Think I may have figured this one out.
Here is a possible definition of the sin called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". I think it is the safest and least conjectural definition.
From the context, it seems it could be defined safely as:
To interrupt an (effective) excorcism,
or to even condemn the (positive) outcome of an effective excorcism;
thus one is aiding or rooting for or taking the side of the demon,
as opposed to the side of the Holy Spirit
(which is the force the excorcist uses to excorcise the demon).
It might even have a much more specific definition, which would be: implying that an effective excorcism of a demon is actually being performed by demonic power. This is the same as the definition above (bolded), except it involves a charge of demons or demonic powers collaborating to fake an excorcism, basically. This latter definition is actually more literally true to the text, but I suspect the above definition (bolded) might be the intended lesson of the text.
Here is a possible definition of the sin called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". I think it is the safest and least conjectural definition.
From the context, it seems it could be defined safely as:
To interrupt an (effective) excorcism,
or to even condemn the (positive) outcome of an effective excorcism;
thus one is aiding or rooting for or taking the side of the demon,
as opposed to the side of the Holy Spirit
(which is the force the excorcist uses to excorcise the demon).
It might even have a much more specific definition, which would be: implying that an effective excorcism of a demon is actually being performed by demonic power. This is the same as the definition above (bolded), except it involves a charge of demons or demonic powers collaborating to fake an excorcism, basically. This latter definition is actually more literally true to the text, but I suspect the above definition (bolded) might be the intended lesson of the text.
Last edited: