The biblical truth is a dialectical equation

[Episkopos]

I really wish you would put on your big boy pants and stop with this everconstant accusation of being bullied by episkopos. He does not seek out your threads. You seek out his threads. then you post a rebuttal, and within one or two more posts, you are whining about being bullied. There are some vicious people in here. I mean really vicious. Epi is not one of them.

What you are seeing is the regular hypocrisy related to stumbling over the truth. I expect it. How many people have really walked in the light? But how many people are humble enough to recognize a helping hand? Seeing this as bullying? The opposite is true. Stumbling over Christ means you are now seeing the world upside down. Am I bullying people on this thread? Or...am I the one being attacked?

I like the Sting lyric that says...like a fish caught on dry land, struggling to avoid any helping hand.

So the very subject of the OP...that of levels of meaning to the scriptures...is being fully missed by those who are attacking that idea.

 

[Man on Fire]

Here is another way to think about it:

In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel had a vision of Angels. Angels have functions. The Angels represented something. The angels had four faces, and they moved around in specific ways. Given an Angel represented a concept or thing or idea that is part of creation, it may have been viewed at "Face value" to someone outside of God. They may have only been able to see or view it one way. To be able to see more of the whole picture takes God.


In the Principalities or Spiritual there may have been specific things set. There may be laws. There are concepts, ideas, or things. Slavery, for example, may be a concept in the principalities. Slavery may be like a coin or it may have some Angel or being associated with it. This concept can be turned different ways. It doesn't matter how someone views the concept in terms of liking it or hating it. The concept is part of creation. Someone could be a slave to sin and their passions. There is Freedom in the Lord. Someone may be like a slave to a man as a private property. Someone on Probation, in Jail, on Welfare or unemployment, may be a slave to the State. Communism is a form of Slavery where man has no personal property, and whose person is owned by the State. Feminists used to call Christian marriage like Slavery. "50 Shades of Grey" came out with the lead male character named Christian. A man's heart may be chained to past loves in some sort of bondage. There is the song "Unchain my Heart." The concepts and ideas in the principalities are tied together or related. A man experiences Freedom in The Lord.

 

[marks]

I really wish you would put on your big boy pants and stop with this everconstant accusation of being bullied by episkopos. He does not seek out your threads. You seek out his threads. then you post a rebuttal, and within one or two more posts, you are whining about being bullied. There are some vicious people in here. I mean really vicious. Epi is not one of them.

You should read your own post. And then go back and read some of his.

I post in a lot of threads.

Other people don't respond that way, for the most part. Some do. But the continued pattern is that if I post any refutation, or really, even a question, @Episkopos will not engage with me in a Scripturally based discussion, instead, choosing to move the discussion to a personal level. So we're no longer on the topic of his or my assertions about God and the Bible, instead the topic is about, most recently, how dishonest I am. Oh, and passive aggressive. Other things too.

A good many people on this forum and others will actually engage me in discussion, instead of just throwing out a bunch of pejoratives over and over and over.

So now I'm double teamed by he and you, as you now also attack my person, me as an individual.

It's not about level of intensity, that's what episkopos is talking about in "passive aggressive". Aggression that is so dialed down that it slides under the radar. I've had a lot of experience with that.

So call me a whiner again as I point this out. I do like to bring hidden things into the light. And there are those who don't like that. My hope has been that in pointing these things out, they might stop. Really is a distraction to real dialog. But then, I understand that not everyone wants to answer the questions I ask, and some don't wish to be perceived as dodging the issues.

Whining about being bullied. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[marks]

How many people have really walked in the light?

How many indeed? This is the heart of the issue, is it not? How many besides you??

But yes, when I ask the questions you don't want to answer, you get all personal, so you can put me down, lift yourself up, and totally avoid the issues.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If you dont like how someone speaks and nothing you have repeatedly done and repeatedly said for over a year has managed to control their speech in the way you have desired, just ignore them or deal with it.

 

[marks]

So the very subject of the OP...that of levels of meaning to the scriptures...is being fully missed by those who are attacking that idea.

Treating Scritpure ss a dialectic, this presents the concept that neither this passage is true in its own right, nor that passage, instead, the truth will be found somewhere in between.

I believe that all the parts of the Bible are true in their own right, and there is no dialectic. What some suppose to be conflicts and contradictions are all solved by the correct understanding of each passage.

So we don't need to reach synthesis, all we need is to hear what God is saying.

I think this notion of applying dialectical reasoning to the Scriptures in the form of Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis is to rob the Bible of it's meaning in favor of one we can appear to support through this application of a dialectic. Which in reality supplanting the truth of God with human reasonings.

But taking snippets of passages and pitting them against each other, then deriving yet a third apparant meaning, that "synthesis", does harm to the text. There are no actual examples of passages in the Bible that don't completely harmonize with each other when properly understood, and in their context.

From one who attacks - no wait - who disagrees with that idea.

 

[marks]

or deal with it.

As I've said, I prefer to point out bad behavior on a Christian forum in the hopes that things will improve.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

As I've said, I prefer to point out bad behavior on a Christian forum in the hopes that things will improve.

So do I. I think it's bad behavior to say a man is teaching self righteousness and works of the law when he isn't.

 

[marks]

So do I. I think it's bad behavior to say a man is teaching self righteousness and works of the law when he isn't.

I'm sorry, I thought that @Episkopos teaches that we receive righteousness from Christ as the starting point, and then have to go on to gain our own righteousness by doing the works of righteousness? Am I missing something?

I never mind being corrected if I'm in error. See, that's the thing. There's just no need to keep dumping on me all the time! But that's not what it's been about.

Seriously though. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I think this notion of applying dialectical reasoning to the Scriptures in the form of Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis is to rob the Bible of it's meaning

The man didnt say we should apply dialectical reasoning to scripture. It's bad behavior to say a man said something he didnt.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I'm sorry, I thought that @Episkopos teaches that we receive righteousness from Christ as the starting point, and then have to go on to gain our own righteousness by doing the works of righteousness? Am I missing something?

I never mind being corrected if I'm in error. See, that's the thing. There's just no need to keep dumping on me all the time! But that's not what it's been about.

Seriously though. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, I can say with certainty that you are misunderstanding him.

 

[marks]

Yes, I can say with certainty that you are misunderstanding him.

By all means share!

 

[marks]

The man didnt say we should apply dialectical reasoning to scripture. It's bad behavior to say a man said something he didnt.

The biblical truth is a dialectical equation

The bible is written as a "dialectic"...where there is a thesis...an antithesis..and when these agree we have synthesis.

Not my words, his. And I disagree. The Bible gives us propositional truth. Any notion that there is thesis and antithesis is applying human reason when we don't understand. There is no synthesis of Biblical truth, instead, we need to find the harmony.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

By all means share!

I can't explain it any better than he has. He even gave verses for example.

 

[marks]

I can't explain it any better than he has. He even gave verses for example.

OK, right.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Not my words, his. And I disagree. The Bible gives us propositional truth. Any notion that there is thesis and antithesis is applying human reason when we don't understand. There is no synthesis of Biblical truth, instead, we need to find the harmony.

Of course there's synthesis of biblical truth. Its plain to see from watching daystar for a few hours what happens when you dont eat the bitter with the sweet.

 

[marks]

Of course there's synthesis of biblical truth. Its plain to see from watching daystar for a few hours what happens when you dont eat the bitter with the sweet.

I don't understand. Daystar?

 

[Enoch111]

Any notion that there is thesis and antithesis is applying human reason when we don't understand.

You are correct. This is a godless philosophical concept. But I would not waste any more time and energy on this nonsensical thread.

 

[marks]

what happens when you dont eat the bitter with the sweet.

And the bitter and the sweet are . . . ?

 

[marks]

You are correct. This is a godless philosophical concept. But I would not waste any more time and energy on this nonsensical thread.

Hope springs eternal!