The Blasphemy Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
Quote:Whose definition is that? Yours? It certainly isn't the Bible's definition because it has none. I've done some research on this and professional Christian scholars can't seem to agree with each other on what exactly this "unforgivable sin" constitutes. Do you claim to know better than them?

The Bible certainly provides a definition in context. I've pointed out that atheists aren't blaspheming in the NT sense in the hopes that they might do some research into the context. It's right there in the passage...

I wouldn't claim to know better than some scholars. I would only suggest that I likely agree with one of the scholar(s)'s definitions that you have found. Perhaps you'd suggest on one of them to address the issue.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
Quote:Whose definition is that? Yours? It certainly isn't the Bible's definition because it has none. I've done some research on this and professional Christian scholars can't seem to agree with each other on what exactly this "unforgivable sin" constitutes. Do you claim to know better than them?

The Bible certainly provides a definition in context. I've pointed out that atheists aren't blaspheming in the NT sense in the hopes that they might do some research into the context. It's right there in the passage...

I wouldn't claim to know better than some scholars. I would only suggest that I likely agree with one of the scholar(s)'s definitions that you have found. Perhaps you'd suggest on one of them to address the issue.

Go ask Gordon, apparently he can get you the answer straight from the horse's mouth.Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
16-12-2014, 05:04 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2014 05:32 AM by Vosur.)
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible certainly provides a definition in context. I've pointed out that atheists aren't blaspheming in the NT sense in the hopes that they might do some research into the context. It's right there in the passage...
According to Oxford Dictionaries, a definition is "an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something." There is no such thing to be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems obvious to me that there would be no disagreement between Christian scholars about the meaning of this passage if it was as unambiguous as you seem to think it is. Common sense would suggest that there'd be a clear definition of the one and only sin that can't be forgiven so that people can make sure that they never commit it, but alas, there is none.

What makes this issue even more confusing is the fact that Mark and Matthew offer different views on this subject. The former speaks only of "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" being unforgivable, while the latter talks about both "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" and "speaking against the Holy Spirit" being unforgivable. Are they one and the same thing? If so, why is a linguistic distinction between them made? If not, what is the difference between them? What does it mean to "speak against the Holy Spirit"? Luke talks about "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" as well, though his view is vastly different from those of the other two Gospel writers. Unlike them, he makes no mention of people who attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan, so he clearly couldn't have been talking about the exact same thing. What, then, was he talking about?

Again, the Bible doesn't offer a clear answer to any of these questions. The most we can do is make educated guesses based on the context of these passages.

(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I wouldn't claim to know better than some scholars. I would only suggest that I likely agree with one of the scholar(s)'s definitions that you have found. Perhaps you'd suggest on one of them to address the issue.
I think I have a better suggestion. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what your view on this subject is? What do you think the unforgivable sin is? We can always compare your view to the views of people who study the Bible for a living afterwards.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
16-12-2014, 06:21 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(15-12-2014 12:03 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible certainly provides a definition in context. I've pointed out that atheists aren't blaspheming in the NT sense in the hopes that they might do some research into the context. It's right there in the passage...

I wouldn't claim to know better than some scholars. I would only suggest that I likely agree with one of the scholar(s)'s definitions that you have found. Perhaps you'd suggest on one of them to address the issue.

Go ask Gordon, apparently he can get you the answer straight from the horse's mouth.Thumbsup

Gordon's views are every bit as valid as Q's, because there is no way to adjudicate between competing claims without evidence. And Q thinks he's enlightening us with HIS interpretation of the bible. Laughat

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-12-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible certainly provides a definition in context.

And yet you have failed repeatedly throughout this thread to tell us what you think that definition is. I think you're full of crap and you don't know the definition at all. All you really know is "it must be in there somewhere so there's no harm in saying it's right there in the Bible".

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I'm all ears (well eyes).

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
16-12-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(15-12-2014 12:03 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Go ask Gordon, apparently he can get you the answer straight from the horse's mouth.Thumbsup

Wrong end of the horse

Celebrate Reason ● Think For Yourself
www.theHeathensGuide.com
[Image: heathens-guide.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like JonDarbyXIII's post
16-12-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(16-12-2014 05:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible certainly provides a definition in context. I've pointed out that atheists aren't blaspheming in the NT sense in the hopes that they might do some research into the context. It's right there in the passage...
According to Oxford Dictionaries, a definition is "an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something." There is no such thing to be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems obvious to me that there would be no disagreement between Christian scholars about the meaning of this passage if it was as unambiguous as you seem to think it is. Common sense would suggest that there'd be a clear definition of the one and only sin that can't be forgiven so that people can make sure that they never commit it, but alas, there is none.

What makes this issue even more confusing is the fact that Mark and Matthew offer different views on this subject. The former speaks only of "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" being unforgivable, while the latter talks about both "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" and "speaking against the Holy Spirit" being unforgivable. Are they one and the same thing? If so, why is a linguistic distinction between them made? If not, what is the difference between them? What does it mean to "speak against the Holy Spirit"? Luke talks about "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" as well, though his view is vastly different from those of the other two Gospel writers. Unlike them, he makes no mention of people who attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan, so he clearly couldn't have been talking about the exact same thing. What, then, was he talking about?

Again, the Bible doesn't offer a clear answer to any of these questions. The most we can do is make educated guesses based on the context of these passages.

(15-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I wouldn't claim to know better than some scholars. I would only suggest that I likely agree with one of the scholar(s)'s definitions that you have found. Perhaps you'd suggest on one of them to address the issue.
I think I have a better suggestion. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what your view on this subject is? What do you think the unforgivable sin is? We can always compare your view to the views of people who study the Bible for a living afterwards.

Old Testament blaspheming: To equate oneself with God.

The New Testament has a slightly different flavor, to equate the devil with God despite very good evidence.

The Pharisees had Talmudic tradition as oral Talmud. Since it was taught/known that the Messiah would heal a blind mute (the mute could not "ask" for prayer, the blind could not "see you praying for them" so a mute blind person healed is a big sign) the people were amazed based on their Messianic expectation when Jesus did so:

All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” They knew the prophecy...

...In the story, the Pharisees, having had the benefit of a prophecy that would scream "Messiah!" (just as Satan tempted Jesus to float down from the top of the temple and the Talmud said Messiah would appear atop the Temple to announce His presence!) did something that isn't available to us at this forum--they saw in person Jesus fulfill a prophecy and then said He was in league with Satan--they had to say "Satan!" or else acknowledge that God had done a miracle in front of the many public witnesses.

In the Matthew version, Jesus is saying "You can call me a name but when the Holy Spirit touches your life in power and THEN you reject me you have no hope..." The Mark 3 story is a similar application - Jesus was doing healings, the Pharisees were watching Him, huge crowds thronged Him, and they said Jesus was in league with Beelzebub.

Jesus seems to have gotten along with every range of person from the wealthy down to prostitutes but where He had trouble was with religious persons. No one at TTA today can do the NT version of blasphemy--see Jesus on Earth doing miracles and KNOWING without any reasonable doubt He is with God or God saying He is a demonized man--all we can do is be responsible for the promptings of our conscience and any way in which God chooses to react to us and with us.

The Bible also explains that no one has a valid excuse for rejecting God as in Romans 1 and elsewhere, but most evangelical scholars agree that people cannot blaspheme today in the Matthew/Mark vein.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(16-12-2014 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Old Testament blaspheming: To equate oneself with God.

The New Testament has a slightly different flavor, to equate the devil with God despite very good evidence.

The Pharisees had Talmudic tradition as oral Talmud. Since it was taught/known that the Messiah would heal a blind mute (the mute could not "ask" for prayer, the blind could not "see you praying for them" so a mute blind person healed is a big sign) the people were amazed based on their Messianic expectation when Jesus did so:

All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” They knew the prophecy...

...In the story, the Pharisees, having had the benefit of a prophecy that would scream "Messiah!" (just as Satan tempted Jesus to float down from the top of the temple and the Talmud said Messiah would appear atop the Temple to announce His presence!) did something that isn't available to us at this forum--they saw in person Jesus fulfill a prophecy and then said He was in league with Satan--they had to say "Satan!" or else acknowledge that God had done a miracle in front of the many public witnesses.

In the Matthew version, Jesus is saying "You can call me a name but when the Holy Spirit touches your life in power and THEN you reject me you have no hope..." The Mark 3 story is a similar application - Jesus was doing healings, the Pharisees were watching Him, huge crowds thronged Him, and they said Jesus was in league with Beelzebub.

Jesus seems to have gotten along with every range of person from the wealthy down to prostitutes but where He had trouble was with religious persons. No one at TTA today can do the NT version of blasphemy--see Jesus on Earth doing miracles and KNOWING without any reasonable doubt He is with God or God saying He is a demonized man--all we can do is be responsible for the promptings of our conscience and any way in which God chooses to react to us and with us.
Good. Now that we have established your views on the topic, here are some other Christian views:


"I believe, the only unforgivable sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ's offer of salvation, his free gift of eternal life, and thus, his forgiveness from sin. If you don't accept his gift, you cannot be forgiven. If you deny the Holy Spirit's entrance into your life, to work his sanctification in you, you cannot be cleansed from unrighteousness. Perhaps this is too simple an explanation, but it is the one that makes the most sense to me in light of the Scriptures.

Therefore, 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost' can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be an 'unpardonable sin' because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin."


Source: http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelp...agains.htm



"This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. As a result, this particular incidence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today. Jesus Christ is not on earth—He is seated at the right hand of God. No one can witness Jesus Christ performing a miracle and then attribute that power to Satan instead of the Spirit. The closest example today would be attributing the miracle of a redeemed person’s changed life to Satan’s power rather than to the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The blasphemy of the Spirit today, which is the same as the unpardonable sin, is the state of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. Continual rejection of the Holy Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ is the unpardonable blasphemy against Him."


Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html



"By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable."

Source: http://carm.org/what-blasphemy-holy-spir...-commit-it



"The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven."

Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/beyon...the-spirit



"Those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those who consciously and perhaps repeatedly reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and are not even be concerned about it."

Source: https://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq307.html



"In summary, we may confidently conclude that 'blasphemy against the Spirit' is overt, even verbal, repudiation of the presence of God's Spirit in the ministry of Jesus and those whom he has sent."

Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionar...pirit.html

I noticed that you conveniently chose not to address the mention of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that can be found in the Gospel of Luke, by the way.

(16-12-2014 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible also explains that no one has a valid excuse for rejecting God as in Romans 1 and elsewhere, but most evangelical scholars agree that people cannot blaspheme today in the Matthew/Mark vein.
Do you have a citation to support that claim? How do you know what most evangelical scholars agree on?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
16-12-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(16-12-2014 12:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-12-2014 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible also explains that no one has a valid excuse for rejecting God as in Romans 1 and elsewhere, but most evangelical scholars agree that people cannot blaspheme today in the Matthew/Mark vein.
Do you have a citation to support that claim? How do you know what most evangelical scholars agree on?

Bonus question, wtf is an evangelical scholar? One who proclaims the good news of another woo-woo pseudo science journal?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-12-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: The Blasphemy Thread
(16-12-2014 12:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-12-2014 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Old Testament blaspheming: To equate oneself with God.

The New Testament has a slightly different flavor, to equate the devil with God despite very good evidence.

The Pharisees had Talmudic tradition as oral Talmud. Since it was taught/known that the Messiah would heal a blind mute (the mute could not "ask" for prayer, the blind could not "see you praying for them" so a mute blind person healed is a big sign) the people were amazed based on their Messianic expectation when Jesus did so:

All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” They knew the prophecy...

...In the story, the Pharisees, having had the benefit of a prophecy that would scream "Messiah!" (just as Satan tempted Jesus to float down from the top of the temple and the Talmud said Messiah would appear atop the Temple to announce His presence!) did something that isn't available to us at this forum--they saw in person Jesus fulfill a prophecy and then said He was in league with Satan--they had to say "Satan!" or else acknowledge that God had done a miracle in front of the many public witnesses.

In the Matthew version, Jesus is saying "You can call me a name but when the Holy Spirit touches your life in power and THEN you reject me you have no hope..." The Mark 3 story is a similar application - Jesus was doing healings, the Pharisees were watching Him, huge crowds thronged Him, and they said Jesus was in league with Beelzebub.

Jesus seems to have gotten along with every range of person from the wealthy down to prostitutes but where He had trouble was with religious persons. No one at TTA today can do the NT version of blasphemy--see Jesus on Earth doing miracles and KNOWING without any reasonable doubt He is with God or God saying He is a demonized man--all we can do is be responsible for the promptings of our conscience and any way in which God chooses to react to us and with us.
Good. Now that we have established your views on the topic, here are some other Christian views:


"I believe, the only unforgivable sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ's offer of salvation, his free gift of eternal life, and thus, his forgiveness from sin. If you don't accept his gift, you cannot be forgiven. If you deny the Holy Spirit's entrance into your life, to work his sanctification in you, you cannot be cleansed from unrighteousness. Perhaps this is too simple an explanation, but it is the one that makes the most sense to me in light of the Scriptures.

Therefore, 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost' can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be an 'unpardonable sin' because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin."


Source: http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelp...agains.htm



"This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. As a result, this particular incidence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today. Jesus Christ is not on earth—He is seated at the right hand of God. No one can witness Jesus Christ performing a miracle and then attribute that power to Satan instead of the Spirit. The closest example today would be attributing the miracle of a redeemed person’s changed life to Satan’s power rather than to the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The blasphemy of the Spirit today, which is the same as the unpardonable sin, is the state of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. Continual rejection of the Holy Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ is the unpardonable blasphemy against Him."


Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html



"By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable."

Source: http://carm.org/what-blasphemy-holy-spir...-commit-it



"The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven."

Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/beyon...the-spirit



"Those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those who consciously and perhaps repeatedly reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and are not even be concerned about it."

Source: https://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq307.html



"In summary, we may confidently conclude that 'blasphemy against the Spirit' is overt, even verbal, repudiation of the presence of God's Spirit in the ministry of Jesus and those whom he has sent."

Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionar...pirit.html

I noticed that you conveniently chose not to address the mention of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that can be found in the Gospel of Luke, by the way.

(16-12-2014 12:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible also explains that no one has a valid excuse for rejecting God as in Romans 1 and elsewhere, but most evangelical scholars agree that people cannot blaspheme today in the Matthew/Mark vein.
Do you have a citation to support that claim? How do you know what most evangelical scholars agree on?

I do not have a citation. I would say that over the past years, any commentary I've read online or off was in agreement.

The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts the individual of sin and the need for salvation.

The quotes you gave sometimes dovetail with my interpretation, sometimes don't, but are general. This is an example:

"By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable."

How does the author know that is unforgivable? By reading the word unforgivable in the text. It's not Bible interpretation, it's just restating the verses. My interpretation includes the historical context of Talmudic thought. Jesus's arguments with the Rabbis are in this context and it's difficult to understand, for another example, the controversy about hand washing without the Talmud.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: