Was JESus ever a philosopher? That is what we are discussing, right?
" "Philosophia Christi is a biannual peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society with the support of Biola University. It covers philosophical issues in the fields of apologetics, ethics, theology, and religion from an evangelical perspective and publishes articles, philosophical notes, and book reviews. The editor-in-chief is Craig Hazen.[1]
The journal is abstracted and indexed by The Philosopher's Index, Religious and Theological Abstracts, the American Theological Library Association, and Index Theologicus."
And yes, they also use the Socratic method. :)."
Lol once again you discredit the opportunity given by sensible research to let the tides in as you please" Jesus was not a philosopher" And then you say" And yes, they also use the Socratic method. :) " what do you mean by :) "
Please read the following:
BY JOHN S. WILKINS | MAY 9, 2010 · 10:03 PM ? Jump to Comments Was Jesus a philosopher? A local philosophy mailing list has announced a talk being given by a philosophically inclined plumber on Jesus’ philosophy. This rather begs the question* that he was indeed a philosopher. Jesus certainly held ethical principles and taught doctrines, but that is insufficient to make someone a philosopher. Many people have taught things that are in themselves vaguely philosophical, but they are no more philosophers than a reporter discussing political developments is a politician.
So, what is needed to make someone a philosopher? I think that there are two preconditions: one, that the topics are themselves philosophical, and two, that the way the person has arrived at conclusions regarding these topics is through reasoning, and not merely intuition or inheritance. Let’s look at both of these conditions…
I have previously said on this blog that I tell my students that there are basically three broad kinds of philosophical questions:
1. What is there? This is the question of metaphysics. It is not a question about what science tells us there is, because that is physics. Metaphysics is what you are left over with when the facts do not fix the solution. When they do, that is science. Metaphysics includes questions about the reality of numbers, the nature of the physical world, the existence of God, and so forth. When popular bookshops categorise texts as “metaphysics”, they often have quite the wrong idea, treating mystical or doctrinal teachings as being of this “above-science” kind; when in fact they are just claims, unsupported by argument. This raises a point about philosophy that our second precondition engages: philosophy is about argument, not assertion.
2. How do we know it? This is the question of epistemology (from the Greek word epistem?, which originally meant “opinion”, but now means “knowledge”), the study of knowledge methods. In other words, what is knowledge, and how do we get it?
3. What is it worth? This is about morality, aesthetics, and other value-laden matters such as the just society or war. Since the Greeks, this has been cast as what it is that makes a Good Life.
Now, to be a philosopher, and not merely a reporter, one has to present arguments for conclusions. The rational hearer will consider the premises of the argument, and if they are acceptable, will decide if the argument from these premises leads to a particular conclusion. If it does, one is rationally compelled to accept the argument.
So, Jesus: is he a philosopher? I think not, and here is why:
Jesus does not reach his teachings via reason. He does not start with agreed premises, or debate the premises. In fact, if the Gospels are to be believed, he never argued except with the Pharisees (who were in all probability his teachers) and then not for the premises, which he and they shared. This was theological dispute, not philosophy. He does not establish a method by which one can check or assess his conclusions, either. It is revealed to him by God, and his authority as a spokesperson for God is what validates his claims. And there is no way to validate that, either.
His moral claims do not form a system, apart from “God has the right to declare what he wants to be right”, which doesn’t survive the Euthyphro Dilemma. He merely repeats or arbitrarily revises the religious teaching of his time and tradition. There is no reason to think that this applies to all reasonable people, despite what his later publicist Saul of Tarsis tried vaguely to argue in his letter to the Roman church.
His metaphysics are likewise either the product of revelation, intuition, or authority. There is no attempt in Jesus’ teachings to develop any ontology, not in his ipsissima verba nor in the Gospels and sayings preserved elsewhere in the New Testament.
I do not think Jesus is a philosopher. Rabbi Hillel seems to be more of a philosopher, and Philo of Alexandria definitely was. But Jesus is a teacher of religion, and a reformer of religion; however, he is no philosopher. Besides, he never published, and that is death to a philosopher, from which no career can be resurrected.
And he’s not a political philosopher either…
* “Begs the question” means that it presumes its conclusion in its premises, bitches. It doesn’t mean to raise the question, no matter what occasional lexicographers might think. Prescriptivism rules in logic, if nowhere else.
Share this: More 27 Comments Filed under Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Religion, Sermon Tagged as Philosophy
Now, if you can not contribute and expand expression values to a conformity of valid premises then the argumentation is rather foolish on my part to continue speaking to a person which continuesly misses the point or stubbornly refuses to see.
The reason for any religion to hide the truths and condition it's followers not allowing them the fruit of knowledge is for their own personal greed and the evil that follows is only a consequence of it.
One example, in football (soccer as it is known in this part of the world) the rules of the game allow dishonesty to mature and multiply as the rules are a combination of easy to follow and then you have more complicated ones, most games are falsified by the referees choices based on split second decisions which some are honest mistakes and some are deliberate. Now, much pressure has come a long way to change and use modern technology to eliminate and rectify the errors. The response? The games is a long way away to becoming a clean sport in fact it is the most corrupt sport in the world.
The relation as per esempio; Christianity will never ever allow reason to enter its doors of StPeters infact reason is considered Satan at work same applies to football never ever have technology that can eliminate and rectify.
Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.
Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things.
It is the act of an ill-instructed man to blame others for his own bad condition; it is the act of one who has begun to be instructed, to lay the blame on himself; and of one whose instruction is completed, neither to blame another, nor himself.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/e/epictetus_quotes.html#h5FVXVOFvtYojJrt.99
Now the above with more of it will allow a person to grow and glow mentally. A person in distress can achieve great things for oneself if the person desrith
