Recently, I wrote an article entitled “Hebrew Abstraction” where I pointed out that the Hebrews had abstractions in their language (and, by logical implication, their day-to-day practice). Well, my post proved to be rather prophetic, in light of the following:
The Hebrew term translated as “faith” (emunah) is quite different from its English usage. [Jeff] Benner points out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all, just verbs and nouns. You don’t have faith, you do it. The word for “faith” is a verb, an action – giving support. Thus, a man of faith in the OT is someone who supports God. The outcome has nothing to do with it. You are determined to be on God’s side regardless.
For a religion based on Ancient Near East principles and an ancient understanding of Hebrew, it pays to actually get basic principles correct. If you can’t do that, what’s the point?
First, obviously the Hebrews had abstractions. I proved as much in “Hebrew Abstraction.” The ability to think abstractly is a function of higher-level intelligence, not language, philosophy, or culture. The claim that a people have no abstractions is identical to the claim that they are all cognitively impaired.
Second, Benner does not point out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all. At the citation provided, Benner doesn’t mention abstractions at all! Read it for yourself here. As far as I can tell, the claim that “Benner points out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all” is made up nonsense.
Third, the Hebrew language contains more than verbs and nouns. It also contains interjections, conjunctives, prepositions, definite articles, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and particles. You can see a few of these in the very first sentence of the Bible. The claim that “Hebrew has…just verbs and nouns” is patent nonsense. Moreover, anyone who thinks they are an expert at Ancient Near East in general and Hebrew specifically would not make this error. It reminds me of another commenter who didn’t know that Hebrew reads from right to left.
Fourth, the Hebrew language includes abstract nouns. Here are a few examples:
These are just examples of linguistic abstractions. As previously pointed out, they also possessed non-linguistic abstractions, such as their abstract understanding of a pot, both categorically and qualitatively.
Fifth, faith is an abstract noun. The claim that faith is simply a verb in ancient Hebrew is objectively false. Actually, there are more than one Hebrew nouns that can be translated as faith or other English synonyms. Others include emuwnah and emuwn (related to emeth), batah, mibtach, and qavah and tiqvah.
Sixth, it is true that faith in Hebrew (and Greek) is different from the English meaning. In English, it is mystical in nature and often refers to so-called “blind faith” and the corresponding concept of unsecured hope.
Seventh, the outcome of faith matters greatly because faith presumes the outcome implicitly. The Hebrew words for faith involve assurance, confidence, confirmation, and certainty. It is not blind, but actively implies a known or predetermined outcome, especially if that outcome has not yet taken place. This is why the New Testament writers talk of faith being completed before the events have completed temporally. Faith is cerebral in the sense that it is something that is already known. Most importantly, faith without the outcome isn’t faith in anything at all: it would be folly to trust in nothing or in something that is uncertain.
There is a reason to bring this up and here it is:
Side note: Just talking like this will be intentionally misunderstood by legalists. They will latch onto the use of terminology – “words mean things” – and get all riled up, accusing you of being a liar just looking for an excuse.
“Talking like this” is making stuff up, misusing the meaning of the ancient Hebrew words by changing what they actually mean and making claims that he knows to be false.
Further, he mocks the idea that knowingly redefining words to mean something that they did not is “lying”…by redefining what lying is. He further tries to fend off legitimate criticisms by calling those criticisms intentional misunderstandings and the critics ‘legalists’ even before the criticisms are made. As far as the meaning of words go, this example matches the dictionary definition of prejudice.
Doesn’t that explain why Jack likes Radix Fidem?
As it frees him from the ”formalism” he was addicted to and secretly despises?
Jack(with Scott) kept comparing themselves to the prodigal son in early 2021 Simp Frame posts.
IOW?
Jack wants to squander God’s word just as he did all the popularity Simp Frame got with Novaseeker and MOSES, JESUS & GBFMS help in early-mod 2021.
He’s just the RF version of {REDACTED} (who has his nose in Jack’s butt), is all.
I don’t think so.
No, it seems clear to me that he really likes formalism. It is why he has such fondness for Cathodoxy and, as seen below, Radix Fidem.
Although you wouldn’t think so if you only listened to the PR, legalism and mysticism are quite strongly related. Most of the strongest Christian influences of mysticism in America come from Roman Catholicism, a highly authoritarian, formulaic, legalistic framework. In my examination of the subject, whenever a Protestant church starts to embrace mysticism, it cites Roman Catholic sources.
Mysticism in Christianity—including Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism—is rooted in a high degree of “legal” structure and authority. Mysticism is a kind of legalism, but its proponents just don’t recognize that fact. They’ve fooled themselves into thinking that they are free from “rule or formula” even as they promote that very thing.
The most obvious legalistic principle of mysticism is the strong, often mutually exclusive, delineation between the five physical senses and the (presumed) sixth spiritual sense. This is the unspoken ironclad law of mysticism that I’ve found in every iteration that I’ve examined.
A couple weeks ago I wrote “Hellenization, Part 2” where I noted how Jack emphasized certain mystical disciplines. Mysticism is a legalistic “action-oriented” approach. You need to do those actions. Like other flavors of mystical Christianity, it is works-based (or experience-based). By contrast, the ancient Christianity of Jesus was based, first and foremost, in what you believe. Faith in Christ is governed by no “rule or formula.”
Radix Fidem—with its excessive adherence to mysticism—is therefore quite legalistic, but it doesn’t recognize its own legalism. It has defined “rule or formula” to only be products of the five senses and the mind, which are conveniently defined to exclude mysticism.
”Legalism Is A Lie”
Doesn’t that explain why Jack likes Radix Fidem?
I don’t think so.
As it frees him from the ”formalism” he was addicted to and secretly despises?
No, it seems clear to me that he really likes formalism. It is why he has such fondness for Cathodoxy and, as seen below, Radix Fidem.
YES! But I’m going by what he says and claims.
IOW?
I’m going by how Radix Fidem and its fellow gnostics’ image is seen by most outsiders as in ”any door is acceptable ” doctrine.
Which reminds me of this Oliver B. Greene sermon i first heard nearly 30 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUSh-l4nVr0
Oliver B Greene “The gospel hour”