Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit an 'unrepentable' sin ?

[goatguy-too]

You know, I have been sharing the Gospel of Thomas from the perspective that it is an orthodox Christian document which reveals how to read the sensus plenior of scripture. I am able to read the Bible in four layers in a fashion which I believe is reproducible, self-correcting and verifiable. The Jews believe that the Bible has four layers (PaRDeS), and the Catholic church has a memory of four layers (the Quadriga) though I have been unable to find anyone today who can read it that way.

 

Three of the four layers speak nothing about eternal damnation. And using only the literal texts, for a doctrine to be considered Biblical, it still has to sum up and include everything the Bible has to say on the matter.

 

I know what the kingdom of heaven is as surely as I know anything. Though I am not a universalist, I reserve an opinion on hell only because I have not yet reconciled everything the Bible has to say on it. But I cannot condemn a person for being non-Christian because he is a universalist. God says that it is his will that all men should be saved, and that no one can stay his hand in accomplishing his will.

 

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Da 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

 

The nature of Love is to put others first. If he has commanded us to put others first, how much moreso does He do it? He shows no partiality in extending his mercy.

 

Jas 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

 

Jesus himself said he would draw all men to himself.

 

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;

 

God speaks to men in a way which can be heard in the flesh and in the spirit. The reason is that the law, which has a shadow of the good things coming (Heb 10.1), is designed to speak to the flesh and constrain evil doers. God said that he would destroy Nineveh, yet he did not. He explained elsewhere that when he makes a decree to do harm, that if the people repent, he will change his decree. And if he has decreed that he wiill do good for someone, if that person turns away from God, he will change his mind on doing that good.

 

The purpose in declaring absolute punishments, as that given to Nineveh, is because of His love which desires for all men to be saved. He speaks a language that evil men can understand. If all men come to a knowledge of Christ (Eph 4:13), and every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord, there is nothing in scripture that says God will not save them all.

 

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Ro 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;

 

So you are correct in saying that Christian doctrine is often spelled out in no uncertain terms, but those who hold a creed or statement of faith in higher esteem than the scriptures do a disservice to the very Kingdom of Heaven which they claim to seek and spread. Often those things people say loudest are the very things of which they are least certain.

Edited November 23, 2013 by goatguy

[3bob]

"...but those who hold a creed or statement of faith in higher esteem than the scriptures do a disservice to the very Kingdom of Heaven which they claim to seek and spread..." by Goatguy

 

Not sure what you mean above Goatguy? Do you mean something like a quasi-Christian group claiming that their off-shoot of Christian doctrine when held in higher esteem than the Bible text hurts orthodox/ Bible based Christianity?

 

I understand why other major religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jain, Shinto, Taoism, various forms of Paganism, Druids, Shamanism, American Indians, other native or traditional peoples and "new agers" hold their beliefs in higher esteem than Bible text and as far as I'm concerned that is their right. I'm only against parts of these various religions when such is used as an excuse to commit various forms of power mongering, violence and mind control that amounts to suppression, oppression, etc.. against man and woman kind. (Which btw Christianity, as one of the many mentioned, has a very long and dark historic list of doing so --- although I don't see the soul of Jesus as being guilty of any of that crap)

 

Om

Edited November 23, 2013 by 3bob

[goatguy-too]

"...but those who hold a creed or statement of faith in higher esteem than the scriptures do a disservice to the very Kingdom of Heaven which they claim to seek and spread..." by Goatguy

 

Not sure what you mean above Goatguy? Do you mean something like a quasi-Christian group claiming that their off-shoot of Christian doctrine when held in higher esteem than the Bible text hurts orthodox/ Bible based Christianity?

...

Om

 

I was only referring to this statement:

 

I'm not assuming anything about certain text in parts of Christian doctrine, (for such is spelled out without any room for argument or speculation)

 

The existence of eternal damnation is very much an article of faith for many so much so that they condiser universalism a heresy. I was just pointing out that the teaching of the existence of eternal damnation might actually have room for arguement or speculation without doing violence to the Bible, though it would do great violence to those statements of faith or creeds which are held in higher esteem than the Bible. I am not prepared to defend universalism, but I am prepared to defend the one who may hold that position, against charges of heresy.

 

I only posted a few Biblical passages that may suggest universalism to show that there is justification for rational Christians to hold that position. There are many more.

[3bob]

I'd say that a particular version of heaven and hell were not eternal, separate or self existing before creation thus they won't be so afterwards because of the great and eternally recurring cosmic cycles of creation, existence and destruction. (like seasons)

Edited November 24, 2013 by 3bob

[goatguy-too]

You may be right, but there might be information that you are not considering:

 

When God created the heavens and the earth, the word שמים heavens is a dual form implying that two heavens were formed. So where did the third heaven come from? (2Co 12:2)

 

The phrase 'heaven of heavens' s (De 10:14) suggests that there is an eternal heaven. But even this heaven of heavens cannot contain God. It is not where God is, but itself must be in God. or be God. When God created, he could not create something outside of himself, since there is nothing bigger than God, so he made a void within himself in order to create everything else.

 

But since there is nothing self-existent but God himself, then the heaven of heavens must be God.

The word קדם eternal also means 'east'. On the compass, north represents heaven, soth represents earth. East represents eternity, and west represents 'filthy time'. Time is attached to the fall. Eternity is not endless time. It is timelessness. We might call it quantum life. Things change, but there is no time.

 

When God created, he did so in quantum life. He could create mountains that look like they are old in the same instant he could create radiation halos that look like they happened instantly. Only at the fall did the clock start ticking.

 

Another thing that might weigh in is that fire represents the Holy Spirit. This suggests that if you are in the presence of God and you are in some kind of condition, that his very presence creates the hell within you. You can probably experience this from time to time.

 

Did something ever trigger a memory and you had a physical response to it. It would be a memory of something you did and just the thought of it make you wince, or flip a finger, or literally bite your tongue. That is a preview of hell. Just the presence of God will give you remembrance of all thoise things in your life, and since there is no time, that split second that you experience now, will last forever.

 

We continually accuse God of being mean and nasty, when all he is doing is warning us that if we don't resolve those issues and that guilt before entering eternity, we will be weeping and gnashing our teeth evermore in his presence.

 

If Adam had been permitted to eat of the tree of life before his guilt could be dealt with on the cross, the garden would have become hell every time God stepped into it.

Edited November 24, 2013 by goatguy

[3bob]

Lots of deep stuff to consider there...

 

Lets take just one of them for now: "...But since there is nothing self-existent but God himself..." By Goat guy

 

What are some of the implications of your sentence and the points or questions that could be reasonably derived from same?

For instance: 1. can hell and its occupants exist without God being part of same (?) for it would seem that such a dichotomy is impossible even for God since you speak of him as heaven, a heaven by most accounts that can not exist and be in the same state as an existing hell, a hell which again can not exist or be separate from the one and only self-existing God.

 

 

The way I see things:

Everything and or anything created is in and of time, created things can be renewed for a very, very, very long time (in effect what is called immortality via or in different scales of time) yet even time/space itself as a created thing comes to an end when it is drawn up so to speak... although through the great cosmic cycle(s) it along with everything else will be created again and again.

Edited November 24, 2013 by 3bob

[goatguy-too]

What are some of the implications of your sentence and the points or questions that could be reasonably derived from same?

For instance: 1. can hell and its occupants exist without God being part of same (?) for it would seem that such a dichotomy is impossible even for God since you speak of him as heaven, a heaven by most accounts that can not exist and be in the same state as an existing hell, a hell which again can not exist or be separate from the one and only self-existing God.

According to the Bible, God is in hell too.

 

Ps 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].

 

It's like the fire, and water in scripture. Depending on your state it either destroys or refines/purifies. Hell is not so much a place as a conditon one may be in concerning the relationship with God.

 

Christian myths such that Hell is where God is not, or Mormon myths such as a place of outer darkness where God is not, are not based on the Bible. There is no place you can be to escape the presence of God. God is where God is. Hell is where you are if you are not reconciled to him. It is a state of being unreconciled to your own life when it is exposed in the presence of God. There is no dichotemy based on physical locations. That's why I suggested above that the issue with understanding hell is based in the creeds and statements of faith, not in the Bible.

 

I true understanding of God cannot be had without reconciling everything that is said about him. There is a Christian myth that God cannot be in the presence of evil, but God says of himself:

 

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

 

So he certainly can be in the presence of hell.

Edited November 24, 2013 by goatguy

[3bob]

Logic alone is not the only measure but that doesn't mean I'd throw the baby out with the bath water...

 

Anyway to me your logic does not compute, for instance if the way you understand God is as being the state or condition of "heaven" then hell would not be such if God is there (in said state)... etc..

 

If I remember correctly "outer darkness" is mentioned in the Bible in the book of Matthew several times, thus I find your summation about same as missing key Bible references. (?) Further, what is a "Christian myth" or fact is 100% open to debate in this world.

 

Btw, those are Old Testament quotes you used are from a collection of multiple books which are over-flowing with self-contradiction and spiritual dichotomy (to name just two conditions) that can not be reconciled by my take, if you see and feel reconciliation with same then have at it but remember that is just your take... The NT is less so but still deeply problematic imo unless one tosses out most of its carry-over from the OT and sticks mainly with what Jesus is quoted as saying about spiritual principles. (but of course the NT. has also been heavily manipulated by worldly forces that wear sheeps clothing)

Edited November 25, 2013 by 3bob

[goatguy-too]

Obviously I did not state it in such a way for you to understand, since your restatement is certainly not what I intended.

 

If there is a bonfire, and you are standing in it in your swimsuit, and I am in an asbestos space suit. One of us gets burned and the other doesn't. It is YOUR state in the presence of God which makes the difference... not His.

 

If you wish to chat about how the Bible can't be trusted, lets go to another thread. The OP is asking about a Biblical doctrine, it makes no sense for someone who does not place any stock in the Bible to try to interpret it with any kind of consistency. So it doesn't make sense to continue that part of the thread any more.

Edited November 26, 2013 by goatguy

[3bob]

Simple deduction would lead one to see going by your last post that if God made himself present in hell then hell would be burned up as you imply resulting in it being no more instead of it being eternal... thus the line of reasoning you give does not fly unless its a minor and forgivable hell, but the Bible never mentions such a hell does it.

 

A Bible or a religion corrupted by worldly forces of greed, oppression (etc..) as Jesus warned of can not be fully trusted, that is my observation, surely such is self-evident to anyone who has heard or seen reports on shady preachers asking for money to fund their multi-million dollar life styles or brain washing people into committing suicide... (like Jim Jones)

 

edit: although I can see your point about a persons state being important such as one biting off way more than they chew (around high power purity) which will backfire on any who try such. Yet even in that case there is some built in protection for foolish acts, call it spiritual inductive reactance if you will which should cause the unprepared or a transgressor to back off quickly since high power purity does not.

Edited November 26, 2013 by 3bob

[Dragon X]

When i 1st started to read this topic i had something to say. But after having readin all the post. i no longer feel that i have anything to add. as what i would have said would be out of place.

 

i have learned a lot. from this and it has only served to make realize how much the bible was cleverly written to confuse and control others. People are put in a position that they will not think for themselves for fear that God will punish them. We speak without thinkin and quote without knowing what is said and call anyone who has an opposin point ov view a devil and a satanist {i'm not talkin about the posters but of the people in general}

 

i am so Gladd i follow the Dao and not all this Christianity crap

i need to stop cause this is startin to make me angry

 

PEACE..................

[thelerner]

Not being Christian, the OP question makes no sense. I don't follow any of the assumptions wrapped up in it.

 

Hasn't the last pope or two been moving away from eternal damnation dogma into the more cerebral position of hell being those who distance themselves from God and not a literal place? If so, then more power to them.

Edited November 26, 2013 by thelerner

[h.uriahr]

Very cool discussion.

[chegg]

I did some digging on the internet......and found an interesting point.

 

The sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be committed ignorantly. [ref]

 

Can someone please explain the reference

 

 

 

Blessings of teachings to you :wub: :wub: :wub:

[3bob]

Chegg, I'd say the internet source you came across is oxymoronic...

[chegg]

.

Edited March 28, 2015 by chegg

[3bob]

Sounds like you are on the right track... except I'd go further with your analogy that if one had true and full knowledge of the "Holy Spirit" (which would also take the crossing over of said bridge) then they would also indelibly know that no sin can stand up to same including any attempted smashing of same. (for Spirit is unto Spirit regardless of what any form of creature does)

[Dolokhov]

Any God who could allow any being to suffer *forever*, not even forgiving them after a billion years, after they had repented, learned their lesson etc, well that kind of God is not worthy of our worship. It's on that basis that I don't worry about a few lines written in the New Testament that refer to this. There are about a thousand different religions on Earth anyway, who is to say which is correct? Why are you so worried about blaspheming the HS, and not worried about not having made offerings to Zeus, for example? Or Thor? And damn, I worked on the Sabbath recently...should I be stoned? And by the way, did you know that if you don't pray three times a day to Allah, you're stuffed as well? Seriously, please cease your worry about this. You've got a precious human life to live. Go out into the sun, and listen to the birds.

 

 

Peace friend I don't believe in such a God either. The "blasphemy" I see in that verse (which, btw, we should take in context, not just as a single verse floating in a vacuum) is a continual sticking-your-head-in-the-sand when the truth is right in front of you. The story says that Jesus worked miracles which were obviously from God. The Pharisees knew this but said "it must be from Satan." So Jesus essentially said, "I can't make you accept the fact that this is from the Holy Spirit if you don't want to." It's like having a medicine for your illness right in front of you, but you decide not to take it. If you do, you'll remain sick - which is what happened to the Pharisees, spiritually.

 

And obviously this blasphemy is not a single moment or event which damns you for the rest of eternity, even after you've repented. That's not true - and I agree with you that we shouldn't worship such a God. As above, this type of "blasphemy" is simply the same as refusing health - once you decide to take the medicine, you're fine. But if you don't, Jesus isn't going to force you to be healthy (spiritually that is, which involves forgiveness, repentance, etc.)

Edited December 13, 2013 by Dolokhov