The Holy Spirit and the heart...

[Woody]

Quote:

any other body parts?

It may not be proper to mention on this forum ... all the parts of the body that he is referring to.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

15And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

16And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. (Mark 8:14, 15)

Quote:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things.(3SM 217)

[Woody]

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I just want to show the assumption in this argument Pnat:

I deny the heart, in this literal sense you referred to, has "faculties."

Why?

I know you deny this, but why do you deny it?

The bible only ever expresses that the heart has faculties.

So where do you get the idea it does not?

Where do you get the idea, from Gods Word, that the heart does not have faculties?

Have you ever questioned this assumption in your own mind on this point?

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

The point I am challenging you on is this:

There is absolutely no biblical basis for your assumption, that the heart does not have "faculties".

There are however plenty of biblical texts which describe the "faculties" of the heart.

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

So let us consider this:

I am saying the heart has faculties, based on what the bible expresses.

You say it does not, but supply no scripture to support your assertion.

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

Please also be assured, this is not an argument of "superiority" of doctrine, but an attempt to identify some assumptions, so that the Holy Spirit can remove these assumptions in your mind and that a glorious truth can be revealed to you.

Mark :-) [/quote']

*You*, not I, have suggested that the heart is literal, which would make it a blood-pumping muscle. When I commented on the heart not having faculties, I was speaking to *your* comment, that it is literal, and thus a blood-pumping muscle, and not to how Scripture uses the term, which I explained in previous posts.

Please read the posts more carefully. I was clear in addressing this point.

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

That is the biblical language.

You are stating that it is not "literal", but rather talking about the mind.

If it is talking about the mind, then why did they use the word for "heart" and not the word for "mind", which was available in Hebrew and Greek.

Do you understand the point I am making?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Consider this note on the word being used here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3629&t=KJV#

It may not neccesarily be translated with the correct meaning.

This is rather a cryptic comment. Strong's says the word means "kidneys."

My point is that if you are going to say that "heart" is literal, to be consistent, you should say that "kidneys" is literal as well. The word literally means "kidneys," which is how it is translated in every language literally translating (although in English the archaic "reins" which many people don't know means "kidneys").

However, although the word "kidneys" is used in the Hebrew, the concept is obviously a mental one, so that some translations translate the word "mind." Similarly the Hebrew word for "heart" is a fair amount of the time translated "mind." Other times it's translated "understanding."

Even in English the word "heart" conveys a different meaning than the word "mind," although both denote activities of the mind, such as the expressions I have given as examples, "I love you with all my heart" vs. "I love you with all my mind."

I would personally not want to use one text with the word "kidney" in it, to try to define the whole of scripture on the teaching of the heart.

Should we not take the balance of the argument first, not the extreme?

Should we not examine what it means when it says "heart" hundreds of times, in a literal sense?

Then try to figure out what this one text says?

Otherwise this is just a proof text that calls us to ignore some fundamental teaching in scripture.

Mark :-)

[teresaq]

Then try to figure out what this one text says?

Otherwise this is just a proof text that calls us to ignore some fundamental teaching in scripture.

Mark :-)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

That is the biblical language.

You are stating that it is not "literal", but rather talking about the mind.

If it is talking about the mind, then why did they use the word for "heart" and not the word for "mind", which was available in Hebrew and Greek.

Do you understand the point I am making?

Mark

When I asked my pastor about the word "heart" being used in the Bible, he told me that the Greeks considered the heart as being the center of one's thoughts; hence, the Bible writers used the word "heart" when they wrote...but they were referring to one's mind.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

When I asked my pastor about the word "heart" being used in the Bible, he told me that the Greeks considered the heart as being the center of one's thoughts; hence, the Bible writers used the word "heart" when they wrote...but they were referring to one's mind.

The only problem with this is that Jesus was not a Greek.

And He made a distinction in the Greek between the mind and the heart.

Consider this also.

The distinction was not made in the original Hebrew, but Jesus made it in the Greek.

Please notice below:

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.

Jesus makes the distinction here, so how can mind mean heart?

Maybe we know more than Jesus in the 21st Century?

Maybe Jesus had it wrong?

Or maybe we have it wrong, and there is a distinction between heart and mind as Jesus stated in the above text.

Mark :-)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

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.

Maybe Jesus referred to the heart and soul and mind to cover all bases with all the cultural beliefs of where the conscience would be.

[pnattmbtc]

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

[pnattmbtc]

I would personally not want to use one text with the word "kidney" in it, to try to define the whole of scripture on the teaching of the heart.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Mark

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.

Maybe Jesus referred to the heart and soul and mind to cover all bases with all the cultural beliefs of where the conscience would be.

that is a good point worth considering....we do know for a fact that Jesus spoke the cultural language of His day.

[pnattmbtc]

The only problem with this is that Jesus was not a Greek.

And He made a distinction in the Greek between the mind and the heart.

Consider this also.

The distinction was not made in the original Hebrew, but Jesus made it in the Greek.

We make the same distinction in English. But no one I've ever met, or heard of, has had the idea that "heart" in English means "blood-pumping muscle" when saying "I love you with all my heart." If you were an anthropologist studying our culture in the future, I'm guessing you would argue that when Americans said, "I love you with all my heart," there didn't have a mental activity in mind, since they used the word "heart" instead of "mind." One could certainly argue this points to emotional content as opposed to intellectual, but emotional content has its seat in the mind as well.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am talking about the biblical exposition of what the human heart is and does.

Which is never stated as a "blood pumping muscle".

The inference you place on the heart here, precludes any other consideration of the meaning, design and purpose of the heart that God originally gave.

The heart is not a "blood pumping" muscle, but an organ that has the capacity to think in a strong limited sense.

where does the bible say what you are saying it does?

where is there any hint in the bible that God gave us a different kind of heart than what we now have?

mark, you havent answered this, nor several other posts.

can you show from the scripture your conclusion on the bolded part?

[teresaq]

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

That is the biblical language.

You are stating that it is not "literal", but rather talking about the mind.

If it is talking about the mind, then why did they use the word for "heart" and not the word for "mind", which was available in Hebrew and Greek.

Do you understand the point I am making?

[WayneV]

General Reply Re: Matthew 22:37

I wonder if Jesus was simply covering all of the bases to say the same thing.

• Heart--the center of one's life. When the heart ceases its work, life ceases.
• Soul--the combination of a physical body and life-giving force; that is an individual life.
• Mind--that which gives evidence that one has life (Ecc. 9:5).

Perhaps Jesus was engaging in hyperbole to illustrate that we should love the Lord with our whole life, everything that we are, not holding any part back. What do you think?

Agape`

[teresaq]

that is generally how i read it.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Mark

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.

Maybe Jesus referred to the heart and soul and mind to cover all bases with all the cultural beliefs of where the conscience would be.

We have to be careful with "maybes".

"Maybes" can include, personal opinion, bias and error.

I would urge that we only allow the Word of God itself to provide the meaning.

So I would say, it was spoken literally.

Unless there is a very strong biblical reason why it is not literal, then we should accept that it is indeed literal and allow the Bible to interpret itself.

This is one of the fundamental principles of biblical exposition we hold as a people.

Literal first.

The argument that something is not literal, is the argument used to do away with the Sabbath.

"Maybe it means Sunday..."

We must be consistent with our doctrinal rules.

Mark :-)

[Tom Wetmore]

Might I dare suggest that this is probably one of the more foolish debates yet to appear around here...

What is the ultimate truth to be derived from this? Why is this of such vital importance?

Perhaps the "thinking" here originates more from the part of the anatomy spoken of by the Psalmist in Psalms 40:8, "I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart." (Look up the Hebrew on that...)

Quite seriously, maybe someone could favor us with the literal meaning of Job 15:2... or perhaps how it might apply to this whole discussion.

Perhaps the ancients didn't have a very well developed understanding of anatomy and physiology and the function or interrelationship of the various inward parts of a person? And perhaps a somewhat more limited vocabulary to describe the parts and the physiological response to various stimuli, external or internal, real or imagined?

In the end, were their speculations any more specious than our own?

What is your gut sense of all this?

Off the top of my head, nothing comes to mind...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twiligh

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

No, it doesn't. The literal heart is a blood-pumping muscle. This is not what the Bible is referring to when the word "heart" is used.

Quote:

That is the biblical language.

Yes, it's Biblical language, but it's not literal. Much of what's written in Scripture is not literal. That must be the case because it's dealing with spiritual things, and heavenly things. Of necessity, God must communicate with us in terms of things we can relate to and understand. But this does mean that the things being spoken of are literal.

Quote:

You are stating that it is not "literal", but rather talking about the mind.

If it is talking about the mind, then why did they use the word for "heart" and not the word for "mind", which was available in Hebrew and Greek.

Do you understand the point I am making?

Yes, and I've responded to it several times. I gave the example of saying "I love you with all my heart" vs. "I love you with all my mind," both of which are functions of the mind, but described differently, they mean different things. If you take a man's heart away, and give him a transplant, he can still say, "I love you with all my heart," without anything's having changed, because the heart with which one loves in not located in the chest region, but in the head region.

I explained this several times.

Your argument is illogical because of some very simple points Pnat.

Because of assumptions you have made, your argument ends up being illogical.

Here is where your argument breaks down, look at this simple question:

Does "mind" in the following verse mean literally "mind":

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.

If it is literal, then why are you insisting that the word "heart" is not literal?

This is a logical fallacy.

You cannot point to one as being literal and another being figurative in the same sentance, without a clear rational reason, which you have not supplied...

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

Also this is an assumptive argument:

No, it doesn't. The literal heart is a blood-pumping muscle. This is not what the Bible is referring to when the word "heart" is used.

This is an assumption you have brought to the discussion and is not based on the text itself.

You have assumed it is just a blood pumping muscle and have provided no rational basis for that view, no rational biblical basis I might add.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The only problem with this is that Jesus was not a Greek.

And He made a distinction in the Greek between the mind and the heart.

Consider this also.

The distinction was not made in the original Hebrew, but Jesus made it in the Greek.

We make the same distinction in English. But no one I've ever met, or heard of, has had the idea that "heart" in English means "blood-pumping muscle" when saying "I love you with all my heart." If you were an anthropologist studying our culture in the future, I'm guessing you would argue that when Americans said, "I love you with all my heart," there didn't have a mental activity in mind, since they used the word "heart" instead of "mind." One could certainly argue this points to emotional content as opposed to intellectual, but emotional content has its seat in the mind as well.

And that is the very problem itself Pnat.

We use it in the English and then apply it backward to the Greek...

That is where part of the error has come in.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It seems you are not understanding my point Pnat.

The bible talks about the "literal heart" having "function".

That is the biblical language.

You are stating that it is not "literal", but rather talking about the mind.

If it is talking about the mind, then why did they use the word for "heart" and not the word for "mind", which was available in Hebrew and Greek.

Do you understand the point I am making?

the bible ascribes "literal" function to quite a bit, mark, so why, according to your understanding, wouldnt we also make the eye have "mental function"?

Quote:

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

or the hand or the foot?

Because the Holy Spirit never dwells in the eye or the foot...

Always in the heart.

[Twilight]

General Reply Re: Matthew 22:37

I wonder if Jesus was simply covering all of the bases to say the same thing.

• Heart--the center of one's life. When the heart ceases its work, life ceases.
• Soul--the combination of a physical body and life-giving force; that is an individual life.
• Mind--that which gives evidence that one has life (Ecc. 9:5).

Perhaps Jesus was engaging in hyperbole to illustrate that we should love the Lord with our whole life, everything that we are, not holding any part back. What do you think?

Agape`

Again Wayne, we have to "assume" a "cultural" interpretation to escape a simple plain meaning...

How about starting with the plain meaning, reading the bible quotes which address this and see if the plain meaning is in fact correct?

Rather than read it with an assumption in place and then define everything by that assumption.

Try it, read the NT texts on heart with the idea that the heart is literal and watch what happens...

Mark :-)

[WayneV]

Twilight,

The whole point being made by others is that Jesus did not make this statement void of culture, but in a setting of multiple cultures. The hearer/reader of that time (and culture) would not divest themselves of their identity in order to analyze "the plain meaning". Instead, their understanding would be informed by their culture.

All I am saying is that it's possible that Jesus worded His statement in such a way (hence the change from the OT text He is quoting) to make the concept broadly understandable among the cultures contemporary and proximate to Himself.

Agape`

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Maybe Jesus referred to the heart and soul and mind to cover all bases with all the cultural beliefs of where the conscience would be. [/quote']

We have to be careful with "maybes".

"Maybes" can include, personal opinion, bias and error.

I would urge that we only allow the Word of God itself to provide the meaning.

So I would say, it was spoken literally.

Unless there is a very strong biblical reason why it is not literal, then we should accept that it is indeed literal and allow the Bible to interpret itself.

This is one of the fundamental principles of biblical exposition we hold as a people.

Literal first.

The argument that something is not literal, is the argument used to do away with the Sabbath.

"Maybe it means Sunday..."

We must be consistent with our doctrinal rules.

Mark :-)

this comes across as very out of line to me. like you are setting yourself up as the dictator of how other people are to regard anything.

it looked to me like rudywoofs was studying this out, for herself as opposed to being told what to believe, and was slammed for it.

i may not agree with her conclusions but there is no reason to invalidate them.