The Unpardonable Sin...

[pureinheart]

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... here's about the best explanation (IMO) of this:

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

 

Question: "What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?"

 

Answer: The concept of “blasphemy against the Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22–30 and Matthew 12:22–32. Jesus has just performed a miracle. A demon-possessed man was brought to Jesus, and the Lord cast the demon out, healing the man of blindness and muteness. The eyewitnesses to this exorcism began to wonder if Jesus was indeed the Messiah they had been waiting for. A group of Pharisees, hearing the talk of the Messiah, quickly quashed any budding faith in the crowd: “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons,” they said (Matthew 12:24).

 

Jesus rebuts the Pharisees with some logical arguments for why He is not casting out demons in the power of Satan (Matthew 12:25–29). Then He speaks of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (verses 31–32).

 

The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. Blasphemy is also attributing some evil to God or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This particular case of blasphemy, however, is called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. The Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by a demon (Matthew 12:24). Notice in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”

. ....and the article/answer continues. Basically it states that it's not possible to replicate this type of blasphemy today.

 

What do you think?

[PRW]

They are correct.

 

The closest comparison today would just be rejecting the plan of salvation. Since it is the Holy Spirit's role to "draw" unbelievers to Christ for salvation,...to reject that is to reject what the Holy Spirit is trying to do. It is not a perfect comparison, but it is as close a comparison as you can get.

[Ronni_W]

. ....and the article/answer continues. Basically it states that it's not possible to replicate this type of blasphemy today.

 

What do you think?

Most certainly it is possible to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit today, just as easily as one can blaspheme against God.

 

People take a too-narrow view of what the Holy Spirit is, especially the thinking that It only came into existence some two-thousand years ago, after Jesus was crucified;

and the thinking that the Blessings and Gifts of the Holy Spirit belong to or are reserved only for Christians. After all, Jesus was Jewish, and promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples, who were also Jewish.

(The Romans 'converted' Jesus into a Christian only after his death; the Messiah was promised to the Jewish people, by the Jewish prophets.)

 

I think that the authors of the article that you quoted get it wrong in thinking that there is a 'type' of blasphemy.

[Justanaverageguy]

q

Notice in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”

 

This small snippet tells you everything you need to know about what "blasphemy against the spirit" means though I strongly dispute Jesus said they the Pharisees had committed this sin. Rather Jesus was explaining that he had a pure spirit and they were accusing him of having an impure spirit.

 

That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit. You must be born again in order for it to be possible to blaspheme - that is to disrespect and corrupt the holy spirit. This is only possible through continued sinful action after being born into spirit as Jesus was when it descended on him after baptism. If one relieves the spirit like Jesus did - your body becomes a temple for that spirit. Sin destroys and dirties that spirit which unlike flesh and blood is eternal and is retained even after death. 99.9999% of humans have never experienced the spiritual rebirth Jesus spoke of and experienced in his life so this sin is impossible for them to commit. You cannot corrupt the spirit .... Unless you have first received it.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Justanaverageguy

[Ronni_W]

The people who blasphemed against the Spirit, in Jesus' presence, are highly unlikely to have received the Spirit at that point, or to have been 'born again';

so, either Jesus was wrong when he accused them of blaspheming against the Spirit, or we are able to blaspheme (corrupt the Spirit) without being 'born again'.

[Justanaverageguy]

Yes sorry I did not mean the men accusing Jesus had received the spirit and Blasphemed against it.

 

I meant they were accusing Jesus of having done this and saying that he had an unclean / evil spirit. He was explaining to them he could only do what he was doing because he had a pure unblemished spirit of God. He then also explained to them the consequences of blaspheming against the spirit after receiving it. Sins of the flesh are temporary - sins of the spirit eternal.

[GorillaTheater]

Fun fact: there's a pretty good argument that taking the "mark of the beast" as described in Revelation is also an unpardonable sin.

[Justanaverageguy]

Fun fact: there's a pretty good argument that taking the "mark of the beast" as described in Revelation is also an unpardonable sin.

 

Maybe they refer to the exact same thing. One simply being a more poetic - symbolic description

[Ronni_W]

The Spirit does not commit sin, or transgressions against the Laws of God.

 

Spiritual sins/transgressions can only be committed in the physical-material world, by Lifestreams whose consciousness is embodied in Matter, or 'in the flesh'. Put another way,

it's only people with lesser-lower consciousness who can sin, and then only in the material world of form; people with higher, pure or Spirit Consciousness do not commit transgressions against God...

...the concept of "sins of the Spirit" does not exist, in reality.

 

We human Beings, all of us who are 'in the flesh', are the only ones who can and do commit transgressions against God.

The consequences are temporary...but do last as long as we are unwilling and/or unable to admit our spiritual mistakes, sincerely repent and abandon those mistakes, and sincerely seek forgiveness.

[Ronni_W]

We are all born in Spirit; all of our sins are born of flesh.

 

We received the Spirit when we were first conceived and created by God, and we corrupted our Spirit when we transgressed for the first time, after taking on 'flesh bodies'

(after descending into the material world of form).

 

That Spirit was never removed or taken away from us; it is the part of us that needs to be purified and transmuted so that it can 're-enter Heaven'. Only Spirit will return to Spirit.

 

As part of the process of purification and transmuting, or repenting, surrendering and seeking forgiveness, we can say that we are being 'born again';

but it's still only our Spirit being cleansed, it's not receiving the Spirit for the first time.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Ronni_W
Clarification

[Justanaverageguy]

The Spirit does not commit sin, or transgressions against the Laws of God.

 

 

I can speak only from my experience and understanding.

 

Flesh is born of flesh - but the spirit gives birth to spirit. Not all are born of spirit. Indeed most in this life are not and if they are it is only a small measure they can responsibly channel. After a real born again experience - when the holy spirit descends on man he is no longer merely flesh and blood. He is both flesh and spirit intertwined. For the human body is intended as a "temple" for the spirit. Somewhere it lives and resides. And to be clear if your not sure if you have had this .... you haven't. Its not something you miss. It is the "rivers of living water" Jesus spoke of which his disciples received at pentacost. A powerful life changing explosion of loving bliss from within you. Heaven come down - living within you.

 

Indeed this was among the most important teachings of Jesus. He did not preach "heaven" in the afterlife as most churches do today. He instead taught the kingdom of heaven is at hand and in your midst - available now. While in flesh and blood - man and god can become one just as Jesus and God were joined.

 

John 4:23-24 But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth

 

It is what the vedic traditions referred to simply as "Yoga" literally meaning "Union".

 

If a man receives the holy spirit - they are joined and becomes one. Both flesh and spirit. this can give great benefits and also power - as Jesus displayed and his apostles after pentacost - but the person still retains free will and if that person then goes onto a life of sin .... the spirit within him becomes corrupted and "unclean". This is what the men accused Jesus of having. An unclean spirit.

 

 

Spiritual sins/transgressions can only be committed in the physical-material world, by Lifestreams whose consciousness is embodied in Matter, or 'in the flesh'. Put another way,

it's only people with lesser-lower consciousness who can sin, and then only in the material world of form; people with higher, pure or Spirit Consciousness do not commit transgressions against God...

...the concept of "sins of the Spirit" does not exist, in reality.

 

We human Beings, all of us who are 'in the flesh', are the only ones who can and do commit transgressions against God.

The consequences are temporary...but do last as long as we are unwilling and/or unable to admit our spiritual mistakes, sincerely repent and abandon those mistakes, and sincerely seek forgiveness.

 

I honestly can't really comment or discuss on this point as I have no real understanding of whats possible for pure spiritual beings other then what the bible states. It does however state there have been many "fallen" angels. EG Satan. Who turned away from God and sinned corrupting their own nature and spirits and placing them in hell - a place for unclean tormented spirits. As far as it explains - sin is still possible.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Justanaverageguy

[Ronni_W]

After a born again experience a man is no longer merely flesh and blood.

My own understanding is that we are never merely 'flesh-and-blood'; we are also born with a Spirit or a Soul, the Eternal Part of any human Being.

 

EG Satan. Who turned away from God and sinned corrupting their own nature and spirits and placing them in hell - a place for unclean tormented spirits. As far as it explains - sin is still possible.

As I said in my post above, sin is very much possible; it is what keeps all of us in this Cycle of Birth and Rebirth.

 

By the time we, and Satan, turned away from God, we were already in a state of lesser-lower consciousness to be able to make that decision and choice in the first place.

 

To my mind, Jesus had purified and accelerated his consciousness to the point of Christ Consciousness, or the consciousness of a pure spiritual Being; so, to my mind, that's what's possible.

[Justanaverageguy]

My own understanding is that we are never merely 'flesh-and-blood'; we are also born with a Spirit or a Soul, the Eternal Part of any human Being.

 

My belief is based only on Jesus teaching and my own personal experience. I don't have any knowledge outside his as to what we get from birth. I would imagine that the spiritual rights offered through our family lineage and the church bring us in a small way into the spirit but Jesus taught flesh alone is without spirit.

 

What I can say with certainty is there is a massive difference between what we are born with or even receive in baptism and what is granted through a true "born again" experience.

 

the simple question to answer is do you feel the spirit ? Do you experience it directly and a real way in your life ? Do you feel the rivers of living water in your heart Jesus spoke of which change your heart and actions from the inside out ? If no .... then you haven't received what jesus promised and if you are a follower of God or Christ then you should know that is still available to you.

 

"But whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a fount of water springing up to eternal life.”

By the time we, and Satan, turned away from God, we were already in a state of lesser-lower consciousness to be able to make that decision and choice in the first place.

 

To my mind, Jesus had purified and accelerated his consciousness to the point of Christ Consciousness, or the consciousness of a pure spiritual Being; so, to my mind, that's what's possible.

 

But according to the story Satan was an Angel - one of the most important - not flesh and blood. So his rebellion wouldn't make sense if you can't sin when only in pure spiritual form.

 

Also Jesus professed he was "not of this world" as in he did not follow the same path as us mere mortals. that he was with God from the beginning. You know the whole - I am from above - you are from below. You are of this world but I am not of this world. Where I go you cannot follow. No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven. Very truly I tell you - before Abraham was - I am. I love that last line John 8:58 .... ultimate spiritual mic drop That specific passage from John 8:12 onwards paints a very different picture as to who Jesus is spiritually. It is sometimes titled "Jesus testimony is challenged"

 

My view is - no body is good except god. I don't look at it as "accelerating consciousness". More accepting we can do nothing of ourselves - and that all power comes from him - our role is merely to submit and follow his will. In a strange paradox freedom and great power emerges from complete submission. Its just very hard to let go.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Justanaverageguy

[Ronni_W]

I would imagine that the spiritual rights offered through our family lineage and the church bring us in a small way into the spirit but Jesus taught flesh alone is without spirit.

Things offered by earthly family lineage, human-made religion, etc., are "of this world" -- those are 'of flesh alone', not of Spirit. They do not afford us spiritual rights or authority given from God.

What Jesus taught is true...but if one doesn't have a clear and accurate understanding of what constitutes "flesh alone", then how does it help anyone to know that it is without Spirit?

(If you "can't take it with you", then it is of flesh alone, and without Spirit.)

 

the simple question to answer is do you feel the spirit ?

Given how easily people can delude themselves, this is not a very accurate test.

Think of all the atrocities carried out by people who believed that they were 'feeling the Spirit' or acting under the direction and authority of Spirit or God or Christ.

 

Also Jesus professed he was "not of this world"

People get very confused when it comes to distinguishing between Jesus and the Christed Jesus. Christ Consciousness is not of this world; Christ is "from Above".

As you said in an earlier post, Jesus was "born into spirit...when it descended on him after baptism"; clearly he had to go through the process of being 'born again', or needn't have gone to be baptized.

 

The disciples were not yet Christed -- they may have been baptized/'born again' but had not yet attained Christhood -- and, thus, could not yet "ascend into Heaven". When understood properly,

there is nothing contradictory or 'spiritual mic drop' about it.

 

I find that being limited to only Jesus' teachings and one's own subjective experiences can be a hindrance to deeper/higher spiritual knowledge, insight and understanding; without having a broader view,

who Jesus truly was spiritually, and how we are each connected with that, is difficult to come by.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing that only people who are 'born again' can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, or can corrupt their own Spirit.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Ronni_W
Clarification

[Justanaverageguy]

Given how easily people can delude themselves, this is not a very accurate test.

Think of all the atrocities carried out by people who believed that they were 'feeling the Spirit' or acting under the direction and authority of Spirit or God or Christ.

 

True in part - but as Jesus said: "By their fruits you will know them".

Fruit of the spirit is not something hidden. the feeling you get from it is unmistakable - you can't receive it with out being conscious of something truly remarkable happening within you. Its an overwhelming sense of peace and love. Joy coming forth from the heart unlike anything in this world which inspires good deeds. Brings love patience and kindness. No man can bring such bountiful love forth of his own volition. It cannot be produced by man .... only received gratefully from above.

 

So yes sure there may be some who deluded themself into believing they received something - they hadn't. Potentially some who misused what they received. Others who were maybe under the influence of a spirit .... just not that of God.

 

But there are many other believers who are in the church but know they haven't received this ..... this is who I speak to. That they know such a thing is available to them if they seek it earnestly. The Christian tradition somehow twisted Jesus words into a belief that you only receive Gods grace and entry to heaven after death which is contrary to what Jesus actually taught. He taught receiving it now while alive and then using it to help others. Many aren't really even aware the experience is possible or available which is why they also don't understand what the unforgivable sin is.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Justanaverageguy

[pureinheart]

Fun fact: there's a pretty good argument that taking the "mark of the beast" as described in Revelation is also an unpardonable sin.

 

Wow GT... I have never thought of this, Good one! Also Good one to all of the responses, as they have all given much thoughtful information.

 

Humm, and here with the article in OP I had finally answered this question... now I have more questions:laugh: I love how God works- and I would imagine if one is 'scared' of blasphemy, they probably have not committed this unpardonable sins! (Watch someone will answer what I just said with a really good explanation and I'll be back to square one again lol)

[Ronni_W]

.

and I would imagine if one is 'scared' of blasphemy,

Well...not specific to being 'scared of blasphemy', but I just recently started working to make sure that what I've got going on is "love of God and fear of evil".

This of course got twisted into "fear of God", when the religious power elite of the day decided to anthropomorphize God.

 

Figuring out if, where and how I am "fearing God" is a fun puzzle all by itself.

[major_merrick]

The mark of the beast came up in our leader's sermon a couple of weeks ago. My husband has spoken of it also. I suspect that the mark is unpardonable because it is a device that takes control of you. My husband found an interesting verse in Revelation 9, about how "In those days men will seek death but will not find it." As in, people want to kill themselves but are controlled to the point of being unable to.

 

What is frightening to us is that computer chip technology has advanced to the point where the powers that be would like to implant everybody with a chip to identify them and hold health and financial information. To me, this sounds like the mark. If it is a device, perhaps it will be linked with some kind of mind control? So after you take this mark, you no longer have free will, and thus you cannot repent...which makes the sin unpardonable.

 

My husband strongly believes that the end times are close, and that he will see the end within his lifetime. It gives him purpose, but the thought scares the hell out of me.

[Ronni_W]

<snip> a device that takes control of you.

Yes. There is an Ascended-Master discourse/teaching on this, which also includes a subtle aspect of how free will works.

[zig]

I don't believe there is an unpardonable sin against god because I don't believe in sin and I don't believe in god.

 

However, there was a time in my life when I did. I believed in eternal security so I wrote off the unpardonable sin as something that can't be committed today. The people at the time actually saw Christ in the flesh and saw the miracles. They were without excuse and directly rejected the holy spirit for not believing.

[Ronni_W]

zig,

 

Do you mind my asking what caused you to stop believing in God?

And, was it directly related to there being (or not being) something like an 'unpardonable' transgression against the Will and/or Laws of God?

 

My reason for asking is that I recently came across a spiritual Discourse that says that the reason that many people become atheistic is because of a belief in an angry, punitive, condemning God...

...which, the only way that people who believe in that can find any peace is to totally deny that God.

 

What were your original beliefs about 'the unpardonable sin' that made you also believe that people (you and/or I) cannot commit it in this Age?

And, what made you then realize that we still can commit 'the unpardonable sin' in this Age?

 

If you don't want to discuss this in public, that's perfectly fine. It's just that I enjoy having other perspectives, because those help me to develop and refine my own beliefs and perspectives, as well.

[zig]

zig,

 

Do you mind my asking what caused you to stop believing in God?

 

Rational, logical thinking. I get my reality from the world I observe around me. Not from mystical, spiritual or ambiguous faith type beliefs.

 

As for all your other questions I don't think it's of any value to try to answer them. You are way overthinking it.

 

I don't know if it's completely accurate to say I stopped believing in god. More specifically I stopped believing in christianity and haven't been convinced of any other religions. I consider myself agnostic. I'm more than willing to believe in god if and when I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Your the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. My standpoint is I don't know if there is a god or not but I'm not going to believe until I have reason to.

Edited April 15, 2019 by zig

[Ronni_W]

Ah...okay...thanks for responding.

Taking the scientific approach that all causes of the material must be found in the material certainly isn't new.

On the other hand, all scientists who have made any breakthroughs have had to ask all number and kinds of questions...to me, they didn't 'over-think' things at all.

More specifically I stopped believing in christianity

Yep; me, too...but, on my side, it turned out that I only stopped believing in Roman Christianity, but not, as it turns out, in the original Christianity of the Gnostics.

 

I don't feel any burden to prove to anyone else the existence of God, so I'm not sure from where you got that. Expressing what I believe, whether it's scientific or faith-based should not be confused

as me trying to prove something about it.

 

As I understand it, an aspect of the Law of Free Will requires that, in any unascended sphere, there must always be enough room left

for 'plausible spiritual deniability', so, while on Earth, we will never get 100%, inviolable, absolute proof.

Which kind of simultaneously does and does not make sense to me. If that makes sense. .

[zig]

Ah...okay...thanks for responding.

Taking the scientific approach that all causes of the material must be found in the material certainly isn't new.

On the other hand, all scientists who have made any breakthroughs have had to ask all number and kinds of questions...to me, they didn't 'over-think' things at all.

I'm perfectly content with accepting "I don't know" when I don't have the answer to something. Just because science doesn't have an answer to something doesn't mean it's God. As an example, science can't explain why gravity works, therefore God. We don't know the origins of the universe and can't explain it, therefore God. People can't fathom how something special happened in their life as coincidence, therefore God. Someone goes in for surgery to have a tumor removed and when they open them up the tumor is gone. Doctors can't explain it, therefore God.

 

Expressing what I believe, whether it's scientific or faith-based should not be confused as me trying to prove something about it.

 

exactly why I used the word ambiguous with faith.

Edited April 16, 2019 by zig

[Garcon1986]

- I was brought up Roman Catholic in school uniform and did all the standard Roman Catholic stuff.

- I then became a science geek at the end of primary school

- I learned about all the wars and murder committed in the name of religion - and decided it's really not my place to try and enforce religion on other people. I really became disenchanted about this aspect.

- My favorite thing is hugging other people and learning about their perspective in life - I hug everything from whales to babies.

- Because Science has done so many spectacular things - I now believe in the scientific approach to the world, but at the same time don't try to enforce it on people I don't know. I certainly do my duty as a pediatrician to enforce some science on my patient families, but do it nicely.

- now I'm still a big fan of people learning as much religion as they want. But I am vehemently against any religious folk using the Bible and passing it off as science lessons. That, I will fight vigorously. But having spirituality and a scientific mind can coexist in my little book.