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

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

Mark 3:30 is "just wrong"?

Okay. Lol

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

That is hardly the same... the concept of eternal life is mentoned through out the texts...

You're using one verse to claim that the law of Blasphemy doesn't apply because it was directed at a specific audience.

In mark you can also find Jesus saying what comes out of the mouth defiles a man... does that not apply either since it was directed at said audience?

reply to post by Akragon


No, not necessarily because it was directed at a specific audience. As I said, it doesn't apply because Jesus isnt here in the midst of us doing miracles in front of our faces and we attribute those miracles to the devil. That's what made blasphemy exclusive, His presence doing miracles right in front of their face. Those Pharisees knew only God could deliver someone from demonic power.

Because they said He (Jesus, capital H) "hath an evil spirit".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I don't know about you but i don't attribute anything to "the devil"...

obviously they didn't know what they were talking about... IF Jesus speaks for God, why would he not be able to cast out demons?

I guess this also depends on ones definition of "the holy spirit"... i know yours.

Mine is quite different

reply to post by Akragon


Okay, if you're worried about committing the unforgivable sin then never say Jesus is the devil or works miracles by the power of the devil and you'll be fine. There are certain miracles mentioned in one gospel that the other gospels do not mention. The spitting in the mud to heal a blind man is one example. Are they to be rejected since they have a single source? Of course not. Paul also said in acts that Jesus taught him that "it is better to give than to receive", but i challenge you to find that statement by Christ in any of the gospels. Christ told Paul that one personally, yet we don't question that verse because it has only one source. Mark 3:30 is the key to unlocking the "unforgivable sin".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Okay, if you're worried about committing the unforgivable sin then never say Jesus is the devil or works miracles by the power of the devil and you'll be fine. There are certain miracles mentioned in one gospel that the other gospels do not mention. The spitting in the mud to heal a blind man is one example. Are they to be rejected since they have a single source? Of course not. Paul also said in acts that Jesus taught him that "it is better to give than to receive", but i challenge you to find that statement by Christ in any of the gospels. Christ told Paul that one personally, yet we don't question that verse because it has only one source. Mark 3:30 is the key to unlocking the "unforgivable sin".

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

haha... no my friend im not worried in the least. This is just a thread for discussion of the topic...

Paul also said in acts that Jesus taught him that "it is better to give than to receive", but i challenge you to find that statement by Christ in any of the gospels.

And i will take that challenge...

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Done....

Paul is a fraud, Jesus didn't tell him squat... (imho)

but lets stay on topic....

reply to post by Akragon


Not so fast.. Acts 20:35. Please find that statement in one of the gospels. It has quotation marks around it. It's a direct quote.

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

How is that applicable to works of antiquity? Quite a few Biblical terms or words carry a totally different secular meaning today in modern times.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Not so fast.. Acts 20:35. Please find that statement in one of the gospels. It has quotation marks around it. It's a direct quote.

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

acts 20
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Luke 6:30
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

Not only that but he told his followers to give everything they had to the poor and follow him...

Paul said its more blessed to give...

Jesus said give in hope to recieve nothing in return...

Jesus trumps paul...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Mark 3:30 is "just wrong"?

Okay. Lol

How could you possibly think that was what I meant?
I meant what you said was wrong,

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

Let me quote the verse,

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

It only says they came down from Jerusalem, and says nothing about them witnessing anything, just that they said something.
Right after it says that, it says Jesus' family thought he was insane. They wanted to get ahold of him. The main topic of the chapter is Jesus chooses twelve disciples who he was to empower with the ability to cast out demons, so when the story continues, and Jesus "calls them over" it means the disciples, then he gives the line I quoted earlier about the unpardonable sin.
Jesus' family had not yet gotten to Jesus to get ahold of him, so there is no reason to think the "teachers of the law" did either.
The point is that what Jesus was saying was not restricted to people, like you claim, who witnessed Jesus casting out demons because there is nothing to indicate that the people who said he had a demon was who he was talking to (or had actually personally witnessed anything), and the wording of what he said indicates a wide application of the concept, for everyone, for all time.

Originally posted by benrl

I can look at someone in anger, it is as bad to Jesus as murder, but I can heed the call to repentance and still be forgiven, even of murder.

It is the not heeding the call of the spirit that is the blasphemy.

10 Hail Mary's and all is forgiven.

Not exactly a conviction I would care to instill in my children.

reply to post by pieleg

10 Hail Mary's and all is forgiven. Not exactly a conviction I would care to instill in my children.

AS you shouldn't the Catholic church is tainted from Rome, Constantine perverted the christian faith to fit his means, and created a Holy roman empire that stands to day.

Catholicism has nothing to do with Christ, it is Semiramis and Tammuz worship, and many believe it is the "whore of Babylon " that is bathed in the blood of the saints.

And even to this day other christian churches are tainted by what Constantine added, Celebration of the fertility festivals and Yule all in the name of gaining the acceptance of the masses of rome who wanted to keep their Pagan practices.

Originally posted by benrl

AS you shouldn't the Catholic church is tainted from Rome, Constantine perverted the christian faith to fit his means, and created a Holy roman empire that stands to day.

I wouldn't use the word 'tainted' so to speak. Christianity was but the latest in a long long line of religions to follow the same story line, with few minor adjustments. Thus, 'adjusted' would be more appropriate than 'tainted'.

reply to post by pieleg


Well, things like Celibate priest which has ended real well for catholics, is a direct result of this taint of the practices of the cults of the time.

The bible says a leader in the church should be married to one women, and run his family well...

So Biblical teaching= Married Priest with kids...

Roman Beliefs, Celibate nuns and priest, again we know how that ends...

Tainted is the right word

reply to post by benrl


Fair play, but not all priests are child abusers, and not all married.. reverends(?) are stand-up guys.

Look at the Church of England - women aren't good enough to be Bishops, yet the Bible, in parts at least, states that all humans are equal.

Or all the wars in some God or another's name?

People will always take what they want from religion, and religions will always 'adapt' to try and best-fit the current culture.

reply to post by pieleg

Fair play, but not all priests are child abusers, and not all married.. reverends(?) are stand-up guys. Look at the Church of England - women aren't good enough to be Bishops, yet the Bible, in parts at least, states that all humans are equal. Or all the wars in some God or another's name? People will always take what they want from religion, and religions will always 'adapt' to try and best-fit the current culture.

I can only tell you my view, the bible warns of a time when false doctrines of demons would be prevalent through out all the christian faiths.

Things like the God that loves will torment you forever if you mess up... Wow, how many Christians and none Christians stumble over this?

When the bible never says human souls will be tormented for ever and ever, The bible list 3 places that the english translation call HELL, yet they are three distinct and different things doctrinally.

Yet its taught as one thing and has become the biggest stumbling block in the concept of Gods love.

Sheol, Holding area for humans for judgement day.

Abusso, The place where the most evil angels are held.

Tarteras or the lake of fire, Where the soul is destroyed, not tormented, again for failure to heed the free gift.

BUT its all HELL to everyone, and thats from catholic teachings, thats where the taint began, thats kinda funny how one of the biggest problems people have from the Christian God is all misunderstood because of the most EVIL Denomination of the faith...

Catholics.

reply to post by benrl


I would imagine that hell, of any type, and heaven, were merely control tactics to keep the masses in line back in the day. I don't think any one particular denomination can be assigned blame, as hypocrisy exists in every religion.

I also think that the main problem did not arise through the misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misleading use of the idea of hell, rather the poor understanding of the origins of religion. As far as I am aware, Christianity, amongst other modern religions can all be traced back to ancient times (possibly Egypt or Greece) when people tried to explain the rising of the sun, changing seasons, and the cosmos.

reply to post by Akragon


Not online, do you have a physical bible? Acts 20:35 the quote from Jesus has quotation marks around it making it a direct quotation, not a paraphrase. So where is that direct quotation from in the gospels. A quote bro, not a paraphrase.

reply to post by jmdewey60


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.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Not online, do you have a physical bible? Acts 20:35 the quote from Jesus has quotation marks around it making it a direct quotation, not a paraphrase. So where is that direct quotation from in the gospels. A quote bro, not a paraphrase.

Paul could have easily read the text and wrote his own words... There was clearly another piece of scripture going around in the time after the crucifiction...

I also don't remember any "quotes" from Jesus within acts... though its been a while since i've been through that book...

The point is... the idea he is trying to convey is not the same as what Jesus said on the subject... He gives the impression that "recieving" is practically pointless while giving is holy... Paul says "more blessed" meaning recieving has its rewards...