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

reply to post by NOTurTypical

My apology then. By "brother" I assumed you meant the Lord Jesus Christ in the context the Word says that He is the "firstborn of many brethren".

I did mean him. We do not call him Jesus or Christ or any of those terms. We call him Brother, or the Son. Just depends on whom we are speaking to.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Alright JM, since you just stated there is nothing in error with mark 3:30 then a person never must claim Christ "has an unclean spirit". But the implication of the text is those men who came from Jerusalem were in attendance when the demon was cast out.

This just makes it look like you have this overwhelming desire to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and get away with it. There just isn't any way you can justify this teaching of yours, for whatever reason you feel so compelled to lead people into wickedness.

"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.”

This seems clear enough to me despite your diversion from its meaning.
And there is no implication that the teachers of the law witnessed anything, the important thing is like I was saying in my first post on this thread, that they represented messengers, and that was their message, of a consorting with Beelzebub. The general condemnation by Jesus of blasphemers of the Holy Spirit would have included them. There is nothing there to indicate that the condemnation applied to them exclusively.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's probably the most absurd thing you have ever assumed and I have seen you articulate. Mark 3:30 is quite clear.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That is quite the load of assumptions my friend... to bad theres absolutely nothing to back up your claims... at least as far as scripture goes.

IF paul met Jesus when he was alive, not only was it not mentioned... but they wouldn't have been on great terms either way...

IF he had met him while he was alive, he likely would have known at least some of his teachings... but he uses hardly anything in his work...

So feel free to assume they met... i will not

theres no evidence of it... neither in his written work... or otherwise

reply to post by Akragon


I would think that the unforgivable you are alluding to would be different than the spirit that would be inside of man. That of course is just from my reading. There seems to be a stark difference between the two.(holy spirit and mans spirit/soul) The idea of it is interesting though since I do agree that words can be much more harmful than just on the surface.
While this next part is off topic....as I read through the different opinions and ideas expressed about god and jesus specifically, I find those who say they believe to have an astounding lack of faith in the god they are representing. While I do agree that scripture is has altered over the years I really don't understand how folks can simply assume the all powerful hasn't maintained its message. Odd to see people rip small pieces out and simply say the rest is just mans distortions. If I did believe any of the gods worshiped today were real and true, the idea that this entity simply let its written doctrine be come so corrupt that one cannot follow its teachings to reach the salvation or whatever it proposes would make me personally feel like I didn't trust said entity. Sorry of the OT section was just something I noticed.

Originally posted by Akragon
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

Well, I have postulated that very thought myself before in here, and was attacked by Christians who proceeded to tell me that one has to get baptised and "take Jesus into their heart" to get the Holy Spirit.
I tell people I already have it, but they say I don't. But I do have a spirit, don't know if I can call myself "Holy," as I am not specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated, or dedicated or devoted to the service of any God, any church, or any religion: and I am not saintly; godly; pious; or devout.
Definations of "Holy"
I am, however, very Spiritual.

reply to post by Akragon


There is scripture to back up the Paul was a direct understudy to Gameliel. There us scripture that says Paul met the risen Lord twice. And there is scripture that affirms Paul as true and a beloved brother in Christ. I disnt say Paul was invited to "meet" Christ when He was alive or sat for His teachings while He was alive. But it's also not stated He didn't. Christ also taught in public. Mount of Olives et cetra. And most likely Gameliel was present at Christ's temple trials. And most likely Paul was at the temple when Christ addressed people there.

The disciples of first century rabbis followed them absolutely everywhere they went. When the rabbi slept the disciples slept, when he awoke they awoke, when he ate they ate. That's what Jewish history records for the rabbis and Paul was one of Gameliel's.

reply to post by Akragon


Chiming in here, haven't read the other posts yet.

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Some sins can not be resolved within one lifetime...

An assult on the spirit which destroys the body is not forgiven in this life...

I believe said person will recieve exactly what he/she gave in the next incarnation.

I believe the sin of blasphemy requires intent

Assault is complicated sin and can be seen as a cry for attention. A rapist can claim that his urges come from deep seeded rage and pain, and that he is merely repeating a learned crime, as he is victim himself.

But a well thought out plan, a conspiracy to enslave the human spirit is afoot. This blasphemy hides behind religious institutions, governments and corporations. It remains unnamed and illusive.

All of humanity is a victim of blasphemy, IMHO.

reply to post by Akragon

IF paul met Jesus when he was alive, not only was it not mentioned... but they wouldn't have been on great terms either way...

Paul did meet him here: (Of course, this is me giving an account of what took place above, not what is detailed in scripture)

2 Cor. 12:2-6

2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.

Also, many times Brother came in spirit (not in the body) to council him. Now, this did not mean he fully understood all that was given, as you can see evident in his teachings, Paul added many things that Jesus did not state while here.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

There is scripture to back up the Paul was a direct understudy to Gameliel.

Who was a rabbi... likely why pauls work seems more like judaism. And theres little about him in the bible either way.

I disnt say Paul was to "meet" Christ when He was alive or sat for His teachings while He was alive. But it's also not stated He didn't.

Thats kinda flawed logic bro... it doesn't say he didn't come to america either... so its safe to assume he did?



From his writing its pretty obvious he didn't... but like you i can only assume. And considering he was a "percecutor of christians"... Its unlikely he came anywhere near Jesus...

Christ also taught in public. Mount of Olives et cetra. And most likely Gameliel was present at Christ's temple trials. And most likely Paul was at the temple when Christ addressed people there.

Don't you think if this was true Paul would have written about it? Not only that but Pauls teacher "likely" would have warned paul about this Jesus character he had seen him? This man clearly had power...

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space

i see no reason to assume anything you're claiming... pure speculation

The disciples of first century rabbis followed them absolutely everywhere they went. When the rabbi slept the disciples slept, when he awoke they awoke, when he ate they ate. That's what Jewish history records for the rabbis and Paul was one of Gameliel's.

Show me where it says Gameliel met Christ... or saw him... Heard of him?

Neither of these people ever had anything to do with Jesus within his life... any association paul has with Jesus is based around the assumption that He had this inspiration on the RTD...

And getting back to the topic at hand...

I believe paul was a blasphemer according to the premise of this thread... was he not a murderer before his "conversion"?

reply to post by Akragon

Neither of these people ever had anything to do with Jesus within his life...

All this stuff is gimmickry to get hits on YouTube videos by pop-culture "evangelists" where they make wild claims that get people excited and think they are so clever or maybe getting special "spiritual insight". This sort of thing works well on people who don't actually study the Bible themselves, and rely on the "experts" to spoon feed them.

reply to post by Akragon


Dear God u fight so hard. It's not really possible to show you my New Testament survey textbooks, but Paul declares his rabbi in Acts 22:3. He was a disciple of Gameliel. His being the greatest rabbi and teacher of the Torah at the time of Christ h would have most likely been present at Christ's false trials. He would have been with the other disciples of Gameliel at the temple when Christ taught there. The disciples of rabbis followed them wherever they went, same as Christ's disciples during His earthly ministry.

Moses and David murdered as well. And Paul never blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Had he done so the Holy Spirit would never have used Paul to write most of the NT. Paul taught about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke and sung in tongues.

Edit: And just so their is no confusion, Gameliel was president of the Sanhedrin and his father before him... he was there at the trial of Christ.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

Neither of these people ever had anything to do with Jesus within his life...

All this stuff is gimmickry to get hits on YouTube videos by pop-culture "evangelists" where they make wild claims that get people excited and think they are so clever or maybe getting special "spiritual insight". This sort of thing works well on people who don't actually study the Bible themselves, and rely on the "experts" to spoon feed them.

It's from my New Testament survey courses. Why do you enjoy lying about people? Do you not care that lying is one of the abominations that God hates in Proverbs? Does that even give you pause to think?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear God u fight so hard.

Do you expect any less... I've been with you all this time and you still don't know me?

It's not really possible to show you my New Testament survey textbooks, but Paul declares his rabbi in Acts 22:3. He was a disciple of Gameliel. His being the greatest rabbi and teacher of the Torah at the time of Christ

doesn't "the torah" say not to bare false witness, or murder? Apparently he wasn't a great teacher... or paul was a bad student.

h would have most likely been present at Christ's false trials. He would have been with the other disciples of Gameliel at the temple when Christ taught there. The disciples of rabbis followed them wherever they went, same as Christ's disciples during His earthly ministry.

and of course you are free to assume what you will...

Moses and David murdered as well. And Paul never blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Had he done so the Holy Spirit would never have used Paul to write most of the NT. Paul taught about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke and sung in tongues.

its highly possible Moses was killed by his own people... that is IF you look at the exodus as a military campain... And some of the stuff he did was quite worthy of an assassination.

And i didn't say he blasphemed the "holy spirit" according to your theology... i said according to the premise of this thread...

Trying my best to keep things on topic here...

reply to post by Akragon


Im not assuming anything. Research how rabbis and their disciples conducted their training at that time. A biblical model would be Christ and His disciples. With very popular rabbis like Gameliel the selection process and prestige would be similar to a kid in the US being selected to go to Harvard or Yale. These disciples followed the rabbi everywhere. When the rabbi ate they ate, when he went to temple, they went to temple, when the rabbi slept they slept.

Gameliel being the president of the Sanhedrin he would have been present for Christ's bogus trials and by extension his disciples present in the crowd of witnesses. And the Torah is "the law" Paul was talking about that he said he was well versed in. And they considered Christ a blasphemer and His followers so they saw their killings as demanded by the law, not a violation of the Decalogue.

Edit: And my point about Moses and David was that even murderers can repent, be forgiven and still be used for God.

Originally posted by Akragon
This isn't about Christianity... but it does involve their book. I only use it because most can relate in some way...

Would you prefer i use another source? Gnostic writing, or hindu perhaps?

Did he say to keep sinning or to turn from it?

I agree with some things that you have written, though am not so sure about reincarnation. Since you seem to be watchful about theology in general. What is your opinion on Theosophy, if you have one. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Wonders


Just another label as far as im concerned...

by H. P. Blavatsky
[The Theosophist, Vol. I, No. 1, October, 1879, pp. 5-7]

Are they what they claim to be--students of natural law, of ancient and modern philosophy, and even of exact science? Are they Deists, Atheists, Socialists, Materialists, or Idealists; or are they but a schism of modem Spiritualism--mere visionaries? Are they entitled to any consideration, as capable of discussing philosophy and promoting real science; or should they be treated with the compassionate toleration which one gives to "harmless enthusiasts"? The Theosophical Society has been variously charged with a belief in "miracles," and "miracle-working"; with a secret political object--like the Carbonari; with being spies of an autocratic Czar; with preaching socialistic and nihilistic doctrines; and, mirabile dictu, with having a covert understanding with the French Jesuits, to disrupt modern Spiritualism for a pecuniary consideration! With equal violence they have been denounced as dreamers, by the American Positivists; as fetish-worshippers, by some of the New York press; as revivalists of "moldy superstitions," by the Spiritualists; as infidel emissaries of Satan, by the Christian Church; as the very types of "gobe-mouche," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, F.R.S.; and finally, and most absurdly, some Hindu opponents, with a view to lessening their influence, have flatly charged them with the employment of demons to perform certain phenomena.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

*edit to remove profanity* It's not really possible to show you my New Testament survey textbooks, but Paul declares his rabbi in Acts 22:3.

There is one verse in Acts of Paul mentioning Gamaliel and it does not say he was his rabbi, and there is no information that Gamaliel ever had any disciples.
How about giving the titles at least of you "textbooks" since you can not show us, whatever that means?
Is this a secret cult course for prophets and can not divulge information only for initiates?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's from my New Testament survey courses. Why do you enjoy lying about people?

Maybe you should be more open about your sources, instead of pretending to have all these things given to you as prophecy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And the Torah is "the law" Paul was talking about that he said he was well versed in.

Paul's knowledge of the Law, by looking at his writing, rather than the imaginative historical fiction of Luke, is based on the Greek Old Testament and there is no evidence that he ever studied Hebrew, so the idea that he studied at the Jerusalem temple is not realistic. He was a Hellenized Jew and claims in Galatians that none of the church members in Judea knew him.