- You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas.

You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas. — Leontiskos

Let's go point by point:

1.From My Jewish Learning

Blasphemy means reviling God. In Hebrew it is known as birkat hashem, literally “blessing [euphemism for cursing] the Name [of God].” The one guilty of this offense is called a megaddef (blasphemer) ...

It is, however, none too clear what exactly is involved in the offense. Does it mean to insult God, or does it mean to curse God?

According to the Gospels of Matthew (26: 63-6) and Mark (14: 53-64) Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy, but New Testament scholars have puzzled over both the question of the historicity of the event and the precise nature of the offense.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

(Luke 23:1-2)

To subvert the nation is to deny its laws. The second part supports what I said in 4.

2. [As it turns out Jews also sometimes thought that a human could become divine. [/quote] Bart Ehrman

3.

Towards the end of the accounts of all four canonical Gospels, in the narrative of the Passion of Jesus, the title "King of the Jews" leads to charges against Jesus that result in his crucifixion.

(Jesus, King of the Jews -Wikipedia)

This also helps explain why the Roman authorities would get involved. Jesus vs Caesar.

4. See 1 above.

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

Fourth, related to the others, is the claim to be the Messiah. The Messiah is divine but is not God. — Fooloso4

Feel free to defend either of these two claims. The second claim is more truly <It was considered blasphemy to claim to be the messiah>.

Refusing to "go over the top" or to open fire when instructed, is an act of cowardice. — Tarskian

Not sure how it is relevant in a discussion about Christianity.

Christianity is deemed to have some responsibility for the fact that Germany lost both world wars: — Tarskian

And this at least in the case of WW2, it has been a good thing, I would say.

Anyway... 'self-defence' doesn't make oneself a 'brute', in my view. If one acts violently only when an existential threat is there, I wouldn't consider that an act of 'brutality'. 'Brutality' is when one kills, oppresses etc in other situations where other means could bring the same result. For instance, I would say that killing unarmed war prisoners is an act of brutality (it is considered a war crime after all), whereas killing during a battle isn't. I don't think that all soldiers are 'brutes' because they are willing to kill in battle. I would say that for many of them violence is only a tragic necessity.

But even any 'theological' defence of 'self-defence' in Christianity is IMO questionable, let alone a defence of being a 'brute'. Frankly, I see even self-defence as problematic if one wants to follow the Gospels, Paul etc

But again I am not sure of what your point is.

But even any 'theological' defence of 'self-defence' in Christianity is IMO questionable — boundless

It is obvious that there are situations in which fighting is simply necessary. That is indeed difficult to reconcile with the ambiguous, nebulous and misleading notion of fake pacifism typically advocated by Christians, which I consider to be in violation of the most fundamental laws of nature.

This problem does not exist in Islam. The following is a typical jurisprudential ruling in Islam on the matter:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21932/islamic-ruling-on-self-defence

Protecting oneself and one’s honour, mind, wealth and religion is a well-established basic principle in Islam. These are the five essentials which are well known to Muslims. A person has to defend himself; it is not permissible for him to consume that which will harm him, and it is not permissible for him to allow anyone to harm him. If a person or a vicious animal etc attacks him, he has to defend himself, or his family or his property, and if he is killed he is counted as a shaheed (martyr), and the killer will be in Hell.

This ruling is completely in line with human nature, with biology, and with the laws of nature. On the other hand, I reject the following statement:

Matthew 5:39. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I will never endorse this view. In general, I have converted from Christianity to Islam for various reasons but mostly because I consider a large number of Christian teachings to be in violation of the laws of nature and to be contrary to very basic tenets of fundamental biology.

Feel free to defend either of these two claims. The second claim is more truly <It was considered blasphemy to claim to be the messiah>. — Leontiskos

I point to sources that support what you claim I made up, The fact is, I did not. If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. I would accuse you of arguing in good faith when you made the accusation, but giving you the benefit of doubt it could have simply been ignorance.

My post began:

First, the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. — Fooloso4

This is true. The term means, as quoted above, reviling God. Convicting Jesus for blasphemy is not evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity. See, for example, Acts 6:11:

Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and God.

According to the commentary at Bible Study tools:

... that is, against the law of Moses, and so against God, who gave the law to Moses, as appears from ( Acts 6:13 ) the blasphemous words seem to be, with respect to the ceremonial law, and the abrogation of it, which Stephen might insist upon, and they charged with blasphemy; see ( Acts 6:14 )

I point to sources that support what you claim I made up. — Fooloso4

Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. :roll:

"To break the law is blasphemy." This is the sort of nonsense that most 10 year-old Christians or Jews could correct. To see someone with such ignorance speak with such confidence is remarkable.

If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. — Fooloso4

The irony. :lol:

Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. — Leontiskos

Apparently, you are trying to walk back your claim that:

You are making things up left and right — Leontiskos

You are doing everything you can to distance yourself from that claim.

Acts, as quoted and referenced, says that Stephen spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God. To speak blasphemous words against Moses means to speak against the Laws of Moses.

In Luke we find:

The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

(5:21)

Jesus response is:

But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

(5:24)

This is fully in accord with what I said above:

the term 'divine' did not mean that someone who was called divine is a god, but rather has an important relationship to God. A son of God, for example. — Fooloso4

You seem to have missed the larger picture. The Gospel accounts are not historical accounts. They are polemical. They accuse the Jewish leaders of bearing false witness, including charges of blasphemy. And, as is evident in Acts, this meant blasphemous words against the Law. The division between the Jewish followers of Jesus and those who came to be known as Christians who did not follow the Law begins with Paul. Acts is attributed to Luke, who was Paul's companion. The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. To bear false witness is not to give an accurate historical account.

Acts, as quoted and referenced, says that Stephen spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God. To speak blasphemous words against Moses means to speak against the Laws of Moses. — Fooloso4

Here is your argument:

• Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
• Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy.

I can explain why this is a non sequitur if you need me to.

Breaking the Law is not blasphemy, but the one who claims to have power over the Law blasphemes if they are not above the Law (as God is above the Law):

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” — Matthew 12:6-8

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like placing himself above the temple, or calling himself lord of the sabbath, or teaching and reinterpreting the Law "with authority," or forgiving sins. These are all the unique prerogatives of God, and not of lesser divine beings. Jesus and his accusers both know this.

The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. — Fooloso4

You are missing the subtlety of the writings entirely. The subtlety of the Gospels and the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. The charge of blasphemy is both correct and incorrect. It is correct in that it is not a conspiracy theory spun up out of nowhere; it is incorrect in that God's Son has God's prerogatives. What is blasphemous for others is not blasphemous for him.

For example, Luke 5:24 does not say, as you seem to think it does, "Oh, I'm not God but I can forgive sins anyway." Instead he says, "I, in my uniqueness as the Son of man,* can forgive sins, and to prove it I will cure this paralytic." The premise that only God can forgive sins is left untouched, significantly. The center of that text is the forgiveness of sins, and the healing is meant to support Jesus' authority to forgive sins.

* Cf. Daniel 7

Matthew 5:39. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I will never endorse this view. — Tarskian

I suppose the Muslim version of this claim might be "if anyone slaps on the right cheek, slap them back so hard that they don't dare ever slap you again." Now that would be more in line with human nature.

Here is your argument:

Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy. — Leontiskos

I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. Have you forgotten your claim that:

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy. — Leontiskos

or are you just trying to bury it?

As to the second point. What I said was:

the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

It is not simply a matter of breaking the Law, as it every offense however minor would be a blasphemous offense. What is at issue destroying or abolishing the Law. (Matthew 5:17)

When you say:

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like ... reinterpreting the Law "with authority," or forgiving sins.These are all the unique prerogatives of God ... — Leontiskos

you are making my point for me.

...the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. — Leontiskos

Was the author of this a Jew? A rabbi? An expert on "the Jewish mind"? A proper characterization is captured in the oft told joking expression: two Jews and three opinions.

The subtlety ... What is blasphemous for others is not blasphemous for him./quote]

This is about as subtle as getting hit in the head with a sledge hammer. That any man "has God's prerogatives" would be regarded as blasphemous by the Jewish leaders. But even if the Christians believed this, it does not mean that Jesus or his Jewish disciples believed he was not a human being.
— Leontiskos

"I, in my uniqueness as the Son of man,* can forgive sins, and to prove it I will cure this paralytic." — Leontiskos

Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being.

In the notes to the New International Version of Daniel 7 it says:

The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being.

Young's Literal Translation has son of man. Other sources confirm that bar enash means human being .

I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. — Fooloso4

You said this:

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

I asked you to defend it and you gave a non sequitur argument. Now you are finally admitting, albeit quietly, that you were wrong:

It is not simply a matter of breaking the Law, as it every offense however minor would be a blasphemous offense. What is at issue destroying or abolishing the Law. — Fooloso4

So we agree: your earlier claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false.

Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being. — Fooloso4

What is your conclusion here supposed to be? That Jesus is claiming that anyone who is human can forgive sins? Do you even believe yourself when you make these sorts of points, like Aristotle's boxer who swings without knowing what he is doing? Can you see anything at all through the foggy polemicism of your glasses?

It requires no discernment to understand that what is being spoken of is not a mere human being:

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed. — Daniel 7, RSV

If you like:

'One like a human being' receives the kingdom from the 'Ancient One'. Is this second figure a symbol of the nation that will exercise the dominion (the Jewish people), depicted as a human rather than an animal? Or is he a divine figure (such figures represented as in human form, Dan 8:15; 10:5)? If so, is he Michael, who 'stands' for the Jews in 12:1? — The Oxford Bible Commentary, Daniel

I suppose the Muslim version of this claim might be "if anyone slaps on the right cheek, slap them back so hard that they don't dare ever slap you again." Now that would be more in line with human nature. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

However, the general biological rule that governs all sovereign primate groups remains applicable.

In-group violence between individuals or subgroups is considered a breakdown in law and order, to be adjudicated by the ruler, who judges which of both sides is at fault.

Violence is legitimate only between sovereign groups ("war"). We share this biological rule with chimps, baboons, and gorillas.

An in-group cycle of violence is preferably cut short by means of victim compensation:

Quran 2:178. O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

Proportional retaliation is to be deemed a natural reaction and cannot be held against the parties in the conflict. Furthermore, no party in the conflict is expected to offer the other cheek.

The ruler must intervene, however, and the judge will attempt to solve the conflict by means of financial compensation. Such conflict-resolution process at the societal level of the sovereign group is simply a biological necessity.

Our laws must be compatible with our fundamental biological nature. Otherwise, the alternative is mayhem.