Blasphemy

by ClassAvenger 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mizpah

  I do not object to your right to pursue whatever course you choose and to believe whatever conclusions you reach. But I do question some of your statements upon which you base your premise.

  1. There is no consensus among "modern scholars" as to the origin of Christian teachings. Scholars have as many theories as clergymen have doctrine.

  2. If the scrolls that were found in and around Qumran prove not to be of the Essenes, then all your speculations about the Essenes being the main influence of Christian belief mean nothing.

  In the past few years, we've heard of many theories about where Christ got his knowledge. A few years ago, speculation was made about Christ having travelled to India to learn from the great mystics. Theories and speculations come and go. But the New Testament remains the only reliable record of Christ and his teachings. In it, his birth, his early childhood and his ministry clearly shows the Jewish origins of his life and teachings.
• 

  ashitaka

  Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

  LOL.. Couldn't agree with you more.

  ash
• 

  Rush

  mizpah said above:

  I'm always concerned by the scholars who are quick to cast doubts upon the teachings of Christ. The New Testament writings have been well established and accepted by Christians for nearly two millenia. But some scholars seem quick to establish a theory upon every new discovery. One really has to question their motives.

  i'm more worried about people who aren't prepared to entertain evidence that apparently contradicts the 'word of god'. i think being quick to criticise is a healthy attitude. i would rather have the evidence presented to me by a man who accepts his fallibility than someone who claims god as their source.

  with regards to 'questioning their motives'. men seek the truth. it has always been the tactic of those embattled by logic to resort to questioning motives. it really shouldn't matter if the paleontologist is an evolutionist or a creationist, let the bones speak for themselves.

  Rush.
• 

  peacefulpete

  If we assume the verse as reads today means that there are differing consequences resulting from sins against the Son and Father from those against the Holy Spirit; we are ,if Trinitarian, assigning greater importance to heading the Spirit over heeding the Father or Son. If we take a nonTrinitarian stance then we are suggesting that it is possible to know the Son's and Father's will, so as to defy it, without the help of the Spirit. It is only logical to seek a simpler answer. The answer I proposed is consistent with Jewish phrasology and early Christian doctrine. Simply said the writer was teaching that sins against Jesus and his father could be forgiven unless the sinner acts with impunity and willfulness. (contrary to the spirit of truth). That forgiveness was contingent upon contrition was both a Christian and Essene teaching.
• 

  ninecharger

  Mizpah,
  

  There does not even seem to have been a consensus among Christians from the word GO either, never mind modern scholars.

  Paul vs Jerusalem, Paul vs Simon Peter, Apollos vs Paul, the sect of Nicolaius, Athanasius vs Arius, Greek vs Roman Church, then the reformation where apostates and heretics flourished. (What? Protestantism is in line with God's will?) Apostates all!! Are you a protestant apostasising? Are you an ex JW? Are you ex RC? What's the difference.

  There is no consensus either among Christians or scholars, except when it suits them. You just pick the sect or cult that suits the way you choose to see things. And don't say your particular view is backed up in the Babble, cause they all do too...

  They are all charlatans and gangsters.

  The good news that all great religions bring " and which so many have been glad to hear, zealous to preach, but reluctant, apparently, to demonstrate, is that God is love, that he can be, and is to be loved, and that ALL without exception are his children."

  9
• 

  mizpah

  Peacefulpete:

  Of course there are parallels between any groups that draw from the Jewish faith. So, it should not be surprising that similar teachings existed between Christians, Pharisees, Essenes and other religious groups of the day. But this does not mean that the origins of Christianity came from these sources. The primary source for all was the scrolls that made up the Old Testament.

  Ninecharger:

  I'm not aware that there were conflicts with Paul and the Jerusalem church, Apollos and Peter. The Jerusalem church agreed with Paul. It was some of the Corinthians who were dividing their loyalties between Paul and Apollos not Paul and Apollos themselves. And, finally, Peter ended up accepting Paul's reproach for his error and corrected his conduct. All three examples are good ones for showing that consensus DID exist in the early church among the majority of faithful. It was this consensus that kept the congregations unified in Christ for most of the 1st century.
• 

  christopher

  This is a sad conversation. You can thank Constantine for the survival of Christianity.It is he who had your holy book put together. He brought a bunch of people togather and told them to write a bible. They put things in, threw things out and when they couldn't agree Constantine made sur that they did. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire, poured money into it, built churches and jesus freaks were off and running,otherwise they would have died on the vine. mizpah your Christtian BRAINWASHING HAS BEEN THROUGH. If you can't that the bible is nothing more than myth and a glimpse into history, then i guess your doomed. Tell me how you fit thirty million species of animals into a ark.
• 

  avishai

  Jesus, I did'nt know it was so bad. Goddamn. Why would God have such an issue w/ people calling him names, & yet readily forgive pedophiles & murderers? It never made any sense to me. I've had girlfriends that have no prob w/ me saying all the obscenities in the book. Profanity, however, was right out. God. what a mess
• 

  Double Edge

  Re: fitting all of the animals on to Noah's Ark.... here is one author's take on it:

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
• 

  meadow77

  Just to throw my 2 cents in.... I have always assumed from the passage about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; blaspheming the holy spirit meant to attribute good works to the devil. In other words when Jesus cast the devils out and into the pigs, people accused him of doing that through the power of Satan. Any thoughts?