Hebraic v. Hellenistic Thought

[Guest yod]

hey Shilo....

You know what a good example is of hellenistic vs hebraic?

Have you noticed how you almost can't be a Baptist if you don't believe in a pre-trib rapture? You can't be a Pentacostal if you don't speak in tongues? You get in trouble at some places if you think God still heals people....and other places will kick you out if you DON'T think that?

But messianic synagogues have congregants who disagree on timing of the rapture, speaking in tongues, healing, music, etc....They have gentiles from Baptist, Catholic, and Pentecostal backgrounds all in the same building every week.

(disclaimer; I also know of a few very narrow minded messianic groups that are heretical and VERY exclusive...usually of the 2-House variety which is considered a cult within mainstream messianic judaism)

In the hellenistic perspective it's all about what you "believe". There seems to be a rather narrowly prescribed set of "thought rules" that one has to agree with in order to be accepted within some denominations. To a degree, what we believe is more important than what we actually do.

Example; In some Pentacostal circles, if you say "bubble-a-bubble-a-shondalai" you are assumed to be filled with the Holy Spirit.....even though you are often a teller of course jokes....or stare at other men's wives.

For the most part, what we "believe" is what divides one christian denomination from the other.

However, in (healthy) messianic synagogues each member is accepted on the basis of what they "do" and the torah is our individual guide. That is the ultimate factor in judging whether we really believe anything at all....deeds.

I was in a place tonight where there were pre, post, mid, amillenial positions being espoused by different members. Not a problem....they still accepted each other as brothers.

Some of these guys were charismatic...others were not. Not a problem.

Their fellowship was based on what they "do" to serve the greater needs of the congregation.

It's like a "big family" approach. We all have family members we strongly disagree with, right? Yet we stick together because "we" are all in this together. Even those who embarress us at times.

I find this less common in denominational churches.

Both ways (hellenistic/hebraic) are valid perspectives! The church who has everyone on the same page regarding their "beliefs" works like a well-oiled machine with everyone pitching in for the team. It's a lot more efficient in ministry programs and usually much more organized. But there also seems to be a distance between the congregants. The "brotherly" relationships are fewer and not as deep.

at least...that is my experience after being in both worlds for 14 years now.

[Guest shiloh357]

In the hellenistic perspective it's all about what you "believe". There seems to be a rather narrowly prescribed set of "thought rules" that one has to agree with in order to be accepted within some denominations. To a degree, what we believe is more important than what we actually do.

I see a sharp distinction between how the Church in the West operates, generally speaking and say, the book of James. The book of James is very works oriencted. It is the perfect example of the Hebraic mindset. James is all about our works being a testimony of our faith.

Also when one examines the sermon on the Mount, we see how Hebraic Yeshua was. The Sermon on the Mount is really a "recommissioning" the Jewish people. It is another great example of Hebraic though. For example, Yeshua said

Matthew 5:14-16

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. [15] "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. [16] "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

It is our good works that people must see. God is glorified when our lives agree with our verbal profession. THIS is the mind of Messiah. His is a very Hebraic mind. Yeshua though, spoke and lived in a Hebraic mindset. He taught within that paradigm.

Both ways (hellenistic/hebraic) are valid perspectives! The church who has everyone on the same page regarding their "beliefs" works like a well-oiled machine with everyone pitching in for the team. It's a lot more efficient in ministry programs and usually much more organized. But there also seems to be a distance between the congregants. The "brotherly" relationships are fewer and not as deep.

Both are valid, to be sure. One must have proper beliefs and doctrine. One must also have a life of corresponding actions.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

quote from shiloh347

Hebraic thought is all about essence (qualities); Greek thought is all about form (looks). Hebraic thought is related to the internal (character); Greek thought is about the external (personality). Truth to the Hebrew is absolute and is received as a direct revelation from the Divine. Truth to the Greek is a matter of opinion, and human reason is a good starting point for determining it.

I dont see were you get that Greeks or Gentiles are all about (Looks). This was a practice followed by Jewish Leaders also. If their Leaders are doing this you can be sure that their followers are doing this also.

Read the following Scriptures:

Mat 23:1-8 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, (6) And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, (7) And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. (8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

So the above statement about Greeks being all about LOOKS is completely false this was also practiced be Jewish leaders and followers.

God bless,

[nebula]

Hellenistic Philosophy:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2w.htm

(snip)

Religion and Philosophy

Despite (or because of) the gloomy prospects held forward by these schools of philosophy, the later Hellenistic period also produced significant movement toward the consolidation of the older Greek philosophical tradition with the middle-eastern religions of Judaism and Christianity.

Philo Judaeus, for example, tried to develop a comprehensive view embracing both Plato and Judaism. This was no easy task, since the traditional religion of scripture was concrete and historically-rooted, while Plato's philosophy was extremely abstract and general. But since he supposed that the same deity had inspired human awareness of truth in both contexts, Philo maintained that synthesis must be possible. He interpreted the religious texts allegorically, finding in their structure clues and hints of the deeper philosophical truth. (Allegory is a dangerously powerful tool; it often permits or even encourages the 'discovery' of nearly any doctrine you like even within the most straightforwardly prosaic texts. Perhaps "Green Eggs and Ham" is a deeply subversive expression of communist political ideology, while "Bert and Ernie" encourage a homosexual lifestyle, and . . . .) For Philo, the goodness of the one transcendent god is expressed through the divine word {Gk. logos [logos]}, which is the organizing principle that accounts for everything in the cosmos.

The Christian church fathers were not far behind. The earliest among them either regarded philosophy as a source of heretical theology (Irenaeus) or offered general anti-intellectual tirades against the power of human reason (Tertullian). But Justin Martyr carefully noted the natural affinities between the emerging Christian theology and the traditions of thought deriving from Plato, and Origen explicitly endeavored to combine the two in a single system. This path of development continued for centuries, reaching its peak in Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose, who was the teacher of Augustine.

Plotinus

The version of Platonic philosophy that came to be incorporated into the theology of the middle ages, however, had rather little to do with the thought of Plato himself. It was, instead, derived from the quasi-mystical writings of Plotinus. In an aphoristic book called the Enneads, Plotinus used Plato's fascination with the abstract forms of things as the starting-point for a comprehensive metaphysical view of the cosmos.

According to Plotinus, the form of the Good is the transcendent source of everything in the universe: from its central core other forms emanate outward, like the ripples in a pond, losing measures of reality along the way. Thus, although the early emanations retain much of the abstract beauty of their source, those out on the fringes of the cosmos have very little good left in them. Nevertheless, Plotinus supposed that careful examination of anything in the world could be used to lead us toward the central reality, if we use the information it provides as the basis for our reasoning about its origins in something more significant. In principle, progressive applications of this technique will eventually bring us to contemplation of the Good itself and knowledge of the nature of the universe.

But since the Good is both the cause of the universe and the source of its moral quality for Plotinus, philosophical study is a redemptive activity. Achievement of mystical union with the cause of the universe promises to provide us not only with knowledge but also with the true elements of virtue as well. It was this neoplatonic philosophy that the Christians found so well-suited to their own theological purposes. Once the Good is identified with the god of scripture, the details work themselves out fairly naturally. Thus, we'll find notions of this sort to be a popular feature of medieval philosophy.

[Guest shiloh357]

quote from shiloh347

Hebraic thought is all about essence (qualities); Greek thought is all about form (looks). Hebraic thought is related to the internal (character); Greek thought is about the external (personality). Truth to the Hebrew is absolute and is received as a direct revelation from the Divine. Truth to the Greek is a matter of opinion, and human reason is a good starting point for determining it.

I dont see were you get that Greeks or Gentiles are all about (Looks). This was a practice followed by Jewish Leaders also. If their Leaders are doing this you can be sure that their followers are doing this also.

Read the following Scriptures:

Mat 23:1-8 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, (6) And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, (7) And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. (8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

So the above statement about Greeks being all about LOOKS is completely false this was also practiced be Jewish leaders and followers.

God bless,

I was not going to respond to you, but I decided to try one more time to explain it all to you.

The reason you do not understand, is because you are trying to interpret "Hebraic" as "Jewish," and like so many people it seems you base your understanding of "The Jews" on what you THINK you know about the Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders of the 1st Century. Many Talmudic Rabbis in later years were very critical of SOME the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem during that time period, and hold them personally accountable for the loss of the Temple.

There were certain of the Pharisees and religious leaders of that day that were very ostentatious and enjoyed the extra attention they got due to their position and status. Others made a display of their "piety" and preferred the honor of man over the honor of God.

However, you CANNOT lump together all Jews and all Jewish leaders from that time period, or any time period for that matter, and say that they are "this" or they are "that." Jews are as sectarian as Christianity, and are just not that homogenous.

There were many Pharisess that were NOT like Jesus' detractors. There were those who followed God, and did not make open displays, and did demand that all Israel be beholden to them. They lived simple, quiet Godly lives, and followed the Scriptures with their whole heart.

I said all of that to say this: Not everything that is "Jewish" is Hebraic. You cannot blame their unbelief on the fact that they thought Hebraically. That had nothing to do with it. Many of them were Roman puppets, their actions and "beliefs" were based upon what served the best interests of Rome. If the coming of the Messiah, was a threat to their position, then anyone claimming to be the Messiah, had to go. They could not allow a "Messiah" to upset the apple cart. THAT was the basis of their unblief.

Let me see if I can explain Hebraic and Hellenistic to you in a better way. What we are talking about here are paradigms. A paradigm as you may well know, is a "frame of reference," or you could say it is your "perspective on life," or "the way you look at the world." It is the means by which you interpret your environment in which you live and the world outside that environment as well. When someone changes their perspective, they are said to have undergone a "paradigm shift."

The Scriptures were written by people who lived and thought in a Hebraic paradigm. They did not have the same perspective as say the Greeks or the Romans. God did not circumvent that. He used THAT paradigm when He inspired the prophets and apostles to write the Scriptures.

A good example of this is the way the word "perfect" is seen. In Hellenism perfect means "flawless." It means without error. Greeks were into asthetics. You can look at the architecture, and the art of the ancient Greeks and see that. They put a lot of emphasis on physical asthetics. A well built body was considered a virtue in that culture. That is part of Hellenism.

In a Hebraic paradigm, perfection has nothing to do with appearance, but rather what is inherent in the individual or object. A tree, for example, in a Hebraic paradigm, is "perfect" because it is a tree. It is what God created it to be. It has no geometric symmetry, it is narled and full of knots, but it is "perfect" because it is a tree. A "perfect" person is a whole person. He/she is someone who is what God created them to be, and they are walking in that. It has nothing to do with being flawless, with being complete and mature.

There is nothing wrong with the "flawless" definition, and there is nothing wrong with "wholeness" definition of perfection. Both are valid and have their place in the world. It is just that the Hebraic perspective "fits" with what the Scriptures say, and the Hellenistic does not.

We are talking about two different philosophical world-views. We are talking about how to see the Scriptures with the world-view of its human authors in order to see what they saw. We are simply trying to understand, from their perspective, what the words they used, meant to them, at that time. It is a means of exegesis using the historical-cultural perspective to gain greater understanding. That is ALL are we talking about.

So the above statement about Greeks being all about LOOKS is completely false this was also practiced be Jewish leaders and followers.

Jedi, it is a generalization. That should go without saying. It is not saying all Greeks are concerned about looks, or that all Jews are not. It maybe true that there are some Greeks that are not concerened with looks, but anyone following Hellenism will, because that is what Hellenistic THOUGHT is all about. You do not have to be Greek to be a Hellenist. You do not have to be Jewish to think Hebraically.

[wordsower]

Have you noticed how you almost can't be a Baptist if you don't believe in a pre-trib rapture? You can't be a Pentacostal if you don't speak in tongues? You get in trouble at some places if you think God still heals people....and other places will kick you out if you DON'T think that?

But messianic synagogues have congregants who disagree on timing of the rapture, speaking in tongues, healing, music, etc....They have gentiles from Baptist, Catholic, and Pentecostal backgrounds all in the same building every week.

(disclaimer; I also know of a few very narrow minded messianic groups that are heretical and VERY exclusive...usually of the 2-House variety which is considered a cult within mainstream messianic judaism)

Well, sounds like my church, but then, we don't know what we are. We are -used to be Baptists, got filled with the Holy Ghost and fire, proceeded with the name Baptist, then the music went to Church of God, then we got some Messianics in the congregation that wave prayer shawls and don't wear shoes, then we have one that teaches us the feasts, then we have some--used to be Methodists and Presbyterians that don't know what to think of us but keep coming back and Hallelujia, We just LOVE Jesus!!!!!!!!! Praise His Holy Name!

BTW--We are on INSP tonight until 10:00 if ya get the channel.

We are all gonna be one bride so we better just get along. :hug:

[Guest shiloh357]

then we got some Messianics in the congregation that wave prayer shawls and don't wear shoes,

No shoes? OK I have never heard of that before.

[Guest yod]

They must consider that church to be holy ground?

It sounds like you have a very healthy church, Words....I wish that I'd seen this post earlier. By now it's already shown on TV. How did it go?

I should point out that I was also speaking in generalization. There are certainly LOTs and LOTs of healthy churches who have love without a litmus test of a denominational belief system...and I apologize if my words seemed to imply otherwise.

but Church of the Stink Foot? :x:

Mat 23:1-8 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

and this verse that Jedi posted actually proves our point Shilo.. Yeshua was saying that no matter what these particular men "claim" to believe, their works show the true measure of their faithfulness to Adonai.

Hebraic thought

[Azriella]

Imagine with me that objects from our day and age were put in a time capsule....amoung them a box of matches. Two Thousand years later the capsule is found and opened and from that box of matches they try to get hints about our time and culture. (If possible get a box of matches to look at)

By this point matches are long since an item obsolete so you wonder what you have. Read the box.

Strike on box??--- Why should i hit the box?

Keep away from children?--- Why stay away from children?

I could go on but i hope you get what i am saying. It is not that the people from our time are better or smarter or those from the later time dumber....only that what is a normal household word to us, matches, would be an unknown to them. There are "buzzwords" in scripture....words that were not explained as those they were spoken to would know what they refered to....but someone outside thier culture would need explained to them. So I think the point they are trying to get accross is NOT any feeling of being better as a jewsih person but rather that scripture (as any writing) needs to be looked at in context of the culture it is written in.

I am a jewish person who has several non-jewish friends....from time to time i will say or do something that they will have to ask me why as they are from a different culture even tho we live in the same time and city.....how much more in our lives would be different if we also lived during different times, in different lands.

It is not a matter of being "better" but rather just having different starting points when looking at scripture. When as a child i talked with my great aunt about her life in Europe before and during the war i did not understand nearly as much as i did later after studying the culture she lived in, the holocaust and how she lived then as a jewish female. I understood alot of her stories...but not always the significance of them at the time, I am sure there is still much i dont really understand but i know thinking of her stories in context of the time and culture she lived in has helped alot.

I think this is what they are trying to say...scripture is best understood when looked at from the standpoint of the culture it was written to. But regardless G-d will meet you where you are and use His words in your life if you let him. Knowledge isnt the most important part of studying--it is a heart to allow Hashem to conform your life to His standards.

Shalom

[wordsower]

No shoes?  OK I have never heard of that before.

Me either, but we love her anyways.............

but Church of the Stink Foot? 

:x:

Yod, It was the INSP campmeeting and they asked us to come and preach and sing, they even paid our way. I couldn't go since I have 3 small kids and a job--boo hoo, but I wanted to so bad, they were great! They might re-air it, they did late last night.

The sermon is on there every week at 11:30 eastern time, you might see me in the choir, they usually put me on the front row since I'm so height challenged.

I am truly blessed :il: We just started recording and producing records too and I'm so excited about that!

Ya'll come down ya hear? :oww: