Error in Revelation

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Isn’t a redundant mistake, in the book of Revelation, to say that the tree of Life is in heaven, as is mentioned within the text. I take it as misleading.

Isn’t the tree of Life, Jesus crucified, himself–that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life and will not die? Isn’t the tree of life already on earth and not merely in some heavenly domain?

To say that the tree of life is not within man’s grasp, like it does in Revelation, making it an actual tree apart from the being of Christ, is misleading in my mind. I find that Revelation is in error on this account.

 

[svid2]

This should be interesting to follow. Isn’t He both in Heaven and the Eucharist?

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

It is no error.

Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.

This is not referring to Jesus, but to a real tree in paradise. Paradise is not heaven, it’s where Elias and Henoch are living.
If a person were to eat a fruit thereof he would live forever.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

This should be interesting to follow. Isn’t He both in Heaven and the Eucharist?

You forgot the Word too.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

It is no error.

This is not referring to Jesus, but to a real tree in paradise. Paradise is not heaven, it’s where Elias and Henoch are living.
If a person were to eat a fruit thereof he would live forever.

But if I eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man I will live forever. And the son of man was nailed to a tree and raised so all men would be drawn to his flesh and blood. Jesus is the tree of life (on the earth), his flesh and blood is the fruit from that tree. Whoever eats it lives forever. It is parallel to the tree of life in the garden of Eden.

What would I need of a “real tree in paradise” if I have the flesh and blood of the son of man?