Oh, but they did! That they came to different applications of the same idea does not mean they had a different idea in mind. They did not merely state that Logos was Christ and thus Christ was Logos, they argued that Christ was the incarnate Form of the Stoic conception of THE Logos. Though we have come to different conclusions, we most assuredly may share the same metaphysical grounding. If you could share some points of Rowe’s, I would be most appreciative, because I still haven’t read his book, so I don’t quite know from which angle he (and you) may be arguing.
Secondarily, that “my” idea of prayer disagrees with the teachings of your youth ought be of no great concern. The conception of prayer I argue for is in wild disagreement with my upbringing as well. The conception of prayer I argue for follows necessarily from the conception of finite man presently bounded by spacetime attempting to commune with God existing in eternity, a universally-accepted aspect of Christian canon.
As well, when you state that Stoics disagree with the dual nature of man and believe in the destruction of the soul, I am not quite certain which Stoic you are referencing. Stoicism was a school of philosophical thought, not a religion with a necessary canon, with many of its students holding differing interpretations of the same overarching ideas both contemporaneously and over time. When the school was founded by Zeno of Citium circa 300 B.C., though it stood in opposition to the Academy, it was most certainly operating within the same philosophical plane as handed down by their forebears Plato & Aristotle. The conception of a soul as posed by early Stoics Cleanthes & Chrysippus seems to concede a form of dualism, even if they fail to use the term by name. They certainly did not believe in an afterlife as conceived by Christianity, but they did believe that the soul could persist after death by attaching itself to its physical location in the universe, perhaps existing forever or only for a time. That they then believed the necessary end to the soul may have been reabsorption into the “world soul,” thus ceding individual perception and consciousness, does not entail the destruction of the soul.
My argument rests in the idea that both Stoicism and Christianity share the same metaphysical grounding, even if different Stoics, over time (like you and I!), have applied that grounding in different ways.
In any case, I have nothing but respect for a fellow practitioner of philosophy, who is attempting to help others by sharing and clarifying his views online. I hope I’ve not come off as rude in any fashion.