"Language allows us to convey our emotions, to share ideas, to create fresh forms of expression, and to communicate our most intimate thoughts. Without language the very notion of human civilization would be unthinkable. It is not only confirmation of the mind within us; the need to communicate with other humans through language seems as fundamental as the existence of the mind itself" (Richard Restak, The Mind, page 197).
Source: Richard Restak, The Mind. Bantam, NY: 1988.
Compare Psalm 139:14.
Restak is a neurologist and neuropsychiatrist (born in 1942).
82 comments:
John Ch.1:1NKJV"In the beginning was the Word(Logos), and the Word(Logos) was with God, and the Word was God."
Strong's definition of Logos:logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech." In other words an idea communicated the beginning of cosmic history=the beginning of communication.
aservant, I agree with you 100% and appreciate your point.
Logos is one of those words that I like to study: it's fascinating and often misunderstood, but you were spot on.
I think a great exercise for a Bible student would be to examine the way the term "Logos" and related words are used throughout the Greek scriptures.
I agree and if one has access to LSJ and BDAG, they both have good entries for Logos. I've been through both of those entries. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/semantics-of-greek-term-logos.html
Have you ever looked at Chomsky's idea of language as being primarily for thought and not communication and is a system which is, as it were, inbuilt? I'm sure there have been those who have taken this in a theological direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NffP06zqkw
Roman, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-updated-book-review-of-michael-w.html and https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/06/animals-language-and-speech-short-paper.html
https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Theology-Significance-Theological-Constructiion/dp/0810813475
https://www.labmanager.com/chomsky-was-right-researchers-find-we-do-have-a-grammar-in-our-head-10883
https://www.ualberta.ca/science/news/2017/november/language-acquisition-operant-conditioning.html
https://www.ed.ac.uk/ppls/linguistics-and-english-language/news/language-can-t-be-hard-wired-in-the-brain,
I guess it depends on whom you ask.
There is certainly a divide among linguists about these matters and more, but at the same time, human language and speech are amazing and differ greatly from what apes, dolphins, and dogs do.
The human mind is capable of a grasp of the abstract and the spiritual that is well beyond any of the Lower creatures. Thus it is only to be expected that our communication would be on a higher level. I suspect that the truth of the degree of the human brain's hardwiring for language is likely somewhere in between both extremes of the debate.
aservantofJehovah I don't think the term Logos in the NT can be understood independently of its usage in contemporary (contemporary to the NT writings) philosophical discourse. By the time John was writing the term had taken on a quasi-technical meaning.
Duncan, I have heard that people have recently challenged Chomsky's theory, I have no way to adjudicate which side has the better model.
@Roman:The principal concern for the earnest Bible student would/should be the way the the word is used in the inspired text and not the speculations of Greco-Roman philosophers.
Meanings are defined by context. The context that matters most are those found in the inspired text. No secular text is to be assigned equal authority with scripture if one is hoping to acquire JEHOVAH'S Mind.
aservant, if any text is inspired it was probably inspired for the original and intended audience, which means that whatever the human author intended for his original audience is also inspired, and is in fact the starting point of any reading. The only way to know what the original intended audience would have understood the text to mean and what the human author intended is to know the specific historical cultural context.
In terms of Logos that means the philosophical context.
If you're ignoring his historical context of the specific documents of the bible, you're not really interpreting the bible, and you can't really use the bible as a context either because each document in the bible has it's own historical context.
In otherwords, you cannot do theological or Canonical interpretation without first doing historical and critical exegesis.
Duncan, although it's certainly true that church commentators had their origins in Greco Roman philosophy. I think it's a mistake to assume the first century Christians just were philosophically entirely isolated, and all the second and third and fourth century writers were all philosophers. One finds signs of philosophical influence, sophistication, and concepts in various places in John, the Pauline epistles, and Hebrews.
1Corithians Ch.2:6NIV"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."
Some text are given more importance by whom, not our Lord.
John ch.5:45NIV"“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set."
There is no Part of JEHOVAH'S Word that is "Old" in the sense of being outdated or irrelevant.
I didn't say that one should totally ignore the cultural context,but that has to be secondary JEHOVAH'S People were called to be distinct among the nations. On religious matters they were to be leaders/teachers not followers.
Take the word "psyche" the Bible uses that word in a very differently from the way the pagan neighbors of JEHOVAH'S People would have.
If one were to assign more or equal importance to the understanding that prevailed among the pagans. The Bible's counsel on matters like the resurrection or even the atonement would be misunderstood.
I don't know Duncan this seems to be identical to my point.
The Bible has its own inner logic re:Christ role in ordering the creation,and as transmitter of his fathers wisdom.
Paul came from the belly of the beast he was in an excellent position to contrast the inanity of human "wisdom" with JEHOVAH'S Superior insight.
Is the foundation of the house less significant than the roof. Is the root of the tree less important than the trunk. In the book of Hebrews Paul makes a comprehensive case for Christ's atonement quoting exclusively from the "old testament". It was first time that this had been done.
Luke Ch.24:32NIV"They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures(the old testament) to us?”
aservant, I don't really disagree, although I think one has to be nuanced.
Theologically speaking no text is authoritative but scripture, I agree, however, to understand scripture, one has to first understand what it meant to its original audience and what its human author intended, this means one must take into account the whole philosophical, intellectual, ideological, etc etc context, only after that can one start doing theological interpretation. Of course this doesn't mean (X) word means (Y) to Greco-Roman culture therefore we have to read it that way in some text, there are many other factors, i.e. who the author is, does he use it in a different way that would be recognizable to his audience, is it an echo of some previous text. and so on and so forth.
The word psyche meant different things to different Jews and to different Gentile groups, this is clear, so one cannot start exegesis by assuming the authors have some pre-given "orthodox" view of something, that's not doing exegesis. In fact I'm sure that many authors held contradictory views on many issues, an that has to factor into exegesis BEFORE one does the synthetic work of theology.
Paul largely had Stoic and Middle-Platonic presuppositions, just as a normal educated person in his day would have, Jesus and James certainly did not, obviously neither did Isaiah, it's very likely they had different views of cosmology as well, there were likely authors in the Hebrew bible that didn't have a belief in a general resurrection. If one is to do HISTORY, and historical exegesis one has to take these historical books from their historically contingent contexts.
Doing Theology is precisely a posterior matter where one takes into account extra-historical contexts which are the revelation of God, which is beyond any historical person, context, sitz im leben, or anything relevant to historical research.
Duncan, I agree that much of the Church Fathers comes with the second century and beyond, precisely with the development of Neo-Platonism, but that's not an introduction of Hellenistic thought into Christianity, it's just a development of Hellenistic thought that had already been interwoven with Judaism for centuries.
Paul is full of Stoic and Middle-Platonic concepts and presuppositions, John and Hebrews also show signs of Middle-Platonic concepts and presuppositions, yes over the centuries they evolve but it's not as though there was some pristine non-Hellenized Judaism and Christianity in the first century, even groups that actively opposed it (such as the Qumran sectarian material) were influenced in it by their opposition to it.
Duncan, I read the article by Ramelli, and it's certainly on point that Christian's were considered unsophisticated by non-Christians for the first few centuries, although I think that was more a matter of class and gender. It's also true that Christianity in the first few centuries cannot be thought of as a philosophy, since it depends on revelation and a Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, but that in no way means that it wasn't philosphically informed in some of it's aspects by some of its groups. But it's more or less inevitable that Greco-Roman aristocrats would look down on a Jewish apocalyptic sect whose founder was of such low stature and pathetic pedigree as Jesus with many members and even leadership among lower uneducated classes, and women.
The thing is that the penmen Used by JEHOVAH did not fully understand what the spirit(the true author) intended. With prayerful meditation an increased (But still incomplete) understanding would come Daniel Ch.12:8 As for the audience the Hebrew nation was made up of those who were members by birth not choice thus attitudes to spiritual things would vary widely ,for the much of the nation's history there was widespread idolatry and syncretism
Isaiah Ch.6:9. Things would be a bit different with the Christian congregation as membership would by rebirth(involve personal choice) rather by birth.
But even here, 1Corinthians Ch.13:9NIV"For we know in part and we prophesy in part," so the incomplete understanding of any single penman wouldn't get you to the mind of the divine author. Only by learning to let the entire Canon serve as its own expositor can an approximation of JEHOVAH'S Intended communication be acheived
Opening of the scriptures as pointing to his atonement would be the main point here.
I am not a prophet , I am simply letting the inspired text speak for itself, if one examines the way that Jesus and his apostles interpreted the scriptures it is clear that they did not consider to the sacred Canon to be an amalgam of unrelated (even conflicting) theologies but the product of a single supreme mind and that the prophetic scribes were mere conduits for the communication of this transcendent intelligence.
Appreciate everyone's thoughts. This thread will lock within 24 hours. Thank you.
Matthew Ch.7:29NIV"When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and NOT as their teachers of the law."
They were hearing man made tradition being put in its place. Under the living Logos of JEHOVAH
Duncan, I'm going to let you and aservant have this discussion until I close the thread, but research inspiration in a biblical dictionary or theological dictionary. Nothing that Matthew does has to conflict with the biblical notion of inspiration. Besides, inspiration is not that hard to understand. It simply means that God's spirit directed men to write his thoughts, but he gave them latitude in how those thoughts would be expressed.
Isaiah 7:14 (LXX): διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ
Logos is the idea/concept communicated. The means by which the idea is succesfully communicated is unimportant. Script,speech,music,art,signs,videos,pictographs,smoke signals,photos are the means. The Logos is the end to wit the idea communicated/ transmitted from the original mind to the receiving mind. We all know that words can have other meanings than their primary ones, the Holy spirit can serve an editorial function in the process of inspiration,so I'm not sure what you're on about here Duncan
Brenton's Septuagint Translation Isaiah Ch.7:14"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel. "
Duncan, you're still putting words in my mouth and imputing things to me that I never said. Let's forget that most of this discussion has zero to do with the OP.
Where did I ever say they didn't hear the words in Hebrew? My comments pertained to the Matthean text. It clearly accords with the LXX use of parthenon, but even Almah could likely be understood of a virgin or maiden. You also overlook the fact that text can have more than one meaning. Contea your claim, Isaiah's words are prophetic and treated as such in Matthew.
Parthenos
See https://www.christianthinktank.com/is714tense.html
Duncan, so am I right that you agree that John is drawing on middle-platonic, and Jewish Wisdom, concepts? (Btw, although I think John was probably completed at the end of the first century, I have no reason to believe if couldn't have been in the early second, I also think that the version we have now is not composed by the beloved disciple, but uses the beloved disciple's narrative and edits in his own thoughts and interpretations, including the prologue and the epilogue and some things in between, i.e. John's narrative is the beloved disciples's, but the literary construction itself is an editor's). Also do you agree that Hebrews drew on Platonic concepts?
Also, Isaiah 7:14 being prophecy does not mean it's literally a prediction, the point is that it can be read in light of Christ as having a higher meaning than the historically contingent one.
Reading the text theologically is, as aservant is hinting at, reading it canonically and with itself as a context as well as the economy of salvation. It's not just doing historical exegesis but with dogma, I know that's what a lot of biblical scholars like to pretend is happening, but unfortunately many of them just don't really engage with what theologians actually https://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653do in their synthetic work.
It seems to me that you're the one arguing by assertion. Isaiah Ch.7:14 is not a prophecy because the almighty Duncan forbids it? You're not my God Duncan.
Isaiah Ch.7:14-16NKJV"Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.[i] 15Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." Prophesy need have nothing to do with prediction but this prophesy makes predictions by which it's claim of being from the divine author can be tested. We have witnesses testifying on pain of death of a miraculous fulfillment to Isaiah Ch 7:14.
My personal investigation of the inner harmony of the scriptures satisfies me that Paul's assessment of the philosophers of the present age is spot on.
An it is a view I am becoming increasingly more certain of.
1Corinthians Ch.3:19NIV"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness";
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Strong's 5959"almah: a young woman, a virgin" the Hebrew has EXACTLY the same range of meaning as the Greek.
Duncan, I was addressing your quotation of Isaiah 7:14 and whether it's forward looking in one sense or not. The reason I provided the link had nothing to do with a critique of atheism but was about grammar. Maybe I need to spell everything out in painstaking detail. Have a good day y'all.
Duncan, I looked for "Mat 1:34" but could not find it. Also, is it "you" or "she"? Two very different pronouns.
ESV: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”
Isaiah 7:14 was not viewed as a Jewish sign? Well, that is not what the text says.
The verse is not prophecy? That's up for debate, but numerous scholars tag it as such.
Prophecy and a sign: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/
I never claimed Paul was the first to notice that the fools are the ones who draw the biggest crowd,I'd be surprised if other deep thinkers did not also notice this trend from humanities fall onward. Men have always preferred man-made darkness to divine light.
John Ch.3:19NIV"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
No, an atomistic treatment of the text with the aim isolating sentences and phrases that apparently give substance to specious arguments is not what is meant. JEHOVAH as the source(and therefore the owner)of life has every right to set terms and conditions for the use of his property he also has the power to restore life so There is no moral equivalence to the creator's repossessing of his property with any human tyrant's taking of life, in the fallen world that has arisen since man's abandoning of divine rule it is only natural that the universal sovereign would need to Crack some skulls from time to time for the sake of maintaining order. I personally have no inner conflict with that, but remember he has the power to restore the dead to life,human sovereigns don't.
Post a Comment