The Dialectic, Hard For Christians To Understand

[tulsa 2011]

The Dialectic, Hard For Christians To Understand

On another Christian forum, on Facebook, a guy who is promoting the idea from Romans 11: 17-24, especially verse 24, that Torah Jews are to be saved, apparently all of them, at some time in the future, responded to my post on the dialectic in saying "What does your discussion about dialect have to do with exposing zionism and revealing the true Israel of God ?" Maybe he thought I was talking about some dialect, or maybe "dialect" was a typo, but he did not understand much of anything about the dialectic.

The world has, during the period the falling away of II Thessalonians
2: 3-4 has gone on and the leavening of the church has been in
progress (Luke 13: 21), shifted its paradigm. The West of Northern
Europe and North America shifted from a mostly absolute truth to
shades of grey, to opinion, to how do you feel about it, what do you
think?

During and for a time before the falling away and leavening by man made doctrines, the "church" especially in North America, brought into itself more and more of what is in the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." I John 2: 15-16

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3: 5-6

The church, being part of the world has also shifted its way
of viewing absolute truth, though it has to teach scripture to some
extent to preserve its standing as a supposed spiritual institution.
The church doesn't support the absolute truth that Paul and Barnabas,
for example, in Acts 15: 2, contended for against the leaven of the
Pharisees. It says there was "no small dissension and disputation
with them," that is, with the Pharisees, some of whom now claimed to
be Christians, but were promoting the leaven of the Pharisees (Luke
12: 1, Mark 8: 15)

The dialectic as an argument, a way of changing the absolute truth
that one's opponent holds to, historically has come out of a system of
thought which teaches that there is no God.. It comes out of Hegel
and Marx. But before Hegel and Marx it came out of the Dragon of
Revelation 13: 11, whose use of the dialectic was on Eve in Genesis 3
to fix her obedience to the absolute authority of God over her.

The tactics of the dialectic argument vary, but it often avoids a
direct focus upon the main teachings of whatever absolute truth - from
Scripture - is the issue, and hits at it from the side.

The dialectic as used by many Christians is a deceptive and subtle way of arguing against the doctrines of the New Testament. And it can also be a disguised way of arguing against many of the doctrines taught by the prophets in the Old Testament, which line up with the doctrines of the New Testament.

There are some limits to how far "non-violent" Transformational Marxism can go without becoming pretty much the same as old time Bolshevism.

What is sometimes called Western Marxism - which is really "non-violent" Transformational Marxism - was developed in Western Europe by intellectuals such as Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci and Karl Korsch.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yet, at the 5th Congress of the Communist International (July 1924), Grigory Zinoviev formally denounced Georg Lukács's heterodox definition of orthodox Marxism as exclusively derived from fidelity to the "Marxist method", and not to Communist party dogmas; and denounced the Marxism developments of the German theorist Karl Korsch."

In other words, Soviet Communist Party ideology rejected the Transformational Marxism of Gramsci, Lukacs and Korsch in 1924. For the Communist Party, Marxism must be violent and not the gradual takeover of the institutions of the West as advocated by the Transformational Marxists. Gramsci talked about the long march through the institutions.

But - the ideas of Gramsci, Lukacs and Korsch went into the Institute For Social Research, more widely known as the Frankfurt School which mixed Marx with Freud and later in the U.S. with the Group Dynamics Movement, the T-Group work of the National Training Labs, personality-social psychology, the encounter group movement and several American psychologist and psychiatrist change agents. These people operated from within our major universities and did not call their movement Marxist, and so it was accepted and much more. It went viral and ballistic. The first American generation it changed were the Baby Boomers. The "church", being now more open to influences from the world, was influenced by Transformational Marxism.

What some call the II Timothy church is this church under forms of humanism, and influenced by Transformational Marxism, with American personality-social psychology and self psychology mixed in, since the sixties. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy......Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away....... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth............But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." II Timothy 3: 1-13

But the II Timothy church did not necessarily develop entirely out of Transformational Marxism, self psychology and the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. It developed in a broader sense out of two part man in the churches, man with body and mind, but with a dead spirit, that is man of the flesh. The love of self, selfishness and high regard for self-esteem, which is pride, that Paul identified in II Timothy 3: 2 is from man's flesh. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.

What is known as the dialectic is an important part of this transformation from fixed truth and fixed morality to what Dean Gotcher calls a "shifty" paradigm.. The dialectic is a procedure of argument which undermines fixed truths and fixed morality. But some Christians who use the dialectic in quarrels (Romans 1: 29) and bickering, often on forums, may not know that they are trying to overthrow the absolute authority of the word of God.

 

[DHC]

The world has, during the period the falling away of II Thessalonians
2: 3-4 has gone on and the leavening of the church has been in
progress (Luke 13: 21), shifted its paradigm.

Instead of worrying too much about a hypothetical 'dialectic', how about you explain your
understanding of (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) Tulsa. Because you made the following statement.

'The world has, during the period the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 has gone on'

Which is by any attempt, very difficult to understand the way that you are reading this verse.
Your statement is not really even legible. If you do not mind Tulsa, could you kindly explain,
what you think this verse is saying for the benefit of the readers of your posts. Remember also
Tulsa, that you are on a forum, where discussion is expected, forums are not platforms for you
to air your own unique belief system. This forum is not 'talk Tulsa's views'.

If you wish to not respond to any questions, then you probably should not be posting on
a forum Tulsa. Because your missing the fundamental nature of forums. Forums are
where people debate points, where people answer questions, where people propose
ideas. This forum is called 'Talk Jesus' and in general this forum is mainly about
Jesus and the scripture relating to this revelation of Christ in the scripture.

This forum 'talk Jesus' is not about;

There are some limits to how far "non-violent" Transformational Marxism can go without becoming
pretty much the same as old time Bolshevism.

You seriously need to explain your understanding of the verses you quoted.

 

[james1523]

I agree that absolute truth should be taught, however anyone can claim that they have the absolute truth, and that other views are wrong and should not be argued against or are a result of using the dialectic.
All of Tulsa's posts follow the same structure that this (whatever it may be) is the absolute truth, all other views are wrong and are a result of using the dialectic.
The problem is that what is stated to be the absolute truth, regarding Israel or the Church or other topics, is not always Biblical and therefore not the absolute truth.
For example Tulsa claims that replacement theology is the absolute truth (that the Church replaced Israel), when Scripture, Church history and Biblical prophesy actually disagrees with that viewpoint.
Therefore we can say that since the absolute truth of the Bible is that the Church has not replaced Israel, we can conclude that replacement theology is a false doctrine arising from the dialectic.

 

[tulsa 2011]

[h=1]DHC

[/h]
Member

It does not say that DHC is the owner or a moderator

 

[tulsa 2011]

"For example Tulsa claims that replacement theology is the absolute truth (that the Church replaced Israel), when Scripture, Church history and Biblical prophesy actually disagrees with that viewpoint.
Therefore we can say that since the absolute truth of the Bible is that the Church has not replaced Israel, we can conclude that replacement theology is a false doctrine arising from the dialectic."

For those who are not familiar with dispensationalism and dispensationalists, whatever view a person expresses that does not agree with their theology is replacement theology. In dispensationalism God has two peoples, the Jews, meaning Old Covenant Jews and the Church. Catholic theology has said or implied that it, the Church, replaced Old Covenant Israel. The remnant view is that Old Covenant Israel was changed or reborn in Jesus Christ, and that there is now one Israel, all who are of the elect. The church is a translation from ekklesia, meaning a meeting, assembly or congregation which is not a unique identity, like Israel, the Body of Christ, the elect or the saints. Its only the meeting of the elect plus some who are interested but not the elect. So, the church cannot be one group of God's people, different from Old Covenant Israel, and stand beside Israel as a people of God. And Old Covenant Israel was done away with, as Hebrews 10: 9 says, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Both the peoples of God in dispensationalism are fictions. Old Covenant Israel continued under the rabbis as Talmudic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Dispensationalism violates John 10: 16 and Romans 12: 5, saying there is one fold and one Body of Christ, not two, in addition to Hebrews 10: 9 and some other texts in the New Testament. Its another Gospel and read Galatians 1: 6-9 on what another Gospel means.

 

[james1523]

"For those who are not familiar with dispensationalism and dispensationalists, whatever view a person expresses that does not agree with their theology is replacement theology. "

Replacement theology is otherwise known as supercessionism and has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing.

The way I see it, you present theology from a non-dispensationalist position that you or your church already holds, and then claim that dispensationalists use the dialectic as justification for why you don't believe in dispensationalism. I believe those on both sides of the argument use the dialectic and it cannot be blamed for one view or the other.

Did God reject his people and replace them with the Church? according to Romans 11:1 the answer is no and they are still beloved by God as His people because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Romans 11:28, 29).

Paul's writings in Romans 11:25 and elsewhere clearly identify two people groups - Israel whom God has hardened, and Gentiles (non-Israel) who have the opportunity to be saved.

The view that the Church has replaced Israel is saying that God is unfaithful and unjust to keep His covenant promise to His people.
Rather, the Biblical view (Romans 11) is that Israel will always be God's people, and that there has been a temporary hardening of Israel and use of the salvation of the Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy, until all Israel turns to faith in Christ.

 

[DHC]

"For example Tulsa claims that replacement theology is the absolute truth (that the Church replaced Israel), when Scripture, Church history and Biblical prophesy actually disagrees with that viewpoint.
Therefore we can say that since the absolute truth of the Bible is that the Church has not replaced Israel, we can conclude that replacement theology is a false doctrine arising from the dialectic."

For those who are not familiar with dispensationalism and dispensationalists, whatever view a person expresses that does not agree with their theology is replacement theology. In dispensationalism God has two peoples, the Jews, meaning Old Covenant Jews and the Church. Catholic theology has said or implied that it, the Church, replaced Old Covenant Israel. The remnant view is that Old Covenant Israel was changed or reborn in Jesus Christ, and that there is now one Israel, all who are of the elect. The church is a translation from ekklesia, meaning a meeting, assembly or congregation which is not a unique identity, like Israel, the Body of Christ, the elect or the saints. Its only the meeting of the elect plus some who are interested but not the elect. So, the church cannot be one group of God's people, different from Old Covenant Israel, and stand beside Israel as a people of God. And Old Covenant Israel was done away with, as Hebrews 10: 9 says, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Both the peoples of God in dispensationalism are fictions. Old Covenant Israel continued under the rabbis as Talmudic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Dispensationalism violates John 10: 16 and Romans 12: 5, saying there is one fold and one Body of Christ, not two, in addition to Hebrews 10: 9 and some other texts in the New Testament. Its another Gospel and read Galatians 1: 6-9 on what another Gospel means.

Hello Tulsa.

The subject you are discussing 'dispensation theology' versus 'replacement theology'?

When Paul was writing his letters to the various churches, there did exist two distinct
covenants that were in operation at the same time. Both the Old Covenant and the
New Covenant were in full force during Paul's lifetime.

1) Old covenant Israel as a nation, a theocracy, with the temple, and the law, were current and
functioning.

2) There was also a new Jewish Christian church looking for the restoration of Israel.

3) In addition to these two groups mentioned we also have a new Gentile Christian church
without any old covenant trappings. I count three groups and not two groups during the era
of Paul and Peter.

How many can you count Tulsa?

 

[tulsa 2011]

In John Chapter 8, Jesus Christ, who is fully God, and is truth stands before the Pharisees. Jesus says in John 8: 12 "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

But the Pharisees did not believe Christ and wanted to diminish and compromise what Christ is saying to them as truth. To try to diminish and compromise truth is the dialectic process inspired by Satan. John 8: 13: "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."

Among other things, Christ told the Pharisees in John 8: 15 "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man."

The Pharisees were in the spiritual condition of the natural man of I Corinthians 2: 14, who cannot receive the things of the Spirit; they were of the flesh, and they interpreted prophecy in a literal way, thinking that their Messiah was to come and set up a literal, earthly kingdom and kill the Romans. This is a main reason why they rejected Christ.

But Christ does say in John 8: 16 "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."

Then Christ says to the Pharisees in John 8: 44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

In Matthew 23: 33 Christ says to the Pharisees: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" And in Matthew 23: 38, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

The Pharisees were the false prophet celebrities of Christ's time, the celebrity or top preachers, the leaders of Old Covenant Israel then. But Christ told them they were of their father the devil and that they were serpents.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. the rabbis took over from the Pharisees and developed Talmudic Judaism into a religion which was fixed on its rejection of Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

On http://www.come-and-hear.com/<wbr>dilling/chapt01.html

they say "the missing link in Christian understanding on the subject
of "Pharisees" is best supplied by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
(1943): The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent,
without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their
leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous
extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud
is the largest and most important single piece of that literature …
and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of
Pharisaism.

Concerning the Pharisees, the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia says: With
the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) the Sadducees disappeared
altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands
of the Pharisees. Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the
Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the
Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin
of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older priestly
tradition (Abot 1:1). Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and
the life and thought of the Jew for all the future."

"Rabbi Louis Finklestein was chosen in 1937 by the Kehillas (Jewish
communities) of the World as one of the top 120 Jews best representing
"a lamp of Judaism" to the World...In his two-volume work "The
Pharisees." Rabbi Finklestein writes: Pharasaism became Talmudism …
But the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the
Jew … studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used
in the Palestinian academies. From Palestine to Babylonia; from
Babylonia to North Africa, Italy. Spain, France and Germany; from
these to Poland. Russia and Eastern Europe generally, ancient
Pharasaism has wandered."

"Pharasaism became Talmudism …
But the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered."

"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees......Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16: 6, 12

But dispensationalism as a false doctrine honors the religion of the Pharisees, or Old Covenant Israel under the Pharisees and Sadducees. Revelation 13: 11-12, "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed."

The first beast whose deadly wound was healed - in 1948 - is the nation that calls itself Israel and Talmudic Judaism, a continuation in part of the religion of the Pharisees. The second beast is the False Prophet, who represents the many false prophets of Matthew 24: 11.

Then a few centuries after Christ the Masorets - of Talmudic Judaism as a continuation of the religion of the Pharisees - produced a Hebrew text called the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text is the Old Testament in the King James Version and in most other Bibles.

For some key Old Testament prophecies on the coming of Christ the verse wording differences show that the New Testament writers were quoting something closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic Hebrew text created by Talmudic Judaism scholars after the 5th century A.D.

We have three sources for some of these key Old Testament prophecies about Christ, the Septuagint, The Masoretic Hebrew Text and the scriptrure quotes in the New Testament in Greek.

Hebrews 10:5 (KJV Quoting Psalm 40:6)

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me..."

Psalm 40:6 (KJV Taken from Masoretic)
"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened..."

Psalm 40:6 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
"Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me..."

The Masortic left out "but a body hast thou prepared me..." That is too specific in saying God created a human body for Christ to dwell in. so the Talmudic Anti-Christ Masorets apparently changed the Hebrew Old Testament.

"The Writer of Hebrews was quoting from the Bible used by the early
Christians. The Septuagint)"

"Comment: Psalm 40:6 was seen by Early Christians as a prophecy of
the Incarnation of Christ, and Hebrews 10:5 quotes it as such, but the
Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing “but a body
hast thou prepared for me” with “mine ears hast thou opened.” Note
that the KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each
other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was
translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text."

"Isaiah 42:4 is regarded by Early Christians as a prophecy of Gentile
acceptance of, and faith in, the name of the Messiah, and Matthew
12:21 quotes it as such, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase
entirely, replacing the phrase “and in his name shall the Gentiles
trust” with “and the isles shall wait for his law.” Note that the KJV
New Testament and the Septuagint agree with each other against the
reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the
Masoretic Text:"

Matthew 12:21 (KJV Quoting Isaiah 42:4)
"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

Isaiah 42:4 (KJV Taken from Masoretic)
"He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the
earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Isaiah 42:4 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
"He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set
judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

There is the possibility that the writers of the New Testament were not using the Septuagint, but a text in Hebrew that was close to the Septuagint wordings, a Hebrew text which perhaps was lost.