Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Radagast]

It was, for I instance, where the immortality of the soul came from.

No, that's in the Bible.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

You must never have heard of Aristotelian Scholasticism. The Medieval Catholics loved it.

Then Ockham threw it out and embrac ed Islamic philosophy, which gave us protestant theology.

After conquering much of the world and gathering their greatest books and minds, Islamic scholars concluded God as described the Quran did not make any sense. God was sovereign to them, above order or understanding. Eventually Christians took that to the extreme that God is so sovereign that people cannot choose to be saved.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you want to have any understanding of Christian theology and the conversations that have been happening over the last two thousand years, then it's almost essential to have some knowledge of the Greek philosophical tradition.

I have noticed some making the contrast between Jewish thinking and Greek thinking, that since the Greeks were initially Pagan their thinking must necessarily corrupt biblical interpretation. This seems like an odd position to have, as it advocates a secondary knowledge of Jewish tradition is necessary to read the bible. What about the perspicuity of scripture and it's ability to speak to all regardless of context?

I don't think any avenue or field of philosophical knowledge is necessarily forbidden or useless.

 

[Radagast]

Then Ockham threw it out and embrac ed Islamic philosophy, which gave us protestant theology.

That's so full of wrong that it's scary.

 

[RDKirk]

Aristotle has a rhetorical format?

Yes. Or call it "style."

The impression I get is that his actual books were thrown away, and what we've got is some random student's lecture notes.[/QUOTE]

That's my understanding. But it's also my understanding that "back in the day," lecture notes had to be a lot more comprehensive.

 

[mmksparbud]

No, that's in the Bible.

Nope.

 

[RDKirk]

No, that's in the Bible.

Well, it's not in the bible if you remove everything that was written in Greek.

(Actually, it still is, it's just harder to find.)

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, it's not in the bible if you remove everything that was written in Greek.

(Actually, it still is, it's just harder to find.)

Sorry--Nope.

 

[RDKirk]

It was, for I instance, where the immortality of the soul came from.

You probably need to clarify what you mean by that. I suspect you're referring to SDA doctrine (which I'm not that familiar with), but if you're saying that "life everlasting" is false, you're on thin ice in this forum area.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

That's so full of wrong that it's scary.

It is correct. To reply by only saying that I am wrong is juvenile.

 

[Dave-W]

On the surface I'd like to agree, but cannot due to knowing a little, not much but a little about Aristotle. His work The Organon is considered the first text or textbook on logic, concerned with making distinctions, which is broadly what formal classical logic is concerned with. The laws of logic are perhaps the most valuable "tools" of thinking we as humans have with which to interpret...basically everything.

You are [incorrectly] assuming the logic of the Bible is the same as Aristotle’s. It is not. There are many similarities to be sure, but many things held to be incompatible or irreconcilable in Aristotelian logic fit perfectly well in Hebraic Block [aka adductive] logic.

 

[RDKirk]

You are [incorrectly] assuming the logic of the Bible is the same as Aristotle’s. It is not. There are many similarities to be sure, but many things held to be incompatible or irreconcilable in Aristotelian logic fit perfectly well in Hebraic Block [aka adductive] logic.

That's true. We're so steeped in Greek philosophy--logic, epistemology, aesthetics, et cetera--that we don't usually realize those are not laws of nature.

 

[Dave-W]

That's not the view of the Church, and that's not the view of Paul, who quoted some of the Greeks.

No it is not the view of the church thanks to Augustine who considered himself a disciple of Aristotle [a pagan] as much as a disciple of Christ.

 

[Radagast]

That's my understanding. But it's also my understanding that "back in the day," lecture notes had to be a lot more comprehensive.

What I meant was that the writing style may be that of someone anonymous, even if the content is Aristotle's.

 

[Radagast]

No it is not the view of the church thanks to Augustine who considered himself a disciple of Aristotle [a pagan] as much as a disciple of Christ.

No, Augustine did not "consider himself a disciple of Aristotle." He was in fact quite down on philosophers generally, conceding only that the Neo-Platonists were less wrong than everybody else.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[RDKirk]

What I meant was that the writing style may be that of someone anonymous, even if the content is Aristotle's.

Regardless of that, my point is that additional reading of that style made the style of Romans more accessible to me.

 

[RDKirk]

No it is not the view of the church thanks to Augustine who considered himself a disciple of Aristotle [a pagan] as much as a disciple of Christ.

I think Paul's problem with Greek philosophers is that they ultimately preferred continuous philosophizing rather than to capitulate to the truth of "Christ and Him crucified." So like exercise, philosophy has only limited usefulness.

 

[Radagast]

You are [incorrectly] assuming the logic of the Bible is the same as Aristotle’s.

There are, it is true, some errors in Aristotle's logical system. But nothing in the Bible steps outside of standard modern logic.

 

[Dave-W]

Where do you get this stuff?

THAT “stuff” I got back in high school reading a biography of him.

 

[Radagast]

That's true. We're so steeped in Greek philosophy--logic, epistemology, aesthetics, et cetera--that we don't usually realize those are not laws of nature.

The laws of logic run even deeper than the laws of nature.