That's not blasphemy.
Blasphemy is not believing in Christ as the Savior, and/or attributing Jesus' miracles to Satan like the Pharisees did.
I thought you said you knew a lot about Christianity?
"Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” -Mark 3:28-29(NIV)
Proving my point yet again.
That was said right after the Pharisees accused Jesus of having Satanic power. The Pharisees blasphemed the Ghost.
Might be time to dust off that Bible.
Just to stick my oar in...The quote in question appears in various forms:Luke 12:10
: And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (trans. NIV)Mark 3:28-9
: Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin. (trans. NIV)Mat 12:31
: And so 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. (trans. NIV)Gospel of Thomas Ch 44
: Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the father will be forgiven. And whoever utters blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven - neither on earth nor in heaven." (trans. Layton)
Early Christian History scholar Helmut Koester says that the general consensus using textual analysis is that Luke probably represents the earliest form of this saying. I will be following this assumption. He also points out that its appearance in 4 texts imply it is an early saying, and thus more likely to be authentic (ie spoken by the historical Jesus)Some point to make:
They key words in original Greek are: blasphemia
- blasphemy; pneumatos tou hagiou
- holy spirit; huiou tou anthropou
- the son of man.blasphemia
- this does indeed as Nam suggests mean to speak ill of. As far as I can find there is no evidence in scripture of the word being used in some special sense. To blaspheme is different from 'sinning against' it is contains a specific meaning of spoken slander
.pneumatos tou hagiou
- the idea of the "Holy Spirit" as an entity in itself is one that really emerges after the gospels. It is by no means certain that Jesus thought of the Holy Spirit as an entity in itself. It is far more likely that for Jesus the Holy Spirit is simply a term for the divine - if anyone doubts this try to find a passage in the synoptic gospels where Jesus' use of Holy Spirit only makes sense as an independent entity - I contend that you won't be able to. huiou tou anthropou
- the use of 'son of man' as a title for Jesus is almost certain to have been retrospective. It seems likely that in this saying the 'son of man' was not intended to refer to Jesus himself. It is notable that the holy text of Jesus' time (the OT) uses Son of Man over a hundred times, never to refer to a divine person, but to humans. It is very unlikely that Jesus would have used it differently.
It is only in the the later versions (Matthew and Thomas) that the saying is fleshed out to include the 'world to come' (Mat) and the Trinitarian divisions (Thomas) - in other words this saying went through a process of Christianizing
, this might make us wonder if the strange conclusion (that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is different from blasphemy against other parts of the Trinity) is as a result of this process. Perhaps then there is a simple message here which has been disguised by later theology...Conclusions:
i) Blasphemy is, as Nam suggests, verbal slander;
ii) Holy Spirit is probably a generic name for the divine;
iii) Son of Man is probably a simple reference to humans in general.
It seems to me that a plain reading (that is a reading which is not coloured by subsequent Christian theology such as ideas of Trinity) is as follows:Verbal slander of men can be forgiven, verbal slander of the divine cannot.
This makes clear sense when you realize that this was standard Jewish orthodoxy of Jesus' time - verbal slander of God was indeed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of most Jews. Jesus is not then saying anything particularly radical but, as is often the case in the Gospel stories, showing the Scribes how he is more righteous (orthodox) than them.
The original message is simple and traditional; if you verbally slander God you can't be fogiven, if you verbally slander other men you can be
. It is only the later Christian theology that turns it into some crazy Trinitarian rule...
So Nam is correct that his sweary tirade is unforgivable according to Scripture; however this rule would also apply to swearing about God in general.