TRUTH

Originally posted by Coletti
I found over 220 uses of know using the Greek ginosko (as used in 1Joh 4:8). In some cases it was a meant to know someone or somebody. It often was translated "aware" and it usually had to do with something that just became known.

As far as mystery - whenever the Bible speaks of mystery - that is knowledge revealed the was once unknown. It all case ...[text shortened]... means something we can not understand (but it can refer to things that are hidden from others).

I found over 220 uses of know using the Greek ginōskō (as used in 1Joh 4:8). In some cases it was a meant to know someone or somebody. It often was translated "aware" and it usually had to do with something that just became known.

Yes, the multiple usages of such words are what make it interesting for me to dig into them. Question: do you associate being “aware” with strictly propositional knowledge? Can I fairly say that I am aware of “this beautiful” sunset if I can’t describe it with propositional statements—or even if I find that can’t find the words to really describe it at all? And if I send you a photograph, could you say that you had a real awareness of the same sunset as I?

In other words, it was not "mystical" knowledge that we can not understand or articulate, but simple revealed knowledge that can be said in simple propositions….It also was used in relationships - to know God. And it means to understand, or have knowledge about. Again, it is not so esoteric. To know someone means to know and understand true propositions about that person.

Setting the words “mystical” and “esoteric” aside for the time being (Yes, I know, I’m the one that brought them into this!)—

1) It seems clear to me that the Bible does not use the word “gnosis” in a strictly philosophical/propositional sense (and I am really not qualified to engage in a lengthy discussion of what entails such “epistemic” knowledge—I read those arguments on here with interest).

2) I can say, “I know my wife’s touch.” That is, I recognize it and know it is her without looking. I truly do not know how to give you that “knowledge” in a propositional statement. No matter how well and accurately I described it to you in words, that would not mean that you know it as I do.

3) With regard to my wife’s whole person, which I am in close company with on a daily basis—no matter how many propositions I give you in writing, no matter if I am able to select the best words possible to describe her to you—having not met her, I do not think that you can have the same knowledge of her that I do. I do not think I can “reveal” her to you in “simple” propositions. And I do not think that you could say you “know” her as I do based on understanding true propositions about her.

4) I doubt that anyone can “know and understand” love—in its fullest sense, in the fullest sense of agape—if they never experienced it, through true propositional statements (agape did not exclude eros in Greek usage, by the way, and still does not in the Greek-speaking church; it is a much deeper word than, say, “charity” ).

These are the kinds of things that I think “gnosis” goes to, as opposed to episteme. It is also one reason, I suspect, that the Bible writers use so much poetry, metaphor and symbolism.

Do a word search on mystery in the New Testament….

A fair “assignment!” I work very slowly on these things, however…. 😛

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I found over 220 uses of know using the Greek ginōskō (as used in 1Joh 4:8). In some cases it was a meant to know someone or somebody. It often was translated "aware" and it usually had to do with something that just became known.

Yes, the multiple usages of such words are what make it interesting for me to dig into them. Question: ...[text shortened]... e New Testament….[/b]

A fair “assignment!” I work very slowly on these things, however…. 😛[/b]

Question: do you associate being “aware” with strictly propositional knowledge? Can I fairly say that I am aware of “this beautiful” sunset if I can’t describe it with propositional statements—or even if I find that can’t find the words to really describe it at all?

Then I would say that was not knowledge, only sense memory.

And if I send you a photograph, could you say that you had a real awareness of the same sunset as I?

I would say I would not have experience everything you did, included 3 dimensions. The way aware was used with ginosko, it meant some information that a person was made aware of, not a sensation or emotion, but some facts or ideas that became known.


1) It seems clear to me that the Bible does not use the word “gnosis” in a strictly philosophical/propositional sense (and I am really not qualified to engage in a lengthy discussion of what entails such “epistemic” knowledge—I read those arguments on here with interest).

I'm always up for learning more, and getting closer to the truth.

2) I can say, “I know my wife’s touch.” That is, I recognize it and know it is her without looking. I truly do not know how to give you that “knowledge” in a propositional statement. No matter how well and accurately I described it to you in words, that would not mean that you know it as I do.

I don't think "knowing" your wife's touch is the "knowing" the Bible uses. The Bible does not appear to use "know" as to have a sense memory, or recall a sensation (smell, touch, image). There might be a relationship since there is recall involved.

An interesting aside is not all people are capable of recalling past sensations. These people can not imagine (bring to mind) what a cup of coffee smells like - although they will recognize the smell when it occurs again. They can not close their eyes and recall physical sensations they have had in the past, or sometime images. And these are usually very intelligent people. One informal survey had about 1 in 50 people can not recall sensations from memory.

3) With regard to my wife’s whole person, which I am in close company with on a daily basis—no matter how many propositions I give you in writing, no matter if I am able to select the best words possible to describe her to you—having not met her, I do not think that you can have the same knowledge of her that I do. I do not think I can “reveal” her to you in “simple” propositions. And I do not think that you could say you “know” her as I do based on understanding true propositions about her.

Sense memories can not be communicated, can not be assigned true/false values. They are not knowledge. There is something to knowledge of someone that I think relates to knowing how they would react in different situations, what makes them happy or sad, or what irritates or soothes. This capacity for predicting persons thinking and feelings is like one way the bible uses "know" when taking about sexual relations between a man and woman.

4) I doubt that anyone can “know and understand” love—in its fullest sense, in the fullest sense of agape—if they never experienced it, through true propositional statements (agape did not exclude eros in Greek usage, by the way, and still does not in the Greek-speaking church; it is a much deeper word than, say, “charity” ).

You and I have a different "epistemology". I don't believe "experience" is necessary for knowledge and understanding. I have found no Biblical support for "experiential" truth. Experience can give us an emotional bond via. a sense or emotional memory. But these kinds of memories can not be reliable shared or communicated.

I can not find eros in my Bible searches. Any suggestions? Love is only mainly from some form of agape or phileo.

These are the kinds of things that I think “gnosis” goes to, as opposed to episteme. It is also one reason, I suspect, that the Bible writers use so much poetry, metaphor and symbolism.

To be fair, here's a tough one for my epistemology, especially how gnosis is used in verse 19:

Eph 3:16-19 NASB
(16) that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,
(17) so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
(18) may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
(19) and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

Please let me know if you can point to a scripture reference regarding eros. I'm interested in seeing how that shows in the Greek.

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Question: do you associate being “aware” with strictly propositional knowledge? Can I fairly say that I am aware of “this beautiful” sunset if I can’t describe it with propositional statements—or even if I find that can’t find the words ...[text shortened]... eros. I'm interested in seeing how that shows in the Greek.

[/b]Thank you for your detailed response.

You and I have a different "epistemology". I don't believe "experience" is necessary for knowledge and understanding. I have found no Biblical support for "experiential" truth. Experience can give us an emotional bond via. a sense or emotional memory. But these kinds of memories can not be reliable shared or communicated.

Yeah, we probably do, although I wouldn’t say that I have a well-delineated epistemology. I do, however, give at least some weight to experience/empiricism (and am not entirely convinced by your sense/memory argument, though it is interesting). I realize that this has been, and still is, hotly debated in the philosophical community. I do enjoy reading some of those debates on here.

With that said, I think we have to “agree to disagree” on this for now (though I will keep studying, and my positions are there fore subject to change). Aside from differing epistemologies, my sense is that the Bible at least sometimes uses such terms in the kind of “colloquial” way that I used in my examples. Although there is logical argument in the NT (Paul, for example, though sometimes his logic may be more “talmudic” that “Greek” ), I do not think that even the “didactic” (as opposed to, say, narrative portions) are necessarily best seen as employing formal propositional logic—the most obvious example would be the parables.

Please let me know if you can point to a scripture reference regarding eros. I'm interested in seeing how that shows in the Greek.

To be fair, I probably can’t—if your concordances don’t find it, mine won’t either. My understanding comes from my readings in Greek Orthodoxy and the early church fathers, which I give some credence because of their “rootedness” in the original language. Here is a brief example from a Greek Orthodox theologian:

“Usually the concept of love as agape is differentiated from the concept of love as eros, because the former manifests the disinterested movement of self-offering, while eros is the self-interested movement which seeks some satisfaction. Thus, for example, the movement of God toward man is characterized by agape, while the movement of man toward God is characterized by eros. Man constitutes the object of God’s agape, whereas God is the object of man’s eros. But at other times, the two terms are used in exactly the same way as synonyms.

“In the Aeropagitic writings [of St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, also known as “pseudo-Dionysius,” circa 500 AD] we read, ‘Whether we consider eros to be divine, angelic, intellectual, psychic or natural, we must understand it to be a unifying and binding power which moves superiors to provide for the weaker, which moves equals into a communion with one another….’ Here, the word eros is used as a synonym for the word love (agape).

“Eros, then, or love as ‘a unifying and binding power,’ leads man on the one hand to communion with his fellows and on the other to religious reference, that is, to a relationship and communion with God.” (Giorgios I. Mantzarides, Orthodox Spiritual Life, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994; my italics.)

I find this in other such sources too. Their understanding is that a sharp distinction between the two words is a later development. Of course, it is key here to realize that eros is not being used in the modern sense of our “eroticism.” My own take on this stuff is that agape includes eros (in the older sense of the word), but not the other way around; sometimes they are distinguished, sometimes not. It does include an element of passion in God’s agape.

To be fair, here's a tough one for my epistemology, especially how gnosis is used in verse 19:

Ah, don’t we all have those…. Since the same root-word is used for both know and knowledge, it really doesn't add any weight to my position either, however. 🙂

I'm always up for learning more, and getting closer to the truth.

Me too. That’s why I keep getting into this stuff. 🙂