Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Aren't you limiting the power and ability of the pre-incarnate Christ? I don't take the tree literally, but if I did I would not see the tree being fixed in place as any limitation to Christ filling the universe, after all Catholics believe the bread and wine at mass is the literal body and blood of Christ, but they don't think that means Christ is stuck on the altar.
Question for you:
Why do you reject the Bible's teaching that physical death entered the world through Adam (or mankind if you prefer)?
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Cor 15:20-22 NKJV
The above passage is clearly speaking of physical death. Look at verse 21 which will confirm what I'm saying. Is it referring to a physical resurrection? Yes, it is. Therefore, if one is reading the context correctly they will understand that verse 21 is speaking about physical death.
"And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one mans offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one mans offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:11-17 NKJV
I don't see why. You are making the mistake that an allegorical interpretation means every little detail has to have a symbolic meaning, it is certainly true that you get highly allegorical stories and highly allegorical interpretations especially in Medieval times where every single detail has a symbolic meaning, but that doesn't mean every allegory and parable has to work that way, what was the meaning of the pigs in the parable of the prodigal son, what about the husks that ate? Medieval allegorists did find meanings in them, but does that mean they were right or did they just take the parable too far? If there is not symbolic meaning in the pigs and the husks, does that mean the story isn't a parable? Actually the context of the parable is Jesus be criticised for eating with tax collectors and sinners, maybe the riotous living' of the prodigal is referencing real parties that the tax collectors and sinners threw. Does that mean the prodigal son is literal? Figurative language in the bible is much more creative and free than literalists realise.
Water and wind is more often a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus referred to himself as a source of living water and a tree, as well as bread, door, shepherd, a road. John calls the preincarnate word, well, 'the word', John the baptist called him a lamb, Proverbs refers to him as a woman called Wisdom, Paul and Genesis refer to him as the seed.
Like I said, that gives you two source of everlasting life, God in Christ, and a fruit tree. It really undermines the uniqueness of Christ, which as I said is a theological problem. But I don't think a literal tree could be the source of everlasting life. John 6:27Do not labour for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal. Fruit perishes when you eat it, as Jesus pointed out about food making people unclean, it goes into the stomach and is expelled. Literal fruit cannot give eternal life. It needs to be something spiritual. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Does that make the bible fractal? Some people come to know Jesus simply through a single gospel. John was probably the only person in the in the New Testament who could have had a complete New Testament. We have four gospels, Jesus taught the same truths in multiple parables. The most important teachings are repeated again and again, in fact if a doctrine depends on a single passage it is probably suspect. 'Baptism for the dead' anyone? Personally I look for my creation accounts in Gen 1-3, Job 38, Psalm 104, Prov 8 and avidly read all the figurative and allegorical interpretations we get of these accounts, Psalm 90, Romans 5, 1Cor 15, Heb 3&4. Jesus taught his disciples how to interpret all the reference to himself throughout the OT. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Where do you see references to Christ in the Genesis Creation accounts?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ah, CS Lewis! You have not been forgotten.
Yet it was called the tree of life not the tree of optimal nutrition. Kind of suggests A & E weren't really perfect either.
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.
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."
Sounds like it
Welcome to the club.
Sounds like it
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
