TLC

And that's what he was asking to have - make that "especially" so - brought to him a few verses later?

Is there a difference, or any distinction being made, between being "All-Knowing" and knowing all that can be known?

mmmm.... trust me, you don't. Being the gardener that I am, once that little fellow pops up out of the ground my thoughts are on the plant itself. Not the seed it came from.

Personally, I didn't think (and don't believe) he was bluffing. But for any that might have (or still want to) accuse him of such, when he lays his cards on the table for all to see in Gal. 1:10-24, it looks to me like it's "read 'em and weep."

a rather different perspective. (missing word was corrected by editing previous post. thanks for pointing it out.) No, but I glanced through your link. You wouldn't like my opinion of it (nor of your proposal of the opening chapters of Genesis being a creation myth.) Probably not much at all. So what? Discussions wander at times, often bringing up or bouncing around other equally (sometimes more) interesting thoughts.

I guess I'm a bit puzzled as to why Geer (or anyone else, for that matter) would see that as some kind of "overthrow" happening in Genesis 3. I simply presumed that most here (especially those familiar enough with what was taught in twi) would see that as the fall of Lucifer (and not the fall of man.) Furthermore, it seems I also have a rather different perspective on this whole notion of what God might or might not have known in light of freewill, and I can't quite grasp what it is they think they're going to gain by pushing that into Genesis 3. For instance, I'm inclined to think it takes far, far greater wisdom (and omniscience, if you prefer) to allow for "every possibility" and still know that things will end up exactly as they're supposed to, rather than simply having "only one way" by which every single thing must go. So I suppose God had that all planned out (in His own mind, so to speak) before Gen.1:3. However, I would agree that a whole lot of doctrinal mistakes and missteps have been made as a result of the misunderstandings and the guesswork that has taken place right here in Genesis 3... so much so, it's as if it's designed that way - to purposefully confound and fool puffed up minds and the (egotistical) intelligentsia of mankind. The original sin? Well, seems I just don't agree with what a lot other theologians have said about it. (And especially not with vpw or anything else I've every heard come out of twi.)

Writing a book and calling it The Theology of Paul the Apostle is, in and of itself, rather ballsy. Of course, not having read it, there isn't much to critique about it beyond what wee bit Steve has quoted from it. However, that said, I'm not of the opinion that his perception and usage of this phrase "the last Adam" necessarily matches or aligns well with that of Paul's... namely because I see it differently. Of course, maybe it's my view of it that's wacky. But in my mind, Adam (by nature of his very name) was made of the dust of the ground. As the first was, so also was "the last." Until changed. Changed? What changed? mmmmmm... yeah. really good question. but, not so easy to answer. To get any kind of handle on that, it only makes sense to me to grasp what the similarities were between these two. What did they start life with. What path do they take? How and/or where does it end? Well, to summarize it, the first man Adam turned away and looked at life in the flesh and became what he saw (and hence, is said to have been made "a living soul.") The last Adam, looked away from life in the flesh and became what he saw (and hence, was made a quickening spirit.) In other words, I think they both changed from the vantage point they started with. The first Adam is known to us (more or less) as, the man of dust. The last Adam (who like the first, was made of dust) is past, and at his resurrection became "the second man" (aka, the Lord from heaven.) Consequently, I simply do not see "the exalted Christ in the image of the last Adam." Rather, he is "the second man." Very distinct and very different from Adam (first or last), which were made of dust. Likewise, I do not equate the last Adam with life-giving spirit. That is reserved in its entirety for the second man, the Lord from heaven. But, blend them together if you must. Just don't ask or expect anyone else to be able to understand it or make good sense out of it. Without a clear demarcation of the change that occurred with his resurrection, it will undoubtedly remain a fuzzy (and at times, quite confusing) portrayal of what I evidently think Paul's thoughts might have been on it. But, whom am I, or what do I know? Ain't no PhD or any such branding behind my name. Might be just some loose screws rattlin' 'round inside my head.

If whatever was (in Gen.1:1) was overthrown, then a new foundation became necessary. In light of that, I really don't see that it makes much (if any) difference if both are thought to be referring to something occurring between Gen,1:1 and 2:4.

hadn't read anything there before, but the following post from Tzaia on page 3 of that thread stirred up a response from me... so I thought that I might just as well copy it to this thread in doctrinal:

I'd never seen or read it prior to Waysider's link to it. That said, maybe it's worth putting a copy my previous post over in the doctrinal thread (if I can figure how to do it easily enough...)

Seems it does indeed come to that. Furthermore, there is a difference in the message (the gospel) that each spoke. Why the difference? In short, because "things changed." Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period. (If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.) Whereas Paul very openly declares himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Why take Paul's word to be (as Jesus Christ's was during his ministry) "the word of God"? It's not the only one, but maybe one of the best reason is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. So, I take issue (and exception) with your statement that "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself." However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us must garner for ourselves. What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else. Just like no one else's would for me. We each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)

It's interesting how any of us shape or define what success is or means. Frankly, I can't for sure tell by that what your view of it is. Perhaps I should have more carefully spoke of intelligence as it relates to spiritual perception. Seeing (or at least giving consideration to) what God's perspective on something might be, and not just what mankind might agree to call ethical, moral or intelligent.

Yeah, well. It actually might not be as extreme as you seem to think. As far as I can tell, there's a pretty large number of folk that think and call themselves Christian that would just as soon cut Paul's epistles out of the Bible, especially among those that are called (or viewed as being) "non-dispensationists." Personally, I don't think the gospel that Paul preached ever matched or synchronized very well with the gospel preached by James, the 12 apostles, and the church based in Jerusalem, even after Acts 15. Matter of fact, there's an interesting (but misunderstood and/or overlooked) verse in Phil.1:10 that refers to certain "things that are different." Of course, it doesn't help any that it was translated as "excellent" rather than "different."

While it certainly may shape certain views on eschatology, it is not actually about eschatology (much less, "only" about it.) Some here adamantly contend that dispensationalism itself is a modern invention. However, it's hard to get around the fact that Paul rather plainly speaks of "a dispensation of the gospel" (aka, the dispensation of the grace of God) that was committed to him, to "fulfill the word of God." Perhaps what we see that meaning depends on a bit on how oikonomia is perceived or understood. Personally, it makes perfectly good sense to think of it as an economy. There's a complexity to it when the layers are peeled back (to reveal the work of God.) Yet, on a much simpler note, it's a mere matter of what does or doesn't work at (or during) a particular point (or time.) One of the biggest pitfall (as I see it) to thinking in terms of an economy, is thinking of it in terms of (physical) wealth or well being rather than in terms of spiritual health & prosperity. The gospel (i.e., "good news") of an oikonomia is not focused on how to be kings or princes of the world. I think another somewhat obvious weakness to it is that, generally speaking, economies are more inclined to change by evolution, rather than being "dispensed" (from above) by revelation. BTW, I'm also not of the persuasion that the oikonomia of grace started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. If Paul says it was given to him, then by golly, so be it. He pretty much says he was first saved by it, in 1Tim.1:15. (Check out the real meaning of that word "chief." I just don't see it meaning that he was the biggest or worst sinner ever saved.) Furthermore, neither do I think the birth of Jesus Christ or the start of his ministry coincide with the start of some different oikonomia than the one that was already in place. His life and his ministry here on earth was specifically to Israel, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (even as so clearly and plainly stated in Romans 15:8.)

I knew there was better...

Maybe the phrase in and of itself wasn't as much the issue as the body language that went along with it. (And yeah, I think we've had enough experience with "Pollyanna's" over the years to spot the difference between someone possibly having an exceptionally pleasant day and those that reside in "la la land.") Perhaps you missed the actual intent (or reason) for my post, which was merely to show the extreme difference that can exist in the way people think (not an assessment or judgment on either) and the difficulty in communicating that results from it. Maybe there's a better example of it, but that (recent experience) is what came to mind.

Okay, you have kids. So do I (but maybe older than yours.) Do you know how many younger folks (in sales, mind you) can't make change in their heads if you hand them a 20? They've become so reliant on a machine telling them the answer, they don't bother even trying to figure it out. And, just about like a muscle in the body, when nerve cells (perhaps I should say, neural pathways) in the brain aren't used (repeatedly), they can atrophy. Matter of fact, there have been experiments done (on animals, of course) that have shown if one eye is covered up at an early developmental stage in life, the brain becomes "wired" to operate with the one eye, and the effect (or damage, really) is irreversible. The animal(s) ended up being permanently blind in the eye that was covered. (However, this did not have the same effect in adult animals, even when the eye was covered for longer periods of time.) For sure knowledge has, and will continue to increase. (I thought that was rather clear in my previous post.) And I don't disagree that this increase in knowledge will offer tremendous benefits to mankind and the future. Computers (and cell phones, which have greater and greater computing power every year) are fueling this tremendous explosion in knowledge, and capabilities of both the individual, and society as a whole. The amount of information (i.e., knowledge) nearly instantly available at our fingertips has become astronomical. And there is little doubt that it is putting more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. But the point is... who or what will all these advancements and benefits be attributed to? (And just how "intelligent" or smart it that, really?) Yeah, it's a sign of the times alright, make no mistake about it.

Might I suggest a simple experiment for you? Take a bean seed (which are all nice and big, nearly any kind will do) and plant it in a small pot or cup of dirt. Water it and keep the soil relatively moist for 3 or 4 weeks. Presumably, it will germinate and a little bean plant will have risen up out of the dirt. Okay, now go ahead and dig up the dirt around it and see if that bean seed is still there somewhere. Let's try looking at this from another angle. Do you see or think of yourself as your father's seed? Surely each of us were, and in a certain sense one might even say of themselves, "I am my father's seed." Is that literally true now? Do you see of think of yourself as a wee little sperm, with a wiggly tail? Of course not. Maybe you get the point. Or, maybe not. You tell me. But as I see it, seed is seed. It dies. It becomes something new. And when it does, it's no longer actually seen or thought of as "seed," except in a historical (or history looking forward) sense.

Sometimes people's thinking process seems to be on such different wavelengths (as appears to be the case here), communication between them is virtually impossible. For instance, the other day I said to the person that happen to sit next to me at a church barbecue (second attempt to engage in friendly conversation with them), "It sure is nice weather...," which prompted the immediate (canned) response of, "Yes, it's a gift of God..." which was the second time for what struck me between the eyes as... way, Way, WAY too pious for me to continue with. So, if you're perfectly content seeing (most) everything good as a gift from God, or any improvement in the condition of man as a part, a piece, or another step towards salvation... well, maybe that works just fine for you and your fellowship and believing with the Lord. And that's great, if that's the case. However, it doesn't work for me in my head. Unfortunately, I have to (undoubtedly its part of my background and my genetics) work much harder at it.

You said, "It is by His grace and His gift that is promised." After noting that I understood you intended "it" to be referring to salvation, I asked for clarification on what you thought or meant by "His gift that is promised" (given that it referred rather specifically to salvation.) But, when you ran around the barn and then went out to pasture to pick daisies and sing to the trees, I was quite lost as to what you were doing (and talking about) and pretty much figured you either didn't have a clue what was asked or were purposely avoiding it. (Either one bringing an end to the matter.)

so what?

not really. it's half a dozen ways out of synch with where the conversation is at.

says who? I disagree.

When seed is planted, it dies. I take it you have never farmed, or gardened, or for that matter... know an awful lot about agriculture in general.

I disagree with it.