Are You Prepared For This?

 " 3. Hebrews 11 defines faith: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (elenchus) of things not seen. What is interesting is the use of the term 'elenchus' in this passage.

"Elenchus in Homer (8th century) is variously: to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes in uses we are superior officers dress down rank-and file-soldiers. In courts of law, the term is also used: to bring charges, to bring accusations, but also to bring proofs, evidence, to offer convincing proofs. Pre-Socrates, like Parmenides (early 5th century), uses it as Socrates does: an argument, scrutiny, cross-examination for the purpose of refutation or disproof.

 In Koine, the verb elencho is "I accuse, rebuke, reprove" and also "I expose, I showed it be guilty, I prove" (in the same sense of putting the lie to a public statement), it's in John 3:20, first Corinthians 14:24, Ephesians 5: 11, 13; James 2:9. Souter's Lexicon of the New Testament lists elenchus as "proof, possibly a persuasion" (Souter 1917). The evidence points to a straightforward fact: in the Apostolic Age, the word elenchus expanded in an important new context to take on the sense that is on the stage in Hebrews 11, that is, in a new way. They advocated, practiced, and helped make a success of using the word elenchus. Socrates used this term to indicate a rigorous process of argumentation or persuasion, or some other species of willing and satisfied affirmation - without argument - without going through the Socratic process of rigorous argumentation."

Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination. The anonymous author of Hebrews writes. instead, that faith is the substance of things hoped, for, and the conviction (elencus) or persuasion of things not seen. If Socrates were to hear this phrase, I imagine he would say, ", this may be conviction, But it is not an argument, not a cross examination and testify scrutiny, but is a jump without any justification – without proof, and without earning it. Where is the virtue in this?"

After reading this the first time, I was confused. Am I too dumb to understand college material? Eventually, I understood that it was scattered and incoherent. He is supposed to be writing about faith but gives a 2,800-year history of some word I've never heard of: elenchus. He makes up a word, elencho, that Chrome can't find and displays great faith in his imagination, four verses in the Bible not related to faith, uses a 1917 edition of a Greek dictionary, packs in four Bible verses not related to faith, and displays his unique imagination.  

Argument by gibberish. The purpose of gibberish is to give you the idea that he is putting forth really complicated material you can't understand. 

He started with faith but switched to elenchus. He mentions one verse on faith but switches to unrelated verses. The word faith is a safe, pleasant word, but elenchus, on the other hand, means to put to shame, to treat with contempt, to question with the aim of disproving, with the aim of censure, accusation, to accuse someone, and perhaps to convict them –oftentimes,— in uses, where superior officers dress down rank-and-file soldiers. If not cautious, you might think faith meant "to put to shame."

Guess what? The meaning of words changes over time. Why use the definition of a word today when the meaning 2,800 years ago better makes your case? 

Just because a man lived thousands of years ago doesn't give them great wisdom, but that is what the author is attempting. Perhaps "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination," but the guy didn't bathe or change clothes. Lume only works for 72 hours, so let me know how that spices up romance.

Just because a man lived thousands of years ago doesn't give them great wisdom, but that is what the author is attempting. Perhaps "Socrates earned the right to claim a conclusion from philosophical examination," but the guy didn't bathe or change clothes. Lume only works for 72 hours, so let me know how that spices up romance.

At first blush, this seems like a simple question with an easy answer, but when listening to the evening news, political debates, and advertising, it’s not so easy. In fact, in each of the areas just mentioned, it’s not easy to gain knowledge. People routinely listen to the same politicians, news reports, and advertisements, yet hold very different beliefs. Information is given to us with motives to change our opinions or make more money. Confusing, but how do we know what is right and wrong?

Confusing, but how do we know what is right and wrong?

This “how do we know,” is even more complicated when Christianity is the topic. However, there are many reasons, a blindside bias related to a worldview, lack of understanding of the faith, and a sense of pride in their beliefs. There are many others,  but I find these worth discussing.

We all have biases, but when it comes to God and those who consider themselves intellectuals, their worldview blocks them from considering theology. Naturalists believe natural causes and laws can explain the universe. From the beginning, they refuse to consider anything spiritual. Materialists, on the other hand, look at the world as matter: protons, electrons, and subatomic particles.

Again, the mind shuts down when confronted with ideas such as mind, soul, or spirit. It’s as if gatekeepers are stationed at each year to stave off any such thoughts. Although this site presents lots of evidence for God’s existence

Logic and reason are not welcome.

A Misunderstanding of the Bible is certainly not helpful, and many are content with what they know. They have little interest in finding truth and, in ignorance, cling to topics such as anti-women, violence, racism, suffering, and evil. I fully understand this, which is why I cover these topics on this site.

A third, I believe, is a sense of pride that they wear as a badge of courage, pride, and brilliance. Afterall, 

An individual’s spouting out, “There is no God, and I can’t stand him,” might be interpreted as someone who is just smarter than others. 

Alrighty then, how do we know? It’s time to bring in a big word, epistemology. While materialists search for what the world is made of, naturalists examine how the world works; epistemology concerns how we know. 

page 132

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy

“Here is the evidence for the existence of God: Nothing. There is no evidence for the God's existence.”

Oh wow, that’s a rather bold universal negative statement. Such a statement requires evidence of examining over a 1,000 years of proposed evidence and rejecting it. He's gonna be as tired as a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest.  Now on the next page he writes" I only know that I know nothing. That is my only certainty." This is a self refuting statement  type of fallacy.

page 35

Hebrews 11 defines faith, now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence in Linkous of things not seen

Rituals and ceremonies can be a powerful way to connect with our spirituality and deepen our sense of meaning and purpose. They can help us mark important milestones, honor our ancestors, and connect with the divine.

While science and spirituality may seem like opposing concepts, they can actually complement each other. Many scientists and spiritual leaders believe that science can help us understand the physical world, while spirituality can help us understand the deeper meaning and purpose of life.