Could the Dome of the Rock sit where the tree of Evil was?

[Hall7]

 

 

One day there will be a new temple in Jerusalem and it will be built on the spot of the previous temple where the Tree of Life once stood. Whether the Muslim Dome will still be there or not, we don't know, but if it is, there will be two temples standing next to each other!

As somebody looks up at the top of the hill he will see both those temples and whether he realises it or not, he will be looking at two symbols - one representing evil and one representing good. One will represent death, deceit, war and destruction and the other will represent life, truth, peace and salvation.

These two symbolic buildings will be in the same place where two trees once stood many, many years ago.

Maybe so:  

Revelation 22

 ¹⁴ “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. ¹⁵ Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

[OakWood]

 

An interesting point, but are you sure that it is not just the semantics of translation?

 

1/ God said that Adam and Eve could eat from all trees (except the Tree of KoGaE). He never forbid eating from the Tree of Life.

 

2/ Why in the future new Earth would a tree have to keep spawning fruit regularly, if it gave immortality with one sample?

 

3/ I agree that the word 'also' can suggest that Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life before, but it can also suggest that God does not also want them to keep eating from it.

 

4/ Why would Adam have to 'return to dust' if he hadn't been immortal already?

 

But you do have a very good point which I have never thought about before.

 

 

 

This is just my opinion. 

 

I don't know why God wasn't concerned with the Tree of Life. All I know is that eating from the Tree of Life only gives eternal life. Nothing would change other than you would live forever. Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil changes everything. With the knowledge gained from that tree you now have a mind of your own. You have emotions that weren't there before.

 

Immediately after eating the fruit Adam was shamed because of his nakedness. That shame caused him to do something that he wouldn't have done prior to eating that fruit.....he hid from God.

 

I don't know what God had in store for Adam and Eve had they not eaten that fruit. All I know is that God didn't want them going near the Tree of Life. Returning to the dust of the earth didn't come until after the fall. One could assume had they listened to God, they might have lived forever. I don't know.  

 

 

 

The Tree of Life of the New Earth. There's more than one tree. 

 

 

Revelation 22

2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

 

 

I see at least 3 trees there. Twelves fruits are mentioned, so either each tree is producing 4 different fruits or there are more trees. I don't know. 

 

The trees producing fruit indicates that the trees are living, they're alive. The only part of the tree that mentions being used are the leaves. 

 

Death was swallowed up prior to this. Anyone not cast into the Lake of Fire has eternal life. There would be no need to keep eating the fruit.

 

 

As I said, it's just my take. 

 

 

You're right and I noticed that when I read the verse, but my point was that the Tree of Life stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. I was trying to back up my argument by claiming that the New Jerusalem would also have a Tree of Life (although there are more than one).

I don't think it matters too much whether Adam had already eaten from the Tree of Life or not, whether you need to keep eating from it or whether you eat only once, I still think that there is a symbolism to the Jewish Temple, the Dome of the Rock and the two trees on the hill.

Also I don't find any mention of a tree of knowledge in the New Jerusalem. Why? Well because there will be no need of it. It has already served its purpose, plus God will not want to have anything in his new world that symbolises evil.

[Guest man]

 

You're right and I noticed that when I read the verse, but my point was that the Tree of Life stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. I was trying to back up my argument by claiming that the New Jerusalem would also have a Tree of Life (although there are more than one).

I don't think it matters too much whether Adam had already eaten from the Tree of Life or not, whether you need to keep eating from it or whether you eat only once, I still think that there is a symbolism to the Jewish Temple, the Dome of the Rock and the two trees on the hill.

Also I don't find any mention of a tree of knowledge in the New Jerusalem. Why? Well because there will be no need of it. It has already served its purpose, plus God will not want to have anything in his new world that symbolises evil.

 

 

 

Supposing you're right, what is the significance of knowing this?

[OakWood]

 

 

You're right and I noticed that when I read the verse, but my point was that the Tree of Life stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. I was trying to back up my argument by claiming that the New Jerusalem would also have a Tree of Life (although there are more than one).

I don't think it matters too much whether Adam had already eaten from the Tree of Life or not, whether you need to keep eating from it or whether you eat only once, I still think that there is a symbolism to the Jewish Temple, the Dome of the Rock and the two trees on the hill.

Also I don't find any mention of a tree of knowledge in the New Jerusalem. Why? Well because there will be no need of it. It has already served its purpose, plus God will not want to have anything in his new world that symbolises evil.

 

 

 

Supposing you're right, what is the significance of knowing this?

 

 

I actually don't know to be honest with you, that's why I put it up for discussion. Sometimes other people can shed more light on things. I just want to understand God's word better and as we approach End Times sometimes it's useful to know things. Of course, I could be mistaken and I could have just jumped to a stupid conclusion, but hopefully others may remember this thread and draw their own conclusions from it. Somebody wiser than me may be able to take it further and draw more out of it.

[other one]

 

At first, Adam and Eve continue to eat from the Tree of Life 

 

 

 

Genesis 3

22Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

 

 

 

 

Adam and Eve never touched the Tree of Life.     

 

I never understood that.......    Why they wouldn't eat of that tree first.

[Sevenseas]

 

 

I'm going re-pitch my entire theory again and hopefully there will be no confusion this time:

 

If the Garden of Eden really did stretch from Iraq to Ethiopia then Jerusalem would lie somewhere in the middle. If it didn't then my theory is wrong.

 

 

 

whoops...I'm already confused.  Are you discussing what is actually your theory or are you still referencing a notion of Perry Stones as per your op?

 

You mentionned a video and I thought if there was one, perhaps checking it out might help with understanding?

 

If not...well.....

 

 

My theory is just a theory that's all. It's breakable like any other theory. Perry Stone is not the only person to have suggested that the Tree of Life was located at the site of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. He's the first one I know that expressed it so eloquently. There is a kind of sense that suggests that the temple location was chosen because of its spiritual meaning.

God picked Jerusalem for a reason, I believe. There are many other places in the Middle East that would have made a suitable city for his chosen people.

 

 

 

I do not hold any water to this theory...but do carry on...and I have 0 respect for Perry Stone.,  That's where I stand.  Nothing personal.  Thanks

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I'm going re-pitch my entire theory again and hopefully there will be no confusion this time:

 

If the Garden of Eden really did stretch from Iraq to Ethiopia then Jerusalem would lie somewhere in the middle. If it didn't then my theory is wrong.

 

 

 

whoops...I'm already confused.  Are you discussing what is actually your theory or are you still referencing a notion of Perry Stones as per your op?

 

You mentionned a video and I thought if there was one, perhaps checking it out might help with understanding?

 

If not...well.....

 

 

My theory is just a theory that's all. It's breakable like any other theory. Perry Stone is not the only person to have suggested that the Tree of Life was located at the site of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. He's the first one I know that expressed it so eloquently. There is a kind of sense that suggests that the temple location was chosen because of its spiritual meaning.

God picked Jerusalem for a reason, I believe. There are many other places in the Middle East that would have made a suitable city for his chosen people.

 

 

1.  There is no way to know where the Garden was because the earth's topography was radically altered by the world-wide flood.  Not all of the land that was covered by the deluge recovered.  Much of it is still under water.  Perry Stone is repeating rabbinic theory.  That's where it comes from.  Prophecy teachers parrot each other which is why it appears more than one person is saying the same thing.  The Rabbis see, specifically the Holy of Holies as being the precise location of the tree of life.

 

2.  Temple imagery of the cherubim hearken back to the cherubim that guarded access to the tree of life.   So to be consistent, the temple is not located where the tree of life was located.  Rather it points in the direction of the tree of life.

 

3. The tree of life corresponds to the cross, not to the temple.  The tree that speaks to eternal life is "tree" on which Jesus died.  Perry Stone should be pointing people to the cross, not the temple.

[Guest man]

 

 

At first, Adam and Eve continue to eat from the Tree of Life 

 

 

 

Genesis 3

22Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

 

 

 

 

Adam and Eve never touched the Tree of Life.     

 

I never understood that.......    Why they wouldn't eat of that tree first.

 

 

 

To them, that tree was no different than any other tree in the garden. Their minds were pure. Eternal life meant about as much to them as a birthday party does to a 1 year old. 

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 Perry Stone should be pointing people to the cross, not the temple.

 

 

Amen.  It seems that more people are getting into so called mysticism with regards to how they both read and interpret their Bibles.  I don't think they know these things

have been around for thousands of years.  This is not what the Bible is about and it really helps no one...it takes people's eyes off Christ, off the cross and off the actual

goal of becoming more Christ-like and of serving our Lord in whatever capacity He has placed us.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 Perry Stone should be pointing people to the cross, not the temple.

 

 

Amen.  It seems that more people are getting into so called mysticism with regards to how they both read and interpret their Bibles.  I don't think they know these things

have been around for thousands of years.  This is not what the Bible is about and it really helps no one...it takes people's eyes off Christ, off the cross and off the actual

goal of becoming more Christ-like and of serving our Lord in whatever capacity He has placed us.

 

Perry Stone plays to people who are into sensationalism.  He is always looking for stuff to sensationalize to "wow" people with.  He always has to have a deeper revelation, a new spiritual "zinger" to sell DVDs and so on.  I have found him fudging stuff especially Hebrew, so I put no stock in what he teaches.