Is the tree of life a real tree?

@josephw said
"In the beginning God created...". Is that a metaphor?

No. I'd describe it as a statement of ancient Hebrew belief and now it is one of the central tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Meanwhile, I'd describe the story of "the tree of life" as an allegory.

@moonbus said
It’s not about God. It’s about a collection of legends and myths left over from a time when people believed in goblins, fairies, kobolds, witches, sorcery, and magic.

If it's not about God, then why does it say "in the beginning God created"?

Your logic seems flawed.

@fmf said
No. I'd describe it as a statement of ancient Hebrew belief and now it is one of the central tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Meanwhile, I'd describe the story of "the tree of life" as an allegory.

Is what you believe and describe based on "subjective feelings" or objective irrefutable evidence?

@josephw said
Is what you believe and describe based on "subjective feelings" or objective irrefutable evidence?

Both what you are saying and what I am saying about whether the "tree of life" is literal or allegorical are subjective opinions

@fmf said
Both what you are saying and what I am saying about whether the "tree of life" is literal or allegorical are subjective opinions

Do you know anything that's not a subjective opinion?

@josephw said
Do you know anything that's not a subjective opinion?

Yes, of course. There are loads of them. But your and my opinions about supernatural beings and phenomena are not among them.

@fmf said
Yes, of course. There are loads of them. But your and my opinions about supernatural beings and phenomena are not among them.

In your Opinion.

You see, but you don't. Actually you have inadvertently stumbled upon the crux of the matter.

If, and it is, Jesus rose from the dead, and as the scriptures say when one believes, they are filled with the Spirit of God, then they know something objectively that the unbeliever cannot know, but must insist instead that those things aren't so.

You are consigned to the realm of opinion by your own subjectivity, while I am in the realm of objective reality.

I have been set free. Forever. No question. No doubt. God says what he means, and means what he says.

@josephw said
You are consigned to the realm of opinion by your own subjectivity, while I am in the realm of objective reality.

If we are discussing supernatural rhings then we are both consigned to the realm of subjective opinion.

@josephw said
If it's not about God, then why does it say "in the beginning God created"?

Your logic seems flawed.

The Book of Genesis is no more plausible than Hesiod, or Gilgamesh, or Homer, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Upanishads, or thousands of other myths and legends from a similar time period.

@josephw said
Literal.

Is heaven a place? Is the earth real? Is light an illusion? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead?

Etching against the words of scripture by questioning its "efficacy", veracity, inerrancy and immutability is akin to adding to or taking away from it.

YOU are not the authority. The word of God IS the authority.

Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the ...[text shortened]... re of faith in God, and an act of trusting in ones own discordant intellect and subjective feelings.

Jesus also said He is the vine and His followers are the branches. Was this literal?

@divegeester

Now although I can’t find the original tree of life thread, the likes of KellyJay, sonship and Josephw/SecondSon dug in like tics in a sheep’s ass that the tree was a literal tree. They did this because they HAD to, because they have nailed their intellectual and spiritual underpants to the flagpole the biblical literalism.

You are mistaken.
I have spoken of Christ being the reality of the tree of life.

All of the Gospel of John which I have elaborated on hundereds of times emphasizes that the divine life in Christ and in Christ.

Same with the river of water of life in Revelation 22 which I have said is the Spirit - the life giving Spirit that the last Adam became (1 Cor. 15:45)

And I also know that where this thread is headed is an argument that there is no lake of fire or eternal punishment. Otherwise you should know that concerning God's life - I have emphasized Jesus Christ is the embodiment of life today.

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4)

I believe the leaves of the tree of life being the healing of the nations refers to the deeds of the sons of God being a healing and restoration over those whom they reign. The fruit of the tree of life refers to "eating" Christ - taking Christ the divine life of God INTO our being constantly, continually, eternally.

@sonship said
I have spoken of Christ being the reality of the tree of life.

Saying that the messages in the Bible are real or they are about reality is a separate thing - the question is not about that; instead, it is whether "the tree of life" in Genesis is or was a real tree.

@moonbus said
The Book of Genesis is no more plausible than Hesiod, or Gilgamesh, or Homer, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Upanishads, or thousands of other myths and legends from a similar time period.

You do realize, don’t you, that the book of Genesis is about much more than the creation account?

@suzianne said
Jesus also said He is the vine and His followers are the branches. Was this literal?

Literally true, isn't it? We are the branches and Jesus is the vine? Obviously the language is metaphorical, figurative of a spiritual reality. We know that because we're not stupid enough to think Jesus is a literal plant or that we're the branches of it.

But the Genesis account of creation isn't metaphorical. There are no metaphors, figures of speech, allegorical language or symbolisms in the text. Creation happened literally the way it is described.

To make the text metaphorical would require that it be forced to be read that way.

@moonbus said
The Book of Genesis is no more plausible than Hesiod, or Gilgamesh, or Homer, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Upanishads, or thousands of other myths and legends from a similar time period.

Not plausible?

You seem like an intelligent person. I wouldn't expect you to believe in something implausible. Read Ivan Panin. His work with the mathematical structure of the scriptures has never been falsified. A short read.

"This article is in truth an oversimplification of the work of Dr Panin and others who followed in his footsteps. Dr Panin's work initially involved some 40,000 pages of material on which he had written millions of small neat calculations. It involved volumes."

http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html