Why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven. Why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

  I wish to ask a tough  question of the Trinitarian,  as to the date of this writing  has not been answered, as to why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven, and why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

 In asking the question on debate forums such as Carm and other forums, I did have a lot of smoke screen answers in my opinion, trying to cover up the question by making it about the definition of blasphemy, so as to hide the weakness of the doctrine and the forcefulness of the question... If you can blaspheme one of their persons but not the other, then you must have three totally different gods.

 Why would I say god/God instead of person you ask? Because blasphemy is a matter of blaspheming God. If  God is three persons, then you should by Blasphemy of one, blaspheme all of God. But both the father, and the son, are excluded from the unpardonable sin...Either this a problem for them,(Trinitarains) or a problem for us.(Oneness) Which is it?

  As I said  before, scriptures teach: God can be blasphemed, but for some reason Matth.12:31-32 says the son of God cannot! You know why? Let's read the passage in question?

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.

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 or in the world to come.
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.(KJV Matth.:12:31-33)

 Jesus himself raises  a lot of questions with these passages...

 
 Trinity doctrine adherents, of all flavors,  should be able to answer why and how to this passage?

Because the son of God, is not "God the son"!

 The Holy Ghost(God) is that which incarnated Jesus!(The son, or flesh of God) The distinction is being made between his sonship, and his divinity(Which was not God the son) this brings  a very  glaring contradiction and problem for the Trinitarain...  I believe you can blaspheme Jesus and not be forgiven.  As Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. But Jesus was showing us  a clear distinction of the son born of Mary, and his deity, that was both in him, and in heaven at the same time. This is his humanity, and divinity, which distinction trinity doctrine does not  in Jesus make...

The same is seen in Mark 13:32 where the son did not know the time of his own second coming but the father ONLY. The distinction is in the incarnation. The seen (Jesus flesh, as son born of Mary, the son as the image.( Col.1:15) And the invisible spirit of God.( not seen) in him, and in heaven at the same time. That is what is not understood and the reason for the confusion.


The work of the Holy Spirit as spirit is a different work than that of the flesh and person of the son of  God." That is very reason of the incarnation, as both of those workings are found in the one united Spirit and flesh of the son.  This is Oneness doctrine spot on! We cannot have multiple persons of God, as we come to multiple gods, just like the Hindus.... The different work is a matter of spirit and sinless flesh. We needed both for our redemption. Spirit because of God's grace, and sinless flesh, as we needed a kinsmen redeemer. It was not a matter of different persons of God working, it was the selfsame God, all in him(Jesus) we needed no other!


Blasphemy.
It is not a matter of any man, or woman.  As one person of the Calvinist persuasion has claimed: that Just any sinner  is a blasphemer... This causes many problems as already sinners are in this state of no forgiveness, but are able to believe and repent and come to God...   The Calvinist  double condemns the sinner in saying they can  blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven? Please? This offends all common sense thinkers! First they are saying they may not be part of the elect and they surely are not by blaspheming the Holy Ghost, insuring it is so? This is one of the Most ignorant arguments ever devised by man to hide the weakness of the two doctrines of the trinity and of the five points of Calvinism on this all five points fall!
Here is the problem. First of all this calling God's word a Liar and contradictory.(Is this blasphemy itself?) Then it places doubt on the word of God by said  doctrine. Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He was before a blasphemer (Attributing The work of God to the devil) but that he had done this out of ignorance in unbelief and obtained Mercy.

Blasphemy will not be forgiven, not in this world, or in that to come, period! In other words it is impossible.  The so called answer, or solution actually makes it possible to be forgiven of blasphemy if only the person somehow sees the error of their ways. We know that is not true, because the doctrine of Calvinism's Unconditional election and damnation does not allow for that.  (Not scripture) We are elected in and through him.
The scriptures teach that is not possible to be forgiven of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, as God will not forgive this willing trampling of the Blood of Christ. Hopefully those honest enough will see the problem with this.

JW.Mcgarvey's commentary on Acts 13:48

 John William. McGarvey Born: Hopkinsville, Kentucky, March 1, 1829.
Died: Lexington, Kentucky, October 6, 1911.
McGarvey of the Campbellite Movement: Disciples and Churches of Christ. He entered Bethany College as a non-Christian. However, in a short time he obeyed the gospel under the preaching of Pendleton, one of his professors. He was baptized in Buffalo Creek. McGarvey heard Alexander Campbell preach frequently in the little Bethany congregation. He graduated in a class of 12 and gave the valedictory address in Greek, which was the custom of those commencement exercises.

 Text from Moore, W. T. (editor), Living Pulpit of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1871. Pages 325-326. This online edition © 1996, James L. McMillan.




   J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 13:48

"48. In the next paragraph we have a statement, the meaning of which has excited no little controversy. (48) “On hearing this the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were determined for eternal life believed.” The controversy turns upon the meaning of the clause osoi eoan tetagmenoi eis zoen aioniou, rendered, in the common version, “as many as were ordained to eternal life.” The Calvinistic writers united in referring it to the eternal election and foreordination taught in their creeds. They contend, therefore, for the rendering “were ordained,” or “were appointed.” If their interpretation were admitted, it would involve the passage in some difficulties which none of them seem to have noticed. If it be true that “as many as were foreordained to eternal life believed,” then there were some of the foreordained left in that community who did not believe. Hence, all those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants, were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to everlasting punishment. Now it is certainly most singular that so complete a separation of the two parties should take place throughout a whole community at one time; and still more singular that Luke should so far depart from the custom of inspired writers as to state the fact. Again, the same statement implies that all who believed on that occasion were of the elect. For, if the parties who believed were those who had been foreordained to eternal life, then none of the non-elect could have been among the number. Here is another anomalous incident: that on this occasion all who believed were of the number who would finally be saved, and that Luke should be informed of the fact and make it known to his readers. Certainly we should not adopt an interpretation involving conclusions so anomalous, unless we are compelled to do so by the obvious force of the words employed.

It is worthy of more that the efforts of Calvinistic writers to prove that this is the meaning of these words consist chiefly in strong assertions to that effect, and in attempts to answer the feebler class of the objections urged against it. Thus Dr. Hackett asserts: “This is the only translation which the philology of the passage allows.” But he makes no effort to prove that the New Testament usage of the principal word involved allows this translation. The word rendered ordained in this passage is tasso—a term which is not employed in a single instance in the New Testament in the sense of foreordained. Where that idea is to be expressed, other words are uniformly employed.

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples,²⁹⁸²⁹⁸Matt. xxviii. 16. or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul,²⁹⁹²⁹⁹Acts xxviii. 23. we best express the idea by appointed.³⁰⁰³⁰⁰It expresses the same idea in Luke vii. 8; Acts xxii. 10. But when 170Paul says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,”³⁰¹³⁰¹Rom. xiii. 1. he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God. When he asserts of the household of Stephanas, in Corinth, that etaxan eautous they set themselves in order for ministering to the saints,³⁰²³⁰²1 Cor. xvi. 15. we would say they devoted themselves to ministering to the saints. But when the brethren in Antioch had been puzzled by the disputation between Paul and Barnabas and “certain men who came down from Judea,” in reference to circumcision, and they finally etaxan, set in order, to send some of both parties to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for a decision, the common version very correctly renders it, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go.”³⁰³³⁰³Acts xv. 2.

In reference to the propriety of this last rendering, Dr. Hackett asserts that this term “was not used to denote an act of the mind;”³⁰⁴³⁰⁴Com. in loco. the awkward translation of this passage to which the assertion forces him is evidence conclusive against it. He renders it, “They appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem.”³⁰⁵³⁰⁵Com. xv. 2. This is an ungrammatical use of the word appointed. When a mission has been determined upon, we appoint the individuals who shall be sent, but we do not appoint that they shall go. Evidently, the state of the case was this: the brethren were at first undetermined what to do in reference to the question in dispute, but finally determined to send to Jerusalem for an authoritative decision of it. When a man is undetermined in reference to a pressing question, his mind is in confusion; but when he determines upon his course, it is no longer confusion, but is set in order. The term in question, therefore, meaning primarily to set in order, is most happily adapted to the expression of such a state of mind. Our English word dispose has a similar usage. It means to arrange in a certain order, and applies primarily to external objects; but when one's mind is found arranged in accordance with a certain line of conduct, we say he is disposed to pursue it.

We scarcely need observe, after the above remarks, that the specific meaning attached to the generic term in question, in any particular passage, is to be determined by the context. In the passage we are now considering, the context has no allusion to any thing like an appointment of one part, and a rejection of the other; but the writer draws a line of distinction between the conduct of certain Gentiles and that of the Jews addressed by Paul in the closing paragraph of his speech. To render the contrast between the two more conspicuous, he throws his words into antithesis with those of Paul. Paul had said to the Jews, “You put the word of God from you;” Luke says of the Gentiles, “They glorified the word of the Lord.” Paul said, “You judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;” Luke says, many of the Gentiles “were determined for everlasting life.” It is an act of the mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as clearly an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast with it. At some previous time in their history, these Gentiles, like 171all others, had been undetermined in reference to everlasting life, either because they were not convinced that there was such a state, or because they hesitated to seek for it. But now their minds were set in order upon the subject, by being determined to labor for the eternal life which Paul preached.

It now remains, in order to full eludication of the passage, that we account for the connection indicated between their being determined for everlasting life, and their believing. The former stands as a cause which led to the latter. Let it be noted that everlasting life is not contemplated as the object of their belief, for, if it was, they would have had to believe in it, before they could determine for it; so that the order of the two mental acts would be reversed. But, in common with the Jews, who had been their religious instructors, they already believed in a future state, and what they now learned to believe by Paul's preaching was the gospel of Christ. Those of them who had, either through previous religious instruction, or through the influence of Paul's preaching, heartily determined for eternal life, were in a better frame of mind to appreciate the evidence in favor of that Christ through whom alone it could be obtained, than the others who were so undetermined upon the subject that they appeared to judge themselves unworthy of such a destiny. Such was the difference between the two classes in the audience, and Luke's object is to declare the result of the difference in the fact that the one class believed, and the other thrust the word of God from them. To say that the difference had been wrought in them exclusively by divine agency would be to rob them of responsibility. Or to say that the favorably-disposed party had become so exclusively by their own self-determining energy would be to deny the influence of divine truth. Neither of these positions can be true; but, while it was an act of their own minds to determine for eternal life, it was God who had induced them to do so; at the same time, the other party determined against eternal life, in despite of the same divine influence exerted upon them."