Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

Bit more general than that. A lot of churches have the habit of building doctrines around small numbers of verses. These are sometime approximations of an idea, sometimes carefully constructed ideas that have their own internal logic but are for the most part 'extra-biblical' and take little account of Jewish culture and other relevant issues. Sometimes when a member of this kind of church realises the doctrines don't really represent an adequate picture they just get stuck in a loop, repeating the same pattern of asking 'what does this verse mean? What about this one?' etc, round and round, without ever making the time to absorb the bigger picture, the picture that tells you what the pieces mean.

In regards to the 'bigger picture', what IS the path to salvation?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Now it sounds to me like you are trying state that 'blasphemy', in these contexts, are instead related to perpetual 'evil'; where evil represents eternal separation from God? I'm trying to seek clarity, as to [your] meaning?

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.

Sounds to be that 'blasphemy', in this instance, is just another way of saying, "no, I'm not ever going to follow you, I don't need anything from you?"

If this is the case, we already have an entire category for this.... Trying to combine unbelief/rebellion/denial/rejection (with) 'blasphemy', seems to be a bit of a stretch...

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.

Test question (multiple choice):

"In the interests of informed debate, members will not speak in a disrespectful way of the Christian God, the Trinity, or the Holy Scriptures (The Bible). A similar respect is expected towards the faith and sacred texts of other religions. Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable, referring to Him as a 'fairy tale' or a 'narcissistic god', or making a comment such as 'god throws a childish tantrum', is not acceptable."

A: Truck
B: Chainsaw
C: Blasphemy

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.

I have, and the conclusion drawn, is that God provides verses, which states what is unforgivable. He offers little explanation and/or clarification. In spite of the fact He has no problem doing so, in detail, in other parts of the Bible.

For all we know, the verses mean what they say.

 

[cvanwey]

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).

You haven't been to some of the churches I used to attend, obviously Furthermore....

Virtually half the fast food places I go to ask if I wish to donate, with my purchase, to help 'X". The hospital for which I work (non religious affiliate), donates food daily for the homeless. Many other secular organizations provide for the homeless, in all states in the U.S., via shelters. Many of my, and all others whom work, U.S. tax dollars fund medical for the less fortunate. Public schools offer daily free meal services for many less fortunate / low income (even now while school is suspended, due to the virus). None of which claim direct affiliation with any church or denomination.

Sure, religion provides for the homeless. But so do the non-religious, or unattached/unbranded.

This is but one of many facets, related to the topic.

Maybe we can start with school, or the teaching of humans, since we are actually speaking about human flourishing?

What do some Christian schools teach, verses a secular biology class?

Maybe we can start with what the Bible teaches, in regards to women verses men?

Maybe we can start with what some Christian schools teach about homosexuality?

Maybe we can start with what the Bible expresses about the topic of slavery?

Or how about how to discipline your child?

Seems as time marches on, humans fall further and further away from some of the Bible's assertions. If truth IS truth, and we are becoming more and more educated, shouldn't we be reinforcing all of the Bible, verses pulling away from topics, which we now find incorrect or not helpful?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I have an idea...

The next time you are watching a sporting event, and you see someone holding up a "John 3:16" sign, make sure someone there corrects them, and tells them that to understand this verse, they need to read all 21 Chapters of John, along with the other 65 Books. Otherwise, one cannot possible grasp...

Please

The verse is clear. Jesus tells all they will be judged by how much they help others. Other verses state you will be judged, based upon belief and repent. Other verses state 'grace.' Is it all three?

But I ask you the same as I asked another; whom decided to bow out entirely and not answer any of my questions...

If someone is on the fence, but helps others a lot, is this enough?

Alternatively, someone is a true blue believer, but is kind of selfish, but maybe helps once in a while, is this enough???

 

[cvanwey]

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

Are you saying Jesus did not assert the following verse?.?.?.?

Furthermore, I already narrated verse-by-verse. Do you remember?

 

[Tom 1]

Now it sounds to me like you are trying state that 'blasphemy', in these contexts, are instead related to perpetual 'evil'; where evil represents eternal separation from God? I'm trying to seek clarity, as to [your] meaning?



Sounds to be that 'blasphemy', in this instance, is just another way of saying, "no, I'm not ever going to follow you, I don't need anything from you?"

If this is the case, we already have an entire category for this.... Trying to combine unbelief/rebellion/denial/rejection (with) 'blasphemy', seems to be a bit of a stretch...



Test question (multiple choice):

"In the interests of informed debate, members will not speak in a disrespectful way of the Christian God, the Trinity, or the Holy Scriptures (The Bible). A similar respect is expected towards the faith and sacred texts of other religions. Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable, referring to Him as a 'fairy tale' or a 'narcissistic god', or making a comment such as 'god throws a childish tantrum', is not acceptable."

A: Truck
B: Chainsaw
C: Blasphemy



I have, and the conclusion drawn, is that God provides verses, which states what is unforgivable. He offers little explanation and/or clarification. In spite of the fact He has no problem doing so, in detail, in other parts of the Bible.

For all we know, the verses mean what they say.

Forgive me for saying so but this all comes across as rather jumbled and confused, you appear to re-work anything that is said to you into some pattern of your own, which makes little sense when it comes to any sort of dialogue. Simply responding to what is said rather than trying to re-interpret it would lead to a more useful discussion. That said, I think we can cut through some of the confusion by just looking at the text. Here are the relevant passages from Mark 3:

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

1) What is Jesus asking?
2) What is confusing about it?
3) Why were people looking for a reason to accuse Jesus? Why do you think that they saw 'healing on the sabbath' as a potential opportunity for accusation? What might be 'wrong' about that kind of thinking, in biblical terms?
4) Why did they remain silent? What is the significance of this?

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

1) What is meant here by 'stubborn hearts'?
2) How does this relate to the preceding passage?
3) Why was Jesus distressed by this?
4) What here indicates why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus?

Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake...Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”

1) What do you think is meant here by 'impure spirits'? What do, for example, Deuteronomy and Leviticus tell you about the concept of impurity in the Hebrew scriptures? What happens to that which is impure?

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

1) Where do you think this idea comes from? What might be the basis for this accusation?
2) What do you think they actually mean?
3) How does this relate to the previous mention of impure spirits?

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

1) What is meant here?

Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

2) In the context, what is the blasphemy committed and by whom?
3) What do you think is meant by 'an eternal sin', and why?

He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

4) Why is this clarification important?
5) What is unclear about it?
6) How does it relate to the preceding paragraphs?
7) Why do you think it means something other than what it means in the context?

I rather suspect that instead of engaging with the text you will respond with some other random tangent, maybe you can prove me wrong?

 

[Tom 1]

In regards to the 'bigger picture', what IS the path to salvation?

Well, there are 3 relevant concepts - faith, repentance, baptism - so it would make sense to look at those. We can take them one at a time, beginning with faith. As I suggested in an earlier post, the story of Abraham is key to an understanding of the questions you raised, particularly this one.

How do you understand Abraham's story?

 

[Tom 1]

For all we know, the verses mean what they say.

This highlights the issue here Cvanwey. You think you know what the text says, without knowing what the text says. You know what the word blasphemy means in your head when you read it, but not what it means in the text. Do you see the problem there? It can be resolved by working through the text, asking useful questions, taking a rational approach, as you could with any other text. Your question 'why is the bible confusing?' is actually a smokescreen for 'why is Cvanwey confused?'. The answer to that is that you don't read the text as it is presented, rather you read it according to some notions you already have.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Are you saying Jesus did not assert the following verse?.?.?.?

No, not at all. You are the one that asserted it but I can see no reference to it in the text so you must have gotten that information from outside of the passage... which means that you do use other verses win the Bible to make your point. It seems the reason why you are a purveyor of confusion is that you are confused yourself. You are not sure whether to restrict the reading of the parable to its own words (in which case you have no call to say it is spoken by Jesus or even about him) or open it out (in which case you would accept that other verses do make more sense of the passage).

 

[cvanwey]

He did and does. 27 books of clarification.

Great, then again, explain the clarification between two differing denominations?

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

Yup, all 7,900 passages are relevant to Matthew 25:31-46

 

[cvanwey]

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

Ooooh, I see now. You've decided to go with the old... "(these verses were written for a certain time and a specific population)" bit... Nice.

I guess when all subsequent generations read these verses, they would too know these assertions do not pertain to them, per se

And furthermore, isn't God's standards for salvation the same for everyone?

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

How many denominations exist within Christianity again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This highlights the issue here Cvanwey. You think you know what the text says, without knowing what the text says. You know what the word blasphemy means in your head when you read it, but not what it means in the text. Do you see the problem there? It can be resolved by working through the text, asking useful questions, taking a rational approach, as you could with any other text. Your question 'why is the bible confusing?' is actually a smokescreen for 'why is Cvanwey confused?'. The answer to that is that you don't read the text as it is presented, rather you read it according to some notions you already have.

Actually, I'd say it's more of an issue of Cvanwey wanting everyone else to be confused and feel confused in the way that he thinks and feels confused by it all. I mean, the guy doesn't really want to engage with any promptings towards the study of any other angle other than his own, and thus, he just wants to drag everyone else through the same crappy mud of relativism that he feels he's been dragged through.

I mean, we know that Cvanwey isn't concerned about truth per say since he's already condescended to admitting that he's an adherent of relativism. If he were simply a relativist about things in the Einsteinian sort of way, I say he's has something to say, but since he instead pushes for a set of grievances that are more in the vain of full-fledged PO-MO, then I'm guessing that this is just a game for him to see how muddy he can get everyone else. It's not really a matter of truth or even about education.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

This is my entire point @2PhiloVoid . This is God's chosen method to convey truth. Doesn't this seem strange to you, as well?

God's portal of communication is to use humans, as ghost writers, where language changes severely. God relies upon humans and their memory. God relies upon a lack in concrete evidence. God seems to provide conflicting messages, in regards to important topics.

I've have spent 600+ posts writing, responding, and reading, as all you tribal-like-Christians band together, and work to make sure you 'zing' me when you think you can. 'Gold star' for all of you

My objective is quite simple. You need not go any further than post #1. They weren't really questions, as much as they are observations. And before you knee-jerk, and state that it is merely me, whom is confused, please take a good look at all the churches in your town. Drive down your nearest metropolis, and count all the differing denominations; some maybe even next door to one-another.

God cares not to clarify. Which is to say, either God cares not to clarify His Words... Or maybe, there exists nothing on the other side of the pen, for which these passages were written.... by humans.

All posters here are intelligent. All posters here think they are right. But, news flash... Either we are all wrong, or only one of us is right, because hardly anyone here demonstrates unity, whom actually decides to answer.

 

[Tom 1]

All posters here think they are right.

Nope, that's not it. You think you are right, which is why you always avoid any sort of concrete discussion. The rest of us, or some of us, are willing to actually look at the things you continually skirt around.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is my entire point @2PhiloVoid . This is God's chosen method to convey truth. Doesn't this seem strange to you, as well?

God's portal of communication is to use humans, as ghost writers, where language changes severely. God relies upon humans and their memory. God relies upon a lack in concrete evidence. God seems to provide conflicting messages, in regards to important topics.

I've have spent 600+ posts writing, responding, and reading, as all you tribal-like-Christians band together, and work to make sure you 'zing' me when you think you can. 'Gold star' for all of you

My objective is quite simple. You need not go any further than post #1. They weren't really questions, as much as they are observations. And before you knee-jerk, and state that it is merely me, whom is confused, please take a good look at all the churches in your town. Drive down your nearest metropolis, and count all the differing denominations; some maybe even next door to one-another.

God cares not to clarify. Which is to say, either God cares not to clarify His Words... Or maybe, there exists nothing on the other side of the pen, for which these passages were written.... by humans.

All posters here are intelligent. All posters here think they are right. But, news flash... Either we are all wrong, or only one of us is right, because hardly anyone here demonstrates unity, whom actually decides to answer.

I demonstrate unity with other Trinitarian Christians, and I defy anyone who thinks they can robustly contest that fact.

Now, if it's a fact that in my own Trinitarian viewpoint, I think I can fellowship with all other Trinitarian Christians (they being the truest and fullest of those who claim to be "Christian" WHEN they're doing what Jesus wants them to do), and I then do so, fairly successfully it seems to me, mind you, then I'm not so sure that the whole qualm you have with the Bible being a failure as a major way of existentially encountering God's Truth is legitimate. I think this is more so, even, if the Bible itself says that the Bible itself isn't the ONLY way that God has provided for people to encounter His Truth, let alone His presence.

So, you've got some additional logic pretzels to chew on, there, I think.

Might I also suggest that the locus of God's provision for the world to encounter His Gospel Truth in Christ ISN'T and never was so much the Bible but rather the Church of Christ, along with perhaps the possibility of a few supernatural nudges here or there from the help (AND hindrances) of His angels, both current and former.

 

[cvanwey]

Please mind you beforehand, I'm more than willing to engage; especially when I feel your responses are in earnest - which I do. So please do not take any offense to the way I respond below, or think me 'lazy.'

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

Many Christians believe in a literal heaven or a literal hell. Your response appears somewhat ambiguous? Would you mind just answering the question? The Bible claims to separate the saved from the unsaved.... The redeemed from the not redeemed...

The former go to heaven. The later don't go to heaven. Many would assert the later is hell.

Can you elaborate?

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.

With all due respect, if you have a position to argue, please argue it. I certainly do not have time to completely investigate every single claim of every Christian I come across. If you want to just tell me what this means, that would be awesome. If I disagree, then I might look into it some more.

Again, after God's judgement for the human's destination, after death, the human can still petition for an opt out?

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).

As with Jesus, you too seem to like to speak in parables I'll ask again.

Does [your] definition of 'grace' mean all go to heaven?

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

I don't know @agapelove , you tell me. What is God's stated eternal purpose exactly? And further, answering a simple question would be quite nice. Is grace enough? Does everyone go, because of grace, or is more required?

 

[agapelove]

Likewise I see that you are earnestly seeking the truth. I would be frustrated as well if everyone was giving me different answers to a legitimate question.

Many Christians believe in a literal heaven or a literal hell. Your response appears somewhat ambiguous? Would you mind just answering the question? The Bible claims to separate the saved from the unsaved.... The redeemed from the not redeemed...

The former go to heaven. The later don't go to heaven. Many would assert the later is hell.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. There are four different words generally translated into hell in our English Bible (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus). None of these are actually and literally the place of eternal torment we imagine as "hell". 2 of the words mean "grave", one is a literal valley outside Jerusalem, and the last is a prison for angels. Whichever word you decide on it is not the final destination. All 4 "hells" are eventually cast into the Lake of Fire.

With all due respect, if you have a position to argue, please argue it. I certainly do not have time to completely investigate every single claim of every Christian I come across. If you want to just tell me what this means, that would be awesome. If I disagree, then I might look into it some more.

As with Jesus, you too seem to like to speak in parables I'll ask again.

Does [your] definition of 'grace' mean all go to heaven?

Sorry if I am being vague. I'm afraid that the position I wish to argue regarding that question is considered unorthodox and I am not sure I can address it directly in the apologetics section. I don't wish to draw unnecessary attention to this thread so that is why I tell you to do your own research. That shouldn't be a problem for you if you are earnestly seeking answers as you say you are.

What I can tell you is that there were some Early Church Fathers and Saints that understood the Lake of Fire as a symbolic purifying fire.

I don't know @agapelove , you tell me. What is God's stated eternal purpose exactly? And further, answering a simple question would be quite nice. Is grace enough? Does everyone go, because of grace, or is more required?

I have previously given you the scriptures containing God's eternal purpose. They are stated in Ephesians 1:9-10 and Colossians 1:19-20.

I think you need to reframe your question. Salvation is humanity's freedom from the bondage of sin and death and that was fully accomplished at the cross. Nothing was or is 'required' for salvation on our part otherwise that would negate the grace.

If you are asking what is required for us to enter into the New Heavens and New Earth and come fully into the presence of God, then much is required. All who wish to enter through the gates must first "wash their robes" (Rev 22:14). This act requires faith, repentance, works, obedience, all of the above. Only those who have become like Christ can enter.

Ephesians 2:6 It is by grace you have been saved! And God raised us up in Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.

Whether we like it or not our seats have been prepared in Heaven. Will you choose to have faith in this, and wash your robes?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Moving forward, before you hit 'respond' to an entire mess of answer, I suggest you read what you are actually responding to... Please re-look at post #620. You only addressed the very last point.

But I will be happy to address what you have provided thus far.

In regards to the many verses I provided, looks as though it would appear like a reasonable request to ask God to clarify a seemingly ambiguous verse. Furthermore, you stated prior, that you were going to pray for me. Thus, it would seem reasonable to think that you believe God addresses/responds to intercessory prayer?

So if He does not, in this case, then one might wonder how God can issue such seemingly axiomatic verse(s), and yet, maybe have many undefined restrictions and guidelines?

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.

No. My examples were just fine, see below. But in the mean time, just because something is more impervious to 'rot' or fail, in it's intended endeavor, does not mean it still cannot. It is just a tougher 'nut' to crack

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.

The love of a mother/child is temporary, because they will all die

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.

Yes they can. This would mean that any former pastor, priest, minister, bible teacher, etc., whom later falls away from 'faith', was never a really a true Christian.

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

No

 

[cvanwey]

Forgive me for saying so but this all comes across as rather jumbled and confused, you appear to re-work anything that is said to you into some pattern of your own, which makes little sense when it comes to any sort of dialogue. Simply responding to what is said rather than trying to re-interpret it would lead to a more useful discussion. That said, I think we can cut through some of the confusion by just looking at the text. Here are the relevant passages from Mark 3:

I've been paraphrasing your prior responses, at least twice now. You choose to avoid them, or flip them into something they are not

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

1) What is Jesus asking?
2) What is confusing about it?
3) Why were people looking for a reason to accuse Jesus? Why do you think that they saw 'healing on the sabbath' as a potential opportunity for accusation? What might be 'wrong' about that kind of thinking, in biblical terms?
4) Why did they remain silent? What is the significance of this?

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

1) What is meant here by 'stubborn hearts'?
2) How does this relate to the preceding passage?
3) Why was Jesus distressed by this?
4) What here indicates why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus?

Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake...Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”

1) What do you think is meant here by 'impure spirits'? What do, for example, Deuteronomy and Leviticus tell you about the concept of impurity in the Hebrew scriptures? What happens to that which is impure?

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

1) Where do you think this idea comes from? What might be the basis for this accusation?
2) What do you think they actually mean?
3) How does this relate to the previous mention of impure spirits?

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

1) What is meant here?

Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

2) In the context, what is the blasphemy committed and by whom?
3) What do you think is meant by 'an eternal sin', and why?

He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

4) Why is this clarification important?
5) What is unclear about it?
6) How does it relate to the preceding paragraphs?
7) Why do you think it means something other than what it means in the context?

Again, either/or:

'Blasphemy', in these contexts, are instead related to perpetual 'evil'; where evil represents eternal separation from God.

Or,

'Blasphemy', in this instance, is just another way of saying, "no, I'm not ever going to follow you, I don't need anything from you?"

Or,

'Blasphemy, in this instance, is to reject the claimed almighty, and aspire to adversely oppose this entity.

Or,

For all we know, the verses mean what they say. When the verses state to 'speak against', or 'whomever blasphemes' is simply unforgiven.

Or,

Maybe it's what 'dcalling' is arguing... That a 'true Christian' would never commit such an act?

Some of these overlap a bit...

I rather suspect that instead of engaging with the text you will respond with some other random tangent, maybe you can prove me wrong?

I rather suspect you have failed to retrieve a basic point. I DON'T claim to know what the verses mean. But, what I have discerned, is that these verses are vague, in regards to what does and does not constitute an eternal sin against God.

I'm also curious if you happened to catch what I pointed out in my prior post? I simply issued the full definition of CF's rendition of 'blasphemy.'

I've spent many posts in useful discussion, regarding 'dcallings' interpretation. The same with 'Thomas'. I've also regurgitated your responses.

You instead wish to make me sound deceptive or ignorant. My only real point here, as stated many times now, is that the guidelines for the offense of blasphemy, remain ambiguous. I'm not the only one in this thread to admit this....

And further, that God has no problem issuing detail, when He chooses. So why not be a little more clear here, when the stakes are high?

 

[cvanwey]

Well, there are 3 relevant concepts - faith, repentance, baptism - so it would make sense to look at those. We can take them one at a time, beginning with faith. As I suggested in an earlier post, the story of Abraham is key to an understanding of the questions you raised, particularly this one.

How do you understand Abraham's story?

This thread really isn't aimed to decipher what faith is and is not, at least yet.... It's not really this forensic or focused. If you claim it's faith, and faith alone, we can move from there. But, if you claim other, first give me the terms entire (i.e.)

IS the path to salvation grace, grace and faith, grace/faith/baptism, grace/faith/works, works, grace and works, other?