The Hebraic Perspective, part 6.

The Hebraic Perspective and the Gospel, part 6. On another site I frequently see the framing of theology in terms of philosophy, and its inherent rational reasoning. In general I think Jews were influenced by Greek philosophers, and even later…gnostics. But…what binds them together originally was Torah, and then the wider-ranging Tanakh. The CORE SOURCE for both was held and affirmed to be: revelation, and this directly from their God. The anointing of the saints who RENDERED or DICTATED possibly, the Text itself. This anointing of Spirit came to a few, and these were sometimes CENTURIES apart, if you can imagine. Suddenly in the NT we get a spate of NEW ARRIVALS which the Jews in time and place had to consider. They were in the SYNAGOGUES in Jerusalem, and INTERACTING with other Jews, even the rabbis and teachers and scribes. What to make of them, first in their ORAL testimonies, and then written testimonies? Since they were espousing the MESSIAH, this was momentous indeed and everyone had to take a stance, yay or nay. NO in-between, or compromise here folks. The “yay” and the “nay” was then even before the NT canon FINISHED, highlighted by its own momentous EVENT, that which Jesus had foretold of, the first Temple destruction. What in the world was a faithful Jew to think then? Did he pay enough attention to this CLAIMED Messiah, to actually hear what this newcomer had to say? Was he then PUT OFF or DRAWN UNTO the Gospel Message which the apostles told of? Philosophy then takes a back seat to this whole scenario. Whatever philosophy from ANY school of philosophy had to say about anything…took a back seat…to the REVELATION inbred in the New Testament. This INSPIRATION came from another source, and the SOURCE did not spring from Stoicism or Platonism, or Neo-platonism, or any other school of epistemology. The EPISTEMOLOGY of the SAINT then, came directly from God, and for the pentecostal directly from the Outpouring of Anointing, in the Upper Room. Then, MANY were anointed, as compared to the FEW in Old Testament times…sometimes CENTURIES APART. I have frequently mentioned the problems even the rational Greek PUNDITS really came to. That their own rationality has its limitations and gaps. In “From Plato to Christ,” Louis Markos even STATES that Plato was aware not only of his own limitations, but that of his mentor Socrates. The organic MIX then of different theories of “virtue” which comprises most of Plato’s Republic then…comes to us in their various or MULTI-farious forms. And, seemingly this was because of another philosopher, Zeno, who lived roughly in the time of Plato, who spoke of at least nine paradoxes which no man could then overcome…that is, with the human reasoning they had available. And if Plato was not AWARE of Zeno so much, certainly his students became aware of him soon enough. Of Zeno’s 9 (or 10) paradoxes, 6 are considered similar and the most famous is Zeno’s Paradox. As I pondered Zeno’s Paradox, I came to realize that this was the very stage in my pre-med curriculum whereby I lost the thread, became uncompetitive, and whereby taking CALCULUS twice, second year, my “c’s” were less than desired or required. And I dropped out of pre-med altogether and took instead…finance. Essentially Zeno’s Paradox is the first impetus TO calculus, and the “infinity with a limitation or conclusion” symbol and meaning was considered a SOLUTION mathematically, for this paradox, since everyone SEEMS to know that working mathematics HAVE to have a symbol or expression, in math for this concept alone. Even though it seems to be a direct contradiction or even an oxymoron. Why am I bringing up this plethora of speculations, when I don’t even BELIEVE in any conclusion which could come out of it all? Because Zeno was PHILOSOPHICALLY expressing the very LIMITATIONS of philosophy? HOW IT IS we cannot even know SCIENTIFICALLY a simple question some dude WAY BACK WHEN brought up? This is like trying to figure out God by His creation. Would His creation tell anything at all, about Him? Yes and no? Yes only? No only? Surely yes AND no. Ask an atheist and you will get a different answer than a believer, I would guess, yes? Zeno’s Paradox goes like this, and I will google it for the sake of stating this simply as men have figured it out: What is Zeno's paradox simplified?

In its simplest form, Zeno's Paradox says that two objects can never touch. The idea is that if one object (say a ball) is stationary and the other is set in motion approaching it that the moving ball must pass the halfway point before reaching the stationary ball.

Er…maybe this is not the best example. It leaves out for instance the INFINITE halfway points in spacial consideration, which the ball has to undergo, before reaching the OTHER one.

A better example is the Roman soldier and the turtle. Every time the Roman soldier gets to the point the turtle was at previously, the turtle goes a little further albeit at a slower rate/distance than the soldier. The point being that this process is arguably INFINITE since it has no end in OUR SIGHT. The turtle is ALWAYS gonna go just a mite further, and so the theory COULD BE that the soldier never GETS to the turtle at all.

We know however this is false, and if it was true then the world could not function – at all. We KNOW that the soldier not only GETS to the turtle, he PASSES him, or KILLS him to EAT him etc. But…we cannot explain HOW any mechanism works, in order for the soldier to DO that, mathematically.

Oh some will say that is not true, and this vid exemplifies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKSlOgARvrs

Wait what? THAT guy solved Zeno’s Paradox? Not exactly. His “S” presupposes the whole of the distance to time that the soldier will TAKE to get to the tortoise, if both are going at a certain rate per distance. But…it does NOT explain the paradox! NAMELY how an INFINITE number of positive distances can be LIMITED or DESCRIBED since it IS infinite.

See this other vid and a different theorist EXPLAINS that in the thousands of years since Zeno, NO ONE has sufficiently EXPLAINED the solution to the paradox. And indeed a THIRD vid explains how CALCULUS was the working solution to the problem that the Paradox fomented, for real-life applications. THIS TOO considers a variable/object which HAS ALREADY met up or made contact with the other one. I think this is…lim and underneath, x then arrow then the infinity sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY&t=410s (No one has solved or explained the Paradox). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHqtENNnSY&t=190s (The paradoxes which fomented calculus mathematics).

And so our rationality does have limits. And so, explaining God’s ontology has its limits from the GIT-go. And so…as Cat Stevens said in my youth, “no one knows, how a flower grows.” Which explains the Jewish AGNOSTICISM, them knowing how LIMITED their overall or general “knowing” truly is. (They never SPEAK of God’s ontology, prove me wrong, in Text).

So what then is the “knowing” in the Bible? Relationally speaking, what God would HAVE for us to know. And He with the Shema statement of faith, said the first Principle and Virtue or Filter concerning Righteousness would be and is, the love of God first, and living objects around us second, moving or not. This would be the outline, and God’s ideal destinative will would be the SPECIFICITY of all things in time and place. Meet THE Object or Thing of faith and that is God. And all of HIS creation you are meeting up with, the living objects of family, neighbors, and even enemies.