Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

[Guest wilburnh]

Shiloh, I thought that we had nailed this down. However no sweat, simply read mathew 12:31 and 32. Plainly says that anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit is guilty. This is what I believe. If we can agree on this then I don't think we have much more to discuss on the subject do you?

God bless

Calvin

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I thought that we had nailed this down.  However no sweat, simply read mathew 12:31 and 32.  Plainly says that anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit is guilty.  This is what I believe.  If we can agree on this then I don't think we have much more to discuss on the subject do you?

God bless

Calvin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No that is not the definition, and that is the reason for our impasse. You are arguing that it is merely speaking against the Holy Spirit, and I know that Christians have done that, albeit, unknowingly. Christians in the past have made mistakes in judging what was of God and what was not, and inadvertantly spoke against the Holy Spirit.

That is NOT Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Mark 3 gives more information than just "speaking against the Holy Spirit."

Mark tells us that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit involves knowingly, intentionally, in full knowledge of the truth attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to demons, AND in that chapter they accused Jesus of being indwelt by a demon namely, Beelzebub. All you have to do is demonstrate where in the Bible a Christian ever did that, AND demonstrate where Paul or the other apostles specifically taught against Christians calling the Holy Spirit a demon. If there was a danger of that occuring, then the Lord would have made sure we knew when He was teaching the churches.

Since not everyone had access to the gospel narratives back then, Paul could not have taken for granted, as you apparently do, that everyone will just read about it in the gospels. So Paul would have had to teach them about it, if it were a genuine issue for Christians.

Again, you have nothing from the Word as evidenced by the fact that you have provided nothing but opinion and a false definition of the term under discussion. Perhaps when you use the CORRECT defintion of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," instead of what you just provided, then maybe we can get somewhere.

[Guest wilburnh]

I assumed that from my past posts you would know that I believe that is knowingly attributing the works of the Holy Ghost to the devil. Go back and reread them and you will see this is true. Do you not remember my saying that I believe it would be easier for someone who had once been saved to commit this sin since they would more readily be able to identify those works belonging to the Holy Spirit?? So we can now both see that a false definition is not held on this end of the stick.

Mark tells us that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit involves knowingly, intentionally, in full knowledge of the truth attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to demons

I completely agree however..

AND in that chapter they accused Jesus of being indwelt by a demon namely, Beelzebub.

your conclusion here I absolutely do not believe has anything to do with blasphemy. Jesus was the one claiming to be the son of God. It was Jesus who was performing the miracles. It was Jesus that they confronted but it was not Him they blasphemed. He, Jesus, said they had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. He then goes on to separate Himself from blasphemy of the Spirit. He even says that blaspheming Him will be forgiven but anyone who speaks against the Holy Sprit it will not be forgiven.

I'm incredulous that you hold the early church not having the gospel narratives as evidence it can not concern the church. Before I let myself be controlled, please better explain yourself. If we can't 'assume' that they were being taught what is in the new testament, then how do we know what they were taught? Do we have a copy of every sermon given to the church of that time? Do we perhaps have one of their programs listing what songs and teaching were being given on any give sabbath? If I totally do not see your point please accept my apology but this has just completely flabbergasted me. I'm at a loss for words. I don't like the feeling lol.

Please do not undermine my posts. I did use scripture and I did not hold a false definition. For one my definition came right from Jesus's mouth and as for 'knowingly' being absent, it had been stated many many times in my past posts so you should have known that I believed the same as you.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm incredulous that you hold the early church not having the gospel narratives as evidence it can not concern the church. Before I let myself be controlled, please better explain yourself. If we can't 'assume' that they were being taught what is in the new testament, then how do we know what they were taught? Do we have a copy of every sermon given to the church of that time? Do we perhaps have one of their programs listing what songs and teaching were being given on any give sabbath? If I totally do not see your point please accept my apology but this has just completely flabbergasted me. I'm at a loss for words. I don't like the feeling lol.

We have the benefit of hindsight. We have the complete canon of Scripture, and I tend to think that we lose sight of the fact that people back then did not own Bibles, they did not have the resources we do. The gospel narratives were contemporary with the people of Paul's day, and were still in the process of being copied and sent.

Most of the time, people sat in church and had these things read to them. Think about it. If you sat down in Church and had all twenty-something chapters of Luke read to you, would you retain it all? Wouldn't there be parts of it that might escape your memory.

We have the benefit of the Bible never being more than an arm's length from us. They did not. So it is would have been silly for Paul to assume, "Hey they heard the gospel of Luke read to them, so they know about Blashphemy of the Holy Spiritl. It would be sill for him to assume that they retained that information.

As for what were they taught? They only had ONE canon of Scripture at that time, the OT. That was the only Bible they had. Everything that Paul or the apostles wrote or preached to the churches had to be jugded against the ONLY set of Scriptures they had at that time.

QUOTE

AND in that chapter they accused Jesus of being indwelt by a demon namely, Beelzebub.

your conclusion here I absolutely do not believe has anything to do with blasphemy. Jesus was the one claiming to be the son of God. It was Jesus who was performing the miracles. It was Jesus that they confronted but it was not Him they blasphemed. He, Jesus, said they had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. He then goes on to separate Himself from blasphemy of the Spirit. He even says that blaspheming Him will be forgiven but anyone who speaks against the Holy Sprit it will not be forgiven.

Don't believe it has anything to do with blasphemy, eh? Well the Bible seems to say that it does, as seen in Mark 3. In the very last verese below, Jesus said that they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit when they claimed that he had an unclean spirit. So once again, I appeal to the fact that I am using the CORRECT definition.

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebub. And by the ruler of the demons He casts out the demons." And He called them to Himself, and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? "And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not have the power to stand. "And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not have the power to stand. "And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he does not have the power to stand; his end has come. "But no one can enter the strong man

[Guest shiloh357]

Very interesting discussion. It seems to me that no one today can commit the

[Guest wilburnh]

I still don't think you're seeing the implications of this suggestion. You're saying that since they didn't have their own personal Bibles... that they were not held accountable for anything that the other prophets said? Let me ask you this, did Homer (or whoever it was that gave the performances) completely memorize the odyssey? In the past, has the Bible been handed down by word of mouth? The fact that you use their not having Bibles for proof that blasphemy could not be committed by them is completely unfounded. You stated that not all the miracles of Christ were in scripture.. so it's safe to say that not all of the sermons taught in those days are in the Bible. You are right in saying that they did not have the complete Bible as we have it today, however they had teachers who had been to the school of Jesus or the disciples. These were not rookies that were teaching the churches. I hope that you can see the dangers of this line of reasoning.

--because He has an unclean spirit--

What spirit was He using? He was using the Holy Spirit. What did they call unclean? They called the Holy Spirit unclean. If you take the WHOLE passage in context, you can see that it should not be interpreted the way you wish it to. Jesus separated blasphemy against Him from blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and then said that all that is needed to commit is to talk against Him (the Spirit). Jesus does not say here that He has to be included in the deal, only that the Spirit need be involved.

There is no argument until we read the accounts and see that Jesus says that anyone who speaks ill of the Spirit.

God bless

calvin

[Guest idied2]

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Speaks

Strong's Number: 2036 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

a primary verb (used only in the definite past tense, the others being borrowed from (2046), (4483), and (5346))

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Epo None

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

ep'-o Verb

Definition

to speak, say

King James Word Usage - Total: 977

say 859, speak 57, tell 41, command 8, bid 5, miscellaneous 6, vr say 1

AGAINST

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 2596 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

katav a primary particle

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Kata None

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

kat-ah' Preposition

Definition

down from, through out

according to, toward, along

King James Word Usage - Total: 480

according to 107, after 61, against 58, in 36, by 27, daily + (2250)&version=kjv 15, as 11, miscellaneous 165

No. It truly says Speaks against the Holy ghost. That means in any way.

[Guest shiloh357]

I still don't think you're seeing the implications of this suggestion. You're saying that since they didn't have their own personal Bibles... that they were not held accountable for anything that the other prophets said? Let me ask you this, did Homer (or whoever it was that gave the performances) completely memorize the odyssey? In the past, has the Bible been handed down by word of mouth? The fact that you use their not having Bibles for proof that blasphemy could not be committed by them is completely unfounded. You stated that not all the miracles of Christ were in scripture.. so it's safe to say that not all of the sermons taught in those days are in the Bible. You are right in saying that they did not have the complete Bible as we have it today, however they had teachers who had been to the school of Jesus or the disciples. These were not rookies that were teaching the churches. I hope that you can see the dangers of this line of reasoning.

You are operating from speculation, and I am operating from fact. I cannot base my theology on what I THINK the apostles might have said apart from the revealed Word of God. I have to go soley by what I have record of. By the way, I doubt that the Gentile believers were all that knowledgeable about the OT either. A person can only learn so much, in any given amount of time. The disciples were Jews who grew up with the OT. I doubt that the Gentiles knew all that much until much later. It takes time to switch from paganism to truth, and to absorb new information and process out of one's mind, the old information.

FACT: We have no record of anyone other than unbelievers committing this sin.

FACT: We have no record of any apostle teaching the New Testament Church to beware of this sin.

FACT: The ONLY time this sin occurred is during the earthly ministiry of Jesus.

FACT: The ONLY spiritual manifestation that this sin is deliverance from demons.

FACT: Mark 3 tells us that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit includes both claiming that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of demons, and the Jesus was himself indwelt by said demon, therefore calling the Holy Spirit a demon.

FACT: Though Matthew tells us that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is "speaking against the Holy Spirit, Mark 3 tells us what that means. Mark exapands on Matthew in this defintion.

FACT: Blasphemy is an outright act of rebellion. It is rooted in unbelief. It is not include genuine, healthy skepticism of spiritual manifestations. IN the context of this dicussion, it does not include Christians who mistakenly misidentify a work of the Holy Spirit as being from another source, either human or demonic.

What spirit was He using? He was using the Holy Spirit. What did they call unclean? They called the Holy Spirit unclean. If you take the WHOLE passage in context, you can see that it should not be interpreted the way you wish it to. Jesus separated blasphemy against Him from blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and then said that all that is needed to commit is to talk against Him (the Spirit). Jesus does not say here that He has to be included in the deal, only that the Spirit need be involved.

Saying that Jesus has an unclean spirit is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and Mark 3 proves it. If someone said that Jesus WAS a demon or unclean spirit, that would be blasphemy against Jesus. By saying that Jesus was indwelt by a demon, the Pharisess were calling the Holy Spirit a demon. Therefore my definition stands, as it lines up with the Bible.

Nothing in Scripture says that a Christian can commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It seems that the only people who use this against Christians are the one who try to silence anyone who might want to test the validity of the manifestations occuring in their ministries. Fans of Benny Hinn constantly throw "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" around to keep people from questioning Hinn.

[Guest wilburnh]

ok, let's aproach this from yet another angle. There are many verses in the Bible that can be interpreted different ways but only one way is correct, right? An example is Hebrews 6, many different and opposing viewpoints as to what this means. Now we look at mark and his telling of blasphemy.

because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit...

Does this have to mean that Jesus has to be included or was he showing how they blasphemed.... they said that someone who was using the spirit was using the devil. There were two blasphemies going on, one against Christ and one against the Holy Spirit but Christ says that only the one towards the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. I see that you associate Jesus with blasphemy because of the scripture in mark, but it does not have to be unless you read into the other scriptures, mathew and luke. If this scripture (3:30) did not contain the Holy Spirit then I could not argue, however it does and as a result verse thirty is simply saying that they were calling the Holy Spirit an unholy being. If you notice, Jesus did not even say this sentence but rather it was mark. Jesus simply said that whoever blasphemes the Spirit will not be forgiven. I think you have to take a second look and ask yourself whether or not this is the only way to take the scripture.

Once again I want to point out that it was Jesus who was claiming to be the Son of God.. they had a reason to try to de-rail Him. Here is something that I would like for you to address, is it required that every sin be shown in the Bible in all of it's various forms and all the possible ways to commit these sins or can the Bible simply say that if you do this then you are guilty of that (as in mathew 12:32 and mark 3:29)? Must we have every sermon ever preached to the early church to know what they truly knew or must we speculate what they knew as you would have us to do? Let's please try to set aside this speculation of what the early church knew and simply discuss the scriptures.

[Guest shiloh357]

You can hash this and analize that. You can run to different sides of the valley to view them from. Looking at  this angle and that angle. But the Scripture is clear. It is not writen in code.

Mt 12:32

Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come.

Numbers

23:11"What have you done to me?" Balak asked Balaam. "I brought you to curse my enemies, but look, you have only blessed [them]!"

23:13  Then Balak said to him, "Please come with me to another place where you can see them. You will only see the outskirts of their camp; you won't see all of them. From there, put a curse on them for me." 

14  So Balak took him to Lookout Field on top of Pisgah, built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is not that simple. We are debatig a specific aspect of this. You can contribute if you want to, but at least try to stay with the flow of the discussion.