quote:

---

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
(Mark 3:28-29)

---

quote:

---

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Luke 12:10)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that therefore a true Christian cannot ever commit it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

---

I don't buy that. In effect, what that is saying is "if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, you can never be forgiven."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that therefore a true Christian cannot ever commit it.

---

I don't buy that. In effect, what that is saying is "if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, you can never be forgiven." And what has this to do with "blasphemy against the Spirit" (unforgivable), rather than "blasphemy against the Son of Man" (forgivable)?

This definition seems to me to be simply emphasising a stark black and white viewpoint on the world - "if you're in, you're in; if you're out, you're REALLY out (and there's no coming back)."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
If you see no need to ask to be forgiven, God cannot forgive you.

---

quote:

---

But the trouble is that what we call "asking God's forgiveness" very often really consists in asking God to accept our excuses. What leads us into this mistake is the fact that there usually is some amount of excuse, some "extenuating circumstances." We are so very anxious to point these things out to God (and to ourselves) that we are apt to forget the very important thing; that is, the bit left over, the bit which excuses don't cover, the bit which is inexcusable but not, thank God, unforgivable. And if we forget this, we shall go away imagining that we have repented and been forgiven when all that has really happened is that we have satisfied ourselves without own excuses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is, I think, what the leaders were in real danger of when they said that Jesus got his powers from demons. It wasn't that they were sincerely mistaken; it was I think that they had some surmise of the truth, and yet chose to treat holiness as evil for motives of their own.

Paul got off much more lightly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo
So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’ And he called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.

‘Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’—

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I thought of this threrad while reading the gospel to the congrehation this morning.

The context of the unforgiveable sin statement is about those who believe that jesus was motivated by Satan.

So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.

---

Wouldn't that be rather easy to do? Even by simple mistake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam.:
However, there's one word that sneaks into Leo's argument half way through without justification and leaves him open to Karl's objection. The word is "motives."

The passage is not about ascribing to evil motives what is the work of the Holy Spirit, but about ascribing it to the evil One. it is not mentioned, just the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam.:
Firstly, I think Leo's on point in saying we have to be attentive to the literary context of the verse. Some of these reflections about unrepentant sins being unforgiveable are beautiful, and probably true, but don't seem to engage the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam.:
The unforgiveable sin would seem to me to be confusing the Holy Spirit and Satan.* Even then, it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit, ie. salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
First of all, I don't think "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" is about "confusing the Spirit and Satan". That makes it sound like it could be an accident. It seems to me that there should be some sort of conscious and deliberate action going on. But I have to admit that if that is the case, then we also have to assume that the scribes knew that Jesus wasn't demon-possessed. Did they? Perhaps there is more to the story than we have.

Secondly, whilst I appreciate the effort to keep the door open, I struggle with this: "it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit" That seems to me to be exactly what Jesus is NOT saying. The words are pretty clear - there can be no forgiveness! It's a harsh saying, which is why so many struggle with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam.:
Firstly, I think Leo's on point in saying we have to be attentive to the literary context of the verse. Some of these reflections about unrepentant sins being unforgiveable are beautiful, and probably true, but don't seem to engage the text.

---

My feeling exactly. Jesus is not talking about people's attitudes towards repentance - he is talking about the scribes' accusations about his own ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So is the sin against the Holy Spirit forgiveable in the event of mental illness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But there's a difference between anger and losing your temper. Anger can be seen clearly in the account of Jesus clearing the temple. I don't think that there are many people who would have a problem with Jesus (and God) being angry at things like injustice and oppression.

It seems far more problematic to suggest that the sinless Son of God lost his temper. As it happens, I don't have a problem with this, but I can see that many Christians would.

---

He did curse a fig tree for not yet being in season when he happened to be hungry.

But what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
God is not a fool. If someone commits some offense because of mental illness, and not malice, he will surely know that and handle matters accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
Hyperbole and being pissed off are certainly not mutually exclusive!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
He did curse a fig tree for not yet being in season when he happened to be hungry.

But what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?

---

As for the fig tree, see "Acted-out parable." (It's a real-life enactment of a zillion OT parables about Jerusalem and her people, which city Jesus was approaching and soon to be killed in.)

As for hyperbole, yes, he certainly did use it--but I see none of the usual markers of hyperbolic usage (for example, obvious absurdity, humor, argument from lesser to greater or vice versa, and so forth). It appears to be a straightforward warning. And in cases of doubt, it's probably better to preserve the more unpalatable meaning.
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
This is just off the top of my head, but what if it's when leaders in the church abuse their authority? I'm thinking of such things as priests molesting children, evangelists swindling their followers, etc. That's certainly hard for ME to forgive!
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Heheheheh. You've just reminded me of a time when Mr. Lamb accused one of our denominational leaders of blasphemy (against the Spirit, too! ) because the fellow had the balls to bring a group of ethnic leaders together "to pray for the Spirit's guidance about the future of our ministry together and decide whether we should continue in the same way or change our format". At the end of the short retreat he brought out a bunch of pre-engraved "thanks for your ministry, now piss off" plaques which made it abundantly clear that regardless of what the Spirit said that weekend, the powers that be had already made the decision to lay them off.

I believe the man was taken aback. It had not occurred to him that invoking the Spirit's name in the service of a fraud (that the decision was still to be made) was a Bad, Bad Thing™.

[ 11. June 2015, 03:51: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
. . . already made the decision to lay them off.

I believe the man was taken aback. It had not occurred to him that invoking the Spirit's name in the service of a fraud (that the decision was still to be made) was a Bad, Bad Thing™.

---

quote:

---

Mark 3:20-30
Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” So he called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house. I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).

---

quote:

---

Luke 12:1-12
Meanwhile, when many thousands of the crowd had gathered so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do. But I will warn you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered. Do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before God’s angels. But the one who denies me before men will be denied before God’s angels. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Our priest gave what I thought was a very good sermon on this topic Sunday. Not that she settles the question.

Sermon

[Edited for link. Mamacita, Host]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Pimple, we've had this conversation so often, and I still don't get why you insist that Peter is the big bad guy here.
Peter says very clearly that the issue is LYING, not failure to hand over the $, or failure to make a sufficiently large offering, or any offering at all. The problem has to do with waltzing up and announcing to the church/universe at large that you gave 100% of the cost when you really only gave 50% or whatever--bigging yourself up at the cost of a freaking lie about the facts.
And this in a case where there was no reasonable excuse for a lie. Nobody forced them to sell the land and bring an offering. They could have kept their land—others did. They could also have sold it and kept the price and gone on an all-expenses paid cruise round the Mediterranean. They could have sold it and kept part of the price (for their kids’ university tuition, no doubt) and freely made an offering of the other part. Whatever, it was entirely up to them. The church—and Peter—had nothing to do with the matter until the point where A & S showed up at offering time and had to open their big mouths and volunteer a freaking lie.
And Sapphira is no innocent victim, either. She obviously had enough power in that marriage that her husband involved her in the transaction. Otherwise it would have been, “Sorry, Peter, Ananias never talks to me about money.” She’s a big girl, and she has responsibility for her choices just as her husband does.

Seriously, if these two idiots had only managed to keep their mouths entirely SHUT when they made the offering (no boasts about “giving 100%” or whatever), there would have been no problem whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

---

The story starts off with A & S selling their property and bringing part of the price to donate to the church. So far, so good. No doubt many others did the same. (If they had only stuck with telling the truth at this point, they’d have been one more in the honorable parade of Christians donating to benefit their poorer brethren—like Barnabas, who is mentioned as a fellow giver. Peter himself points out that the money from the sale belonged to A & S, who could choose to do what they liked with it, and it was none of the church's business if they kept it, used it elsewhere, or divided it.)

There is an obvious gap in Luke’s reporting right at this point, between verses 2 and 3. Ananias clearly said something when he showed up in front of Peter and the other apostles—he didn’t just hand the money over wordlessly and leave. First of all, that would be downright weird and highly unusual (unless you are in a church of mimes, I suppose).

But we don’t need to rely on weak “what ifs” here. What did Ananias actually say? We can figure it out by looking at the exchange between Peter and Sapphira a few verses later. Both confirm that Ananias spoke at that point, and the content of what he said, both in their own independent ways.

Ananias clearly claimed that he had sold the land for a certain amount, an amount which Peter is able to quote to Sapphira. Peter didn’t pull that figure out of his ass, he must have gotten it from Ananias. And Sapphira recognizes the figure when he quotes it to her and confirms it, which shows that she had foreknowledge of what Ananias intended to say.

So now we know what Ananias said. And Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, calls it a lie. “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Worse than that, he points to an evil motive for lying: “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?”

A & S aren’t just trying to big themselves up, which is bad enough. They are also apparently trying to see whether the stuff they’re hearing at church is true—whether there really IS a Holy Spirit capable of knowing the truth and telling it to people—“Let’s find if this shit is real, if anybody at church realizes we’re pulling a fast one.”

Well, they found out. Bad, bad idea. Poor A & S.

 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Now, as for the 100% giving thing--that's a bit subtler.

Imagine you have sold a car and want to give a major gift to the church, but not the whole sale price(say, only 75% of it, which is really quite generous).

Under those circumstances, are you going to state the total amount you gained (but chose not to donate) when there’s no freaking relevance to the conversation? Of course not.

You might reasonably say, “This here is the money I want to donate, it comes to $15,000.” You might even say “This is $15,000, it’s part of the money I got from selling my new car.” But that’s as far as you’d go.

You’d not say in front of God and everybody, publicly, to the embarassment of all, “Well, I sold it for $20,000 but I’m only giving you $15,000.” Because why? That leads people to focus on what you didn’t give, not what you did, which is an emotional downer and embarrassment. People don’t say that kind of thing.

No, the only time you’d naturally mention the sale price of the car (the TOTAL sale price) would be if you were making over the entire amount as a gift. In that case, it would be very natural to say, “Hey, I sold my car, here’s the money I got for it.”

Ananias clearly made a similar statement when he turned up with a portion of the real sale price. “Here’s X denarii, I got it by selling the family potato field” or similar.

And that would have flown right past the radar of any church leader in a normal situation. Unfortunately for A & S, the Holy Spirit chose to involve himself in this situation.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Still seems bloody harsh to me. It's definitely one of those "how can this possibly be right?" passages for me. Along with most of the OT.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye K:LS. The concentric circles away from Jesus go down hill rapidly! Never mind, Jesus wasn't there so it doesn't matter.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
LC Look again at the bold passages yourself. The accusation of lying comes from Peter. How much was withheld we don't know. Nor for what reason. There is no indication that Peter bothered to find out. The FACT is that the money was withheld. Peter INTERPRETS this as a lie - and not just a lie against himself, but against the Holy Spirit. What justification he can possibly have for this over=reaction I cannot imagine.

Your quite attractive and plausible fiction is based, I believe, on your charitable feelings towards one of the church's early leaders, and you think I have been unfair to him. You are, perhaps, fighting for justice for Peter.

I could (and have, but not for these pages)also constructed a fiction around the death of Ananias and the vicious entrapment of his wife. That is MY subjective interpretation of the meagre facts we have. You are seeking justice for Peter. I am seeking justice for Ananias and Sapphira.

I think my fiction is more plausible. And I think I've posted enough of it to illustrate that. I'd need the hosts permission to expand it any further - it's in poetry.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
LC Look again at the bold passages yourself. The accusation of lying comes from Peter. How much was withheld we don't know. Nor for what reason. There is no indication that Peter bothered to find out. The FACT is that the money was withheld. Peter INTERPRETS this as a lie - and not just a lie against himself, but against the Holy Spirit. What justification he can possibly have for this over=reaction I cannot imagine.

Your quite attractive and plausible fiction is based, I believe, on your charitable feelings towards one of the church's early leaders, and you think I have been unfair to him. You are, perhaps, fighting for justice for Peter.

I could (and have, but not for these pages)also constructed a fiction around the death of Ananias and the vicious entrapment of his wife. That is MY subjective interpretation of the meagre facts we have. You are seeking justice for Peter. I am seeking justice for Ananias and Sapphira.

I think my fiction is more plausible. And I think I've posted enough of it to illustrate that. I'd need the hosts permission to expand it any further - it's in poetry - of a narrative and somewhat long-winded form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem there is that in the story God clearly sides with Peter because both end up dead, apparently supernaturally.

That gives rise to far more problem than Peter getting it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
LC Look again at the bold passages yourself. The accusation of lying comes from Peter. How much was withheld we don't know. Nor for what reason. There is no indication that Peter bothered to find out. The FACT is that the money was withheld. Peter INTERPRETS this as a lie - and not just a lie against himself, but against the Holy Spirit. What justification he can possibly have for this over=reaction I cannot imagine.

Your quite attractive and plausible fiction is based, I believe, on your charitable feelings towards one of the church's early leaders, and you think I have been unfair to him. You are, perhaps, fighting for justice for Peter.

I could (and have, but not for these pages)also constructed a fiction around the death of Ananias and the vicious entrapment of his wife. That is MY subjective interpretation of the meagre facts we have. You are seeking justice for Peter. I am seeking justice for Ananias and Sapphira.

I think my fiction is more plausible. And I think I've posted enough of it to illustrate that. I'd need the hosts permission to expand it any further - it's in poetry.

---

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I first heard about this verse, I tried to be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit in my mind (with the same result as not trying to think about a pink elephant).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Pimple, the thing that puzzles me about your reading of the story is what Peter is actually supposed to have DONE. In the account in Acts 5 (for which the context btw is Acts 4. 32-37, he simply says

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

In response Ananias simply falls down and dies. Even if Peter's statement is untrue, a false or mistaken accusation is not an act which amounts to murder. The situation is similar with Sapphira. I'm not at all clear, on your account how Peter is supposed to have killed either of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
<snip>The naivety of people who think Peter was a nice kind old man in a long white beard who grieved at not being able to forgive these poor idiots just beggars belief!

---

quote:

---

Why did Ananias drop dead? We cannot tell for sure… We cannot say that Peter deliberately scared Ananias to death. What is pretty clear… must, if proven, have carried some sort of penalty…. Everyone must surely have known… So what is likely?… I have read the chilling words of Spinoza's excommunication [some 1500 years later]. And I imagine Ananias was expecting… Any one with a weak heart... What is Peter's intent… I surmise… Did they beat her…? When they buried her, how long did they wait to make sure she had stopped breathing…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Pimple, the thing that puzzles me about your reading of the story is what Peter is actually supposed to have DONE. In the account in Acts 5 (for which the context btw is Acts 4. 32-37, he simply says

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

In response Ananias simply falls down and dies. Even if Peter's statement is untrue, a false or mistaken accusation is not an act which amounts to murder. The situation is similar with Sapphira. I'm not at all clear, on your account how Peter is supposed to have killed either of them.

---

Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that the charge of murder applies only to Sapphira. Why did Ananias drop dead? We cannot tell for sure. ied of fright, perhaps, like the man in the OT who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant.

We cannot say that Peter deliberately scared Ananias to death. What is pretty clear is that the charge of lying against the Holy Spirit must, if proven, have carried some sort of penalty in the community. Everyone must surely have known that Jesus said that a sin against the Holy Spirit was the only one that could not be forgiven. So what is likely? For cheating - telling off and a public humiliation, perhaps. But for the totally unforgiveable sin against the
Holy Spirit, surely the sanction would have been the severest available to the community. Not just a public telling off, but banishment.

Am I exaggerating things? Look, the man did drop dead. I have read the chilling words of Spinoza's excommunication. And I imagine Ananias was expecting something along those lines. Any one with a weak heart...

But then Sapphira appears. Three hours later, was it? Yes, Look at what Peter said, and did. Look first at what he didn't say. No warning not to lie, no news about her husband - that's kept in reserve. No encouragement to confess and seek forgiveness.

And the killer? What is Peter's intent -even before Sapphira turns up? He tells her: "The men who buried your husband are at the door - and they will carry you out."

Having seen - perhaps to his surprise - the demise of Ananias, I surmise (I think reasonably) that Peter saw no reason why the woman should get away with it. She must have been in cahoots with her husband (because that's the way women are - like Eve!) and he goes about making it easy for the Lord to take her spirit. Did they beat her, or just thump their shovels on the ground? When they buried her, how long did they wait to make sure she had stopped breathing. My God! The naivety of people who think Peter was a nice kind old man in a long white beard who grieved at not being able to forgive these poor idiots just beggars belief!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

It would have been far easier for Luke not to include this story in his 'account'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

It would have been far easier for Luke not to include this story in his 'account'.

---

I think the whole point of the story is included in the final verse: and great fear came upon the church and all who heard of these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
On the general subject of who killed Ananias and Sapphira, I think there are two particularly obvious possibilities.

God - because lying to the church about what you've given is a particularly terrible sin. I've seen little evidence that this is the sort of thing God regularly intervenes to do. Indeed it seems a curious set of priorities. Meanwhile Pol Pot, Hitler etc left alone.

Or Peter. Let's see, what do we know about Peter? 1. He has a pretty violent impetuous streak. 2. He lies.

If we changed the names and called them something other than Peter and A&S and set it in another place, I am pretty sure that the obvious suspect would be the human with a history of violence and lying.

How did he kill them? Who knows? They started arguing and he beat one of them to death. Or he strangled them? Or suffocated them.

Of the millions of unexpected premature deaths over the past 2000 years that would surely be what we would think the most likely explanation to explore initially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Come on, somebody deconstruct THIS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Could this be made sense of in the context of our refusal to forgive remembering that his forgiveness of our transgressions is contingent upon our forgiveness of the sins of others against us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Could this be made sense of in the context of our refusal to forgive remembering that his forgiveness of our transgressions is contingent upon our forgiveness of the sins of others against us.

---

Is it contingent? I thought there was a general universal "Father, forgive them" from the cross days before anyone else got around to forgiving others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
Jesus talks a lot in parables and exaggerated imagery, why wouldn't the thought that God is incapable of forgiving something or someone be one of the exaggerations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
Jesus talks a lot in parables and exaggerated imagery, why wouldn't the thought that God is incapable of forgiving something or someone be one of the exaggerations?

---

I saw two teenagers do a skit once. One of them was just standing there when the other bounded in carrying a large, gift-wrapped package. He said,
"I've found the most wonderful present for you. As soon as I saw it I knew you would love it."
The other replied,
"You are always so generous and thoughtful"
The would-be giver said,
"This is such a perfect thing for you."
"You're one of the kindest and most generous people I know."
"I can't wait to see your face when you open it."

This went on for several more exchanges, but the intended recipient never reached out to accept the gift. The other finally put it down at his feet, while the other did not move a muscle.

The point of this is that you cannot give someone something if they will not reach out to receive it.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
To me the word "unforgiveable" means your begging to be forgiven is rejected. What you have done (or who you are) is too terrible to be forgiven. You must never be allowed to join society.

I don't see in your story any hint of *God* saying "I reject you, I refuse to love or accept you." [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi LC. Yes there is some speculation in there but there is a great deal of evidence to back up most of it.

Peter's violent streak and the fact he lies are both in the text - as you know. So no disagreement there.

Further people tend to be most dishonest when they have done something wrong. Also plenty of evidence that quite a few humans throughout history have acted as I suggest. Again hard to dispute.

Finally there is no evidence that I am aware of that God frequently punishes people who lie about their giving to the church. I even know people who have done this and are still alive.

Which brings me onto Ad Orientem's claim that if someone is an atheist or doesn't like Peter it is only to them that my take is plausible. I'd suggest that if you took 100 people at random then plenty of agnostics, moderate liberals and those of other faiths would find my take much more plausible as well as the out and out atheists. I'd guess at over 80%.

Be honest the vast majority of people outside conservative Christianity would find my take much more credible. Doesn't mean it is right but it should at least be considered seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian forgiveness is unconditional.

And deliverance from evil does not have to involve any acceptance at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
People keep bringing up the sin of lying and getting freaked out about the punishment...

...I'm going to emphasize the deliberate, preplanned corruption of this sin... It was a clear bid for illegitimate power in the young church.

They are also incidentally testing the apostles' leadership, most likely with an eye to future chess moves....

It might also be worth considering that death is not the worst possible fate that can happen to people. That would be damnation. And nothing in the text says that A & S were damned.

---

quote:

---

What I was asking is, if you are prepared to throw the text out the window in terms of its understanding-of-events (e.g. divine intervention, identity of wrongdoers, etc.), then why in the heck would you bother to keep the rest of the text--that is, its description of who-said-what and who-did-what-when?

---

quote:

---

If the text is as untrustworthy as you suppose, it would be more consistent to assume that the whole thing was fabricated.

---

quote:

---

(and please, PLEASE note that my argument against yours has nothing to do with me being a Christian, or orthodox, or a Peter-praiser. It has to do with me being a trained rhetorician.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian forgiveness is unconditional.

And deliverance from evil does not have to involve any acceptance at all.

---

That is like saying you can earn money without working. Grace of course is a gift. However we do have some work to do... IMV Christian forgiveness is not a free lunch.

---

"Free lunches" are common -- children, the sick, the infirm, people whose spouse earns enough to allow a non-earner to do charity or social activities instead of a job, investments, pensions, welfare support. If you get a job at 20, quit at 65, and die at 90, much of your lifetime is a free lunch. The analogy doesn't work.

I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

The idea that you have to repent before you can be forgiven causes resentments and wars to continue because *my* failure to repent (or to be aware there's anything to repent about) causes *you* to cling to anger at what I (unknowingly?) did wrong.

Forgiving when not asked to forgive opens the door to healthy relationship. (Healthy relationship includes being aware of the other person's personality defects so you can take steps to avoid getting hurt. And they need to protect themselves against your personality defects. With forgiveness and awareness you can be mutually supportive friends. Lacking either forgiveness or awareness can be dangerous.)

Jesus said to forgive again and again and again and again and again; he did not say "forgive only if they repent first, if they don't repent you get to nurse the grudge forever."

Forgiveness is a free lunch: I like that -- come feast at God's table! You are forgiven. Spread the Good News.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Belle Ringer:I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Belle Ringer:I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

---

I described it in legal terms as 'Offer and acceptance'. If God makes you an offer, do not you have to respond to seal the deal?

---

quote:

---

I agree with Martin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, going to address something else here--not because it's going to change anybody's mind, obviously, but because I have some extra pixels to burn, and that's just how I roll.

People keep bringing up the sin of lying and getting freaked out about the punishment. Either you say "It's way out of proportion, how could a good God do any such thing!" or you say "But people have been lying for 2000 years since then, and nobody else has gotten zapped that we know of."

Second point first, because it's simpler. There is such a thing as making an example of a situation--of dealing strongly with ONE typical instance of a thing, usually very very early in a community's history, in the hopes that you will never have to do so again. Or at least more rarely.

This is the principle that makes even some non-spanking parents (like me) swat their children's butts the first time they run into street traffic. The transgression is so dangerous that the first occurrence needs to be deal with memorably.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, going to address something else here--not because it's going to change anybody's mind, obviously, but because I have some extra pixels to burn, and that's just how I roll.

People keep bringing up the sin of lying and getting freaked out about the punishment. Either you say "It's way out of proportion, how could a good God do any such thing!" or you say "But people have been lying for 2000 years since then, and nobody else has gotten zapped that we know of."

Second point first, because it's simpler. There is such a thing as making an example of a situation--of dealing strongly with ONE typical instance of a thing, usually very very early in a community's history, in the hopes that you will never have to do so again. Or at least more rarely.

This is the principle that makes even some non-spanking parents (like me) swat their children's butts the first time they run into street traffic. The transgression is so dangerous that the first occurrence needs to be deal with memorably.

---

Well this seems a particularly inept way of dealing with humans / children. Dealing with one example of bad behaviour early on in an extreme way and then doing nothing for year upon year (millennia upon millennia) is just hopeless and shows a poor understanding of human psychology. No vaguely competent child psychologist or teacher trainer would advocate such a clueless approach.

Using your analogy re children, I have worked with trainee teachers and if any of them approached behaviour management in such a way they would fail their teaching placement – their classroom management would be appalling. Consistency and clarity are at the heart of helping children understand what is acceptable and what isn’t. The God you depict is totally hopeless at both of these.

Finally your point that death ain’t that bad, as at least it is better than damnation. That line of argument is one way of justifying God ordained genocide. But then you are no doubt aware of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Belle Ringer:I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

---

I described it in legal terms as 'Offer and acceptance'. If God makes you an offer, do not you have to respond to seal the deal?

---

I don't think it works that way. I agree with Martin.

There is a range of common theologies, including opt, opt out, God wins totally. Lots of variations on each of these.

Yours sounds to me like a version of opt in - you are lost unless you take affirmative steps to be saved. If someone doesn't know what steps, or doesn't understand the instructions correctly, or doesn't hear the message, they lose!

I don't believe there is an offer that needs affirmative acceptance. Instead, there is a state of reality - God has already won, totally.

Picture being in a row boat on a powerful current - you can enjoy the ride, you can puzzle over the ride, you can (uselessly) fight against the current, you can pretend the current has changed direction, you can lots of things but the reality is you will end up where the current takes you - into God's arms. No choice. God has won, at least 2000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

You can make things harder on yourself, like complain constantly instead of appreciating the beauty in your life, but that's like a 2 year old's tantrum, ineffective to change anything, amusing to the parent who knows tantrums are brief and the kid will soon be happily be playing in the sandbox again.

We are children to God.

No good parent abandons their child, not for any reason, especially not for something as abstract as "failure to legally accept a legal offer." Kids aren't competent to make legally binding decisions.

---

quote:

---

You are forgiven. You are loved. Nothing you do or don't do can ever change that because God's nature is forgiveness and love, with no limits or exclusions.
That's the good news.

---

quote:

---

What some call "good news" - "God has won a limited victory -- you are saved but your grandmother and your husband and your childhood best friend are in eternal torment" -- is very bad news! I see no hint that early believers mourned a presumed eternal damnation of their relatives who didn't choose to become Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Belle Ringer. Preach it sister!

Jamat, you describe how it works for you. That's more than valid. It doesn't work that way for me at all: I describe what works for me and what will work for - DA DAH! - Hitler and IS.

Prevenient, outrageous, unconditional, unfair, free grace.

Even Satan himself may be sweetened in his bitterness by the unfolding of that in the resurrection.

NOBODY can possibly know otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for justifications for genocide, nonsense. There IS no justification for genocide. Any human being who plans or commits such an act is not going to get off the lighter for saying "at least I didn't damn them." And can you, in fact, name any alleged Christian who took Joshua as a role model and went out and committed genocide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well this seems a particularly inept way of dealing with humans / children. Dealing with one example of bad behaviour early on in an extreme way and then doing nothing for year upon year (millennia upon millennia) is just hopeless and shows a poor understanding of human psychology. No vaguely competent child psychologist or teacher trainer would advocate such a clueless approach.

Using your analogy re children, I have worked with trainee teachers and if any of them approached behaviour management in such a way they would fail their teaching placement – their classroom management would be appalling. Consistency and clarity are at the heart of helping children understand what is acceptable and what isn’t. The God you depict is totally hopeless at both of these.

Finally your point that death ain’t that bad, as at least it is better than damnation. That line of argument is one way of justifying God ordained genocide. But then you are no doubt aware of that.

---

Well, like I said, I didn't expect to convince anybody.

The toddler in question was my own (you may now take potshots at my bad parenting) and the swat was through pants and a thick diaper. Regardless of your outrage, I will say that he did in fact never do it again. Nor does he appear to be scarred for life. That is the one and only time I ever laid a hand on the child--and I think it was worth it, to keep him out of the way of the crazy drivers on my street. (and if you're thinking that proper supervision would prevent any and all accidents, you've never seen a three-year-old move)

As for justifications for genocide, nonsense. There IS no justification for genocide. Any human being who plans or commits such an act is not going to get off the lighter for saying "at least I didn't damn them." And can you, in fact, name any alleged Christian who took Joshua as a role model and went out and committed genocide?

I hear this argument all the time, but I've never heard a specific example ("Oh yes, King so-and-so claimed a Joshua-style mandate from God in the twelfth century and went on to completely wipe out the Oogle tribe, with the agreement and blessing of the Church"). If I'm wrong, please correct me. But I think common sense and humility prevent Christians not utterly mad from claiming any such thing on the basis of Joshua.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for justifications for genocide, nonsense. There IS no justification for genocide. Any human being who plans or commits such an act is not going to get off the lighter for saying "at least I didn't damn them." And can you, in fact, name any alleged Christian who took Joshua as a role model and went out and committed genocide?

---

Yes, I can.

Captain John Underhill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre

---

quote:

---

Wise notes that Captain John Underhill justified the killing of the elderly, women, and children, and the infirm by stating that "...sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents...We had sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Having just gone through the book the man wrote on the subject, I really, really want to take a shower. Ewwwwwwwww.

But he makes no secret of the fact that his driving motivation in all this was revenge, not some deluded religious mandate. He dwells on the subject throughout and takes no notice whatsoever (for all his pious gesturing) of the many passages where God specifically forbids revenge. There is also a strong whiff of "Let's show the Naragansett (Indian allies) how macho we are and how hard we can be." And an uncomfortably prurient interest in whether the two girl captives had been raped (apparently not, but there's a sense in the text that Underhill wishes he could report otherwise).

I think Joshua can be excused as a driving force behind his evil. He would have done exactly the same whether he'd ever heard of Joshua in his life or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... The problem is that once you move from "genocide/mass murder are always, at all times and in all places wrong" to "they're normally wrong but it was right when Joshua did it" you open the door to other people claiming they also can excuse their actions.

Whilst I agree there's an element of post-facto justification there, it seems to me that the massacre (and others like it) would have been less likely to happen had people believed that genocide was always, rather than usually, wrong.

---

quote:

---

Grenke, Arthur, God, greed, and genocide: the Holocaust through the centuries, New Academia Publishing, LLC, 2005, pp 17-18:

"Discussing the influence of Christian beliefs on the destruction of the Native peoples in the Americas, Stannard argues that while the New Testament view of war is ambiguous, there is little such ambiguity in the Old Testament. He points to sections in Deuteronomy in which the Israelite God, Yahweh, commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy idolaters whose land they sought to reserve for the worship of their deity (Deut 7:2, 16, and 20:16-17). … According to Stannard, this view of war contributed to the .. destruction of the Native peoples in the Americas. It was this view that also led to the destruction of European Jewry. Accordingly, it is important to look at this particular segment of the Old Testament: it not only describes a situation where a group undertakes to totally destroy other groups, but it also had a major influence on shaping thought and belief systems that permitted, and even inspired, genocide."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for justifications for genocide, nonsense. There IS no justification for genocide. Any human being who plans or commits such an act is not going to get off the lighter for saying "at least I didn't damn them." And can you, in fact, name any alleged Christian who took Joshua as a role model and went out and committed genocide?

---

Yes, I can.

Captain John Underhill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Joshua:

The Wikipedia article "Herem (war or property)" has a really interesting discussion of a variety of scholarly views on the genocide. The "Justifications and rationalizations" section has a sub-section "Association with violent attitudes in the modern era", which touches on possible connections with the actions of modern Israel, and "the destruction of Native Americans and to the destruction of European Jewry" by Christians.

That last bit directs to footnote 44, which says:

quote:

---

Grenke, Arthur, God, greed, and genocide: the Holocaust through the centuries, New Academia Publishing, LLC, 2005, pp 17-18:

"Discussing the influence of Christian beliefs on the destruction of the Native peoples in the Americas, Stannard argues that while the New Testament view of war is ambiguous, there is little such ambiguity in the Old Testament. He points to sections in Deuteronomy in which the Israelite God, Yahweh, commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy idolaters whose land they sought to reserve for the worship of their deity (Deut 7:2, 16, and 20:16-17). … According to Stannard, this view of war contributed to the .. destruction of the Native peoples in the Americas. It was this view that also led to the destruction of European Jewry. Accordingly, it is important to look at this particular segment of the Old Testament: it not only describes a situation where a group undertakes to totally destroy other groups, but it also had a major influence on shaping thought and belief systems that permitted, and even inspired, genocide."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That is really discerning of you. My story really is that I stumbled on God's reality before I actually knew about some of the heavy stories of scripture so despite them I knew deep inside that God was loving.

Maybe you have an option 4 somewhere? An option where what one doesn't get can be parked. God is love according to 1John. ' The one who does not love does not know God'
I guess that is the end game I have for everyone, that they experience that love but I do know mileage varies greatly. Go well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't have a problem with the questions. Just some of the offered answers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I only cherry pick Jesus as you know Jamat.

I've always loved His twice promised more bearable resurrection for the utterly irresponsible Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I only cherry pick Jesus as you know Jamat.

I've always loved His twice promised more bearable resurrection for the utterly irresponsible Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

Yup, Sodom, and all the other destroyed cities around the globe and through the ages.

I think what's going on (all thinking is subject to change) is everything ultimately reveals God. Sometimes we talk as if it's all about us - we sin, we repent (or don't), we get saved by Jesus, we go to heaven (or, some say, hell).

But it's bigger than just us. Ultimately it's God, whose love embraces us but God was love before we were invented.

In the end, we will see how broadly? Surely our sin and God's total forgiveness and love for us, and be amazed at who God is. Or do we see all sin, Sodom's and your cheating ex's and the lying thieving televangelists' and God's total forgiveness and love for them each one, and be amazed at who God is.

Paul said more sin more grace (and then worried people would misunderstand and think they were being invited to intentionally sin).

There is no limit to God's grace, not even for your ex or Sodom (or the human sacrificing Aztecs or the suddenly destroyed Pompeii or, you name it). I read about some human being intentionally doing something terribly brutal just for love of being brutal, and I am awed that God forgives even that!

You are loved. So are they. Without limit. Without end. Utterly awesome God!
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Belle Ringer
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I remember we ran a discussion on genocide (though I'm not convinced that term sufficiently negotiates the translational divide from the Ancient Near Eastern concept) here in Kerygmania a few years ago, but was resigned to accepting that the thread had sunk without trace. So I fell off my chair when a Google search plumbed the depths successfully.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I remember we ran a discussion on genocide (though I'm not convinced that term sufficiently negotiates the translational divide from the Ancient Near Eastern concept) here in Kerygmania a few years ago, but was resigned to accepting that the thread had sunk without trace. So I fell off my chair when a Google search plumbed the depths successfully.

---

The Keryg hosts don't let good threads get lost forever.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Yea, verily, Limbo doth contain more than 50 of Kerygmania's best threads spanning almost 15 years of brilliance. A treasure!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0