Featured Enigmas and inconsistencies

Thanks, that makes sense.

 

Some things must be noted. First, Jonah said a lot more to the Assyrians than just "Within 40 days, Nineveh shall be destroyed". If that'd been all he said, they'da simply considered him a madman & perhaps woulda killed him. His WHOLE message wal likely on the line of, "The Almighty God Yahweh says that He shall destroy Nineveh within 40 days for your failure to worship Him and for all your wickedness against your fellow men & against each other & for worshipping false gods." Undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit moved the Ninevites to believe him & act accordingly.

Assyria holds a special place in God's heart, as He included it in His blessing in Isaiah 19. Why He loves Assyria above many other ancient nations, I don't know, but He does.

As for Peter, I'm sure he realized he was being tested & not actually ORDERED to eat non-kosher animals. God was preparing him to go to Cornelius' home & wanted to remind Peter that GOD makes anything kosher or non-kosher & that GOD wanted him to enter Corny's home & preach the Gospel to everyone in it.

I believe speaking AGAINST the Holy Spirit would be denying His Deity, Personage, or Authority, or calling Him bad names.

 

Also, think about the missionary aspect of having to bring a kosher venue into a Gentile world which has always had a love for pork and unclean sea critters.

 

This is the literary tool of the Hebrew language which restates something in different words, states the opposite in parallel terms, etc. It is used largely in poetry (the poetic books, much of the prophets), but Christ is using it here. He is saying the same thing in two different ways, specifically using "speak against" to parallel "blaspheme" (or "insult"). So there is no need to suggest a "literalist" (as you term it) would have trouble interpreting the passage.

Anyone who thinks you can't convey the same meaning in two different ways, whether "literalist" or allegorist, simply does not understand language.

 

Peter was giving out wehat he thought was the right thing to have Jesus do, which was to avoid the Cross and be safe. He was looking at it from a natural perspective, but was not deluded and energized by Satan as pharisees were!

 

Thanks for the info. I didn't use the term "literalist", so you are confusing me with someone.

I think it would be helpful to compare the words "speak against/blaspheme" to Peter's statement, "by no means, Lord".

I don't see the connection, but maybe you can help.

 

I know that there are quite often several ways to say the same thing. You seem to be disputing that. Yes, in the context, considering the Hebrew parallelism being used, "blaspheme" and "speak against" mean the same thing. (I thought I made that clear.) So what is the relevance?

 

Peter was just giving his natural minded view, which would be same as satan would be, avoid the Cross altogether, but Pharisees were literally being his spokepieces!

 

Yes, I was. Sorry about that.

The semantics are quite different in those two examples, so I don't see any connection. Peter is certainly not blaspheming either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I did mention the Peter example in my first post (#13). I see no parallel whatsoever between the two situations in the OP. Peter did not use the term "unclean" for the works of the Holy Spirit, but simply for food. And the word "unclean" does not appear at all in the passage about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

 

That's what I thought. Very different impulse on the part of Peter.

 

Scripture does not say that Peter's comments amounted to "speaking against" or "blaspheming" Holy Spirit.

Scripture specifically says the comments by the Pharisees were blaspheming and speaking against Holy Spirit.

What Peter did was not the same. The words Peter used do not mean the same thing as what the Pharisees said.

 

I said he did not. Are you actually reading my posts?

You are not paying attention to your own thread. I never claimed this; you are trying to put words into my mouth. What I did say in Post #13 is that two statements in Matt. 12:31-32 ("blaspheme" and "speak against") meant the same thing, not that what Peter said was the same as what Jesus said.

I'll try again to see if you are paying attention now. Peter did not use the same language as Jesus at all, so they do not mean the same thing. In Post #31 I said, "The semantics are quite different in those two examples, so I don't see any connection." Peter did not say "blasphemy" (Gr. blasfemia) or "speak against" (Gr. eipe kata...). He used the ceremonial "unclean" (Gr. akatharton, accusative case), which is not the same as all.

 

Peter was just giving to jesus what he thought was the prudent thing to do, avoid going to the Cross, while the Pharisees were literally spokepieces for satan!

 

Not when Jesus rebuked peter with "get thee behind me satan?"

 

No, "Not so, Dad" would not be speaking against him (though it might endanger my rear end).

By this comparison you are supposing that Greek and English idioms are the same, but idioms are rarely the same in two different languages. In fact, sometimes an idiom in one language means the opposite in a different language. (To be clear, "blaspheme" is not an idiom, but "speak against" is one.)

We know by the Hebrew parallelism (and frankly, linguistic common sense) that "blaspheme" and "speak against" in Matt. 12 are synonyms to Jesus in Greek (though He probably spoke in Aramaic, but that's a different problem). Since difference lexemes (lexical units) are used by Peter in Acts, those lexemes have to be taken in their own context. Absent the terms "blasphemy" and "speak against," I see nothing in Peter's words in Acts to indicate blasphemy.