CX

It occurred to me recently that the following is pretty explicit:

I've always found this particular passage rather cryptic. In the first case, what precisely does it mean to "blaspheme the holy spirit" and secondly how can an unforgivable sin fit into the Xian program? Lastly, and partly tongue in cheek, if I have blasphemed the holy spirit (I'm pretty sure I have, but if not, the holy spirit is dumber than a box of hair, there I did it) can I simply tell Xians that I am now unsavable and prevent tedious conversion attempts?

Volker.Doormann

1. I think there is an order in nature. In the physical part as well as in the spiritual part. Not to be in harmony or not in agreement with the physical laws of nature seems silly. Not in agreement with the spiritual laws of nature (respecting beings as holy because of their spiritual existence) seems also silly, but it is well known to all, that some special action against beings are not allowed (social justice laws), and it is filed for ever (causality). That what is meant is not a remote deity in heaven, it is meant, that in each being is a part of deity that has to be respected. It seems to me, that this is fulfilled by most people.

2. Christianity has nothing in common with the teaching of Jesus. Theý never have understood his parables. 3. Don't care about. A holy spirit is abstract, but a being not; neither in U.S.A. nor in Iraq.

Rumi, Professor of Theology in Islam has said in a poem:

"Come, come, whoever you are.
Wonderer, worshipper, lover of leaving.
It doesn't matter.
Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow
a thousand times
Come, yet again, come, come."

This turn is simple meant as the agreement of the orders of nature. Who is able to go constantly ever against all orders in nature? No being.

Volker

Magus55

Here is an article on the unforgivable sin. In the Bible, the sin was the Pharisees attributing Jesus' miracles to the devil.

http://www.carm.org/questions/blasphemy.htm

And why would you want to commit that sin? Considering it is possible you could be wrong, do you really want to seal your fate for all eternity? Committing the unpardonable sin means no matter what, even if everything in Christianity turns out to be true, even the end times, and God physically proves His existence to you, there is absolutely no chance for redemption. For you to actually want to do that basically means you think you are 100% right about the universe. You're playing with fire, literally.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Here is an article on the unforgivable sin. In the Bible, the sin was the Pharisees attributing Jesus' miracles to the devil.

I'm safe then, and I suspect all atheists are, because atheists generally don't believe in the devil or Jesus's alleged miracles.

And why would you want to commit that sin? Considering it is possible you could be wrong, do you really want to seal your fate for all eternity? Committing the unpardonable sin means no matter what, even if everything in Christianity turns out to be true, even the end times, and God physically proves His existence to you, there is absolutely no chance for redemption. For you to actually want to do that basically means you think you are 100% right about the universe. You're playing with fire, literally.

Ooh, I'm so scared. Magus is threatening us with fire again.

Your matches are all wet, Magus.

Mike Rosoft

I probably did blaspheme the Holy Spirit. (And yes, the statement I made is pretty much what I believe; I just phrased it so that it constitutes blasphemy.)

And I don't really care one way or other. I am atheist, and I have no reason to believe I'll die being anything else. If fundamentalism is true, I am doomed anyway.


Mike Rosoft

conkermaniac

I don't understand, Magus. Are you suggesting that we are able to change our minds at the pearly gates of Heaven?

gregor

More sectarian hyperbole, I'm sure.

While I bow to those that have actually researched this issue, I suspect that Matt's reference is simply to more sectarian in-fighting. Just like Matt says that when the kingdom of God comes there will be some 'Christians' who still go to hell, I assume there was a branch of early Xians who disputed the existence or import of the holy spirit.

Thus, Matt was saying "most Jews who believe will get to heaven, but those other people claiming to be Xian [ed: I know that at the time they wouldn't consider themselves 'Xian'], who disagree with me about the doctrine of the holy spirit - you guys can never get to heaven."

Clutch

Not really, no. That they did so served only as the introduction to a very cryptic lecture about internal divisiveness:

In short, while the sentence CX quotes seems unequivocal, in context I find it unintelligible. I find the reasoning of the passage opaque; in particular words like "consequently", "but", "or" and "therefore" do not seem to be playing the logical roles competent speakers would normally assign to them.

The passage looks like it was assembled one or two sentences at a time, from snippets of unrelated dialogue.

Peter Kirby

Matthew 12
22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone 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.
33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Here is the structure of the diatribe, per my reading.

1. Jesus exorcises a demon, healing a man.
1a. People say, "Wow, is this the Messiah?"
1b. Pharisees say, "he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub, prince of Demons."
2. Jesus read their minds and refuted them in a public diatribe.
2a. A House Divided.
2a(i). Kingdoms and households fall apart if there is strife.
2a(ii). If Satan was working through Jesus to cast out demons, he would be working for the destruction of his own kingdom. This (at least by folk logic) is implausible.
2b. Your Uncle
2b(i). Your own people (disciples of the Pharisees) perform exorcisms.
2b(ii). So, wise guy, who works in them?
2b(iii). If you say 'Satan', what the hell? Let your own folks argue with you. If you say a good spirit, then what's your beef?
2c. Conclusion to Previous Two Arguments: The kingdom is not in fact divided, for the kingdom of God has come upon you, and I drive out demons by the Spirit of God.
2d. Why I Am Exorcising in the First Place: If there is an evil nobleman, you can rob his house only if you tie him up first. (See Isaiah 49:24-25 for precedent.) By analogy, I am tying up Satan so I can plunder his kingdom.
3. Getting Back to the People
3a. You know what you say, you say that I might be a Messiah, so you must take a side between me and the Pharisees: are you with me or against me?
3b. So I'm gonna tell you a kick-ass reason to be with me.
3b(i). If you're gonna talk shit about somebody, you really don't want to talk shit about the Spirit of God.
3b(ii). So, hey, you might have said something against me, you didn't know, you didn't mean it. But if you knowingly say that the Spirit of God who exorcises through me is the spirit of satan, you can go straight to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
4. Rotten to the Core
4a. Bad people are known by their bad deeds and words.
4b. Those of you who say I am possessed by Satan, you brood of vipers, obviously you are evil since you can't think of anything nice to say. (So, there's a good reason you blasphemous badduns are going to hell.)
4c. You will be judged for what you say, so judge your words carefully! Especially about yours truly.

Don't blame me if the ancients didn't use propositional logic (or even IIDB style rigor) to make their arguments. The reasoning is religious, popular, and analogical.

This is the shorter version in the Gospel of Mark (for Markan priorists, it does show that Matthew and Luke have additional sources to Mark for this motif--probably oral, see W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, p. 154).

Mark 3 - Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary

20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

In short, the brothers and mother of Jesus are damned to the seventh layer of hell.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clutch

Peter, thanks for a useful framework.This part makes sense in the text itself, but presupposes a mono-anti-theism, if you see what I mean. Was this a reasonable presupposition, or did Jews at that time believe that there were many other gods/demons/spirits (of other tribes, say) not necessarily unified under one anti-Yahweh command?
And that's just a catastrophic non-sequitur. Call it religious and popular if you like, but attempting to portray this as reasoning just brings out the essential surd at its core. Of course what the Pharisees mean is that they work through God's power and Jesus does not. That, obviously, is the beef. Is the Scripture trying to portray Jesus as incapable of following the plot for longer than two sentences?
Again, how exactly is this a conclusion? It doesn't follow; heck, it's not even vaguely suggested by what precedes it. It's just something asserted. Now, fair enough for plain old assertions, but "consequently" or any other conclusion-indicator doesn't belong there.
Nothing in the text supports this sudden change of the orientation of the remarks, that I can see.
Again, why think the orientation is changing here? The dialogue is not the transcription of a taped conversation; the authors, were they recording an incident as you portray it, could effortless have indicated to whom JC was speaking.
This part hangs together as well. How it relates to the other parts is opaque. It looks like: Hey, whatever you guys say, I'm really working with god here. Screw with me -- fine. Screw with him -- you're toast. The line between the two is tricky, too, so you're probably smart just to shut up and don't criticize me. In short, skip directly to (4c) via ad baculum; the intervening posited logical structure is spurious.
That, I think, is the whole point, and is meant to come out as a general flavor of the passage rather than something rationally recoverable from it, or even something developed thematically through the course of the passage.