Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

What's the point of everyone else? There's not much fulfillment in that.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions, despite your meager efforts to do so in previous messages, because of the burden placed on you to substantiate any assertion that a contradiction exists.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God need only explain what He is doing to those few. God also wants those who are not to be saved to know what is going on, so that if they do not like that outcome, they can do something about it. Everyone should know their eternal destiny and be comfortable with that destiny.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

That is obviously false since millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message....

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Jesus is taking advantage of the circumstances under which the Pharisees have come to challenge Him. The Pharisees have declared that Jesus is empowered by Satan to heal people (and thereby to deceive them). Jesus then draws a distinction between that word spoken against the son of man (relating to that which Christ says) and a word spoken against the Holy Spirit (relating to the Spirit's testimony about who Christ is). If a person denies who Christ is (i.e., that He is God) then that person can never have forgiveness. So long as that person continues to deny who Christ is, he can never receive forgiveness (How could he since this requires that he believe on Christ?). Should a person recognize his blasphemy and change so that he acknowledges Christ to be God, then his former blasphemy becomes irrelevant. Now the issue is whether he will submit to the Christ that he acknowledges to be God.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Within the church, we have one group that looks at the Scriptures and understands them to say one thing. Another group reads the same Scriptures and understands them to say something else.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

When Jesus referred to people speaking against the son of man, He was referring, in part, to the confusion that exists when people do not understand difficult texts or are just ignorant of what the Bible says.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Through the inability to understand the Scripture or just plain ignorance, people sin and blaspheme. It happens. One denomination should not call another denomination evil because of this. Ignorant, yes; evil, no.

Originally Posted by juergen

It seems to me that the chat Jesus is having with the Pharisees is not about whether Christ is God or not. Rather, it seems they're debating whether what he's doing happens by the power of God or the power of Satan. Just prior to the chat, people are wondering whether Jesus is the Son of David or not. Most, if not all, Christians I've talked to tend to see the whole of the religious jewish institution and its followers as completely ignorant to what God actually meant in the OT in regards to the deliverance of his people. This would probably mean that it should be assumed that when they wonder whether Jesus is the Son of David, they aren't thinking of him as God that will die for their sins, they're wanting to see him as help from above to literally deliver God's people.

I can see your point of a person not logically being able to choose to accept Christ as God when the person does not believe that Christ is God. It just seems obvious that she would have to start believing that Christ is God in order to believe that Christ is God. But to say that THAT is the blasphemy that Jesus is talking about with the Pharisees seems like a stretch.

A person could believe that Jesus came from God and the power shown in the exorcism came by the Spirit of God, and not believe that Jesus IS God. Saying Jesus isn't God isn't the same thing as saying Jesus is subservient to Beelzebub.

Some people would be attributing certain things to be the work of the devil (e.g. christian rock, modern worship, a certain theological perspective, a denomination) and not even notice.

Originally Posted by juergen

Which group should one listen to in aspects of absolute and eternal truth, when there is no objective nor subjective way of determining who one should listen to?

Originally Posted by juergen

Seeing how much discussion there is amongst Christians as to what this means over the years only shows how little consensus there is over what this sin really is. There is a lack of direction, a direction that should be there very clearly for all of God's children, one would think, if the Spirit's role is to bring truth to all of the Father's children. That includes important/less important/much less important things such as speaking against the Son of Man, the role of sex in life, or whether a woman should wear head covering in church, as it ought also include a specific notion of what exactly the impardonable sin is, in the mind of Christians. It just shows the confusion and makes it more confusing. I was under the impression that the witness of the Spirit, unifying the church in truth was to the evidence of authentic truth.

Originally Posted by juergen

This might sound horrible, but I'll just be honest about how I perceive it as I look at different Christian groups. It sounds like "God has revealed what he means, we all know exactly what he means, but we disagree over what he means. We all have independent proof to say that we are correct over this. It might look like we are not sure what that is, but we are, even though we disagree."

Originally Posted by juergen

Like whether Christ is God.

Originally Posted by juergen

To me this makes it even more difficult to see someone establishing a case for Christianity. By the work of the same Spirit, denominations call other denominations evil, blaspheming against the Spirit of God like that over generations of parents teaching their children, who teach their children, no one noticing until sometime that cycle is broken because the church splits over what God means in regards to certain theological statements. It happens over and over again. Blasphemy of the Spirit would repeat itself, but to the church, it would look like a service for God in calling out evil, a process over which is prayed each Sunday, literature is published that blesses people's lives, peace is felt in the 'heart of hearts', and even favorable things happening in the life of the congregation, as in private lives of its members confirming their faithfulness to the truth.

Originally Posted by juergen

So allegedly there are explosives all over the world that will terminate all of humanity. A few people report to having received instructions as to how to disassemble them. Some of the say the red wire should be cut, some of them say it should be the green one. Others say no wire needs to be cut, as the bombs won't go off after all. Others say if you don't cut all the wires, we're all dead. Each person says there was a personal message for them on their answering machine with precise instructions, which will save the lives of those who understand the instructions and apply them. The problem is, the instructions are different, yet there are reported answering machine message confirming the authenticity for each set of instructions.

What if it wasn't God who left those instructions on those answering machines? It would make more sense to see differing instructions. It would also make sense that God is seemingly giving spiritual testimony to a whole range of differing theological outlooks in the form of a good and peaceful feeling in the minds of people that seek to be near him, validating opposing interpretations over who God is. Not only are there contradictions in the Bible, even differing Christian's words and lives are contradictions on how contradictions in the Bible should be dealt with.

If God's there, he doesn't look like someone who really cares whether we get it right or wrong what blasphemy of the Spirit means, whether one should interpret it as you do, or as another Christian does, and whether someone commits it or not.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Their is no confusion about Christ being God.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I agree. Jesus consistently and repeatedly refers to God as an entity other than and separate from himself. :angel: