If the Bible is meant to be about interpretation...

[mulimulix]

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin." - Mark 3:28-29

I interpret these verses as saying anyone who has ever blasphemed against the holy spirit can never be forgiven. Therefore, there is no point me considering becoming a Christian, because I would be doomed to hell anyway.

This came to me last night that everyone seems to have different interpretations of lots of different verses and it seems to be fine, so if I interpret those verses like I do, what would you say to me?

 

[RefCath]

This came to me last night that everyone seems to have different interpretations of lots of different verses and it seems to be fine, so if I interpret those verses like I do, what would you say to me?

The first thing to say is that a plurality of interpretations is not ideal. Secondly, whilst for some verses there are different views it is also true to say that there are also limits on what are acceptable interpretations. Thirdly, with specific reference to Mark 3:28-29 I would say that no church authority interprets the verses in the way that you do, moreover I know of no commentator that does either. Rather the context helps us to determine the meaning, i.e. what is the context for Jesus saying this? Well it takes place as the summary of verses 20-27 where the teachers of religious law claim that the Spirit's power is demonic. Then verse 30 tells us, "He told them this because they were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”

 

[ebia]

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin." - Mark 3:28-29

I interpret these verses as saying anyone who has ever blasphemed against the holy spirit can never be forgiven. Therefore, there is no point me considering becoming a Christian, because I would be doomed to hell anyway.

This came to me last night that everyone seems to have different interpretations of lots of different verses and it seems to be fine, so if I interpret those verses like I do, what would you say to me?

That your interpretation is misguided?

Rejecting the means of salvation (Spirit) is rejecting salvation. That's all it really amounts to. Stop rejecting the work of the Spirit and you can be saved.

 

[mulimulix]

The first thing to say is that a plurality of interpretations is not ideal. Secondly, whilst for some verses there are different views it is also true to say that there are also limits on what are acceptable interpretations. Thirdly, with specific reference to Mark 3:28-29 I would say that no church authority interprets the verses in the way that you do, moreover I know of no commentator that does either. Rather the context helps us to determine the meaning, i.e. what is the context for Jesus saying this? Well it takes place as the summary of verses 20-27 where the teachers of religious law claim that the Spirit's power is demonic. Then verse 30 tells us, "He told them this because they were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”

I think it is rather convenient that many can take something such as the days of creation literally, but none can take something as black and white as "If you have blasphemed you are forever doomed" as a metaphor; it just seems to convenient.

Also, this isn't the only verse that says this. I can find the others if you would like.

That your interpretation is misguided?

Rejecting the means of salvation (Spirit) is rejecting salvation. That's all it really amounts to. Stop rejecting the work of the Spirit and you can be saved.

I'm not saying I want to be 'Saved'; I am saying that I think this is a reason not to follow Christianity which can be easily related to a Christian.

 

[ebia]

I think it is rather convenient that many can take something such as the days of creation literally, but none can take something as black and white as "If you have blasphemed you are forever doomed" as a metaphor; it just seems to convenient.

Also, this isn't the only verse that says this. I can find the others if you would like.

I'm not saying I want to be 'Saved'; I am saying that I think this is a reason not to follow Christianity which can be easily related to a Christian.

It looks more like a piece of gibberish masquerading as an excuse.

 

[mulimulix]

It looks more like a piece of gibberish masquerading as an excuse.

On whose part?

 

[ebia]

On whose part?

Your post ... looks to me.

No doubt from time to time I also post complete gibberish, some of which may well look like an excuse.

 

[mulimulix]

Your post ... looks to me.

No doubt from time to time I also post complete gibberish, some of which may well look like an excuse.

Ok, let me try to explain again:

The story of Creation explicitly says the Earth and universe were created in 6 days, something which a lot of Christians believe to be literal (and fairly so, seeing as it does not appear to be a metaphor). However, the verse I quoted explicitly states that all who blaspheme against the holy spirit shall be burdened with an eternal sin. Yet, the people who believe in the literal depiction of the Creation story choose to make this out as a metaphor. This seems too convenient for me that something which directly correlated to our lives and the likelihood of Christianity appealing to people be taken not literally.

 

[drich0150]

Ok, let me try to explain again:

The story of Creation explicitly says the Earth and universe were created in 6 days, something which a lot of Christians believe to be literal (and fairly so, seeing as it does not appear to be a metaphor). However, the verse I quoted explicitly states that all who blaspheme against the holy spirit shall be burdened with an eternal sin. Yet, the people who believe in the literal depiction of the Creation story choose to make this out as a metaphor. This seems too convenient for me that something which directly correlated to our lives and the likelihood of Christianity appealing to people be taken not literally.

What your argument is lacking and the reason it is confusing is because you have failed to counter with your definition of what it means to Blaspheme The Holy Spirit.

Does your example coincide with the actions Christ identified with this sin?

 

[RefCath]

I think it is rather convenient that many can take something such as the days of creation literally, but none can take something as black and white as "If you have blasphemed you are forever doomed" as a metaphor; it just seems to convenient.

No one is saying that it is a metaphor, rather the statement Jesus made had a specific context and it is this context that guides our interpretation. And this context is not just the specific context within the Gospel, but also within the canon itself, that is we allow scripture to interpret scripture. The question is what does it mean to blaspheme against the holy spirit? The context suggests that it is ascribing the work of Jesus to Satan and so the point is as Ebia said, the scribes were rejecting the Spirit and so they were ultimately rejecting salvation because it is he who applies the benefits of Jesus to us.

Also, this isn't the only verse that says this. I can find the others if you would like.

Go for it

 

[RefCath]

The story of Creation explicitly says the Earth and universe were created in 6 days, something which a lot of Christians believe to be literal (and fairly so, seeing as it does not appear to be a metaphor). However, the verse I quoted explicitly states that all who blaspheme against the holy spirit shall be burdened with an eternal sin. Yet, the people who believe in the literal depiction of the Creation story choose to make this out as a metaphor. This seems too convenient for me that something which directly correlated to our lives and the likelihood of Christianity appealing to people be taken not literally.

What does it mean to blaspheme against the holy spirit? That is the crux of the matter

 

[mulimulix]

What your argument is lacking and the reason it is confusing is because you have failed to counter with your definition of what it means to Blaspheme The Holy Spirit.

Does your example coincide with the actions Christ identified with this sin?

I believe blaspheming is speaking irreverently about god/holy spirit/jesus (in the case of Christianity). This is the definition for 'Blaspheme'.

Go for it

Mark 12:30-32 - “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Luke 12:8-10 - “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Pretty black and white.

 

[razeontherock]

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin." - Mark 3:28-29

I interpret these verses as saying anyone who has ever blasphemed against the holy spirit can never be forgiven. Therefore, there is no point me considering becoming a Christian, because I would be doomed to hell anyway.

This came to me last night that everyone seems to have different interpretations of lots of different verses and it seems to be fine, so if I interpret those verses like I do, what would you say to me?

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand! (IOW, you don't get off the hook that easy Suicide by cop is a coward's way out)

 

[drich0150]

I believe blaspheming is speaking irreverently about god/holy spirit/jesus (in the case of Christianity). This is the definition for 'Blaspheme'.



Luke 12:8-10 - “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Pretty black and white.

Indeed it is if you look at the story as a whole.

In Matthew 12:31-32, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by the demon “Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). Now notice that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what they did to commit “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
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.

What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

 

[razeontherock]

I believe blaspheming is speaking irreverently ... This is the definition for 'Blaspheme'.

Yes it is, but the passage you are questioning is MUCH more specific! Drich's above post is the most concisely I've ever seen it put that is on target. (I don't agree the sin can't be committed today, but will say that no one ever would do such a thing)

I'm interested to see how our OP might respond ...

 

[mulimulix]

Indeed it is if you look at the story as a whole.

In Matthew 12:31-32, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by the demon “Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). Now notice that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what they did to commit “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
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.

What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Yes it is, but the passage you are questioning is MUCH more specific! Drich's above post is the most concisely I've ever seen it put that is on target. (I don't agree the sin can't be committed today, but will say that no one ever would do such a thing)

I'm interested to see how our OP might respond ...

If the specific law was meant to be directed at the specific event which happened, it would say so. If not, then I think it should be taken pretty literally.

Also, as I have pointed out, there is more than one instance of the law being mentioned and not once does it mention it in relation to the situation that was mentioned above.

 

[razeontherock]

If the specific law was meant to be directed at the specific event which happened, it would say so.

Also, as I have pointed out, there is more than one instance of the law being mentioned and not once does it mention it in relation to the situation that was mentioned above.

UM, WHAT? What you just said is, "context doesn't matter."

You cannot read this like it was English literature. It was written in a different language, in a different time, for a different culture. For the specific purpose of driving at things language cannot express. Moreover, Jesus was a Master at the whole technique, and His comments are always tailored to the specific event He's in the middle of. (So are ours, but we goof up)

If you look at the event, you see the purpose of His comment to be exactly what Drich laid out plainly, and also that it was never some "law."

 

[mulimulix]

UM, WHAT? What you just said is, "context doesn't matter."

You cannot read this like it was English literature. It was written in a different language, in a different time, for a different culture. For the specific purpose of driving at things language cannot express. Moreover, Jesus was a Master at the whole technique, and His comments are always tailored to the specific event He's in the middle of. (So are ours, but we goof up)

If you look at the event, you see the purpose of His comment to be exactly what Drich laid out plainly, and also that it was never some "law."

Well, there's two things about this:

1. I didn't say context doesn't matter. I said that the quotes I mentioned earlier didn't appear to be referring to anything specific.

2. If there is going to be one and one book only for all of humanity, inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient being, it better be context-proof, otherwise he should expect people to doubt it.

 

[drich0150]

If the specific law was meant to be directed at the specific event which happened, it would say so. If not, then I think it should be taken pretty literally.

Also, as I have pointed out, there is more than one instance of the law being mentioned and not once does it mention it in relation to the situation that was mentioned above.

Context and compilation is key here. We can not take one mentioning of this or any law or warning without considering all mentioning of it, and incorporate or reconcile the various verses into everything else that is known. As it is you are trying to use scripture against itself, when you should be taking the various verses to construct a singular understanding.

 

[EndlessSerenade]

I see the unforgivable sin as this. It's a continued unbelief in God. This making sense that it is not forgivable then as you cannot expect to see heaven if you haven't repented during the course of you life. If you however do decide to accept Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit then you will see heaven. Cursing God or simply saying things like you deny the Holy Spirit are not what this blasphemous is about. What's blasphemous is going your whole life and simply denying God throughout your life while knowing He was your God. It's also been said that if you worry about having committed the unforgivable sin, you could not have possibly done it as someone's who's so cut off from God and "blasphemous" would not even be concerned over such a thing.