You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas. — Leontiskos
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.
(Luke 23:1-2)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.”
(Jesus, King of the Jews -Wikipedia)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.
Refusing to "go over the top" or to open fire when instructed, is an act of cowardice. — Tarskian
Christianity is deemed to have some responsibility for the fact that Germany lost both world wars: — Tarskian
But even any 'theological' defence of 'self-defence' in Christianity is IMO questionable — boundless
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.
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.
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
First, the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. — Fooloso4
Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and God.
... 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
If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. — Fooloso4
Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. — Leontiskos
You are making things up left and right — Leontiskos
(5:21)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?”
(5:24)But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.
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
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
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
The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. — Fooloso4
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
Here is your argument:
Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy. — Leontiskos
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
the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4
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
...the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. — Leontiskos
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
The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being.
I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. — Fooloso4
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. — Fooloso4
Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being. — Fooloso4
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
'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
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.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.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.