themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Hi Folks, I am wondering your Bible is giving me a very problematic view in that Jesus says two absolutely conflicting passages. Mark 3:28–29 28 “aTruly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but awhoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— Ok so there we go 'The Eternal Sin' but wait theres a problem here because Jesus also said.... Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Or how about John 11 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?" or even John 3:36 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. So considering at several locations in the Bible Jesus spoke more about believing in him to be 'Saved' then how can one commit this sin? Or is it indeed possible (I think it is) to commit this sin but at the same time achieve eternal life? Technically a Sin against the Holy Spirit which cannot be forgiven goes against the very teachings that tell us as humans to 'Forgive lest we forgive'? Since Jesus does not continue to warn anywhere else in the Bible about this sin could it be possible that although someone can commit it - It will fall upon Jesus through his blood thus rendering Jesus accountable for this sin? or perhaps Committing this sin will not affect ones standing before God as Jesus has already promised eternal life to him who believes. Therefore you bypass Judgement and enter into eternal life with an eternal sin?
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 22, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 22, 2014 I think this is a lot like wondering if blasphemy against Thor's Hammer would prevent someone from drinking mead in Valhalla. Both are based on myths. You shouldn't worry too much about myths. Moreover, no one really knows what jesus had to say for himself because the gospels were written long after he supposedly lived. That bit about blasphemy of the holy spirit might have been made up long after the first gospels had been written.
Scottsman Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 The doctrine is called the "unforgivable sin." I learned it to mean that if you die without accepting the holy spirit you have commited the unforgivable sin. Everyones sins are covered but you still have to believe and not reject the holy spirit. Doesnt make much sense but there it is.
themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 Hey, I know Bart Ehrman said that there was lots of changes and some of them would turn the 'Christian's' Gospel on its head what I am wanting to do is challenge the Christians here to reconcile how their God could both 'Save Everyone' and 'Not Save Everyone' I'm hopeing they can reconcile the contridiction.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 22, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 22, 2014 Hey, I know Bart Ehrman said that there was lots of changes and some of them would turn the 'Christian's' Gospel on its head what I am wanting to do is challenge the Christians here to reconcile how their God could both 'Save Everyone' and 'Not Save Everyone' I'm hopeing they can reconcile the contridiction. Don't be too disappointed if the only response you get are pop-culture sound-bytes from TinPony. He seems to be our only active apologist at the moment.
themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 I know but I want to see his take on compiling that his Jesus said two opposing things?
par4dcourse Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Poke around the archives, Scottsman, we've had great fun "blaspheming" the holy spook.
Roz Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Even if it's just Ironhorse that's around (he dodges issues better than Neo dodges bullets btw), there's guests coming and going. Right now there's 2 members looking at this thread, me being one of them. There's also 2 guests viewing. Even if you don't get an answer, it's likely that a Christian visitor will read on.
LifeCycle Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 1 Corinthians 14:33King James Version (KJV) 33 For God is not the author of confusion, LOL!!!!!!!! 1
Scottsman Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Isaiah 45:7 Kjv I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. This is fun
LifeCycle Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Isaiah 45:7 Kjv I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. This is fun Love that verse!!!
francesco Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 The doctrine is called the "unforgivable sin." I learned it to mean that if you die without accepting the holy spirit you have commited the unforgivable sin. Everyones sins are covered but you still have to believe and not reject the holy spirit. Doesnt make much sense but there it is. well, this doctrine is confusing catholic: thomas aquinas have the list unforgiven sins that will create barrier to salvation but also recognize that it's possible for god to remove it by miracle augustinus taught that is only dying not feeling sorry for one's sins is the only unforgivable sin pope john paul II: refusal to accept the salvation which god offers to man through the holy spirit arminius (arminian) and calvin (calvinist) are similar : refusing of jesus through determined malice and hatred against christ the difference is who can commit it: only non believers, or both non believers and believers john wesley (methodist): reject Jesus as Savior after having confessed him or declaring that the works of jesus were the works of the evil
Guest afireinside Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Basically it's non-belief(rejection of Christ) and can't be committed by a believer. I've heard it said if you are worried you've committed it you haven't. And God is not the author of confusion but he is the author or delusion
LifeCycle Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Speaking of delusion! faith noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. delusion 1.an act or instance of deluding. 2.the state of being deluded. 3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur. 4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact
par4dcourse Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Blasphemy is just almighty god getting his wittle feewings hurt. 2
themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 Aye but the thing again is: 29 but awhoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” Jesus said 'Speaks a Word' lol - So all these dying in unbelief to me sound like cop-outs. Perhaps the church is using these reasons to keep people in the fold that they know will ultimately end up in hell. Lets face it - its not unknown for the church to twist scripture to keep followers.
xtify Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit.
Guest afireinside Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. Christians argue that the fact that Gospel accounts differ is proof of their authenticity, like if it was a lie they'd all say the same thing. How dumb is that?. If witnesses to a crime all disagreed on what was said and done should the judge consider that strong evidence that they are all telling the truth or is a consistent account more believable?. All of this shit doesn't add up
themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. You are true on that one - I am being honest I thought lets have a look at what Jesus said yet when you read it he said various things to various people. The fact that he preached the 'Unforgivable Sin' would mean that 1) Jesus death would not be sufficient 2) We humans can commit a sin that is so grievous that doing it unintentionally can commit us to hell! (Reminds me of the tree in the Garden!) 3) Jesus also further said that anyone who believes will be saved?! 4) That Jesus never followed his own message for forgiveness! When I read 'The pharasies said he has an unclean spirit' I feel that was added at the end perhaps Jesus putting out an empty threat otherwise he would have porbably preached more about it. We all know that Jesus was far from Mr Innocent in the Book he breaks many of the Moasic laws and yet its said he is there to fulfill the law. Sure according to Moasic law Jesus should have been stoned for speaking back to his mother and father. Perhaps his death was just the cumulation of all the things the little shit did that ended up having him crucifed!
Roz Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Ya'll would have better luck dividing by zero. If you need help, ask god. For with god, all things are possible. All things. Including dividing by zero.
Overcame Faith Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. Christians argue that the fact that Gospel accounts differ is proof of their authenticity, like if it was a lie they'd all say the same thing. How dumb is that?. If witnesses to a crime all disagreed on what was said and done should the judge consider that strong evidence that they are all telling the truth or is a consistent account more believable?. All of this shit doesn't add up The irony is that in Mark while Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, there were witnesses who gave inconsistent testimony. Here is the passage: 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Mark 14:55-56 The obvious purpose of including this is to prove that inconsistent testimony was false and, therefore, Jesus was not guilty of any crime since inconsistent testimony cannot be believed. Yet, Christians take the opposite approach and, contrary to Mark, argue that inconsistent testimony makes the Gospels more believable. Using that standard, Jesus was guilty because the inconsistent testimony is stronger than consistent testimony!
themonkeyman Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. Christians argue that the fact that Gospel accounts differ is proof of their authenticity, like if it was a lie they'd all say the same thing. How dumb is that?. If witnesses to a crime all disagreed on what was said and done should the judge consider that strong evidence that they are all telling the truth or is a consistent account more believable?. All of this shit doesn't add up The irony is that in Mark while Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, there were witnesses who gave inconsistent testimony. Here is the passage: 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Mark 14:55-56 The obvious purpose of including this is to prove that inconsistent testimony was false and, therefore, Jesus was not guilty of any crime since inconsistent testimony cannot be believed. Yet, Christians take the opposite approach and, contrary to Mark, argue that inconsistent testimony makes the Gospels more believable. Using that standard, Jesus was guilty because the inconsistent testimony is stronger than consistent testimony! I honestly just think that he was a dude who started a cult - It got dangerous e.g. 'Destroy the Temple' etc... He was killed - some followers then made up some spin about him comming back to life 'Which none of the accounts match properly'. If we think about it. Matthias who was around before Jesus said he could rise again in 3 days - Unfortunately he stayed dead. So perhaps the same happened to Jesus just he was fortunate enough to have followers lie anyway.
xtify Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. Christians argue that the fact that Gospel accounts differ is proof of their authenticity, like if it was a lie they'd all say the same thing. How dumb is that?. If witnesses to a crime all disagreed on what was said and done should the judge consider that strong evidence that they are all telling the truth or is a consistent account more believable?. All of this shit doesn't add up Yeah, christians sure do have some dumbass arguments. As for the gospels differing from one another, if you just look at one gospel, you will find several occasions where Jesus changes how salvation works and what the requirements are. For example, the book of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16:16 Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 10:15 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. Mark 8:35 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? ... Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Mark 10:17-19 He that endureth to the end shall be saved. Mark 13:13 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mark 10:29-30 I suppose a christian could argue that you had to do all these things combined (and more, like hate your family, become born again, drink the water, etc.) to be saved, but that would negate the validity of the first example.
xtify Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 In the gospels, Jesus moved the goalposts for salvation a few times. It just goes to show, his message wasn't consistent. The stories of liars usually lack consistency; it's one of the ways you can tell they're full of shit. Christians argue that the fact that Gospel accounts differ is proof of their authenticity, like if it was a lie they'd all say the same thing. How dumb is that?. If witnesses to a crime all disagreed on what was said and done should the judge consider that strong evidence that they are all telling the truth or is a consistent account more believable?. All of this shit doesn't add up The irony is that in Mark while Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, there were witnesses who gave inconsistent testimony. Here is the passage: 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Mark 14:55-56 The obvious purpose of including this is to prove that inconsistent testimony was false and, therefore, Jesus was not guilty of any crime since inconsistent testimony cannot be believed. Yet, Christians take the opposite approach and, contrary to Mark, argue that inconsistent testimony makes the Gospels more believable. Using that standard, Jesus was guilty because the inconsistent testimony is stronger than consistent testimony! I honestly just think that he was a dude who started a cult - It got dangerous e.g. 'Destroy the Temple' etc... He was killed - some followers then made up some spin about him comming back to life 'Which none of the accounts match properly'. If we think about it. Matthias who was around before Jesus said he could rise again in 3 days - Unfortunately he stayed dead. So perhaps the same happened to Jesus just he was fortunate enough to have followers lie anyway. themonkeyman, That's what I think, too. Overcame Faith, That is funny. The next time I hear the argument that the inconsistencies prove it actually happened, I'll try using that passage! 1
Recommended Posts