Unforgivable sin

[nobspeople]

What is it?
How do you do it?
Why is it unforgivable (in your opinion)?
Why is it unforgivable (based on the bible)?
Can you do it without knowing?

What other 'need to know' bits about unforgivable sin can you offer that needs debated?

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #41]

And what does "many" even mean. It is the "many" which are on the path to "destruction", it is the "few" who enter into "life" (Matthew 7:13). And "ransom" apparently doesn't mean saving the "many" on the path to destruction, for most have already died in their sins, and have never reached the "day of the LORD", when many have and will die (Revelation 6:8), and many more will hide under the rocks to hide from the "wrath of the Lamb".

Well, since it was Jesus using the terms "many" and "ransom", what do those terms mean?

As Yeshua spoke Aramaic, and didn't speak English at the time, I don't really know what words he actually spoke, and that message doesn't actually line up with the message of the "kingdom". Not that consistency seems to matters in your world of thought. The Lord God already predetermined that the house of Israel would be washed clean and given a new heart and spirit, and keep My doctrines, in respect to the kingdom of God, whereas they would be living on the land given to Jacob, under the kingship of David, because of "My holy name" (Ezekiel 36 & 37), not because of sacrifice. The LORD also indicated he preferred righteousness and justice over sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:3) & (Isaiah 28:17) Elijah already had stopped the rain, raised the dead, and healed the sick prior to your supposed "ransom" argument, all based on the principle of the "faith" of the "righteous" (James 5). Yeshua apparently raised the dead, healed the sick, and cast out demons prior to your "ransom" event. As for will the "nations" have survivors in large numbers, apparently so, but after they confess the "falsehoods"/lies of their "fathers", after the great tribulation (day of distress). (Jeremiah 16:19) And "those who are left (still alive) of nations"/Gentiles, will also come to Jerusalem to worship the king every feast of Booths (Zechariah 14:16), and the nations princes and people (strangers) will serve Jacob (Isaiah 49:7 & 14:1 & Genesis 27:29). As for an "unforgivable sin", apparently according to 1 John 5:1, one is not to pray for the forgiveness of certain sins, and even Hebrews 6:4-6, written by some unknown author, who is worshipped by the followers of Paul, says that those who have tasted of the Spirit of God, and then sinned, can not "renew them again to repentance", in effect, they have rejected the Spirit of God, and will not be forgiven. According to Revelation 20:10, apparently the "false prophet" would be included, but as he had tasted of the tree of life, he would not be able to die, and therefore suffer eternally.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #51]

Yeshua apparently raised the dead, healed the sick, and cast out demons prior to your "ransom" event.

It isn't my ransom event. If you want to take issue over it, take issue with the author of Matthew for the way he wrote it.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #51]

Yeshua apparently raised the dead, healed the sick, and cast out demons prior to your "ransom" event.

It isn't my ransom event. If you want to take issue over it, take issue with the author of Matthew for the way he wrote it.

He certainly didn't write it in English. The supposed "Aramaic bible in plain English" reads as follows

Aramaic Bible in Plain English Matthew 20:28
“Just as The Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give himself a ransom in the place of the many.”
How much did he pay himself in place of the "many" who will go to "destruction"?

Good News Translation
like the Son of Man, who did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life to redeem many people."
How many is "many", a dozen? And what did he "redeem" "many people" from? Maybe the people wanted to be "redeemed" from darkness. Matthew 20:33. Apparently, the world chose not to be "enlightened" (John 1:9-19), and remain with eyes, but can not see, and ears, and cannot hear. (Matthew 13:13)

American Standard Version
even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
What "ransom" did he give himself, and who were the many for which he paid himself?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #51]

Yeshua apparently raised the dead, healed the sick, and cast out demons prior to your "ransom" event.

It isn't my ransom event. If you want to take issue over it, take issue with the author of Matthew for the way he wrote it.

He certainly didn't write it in English. The supposed "Aramaic bible in plain English" reads as follows

Aramaic Bible in Plain English Matthew 20:28
“Just as The Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give himself a ransom in the place of the many.”
How much did he pay himself in place of the "many" who will go to "destruction"?

Good News Translation
like the Son of Man, who did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life to redeem many people."
How many is "many", a dozen? And what did he "redeem" "many people" from? Maybe the people wanted to be "redeemed" from darkness. Matthew 20:33. Apparently, the world chose not to be "enlightened" (John 1:9-19), and remain with eyes, but can not see, and ears, and cannot hear. (Matthew 13:13)

American Standard Version
even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
What "ransom" did he give himself, and who were the many for which he paid himself?

Again, why are you asking me? I didn't write it. Maybe you should consult the Greek in which the text was written.

As for what ransom he gave himself, how do the Christian gospels say he gave his life? Is that what you're questioning? If so, then how do you interpret the Christian message?

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #51]

Yeshua apparently raised the dead, healed the sick, and cast out demons prior to your "ransom" event.

It isn't my ransom event. If you want to take issue over it, take issue with the author of Matthew for the way he wrote it.

He certainly didn't write it in English. The supposed "Aramaic bible in plain English" reads as follows

Aramaic Bible in Plain English Matthew 20:28
“Just as The Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give himself a ransom in the place of the many.”
How much did he pay himself in place of the "many" who will go to "destruction"?

Good News Translation
like the Son of Man, who did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life to redeem many people."
How many is "many", a dozen? And what did he "redeem" "many people" from? Maybe the people wanted to be "redeemed" from darkness. Matthew 20:33. Apparently, the world chose not to be "enlightened" (John 1:9-19), and remain with eyes, but can not see, and ears, and cannot hear. (Matthew 13:13)

American Standard Version
even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
What "ransom" did he give himself, and who were the many for which he paid himself?

Again, why are you asking me? I didn't write it. Maybe you should consult the Greek in which the text was written.

As for what ransom he gave himself, how do the Christian gospels say he gave his life? Is that what you're questioning? If so, then how do you interpret the Christian message?

The "Christian" message is based around the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace/cross, which is to say, in the words of Isaiah 28:15-18, a message of "deception", a "covenant with death", in which "we shall not all sleep/die (1 Cor 15), which "shall be canceled". It's Roman government implementation, can be traced to the Roman emperor Constantine's convened Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. If Yeshua's message of the "kingdom", was given in Aramaic, why do you think any Greek interpretation of Aramaic, is any better than an Aramaic version of Aramaic/Syriac, as claimed by the Eastern Church's version? It is you, who have brought the verse into play. Why not support your own insertion. What I am saying is the the Lord God said he preferred justice and righteousness to "sacrifice", and that God listens to the righteous, and not sinners. If you want to be healed, and have your sins forgiven, you go to the "righteous" (James 5:16), and not the foremost of sinners, whose message is one of doublemindedness and hypocrisy (leaven). As for the "Greek" interpretations, they do not all agree, for they are all edited, and many to fit the point of view desired by the editors. Yeshua came to give light ("enlightenment") to the Law and the prophets (Word of God) (John 1), and that is the best source for the truth of any matter, and the "Word of God", doesn't support the man made "Christian" perspective, which is supported by the leaven of the Pharisee of Pharisees, the foremost of sinners. Such a foundation, based on the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, and the "false prophet", Paul, is set to "fall" (Matthew 7:13-27).

[TRANSPONDER]

While it is diverting to see believers (as i suppose you both are) going translation - shopping over what 'many' actually means, this isn't really addressing the topic of what the unforgivable (by God not by just anybody) sin of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is.

Since I posted I suppose I should suggest that damming, cussing and insulting the 'Holy Spirit' and accusing it of unspeakable acts (never mind doing them while supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit like Priests, Ministers and televangelists) comes top of the list. Arguably, just arguing against it could be a possible Unforgivable (by God) offence but just debating about it can't be too bad or they'd never welcome converts into the Kingdom. If I had to put my money on it, I'd say 'offensive accusations' would be the least of the Unforgivables with perhaps 'DarkMatter' animations with the magic sperm doing the deed to a Jewish fiance. Which is of course what The Bible says, but you have to choose more mealy - mouthed circumlocutions.

[Purple Knight]

Based on the text, I think you're reading too much into even that and according to Mark, it's all too easy. In a bit that's omitted by Matthew and Luke, Mark tells us what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" means in verse 3:30 (emphasis mine):

“Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

According to Mark, attributing the miracles of Jesus to an evil spirit rather than the Holy Spirit is blasphemy (speaking evil) against the Holy Spirit.

To me, this reads as them saying God himself is actually evil.

This is where, to me, theology falls apart.

If God is good by definition then they're guilty of nothing but saying red is blue.

If good and evil are beyond God's power to twist to his will and simply do whatever he wishes and define it as good, then like everyone else, God must depend on his actions to make himself good, and he's very capable of being evil. If someone sees evil being done, they ought to say so, because in simply trusting that their understanding is flawed and the being in question is good despite their understanding, they could as easily be trusting Satan as God.

If I were God I wouldn't want anyone to just trust me. I would want them to rely on their own understanding, and frankly I can't see how I would endow them with so feeble an understanding that they were forced to trust others unless my motivation was torture. People do take advantage of the mentally handicapped this way, and it's disgusting. People who are employed taking care of those who can't take care of themselves frequently trick such people for their own amusement. If I were to intentionally structure the universe like a home for the mentally invalid, I would be one sick pup indeed.

In real life there are indeed some areas where, with all the information laid out, I simply can understand something, and someone else simply can't. I have always said that in these situations, don't just trust me; people should go on the best understanding they can come to, themselves. You can make more errors going against your understanding than with it, provided you can understand anything at all, while you can make any possible error despite understanding if you always trust someone else, who could be lying. Even if you understand nothing, that means a probability of equal, going against your gut, or with it. Worst case scenario, going with your gut, that's equal probability of an error or not making an error. If what they decide is wrong, then that's unfortunate, but thank God I wasn't the one who created them that way.

[William]

Based on the text, I think you're reading too much into even that and according to Mark, it's all too easy. In a bit that's omitted by Matthew and Luke, Mark tells us what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" means in verse 3:30 (emphasis mine):

“Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

According to Mark, attributing the miracles of Jesus to an evil spirit rather than the Holy Spirit is blasphemy (speaking evil) against the Holy Spirit.

To me, this reads as them saying God himself is actually evil.

This is where, to me, theology falls apart.

If God is good by definition then they're guilty of nothing but saying red is blue.

If good and evil are beyond God's power to twist to his will and simply do whatever he wishes and define it as good, then like everyone else, God must depend on his actions to make himself good, and he's very capable of being evil. If someone sees evil being done, they ought to say so, because in simply trusting that their understanding is flawed and the being in question is good despite their understanding, they could as easily be trusting Satan as God.

If I were God I wouldn't want anyone to just trust me. I would want them to rely on their own understanding, and frankly I can't see how I would endow them with so feeble an understanding that they were forced to trust others unless my motivation was torture. People do take advantage of the mentally handicapped this way, and it's disgusting. People who are employed taking care of those who can't take care of themselves frequently trick such people for their own amusement. If I were to intentionally structure the universe like a home for the mentally invalid, I would be one sick pup indeed.

In real life there are indeed some areas where, with all the information laid out, I simply can understand something, and someone else simply can't. I have always said that in these situations, don't just trust me; people should go on the best understanding they can come to, themselves. You can make more errors going against your understanding than with it, provided you can understand anything at all, while you can make any possible error despite understanding if you always trust someone else, who could be lying. Even if you understand nothing, that means a probability of equal, going against your gut, or with it. Worst case scenario, going with your gut, that's equal probability of an error or not making an error. If what they decide is wrong, then that's unfortunate, but thank God I wasn't the one who created them that way.

People need to relax.

It is all very well imagining a great and good god and project that upon realty, but one is left with serious questions as a result.

I simplify it into;
Observing the universe as it is now.
Understanding that in its present state it is relatively young re all the info so far.
An overall Mind [which is really what we are talking about when we say "God"] which is connected to every other mind [thus human as well] is going to be something of a Hive-Mind re that, and operating on many levels, so always one step ahead of individuate human minds because of all that information.

Nonetheless - that Hive-Mind is still that thing because of all those other minds it is connected with, and thus - while a step [or 2] ahead - is still 'learning the ropes' too - even be it on such an astounding level...in this process a God is evolving, but still a long way off completion.

Sure - it might be "a great and good god" one day...but here in the middle of reality, now?

[The Nice Centurion]

When the Holy Spirit calls someone to repent and come to Christ and that person rejects the call, that person has committed the unforgivable sin.

It makes sense because, if someone is offered forgiveness for his or her sins and he or she rejects that offer of forgiveness, he or she remains unforgiven. In other words, that person has committed the unforgivable sin.

Would this mean a bonafide atheist is sometimes exempt from hell? Or, do atheists always go to hell too? As defined, a true atheist lacks mere belief in a god/gods.. This simply means they do not feel there exists an entity to 'repent' to.... It's one thing to believe it exists, it's another to decide whether or not to obey this believed upon entity, right?

If our pal is right that speaking against the Holy Spirit is to be taken as arguing against it rather than blaspheming (a subtle difference, perhaps), then no atheist can repent and be saved is such a sin (not believing and saying why) is 'unforgivable'. So there's no point in suggesting that we repent as we can't be forgiven anyway.

I think our pal should rethink that doctrine. Mind, he may not want to convince us. He may be here to tell all the converts from atheism or other religions to Christianity that they are damned anyway and can't be saved as the speaking against was unforgivable.

1) Yes, SMEARING THE HOLY SPIRIT is an unforgivable sin, and as such it gets accepted by all christendom.

2) DESECRATING A HOLY EUCHARIST is also an unforgivable sin, but it works only in a Catholic context and with a Catholic Holy Eucharist.

3) The 3rd and final unforgivable sin is said to be impossible to accomplish 'cause Jesus doesnt walk the earth anymore; ACCUSING JESUS PERSONALLY TO BE POSSESSED BY DEMONS.

But I hold it rather possible to accomplish in at leasr three different ways:
A) Getting in posession of a holy Catholic Eucharist (Catholic Dogma states that Jesus has no choice but to spring from heaven into bread when the.priest makes it holy), and pointing at it while saying : "Hey you, you are posessed by demons!"
Of course that is also possible only in a Catholic context!

B) Having a Holy Vision of Jesus and accusing him then.

C) Waiting for the Second Coming when Jesus intends to START his 1000 year dictatorship, and accusing him then.