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

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

His rabbi was Gameliel, president of the Sanhedrin. That's in Jerusalem. Where do you think the Sanhedrin as located?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

edit on 15-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I never said that or implied that. I don't need to provide a dissertation for every post I make. I didn't pretend anythibg, you made an assumption.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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?

"A Survey of the New Testament 4th Edition", Robert H. Gundry. And not sure what version of the Bible you have approved, but in Acts 22:3 Paul declares Gameliel was his rabbi. It's basic knowledge that Paul studied under Gameliel, u want to challenge 2000 years of church history? On what basis do you do so?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"A Survey of the New Testament 4th Edition", Robert H. Gundry.

According to this book, "We do not know whether Paul ever saw Jesus in person . . ."
So you got these tidbits from somewhere else, my guess, a YouTube video by a pop-culture preacher.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"A Survey of the New Testament 4th Edition", Robert H. Gundry.

According to this book, "We do not know whether Paul ever saw Jesus in person . . ."
So you got these tidbits from somewhere else, my guess, a YouTube video by a pop-culture preacher.

No, i have said the exact same thing. (See THIS post for reference. 7th from the top) There is no definitive statements that Paul met Jesus in person. It is highly likely based on other known facts about Paul. Kinda why Akragon has been complaining about it being an "assumption". "Know" is quite a bit different than "suspect" or an "educated guess". Based on the other evidence, especially about Gameliel being Paul's rabbi it's not feasible that Paul DIDN'T ever see Christ speak in person. It's called "circumstantial evidence". Like I said He was sorta a "big deal". Especially to the Pharisees.


And since I brought up my course because of Gameliel and Paul, how about you post for the class what it says under the subheading "Jewish Education" beginning on page 69? What does it say JM?

Here, I will. I have zero faith that you have the integrity to do so:

Sub-heading: "Jewish Education"

Jewish children received their first lessons in Hebrew history and religion, practical skills, and reading and writing from their parents. The Mosaic Law and Proverbs in the Old Testament contain many injunctions concerning this parental responsibility, which included the employment for physical punishment for failing to learn properly. Jewish boys entered the local synagogue schools at about six years of age. There they used the Old Testament as a textbook at least for reading and possibly for writing as well. Lessons also included simple arithmetic, extrabiblical Jewish tradition, and religious rituals. Besides this narrow academic training, every Jewish boy learned a trade. To become an advanced scholar in the Old Testament, a Jewish young man attached himself as a pupil to a rabbi. Before Paul's Christian conversion, for example, he studied under the famous rabbi Gameliel. (Acts 22:3)"

Chapter: "The Religious and Philosophical Setting of the New Testament"

Textbook: "A Survey of the New Testament", by Robert H. Gundry, pgs. 69-70

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . how about you post for the class what it says under the subheading "Jewish Education" beginning on page 69? What does it say JM?

I don't have the book and was reading the preview pages and found that part I quoted and it does not give page numbers (Google books).
I already said that the one verse in Acts all this speculation is built on does not use the word rabbi. I also said there is no mention anywhere of Gamaliel ever having any disciples. I also already suggested that there could be another way to understand what was being described. I also brought up the notorious unreliability of Acts for a literal history.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I posted the entire subheading from my book. See above.

You folks are arguing over a book that a Roman family wrote for Christians.

ROMAN PISO FAMILY WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT, INVENTED "JESUS"

"We Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity that it was
synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of maintaining control over the masses and to
placate slaves. And, this is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so
much for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie. Our ancestors wrote what they could about
this in our texts."

FROM CHAPTER I (The True Authorship of the New Testament)

"The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso
(pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and
all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and
John the Baptist--are all fictional."

"The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in
history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the
Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!)
characters."

source
Flavius Constantinus (Constantine) (272-337) is wholly responsible for the New Testament we have today. Constantine, after his Father died, had suddenly became King over Gaul, Britain, and Spain, and was quite upset at all of the political/religious dissent and infighting, mostly over the many Gods and differing beliefs. In those times when one stated he was a Christian, it may mean he had belonged to one of many different sects. Christian historians give not so much as a hint of the fighting going on, and the trouble brewing for Constantine.

How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

source

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD

So much in New Testament history hinges on the Rylands Papyrus (P52). After all, this is supposed to be the earliest fragment of the New Testament that we possess. In every standard Introduction to NT, it is said that this tiny piece of writing, which contains only 118 legible letters, is dated "at about 125 AD".

source
See? You argue over nothing of real meaning.

How the Gospels were created Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were: "Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake." (God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

reply to post by autowrench


Have you actually looked at this particular document and where and how it came about? Since you are referencing it to support your point I wonder why your using this particular one from the 1800's? This isn't from any historian is the reason for my question.

I've read quite a bit about the Piso family idea. Personally I found it to be lacking in actual historical data to give it any more consideration. Not to say that its false, I've seen nothing more than the original assertions made by the author of that story to back up those claims.

While I don't ascribe to this particular faith, I don't believe any of the information your giving to be of any merit for an argument against it.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by Johnkie

 

Considering the world is such a #hole with more then what 80% starving and living close to no roof... id say blasphemy are a manmade thing... We are what we are... I agree we should play nice.... But when # keeps hitting you, you gotta hit back sometimes.

Father has given all the resources for man to be able to be successful. You see some make it, some don't. It is lack of will from many, in which why many don't become successful.

So that means im damned to hell?...

Not at all.

Who is more successfull? Being a person of high importance to the society and having a lot of power or a person waking up from the dream. You cannot see the end result when the person is still evolving. Maybe the being of high importance will learn things that will make him evolve even faster later. Maybe some people who are not succeding is being held back for a reason to have such an extreme amount of pent up will that when they get the right moment and can channel it rightly into action they will have an extreme effect on the whole.

reply to post by apushforenlightment

Who is more successfull? Being a person of high importance to the society and having a lot of power or a person waking up from the dream. You cannot see the end result when the person is still evolving. Maybe the being of high importance will learn things that will make him evolve even faster later. Maybe some people who are not succeding is being held back for a reason to have such an extreme amount of pent up will that when they get the right moment and can channel it rightly into action they will have an extreme effect on the whole.

This is correct as a collective. When I say something, I try to explain it in the simplest most terms. But, there are some who are not held back, and sit back for a hand out.

Originally posted by Akragon

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

Please feel free to offer your thoughts on the matter

You get what you put in and people get what they deserve. Or earn, whichever the case.

I couldn't agree more.

FIRST OFF ... Lemme' say - AWESOME DISCUSSION!

Originally posted by Akragon
Blasphemy can be defined as an assult on something divine or holy... so logically words and actions that cause harm to another person is blasphemy...

Two things

.... you defined blasphemy very well ... 'an assault on something divine or holy' ... and yes, people are 'children of God' and have the 'Holy Spirit' dwelling within so people would indeed be holy - IMHO. So I think your thought process on that is right on. (not that you need validation with my opinion ... but I thought I'd give it to you anyways. )

... humans themselves can't agree on what is 'blasphemy'. The word gets tossed around and thrown at people like mudballs. I've seen Muslims on here scream 'blasphemy' at people who believe Jesus is God, and I've seen Christians (in real life) say Muslims are committing 'blasphemy' because they deny God in Jesus.

What is FRIGHTENING is when people think that the world should be run by religious rule of law. I've actually seen people on this website say that Sharia would be good because it would end 'blasphemy' (with a death sentence). THEIR VERSION of 'blasphemy' of course. A version that the majority of the planet disagrees with. And I've enountered many Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - who want Christian rule of law in this country, and in the world. They want it so that God can be honored and that people would be forced to live according to Christian values.

This is why secular rule of law is so important. And really .. the secular rule of law protects people ... which (according to your definition) in turn stops 'blasphemy' against people who are children of god and who have 'the holy spirit' (or the 'god spark' or whatever you want to call it) within them.

So again .. three cheers for SECULAR RULE OF LAW.
It will stop 'blasphemy' more than any religious law.
It will save more lives than any religious law.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I've been following along with all those discussions you mentioned actually...

Originally posted by Akragon
Have you ever heard of Karma in Christianity?

Kind of.

Catholics have something kind of like Karma but don't dare call it Karma because that term isn't Christian. Catholics sort of believe in a shared sin debt. (that's not in the catechism .. that's my own words describing it).

Kind of like a 'collective karma' .. a 'collective sin debt'.

All my words here .. not Catholic words ... Example - we create 'sin debt' when we sin. Jesus died or our sins and paid the debt, yes. But we can 'pay back' for our sin debt and so make Jesus cross not so heavy (god works outside of time and space so this is very possible). If I sin by commiting adultry, I owe a debt. Jesus pays it, but if I also pay for it by my own suffering and then I lower the amount that Jesus pays on the cross. AND .. I can pay the debt of someone else. If I suffer something like a heart attack and I offer those sufferings to God I can pay the debt of sin for myself or someone else and thus make Jesus cross lighter.

That's the thought process anyways.
You won't find it in the Catholic catechism written that way.

When people suffer in this life, they are getting splattered with some bad karma or 'sin debt' from someone. That's one thought in that area.

I read in a Buddhist magazine that I get that in Buddhism there are those who volunteer to be 'suffering souls'. (Catholicism has suffering souls as well). These people in Buddhism volunteer before this lifetime to willingly 'suffer' and thus pay off the bad karma of others so that they may be free from their karma burden and move forward towards enlightenment. It's considered a great great great thing to do. Catholics have 'suffering souls' through their history as well. Padre Pio for example. And many other 'saints' who say that their suffering and offering it to God has paid for graces for others.

Most protestants would have a heart attack over all that, I'm sure.

But Catholics and Buddhists have a lot of similar views when it comes to sin debt/karma debt.
At least, that's how I see it.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Wow... I've never heard such things from a Catholic...

Blasphemer!!

Im sure popes are spinning in their graves as we speak..

reply to post by Akragon


Light of Consciousness magazine (founded by Swami Amar Jyoti) has a good issue on Karma. (Summer 2012). Reading through it, it sounded A LOT like the Catholic beliefs about how suffering can earn grace. Catholics don't say 'earn grace' ... but those are the only words I can come up with to describe it.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Kind of like a 'collective karma' .. a 'collective sin debt'.

All my words here .. not Catholic words ... Example - we create 'sin debt' when we sin. Jesus died or our sins and paid the debt, yes. But we can 'pay back' for our sin debt and so make Jesus cross not so heavy (god works outside of time and space so this is very possible). If I sin by commiting adultry, I owe a debt. Jesus pays it, but if I also pay for it by my own suffering and then I lower the amount that Jesus pays on the cross. AND .. I can pay the debt of someone else. If I suffer something like a heart attack and I offer those sufferings to God I can pay the debt of sin for myself or someone else and thus make Jesus cross lighter.

I can understand collective karma at least - because you can see that each generation inherits from the previous generations. I've never seen where karma works on an individual basis.

I don't understand "sin debt", I used to think I did, but now I realize that I was just saying words that I didn't understand. The mental picture of making the cross lighter seems at least to be a good sentiment. Maybe the more people take responsibility for themselves and others, the cross gets lighter. One day, maybe the cross will go away. Then we will have saved Jesus.

I'm thinking in terms of you saying "(god works outside of time and space ...)" or God works within time and space, but is not limited to linear travel in either one.

I think Supererogation is the word used in the catechism.

Supererogation
The Roman Catholic Church holds that the counsels of perfection are supererogatory acts, which specific Christians may engage in above their moral duties. Similarly, it teaches that to determine how to act, one must engage in reasonable efforts to be sure of what the right actions are; after the reasonable action, the person is in a state of invincible ignorance and guiltless of wrongdoing, but to undertake more than reasonable actions to overcome ignorance is supererogatory, and praiseworthy.

Now I have to look up "invincible ignorance"

a reply to: pthena

I think collective karma and sin debt go hand in hand. I'm not an expert in this area, of course, but that's kind of how I see it. And then there is the thought that Jesus suffering 'paid our sin debt' ... I've read that thought as well.