Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Believe it or not...there is also a group out there calling itself "Muslims for Jesus". SO?

They are not Jews. You asked about Jews and their take on Jesus. Seems there is a difference of opinion, between Jews, just as it was in Jesus' day.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Think upon this, then:

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

In other words, Mr. Vigors, all your posts, all your many links you've posted are absolutely meaningless; for in your worldview, they can explain absolutely nothing!

Truly, don't you have far better things to do with the very short time you have on this earth than waste that precious time with vain, meaningless babble?

I share my soul because I have a need to express my ideas...I know you don't always find me pleasant.....but I do indeed NEED your ears...thank you for being there for me...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I share my soul because I have a need to express my ideas...I know you don't always find me pleasant.....but I do indeed NEED your ears...thank you for being there for me...

How can you have something or believe in something that is not material, a soul? You speak with fork tongue.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

They are not Jews. You asked about Jews and their take on Jesus. Seems there is a difference of opinion, between Jews, just as it was in Jesus' day.

The Jews have a "divided opinion" about Jesus?

If you were to guess...what percentage of the Jews would you say accept Jesus as their "true Messiah"? Or should we embrace Boxcar's philosophy, that "the Truth isn't a popularity contest"?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The Jews have a "divided opinion" about Jesus?

If you were to guess...what percentage of the Jews would you say accept Jesus as their "true Messiah". Or should we embrace Boxcar's philosophy, that "the Truth isn't a popularity contest"?

I have no idea. Jesus' earliest followers were Jews. I have no personal knowledge of how many Jews followed Jesus and how many didn't during Apostolic times.

I have no idea how many Jews converted to Christianity over the centuries. So it would be impossible for me to say.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I have no idea. Jesus' earliest followers were Jews. I have no personal knowledge of how many Jews followed Jesus and how many didn't during Apostolic times.

I have no idea how many Jews converted to Christianity over the centuries. So it would be impossible for me to say.

Isn't it odd to you that the vast majority of the Jews have rejected Jesus as a "Messiah"...while over a billion others have developed a supposedly intimate "long-distance" relationship with him as the "Son of God"?

Would it make sense if the Chinese were proclaiming Socrates as the "World's Wisest Man"...while the Greeks, who LIVED with him...considered him only "ordinary"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The Jews have a "divided opinion" about Jesus?

If you were to guess...what percentage of the Jews would you say accept Jesus as their "true Messiah"? Or should we embrace Boxcar's philosophy, that "the Truth isn't a popularity contest"?

Depends on we have define the term "Jew". Under the Old Covenant, a Jew was one who physically descended, ultimately, from Abraham and was circumcised. But under the New Covenant, the definition has expanded to Abraham's spiritual descendants, i.e. those who have the faith of Abraham. Under the New Covenant, a "Jew" is one who is not necessarily circumcised in his flesh but is circumcised in his heart. If we go by this latter definition, I'd say that the percentage of "Jews" in the world is much larger than you think. But in either case...God is saving and has been saving a [b]remnant[b] of mankind from the very beginning.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

How can you have something or believe in something that is not material, a soul? You speak with fork tongue.

I use the word "soul" here figuratively, not literally, I know that is somewhat of a cop-out, but hey, monotheists do it all the time regarding scripture...when some passage makes no sense, like the universe being created in 6 days...that's figuratively speaking, the verse REALLY MEANS.....this or that....so go figure...what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, no....you don't really expect humans to be perfectly consistent, do you....? Nothing in the vast cosmos is....including your imperfect deity, who creates AND destroys the works of his own "hands" apparently never satisfied with what He has made....

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Isn't it odd to you that the vast majority of the Jews have rejected Jesus as a "Messiah"...while over a billion others have developed a supposedly intimate "long-distance" relationship with him as the "Son of God"?

Would it make sense if the Chinese were proclaiming Socrates as the "World's Wisest Man"...while the Greeks, who LIVED with him...considered him only "ordinary"?

Do you currently know any living Jews who lived with Jesus? So I don't get your allusion to Greeks and Socrates?

Also, there really is no reliable evidence Socrates ever lived. He left no writings and there is a dearth of independent information concerning his existence. The major source of Socratic existence is Plato. Plato may have invented him as a character to flesh out his Dialogue.

Another source is Xenophon who, in his plays, describes Socrates very different than the wise person described by Plato.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I use the word "soul" here figuratively, not literally, I know that is somewhat of a cop-out, but hey, monotheists do it all the time regarding scripture...when some passage makes no sense, like the universe being created in 6 days...that's figuratively speaking, the verse REALLY MEANS.....this or that....so go figure...what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, no....you don't really expect humans to be perfectly consistent, do you....? Nothing in the vast cosmos is....including your imperfect deity, who creates AND destroys the works of his own "hands" apparently never satisfied with what He has made....

I would you expect you to be consistent in the basis of your position and not allude to non-material aspects literally and figuratively. You are right it is a cop-out. As if your life, which is a pure accident, has some esoteric meaning.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Do you currently know any living Jews who lived with Jesus? So I don't get your allusion to Greeks and Socrates?

Also, there really is no reliable evidence Socrates ever lived. He left no writings and there is a dearth of independent information concerning his existence. The major source of Socratic existence is Plato. Plato may have invented him as a character to flesh out his dialogue.

Another source is Xenophon who, in his plays, describes Socrates very different than the wise person described by Plato.

That's odd. You entertain the idea that Socrates may have never existed...but you are not willing to consider the same thought about Jesus. Why is that? Is there more historical proof to back up the existence of Jesus than there is to prove the existence of Socrates?

The ancient Stoics (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius...etc.), whose existence has been historically PROVEN...have spoken often about Socrates. But, surprisingly... NO ancient source of ANY historical note has ever left any written proof to support the existence of the "Son of God".

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

That's odd. You entertain the idea that Socrates may have never existed...but you are not willing to consider the same thought about Jesus. Why is that? Is there more historical proof to back up the existence of Jesus than there is to prove the existence of Socrates?

The ancient Stoics (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius...etc.), whose existence has been historically PROVEN...have spoken often about Socrates. But, surprisingly... NO ancient source of ANY historical note has ever left any written proof to support the existence of the "Son of God".

I readily admit my belief is based on faith based on the teachings of the Apostles and my own spiritual experiences.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The ancient Stoics (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius...etc.), whose existence has been historically PROVEN...have spoken often about Socrates. But, surprisingly... NO ancient source of ANY historical note has ever left any written proof to support the existence of the "Son of God".

Are they contemporaries of Socrates?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I share my soul because I have a need to express my ideas...I know you don't always find me pleasant.....but I do indeed NEED your ears...thank you for being there for me...

But don't you understand that in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview that says there is no purpose or intentionality to the universe -- or in Lewis' terms that the universe is just a big accident and so all that has evolved in this universe, including organic life, is every bit as much an accident and, therefore, incapable of rational explanation? Accidents can't explain anything! I love Lewis' analogy: A milkjug that fell over on the floor and splashed milk everywhere is an accident and those splashes are not capable of explaining the accident or how the jug itself came into existence or how anyone lamenting the spill can be explained! If the universe came into existence by blind, irrational forces, then everything in the universe is equally as blind and irrational -- including all your posts! Your posts explain nothing because nothing is capable of being explained in such a universe of blind, irrational forces.

[Show Me the Wire]

The essentials of Epictetus' thought derive from the early or foundational period of Stoicism, from the third-century writings of Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus. Treatises he mentions by title include Chrysippus' On Choice, On Impulse, and On the Possibles, and he also mentions reading in works by Zeno, Cleanthes, Antipater, and Archedemus. Extant reports and fragments of these and other Stoic works offer many points of congruence with what we find in him.

It may still be the case that he accepts influence from other currents in philosophy, or that he develops some ideas on his own. The clearest instance of such influence concerns Plato, for Epictetus draws much inspiration from the Socrates depicted in Plato's shorter dialogues.

emphasis added
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epictetus/

Strange you give credence to writings several hundred years later, to prove Socrates' existence which are based on Plato's dialogue for the existence of a man who left no writings and is not widely attested to exist by contemporaries.

Such a wise man should have been applauded and attested by his contemporaries. Yet strangely he is not.