Questioning online apologetics

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Don't think that I didn't notice that you failed to back up your position with the words of Jesus.

You can tell yourself that the words of Jesus don't back my position, but the fact remains that they do. Your mind creates rationalizations that allow you to feel good about yourself without having to live up to the words of Jesus.

Matthew 7:21-23
[ ...[text shortened]... does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Don't think that I didn't notice that you failed to back up your position with the words of Jesus. --------ToO----------


You don't get it. I'm not the one saying that all truth has to be backed up by the words of Jesus. It's you that is emphasising the words of Jesus and quoting them all the time. There's plenty that Jesus had nothing to say about.

If you want to make this unwritten rule then make it if you like. All I ask is that you stick to it. My point is that it is disingenuous to place so much emphasis on the teachings of Jesus without taking into account all of his teachings.

I don't remember Jesus saying " Oh and by the way , all that stuff I said in matthew etc is far more important than anything else I said , you might as well ignore everything else folks"

There 's only one place where Jesus gives any clear hint of how we are to approach his words and teachings. " On that day He will remind you of what I have said .........(and) ...when He the Comforter comes he will guide you into all truth" (PS- I'm quoting from memory here rather than exact scripture)

Originally posted by knightmeister
One other point . You still have as yet to define sin in any meaningful way. You need to say what sin actually means to you. Is it sinful thoughts for example? If a man has a stray angry thought towards his brother or a fleeting thought of desire towards a woman do you define that as sin?

Is overcoming sin a state of perfection to you in which a ma o I think he was saying it's Ok to not try to be perfect. He just had his eyes open I guess.

Put it in context:
1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.

Jesus is making the point that tempting someone to sin is not acceptable. That there are enough temptations out there as it is. Jesus doesn't say that "sin is bound to come" or that "sin cannot be overcome". Jesus merely says that the temptations are bound to come.

I wonder if trying to convince others that "sin is bound to come" and that they are helpless against it would be one of the things the Jesus is warning against here.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Don't think that I didn't notice that you failed to back up your position with the words of Jesus. --------ToO----------


You don't get it. I'm not the one saying that all truth has to be backed up by the words of Jesus. It's you that is emphasising the words of Jesus and quoting them all the time. There's plenty that Jesus had nothing to say about ...[text shortened]... u into all truth" (PS- I'm quoting from memory here rather than exact scripture)

Let me see if I understand you:

You have the "real Jesus" which you can't back up with the words of Jesus.

I have the "fake Jesus" which I can back up with the words of Jesus.

You definitely have a unique perspective on a lot of things.

I guess we can add this to your contention that God is both omniscient and not omniscient.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm a follower of Truth. What Jesus taught rings true. Not so for the Bible. If what the Bible teaches were true, it would be evident that followers of the Bible follow the will of God better than those of the general population. If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus, the world would be a much better place.

"You're right, too many Chr sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

If you don't like Matthew, how about John?

1 John 3:4-9 is often quoted by proponents of sinless perfection (Wesleyans, Methodists, etc.) as proof that those born of God never sin, miss the mark, or fall short in any way.

However, an earlier passage in 1 John, chapter 1 verses 8-10, contradicts just such an interpretation: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." If this is so, John cannot be a strict proponent of sinless perfectionism. But neither is he contradicting himself in 1 John 3:4-9 when he says, "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

How do we reconcile these two statements? Read 1 John 1:10 again, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." That is, it is a sin to claim to be sinless. Therefore, being born of God cannot be a state of sinless perfection, as you claim, but rather it is a state of war against the flesh wherein no shortcoming is able to separate the believer-follower from God. What a person born of God cannot be is opposed to God, or in any way satisfied or content with a life dominated by any habitual sin. This is the true meaning of 1 John 3:4-9, which you quoted.

Anyone who claims to be sinless, further, cannot be born of God, because God chastens those whom he loves. If any person is without chastening, without knowledge of sin, that person is not born of God. This is attested to not only in 1 John 1:8-10, but also in Hebrews 12:7-8: "If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons." James also, who famously said, "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead," declared that those born of God are not without sin: "We all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body... But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison" (James 3:2,8).

The proof of salvation is that a struggle against sin exists within a person. No man can tame the tongue, but the believer-follower of Christ is one who nevertheless strives to - by doing so demonstrating that God's Word lives within him or her. "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:23-24).

The struggle against the flesh is proof of salvation, not sinless perfection. The literal translation of Matthew 7:23 reads, "I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness." The Greek term for "working", ergazomai, means to "labor, toil, and be completely occupied with." Christ, therefore, is not talking about casting out everyone who isn't perfect, rather he is talking about casting out those who spend their whole lives devoted to, occupied with, laboring and toiling for the sake of iniquity. A believer-follower of Christ may not be perfect, but he or she cannot sin in the sense of being "devoted to, occupied with, laboring and toiling for the sake of iniquity."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I understand you:

You have the "real Jesus" which you can't back up with the words of Jesus.

I have the "fake Jesus" which I can back up with the words of Jesus.

You definitely have a unique perspective on a lot of things.

I guess we can add this to your contention that God is both omniscient and not omniscient.

The real Jesus is alive and present in the Holy spirit. He taught this himself. It can be backed up by his words but you won't go there. Your fake jesus lives only in your mind and in the selective verses you quote.

BTW - If you want to look further into Luke 17 Jesus goes on to say ".... If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

I wonder how this fits with your position?

In some ways Luke 17 is a bit of a mishmash both confirming your view and then confounding it in a few verses. That's the problem when you decide to look at EVERYTHING he says , it 's not as straight forward as you think. But hey ho don't confuse yourself with that .

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]If you don't like Matthew, how about John?

1 John 3:4-9 is often quoted by proponents of sinless perfection (Wesleyans, Methodists, etc.) as proof that those born of God never sin, miss the mark, or fall short in any way.

However, an earlier passage in 1 John, chapter 1 verses 8-10, contradicts just such an interpretation: "[i]If we say that oted to, occupied with, laboring and toiling for the sake of iniquity."[/b]

[/i]Here's the definition for ergazomai that I found:
to toil (as a task, occupation, etc.), (by implication) effect, be engaged in or with, etc. -- commit, do, labor for, minister about, trade (by), work.

It seems to have about the same ambiguity as "work" in English.

Perhaps we need to look at what immediately precedes it:
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

For your interpretation to be true, Jesus limits heaven to those who do the will of His Father, then in the next breath, only tells those who are "toiling for the sake of iniquity" to depart. I would think that anyone who commits sin is not doing the will of His Father.

While I find the words of Jesus to ring true, the authors of the Bible (especially Paul) do seem to have trouble not speaking out both sides of their mouths. However if we take a broader view look at the verses you cite, I'd still have to think that John is still consistent here with the verses I cited. It seems to me that he is saying that everyone has at one time sinned and it would be a lie to deny this. There seems to be a stipulation that one "walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light" for "the blood of Jesus His Son" to cleanse one from this sin.

1 John, 1:6-10
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The real Jesus is alive and present in the Holy spirit. He taught this himself. It can be backed up by his words but you won't go there. Your fake jesus lives only in your mind and in the selective verses you quote.

BTW - If you want to look further into Luke 17 Jesus goes on to say ".... If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgiv ...[text shortened]... t 's not as straight forward as you think. But hey ho don't confuse yourself with that .

Does this mean you've finally given up on ""Things that cause people to sin are bound to come"?

You continue to throw out obstacles just to throw out obstacles.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[/i]Here's the definition for ergazomai that I found:
to toil (as a task, occupation, etc.), (by implication) effect, be engaged in or with, etc. -- commit, do, labor for, minister about, trade (by), work.

It seems to have about the same ambiguity as "work" in English.

Perhaps we need to look at what immediately precedes it:
"Not everyone who say 0 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

It seems to have about the same ambiguity as "work" in English.

The definition for toil is "long strenuous fatiguing labor." I don't think that's very ambiguous. The people whom Christ casts out are those who have lived lives of "long, strenuous, fatiguing labor", not for God's team, but for the devil's team - working at iniquity (iniquity is the condition of being ungoverned by God's law).

Jesus limits heaven to those who do the will of His Father...

And what is the will of the Father? Sinless perfection for a flesh already doomed by the law to decay and death? If we can be made perfect in our weak, condemned flesh, then why does Jesus talk about a future resurrection where the souls of men will be clothed in new bodies - new bodies which cannot decay or die?

God's will is not to make our flesh "better" or "perfect". The flesh is hopelessly sinful. The way God deals with the flesh is by condemning it to die. He gets rid of it. The decay and death of our flesh is the slow fulfillment of God's will for our flesh. Period.

Given that God's will for our flesh is to destroy it utterly, it would be an error to think he means to perfect it. Nevertheless, believer-followers of Christ, because they have God's Word in them, demonstrate their salvation by consistently putting to death the deeds of the flesh. Anyone "born of God" cannot but war against the flesh.

Matthew Henry's Commentary, I think, describes this reality succinctly:

"We must beware of deceiving ourselves in denying or excusing our sins. The Christian religion is the religion of sinners. The Christian life is a life of continued repentance, of continual faith in, thankfulness for, and love to the Redeemer."

I would think that anyone who commits sin is not doing the will of His Father.

And you'd be right. But committing a sin and immediately repenting of that sin, the process available to God's children, is a far cry from what Jesus described as toiling in a state of lawlessness, a state native to those not born of God.

It seems to me that he is saying that everyone has at one time sinned and it would be a lie to deny this.

Verse 9, "If we confess our sins..." By "we" John is referring to himself and the other believer-followers of Christ, declaring that God is faithful to forgive "our sins" and "cleanse us" from unrighteousness. John was Christ's closest disciple, a greatly loved friend of God, and is advising his fellow Christians how to deal with sins as they arise.

There seems to be a stipulation that one "walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light" for "the blood of Jesus His Son" to cleanse one from this sin.

Exactly! Every soldier in God's army warring against the flesh, i.e., doing God's will, is able to be cleansed of any unrighteousness due to a fall into sin, provided they offer confession.

By the way, last I heard, eating the flesh and/or drinking the blood of another human being was called cannibalism.

Why is this a central part of certain denominations of Christianity?

The entire idea seems to violate some rather basic taboos -- the very idea of transubstantiation makes my stomach do flips and chills go up my spine with what I can only call real horror.

I suppose they bake the cracker, but, still ....

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]It seems to have about the same ambiguity as "work" in English.

The definition for toil is "long strenuous fatiguing labor." I don't think that's very ambiguous. The people whom Christ casts out are those who have lived lives of "long, strenuous, fatiguing labor", not for God's team, but for the devil's team - working at iniquity (iniquity is ...[text shortened]... due to a fall into sin, provided they offer confession.[/b]

Why is it that when there are over a half-dozen definitions, you act as if "toil" is the only one? Is that supposed to make your argument appear stronger? Perhaps I need to pretend that the only definitions are "commit" or "do"?

At least I was fair about it and said that it was ambiguous.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why is it that when there are over a half-dozen definitions, you act as if "toil" is the only one? Is that supposed to make your argument appear stronger? Perhaps I need to pretend that the only definitions are "commit" or "do"?

At least I was fair about it and said that it was ambiguous.

It's just my opinion, I don't think the meaning is ambiguous, that's all. "Working in a state of lawlessness." That means a life without conviction of sin and no repentance.

Would you care to respond to anything else?

Originally posted by epiphinehas


I'm not sure what you mean when you say I take "childlike faith" as an indicator of reliability. I don't think I've ever suggested that. But I can certainly comment on what I mean by "childlike faith".
__________

Life consists of a great deal of intellectual uncertainty, as you are probably aware. The more a person learns from science and phil eshing reminder that I mustn't put any stock in online apologetics. 🙂

The more a person learns from science and philosophy the more uncertain the world becomes. Plato hit the nail on the head, I think, when he said that true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. The problem is, we tend to presume that whatever level of knowledge we have attained in life is sufficient and despite philosophical underpinnings suggesting the contrary, tend to live as though there is no uncertainty.

"True wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing"?!? I guess here, for the sake of discussion, we should ignore the fact that -- literally -- it is logically impossible to know that you know nothing; and by extension logically impossible to demonstrate this "true wisdom" (again, so interpreted)!

I would broadly agree that the more one genuinely examines this life, the more one stands in awareness of ignorance – not because science and reason are not extremely useful tools for increasing one's understanding of the world, but because the examination process continuously envelops more and more intellectual pursuits. I would say that standing in awareness of ignorance is an integral part of leading the "examined life". I also think that a certain intellectual humility in the face of demanding inquiries is healthy and proper; but I certainly do not think this is sufficient for being "truly wise"!! So, I do not really grasp why you think a sound bite like that hits the nail on the head.

Speaking for myself, I do not think I "live as though there is no uncertainty". Very generally, I take my beliefs to be fallible and my evidence to be defeasible. On top of which, I think there are some inquiries for which there may well be no "satisfactory" answers and which I currently see as wastelands for warranted belief (e.g., cosmological origins and considerations of the principle of sufficient reason). For the really hard questions, we may not be able to do any better than agnosticism as described by T.H. Huxley when he coined the term – basically, the prescription is to follow your reason as far as it will justifiably take you, and meanwhile not to pretend like you are not ignorant where you are ignorant.

Childlike faith means to me the capacity to disentangle oneself from that intellectual web. A child doesn't know the beginning from the end, and offers no claim of understanding any significant aspect of reality, making him or her quite capable of taking it on faith that God, for example, is in charge and everything is therefore peachy keen. As an adult this, of course, becomes more difficult. It takes considerable effort sometimes to rest in faith or exercise faith in the face of evidence seemingly to the contrary.

Well, what is so good about "exercising faith" when faced with what walks and talks like countervailing evidence? It sounds like an exercise in epistemic irresponsibility.

And I don't really understand why anyone in these matters would praise the analogy of becoming as a child. It just seems an often misapplied analogy. Children are easily molded and inculcated in part because they, naturally enough, stand in the earlier stages of moral and deliberative development. (For example, the work of Piaget on the moral attitudes of children of varying ages is apt here.) Basically, childlike deliberation is nothing we as adults should strive for. Childlike deliberation is marked by an unquestioning attitude and a disregard for, or just unfamiliarity with, considerations of justification. For instance, suppose you provide a group of children (ages ~5-9) with some rule-governed game. These rules will simply not be questioned by the children. The rules of the game as handed down to them will be treated as inviolable and that's just that. Of course, the children here and there may disobey the rules, but they simply will not question the authority of the rules as handed down to them. I see no reason why we as adults should strive to be this way. Your posts about faith often return to the idea of "practical effectiveness" in our activity and dealings. This ideally should come from our being properly responsive to good practical reasons (from our demonstrating practical wisdom); not from our becoming as children who follow heteronomous rules and maxims blindly (even if the rules happen to be "good" ones).

This leads into another serious problem I have with a lot of religious morality as it is commonly expounded. It often praises what amounts to childlike deliberation and acting in accordance with what are taken to be essentially sacred, inviolable rules/maxims handed down to us. I find this to be a very impoverished approach. I remember reading what I thought was a nice article by Patrick Nowell-Smith (from The Rationalist Annual, 1961) where his central thesis was that "religious morality is infantile". In particular, he discusses how Christian morality (broadly construed) is chock-full with childish elements, and he is not fooled into thinking that this is a desirable thing. Again, "to become as a child" – why would that be a good thing as it relates to moral deliberation?

Whatever we call it, it is necessary in order to demonstrate faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The non-rational realm of faith is a realm of practical effectiveness. If by placing our faith in some propositional truth and acting on it, we discover that our results are other than advertised, we can therefore disregard the proposition.

You act on propositional truths? I am not sure I know what that means. At any rate, I see no reason to think that engaging in fulfilling activity (the sort of projects and relations that promote a flourishing way of life) has anything to do with "childlike faith" in Jesus per se. I think it has to do primarily with exercising our rational capacities in the demonstration of practical wisdom; choosing activities and projects that display virtue and excellences of character and; and maintaining this over a lifetime. I like the writings of Aristotle in this regard. As far as I know, Plato did not make a clear enough distinction between sophia and phronesis, whereas Aristotle I think made important contributions to emphasizing the independence of practical wisdom.

At any rate, as far as I can tell, nothing regarding practical wisdom and living well has anything inherently to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ (which is actually a separate issue from whether or not the teachings of Jesus Christ are reliable at effecting enrichment and practical wisdom when put to practice -- they may be, but, again, why should I think they are any more reliable than any number of other notable systems of thought). And I also do not see how it has anything to do with the question of whether or not the core propositions and metaphysical claims of Christianity are true. In particular, I do not understand why imbuing our lives with "practical effectiveness" should have anything to do with major metaphysical claims about the world. For example, consider what the following passage conveys:

Suppose, Malunkyaputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: "I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed." All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: "I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether or not an awakened one continues or ceases to exist after death," that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die. --The Buddha

What separates the practical effects of Christianity from any other "model", e.g., the teachings of Buddha, Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc., is, I think, its specific reliance upon the supernatural interventionist power of God.

If I see no good reasons to think the core propositions of Christianity are true, then I see no reasons to take your talk of the "supernatural interventionist power of God" seriously. For example, the story of your pastor and how you argue around to the hand of God; sounds like a real stretch to me, sounds like some pretty sloppy and unreliable abductive reasoning. To someone who is already convinced of the presence of God, I could understand why they might take this as yet another exampe of supporting evidence. But I think they would be mistaken.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The more a person learns from science and philosophy the more uncertain the world becomes. Plato hit the nail on the head, I think, when he said that true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. The problem is, we tend to presume that whatever level of knowledge we have attained in life is sufficient and despite philosophical underpinnings suggesting th supporting evidence. But I think they would be mistaken.

And I don't really understand why anyone in these matters would praise the analogy of becoming as a child. It just seems an often misapplied analogy.

It's not a perfect analogy, that's for sure. When Christ uses the phrase "becoming like this little child" he means to humble yourself and see yourself as being of no account. I use "childlike faith" to describe the path I take to trusting God, because that's how it feels to me. As an adult it's easy to rely on your own understanding, but to trust in God means relying upon him instead. (I probably shouldn't have even brought up Plato. 🙂)

Well, what is so good about "exercising faith" when faced with what walks and talks like countervailing evidence? It sounds like an exercise in epistemic irresponsibility.

I'd imagine faith would sound like an exercise in epistemic irresponsibilty.

This ideally should come from our being properly responsive to good practical reasons (from our demonstrating practical wisdom); not from our becoming as children who follow heteronomous rules and maxims blindly (even if the rules happen to be "good" ones).

I don't follow heteronomous rules and maxims. I just exercise faith.

Again, "to become as a child" – why would that be a good thing as it relates to moral deliberation?

I fail to see where religious morality fits in with our discussion. I don't remember ever talking about religious morality at any point. All I've discussed has been the availabity of God's kingdom to all who believe, i.e., the gospel.

At any rate, as far as I can tell, nothing regarding practical wisdom and living well has anything inherently to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ

I don't believe I've stated that much. Undoubtedly, a person need not believe in Christ in order to develop an excellent character.

If I see no good reasons to think the core propositions of Christianity are true, then I see no reasons to take your talk of the "supernatural interventionist power of God" seriously.

Fair enough. My point was, however, that in order to get in touch with God's kingdom, you'd need to take Jesus Christ seriously. Seriously enough to act upon his teachings. Namely, his gospel message: that God's kingdom is available without partiality to all who believe in Christ. The availability of God's kingdom means God's supernatural power is available in the life of the average believer. Now, if the kingdom of which Christ speaks is available and demonstrable, then it seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest to seek it out.

"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own" (John 7:17).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Does this mean you've finally given up on ""Things that cause people to sin are bound to come"?

You continue to throw out obstacles just to throw out obstacles.

Does this mean you've finally given up on ""Things that cause people to sin are bound to come"? ---ToO------------

Why should I ? Jesus said it. It also seems self evident when I look around me at the real world. There are people who sin wilfully and those who just get caught up in sin. Life happens. Even if I "gave up on it" the evidence would still be there. I've never actually met someone who is 100% sinless and had no expectation of ever having to go to Christ for forgiveness. I would no doubt think such a person to be naive , deluded and arrogant.

Do you not understand why I am interested in a) your definition of sin and b) whether you ever sin at all yourself? In the circumstances it seems a relevant question.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Put it in context:
1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.

Jesus is making the point tha ey are helpless against it would be one of the things the Jesus is warning against here.

Jesus is making the point that tempting someone to sin is not acceptable. That there are enough temptations out there as it is. Jesus doesn't say that "sin is bound to come" or that "sin cannot be overcome". Jesus merely says that the temptations are bound to come. --ToO--------------

Now you are just misquoting him. Or possibly it's a rationalization? Jesus says that "things that cause men to sin are bound to come ". He did not say that "temptations are bound to come."

A temptation is not by definition a cause.

If he had wanted to say "things that might tempt men to sin are bound to come " he might well have done that , but he didn't. he said cause. He does not specify what those things are but I assume by "things" he is being quite general. He said they would cause men to sin rather than tempt them.

He THEN goes on to say that some men can cause other men to sin and that causing children to sin is a grave thing. It's possible that he was refering to paedophilia /abuse here?

I think it's all a matter of interpretation. I see no reason to hold your interpretation as self evident because Jesus was not that specific.

My interpretation is just as valid because later in the verse he stresses that it's quite possible that a man will repent many times and have to ask for forgiveness many times.