or we can discern between what is the difference between speaking against and denying Jesus and understand that this sin to blaspheme the HS is unforgivable… meaning to be so bad that you are unable to be forgiven: Luke 12:8-10 speaking and denying? The difference!
The sin cannot be forgiven - but the sinner can be. Big difference and one that you have glossed over consistently. ‘IT’ can’t be forgiven.
Um…that makes absolutley no sense, Ran. An unrepentant sin to blaspheme the HS is not forgiven, Ran. Explain to me how God forgives a sinner from an unrepentant sin? Your confused, my friend. Jesus does not say one thing and say “Syke” and do another. The sin is attached to the sinner which makes him what he is… a spiritually dead unrighteous sinner. 
Show us where He says the sinner cannot be forgiven. What He does say is THAT PARTICULAR sin cannot be forgiven. “IT” cannot be forgiven.
? Um…are you ok, Ran? Luke 12:8-10; Mark 3:28-29; Matthew 12:31-32.
Ran
read these again: Luke 12:8-10 speaking and denying? The difference!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=987&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p13195
Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
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.
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
(Notice in the last quote (tied with the rest) that the blasphemer is NOT doomed to eternal damnation - in danger of it, certainly - but savable.
Ran, are you being serious?.. but “Unto HIM” who commits the “IT” shall not be forgiven, Ran. 
Of course, that not what it says, Aaron. You are always fudging scripture.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Ran, I’m not fudging anything.
But you’re not following along. If Christ had meant that HE (the sinner) would never be forgiven - then Christ would have said just that. But He doesn’t say that.
You’re delusional, Ran. 
Who do you think “him” is referring to?
Not delusional - just reading carefully. ‘him’ is him and ‘it’ is it. Understand the distinction or be silent.
Ran
“Him”( the sinner) is the one who is committing the “IT”. “Him” is the whosoever (sinner). The “IT” is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Ran, you’re starting to creep me out with your erroneous comments. There is something definitely not right with you, brother.
No, what’s creepy is a wannabe theologian who cannot understand distinctions in the phrasing of speech. My Lord took away the sins of the world except for THAT one (it) with the purpose of redemption and salvation. You have yet to understand His purpose and His mission. There is no condemnation in Him - none. What condemnation around here is to be found in you. The condemner and the accuser (ring a bell?) You should be ashamed of yourself. Who ARE you serving?
Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
Whoever(sinner) blasphemes against the Holy Spirit(IT) never has forgiveness and is gulity of an eternal sin! (Eternal Damnation) Deal with it, Ran!
You’re changing bible translations - which is the right one for your purposes? And which is the RIGHT ONE?
Now who’s trying to give an interpretation beyond the literal text?
What it means for a ‘sin’ to be forgiven is that it has a just excuse or explanation for why it was done. The act is forgiven or ‘excused’ because no intentional harm was meant. And there are very many so-called sins (to sin is to miss the mark) which fall under that category. But past this point it cannot be forgiven or excused because then it becomes intentional. One is doing what one knows to be wrong and thus calling goodness evil or wrong to its face. It’s a blasphemy, or insult to the Spirit of all that is good, to intentionally go another path, thus deeming good as something bad.
Stop the nonsense, Ran. They all say the same thing. Deal with it!
Formal warning to Ran about suggesting A37 is serving Satan.
Aaron,
Speaking as someone who (on the basis of a careful reading of the Greek) has constantly acknowledged that the Synoptic texts say the person has no pardon (“whoever… is having no pardon… but is liable”, GosMark); and say that the person is renounced and shall not be pardoned (“he the one disowning Me will be renounced… the one blaspheming shall not be pardoned”, GosLuke–GosMatt does put it as the sin not being pardoned, by the way)–
–that same careful reading of the Greek shows that there is nothing in any of the three Synoptic accounts or close contexts which denote such a person being permanently unreprentant. That’s being read totally into the text (whether by you or by various translators); which necessarily has to be done in order to make it work with your theology. (Whereas, on the other hand, we know from positive evidence in scripture that even when one curses against himself in “disowning” or “denying” Christ, that doesn’t put him outside repentance or the saving grace of Christ either one.)
Even if (as could be arguably true) you’re being correct to read that into the text, reading it into the text makes the text worthless as positive testimony against universalism–which is how you keep trying to deploy it. (i.e. you aren’t merely arguing that the text can be coherently understood within some type of Arminian theology. If you were only doing that, I doubt anyone here would disagree at all!)