Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Vicomte13]

The Roman Lucretius’ long poem of Epicurean philosophy : De Rerun Natura (On the Nature of Things), written circa 76 BC, is probably the single most concentrated concatenation of the scientific knowledge of the ancient world, and the best philosophical outlook on existence I have ever found. It was my “Bible” when I was a pagan, and it is still the fundamental flavor of my philosophical outlook on the universe. In fact, I would even say that it is BECAUSE of Lucretius that I was able to distinguish the miraculous from the natural when I saw it, to acknowledge miracle as the proof of the willful divine, and yet STILL not abandon reason to run off after every superstitious belief about the divine. Just because there are God’s or The God does not therefore mean that every enthusiast’s emotional mysticism is true or to be taken at face value, and even that which is pious could be a fraud.
I still agree with Lucretius Varus: “True piety does not consist of sprinkling blood on altars with a veiled head, but in contemplating the Universe with a tranquil mind.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Greek philosophy is inherently pagan and has no use in Christianity.

Well, then should we also say that the Gentiles (which I am one of) are inherently pagan and should take a back seat to the Jews in the interpretive measures they apply to the Bible as they sit under the headship of Christ?

No, I'm under the persuasion that Jewish thought is to be held in tandem with Greek style analytical procedures, neither of which are, epistemologically speaking, the final arbiters of the reality of our faith in Jesus Christ.

Rather, God in His Trinitarian fullness is the Final Arbiter in making our faith a reality, and this is the case, I believe, for both Jews and Gentiles. However, neither Jew nor Gentile has the final word, but at the same time, neither presence is expendable within the Church of Christ.

 

[Vicomte13]

Lucretius Carus, with a “C”, not Varus, the letter next to c on the keyboard, and the name of a fictional scheming eunuch.

 

[Dave-W]

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

That it. Had impact on the world around us, no.

But as far as having any usefulness to the Redeemed community, YES I do reject it.

IMO one of the biggest mistakes the ECFs made was rejecting the Jewish philosophical tradition in favor of the Greek one.

 

[HTacianas]

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?

I don't know that an in-depth study of Greek philosophy would be the best use of your time but it couldn't hurt. You might want to begin with studying the teachings of the saints regarding their views of philosophy. There is a body of teachings that go into it.

Philosophy and Hinduism share commonalities with Christianity, and I think those commonalities are based on the examination of the conscience. Paul spoke of gentiles who keep the law based on their consciences even though they did not know the law as it was written.

 

[zippy2006]

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 would say it's not a question of logic, it's a question of God. Calvinists are wrong because they misunderstand God, not because they misunderstand logic. In the material realm it is true that something cannot be in two places at one time. Not so with God. In the realm of creaturely causality it is true that causes are mutually exclusive. Not so with God.

I know nothing about Block logic, but I assume that it would only be relevant when God is involved, in which case it is God, not logic, that is the crux.

 

[BarWi]

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?

As I see it, any man or woman who genuinely seeks answers to moral and/or ethical veracity and their relationships to everyday life is necessarily induced in spirit to seek the absolute Truth. To the degree the Greeks or anyone else are able to uncover light in these realms, to that same degree they partake in some measure of union with God. How else but by the Spirit of God can any man seek out these things?

 

[Radagast]

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.

There are 3 Persons in the Trinity, not 7.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

It would be off topic because nobody in this thread has hinted, much less asserted, that everlasting life is anything but a gift from God to the saved.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

It doesn't appear that the 1AD Jews had come to that conclusion, inasmuch as they were still debating the answer.

 

[mmksparbud]

It would be off topic because nobody in this thread has hinted, much less asserted, that everlasting life is anything but a gift from God to the saved.

Referring to the immortality of the soul---in other words--the lost soul burns in hell forever.

 

[prodromos]

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?

St Basil taught his students to be like the honey bee. Only take what is beneficial.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That it. Had impact on the world around us, no.

But as far as having any usefulness to the Redeemed community, YES I do reject it.

IMO one of the biggest mistakes the ECFs made was rejecting the Jewish philosophical tradition in favor of the Greek one.

What do you mean, reject the Jewish philosophical tradition? If the Jewish philosophical tradition could lead to truth why did they reject Christ?

 

[Radagast]

IMO one of the biggest mistakes the ECFs made was rejecting the Jewish philosophical tradition in favor of the Greek one.

What Jewish philosophical tradition would that be? Philo of Alexandria? We didn't "reject" him. In fact, I'm pretty sure that John the Evangelist takes the word "Logos" from him.

Or do you mean the so-called "block logic"? That seems to be a very recent invention.

 

[mmksparbud]

What Jewish philosophical tradition would that be? Philo of Alexandria? We didn't "reject" him. In fact, I'm pretty sure that John the Evangelist takes the word "Logos" from him.

Or do you mean the so-called "block logic"? That seems to be a very recent invention.

Ancient Hebrew Philosophy

If you were to ask a Westerner, such as from the Americas or Europe, what they see in the picture above, they would probably say "a deer." However, if you were to ask an Easterner, such as from Japan or China, what they see, they will probably say "a forest." The difference is that the Western thinker focuses in on one point, while the Eastern thinker looks at the whole of the image.

Figure 30 – An experiment demonstrating the different between Western and Eastern thought
In an extensive study on these different forms of philosophy, a wide range of people from America, Canada and Europe were asked if they thought the boy in the middle of the picture on the left was happy or sad, they all said "happy." They were then asked if they thought the boy in the middle of the picture on the right was happy or sad, they all said "happy." Then a wide range of people from Asia, including Japan and China, were asked the same questions. When asked if the boy on the left was happy or sad, they all said "happy." When they were asked if the boy on the right was happy or sad, they all said "sad."

Again, Western thinkers focus on one point, the boy in the middle. Eastern thinkers on the other hand focus on the picture as a whole and because the majority of the children in the picture on the right were sad, their answer was "sad," regardless of the smile on the boy in the middle.

The Psychology of the Ancient Hebrews is very different from our own and when we read the Bible we must learn to read it from the Hebrew's perspective rather than our own.

When we use a word like "name," we focus in on how it is written and pronounced.

I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee. (Psalm 22:23)
What does it mean to "tell someone about another's name?" Does it mean to tell others how to write or pronounce the name? From a Western perspective yes, but from a Hebraic perspective a name is much more than its pronunciation; it is the character of the individual, his ethics, workmanship, attitude, dependability, resourcefulness, compassion, honor, etc. When the Bible teaches us to "tell others the name of Yahweh," it isn't telling us to teach others how to write or pronounce it correctly; it is telling us to teach Yahweh's character.
The Ancient Hebrew Language

 

[Radagast]

If you were to ask a Westerner, such as from the Americas or Europe, what they see in the picture above, they would probably say "a deer." However, if you were to ask an Easterner, such as from Japan or China, what they see, they will probably say "a forest."

Is that based on any kind of reputable study? Because it sounds dubious.

Also, ancient Hebrews were not Asian.

when we read the Bible we must learn to read it from the Hebrew's perspective rather than our own

This supposed "Hebrew's perspective" usually turns out to be a false idea that distorts the text.

we use a word like "name," we focus in on how it is written and pronounced.

Well, no.

When we say "Mr Smith has a good name in the community," we don't mean people pronounce "Smith" in a nice way.

Or, to quote Shakespeare:

"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

What does it mean to "tell someone about another's name?" Does it mean to tell others how to write or pronounce the name? From a Western perspective yes

Once again, no.

 

[mmksparbud]

Is that based on any kind of reputable study? Because it sounds dubious.

Also, ancient Hebrews were not Asian.



This supposed "Hebrew's perspective" usually turns out to be a false idea that distorts the text.



Well, no.

When we say "Mr Smith has a good name in the community," we don't mean people pronounce "Smith" in a nice way.

Or, to quote Shakespeare:

"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."



Once again, no.

You are free to have your own opinion, of course. I will take the work done by a Jewish scholar instead. They usually have a better understanding of what it means to be Jewish--and
The East comprises--Near, Middle and Far. But, there again, you can have your own definitions if you so wish.

 

[Dave-W]

Or do you mean the so-called "block logic"? That seems to be a very recent invention.

BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index

http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf

Hebrew Block Logic

Hebrew Adductive Logic in Torah

 

[Dave-W]

Also, ancient Hebrews were not Asian.

So you say the Chaldeans (predecessors of the Hebrews) were European, or were they African?

 

[Dave-W]

This supposed "Hebrew's perspective" usually turns out to be a false idea that distorts the text.

How do you know it is a "false idea?" Have you read other Jewish writings from the same era to verify that?

I would submit that reading Jewish texts thru a Greek logic lens is the distortion, not the other way around.