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 [?????] 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.)
May I ask, you have a rather WHAT perspective?
At the risk of starting something I may not be able to finish, may I pose that ALL of the first several chapters of Genesis compose what historians (and others) properly categorize as a creation myth. It seems that every ancient culture/religion has one. Myths are not necessarily untrue, they are simply STORIES. Have any of you ever heard or read about cultural literacy?
atraditionalorlegendarystory,usuallyconcerningsomebeingorheroorevent,withorwithouta determinablebasisoffactor anaturalexplanation,especiallyonethatisconcernedwithdeitiesor demigodsandexplainssomepractice,rite,orphenomenonofnature. (quote ends here... not sure how to fix the formatting whackyness that follows)
-----------
As such, in Genesis, it may be simply and fairly characterized, when people haggle over the meanings of words or the timelines (like in the first seven days spelled out in Gen 1) that they are overthinking, overanalyzing and just plain spinning their wheels.
Further, what does it have to do with Thus Saith Paul?
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.)
3 hours ago, Rocky said:
Further, what does it have to do with Thus Saith Paul?
Probably not much at all. So what? Discussions wander at times, often bringing up or bouncing around other equally (sometimes more) interesting thoughts.
"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. "
I don't think mankind needs the help. Old joke: Two Freudian Psychologists pass each other in the street. "Nice day," says one. "Yes, it is," replies the other. After they pass each other, both wonder "What did he mean by that?"
The "nostalgia for research" article/thread prompted me to contemplate the significance of "inerrancy".
The Way Ministry focused primarily on study of The Pauline Epistles. This was a precedent that was established early in the PFAL class via the introduction of Biblical administrations (Dispensationalism), the concept of observing "To Whom It Is Written" and the idea behind all people belonging to three specific categories. ("Jew, Gentile or Church of God") In addition, it was established early in the PFAL class that what "Holy Men of God" spoke or wrote was tantamount to words directly from God, himself. Thus, we were to consider the contents of The Church Epistles to be equivalent to words from God (Holy Men Of God Spoke.), directly to us (To The Church of God), At one point during the course of the Fellow Laborer program, we were to read Ephesians a minimum of once a day. Then, we were to rehash it at our night twigs every night. Given the rigidness of the schedule we observed, this didn't last long nor were people very consistent in their diligence. That, however, is probably fodder for another topic.
Here is were it gets sticky. Using the aforementioned criteria, it became an accepted "given" that whatever Paul said in Ephesians, Corinthians, etc was the same thing as God saying it directly to us. Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy.
We have heard people say that it's God's will we all speak in tongues (one example) because God said so in "His Word". Did He? Or, was it Paul who made that statement? Question five, of "listening with a purpose", in session eleven, poses the question, "Is it God's will that we all speak in tongues?" According to the answer key, the correct answer is "Yes". But think about it. Who really said "I would that ye all speak in tongues."? Wasn't it, in fact, Paul? Did he really say that "to us" or to a specific group of people two thousand years ago? There are many, many more examples of places where you could insert "Thus Saith Paul."
What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.
Waysider, lots of great points and questions with your posts and others!
I do think TWI / wierwille focused too much on the Pauline Epistles...and I don’t think Paul was a con man ...I tend to give all scripture equal weight in doctrine and practice - and since I left TWI , I try to check out a variety of viewpoints as well as use some common sense in coming by an opinion on something. That goes for doctrine (or theory) but even more important to me is the consequence or practical impact a certain doctrine may generate.
To elaborate on the common sense aspect of my criteria regarding speaking in tongues / manifestations of the spirit- I am sort of a cessationist - don’t think I’ve ever witnessed the real thing - but I think it’s possible God can energize such things as he sees fit...I do think there’s a lot of con men / women out there who capitalize on folks who seek such things...another reason I lean toward being a cessationist goes along with what you said about folks back in Paul’s day not having a way to verify if someone was a legitimate spokesperson for God; I believe the manifestations were part of God’s verification process for that time - maybe going along the lines of Old Testament stuff - if the thing does not come to pass the “prophet” who said it is a false one...I also tend to think if those signs miracles and wonders were so prevalent today as they were in biblical times you wouldn’t need the Internet as much to check out if something was real - just turn on the local news or step out your door and see what’s happening “in your neck of the woods”.
I also wonder if wierwille in his delusions identified with Paul (in his conversion / hearing an audible voice and like Paul counting his Pharisee training and knowledge of the OT as dung / wierwille hauling off his theological library to the dump and dedicating his ministry to reading nothing but “the word “)... and so his delusional fixation necessitated a fabrication of legendary / biblical proportions - that he would be God’s man for teaching “the word” like it hasn’t been known since Paul’s day.
...I can identify with Paul’s conversion too. Riding on my really tall donkey named WTMSTRBTBB (yeah I know hard to pronounce- it stands for wierwille tells me so : the reality behind the Blue Book) - one day I was violently thrown off that dumba$$ when I heard a voice - looking around I saw no one and realized it was my own voice saying “ after all the stuff you’ve found out and figured out - are you still going to follow that con man?” So I said to myself, I said says I “I’m outta here” and once more the voice of common sense said to me “what thou doest do quickly” ...weird...sometimes my common sense speaks in King James.
Paul was educated, is there doubt to that? VPW's credentials are not what he claimed. Paul was actually putting his own thoughts together based on his knowledge and experience and ability and he probably wrote and said a lot more than the epistles. Paul is written about by others who gave account of his deeds, bad and good. What evidence is there that Paul was not inspired by good intentions? Not to mention, Paul's ideas seem to have had some staying power.
The criteria used to show Paul as a possible con-man are criteria set forth by VPW, the plagiarist. Is everyone VPW stole from and misrepresented con-men too?
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."
The entire purpose of rendering it "overthrow" rather than "foundation" (BTW, the Aramaic usages of the corresponding word match "foundation" but not "overthrow") was to support Geer's decision to declare God was not All-Knowing.
This totally reminds me of some bathroom graffiti I read once that said:
"God is dead" - Nietzsche - 1875
Then that was scratched out and over it was written
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.)
LOL... I'm confident that doesn't bother you and it certainly doesn't bother me. Peace. :)
Is there a difference, or any distinction being made, between being "All-Knowing" and knowing all that can be known?
Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.
Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.
Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. (I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did. 'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.)
If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help:
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."
When I read Galatians 1 I don't see it as so cut and dried. You look at Paul's life, and he was a major a-hole and probably like a-hole zealots we may have met in our lives, not caring about human lives in the pursuit of their cause. Trained up under Gamaliel to be OCD about religion. The Pharisees were so pure they organized hierarchies of Pharisees just so they didn't have to touch the common man. (On a side note, the book "Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" that is recommended around here has a great scriptural study of Pharisees involved with it). Then he had the major incident being struck down by the Lord. Now I don't know what that experience was like, but it certainly doesn't seem to be anything normal like you hear about people accepting Christ and their conversion story. And just due to the extremity of Paul's life it would also of necessity have to be extreme to catch his attention. After this, he had minimal contact with other apostles, and went all around the world. Sharing the gospel.
What "gospel" do you think specifically he was talking about? Oh, I'm Paul, I'm inspired thus every thing that comes out of my mouth including all the craziness of my thought life and interaction with God is God-breathed and thus every jot and tittle of it thou must consider as coming from the most High Himself and carry it out without question or you will lose your salvation? Or rather the more simple message of "I was an a-hole, chief amongst them, and Jesus got to me. So there's hope for you regardless of background". Then people got together and did some of the living the life part. But all of that was completely removed from Jerusalem, the apostles there, connection with and leadership, etc. Basically, for the vast majority of the people that Paul ministered to, the interaction consisted of a very short high intensity wonderful period of time, followed by absolutely no contact, and maybe a few years later a letter gets passed to you. As a matter of fact, that is at least a sub-point in the very text we are reading. v22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea in Christ. (Another side point - this is another nail in the coffin of the Way's idea of Household of God - the originator of the term didn't try to impose that culture on his followers).
So if you are extracting some kind of "read em and weep" message out of that, I think that's just you. Because I doubt Paul felt that way about all of those Christians that were in the churches of Judea in Christ. How he felt he wrote. He felt the Christians of the churches of Judea in Christ were part of the body of Christ, where one part may not know what the other is doing, but can't say they have no need of them. I don't see in Paul any aspect of a card game - bluffing, showing cards, read em and weep, anything.
So if you are extracting some kind of "read em and weep" message out of that, I think that's just you. Because I doubt Paul felt that way about all of those Christians that were in the churches of Judea in Christ. How he felt he wrote. He felt the Christians of the churches of Judea in Christ were part of the body of Christ, where one part may not know what the other is doing, but can't say they have no need of them. I don't see in Paul any aspect of a card game - bluffing, showing cards, read em and weep, anything.
Evidently you entirely missed (or have chosen to ignore) the context of that statement, chockful. It related specifically to (and entirely stemming from) "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself."
Evidently you entirely missed (or have chosen to ignore) the context of that statement, chockful. It related specifically to (and entirely stemming from) "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself."
Well, there is a further context of canon of scripture in the discussion. What authority is what scriptural writing, who bestowed that authority, etc.
If you were reacting specifically to another post you felt was too slanted towards "Paul was just a man" I get it. I agree that his statements pretty much show very clearly Paul feels he is inspired by God.
But what does that mean? What degree of fundamentalism is the correct degree? Does "inspired by God" mean that we need to jot and tittle examine the NT like the OT and come up with a corresponding NT Talmud to instruct people how to live?
To me, Greek fans, the Greek for "scribe" in the NT is telling,: grammateus
I agree that his statements pretty much show very clearly Paul feels he is inspired by God.
Seems I have a bit of a different perspective, given I believe there's a bit of difference between inspiration and revelation. It's not necessarily in what they look like, or in the effect either may have. In fact, on the outside, it's probably impossible to see any difference whatsoever. And making it even more difficult, I don't know that it's always possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i.e., inside the mind of the person acting on it.) However, there can be - and are, at times - situations where there is "no guesswork" or mistake about which is which from the inside. In other words, I am fully persuaded that there are times when there is absolutely no uncertainty about something being known only by revelation. It is "as real" and "as sure as"... well, as much as the chin on your own face... or anything else that you'd never think to give so much as a second thought to the "reality" of it.
That said, when I read what Paul wrote in Galatians 1, it's clear to me that Paul was acting on far more than "inspired action." He knew beyond any and all doubt who and where it was from.
Upon whom or what do YOU rely for your definitions or “perspective”, or “understanding” of “inspiration” and “revelation”?
YOU say, “It’s not necessarily in what they look like, or in the effect either may have. In fact, on the outside, it's probably impossible to see any difference whatsoever. And making it even more difficult, I don't know that it's possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i.e., inside the mind of the person acting on it.) However, there can be - and are, at times - situations where there is "no guesswork" or mistake about which is which from the inside. In other words, I am fully persuaded that there are times when there is absolutely no uncertainty about something being known only by revelation. It is "as real" and "as sure as"... well, as much as the chin on your own face... or anything else that you'd never think to give so much as a second thought to the "reality" of it.”
WHAT do “they look like”? WHAT are the “effects that either may have”? WHAT is the “difference” which is “impossible to see”, yet somehow visible to you? If it’s NOT “......possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i. e. inside the mind of the person acting on it.), than why make one? WHAT are those “situations where there is no ‘guesswork’ or mistake about which is which from the inside.”?? Do you sincerely expect serious, logical analysis of your complete vagaries based solely on YOUR claim to be “fully persuaded” that YOU’RE right? It seems to me rather presumptuous on your part to determine for others how real your “full persuasion” should be for all those others, simply because YOU have “no uncertainty” regarding what YOU determine to be “real”? Just asking.......see if you can come up with an answer beside another mindless ad hominem attack. LOL!
Upon whom or what do YOU rely for your definitions or “perspective”, or “understanding” of “inspiration” and “revelation”?
Personal experience. Of course, from your (or anyone else's) perspective, that would appear to be personal opinion.
49 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
WHAT do “they look like”?
The same. (same as I said before.)
50 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
WHAT are the “effects that either may have”?
Whatever purpose or effect the spirit that inspired (or revealed) intended.
52 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
WHAT is the “difference” which is “impossible to see”, yet somehow visible to you?
The difference is not always visible to the brain of the individual experiencing it. (italicized word was added in a correction to my previous post.)
55 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
If it’s NOT “......possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i. e. inside the mind of the person acting on it.), than why make one?
I suspect that it rarely does make any difference. God's prerogative, I suppose.
56 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
WHAT are those “situations where there is no ‘guesswork’ or mistake about which is which from the inside.”??
Those in which there is absolutely no doubt about it's reality, yet ordinarily impossible to experience or know by your senses.
59 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
Do you sincerely expect serious, logical analysis of your complete vagaries based solely on YOUR claim to be “fully persuaded” that YOU’RE right?
If you can relate to it through any of your own personal experiences, yes. But if you can't, then, no... of course not.
1 hour ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
It seems to me rather presumptuous on your part to determine for others
I did not, nor do I, make such presumptions. Fact is, I think you're projecting something of your own character. Are you?
I suspect that it rarely does make any difference. God's prerogative, I suppose.
In Paul's situation, it made the difference between him writing what he did because "he felt like it," or because the ascended Christ [and God] instructed (and authorized) him to do so.
In Paul's situation, it made the difference between him writing what he did because "he felt like it," or because the ascended Christ [and God] instructed (and authorized) him to do so.
The following does not appear (to me) to merely be a man "inspired" to preach what he did, write what he did, and suffer so much as a result of it.
1Cor.9
[17] For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Thank you very much for your answers! Much appreciated. As is the perfect example of jargonized private interpretation. I suppose you’ll say you objectively and logically answered the questions. My only question is, in what language are you writing? LOL!
The following does not appear (to me) to merely be a man "inspired" to preach what he did, write what he did, and suffer so much as a result of it.
1Cor.9
[17] For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Well if you are choosing Corinthians as the ground upon which to stand to make your point, was then Paul not a man to be merely only "inspired" by his strong feelings about women and hair coverings in I Corinthians 11 two chapters later?
Why then is it that no modern Christian women follow his hair recommendations, yet Muslim women all over the world are covering up the head for religious reasons? The hijab is now even in sand volleyball in the Olympics.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
chockfull
I personally think "The Last Adam" would be a tremendous name for a band.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
May I ask, you have a rather WHAT perspective?
At the risk of starting something I may not be able to finish, may I pose that ALL of the first several chapters of Genesis compose what historians (and others) properly categorize as a creation myth. It seems that every ancient culture/religion has one. Myths are not necessarily untrue, they are simply STORIES. Have any of you ever heard or read about cultural literacy?
-
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. (quote ends here... not sure how to fix the formatting whackyness that follows)
-
-
-----------
-
-
As such, in Genesis, it may be simply and fairly characterized, when people haggle over the meanings of words or the timelines (like in the first seven days spelled out in Gen 1) that they are overthinking, overanalyzing and just plain spinning their wheels.
-
Edited by RockyFurther, what does it have to do with Thus Saith Paul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"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. "
I don't think mankind needs the help. Old joke: Two Freudian Psychologists pass each other in the street. "Nice day," says one. "Yes, it is," replies the other. After they pass each other, both wonder "What did he mean by that?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Waysider, lots of great points and questions with your posts and others!
I do think TWI / wierwille focused too much on the Pauline Epistles...and I don’t think Paul was a con man ...I tend to give all scripture equal weight in doctrine and practice - and since I left TWI , I try to check out a variety of viewpoints as well as use some common sense in coming by an opinion on something. That goes for doctrine (or theory) but even more important to me is the consequence or practical impact a certain doctrine may generate.
To elaborate on the common sense aspect of my criteria regarding speaking in tongues / manifestations of the spirit- I am sort of a cessationist - don’t think I’ve ever witnessed the real thing - but I think it’s possible God can energize such things as he sees fit...I do think there’s a lot of con men / women out there who capitalize on folks who seek such things...another reason I lean toward being a cessationist goes along with what you said about folks back in Paul’s day not having a way to verify if someone was a legitimate spokesperson for God; I believe the manifestations were part of God’s verification process for that time - maybe going along the lines of Old Testament stuff - if the thing does not come to pass the “prophet” who said it is a false one...I also tend to think if those signs miracles and wonders were so prevalent today as they were in biblical times you wouldn’t need the Internet as much to check out if something was real - just turn on the local news or step out your door and see what’s happening “in your neck of the woods”.
I also wonder if wierwille in his delusions identified with Paul (in his conversion / hearing an audible voice and like Paul counting his Pharisee training and knowledge of the OT as dung / wierwille hauling off his theological library to the dump and dedicating his ministry to reading nothing but “the word “)... and so his delusional fixation necessitated a fabrication of legendary / biblical proportions - that he would be God’s man for teaching “the word” like it hasn’t been known since Paul’s day.
...I can identify with Paul’s conversion too. Riding on my really tall donkey named WTMSTRBTBB (yeah I know hard to pronounce- it stands for wierwille tells me so : the reality behind the Blue Book) - one day I was violently thrown off that dumba$$ when I heard a voice - looking around I saw no one and realized it was my own voice saying “ after all the stuff you’ve found out and figured out - are you still going to follow that con man?” So I said to myself, I said says I “I’m outta here” and once more the voice of common sense said to me “what thou doest do quickly” ...weird...sometimes my common sense speaks in King James.
Edited by T-BoneTypos clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Paul was educated, is there doubt to that? VPW's credentials are not what he claimed. Paul was actually putting his own thoughts together based on his knowledge and experience and ability and he probably wrote and said a lot more than the epistles. Paul is written about by others who gave account of his deeds, bad and good. What evidence is there that Paul was not inspired by good intentions? Not to mention, Paul's ideas seem to have had some staying power.
The criteria used to show Paul as a possible con-man are criteria set forth by VPW, the plagiarist. Is everyone VPW stole from and misrepresented con-men too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This totally reminds me of some bathroom graffiti I read once that said:
"God is dead" - Nietzsche - 1875
Then that was scratched out and over it was written
"Nietzche is dead" - God - 1900
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Is there a difference, or any distinction being made, between being "All-Knowing" and knowing all that can be known?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
wierwille is dead - Annual A$$hole Status Report of 1985
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
LOL... I'm confident that doesn't bother you and it certainly doesn't bother me. Peace. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. (I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did. 'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.)
If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help:
https://probe.org/god-and-the-future-examining-the-open-view-of-god/
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
When I read Galatians 1 I don't see it as so cut and dried. You look at Paul's life, and he was a major a-hole and probably like a-hole zealots we may have met in our lives, not caring about human lives in the pursuit of their cause. Trained up under Gamaliel to be OCD about religion. The Pharisees were so pure they organized hierarchies of Pharisees just so they didn't have to touch the common man. (On a side note, the book "Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" that is recommended around here has a great scriptural study of Pharisees involved with it). Then he had the major incident being struck down by the Lord. Now I don't know what that experience was like, but it certainly doesn't seem to be anything normal like you hear about people accepting Christ and their conversion story. And just due to the extremity of Paul's life it would also of necessity have to be extreme to catch his attention. After this, he had minimal contact with other apostles, and went all around the world. Sharing the gospel.
What "gospel" do you think specifically he was talking about? Oh, I'm Paul, I'm inspired thus every thing that comes out of my mouth including all the craziness of my thought life and interaction with God is God-breathed and thus every jot and tittle of it thou must consider as coming from the most High Himself and carry it out without question or you will lose your salvation? Or rather the more simple message of "I was an a-hole, chief amongst them, and Jesus got to me. So there's hope for you regardless of background". Then people got together and did some of the living the life part. But all of that was completely removed from Jerusalem, the apostles there, connection with and leadership, etc. Basically, for the vast majority of the people that Paul ministered to, the interaction consisted of a very short high intensity wonderful period of time, followed by absolutely no contact, and maybe a few years later a letter gets passed to you. As a matter of fact, that is at least a sub-point in the very text we are reading. v22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea in Christ. (Another side point - this is another nail in the coffin of the Way's idea of Household of God - the originator of the term didn't try to impose that culture on his followers).
So if you are extracting some kind of "read em and weep" message out of that, I think that's just you. Because I doubt Paul felt that way about all of those Christians that were in the churches of Judea in Christ. How he felt he wrote. He felt the Christians of the churches of Judea in Christ were part of the body of Christ, where one part may not know what the other is doing, but can't say they have no need of them. I don't see in Paul any aspect of a card game - bluffing, showing cards, read em and weep, anything.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Evidently you entirely missed (or have chosen to ignore) the context of that statement, chockful. It related specifically to (and entirely stemming from) "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well, there is a further context of canon of scripture in the discussion. What authority is what scriptural writing, who bestowed that authority, etc.
If you were reacting specifically to another post you felt was too slanted towards "Paul was just a man" I get it. I agree that his statements pretty much show very clearly Paul feels he is inspired by God.
But what does that mean? What degree of fundamentalism is the correct degree? Does "inspired by God" mean that we need to jot and tittle examine the NT like the OT and come up with a corresponding NT Talmud to instruct people how to live?
To me, Greek fans, the Greek for "scribe" in the NT is telling,: grammateus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems I have a bit of a different perspective, given I believe there's a bit of difference between inspiration and revelation. It's not necessarily in what they look like, or in the effect either may have. In fact, on the outside, it's probably impossible to see any difference whatsoever. And making it even more difficult, I don't know that it's always possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i.e., inside the mind of the person acting on it.) However, there can be - and are, at times - situations where there is "no guesswork" or mistake about which is which from the inside. In other words, I am fully persuaded that there are times when there is absolutely no uncertainty about something being known only by revelation. It is "as real" and "as sure as"... well, as much as the chin on your own face... or anything else that you'd never think to give so much as a second thought to the "reality" of it.
That said, when I read what Paul wrote in Galatians 1, it's clear to me that Paul was acting on far more than "inspired action." He knew beyond any and all doubt who and where it was from.
Edited by TLCadded "always" possible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Upon whom or what do YOU rely for your definitions or “perspective”, or “understanding” of “inspiration” and “revelation”?
YOU say, “It’s not necessarily in what they look like, or in the effect either may have. In fact, on the outside, it's probably impossible to see any difference whatsoever. And making it even more difficult, I don't know that it's possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i.e., inside the mind of the person acting on it.) However, there can be - and are, at times - situations where there is "no guesswork" or mistake about which is which from the inside. In other words, I am fully persuaded that there are times when there is absolutely no uncertainty about something being known only by revelation. It is "as real" and "as sure as"... well, as much as the chin on your own face... or anything else that you'd never think to give so much as a second thought to the "reality" of it.”
WHAT do “they look like”? WHAT are the “effects that either may have”? WHAT is the “difference” which is “impossible to see”, yet somehow visible to you? If it’s NOT “......possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i. e. inside the mind of the person acting on it.), than why make one? WHAT are those “situations where there is no ‘guesswork’ or mistake about which is which from the inside.”?? Do you sincerely expect serious, logical analysis of your complete vagaries based solely on YOUR claim to be “fully persuaded” that YOU’RE right? It seems to me rather presumptuous on your part to determine for others how real your “full persuasion” should be for all those others, simply because YOU have “no uncertainty” regarding what YOU determine to be “real”? Just asking.......see if you can come up with an answer beside another mindless ad hominem attack. LOL!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Personal experience. Of course, from your (or anyone else's) perspective, that would appear to be personal opinion.
The same. (same as I said before.)
Whatever purpose or effect the spirit that inspired (or revealed) intended.
The difference is not always visible to the brain of the individual experiencing it. (italicized word was added in a correction to my previous post.)
I suspect that it rarely does make any difference. God's prerogative, I suppose.
Those in which there is absolutely no doubt about it's reality, yet ordinarily impossible to experience or know by your senses.
If you can relate to it through any of your own personal experiences, yes. But if you can't, then, no... of course not.
I did not, nor do I, make such presumptions. Fact is, I think you're projecting something of your own character. Are you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
In Paul's situation, it made the difference between him writing what he did because "he felt like it," or because the ascended Christ [and God] instructed (and authorized) him to do so.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The following does not appear (to me) to merely be a man "inspired" to preach what he did, write what he did, and suffer so much as a result of it.
1Cor.9
[17] For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Thank you very much for your answers! Much appreciated. As is the perfect example of jargonized private interpretation. I suppose you’ll say you objectively and logically answered the questions. My only question is, in what language are you writing? LOL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well if you are choosing Corinthians as the ground upon which to stand to make your point, was then Paul not a man to be merely only "inspired" by his strong feelings about women and hair coverings in I Corinthians 11 two chapters later?
Why then is it that no modern Christian women follow his hair recommendations, yet Muslim women all over the world are covering up the head for religious reasons? The hijab is now even in sand volleyball in the Olympics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab
Are they all not taking Paul's writings with enough levity?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.