Purveyor of Confusion

cvanwey · May 17, 2020

miknik5 said:
In context sir, the snippet which you provided is clearly understood and you should not need clarification from anybody

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.

28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.

29 Or how can one enter into the house of the strong [man,] and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong [man]? and then he will spoil his house.

30 He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

31 Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.

I'm afraid it does ma'am. You appear to be a little late to the party

One states no true Christian can commit this sin.

One states if a true Christian commits this sin, they might just go to a lesser more unforgiven heaven?

One states it was geared and/or directed specifically towards the Jewish population?

One states it's directed at the ones whom accuse Jesus of being nothing more that a deceptive magical man?

etc....

So yea, please elaborate, as to what [you] interpret this unforgivable sin to be????

Tom 1 · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
Looks as though you are sticking to the notion that 'blasphemy' is essentially the sin of unbelief? That Jesus was not the Messiah, but instead really some evil man whom was there to deceive? I want to be perfectly clear before I respond here

No, not really. Blasphemy as originally meant is the declaring of good as evil and vice versa, in the case of this passage it represents a psychologically rigid commitment to an entirely mistaken way of evaluating what those concepts mean, adopting a sort of middle ground that looks the part but in reality is life destroying rather than life giving. The destination of a person rooted in such a way of thinking is ineluctable, such people never, ever change, or even recognise any reason why they might. A person in such a state rejects that which might be redeeming, because they see no need for redemption, and believe themselves or their 'system' to be right. To really get the picture though you need to spend some time to understand what is meant by good and evil in the bible. The idea of 'blasphemy' in this sense/context as meaning 'saying something bad' is more of a Greek/Roman idea than a Jewish one, if that is what you are getting at, and concepts like 'a permanently hardened heart' etc are a sort of grasping at the idea, or an attempt to express it perhaps. However those terms are unnecessary as everything you need to understand what it means is in the text.

Regarding the text, you can read it like you would any other text, if you can drop your preconceptions. Look at how the text is put together, people often forget that the gospels, like the rest of the bible, are full of passages carefully put together to illustrate a point. What is it saying? It's all there. Work through the chapter from beginning to end, bearing in mind that the verse divisions are a later addition.

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
Not according to the millions whom believe. And yet, he is protected under the blanket of 'religion'. Sure, it's a free country. However, do tax dollars have to support it?

Protected? Protected from whom?

If you don't like it, you could always refuse to pay your taxes.

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
And furthermore, 'atheists' do help the homeless: Atheists Helping The Homeless - Austin

As well as non-religious affiliations....

Sure, it's great to help the homeless, but the atheists are not requiring them to set through a sermon to get their sandwich.

Oddly enough Atheists in Austin are the only ones I know about as well. Now compare that with the Christian organisations in EVERY town and city in the UK and Ireland (not sure about the rest of Europe). There are Christian organisations that help the homeless throughout the world, even in countries that are not Christian.

And not sure where you get the idea that they have to sit through a sermon to get their sandwich... The ones I was thinking about go out to the homeless and feed them. The only thing they do is tell the homeless they are being fed in the name of Jesus Christ (if they even do that - some I think are content to have a badge or t-shirt with what they stand for on it).

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
To be righteous, it requires faith? Show me where it is required in Matthew 25:31-46?

Or instead you could perhaps explain what relevance any of this has to any of us... just using this passage. Who is the Son of Man? who is the king who is judging sheep and goats? And where and what is this eternal punishment & eternal life which the passage is talking about? And does it matter since only sheep or goats get to go to either place and I am neither (and I'd be impressed if a sheep or a goat was debating theology on the internet, so I'm guessing you aren't one either)?

None of it makes any sense on its own. Perhaps it might be wise to take a look at the 24 chapters before it and the 66 books before that, as well as the 26 books after that. Maybe one of them contains a glossary or an explanation of these terms... like it does righteousness.

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
This parable gives a lesson, as instructed by Jesus. The 'selected' are deemed so, based solely upon their help to others.

Perhaps you could show me using only Matthew 25:31-46 how you know that this is instructed by Jesus?

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
The entire parable looks to be aimed at the person whom reads the passage then, now, and the future. If what you state was the case, I'm sure God would have had the mind to clarify accordingly.

He did and does. 27 books of clarification.

cvanwey said:
The verse(s) are there, for all to read.

As are the remaining 7,900 verses. Are they irrelevant?

Silly Uncle Wayne · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
Because Matthew 25:31-46 makes no reference to any of your verses listed. Just like the verses you've listed make no references to Matt. 25 - helping others as a criteria.

Why should it? Jews would have been intimately familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and Gentiles would have been raised on Paul's letters and Mark before they even saw Matthew. They would also have received teaching from the apostles to help clarify things they didn't understand. You appear to the be the only person who is unable to read scriptures as a whole and see them as a whole

cvanwey said:
If you read the the Gospels, you get conflicting paths for salvation.

Not as conflicting as you seem to imagine... well except where you have created conflict between yourself and Christians.

cvanwey · May 17, 2020

miknik5 said:
The short of Matthew 12:32 Those who thought they were wise, offered wrong judgment of who HIS father at work in HIM was...
that´s a grave no,no...better to be silent and confused, rather than open your mouth and speak blasphemy against the WORK of GOD....

So if these folks had a change of heart later, and decided they later wanted to fall in line to faith/other, they're still hosed then, right? God will not forgive such prior actions -- (i.e.) to speak blasphemy.

cvanwey · May 17, 2020

miknik5 said:
Answered already three times that I know of and is the very verse which two posters told you to read John 5 as the parallel to this verse.

Sir, I don´t know if you understand this....but to offer snippets, rather than read in context will OF COURSE leave you confused....

Further, GOD´S WORD will NOT contradict HIS WORD

As I told the other poster, John 5 explains John 5. Matthew 25:31-46 is it's own case.

cvanwey · May 17, 2020

miknik5 said:
Sir, if you don´t, there is no reason to continue the discussion...because, just as a teacher, who has read the whole work of the assignment, and knows what to expect of her students, if one student reads only a snippet and tries to turn in an assignment, that teacher will know he/she did not do the full work, but has only skimmed over the assignment.

We know sir...we know that you haven´t done your work...
Worse still, you imply that those who have don´t know the work.

and they certainly do.

We are teaching and instructing..YOU...
It is NOT the other way around...

You have again misinterpreted my response.

Let me clarify for you. Responding to [anyone] to read a Chapter, and leaving it at that, can result in differing conclusions; even if you were to provide this Chapter to Christians exclusively.

Hence, you might want to just say what you want to say. I would assume we have all read our Bibles

cvanwey · May 17, 2020

I guess your 'good day' comment wasn't the end of it

2PhiloVoid said:
Is there an example in the New Testament of an overly zealous Pharisee minded individual who later "changed his mind"? If not, then we might wonder why not.

There's not really much on the topic of 'blasphemy' at all. All we know, is that God will not forgive such actions. Let's explore...

2PhiloVoid said:
Maybe the authors of the Gospels and of the book of Acts thought that human nature was such that if Jesus made a proclamation about some persons, it's because He, being informed by the Holy Spirit, KNEW that those 'suckas' just weren't going to 'change their minds'............................EVER?

So, in the case of the Pharisees Jesus confronted about blasphemy, Jesus made them the brunt of His example and did so because if He knew that no amount of miraculous demonstration done before their very eyes would get them to change their minds about Him at any time, whether now or in the future. And He knew they were doomed!

There's a difference between 'speaking against' and 'not believing'. These are two separate categories. You are instead trying to combine them.

If the faith route is your thing, i.e. John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10, Mark 16:15-20, etc etc; then such cited passages speak accordingly. -- Don't apply these essential principles, and you are not saved --- according to this paradigm.

To 'speak against' is a separate topic altogether. You could be a non-believer, and 'speak against'. You could be a believer, and 'speak against.'

These verses are ambiguous, and do not clarify.

I get your position, but I feel your position does not hold much water. See below...

2PhiloVoid said:
Yeah, I think this is the case, and I doubt you, especially you, let alone anyone else here, will be able to undo the hermeneutical point that I'm making here. So, what does this mean? It means that if God isn't demonstrating through the Holy Spirit something in Cartesian terms that is the kind of proof (i.e. "clear and distinctly discernable") that should sway just about anyone sane, then the person in that unclear and indistinct circumstance can still yet be forgiven his or her blasphemy .................................. if they truly repent and turn to God through Christ!

End of "hermeneutical" Story.

So you too admit that the verbiage in the provided Verse is less-than clear? Seems as though God might want to clarify a bit, being that He seems to deliver such a grave possible threat.

As I've told others, He has no problem explaining, in detail, when He deems necessary. Why is such a threat left for interpretation?

2PhiloVoid said:
The Gauntlet has been thrown at your feet, "Mr., I'm gonna just keep popping them over the head with questions that aren't always necessary and ignoring everything that anyone will provide to me, regardless" ... or whatever your name is.

Um... k

2PhiloVoid · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
I guess your 'good day' comment wasn't the end of it

There's not really much on the topic of 'blasphemy' at all. All we know, is that God will not forgive such actions. Let's explore...

There's a difference between 'speaking against' and 'not believing'. These are two separate categories. You are instead trying to combine them.

If the faith route is your thing, i.e. John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10, Mark 16:15-20, etc etc; then such cited passages speak accordingly. -- Don't apply these essential principles, and you are not saved --- according to this paradigm.

To 'speak against' is a separate topic altogether. You could be a non-believer, and 'speak against'. You could be a believer, and 'speak against.'

These verses are ambiguous, and do not clarify.

I get your position, but I feel your position does not hold much water. See below...

So you too admit that the verbiage in the provided Verse is less-than clear? Seems as though God might want to clarify a bit, being that He seems to deliver such a grave possible threat.

As I've told others, He has no problem explaining, in detail, when He deems necessary. Why is such a threat left for interpretation?

Um... k

Of course the Bible isn't immediately clear about the full nature of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." In fact, it's not instantly clear on a lot of things, and this is the case for at least two reasons, neither of those which are anything I've ever denied. In fact, if you've paid attention to what I've been telling you these past few years, my whole position has been consistently one that insists on the need for some minimal measure of hermeneutical application because of these very kinds of things: the Bible is difficult to read and understand. But every time I even begin to move into a deeper level of discussing the topic of hermeneutics, you stall the inquiry, usually with some imperative of the form: "Now, stop right there! There's no need to get into all of that!" Etc. Etc.

I've affirmed the importance for wider, more robust academic hermeneutical application to you, but here you are, supposedly telling me that you think I'm not able to recognize and acknowledge the difficulty that this passage on blasphemy has had for everyone and their dog, especially these days, a time when a lot people seem to have some kind of perpetual grievance over it.

For the most part, any confusion that the Bible seems to cause people is something I sympathize with, but at the same time, what you don't seem to understand is the simple fact that we're all human and due to this fact, it's virtually impossible for any one of us to easily interpret the significance of all kinds of things in this world, with the Bible being simply just one more thing that many of us in our humanly limited lives have to wrestle with in this way.

Ed1wolf · May 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
Please see post #554. I do not care to repeat myself. And no, John 5 explains John 5.

Remember Christians believe that the Bible is a unified whole, so you cannot make a doctrine out of an isolated passage. That is taking it out of context.

cvanwey · May 18, 2020

agapelove said:
There I've fixed it for you.

God is not a vindictive troll, He is a loving Father. Yes he is Judge but first and foremost he is Love. All else is an extension of love. Even his judgments, which can look like punishments from our position, are always for our sake. I think you are giving the IRS a little too much credit with that comparison.

According to the Bible, it looks to be an either/or proposition. --- Heaven (or) hell. Unfortunately, 'correct' is NOT correct

It is punish. Being sent away for eternity seems to be a rather bazaar form of 'love' and/or 'correction'. Both your terms would imply something else... I.E.

Love might mean.. I'm doing this for your own 'good'. I'm sending you to a place, away from me, for eternity.

Correction might mean.. I'm doing this to fix something. But wait, if the person stays in this place forever, it would not matter if it was ever fixed...

So yea, Christianity and the IRS seem like a reasonable comparison. --- In that they both pose compulsory propositions... But in the case for the IRS, there exists some level of escape or resolve. If I decide not to pay, and they come after me, I can escape by maybe leaving the country or dying. I can also resolve it by deciding to pay or to serve jail time. --- Finite resolution, at least...

agapelove said:
Sure, let's say the tenets are faith based.

Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 5:28 28 Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice.

It's not a matter of if but when all people, past and present, will acknowledge Jesus is Lord.

Philippians 2:10 So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Are you stating, that according to Philippians 2:10, that if I die undecided, and after He places His judgement upon me, and sends me to hell, I can [then] later change my mind; by confessing with my tongue -- (as long as it is in earnest)?

agapelove said:
Where do you get that idea from? God thought us so worthy that he sent his Son to die for us. God's eternal purpose, from the foundation of the world, was to sum up all things in Christ, Eph 1.10. You can interpret that however you want.

I understand the story line. I'm asking you... Does [your] definition of 'grace' mean all go to heaven? Or is more required (faith, faith/works)?

If Jesus sacrificed Himself, this means no human was worthy on their own. All will break the Commandments, etc... Grace alone might mean all get to go, sense no one is worthy.

cvanwey · May 18, 2020

miknik5 said:
No HE doesn´t...If HE deemed me on the fence, HE would not have chosen me from the beginning...for as Luke 14 clearly states...who builds a tower without FIRST counting the cost?

Prove that He has chosen you

How do you know? Actions speak louder than words. Telling me He chose you means little. What have you done to show your faith to God? And how do you know God deems your faith worthy? Again, He set a specific criteria. --- To give up all possessions. Maybe the fact that you have not done this, means your faith as not as strong as you might think or want it to be...?

You don't think that most/every Christian thinks they are chosen? Many of which, adhere to differing methods for salvation?

And until you can do this; (i.e.) prove He has chosen [you], please explain why Luke 14:33 does not apply to you, when it certainly applies to others?

cvanwey · May 18, 2020

miknik5 said:
This is dishonest, and this is why I will no longer reply to any of your posts going forward...

Actually ma'am, I'm the one issuing honesty here. I have admitted, from the get-go, that I am no longer a follower of Jesus. And by this, I mean I do not think He exists postmortem. Maybe He existed as a preacher, when He was alive on earth, but that's where it ends (for me)... I have also admitted that I am now a casual observer. I have admitted that when I finally decided to read the Bible, (when I was still a believer), I came away confused; especially in regards to salvation. I later had no choice but to reject the assertions/claims, for various reasons I will not get into here, as they are off topic...

In all honesty, I have found that it would not matter how intelligent you are, how well versed you are, or how many times you read the same Bible from cover to cover.... I see direct conflict, when the Bible asserts 'the path' to salvation. I'm sorry you find me disingenuous. I'm sorry if you feel I'm playing a game here. I'm sorry you feel any adverse way towards me at all.

On the other hand, please understand what this forum arena is directly FOR.... It is for people, like me, to challenge your faith

I'm sorry this annoys you.

And further, you keep accusing me of things. And yet, you have been doing it from the jump. You hit respond to an entire multi-subject response, and issue a one sentence answer. You do not address all content within the response, just 'snippets'. It doesn't really bother me. However, please remember, 'what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.' Whatever a gander is?

To recap.... I'm here to demonstrate, that the path to salvation is not clear. All you fine educated intelligent folks demonstrate this, again and again.

Here, there is nothing for you to 'win.' You can't. Many can successfully make a case for their path to salvation. But in doing so, they have to ignore other 'provable' paths, which oppose yours...

cvanwey · May 18, 2020

dcalling said:
God chose to express in many languages, but the original langue used for this book is greek.

You've missed my point. First, I'm aware the original was in Greek.

In regards to confusion, it would appear that if the reader is not aware that differing language(s) can change the meaning a bit, or a lot, then maybe it might be prudent for the providing author to place a disclaimer somewhere; that to read verse in another language, may cause for confusion in translation.

Furthermore, maybe all the subsequent translations, in differing languages, or even in the very same language, might want to disclose this little nugget of information as well.

God allows for humans to write down His Word, knowing people will translate them differently. And if you don't believe me, then let's not get started as to the various 'versions' of the Bible, which may also screw or alter the meaning a bit, or a lot (i.e.) KJV, NIV, TLB, NCV, ISV, NTE, MEV, etc etc etc etc....................................

dcalling said:
Finally we agree.

Again, No. We don't.

Yes, we agree, in A and B are different. But..... See below....

dcalling said:
It is the same as saying "Satan will never be forgiven".

No it is not. The entire passage is ambiguous, and leaves the reader scratching their head. See below....

dcalling said:
If you read just 1 or 2 lines above what you quoted, you will notice those are for true believers or those apostles, who has faith and no doubt.

Yes, I would assume [you] do, and in line with praying for others, please pray for me

And if all such verses are somewhat accurate, then this should be no problem for you or for God. Otherwise, saying you will pray for non-believers would be nonsense.

dcalling said:
I thought you got it but you don't. A true believer will never turn away, no matter what turmoil, stress, tragedy etc. So once saved, always saved, even under the most horrific situations. It is a concept rather hard to be understand by those who is not saved, i.e. they will ask "why the 11 apostles die under such horrendous conditions for God? Or in book of Job, when Satan take away Jobs's money/kids/health, his wife told him he is a fool to keep following God, Job never cursed God or turn away. I have answered this multiple times and you kept bring it up

I get it, it's you whom are having difficulties...

If I divorce my wife, and then decide to later re-marry her, we were never really married the first time.

If I divorce my wife, and never re-marry her, we were never really married.

If I love my child, but later speak against them, and even denounce them as my child, because maybe they did something I thought was heinous, but then later ask them back into my life, I guess them never forgiving me would be in line with God's train of thought...?.?.?

You are saying they were never a true Christian, if they 'speak against' God.

agapelove · May 18, 2020

cvanwey said:
According to the Bible, it looks to be an either/or proposition. --- Heaven (or) hell.

Incorrect. Hell/Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:14)

cvanwey said:
Are you stating, that according to Philippians 2:10, that if I die undecided, and after He places His judgement upon me, and sends me to hell, I can [then] later change my mind; by confessing with my tongue -- (as long as it is in earnest)?

The early Saints prayed for those who were in the Lake of Fire. Why do you think that? I encourage you to do your own research about the Refiner's Fire.

cvanwey said:
I understand the story line. I'm asking you... Does [your] definition of 'grace' mean all go to heaven?

My definition of salvation is that all people are rescued from the grip of death, darkness, and evil by what was accomplished on the cross. Jesus defeated death by way of death and he now holds the keys to hell (Rev 1:18).

cvanwey said:
Or is more required (faith, faith/works)? If Jesus sacrificed Himself, this means no human was worthy on their own. All will break the Commandments, etc...Grace alone might mean all get to go, sense no one is worthy

Unable is not the same thing as unworthy. Grace is what enables and faith/works is the response to grace. However neither on its own can attain salvation for you.

As for whether or not "all get to go"... what is God's stated eternal purpose?

dcalling · May 18, 2020

cvanwey said:
You've missed my point. First, I'm aware the original was in Greek.

In regards to confusion, it would appear that if the reader is not aware that differing language(s) can change the meaning a bit, or a lot, then maybe it might be prudent for the providing author to place a disclaimer somewhere; that to read verse in another language, may cause for confusion in translation.

Furthermore, maybe all the subsequent translations, in differing languages, or even in the very same language, might want to disclose this little nugget of information as well.

God allows for humans to write down His Word, knowing people will translate them differently. And if you don't believe me, then let's not get started as to the various 'versions' of the Bible, which may also screw or alter the meaning a bit, or a lot (i.e.) KJV, NIV, TLB, NCV, ISV, NTE, MEV, etc etc etc etc....................................

Again, No. We don't.

Yes, we agree, in A and B are different. But..... See below....

No it is not. The entire passage is ambiguous, and leaves the reader scratching their head. See below....

Yes, I would assume [you] do, and in line with praying for others, please pray for me And if all such verses are somewhat accurate, then this should be no problem for you or for God. Otherwise, saying you will pray for non-believers would be nonsense.

If you are just talking about the verses of praying, then you are right, I actually don't understand some of them, i.e. to what extend things will be given to us and what extend is determined by God. But that is a different topic (which I don't have an answer for). However we are talking about blaspheme against Holy Spirit, which has little to do with the other verses.

cvanwey said:
I get it, it's you whom are having difficulties...

If I divorce my wife, and then decide to later re-marry her, we were never really married the first time.

If I divorce my wife, and never re-marry her, we were never really married.

If I love my child, but later speak against them, and even denounce them as my child, because maybe they did something I thought was heinous, but then later ask them back into my life, I guess them never forgiving me would be in line with God's train of thought...?.?.?

You are saying they were never a true Christian, if they 'speak against' God.

Nope you simply didn't get it. I would think a more accurate parable will be iron and steel. Before iron became steel, they are easier to rot, but after they became steel, it is much more difficult to rot.

In your example, the love of a child/ the marriage, are all temporary, there is no change in chemical compositions, you can flip as many times as you want.

Same as people, before they became Christians, no matter how much they act like one, they are not real Christians, and they could curse God. After they became Christians, which means Christ like, they won't curse God, and they won't ever revert to their original state.

So Christians => Christ like. Something changed, iron became steel, except it is a much harder steel that will never rot.

Purveyor of Confusion

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads