I think I get what you are saying here. Daystar has bad doctrine, is that it? I don't know, I've never seen it.
Do you mean that this "synthesis" equates to bad doctrine? If that's what you're saying, then we agree.
The biblical truth is a dialectical equation
- Thread starter Episkopos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you mean that this "synthesis" equates to bad doctrine? If that's what you're saying, then we agree.
No, I am saying the opposite.
Marks, the only reason you don't drive a Mercedes is because you haven't asked God for a Mercedes. He says, ask whatever you want in my name and I will do it.
Ah, but wait. That's not synthesis because the opposing verse brings the balance...
Last edited:
So, to be clear, you agree with Episkopos that the Bible is a dialectic, that those parts that seem to be contrary to each other should not be taken as meaning what they say, instead, that there is a middle ground that is the actual reality? This "synthesis", that's the good doctrine?
Thank you!
I think that would be a total misunderstanding of what it means to "ask in Jesus' Name". We don't change the statement by dialectic, we understand it by harmony.
So if it's not synthesis, we're not talking about a dialectic.
So what is it we're disagreeing on? It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
Are you serious...?
I said saying you didn't have a Mercedes because you didn't ask for it is NOT synthesis...
For synthesis you need, you ask and don't receive because you ask with wrong motive.
Don't get mad but, is English your first language?
Last edited:
Okay, so Daystar is a "church" channel, marks. There are mostly very bad preachers with tv shows on the channel and it runs 24/7. The preachers take the sweet and refuse the bitter. You don't understand that phrase(the bitter along with the sweet ) which made me thing English might not be your first language. Another way to say this is...they take a verse they like (the sweet)and they insist on it, to the exclusion of a verse they don't like (the bitter), even though they will never understand UNLESS they deal with the verse they don't like. Yet another way to show the thought of eating only sweet and refusing all bitters is to look at the people who marveled and were pleased when Jesus spoke words that pleased them (the sweet), yet when He spoke further, the words did not please them(were bitter) and they got angry and tried to kill Him by trying to push Him off a cliff. Yet another way to try to describe the concept of eating only sweet and refusing the bitter is to look at a mother trying to wean a child. I've never had a child and I don't know if this is done anymore but mothers used to put something bitter on their skin So when the child tried to suckle, the taste was now bitter to them, which would make them more ready to try solid food. The milk now tasted bitter, and so the food they had before been refusing now tasted sweeter than it had before they tasted something even more bitter and unpalatable than the food had tasted to them. So what the mother did was let them taste something EXTREMELY bitter so that they now thought the food was pretty good (comparatively speaking.) One more thing I can think of to help you grasp this somewhat abstract thought is an English word - bittersweet. Remembering a spouse who has died can be said to be "bittersweet" because some of what you remember is wonderful (sweet) and then the bitter comes when you lament about having lost them.
Before I say any more, are you now able to grasp and apply the phrase : eating the sweet and refusing the bitter?
Before I say any more, are you now able to grasp and apply the phrase : eating the sweet and refusing the bitter?
Amen. Most modern believers refuse to be weaned from the flesh...they reject the bitter truth so they change the bible into a book of sweets. However to swallow that turns the sweet to bitter in the stomach (Rev. 10)
So the end of refusing the bitter now is to suffer the bitter in eternity.
So now, if a preacher on Daystar says: the bible says we can ask for whatever we want and He will do it, therefore, if you aren't driving a Mercedes and living in a 5,000 square foot house, it's because you haven't asked OR because you didn't have FAITH when you asked, because the bible also says, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move a mountain into the sea.
They have taken the verses that taste sweet but have refused the verses (the other side of the dialectic equation) that are bitter to them like, you ask and do not receive because you ask with wrong motives. (To feed your lust or desire to be admired for an expensive and shiny possession). After all, a car is to get you from point A to point B and a Honda Civic can do that as well as a $40,000 - $90,000 Mercedes can.
So, it's sweet to them to think they can have whatever they ask for, but it's bitter to think they might NOT receive what they ask for if their hearts motive is wrong. So they don't even look at the opposing verse, and the result of not looking at it is that they don't understand and they teach nonsense.
So marks, you answer the question - is it true that we can have from God whatever we ask? Can you see the dialectic now? Can you see the "opposing" verse and that it is necessary?
They have taken the verses that taste sweet but have refused the verses (the other side of the dialectic equation) that are bitter to them like, you ask and do not receive because you ask with wrong motives. (To feed your lust or desire to be admired for an expensive and shiny possession). After all, a car is to get you from point A to point B and a Honda Civic can do that as well as a $40,000 - $90,000 Mercedes can.
So, it's sweet to them to think they can have whatever they ask for, but it's bitter to think they might NOT receive what they ask for if their hearts motive is wrong. So they don't even look at the opposing verse, and the result of not looking at it is that they don't understand and they teach nonsense.
So marks, you answer the question - is it true that we can have from God whatever we ask? Can you see the dialectic now? Can you see the "opposing" verse and that it is necessary?
I see the persistent stubborn carnal mind, being found out as presenting a fraudulent OP already, is still at it..... trying to force a larger square into a smaller circle...good luck with that impossible task..need to come to the true...and stop kidding self...no one is buying what you are peddling..at least I am not..it is disgusting
Again the Bible is not written as a dialectic to conform to the carnal mind for its understanding. YHWH and his words are understood only as his Spirit permits and he does not kneel to the wishes and evil imaginations of men. This OP represents the carnal mind wishing, thinking, speaking and writing, not from a believer's perspective, who is still searching humbly and understanding the words of YHWH for his truth, guided by his Spirit.
And the statement "So it is only as BOTH sides of the brain are brought into the mix that we can perceive what truth is. " Then you reinforced what I thought I already understood of your writing with "..WE can arrive at a balanced understanding..."
These are totally ignorant, deceptive and evil statements. How dare a person that says he is a true believer, say He can perceive scripture truth this way, on his own terms I might add as it is strongly inferred. Where is the fear, reverence for the Spirit to bring him/her to the truth....No, what I perceive here are 2 parts of a brain bringing chaos, confusion, indecision to its audience. The OP suggests to me that for folks do what they think is the truth because scripture at times presents conflicting views. And so for these areas of scripture we must decide the truth for ourselves.... it is very hard not to view this OP this way..
If the OP said that the natural mind sometimes view scripture as a dialectic as conflicting in meaning, because the mind has limited wisdom and capacity to comprehend the ways of YHWH, then I would totally agree - it is his carnal nature to behave this way, period.
This OP and the author's continuing comments are a constant changing ball of confusion..with constant vague new statements ebing added nearly every time a new comment is made..not staying on topic...and accusing folks in essence that if you are not for what I say you are not only against me but scripture itself.....when is this trail of incomprehensible nonsense going to stop?
This OP is disturbing indeed. Epi, you have not even made your case yet that scripture is a dialectic..yes really...want me to explain why and what you have written thus far...I'm not doing that...you know what you have written...
I pray you come to your senses and really review what your OP means to a true believer.....did you think you would not get any flack coming your way on this one?
APAK
Again the Bible is not written as a dialectic to conform to the carnal mind for its understanding. YHWH and his words are understood only as his Spirit permits and he does not kneel to the wishes and evil imaginations of men. This OP represents the carnal mind wishing, thinking, speaking and writing, not from a believer's perspective, who is still searching humbly and understanding the words of YHWH for his truth, guided by his Spirit.
And the statement "So it is only as BOTH sides of the brain are brought into the mix that we can perceive what truth is. " Then you reinforced what I thought I already understood of your writing with "..WE can arrive at a balanced understanding..."
These are totally ignorant, deceptive and evil statements. How dare a person that says he is a true believer, say He can perceive scripture truth this way, on his own terms I might add as it is strongly inferred. Where is the fear, reverence for the Spirit to bring him/her to the truth....No, what I perceive here are 2 parts of a brain bringing chaos, confusion, indecision to its audience. The OP suggests to me that for folks do what they think is the truth because scripture at times presents conflicting views. And so for these areas of scripture we must decide the truth for ourselves.... it is very hard not to view this OP this way..
If the OP said that the natural mind sometimes view scripture as a dialectic as conflicting in meaning, because the mind has limited wisdom and capacity to comprehend the ways of YHWH, then I would totally agree - it is his carnal nature to behave this way, period.
This OP and the author's continuing comments are a constant changing ball of confusion..with constant vague new statements ebing added nearly every time a new comment is made..not staying on topic...and accusing folks in essence that if you are not for what I say you are not only against me but scripture itself.....when is this trail of incomprehensible nonsense going to stop?
This OP is disturbing indeed. Epi, you have not even made your case yet that scripture is a dialectic..yes really...want me to explain why and what you have written thus far...I'm not doing that...you know what you have written...
I pray you come to your senses and really review what your OP means to a true believer.....did you think you would not get any flack coming your way on this one?
APAK
Actually only one part of the brain deals with chaos...the one that people have a hard time with..as your response is showing. Learning to reach into the unknown is what makes a person advance in knowledge and understanding. It's about connectivity. It's about the renewing of the mind...but according to actual knowledge...not religious posturings and ideologies.
And we are not to decide for ourselves what truth is. God is there to reveal the unknown to us...so that "the unknown God" becomes known. Until then people will divide based on a very incomplete understanding of who God is.
OK, but it's all sweet to me. What you call the bitter I call cleansing. Who wants to continue in the life of the flesh??? Only those who think they have no other choice. But the choice is yours by faith. Live the new creation which God birthed you when you were reborn, or live as if that didn't happen, or happened partway. It happens completely. But people don't believe it. They just see the tossing waves.
Much love!
I only see truth. Ask anything in His Name, but understand that asking in His Name does not include asking according to the corruption of your flesh. Those "prayers" have nothing to do with God, or the new you.
But again this isn't a dialectic. There isn't a synthesis, only the correct undertanding of both passages, each remaining fully propositionally true.
Much love!
I think @APAK 's point is sound. This whole dialectic thing is in fact a device of human reasoning, and you can't apply that to a book that is supernaturally revealed.
Applying dialectical reasoning to the Bible has the sole outcome of denying the express truth that exists in both so-called "thesis" and "antithesis" passages, and substituting the "synthesis".
"Thesis/Antithesis, then synthesis" but it doesn't work that way. God's Word is Truth through and through just as written. There are no conflicts, only misunderstandings, or worse.
Once listeners have been introduced to this method of persuasion, and that Is what it is, persuading someone to accecpt other than the original thesis, once this method is accepted, all sorts of ideas may be introduced.
We need to receive it as the truth it is without seeking to change it by some dialectic, we are what is to change.
Much love!
Last edited:
The bible is written as a spiritual dialectic...or a double edged sword...or a wheel within a wheel. Religion takes the mystery out of the bible and makes it easy to understand for the unrenewed mind. But that view is only a half truth. Whatever doesn't fit the ideological framework is ignored and rejected.
No one is indoctrinated into all truth. People are indoctrinated into a half truth. Hence the mystery. One must penetrate into Christ to see what is hidden. And once the mystery is understood the polarity in the bible is revealed as a three dimensional message. And this the carnal mind can never grasp.
It's God's genius at work. The whole counsel of God includes all the words of the law of God. Nothing left out.
Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
No one is indoctrinated into all truth. People are indoctrinated into a half truth. Hence the mystery. One must penetrate into Christ to see what is hidden. And once the mystery is understood the polarity in the bible is revealed as a three dimensional message. And this the carnal mind can never grasp.
It's God's genius at work. The whole counsel of God includes all the words of the law of God. Nothing left out.
Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Last edited:
That's very colorful speech. Yes, once we understand Scripture, it is revealed to us, that is, by the Holy Spirit. But there is no dialectic. Thesis - antithesis - synthesis.
Well, of course! There is no other way. And also to add . . . well, don't add. Only the Word of God is the Word of God, and any sort of synthesis attempts to alter the truth of any part is the faulty reasoning of man.
The Word of God is spiritually discerned, not by some human dialectic. True understanding brings harmony between all theses in Scripture, without any being "anti-thesis". There isn't "antithesis" in Scripture, as if it were pitted against itself.
Maybe it's this "synthesis" idea that we have so many denoms!
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
Well, if you want to call the old and new testaments a dialectic, then you can't have the old testament without the new testament. Without Jesus, the old testament is nothing but a bunch of empty promises made by some old timer prophets, its a dead end, nothing there at all.
I'm going to try one more time and I'm going to try using the absolutely most outrageously clear form of this concept of thesis, antithesis that I have ever found in the bible. But after that, if you can't settle down about trying to control the speech and words of others, I am going to stop trying, because all that matters to me is that a person has grasped a concept, not an insistence that they use any exact word(s) in their explanation of having grasped the concept. If I use the word "cold" and they use the words "without warmth" I do not insist they must use the exact word I prefer or use to try to explain the concept, because parroting something back to me does not reveal that they have understood a concept, but being able to use their own words and examples to vocalize the concept is what shows their mind has grasped it.
Proverbs 26:4-5 is the clearest example of the concept I have found.
Thesis: Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
Antithesis: 5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.
You can pick which one you prefer, or you can search for the synthesis.
I do not want to have to ignore you, but now that I know for sure you can grasp concepts, and that English is indeed your first language, I will not try any longer if you keep insisting that men must use only your preferred word(s) to explain a concept.
Proverbs 26:4-5 is the clearest example of the concept I have found.
Thesis: Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
Antithesis: 5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.
You can pick which one you prefer, or you can search for the synthesis.
I do not want to have to ignore you, but now that I know for sure you can grasp concepts, and that English is indeed your first language, I will not try any longer if you keep insisting that men must use only your preferred word(s) to explain a concept.
Similar threads
