Fishers of Men.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote:
(Belinda wrote)I think what you mean is that this relative world is illusionary; and the whole ,the eternal, is true.
I think that both the relative world, and the eternal wholistic now are true. They are two aspects of the same.
(Dontaskme)No, what I mean is not what you think I mean, it's what I mean.
[/quote]

(Belinda)Is it your responsibility to make your meaning clear?

Dontaskme wrote:
No man is an island, nevertheless Life is one unitary action, it is only and ever oneness playing the many...forget the word illusory if you can't deal with it, it's not the kind of word for the faint of heart anyway... :wink:
(Belinda)True, "life is one unitary action, it is only the one playing the many". Also true is that you and I and everyone else is unitary and if not we would die.
If you, Dontaskme, were not unitary you would be a cannibal if you ate a piece of dead cow or even a lettuce.

Belinda wrote:
However it is reasonable for a philosopher to think of the eternal now in the sense that 1. all events are in some sense ordered events. 2. all events are differentiated by minds and are not naturally separate events. The philosopher can say that differentiated events are mind-dependent. I
agree that differentiated events are mind-dependent , and that the cosmos is in some sense ordered, although perhaps not causally ordered
.

To which Dontaskme responded "What?"

Dontaskme, is there a word you don't understand? Do you not understand the concept of mind dependence ? Do you not understand ordered cosmos as opposed to chaotic cosmos?

If you cannot tell me what you don't understand I cannot make my point clearer.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote:
(Belinda)True, "life is one unitary action, it is only the one playing the many". Also true is that you and I and everyone else is unitary and if not we would die.
If you, Dontaskme, were not unitary you would be a cannibal if you ate a piece of dead cow or even a lettuce.
Yes, the opposite is also true, since who is there to divide what is whole?

The individual means unity. A unit. Life is a unitary verb unifying itself as every indivi-dual .. It is one apparently appearing as many ones.
Belinda wrote:If you cannot tell me what you don't understand I cannot make my point clearer.
Belinda wrote: Is it your responsibility to make your meaning clear?
Then there's nothing to understand, since the opposite is also true...everything is understood.

Do your own nobody home work. I've done mine.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by osgart »

fishers of men means to find those seeking repentant hope. to enter into the kingdom of God which is of the heart.

those seeking freedom from sin and evil bonds .

to have men repent into a new nature of innocence.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

osgart wrote:fishers of men means to find those seeking repentant hope. to enter into the kingdom of God which is of the heart.

those seeking freedom from sin and evil bonds .

to have men repent into a new nature of innocence.

By " fishers of men means to find those seeking repentant hope" do you mean what "fishers of men" mean to Jesus or what "fishers of men" means to you, or what "fishers of men" means to some minister of religion?
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by osgart »

jesus
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Arising_uk »

Yes?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

Osgart relied to my question:
By " fishers of men means to find those seeking repentant hope" do you mean what "fishers of men" mean to Jesus or what "fishers of men" means to you, or what "fishers of men" means to some minister of religion?
Fair enough, and thanks for simple reply. ("Jesus")

The problem you have and the problem that all religious scholars have is discovering what Jesus actually did say(and not someone else), and also what a man in first century Palestine meant , in his Aramaic translated into Greek translated from the Greek, all by scribes who made human transcribing errors.

Even if the translations were somehow accurate , can a modern American or European really have a feel for what it was like to live and work in Palestine two thousand years ago? I mean fishermen fishing the Sea of Galilee may have had different customs and techniques from modern fishermen.Those old time fishermen probably were illiterate and probably knew nothing about the world beyond a small area of Palestine.Also I bet that being a peasant subservient to Roman forces of occupation must have been an experience unlike what most of us experience today.

The man who wrote the Gospel in question was not in situ when Jesus was alleged to have said that. The man who wrote down the Gospel was possibly a Greek speaker . Sorry, my knowledge about the history of the Gospels is lacking. However if you care to do your own research it's easy enough to find it out. I think the Gospels originate in certain old scrolls which have been preserved, plus one old scroll which is assumed to have existed at one time. It's a very interesting history actually.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by thedoc »

Belinda wrote: The problem you have and the problem that all religious scholars have is discovering what Jesus actually did say(and not someone else), and also what a man in first century Palestine meant , in his Aramaic translated into Greek translated from the Greek, all by scribes who made human transcribing errors.
To my knowledge Jesus never wrote anything down, he only spoke and others wrote it down. Part of the problem with the ancient languages is that there was no punctuation or spaces between words, either in Aramaic or Greek of the time. Translation was a lot of guesswork and the imposition of the translators beliefs onto the finished work. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals "Itellyoutodayyouwillbewithmeinparadise", where do you put the spaces and punctuation, "I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." or "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." slight difference in the meaning. For myself, I favor the latter as Jesus didn't go to paradise on Fri. when it was spoken.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

thedoc wrote:
Belinda wrote: The problem you have and the problem that all religious scholars have is discovering what Jesus actually did say(and not someone else), and also what a man in first century Palestine meant , in his Aramaic translated into Greek translated from the Greek, all by scribes who made human transcribing errors.
To my knowledge Jesus never wrote anything down, he only spoke and others wrote it down. Part of the problem with the ancient languages is that there was no punctuation or spaces between words, either in Aramaic or Greek of the time. Translation was a lot of guesswork and the imposition of the translators beliefs onto the finished work. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals "Itellyoutodayyouwillbewithmeinparadise", where do you put the spaces and punctuation, "I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." or "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." slight difference in the meaning. For myself, I favor the latter as Jesus didn't go to paradise on Fri. when it was spoken.
Whichever it was, it was exceptionally brave and kind of Jesus to console others when he himself was being tortured.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by thedoc »

Belinda wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Belinda wrote: The problem you have and the problem that all religious scholars have is discovering what Jesus actually did say(and not someone else), and also what a man in first century Palestine meant , in his Aramaic translated into Greek translated from the Greek, all by scribes who made human transcribing errors.
To my knowledge Jesus never wrote anything down, he only spoke and others wrote it down. Part of the problem with the ancient languages is that there was no punctuation or spaces between words, either in Aramaic or Greek of the time. Translation was a lot of guesswork and the imposition of the translators beliefs onto the finished work. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals "Itellyoutodayyouwillbewithmeinparadise", where do you put the spaces and punctuation, "I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." or "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." slight difference in the meaning. For myself, I favor the latter as Jesus didn't go to paradise on Fri. when it was spoken.
Whichever it was, it was exceptionally brave and kind of Jesus to console others when he himself was being tortured.
And that is one of the important questions, it is assumed that Jesus knew who he was and what was going to happen, including the Resurrection and ascension. If he knew, as some assume, then he knew that it would end and he would live again. Knowing that you are going to live again makes a lot of things bearable.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

The doc wrote:
And that is one of the important questions, it is assumed that Jesus knew who he was and what was going to happen, including the Resurrection and ascension. If he knew, as some assume, then he knew that it would end and he would live again. Knowing that you are going to live again makes a lot of things bearable
but I thought that Jews don't believe in any afterlife.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by osgart »

perhaps Jesus is the great unknown. mere humans writing about him and not really knowing anything about him they observed him and interpreted what he had to say.

perhaps Jesus was merely trying to understand the human condition and preach everlasting life.

why did the story of Jesus spread like wildfire? and influence human history majorly.
Last edited by osgart on Tue May 02, 2017 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Fishers of Men.

Post by Belinda »

osgart wrote:perhaps Jesus is the great unknown. mere humans writing about him and not really knowing anything about him they observed him and interpreted what he had to say.

perhaps Jesus was merely trying to understand the human condition and preach everlasting life.

The historical Jesus is pretty well unknown. There are several historical theories ranging from a wandering holy man and healer to an insurgent against Romanisation of the Jews, to a fairly powerful rabbi.

The Christ of myth is more interesting, and here we can accept the parables in the Gospels as wisdom. There is also the idea which is important morally that there was this man who was so perfectly moral that he suffered like very moral men who stick their heads above the parapet. Lesser man cannot tolerate them.
Post Reply