The Paradigm Effect

[Danoh]

Interpret means to 'to explain the meaning of (something). : to understand (something) in a specified way' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

Revelation means: 'a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. b : something that is revealed by God to humans.' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe it is only wrong when the interpretation is devoid of Divine understanding - which comes via revelation. And that's one way you can tell the difference. If your understanding has come from God, it is revelation. But if your understanding has come from yourself, your own reasoning, then it is your own interpretation. And what does the bible say about such interpretation?

'...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Peter 1:20-21)

Revelation, I believe, is necessary, to understand the spiritual meanings of Scripture. Would Philip have been able to correctly interpret the Scriptures, to the Ethopian, without having had revelation from God?

Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret. But what many carnal men are doing - through such practices as exegesis and hermeneutics - is trying to interpret the Word of God, without God. And in doing so, they arrive at many dreadfully wrong conclusions.

One of the main differences between revelation and personal interpretation is that revelation is objective, and comes from God; while personal interpretation is subjective, and comes from one's own mind.

If you are reading the bible and arrive at a conclusion through your own reasoning; then that is surely due to personal interpretation. On the other hand, have you arrived at a conclusion which you could not have reached by yourself? Then that is, I believe, because of revelation.

What Peter was saying in that passage was that the Scriptures were even more reliable then Peter's and his fellow Apostle's eyewitness of the Lord Himself; then their having walked with Him.

He is saying that the Scriptures are more sure then our sense of sight, touch, and all the rest because the Scriptures did not originate in man; are not men's ideas.

He is saying that this is so because God set apart the men who wrote the Scripture for the express purpose of having them do just that - of revealing His will to them through writings He moved them to write.

How words are used, when and where they are, etc., reveal the meaning intended by the person using those words.

There, in those passages, the word "private interpretation" refers to "own origin."

Note what, who [Peter] Peter is talking about when he uses that phrase, where he does, as this gives us the sense of how he is using it.

I am doing all this through the passages - not through revelation other than what the passages, by how they used words, are giving men their intended sense, or meaning.

Peter first starts off aware that he will soon be gone. The issue for him is a continuing witness that all can rely on - the written Word.

Study Church history and what you find is the notions of men. What you find is that Peter's words here were ignored as to what is to be our only source of wisdom as to the things of God - the Scripture.

Paul said the same thing in 2 Corinthians 4:

13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
14. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Now, note Peter's concern...

2 Peter 1:

13. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14. Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

By what means and on what sure ground, Peter?

16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

He is saying they did not make these things up. He then expands on that thought he is trying to get across:

17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

He then goes into why it is a more sure word of prophecy - that they might be able to continue to remember these things by after Peter is gone:

20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

A lost person could understand what I have just laid out. But, he will conclude it foolishness unto him. That "that was just one of those men saying that back there."

The lost person can understand it but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is "in believing."

The lost man will not know it to be true because that requires believing that it is. For, what evidence, according to Hebrews 8:1, does a "knowing" faith require?

 

[RevTestament]

Would you say that what you've said in the above post is absolutely true?

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

[Clete]

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Is that a 'yes'?

 

[Dan Emanuel]

anyone?

Revelation:Interpretation
Mysterium:Sacramentum


Daniel

1.0
​

 

[RevTestament]

Is that a 'yes'?

Yes
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him.

 

[Clete]

Yes
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him.

I asked the question because your post essentially teachers that there is no absolute truth. You can believe what you want so long as you're sincere.

 

[RevTestament]

I asked the question because your post essentially teachers that there is no absolute truth. You can believe what you want so long as you're sincere.

No, I think you slightly misunderstood me. My post teaches that we are all trying to understand the absolute truth which is God's paradigm. My post teaches that most of us fail at that endeavor, and that is ok if we are giving our sincere effort to understand Him - we can still become one in Him through the atonement of Christ. Indeed God doesn't expect everyone to completely understand his Word.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Now back to did Christ do all things He had seen the Father do?

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

 

[Man.0]

David Koresh claimed to have had divine revelation. In fact he claim he was divine revelation

' “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.' (Matthew 7:15-16)

Many have been deceived by false teachers, who themselves are rather like fishermen. For each one has their own ideological net or hook which they throw out; and together with the power of charisma and other such persuasive tools, the fish come swimming in. If a fish isn't taken in by one fisherman, well, there is guaranteed to be another fisherman that will reel them in. One who is not deceived by a Billy Graham may well be deceived by a Joseph Prince or a Joseph Smith or a Joyce Meyer.

How can one be deception-proof? Only God can prevent one from being deceived. He reveals the Truth to whoever He chooses. Darkness can be discerned only when one has received Light. If not for God I wouldn't be able to discern, and be aware of, false teachers, such as David Koresh.

There are some certain things, certain indicators that one can look out for, to identify falsity. But I must reiterate at this point that a person can do all he or she can do to be aware of falsity, but if not for God, such attempts at avoiding deception are futile. Now, this is an indicator that Koresh was not of Christ: He was a member of a religious group. No religious group or sect or denomination is true. All are false. If religion is false, and Koresh was part of one, what does that make him?

It seems you yourself have not been deceived by Koresh. But could there be other false teachers, or teachings, which have ensnared you?

And Clete, how are you able to tell that Koresh was false?

It's a wild jungle out here, Clete. Those who have not been eaten by panthers have been devoured by tigers. And those who have not been devoured by tigers, have been pounced on by leopards. Only God can save a person from being devoured by deceptive beasts.

Only He can open the eyes, to see things as they really are. That's what God has done for me. I used to be deceived by both the Jehovah Witnesses and the Restored Church of God (offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert Armstrong). I now know that they are all false. Only by the grace of God.

and he could stand in front of you, look you straight in the face and quote scripture all day long.

The devil, who masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) is also a quoter of Scripture. So it is no surprise that his servants are also well-versed in the verses of the bible.

How would you have advised a Branch Dravidian to be able to determine before they all died (well most of them) that he was a liar?

Even if I'd advised them to look for this or that, at the end of the day it's down to God, and Him opening a person's eyes. Only by the grace of God would a Branch Davidian have been able to have escaped the deception of Koresh.

How do you know this?

By what standard do you declare hermeneutics as being carnal?

By the fact that it was devised by carnal men. You certainly wouldn't have found Peter or Paul using such a method to understand Scriptural text. Why? Because they had revelation. And when one has received revelation from God, in regards to the Scriptures, why should that person need to use the man-made method of hermeneutics/exegesis?

Please, please show me biblically how hermeneutics is carnal but by all means do so without using hermeneutics or exegesis.

Hermeneutics or exegesis or the practice thereof is not even mentioned in the bible, as far as I'm aware. So how do you ask me to show you biblically how hermeneutics is carnal? There is however, a verse that comes to mind, that speaks of private interpretation (which is what hermeneutics is):

'First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20)

'this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,' (2 Peter 1:20 Young's Literal Translation)

Are you saying that you've heard God speak to you audibly and that He personally told you the your doctrine was correct?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I do not think that God has ever spoken audibly to me.

If not what are you saying? How does this divine revelation happen? Describe the experience of receiving divine revelation.

I'm saying that I've been enlightened, to some extent, by the One Who is Light Himself. Now, in regards to revelation... it just comes. It's like something being dropped into your mind, like a pebble being dropped into a puddle; or rather, it's like the windows of your mind being opened to receive light. That light is understanding and knowledge.

You believe its because of revelation or you know that it is?

I believe it is so, through faith. But I also know it so. This may seem contradictory to you, but let me ask you: Can one not believe and know something? Believing and knowing are not diametrically opposed to each other.

Resting in Him,

Have you endured and overcome? Do you know that endurance and overcoming is necessary before resting in Him?

 

[Gurucam]

4

I hate that word paradigm
but
I will play along

how many significant paradigms do we have here?

I will try to name them

mad
calvinist
catholic
protestant
non-trins

saying you are christian is not really telling at all

so who at tol are properly identified?

catholics and protestants

that's it
it is very hard to identify all the others
and
that makes it hard to understand what they are saying
so
this is where you start
start identifying yourselves

Paradigm are like dna. Every one has a unique one and is ruled by the particular one which he owns.

(although parts of each of our paradigm can be similar to parts of those held by others, in totality each person has and is ruled by, an absolutely unique paradigm).

A person's religious and scientific paradigm is always only a part of one's total personal and unique paradigm and it is all delusions.

All paradigm are make belief, i.e. delusional and half baked.

At best only 5% of the creation is known. Therefore, all paradigm are founded on no more than this 5% of known data. The rest is imagined or assumed. However 95% of the people live by these "5%" known and "95%" baseless paradigm. . . . . even modern scientists.

This is the world.

Even the idea of going to heaven is anchored on only 5% (or less) of known data and 95% of varying, speculative data. Is there any doubt why many are called and few chosen?

The only Truth is that there can be and are no paradigm. They are all made up by man, mostly to rule over and exploit their fellow man.

A popular paradigm of a certain church is that, if you sell all you have and deliver the proceeds to them, you are sure to go to heaven when you die.

Fact is, the Lord Jesus came to deliver all smart humans from All paradigms.

The Lord Jesus confirmed very clearly that All Truth come only from the Spirit of Truth as discerned individually and privately, by each person through each of their own individual hearts or spirit, in real time, all the time. Truth is unique for each person and Truth is also an eternally changing and evolving thing according to time and place.

One's Truth can be know only at a particular time and place by checking in in real time with the Spirit of Truth, through one's own heart or spirit. In the next second one's Truth changes and dies (ceases to exist). . . . in order to give way to a new Truth. It is not possible to reiterate one's Truth or postulate one's paradigm.

Fact is 'paradigm' is simply a fancy word for all the absolute foolishness which passes for the wisdom of the world, under Satan's rule. Paradigm is the 'wisdom' of the foolish and earthly. Paradigm is 'the wisdom' of 'the unawares'.

 

[Stripe]

I don't think it is the paradigms that are the problems; I think it is the people.

You can have any paradigm you like and as long as you hold it consistently and are willing to excise anything that is shown to be internally incoherent, the truth will shine through.

People don't refuse correction because of they don't want to change their paradigm, they refuse to change because they regard themselves as the determiner of what is right and wrong.

 

[Man.0]

My post teaches that we are all trying to understand the absolute truth which is God's paradigm.

Does God even have a paradigm?

 

[Clete]

I don't think it is the paradigms that are the problems; I think it is the people.

You can have any paradigm you like and as long as you hold it consistently and are willing to excise anything that is shown to be internally incoherent, the truth will shine through.

People don't refuse correction because of they don't want to change their paradigm, they refuse to change because they regard themselves as the determiner of what is right and wrong.

This is self contradictory in at least two ways.

They being the determiner of right and wrong would be the paradigm they are unwilling to change and not all paradigms contain within them anything about excising the internally incoherent. Or to put that last part another way, you're effectively saying that people can have any paradigm they want so long as it is your paradigm, which of course means they can't have any paradigm they want.

Having said all that, I don't think you're entirely wrong. If it weren't for human nature, there would be no such thing as a paradigm effect or paradigm paralysis in the first place.

Further, you hit on the whole solution! If people would simply excise those ideas that are incoherent (i.e. irrational), there would be no paradigm effect.

Rational thought. The right use of one's mind. That is the key! That which is true is consistent with itself. That is what the word 'true' actually means. If, for example, you lay tile in your kitchen floor and the grout lines are true, it doesn't just mean that you've laid them straight but that the depth and width of the grout lines are consistent. If you laid them true to a wall in the kitchen, it means that the wall was the standard and that if tiles are laid in a manner consistent with that wall. If we are talking about ultimate truths instead of floor tile then we need for our ideas to be not just internally consistent but consistent with objective reality.

This is what rational thought and the rules of logic are all about, intellectual internal and objective consistency.

Logic simply says that that which is, is what it is and that it isn't something else. Every rule of logic either states this directly (the law of identity) or is a corollary of it. It is the fundamental law of all thought and it cannot be denied or even argued against. Any attempt to argue against the law of identity or any of its corollaries makes use of the law of identity and its corollaries and thus defeats itself. Logic is therefore not a matter of opinion as are most other pillars upon which people build their paradigms. Logic is what makes objectivity possible and what gives the notion of objective truth meaning.

That's all I have time for at the moment. No time to edit right now, sorry about any typos!

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Zeke]

Man is born in duality, the first born's mentality is concerned with the things of the flesh that are observational, yet the stirring of the spiritual fetus within has concerns of reaching for eternity that are not observational to the first born.

 

[Danoh]

Does God even have a paradigm?

Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon - Eph. 1:10

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Logic is therefore not a matter of opinion as are most other pillars upon which people build their paradigms. Logic is what makes objectivity possible and what gives the notion of objective truth meaning.

Is not thinking logically the foundation of what is said here about the way which Paul preached:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).​

When a person "reasons" is not that method based on thinking logically? Of course!

Let us look at the "bolded" part of the following verse and look at what is said in a "logical" way:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

From a logical viewpoint can we not know that those who truly believe will not perish but instead will have everlasting life? And since this is an unconditional statement we can not also know that it is true 100% of the time?

So can we not know that when a Jew who lived under the law believed they were saved because John 3:16 says that they will not perish but instead will have everlasting life?

Can anyone find fault with my logic?

 

[Stripe]

They being the determiner of right and wrong would be the paradigm they are unwilling to change and not all paradigms contain within them anything about excising the internally incoherent.

I don't regard the determination of right and wrong as a paradigm. I would say it is the base function of rational beings; it is a universal trait that people will judge things as good or bad.

You're effectively saying that people can have any paradigm they want so long as it is your paradigm, which of course means they can't have any paradigm they want.

I do believe that everyone determines right and wrong, the problem is, they want to do so over every aspect of their lives, refusing to cede to proper authority.

I would not call this a paradigm, as I believe it is a situation that must always be true.

Having said all that, I don't think you're entirely wrong.

Phew.

If it weren't for human nature, there would be no such thing as a paradigm effect or paradigm paralysis in the first place.

How would you sum up human nature? I would say it is the tendency for men to establish his own word as true.

Rational thought. The right use of one's mind. That is the key! That which is true is consistent with itself. That is what the word 'true' actually means. If, for example, you lay tile in your kitchen floor and the grout lines are true, it doesn't just mean that you've laid them straight but that the depth and width of the grout lines are consistent. If you laid them true to a wall in the kitchen, it means that the wall was the standard and that if tiles are laid in a manner consistent with that wall. If we are talking about ultimate truths instead of floor tile then we need for our ideas to be not just internally consistent but consistent with objective reality.

This is what rational thought and the rules of logic are all about, intellectual internal and objective consistency.

:up:

 

[Clete]

I don't regard the determination of right and wrong as a paradigm. I would say it is the base function of rational beings; it is a universal trait that people will judge things as good or bad.

Do you mean determination of right and wrong in the sense of discernment or do you mean by determination that they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

If the former then I wouldn't argue with you but if you mean the latter then it clearly is a paradigm. I mean you'd have to have one whopper of a reality filter in place to end up believing that you're the one who gets to decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Not that there is any shortage of such people.

I do believe that everyone determines right and wrong, the problem is, they want to do so over every aspect of their lives, refusing to cede to proper authority.

I would not call this a paradigm, as I believe it is a situation that must always be true.

This seems like you're talking about judging right from wrong rather than determining right and wrong.

How would you sum up human nature? I would say it is the tendency for men to establish his own word as true.

I think that gives men more credit than they deserve. Men (i.e. people), as a general rule, don't try to ESTABLISH anything. It's seems to me that people let their heart rule their mind rather than the other way around. The mind is where the battle takes place and scripture tells us that the heart of man is desperately wicked. People who "follow thier heart" have lost the battle before it begins and find frustration, depression, failure and defeat. It is those who live their life in knowledge, understanding and wisdom (matters of the mind) who find the desires of their heart not only changed for the better but substantially fulfilled. This heart/mind struggled I think is the central defining characteristic of the human condition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

' “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.' (Matthew 7:15-16)

Many have been deceived by false teachers, who themselves are rather like fishermen. For each one has their own ideological net or hook which they throw out; and together with the power of charisma and other such persuasive tools, the fish come swimming in. If a fish isn't taken in by one fisherman, well, there is guaranteed to be another fisherman that will reel them in. One who is not deceived by a Billy Graham may well be deceived by a Joseph Prince or a Joseph Smith or a Joyce Meyer.

How can one be deception-proof? Only God can prevent one from being deceived. He reveals the Truth to whoever He chooses. Darkness can be discerned only when one has received Light. If not for God I wouldn't be able to discern, and be aware of, false teachers, such as David Koresh.

There are some certain things, certain indicators that one can look out for, to identify falsity. But I must reiterate at this point that a person can do all he or she can do to be aware of falsity, but if not for God, such attempts at avoiding deception are futile. Now, this is an indicator that Koresh was not of Christ: He was a member of a religious group. No religious group or sect or denomination is true. All are false. If religion is false, and Koresh was part of one, what does that make him?

It seems you yourself have not been deceived by Koresh. But could there be other false teachers, or teachings, which have ensnared you?

And Clete, how are you able to tell that Koresh was false?

It's a wild jungle out here, Clete. Those who have not been eaten by panthers have been devoured by tigers. And those who have not been devoured by tigers, have been pounced on by leopards. Only God can save a person from being devoured by deceptive beasts.

Only He can open the eyes, to see things as they really are. That's what God has done for me. I used to be deceived by both the Jehovah Witnesses and the Restored Church of God (offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert Armstrong). I now know that they are all false. Only by the grace of God.



The devil, who masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) is also a quoter of Scripture. So it is no surprise that his servants are also well-versed in the verses of the bible.



Even if I'd advised them to look for this or that, at the end of the day it's down to God, and Him opening a person's eyes. Only by the grace of God would a Branch Davidian have been able to have escaped the deception of Koresh.



By the fact that it was devised by carnal men. You certainly wouldn't have found Peter or Paul using such a method to understand Scriptural text. Why? Because they had revelation. And when one has received revelation from God, in regards to the Scriptures, why should that person need to use the man-made method of hermeneutics/exegesis?



Hermeneutics or exegesis or the practice thereof is not even mentioned in the bible, as far as I'm aware. So how do you ask me to show you biblically how hermeneutics is carnal? There is however, a verse that comes to mind, that speaks of private interpretation (which is what hermeneutics is):

'First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20)

'this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,' (2 Peter 1:20 Young's Literal Translation)




No, that is not what I'm saying. I do not think that God has ever spoken audibly to me.



I'm saying that I've been enlightened, to some extent, by the One Who is Light Himself. Now, in regards to revelation... it just comes. It's like something being dropped into your mind, like a pebble being dropped into a puddle; or rather, it's like the windows of your mind being opened to receive light. That light is understanding and knowledge.



I believe it is so, through faith. But I also know it so. This may seem contradictory to you, but let me ask you: Can one not believe and know something? Believing and knowing are not diametrically opposed to each other.



Have you endured and overcome? Do you know that endurance and overcoming is necessary before resting in Him?

I had a whole response typed and ready to post on my iPad and because of the way Apple iOS handles switching from one tab to another I lost the whole post.
God must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it.

Have a wonderfully mystic life!

Resting in Him (right now),
Clete

 

[Man.0]

I had a whole response typed and ready to post on my iPad and because of the way Apple iOS handles switching from one tab to another I lost the whole post.
God must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it.

Have a wonderfully mystic life!

Resting in Him (right now),
Clete

If you thought what you had written was really valuable and of worth, it wouldn't have bothered you to go through the effort of re-typing it. It just goes to show the value that you place in your own writings, doesn't it?

And why cause yourself to blaspheme by saying He 'must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it'? Why do you speak for God? How do you know that He didn't want me to see it - did He reveal that to you?

Are you not redoing it because He didn't want me to see it, as you suggest? But being that God does things for the benefit of others; why wouldn't He want me to see something that would be of benefit to me? Unless it was actually of no benefit at all; but then again, why would God do, give, or present things unto others that were of no benefit?

It certainly wasn't by accident that you lost it all.

 

[Stripe]

Do you mean determination of right and wrong in the sense of discernment or do you mean by determination that they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

People do not get to decide what is right. They judge. Their judgement might be on the money or skewed.

If the former then I wouldn't argue with you but if you mean the latter then it clearly is a paradigm. I mean you'd have to have one whopper of a reality filter in place to end up believing that you're the one who gets to decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Not that there is any shortage of such people.

:up:

I think the act of judgement is the foundation upon which a paradigm is placed. Everyone judges, so the paradigm on top of it, while important, is not the test of whether a man will act rationally.

If he has his paradigm and acts rationally, logic will dictate to him that he should change his worldview.

This seems like you're talking about judging right from wrong rather than determining right and wrong.

Right. I should have said "judge" to be clear.

I think that gives men more credit than they deserve. Men (i.e. people), as a general rule, don't try to ESTABLISH anything.

Allow me to reword:

Human nature is the desire men have to establish their own word as true.