thief of fire

john 10


My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

Atheos

I sit corrected, thank you. As you can tell I was only considering the "passion" sections of each account.

Minimalist

braces_for_impact

Originally posted by mountainman:
True. It wasn't my intent to argue that the concept of blasphemy didn't exist as historical fact, it does. My intent was to express the opinion that blasphemy as a concept is a derail to free speech. That free speech is a higher standard to aspire to than to be one that avoids blasphemy.

That's an excellent point, and to my mind, one more reason not to like it.

Steven Carr

James Crossley writes about how many people were crucified by the Romans. 'Indiscriminate crucifixions were handed out'.

Why then would Christians have been embarrassed about a crucifixion, which we are told was a 'shameful' death?

And why does Paul never refer to Roman injustice in crucifying Jesus and instead reminds his readers that they 'do not bear the sword for nothing'?

Crossley also points out that followers go 'well beyond what was actually said'. Why then are all 'words of the Lord' in Paul's letters deemed to be historical?

Crossley also points out that real historical religious leaders routinely have miracle stories attached to them.

So why does Paul scoff at Jews for wanting to hear miracle stories - as though there were none?

Steven Carr

And if indiscriminate crucifixions were handed out, why were followers of Jesus not hounded by the Romans?

Roger Pearse

In our society, however, there is little concern about blasphemy. The true test for advocates of free speech is whether they feel the same about things which the great and good DO want to suppress. In other words, does the right to free speech permit "racism", "sexism", "anti-semitism", "homophobia", "<insert new group not to be criticised here>ism" etc? That, I find, tends to be a sterner test.

Any of us may dismiss vices which we have no temptation to commit.

dog-on

Perhaps we should be using the original Aramaic text of the Life of Brian?

mountainman

Hey YALLA,

IMO the gospels got everything seriously wrong purposefully. As far as I am concerned they are evidence of pious forgery, and we follow them as history to our own peril. The importance of the "Life of Brian" is IMO being able to laugh out loud at the concept of BLASPHEMY, which in ages past was punished by death at the hands of authoritarian believers.

The "Life of Brian" is thus a landmark in the history of blasphemy, however imo we need to examine the history of blashemy and the church, and the reasons that certain other texts were to be classified as "blasphemous". Hence the importance of understanding Eusebius's position on blasphemy.

The way I see it there were already laws in place for those who denigrated the majesty of the emperor, including his ideas about religion and history.

mountainman

Until only just recently. Before then people were executed for it. See also for example the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum". The historical study of blasphemy is quite illuminating. It is clear that Emperor Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" against Porphyry and Arius of Alexandria because of their "blasphemy", but it is not yet clear that the whole point of the Council of Nicaea was to confront this blasphemy, and control it (with the army).