Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Dave-W]

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

If you believe that, then you have not actually looked at it. If you read up on Hebraic block logic you will see the differences.

In the exodus, who hardened Pharoh’s heart, God or himself? The text says both. That only works in block logic.

By the same line of thought, I believe some (or maybe even most) of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism could be straightened out with Block logic as opposed to Aristotelian logic.

 

[Radagast]

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

Either you misremembered it, or it was rubbish. I challenge you to back up what you say with actual quotes from Augustine.

 

[Dave-W]

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

And God created both. He is above both and not subject to either.

 

[Radagast]

If you believe that, then you have not actually looked at it. If you read up on Hebraic block logic you will see the differences.

I have strong doubts as to whether "Hebraic block logic" is really a thing.

In the exodus, who hardened Pharoh’s heart, God or himself? The text says both. That only works in block logic.

That works fine in standard logic, and the Christian Church has spent 2000 years discussing the passage using standard logic.

 

[Radagast]

And God created both. He is above both and not subject to either.

The laws of logic aren't created.

 

[Dave-W]

Either you misremembered it, or it was rubbish. I challenge you to back up what you say with actual quotes from Augustine.

So I am supposed to take my own time to dig up information on a guy I am not interested in; so you can rebuff it? If I did show you proof of what I said, would it change your mind?

And if not, why should I take the time to do it?

 

[Dave-W]

The laws of logic aren't created.

Of course they are. God created everything.

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

Everlasting life is a gift from God to the saved, not a right of birth.

Joh_3:16 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.

To get into it would be going off topic. Might get the OP and Mods ticked.

 

[Dave-W]

I have strong doubts as to whether "Hebraic block logic" is really a thing

You will have to wait until tomorrow when I am on a different computer. I have several links explaining block logic that are not on my iPad.

 

[Dave-W]

Everlasting life is a gift from God to the saved, not a right of birth.

Everlasting life is a result of being in a covenant relationship with God.

For those born under the Mosaic covenant (the Jews) it was effective from birth due to the nature of the covenant.

 

[Radagast]

So I am supposed to take my own time to dig up information on a guy I am not interested in; so you can rebuff it? If I did show you proof of what I said, would it change your mind?

And if not, why should I take the time to do it?

You made the claim, but you're unable and unwilling to back it up?

I think that tells us how much the claim is worth.

 

[Radagast]

Of course they are. God created everything.

God did not create the number 3. There were 3 Persons in the Trinity prior to Creation.

 

[mmksparbud]

Everlasting life is a result of being in a covenant relationship with God.

For those born under the Mosaic covenant (the Jews) it was effective from birth due to the nature of the covenant.

Jew or not--everlasting life is not automatic--even a Jew could be lost.

 

[Chris V++]

I mean, works of Plato and Aristotle have been used by Christians to defend their beliefs or even to get into a common ground with non-Christians. What do you think?

Why not? In another thread they are discussing free will vs. predestination.
The Greek idea of 'Character is Destiny' came up and gives us another lens though which to interpret or relate to the Bible.

'Character is destiny,” is a quote attributed to the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus. This quote implies that destiny, or fate, is not a predetermined outside force, but that one's future, or destiny, is determined by his own inner character.'

I heard a radio preacher discuss David in these terms, that David's weakness of character led to his sin with Bathsheba, which gave David no moral ground to stand on to punish his son Amnon for raping Tamar, which in turn led to Absalom having Amnon killed since David couldn't or wouldn't punish him and a subsequent revolt.

 

[Dave-W]

God did not create the number 3. There were 3 Persons in the Trinity prior to Creation.

Of course he did.

You are saying (in essence) that God is NOT all powerful and that numbers are more powerful than He is.

God is one.
God is three
God is seven

All FULLY and simultaneously true.

 

[Dave-W]

Jew or not--everlasting life is not automatic--even a Jew could be lost.

According to Romans 11, a Jew loses it thru unbelief. They get broken off.

A gentle never had it to begin with.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So I am supposed to take my own time to dig up information on a guy I am not interested in; so you can rebuff it? If I did show you proof of what I said, would it change your mind?

And if not, why should I take the time to do it?

If you make a claim, you perhaps ought to be ready to back it up if asked to produce evidence. If i said Jewish thought is not monolithic you would expect proof no?

Claiming Augustine as a disciple of Aristotle doesn't really even fit. I'm not even sure he would have been well read in Aristotle since he derived most of his thinking from Latin writers and Philosophers.

Do you dismiss the entire Greek philosophical tradition and then by extension the Christian Philosophical tradition that came afterwards?

 

[mark kennedy]

If you believe that, then you have not actually looked at it. If you read up on Hebraic block logic you will see the differences.

In the exodus, who hardened Pharoh’s heart, God or himself? The text says both. That only works in block logic.

By the same line of thought, I believe some (or maybe even most) of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism could be straightened out with Block logic as opposed to Aristotelian logic.

I looked it up, block logic sounds kind of interesting, more experiential. Aristotle was into lists, everything fit into a category, mainly because Aristotle organized it that way. Plato was famous for his ideals, much more general, transcendent principles were the order of the day. The Hebrews had a different way of relating to divine truth, they had the collective testimonies of their prophetic oracles, it makes sense they might have had trouble sorting between the Pentateuch and the prophets for instance. The Greeks wrote many important encyclicals like Euclid's Elements, the second best selling nonfiction of all times. Their philosophical writings are another matter, although Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics are both superb philosophical discussions.

Aristotle had a lot of fans back during the Dark Ages, the Muslims would refer to him as 'the philosopher', kind of like calling Mohammad 'the prophet', a really big deal for Medieval Muslims. The Medieval Aristotelian Scholasticism was actually a synthesis of Greek and Roman thought, endured for maybe a thousand years as their version of the unified theory. There were some serious issues that arose when the Scientific Revolution started developing the inductive approach to natural phenomenon, especially with regards to the principles of motion and the y-squared. The Catholic scholars thought the Aristotelian Scholasticism could be revised and updated, Galileo said scrap it. Mind you he wasn't talking philosophy or math, he was concern with astronomy and physics.

The Greeks contributed a great deal to western thinking, thankfully like the Hebrews they would write things down on scrolls. I don't think we should abandon the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, we should just be careful not to mistake their philosophical musings with theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course he did.

You are saying (in essence) that God is NOT all powerful and that numbers are more powerful than He is.

God is one.
God is three
God is seven

All FULLY and simultaneously true.

I get what your saying here, sounds like your abandoning the concept of a monolithic oneness of God in favor of the more, expressive approach of the ancient Hebrews. The mysterious 'seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth' (Rev. 5:6; Isaiah 11:2-3), for instance. Numbers could be cardinal or ordinal in the Hebrew, the number seven might not be an ordered list, sometimes it simply represented divine perfection. The Trinity is virtually unknown in the Old Testament even though there was this mysterious 'Son of Man', which in the New Testament was Jesus favorite way to refer to himself. As revelation unfolded, a new witness, a new prophetic oracle, it becomes necessary to relate what is newly learned and already known. A sensitivity to the literary features and cultural context of the ancients is helpful in that regard because the ancient Hebrews were no where near as analytic as the Hellenized Greeks, although they were influenced by it to some degree. Caution is advisable not to be too eclectic about it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have strong doubts as to whether "Hebraic block logic" is really a thing.

Actually, a good portion of Jewish religious thought is rather "dialectical" in nature rather than purely "analytical." See Robby Gallaty's book, The Forgotten Jesus as a basic intro to this aspect of biblical interpretation. [Gallaty is a Baptist pastor, not a Jewish Rabbi, by the way........................so that kind of makes it interesting. ]

That works fine in standard logic, and the Christian Church has spent 2000 years discussing the passage using standard logic.

If this is the case, then why do so many people, both those who are Christian but especially those who are Skeptical, question this and remain seemingly confused that this is the case [i.e. that Pharaoh hardened his own heart]? Is it maybe because Christians haven't been always thorough enough (or charitable enough) with their hermeneutical studies and applications, particularly where incorporating Jewish understandings of Scripture with more "Greek-ified" understandings would have been helpful even if still not conclusive in all interpretive instances?