How Can We Know When We Hear

[TrashcanMan79]

The Greeks separated beliefs from actions. The Hebrews did not separate the two. Generally speaking and under normal circumstances (I always like to allow for individual cases) an apple tree will bear apples. A follower of Christ will be Christ-like. So in Greek thought someone hears that we should love one another. He believes theoretically that this is true without necessarily showing the action of loving one another. The Hebrew would say â??You can say all you want you should love one another, but if you are not loving one another you donâ??t really believe it is true.â?

The Greek mind would see salvation as admitting that one needs to repent and to make Jesus their Lord and Savior. It would be a decision, a declaration. Then they would say that if one made this decision one must now have good works. Hebraic thought would say â??How can you separate the two - the declaration and the good works? They are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other.â? Really, what good is it to say you believe something and never act on it? How meaningful is that?

â??some might believe that it is . . . grace alone that saves us, and our works are the fruit of saving faith or something we do after we are saved to show our love for God . . .â??

â??others might harmonize these two ideas by suggesting that our faith coupled with our obedience to God's commandments will ultimately result in our salvation . . .â?

Your first statement sounds more Greek - your second sounds kind of more Hebraic and kind of Catholic. Practically-speaking, what is the difference in the ACTION of the two statements? Both believe that works and faith are a part of the picture - they just disagree with how it all works. The Hebraic-like statement - to be more Hebraic - would say that we have salvation now (as soon as we choose it) because salvation is walking with God. Salvation allows us to have relationship with God from now on - and it should grow and deepen as we go â??further up and further in.â? Salvation is NOT a ticket that gets you into heaven when you die, and you stick it in your drawer until you need it! Salvation is not an event after this life. (By the way, grace would be part of your second statement as well.)

Though the actions resulting from your two statements should be the same, what is at risk here is the thoughts and feelings of the persons holding the different views. The first statement could lead one to believe that works are optional. (Let me be clear - works do not save - but they should exist.) The first statement could lead one to believe that salvation has nothing to do with walking with God. So complacency and lack of relationship and growth with God could result. The second statement could lead one to believe that works save and their â??salvationâ? is on the line if they donâ??t do enough. (What is enough?) So one depends on himself and is either freaking out or a bit arrogant depending on how he thinks he is doing. Again, relationship is not necessarily needed. A Hebraic view communicates that one has salvation NOW so there is no need to worry. It also communicates that something is wrong if faith does not show itself by good works. And, relationship with God - walking with God - is communicated as the point of it all.

Hebraic view - if you have faith (by grace) youâ??ll have works. You will be walking with God. You have salvation (right-standing) now, and it will continue during this life and after you die. (And how exactly it all works is not very important to you - after all, who can understand Godâ??s ways?) So the Hebraic statement might read like this - â??our faith (which will be shown outwardly by good works) gives us right-standing (salvation) with God beginning now and continuing on forever.â?

Could I get some references or sources to look into all this further? I have read quite a bit about the development of the Bible, ancient Israel, and Early Christianity, and I must say that I have not come across much of what you have asserted above.

Thanks!

[TrashcanMan79]

Itâ??s good to read the Bible with the HS - very â??enlighteningâ??.

They need a smiley that yawns. That's what I would put here.

Who has the Holy Spirit? True Christians. Who are the true Christians? Those who have the right relationship with the right God. But it has to be the right God and the right relationship (because surely Mormons aren't counted, right?). And how are we to know who has the right God and the right relationship? Well, the Bible tells us about God and the relationship He wants with us. But you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. Well, who has the Holy Spirit....?

[Paul Ray]

They need a smiley that yawns. That's what I would put here.

Who has the Holy Spirit? True Christians. Who are the true Christians? Those who have the right relationship with the right God. But it has to be the right God and the right relationship (because surely Mormons aren't counted, right?). And how are we to know who has the right God and the right relationship? Well, the Bible tells us about God and the relationship He wants with us. But you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. Well, who has the Holy Spirit....?

[Freedom in Truth]

from Four Methods Used to Interpret the Bible (If there's more than one method to interpret the Bible, you can be assured there is more than one interpretation of it. If you base your beliefs on what you think the Bible says, then there will be as many different beliefs as there are interpretations! Are we really in disagreement here?) :

"

Christian denominations as well as individual Christians -- theologians, clergy and laity -- hold a wide range of assumptions about the nature of the Bible. Different assumptions lead to different methods of interpreting the text. As a result, they reach very diverse conclusions about what it actually says.

"

Interesting. I have heard of a lot of this. I donâ??t think I personally fit neatly in any category. I donâ??t think interpretations always lead to different truths though. For example, take the creation story. Whether you take it literally or symbolically or whatever it still communicates that God is Creator (whether directly or through evolution or some other way), that humans need to take care of creation, that it is good to rest, etc.

But, is every interpretation valid? Would it be important to study how Jesus and the apostles looked at the OT? How did the early church fathers regard the NT? Should something be considered folklore if it doesnâ??t have the usual characteristics of folklore? These are just a few questions I could ask.

Sometimes I think if we spent more time DOING and less time trying to figure out why and how weâ??d be better off in general. Loving your neighbor could easily be a full-time job. (donâ??t push this to the extreme please)

I have said the Bible has consistent revelation on major doctrines. You have moved immediately to details - to the attempt to understand how it all works. How much do you need to know before you start a relationship with someone? God wants a relationship with you and He has made it possible for one to exist.

If there is a God, do you want to walk with Him? Would you like there to be a God you can have a relationship with?

[Paul Ray]

Interesting. I have heard of a lot of this. I donâ??t think I personally fit neatly in any category.

I think you are in the category of yourself and others who are like you and think like you do.

... just as I am in the category of myself and others who are like me and think like I do.

If there are any differences, those are the things that stand out.

I donâ??t think interpretations always lead to different truths though. For example, take the creation story. Whether you take it literally or symbolically or whatever it still communicates that God is Creator (whether directly or through evolution or some other way), that humans need to take care of creation, that it is good to rest, etc.

According to you and others who think like you do, yes, pretty much.

There are others who say it is just a story by people who wanted us to believe that, for some reason.

But, is every interpretation valid?

Obviously not. Is this one of those questions where you just like to hear yourself think?

Would it be important to study how Jesus and the apostles looked at the OT?

Important to who? And why? And what sources of information would you use for that?

If you were to hear from a Pharisee, who was alive in that day, what do you think they would tell you?

That cult is following Jesus. We need to teach them the truth.

What would someone else say if they believed their story?

Everyone has their own opinion about something... and sometimes some people agree.

How did the early church fathers regard the NT?

Why would you want to know that? Would you simply trust whatever they told you?

Should something be considered folklore if it doesnâ??t have the usual characteristics of folklore?

What is folklore, exactly, and how do you determine if it has any basis in truth?

Do you simply accept what other people tell you, either personally, or in a book?

I always ask God to guide me when I read or hear from anyone.

These are just a few questions I could ask.

Questions are good. I ask them often. But it's important to know who to trust for answers.

I trust God.

[Freedom in Truth]

So, um, do you actually read the posts on this board? I am shocked at this statement.

I don't think many folks are still following this thread, what with its 27 pages of posts, but I would LOVE for you to start a brand new thread with this statement.

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth - â??I find many if not all Mormons unwilling to really look at what they believe. I donâ??t even like it when traditional Christians are unwilling to really look at what they believe.

"I would say that an unwillingness to ever consider that you might be wrong - an unwillingness to test what you believe - is pride and fear.â?

Above is what I said. Now, did you lift out the sentence you did to make it appear that I only criticize Mormons?

What would you think if you said not everyone is a prophet and you cited some Bible passages, and someone else says everyone is a prophet and they back it up only with â??God told me soâ?? What would you think if someone challenged you to find support on a topic and you do - and they disappear? What would you think if someone kept switching the subject?

Another example - there is strong evidence that JS practiced occult activities before and after the writing of the BoM. I have met Mormons who donâ??t know this, who deny this, and who explain it by saying that everyone did it (which somehow makes it O-K I guess). I think I would rather a Mormon say, â??Yeah, JS was involved in occult practices . . . but I donâ??t care. He is still Godâ??s prophet to me.â? That seems more honest to me.

Writing on threads doesn't mean honestly looking at what you believe.

Lots of people holding all sorts of beliefs are unwilling to honestly look at what they believe and test it. I think that makes us weak.

[TrashcanMan79]

BTW, TCM, how do you know my personal information is literal and not symbolic? You don't really believe I live in the New Jerusalem, do you?

I haven't given it much thought. For some folks, New Jerusalem is figurative, for others, an actual geographic location has been designated for it. I have no idea what your personal belief on this issue is. Frankly, it doesn't much interest me.

[Paul Ray]

Lots of people holding all sorts of beliefs are unwilling to honestly look at what they believe and test it. I think that makes us weak.

Why did you skip past two of my posts before the one you responded to with this quote?

For someone who seems to want to respond to every post from everyone, I find that odd.

Or were you saving your response to my two posts for later, or something.

[Freedom in Truth]

I'll respond to this comment quickly just to repeat what I have already advised that you do.

You say God has told you that I do not believe the truth in many, many areas.

I have advised that you start a thread... and will now expand on that to say that you could even read a thread that has already been started, and one that has in our archives here... which focuses on a specific issue, or one of those areas you do not agree with while believing that God does not agree with it.

In this thread, I have responded to the subject of this thread, which is, to summarize:

How can we know when we hear from God, and know they are not demons

I have said, pretty much, I just know it is God, and you have also given your answers.

I have nothing more to say about this subject.

... aside from the things I have already told you.

I now advise that you search our beliefs, while asking us to explain those issues.

We believe what we believe because we believe God is teaching us, and has taught us.

You're not going to get anywhere with me by trying to suggest that God doesn't or is not teaching me.

I know better than to just believe what you tell me... even when you say God is speaking to you.

I learn about God from God, without you, Freedom in Truth.

And you can also learn about God, from God, without me, too.

Paul, you asked me question about what I thought about what you believe and who you hear from, etc. I honestly answered you. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. You asked me questions and I respected your questions by answering them. I did not expect that you would care what I thought - but you did ask me so I answered.

Weâ??ve already talked about other threads. However, I must tell you that saying â??I believe this is true because God told meâ? doesnâ??t seem like explaining what you believe to me. Maybe we just arenâ??t on the same wave length.

Even though we disagree, I LOVE you in Christ, Paul!

Why did you skip past two of my posts before the one you responded to with this quote?

For someone who seems to want to respond to every post from everyone, I find that odd.

Or were you saving your response to my two posts for later, or something.

Yeah, I got out of order! That happens sometimes. As you can see, I just responded to one of your skipped posts.

[Freedom in Truth]

I haven't given it much thought. For some folks, New Jerusalem is figurative, for others, an actual geographic location has been designated for it. I have no idea what your personal belief on this issue is. Frankly, it doesn't much interest me.

I don't really care about talking about the New Jerusalem either - the point was that if my personal info. is symbolic you can't declare me a definite "she". That's all.

[Freedom in Truth]

I recommend that you start or read another thread to discuss these topics.

I think this thread is only about knowing if you can know that it is God who is answering you.

Just answering a question, Paul.

Do you expect me to believe that because you say so... or because you say "God says so"?

Why should I believe anything you tell me... even when you say God is speaking to you???

Again, I believe I was answering a question. No, I would never expect you to believe me. My only hope would be that you would seek more sources of confirmation - more ways to hear Godâ??s truth.

Then just start with one issue, or the one you feel is most important.

I can't do anything to convince you God is speaking to me... even if I agree with what you say.

I could just accept what you say because it somehow makes sense, but that wouldn't mean it is true, or that I would know the truth from God who told me, personally.

I'm getting to know God, personally, regardless of what you tell me.

... and you can't say anything to convince me that I don't really know God.

I know you believe this, Paul. I am assuming you donâ??t want me to start with one issue here but on another thread. Please let me know if I am wrong.

Maybe what you think I believe is not what I believe.

Iâ??m not sure what you are saying here.

I think you are very close, but you have some misunderstandings.

Maybe I can help clarify my beliefs, and true LDS teachings, and dispel some false notions you have.

Perhaps. But so far I am not even sure you hold LDS teachings. I can find LDS teaching on the lds.org site.

The concept of becoming like God was not foreign to the people who wrote parts of the Holy Bible.

... if you can correctly interpret what they were saying.

Becoming like God is not the same thing as becoming a god. But of course I believe you believe you are interpreting the Bible correctly.

I believe my interpretation of the Holy Bible is in agreement with God's interpretation, because I believe it is God who gave me His understanding... and nothing you can ever say will ever shake my faith in God.

I know, Paul. I would not think you would hold an interpretation that you thought was in disagreement with Godâ??s truth.

End of discussion.

O-K. Again, I am sorry I hurt you.

[TrashcanMan79]

Above is what I said. Now, did you lift out the sentence you did to make it appear that I only criticize Mormons?

Your sentence that was critical of Mormons was the one that interested me. I'm sorry if my lack of interest in your other sentence makes you feel that I have somehow misrepresented you or something. Have I quoted you out of context?

What would you think if you said not everyone is a prophet and you cited some Bible passages, and someone else says everyone is a prophet and they back it up only with â??God told me soâ?? What would you think if someone challenged you to find support on a topic and you do - and they disappear? What would you think if someone kept switching the subject?

I can only speak to my experience of posting with you: I don't always feel like responding to you. Not because you leave me at a loss by your brilliance, or because you have somehow 'gotten the better of me', but because sometimes it would require pages to respond to a single sentence you have written, and sometimes you just come across as someone who will have the last word, regardless. You may see this as just a continuation of the discussion you began, but some people may perceive it as a never ending dead horse beating!

(And regarding subject changing, I seem to remember chasing down several tangents in our chiasmus discussion: remember your conspiracy theory of Joseph Smith's would be apologist who scribbled a convenient date in Smith's copy of the Horne book or your repeated appeals to motive?)

Not everyone will agree with your conclusions, and not everyone will feel the obligation (or even desire) to follow you to the end of the earth in discussing why they disagree with you and answering your every question or entertaining your every analogy. I wish I had a penny for every Christian who has bailed on me when I have challenged them, so I can understand why you might be disappointed when your points are not acknowledged or your questions not answered. It may bring me satisfaction to think that I have bested them, and they know that to continue to dialogue with me is to question or challenge their deeply held beliefs. But I know this is not the case. They probably perceive me (and rightly so) as someone who doesn't want to discuss, but someone who wants to criticize and challenge and debate (and keep debating until I 'win'). Not everyone has the time, patience, or good nature to see every discussion to its conclusion (and come on, we're debating RELIGION here - do these discussions ever really 'end'?)

Maybe the Mormons who dialogue with you are not unlike the Christians* who dialogue with me. But you're a trooper. You, for better or worse, are of the disposition to read every word of every post directed to you, and respond to every last bit of it. I like that about you. But realize that not everyone approaches posting on these boards and in these groups with the same sense of importance as you do. Most people probably visit these boards as a time-killer or filler and have a good time with it. They may argue to win and put sincere thought into what they discuss, but at the end of the day, this is a recreational activity. People like you and me can take the fun out of this for people who only do this for fun.

And besides, you are guilty of this yourself. Aleister (sp?), I believe, never received a response from you in Maggie's group regarding the Gospel's contradictions in the matter of Christ's crucifiction and resurrection. You told him you would respond to him and you have not. He has noticed. (Although, bless him, he hasn't gloated or pestered you about it.)

(*Note: To me, Mormons are Christians. I distinguished just for clarity and the sake of discussion.)

Another example - there is strong evidence that JS practiced occult activities before and after the writing of the BoM. I have met Mormons who donâ??t know this, who deny this, and who explain it by saying that everyone did it (which somehow makes it O-K I guess). I think I would rather a Mormon say, â??Yeah, JS was involved in occult practices . . . but I donâ??t care. He is still Godâ??s prophet to me.â? That seems more honest to me.

Writing on threads doesn't mean honestly looking at what you believe.

This topic has been discussed quite a bit on this board (and by Mormons! - gasp!).

I don't recall you participating.

Lots of people holding all sorts of beliefs are unwilling to honestly look at what they believe and test it. I think that makes us weak.

Amen.

[TrashcanMan79]

I don't really care about talking about the New Jerusalem either - the point was that if my personal info. is symbolic you can't declare me a definite "she". That's all.

If you're not a female, why would you claim to be one on MySpace? That's weird....

edited to add: PM me your response (if you choose to respond). This is soooo off topic and irrelevant to the board.

[Paul Ray]

...I must tell you that saying â??I believe this is true because God told meâ? doesnâ??t seem like explaining what you believe to me.

The "this" in this instance is my belief/knowledge that it is God who is communicating with me, and pretty much all I can think of is to say that I somehow know it.

If you want to talk about another issue, I would be happy to discuss it with you, but it would probably be better on another thread.

I think what you need to do now is say something kinda like this:

Paul, and/or any of you other Mormons out there,

How can you believe God said [such and such] if you also believe God said [such and such]... or do you even believe God said [such and such]?

Do you believe God said [the first such and such] and also [the second such and such]?

If not, please clarify your beliefs for me.

If so, please explain how you can believe both beliefs are in harmony with each other.

To me, they seem to contradict, so I cannot see how you can possibly believe both things.

Do you now see what I mean? I think you need to move on to specific issues now.

... and stop trying to infer that I'm not hearing from God.

Music please:

Well I been workin in a coal mine

Goin down down

Workin in a coal mine

Whew about to slip down... yeaahhhh

Oohhh yeahhh.

...

Lord I am so tired

How long can this go on?!?

[TrashcanMan79]

If you sincerely consider any other ideas contrary to what you have already chosen to believe I donâ??t really see that.

What an absurd thing for you to say.

When we first began communicating online some six months ago, I believed in God, Christ, his virgin birth, his miracles, his resurrection, Noah's flood, Creation, not to mention uniquely Mormon beliefs. I am now skeptical of all of this.

You think this came about without me sincerely considering ideas contrary to what I already believed? If you fail to see that, you are blind...

or

(And without wanting to get into a multiple page, weeks-spanning discussion of it, I believe what I am convinced of, not what I choose, because, believe me, I was very content with the beliefs I held and would 'choose' to believe them if I was able.)

[TrashcanMan79]

And why DONâ??T you challenge the existence of Jesus?

I do not have an answer for you right now, but in light of your assertion that I 'choose what I want to believe,' I am glad that you asked this question. As one skeptical of Christianity, it would tickle me pink to believe that there was no historical Jesus at all. If I were in the business of 'choosing' my beliefs, this would be one of them. But if you read and understood and were convinced by my previous post, then you would see that I do not challenge the existence of Jesus because I am not (yet) convinced that the evidence of his existence is as flimsy as the mythical-Christ proponents would argue. This is something I am currently studying. At present, I am reading The Jesus Puzzle, The Pagan Christ, and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, all of which, to one degree or another, challenge the idea of an historical Jesus. After I have read these, I will read what criticisms of and rebuttals to these works I can find.

Then I will be able to tell you why I don't challenge Jesus's existence (or why I do).

Tell me, what were the last books you read challenging your beliefs? Have you read Dawkins? Harris? Dennet? Russell? Have you heard of these authors? Would you read them, or only the apologetic responses that Christians make to them? We've discussed Ehrman a time or two. Have you read him? You've read reviews of his work, oh yes, but have you read Ehrman's arguments made by Ehrman? (If you think critics always present their opponents' arguments as strongly as the proponent does, then I have some Mormon apologetics for you that will change your life!)

[TrashcanMan79]

Another example - there is strong evidence that JS practiced occult activities before and after the writing of the BoM. I have met Mormons who donâ??t know this, who deny this, and who explain it by saying that everyone did it (which somehow makes it O-K I guess). I think I would rather a Mormon say, â??Yeah, JS was involved in occult practices . . . but I donâ??t care. He is still Godâ??s prophet to me.â? That seems more honest to me.

Say someone comes to you and says, "So, Freedom in Truth, even though the Bible contains contradictions, errors of history and science, forgeries, and failed prophecies, you still believe it can in any way be called inspired of God?"

Would you say to them, "Yeah, it has all those . . . but I don't care. It's still God's word to me"?

Since I have had discussions like this with you, I know that you would not. You would explain, reason, defend, and discuss these issues with your questioner.

Yet you would have Mormons respond to controversial issues such as Smith's occultism without so much as a single qualification for why they still believe him to be a prophet? Isn't there some old saw about pots and kettles?

[Freedom in Truth]

I think it would be an interesting post if FIT itemized all the beliefs that 'many, if not all, Mormons' are 'unwilling to really look at.' If she starts a new thread with this list, every Mormon that opened it would be forced to actually look at those beliefs, and perhaps there will be an exodus of sorts of board members leaving Mormonism for FIT-flavored Christianity.

I think it's worth a shot. What say you, FIT?

No one can force someone to look at something. And even if one could, it might be damaging (as psychology teaches) if the time is not right. I only present concepts and ask questions - the rest is in hands other than mine.

Kind of sounds like a Greek approach to me, TCM!

[Freedom in Truth]

Quote - Freedom in Truth -Bottom line - I do not believe people (whoever they are) could have ever written a book like the Bible.

Paul - But people did, didn't they.

... and please notice that is NOT a question.

I would like to clarify the above statement -

Bottom line - I do not believe people (whoever they are) could have ever written a book like the Bible by themselves, without any divine inspiration (God).

So no, people didnâ??t - not on their own.

The Holy Bible is a collection of words from people who claim to be talking about God, and speaking for God, with some people claiming God inspired them to write what they wrote.

With an assurance from God, to you, personally, you can know God inspired them to write what they wrote.

I do personally know God inspired them.

Without an assurance from God, to you, personally, it isn't anything but a bunch of words from those people...

... and some other people who translated the writings they had from those people.

I wouldnâ??t put it so black and white. I could not believe the Bible is inspired by God and still recognize that it is a different and special book. I could even honor it for being great ancient literature.

You seem to think that I said God never speaks to me. It is about testing the spirits and confirming what we hear, not about basing NOTHING on hearing Godâ??s voice.

... like King James, for instance, who commissioned some people to translate the records they had.

... who only claim to be speaking for God, and about God, and whatever else they wrote about.

They claim to have translated the Biblical text into English. Do they claim to have gotten the translation from God directly, word for word?

And the same goes for the Book of Mormon.

I can see lots of differences between the translation of the KJV and the translation of the BoM. Here are some -

About 47 scholars translated the Biblical Hebrew and Greek text, without the aid of any type of â??seer stoneâ??. JS (one person) with little to no knowledge of the original language translated the BoM with the aid of â??seer stone(s)â?.

We have the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew and Greek. We have no copy of the BoM text in its original language. Therefore we canâ??t check the translation of the BoM.

With an assurance from God, to you, personally, you can know God inspired people to write what they wrote.

... and that God also inspired Joseph Smith who translated those records.

The problem is that God has assured me that He had nothing to do with the BoM. And if JS knew the God whom I know, then God did a lot of changing - or God is a liar.

Are you assuming that I donâ??t have â??assurances from Godâ? and if I did I would believe God inspired JS to translate the BoM?

Without an assurance from God, to you, personally, it isn't anything but a bunch of words from those people.

I have an assurance from God to assure me God inspired people to write what we have in the Holy Bible.

And I also have an assurance from God to assure me God inspired people to write what we have in the Book of Mormon.

You might want to start another thread to talk about the Book of Mormon, or one of the issues in it.

Just don't expect all of us to believe you when you share what you think about it.

Some of us know who to trust for all our answers.

I donâ??t expect you to believe me. I donâ??t expect you to trust me. That is because you recognize that we are not listening to the same voice. The question to ask is who is hearing Truth? In order to pursue this answer we have to move beyond basing all knowledge of truth on the voice we hear. I believe God gives us ways to confirm what He tells us.

Could you, would you ask God what He meant when He said test the spirits by examining the scriptures?

[Freedom in Truth]

Could I get some references or sources to look into all this further? I have read quite a bit about the development of the Bible, ancient Israel, and Early Christianity, and I must say that I have not come across much of what you have asserted above.

Thanks!

TCM, unfortunately many of my sources are not online as far as I know. Iâ??m sorry. I tried to find some online sources for you (though, of course, I do not endorse every word of every site). I have many teaching tapes or CDs from Dwight Pryor, who is also connected with the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research and the Jerusalem Perspectives site. There are also books.

One book I highly recommend you seek out is Our Father Abraham - Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin R. Wilson. It is the best place I know of to begin studying Hebraic and Greek thought, history and consequences, etc., and the footnotes will lead you to further resources. Section II is on The Church and Synagogue in the Light of History and includes chapters entitled The Earliest Church and Judaism, Theological Conflict and Persecution, â??Hereticsâ? and the Synagogue, The Jewish Revolts and the Parting of the Way, and A History of Contempt: Anti-Semitism and the Church. Section III, Understanding Hebrew Thought, includes The Old Testament: Hebraic Foundation of the Church, The Contour of Hebrew Thought, and Where the Church Went Wrong. This book will cover Greek thought as well as Hebraic thought.

Excerpts from The Contour of Hebrew Thought -

â??The use of what may be termed block logic is another important contour of Hebrew thought. Greek thought, which has to a large extent influenced the Western world, was different. The Greeks often used a tightly contained step logic whereby one would argue from premises to a conclusion, each step linked tightly to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion, however, was usually limited to one point of view - the human beingâ??s perception of reality.

â??By contrast, the Hebrews often made use of block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antinomy, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension - and often illogical relation - to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic.

â??It is particularly difficult for Westerners - those whose thought-patterns have been influenced more by the Greeks and Romans than by the Hebrews - to piece together the block logic of Scripture. When we open the Bible, therefore, since we are not Orientals, we are invited, as Robert Martin-Achard states, to â??undergo a kind of intellectual conversionâ?? to the Hebraic-world of the East.â? (p. 150)

â??The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers.â? (p. 152)

â??. . . Thus we [Westerners] have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schematization. Neither God nor His Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both God and His Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation.â? (p. 153)

â??The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth - they experienced truth. . . . This experiential perspective on reality explains, in part, why Judaism never really developed vast systems of thought. . . . To the Jew, the deed was always more important than the creed. . . . â??Walking in the truthâ?? (2 John 4) and â??living the truthâ?? (1 John 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth. In the words of the renowned biblical scholar Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, â??We [Jews] are practical. We are more interested in discovering what God wants man to do than we are in describing Godâ??s essence . . . As a teacher, I never try to solve questions because most questions are unsolvable.â? He concludes, â??Judaism is never afraid of contradictions . . . It acknowledges that full reconciliation of the two is possible only in God. He is the coincidence of opposites.â??â? (p. 153)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html Hebrew Thought

http://www.jcstudies.org Teachings of Dwight Pryor - I also know him personally. He was very active in the New Age Movement (I think a leader) before finding Christ.

http://www.jerusalemperspective.org David Bivin, David Flusser, Robert Lindsay, Dwight Pryor, Marvin Wilson, Brad Young - need membership for most articles. I recommend books by these authors as well. (Dr. Roy Blizzardâ??s research and with Bivin as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bivin (this will link you to other sources)

http://www.hebrewroot.com/Howchurchsplit.htm Church and Synagogue Split

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom2.htm Jewish View of Faith

http://www.shamar.org - various articles

A couple other concepts - the Hebrews didnâ??t focus on an afterlife or on any kind of â??rewardâ?? because it could produce selfish motives now. Also, the Hebrew concept of the â??Kingdomâ? (taught by Jesus) was that it arrived with Jesus (though not fully), so it wasnâ??t something that came only after death.

I hope this gives you a start. I bet there is a lot more.

[Freedom in Truth]

Who has the Holy Spirit? True Christians. Who are the true Christians? Those who have the right relationship with the right God. But it has to be the right God and the right relationship (because surely Mormons aren't counted, right?). And how are we to know who has the right God and the right relationship? Well, the Bible tells us about God and the relationship He wants with us. But you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. Well, who has the Holy Spirit....?

Who has the HS? Those who walk with God. The HS is also reaching out to those who donâ??t know God yet. God is inviting those who arenâ??t walking with Him to come.

Titus 2:11 â??For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.â?

Matthew 7:7-8 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.â?

If someone knows The One True Living God I believe there is basic and essential information they will know. I mean, how could you know my dog and NOT know he is black?

[TrashcanMan79]

TCM, unfortunately many of my sources are not online as far as I know. Iâ??m sorry. I tried to find some online sources for you (though, of course, I do not endorse every word of every site). I have many teaching tapes or CDs from Dwight Pryor, who is also connected with the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research and the Jerusalem Perspectives site. There are also books.

One book I highly recommend you seek out is Our Father Abraham - Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin R. Wilson. It is the best place I know of to begin studying Hebraic and Greek thought, history and consequences, etc., and the footnotes will lead you to further resources. Section II is on The Church and Synagogue in the Light of History and includes chapters entitled The Earliest Church and Judaism, Theological Conflict and Persecution, â??Hereticsâ? and the Synagogue, The Jewish Revolts and the Parting of the Way, and A History of Contempt: Anti-Semitism and the Church. Section III, Understanding Hebrew Thought, includes The Old Testament: Hebraic Foundation of the Church, The Contour of Hebrew Thought, and Where the Church Went Wrong. This book will cover Greek thought as well as Hebraic thought.

Excerpts from The Contour of Hebrew Thought -

â??The use of what may be termed block logic is another important contour of Hebrew thought. Greek thought, which has to a large extent influenced the Western world, was different. The Greeks often used a tightly contained step logic whereby one would argue from premises to a conclusion, each step linked tightly to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion, however, was usually limited to one point of view - the human beingâ??s perception of reality.

â??By contrast, the Hebrews often made use of block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antinomy, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension - and often illogical relation - to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic.

â??It is particularly difficult for Westerners - those whose thought-patterns have been influenced more by the Greeks and Romans than by the Hebrews - to piece together the block logic of Scripture. When we open the Bible, therefore, since we are not Orientals, we are invited, as Robert Martin-Achard states, to â??undergo a kind of intellectual conversionâ?? to the Hebraic-world of the East.â? (p. 150)

â??The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers.â? (p. 152)

â??. . . Thus we [Westerners] have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schematization. Neither God nor His Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both God and His Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation.â? (p. 153)

â??The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth - they experienced truth. . . . This experiential perspective on reality explains, in part, why Judaism never really developed vast systems of thought. . . . To the Jew, the deed was always more important than the creed. . . . â??Walking in the truthâ?? (2 John 4) and â??living the truthâ?? (1 John 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth. In the words of the renowned biblical scholar Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, â??We [Jews] are practical. We are more interested in discovering what God wants man to do than we are in describing Godâ??s essence . . . As a teacher, I never try to solve questions because most questions are unsolvable.â? He concludes, â??Judaism is never afraid of contradictions . . . It acknowledges that full reconciliation of the two is possible only in God. He is the coincidence of opposites.â??â? (p. 153)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html Hebrew Thought

http://www.jcstudies.org Teachings of Dwight Pryor - I also know him personally. He was very active in the New Age Movement (I think a leader) before finding Christ.

http://www.jerusalemperspective.org David Bivin, David Flusser, Robert Lindsay, Dwight Pryor, Marvin Wilson, Brad Young - need membership for most articles. I recommend books by these authors as well. (Dr. Roy Blizzardâ??s research and with Bivin as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bivin (this will link you to other sources)

http://www.hebrewroot.com/Howchurchsplit.htm Church and Synagogue Split

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom2.htm Jewish View of Faith

http://www.shamar.org - various articles

A couple other concepts - the Hebrews didnâ??t focus on an afterlife or on any kind of â??rewardâ?? because it could produce selfish motives now. Also, the Hebrew concept of the â??Kingdomâ? (taught by Jesus) was that it arrived with Jesus (though not fully), so it wasnâ??t something that came only after death.

I hope this gives you a start. I bet there is a lot more.

Thanks for finding these for me! I have come across some of these in my own search, but I will look over your links! Thanks!

[Freedom in Truth]

Your sentence that was critical of Mormons was the one that interested me. I'm sorry if my lack of interest in your other sentence makes you feel that I have somehow misrepresented you or something. Have I quoted you out of context?

Yes, I feel you have quoted me out of context. You may have been only interested in the first sentence, but was that a fair representation of me?

I can only speak to my experience of posting with you: I don't always feel like responding to you. Not because you leave me at a loss by your brilliance, or because you have somehow 'gotten the better of me', but because sometimes it would require pages to respond to a single sentence you have written, and sometimes you just come across as someone who will have the last word, regardless. You may see this as just a continuation of the discussion you began, but some people may perceive it as a never ending dead horse beating!

I see your point. It is often difficult to answer you as well - especially your zillions of links! What would you think of me if I didnâ??t respond? I doubt it would be complementary.

I donâ??t mean this to be critical of you. This medium of communication is, in a sense, one-dimensional. We canâ??t know voice-tone, facial expressions, body language, etc. We can read each other very wrongly.

(And regarding subject changing, I seem to remember chasing down several tangents in our chiasmus discussion: remember your conspiracy theory of Joseph Smith's would be apologist who scribbled a convenient date in Smith's copy of the Horne book or your repeated appeals to motive?)

Yup. I donâ??t recall all the tangents due to my posts though (evolution for one - which I refused to chase though someone else did with you). I donâ??t see tangents as a bad thing - do you?

Not everyone will agree with your conclusions, and not everyone will feel the obligation (or even desire) to follow you to the end of the earth in discussing why they disagree with you and answering your every question or entertaining your every analogy. I wish I had a penny for every Christian who has bailed on me when I have challenged them, so I can understand why you might be disappointed when your points are not acknowledged or your questions not answered. It may bring me satisfaction to think that I have bested them, and they know that to continue to dialogue with me is to question or challenge their deeply held beliefs. But I know this is not the case. They probably perceive me (and rightly so) as someone who doesn't want to discuss, but someone who wants to criticize and challenge and debate (and keep debating until I 'win'). Not everyone has the time, patience, or good nature to see every discussion to its conclusion (and come on, we're debating RELIGION here - do these discussions ever really 'end'?)

Maybe the Mormons who dialogue with you are not unlike the Christians* who dialogue with me. But you're a trooper. You, for better or worse, are of the disposition to read every word of every post directed to you, and respond to every last bit of it. I like that about you. But realize that not everyone approaches posting on these boards and in these groups with the same sense of importance as you do. Most people probably visit these boards as a time-killer or filler and have a good time with it. They may argue to win and put sincere thought into what they discuss, but at the end of the day, this is a recreational activity. People like you and me can take the fun out of this for people who only do this for fun.

I understand some are here for fun, etc. I was not thinking of them. I was thinking of those that come on long and strong and heavy. The ones that might throw you a challenge with an accompanying stick-out-your-tongue smiley - the ones that badger you unless you answer within 5 minutes - the ones that write thousands of posts every day. I do not badger anyone (as far as I know), but I do remember.

If passion be a fault I am very guilty. I am sorry. I believe this is a matter of life and death. I do apologize for my shortcomings. Unfortunately I am a work in progress and not finished.

And besides, you are guilty of this yourself. Aleister (sp?), I believe, never received a response from you in Maggie's group regarding the Gospel's contradictions in the matter of Christ's crucifiction and resurrection. You told him you would respond to him and you have not. He has noticed. (Although, bless him, he hasn't gloated or pestered you about it.)

This has been on my mind, and you are right that I have been amiss. I will take care of it. I also know I have not answered your link on McDowell.

This topic [JS and the Occult] has been discussed quite a bit on this board (and by Mormons! - gasp!).

I don't recall you participating.

Unfortunately I never have the time to get to all the threads I would like to. What is the name of the thread? I might like to read it.

[Freedom in Truth]

The "this" in this instance is my belief/knowledge that it is God who is communicating with me, and pretty much all I can think of is to say that I somehow know it.

If you want to talk about another issue, I would be happy to discuss it with you, but it would probably be better on another thread.

I think what you need to do now is say something kinda like this:

Paul, and/or any of you other Mormons out there,

How can you believe God said [such and such] if you also believe God said [such and such]... or do you even believe God said [such and such]?

Do you believe God said [the first such and such] and also [the second such and such]?

If not, please clarify your beliefs for me.

If so, please explain how you can believe both beliefs are in harmony with each other.

To me, they seem to contradict, so I cannot see how you can possibly believe both things.

Do you now see what I mean? I think you need to move on to specific issues now.

... and stop trying to infer that I'm not hearing from God.

Music please:

Well I been workin in a coal mine

Goin down down

Workin in a coal mine

Whew about to slip down... yeaahhhh

Oohhh yeahhh.

...

Lord I am so tired

How long can this go on?!?

I think we can both agree that neither of us thinks the other is hearing from God. That is O-K. We are free to believe in the way that we do. This does not mean I donâ??t respect you as a person. If we are rejecting anyone it would be God.

How long can this go on?!? It can end now.

[Freedom in Truth]

What an absurd thing for you to say.

When we first began communicating online some six months ago, I believed in God, Christ, his virgin birth, his miracles, his resurrection, Noah's flood, Creation, not to mention uniquely Mormon beliefs. I am now skeptical of all of this.

You think this came about without me sincerely considering ideas contrary to what I already believed? If you fail to see that, you are blind...

or

(And without wanting to get into a multiple page, weeks-spanning discussion of it, I believe what I am convinced of, not what I choose, because, believe me, I was very content with the beliefs I held and would 'choose' to believe them if I was able.)

When I first met you I did not know you believed in any of your list above except some Mormon beliefs. We didnâ??t talk about those things. How would I know? From my one-dimensional view we were discussing things related to chiasmus (however vaguely) and then on this board I am told by someone else that you are skeptical of Mormonism. Your dialogue with me seems to be most often you attacking what I state, sometimes directly and often with links. You seem to only read material against the Bible, God, etc. (But maybe this is the only material you cite to me.) If you are ever considering anything I say or anything pro-Bible, God, etc. I do miss it. From what I can remember you donâ??t often give hints of where you are, how you might be changing, etc. This is O-K.

But apparently you do consider other ideas so I apologize.