The Holy Spirit, dwelling within...

[Tom Wetmore]

Mark,

Perhaps you might explain from your literalistic way of interpreting Scripture Paul's statement that we are the "body of Christ".

Your approach lead to the misunderstanding of Nicodemus about being "born again" and the misunderstanding of the disciples when Jesus said to "eat my flesh and drink my blood". (And as I pointed out in the other thread, the latter literalistic interpretation mistake has lead to the Catholic heresy of transubstantiation, that the communion wafer and wine really turns into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.)

Jesus also said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood not only results in him being in us, but that it results in us being in Him.

In Jesus' final talk with his disciples before his crucifixion he addressed this very problem -

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

And after some plain talk and explanation the disciples responded -

"Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech."

[Twilight]

Mark,

Perhaps you might explain from your literalistic way of interpreting Scripture Paul's statement that we are the "body of Christ".

Your approach lead to the misunderstanding of Nicodemus about being "born again" and the misunderstanding of the disciples when Jesus said to "eat my flesh and drink my blood". (And as I pointed out in the other thread, the latter literalistic interpretation mistake has lead to the Catholic heresy of transubstantiation, that the communion wafer and wine really turns into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.)

Jesus also said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood not only results in him being in us, but that it results in us being in Him.

In Jesus' final talk with his disciples before his crucifixion he addressed this very problem -

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

And after some plain talk and explanation the disciples responded -

"Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech."

Before I can answer your question Tom, how do you stand on the first two chapters of Genesis?

Are they literal or not?

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life.(CG 446)

It sounds like you're wanting the Holy Spirit to communicate to me in some other way than we're told that God communicates to us.

No, I am asking you to go to the Bible first and establish your doctrine.

A quote from Ellen White, based on probably a partial awareness of the functions of the "brain nerves" of her time, is not reason to deny the function of the heart.

Like I have stated before, the same "brain nerves" that are in the brain are also found in the heart.

So this does not in any way contradict what I have said.

The only way this does contradict, is if you assume that the "brain" is the only place where these nerves are.

Which we now know is scientifically incorrect.

Ellen White may also have been quoting scientific data of her time and it may not have been direct revelation from God.

So I have to go back to Jesus' teachings and make that the base of operations.

Not one quote from Ellen White, that does not disprove the point anyway...

It is sometimes so tiring when Adventists try to build a doctrine on a quote from Ellen White...

[Twilight]

Do you disagree with the idea that thoughts come from the brain? If the brain produces thoughts, and thoughts arise from the heart, it should be easy to see that the "heart" is dealing with activity which is produced by the brain. Remove a person's brain, and he has no heart.

I totally agree that the "brain" produces "thought".

But there is also antoher type of "thought" that the heart produces.

We call these "emotions, desires, lusts, motives etc".

These types of "thought" are the basis for all "rational" thought.

Out of these emotional states (for want of a better word), arise our thoughts.

This is stated here by Jesus:

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Now here we see Jesus stating that at the base of everything is what is in the "heart".

It is what fills the heart that drives the mouth.

This is why we need the heart changing.

No, I'm providing an example of how the words "heart" and "mind" are used, showing that because one says "heart" does not mean that the word cannot indicate a function of the mind.

Similar logic applies to "kidneys."

A far more rational idea than that the center for our affections is literally in the kidneys is that we understand more about human physiology than the Hebrews did. We also know more about cosmology. And mathematics (e.g., we know that pi <> 3).

Do you think we know more about human anatomy than Jesus?

Current accepted scientific thought about the heart is wrong.

If I want to know, what the heart does spiritually, I go to Jesus.

As to the Kidneys reference, something does indeed happen between the Heart and Kidneys when emotion is expressed, this was mentioned in the link I posted on the research about this. I even bolded that comment.

Quote from SOP:

When Jesus came to our world, He might have opened to the minds of men a vast storehouse of scientific knowledge.

Let us not pass idly by what Jesus said because we think we are more "knowledgeble", that we understand more about"science", it is this assumption I believe that lies at the heart of many people's difficulty to accept this idea. They think they are "knowledgeble" about human anatomy and will not let the bible speak to them, but rather come with that attitude to the scripture.

Even when scientific studies are presented, they try to diminish those studies, is it to protect their "knowledge"?

Quote:

p:I've never said the mind is the heart. I disagree that the heart is referring to the blood-pumping muscle, however.

T:Then please clarify your position here, it is no use telling someone what you do not mean, without telling them what you mean...

I wrote a greatly detailed post as to what I meant, back at the beginning of your first topic.

Would you mind summarising it again for me please, I can honestly say I do not understand your position on many things.

There are lots of questions coming from your direction which I am endeavouring to answer, could I ask that you please supply some answers to mine, even if in brief, or provide a link to the post where you gave your answer.

I believe the Scripture. I disagree with you. Remember when Jesus said, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples replied, "It is because we have no bread." I think this is what you're doing here. You're making a literal interpretation where one is not warranted, as the disciples did. That Jesus did not mean for His words to be taken literally does not mean they are not true.

I also believe the scripture and disagree with you.

That the bible uses figurative language, there is no doubt.

But to assume that this is literal, is not warranted.

As the bible does not use solely figurative language.

Do you start to read the bible with the assumption that it is all figurative Pnat?

Please answer this question, if nothing else.

Quote:

T:Is it illogical to assume that God has given us a physical heart that has emotional function?

That this seat or our desires and inclinations is the part He changes first in the New Birth?

Why is that illogical?

Think of the transplant explanation.

Think of the transplant issue I raised...

The heart cannot be transplanted without the neural network it contains.

It is only because of this network that transplantation is possible...

Quote:

T:It is illogical to assume that God "could not" or "would not" create us this way.

If God can create a mind to reason, why cannot He create a "heart" with desire and inclination?

What exactly is it in the design of that you think that God could not achieve logically.

Your argument here, is the same as an atheists.

No, it's not. The heart is a muscle. It doesn't think. Take away a man's heart, and he can still think. He still has affections, desires, inclinations, all these things. He can live by a machine, without a heart, and his affections, desires, etc. remain. Take away his brain, and these all go away.

Did you not read the links I gave earlier?

It gives an example of a man who had an artificial heart and the resultant lack of emotional connection to those around him.

Try this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101390_pf.html

Lets just say he could not function emotionally...

Quote:

So this does not in any way contradict what I have said.

It's hard to believe you think this is a serious argument. She says the only way that heaven can communicate with man is by means of the nerves of the brain, and your answer is that the "nerves of the brain" is referring to the heart (and kidneys too, I presume). Given this, I don't think it's possible she *could* have written anything you thought contradicted your idea.

You are proof texting again Pnat.

With a quote from Ellen White.

I have answered this point.

If the brain nerves she was reffering to are also in the heart (she may not have know this), then the quote does not disagree with this simple biblical truth...

Does it?

Unless of course you are not prepared to accept that the heart has its own system of neurons or "brain nerves"...

-----------------

But I notice in all of this, you have still not given me what I have asked for.

Please give a short concise explanation, a post of its own, of what you think the heart is and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Argument 1.

When one says "I love you with all my heart" this conveys different content than "I love you with all my mind," even though one does not have any intention of referring to the blood-pumping muscle. The first expression conveys thoughts of love involving the emotions and affections, whereas the second depicts a rational love.

Both of these expressions involve the head region. Neither involve the chest region.

I think you (Mark) may have understood what was said here, but haven't understood why (i.e. what the point of is in pointing this out). I'm saying this because each time you've responded in terms of back tracking how we use things in English back to the Greek, when this has nothing whatever to do with the point of the argument.

The point of the argument is that it disproves *your* argument. Your argument runs like this:

Jesus used both the words "heart" and "mind." Therefore He must have had the chest region heart in mind, because otherwise He wouldn't have used the word "heart."

I'm pointing out the flaw in this argument by bringing out a counter example. The counter example is that *we ourselves* commonly use two different words, when we have no intent of differentiating between the geographic regions of the body.

*Therefore* to conclude that Jesus Christ is *necessarily* doing so is false reasoning. You could conclude that it's *possible* that Jesus Christ is using the terms differently than we do, that just because we use the terms in a certain way does not imply that Jesus Christ was doing the same, and this would be sound reasoning. However, you cannot reason that because He used different words He *necessarily* meant to differentiate between different geographic regions of the human body.

I hope you understood the reasoning here, which is perfectly sound. It doesn't disprove the possibility that Jesus Christ was speaking as you are suggesting, using "heart" for the chest region, but it *does* demolish your argument.

Hopefully this is clear.

[pnattmbtc]

Argument 2.

If the center of the affections/desires/etc. were literally in the heart, and/or kidneys, then one would expect some evidence of a person's personality changing when they got new hearts or new kidneys. But this doesn't happen. Getting a new heart or kidneys doesn't affect these things. Why? Because they occur in the mind.

Note that a person can live without a human heart at all, at least for awhile. Machines can take care of the work. Now if what you were suggesting were true, living off a heart machine should mean the person loses their desires/affections/etc. But they don't they continue as they were. Why? Because the mind controls these things.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life.(CG 446)

It sounds like you're wanting the Holy Spirit to communicate to me in some other way than we're told that God communicates to us.

No, I am asking you to go to the Bible first and establish your doctrine.

A quote from Ellen White, based on probably a partial awareness of the functions of the "brain nerves" of her time, is not reason to deny the function of the heart.

Like I have stated before, the same "brain nerves" that are in the brain are also found in the heart.

So this does not in any way contradict what I have said.

The only way this does contradict, is if you assume that the "brain" is the only place where these nerves are.

Which we now know is scientifically incorrect.

Ellen White may also have been quoting scientific data of her time and it may not have been direct revelation from God.

So I have to go back to Jesus' teachings and make that the base of operations.

Not one quote from Ellen White, that does not disprove the point anyway...

It is sometimes so tiring when Adventists try to build a doctrine on a quote from Ellen White...

Not only is Ellen White contradicting you, you're contradicting yourself! One the one hand, you say she doesn't contradict you, because the nerves of the brain are nerves of the heart. On the other hand you imply she was wrong, because she was quoting scientific data of the time.

This is a problematic response for a couple of reasons.

1.You seem to think the Bible is more scientifically advanced than the SOP. Since Ellen White lived several thousand years later than the Bible writers did, this is an odd position to take.

2.You seem to believe in differing levels of inspiration. I get the impression you think Scripture cannot be in error, but Ellen White can be. It therefore appears you believe that her inspiration is of a lesser quality than that of Scripture.

Quote:

As to the heart transplant question.

The only reason a heart transplant is possible is because of its own "brain" function...

So your argument has not taken that into consideration it seems?

You apparently didn't understand the argument. You didn't understand the argument regarding "I love you with all my heart" either. I'll explain these in a separate post.

Quote:

I also hope that you can now reason through some of the things I have said, a constant charge of "no reasoning" on my part is not strictly true.

It might be fairer to say, that you do not agree with my reasoning perhaps?

You're reasoning has been "It says heart, so it must mean heart." That's not much of an argument. That's all the reasoning I can recall seeing.

Quote:

Please remember, I am not taking issue with you, just your logic and argument.

I don't think you've understood the logic or argument. At least, I haven't seen evidence of that. I'll explain the arguments in detail separately.

Quote:

I still respect you as a brother in Christ and assure you I have not ill intentions towards you or indeed no intentions to exalt myself.

This is a simple beautiful truth, that will really open up the abiding experience in Christ if appropriated.

This is not to say you do not have one, but to say, it will be deepened.

Why do you think it makes any difference whatsoever where geographically in the human body the center of the emotions or affections is? How would knowing this is really in the heart, and the kidneys, instead of mistakenly thinking this is in the head region (I'm arguing as if you were correct here) in any way help one's spiritual experience?

As I see it, the important thing is that the Holy Spirit is able to communicate truth to us, and we, be believing the truths He teaches us, are able to purify our thoughts/desires/motives/affections/etc.

Please answer my last point Pnat.

These points above we have been over before.

But I am still asking for a concise explanation of your own view.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Argument 3

A new one.

We think by means of language. No meaningful thought occurs which doesn't involve language. The language center of a human is in the brain. This is why strokes impact a person's ability to think and communicate, but a heart attack doesn't.

[pnattmbtc]

Please answer my last point Pnat.

[pnattmbtc]

I couldn't find it, so I'll go with this:

Quote:

As I see it, the important thing is that the Holy Spirit is able to communicate truth to us, and we, be believing the truths He teaches us, are able to purify our thoughts/desires/motives/affections/etc.

I believe the expression "the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart" is depicting the close relation between God and man when man is born again (also an expression; we don't literally go into the womb again, as Nicodemus was querying).

[Twilight]

Why do you think it makes any difference whatsoever where geographically in the human body the center of the emotions or affections is? How would knowing this is really in the heart, and the kidneys, instead of mistakenly thinking this is in the head region (I'm arguing as if you were correct here) in any way help one's spiritual experience?

Why do you think it doesn't?

It would have not been shown in scripture if it was not important...

There is a distinct difference between head conversion and heart conversion.

Adventists can suffer from head conversion and not heart conversion.

They can know all the "truths", but have no love in them.

Why?

Because they are concentrating on doctrinal knowledge (head worship), rather than a relationship with God (heart knowledge).

Now the Lord has gone into great detail as to how this happens, so I think it is important.

---------------------

But if I accept your view (which has been given piecemeal and not offered in one simple post so far), then it is just another expression of "head knowledge", with a few cursory emotions thrown in.

No distinction, no clarity, a big confused mess.

------------

I know that the Holy Spirit dwells in my heart.

I recognise the still small voice that emanates from there.

I recognise the temptations that always come to my mind initially.

I recognise the the devil attacks my mind to get a hold on my heart.

I recognise the difference in all this, because God has taught me to.

But you are asking that I throw all this away, without even one real rational argument as to why the Holy Spirit would not dwell in the heart and commune with the heart.

---------------

Do you realise the seriousness of your challenge here?

You are also in danger of causing others to be blocked to this wonderful simple truth.

I would be very very careful claiming you have light on this until you sit down prayerfully, take Gods Word and study this principle of the heart out.

When you have done that, then and only then will you really be qualified to state that this is error.

Because this is in effect what you are doing here.

Now from other posters on here, I expect nothing less, they are always calling truth error, or demanding some standard of behaviour from others that they are clearly not capable of offering themselves, but for you, with the obvious light you have in some areas, to call this error, is very very dangerous.

Consider your ground my friend and pray deep and long about this.

If you block one ray of light from another's mind, you have done a dis-service to the kingdom of Heaven and to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mark

[Twilight]

I couldn't find it, so I'll go with this:

Quote:

As I see it, the important thing is that the Holy Spirit is able to communicate truth to us, and we, be believing the truths He teaches us, are able to purify our thoughts/desires/motives/affections/etc.

I believe the expression "the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart" is depicting the close relation between God and man when man is born again (also an expression; we don't literally go into the womb again, as Nicodemus was querying).

Thank you.

The fundamental flaws in your understanding on this point is this:

We are not capable, in any way shape or form of changing our own thoughts/desires/motives etc into those that are reflective of Gods thoughts and feelings.

We cannot do it.

What we do, is give permission to the Holy Spirit to come in.

To enter us.

He then changes the desires and passions of our heart.

He then changes the tenor and direction of our thoughts.

Anything else is works based.

We cannot change ourselves Pnat.

It is impossible.

All we can do is consent for God to do that within us...

---------------

The second point is that you do not believe God dwells in you, even though the bible is extremely specific on this point.

So you are only ever going to be trying to be sanctified by your own effort, rather than by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

If you do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you will for ever be under the old covenant.

Thinking that God will give you power to wield.

Rather than God being your power within you...

You will also struggle to diffentiate between the still small voice of God speaking to your heart and the devil speaking to your mind...

God bless,

Mark

[Twilight]

Argument 1.

When one says "I love you with all my heart" this conveys different content than "I love you with all my mind," even though one does not have any intention of referring to the blood-pumping muscle. The first expression conveys thoughts of love involving the emotions and affections, whereas the second depicts a rational love.

Both of these expressions involve the head region. Neither involve the chest region.

I think you (Mark) may have understood what was said here, but haven't understood why (i.e. what the point of is in pointing this out). I'm saying this because each time you've responded in terms of back tracking how we use things in English back to the Greek, when this has nothing whatever to do with the point of the argument.

The point of the argument is that it disproves *your* argument. Your argument runs like this:

Jesus used both the words "heart" and "mind." Therefore He must have had the chest region heart in mind, because otherwise He wouldn't have used the word "heart."

I'm pointing out the flaw in this argument by bringing out a counter example. The counter example is that *we ourselves* commonly use two different words, when we have no intent of differentiating between the geographic regions of the body.

*Therefore* to conclude that Jesus Christ is *necessarily* doing so is false reasoning. You could conclude that it's *possible* that Jesus Christ is using the terms differently than we do, that just because we use the terms in a certain way does not imply that Jesus Christ was doing the same, and this would be sound reasoning. However, you cannot reason that because He used different words He *necessarily* meant to differentiate between different geographic regions of the human body.

I hope you understood the reasoning here, which is perfectly sound. It doesn't disprove the possibility that Jesus Christ was speaking as you are suggesting, using "heart" for the chest region, but it *does* demolish your argument.

Hopefully this is clear.

But none of this is biblical Pnat...

It is all based on an insistance that the heart means a faculty of the mind.

It is the same argument you have been making all along and the same one I have refuted.

Based on the fact that it is assumptive and not biblical.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

p:Why do you think it makes any difference whatsoever where geographically in the human body the center of the emotions or affections is? How would knowing this is really in the heart, and the kidneys, instead of mistakenly thinking this is in the head region (I'm arguing as if you were correct here) in any way help one's spiritual experience?

T:Why do you think it doesn't?

It would have not been shown in scripture if it was not important...

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Do you disagree with the idea that thoughts come from the brain? If the brain produces thoughts, and thoughts arise from the heart, it should be easy to see that the "heart" is dealing with activity which is produced by the brain. Remove a person's brain, and he has no heart.

I totally agree that the "brain" produces "thought".

But there is also antoher type of "thought" that the heart produces.

We call these "emotions, desires, lusts, motives etc".

This is regarding "affection"

Quote:

In psychology the terms affection and affective are of great importance.As all intellectual phenomena have by experimentalists been reduced to sensation, so all emotion has been and is regarded as reducible to simple mental affection, the element of which all emotional manifestations are ultimately composed.

You can impact a persons desires by poking different parts of the brain. This has repeatedly been shown scientifically.

The brain receives information from throughout the body, and interprets this data. While a desire may originate from a part of the body, such as the stomach (say we're hungry), it is the brain that interprets this our needing food, and communicates to us "get something to eat!" It is not our heart that does this.

When we do something pleasurable, it is the brain the interprets whatever is happening as a pleasurable experience. Not the heart.

The important thing, in terms of our Christian walk, in regards to desires is that we desire holy things, and control our desires for things God does not desire. We control our desires by decisions we make in the brain. Our desires are sanctified as we make the decision, made by the brain, to do the following:

Quote:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.(Phil. 4:8)

The mind does this. As the mind does this, the heart is made pure.

Quote:

As to the Kidneys reference, something does indeed happen between the Heart and Kidneys when emotion is expressed, this was mentioned in the link I posted on the research about this. I even bolded that comment.

Fine. Something happens. There's a great difference between "something happens," and the kidneys (not the heart) being the seat of our affections, as the Hebrews believed.

Quote:

The Hebrews often make the reins the seat of the affections, and ascribe to them knowledge, joy, pain, pleasure; hence in Scripture it is said that God searches the heart and tries the reins.

So perhaps from our conversation you will see the need of kidney conversion.

Quote:

A far more rational idea than that the center for our affections is literally in the kidneys is that we understand more about human physiology than the Hebrews did. We also know more about cosmology. And mathematics (e.g., we know that pi <> 3).

Do you think we know more about human anatomy than Jesus?

Current accepted scientific thought about the heart is wrong.

And you're right. It's not possible that you're wrong? You couldn't be misunderstanding Jesus, and science, and Ellen White, is actually correct? That's not possible?

Quote:

Do you start to read the bible with the assumption that it is all figurative Pnat?

Please answer this question, if nothing else.

Ok. No, I don't. My assumption is that God wishes to communicate truth to me, and the communication may involve the literal or the figurative.

Quote:

Think of the transplant issue I raised...

The heart cannot be transplanted without the neural network it contains.

It is only because of this network that transplantation is possible...

According to your theory, this should change a person's personality. Surely if he now has the desires/motives/affections/emotions/etc. of another person, that would completely change his personality. But this doesn't happen.

You mentioned an article about a fellow with an artificial heart. I noticed this:

Quote:

He also woke up with a titanium jack coming out of his head.

That could have had an impact on his emotions, right? Also this:

Quote:

No one really knows why Houghton has this trouble -- whether it is the machinery, or the drugs, or depression, or advancing age, or the lingering effects of major surgery, or a lack of hormones secreted by the heart, or even that for hundreds of thousands of years, human brains have been optimized by having their oxygen delivered in pulse-driven spurts, not constant pressure.

I'm not discounting the possibility that the heart or kidneys impact the emotions. Indeed, I would be surprised if this weren't the case, since the body is so interrelated. Indeed, the whole point of the SOP quote I provided regarding the only means of communication being the brain was to take care of one's body because the brain's health is impacted by the body's health, and that impacts our ability to communicate.

However, notwithstanding that, that which controls the decision making process, and this is where the rubber meats the road, because it is the decisions that we make that determine everything, is the mind.

The artificial heart thing is interesting. I don't know how many people have received artificial hearts. If all of them had their emotions impacted, that would be interesting. However, there's still the transplant issue. If the heart were the center of the emotions, or the kidneys were, then when people had transplants, that should impact their personalities. Not just artificial hearts, but transplants should have this impact as well. And it should be in just one case here or there, but in every single case, the one with the transplanted heart should have a profound personality change.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Argument 1.

When one says "I love you with all my heart" this conveys different content than "I love you with all my mind," even though one does not have any intention of referring to the blood-pumping muscle. The first expression conveys thoughts of love involving the emotions and affections, whereas the second depicts a rational love.

Both of these expressions involve the head region. Neither involve the chest region.

I think you (Mark) may have understood what was said here, but haven't understood why (i.e. what the point of is in pointing this out). I'm saying this because each time you've responded in terms of back tracking how we use things in English back to the Greek, when this has nothing whatever to do with the point of the argument.

The point of the argument is that it disproves *your* argument. Your argument runs like this:

Jesus used both the words "heart" and "mind." Therefore He must have had the chest region heart in mind, because otherwise He wouldn't have used the word "heart."

I'm pointing out the flaw in this argument by bringing out a counter example. The counter example is that *we ourselves* commonly use two different words, when we have no intent of differentiating between the geographic regions of the body.

*Therefore* to conclude that Jesus Christ is *necessarily* doing so is false reasoning. You could conclude that it's *possible* that Jesus Christ is using the terms differently than we do, that just because we use the terms in a certain way does not imply that Jesus Christ was doing the same, and this would be sound reasoning. However, you cannot reason that because He used different words He *necessarily* meant to differentiate between different geographic regions of the human body.

I hope you understood the reasoning here, which is perfectly sound. It doesn't disprove the possibility that Jesus Christ was speaking as you are suggesting, using "heart" for the chest region, but it *does* demolish your argument.

Hopefully this is clear.

But none of this is biblical Pnat...

It is all based on an insistance that the heart means a faculty of the mind.

It is the same argument you have been making all along and the same one I have refuted.

Based on the fact that it is assumptive and not biblical.

Mark :-)

Mark, your argument was invalid. Do you not see this? I explained why above.

The above is not dealing with Biblical/unBiblical, but with valid argument/invalid argument.

Do you understand what a valid argument is? What I was showing above is that your argument is invalid. (this doesn't mean not true; an argument can be valid but the proposition false; or, conversely, the proposition can be true, even though the argument is invalid. I showed your argument is invalid).

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

...Perhaps you might explain from your literalistic way of interpreting Scripture Paul's statement that we are the "body of Christ"...

Before I can answer your question Tom, how do you stand on the first two chapters of Genesis?

Are they literal or not?

Mark :-)

Why can't you just simply answer the question? Why do you need me to answer that question before you can answer mine? Does your interpretation depend on what I say? Do you need me to explain Genesis to you to unlock something in your mind about the words used by Paul and Jesus in the NT?

But more to the point, these cardio-cognition topics based in a literalistic reading of the language of Scripture have been posted here by you. You are presenting your notions as something that you seem to think should be accepted as some sort of deep truth. The burden of proof is on you to support your theories. Mine are not the topic of discussion. To try and turn the discussion to my interpretations of anything is simply avoiding the obvious.

If you don't want to directly answer my questions, then don't. My point has been made... and confirmed.

[pnattmbtc]

What I'd be interested in discussing is what our interpretations of Scripture say about God. I'd be very interested in thoughts people have on this subject.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Before I can answer your question Tom, how do you stand on the first two chapters of Genesis?

Are they literal or not?

Mark :-)

Why can't you just simply answer the question? Why do you need me to answer that question before you can answer mine? Does your interpretation depend on what I say? ...

If you don't want to directly answer my questions, then don't. My point has been made... and confirmed.

it tells me he has no case so has to build strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the question asked.

i mean, for real!! how does believing that the first 2 chapters of genesis are literal prove what paul intended?!?

[olger]

Jesus had a lot to say about the heart. Scripture informs us that whatever is in our heart will manifest itself in three ways:

* The way that we speak

* The way that we think

* The way that we act

There is often a distinction made in Scripture between the heart and the brain. Both are needed physiologically, and both are needed spititually.

I have worked with people who are what I call "Intellectualy locked." Part of them is missing. They can't feel.

All the best,

g

(ps. I accept all of Genesis as the accurate word of God).

[Guest]

So olger, you believe that you think with the blood pumping muscle? How can that be?

Pro 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he....

This text tells me that the heart referred to in the Bible is the part of you that does the thinking. And everyone knows, that is the brain.

As a man "thinketh in his heart, so is he." Many thoughts make up the unwritten history of a single day; and these thoughts have much to do with the formation of character. Our thoughts are to be strictly guarded; {MYP 144.1}

When the thought of evil is loved and cherished, however secretly, said Jesus, it shows that sin still reigns in the heart. {MB 60}

We need a constant sense of the ennobling power of pure thoughts. The only security for any soul is right thinking. As a man "thinketh in his heart, so is he." Proverbs 23:7. {MH 491}

You see how she connected the two? The same way the Bible does. Thoughts = Heart

[Twilight]

Jesus had a lot to say about the heart. Scripture informs us that whatever is in our heart will manifest itself in three ways:

* The way that we speak

* The way that we think

* The way that we act

There is often a distinction made in Scripture between the heart and the brain. Both are needed physiologically, and both are needed spititually.

I have worked with people who are what I call "Intellectualy locked." Part of them is missing. They can't feel.

All the best,

g

(ps. I accept all of Genesis as the accurate word of God).

That is an excellent way of putting it Olger!

Thank you.

Mark :-)

[teresaq]

bumped for pnat

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks.