Blasphemy... more then you think it is...

reply to post by jmdewey60


Interesting theory... some scholars believe his work came before the Gospels as far as the dateing is concerned.

but along those same lines... the gospels may have come from their own source as well... The synoptics definatly point to this idea...

And there are many contrasts between Paul and Jesus...

Im more inclined to believe Paul hijacked the religion and made it his own...

But that is my opinion

reply to post by Akragon

Im more inclined to believe Paul hijacked the religion and made it his own...

I think he codified the concept of gentiles being allowed into the church without first becoming a convert to Judaism.
He mentions the Apostles in his letters so there were adherents already who were believers but the movement may not have become more widespread without his grounding in mainstream Hellenistic Judaism of the more metropolitan slant which had a wide appeal with people already Hellenized in a pagan (in philosophies such as Stoicism) sort of way.

reply to post by Akragon

. . . whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him . . .

I think this may be more sinister than is readily apparent, where it is basically a formula for murder, with the killers feeling rather smug and self-righteous about it. The intended victim was Jesus. The Jews came down from their mountain to see what Jesus was doing and they placed themselves in the role of Elijah who sent fire from heaven to those who wanted to knock him off the mountain for being critical of their appealing to Beelzebub. So it is a sort of reversal from the OT story in Kings, where the actual good person is below, and the bad people are above, and would eventually get kicked off their mountain when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, years later.

reply to post by Akragon


I like that theory, but you're forgetting one thing.

Many people why they say "god damn it" are just saying out of habit and sometimes it's just a reflexive action.

reply to post by Akragon


The blasphemy against the Spirit, or unforgivable sin as Christ taught has not been possible to commit for almost 2000 years. In the text it says "because they said He hath an evil spirit". People need to see Christ doing miracles only God can do and attribute them to the devil.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Akragon

 

I like that theory, but you're forgetting one thing.

Many people why they say "god damn it" are just saying out of habit and sometimes it's just a reflexive action.

Taking the Lord's Name in vain really doesn't have so much to do with vocabulary as it does with ambassadorship. It means taking His Name, calling yourself one of His or affirming yourself representing His nature or teachings and acting contrary to them.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Akragon

 

I like that theory, but you're forgetting one thing.

Many people why they say "god damn it" are just saying out of habit and sometimes it's just a reflexive action.

Saying "godamn" means nothing. God is not his name, the word "god" in biblical understanding references idols. Saying godamn is not taking his name in vain because his name is YHWH Elohim. Also taking his name in vain includes taking on his personification and claiming his name but portraying false ambassadorship (false disciple/false prophet). Now i might wince if someone uses the name "Jesus Christ" as a swear word because i know exactly who they are referencing because of the name. YHWH hates being called titles like HaShem "The Ineffable Name" or Adonai "Master". This practice was put into use by the Sanhedrin and Rabbinical's a few hundred years before Yeshua's arrival and King James definately didn't do us any favors when he carried this tradition on and into the King James 1611 bible.

reply to post by Akragon

Blasphemy in the religious terminology of the word means, "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things." That is according to Wiki. I have spent a great deal of time researching words found in the Bible for their true origins in Stong's "New Exhaustive Concordance to the King James Version Bible," and other dictionary and encyclopaedia sources. I looked up the word "blasphemy". It actually seems to have had a very different meaning once upon a time, in the original Greek, from what most of us think today.
blasphemia : noun, from
blaptô : to block, hinder, obstruct, prevent, or otherwise interfere with something;
femeô : to shine light upon something so as show or demonstrate it

Thus, "blasphemy" was apparently originally meant as "to obstruct the showing or demonstrating of something". In other words, censorship, or deception through omission. The Church hiding the truth from it's followers could be blasphemy, so could a Christian who tells lies to everyone, even though they do not know any better.
We are told not to blaspheme against the "Holy Spirit," but as of yet we have not seen a description of, or proof of existence thereof. So the point is moot. One cannot blaspheme against a thing that lacks definition.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The blasphemy against the Spirit, or unforgivable sin as Christ taught has not been possible to commit for almost 2000 years. In the text it says "because they said He hath an evil spirit". People need to see Christ doing miracles only God can do and attribute them to the devil.

How can you get that, from this?

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Jesus is talking about everyone, and puts no limit on who this applies to.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Taking the Lord's Name in vain really doesn't have so much to do with vocabulary as it does with ambassadorship. It means taking His Name, calling yourself one of His or affirming yourself representing His nature or teachings and acting contrary to them.

So is this one of the things you have demoted, from being a sin, to ok to do?
So, rather than repent and be converted, just rationalize everything til you don't sin any more because all your actions are explained away.
Profanity is still a sin and is not ok because of a technical loophole.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Saying "godamn" means nothing. God is not his name, the word "god" in biblical understanding references idols.

God, is called God, in the Bible.
You seem to be under some sort of delusion that only foreign language names are "real" names. God, is still God, no matter how you rationalize it, and blaspheming "God" is blaspheming God, even if you don't use one of your fancy names you think is the "real" name of God.
God will hold everyone accountable for what they say about God, no matter how He is addressed.

double post

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Taking the Lord's Name in vain really doesn't have so much to do with vocabulary as it does with ambassadorship. It means taking His Name, calling yourself one of His or affirming yourself representing His nature or teachings and acting contrary to them.

So is this one of the things you have demoted, from being a sin, to ok to do?
So, rather than repent and be converted, just rationalize everything til you don't sin any more because all your actions are explained away.
Profanity is still a sin and is not ok because of a technical loophole.

edit on 13-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Nothing is "demoted", the scope is greatly expanded to include not only what we say but how we act. Stealing is taking the Lord's Name in vain. This is in the Bible.

reply to post by autowrench


What if i defined the "holy Spirit" as that which dwells within all of man kind?

By the way guys... i posted the traditional definition already... No need to redefine it

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The blasphemy against the Spirit, or unforgivable sin as Christ taught has not been possible to commit for almost 2000 years. In the text it says "because they said He hath an evil spirit". People need to see Christ doing miracles only God can do and attribute them to the devil.

How can you get that, from this?

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Jesus is talking about everyone, and puts no limit on who this applies to.

That's what Mark 3:30 says actually:

"Because they (Pharisees in attendance) said, He (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit."

It says right there because they said He had an unclean spirit after witnessing Him cast out a demon.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Saying "godamn" means nothing. God is not his name, the word "god" in biblical understanding references idols.

God, is called God, in the Bible.
You seem to be under some sort of delusion that only foreign language names are "real" names. God, is still God, no matter how you rationalize it, and blaspheming "God" is blaspheming God, even if you don't use one of your fancy names you think is the "real" name of God.
God will hold everyone accountable for what they say about God, no matter how He is addressed.

And Muslim call their "God" Allah who is Heylel and want us to believe he is the same as YHWH. You can share their "God" but i will not.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The blasphemy against the Spirit, or unforgivable sin as Christ taught has not been possible to commit for almost 2000 years. In the text it says "because they said He hath an evil spirit". People need to see Christ doing miracles only God can do and attribute them to the devil.

How can you get that, from this?

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Jesus is talking about everyone, and puts no limit on who this applies to.

That's what Mark 3:30 says actually:

"Because they (Pharisees in attendance) said, He (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit."

It says right there because they said He had an unclean spirit after witnessing Him cast out a demon.

That part is only in one version of this passage...

In Matthew 12 it says nothing like that... but he continues on with the sermon... I believe Jm is right... that was a general law...

And of course in keeping with the theme of this thread... if said blasphemy comes back to you... it is essentially "not forgiven"...

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

And Muslim call their "God" Allah who is Heylel and want us to believe he is the same as YHWH. You can share their "God" but i will not.

How do you get 'being Muslim' from using the word God to describe God?
I suggest you quit speaking English if you think you are using a demonic language, or whatever you think it is, where you can not use your native language to speak of God or Jesus.
(I'm being sarcastic of course)
I suppose now you think it is OK to blaspheme Allah. I would not recommend that either.
You seem to have adopted Judaism as your religion, rather than Christianity. Judaism says it is your duty to tear down pagan temples, Christianity does not. So there is no sanction for what your attitude is pointing to.
In other words, God is not sanctioning your behavior if you believe in the Christian God, who is the father of Jesus. Apparently you don't so I am wasting my time with you, but I have to say this anyway as a warning to anyone who may think you are an example of what Christianity is about.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's what Mark 3:30 says actually:

"Because they (Pharisees in attendance) said, He (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit."

It says right there because they said He had an unclean spirit after witnessing Him cast out a demon

It says Jesus took the disciples aside to explain what was going on, and that is where the part I quoted comes from, so what you are claiming is just wrong.

reply to post by Akragon


There are details in all the gospels that some leave out and some contain. It's specifically stated in Mark imho because Mark's intended audience is Gentile. He explains a lot of Jewish terms and customs in that gospel that others take for granted the audience is familiar with already. That's like saying John 3:16 isn't applicable because none of the other gospels mention it.