My thoughts on Hebrew vs Greek thinking, what are yours?
- Thread starter RedTent
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Simona25,
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
You can read the rest here: Hebrew Roots Movement – The Issue of “Hellenization”
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Hebrew language tends to be concrete
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
We transistion now from language to culture . . .
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
May God grant you wisdom and discernment as you consider all of these things.
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
Kindly re-read my post and then re-read yours.
How you come up with the idea that what I said means that I think God wants nothing to do with Hebrews is beyond me. Your conclusions are without any basis AT ALL.
One has to conclude that with the repeated misrepresentation of my and other posters you are either not reading what we write or are doing your best to repeat the lie enough times that people will believe it (the big lie fallacy).
So try again.
After reading the post.
-JGIG
I don't see it that way at all and I see no problems with my statement as it is the Spirit of God that gives insight and enlightens the minds of men/women to the absolute truth found in both the O.T. and the N.T. Now, I would agree there are cultural implications as well as historical context that needs to be studied so as to grasp a fuller understanding of some things, but over all I can understand ALL things by the Spirit of God and a renewed mindset transcends Eastern/Western thinking in my view HAHAH 
I most certainly did NOT read all your post. I read what you thought of everything I reported about the bible, and it was that everything I said was completely wrong that I was being a false prophet and on and on. I am answering that. I certainly would not read all the stuff you post, no Christian would speak as you do. To report why and how you think scripture says something different to you is one thing, something Christians would do. No person who has the Lord within them would ever speak as you do. No I have not read all you say, nor do I think you are worth reading.
I don't see it that way at all and I see no problems with my statement as it is the Spirit of God that gives insight and enlightens the minds of men/women to the absolute truth found in both the O.T. and the N.T. Now, I would agree there are cultural implications as well as historical context that needs to be studied so as to grasp a fuller understanding of some things, but over all I can understand ALL things by the Spirit of God and a renewed mindset transcends Eastern/Western thinking in my view HAHAH
Well, interesting musings Red.
Is this binary thinking? Should you ask not whether a mind is Hellenistic, but rather, how Hellenisitic is it (say on a scale of 0-10).
Do we have enough documentation to establish a "Hellenistic Mind"? Was there ever a uniform Hellenistic mind, or was the thinking of those in Alexander's Split up Kingdom, rather diverse? How many Hellenistic documents have you read?
Is there a uniform "Western Mind"? Or are there quite a variety of mindsets in the West?
How sure are you of what you posted? How much of it has proof?
How much of modern thought is a dialectic conflict between Humanistic Thought vs Reformation Thought?
How big is the Eastern component in modern Western thought? Where did global warming come from?
As to Hebrew thought: how much of that historically has been idolatrous? Baal, etc.? Was the majority Hebrew thought ungodly with sun worship and child-sacrifice? Is Biblical thought actually Hebrew thought?
O
a very thought provoking thread, may it give us all a better understanding
of the whole of scripture.
Eastern/Western, both have benefits and both have short-comings.
a short-coming of Eastern thought, Hebraic, is that the intellectuals, Rabbis -
added so much minute ritual, that to do all the ritualistic requirements,
one can get lost and fail to observe the weightier matters.
a beneficial part of Hebraic thinking is that they think in terms
of patterns and actions,
where a short-coming of Western Thought is that they think in terms
of knowing the why, an A+B equals C type of mentality, which for practical thinking
this is a wonderful problem solving technique.
so we see TWO very different lines of reasoning and communication.
I am giving a simplistic example of mankind's very complex art of thinking,
but we always have to keep in mind, that our Lord's way of thinking
is so much more superior to anything we could ever imagine.
what a miracle that He has even said,
'let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.'
GALATIANS 6:1.
Brethren, if a man is over-taken in any fault,
you who are Spiritual restore such a one in a Spirit
of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be
tempted.
of the whole of scripture.
Eastern/Western, both have benefits and both have short-comings.
a short-coming of Eastern thought, Hebraic, is that the intellectuals, Rabbis -
added so much minute ritual, that to do all the ritualistic requirements,
one can get lost and fail to observe the weightier matters.
a beneficial part of Hebraic thinking is that they think in terms
of patterns and actions,
where a short-coming of Western Thought is that they think in terms
of knowing the why, an A+B equals C type of mentality, which for practical thinking
this is a wonderful problem solving technique.
so we see TWO very different lines of reasoning and communication.
I am giving a simplistic example of mankind's very complex art of thinking,
but we always have to keep in mind, that our Lord's way of thinking
is so much more superior to anything we could ever imagine.
what a miracle that He has even said,
'let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.'
GALATIANS 6:1.
Brethren, if a man is over-taken in any fault,
you who are Spiritual restore such a one in a Spirit
of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be
tempted.
Last edited by a moderator:
I really think most of this post is a way of saying you don't want to think about it. For instance, we know Alexander the Great changed the way the world thought, so how do we know this? Can you go to the bible to prove it? We are told early rabbis objected to Hellenistic thought in the world, but it is only hinted at. Early rabbis did not recognize Christ as the one scripture had told about, how does this relate to what we are to think today? There was the protestant revolution in our world, we are told, so prove it to me. Way over 78% of the bible was first written in the Hebrew Language and around a people who lived as Hebrews did. Does this have any meaning in God's eyes? Prove it!! Many of the people in the bible became idol worshippers, how did God react and is this part of the Hebrew language God used? Prove it!! Should we think about these things as we come to know Christ or should we be ignorant of any of it? We have scripture and the Holy Spirit, we have salvation, many Christians say that anything else, even if it is scripture, isn't for us to think about. Some say that when Christ gave us forgiveness of sins, when His blood was to be used and Christ became the High Priest, Christ wiped out anything given to any people before Christ lived with us as a man. Is this the best way for us to live? It means we have no more ten commandments, no more prophets that told us anything about living that relates to us today, that it was all shadows and shadows must be ignored. Isaiah, Moses, Elijah are not for us. Is this what God wants for us? Or are we allowed to learn as much as we can?
You are accusing me, judging me, "twisting to fit my (personal?) view". I am trying to discuss scripture, why twist it into this sort of thing?
And let me ask, again, for clarification of your viewpoint. I suggest looking into the Hebrew language and culture and the Hellenistic language and culture in view of learning to understand God better. The forum is reacting to this idea with horror at such a thought and people who have assigned themselves as against anything I say of scripture join in with barbs and delight at "cornering" me.
Your response to this idea of studying this facet of scripture is with the biblical truth of "the Holy Spirit guides us". Are you saying this in order to bring to our attention a truth of scripture, or as a way of fighting the idea of study having to do with scripture, saying with the Holy Spirit nothing should be added and to study this is adding something we should only rely on the Holy Spirit for, not to use the Holy Spirit to check ourselves for finding truth?
And let me ask, again, for clarification of your viewpoint. I suggest looking into the Hebrew language and culture and the Hellenistic language and culture in view of learning to understand God better. The forum is reacting to this idea with horror at such a thought and people who have assigned themselves as against anything I say of scripture join in with barbs and delight at "cornering" me.
Your response to this idea of studying this facet of scripture is with the biblical truth of "the Holy Spirit guides us". Are you saying this in order to bring to our attention a truth of scripture, or as a way of fighting the idea of study having to do with scripture, saying with the Holy Spirit nothing should be added and to study this is adding something we should only rely on the Holy Spirit for, not to use the Holy Spirit to check ourselves for finding truth?
H
To Redtent, Your basic problem is: You don't submit your intellectual, spiritual, thoughts to the Bible; You judge the Bible by your intellectual studies. Whereas, I submit all my intellectual studies to the Bible for all my religious, moral training. All my intellectual studies can only tell me how to do a repetitive act better, my experience can not tell my if an act is morally right or wrong, for morals I must go to God's word. God is not limited to our thought patterns to reveal His truth to us. God tells us , his thoughts are not our thoughts, therefore we must think in God's way to receive His truth. To me, God uses all our ways of thinking to reveal His truth to us. The Bible is God's way of thinking. I think my brain power is soooo small, that I have to concentrate on God's word to know His truth. What little I know of human thoughts , I judge all metaphysical thoughts by God's word. I also judge all the physical thoughts of men as good or bad, or neutral, based on the Bible. Love Hoffco
H
To Redtent,
I agree with you, that most Christian don't use their brains enough in their studying of God's word; they are too lazy to study the Bible and they rely on the false idea that the Holy Spirit will teach them. The Holy Spirit's role of guiding us and convicting us, supersedes our thinking, but does not by pass our hard work. Love Hoffco
I agree with you, that most Christian don't use their brains enough in their studying of God's word; they are too lazy to study the Bible and they rely on the false idea that the Holy Spirit will teach them. The Holy Spirit's role of guiding us and convicting us, supersedes our thinking, but does not by pass our hard work. Love Hoffco
I think the question we have to answer is, who made the choice?
God chose the Greek language for his revelation spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers.
I suspect he knew what he was doing.
Let's not be holier than God.
I think we can be satisfied with the language he chose,
and not diminish it in comparison to other languages he could have chosen, but did not.
I'm happy and content with God's choices. . .they're good enough for me.
God chose the Greek language for his revelation spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers.
I suspect he knew what he was doing.
Let's not be holier than God.
I think we can be satisfied with the language he chose,
and not diminish it in comparison to other languages he could have chosen, but did not.
I'm happy and content with God's choices. . .they're good enough for me.
So that means you believe the revelation spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2)
through the NT writers:
Heb 7:18-19 - that the law has been set aside because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness,
Heb 8:13 - that the old covenant is obsolete,
1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39; Gal 6:2 - that the law of Moses has been replaced with the law of Christ,
Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10; Gal 5:6 - that the law of Christ fulfills (accomplishes) the law.
We are in agreement.
through the NT writers:
Heb 7:18-19 - that the law has been set aside because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness,
Heb 8:13 - that the old covenant is obsolete,
1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39; Gal 6:2 - that the law of Moses has been replaced with the law of Christ,
Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10; Gal 5:6 - that the law of Christ fulfills (accomplishes) the law.
We are in agreement.
Last edited:
I must say, you hit it out of the park with this OP and I agree with every line.
I've read enough to be comfortable that most, possibly all the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, though I'm not interested in getting in a debate if some don't agree.
If Greek mindset is read to know, and Hebrew mindset is read to do, I have something to say about that. Experience has taught me, that while I may do either/ or.. on any given subject, it is those things I'm interested in actually doing that I learn the most. In other words, I may have enough interest in a thing to read about it just to know, such as migration of butterflies, and I may be able to relate what I read to others to some degree, but if I'm reading say, a manual about rebuilding my truck engine so I can do the work myself, I definitely will pay closer attention. (cuz I'm no mechanic)
How do we think of these verses,(below) Hebrew mindset or Greek, and what would that mean? I admit, for years I pondered these verses and tried to picture God's hand, which I couldn't do. Embracing the Hebrew way of thinking has taught me much, because now I look at it as "function" and not "form". What does a hand do? It holds, it covers, comforts. Back parts..(remember God is light and not form) that could be reflecting where God had been, such as in the beginning, creation. Possibly God showed Moses the creation at that time. and could it be that His face cannot be seen for the same reason, that it would be the future? anyway, I've enjoyed the Word so much more thinking in terms of the Hebrew way. Clift of the rock..Messiah is the rock..hidden in Christ.
22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
I've read enough to be comfortable that most, possibly all the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, though I'm not interested in getting in a debate if some don't agree.
If Greek mindset is read to know, and Hebrew mindset is read to do, I have something to say about that. Experience has taught me, that while I may do either/ or.. on any given subject, it is those things I'm interested in actually doing that I learn the most. In other words, I may have enough interest in a thing to read about it just to know, such as migration of butterflies, and I may be able to relate what I read to others to some degree, but if I'm reading say, a manual about rebuilding my truck engine so I can do the work myself, I definitely will pay closer attention. (cuz I'm no mechanic)
How do we think of these verses,(below) Hebrew mindset or Greek, and what would that mean? I admit, for years I pondered these verses and tried to picture God's hand, which I couldn't do. Embracing the Hebrew way of thinking has taught me much, because now I look at it as "function" and not "form". What does a hand do? It holds, it covers, comforts. Back parts..(remember God is light and not form) that could be reflecting where God had been, such as in the beginning, creation. Possibly God showed Moses the creation at that time. and could it be that His face cannot be seen for the same reason, that it would be the future? anyway, I've enjoyed the Word so much more thinking in terms of the Hebrew way. Clift of the rock..Messiah is the rock..hidden in Christ.
22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.