The Holy Spirit and the heart...

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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.

by that reasoning are you saying He does not dwell in the mind, either?

you arent making much sense to me at all!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

NOTE: I will not post where Twilight will respond to me. It's people such as he who drove me out of the church in the first place. He can go stick it, as far as I'm concerned.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

No' date=' 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. [/quote']

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

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

i think, my brother, not a few are thinking everything that you apply to others in reality applies to you, myself being one.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: 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`

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...

but mark, you wont let us do that with any other texts. just the heart.

if i am to take the texts literally then i have to believe that the eye, the hand, the kidneys, the foot, the tree, the hills,etc. also have mental ability....some even have vocal capabilities.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This is very simple, its just putting God first. Literally.

We should not spiritualize this away because it crosses all cultural boundaries and applies to the world. This is directly connected to the ten commandments and its meaning is quite plain.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Mans opinions are worthless when they oppose the plain word of God!

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

We make the same distinction in English. [/quote']

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.

mark, could you make an effort to keep up with yourself, here? first, notice where pnattmbtc said in the bolded part and how you twisted it in your answer, then work backwards.

how on earth do you see "make the same distinction" as "then apply it backward"

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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? [/quote']

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

Always in the heart.

Don't forget the kidneys.

[pnattmbtc]

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...

[Woody]

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...

BUMP. Good thoughts expressed Tom. Unfortunately ... I think they are ignoring your wisdom. I know ... people here will attack me for 'thinking' or 'feeling' ... but on a topic like this ... there is not much else left to do. But then ... maybe I am wrong. Whoops ... can't have any 'maybes' here either. WEll just continue as you were then.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

[teresaq]

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.

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. H4578

From an unused root probably meaning to be soft; used only in plural the intestines, or (collectively) the abdomen, figuratively sympathy; by implication a vest; by extension the stomach, the uterus (or of men, the seat of generation), the heart (figuratively): - belly, bowels, X heart, womb.

hey, even my womb has "thinking functions", oops, dont have that anymore. guess the HS has no place to be "in" me. oh, well, not all is lost. i do still have my intestines and belly.

Job 15:2 Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind?

so the bible is so filled with figurative language that we should get the sense of the meaning instead of trying to build any kind of belief on particular words, especially translated words that cant give the complete intended meaning.

[pnattmbtc]

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."

Assuming the law is literally in Christ's heart, who literally dwells in our heart, we have the law in us by means of literally dwelling within Christ's heart who's literally within our heart. And with all that, we miss the point of what it means to have the law written in the heart.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

mark, could you make an effort to keep up with yourself, here? first, notice where pnattmbtc said in the bolded part and how you twisted it in your answer, then work backwards.

how on earth do you see "make the same distinction" as "then apply it backward"

What Mark means I think is that Greek and Hebrew words have many different meanings and nuances, one word derived from others, so in sometimes applying the English backwards into the original or even from the original into English, certain rules apply according to usage, context, and of course the main idea comes from the Holy Spirit.

"heart" from Matt. 22:37:

G2588

kardia

kar-dee'-ah

Prolonged from a primary κάρ kar (Latin cor, “heart”); the heart, that is, (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle: - (+ broken-) heart (-ed).

And mind:

G1271

dianoia

dee-an'-oy-ah

From G1223 and G3563; deep thought, properly the faculty (mind or its disposition), by implication its exercise: - imagination, mind, understanding.

So with the two taken together I believe it is the intellectual knowledge that one desires to know above all else, that react upon the feelings, emotions, and attitude resulting in the highest love and motivation to serve God.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Tom

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."

Assuming the law is literally in Christ's heart, who literally dwells in our heart, we have the law in us by means of literally dwelling within Christ's heart who's literally within our heart. And with all that, we miss the point of what it means to have the law written in the heart.

i didnt realize that would be the implication, but it certainly is!! quite astute!!

what good does that do anyone, if it isnt written on my heart? so many implications that raises...

[Twilight]

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`

Upon what basis do you state this is a cultural point?

Is it by "theory"?

Or by "interpretation"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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.

I think your general animosity towards me is coming across here Teresa.

I seem to share that priviledge with John317.

This post contains nothing against Rudywoofs, it does not "slam" or attack her, but rather queries her argument.

Your post insinuates that it is an attack and is incorrect.

I have neither the inclination, desire or time to waste on posts like this.

Please discuss the point and refrain from the accusations, or I will simply ignore your posts.

Mark

[Twilight]

Teresa,

I am finding it impossible to engage with you.

Your posts are attacking, condemning and often stir up animosity in other posters.

I will no longer engage with this type of behaviour.

If you wish to discuss arguments and viewpoints, then I am happy to talk.

But if you want to attack me as an individual, then you are wasting yours and my time.

I will not engage in foolish personal squabbles.

By the grace of God, consider conversation with me closed unless it is in a mature Christian manner.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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...

Mark, I've addressed this exact point multiple times. At least four times. You haven't responded to my argument any of these times.

Quote:

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.

No, this has always been your idea, never mine. *You* have said that the Bible is speaking of the literal heart, which is a blood-pumping muscle. I've not said it's literal.

You have said it is not literal.

I am challenging that assumption Pnat.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

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.

Nicely put.

[pnattmbtc]

Mark, you made the following statement:

Quote:

Unless there is a very strong biblical reason why it is not literal, then we should accept that it is indeed literal ...

Where in Scripture is this principle articulated? If it's not articulated in Scripture, on what basis to you assert it?

[pnattmbtc]

You have said it is not literal.

I am challenging that assumption Pnat.

When you speak of the heart in Scripture, are you referring to the organ located in the chest region? If so, why do you think it has mental faculties? Whatever reason you give would apply to the kidneys as well.

If not, if you say it is instead the center of the emotions and desires, something like that, then you are agreeing with me (assuming you don't think this happens in the chest region), and are simply using the word "literal" in an odd way.

[Twilight]

Mark, you made the following statement:

Quote:

Unless there is a very strong biblical reason why it is not literal, then we should accept that it is indeed literal ...

Where in Scripture is this principle articulated? If it's not articulated in Scripture, on what basis to you assert it?

This is a standard principal of Adventist biblical exposition.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

You have said it is not literal.

I am challenging that assumption Pnat.

When you speak of the heart in Scripture, are you referring to the organ located in the chest region? If so, why do you think it has mental faculties? Whatever reason you give would apply to the kidneys as well.

If not, if you say it is instead the center of the emotions and desires, something like that, then you are agreeing with me (assuming you don't think this happens in the chest region), and are simply using the word "literal" in an odd way.

I am indeed saying it is literally the heart.

That is the biblical language.

As to the translation of the word "reins/kidneys", I think it would be dangerous to push the idea that the heart has no "function" on the basis of one text, which some link to the heart anyway...

That text should be explored, but should not be the basis of our study, the starting position.

We should start from clear statements.

But you again have not addressed my question Pnat?

Why do you "assume" it does not mean the literal heart, and that the literal heart does not have function.

I am also concerned that you want me to answer all of your questions, but none of mine?

This one for instance:

If Jesus uses the words heart and mind to describe the components we love God with, how can you say one is literal and one is figurative?

Have you not broken your own rule here?

If you are going to argue that heart is figurative, then why not mind?

Why are you not consistent on this point?

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Mark, you made the following statement:

Quote:

Unless there is a very strong biblical reason why it is not literal, then we should accept that it is indeed literal ...

Where in Scripture is this principle articulated? If it's not articulated in Scripture, on what basis to you assert it?

This is a standard principal of Adventist biblical exposition.

Mark

You interpret things far more literally than what I've seen at SDA institutions. For example, your approach to "heart" is not like anything I've seen before. It's certainly not "standard."

Setting that aside for a moment, why would you consider this adequate? Why wouldn't you want a principle of interpretation which can be supported from Scripture itself?

[pnattmbtc]

I am indeed saying it is literally the heart.