Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Radagast]

You are free to have your own opinion, of course.

I take it that's a "no" on the reputable study, then. This misspelled figure caption was always a bad sign.

The East comprises--Near, Middle and Far.

And the Far East has essentially nothing in common with the other two.

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

Nothing resembling a reliable source there either (and one of those links is broken).

Regarding "adduction," I'm not sure how it can be both Hebrew and Baconian.

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

Ethnically Caucusoid, speaking a Nostratic language.

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

Yes.

 

[Dave-W]

(and one of those links is broken).

That is a recent breakage. Here is a quote from what used to be at that site:

Hebrew block logic essentially refers to Hebrew reasoning - It's not formal logic. Hebraic reasoning does not focus as much on linear thought (argument), or linear narrative. Instead it focuses on blocks of context, or subject matter. For example, the Gospel narratives have chronological problems at some points, because in the Hebrew mind chronology takes a back seat to subject, or theological pattern etc.(1) Thus scripture tends this way. Marvin Wilson wrote this about Hebraic reasoning: "Concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antimony, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension -- and often illogical relation -- to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic....Consideration of certain forms of block logic may give one the impression that divine sovereignty and human responsibility were incompatible. The Hebrews, however, sense no violation of their freedom as they accomplish God's purposes. The back and forth between human freedom and divine sovereignty is a function of block logic and the Hebrew mindset. What this boils down to is that Paul presents us with a paradox in Romans 9, one which he, as a Hebrew, saw no need to explain. "..[T]he Hebrew mind could handle this dynamic tension of the language of paradox" and saw no need to unravel it as we do."
​

One major problem in approaching the Bible from a western logic viewpoint is the tendency to look at things in abstract. Hebrew thought (reflected in both testaments of the Bible) is NEVER abstract. It is relational. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks said in a recent address on the Hebrew language, comparing right-to-left languages with no vowels (like Hebrew) with left to right languages with vowels (like Greek); left to right divides things for analysis; and right to left combines things for meaning. Abstract vs relational.

 

[mmksparbud]

I take it that's a "no" on the reputable study, then. This misspelled figure caption was always a bad sign.



And the Far East has essentially nothing in common with the other two.



Nothing resembling a reliable source their either (and one of those links is broken).

Regarding "adduction," I'm not sure how it can be both Hebrew and Baconian.



Ethnically Caucusoid, speaking a Nostratic language.



Yes.

An you base your opinion on what source??

 

[Radagast]

antimony

Probably more like arsenic. Or did you mean "antinomy"?

Look, a random web site isn't going to convince me.

And if there was actually a "Hebrew logic," I would say "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

 

[Radagast]

An you base your opinion on what source??

In order:

(1) the failure to provide a reputable source.

(2) a knowledge of the history, geography, and culture of the Near and Far East.

(3) the failure to provide a reputable source.

(4) the fact that Baconian logic is well and truly part of the Western mental toolbox (and the fact that his ideas go back to Aristotle).

(5) knowledge of the pre-history of Indo-European and Semitic people (see the diagram below, from here)

(6) personal experience.

 

[mmksparbud]

In order:

(1) the failure to provide a reputable source.

(2) a knowledge of the history, geography, and culture of the Near and Far East.

(3) the failure to provide a reputable source.

(4) the fact that Baconian logic is well and truly part of the Western mental toolbox (and the fact that his ideas go back to Aristotle).

(5) knowledge of the pre-history of Indo-European and Semitic people (see the diagram below, from here)

(6) personal experience.

Really---I base mine on what the actual Jewish people say, from ancient and modern writings and what the bible itself says.

 

[Radagast]

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks said in a recent address on the Hebrew language, comparing right-to-left languages with no vowels (like Hebrew) with left to right languages with vowels (like Greek); left to right divides things for analysis; and right to left combines things for meaning.

Now this is actually the worst bit of nonsense I've heard in a long time. Are right-to-left Arabic and Hebrew with vowel points intended to be a bit of both? Boustrophedonic Greek (see picture below) was presumably a bit of both as well?

 

[Radagast]

Really---I base mine on what the actual Jewish people say, from ancient and modern writings

Like I said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

 

[mmksparbud]

Like I said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

Thanks--but I am not talking about leaven. It is about the way the Jew thinks, how he uses his own language to convey what he is thinking how they perceive things, how their culture affect these things, not about the actual believes. I don't believe that anyone but a Jew, or one that has been steeped in that culture can give insight into that. Their own writings give insight into these things. I want to know how the Jew perceived the world around them, not how the Greeks did. I want to know the difference between the Jew and the Greek. Jesus was a Jew, born and raised one and He thought as one and Him and His Father dealt with them, individually and as a nation--- and the bible is written by them, not by Greeks steeped in their own language and perceptions.

 

[Ken Rank]

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 would suggest no, David. While I am not anti-Greek, I am pro-Hebrew in the sense that Jesus, his disciples, and all of the biblical writers save for 2, were Hebrew. Since the Hebrew mindset is diametrically opposed to a Greek mindset, then it would make more sense to either understand both or if choosing one, Hebrew then to choose solely Greek.

Hebrew is more about function, Greek is more in line with form. That alone reveals the contrast but also explains why the Jews tend to be more concrete in their interpretation and the Greek based Christians tend to spiritualize things. That, and the bible is FULL of Hebraic idioms, exegetical tools and a more concrete/function oriented mindset that we would be better to learn the Philosophy of the first century Jewish people then to learn the philosophy of historical Greek figures who think in terms outside of Scripture. IMHO

 

[Radagast]

Thanks--but I am not talking about leaven.

Well many people who say what you did go on to try to reintroduce the leaven of the Pharisees.

And I would point out that the New Testament was written in Greek, and quotes the Old Testament in Greek. In fact, for several centuries before Christ, most Jews had been reading their Scriptures in Greek.

A number of Jesus' disciples were so culturally Greek that they even had Greek names.

It is about the way the Jew thinks

Different people think in different ways, same as for non-Jews.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher, for example. It's probably from him that the word "Logos" in the John 1:1 comes. Philo's ideas incorporated several concepts from Greek thought.

Anyone who says "the Jews thought like this" is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood. And trying to copy the way that modern Jews think can only lead you away from Christ.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well many people who say what you did go on to try to reintroduce the leaven of the Pharisees.

And I would point out that the New Testament was written in Greek, and quotes the Old Testament in Greek. In fact, for several centuries before Christ, most Jews had been reading their Scriptures in Greek.

A number of Jesus' disciples were so culturally Greek that they even had Greek names.



Different people think in different ways, same as for non-Jews.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher, for example. It's probably from him that the word "Logos" in the John 1:1 comes. Philo's ideas incorporated several concepts from Greek thought.

Anyone who says "the Jews thought like this" is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood. And trying to copy the way that modern Jews think can only lead you away from Christ.

No--the leaven of the Pharisees was not about how they used their language, but about the misapplication of the Jewish laws. It was about selfishness, self-centeredness not about language. It is more than foolish to use the mind of a Greek to study the application of Jewish ways of thinking. That doesn't even make sense. You don't apply British culture and mindset when deciphering Chinese literature. Nor do you use modern ds Ch9nese cultural thinking to the Qing dynasty. Hellenistic Jewish thinking needs to be taken into account---the disciples, nor Jesus, were that. And certainly not the OT. To do so is what brought in Greek philosophy into the interpretation of the bible with resultant errors.
The Jews seldom used Greek when it came to the scriptures. The Rabbi's, nor the general population, ever used anything but Hebrew in the synagogue--Hebrew was considered the "sacred language" for scripture reading. Just a the early church used only Latin in their church services.

 

[Radagast]

No--the leaven of the Pharisees was not about how they used their language, but about the misapplication of the Jewish laws.

It was about how they interpreted their Scriptures.

It is more than foolish to use the mind of a Greek to study the application of Jewish ways of thinking.

You don't need a special "Jewish mind" to read the Christian Bible.

The Jews seldom used Greek when it came to the scriptures. The Rabbi's, nor the general population, ever used anything but Hebrew in the synagogue--Hebrew was considered the "sacred language" for scripture reading.

That's just false. The Jews translated the OT into Greek because they read it in Greek.

Archaeological evidence shows that most synagogues outside Palestine and about 30% of those in Palestine were Greek-speaking synagogues.

Just a the early church used only Latin in their church services.

Side issue, but the early church first used Greek. Latin came later.

 

[mmksparbud]

It was about how they interpreted their Scriptures.



You don't need a special "Jewish mind" to read the Christian Bible.



That's just false. The Jews translated the OT into Greek because they read it in Greek.

Archaeological evidence shows that most synagogues outside Palestine and about 30% of those in Palestine were Greek-speaking synagogues.



Side issue, but the early church first used Greek. Latin came later.

You are, of course, free to read the bible any way you wish--as for me and my house---I want it to be as accurate as possible. I do not care to interpret the scripters according to a Pagan way of thinking. Even of those Jews who did speak Greek, they were still Jews and th0ought as such. And that is what bible interpretation is all about--they try to interpret the word according to how the Jews used their language.
That is why you don't understand what it means when they talked about the names---they meant something. It described who the individual was, and that is why Jesus is going to give the saved new names--that only He and the individual will know. Ha e you ever heard of the Targums? They were the Jewish scripture's in Aramaic. They are from the Babylonian exile. They were using Aramaic so much that the scribes had to translate the scripture into Aramaic--and they had to get it as it was meant to be read, not according to Babylonian thinking. In the synagogue, they read the scriptures in Hebrew, then it was translated into Aramaic--it was never read solely in Aramaic in the synagogues.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I'd like to propose that logic is eternal, a property of God, that it is a characteristic of the mind of God (not the author of confusion), and by extension an attribute of being made in the image of God.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Of course they are. God created everything.

Sorry to remind, but God is not the author of sin.

 

[Dave-W]

Sorry to remind, but God is not the author of sin.

Who made the tree "Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Before the fall?

God had to have defined "sin."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

In the minds of finite creatures, logic has limitations, and we shouldn't assume we have comprehensive knowledge of logic, especially as it relates to the spiritual. Take for example the theory or law of gravity, how do we explain Jesus walking on the water by it? We cannot, and should not improperly try, as evidently it does not apply to the supernatural. Nevertheless we do not reject nor deny the theory or law of gravity. A key difference though between the laws of logic (or laws of thought) and the the theory or law of gravity is the laws of logic are not created they are eternal and a property (attribute) of the mind of God and this is evidenced in man being created in the image of God, an attribute of the "image".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Who made the tree "Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Before the fall?

God had to have defined "sin."

So there is a difference between knowledge and creating something? yes, most definitely.

 

[Dave-W]

So there is a difference between knowledge and creating something? yes, most definitely.

For us, yes.

But for God???