I think if one were to listen to Wayne Clapps post twi expose` on "Is hell a place of eternal torment" and his handling of the greek words regarding eternal, age long, cosmos and aeon it certainly throws 'new light' on current thinking.
What's that suppose to be? A "teaser" line of some sort? Care to explain?
It appears there is something in the semantics, and the difference between how we see or use certain vocabulary that we don't seem to agree on. If there is a distinction that can be made between speaking by permission or by command, I would be more inclined to take that to mean speaking by inspiration or speaking by revelation.
If you were to tell me that you wrote a book, I would probably hear that and think... okay, so you wrote a book. But, if you were to say that you were inspired to write a book, my first thought is probably going to be....okay, what inspired you to write it? Maybe it's that association in my own head between "inspired" and "in spirit action" that I'm too hung up on, but I suppose that a great many things are said and done and accomplished by "inspiration." In a certain sense, one might even say (or claim) that everything that is said or done is the result of inspiration. However, that seems to significantly lessen the worth even having or ever using it in our vocabulary. And for the record, I just don't think it is very common to equate someone being "inspired" to say or write something with them being "commanded" to do so. But then, perhaps the "not by commandment" spoken of by Paul relates more to the message itself rather than the messenger.
Yes I agree semantics and vocabulary are some differences.
The whole theopneustos thing - God breathed like in the Way - to me it obscures little nuances like that which you are speaking of. To me that interpretation escalates things into an "all or nothing" type of mindset with scripture and communication from God. Every jot and tittle of Paul is "thus saith the Lord" or it isn't. To me that leads to a scribe mindset that I feel is best described by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay on Self-Reliance when he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". And people with dictionaries of languages they never grew up speaking become ensconced within a mental maze of their own making.
Yes, inspiration and revelation. I use these words more freely now like you would read about in literature or an article, as opposed to being bound to Wierwillian paint-by-numbers holy spirit manifestation definitions. And I view Paul's writings more in freer terms as well.
So as far as me writing books, what would inspire me to write a book would be any of a number of things, all of which are not God telling me to do so. Penworks book Undertow - I read some of what would be considered her inspiration for writing that book. Much of it as writings here are motivated by personal recovery. Nowhere did I read anything in her motivation about God commanding her to write a book or anything. But did God inspire her as she wrote it? I believe so. Did it happen differently for Paul? A heavenly vision appeared and an audible voice said "Paul write to the churches. Here's what to say .... Is your shorthand fast enough to keep up" ? I just don't think it works that way, no offense Joseph Smith and angel Moroni. Humans are made up the same way now as they were when this stuff was written.
I was recently reading II Timothy 3:16 in the American Standard Version (note, not the NEW American Standard Version, which I prefer). I found it interesting that they worded it:
"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."
So in this translation (and not in many others), the impression is not that "All scripture is inspired of God," which is nonsense*, but rather that all scripture inspired by God is useful, implying that there are scriptures not inspired by God.
And here we get to what I think is a significant point (which you folks have been raising) about "semantics."
*That is, what do the Bible's writers mean when they use the word "scripture."
I don't think Paul was referring to his own writings when he talked about scripture being "God-breathed." The preceding verse (context) talks about the sacred writings his readers would have known from the time they were children. THOSE are the "scriptures" of verse 16, not the letter he was writing to them at the time!
A few years back I started a thread about a letter Chris Geer wrote to his followers in the USA (Geer was running the show in Scotland at the time of the massive 1989 TWI split). I called the thread "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." I'll never forget the reaction: people accused Geer of being so arrogant and narcissistic that he would write an actual epistle! The nerve! Meanwhile, that wasn't Geer's word. It was mine. And I was using an old-timey word in jest, because as you all know, an "epistle" is just a letter. That's it. There's nothing magical in the word "epistle" that makes it "The Word Of God Uh."
Same with the Bible's use of "scripture." It just means "writings." We can't assume every time we encounter that word that the writer (or author, or Author, or whatever you want to put as the word there -- lol) is making some ontological statement about the nature of the scribbling.
Not all scripture is God-breathed, obviously. Whether everything written in the Bible is God-breathed is for believers to debate, discuss and decide (naturally, I contend none of it is, but that comes with the territory these days). But I don't think it's appropriate to cite II Timothy 3:16 as evidence that the writer of II Timothy 3:16 believed II Timothy 3:16 is The Word Of God Uh. That, as others have pointed out, would be quite circular.
It was kind of pointless without the teaching set that was being rebutted, so it's rather unfair in that regard.
Unfair or not, I'd still be interested in reading it. If I had to (or for some reason needed to) go listen to what he said about the issue on a Gartmore tape (if it exists there) as a result, maybe I could rummage around for it in some dusty corner of storage (if I even had a ballpark idea where to start looking for it.)
Namely because I think there's some truth to the matter, but not necessarily in how it was presented.
Did it happen differently for Paul? A heavenly vision appeared and an audible voice said "Paul write to the churches. Here's what to say .... Is your shorthand fast enough to keep up" ? I just don't think it works that way...
I'm inclined to agree, but only because it doesn't exactly fit with my own experience or (limited) understanding of how revelation works. It's a difficult (if not outright impossible) thing get into any kind of sensible discussion on how Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) might have (much less, did) received revelation (say nothing of there being an abundance of it given to him.) If there were a reasonable basis for comparison (and quite frankly, I'm not sure that there is), I probably would lean towards the thinking that he just wrote what he clearly knew was right thing to write. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't get a poke in the arm (or some other flash of reality) to get him on task. How it went down is all very speculative. Does it even matter at this point how aware of it he was at that exact moment in time, if it was God at work within him? If anything, I suspect that revelation is much more recognizable in hindsight (if it is at all) then it is when it is actually happening.
I don't think Paul was referring to his own writings when he talked about scripture being "God-breathed."
Maybe, maybe not. However if (or when) thinking in terms of its general biblical usage, does it matter? After all, it was Peter that put his "epistles" on par with "other scripture"
4 hours ago, Raf said:
Same with the Bible's use of "scripture." It just means "writings."
Technically, yes, that is what the word in and of itself means. However, I'm inclined to disagree that fits with its "biblical usage" (unless there's some uniqueness when used with the participle, "the scripture.")
4 hours ago, Raf said:
Whether everything written in the Bible is God-breathed is for believers to debate, discuss and decide
I think WW's posting (and position?) on what Scripture is makes pretty good sense to me. (...hey... kind of like holy spirit and Holy Spirit. Make a distinction with the Capital letter. Big - for biblical usage - and a small letter - for the common vernacular usage of it)
What's that suppose to be? A "teaser" line of some sort? Care to explain?
Sorry, wasn't intended that way but if one was to listen to it ( I think still available on CFFM website ) it is great to see how a logical breaking down and 'putting together' of scriptures relating to any particular topic shows clearly the folly of so many 'teachings' n Christendom. People being tortured eternally in hell is one of many erroneously taught doctrines that put many off believing in A God and or His Word.
Sorry, wasn't intended that way but if one was to listen to it ( I think still available on CFFM website ) it is great to see how a logical breaking down and 'putting together' of scriptures relating to any particular topic shows clearly the folly of so many 'teachings' n Christendom. People being tortured eternally in hell is one of many erroneously taught doctrines that put many off believing in A God and or His Word.
Well, if it could be read, fine. (I can skim crap - if it is, not saying it is or isn't - pretty quickly.)
But to have to listen to it (or watch it on a video) is a real turn off to me unless I know a whole lot more about what it is they're talking about. So, if you can't explain it any better in your own words, I'll have to take a pass. (Besides, I'm just not a big fan of - or believer in - hell anyways.)
Furthermore, I don't even know what the heck the "CFFM" website is, or who they are.
Furthermore, I don't even know what the heck the "CFFM" website is, or who they are.
curiosity getting the better of me, I checked out the website (just to see who they are or what they do.)
and, won't you know, there's video teachings there (many over an hour long...)
started and skipped through a couple.
'bout 15-20 minutes was all I could suffer through.
and in a nutshell... to me they looked as dead as the twi's ever were. (I.e., not a spit's worth of difference, from what I recall. same old, same old...)
The tape series was called "A Pivot Point in History."
The letter was called "A Pivot Point Revisited"
well, I looked, but couldn't find said tapes. perhaps they were some time later in his teachings from Gartmore.
however, I did just find this "open view of God" outline (by Schoenheit) that might have some degree of overlap with it. While I don't completely agree with it (as it seems to allow too much room for discounting the knowledge and/or wisdom of God), I do think that it points towards some things that are probably true, and do have merit.
CES (Schoenheit Lynn and Graeser) articulated the same argument in their book "Don't Blame God," which basically used "He's not omniscient" to blunt the problem of evil.
The argument had more merit than i gave it at the time.
i've come to the conclusion that the chatacter of Yahweh evolved over time. He goes from mighty to omnipotent, from wise to omniscient, from merciful to "light and in him is no darkness at all." Moses wouldn't recognize the God of Paul. Marcion was convinced they were different gods entirely. It's not at all difficult to see why.
Omniscience is both scripturel, in my opinion, and untenable. But i don't think the Bible has a single answer to the question of What Did God Know and When Did She Know It? Yahweh in Genesis is not all knowing.
That's my opinion of what scripture says, offered here as an explanation that i can see where Geer and CES were coming from now that I no longer need to reconcile contradictory scriptures and claim One Consistent Message (tm).
CES (Schoenheit Lynn and Graeser) articulated the same argument in their book "Don't Blame God," which basically used "He's not omniscient" to blunt the problem of evil.
The argument had more merit than i gave it at the time.
i've come to the conclusion that the chatacter of Yahweh evolved over time.
If interpreting that to mean man's perception of Yahweh evolved over time, or maybe even how Yahweh chose to reveal Himself, I would likely agree.
On 10/6/2018 at 11:00 AM, Raf said:
Moses wouldn't recognize the God of Paul.
Well, possibly not. It appears that Israel's relationship with Yahweh was predominately, if not entirely, based upon what was or could be known by the physical senses. Simply put, the relationship that the church of the body of Christ (which Paul introduced) has with God... isn't.
On 10/6/2018 at 11:00 AM, Raf said:
Marcion was convinced they were different gods entirely. It's not at all difficult to see why.
Without any understanding of said difference, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not difficult to see why anyone might think that.
On 10/6/2018 at 11:00 AM, Raf said:
Yahweh in Genesis is not all knowing.
Given that I'm inclined more towards the thinking that God may not have anticipated the rebellion prior to God's creation of Lucifer (as it is written that Lucifer was, at the time of his creation, "perfect"), I see that there is probably an element of truth in that statement (regardless of how difficult it might be to pinpoint or precisely define it.) Admittedly, I'm not keenly aware of exactly how either Geer or CES endeavored to address the issue. But, in light of the omniscience and sovereignty of God revealed elsewhere in scripture, I am somewhat aware of the difficulty of it. However, oddly enough, it is the combination (or conundrum) of these two aspects that offers an answer in my mind as to why God may have (re)designed and/or created man the way that He did in Genesis...
If given free will (whatever that means), a "perfect creation" can (and/or might at some time in the eternal future) fail... as appears may have happened once already with Lucifer... what or how does God do or create any different? Ah, well... perhaps you see the problem. If it was created perfect the first time, by definition, there can be no improvement on perfection.
What there can be, however, was (and is, in my opinion) a "proving" time designed for what is made/created. The first man, Adam, failed... (which God anticipated.) But a redemption plan was already in place. As I see it, this life in the flesh - that Adam had (and that we still have and know) - was, never designed nor intended to be "forever."
With respect to your point of view, no, I do not mean that man's understanding of Yahweh changed or that how Yahweh revealed himself changed. MY view is that Yahweh is a fictional character whose characteristics developed over time. He didn't start out as the only god. He didn't start out as all powerful. He didn't start out as all love. It's not a question of when did he reveal these characteristics to man. It's a question of when man imposed these characteristics on him, then retroactively applied those characteristics to the earlier stories about him.
I was expressing MY view, and I appreciate your consideration of my other comments.
With respect to your point of view, no, I do not mean that man's understanding of Yahweh changed or that how Yahweh revealed himself changed. MY view is that Yahweh is a fictional character whose characteristics developed over time. He didn't start out as the only god. He didn't start out as all powerful. He didn't start out as all love. It's not a question of when did he reveal these characteristics to man. It's a question of when man imposed these characteristics on him, then retroactively applied those characteristics to the earlier stories about him.
I was expressing MY view, and I appreciate your consideration of my other comments.
Yeah, I didn't actually think that was what you meant; I was merely stating the only way of looking at it that I could possibly agree with it.
Although, after re-reading your previous post, I am a bit curious as to your use (and/or expanded meaning) of this phrase:
On 10/6/2018 at 11:00 AM, Raf said:
...and claim One Consistent Message (tm).
Why the caps, and why the (tm)?
Seems I'm missing something there. Because I don't necessarily (i.e., probably don't) claim or believe whatever (and what all) you mean by that. Plainly stated, I do not see the gospel of Paul being exactly the same as the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached. But, before diving deep into that, perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on what all you mean by that "tm" phrase, and why you think it's the mold that any contradictory scriptures need to be cast into.
It's funny: when I first came onto this thread it was only about Pivot Point and Chris Geer, and I wasn't really thinking much about the thread topic. Reading through it all and realizing where I was in my personal journey at the time (still Christian but having major doubts) it is quite illuminating. I'm sorry I ignored it at first, but now I wish I could go back and reply to every single post.
Don't tempt me.
Do I think Paul contradicted himself? Yes, no, and yes.
The letters that are supposedly from Paul do contradict themselves. So yes. But I don't think he wrote all of them, which would explain most of those contradictions (they were written by people borrowing Paul's authority, but they weren't really Paul). So no. But even within letters that are not disputed, there are some contradictions. So yes.
Nothing about I Corinthians 14:34-35 makes any sense in any context given how Paul wrote about women elsewhere, no matter what context you want to pretend exists there.
But by and large, Paul is fairy consistent, especially when you only count the stuff scholars agree he wrote unanimously.
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.)
Matthew 28:19.
I'll be in my trailer.
Acts 1: 7 He said to them:“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;and you will be my witnessesin Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,and to the ends of the earth.”
Acts 1: 7 He said to them:“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;and you will be my witnessesin Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,and to the ends of the earth.”
That is, at LEAST, an implication.
I don't see that departs from the gospel (of the Kingdom) message that was preached previously. It simply elaborates on the fact that they would soon be equipped better for it, and where it could (or perhaps some day would) reach. Furthermore, I don't see that it automatically or necessarily includes any Gentiles, considering that (as a result of Israel's previous dispersion into all nations.) In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years? (see Acts 11:19, which was probably at least a good 10-11 years later.)
In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years?
First, the nations are Gentiles by definition.
The disobedience of the 12 does not invalidate his instruction to make disciples of all nations. If anything, it shows he needed Paul because the 12 were not doing what he explicitly told them to do.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Feb 21
21
Jul 16
21
May 15
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
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
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
TLC
You kept a copy, yes? Something you can share?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What's that suppose to be? A "teaser" line of some sort? Care to explain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's the deal:
The article we wrote was a rebuttal. It was kind of pointless without the teaching set that was being rebutted, so it's rather unfair in that regard.
For example, WW quoted a line earlier, "had God foreknown- or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there..."
Our rebuttal is nonsense without the original quote.
I do not think our paper has much value without the teaching series it is rebutting.
Then again, it's been well over 20 years since I've even seen it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes I agree semantics and vocabulary are some differences.
The whole theopneustos thing - God breathed like in the Way - to me it obscures little nuances like that which you are speaking of. To me that interpretation escalates things into an "all or nothing" type of mindset with scripture and communication from God. Every jot and tittle of Paul is "thus saith the Lord" or it isn't. To me that leads to a scribe mindset that I feel is best described by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay on Self-Reliance when he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". And people with dictionaries of languages they never grew up speaking become ensconced within a mental maze of their own making.
Yes, inspiration and revelation. I use these words more freely now like you would read about in literature or an article, as opposed to being bound to Wierwillian paint-by-numbers holy spirit manifestation definitions. And I view Paul's writings more in freer terms as well.
So as far as me writing books, what would inspire me to write a book would be any of a number of things, all of which are not God telling me to do so. Penworks book Undertow - I read some of what would be considered her inspiration for writing that book. Much of it as writings here are motivated by personal recovery. Nowhere did I read anything in her motivation about God commanding her to write a book or anything. But did God inspire her as she wrote it? I believe so. Did it happen differently for Paul? A heavenly vision appeared and an audible voice said "Paul write to the churches. Here's what to say .... Is your shorthand fast enough to keep up" ? I just don't think it works that way, no offense Joseph Smith and angel Moroni. Humans are made up the same way now as they were when this stuff was written.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I was recently reading II Timothy 3:16 in the American Standard Version (note, not the NEW American Standard Version, which I prefer). I found it interesting that they worded it:
"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."
So in this translation (and not in many others), the impression is not that "All scripture is inspired of God," which is nonsense*, but rather that all scripture inspired by God is useful, implying that there are scriptures not inspired by God.
And here we get to what I think is a significant point (which you folks have been raising) about "semantics."
*That is, what do the Bible's writers mean when they use the word "scripture."
I don't think Paul was referring to his own writings when he talked about scripture being "God-breathed." The preceding verse (context) talks about the sacred writings his readers would have known from the time they were children. THOSE are the "scriptures" of verse 16, not the letter he was writing to them at the time!
A few years back I started a thread about a letter Chris Geer wrote to his followers in the USA (Geer was running the show in Scotland at the time of the massive 1989 TWI split). I called the thread "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." I'll never forget the reaction: people accused Geer of being so arrogant and narcissistic that he would write an actual epistle! The nerve! Meanwhile, that wasn't Geer's word. It was mine. And I was using an old-timey word in jest, because as you all know, an "epistle" is just a letter. That's it. There's nothing magical in the word "epistle" that makes it "The Word Of God Uh."
Same with the Bible's use of "scripture." It just means "writings." We can't assume every time we encounter that word that the writer (or author, or Author, or whatever you want to put as the word there -- lol) is making some ontological statement about the nature of the scribbling.
Not all scripture is God-breathed, obviously. Whether everything written in the Bible is God-breathed is for believers to debate, discuss and decide (naturally, I contend none of it is, but that comes with the territory these days). But I don't think it's appropriate to cite II Timothy 3:16 as evidence that the writer of II Timothy 3:16 believed II Timothy 3:16 is The Word Of God Uh. That, as others have pointed out, would be quite circular.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Unfair or not, I'd still be interested in reading it. If I had to (or for some reason needed to) go listen to what he said about the issue on a Gartmore tape (if it exists there) as a result, maybe I could rummage around for it in some dusty corner of storage (if I even had a ballpark idea where to start looking for it.)
Namely because I think there's some truth to the matter, but not necessarily in how it was presented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The tape series was called "A Pivot Point in History."
The letter was called "A Pivot Point Revisited"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm inclined to agree, but only because it doesn't exactly fit with my own experience or (limited) understanding of how revelation works. It's a difficult (if not outright impossible) thing get into any kind of sensible discussion on how Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) might have (much less, did) received revelation (say nothing of there being an abundance of it given to him.) If there were a reasonable basis for comparison (and quite frankly, I'm not sure that there is), I probably would lean towards the thinking that he just wrote what he clearly knew was right thing to write. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't get a poke in the arm (or some other flash of reality) to get him on task. How it went down is all very speculative. Does it even matter at this point how aware of it he was at that exact moment in time, if it was God at work within him? If anything, I suspect that revelation is much more recognizable in hindsight (if it is at all) then it is when it is actually happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe, maybe not. However if (or when) thinking in terms of its general biblical usage, does it matter? After all, it was Peter that put his "epistles" on par with "other scripture"
Technically, yes, that is what the word in and of itself means. However, I'm inclined to disagree that fits with its "biblical usage" (unless there's some uniqueness when used with the participle, "the scripture.")
I think WW's posting (and position?) on what Scripture is makes pretty good sense to me. (...hey... kind of like holy spirit and Holy Spirit. Make a distinction with the Capital letter. Big - for biblical usage - and a small letter - for the common vernacular usage of it)
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24710-dispensationalism/?do=findComment&comment=593649
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Sorry, wasn't intended that way but if one was to listen to it ( I think still available on CFFM website ) it is great to see how a logical breaking down and 'putting together' of scriptures relating to any particular topic shows clearly the folly of so many 'teachings' n Christendom. People being tortured eternally in hell is one of many erroneously taught doctrines that put many off believing in A God and or His Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, if it could be read, fine. (I can skim crap - if it is, not saying it is or isn't - pretty quickly.)
But to have to listen to it (or watch it on a video) is a real turn off to me unless I know a whole lot more about what it is they're talking about. So, if you can't explain it any better in your own words, I'll have to take a pass. (Besides, I'm just not a big fan of - or believer in - hell anyways.)
Furthermore, I don't even know what the heck the "CFFM" website is, or who they are.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
curiosity getting the better of me, I checked out the website (just to see who they are or what they do.)
and, won't you know, there's video teachings there (many over an hour long...)
started and skipped through a couple.
'bout 15-20 minutes was all I could suffer through.
and in a nutshell... to me they looked as dead as the twi's ever were. (I.e., not a spit's worth of difference, from what I recall. same old, same old...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
well, I looked, but couldn't find said tapes. perhaps they were some time later in his teachings from Gartmore.
however, I did just find this "open view of God" outline (by Schoenheit) that might have some degree of overlap with it. While I don't completely agree with it (as it seems to allow too much room for discounting the knowledge and/or wisdom of God), I do think that it points towards some things that are probably true, and do have merit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
CES (Schoenheit Lynn and Graeser) articulated the same argument in their book "Don't Blame God," which basically used "He's not omniscient" to blunt the problem of evil.
The argument had more merit than i gave it at the time.
i've come to the conclusion that the chatacter of Yahweh evolved over time. He goes from mighty to omnipotent, from wise to omniscient, from merciful to "light and in him is no darkness at all." Moses wouldn't recognize the God of Paul. Marcion was convinced they were different gods entirely. It's not at all difficult to see why.
Omniscience is both scripturel, in my opinion, and untenable. But i don't think the Bible has a single answer to the question of What Did God Know and When Did She Know It? Yahweh in Genesis is not all knowing.
That's my opinion of what scripture says, offered here as an explanation that i can see where Geer and CES were coming from now that I no longer need to reconcile contradictory scriptures and claim One Consistent Message (tm).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If interpreting that to mean man's perception of Yahweh evolved over time, or maybe even how Yahweh chose to reveal Himself, I would likely agree.
Well, possibly not. It appears that Israel's relationship with Yahweh was predominately, if not entirely, based upon what was or could be known by the physical senses. Simply put, the relationship that the church of the body of Christ (which Paul introduced) has with God... isn't.
Without any understanding of said difference, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not difficult to see why anyone might think that.
Given that I'm inclined more towards the thinking that God may not have anticipated the rebellion prior to God's creation of Lucifer (as it is written that Lucifer was, at the time of his creation, "perfect"), I see that there is probably an element of truth in that statement (regardless of how difficult it might be to pinpoint or precisely define it.) Admittedly, I'm not keenly aware of exactly how either Geer or CES endeavored to address the issue. But, in light of the omniscience and sovereignty of God revealed elsewhere in scripture, I am somewhat aware of the difficulty of it. However, oddly enough, it is the combination (or conundrum) of these two aspects that offers an answer in my mind as to why God may have (re)designed and/or created man the way that He did in Genesis...
If given free will (whatever that means), a "perfect creation" can (and/or might at some time in the eternal future) fail... as appears may have happened once already with Lucifer... what or how does God do or create any different? Ah, well... perhaps you see the problem. If it was created perfect the first time, by definition, there can be no improvement on perfection.
What there can be, however, was (and is, in my opinion) a "proving" time designed for what is made/created. The first man, Adam, failed... (which God anticipated.) But a redemption plan was already in place. As I see it, this life in the flesh - that Adam had (and that we still have and know) - was, never designed nor intended to be "forever."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
With respect to your point of view, no, I do not mean that man's understanding of Yahweh changed or that how Yahweh revealed himself changed. MY view is that Yahweh is a fictional character whose characteristics developed over time. He didn't start out as the only god. He didn't start out as all powerful. He didn't start out as all love. It's not a question of when did he reveal these characteristics to man. It's a question of when man imposed these characteristics on him, then retroactively applied those characteristics to the earlier stories about him.
I was expressing MY view, and I appreciate your consideration of my other comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, I didn't actually think that was what you meant; I was merely stating the only way of looking at it that I could possibly agree with it.
Although, after re-reading your previous post, I am a bit curious as to your use (and/or expanded meaning) of this phrase:
Why the caps, and why the (tm)?
Seems I'm missing something there. Because I don't necessarily (i.e., probably don't) claim or believe whatever (and what all) you mean by that. Plainly stated, I do not see the gospel of Paul being exactly the same as the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached. But, before diving deep into that, perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on what all you mean by that "tm" phrase, and why you think it's the mold that any contradictory scriptures need to be cast into.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It was semi-comic. Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, do you think Paul contradicted himself in any of his writings, Raf?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's funny: when I first came onto this thread it was only about Pivot Point and Chris Geer, and I wasn't really thinking much about the thread topic. Reading through it all and realizing where I was in my personal journey at the time (still Christian but having major doubts) it is quite illuminating. I'm sorry I ignored it at first, but now I wish I could go back and reply to every single post.
Don't tempt me.
Do I think Paul contradicted himself? Yes, no, and yes.
The letters that are supposedly from Paul do contradict themselves. So yes. But I don't think he wrote all of them, which would explain most of those contradictions (they were written by people borrowing Paul's authority, but they weren't really Paul). So no. But even within letters that are not disputed, there are some contradictions. So yes.
Nothing about I Corinthians 14:34-35 makes any sense in any context given how Paul wrote about women elsewhere, no matter what context you want to pretend exists there.
But by and large, Paul is fairy consistent, especially when you only count the stuff scholars agree he wrote unanimously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Matthew 28:19.
I'll be in my trailer.
Acts 1: 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
That is, at LEAST, an implication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I don't see that departs from the gospel (of the Kingdom) message that was preached previously. It simply elaborates on the fact that they would soon be equipped better for it, and where it could (or perhaps some day would) reach. Furthermore, I don't see that it automatically or necessarily includes any Gentiles, considering that (as a result of Israel's previous dispersion into all nations.) In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years? (see Acts 11:19, which was probably at least a good 10-11 years later.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Preach the gospel to all nations...
You don't see where that includes gentiles.
For real.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First, the nations are Gentiles by definition.
The disobedience of the 12 does not invalidate his instruction to make disciples of all nations. If anything, it shows he needed Paul because the 12 were not doing what he explicitly told them to do.
That's the simplest Biblical explanation
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.