The Two Trees: Literal or Figurative?

A lot is written in and outside of Orthodoxy, which treat the tree of life and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil as merely metaphors. Though to some extent this is
useful in classifying one's tendencies and avoiding the result of eating the second tree,
this kind of thing is the result of first of all Clement of Alexandria and then even worse
Origen, who were too influenced by pagan philosophy and speculation and gnostic
dislike of the physical. Origen was popular with some of the Patristic writers, but
after his and their deaths was condemned. It wasn't just pre existence of souls or
apokatastasis it was a laundry list. Condemned also was Evagrius Ponticus, of great
influence on monasticism (who did a kind of systems analysis of sin and virtue which
is useful, but wrote a book that got him in trouble later). The general attitude of
preferring allegory to concreteness is a problem. Paul used this approach only once,
it is not useless but subsequent writers went whole hog on this.

Modern Orthodoxy shies away from original sin, usually limiting this to us sharing
in Adam's guilt for his personal sin, but sometimes going so far as to deny an inherent
warp in us inherited from him and idiot Romanides saw sin as the result of fear of
death when only some sins come from this, and in general it is the other way around.

The Sin of Adam by Symeon the New Theologian has none of this nonsense which
resembles liberal protestant and "enlightenment" thought more than historic Orthodoxy.

Sure, we do sort of act as accessories after the fact once our sin nature manifests as
personal sins. The problem is the sin nature, as some call it, inherited from Adam.
Some manifest it more than others, all in different ways.

If Adam and Eve were inherently immortal what was that tree of life for? They were
kicked out of the garden and a cherubim with a flaming sword placed to keep them
from getting at it, lest they eat and live forever. One could argue that they would age
but not die and the tree of life would renew them. Once under the curse of death to
come on in the day they ate it (one day is as a thousand years and vice versa in God's
sight, and no one lived a full thousand years after that), the aging would result in
death, and the tree of life would prevent this.

Having eaten the fruit, like any food it became a part of them. part of their souls and
spirits. Traducianism rejected officially by Roman Catholicism was never rejected by
Orthodoxy, merely forgotten under western influence. St. Paul takes it for granted
in Hebrews when he explains how Levi paid tithes to Melchizedec when Abraham
did so because still in Abraham's loins, ergo the levitical priesthood is inferior to
the Melchizedec priesthood (of Jesus).

This would have soul material as well as physical material inherited from the parents.
Makes sense. It also is the only coherent explanation for the inheritance of a warped
nature.