andrewcriddle

Suppose, for example, that Jesus had claimed that with his arrival the temple was now redundant and was about to be destroyed by God.

Are you arguing that this would not have been a serious offense under Jewish law ? Or are you just claiming that, although a serious offense, it would not have been described by the Greek word blasphemy ?

(As well as misusing the divine name, the Mishnah lists as capital other religious speech offenses such as being a false prophet.)


Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

It might be an offense or a sacrilege of some sort, but it would not be technically blasphemy, which has a very narrow definition.

I don't say that these kinds of declarations might not be seen as heretical in some way or apostatic, but they wouldn't be specifically called "blasphemy," which has a very technical definition (at least in the Talmud).

It's also a technical distinction that could well be lost on a Roman.

andrewcriddle

My point is that in the Septuagint for example the Greek word blasphemy does not seem to be used as a direct equivalent of the Jewish religious offense of misusing the divine name.

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

As for the Greek word, blasphemia, that does have a fairly broad meaning in Greek, and not necessarily a religious one. It basically means "slander," especially in the sense of trashing somebody's name.

You make a good point that Mark's Greek doesn't necessarily have to correspond precisely with the Hebrew.

Gorit Maqueda

Wow! Do you *really* have the original manuscript? Please, scan it and and send it to me!

stephan huller

I also think mythicist should take a second look at the statement - we have the mind of Christ

Spanky

Yes, you are missing the forest for the trees.

I have yet to know of any human who has calmed a storm, walked on water, fed 5000 people from a few fishes and loaves, sent "demons" into a herd of swine, healed the sick, made the blind see, people became "whole" just by touching his cloak, and don't forget he also rose from the dead.
Sounds like a God (god) to me.

Toto

a totally unproductive and bizarre discussion on Schweitzer's view of Jesus has been split off here

aa5874

The very author who wrote the Jesus Puzzle does NOT accept the historical Jesus in his book "Jesus:Neither God Nor Man".

I too cannot accept what the evidence REFUTES. I cannot accept an historical Jesus which has NOT ever been found.

Now, the NT Canon is about a Divine Jesus--the Son of God--Myth Jesus so I have no need to solve any puzzle.

Those on the Quest for an historical Jesus are the ones who are puzzled and are SEARCHING for a man that FITS their own imagination.

It is virtually accepted that gJohn is NOT an historical account and the very words of Jesus in gJohn are not that of a figure of history. gJohn's Jesus was an invention and is fundamentally without corroboration in the Canon.



Also, the Pauline resurrected Jesus is NOT historical and the Pauline writer ADMITTED he was NOT the Apostle of a human being, did NOT get his gospel from a human being and that his Jesus was God's OWN Son.

In the Synoptics, Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Holy Ghost and a Woman, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

There is NO source of antiquity which contains a credible biography of a human being called Jesus Christ--all we are have left with are forgeries and fiction.

I cannot accept forgeries and fiction as support for an historical Jesus.

I can only consider that Jesus was MYTH and that the NT is a compilation of Myth Fables until credible evidence surfaces to contradict me.

The Synoptics are the only sources that may

EarlDoherty

And what makes Casey infallible? I didn't find him so.

Earl Doherty