Purveyor of Confusion

[dcalling]

It seems, with you, we only go backwards, or sideways, and not forwards. Furthermore, some of your responses do not even correlate/correspond with the question(s)/comment(s) appropriately.

I appreciate you taking the time and all, but this is going nowhere perpetually.

Thanks all the same...

I addressed all your points but you can't see them or understand them. Posting them below as reference for anyone who read our conversions.

It seems that your primary issue is you can't see there is a difference between blasphemy and blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Below are my explanations, again:
Blasphemy against God: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Blasphemy against Holy Spirit: After you have known God, you still lie about God and try to lead others astray. The Bible clearly mentioned blasphemy against God/Jesus and blasphemy against Holy Spirit in different lights. You just can't see it.

 

[cvanwey]

I addressed all your points but you can't see them or understand them.

False sir. Post #215 was the last semi, but redundant, exchange. I made the effort in consolidating the exchange, for your convenience. Please keep it handy. Because after this point, you started to go backwards again:

#1 (you) "a true Christian won't curse God."
(me) "That's like saying a true Christian would never lie, steal, cheat, trespass."

#2 (you) "Speaking against god is different than cursing god"
(me) "God does not clarify this, how would you know? This is one reason why the writers of the Bible are the providers of confusion."

#3 (you) "I believe this verse is for fallen angles, not humans."
(me) "God mentions this sin is unforgivable, in three distinct and separate passages. Never once, in these three passages, does God reference what your are saying."

#4 (you) "True believers and non-believers cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit"
(me) "One of the main purposes of the Bible is to tell the readers of what not to do. Not clarifying what you state above, leads Christian readers, especially, to believe they can commit this offense. Since 'blasphemy' is not clearly defined by God, means God is being ambiguous here. Blasphemy is a loose term."

#5 (you) "works is a manifestation of faith"
(me) "It can be, but it does not have to be. You can perform one without the other. And we have two distinct passages. One states you are solely saved by your faith. Another states you are solely saved/judged by your works. Which one do you ignore?

#6 (you) "Jesus meant you should not value possessions."
(me) "No metaphor suggests this. How do you know Jesus is not literally telling you that owning possessions demonstrates lack in faith? How do you know Jesus does not deem your faith weak?

It seems that your primary issue is you can't see there is a difference between blasphemy and blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Please address points #2,#3, and #4 for starters. And to add, as I also stated prior, for such an unforgivable offense, seems odd that God does not take the time to clarify. -- (i.e.) -- Three passages, for what NOT to do... God can certainly be crystal clear, when He wants to be. But here, God does not clarify what constitutes to 'blaspheme' the Holy Spirit. Ala, provider of confusion....

Below are my explanations, again:
Blasphemy against God: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Blasphemy against Holy Spirit: After you have known God, you still lie about God and try to lead others astray. The Bible clearly mentioned blasphemy against God/Jesus and blasphemy against Holy Spirit in different lights. You just can't see it.

If what you stated were clear, then many would not fear they have committed it --> 'Confusion", as the title of this thread suggests...

Sure, you can spin ONE angle, as to what you claim. BUT, God instead decides to remain ambiguous. Blasphemy has more than one definition. The fact that God does not bother, nor take the time to distinguish what is unforgivable in the three verses, either likely means that any sort of blasphemy is unforgiven, or, He doesn't really care to differentiate. As a result, leaves many to think they are doomed, if they maybe are not....

Again, He can go into great detail about routine or mundane actions and events, but in something so offensive, so unforgivable, He is brief, and without further explanation or clarification.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm proceeding this way:
To make sure you are interpreting that verse somewhat correctly, you go to other scripture verses, whom are educated to tell you what this verse means. If it aligns with your own interpretation, there's a better chance you are interpreting that verse correctly.

There is no confusion, I think a provided ways to resolve your three "contradictions".

Bible is it's own best interpretor. Scripture interprets scripture.

Wow, we are still describing two completely different things.

(i.e.)

I read a verse which states, "God likes ham sandwiches".

I think to myself, is God being literal, figurative, metaphorical, other? What is God saying here? If I reference other verse, what if I can find other verses, but these verse(s) lead me with two or more opposing conclusions? Or, what if there exists no other verses at all to reference this claim? Does this mean it is literal then, other?

My point here is that I read a claim from the Bible. If I find it can mean more than one thing, and if I only read the rest of the Bible, and still think it can mean one thing, or even more than one thing, but I'm not sure, maybe I then decide to consult with proclaimed professionals. If their interpretation aligns with mine, then maybe I'm on the right track.

Otherwise, I remain confused. And furthermore, if differing claims to profession claim differing conclusions, then maybe, just maybe, the author is to blame..?.....?.?.

As I stated prior, for which you passed over... Did you happen to notice how many differing sects of Christianity exist?????? If they are all genuine in their interpretation, but they conflict in their interpretations, does it not stand to reason that the author(s) are either: ambiguous, sloppy, or maybe relying upon words which change meaning over time; other?

Hence, is the Word really the best way for universal and timeless communication? You claim it is (proverbial head-scratch here)....

according to you.

Let's settle this simply. Ask God what He meant here? Please ask Him, if you would not mind...

"When you die, do you accept humans whom commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit into heaven?"

the one way applies to individuals... the other to groups.
It is as I said, I think.

Let's settle this simply. Ask God what He meant here? Please ask Him, if you would not mind...

"When you told people in Matthew 25:31-46, that you will judge them based upon how much they help others, you did not mention anything about [the faithful which help others]? Does this mean that being faithful is not a requirement? You only stated 'you'. I don't know if this means You deem me faithful or not? Maybe some with little/no faith, but does a lot of 'worthy help' is deemed acceptable, whereas someone with faith, but is not so helpful, is declined?"

Second question to ask God for me..

"When You tell humans that to be saved is to confess to Me with your mouth, are any works also required? You are giving [the way] to salvation, and yet, you give no other criteria?"

All of this could have been solved quite easily, in my estimation. The confusion could have been avoided quite simply. In Matthew 25:31-46, simply add, "the faithful". Not too hard. See below:

"45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever [the faithful] did not do for one of the least of these, [the faithful] did not do for me."

Hence I tell you again: Jesus was referring to me... as a one-and-done request, I guess.
Jesus made it clear that in order to become a disciple... you need to give up everything. I think it's a one-and-done measure. There are examples in the Bible of followers of Jesus who were rich, Abraham followed him, for example.
But I suppose... at one point in his life... also Abraham had to give up everything he had, too.

Then you are going to need to further explain 'one-and-done'. You own possessions now, clearly. Did God give you these possessions after you gave all possessions away prior? But more importantly, did you actually give away ALL possessions prior? If not, why not, and how do you know God did not want you too? Did you ask Him?

 

[dcalling]

False sir. Post #215 was the last semi, but redundant, exchange. I made the effort in consolidating the exchange, for your convenience. Please keep it handy. Because after this point, you started to go backwards again:

In a prior post you asked the same questions and I already answered. You just keep coming back ask the same again and again. Also I noticed you finally changed "conflict" to "confusion". So you finally realized there is no conflict but just you are confused? Would you please answer this?

#1 (you) "a true Christian won't curse God."
(me) "That's like saying a true Christian would never lie, steal, cheat, trespass."

I already said, curse God is different than line, steal, cheat. Is lie, steal, cheat cursing God? Why are you confusing lie/cheat/steal to curse?

#2 (you) "Speaking against god is different than cursing god"
(me) "God does not clarify this, how would you know? This is one reason why the writers of the Bible are the providers of confusion."

#3 (you) "I believe this verse is for fallen angles, not humans."
(me) "God mentions this sin is unforgivable, in three distinct and separate passages. Never once, in these three passages, does God reference what your are saying."

#4 (you) "True believers and non-believers cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit"
(me) "One of the main purposes of the Bible is to tell the readers of what not to do. Not clarifying what you state above, leads Christian readers, especially, to believe they can commit this offense. Since 'blasphemy' is not clearly defined by God, means God is being ambiguous here. Blasphemy is a loose term."

#5 (you) "works is a manifestation of faith"
(me) "It can be, but it does not have to be. You can perform one without the other. And we have two distinct passages. One states you are solely saved by your faith. Another states you are solely saved/judged by your works. Which one do you ignore?

#6 (you) "Jesus meant you should not value possessions."
(me) "No metaphor suggests this. How do you know Jesus is not literally telling you that owning possessions demonstrates lack in faith? How do you know Jesus does not deem your faith weak?



Please address points #2,#3, and #4 for starters. And to add, as I also stated prior, for such an unforgivable offense, seems odd that God does not take the time to clarify. -- (i.e.) -- Three passages, for what NOT to do... God can certainly be crystal clear, when He wants to be. But here, God does not clarify what constitutes to 'blaspheme' the Holy Spirit. Ala, provider of confusion....



If what you stated were clear, then many would not fear they have committed it --> 'Confusion", as the title of this thread suggests...

Sure, you can spin ONE angle, as to what you claim. BUT, God instead decides to remain ambiguous. Blasphemy has more than one definition. The fact that God does not bother, nor take the time to distinguish what is unforgivable in the three verses, either likely means that any sort of blasphemy is unforgiven, or, He doesn't really care to differentiate. As a result, leaves many to think they are doomed, if they maybe are not....

Again, He can go into great detail about routine or mundane actions and events, but in something so offensive, so unforgivable, He is brief, and without further explanation or clarification.

As to your other confusions, please see my copy/pasted answers, as well as for others to get a context.

I addressed all your points but you can't see them or understand them. Posting them below as reference for anyone who read our conversions.

It seems that your primary issue is you can't see there is a difference between blasphemy and blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Below are my explanations, again:
Blasphemy against God: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Blasphemy against Holy Spirit: After you have known God, you still lie about God and try to lead others astray. The Bible clearly mentioned blasphemy against God/Jesus and blasphemy against Holy Spirit in different lights. You just can't see it.

 

[cvanwey]

In a prior post you asked the same questions and I already answered. You just keep coming back ask the same again and again. Also I noticed you finally changed "conflict" to "confusion". So you finally realized there is no conflict but just you are confused? Would you please answer this?



I already said, curse God is different than line, steal, cheat. Is lie, steal, cheat cursing God? Why are you confusing lie/cheat/steal to curse?



As to your other confusions, please see my copy/pasted answers, as well as for others to get a context.

I addressed all your points but you can't see them or understand them. Posting them below as reference for anyone who read our conversions.

It seems that your primary issue is you can't see there is a difference between blasphemy and blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Below are my explanations, again:
Blasphemy against God: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Blasphemy against Holy Spirit: After you have known God, you still lie about God and try to lead others astray. The Bible clearly mentioned blasphemy against God/Jesus and blasphemy against Holy Spirit in different lights. You just can't see it.

This is what I mean about going backwards. You are either not reading my actual responses, or not understanding them.

So please address them, in the fashion they were addressed. But please do not 'straw man' me. It's getting old.

In the mean time, I will answer the one concern...

You asked "I noticed you finally changed "conflict" to "confusion"

For which I answer... Blasphemy is not clearly defined by God. The limits are not set. Thus, it stands to reason, that many Christians ARE committing true blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Hence, not only do we have a plausible conflict, i.e. verses Romans 10:9-10, but, we also have confusion. Why? Because the term has not been clearly defined, in the context of the 3 blasphemy verses, given by the authors. And you stating 'it's a different type of blasphemy', gets us no closer; as again, the limitations are nowhere near clearly defined by God Himself. Got it now?

Now please properly reply to the majority of post #222, or I will instead just move on, and assume you are not capable of productivity in this thread.

Thanks

 

[dcalling]

This is what I mean about going backwards. You are either not reading my actual responses, or not understanding them.

So please address them, in the fashion they were addressed. But please do not 'straw man' me. It's getting old.

In the mean time, I will answer the one concern...

You asked "I noticed you finally changed "conflict" to "confusion"

For which I answer... Blasphemy is not clearly defined by God. The limits are not set. Thus, it stands to reason, that many Christians ARE committing true blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Hence, not only do we have a plausible conflict, i.e. verses Romans 10:9-10, but, we also have confusion. Why? Because the term has not been clearly defined, in the context of the 3 blasphemy verses, given by the authors. And you stating 'it's a different type of blasphemy', gets us no closer; as again, the limitations are nowhere near clearly defined by God Himself. Got it now?

Now please properly reply to the majority of post #222, or I will instead just move on, and assume you are not capable of productively in this thread.

Thanks

I already answered. It is not clearly defined, yes, just one sentence, blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
But you can see the meaning by looking at the first 2 sentence, that blasphemy against God or Jesus is all forgivable. And we all know what blasphemy against God/Jesus is, and Jesus put one line about "blasphemy against Holy Sprite", which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are commting to it, else God will clarify it.

And for your previous post, I already answered, let me just pick a real obvious example of what you put here, you can't see my answers for some reason.

#1 (you) "a true Christian won't curse God."
(me) "That's like saying a true Christian would never lie, steal, cheat, trespass."

I already said, curse God is different than line, steal, cheat. Is lie, steal, cheat cursing God? Why are you confusing lie/cheat/steal to curse?

 

[cvanwey]

which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are commting to it, else God will clarify it.

And again, answered long ago...

How do you know? Many Christians smite God, or tell God they don't want any part of God, if they experience tragedy? They may even say, because of this experience, they no longer wish to follow Him. And then, a few days later, decide they want to again. According to the [BIBLE], and according to you, (whom states that they decide to turn away from god), asking for repentance/forgiveness of this prior act is NOT forgivable, EVER

Your response might be... "well, then they were never a true Christian to begin with." For which I answered, "great, the No True Scotsman defense."

So again, why tell Christians there exists an act they can do against God, if it is not possible to commit it? Makes no sense. The Bible is telling the Christian, in that particular case, that if they smite God, and later ask for forgiveness, God will reject that request. And this is IF I only go with [your] specific definition

And I would imagine many have done this...

And this is just one of many possible scenarios...

I already said, curse God is different than line, steal, cheat. Is lie, steal, cheat cursing God? Why are you confusing lie/cheat/steal to curse?

And again, this gets us no closer to truth.

Blasphemy, is not clearly defined. I'll give you an example of why your logic is flawed...

"You can call me and my brother a liar, but just don't call my father one." I'm making an acception for my father." Meaning a different request. i.e. it's okay to do this to me, but don't do it to so-and-so.

Please look below for illustration of my point:

"32 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."

and now:

"Anyone who speaks a word against me or my brother will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against my dad will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Capeesh?

Now can you address post #222?

 

[thomas_t]

(1) I think to myself, is God being literal, figurative, metaphorical, other? What is God saying here? If I reference other verse, what if I can find other verses, (2) but these verse(s) lead me with two or more opposing conclusions? (3) Or, what if there exists no other verses at all to reference this claim? Does this mean it is literal then, other?

your questians are good and sincere, I guess.
My take:
(1) always literal (unless it's prophecy, but then it gets difficult, and I'm not very proficient in it). After having taken it literally, add other meaning in accordance with scipture.
(2) please assume you're wrong in making two conflicting conclusions.
(3) that's a special case. But it does exist, Galatians 6:16 quickly jumps to my mind "Israel of God". Then you should add an "it might mean..." to your interpretation.
Thank you for asking.

Did you happen to notice how many differing sects of Christianity exist?????? If they are all genuine in their interpretation, but they conflict in their interpretations, does it not stand to reason that the author(s) are either: ambiguous, sloppy, or maybe relying upon words which change meaning over time; other?

oops, did I forget?
Bible explains: this is man's fault. 2 Peter 2:1.

"When you told people in Matthew 25:31-46, that you will judge them based upon how much they help others, you did not mention anything about [the faithful which help others]? Does this mean that being faithful is not a requirement? You only stated 'you'. I don't know if this means You deem me faithful or not? Maybe some with little/no faith, but does a lot of 'worthy help' is deemed acceptable, whereas someone with faith, but is not so helpful, is declined?"

this prayer doesn't make sense, I think (see red part, please). God said "nations", verse 32. I take it literally - first step - and then I add that other types of groups are added to this kins of judgement, see Revelation 2.

"When You tell humans that to be saved is to confess to Me with your mouth, are any works also required? You are giving [the way] to salvation, and yet, you give no other criteria?"

no, I won't ask him that. I take Romans 10:9-10 as being sufficient on the aspect of salvation when it comes to individual persons.

Did God give you these possessions after you gave all possessions away prior? But more importantly, did you actually give away ALL possessions prior?

yes.
Actually give? That's a good question. I think I followed God's advice for my life... and I became poorer and poorer, up to the point that I only owned furniture and clothing that I would have been unable to resell. I think. Maybe tomorrow something of value will that I still owned at that time might jump to my mind...

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Interesting questions. Hopefully you are getting interesting answers .

Here are mine:

1. Is God providing conflicting messages to differing humans?

No but humans are, well, human and not perfect receivers (that is the message of the Bible) so one wouldn't expect perfectly meshed answers, one would however expect a reasonable amount of agreement and I think that we do get that.

Furthermore:

2. Does the Bible itself appear to give conflicting messages, or is the Bible in perfect unison and harmony?

Doesn't bode well when it is an either or answer you are looking for and neither answer is true. The Bible isn't in perfect unison and harmony because it was written by flawed human beings trying to do their best, but on the other hand there should be no conflicting messages sent... but the as above the receivers are a bit broken

What is written in the pages of the Bible seems to also conflict in areas. Namely, salvation. Ask two Christians, from differing sects, what God deems as necessary for salvation, and the answers will likely conflict. Would it be safe to say humans can blame God for not clearling providing His Words?

While I agree a list of set things would have been easier for all, the thing about salvation is that the result is a relationship with God and therefore each person's journey to that relationship is different. If you have a prescribed method for some it would be an unnecessary burden while others would benefit greatly from it. I recommend you read Romans 14 about the Weak and the Strong to help understand this.

3. Thus, how do Christians decide which verses to adhere to, and which to ignore or re-translate?

Sadly for most Christians it whatever they are told. Theologians however mostly have a set of methods that they will use. I don't think any of them 'ignore' passages, though they do try to explain them in the light of other passages with mixed success. Re-translation is always going to happen, because there is the translation of idiom which may make no sense if done literally, but which meant something to those reading it. A good theologian will read and try and understand all different opinions on the way words are translated. A bad one will pick their favourite.

How do Christians decide which verses are not meant to be taken as literal; even if they appear axiomatic in their written intent, which might seem to conflict with opposing verse? Again, namely, the method for salvation.

For the most part it is very obvious. E.g. when Jesus is telling a parable, he is not being literal, though the meaning of the parable is literal. There are actually very few instances where Jesus' words are ambiguous. Possibly the most obvious relates to salvation: The Kingdom of God, is it now or the future or both. Such questions are why I love being a theologian.

 

[cvanwey]

your questians are good and sincere, I guess.
My take:
(1) always literal (unless it's prophecy, but then it gets difficult, and I'm not very proficient in it). After having taken it literally, add other meaning in accordance with scipture.
(2) please assume you're wrong in making two conflicting conclusions.
(3) that's a special case. But it does exist, Galatians 6:16 quickly jumps to my mind "Israel of God". Then you should add an "it might mean..." to your interpretation.
Thank you for asking.

(1) Well then, I bet you have a bunch of interesting answers, for Genesis alone

(2) I always do, until I find two verses which directly conflict, and cannot appear to be reconciled, regardless of where I look, or whom I ask; including 'God' - Whom never seems to respond BTW? i.e. Romans 10:9-10 stated the way to be saved is faith, with no mention of works required. Matthew 25:31-46 states the way to be saved is by judgement of how much you help others, and speaks nothing of your faith. The implication is that you must 'augment' one of them, with no basis or merit, to make the other one the winner.

(3) If your own interpretation is wrong, can you ask God for the correct answer? And if He does not answer, then what?

oops, did I forget?
Bible explains: this is man's fault. 2 Peter 2:1.

Um, no. This verse is warning the reader to be aware of deceptive teachers. I doubt you fall into that category. My inquiries are only intended towards the faithful. And yet, I still get conflicting answers.

Case/point: You and @dcalling have differing interpretations of 'blasphemy' You are both genuine and sincere; but your answers widely conflict with one another.

(You) agree with me, that the verse tells humans that if they do commit this sin, they are unforgiven; but the offender might go to a limited heaven anyways - (kind of like some sort of Mormon-style heaven).

(He) states a true Christian cannot commit this sin, because then they are not a true Christian.

(I) state the verse means what it says. It tells you not to do it, because you can do it, and if you do happen to do it, no-pass-go-for-you.

Just imagine if I asked a 100 professed Christians, independently...? Then refer back to [your] answers in (1) and (2) above

this prayer doesn't make sense, I think (see red part, please).

What I meant here is that when God refers to 'you', who is He referring to? It could have been cleared up very easily. If God instead used the word 'faithful', then that would join or mesh with Romans 10:9-10 just fine. But the fact that He never distinguishes who (you) are, means He either is not concerned with assuring that the faithful must also do and be judged by their works, Or, God did not care to use words which would make His pronouncement less ambiguous.

Remember, God is telling humans what it takes to not to be sent to hell. Seems as though He could at least make the effort to be a little more clear, and not elusive. Heck, He can sure go into great detail when He wants to. Why be generic here with something so gravely important?

God said "nations", verse 32. I take it literally - first step - and then I add that other types of groups are added to this kins of judgement, see Revelation 2.

Okay, He said all nations. So? If you read the parable entirely, it eludes to the fact that all are judged by their works. Obviously there are not 'literal' parts (i.e.) sheep, goats, etc..

The message of the parable seems pretty clear. Treat all humans like you would roll out the red carpet for Jesus. And if you don't, 'hell time'. He speaks absolutely nothing of your profession of faith to Him as your savior, nor does He elude to it in any way, shape, or form; regardless of how you read the parable...

no, I won't ask him that. I take Romans 10:9-10 as being sufficient on the aspect of salvation when it comes to individual persons.

And again, if I were to ask another, and they told me Matthew 25:31-46 is sufficient, could they also make a case for this being (THE) correct way to salvation? And again, please refer to [your] answers above in (1) and (2). Because again, the verses mention nothing of the necessity for faith.

yes.
Actually give? That's a good question. I think I followed God's advice for my life... and I became poorer and poorer, up to the point that I only owned furniture and clothing that I would have been unable to resell. I think. Maybe tomorrow something of value will that I still owned at that time might jump to my mind...

If you state 'yes', doesn't sound like you followed His instructions, as asked. Again, please reference your answer in option (1). You did not give up all possessions. You kept some stuff. Looks like you might be rationalizing the things you kept? God may deem your faith disingenuous?

 

[dcalling]

And again, answered long ago...

How do you know? Many Christians smite God, or tell God they don't want any part of God, if they experience tragedy? They may even say, because of this experience, they no longer wish to follow Him. And then, a few days later, decide they want to again. According to the [BIBLE], and according to you, (whom states that they decide to turn away from god), asking for repentance/forgiveness of this prior act is NOT forgivable, EVER

Your response might be... "well, then they were never a true Christian to begin with." For which I answered, "great, the No True Scotsman defense."

So again, why tell Christians there exists an act they can do against God, if it is not possible to commit it? Makes no sense. The Bible is telling the Christian, in that particular case, that if they smite God, and later ask for forgiveness, God will reject that request. And this is IF I only go with [your] specific definition

And I would imagine many have done this...

And this is just one of many possible scenarios...

I know because no matter what happens, I know it is something good from God. My neighbor lost his daughter some years ago, we prayed but we know it is all God's plan. No real Christians who know God, twists God's character. We believe God is good, even in a rage. I know this as a Christian.

I can imagine it is very hard for you to comprehend , as for a long time I don't understand why bad things happen to good people. But as recorded on the Bible, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28.

And again, this gets us no closer to truth.

Blasphemy, is not clearly defined. I'll give you an example of why your logic is flawed...

"You can call me and my brother a liar, but just don't call my father one." I'm making an acception for my father." Meaning a different request. i.e. it's okay to do this to me, but don't do it to so-and-so.

Please look below for illustration of my point:

"32 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."

and now:

"Anyone who speaks a word against me or my brother will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against my dad will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Capeesh?

Now can you address post #222?

That seems to be a good example, except God is a spirit, not a person. I already give you a better example:

Some saw me, a foreigner, different skin color, and think I am a bad person and told other people. That is fine (this is similar to blasphemy against Jesus and God). But after been neighbors for many years, he knows my character, and still LIEs about me, that is something intentional, and is much more serious (it is to the likes of blasphemy against Holy Spirit). See my post below (copied from previous post).



My previous post below:
I already answered. It is not clearly defined, yes, just one sentence, blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
But you can see the meaning by looking at the first 2 sentence, that blasphemy against God or Jesus is all forgivable. And we all know what blasphemy against God/Jesus is, and Jesus put one line about "blasphemy against Holy Sprite", which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are committing to it, else God will clarify it.

Blasphemy against Holy Spirit is clearly not something ordinal man can commit. It can only be commited if you truly know God and still lie about His character.

 

[thomas_t]

(3) If your own interpretation is wrong, can you ask God for the correct answer? And if He does not answer, then what?

why directly ask God, you can go to the churches - his body according to Ephesians 4:4 - and ask them and check if the scripture they cited is correct. If they give conflicting messages that confuse you, come back to the thread and ask.

But the fact that He never distinguishes who (you) are

the you in Romans 10 is everyone, the you in Matthew every nation. Faith for the salvation of individuals. Works for the salvation of nations, churches, families etc. (My interpretation).
In Romans 10, God does not pick and choose as to whom is called in that passage. This is because God is no respecter of persons, Ephesians 6:9.

all are judged by their works. Obviously there are not 'literal' parts (i.e.) sheep, goats, etc..

yeah, sheep and goats are prophetic expressions I think.
All nations in Matthew 25. Not individuals (according to my own interpretation).

Again, please reference your answer in option (1). You did not give up all possessions. You kept some stuff. Looks like you might be rationalizing the things you kept? God may deem your faith disingenuous?

(1) following Christ is a process. Well, I always owned a travel backpack. But I don't think I could have resold it. But it's true, I forgot that one when I looked at all my things and tried to sell everything of worth in a financial sense. In case I would have been able to sell that one, too, .... I would have made a mistake in keeping it.
Apart from that, I really sold everything I could on one occasion.
I'm ok with the passage now.

@dcalling says that Christians can't commit the unforgivable sin.
I think he is right.
My answer is for the hypothetical case that he is not.
His stance and mine make sense each.
So, if I were you I would take both stances at 50% truth level.
It is such a speciality, cvanvey, Christianity does not need everyone to agree with everything 100%, as we are no Communist Party.

 

[cvanwey]

Interesting questions. Hopefully you are getting interesting answers .

Oh, I sure am.

No but humans are, well, human and not perfect receivers (that is the message of the Bible) so one wouldn't expect perfectly meshed answers,

I agree here. I.E. 'Humans are imperfect receivers.'

one would however expect a reasonable amount of agreement and I think that we do get that.

I would disagree here. What is your stance on salvation? What is the path, and how are humans in basic agreement as to this path?

Doesn't bode well when it is an either or answer you are looking for and neither answer is true. The Bible isn't in perfect unison and harmony because it was written by flawed human beings trying to do their best, but on the other hand there should be no conflicting messages sent... but the as above the receivers are a bit broken

Even if this stance is the one [you] have chosen to take, "that humans are flawed, hence are not going to write in perfect harmony, etc", this is not [my] beef. I'm not squabbling upon mundane inconsistencies. I'm focusing on the path to salvation, for now. Seems as though the 'ghost writers' for Jesus give conflicting messages, at differing times, as to this path.

I'm not referring to Jesus merely demonstrating to one person, or a handful of specifics, on how their faith is not sincere. Looks as though there exists conflict. Stay tuned....

While I agree a list of set things would have been easier for all, the thing about salvation is that the result is a relationship with God and therefore each person's journey to that relationship is different. If you have a prescribed method for some it would be an unnecessary burden while others would benefit greatly from it. I recommend you read Romans 14 about the Weak and the Strong to help understand this.

We are not speaking about something mundane, or even something as seemingly important as what constitutes 'to murder' verses 'to kill'.

God certainly has the ability to give specific lists. And He certainly does so. Let's start with the 10 Commandments. Or how about all 613? None of which God care's of a personal relationship or each one's personal journey. Such instruction is given and explicitly defined for [all], even though such burdens may vary, in stark contrast, quite widely.

We are speaking about salvation. What IS the path? Does God give one for which humans relatively agree?

Sadly for most Christians it whatever they are told.

Seems as though you nailed it here An interesting follow up question might then be...

How many professed Christians, would remain Christian, if they were to decide to read the Bible? I tell you what would happen for sure, you would have less. How do I know this? Because I decided to read it, and now we know there is one less

Theologians however mostly have a set of methods that they will use. I don't think any of them 'ignore' passages, though they do try to explain them in the light of other passages with mixed success. Re-translation is always going to happen, because there is the translation of idiom which may make no sense if done literally, but which meant something to those reading it. A good theologian will read and try and understand all different opinions on the way words are translated. A bad one will pick their favourite.

Well, I've concluded that it all cannot be reconciled with each other. No matter how you strain, study, or try.... Just like I might for any other book of divine claims. It starts with Genesis..... And really, that's enough to walk away completely, for many.

For the most part it is very obvious. E.g. when Jesus is telling a parable, he is not being literal, though the meaning of the parable is literal. There are actually very few instances where Jesus' words are ambiguous. Possibly the most obvious relates to salvation: The Kingdom of God, is it now or the future or both. Such questions are why I love being a theologian

.

Great! Let's start where others have left off:

Romans 10:9-10 - Jesus asserts [the way] for salvation is by your faith.
Matthew 25:31-46 - Jesus asserts [the way] for salvation is by how much you help others.

Which one is not hard and fast? And further still, what happens to the ones whom can do neither?

*******************

Does true blasphemy negate all?

God speaks in some passages, that you are saved by grace. God tells in some passages that you are saved by faith. God tells in some passages, you are saved by works. EVEN IF you were able to mesh all three together, (and good luck doing it), does blasphemy negate all regardless? Kind of looks that way?

 

[cvanwey]

I know because no matter what happens, I know it is something good from God. My neighbor lost his daughter some years ago, we prayed but we know it is all God's plan. No real Christians who know God, twists God's character. We believe God is good, even in a rage. I know this as a Christian.

I can imagine it is very hard for you to comprehend , as for a long time I don't understand why bad things happen to good people. But as recorded on the Bible, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28.

You have missed my point. If you want to give an anecdotal attestation, so can I.

"I had a neighbor whom lost her young daughter to a drunk driver. This neighbor was a professed Christian. After his daughter died, he cursed his believed God, told God that he no longer wants anything to do with Him, or any of His perceived plans. He rebuked His prior relationship, and stated that 'no God could exist, and allow such an injustice.' A few months later, he started to go to church again. He again asked God to come into his life."

Thus, according to [YOU], this person twisted God's characters. And not only that, he turned away from Him. He then later asked Him back in. Thus, according to Scripture, and according to you, my neighbor's later requests for God's repentance went ignored. He is now forever doomed, due to a momentary bout of thinking.

That seems to be a good example, except God is a spirit, not a person. I already give you a better example:

Some saw me, a foreigner, different skin color, and think I am a bad person and told other people. That is fine (this is similar to blasphemy against Jesus and God). But after been neighbors for many years, he knows my character, and still LIEs about me, that is something intentional, and is much more serious (it is to the likes of blasphemy against Holy Spirit). See my post below (copied from previous post).

My previous post below:
I already answered. It is not clearly defined, yes, just one sentence, blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
But you can see the meaning by looking at the first 2 sentence, that blasphemy against God or Jesus is all forgivable. And we all know what blasphemy against God/Jesus is, and Jesus put one line about "blasphemy against Holy Sprite", which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are committing to it, else God will clarify it.

Blasphemy against Holy Spirit is clearly not something ordinal man can commit. It can only be commited if you truly know God and still lie about His character.

I'm sorry that some judged you prematurely, based upon attributes for which you have no control. Moving forward...

Your assertion is unfounded. Please please please look at the verse, in it's entirety. You are adding stuff, that quite frankly, is not there:

"31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 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."

All the verse is saying, is that you can 'blaspheme' me, meaning Jesus, but just don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you, in that there is a difference. Like I stated prior, it's okay to call me names, but it's different, or not accepted, to call so-and-so names.

Again, blasphemy has NOT been defined in these contexts. Hence, it leaves it for you to rationalize what God means, when He does not give any attributes, terms, or conditions, of such 'blasphemy'. You are adding stuff, that, quite frankly, is not there.

Blasphemy can mean more than one thing. God cares not to differentiate what constitutes blasphemy in these verses. Hence, the confusion.

And again, for something seemingly so gravely important, it's odd that God tells you what NOT to do, but gives no parameters as to what exactly to avoid.

 

[cvanwey]

why directly ask God, you can go to the churches - his body according to Ephesians 4:4 - and ask them and check if the scripture they cited is correct. If they give conflicting messages that confuse you, come back to the thread and ask.

You are tripping over yourself here. I cited a source, and you discarded it. The source came from God believing humans. News flash... Attendees at churches are also human. Furthermore, what church is the right church?

So again, if asking humans gets us no closer, why can't I ask God directly? And what happens when He doesn't answer?

the you in Romans 10 is everyone, the you in Matthew every nation. Faith for the salvation of individuals. Works for the salvation of nations, churches, families etc. (My interpretation).
In Romans 10, God does not pick and choose as to whom is called in that passage. This is because God is no respecter of persons, Ephesians 6:9.

In the parable Matthew 25:31-46, all nations means all. Even according to your own definition, it means all.

Again, by 'you', I mean God does not reference the would-be faithful exclusively. If He had, you would have a case here. --- In that Romans 10:9-10 and Matthew 25:31-46 start to ajoin in some matter or fashion, albeit, very loose.

He merely uses the word 'you'. Hence, He could very well mean anyone and everyone is judged by how much they help others; even the many whom have not completely committed to Romans 10:9-10, or maybe even hardly at all.

Thus, begs the question asked LOOOOONG ago?

How much faith is required?
How many works are required?

I looked at all my things and tried to sell everything of worth in a financial sense..

You are still not with me here. You appear to have sold your items, (maybe) not in earnest to follow Christ, but because you needed money? Let's test this... What did you do with all the money of the sold items?

Jesus tells you to give up everything to follow Him. Do you do this? Or, did you merely exchange goods for cash?

I'm not asking you this to make you sound like a hypocrite @thomas_t . I think you are rather sincere, quite frankly.

But my point is that Jesus is asking you to do something, and if you don't, Jesus does not consider you a follower.

Thus, I ask you again, did you actually give up everything, including the money received from the sold items, to follow Him? And if so, for how long?

@dcalling says that Christians can't commit the unforgivable sin.
I think he is right.

Disagree. Even according to his definition, you can commit blasphemy. I'll paste the response given to him:

You have missed my point. If you want to give an anecdotal attestation, so can I.

"I had a neighbor whom lost her young daughter to a drunk driver. This neighbor was a professed Christian. After his daughter died, he cursed his believed God, told God that he no longer wants anything to do with Him, or any of His perceived plans. He rebuked His prior relationship, and stated that 'no God could exist, and allow such an injustice.' A few months later, he started to go to church again. He again asked God to come into his life."

Thus, according to [YOU], this person twisted God's characters. And not only that, he turned away from Him. He then later asked Him back in. Thus, according to Scripture, and according to you, my neighbor's later requests for God's repentance went ignored. He is now forever doomed, due to a momentary bout of thinking.

My answer is for the hypothetical case that he is not.
His stance and mine make sense each.

No they don't. You said it yourself, your conclusion has to be supported by Scripture. I asked you for the verse(s) which support your assertion that faithful blasphemers are still accepted into heaven, but maybe excluded from certain parts of heaven? Nothing yet?

And his answer makes sense, only in that it confirms what I stated... That God rejects certain Christians, once they blaspheme. Which basically means that Romans 10:9-10 is NOT enough. It can be overturned by blasphemy.

 

[thomas_t]

You said it yourself, your conclusion has to be supported by Scripture.

No. My scenario was merely to show you a way that your "contradiction" can be reconciled easily. It was a refutation for your claim there was a contradiction. So I made up a scenario in which both Bible verses can be reconciled easily.
A claimed contradiction, in contrast, does not allow for two Bible verses to be reconciled.
I'm not even saying my scenario is real. It might be real. Maybe there are other ways to reconcile the verses.
I'm just showing you that there is at least manner to reconcile the two Bible verses you said they were contradictory. If they were contradictory as a matter of fact, there would be no possible scenario to reconcile the verses.

I cited a source, and you discarded it.

for not being able to back their assertions up using scirpture. BTW they didn't intend to refute a claimed "contradiction", then it would have been ok to just present a scenario to show that it is possible to have two verses at the same time.
However, In general, a source besides the Bible is worthless if they can't back up what they say using scripture.
So I recommend: go to churches, ask, check if what they say can be backed up by scripture... and if you're still confused, come back to the thread and ask here.

Jesus tells you to give up everything to follow Him.

Ah no, here we disagree. Luke 12:33 teaches you need to sell everything. Most of the stuff I had could not be sold.
I was poor, so I kept the money for myself.

he cursed his believed God

@dcalling is right in telling you there is a difference between cursing God and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Two different things.

No they don't. You said it yourself, your conclusion has to be supported by Scripture.

my stance makes great sense. I didn't claim it can be found in the Bible.
Some stances about music make great sense, too, but they don't figure in scripture.

How much faith is required?

Here I stay with @dcalling . It's a 1 or 0 question.
I stay with my opinion that Bible does not claim that someone who committed an unforgivable sin, even if it's only hypothetically, cannot be admitted to heaven.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

We are speaking about salvation. What IS the path? Does God give one for which humans relatively agree?

Here are my instructions to get to the city centre: Exit the house, turn right and walk for 4 miles crossing the roads carefully. You will find yourself in the centre of the city.

Now is suspect that if you were to follow those instructions you wouldn't find yourself in the city centre, certainly not my city centre. The path to anywhere is going to be different for everyone, so a set of instructions might be a guide to the way, but not necessarily the way.

In the same way each person's path to Salvation is going to be different. And there will be those who insist that only those on the same path are doing it right.... but some of those may be heading in completely the wrong direction.

It is not the path that matters as much as the destination. Get the destination right and even when you stray from the path it is not difficult to find your way back.

So the agreement anyone who accepts the New Testament has is this: Jesus is the cause and goal of the Christian Life (see Hebrews 12:2, if you are interested). Take a look at some of the metaphors the NT uses for Jesus: Cornerstone (the stone by which everything is measured) and the capstone (the final stone that holds it all together).

Most disagreements on salvation come not from this, but from adding something else: e.g. righteous works or speaking in tongues or even baptism. But if you want to know the path to salvation and you are an intelligent thinking person then you should start with reading the gospels to see what they say, not what other people say (that is not to say that you should ignore what they say, particularly if they are intelligent, thinking people also).

What God requires from an individual for their journey to Jesus is going to be different from what he requires from another person. There may be overlap, but the only total agreement will be in the destination.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

God certainly has the ability to give specific lists. And He certainly does so. Let's start with the 10 Commandments. Or how about all 613? None of which God care's of a personal relationship or each one's personal journey. Such instruction is given and explicitly defined for [all], even though such burdens may vary, in stark contrast, quite widely.

We are speaking about salvation. What IS the path? Does God give one for which humans relatively agree?

Well if you want to start with the 10/613 commandments. Ask yourself who are they for? They aren't 'explicitly defined for [all]'. They are explicitly defined for a small group of people where there is only a small overlap with Christianity. Indeed if you read your New Testament, in particular Romans, you will see explicitly how the law fails to bring people into relationship with God.

Now of course you may be one of those people who like to be told what to do and when to do it. In which case you could become a Jew, follow the law as it is stated in the Torah and explained in the Talmud and as long as you keep all the sacrificial requirements you will be on the road to Jewish salvation. As far as I am concerned (and I am probably a minority among Christians on this) that is a perfectly legitimate path to take.

The Christian on the other hand is not subject to the law, does not have to keep it bar a few simple instructions. That doesn't mean we are free to break those laws but we have a completely different attitude about them: We keep them as a consequence of following Jesus.

Here is an analogy that might help. When you get in your car and drive down the motorway, what keeps you from breaking the speed limit? If it is because to do otherwise would subject you to fines and or punishments then the law is driving you (no pun intended). If, on the other hand you are all about sensible and safe driving then you are unlikely to ever need to know the limit because your focus has kept you away from getting close to that being a problem and the law is irrelevant.

The former approach requires knowledge and adherence to the law and the latter knowledge and adherence to sensible & safe driving.

I hope the distinction is clear. If not I can try again.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

How many professed Christians, would remain Christian, if they were to decide to read the Bible? I tell you what would happen for sure, you would have less. How do I know this? Because I decided to read it, and now we know there is one less

I'm not sure I agree. I decided to read it and now there is one more!

In fact I think the problem is one of not understanding. I see atheists like Dawkins quote that they know more about the Bible than Christians do. An easily verifiable thing... that shows that he and they don't know as much as they like to think.

Oh, sure.. they are experts on all the dodgy laws and embarrassing parts of the Bible. All the things that they think are contradictory. But they are certainly not au fait with the bigger picture and it becomes a whole lot easier to reconcile dodgy laws and embarrassing parts when one sees the bigger picture.

Most Christians are, however, content to be told those things and not search it out for themselves. It is not necessarily a failing. We can't all be intellectuals and even intellectuals get it wrong (including me).

It may not be true for you but a number of atheists that I have chatted with over the years talk about how they realised that what they had been taught about God was all wrong when they started to read the Bible, so they became an atheist. But the logical next step is not to disbelieve in God but realise that what they had been taught was wrong and to find the right teaching.

So in my opinion (and experience) when people read their Bible more they get a stronger faith, not a weaker one and when they come across passages and ideas they don't understand they don't just throw the whole thing in the air in disgust, but rather go and talk to someone who has been there before them (and there always is). Falling away only tends to occur when people are told to follow the rules (and don't question them). Where people are given the opportunity to share their journey, to discuss their doubts, to raise their questions (even if the answer is 'we don't know') I see people go from strength to strength to the point where they have either reconciled their questions or now see them as irrelevant.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well, I've concluded that it all cannot be reconciled with each other. No matter how you strain, study, or try.... Just like I might for any other book of divine claims. It starts with Genesis..... And really, that's enough to walk away completely, for many.

Isn't that like picking up a novel, reading the first chapter and then throwing the book away because you didn't like how it ended?