Special Attention to All Born-Again Christians

[SPF]

Cvanwey, as much as you're trying to score points here and prove I'm not sure what to make you feel better about discrediting the Bible, you're not really making any progress.

Here's what Albert Barnes' commentary says regarding the passage:

"In this place, and in Mar_3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the “spirit” or “power” of God, but by the aid of the prince of the devils.

It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is clear from Mar_3:30, “because they said he had an unclean spirit.” All other sins - all speaking against the Saviour himself - might be remitted. But this sin was clearly against the Holy One; it was alleging that the highest displays of God’s mercy and power were the work of the devil; and it argued, therefore, the deepest depravity of mind. The sin of which he speaks is therefore clearly stated. It was accusing him of working miracles by the aid of the devil, thus dishonoring the Holy Spirit."

The bottom line is that the reason the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is not forgivable is simply because all who do it do not believe in Jesus and His atoning work on the cross. It really is that simple. No Christian would do what Jesus is talking about in this passage because all Christians believe in Christ.

However, all non-Christians actually DO commit blasphemy against the Spirit because they reject Christ's Divinity.

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word “ghost” means “spirit,” and probably refers here to the “divine nature” of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: “He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed “by me,” can never obtain forgiveness.”

Context matters, and frankly, you're ignoring it in order to score a point against Christianity.

Mat 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

[Holoman]

You guys are really trying, but no cigar (All definitions provided from the Webster Dictionary)

Synonyms of disbelief
incredulity, nonbelief, unbelief

Words Related to disbelief
discredit, distrust, doubt, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty, denial, rejection, repudiation, unfaith

***************

Disbelief/unbelief has it's very own category. It's called unbelief or disbelief, and is referred to many times in the Bible, as the offense for not believing (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16, John 3:16-21, etc.....

Blasphemy, or to blaspheme, on the other hand, is NOT related to disbelief:

Synonyms of blasphemy
defilement, desecration, impiety, irreverence, profanation, sacrilege

Words Related to blasphemy
cursing, profanity, swearing, affront, insult, violation, contamination, corruption, debasement, pollution, sin, trespass

I do not recall in the Holy Bible, where it states something to the effect of, "you must first be a believer (or know something does exist) before you can possibly then blaspheme the Holy Spirit." Blasphemy pertains to the wide variety of definitions/synonyms above. Meaning, to insult, show contempt, display lack in reverence, etc... Both believers and nonbelievers can be in offense to such a sin or crime, according to the Bible.

Until you can demonstrate that Blasphemy actually instead means 'sin of unbelief', you are instead attempting to change definitions to cater to your own conclusion.

Furthermore, it is unforgivable. Which seems to contradict grace and forgiveness.

I think you need to put your dictionary down and use hermaneutics instead. Words and language are not rigid. In the context in which Jesus said it, it's very clear what he meant by it. Just like when I said 'put you dictionary down' you know I didn't mean for you to put a literal book down as you referenced an online dictionary.

But I think we all know that you have no real interest in understanding the meaning, but in pointing out supposed contradictions.

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey, as much as you're trying to score points here and prove I'm not sure what to make you feel better about discrediting the Bible, you're not really making any progress.

Um, this is a debate forum. It's not about 'feeling better about discrediting the Bible.' It is instead about citing valid points observed while reading scripture.

Here's what Albert Barnes' commentary says regarding the passage:

Reading this 'interpretation' would be about as useful as reading the many alternate conclusions from David Fitzgerald or Francesca Stavrakopoulou I instead care what (you) have to say on the matter

The bottom line is that the reason the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is not forgivable is simply because all who do it do not believe in Jesus and His atoning work on the cross.

Okay, so if the Pharisees later repented of all sins to Jesus, before natural death, would they instead be forgiven and possibly be granted rights to heaven?

If the above answer is yes, now what if they took the Lord's name in vain after established belief? Heaven or hell?

If the above answer is 'hell', we still have a problem - (because they have not died yet while now being a believer or born-again).

If you instead state that believers do not blaspheme, and only unbelievers do while not believing, then why even mention it as an additional sin - (besides non-belief, seems completely redundant)?

It really is that simple. No Christian would do what Jesus is talking about in this passage because all Christians believe in Christ.

Then there is no reason to reinvent disbelief. It already talks about nonbelievers plentifully in the Bible (I can cite many direct verses, and none of them reference blasphemy in unison or in conjunction). Blasphemy pertains to an entirely separate topic.

However, all non-Christians actually DO commit blasphemy against the Spirit because they reject Christ's Divinity.

And so do believers. It's called blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by taking the Lord's name in vain, etc... Otherwise, believers would not tell other believers not to blaspheme their God, in accordance with the third commandment in Exodus.

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word “ghost” means “spirit,” and probably refers here to the “divine nature” of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: “He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed “by me,” can never obtain forgiveness.”

If you cannot ever obtain forgiveness, then this demonstrates lack in claimed forgiveness and grace in some capacity.

In regards to Christianity, however, the basics are pretty clear - repent, and be baptized prior to natural death, or it is instead too late. However, blasphemy is not directly related to this basic concept. Otherwise, it would say so in the Bible for all clearly to see.

Context matters, and frankly, you're ignoring it in order to score a point against Christianity.

Mat 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Yes context DOES matter... Which it is then quite bazaar why you are citing verses from an entirely different book, and an entirely different chapter, citing an entirely different context?

I fully acknowledged that context does matter, by providing a wide variety of synonyms and definitions. And yes, the English language is quite vast, and each word may portray multiple meanings. But you have yet to demonstrate how Mark 3:28-30 actually applied to the 'sin of unbelief'. And you certainly are not going to do so by citing an entirely different book and chapter, written by a different author.

Why not instead address the verses around the verses I provided?

******************

In conclusion, synonyms for unbelief are as follows below - (and I do not see anything remotely close to 'blasphemous'). And on the flip side, if someone accuses one of committing blasphemy, what is the first, second, or even third definition which pops into one's head? Please tell me how the 'sin of disbelief' is directly related, as it pertains directly to Mark 3:28-30?

• agnostic
• cynical
• disbelieving
• distrustful
• doubtful
• doubting
• dubious
• freethinking
• leery
• mistrustful
• nonbelieving
• not born yesterday
• questioning
• show-me
• suspicious
• unconvinced

 

[Holoman]

I'll add something else in case any more open minded people are reading.

You will find different interpretations of this between Catholics and Protestants. For Protestants, you cannot repent of this sin because it is knowingly rejecting the Holy Spirit. If one says something and later repents of it, and worries it is the unforgivable sin, then it shows they never committed this sin in the first place.

In Catholic doctrine, the unforgivable sin is defined more widely than has been denoted here. It includes things like knowingly committing sin without repentance. It is unforgivable after death. If one commits other sins, they can be forgiven upon death but the unforgivable sin cannot be. If one repents of rejecting the Holy Spirit earlier in life and dies, then they have not committed the unforgivable sin and are forgiven.

 

[SPF]

cvanwey, as I'm sure you're aware, the synoptic Gospels share many stories in common. This particular story is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I quoted, for your benefit, the Matthew passage because it provides more context, which is beneficial for a discussion like this.

Also, this will be my last response to you on this topic. I typically don't engage in secondary, deep theological discussions with non-Christians because frankly, I don't expect you to understand or grasp them. It's not important to me that you understand how Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit works as much as it is important to me that you come to recognize that you're a sinner and need forgiveness.

I personally don't understand why this topic is even important to you, someone who rejects Christianity altogether. I can only surmise that you believe you've found a contradiction and are looking to bolster your own self confidence that Christianity must be false because there is a contradictory teaching. I would say that is evidenced by the fact that you're continually rejecting competent answers and continually insist upon using an English dictionary instead of actually doing some real hermeneutics, and diving into the passage and attempting to look at the context as a whole and use Biblical dictionaries to understand what words mean and what is overall being taught.

So I'll just end by answering a few of your questions.

Okay, so if the Pharisees later repented of all sins to Jesus, before natural death, would they instead be forgiven

Yes. In the same way that if you were to come to a point and recognize that you are a sinner and need forgiveness that you would be forgiven.

now what if they took the Lord's name in vain after established belief? Heaven or hell?

All Christians sin. Thankfully, while taking the Lord's name is wrong, and is sin, it won't cause anyone to lose their Salvation.

What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? | CARM.org

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain," (Exodus 20:7).

As you can see, God tells us something not to do. He wants us to not use God's name in vain. What does it mean to not take God's name in vain? "In vain" it means to lack the proper respect and substance belongs in a statement and or intention or God's name is invoked. In other words, to take the Lord's name in vain means to use it in a manner that is not reverent. The phrase, "the Lord's name," includes words such as "God," "Lord," "Jesus," and "Christ." These words are never to be used in any form of exclamation, swearing, or disrespect such as "Oh my ***." They are always and only supposed to be used in a manner that glorifies God.

Taking the Lord's name in vain, though certainly wrong, is not the same as Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as described by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Different context.

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word “ghost” means “spirit,” and probably refers here to the “divine nature” of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: “He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed “by me,” can never obtain forgiveness.”

The above does a very good job of helping explain the passage, and if you're willing to be honest with yourself, it makes perfect sense. Let's assume hypothetically for a moment that Jesus was who He claimed to be. If that is true, then clearly someone who charged His works as being in league with Satan, does not believe that He is who He claims to be, right? That person - so long as they hold that belief - can never obtain forgiveness.

 

[cvanwey]

Also, this will be my last response to you on this topic.

I get it. You do not want to repeat your response. Neither do I. However, I'm going to make one last run at conveying my position for you.

I typically don't engage in secondary, deep theological discussions with non-Christians because frankly, I don't expect you to understand or grasp them.

In a way, I understand. But in another, I find your rationale peculiar. I trust you are aware there exists many individuals whom study and interpret all types of authoritative texts, whom may or may not necessarily agree with their asserted written conclusions. Belief in a resurrection, quite honestly, often times becomes arbitrary.

It's not important to me that you understand how Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit works as much as it is important to me that you come to recognize that you're a sinner and need forgiveness.

You being a practicing Christian, I'm aware that this may be your position for any/all people whom hold doubt, skepticism, or disbelief. Meaning, I appreciate your earnestness and genuine concern for all well-being.

I personally don't understand why this topic is even important to you, someone who rejects Christianity altogether.

If you feel only firm believers should be interested in such interpreting text, then that becomes your specific prerogative. Whom ever said I 'reject Christianity altogether?' I do doubt, yes. I do question, yes. I do find contradiction, yes. Hence, one of the many reasons I am on here for the past couple months or so. Please be advised, I was raised in this for 30+ years. I have yet to draw my conclusion, but do admittedly carry doubt, (for what I feel, are very solid reasons). This topic is just one of many. Hence, the reason I converse with many here for further insight and clarification on opposing positions and views.

I can only surmise that you believe you've found a contradiction and are looking to bolster your own self confidence that Christianity must be false because there is a contradictory teaching.

You would then only 'surmise' incorrectly. I even have firm believing family members whom carry the same conclusion as I, in accordance with the many definitions of 'blasphemy'. Hence, the reason I inquired about it here. Trust me, there exists plenty of topics and verses I do not broach upon this forum, during my research and discovery period for claimed truth for Christianity.

I would say that is evidenced by the fact that you're continually rejecting competent answers and continually insist upon using an English dictionary instead of actually doing some real hermeneutics, and diving into the passage and attempting to look at the context as a whole and use Biblical dictionaries to understand what words mean and what is overall being taught.

Pardon me for providing every possible and workable definition for the word blasphemy. None of which exists related to 'unbelief.' Furthermore, pardon me, yet again, for not seeing a connection for your asserted conclusion without direct justification.

Hermeneutics becomes a sticky proposition! Hermeneutics seems to often be referenced (here included), as if it becomes the 'default benchmark', or maybe even the 'absolute standard'. But if such was a case, then why do we have many opposing conclusions in Christianity? If hermeneutics was to solve conflicting viewpoints about context, I would not be able to drive down many roads in my city, and see many opposing "Jesus based faith churches", who also flagrantly disagree with one another on many contexts, positions, points, and conclusions

Yes. In the same way that if you were to come to a point and recognize that you are a sinner and need forgiveness that you would be forgiven.

Again, not according to every viable definition of blasphemy one can find. Of which many practicing Christians also agree with me about... So by what 'absolute standard' might one use to determine your conclusion is correct, while ours is incorrect? I could attempt to ask the author, but my prayers continue to go unanswered.

I've provided every conceivable definition and synonym for blasphemy, as well as reading and interpreting the passages from the Bible. Why is your method superior and actually correct????

All Christians sin. Thankfully, while taking the Lord's name is wrong, and is sin, it won't cause anyone to lose their Salvation.

What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? | CARM.org

I find it both interesting and odd that you tell me not to rely upon human applied definitions, and instead want me to rely upon only certain human applied concluded definitions.?.?.? And in this case, I guess I'm supposed to rely/conclude the asserted conclusion about context by an Christian apologetics site, most likely edited by Matt Slick (whom is a human)?

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain," (Exodus 20:7).

As you can see, God tells us something not to do. He wants us to not use God's name in vain. What does it mean to not take God's name in vain? "In vain" it means to lack the proper respect and substance belongs in a statement and or intention or God's name is invoked. In other words, to take the Lord's name in vain means to use it in a manner that is not reverent. The phrase, "the Lord's name," includes words such as "God," "Lord," "Jesus," and "Christ." These words are never to be used in any form of exclamation, swearing, or disrespect such as "Oh my ***." They are always and only supposed to be used in a manner that glorifies God.

Taking the Lord's name in vain, though certainly wrong, is not the same as Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as described by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Different context.

I disagree with you, along with many of my Christian believing family members. I have provided every conceivable definition and synonym for the word blasphemy. I can also read the verses in context, and translate them accordingly, just like you. However, if I question a passage or context, I can look to find any/all definitions and synonyms for words, including 'blasphemy'. I'm also fully aware that blasphemy has more than one use. Hence, the reason I provided many concluded usages and intentions for this word.

So here is a question (in which you may not answer, but maybe someone else can tackle)....

If God has provided text to humans for truth, why provide in such a manor where even the believing individuals can misinterpret, on a multitude of scales, leaving some banished for hell, while others going to Heaven? Seems like an extremely fallible way to convey absolute truth - (in dying and changing languages, syntax, and context interpretations).

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word “ghost” means “spirit,” and probably refers here to the “divine nature” of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: “He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed “by me,” can never obtain forgiveness.”

The above does a very good job of helping explain the passage, and if you're willing to be honest with yourself, it makes perfect sense. Let's assume hypothetically for a moment that Jesus was who He claimed to be. If that is true, then clearly someone who charged His works as being in league with Satan, does not believe that He is who He claims to be, right? That person - so long as they hold that belief - can never obtain forgiveness.

With words like 'probably', who could doubt such an absolute conclusion

Again, 'belief' has it's own conclusion(s). Without belief, according to Christianity, you are not awarded the rights to heaven. Blasphemy, by all of the existing definitions, is not associated with belief/disbelief.

I agree with you, in the primary claims for Christianity. Without accepting a resurrection claim as fact, and also atoning and repenting of sin, while also being baptized, appears the fundamental ways to obtain eternal life, according to Christianity.

However, I feel you are still completely missing my position here.... So I will try one last time, with an example.

'Adultery is wrong', according to the Bible. If I am a 'Christian', I am a believer in a resurrection and in salvation. If I am a human, I am a sinner. Adultery can be defined and categorized in a multitude of ways. (i.e.) intimate relations with another besides your spouse, committing lust for others without the physical act, the viewing of pornographic material, intentional conversations of lust with someone besides your spouse, etc.... Many synonyms include cheating, infidelity, unfaithful, or two-timing.

Obviously, 'belief/unbelief' and 'adultery' are not directly related. Both believers and non-believers can cheat. However, if a believer cheats, they either repent or not repent, and depending upon which denomination they adhere to, they may or may not go to heaven - as they accept the living Christ. If they are not a believer, adultery is irrelevant, according to the tenets of Christianity. They are instead already destined for hell.

Now simply replace the word 'adultery' (with all of it's associated definitions and synonyms), instead with 'blasphemy', and directly apply it to the above example.

 

[Holoman]

cvanwey, I do believe you are sincere in asking these questions and not just looking for an argument. You seem quite familiar with the Bible and its teachings, and there are lots of Christians (including myself) that read some things in the Bible and raise our eyebrows. On some levels I read your posts and think maybe you would really prefer it if you did believe in Jesus.

I was in a similar place a few years ago where I had so many questions and doubts I didn't know what to make of it all. I guess I was agnostic at the time as there seemed to be too many holes in atheism, Christianity, Islam.. etc. I guess the turning point for me was when I realised that I was just letting doubt rule my life, and that no matter what path I took, there would be significant doubt. My hyper-skepticism was just unproductive. So I went with the religion that I had the least doubt about, Christianity. Over the years many of the doubts have been satisfied and I feel like I've found answers too them.

On the topic at hand, I think you are putting too much emphasis on individual words. Firstly, if you're going to do this, you need to look at the original Greek manuscripts and look at the words used there, and all their meanings at the time they were written, not an English translation. Secondly, Jesus didn't say these things in Greek but Aramaic, so they have already gone through one translation. That's why I think it's fruitless to analyse these things down to the level of individual words, but instead read the passage as a whole.

 

[Newtheran]

According to candid scripture, many may not be awarded a 'do-over', if such prior acts have been genuinely committed:

Mark 3:28-30 states, and I quote, "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Some definitions of blasphemy include 'impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things. An act of cursing or reviling God'. - dictionary.com. The Webster dictionary defines blasphemy as 'the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.' Google.com expresses this action as 'the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.' I'm sure many can refer to varying definitions, or even rationalize how they might not of actually ever committed such alleged infractions or grievances.

Thoughts, corrections, concerns, questions?

mir·ror
ˈmirər/
noun

1. 1.
   a reflective surface, now typically of glass coated with a metal amalgam, that reflects a clear image.

 

[cvanwey]

cvanwey, I do believe you are sincere in asking these questions and not just looking for an argument. You seem quite familiar with the Bible and its teachings, and there are lots of Christians (including myself) that read some things in the Bible and raise our eyebrows. On some levels I read your posts and think maybe you would really prefer it if you did believe in Jesus.

I was in a similar place a few years ago where I had so many questions and doubts I didn't know what to make of it all. I guess I was agnostic at the time as there seemed to be too many holes in atheism, Christianity, Islam.. etc. I guess the turning point for me was when I realised that I was just letting doubt rule my life, and that no matter what path I took, there would be significant doubt. My hyper-skepticism was just unproductive. So I went with the religion that I had the least doubt about, Christianity. Over the years many of the doubts have been satisfied and I feel like I've found answers too them.

I appreciate what you are saying. However, for me, reading a lot of what's in the Bible is like throwing a dart at the wall, then painting a bullseye around it, and then calling it a direct hit. Just as I've also discussed with Muslims, they too have answers and responses to any and every verse in the Holy Qur'an - in which I find error, conflict, or disagreement. I could respond more, but then we would go well off topic

On the topic at hand, I think you are putting too much emphasis on individual words.

Normally, I would agree..... However, these verses appears to come directly from Jesus and also states 'unforgivable'. Hence, the heightened awareness and attention given.

Firstly, if you're going to do this, you need to look at the original Greek manuscripts and look at the words used there, and all their meanings at the time they were written, not an English translation.

I disagree... If the book is to provide universal truth, either provide in a universal language, or, only publish the Bible in it's intended language. Why would God allow for 'misinterpreted/mistranslated' copies to stand? The Bible is to represent objective/absolute law. If such objective law can be misinterpreted so easily, and many earnestly follow incorrectly (as believers), who is at fault?

Secondly, Jesus didn't say these things in Greek but Aramaic, so they have already gone through one translation. That's why I think it's fruitless to analyse these things down to the level of individual words, but instead read the passage as a whole.

Please see response directly above.

***************

One last wrap-up analogy...

Take all of the ten commandments. If you are NOT a believer, they would not apply to you, as you do not believe. This is implied. This is also why when someone says they are not a believer, Christians may state they have 'no moral compass'. Why? Because if you do not believe in a risen Christ, repent, and receive baptism, then the ten commandments will NOT apply to you anyways.

The third commandment is one of the main definitions of 'blasphemy'. It will not apply if you are not a believer. Just like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc..., will not apply to non-believers.

So again, Mark 3:28-30 is irrelevant if you are already not a believer, just like any other claimed Christian sin ;-) Hence, my original post.

You can commit 'blasphemy' as a believer/non-believer just like you can break any other commandment as a believer/non-believer. If the Bible is true, then the non-believer would still be guilty. However, in the case for blasphemy, it appears unforgivable. This is why I raised the topic

And again, the 'sin of unbelief' has it's own category, and is no more directly related to 'blasphemy', verses any of the other ten commandments.

 

[Holoman]

I disagree... If the book is to provide universal truth, either provide in a universal language, or, only publish the Bible in it's intended language. Why would God allow for 'misinterpreted/mistranslated' copies to stand? The Bible is to represent objective/absolute law. If such objective law can be misinterpreted so easily, and many earnestly follow incorrectly (as believers), who is at fault?

Maybe I have a looser view on the Bible than some, but I don't hold it to this sort of standard. The Bible's purpose is not to teach the law, because we Catholics believe in natural law, which means that it is evident to everyone, even without the Bible. It's purpose is to teach of salvation. The Old Testament is the recorded history of the prophets who paved the way for and predicted the messiah. The new testament teaches of God's plan for human salvation in Jesus.

We don't believe in Jesus because we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, we believe in the bible because we believe in Jesus. Taken as purely historical documents, they give sufficient evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and rose from the dead.

Now why would God allow people to make errors in the Bible? Well, He's allowed many things that weren't perfect. The laws of the Israelites were not perfect, but were given to them as the best they could do in that time and place. We would be crazy to apply their laws today. But what the Bible as a whole teaches us in terms of theological truths, I believe, is inerrant. That doesn't mean it can't be mistranslated, or its original meaning fully conveyed in another language without possibility of misunderstanding. Translation is an art.