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. And for Radix Fidem, this is not unusual:
I find the accusation of “proof-texting” to be a juvenile-level objection. It’s lazy and dismissive. As with all personal attacks, accusations of proof-texting should come with proof. If you want to claim that someone is taking scripture out-of-context, then you at least have to show why their understanding of the context is wrong (and ideally what the correct context actually is, though this isn’t always possible).
Unlike Radix Fidem, I can show precisely where Radix Fidem’s doctrines conflict with the context of scripture. I can demonstrate it. I have no need to throw empty insults or question people’s motivations, I need only show that the interpretations do not match the context. Whether they are proof-texting or not ultimately doesn’t matter.
General purpose terminology—like the insult “bibliolatry”—which paints a whole group as guilty in the abstract…
— Ed Hurst, “Be the Gospel”
…is not godly nor loving. It is prejudicial.
Prejudice is a form of legalism.
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.
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”
Ah! I understand what you mean by “any door is acceptable.” It’s about eliminating objective understandings of Christianity, eliminating all rules. Of course, the clever observer will note, this is an unavoidable metaphysical rule.
When we examined Jack’s testimony two weeks ago, what stood out was the simplistic claim that we hear all the time from atheists and Roman Catholics: there is no objective standard by which we can know what is in the Bible.
Is it better to rely on what everyone subjectively believes the Bible is telling them with no objective standard by which to judge what everyone subjectively interprets? This is exactly what has happened within Protestantism, resulting in hundreds of denominations.
Amazingly, Jack directed this criticism at Protestantism—the least legalistic form of Christianity—instead of Cathodoxy! Indeed, Protestantism is typically viewed by outsiders as the lawless Wild West of theology, the antithesis of legalism.
So what did Jack do when faced with this problem? He embraced subjective personal mystical experiences, that is, his own subjective authority. If you really, truly object to a lack of a source of objective truth, you wouldn’t respond by embracing subjectivity, the very thing you objected to in the first place.
But this illustrates exactly what kind of legalism we are talking about. The legalism is not found in the subjectivity, it’s in the reason for the subjectivity. Mysticism is the (objective) legalistic claim that all truth is subjective and experiential.
To become a mystic, you have to assert and believe in the universal ironclad law that no universal ironclad laws exist. You have to believe objectively that nothing is truly objective.
It is obviously self-refuting, but it is also obviously legalism.
THIS Sermon reminds me of OLE’ ”DON’T JUDGE OR BE AN EXTREMIST, UNLESS YE ARE AN OLD-SCHOOL ANE GNOSTIC OR A CATHODOXIST OR {REDACTED}WHO HAS HIS NOSE IN MY BUNS”gnostics like Jack, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLNkhS8wy0
Evangelist Oliver Greens –Don’t Be an Extremist
Update on feral MENZ from Psudonymous Commenter & the Coop from ’82!
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 3:46 pm
I wonder what feral men would look like…
That would be your average underemployed incel under age 30.
There’s a misunderstanding or misnomer that “feral men” are all out there having all kinds of sex and dogging women out left and right. Roving marauding bands of little Roissys deflowering all the virgins and leaving unwanted pregnancies and devastation in their wake. Or that they are career criminals, or
No. The feral man works just enough to support himself. He’s most likely a substance abuser, almost always addicted to a substance (weed, meth, pills). If he has sex, he pays hookers for it. He’s a loner with not too many friends. He has no wife or children. He does not take good care of his physical health. He’s not really all that ambitious.
Have you ever seen “Breaking Bad”? The character of Jesse Pinkman is a feral man. Most of his associates in the first seasons of the show (Krazy-8, Badger, Skinny Pete) are feral men.
The feral woman goes outward to destroy herself and everything around her.
The feral man goes inward and destroys only himself(&a young Michael J. Fox & Roddy McDowall ladz).
Liked by 1 person
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 3:52 pm
Continuing on that same trajectory:
Walter White is not feral. He’s ambitious. He’s trying to build a legacy and leave money for his kids when he’s gone.
Mike Ehrmantraut is not feral. He’s intelligent and is also trying to amass money for his granddaughter. He has something to live for.
Tuco Salamanca is not feral. He’s insane. He’s psychotic with breathtakingly severe anger issues. (Feral men still have their grasp on reality and have stunted emotional responses.)
Like
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 4:25 pm
The only danger society has from feral men is that the trash isn’t getting taken out, we don’t have enough widgets getting made; we don’t have enough people to fix the widgetmakers when they break down; and we can’t get the widgets from one place to another.
Society has much, much more to fear from feral women.
& the Coop’s version (with a young Michael J. Fox & Roddy McDowall):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ry9sLmUqOc&list=RD1ry9sLmUqOc&start_radio=1
I Am The Future, Class Of 1984 Tribute
When does a dream become a nightmare?
When do we do what must be done?
When do we stand and face the future?
When there is nowhere left to run?
And you’ve got to learn
Just how to survive
You’ve got to learn
How to keep your dream alive
Take a look at my face
I am the future
How do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
And you belong to me
When does a dream become a nightmare?
When do we learn to live with fear?
When we cry out for some salvation?
Why is it no one seems to hear?
You’ve got to learn
It’s up to you
If you can learn
That the dream just might come true
Take a look at my face
I am the future
How do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
The world belongs to me, yeah
Take a look at my face
I am the future
Now, how do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
And the world it belongs to me
It belongs to me
It’s all mine
Just take a look at my face
I’m the future, no disgrace
Take a look at my face
This world belongs to… to me