[Ameriki]

Salaam,



Matthew 12:31-32
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphamy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come"

So how does one commit this unpardoned sin? This has always confused me, considering Christians believe that Jesus (AS) and the Holy Spirit are one. I would also like to know why Christians teach that every sin can be forgiven, but it says the exact opposite in the New Testiment.

[catluvr]

The sin that can't be forgiven (that leads to death) is refusal/blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which in its action compels one to experience the power of God on Earth.

Jesus, while on Earth, was charged with sorcery while using the Spirit to perform miracles. That the Pharisees called the Spirit's power demonic or evil necessarily blasphemed the Spirit--an unforgivable sin.

The very nature of refusing the Gospel when the Spirit has complled one to to the point that they either accept it or reject it, necessarily means that by rejecting Jesus (and according to Jesus' words rejecting God and the HS) one has rejected salvation. Rejecting salvation is equal to not being forgiven.

No one ever told you that?

[LtTony]

My understanding, as well, catluvr.

Quickly:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html

This post has been edited by LtTony: 03 July 2009 - 10:39 PM

[jimdi]

What an informative reference ...... good to find much brought together. Thanks LtTony ..... my turn to slap my

forehead.

[Bill]

Jesus, while on Earth, was charged with sorcery while using the Spirit to perform miracles.

Do you have a citation for this?

Regards

Bill

[catluvr]

Jesus, while on Earth, was charged with sorcery while using the Spirit to perform miracles. That the Pharisees called the Spirit's power demonic or evil...

Do you have a citation for this?

Regards

Bill

Sure; here are two, one from the NT and one from Talmud..

Matthew 12:21-24
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." (The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281)

[spike]

Sure; here are two, one from the NT and one from Talmud..

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." (The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281)

There is no proof that "Yeshu" as mentioned here is the Jesus of your religion. That is a common misconception by Christians looking for "proof".

The Toledot Yeshu narratives explain the name Yeshu as an abbreviation for yimmach shemo vezikhro, meaning "May his name and memory be blotted out."^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#cite_note-Howard-7}

[catluvr]

There is no proof that "Yeshu" as mentioned here is the Jesus of your religion. That is a common misconception by Christians looking for "proof".

The Toledot Yeshu narratives explain the name Yeshu as an abbreviation for yimmach shemo vezikhro, meaning "May his name and memory be blotted out."^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#cite_note-Howard-7}

I thought you might say that ...

From your link:

The term Yeshu is commonly seen to refer to Jesus,^[13] a view seen in several 20th century encyclopedia articles including The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906)^[14] and the Encyclopedia Judaica (1997).^[15] The early 20th century Christian historian R. Travers Herford, author of Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903) based his work on the understanding that the term refers to Jesus.^[16] It was also the understanding of Joseph Klausner,^[17] a Jewish scholar of early Christian history. More recent Jewish writers taking the same view include Steven Bayme, the American Jewish Committee’s director of Contemporary Jewish Life,^[18] and Dr. David Kraemer, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary.^[19] Bayme argues that "Yeshu" refers to the historical Jesus, a first-century sorcerer.^[19]

We can argue that perhaps the Sanhedrin wanted to blot out Jesus from Jewish history, but this would not be the thread. It is, however, a reference to someone who made quite a stir (enough to be mentioned) using what was believed to be magic to "lead Israel astray". And on the eve of Passover, he was to be killed for said crime. The Pharisees attempted to stone him in one instance, and Jesus was killed on the eve of Passover. Since the Talmud doesn't (according to your sources) mention a specific name except by an ommitted reference, you can't conclusively say that it wasn't Jesus that the Talmud is speaking about.

Even if you could, the citing of Matthew shows that the work that Jesus did in the name of the Holy Spirit was accused of being demonic in nature.

This post has been edited by catluvr: 04 July 2009 - 01:15 PM

[Bill]

Sure; here are two, one from the NT and one from Talmud..

Matthew 12:21-24
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

I have a small problem with this one.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.

So it is not exactly your contempraneous eye-witness account.

The main thing in this, and the one that I think needs addressing, is that the Pharisees of the time were recorded as equating healing with forgiving. Only in the New Testament are they said to link healing with the devil.

About the Talmud quote. There were numerous high priests with the first name Jesus in the 107 year period from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem. And thats just high priests, mind you - the name was quite common in all walks of society. The Talmud says that a man, whose name was not totally unlike "Jesus", was hanged at Lydda. Doesn't really tie in all-square with the biblical account of what happened at Jerusalem, does it? Different(ish) name, different City, different method of execution and different crime....

Do you have any other sources?

Regards

Bill

[catluvr]

I have a small problem with this one.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.

So it is not exactly your contempraneous eye-witness account.

You didn't ask for one, only asked me to cite where it was said that Jesus was accused of sorcery and using demonic power for healing. Conveniently, you actually left out the demonic reference, knowing that I would probably use the Talmud for the other so you could argue that. As regards my Bible quote, I didn't use the KJV. I use the NASB:

The NASB is extremely literal in its rendering of the Greek and Hebrew. Some have even claimed it is "unequaled in its faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew texts." Others have labeled this tendency "severely literalistic" (Bruce M. Metzger, Theology Today, April, 1976). As a result of the effort to translate the original as literally as possible, the NASB is almost completely free from "paraphrasing tendencies" (Dr. Jack P. Lewis). The NASB has kept the original word order of the Greek and Hebrew wherever possible, as they believed this was "a means the writer used to accent and emphasize what he deemed most important." Even conjunctions occurring in the original language texts have been retained, although they may be unnecessary in English, "because the Holy Spirit led men to write that way." The NASB translators write, "Words are faithfully rendered in the NASB even to conjunctions such as 'and' in the belief that these, too, helped mirror the writer's style and manner of expression. These are often ignored in free translation." Warren Wilcox writes, "The NASB renders the Greek verb tenses the most accurately of any modern translation!" He further writes that it is to be commended for being "at its very center and heart, true to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts."

It has made extensive use of all the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available, in order to try and arrive at the best original text for its translation. It has also made full use of all recent archaeological discoveries, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like the RSV, thirteen changes have been made to the text of Isaiah alone based upon evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes that the NASB "represents a step forward in the communication of God's Word, and it supplies many insights into obscure passages." V.E. Howard, who is extremely critical of almost all new translations, has not criticized the NASB, and in fact lists it as one of the only three translations he will accept (the KJV and the ASV being the other two). Of all the modern translations, the NASB seems to be the one people have the least difficulty accepting.

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Ver6.htm

The main thing in this, and the one that I think needs addressing, is that the Pharisees of the time were recorded as equating healing with forgiving. Only in the New Testament are they said to link healing with the devil.

About the Talmud quote. There were numerous high priests with the first name Jesus in the 107 year period from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem. And thats just high priests, mind you - the name was quite common in all walks of society. The Talmud says that a man, whose name was not totally unlike "Jesus", was hanged at Lydda. Doesn't really tie in all-square with the biblical account of what happened at Jerusalem, does it? Different(ish) name, different City, different method of execution and different crime....

Do you have any other sources?

Regards

Bill

No, but I think I answered your request, which was to cite sources for my statement. Most Christian sites will offer the same ones as I did. The rest of your post, no offense intended, doesn't speak to the question that the OP asked, which is--how does one reconcile blashpemy of the Holy Spirit being separate from blasphemy against Jesus, and how that relates to the overall message in the NT. If you want a debate over Talmud or Bible translations, I think that would be a separate thread, however I didn't come into this one to discuss what you seem to want to discuss.

Cheers, and happy Independence Day.

This post has been edited by catluvr: 04 July 2009 - 03:01 PM

[Bill]

You didn't ask for one, only asked me to cite where it was said

My request was indeed flawed with imprecise language. Please do not hold that against me.

As regards my Bible quote, I didn't use the KJV. I use the NASB:

Both rely on the Biblia Hebraica, which in turn relies on Mikarot Gedolot which is why, I assume, they are pretty much similar in the words they use.

If you want a debate over Talmud or Bible translations, I think that would be a separate thread, however I didn't come into this one to discuss what you seem to want to discuss.

Cheers, and happy Independence Day.

Agreed - we should go elsewhere and spat, if spatting is our mutual intent.

Thank you for your good wishes - I am now off to barbecue and do all the other good things we Americans do on July 4th.

Regards

Bill

[spike]

I thought you might say that ...

From your link:

We can argue that perhaps the Sanhedrin wanted to blot out Jesus from Jewish history, but this would not be the thread. It is, however, a reference to someone who made quite a stir (enough to be mentioned) using what was believed to be magic to "lead Israel astray". And on the eve of Passover, he was to be killed for said crime. The Pharisees attempted to stone him in one instance, and Jesus was killed on the eve of Passover. Since the Talmud doesn't (according to your sources) mention a specific name except by an ommitted reference, you can't conclusively say that it wasn't Jesus that the Talmud is speaking about.

You need to back up on that same link and place this in context with the information preceding what you quoted and note the times that 'name' was used along with what the actual Hebrew abbreviation of yeshu means. There is a difference between the meaning of the abbreviated yeshu and yeshua/Yehoshua/Joshua. Check the etymology of the words.:

Talmud and Tosefta The earliest undisputed occurrences of the term Yeshu are found in five very brief anecdotes in the Babylonian Talmud (c 500) and Tosefta (c 200). The Talmud and Tosefta are works on Jewish law and brief historical anecdotes such as these occur solely to illustrate particular points under discussion. No known manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud makes mention of the name. All later usages of the term Yeshu are derived from these primary references.

In each case, Yeshu is associated with acts or behaviour that are seen as leading Jews away from Judaism to minuth ("heresy" or "apostasy").




[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeshu&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Occurrences">edit] Occurrences

• Yeshu ben Pandera, cited as the teacher of a second century CE heretic (Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16b-17a)
• A sorcerer who had been stoned in Lod on the eve of one Passover sometime around the 2nd century BCE. (Sanhedrin 43a)
• An example of a "son who burns his food in public" (Sanhedrin 103a, Berakhot 17b) identified as Manasseh of Judah son of Hezekiah in the passages as well as in a corresponding account in the Shulchan Arukh.
• An idolatrous former student of the early first century BCE rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah. (Sanhedrin 107b).

[jimdi]

[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeshu&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Occurrences">edit] Occurrences

Yeshu ben Pandera, cited as the teacher of a second century CE heretic (Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16b-17a)
A sorcerer who had been stoned in Lod on the eve of one Passover sometime around the 2nd century BCE. (Sanhedrin 43a)
An example of a "son who burns his food in public" (Sanhedrin 103a, Berakhot 17b) identified as Manasseh of Judah son of Hezekiah in the passages as well as in a corresponding account in the Shulchan Arukh.
An idolatrous former student of the early first century BCE rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah. (Sanhedrin 107b).

Are you Understanding that these refer to the 'Jesus' of the Christion NT?

[catluvr]

You need to back up on that same link and place this in context with the information preceding what you quoted and note the times that 'name' was used along with what the actual Hebrew abbreviation of yeshu means. There is a difference between the meaning of the abbreviated yeshu and yeshua/Yehoshua/Joshua. Check the etymology of the words.:

Thanks...I did a quick search between then and now, and will probably no longer use that as a reference, although I think the jury may still be out. Still a lot of "he said, she said" about the Yeshu passages. I understand the foundation for wanting to be clear about them, because so many of them have been used to generate anti-semitism among Christians. I found a pretty good site talking about specific passages thought to have referred to Jesus by some (and why they aren't), and I can see where one can be pretty easily misled.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html

However, if it so clear, then I wonder why it is still referenced by those who would know a refutation is just around the corner. I'll probably look into it more. I'll admit I couldn't find any Biblical references to Jesus and sorcery, but my point on the topic remains.


Going off to a BBQ now, so I'll talk to you later...good 4th to you as well.

This post has been edited by catluvr: 04 July 2009 - 04:10 PM

[godisone]

Salaam,



Matthew 12:31-32
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphamy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come"

So how does one commit this unpardoned sin? This has always confused me, considering Christians believe that Jesus (AS) and the Holy Spirit are one. I would also like to know why Christians teach that every sin can be forgiven, but it says the exact opposite in the New Testiment.

To know what the Bible say as God's word and then not do it, as The Bible is a product of God's holy sprit!

[Ameriki]

To know what the Bible say as God's word and then not do it, as The Bible is a product of God's holy sprit!

Salaam,

Well, that really doesnt make any sense considering that christians claim that Jesus (AS) is actually the word incarnate.. So why does He say that anything said against him will be forgiven, but not the Holy Spirit? For instance, in acts it says that Christians shouldnt eat meat with blood in it, so are we to believe that if Christians ignore this and do the opposite, they will never be forgiven because it is actually in the bible and many ignore this command, even speak out against such "Laws"

[godisone]

Salaam,

A
Well, that really doesnt make any sense considering that christians claim that Jesus (AS) is actually the word incarnate.. So why does He say that anything said against him will be forgiven, but not the Holy Spirit?

B
For instance, in acts it says that Christians shouldnt eat meat with blood in it, so are we to believe that if Christians ignore this and do the opposite, they will never be forgiven because it is actually in the bible and many ignore this command, even speak out against such "Laws"

A
The word is a title for Jesus so thus any who go against his go against God as he gave God's word to humans so the resujt will be the same!

B
True to consume (eat) "Blood" or have a Blood transfusion is a sin in God's eyes, and the wages of sin is death!