Bible Study What fruit do you think the Tree of Life produced?

[About the Son of God]

What I'm saying is if someone came forward, male or female, and claimed to be speaking for God, their words would be without error.

ummm..... really. Just because they claimed it? Or did you mean something more than that. :neutral
I mean, if 4afaithfulone claimed to be speaking for God, you think she would automatically be without error just because she made the claim ?

 

[LovethroughDove]

Sometimes, just sometimes women are the first to know the truth.

Matthew 28:8-9 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet fill with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Whereas Eve took the good and evil fruit of the tree to Adam..........these women took the good news to their brothers.

 

[Gary]

ummm..... really. Just because they claimed it? Or did you mean something more than that. :neutral

If you claim to be speaking for God, then the message you're preaching should be without error. Especially since what you're preaching is coming straight from His Word.

.

 

[Sinthesis]

Lots of people who have claimed to speak for God have been shown, upon close examination of their message, to have been prophetic frauds.

I don't know of a single donkey ever exposed as a prophetic fraud.

 

[Kathi]

I do not believe the Bible says what kind of fruit was on the tree.

 

[Edward]

I "heard" some where that it was an apple.
But I sorta doubt that.

I read somewhere that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil was more like grapes than apples. A little off topic for the answers that are really being pursued, BUT fyi, that's what I read.

...

I don't know of a single donkey ever exposed as a prophetic fraud.

Wasn't Francis dubunked?

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

I understand what you're saying, but the donkey isn't playing a part in this scenario, other than being used as an example.

What I'm saying is if someone came forward, male or female, and claimed to be speaking for God, their words would be without error.

.

Now then what if the message was for later down the road and it did not come to pass in the oncoming days ?
Why did Jonah run ? because he knew God was a true and just God and may not even pronounce or go through with destroying the city. Some times people get judged in error when it all truth the ones judging are in error.

 

[Gary]

Some times people get judged in error when it all truth the ones judging are in error.

Ain't that the truth.
.

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

Ain't that the truth.
.

Amen Brother Amen

 

[About the Son of God]

Wasn't Francis dubunked?

I think the plot line of the show was such that he was never debunked in the show, although -- television shows fall under the category of electronic trickery in the first place which I was carefully excluding.... No one ever certified that Francis was actually speaking, rather I think in the credits that a person (man) claimed to be his "voice". I think they may have tickled him or something to get him to move his mouth -- and then, someone spoke into a microphone to be recorded in sync with the donkey's mouth movements using electronics.

If you find an episode where a 'prophecy' of his was debunked -- though -- I'd like to watch that one. I don't remember it.

I do have a problem, though, with people confusing in-errancy with the ability to quote scripture or God; and even Francis could quote scripture.... I mean, even within scripture the very story of Balaam and the Donkey is precisely about a prophet who could not tell a lie -- but whom still taught error by arranging the 'truth' in an in-appropriate way in order to destroy many of the Israelites out of Envy.

But I think something more confusing than Francis is showing up in the thread, here, even now from a strange but common assumption made by people on both "sides" of a disagreement:

Especially since what you're preaching is coming straight from His Word.

and again:

Isn’t the Word of God wisdom in letter form?

For, within scripture -- the greatest of wisdom is indeed found in written form, but so too is the greatest of folly. eg: Luke 4:9-10

Scripture itself teaches of wisdom, and is not in error in what it teaches; but scripture contains quotable lies, and careless readers can find lessons of folly as well for those who misquote it at random to prove a "point"; for even Jesus had to patiently tell some people that: "scripture also says..."

But back to Francis:
To me, a prophet is someone who tells people what they need to hear.
Even Francis can be a storybook example of a prophet ... at least where prophecy is not about the "future", but about someone telling the world what it needs to hear as an object lesson in the present.

Note: I'm avoiding talking about individual people's present day prophecies, in this forum, mostly because as a *partial*-preterist in a world full of excited futurists, I think the thread would go rapidly into debate/deadlock in a way which is trying to be avoided by the website hosts.

But, I'd like to make the point -- in principle -- that prophets as understood historically and biblically are as much expected to talk about the present or the past, as the future. Prophets can be people of mere 'holy' logic and observation even when they DON'T talk about the future. For people of Jesus' time clearly understood that a person who never says a word about the future, can in fact be recognized as a prophet on a particular topic if they properly speak of the present or past.

John 4:18-19
Matthew 26:67-68

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

A Prophet is to Speak What they Hear God say. To give us something to say. To give us something to do.
It does not matter if it is something we like believe or do not like or disbelieve........it does not change what the prophet has said. There is a blessing when you take a prophets word as truth.......A huge problem today is that too many Christians are dwelling within the human reasoning thing and can not grasp the spiritual things of God or His written word.

 

[About the Son of God]

Amen !! 1Corinthians 2, whole chapter ??

But, here (in bible study), at least -- I hope we are not talking about merely human wisdom which knows nothing of God at all, but rather find ourselves in a place where we recognize that people 'rationalize' and do things for petty and wrong (human) reasons; but that reasoning itself is the tool and the very pedagogy by which many do in fact come to Christ more fully for appropriate reasons -- if not perfected ones.

Are you mentioning human reason for some specific purpose or are you hoping we take another path for bible study, here?, eg: when a bias toward spiritual 'enlightenment' is encouraged more freely in places like the Foundation of Faith forum? :wink...

I'm thinking -- reasoning human beings are assuredly not wrong coming to a scripture study forum, are they ? -- eg: so long as it is not merely human reasoning unenlightened by faith. God is, after all, not the author of confusion who endowed us with the gift of reasoning just to have us always throw it out the door at the first good or bad feeling we encounter....

I am rather hoping to find people here who might want to study a bit about history, and the different senses of scripture, things like: Literal meaning vs. anagogical meaning; and allegory, and typological meanings; cf: like Paul does in Galatians 4:23-25, etc.

@4afaihfulone , as the thread's instigator, sort of laid down her preference to study non-literal interpretations when she said:

I don’t believe that the fruit on these trees are actually like apples or oranges, but attributes.

We of course, have to start from the literal meaning; as the literal meaning is the 'form' or 'template' from which the other kinds of reasoning can be abstracted -- and that's where we get in trouble.... for in this thread; we really haven't decided even if there was one tree or two separate trees in the 'midsts' of the Garden, and that severely limits what else we can accurately say by any other form of reasoning.

For example:
If there is only one tree, (but perhaps multiple fruits), then does 4afaithfulone's comment that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil does NOT make the woman wise, jive with the comment that the fruit of the tree of life DOES make one wise?

NO, you have misunderstood me. I said that we agree that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil DOES NOT make one wise.

Wisdom is what the fruit of the tree of life gave.

How do you harmonize these views?

I tried to point out that there is nothing in the scriptures, which all bibles agree to, which even supports that any fruit granted any true wisdom at all (Greek Sophia). eg: Look at the original languages underlying Genesis 3:6, and you won't find wisdom in any of the early Greek manuscripts; rather you will find κατανοήσαι ; http://studybible.info/interlinear/Genesis 3:6 -- A word which is vaguely talking about something underlying knowing, or perhaps as Strong's numbers says -- 'contemplating' ... It's not a word which means wisdom in itself in the sense of philosophy, or the Greek word "sophia".

What imparts wisdom, as far as I can tell, is the law itself. eg: what God spoke to Adam. It's not the automatic result of an experience of any fruit or metaphorical fruit. Look carefully at what scripture also says: Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. ( http://studybible.info/interlinear/Psalms 19:7 )

Note that the word in the Greek is indisputably a version of "sophia", eg: The English equivalent clearly is: "wisdom".
God, as Father, gave the law to his children in order to impart wisdom. But the law merely teaches what must be done, as a pedagoge.

If you prefer to compare the Hebrew, then notice that Genesis 3:6 has הַשְׂכִּ֔יל -- but Psalm 19:7 has a different word מַחְכִּ֥ימַת .
I'm not a Hebrew expert, and prefer the Greek since it has always been in Christian hands since the time of Jesus, whereas the same can not be said of the Hebrew texts we have; eg: Many versions of the Hebrew texts have been lost, and some versions less friendly to Christianity have been maintained even in the KJV, even when it can be proven that they differ from readings used by Paul in his day. But even so, the Hebrew words for these two passages -- although translated as "wisdom" in both passages, are different words -- which I think means that it's probable that further word study would reveal that, just like the Greek, the Hebrew might not really even support that Eve was really after true "wisdom" in the first place, but that some nuance is involved.

So, I'm not sure how to even approach 4afaithfulone's comment that a fruit (any fruit) does grant wisdom.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Whoa! :shock This is the reason I am loving people's threads. I have to re-trace my footsteps in the Word.

Revelation 22:1-2 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
If you count those crops...there are 9.......if you add the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...3 9+3=12 Life giving, from the tree.

 

[About the Son of God]

Whoa! :shock This is the reason I am loving people's threads. I have to re-trace my footsteps in the Word.

Amen.

Revelation 22:1-2 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Quick note: the definite article ("the") quoted in your "[the] tree of life" is a translators insertion, and isn't in any original languages of the scriptures which I just checked. The original sentence is probably more properly translated as, "a tree of life, bearing twelve crops"... because "The" tree of life has multiplied into more than one since the time of Genesis, though their root may be the same these tree-of-life's in Revelation are not a completely single tree any more.

hmm.... When two different prophets see the same image, it's interesting to compare them so see how they describe the exact same place differently:

So, try reading Ezekiel 47:1-2 and Ezekiel 47:12, and compare it to Revelation 22:1-2.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
If you count those crops...there are 9.......if you add the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...3 9+3=12 Life giving, from the tree.

Trees of life, in allegorical logic, turn out to be persons; therefore, the fruits which contain their seeds in them, are the distilled or concentrated product of a person's life which can either be eaten (food) for another person's life, or sprouted to begin a new life.

For example, in one allegorical interpretation, Jesus could be the offspring (sprout) of the tree of life in Genesis (and of many just men, including the "stump" of Jesse etc.). So -- very possibly, the tree of life in Genesis could be understood either as Adam, or perhaps to God (YHWH) the 'Father' of Adam; eg: because, as I have said before, In most ancient cultures the tree of life and the local king are interchangeable in meaning.

4afaithfulone nicely demonstrated that type of reasoning by showing us the image of Christ among the menorah, too -- eg: as a ruler/king. in Revelation.

So: Jesus can be considered a tree of life descended from the original Tree of Life, should that tree be considered Adam or God; likewise, Eve was called the mother of all the living when she became the wife of Adam sexually and "joined" to that tree -- and began to beget children; so once she became part of the king, he gives her the same name as the tree of life, eg: "Mother of all the living."

Other arrangements can be made (other allegories), but in general a tree is equivalent to a person.

This causes me to puzzle over your mixture of people and virtues as both being "fruits".
Jesus certainly is a fruit of the tree, inasmuch as the seed in the fruit germinated to become a son/offspring ; (Fruit of the womb). But he is a germinated fruit. Whereas, the Father and Holy Spirit -- those two were never born from anything before them, they are the "first" or "Origin" of all life, and as such -- I think they can only be trees, not fruits.

hmmm... I don't quite see why you see them as 'fruits'.

I'm going give translations from the Greek Old Testament, to try and draw out my point a little bit about the tree of life. If the unusual translation bothers you for any of these passages, we can talk about it a bit; but I am hoping they will be useful for understanding the idea of 'tree-of-life' to the ancient mind, and are more helpful than just the KJV version.

Proverbs 3:18
A tree of life she [wisdom] is, to all those holding her; and to the ones leaning upon her as upon the Lord are safe.

Proverbs 11:30
Out of fruit of righteousness germinates a tree of life, but the lives of lawbreakers are removed at unseasonable times.

Proverbs 13:12
Better is he that begins to help heartily, than he that promises and leads [another] to hope: for a good desire is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
A remedial tongue is a tree of life, and the one keeping it shall be Spirit filled.

The tree of life, for example, might be considered as both the king and his spouse together; so that Proverbs 3:18's tree of life can be understood as the church, as well as the Groom (Lord), for a Christian holds also the female of Christ, eg: leans on their church (Church = the tree as a whole, including the woman, but God as YHWH or Lord is the Tree as a trunk/vine/source/ or root. ). cf: Colossians 2:6-7

Proverbs 11:30 shows that, as I mentioned, the fruit of a tree can begin a new life; just as Jesus is a new tree of life which is born from Adam and Eve; and ultimately, from the Father. Righteousness or "way" of life, then, is also a "tree" or a person.

Proverbs 13:12 is obscure -- but I want to note that 'hope' is a good desire, and therefore a product of a tree of life is hope, eg: which can be 'eaten' by faith.

And proverbs 15, shows indirectly how the one holding the tree (grafted into/attached to) shares the Spirit; eg: Spirit being life, and the life is in the 'blood' for animals, is analogously found in the sap/syrup of a tree or vine. A person rooted, or grafted, into the tree of life is filled with Spirit much as a plant is filled with sap/syrup/sugar/etc.

Now, that I have all the pieces of scripture in the post -- I can finally come to my point, and question for you:
When I look at Galatians 5:22, I'm puzzled -- For, I think it must certainly be an incomplete list ; but how did you come to the conclusion that there should be 12 fruits in Galatians 5:22 in the first place ?

Paul does list Faith, and Love, in Galatians 5:22 -- and I absolutely KNOW that by the definition of Faith, that Hope too must also be a fruit of the Spirit. Eg: we know Faith always goes together with "hope" and "love" as an equal...
1Corinthians 13:13, Hebrews 11:1

So when Paul lists both faith and love, then -- automatically -- I would expect hope to be a fruit found in that list too, eg: by default. So, I don't have much trouble thinking Paul's list is meant to be selected examples, and not an exhaustive list; but although I do people use synonyms in order to make the list come out to 12 fruits, just like you tried to ; I've never seen anyone insert persons there before, or show how Paul derived his list in the first place.

What I have seen is things like:
Goodness is a synonym for generosity, so instead of listing one or the other -- some bibles list both;
and self control in a sexual sense is what modesty, and chastity or "continence" are all about -- so sometimes I see "self control, modesty, and chastity" listed as if there were three different fruits -- although, they are really the specific examples of the fruit called "self control".

So, people and some bibles do try to make a list of 12 fruits;
But, how or why did you come to associate the 12 fruits of Revelation with the passage in Galatians?

As far as I know, the trees in Revelation could be producing 1 kind of fruit 12 times, but once a month; or it could be 12 trees of life ( or a vine with branches) representing the 12 tribes of Israel (12 rulers) each producing 9 or 10 different fruits. (and 10 is a Good Godly number.)

So, explain a little more -- how do you see the relationship between the trees and Galatians ?

 

[LovethroughDove]

So, people and some bibles do try to make a list of 12 fruits;
But, how or why did you come to associate the 12 fruits of Revelation with the passage in Galatians?

As far as I know, the trees in Revelation could be producing 1 kind of fruit 12 times, but once a month; or it could be 12 trees of life ( or a vine with branches) representing the 12 tribes of Israel (12 rulers) each producing 9 or 10 different fruits. (and 10 is a Good Godly number.)

So, explain a little more -- how do you see the relationship between the trees and Galatians ?

Heaven wouldn't be heaven if the fruits of the Spirit, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit......weren't the focus. This is how life eternal is achieved. If earth had only this tree giving it's fruit, then earth would be heaven.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Heaven wouldn't be heaven if the fruits of the Spirit, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit......weren't the focus. This is how life eternal is achieved. If earth had only this tree giving it's fruit, then earth would be heaven.

Romans 8 Describes how Life (tree of life) works.

 

[About the Son of God]

Heaven wouldn't be heaven if the fruits of the Spirit, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit......weren't the focus. This is how life eternal is achieved. If earth had only this tree giving it's fruit, then earth would be heaven.

? I've totally lost your train of thought. 2

How can the Holy Spirit be a fruit of himself ? or where does the idea that the persons of the trinity are fruits of the Spirit come from, biblically or from any of the early creeds in Christianity (eg: TOS of the site mentions creeds, so I'm trying to figure out if you are looking at one I haven't seen ? )

As far back as the constantiople creed, in 381 -- it was said that the Spirit comes from the Father and not the other way around, eg: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, and Who spoke from the prophets."

When talking about God, the early Christians agreed that Father is the source (origin) of The Holy Spirit. Everyone also knew, and no one debated, that a Father is the source of a son. The very word 'Father' implies a child or 'a something' which came from them; But the Holy Spirit, which means 'life breath', was never considered to have preceded before the Father but only proceded (eg:away) from the Father. Some doubted as to whether the Spirit Came from the son, through the son, or the son sent the spirit; but it was never the case that any christian denomination in early history could be said to have doubted that the Spirit came/was sent from *at least* from the Father. In later creeds, the Holy Spirit would be said to come from the Father and the Son -- but never in reverse.

I don't have a problem, as I mentioned, with the Son -- through the incarnation/enfleshing becoming "Jesus" -- that Jesus in the flesh be called a fruit of the womb, or a fruit of the Spirit. For scripture says, Luke 1:35 "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy child shall be called Son of God."

But, I don't understand where the idea that the Father was ever a 'fruit' comes from:

I also am not sure why Earth would be heaven if all three Father, Son, and Spirit were 'giving their fruit' or what that has to do with them 'being' Fruits. It's totally fine that a 'tree' (Father Son and Spirit) would give fruit. Trees do produce fruit -- but I'm thinking that a tree, itself, is not a fruit ?
.
Romans 8, as far as I can tell, is talking about how our life exists when we are grafted into the tree of life ; so, I assume Romans 8 is speaking as if we were already receiving eternal life from the Spirit. The death of the body, notwithstanding ; for we can die in the flesh, but be alive to Christ. So, I ...um.. still don't quite follow your thinking clearly.

Heaven is certainly focused on Father, Son, and Spirit -- as you indicate; and I agree that these three together are the creators of life and it's source and summit in heaven. eg: They both have and *are* life most fully. But the rest of what you said is sort of confusing to me.

 

[LovethroughDove]

[QUOTE="About the Son of God, post: 1067878, member: 4152

But, I don't understand where the idea that the Father was ever a 'fruit' comes from: [/QUOTE]

That does sound weird. I guess if I am talking about the Holy Spirit I automatically lump the Father with the Spirit. As Romans 8:2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

So, if we are talking about "fruits of the Spirit". The fruits of the Spirit show that you have the Spirit and the Father and the Son.

When we talk about life, I see life in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I don't think I can do any justice to trying to explain. I feel as if we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with us now. John 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Then, their life giving attributes will follow us into glory.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

[Leah781]

In the garden of Eden there was many trees with all kinds of fruit good for our eating. But one that God put in the middle or midst of the garden was called the Tree of life.
Another that was a forbidden tree called, the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil ,who’s fruit would make one to be like a god.
What do you think the Tree of life’s fruit was to produce?

I just recently heard a really good explanation of the tree of knowledge

Very good, but do you think that it was just a health tree, like the rest of the trees which were for our food which obviously we know they have vitamin's and minerals for our well being too right? Or could there be something else more important that the fruit of this tree had, that would help us to live forever by?

I believe that both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge did exist in the Garden of Eden, but they represented something symbolic. As far as the tree of knowledge it represented God’s right as creator to determine what is good and bad. Eating the fruit from that tree was an act of rebellion against God’s right to rule. Adam and Eve decided on that day to choose for themselves what was good and bad in their own eyes.

So it seems that if Adam and Eve had remained obedient to their Creator, God would in time have permitted them to eat from the tree of life as a symbol of them having proved worthy to live forever.