How do we define the umpardonable sin?

[marco]

In Matthew 12:31 we have: “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.�

Was Jesus just being dramatic here, trying to frighten his listeners? What on earth is "blasphemy against the Spirit"? Did Jesus, somewhere, elaborate on this dramatic statement?


And in what way is such blasphemy worse than, say, mass murder?

[marco]

Or, if you like, P.E.B.C.A.K. ("problem exists between computer and keyboard"). Such is the case here with you.

So not only do you "clarify" for Christ, you suggest that his problems of communication are like those of a computer user. Is there no end to your theories on the Lord? I'm beginning to feel sorry for Jesus.

Parts of speech are irrelevant here, Marco, unless we focus solely on the fact that, used in the relevant context, the noun 'commission' is in contrast to the noun 'omission' in that in the former

You said, clearly, that commit and commission do not share the same root. They do. We don't need definitions of commission and omission to distract us from your mistake.

Disobedient behavior is 100 percent of the time preceded by one's thinking he knows better than the way commanded/instructed.


We are speaking in mature terms of matters of great import. Toddlers are not in view here. Try to stick to the subject. Or... wait... are you saying you're a toddler?

Another mistake, another attempt to divert our attention with jocularity. 100 percent means 100 per cent.

Ah, but I can't help but feel, despite the physical distance between us, the anger and frustration with which you seethe.

I am no more angry or frustrated than I would be with some errant student who required correction. We are merely disagreeing.

On the subject of blasphemy against the Spirit we must disagree: I will take Christ's words for what they are and you must adhere to your idea that blasphemy is mixing God up with Satan. I wonder how many folk do that.

As my old mentors would say, pax tecum - peace be with you.

[PinSeeker]

So not only do you "clarify" for Christ, you suggest that his problems of communication are like those of a computer user. Is there no end to your theories on the Lord? I'm beginning to feel sorry for Jesus.

I do nothing for Christ in this sense; it's all for you. Christ needs no clarification; as I said, it's user error. You are the computer user, Marco. It's all you. Surely you understood that. Surely. Either way, it's not good, though. I mean, either (a) you understood but are now deliberately twisting my words in a pitiful effort to make them the opposite of what they really were, or (b) you didn't understand and you're just terribly confused. Which is it?

I am no more angry or frustrated than I would be with some errant student who required correction. We are merely disagreeing.

You're obviously very angry and frustrated. I understand. But I can't help that, of course. I really do wish you grace and peace.

On the subject of blasphemy against the Spirit we must disagree...

Sure. I guess we both knew this would be the result.

I will take Christ's words for what they are...

Well, what they seem to be to you. Which is erroneous. But you're your own man. One can surely be led to water, but getting him drink is another matter entirely.

...and you must adhere to your idea that blasphemy is mixing God up with Satan.

Well that's not my idea at all. Putting words into one's mouth is not cool.

I wonder how many folk do that.

I hope none. But there are a lot of misguided folks in this world, for sure.

As my old mentors would say, pax tecum - peace be with you.

Thank you, and grace and peace be to you.

[marco]

[Replying to post 32 by PinSeeker]

Christ said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unpardonable sin. We examined in what way one could blaspheme against the Holy Spirit but we were unsuccessful. Instead you suggested that when Christ cast out devils, and it was suggested he was using black magic or satanic forces, this in some way was offensive not to Jesus, but to the Holy Spirit, who was presumably having lunch at the time. This hardly fits the bill.

Jesus didn't quite get round to saying what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was, but yes, he might have been boasting and he may have meant that it was unpardonable not to believe HIM. All the same, it is a strange thing for Jesus to say if he was referring to his own wonderful acts.


I think we'd be nearer the truth when we consider final impenitence, a deathbed refusal to accept God, as the blasphemy Christ was thinking about. Jesus did talk of "dying in your sins," (John 8:24) and this would amount to being unpardoned.


Fine discussion. Nothing resolved. But that's the way with biblical puzzles. Go well.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

You're twisting in the wind, Marco. I'd stop if I were you, but like I said, do what you want.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

[marco]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

You're twisting in the wind, Marco. I'd stop if I were you, but like I said, do what you want.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

Alexander's general Parmenius offered the same sort of advice to which Alexander replied that he would do the same, were he Parmenius. But of course he was Alexander, so was above such advice.


I have explained succinctly what interpretation seems apt, but there remaisn puzzlement as to why Jesus said what he said. Best wishes.

[PinSeeker]

I have explained succinctly what interpretation seems apt...

Yes, you have, and I have explained several times over why what seems apt to you is in abject error. But like I said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

...but there remaisn puzzlement as to why Jesus said what he said.

To you, and others like you, yes.

Best wishes.

To you also. Grace and peace to you in the name of Christ Jesus.

[marco]

I have explained succinctly what interpretation seems apt...

Yes, you have, and I have explained several times over why what seems apt to you is in abject error. But like I said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

...but there remaisn puzzlement as to why Jesus said what he said.

To you, and others like you, yes.

Best wishes.

To you also. Grace and peace to you in the name of Christ Jesus.

Okay since we can't agree let's blame Jesus for not being clear enough. In fact he didn't pause to explain who the Holy Spirit is, so that some ardent Christians do not accept the Trinity. For them blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more troublesome than the riddle of the Sphinx.


Amazing that one can assert that five words from Christ cause more confusion than group theory or Russian verb aspects or the Schleswig-Holstein Question. What a man!

[PinSeeker]

Sigh. Like the Energizer bunny...

Okay since we can't agree let's blame Jesus for not being clear enough.

Well, like I have said, you can if you want, but I wouldn't advise it.

In fact he didn't pause to explain who the Holy Spirit is, so that some ardent Christians do not accept the Trinity. For them blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more troublesome than the riddle of the Sphinx.

Well, explaining who the Holy Spirit is here was not necessary. Jesus certainly had a way of only doing what was necessary, and not more, and not less.

For them blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more troublesome than the riddle of the Sphinx.

Yes, for some (many?) Christians as well as otherwise, the concept of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is troublesome, for sure, both in the respect that they can't really define it, and in the respect that they wonder whether they've committed it or not. And that's troublesome to me, for their sake.

Amazing that one can assert that five words from Christ cause more confusion than group theory or Russian verb aspects or the Schleswig-Holstein Question. What a man!

Like I said, that's man's fault, either due to his limitations, or his sin, or both.

Grace and peace to you, Marco.

[marco]

Like I said, that's man's fault, either due to his limitations, or his sin, or both.

Grace and peace to you, Marco.

If we sin we lose our ability to construe? Blessed are the sinless, then, for they shall construe. I find it it surprising that when I am in discourse with people who seem not to have been abundantly favoured by the gods, they declaim wonderfully on the mysteries of heaven, as if they had special insight.

Perhaps God does indeed reveal his secrets to the humblest, the better to illustrate his wonders. Jesus may have been a case in point. But on an important issue such as an unpardonable sin I think it would have been good to have copious footnotes for the less privleged. They might then choose not to blaspheme against the dangerous Spirit being.

I think Emperor Tiberius liked to publish laws in very small print some height about the readers so that he might then punish their ignorance. It would be rather mean if God acted in the same way. Best wishes, PinSeeker.

[PinSeeker]

If we sin we lose our ability to construe?

No, but rather because we are sinners, we are prone to misconstrue.

I find it it surprising that when I am in discourse with people who seem not to have been abundantly favoured by the gods, they declaim wonderfully on the mysteries of heaven, as if they had special insight.

Certainly, I am not claiming for myself any "special insight." And in fact, I would say if you run into anyone and in the course of conversation they do claim any special insight, my personal advice would be to (politely) withdraw from said conversation (or at least listen politely and then subsequently dismiss it summarily).

Perhaps God does indeed reveal his secrets to the humblest, the better to illustrate his wonders.

No, it's just that the humble are possibly more likely to receive the Word implanted which is able to save the soul (James 1:21).

Jesus may have been a case in point.

Well, Jesus was/is the Word made flesh (John 1).

But on an important issue such as an unpardonable sin I think it would have been good to have copious footnotes for the less privileged.

No footnotes needed. God said what He meant, and meant what He said; insufficiency or lack of clarity is not an issue.

They might then choose not to blaspheme against the dangerous Spirit being.

The Holy Spirit is not "dangerous," but a Helper. Some might view Him as dangerous, but this would be in error. I rather think, in keeping with what I said earlier, we would all blaspheme the Spirit if it were not for the Spirit's helping us not to do so. And, that those who have been given the Spirit (Helper) will never blaspheme the Spirit -- because of the power of the Spirit in keeping them from committing that unpardonable sin.

I think Emperor Tiberius liked to publish laws in very small print some height about the readers so that he might then punish their ignorance. It would be rather mean if God acted in the same way.

Well, it would be deceptive, for sure. But deception is sin, and God doesn't do sin.

Best wishes, PinSeeker.

And to you, Marco. Grace and peace to you in the name of Christ Jesus.