Due to the fact that this response to the original topic leads you into another conversation, I've elected to open a new thread to specifically address the other direction it's leading into. Below is my original response to the unforgiveable sin and another post that's in response to mine. I want to try to share a little more of why I said what I did about preaching at the pond.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I actually believe every living believer has committed this sin at one time or another. When I look at the usages of "blasphemy" in Scripture (10 times in the New Testament) I find that it seems to show two different meanings. In one sense, it leans toward speaking "against" another. In another sense, it speaks of assuming the authority of another. Jesus was accused of blaspheme by the Pharisees when he admitted he was the Son of God. He wasn't speaking against God, he was telling them that he was in essence, God. And in their eyes, there is only "one" God. . and he wasn't it. Thus, "blasphemy".
And I believe that in that light, many blaspheme the Holy Spirit every time we sign on the forums, every time we step out the door, every time we assume the activity that was never meant to be ours. And that is, the ministry of "conviction".
Have you ever wondered how a goose knows when it's time to fly south? Have you ever seen anybody standing out at the edges of the rivers and ponds, explaining to the geese preaching to them that winter is coming and they MUST fly south or else they'll freeze to death? No? Didn't think so.
But yet we do this all the time with each other. From what I understand Phillippians to say about this is, God's spirit is at work "in" me, giving me, changing my will to be in alignment with his will to both "want to" and "do" his good pleasure. Yes? Is not his spirit in every one of us giving us both to will and to do his good pleasure? If this is true, then how is it we still believe we must take it upon ourselves to preach things to each other that the Spirit has already instilled in us?
I do it all the time. I had a relative that I knew was messing around with her boyfriend and it was killing me to let her continue to think nobody was aware of it. Even though she denied to anyone who approached her about it that anything was going on, I still thought I should take her aside . .as a Pastor of course and "counsel" her (I convinced myself that's what it was). And all it did was cause her to pull away even more.
Did I think that she didn't already know it was a wrong thing to do? Did I think that she didn't already realize that it was a dangerous road to travel? Didn't matter, I still thought it was my responsibility to straighten her out . . .she needed to know what direction south was and that winter was coming . . .
the truth is, it's not my responsibility to tell you what the Spirit is already fully capable of telling you. I'm not here to straighten you out, I'm just a farmer . .I plant. I don't separate. If I truly think that you are so far off, the most effective way I could ever change your direction would not be to approach you and talk to your mind . .which apparently is in control of your spirit or you wouldn't be making such a dangerous decision like sleeping with your boyfriend. But if I truly wanted to reach the "inner" you, the way to do that is to go to my knees and get into the same realm that the inner you lives in. Praying in the spirit can do wonders.
But yet, there are so many threads of so many topics of people preaching to the ponds around them trying to explain what truly is not their job to push, but it's the Holy Spirit's responsibility . . .so when I cross that line, I then blaspheme the Holy Ghost. I assume to be the convictor.
I think the blood of the Lamb covers all sins. But this one carries with it a consequence. Can't very well be cleansed by the Spirit when I'm the one trying to assume the role that is already the Spirits now can I? Rather than judging one another of how inadequate they are with their conversations and opinions, wouldn't it be cool to have every post be one of pure friendship and absolutely no demeaning comments or biting remarks all the time . . . if our Father is LOVE . . .and we're the offsprings of that, would that not be so hard to do then?
No longer necessary to be preaching to the pond anymore, let the "in"stinct tell them when it's time to fly . . .yes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, Brother Nathan...what a can of worms. You planning on going fishing?
Really, I like the tone of what you say, and IMO, I see many truths in it. However, don't you think there's a place for instruction, teaching, and even confrontation within the body? And that the Spirit also works through that? I know what you say about the Spirit's workings are true, I just personally don't believe it's a total "either/or situation". I DO REALIZE WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS. Everyone's own conscience before the Lord, not judging, interacting in love, etc. However, there seems to be plenty of evidence in scripture where we are to speak up at times.
Just a few examples...
we are to "entreat with sound teaching as well as to expose those who contradict."
Titus 1:9 "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."
Titus 2:1-15 (in part) You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men... teach the older women...teach what is good. Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled....so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother."
I know, easy does it, and we best be led by the Spirit when we say anything along these lines. Maybe this isn't exactly what you were addressing...just some thoughts I had. Maybe you have further thoughts on how these scriptures and ideas conform/comply/ or not with what you're saying. God's blessing, James
Okay,
1st, I totally understand the passages used to support the idea to bring others into the light. For me, there is a huge difference between shining a light that draws others in, and lecturing about a light that others have to be convinced to buy like it's an infomercial.
There is even the passage dealing with Aquila and Priscilla
Acts 18
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. 27When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
The picture I see here is not that Apollos was wrong, just that his message was incomplete. They were not pulling him aside to tell him how wrong he was, but they were explaining to him the fullness of the rest of his message. And on the other end, he was humble enough to receive their instruction and as great as he was before, he became even more efficient afterwards. The purpose of instruction is not to conform or control another into my way of thinking, but to enable another to grow even deeper in the things of God. We sort of get things turned around and become offended at others when they're not very receptive toward our "instruction". The question then is, am I helping them grow deeper? Or am I just trying to get them to walk straighter. One is spirit-leading, the other is flesh.
Perhaps that may be the biggest issue. Are these many conversations on all these various boards attempts at seeing each other flourish in their relationship with God? Or are they more like admonitions toward one another because we want them to be raised to our set of standards?
Secondly, You can probably find even more passages than the ones you've posted to support the idea of keeping others in line . . . however I think there is yet another important piece that get's overlooked when people use Scripture to justify their rights to point out each other's faults. And that is "relationship". By that I mean, who is doing the instructing, and to whom is the instruction being given to. There are basically two categories that I see. One is Christ himself instructing and the other is an Apostle.
If we follow the example of Christ, we'll see there was more law breaking that he did than law conforming. And if we follow the example of an apostle, keep in mind, the majority of readers and believers are not apostles. Mostly they are brothers and sisters. But as an apostle, there is an order of authority where the instruction is from a Father to a son. Not from a brother to a brother, or a sister to a sister. In other words, there are people in a non-authoritive position that are assuming the role of an authoritive position based on their out of context Scripture support and they become Holy Ghost jr.'s And that was pretty much where my original post was stemming from.
If you are my spiritual son, then yes, of course there is a place for instruction and perhaps even discipline. But those circumstances are only under the truth that both spiritual Father and spiritual son realize that's what they are to each other. If you're not my spiritual son, then the admonishment from me to you is unauthorized. There first must be this order of relationship within the body and most mainline churches just are not there at all.
As Paul states, you have many instructors (boy-teachers) but not many Father's.
For me, this explains why revivals come and can not be sustained. The church isn't in the proper order to maintain the kind of presence that God so wants to bring to us because even though we call ourselves the family of God, we are more of a corporate family than an intimate one. It's almost a business of religion anymore. i handle my own kids much different than I handle other people's kids. It should be the same way spiritually.
The churches that Paul instructed and wrote the epistles to are churches "he" fathered. Timothy and Titus were his spiritual sons. He took them under his wing and raised them up in the order of a family. But most of the time, people will take hold of a passage of Scripture that suits their purpose to confront another and assume they are within the order of God by condemning another brother. And it's just not so.
Lastly, and seemingly another issue that doesn't get addressed much, and that is spiritual evolution. We can look back and easily see how man has advanced over the course of decades and even marvel at how far we've come. But when it comes to spiritual matters, it seems that the mindset is that we should remain where the original readers of Scripture were in their day. Always singing songs about that old time religion and praying for yesterday's Pentecost to return. When we embrace the word of God for what it literally says on the surface and nothing more, our relationship with God is at high risk of being little more than a surface relationship as well.
It was originally written, the New Testament for the most part, was written to spiritual infants. They had no church history to reference. It was a totally new covenant they were entering into and much had to be taught. The church was just being "birthed". But it's been around for 2000 years now and yet the mind of the church seems to be still in that infant state.
there are believers that are still challenging one another to see who can spit the furthest. Who knows Scripture the best, who can interpret the passages most accurately. If you stand back and just listen to the conversations, it sounds like a couple of adolescent boys looking for a fight. But these are people who consider themselves to be spiritually mature people. The words of love and life form on their lips, but the nature of their tone gives their true identity away and their hearts are no where near where their heads think they are.
The greatest leader that ever lived, was one that was the best follower. If I am as mature as I've convinced myself to be, it should be easily seen and noted by others. If I have to even begin to explain to you how great I am, then it's pretty evident that my mind has once again deceived me. "I never pat myself on the back for anything" which could be very true, but how often do you tear someone else down with your words and deeds? The only reason I tear you down is so that you can see how much higher I am than you.
So, this brings me back to the original thought. Preaching at the pond about when a goose should fly south is just as affective as pulling another brother aside and teling them they need to "do" something more or something less so that God will approve of them. One is no different than the other when there is no "father/son" relationship there. I'm not the Holy Spirit. I don't want to over-step my calling/anointing. My purpose and goal is not to convict. I simply plant what's been planted in me. It's not even my responsibility to make sure it takes root and grows . . not unless you become my spiritual son. It's God who get's the increase. I plant, and I'll step back and let another water . . .and in the end, we all give the glory to God.
Oddly enough, whether I preach at the pond or not, the goose still finds his way to warmer waters. But unfortunately, because I "have" preached at him while he was in the pond, I assume he found his way because of my preaching . . . when the truth is, God put it in him long before I came along. It just didn't manifest until the season changed. It had nothing to do with me either way. If anything, he found his way "in spite" of me.
People will find their righteousness whether you preach to them or not. It's already in them. You know what does trigger it to manifest? the "knowing" Christ as the redeemer and Messiah? True Love. When this imputed love in you truly manifests, it is a spiritual connection that triggers a resurrection response in another and it causes them to "want" to fly. But it's got to be a pure connection coming out of your spirit. If it comes out of your head, it does nothing for their heart. It just offends their mind. And that only leads us back to the spitting contests. May we all mature into the kingdom where reproduction of True Love abounds.
Hi Nate ,
I read your posts , and do believe it is the Holy Spirit that does quicken [give life] to us by Gods WORD ,
Paul says faith comes by hearing , and I know the pros and cons of the messengers lol , maybe we are to plant seeds , Paul said that is what he did and Apollos watered But we know it was GOD untimatly gave the Increase ..
I dont know if we are speak Truth in a stern manner , but I am certain I would have been that way with some of Jesus and Pauls stern words , you see the conviction does come from the Holy Spirit working in your mind /womb from all that is said and done by those labouring in love
many needs must be met
the Lord called the poor in spirit to be filled by His own righteous work
in whom ever He chooses , Paul was a vessel chosen for such works
I did not want you to think your message was ignored bro
but it was something I had to think about first , before answering
God bless .. rose
Rosered..... :thumbsup:.
Hi Nathan...with your further thoughts, I very much agree with what you're saying, and basically that is the message I was trying to present as well. Yes, always bottom line the Spirit...we just may at times be used to bring light and point out darkness, as a work of the Spirit, and again, always needing to be led by it.
Wrt your point of the son/father relationship, I can see that. I don't believe I am to walk around "correcting everybody"...I may be wrong, or veiled and not yet revealed...so pushing my own understanding (done it :bsad:) may be detrimental, as well a sign of my own spiritual and/or personality issues that I need corrected.
It does seem that there is a time though, when someone in the body is obviously in blatant contradiction of scripture, that their thoughts are to be refuted and exposed (my example of a guy coming on TM tonight, saying "I'm a Christian, and I believe the cross and Jesus' blood is unnecessary, and I encourage everyone to live in open sin, because it doesn't matter"). However, again, I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT JUDGING AND IN THE RIGHT ATTITUDE AND BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT. I think you make a very good point about just arguing and struggling with each other over various and sundry doctrinal issues, especially when it's not being done in blatant deceit, but more a matter of understanding and revelation. And ALWAYS, the Spirit does the work. We just may at times be a tool or vessel...used with caution and care.
As other scripture says, "in love, preferring one another". For me, that's a real key, a verse I love, but seldom achieve. God's blessing, James.
I think this question fits into this thread. if not I'll delete it.
From a commenatry.
Quote(iii) It tells us of the unforgivable sin, which is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Both Matthew and Mark record that Jesus spoke about this sin immediately after the scribes and Pharisees had attributed his cures to the prince of devils instead of to God (Matt 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-29). These men could look at the very grace and power of God and call it the work of the devil. To understand this we must remember that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit as the Jews understood that conception, not in the full Christian sense, about which his audience at that time obviously knew nothing.
To a Jew, God's Spirit had two great functions. Through the Spirit he told his truth to men, and it was by the action of the Spirit in a man's mind and heart that he could recognize and grasp God's truth. Now, if a man for long enough refuses to use a faculty he will lose it. If we refuse to use any part of the body long enough it atrophies. Darwin tells how when he was a young man he loved poetry and music; but he so devoted himself to biology that he completely neglected them. The consequence was that in later life poetry meant nothing to him and music was only a noise, and he said that if he had his life to live over again he would see to it that he would read poetry and listen to music so that he would not lose the faculty of enjoying them.
Just so we can lose the faculty of recognizing God. By repeatedly refusing God's word, by repeatedly taking our own way, by repeatedly shutting our eyes to God and closing our ears to him, we can come to a stage when we do not recognize him when we see him, when to us evil becomes good and good becomes evil. That is what happened to the scribes and Pharisees. They had so blinded and deafened themselves to God that when he came they called him the devil.
Why is that the unforgivable sin? Because in such a state repentance is impossible. If a man does not even realize that he is sinning, if goodness no longer makes any appeal to him, he cannot repent. God has not shut him out; by his repeated refusals he has shut himself out. That means that the one man who can never have committed the unforgivable sin is the man who fears that he has, for once a man has committed it, he is so dead to God that he is conscious of no sin at all.
My question is about the red part. What exactly is that that makes their view incomplete? And more important what impact does it have on the severity of the sin?
I don't know where you pasted that from, I don't understand it either and I disagree with it's end. I don't beleive we can ever get in such a state of repentance that it becomes impossible to be redeemed. Redemption does not come through repentance. It brings repentance about. Redemption comes through the finished work of the cross. Whether men acknowledge it or not does not change what was done, nor does it change the power through which it was done.
My repentance does not bring my salvation. It is my salvation that brings me into repentance.
I agree too James the jabcat lol :happygrin:
Paul to me is inspirational and pivotal when he said he was made as an example or spectacle for us !! and we can learn from this as what to do and how to be and deal with others , our own lives and experiences being compared to thiers being fools for Christs sake ! I know I have been :mshock:
If you read all of 1cor4 :winkgrin:
for more clarity , i have this main point here .......
1Cr 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We [are] fools for Christ's sake, but ye [are] wise in Christ; we [are] weak, but ye [are] strong; ye [are] honourable, but we [are] despised.
we are not suppossed to let men put heavy burdens on you when they do not lift a finger to help nor to let any man seal your crown ! Oh they will try to suck the very life out of you mock you charge you even desise you but the Lord says this
that is the life [Holy Spirit ] speaking though you Jesus give a great example when He spoke on this very thing
Mar 13:11 But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
to me that is the difference when it is the Lord's will and when it is not ....
Quote from: Nathan on November 11, 2008, 10:43:10 PM
I don't know where you pasted that from, I don't understand it either and I disagree with it's end.
Want it removed?
Source:
e-Sword program
Darby Study Bible (DSB) commentary.
Goodness no, let everyone take what is there for them and leave what is not. But just because "I" see it as a misinterpretation, others may see it as an enlightening truth. So long as the glory is in the Lord . . .let 'er fly.
Nathan,
It was not about the 'quality' of the quote but about being off-topic.
I think the conclusion could be ok.
Mathew and Mark speak about something like (depents on translation) age-lasting sin in this life and age-lasting sin in the afterlife. That's clear. When the afterlife age is completed the sins are forgiven.
I have one translation of Luke that adds the age-lasting part.
The others simply say it's not forgiven.
I think the catch here is that Luke doesn't speak about the afterlife at all.
Why do Matthew and Mark mention the afterlife if it's sort of automatic that present day sin flows over to the afterlife? They do say the sin simple is not forgiven in this life just as luke does.
To put it otherwise.
Mark, Matthew, Luke .....sin shall not be forgiven.
Mark and Matthew add: and the sin continues not to be forgiven in during the age after death.
No contradiction. Mark and Matthew are just more complete
Does that make a little sense?
Yes it does, but there is still something not quite right with the thinking that there is such a thing as an unforgivable sin in "our" sense of what unforgiveness is.
When Peter asked just to what extent does forgiveness go . . .7 times? Jesus took it to a whole other level when he responded with "no, not seven times, but 70 times 7. 7 is the number of fullness and completion. 70 x 7 is 490 . . .the same number of years alotted to the Jews for the . . well, here . . .you read it.
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Peter was looking at how many times to forgive a person, Christ was talking about the forgiveness of a nation. We look at forgiveness on an individual basis. God looks at forgiveness of the entire world. There is no indication there that forgiveness is limited.
I still think we're missing something with this blaspheming thing, we're not seeing the complete picture yet.
Quote from: Nathan on November 12, 2008, 12:40:23 AM
I still think we're missing something with this blaspheming thing, we're not seeing the complete picture yet.
YEP me too Nathan , I have never heard of anyone being able to explain this one away :msealed: and feel right about it in my spirit/soul and bro I sure dont know the answer ...............yet ! God willing the Holy Spirit will enlighten us all in His due time ..
God bless ya ..
A friend of mine, Amie; who posts her occasionally had this article on her website. To me it makes sense.
http://www.womenbeyond.com/?c=126&a=1174
another thought, not my own but from another forum.
"YLT. Matt. 12:31
Because of this I say to you, all sin and evil speaking shall be forgiven to men, but the evil speaking of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
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.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
Eze 16:61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.
Eze 16:62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD:
Eze 16:63 That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord GOD.
The verse is not identifying what God would not forgive.
It is idendifying what history would not forgive.
[The tree was made corrupt to be "known" by its fruit.]
And this in regards to the audience relevance of how the "ego" as the "old man" or the "man of sin" as the self defined self in the precedence of types and figures at the time of "shaming" would look at it. This is the smoke of their torments that rises forever and ever. Hyperbole for what the "conscience" through the law would feel at the time of the ending of the flesh (precedent).
Jesus is thus explaining how the self defined ego would then be made corrupt (neither in this age) and how it would be seen historically for what it was (nor in the age to come).
Not to be seen as a "contradiction" of the statement, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". The statement is rather, audience relevant to toward the state of mind of that corrupt generation. "
1) All Israel will be saved. 2) Jesus told the 12 they would sit on 12 thrones judging. Interesting to note that Judas was still one of those 12 being spoken to! Unforgiveable? God's blessing, James.
Quote from: jabcat on November 12, 2008, 07:11:33 AM
1) All Israel will be saved. 2) Jesus told the 12 they would sit on 12 thrones judging. Interesting to note that Judas was still one of those 12 being spoken to! Unforgiveable? God's blessing, James.
Is there anything that Jesus said that will fail to come to pass? If Jesus keeps His Word to Judas and in the regeneration of all things he's sitting on a throne along with the other 11 Apostles judging the 12 tribes of Israel,
will Judas love Him more or less? We're one of the two groups in the Body of Christ that are repeatedly accused of teaching a "licentious grace." If God is fully gracious to Judas Iscariot in this way, will it promote licentiousness in Judas or greater holiness? Did the knowledge of the gifts and callings of God being without repentance produce licentiousness in the Apostle Paul who wrote and taught that? Sometimes I think that there's an unspoken assumption that if there's no such thing as an Unpardonable, then people will live careless lives, when it's usually the other way around. It's usually the people that think they've blown their final chance that wind up abandoning themselves to all kinds of wickedness because they assume that they're damned anyway!
Exactly...His love and mercy bring us to fall on our face before Him, and His Spirit and fire draws us and cleanses us...not because of terror, but because of His love and power. Many don't understand that though, just as you say.
Quote from: Nathan on November 12, 2008, 12:40:23 AM
When Peter asked just to what extent does forgiveness go . . .7 times? Jesus took it to a whole other level when he responded with "no, not seven times, but 70 times 7. 7 is the number of fullness and completion. 70 x 7 is 490 . . .the same number of years alotted to the Jews for the . . well, here . . .you read it.
First I thought it was just meaning keep forgiving.
But now I think about the 70 weeks of Daniel.
I'm not so deep into this stuff but if it refrences to those 70 weeks...and those 70 weeks predict Jesus comming then it may wel be pointing that 70*7 means that after 70*7 Jesus has arrived and sin gets forgiven 'automaticly'.
Just a thought :2c:
Quote from: Zeek on November 12, 2008, 05:37:03 AM
The verse is not identifying what God would not forgive.
It is idendifying what history would not forgive.
On of the commentators mentioned something similar as you Zeek.
"Luke is speaking in another tense as Mark/Matthew"
Not that it now makes much more sense to me.
The same goes for that quote that Jews saw the HS diffrently from how we see it now.
Perhaps we are to much projecting things on how WE see the HS/sin instead on how the audience saw things....?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 12, 2008, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Nathan on November 12, 2008, 12:40:23 AM
When Peter asked just to what extent does forgiveness go . . .7 times? Jesus took it to a whole other level when he responded with "no, not seven times, but 70 times 7. 7 is the number of fullness and completion. 70 x 7 is 490 . . .the same number of years alotted to the Jews for the . . well, here . . .you read it.
First I thought it was just meaning keep forgiving.
But now I think about the 70 weeks of Daniel.
I'm not so deep into this stuff but if it refrences to those 70 weeks...and those 70 weeks predict Jesus comming then it may wel be pointing that 70*7 means that after 70*7 Jesus has arrived and sin gets forgiven 'automaticly'.
Just a thought :2c:
To me, the 70 weeks are not about the coming of the Lord as the church sees it, but it's about the changing of direction from Jew to Gentile. This transition actually happened with the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr. It was at that point the pendalum switched from Jews to Gentiles. There was no separation between the first 69 and the 70th week as mainline churches teach. It was one prophecy, undivided, fulfilled in the generation to which it was written to. It was sealed up from Daniel to Jesus, opened by Jesus, revealed to John to document further and left opened because it was already in the process of coming to pass as it was being written THEN . .not now, and not in our future.
Christ has already come, is come, and will continue to come in many diverse forms to many people.
Colossians 3:8 (King James Version)
8But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth
Filthy communication I would see as being the same as swearing, cursing or saying bad things about. Therefore blasphemy is something specific - something different. Or else would'nt they have left out the "filthy communication out of your mouth" part? So is it really the sin of calling the miracles of God / Jesus the miracles of a lesser being? Would'nt that fall under filthy communication of the mouth?
Okay true it could be in the part of the sin that says "speaks a word against the H.S" but I genuinely think there is so much more to this sin than we grasp.
blasphemy, which in a like place we render evil speaking, Eph_4:31; the original word, according to the notation of it, doth signify the hurt of any one's good name, which when it respects God we do more strictly call blasphemy. When it respects our neighbour, though more largely it be so, defamation, Rom_3:8 1Co_4:13 Tit_3:2; yet more strictly, if it be done secretly, it is detraction or backbiting; more openly, reviling or slandering, Mat_15:19 Mar_7:22 1Ti_6:4.
blasphemy — rather, "reviling," "evil-speaking," as it is translated in Eph_4:31.
Eph 4:31
bitterness — both of spirit and of speech: opposed to "kind."
wrath — passion for a time: opposed to "tender-hearted." Whence Bengel translates for "wrath," harshness.
anger — lasting resentment: opposed to "forgiving one another."
clamour — compared by Chrysostom to a horse carrying anger for its rider: "Bridle the horse, and you dismount its rider." "Bitterness" begets "wrath"; "wrath," "anger"; "anger," "clamor"; and "clamor," the more chronic "evil-speaking," slander, insinuations, and surmises of evil. "Malice" is the secret root of all: "fires fed within, and not appearing to by-standers from without, are the most formidable" [Chrysostom].
Thanks Tony. Good explanation. As I said before, I have this nagging feeling that there is so much more to this sin than people realise. Like its a deep parable in some way. Dunno why.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 16, 2008, 05:26:11 PM
Thanks Tony. Good explanation. As I said before, I have this nagging feeling that there is so much more to this sin than people realise. Like its a deep parable in some way. Dunno why.
DD,
Flush that stuff outta your brain.... :laughing7:
In several thread things are said that debunk that verse. Perhaps not 100% (in your mind)
The take a peek at this right-to-the-core verse...
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
I see only 3 possibilities to explain that verse without checking any other verse.
a] A the formerly wicked are in heaven.
b] The wicked are really gone/dead/out of existance and the ones in heaven don't care.
c] The wicked live in their own place outside of heaven an like it there.
I never heard about a doctrine that support c.
Both a and b have supporters.
So now we can discuss years what happens between now and revelation 21:4
But it's very clear to me what the final state of things is.
QuoteI see only 3 possibilities to explain that verse without checking any other verse.
a] A the formerly wicked are in heaven.
b] The wicked are really gone/dead/out of existance and the ones in heaven don't care.
c] The wicked live in their own place outside of heaven an like it there.
I never heard about a doctrine that support c.
Both a and b have supporters.
Thats another problem. I DON't like option B. I want to be with everyone I love so much in Heaven.
QuoteSo now we can discuss years what happens between now and revelation 21:4
But it's very clear to me what the final state of things is.
Give me your version of what the final state of things is ganna be.
I've seen zero support for option c.
So I stick with a and b. Giving a the highest possiblity.