-Removed-"If the Tree of Life is a real tree with real fruit that if eaten gives eternal life, then where does that leave Jesus Christ?"
If you somehow think you know what you're saying by inferring that if the tree of life was a literal tree, and that by eating the fruit of it can be said to mean the Jesus Christ is left out of the equation, then you aren't understanding the Word.
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
It appears Adam could have eaten from the tree of life even after his fall, and live forever separated by sin from God. If God is the tree of life as you seem to think, then explain how Adam would have been able to eat of it in light of the fact that Adam no longer had access to God, but while he was still in Eden he could "put forth his hand" and take of the tree and "live forever"?
Your perspective confounds the narrative.
9 edits
"If the Tree of Life is a real tree with real fruit that if eaten gives eternal life, then where does that leave Jesus Christ?"
It is not necessary for me to believe that a "tree of life" in the garden was actually God. There were physical matters in the Old Testament which had associated with them great spiritual significance.
For example. the ark of the covenant was to be treated a certain specific way. A man died as a result of not regarding that constructed item with the prescribed attitude that God commanded. See First Chronicles 13:1-14.
I do not have to know what the tree of life in Genesis actually was physically to understand that Adam's interacting with it would cause God to deal with Adam in a serious and consequential way.
The same is true for a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". The interaction with such a forbidden tree could be a kind of "line in the sand" drawn by God. And if a disobedient man step over that line and eat in disobedience this could cause the man to fall under the control of Satan.
I consider the case of Judas in the Gospels. He hypocritically sat around with the disciples having a meal with Jesus the Son of God. In his heart he was contemplating a plan to betray the Son of God. The Bible says that after he put a morsal in his mouth Satan entered into him.
"And at that moment, after the morsal, Satan entered into him, Jesus therefore said to him [Satan in Judas], What you do, do quickly," (John 13:27)
Here was a physical object, a morsal of bread. That is bread to be shared with the Son of God and His faithful disciples. I do not have to know much about the chemical composition of that morsal of bread. I understand that when Judas hypocritically ate it in his unbelief, the spiritual door was opened somehow for Satan, an evil spirit, to possess him for the momentous deed to come - the betrayal of the Son of God.
Similarly, these trees - "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" had great significance associated with them by God. They were physical objects which signified according to God's sovereignty great spiritual significance.
My belief in the historical realism of that garden and the two trees doesn't necessitate that I hold that the tree of life was actually God or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually the Devil. I don't think taking the account literally necessitates this IMO.
I knew Jesus as Lord and Savior before I had any opinion one way or the other on Genesis chapters 1 - 3.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSo what you're saying is, according to the definition of terms you choose to follow, something must be either/or, that the tree of life, for example, can't be both literal and metaphorical at the same time?
Look at you sir, back peddling from your statement that metaphors and the like are "all literally true."
Do you not accept the dictionary definition of metaphor, that it is 'applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable?'
If you accept the bible contains metaphor then you are simultaneously accepting there are parts of ...[text shortened]... gs like the tree of life fall in to the metaphor category and were intended to be taken as such.
Seems rather restrictive of thought to me. Like tunnel vision.
1 edit
Originally posted by @josephwLiteral and metaphorical?!
So what you're saying is, according to the definition of terms you choose to follow, something must be either/or, that the tree of life, for example, can't be both literal and metaphorical at the same time?
Seems rather restrictive of thought to me. Like tunnel vision.
.......At the same time?!
....................Seriously?!
Two opposite things,.......at the same time?!
The tree was literally there,..........but only as a metaphor?!
-Removed-If the church is populated with people like the some of the ones populating the Spiritual Forum, then I avoid it like h*ell.
But I go there sometimes. When babies are baptized, when people get married, and people will be buried. But when the priest starts with his doings, well, my thoughts tend to drift elsewhere.
2 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Literal and metaphorical?!
Yes.
Like the two sons born to Abraham - Isaac born through Abraham's wife and [b]Ishmael born through his concubine.
" For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one of the maidservant and one of the free woman.
However the one of the maidservant was born according to the flesh, but the one of the free woman was born through promise. These things are spoken allegorically ... " (Gal. 4:22,23a)
An historical son representing grace.
An historical son representing the law.
Also two historical women Sarah and Hagar - actual and symbolic in God's revelation to Paul.
[qote] "These things are spoken allegorically, for these women are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, bringing forth children unto slavery, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Sinai the mountain in Arabia and corresponds to the Jerusalem which now is, for she is in slavery with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother ... So then brothers, we are not children of the maidservant but of the free woman." (Gal. 4:24,-26,31) [/quote]
The ark of the covenant - historical and full of spiritual symbolism.
The ark of Noah - historical and full of symbolism.
The tabernacle - historical and full of symbolism.
The manna that came from heaven feeding the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness.
" I am the living bread which came down out of heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, given for the life of the world." (John 6:51)
As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever. (John 6:57,58)
.......At the same time?!
God who is transcendent over time, enlightens the prophets to understand the deeper meaning of some historical event.
....................Seriously?!
Seriously.
Two opposite things,.......at the same time?!
I'm not sure what this means.
The tree was literally there,..........but only as a metaphor?!
No, this is your misunderstanding of me. I am not sure what another poster wrote.
But I said two historical trees with significance intended by the God who inhabits eternity.
The physical cross of Jesus - both historical and hugely significance spiritually.
"But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, though whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world." (Gal. 6:14)
" I am crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 2:20a)
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt. 16:24)
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou know what you need? You need to find out God really exists. Unfortunately you've decided there is no God.
Literal and metaphorical?!
.......At the same time?!
....................Seriously?!
Two opposite things,.......at the same time?!
The tree was literally there,..........but only as a metaphor?!
If that's what I thought, then I'd go about living my life and stop wasting my time finding ways to deride Christians while giving radicals a pass. Christians are an easy mark. Others may take your head off.
Just sayin'.
Originally posted by @josephw to Ghost of a DukeAfter explaining what the phrase means, could you give an example of Ghost of a Duke "giving radicals a pass" here at RHP?
If [there is no God is] what I thought, then I'd go about living my life and stop wasting my time finding ways to deride Christians while giving radicals a pass. Christians are an easy mark. Others may take your head off.
Originally posted by @josephwAnd you need to learn the difference between literal and metaphorical,....to avoid future embarrassment.
You know what you need? You need to find out God really exists. Unfortunately you've decided there is no God.
If that's what I thought, then I'd go about living my life and stop wasting my time finding ways to deride Christians while giving radicals a pass. Christians are an easy mark. Others may take your head off.
Just sayin'.
Originally posted by @sonshipSure sonship, let's redefine the English language to incorporate your bizarre teachings.Literal and metaphorical?!
Yes.
Like the two sons born to Abraham - [b] Isaac born through Abraham's wife and [b]Ishmael born through his concubine." For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one of the maidservant and one of the free woman.[/b]
However the one of the maidservant was born according to the flesh, ...[text shortened]... after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt. 16:24)
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSure sonship, let's redefine the English language to incorporate your bizarre teachings.
Sure sonship, let's redefine the English language to incorporate your bizarre teachings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that culture can influence language.
Unique cultural experiences can give rise to a new way of speaking.
You should consider the possibility that a kind of new "culture" involving the availability of Jesus Christ necessitates a language change or at least strong influence on language.