Blasphemy. Just how serious is it?

[OnceConvinced]

My other thread got derailed by personal attacks, so I'm going to try it again.

Blasphemy. Just how serious is it? Is it worse than any other sin? If so why?

Blasphemy is the disrespectful use of the name of one or more gods. It may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters; it is also sometimes defined as language expressing disapproved beliefs, or disbelief. Sometimes blasphemy is used loosely to mean any profane language.

In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable. In this sense, the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of "blasphemy against learning".

Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the deity or deities of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.

Other questions:

Why would it be such a problem for God? Does it affect him in any way?

What negative affects does it have on people?

[Bennettresearch]

Jesus gave his life for any who would call on His name for salvation, no man taking it from Him. He could have easily avoided harm, but yielded Himself to men, becoming a curse on the tree for all sinners. His ministry was to die for sins men would repent of. Jesus, the Father, and the angels allowed men to castigate Jesus, torturing Him, crucifying Him. Jesus forgave those men from the cross, saying they didn't know what they were doing, their acts being fulfillment of prophesy found in Psalm 22.

I will point out that the 'Prophecy" is Psalm 22 is based on a purposeful mistranslation. To say that Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Jesus is either highly dishonest , or highly ignorant. It is based on the mistranslation of the phrase
"k'ari", which is properly translated (and was translated properly earlier in the Psalms) as 'Like a lion'. It was mistranslated as 'pierced' by people looking for a prophecy. The rest of the Psalm , even after mistranslation does not sound like
Jesus at all. Verse 6 talks about "I am but a worm", which would really negate the
Christian concept of Jesus. So, Psalm 22 is not only mistranslated, but the mistranslation is taken out of context.

If you are going to try to use the Old Testament to justify your New Testament beliefs, at least get the translation and context right.

When it comes to understanding the Old testament, I think this comic clip by Lewis Black should illuminate information for you

Hi,

This guy is hilarious, the comedian of course. Actually, scholars look to Isaiah ch 51-53 as to the scriptures Paul refers to to justify his belief about the crucifixion. This is spurious text that was added to Isaiah at a later date and has no historical context. I think you'll find the next two quotes interesting,

“Thus over the course of the second and third centuries, centrist Christians were able to create the impression of a singular, monolinear history of the Christian church.� page 7

"And so, before the destruction of the temple, early Jesus people and Christians had already started to point to this or that feature of the history of Israel in order to claim some link with the illustrious traditions of Israel. As we shall see, all of the early myths about Jesus were attempts to paint him and his followers in acceptable colors from the Israel epic." pages 14-15

Mack, Burton L; Who Wrote the New Testament?. Harper San Francisco, San Francisco 1995.

God save us from the Judaizers

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

We don't know who the writers were.

We?

Most authentic Bible scholars agree on authorship of most books of the Bible. It's all quite simple, but listening to bible skeptics will certainly cause confusion about that subject.

Thee is not indication that the author of Mark was a Jew or was writing to Jews.

What would require a gospel to be written by a Jew or writing only to Jews?

Not much is known about Mark, but we have enough to confidently identify him as the author. His cousin Barnabus introduced him to the ministry, and the young man accompanied Paul on the first of Paul's long journeys, meeting the other living apostles Paul encountered, then years later joined Paul at Rome. His was not a first hand report of the ministry of Jesus, but nothing he wrote was contested by any apostle. Modern atheists like to discredit Mark, but the early Church loved him. I consider these latter day attacks to be frivolous.

The author of Matthew was a Diaspora Jew in possibly Antioch or Alexandra and was not a disciple as his use of Mark, the lateness of the writing and his misreading of the LXX as prophesies about Jesus.

An opinion. Based on facts in Matthew it was written between AD 50-70 at a time the Church was rapidly expanding, that letter chiefly distributed out of Antioch. The original letter was penned by Matthew Levi, one of the original apostles. The earliest of Church writers agreed on his identity. Nobody today can be as authoritative as they were then. You are free to follow wild claims to the contrary. Christians rest on evidences and writings from such Fathers as Eusebius c. AD 325 quoting Papias (c. AD 100) having Matthew writing it in Ababic, and later, according to Irenius composed his letter in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

It is not a proved fact Matthew misread the LXX concerning fulfilled prophecies of Jesus. Contrarily, all the prophetic fulfillments have been conclusive among reasonable people who can read and comprehend scriptures. Some Jews claim that, and now atheists pitting Jews against Christians. From the earliest of Christian scholars including Paul there has been no such widely held belief

The unknown author of Luke was a gentile even in the dubious traditions and the unknown author of John was influenced by Gnostic tradition and is every bit a Greek writing.

The author of Luke is believed to also have written Acts, both books addressed to Theophilus. His use of "we" shows he was a participant throughout. A reference to an event within the Church at Antioch in the Codex Bezae places the author on the Acts scene, particularly during the ministry of Paul and Barnabus. The writer accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi on his second journey. His personal involvement with Paul ended upon Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, then picked back up with Paul to Rome. He was a close associate of Paul. Scholars took a process of elimination in securing the authorship. It was not Timothy, Mark, anyone in the list at Acts 20:4-6, Epaphrus, or any Jew like Jesus Justis, the author being a converted Gentile. There is quite a large amount of proofs that leave only the Greek speaking Luke as author of both books.

Paul by all accounts was a failed Pharisee and Diaspora Jew and tradition has him a member of of the Tarsus polis and he writes in his letters that he was the kinsman of Herod as well as he writes he teaches a different Jesus and Gospel then those from James where his was received by a direct revelation for Jesus himself. He gives little detail about the Jesus of the flesh and unlike the gospel stories claims Jesus was was so unnoticed that the demons killed him not knowing who he was.
So it seems your overstated claim is both questionable and has not real support.
Beelzebub was the god of healing as well as the Lord of the flies.

There is so much disinformation there I would require an hour of posting to deal with it all. I call all that absurd. "Failed pharisee"! Laughable. Paul remained admitted to synagogues as a Pharisee. He continued to minister among the Jews in that capacity alongside his Christian ministry. No other Jew was capable of contesting him. The only recourse some Jews had was to band together and go ahead of Paul to spread lies about him. That fact alone shows why the rest of that diatribe is not worth commenting on. I conclude you wrote that to stir up a mess, not at all interested in fact-finding.

I believe this thread has sunk to such a low level of worth it isn't worth time playing with it. You guys are funny.

Whew,

What a stretch. Do you know for a fact that none of the Apostles, or Jesus, disagreed with Paul? Revelation is a rather scathing dissention to the followers of Paul and John says that this was given to him by Jesus. In my test of an exposition, which I will eventually post, no one has been able to adequately dispute Revelation 2:2 as referring to Paul.

Craig

[Word_Swordsman]

What a stretch. Do you know for a fact that none of the Apostles, or Jesus, disagreed with Paul? Revelation is a rather scathing dissention to the followers of Paul and John says that this was given to him by Jesus. In my test of an exposition, which I will eventually post, no one has been able to adequately dispute Revelation 2:2 as referring to Paul.

Craig

There isn't a single mention in the New Testament of any apostle disagreeing with Paul, nor did Paul disagree with his own teachings except as an unconverted Pharisee hunting Christians down. Paul had nothing to do with John's Revelation, having died well before it's writing. Rev. 2:2 is a direct quote of Jesus as witnessed by John.

[Bennettresearch]

What a stretch. Do you know for a fact that none of the Apostles, or Jesus, disagreed with Paul? Revelation is a rather scathing dissention to the followers of Paul and John says that this was given to him by Jesus. In my test of an exposition, which I will eventually post, no one has been able to adequately dispute Revelation 2:2 as referring to Paul.

Craig

There isn't a single mention in the New Testament of any apostle disagreeing with Paul, nor did Paul disagree with his own teachings except as an unconverted Pharisee hunting Christians down. Paul had nothing to do with John's Revelation, having died well before it's writing. Rev. 2:2 is a direct quote of Jesus as witnessed by John.

There is no mention of John and Paul being friends either, or that John ever accepted Paul as a fellow Apostle. Seing the political bias in Acts just shows that any of this dissention would be conveniently omitted. Why didn't Paul ask of or try and visit John in Ephesus? Perhaps I must explain that Rev 2:2 is referring to Paul and not written by him.

Craig

[Word_Swordsman]

There is no mention of John and Paul being friends either, or that John ever accepted Paul as a fellow Apostle. Seing the political bias in Acts just shows that any of this dissention would be conveniently omitted. Why didn't Paul ask of or try and visit John in Ephesus? Perhaps I must explain that Rev 2:2 is referring to Paul and not written by him. Craig

Do ya maybe suppose there wasn't much "friendship" between the two, with Paul dying about AD 68, while John lived to about 100, writing his material around AD 90? Much of John's later years were spent sentenced to the island of Patmos where Rome kept their political prisoners. I doubt the two ever met. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Paul or John disagreed with the other.

[Bennettresearch]

There is no mention of John and Paul being friends either, or that John ever accepted Paul as a fellow Apostle. Seing the political bias in Acts just shows that any of this dissention would be conveniently omitted. Why didn't Paul ask of or try and visit John in Ephesus? Perhaps I must explain that Rev 2:2 is referring to Paul and not written by him. Craig

Do ya maybe suppose there wasn't much "friendship" between the two, with Paul dying about AD 68, while John lived to about 100, writing his material around AD 90? Much of John's later years were spent sentenced to the island of Patmos where Rome kept their political prisoners. I doubt the two ever met. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Paul or John disagreed with the other.

For a supporter of Paul you haven't researched it much. The book of Acts has John hanging around when Paul showed up. John disappears from Acts and it continues on to Paul's esploits from there. No mention of John accepting Paul or them being "friends". There is no evidence that John accepted Paul and Revelation is pointing the finger right at him.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

Oh darn,

I forgot the question of the post!!!!!

I think that they should bring back burning people at the stake. Talk about your block parties. Of course I would want to decide who was a blasphemer so I could tell people to keep their hands off of my woman, Paris Hilton. She's too skinny anyway.

Craig

[Word_Swordsman]

For a supporter of Paul you haven't researched it much. The book of Acts has John hanging around when Paul showed up. John disappears from Acts and it continues on to Paul's esploits from there. No mention of John accepting Paul or them being "friends". There is no evidence that John accepted Paul and Revelation is pointing the finger right at him.
Craig

John was present at the first meeting of disciples in Acts 15, attended by Paul, who carried an epistle of agreement from the meeting out to Antioch. All were in agreement in that meeting, Paul announcing the minutes. Thgis oughtto show John accepted Paul: Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

If Paul had that wrong the remaining apostles, including John, would have known of Paul's claim. There is nothing to support your claim about John v. Paul.

Other than that personal meeting of the two there is nothing I know of in the Bible mentioning Paul in connection with the apostle John or for that matter several others. None of that reasonably suggests Paul didn't along with them. Peter commended Paul's epistles, while there is no report from any disciple in the NT showing disdain for Paul or of Paul for any disciple in good standing. John is recorded to have mostly walked with Peter, Paul having met up with only a few times, the one time in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the event in Galatians 2 referencing when the two were at Antioch at the same time. Peter called Paul "our beloved brother" even though Paul had chastened Peter over circumcision of Gentile believers.

The announcements in the beginning of Revelation are clearly addressed to seven churches, not to any one individual apostle.

[Bennettresearch]

For a supporter of Paul you haven't researched it much. The book of Acts has John hanging around when Paul showed up. John disappears from Acts and it continues on to Paul's esploits from there. No mention of John accepting Paul or them being "friends". There is no evidence that John accepted Paul and Revelation is pointing the finger right at him.
Craig

John was present at the first meeting of disciples in Acts 15, attended by Paul, who carried an epistle of agreement from the meeting out to Antioch. All were in agreement in that meeting, Paul announcing the minutes. Thgis oughtto show John accepted Paul: Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

If Paul had that wrong the remaining apostles, including John, would have known of Paul's claim. There is nothing to support your claim about John v. Paul.

Other than that personal meeting of the two there is nothing I know of in the Bible mentioning Paul in connection with the apostle John or for that matter several others. None of that reasonably suggests Paul didn't along with them. Peter commended Paul's epistles, while there is no report from any disciple in the NT showing disdain for Paul or of Paul for any disciple in good standing. John is recorded to have mostly walked with Peter, Paul having met up with only a few times, the one time in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the event in Galatians 2 referencing when the two were at Antioch at the same time. Peter called Paul "our beloved brother" even though Paul had chastened Peter over circumcision of Gentile believers.

The announcements in the beginning of Revelation are clearly addressed to seven churches, not to any one individual apostle.

Hey WS

I would expect as much coming from someone who takes these stories as the unadulterated truth. Of course the author of acts would try and write John into the story, but there is no proof of the veracity of this event and there is proof that Paul wasn't accepted as an Apostle. Revelation disagrees with you. Rev 2:2 and Rev 21:14. This doesn't acknowledge any other apostles than those selected by Jesus.

Why would Jesus talk to Paul and exclude all of the other Apostles? Why is the Pentacost so vague about what they received from the Holy Spirit? If Jesus went around talking to people why didn't He talk to them? The story doesn't pass the laugh test.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

Regardless, God will let you wander around thinking you do well, doing what is right in your own eyes, then burn forever.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Thank you.

Per Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

God is not going to take dominion and force anyone to start doing right. Doing so is your responsibility. Meanwhile, He allows a world of fools to wander who dictate their own steps toward eternal destiny. You will get what you say.

When your god decides to grow up and stop playing childish games with humanity he can address me in either of the two languages I'm fluent in. However, I seriously doubt such an overwhelmingly stupid deity will be able to indulge anyone in intelligent conversation.

Hey Beto,

Is your suit fire proof? You'd be a good candidate for one of my block parties, the guest of honor as we burn you at the stake. Durnit, they should have never stopped doing that.

Craig