington

Coming from someone who has over 11,000 posts, the irony here is pretty amusing, which also helps explain why you've disabled the search function for your previous posts.
​

I had heard a little while back the Admins haven't got that working yet. Is it working now?

I forgot where that option is LOL

 

[KCDAD]

Your just saying...? Sayin' nothing that had to do with my post.. You're just sayin..? Looked more like asking to me..
Do the things you mentioned speak in code? Are we supposed to determine which parts are literal and what is figurative..
When they speak of a tree..should I assume it is a tree or something deeper? When they speak of taxes..should I assume I am going to be paying them..Or they really mean something deeper..?
Many believe the bible to not only have the parables (which of course it does) but then believe parts of the bible to be figurative and parts literal, then others believe it totally literal..and even others believe it only to be god's poetry..
Most christians don't agree how to interpret the bible..
That's what I'm sayin'

Responding to my questions with with questions did not answer my question..
How do you choose what is figurative with "deeper meaning" and what is literal?

Donkeys talking..bushes on fire, but not burning..red sea parting...angel of death that took all the first borns..virgin mary..a star guiding the way to a babe..heaven..hell..healings...water to wine...whole world flood..rained fourty days..fourty nights..trees bearing fruit that brings knowledge of good/evil as well as sin/death..Trees bearing fruit that bring eternal life..

Is it just what is common sense to you?

Let's start with your list: (1)talking donkeys... obvious not literal... donkeys can not verbalize, they do not have a speech center in their brain.
(2)burn but not consumed... by definition fire consumes something so either the bush is fire retardant and something else burning or it isn't literal.
(3) red sea parting... could have happened because of drought over a long period of time, instant parting... no... certainly not like in the movies...
(4) angel of death... Mengele???
(5) "virgin" no, un woman, yes. Mary? NO. Isaiah is talking about the King Ahaz or Azaz or someone contemporary... Matthew and Luke made it up. It was a common theme in the Med at that time
(6) guiding star.. sure, sailors have been doing it for centuries
(7) heaven and hell , sure but not sometime after you die... now. Metaphor for exclusion and inclusion from the family, community of man... society.
(8) breathing into someone to revive them... sure... psychosomatic illnesses, sure, exaggeration, sure
(9) water into wine is an Aramaic idiom and metaphor for transforming an individual or society from worldly to Godly.
(10) global flood... hyperbole... regional flood? every year
(11) trees and fruit.. obviously a metaphor

How does one choose? Wisely or foolishly. I suggest choosing wisely.

 

[KCDAD]

To me, it appears that genesis is trying to explain through the adam and eve story, why we die, why women have painful labor, why men must work, etc. Nowhere in Genesis or even the OT is the concept of original sin even mentioned, or is it suggested that it is anything other than physical death. I guess that is why the Jews don't believe in the concept of original sin since it is not presented this way in genesis.



Curiously <sarcasm>, the first mention of the concept of original sin was not mentioned until the fifth chapter of Romans, written by Paul. According to Paul, humanity was cursed because Adam sinned when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As Paul puts it:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
  (Rom. 5:12).

• ...or as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive
  (1 Cor. 15:22).

• (Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

Despite these claims on the part of Paul, where are we to find the basis for them in Genesis? In that text, God pronounces all sorts of condemnations and curses upon Adam, Eve and the Serpent - working for their food, pain in childbirth, being stepped on, etc. Here is the relevant passage for reference:

• The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to the man he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
  (Genesis 3:14-19)

At no point do we see anything that might qualify as a curse of “Original Sin” to be handed down to all of Adam’s descendants. Sure, their lives are supposed to become much more difficult than what they had heretofore experienced; but where in all of that is the “Sin” being passed along? Even more importantly, where is there any indication that this sin must be “redeemed” eventually by Jesus?

Christianity is anxious to portray itself as the logical and theological progeny of Judaism, but if Christianity simply invents a concept and tacks it on to Jewish stories, it’s hard to see how that goal is accomplished.

BRAVO! Here we have the one of the main reasons I call myself a Follower of Jesus or a Follower of the Way rather than a Christian. To call one's self a Christian really means you follow Paul, not Jesus.