tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1854024592449602966..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Human Heart as Brain in Christian ThinkingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19809161790517200992008-03-29T15:47:00.000-04:002008-03-29T15:47:00.000-04:00Harry said: ...showing just how Jason views Jesus:...Harry said: <I>...showing just how Jason views Jesus: An all knowing God in the Flesh or, since God knows all, he really knew better when he had the Biblical authors write heart.</I><BR/><BR/>Harry, between mistaking me for visiting Atheism Sucks and now being a Trinitarian, I'm really starting to wonder how much help those expensive books are really doing you.<BR/><BR/>Do your homework.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78614001214386518402008-03-28T21:47:00.000-04:002008-03-28T21:47:00.000-04:00Looks like this one has been beat like a dead hors...Looks like this one has been beat like a dead horse. Is that a literal statement? Anyway, thank you for your input. I did see one posting that someone thought Christians were the most closed minded of all and I just want to say as a Christian I try to be open minded. So I just want to say I appreciate everyone's input and exchange of ideas. It is time for me to move on to the next topic also.<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/><BR/>GrantUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04183208383698021473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82369679762939802672008-03-28T20:50:00.000-04:002008-03-28T20:50:00.000-04:00I’ll take the opinion of a Harvard educated schola...I’ll take the opinion of a Harvard educated scholar over a Jerry Farwell “Home Study Bible Course” any day. You get what you pay for!<BR/><BR/>{If a Harvard scholar says Eve ate an apple in the Garden, is he right because he's a Harvard scholar?}<BR/><BR/>The key is “opinion” and I accept it as such…Genesis does not say “Apple”, simply fruit.<BR/><BR/>{Are you saying people expected Jesus to actually live in their literal heart?}<BR/><BR/>While they know better, Billy Graham, Gospel tracts, tent evangelist, TV preachers and Southern Baptist in general relate to this via the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Since I left Christianity, well meaning Christians still keep telling me that while I had Biblical scholarship in my head, I never had accepted Jesus into my heart. Thus, if I attended any evangelical Church and said that “Jesus does not live in my heart, but as a scholar, I only have Jesus living in my head / brain”; I would be considered lost! This is Biblical as the majority of saved Christians would agree; contra you. Thus, the two artificial heart recipients had to be as lost as I am in that the saved Christians would claim that neither I nor those on total heart machines have a Jesus living in our hearts. However, if I pushed this point, than they would start to reject the Biblical view of the heart and go on to a modern understanding of emotions derived from the brain, but still condemns me based, not on a Jesus living in my heart, but doctrines of salvation…dogma.<BR/><BR/>Tyro, my position is that the heart (Greek) and Bowels (Semitic) is the seat of thought and emotions. While an Episcopalian would truly understand that Jesus does not live in a Christian person’s heart, the more one moves down the educational scale and on to the emotionalism of Pentecostalism and mountain snake handlers, these Christian would demand that God / Jesus must live in ones heart if he / she is truly saved. Why, because the Bible claims the heart is where on thinks and believes. If Jason wants to argue this point, he only needs to attend the many independent Churches of the Appalachian Mountains! <BR/><BR/>Since very few people of Biblical times could read (much less write), they would definitely believed the same ignorant way (with Jesus being no exception unless). Please note here: If your watch Jason, he often calls Jesus “Christ” showing just how Jason views Jesus: An all knowing God in the Flesh or, since God knows all, he really knew better when he had the Biblical authors write heart.<BR/><BR/>That’s my position and I’m out of this post. I need to work on my next post.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78996536010835043802008-03-28T14:25:00.000-04:002008-03-28T14:25:00.000-04:00Harry said: Jason, do you think your ignorance is ...Harry said: <I>Jason, do you think your ignorance is funny? </I><BR/><BR/>I think my humour is funny, not sure about my ignorance though. Still forming an opinion.<BR/><BR/><I>I’ll take the opinion of a Harvard educated scholar over a Jerry Farwell “Home Study Bible Course” any day. You get what you pay for!</I><BR/><BR/>If a Harvard scholar says Eve ate an apple in the Garden, is he right because he's a Harvard scholar?<BR/><BR/><I>You continue to quote from English translations that are easily looked up on line or bought in comparisons of multiple English versions. </I><BR/><BR/>I make it a habit to quote from English translations since I’m fluent at English.<BR/><BR/><I>You continue show that you have no ability handle the basic original language lexicons much less sight read Hebrew and Greek. Again and again, you fail to answer my questions about referencing your dogmatic position other that comparing English Bible versions. I used to see your type in first year Greek class. </I><BR/><BR/>I tried asking you before which questions you wanted me to answer. You didn’t respond. That greatly affected my ability to reference my dogmatic position.<BR/><BR/><I>I worked my butt off to get the best reference materials I could and, Hell yes, I’m proud of my personal library and I’ll put up my personal library against any non-professor (and most professors) I the U.S. Plus, I took the Bible seriously enough to major in it in undergraduate and graduate school. I still take the Bible seriously to study the languages and up date my library. I would state, that, even as an atheist, I spent more on scholarly books on the Bible yearly than you and most of your fellow believers do.</I><BR/><BR/>Riveting.<BR/><BR/><I>Jason can “suggest” here and that’s totally OK, but when I reference women who suffer today in conservative denominations because of Paul and the Old Testament, you demand it can ONLY be proved by citing exact chapter and verse form the Bible. May I “suggest” this? May I “suggest” that? And, Jason, by your double standard in logic, may I “suggest” you don’t know what you are talking about!!</I><BR/><BR/>Based on your unwillingness to answer (not for the first time I’d like to note), I’ll assume you don’t have an intelligent, relevant, Biblical response to my point. <BR/><BR/>You originally said: <I>My point was that, if the Bible was correct, than the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died on these machines) would have been "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had no hearts “for him to live in”...</I><BR/><BR/><B>Are you saying people expected Jesus to actually live in their literal heart?</B>Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16094834300329510022008-03-28T14:02:00.000-04:002008-03-28T14:02:00.000-04:00Jesus can be literal, and the heart can be literal...<I>Jesus can be literal, and the heart can be literal, but Jesus living in a heart is quite obviously symbolism. </I><BR/><BR/>A physical Jesus certainly couldn't, but with God being omnipresent, who knows what some Christian believe. It could be symbolism, but it isn't obvious.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm not trying to make any bigger argument here, just watching and piping in only to comment on issues of anatomy and some historical beliefs. Harry makes the point that some statements in the bible about Jesus affecting our heart and thereby affecting our emotions are based on a fallacious understanding of anatomy and I agree.<BR/><BR/>If he then argued that attempts to make this symbolic are flawed because the original authors didn't intend them to be symbols, I would agree. I think that exposes a serious problem where modern readers are passively rewriting the bible to conform with modern understanding, even if this means that readers contradict Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Instead, I think Harry is arguing that if this is a symbol, then everything else could be a symbol. I'm not sure I follow that, but I think he's saying that since the author didn't mean "heart" to be a symbol and modern readers still claim it to be symbolic, then the same process can be applied to anything. We know that the heart isn't the centre of emotion, but we also know that people don't do miracles, so why aren't both symbolic?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm not trying to defend any of those positions, despite agreeing with them in principle. I think Harry raises an interesting issue but I personally think there are stronger examples and I'm picking my battles :)<BR/><BR/><I>Since there's no Scriptural teaching that says Jesus will literally live in the literal heart of a believer, why bother claiming the heart is literal?</I><BR/><BR/>In fairness, there's no Scriptural teaching that says anything is literal. AFAIK, Paul comes the closest by saying that some things must be believed, but he's equally clear that these points must be a matter of faith making me wonder if it's understood that the events are either not literal or, if literal, apply to some spiritual realm. Once you start talking about omnipresence, spirits, souls and other fluff, then I see no reason to say that Jesus can't literally be in our literal heart - that makes as much sense as anything else.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54885405856004011772008-03-28T13:17:00.000-04:002008-03-28T13:17:00.000-04:00Mine is the 4 volume set ($1,000 or $250 per volum...Mine is the 4 volume set ($1,000 or $250 per volume): The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON of the Old Testament; by EJ Brill. Volume 2, pp. 711- 713.<BR/><BR/>{Wow Harry, thanks for telling me how much it was!! Is it true the more you speList your references. Are they simply devotional or scholarly? Be responsible! Do your home work and note your sources!}<BR/><BR/>{Oh, they can't be nearly as scholarly as yours. I didn't spend nearly enough money on mine.nd on a book, the better it is? Lol}<BR/><BR/>Jason, do you think your ignorance is funny? I’ll take the opinion of a Harvard educated scholar over a Jerry Farwell “Home Study Bible Course” any day. You get what you pay for! <BR/><BR/>You continue to quote from English translations that are easily looked up on line or bought in comparisons of multiple English versions. You continue show that you have no ability handle the basic original language lexicons much less sight read Hebrew and Greek. Again and again, you fail to answer my questions about referencing your dogmatic position other that comparing English Bible versions. I used to see your type in first year Greek class. <BR/><BR/>I worked my butt off to get the best reference materials I could and, Hell yes, I’m proud of my personal library and I’ll put up my personal library against any non-professor (and most professors) I the U.S. Plus, I took the Bible seriously enough to major in it in undergraduate and graduate school. I still take the Bible seriously to study the languages and up date my library. I would state, that, even as an atheist, I spent more on scholarly books on the Bible yearly than you and most of your fellow believers do.<BR/><BR/><BR/>{What they knew about the soul suggests they knew it was separate from the heart. Christ knew this as well.}<BR/><BR/>Jason can “suggest” here and that’s totally OK, but when I reference women who suffer today in conservative denominations because of Paul and the Old Testament, you demand it can ONLY be proved by citing exact chapter and verse form the Bible. May I “suggest” this? May I “suggest” that? And, Jason, by your double standard in logic, may I “suggest” you don’t know what you are talking about!!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33265096599860157582008-03-28T13:12:00.000-04:002008-03-28T13:12:00.000-04:00Tyro, Sorry, I just had a brain cramp. What exactl...Tyro, <BR/><BR/>Sorry, I just had a brain cramp. What exactly are we arguing about...? :)<BR/><BR/>Just going back and looking at Harry's original claim that Jesus couldn't live in someone with an artificial heart, it appears he's saying people expected Jesus to actually live in their literal heart. <BR/><BR/>Since there's no Scriptural teaching that says Jesus will literally live in the literal heart of a believer, why bother claiming the heart is literal?<BR/><BR/>Jesus can be literal, and the heart can be literal, but Jesus living in a heart is quite obviously symbolism.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8156923833663483102008-03-28T10:17:00.000-04:002008-03-28T10:17:00.000-04:00Jason,I think you’re misunderstanding my intention...Jason,<BR/><BR/><I>I think you’re misunderstanding my intentions for providing those references. The word “mind” is the English translation of the word, which is why I’ve provided the original Greek and Hebrew meanings. I’m pointing out the Israelites separated the heart from the soul.</I><BR/><BR/>You can "point out" that God Himself told you that I'm wrong and you're right, but it doesn't make it so, and it doesn't change the facts.<BR/><BR/>Was the common view that the soul was entirely contained in the heart? No, as I said in elaboration to Harry's definition, the soul/spirit/pneuma was divided across the liver, heart and brain. So were the Israelites any different than other Western people of the time? Evidence points to no, they weren't. Did they separate the soul from the heart? No, these passages are fully consistent with the ancient view of a soul that was spread out through the body.<BR/><BR/>Though I am glad that you've stopped saying that soul should be translated as "mind", thank you for that.<BR/><BR/><I>Aristotle believed the soul was in the heart. The references I’ve provided separate the two. Perhaps the question is, what do you/what did Aristotle define as "soul"</I><BR/><BR/>From what I understand, Aristotle had the idea of a three-part soul and believed the soul was entwined with the body (unlike Plato), but did not seat the soul in any particular region. It was Galen which did that.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any sources for your claims?<BR/><BR/>And when you give passages where the soul does not reside entirely in the heart and act like this means the writers didn't believe the soul was in the heart, you're not proving your case. The soul was seated in the liver, heart and brain, I've told you that several times.<BR/><BR/>Here are some simple summaries for you to read:<BR/><BR/>http://www.thebigview.com/mind/timeline01.html<BR/>http://campus.udayton.edu/~hume/Galen/galen.htmAdrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60810489735464016472008-03-28T09:42:00.000-04:002008-03-28T09:42:00.000-04:00Tyro said: Now that's a translation that I could b...Tyro said: <I>Now that's a translation that I could buy. The view of human function was governed by the "pneuma" which derives literally from breath (hence "pneumatic tire"), but which was synonymous with soul or spirit (hence the breath of god or the breath of life as a reference to soul). It was thought that the body was governed by three pneuma: pneuma physicon or the natural/nutritive spirit found in the liver; pneuma zoticon or vital spirit found in the heart; and pneuma physicon or the psychic/animal spirit found in the brain. Taken as a whole, the pneuma are the soul, NOT what we call "mind"!</I><BR/><BR/>Wonderful. The point is, again, that the pneuma, or sense, is separate from the heart. Which means yes, Jesus could live in someone with an artificial heart and someone with an artificial heart, if such a thing were possible 2000 years ago, could love and worship God.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40526537848290446332008-03-28T09:37:00.000-04:002008-03-28T09:37:00.000-04:00Harry said: Jason, exactly which Hebrew lexicon ar...Harry said: <I>Jason, exactly which Hebrew lexicon are you using? I’ve check my two and “Mind” is not used even once. As verb, nephesh means “to inhale, breath”. As a noun, nephesh means 1. “throat”; 2. “neck“ ; 3.“Breath”; 4. “living being”; 5. “people”; 6. “personality”; 7. “life”; 8. “soul”; 9. “dead soul”. </I><BR/><BR/>Like Tyro, you’re getting caught up on the English translation. My intent isn’t to show you the Israelites understood the “mind”, my intent is to show you that they separated the soul/spirit/life from the heart, contrary to what’s being claimed the knowledge of time was. <BR/><BR/><I>Mine is the 4 volume set ($1,000 or $250 per volume) : The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON of the Old Testament; by EJ Brill. Volume 2, pp. 711- 713.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow Harry, thanks for telling me how much it was!! Is it true the more you spend on a book, the better it is? lol<BR/><BR/><I>Again, where is mind?????????? The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON, vol. 3, pp. 1197 - - 1201: ruwach 1. “breeze, breath”; 2. “breeze”; 3. “wind”; 4. “wind”; 5. “wind and God”; 6. “breath”; 7. “sense”; 8. “the spirit of Yahweh”; 9. “spirit of God / El”; 10. “a holy spirit”; 11. “(the) spirit of God; 12. “transferring the spirit from one person to another.; 13. “”particular types of spirit”; 14. ‘corresponds to El”; 15. “text uncertain”.</I><BR/><BR/>My point is that the heart is separated from sense and spirit. <BR/><BR/>Daniel 5:20 <I>“But when his <B>heart</B> was lifted up, and his <B>spirit</B> was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.”</I> (NKJV)<BR/><BR/>Daniel 5:20 <I>“But when his <B>heart</B> and <B>mind</B> were hardened with pride, he was brought down from his royal throne and stripped of his glory.”</I> (NLT)<BR/><BR/><I>Mind = dianoia (mind, understanding, thoughts) But where? Not in the head! Reference: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. P. 187.</I><BR/><BR/>But not in the heart since the heart is already mentioned. ☺<BR/><BR/><I>You have no Greek links to the head! Only to the HEART.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, Harry but no. Christ isn’t saying to love only with the heart, but with the mind/thoughts and soul/life. They’re quite clearly not the same. <BR/><BR/><I>List your references. Are they simply devotional or scholarly? Be responsible! Do your home work and note your sources!</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, they can't be nearly as scholarly as yours. I didn't spend nearly enough money on mine.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-250012507076632872008-03-28T09:19:00.000-04:002008-03-28T09:19:00.000-04:00tyro said: I think I made it clear what is based o...tyro said: <I>I think I made it clear what is based on a flawed understanding. I think you're wilfully misinterpreting my statements. Either way, you can re-read my earlier comments if you wish.</I><BR/><BR/>You said “not literally, no” in answer to whether people thought hearts and mouths and foreskin. If the answer is no, then any reference to the heart having a mouth or foreskin is symbolism, correct?<BR/><BR/><I>This is exactly the sort of problem that I saw coming. You use the word "mind", but "soul" or "life" are also valid and have dramatically different meanings. </I><BR/><BR/>I think you’re misunderstanding my intentions for providing those references. The word “mind” is the English translation of the word, which is why I’ve provided the original Greek and Hebrew meanings. I’m pointing out the Israelites separated the heart from the soul.<BR/><BR/><I>You seem to want to say that, despite all evidence, the ancient Jews had a modern theory of mind when "soul" is an equal translation and would fit better with their culture and time.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not disagreeing “mind” can mean “soul”. You said, about Galen: <I>In no way did he separate the heart from the soul, quite the contrary.</I> The Israelites, however, apparently did.<BR/><BR/><I>If you wish to pursue this, you must demonstrate that "mind" is the best translation, and that their view of "mind" matches ours.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, you’re missing the point. This isn’t a discussion about translations, this is a discussion about the separation between heart and soul, or heart and life, or heart and spirit. According to you, there should be no separation. The heart and soul should be one and the same. Yet they’re not.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think it can be done. Everything you've quoted is consistent with an Aristotelean or Galen-ic (??) view of the soul as spread between the liver, heart and brain, and not with some modern notion of a mind.</I><BR/><BR/>Aristotle believed the soul was in the heart. The references I’ve provided separate the two. Perhaps the question is, what do you/what did Aristotle define as "soul"<BR/><BR/><I>They weren't idiots, but they were ignorant, as were all people of the time. Your claims about what they knew about the soul is contradicted by the evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>What they knew about the soul suggests they knew it was separate from the heart. Christ knew this as well.<BR/><BR/><I>And if not, why are you fighting? How could you imagine that the ancient Jews/Christians had a modern understanding of the human body and why is this so important to you?</I><BR/><BR/>They don’t need a modern understanding of the human body. They only need to know symbolism and that hearts don’t have mouths or foreskins. Which they did.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61063966655264803832008-03-28T00:26:00.000-04:002008-03-28T00:26:00.000-04:00Amen to that, Tyro! But I just do not think Jason ...Amen to that, Tyro! But I just do not think Jason will ever see the logic.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70523608797919281822008-03-28T00:20:00.000-04:002008-03-28T00:20:00.000-04:00Again, where is mind?????????? The Hebrew and Aram...<I>Again, where is mind?????????? The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON, vol. 3, pp. 1197 - - 1201: ruwach 1. “breeze, breath”; 2. “breeze”; 3. “wind”; 4. “wind”; 5. “wind and God”; 6. “breath”; 7. “sense”; 8. “the spirit of Yahweh”; 9. “spirit of God / El”; 10. “a holy spirit”; 11. “(the) spirit of God; 12. “transferring the spirit from one person to another.; 13. “”particular types of spirit”; 14. ‘corresponds to El”; 15. “text uncertain”.</I><BR/><BR/>Now that's a translation that I could buy. The view of human function was governed by the "pneuma" which derives literally from breath (hence "pneumatic tire"), but which was synonymous with soul or spirit (hence the breath of god or the breath of life as a reference to soul). It was thought that the body was governed by three pneuma: <I>pneuma physicon</I> or the natural/nutritive spirit found in the liver; <I>pneuma zoticon</I> or vital spirit found in the heart; and <I>pneuma physicon</I> or the psychic/animal spirit found in the brain. Taken as a whole, the pneuma are the soul, NOT what we call "mind"!<BR/><BR/>A person writing 2,000 years ago would definitely be talking about the pneuma or spirit, they would not be talking about the mind.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6694254554864778702008-03-27T23:53:00.000-04:002008-03-27T23:53:00.000-04:00“1 Samuel 2:35. Heart = lebab (heart)Mind = nephes...“1 Samuel 2:35. <BR/>Heart = lebab (heart)<BR/>Mind = nephesh (life, being, soul)” <BR/><BR/> Mind = WRONG!<BR/><BR/>Jason, exactly which Hebrew lexicon are you using? I’ve check my two and “Mind” is not used even once. As verb, nephesh means “to inhale, breath”. As a noun, nephesh means 1. “throat”; 2. “neck“ ; 3.“Breath”; 4. “living being”; 5. “people”; 6. “personality”; 7. “life”; 8. “soul”; 9. “dead soul”. <BR/>Jason, quite throwing out misinformation. Give me your lexicon’s title and publisher!<BR/>Mine is the 4 volume set ($1,000 or $250 per volume) : The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON of the Old Testament; by EJ Brill. Volume 2, pp. 711- 713.<BR/><BR/>“Daniel 5:20 <BR/>Heart = lebab (heart)<BR/>Mind = ruwach (mind, spirit)” <BR/><BR/>Mind = WRONG AGAIN!<BR/><BR/>Again, where is mind?????????? The Hebrew and Aramaic LEXICON, vol. 3, pp. 1197 - - 1201: ruwach 1. “breeze, breath”; 2. “breeze”; 3. “wind”; 4. “wind”; 5. “wind and God”; 6. “breath”; 7. “sense”; 8. “the spirit of Yahweh”; 9. “spirit of God / El”; 10. “a holy spirit”; 11. “(the) spirit of God; 12. “transferring the spirit from one person to another.; 13. “”particular types of spirit”; 14. ‘corresponds to El”; 15. “text uncertain”.<BR/><BR/>“Matthew 22:37 <BR/>Heart = kardia (heart)” <BR/><BR/>Mind = dianoia (mind, understanding, thoughts) But where? Not in the head! Reference: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. P. 187.<BR/><BR/>“Soul = psychē (soul, life, breath)”<BR/><BR/>You have no Greek links to the head! Only to the HEART.<BR/><BR/>Remember the Wizard of Oz? You have a Scare Cow dancing around without a brain.<BR/><BR/>List your references. Are they simply devotional or scholarly? Be responsible! Do your home work and note your sources!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4449356913498202892008-03-27T23:08:00.000-04:002008-03-27T23:08:00.000-04:00I’m a little confused. I thought you agreed the Is...<I>I’m a little confused. I thought you agreed the Israelites knew hearts didn’t have mouths or foreskin…? If they did, then it’s not a flawed understanding of human anatomy – it’s symbolism.</I><BR/><BR/>I think I made it clear what is based on a flawed understanding. I think you're wilfully misinterpreting my statements. Either way, you can re-read my earlier comments if you wish.<BR/><BR/><I>Both heart and mind are mentioned and both are referred to as being quite separate from the other. If you want to look into the actual Hebrew and Greek words, you’ll find the separation remains remarkably intact:<BR/><BR/>1 Samuel 2:35.<BR/>Heart = lebab (heart)<BR/>Mind = nephesh (life, being, soul)</I><BR/><BR/>This is exactly the sort of problem that I saw coming. You use the word "mind", but "soul" or "life" are also valid and have dramatically different meanings. You seem to want to say that, despite all evidence, the ancient Jews had a modern theory of mind when "soul" is an equal translation and would fit better with their culture and time.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to pursue this, you must demonstrate that "mind" is the best translation, and that their view of "mind" matches ours. I don't think it can be done. Everything you've quoted is consistent with an Aristotelean or Galen-ic (??) view of the soul as spread between the liver, heart and brain, and not with some modern notion of a mind.<BR/><BR/><I>The Israelites weren’t idiots. They knew the difference between heart and mind (and soul) and they understood symbolism as well as we do today. </I><BR/><BR/>They weren't idiots, but they were ignorant, as were all people of the time. Your claims about what they knew about the soul is contradicted by the evidence.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You can argue biblical interpretation all you wish, but it doesn't look good if you rely on these claims. And if not, why are you fighting? How could you imagine that the ancient Jews/Christians had a modern understanding of the human body and why is this so important to you?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85502364125741330822008-03-27T22:32:00.000-04:002008-03-27T22:32:00.000-04:00This was taken from A.S. So will the real Jason st...This was taken from A.S. So will the real Jason stand up: <BR/><BR/> Jason said... <BR/>And you're so wonderfully above it all..<BR/><BR/>Thank you. It's not difficult to be above something that sucks so much.<BR/><BR/><BR/>What does it suck?<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking pig slop.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Indeed. This blog brings out the best in militant neo-christians.<BR/><BR/>Meh. The "best" of the militant neo-atheist trolls is much, much more fascinating.<BR/><BR/>11:02 PMHarry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33686302280806392412008-03-27T22:15:00.000-04:002008-03-27T22:15:00.000-04:00Jason, you've been commenting here for some time. ...Jason, you've been commenting here for some time. Have you read any of our books or are you planning on doing so? They explain in much greater detail the reasons we no longer believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15936957662327622242008-03-27T21:55:00.000-04:002008-03-27T21:55:00.000-04:00Harry, Harry, Harry. There you go again. I’ve neve...Harry, Harry, Harry. There you go again. <BR/><BR/>I’ve never been to AS before. Ever. <BR/><BR/>Oops.<BR/><BR/>True to character though, you’re more happy with tossing out red herrings and making fun of others then attempting to intellectually, and Biblically, defend your views. :)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10515718067574195432008-03-27T21:51:00.000-04:002008-03-27T21:51:00.000-04:00Tyro said: Well, as I said, I agree with you that ...Tyro said: <I>Well, as I said, I agree with you that it is figurative, but the figure is based on a flawed understanding of human anatomy, emotions and our mind. I'm not trying to make any bigger point, I'll leave that to others.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m a little confused. I thought you agreed the Israelites knew hearts didn’t have mouths or foreskin…? If they did, then it’s not a flawed understanding of human anatomy – it’s symbolism.<BR/><BR/><I>Hmm... It seems to me that the possibility of a confusion arising due to translation and shifting language is enormous...</I> <BR/><BR/>I’m not sure what would be confusing about the references I provided. Both heart and mind are mentioned and both are referred to as being quite separate from the other. If you want to look into the actual Hebrew and Greek words, you’ll find the separation remains remarkably intact:<BR/><BR/>1 Samuel 2:35. <BR/>Heart = lebab (heart)<BR/>Mind = nephesh (life, being, soul)<BR/><BR/>Daniel 5:20 <BR/>Heart = lebab (heart)<BR/>Mind = ruwach (mind, spirit)<BR/><BR/>Matthew 22:37 <BR/>Heart = kardia (heart)<BR/>Mind = dianoia (mind, understanding, thoughts)<BR/>Soul = psychē (soul, life, breath)<BR/><BR/>The Israelites weren’t idiots. They knew the difference between heart and mind (and soul) and they understood symbolism as well as we do today.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50222316006689682242008-03-27T19:56:00.000-04:002008-03-27T19:56:00.000-04:00Jason, I was looking over the name change at “Athe...Jason, I was looking over the name change at “Atheism Sucks” (AS) and happily found pro-Frank Walton supporters and pro-William Hawthorne supports busily attacking one another and calling each other names.<BR/>I see you appear to be a pro-Walton fan. From your comments at AS, it seems like you have gotten upset at DC. If that’s the extent your Christian anti-atheist blog scholarship, it’s little wonder I can NOT reason with you! God, what a mess. (Jason, do you think I believe in God since I used his title here?)<BR/><BR/>Just consider the mentality of the name calling at A.S. and it looks like the whole Blog will implode into itself, just like you Christians in-fight in your churches.<BR/><BR/>Hey, Jason; if scholarship does not work (as it does not at A.S.), try name calling. Man, now that’s what I call first class scholarship from an apologetic Blog, just like Holding‘s Tekton.<BR/><BR/>You better get back to A.S. Blog. I think the pro-Walton CHRISTIANS seem to be loosing the name calling squabble and they just might need your logic!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58486448274886382002008-03-27T19:42:00.000-04:002008-03-27T19:42:00.000-04:00Jason,It would establish the fact the Jews would h...Jason,<BR/><BR/><I>It would establish the fact the Jews would have understood ‘speaking from the heart’ and ‘circumsize the heart’ to be imagery, not literal.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, as I said, I agree with you that it is figurative, but the figure is based on a flawed understanding of human anatomy, emotions and our mind. I'm not trying to make any bigger point, I'll leave that to others.<BR/><BR/><I>Tyro: Can you please provide some citations for this? Your statements sound to be at odds with my understanding of history but I don't know where the disconnect might be. If we turn to the sources, perhaps that would help.<BR/><BR/>Jason: 1 Sa 2:35 “And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind...”<BR/><BR/>Dan 5:20 “But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride…”<BR/><BR/>Mat 22:37 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” </I><BR/><BR/>Hmm... It seems to me that the possibility of a confusion arising due to translation and shifting language is enormous. We started this discussion by observing that even something as simple as "heart" has had very different meanings and connotations over the centuries, so to deal with what the original authors understood when they wrote this is <I>not</I> as simple as finding a contemporary English translation with the word "mind". That seems like sloppy scholarship.<BR/><BR/>If you can't find anything that deals more explicitly with this issue, I have to say I find your argument very unpersuasive.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51442428001950954282008-03-27T18:32:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:32:00.000-04:00Harry mccall said: Jason, first, you NEVER address...Harry mccall said: <I>Jason, first, you NEVER addressed Semitic language and logic via the etymology of the Hebrew. By even quoting Greek authors (right or wrong), you are comparing apples with oranges. Jason, please address the Hebrew text and not an English translation.</I><BR/><BR/>What exactly do you want me to address?<BR/><BR/><I>With your logic, if the Chinese had gun powder in the mid 9th century, than the Europeans, who were just as advanced, must have known about it too. However, Europe did not have any idea of what gunpowder was until about the 1300’s or 400 years after the Chinese.</I><BR/><BR/>The Jews occupied the same confines as the Greeks and Romans during the same period, did they not? I’m fairly confident the Chinese were in China and the Europeans were…well, in Europe.<BR/><BR/><I>Paul is a Jew. Jesus is a Jew. Most all (if not all) Biblical writers were Jews. Jews believed God and Torah. The Hebrew “lb” meant heart. To question this is to question God.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not questioning if “lb” means heart. I’m questioning whether or not it’s meant to be taken literally or symbolically and when.<BR/><BR/><I>As for as I’m concerned, this point is closed. I’m not going to get into an endless discussion with you like I did with Paul causing women to suffer today for the sin of Eve.</I><BR/><BR/>Speaking of which, did you ever find those elusive Bible references that says Paul blamed Eve for sin? The reference I found blames Adam (Romans 5:12). Seems like these “endless discussions” always end when your argument’s been torn to shreds… ;)<BR/><BR/><I>Jason, quote me a massage from the Mishnah that proves your point. Until then, China and Europe were 400 years apart just as the Jews were from modern science.</I><BR/><BR/>Proves <I>my</I> point? I’m pretty sure you were the one trying make the point…?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35014349201332341022008-03-27T18:20:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:20:00.000-04:00Tyro said: I don't know what that would mean, but ...Tyro said: <I>I don't know what that would mean, but despite religious prohibitions against doing autopsies on humans, Galen did extensive autopsies on animals (and tried to adapt it to what he thought the human body would look like). His diagrams of the different organs were very detailed and served as a guide for two thousand years.</I><BR/><BR/>It would establish the fact the Jews would have understood ‘speaking from the heart’ and ‘circumsize the heart’ to be imagery, not literal. As gl_carey said earlier in this discussion <I>“My point is that people have used symbols, gestures, sounds and terms of comparison (symbolism) to communicate long before the NT writers and it is not unreasonable to think that people would use symbolism in religious writings just like they would any other writing that described life's experiences…”</I><BR/><BR/><I>So if there is a literal foreskin, then educated people would have checked Galen's work and would know that no, there wasn't. Not as far as I'm able to make sense of that term, but perhaps there are other interpretations.</I><BR/><BR/>Therefore, if one is going to maintain that circumcision is symbolic (since the heart doesn’t have foreskin) but the heart is literal (since the people of the time didn’t know any better), I fail to see what Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Paul would have meant by “symbolically circumcising the literal heart”.<BR/><BR/><I>Can you please provide some citations for this? Your statements sound to be at odds with my understanding of history but I don't know where the disconnect might be. If we turn to the sources, perhaps that would help.</I><BR/><BR/>1 Sa 2:35 <I>“And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine <B>heart</B> and in my <B>mind</B>...”</I><BR/><BR/>Dan 5:20 <I>“But when his <B>heart</B> was lifted up, and his <B>mind</B> hardened in pride…”</I><BR/><BR/>Mat 22:37 <I>“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy <B>heart</B>, and with all thy soul, and with all thy <B>mind</B>.”</I>Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79256363247311461862008-03-27T17:28:00.000-04:002008-03-27T17:28:00.000-04:00Jason, first, you NEVER addressed Semitic language...Jason, first, you NEVER addressed Semitic language and logic via the etymology of the Hebrew. By even quoting Greek authors (right or wrong), you are comparing apples with oranges. Jason, please address the Hebrew text and not an English translation.<BR/><BR/>With your logic, if the Chinese had gun powder in the mid 9th century, than the Europeans, who were just as advanced, must have known about it too. However, Europe did not have any idea of what gunpowder was until about the 1300’s or 400 years after the Chinese.<BR/><BR/>Paul is a Jew. Jesus is a Jew. Most all (if not all) Biblical writers were Jews. Jews believed God and Torah. The Hebrew “lb” meant heart. To question this is to question God.<BR/><BR/>As for as I’m concerned, this point is closed. I’m not going to get into an endless discussion with you like I did with Paul causing women to suffer today for the sin of Eve.<BR/>The fact that only there are only three of us left here - Tyro and I agree - while you are the only one still arguing the Jewish mind was some how was based on science is simply wrong. God was their answer to history via revelation in written and oral Torah. Rabbis argued Torah, not science which was considered pagan / gentile. <BR/><BR/>Jason, quote me a massage from the Mishnah that proves your point. Until then, China and Europe were 400 years apart just as the Jews were from modern science.<BR/><BR/>Mean while, my next post (on the cruelty of God) is one you might like to get in on.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65735702706709682392008-03-27T17:00:00.000-04:002008-03-27T17:00:00.000-04:00Jason,Would the physicians of the time have known ...Jason,<BR/><BR/><I>Would the physicians of the time have known if the heart had a mouth or if the heart/brain had foreskin?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what that would mean, but despite religious prohibitions against doing autopsies on humans, Galen did extensive autopsies on animals (and tried to adapt it to what he thought the human body would look like). His diagrams of the different organs were very detailed and served as a guide for two thousand years.<BR/><BR/>So if there is a literal foreskin, then educated people would have checked Galen's work and would know that no, there wasn't. Not as far as I'm able to make sense of that term, but perhaps there are other interpretations.<BR/><BR/><I>They sure did. In fact, they even separated the heart from the soul.</I><BR/><BR/>Can you please provide some citations for this? Your statements sound to be at odds with my understanding of history but I don't know where the disconnect might be. If we turn to the sources, perhaps that would help.<BR/><BR/>Turning again to Galen whose teachings dominated western thought, he believed the soul was spread out over his three systems corresponding roughly to the liver, heart and brain. In no way did he separate the heart from the soul, quite the contrary.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, I'll submit to this, but as per my argument, it wasn't acknowledged neither the heart nor brain had foreskin or a mouth, correct? </I><BR/><BR/>Not literally, no. I've been staying out of that debate, but if you want to know my opinion I think we can say "speak from the heart" to mean "speak from our mouth but with the heated passion that comes from our heart". The heart itself is not speaking, but the expression still relies on the flawed understanding of emotion and passion that Galen and others advocated. The emotions, passion and vigour ("vital spirit" or <I>pneuma zoticon</I>) came from the heart.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.com