Blasphemy

ClassAvenger

I was asked how come the Bible says that God forgives blasphemy to the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Spirit. If they all are God, what makes the person of the Holy Spirit more important regarding blasphemy than the Father or the Son. Sorry, I don't know much about the Bible, but I'm trying to learn here, alright? Lol. - CA

Vivamus

Well ... I don't know! But, there are some really smart ppl here that might know a perfectly good answer to that one...

*goes to ponder on that question*

-

And the world shall tremble in the wake of the Blue Bubblegum
Dutch District Overbeer

Mr. Kim

The Holy spirit is a "gift" directed by Jehovah at his discretion. To squander such a blessing is insulting and as all things misused, has consequences. In this special situation, justice will come from the most high.

1. A chance once again to enjoy the tree of life should not be rejected.

funkyderek

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

peacefulpete

I read somthing that commented on this passage recently. If you can wait a day or two I'll try to recover it.

mizpah

CA Here is just a thought:

The working of God's holy spirit was providing absolute proof that Jesus was the Son of God. So a conscious rejection of this evidence would have been an unforgivenable sin. This would have been a stinging rebuke of the Jews who rejected Christ even though they were observing the miracles and powerful works he was performing by means of God's holy spirit.

Mr. Kim

Mizpah,

Very good observation and Illustration! What more proof could "humans" want? And people still rejected the son of GOD.

The freedom of choice should be combined with careful thought and consideration before acting.

peacefulpete

Class Avenger...For this response to make sense you must be somewhat familiar with modern scholarship's approach to Christian and NT development. I think you are. Basically the premise is that Christianity grew out from an amalgum of Jewish Messianism and Greek Philosophy with a touch of eastern influence. The Essene sect of judaism seems to have been a major source of quotes and concepts. Some of the writings of the Essenses have survived for us to compare them with the NT. Surprisingly often words attributed to Jesus are in fact from Rabbis whose words were recorded in documents of the Essenes. The "Covenent of the Community" was often quoted from. There, as well as other texts, the expression "spirit of truth" is often used as an anthropomorphic term for honesty and sincerity of heart (a person does this or that with "spirit of truth" or falsehood or wickedness etc). The Gospel John uses this same expression (spiritof truth)interchangably with "holy spirit" at 14:17,14:26,15:26. The "holy spirit" as an entity did not become a developed doctrine until the 3rd/4th century CE. Naturally expressions that could with a simple word change or biased translating be made to support this new doctrine crept into the text. The Mark 3:29 statement that "anyone who slanders contrary to the holy spirit" appears to have originally simply meant simply that anyone who with ' will and intent' (contrary to spirit of truth) sins cannot be forgiven. The odd wording makes much more sense in it's Jewish context.

The translation I quoted is the 'Judaeo-christian Bible Fully Translated'

mizpah

peacefulpate:

The last I read was that there were still many questions about the community in Qumran and the scrolls that have been found. Some scholars feel that it was not a community of Essenes at all. So it is difficult to draw conclusions about these scrolls until a clear identity is made. It is even more difficult to speculate about the impact of a religious community upon Christianity when so little is actually known.

I'm always concerned by the scholars who are quick to cast doubts upon the teachings of Christ. The New Testament writings have been well established and accepted by Christians for nearly two millenia. But some scholars seem quick to establish a theory upon every new discovery. One really has to question their motives.

peacefulpete

Whomever you attribute the writings to, they exist and did so before our common era. The Essene community is becoming better understood every day. The overwhelming opinion is that they were the Qumran community. There is no reason to question the motives of those who seek to better understand the past. My post was made to offer a possible answer to a specific textural question and was not an invitation to debate Christianity.

Blasphemy

Share this