TLC

Seems most want a law to live by, to appear (or feel) more righteous... Do you know that the harlots in the pagan temples in Corinth shaved their heads? Made it easy to identify them. And by the way, hair is the covering Paul speaks of. (Not the hijab... unless maybe you have a shaved head, and don't care to be mistaken for a harlot.)

It only started there, because of the (strange, and unexpected) linking of the "overthrow" to Genesis 3:15. Strange and unexpected, as I don't recall ever hearing anything like that from vpw or twi. Yeah, I got that. No problem. I simply had more interest in the concept itself. So, if you still have your refutation of his position, I would be interested in reading it (to see how directly it might - or might not - address the general concept.)

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.

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.

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?

So are a great many (other) things in this life, wayside. Most of which are such a big circle, we simply tend not to see where ends meet.

Of course. But, stop and think about what the question was. IF you really think and believe that what Paul wrote is scripture (and some do not, obviously), then the only possible right answer is "when it was written." It only becomes a piece or part of "the Bible" if or when canonized. The task of canonization was merely trying to determine what did or didn't qualified as scripture, not to suddenly "transform" ordinary writings into scripture.

I don't disagree. However, just because something is "self validating" doesn't automatically make it (or mean that it's) impossible for anyone to validate it unto or for themselves. What any of us might accept as validation can vary. Personally, I find this rather hard to dispute or argue against:

Neither was Paul.

Seriously? Then evidently you don't think or believe that Peter wrote 2Peter.

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.

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."

When they were written, naturally. Think Peter would have had any different answer?

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/

"only missing the truth of Jesus Christ"? Care to explain what he missed and you (or someone else) didn't?

Is anything ever said (or thought) to be lost if you have never had it (or have never thought you had it)? How can or do you loose something that you may have never had? Maybe this thread is premature in asking whether something can be lost, when there appears to be such a struggle knowing (much less understanding) what it is that's supposedly "found."

Okay, maybe it became lost in the woodwork here (because it was quoted from some other 'non-doctrinal' thread), so I'll say it again. Paul very openly declared himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above? Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had. However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us can (if so drawn) 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. Seems 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.)

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.