Is the tree of life a real tree?

@divegeester said
Is this true for the book of Revelation?

Are the flying multiheaded beasts being ridden by whores wearing robes dipped in blood all literal, all real things?

Could be.

Humans alive today know next to nothing of the spiritual realm.

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

Do you have “objective irrefutable evidence” that the trees of life and the knowledge of good and evil are real trees?

Please don’t say “yes it’s written in the bible” or I’m just going to mock your infantile intelligence.

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

CRUNCH!

Well said.

@sonship said
@divegeester
You are mistaken.
I have spoken of Christ being the reality of the tree of life.

I also agree that the tree of life is a metaphorical symbol of Jesus Christ.

So to be clear then, you don’t think the tree of life in genesis or in Revelation was/is a real tree?

@pb1022 said
Are you equating the laws of physics with human reproduction? Not sure I get your point.

No, not equating. Human reproduction is based on genetics. Genetics is ultimately chemistry. Chemistry is ultimately physics. That's how genetic mutations creep in. These natural laws have not changed in the last 3,000 years. Chemical reactions are the same today as they were 3,000 years ago. Chromosomes split and join the same today as 3,000 years ago.

It does not matter whether Noah was Jewish or of some other ethnicity. The same principles apply: if the entire human race were descended from one single family, we would not be here; there isn't enough genetic variation in one family to avoid infertile off-spring after a few generations. Moreover, even if contrary to fact, the entire human race were descended from one single family, all humans would have identical mitochondrial DNA, whether Semitic or some other. We do not, in fact, have identical mitochondrial DNA, therefore we are not all descended from one single family (Semitic or some other).

@josephw said
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.

“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.”

You know that those scriptures are metaphors because you aren’t “stupid enough to think Jesus is a literal plant”. So you are relying on your own intellect to decide what is and what isn’t metaphorical.

Thank you for proving my point!!

@josephw said

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.

And you know this because you aren’t too stupid to think that a tree gives life? Even though Jesus is the life giver?

You are an absolute gem in threads like this Jospehw

@josephw said

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

Duhhh, ya think!?

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

'This is my body you eat, this is my blood you drink.' Was Jesus literally a loaf of bread and a flagon of wine??? Of course not, these are symbols and metaphors. I am the bread, the staff of life, means not literally that he has yeast in him, but that he sustains people, spiritually, as bread sustains people bodily. I am the light means not that he literally has a candle inside him, but that he shows people what had been hidden to them before. I am the way means not that he is literally made of cobblestones, but that he shows people how to live with sorrow and pain.

Suzi, you're a breath of fresh air. A sensible Christian finally weighs in here.

@moonbus said
No, not equating. Human reproduction is based on genetics. Genetics is ultimately chemistry. Chemistry is ultimately physics. That's how genetic mutations creep in. These natural laws have not changed in the last 3,000 years. Chemical reactions are the same today as they were 3,000 years ago. Chromosomes split and join the same today as 3,000 years ago.

It does not matter ...[text shortened]... itochondrial DNA, therefore we are not all descended from one single family (Semitic or some other).

Interesting.

So tell me how the theory of evolution designed males and females with effective and functioning reproductive systems before they had sex and offspring.

@moonbus said
Suzi, you're a breath of fresh air. A sensible Christian finally weighs in here.

Err excuse me…?

BLINKS…

@divegeester said
Err excuse me…?

BLINKS…

Well, she knows the difference between a metaphorical and a literal reading of Scripture. That's more than some other posters here.

@pb1022 said
Interesting.

So tell me how the theory of evolution designed males and females with effective and functioning reproductive systems before they had sex and offspring.

Evolution designs nothing.

@moonbus said
'This is my body you eat, this is my blood you drink.' Was Jesus literally a loaf of bread and a flagon of wine??? Of course not, these are symbols and metaphors. I am the bread, the staff of life means not literally that he has yeast in him, but that he sustains people, spiritually, as bread sustains people bodily. I am the light means not that he literally has a cand ...[text shortened]... sorrow and pain.

Suzi, you're a breath of fresh air. A sensible Christian finally weighs in here.

Just because part of the Holy Bible is symbolic doesn’t mean all of it’s symbolic.

I don’t think anyone believes Jesus Christ meant for people to pluck out their eyes and cut off their arms if their eyes and arms offended them.

People who want to make the creation account in Genesis symbolic should explain the symbolism. Otherwise, it’s just an intellectually-lazy throwaway line.

@moonbus said
Well, she knows the difference between a metaphorical and a literal reading of Scripture. That's more than some other posters here.

You’re talking with another; why do you think I started this thread.