Why was the NT Zacharias "struck dumb"?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 137
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2


Occasionally the New Testament often expects its readers to suspend the laws of nature and expects its readers to accept without question what is being conveyed and the conception of John the Baptist is yet another one of those occasions.
 
The story goes that the old and aged priest Zacharias is going about his priestly duty in the temple one day and out of the blue an "angel" (messenger)appeared to him with news that his old and aged and barren wife will  soon be hearing the patter of tiny feet. 
 
And, as would any normal mere mortal, Zacharias queried ;> 
 
 Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
 
And for simply asking this obvious question,this poor devout priest who had served his god for years was told;>  
 
And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak,until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Where does Zacharias once call this messenger a liar? he doesn't.  Where does this poor priest even doubt this messenger? he doesn't. Where does he even dispute this miraculous event? he doesn't.
 
The whole story surrounding the Baptist is as strange and puzzling one from start to finish.
So why was this old devout priest  Zacharias "struck dumb" and his poor old aged and barren wife forced to "hide herself away"?



#2
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Where does Zacharias once call this messenger a liar?
God can read hearts genius. Plus Zacharias said, "I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years." If you weren't ignorant, you would know that women cannot get pregnant after a certain age, and Zacharias was doubting that what the angel said could be true.

The whole story surrounding the Baptist is as strange and puzzling one from start to finish.
Because you are ignorant of Hebrew history and female biology. Most of the world is puzzling to the ignorant.

So why was this old devout priest  Zacharias "struck dumb" 
He asked for proof that indicated the story was true. He got it. He should have known the story of Abraham and Sarah and kept his mouth shut.

...his poor old aged and barren wife forced to "hide herself away"?
Because no one would believe she was pregnant at that age and would assume disease and become concerned and alarmed. Think man.
Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Where does Zacharias once call this messenger a liar?
ethang5 >>> "God can read hearts genius. Plus Zacharias said, "I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years." If you weren't ignorant, you would know that women cannot get pregnant after a certain age, and Zacharias was doubting that what the angel said could be true".

No, Not once did Zacharias doubt anything and you cannot show me where he did.  You are being silly. And stop calling me ignorant just because I don't agree and go along with your beliefs and fantasies. 

The whole story surrounding the Baptist is as strange and puzzling one from start to finish.
ethang5>>>"Because you are ignorant of Hebrew history and female biology. Most of the world is puzzling to the ignorant".

Now your talking sense.. in part. The gospel writer here has indeed re-hashed an Old Testament story, something they do often.

So why was this old devout priest  Zacharias "struck dumb" 
ethang5>>>He asked for proof that indicated the story was true. He got it. He should have known the story of Abraham and Sarah and kept his mouth shut.

 Again not true and the story is there to read for those who want to bother to read it. He didn't ask for proof of anything and you cannot show me where he did....

his poor old aged and barren wife forced to "hide herself away"?
ethang5>>>Because no one would believe she was pregnant at that age and would assume disease and become concerned and alarmed. Think man.

 Again spouting anything that comes to mind without a single piece of evidence. 
There was no reason at all for this poor servant of god to have such an infliction put upon him or for his wife to have to hide away especially when we read further  that they were both sinless and blameless here read it yourself>>.

“both were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless [sinless]” all their lives. 
Your excuses are as miserable as all your other excuses. The thing here is you simply don't have the answers to awkward and difficult questions.

I do agree though, that  New Testament  writers just love reaching for their trusty Old Testament for stories to  rehash and bring into their own present time. Sometimes they didn't stop as simply rehashing these stories, they would go all the way and recreate them.  Like the one you mentioned Genesis 18 . That story  is so identical to the Zacharias/ baptist story with the only difference was the names and neither  Sarah or  Abraham was punished for laughing and doubting. And Sarah wasn't even punished for lying saying she "did not laugh". I ask the reader here to read and compare the two so similar versions for themselves, should they even care to know.
 Luke 1:5-25
Genesis 18:9-16
 

It is my belief that Zacharias wasn't "struck dumb" at all, but rather, was told to keep his mouth shut. And that Elizabeth wasn't even pregnant at all but had taken on a mother role to a bastard John to pass him off as her own. This is why she "hid away". It was all to do with a sinister plot to take over a future kingship of Jerusalem. I believe the baptist and Jesus were rivals, and that it would all come to a head down at the river Jordan some 30+ years later.


#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Where does Zacharias once call this messenger a liar?
"God can read hearts genius. Plus Zacharias said, "I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years." If you weren't ignorant, you would know that women cannot get pregnant after a certain age, and Zacharias was doubting that what the angel said could be true".

No, Not once did Zacharias doubt anything and you cannot show me where he did. 
I just did Jethro. Do you know what "well stricken in years" mean? You don't do you? How do you propose to critique the bible when you are ignorant of simple language and history?

And stop calling me ignorant just because I don't agree and go along with your beliefs and fantasies. 
You are ignorant because you know nothing of what you speak about, and refuse an education.

The whole story surrounding the Baptist is as strange and puzzling one from start to finish.
"Because you are ignorant of Hebrew history and female biology. Most of the world is puzzling to the ignorant".

Now your talking sense.. in part. The gospel writer here has indeed re-hashed an Old Testament story, something they do often.
Right, because things never happen more than once in the world. An old woman getting pregnant could have happened only once or else it a re-hashing.

So why was this old devout priest  Zacharias "struck dumb" 
He asked for proof that indicated the story was true. He got it. He should have known the story of Abraham and Sarah and kept his mouth shut.

Again not true and the story is there to read for those who want to bother to read it. He didn't ask for proof of anything and you cannot show me where he did....

He asked, "Whereby shall I know this?" Do you know what his question meant? No? 

his poor old aged and barren wife forced to "hide herself away"?
Because no one would believe she was pregnant at that age and would assume disease and become concerned and alarmed. Think man.

Again spouting anything that comes to mind without a single piece of evidence. 
Lol. Read the story genius. Don't just take the atheist website's word for it. Bibles are free.
Topic's author
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I just did Jethro. Do you know what"well stricken in years" mean? You don't do you? How do you propose to critique the bible when you are ignorant of simple language and history?
 
Nope he only asked how /when, like any other mere mortal would. These were a couple who were absolutely blameless in the eyes of god.
 
You were kind enough to point out to us the story of Sarah and Abraham. I am glad it was you who did this and not me and for a number of reasons which I shall cover later. For in that story you chose to compare the story of Zacharias & the Baptist with, god doesn’t punish anyone, does he?
Yet it CLEARLY states that Abraham “ laughed and doubted in his heart” concerning his first born son  Ishmael by the Egyptian and that Sarah laughed so loud she could be heard to do so and then lied about it.  
 
Here look, show us all where is anyone struckdumb or even punished.
 You were stupid enough to tell us that this is the OT story Zacharias should have taken heed of but had ignored.  You must have forgotten that this “blameless”   fully trained priest who ACTUALLY worked in the Holiest place on earth at the time and was well versed in the OT scriptures. Do you actually believe that this  man who walked "IN ALL the commandments and ordinances of his god"  would have ignored his gods earlier example of bringing forth babies from "old and barren " women  ?    Here read for yourself and show us all here how this non punishment story compares to the extreme punishment of Zacharias who did nothing wrong.
 
Genesis 18:9-16 King JamesVersion (KJV)
9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have ason. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself,saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh,saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

So, point out to us all, where in this OT story that  YOU recommended Zacharias should have read and taken heed of,  does either Sarah or Abraham get punished by god ? 
 
 
You are pretty good at name calling and throwing accusations of ignorance around the place, but you fail miserably when it comes to explaining away these vague and ambiguous biblical stories aren’t you? And of course  asking us all too, to simply accept that this so called god has supernatural mind reading powers.
 
He asked for proofthat indicated the story was true. 
 
That is  just a complete lie. Show us all here were Zacharias asked for or demanded “proof”.
 
"Whereby shall I know this?"    Is all Zacharias asked nothing more nothing less. In others words he asked how and or when. This does not mean doubt in the slightest.

wherebywɛːˈbʌɪ/ 
adverb
1.     by which.
 
 
 
 
So,  in the case of Zacharias this means  - I believe you by which method and when?

Here is clue for you Mr. Especially Ignorant of his own scriptures. You should be looking at Abraham's first born by his Egyptian slave. This is the child no one seems to focus on but I believe Ishmael is key and ‘fits’ more closely to the baptist story and than people like you care to realise.

#6
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Nope he only asked how /when, like any other mere mortal would. 
Lie. He also said his wife was past the age of childbearing. You do  not know what menopause is. Look it up, but there is no need to lie.

god doesn’t punish anyone, does he?
I never said this. Please stop lying.

Here look, show us all where is anyone struckdumb or even punished. 
So what? God is not a machine and does not have to do the same thing each time. Zack did not need to say anything out loud. God could read his heart. God's judgment was that he would be dumb till the birth of the baby. His judgement did not need to satisfy you or pass your standard.

Do you actually believe that this  man who walked "IN ALL the commandments and ordinances of his god"  would have ignored his gods earlier example of bringing forth babies from "old and barren " women  ?
Sure. You do similar. You say Zach worked in the "Holiest place on earth." What made it holy? God made it holy, yet here you are,  ignorantly rejecting the judgement of the very God you are claiming is holy. You accept the verses that say he was a righteous man, but reject the verses saying he was struck dumb.

If you are dumb enough to cherry pick the bible, I have no quarrel with you. I have zero interest in debating illogical people. Instead of debate, I'll just toss you for lolz.

Here read for yourself and show us all here how this non punishment story compares to the extreme punishment of Zacharias who did nothing wrong. 
Neither is a "punishment" story einstein. They are similar in that God made a promise of a son to a couple where the woman was past childbearing age. The details of the story do not need to be the same. It is a different story, at a different time, with different people. Think man.

You are pretty good at name calling and throwing accusations of ignorance around the place,

Sorry sir, but I don't do it just to insult you. It is obvious that you are poor at logic and ignorant. These are facts, not insults. The fact that you could not address what the phrase, "well stricken in years" means, shows your ignorance. You hounded MoPac for not answering your questions, but here you are dodging questions. Is that not hypocritical?

....asking us all to simply accept that this so called god has supernatural mind reading powers.
Lol. If you don't accept the Christian definition of God, your entire argument become nonsense. You aren't talking about the Christian God, as such, I couldn't care less about what you think.

Either you accept the bible's account, or you don't. But I will not cherry-pick with you. God is omniscient. If you don't think God is,  then your questions and expectations are idiocy.


"Whereby shall I know this?"

So in the case of Zacharias this means  - I believe you by which method and when?
Untrue. It means by what means shall I know this is true? And as we can see from God's response, your interpretation is nonsense.

You should be looking at Abraham's first born by his Egyptian slave. 
I don't care for your non-biblical rantings. Every false prophet like you has an...

...but I believe Ishmael is key and ‘fits’ more closely to the baptist story and than people like you care to realise.
....that he places as higher truth than scripture. What you believe carries no authority. And when what you believe contradicts the bible, I will throw it out wholesale.

Thanks for your time.
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
God could read hisheart.
 
So you keep saying but I don’t believe you and I don’t believe that you can prove that silly statement.But please go ahead and share your evidence of gods mind & heart reading.

God made it holy, yet here you are,  ignorantly rejecting thejudgement of the very God you are claiming is holy.
 
Nope it was the holiest place on earth for those who believed it as such, which happened to be the  JEWS at the time NOT christians. So let me make this perfectly clear, it was never and still is NOT, holy to me. but I can appreciate that it is for many believers.

If you are dumb enough to cherry pick the bible,
 
Wrong again. YOU chose and cherry picked that story of Sarah and Abraham,as an example of what Zacharias should have heeded and read. NOT ME!  I quoted it in full as I have the whole of  of the strange conception of the Baptist.. It makes no sense that a couple who the bible says:.
 
were both righteous before God,walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke1:6  should both be punished
 
Why should this sinless devout  poor old couple be punished for simply asking how and or when will this miraculous event happen. You messed up using that “cherry picked” OT example didn’t you .
 Neither is a "punishment" story einstein.
 
So says you. YOUR OT is not a punishment story, I agree.  And that is my point. You used it without realising because having the power of speech taken away and for no clear or apparent reason as in the story of the Baptist clearly ends with a penalty for Zacharias, doesn’t it.
 
If you don't accept the Christian definition of God, your entire argument become nonsense.
 
But I don’t do I. I have spent half a thread telling you I don’t believe the Christ was a god. I also don’t accept the Christian idea of what a god is. Orhave you forgotten the thread - Jesus is Lord? - by Paul?  I make my position perfectly clear on that thread. So stop trying to put words into my mouth.
 
Either you accept the bible's account, or you don't.
 
Correct. And I don’t. I have given my reasons why and I have started to give my opinions and beliefs on the stories therein. I don’t expect a devout Christian to accept what I have to say but I believe it would be simply good manners to at least hear another’s opinion without name calling and telling everyone who doesn’t agree with the bible narration of events OR YOU that they are IGNORANT,!as you so loosely do.
                                                                                                                   
 
It means by what means shall I know this is true? 
 
Now you are defying the definition of the word – whereby-. This is the word Zacharias clearly uses.
 
What you believe carries no authority.
Maybe not in the world of a devout Christian. But that is to be expected and I am not in any way concerned OR OFFENDED. I am not even trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I am putting the scriptures as I SEE THEM and as I READ THEM. It is up to you to challenge my version and or interpretation,but only if you wish to do so.
 
 
 And when what you believe contradicts the bible, I will throw it out wholesale.
 
Yes I know. But at least put up valuable contradictory evidence to back  bible's version of events. It is not good enough in the 21st century to simply say “ because the bible said”.  people are much more educated these days, they are not backward unthinking peasants of 1st century Palestine. it would pay you to remember that ethang5
Thanks for your time.

#8
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
If you don't accept the Christian definition of God, your entire argument become nonsense.
 
But I don’t do I.
Then there was no Zack. No birth. No Elizabeth, no questions, no punishment, and no God. Your post is nonsense.

Buh-bye.
#9
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Test

#10
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
This may be irrelevant but two points I want to bring up....."struck dumb" simply meant the man could not speak until the prophecy was fulfilled. Point number two is we're talking about AN ANGEL OF GOD...not some street preacher. If an actual ANGEL appeared to you pronouncing what was to come to pass why would anyone doubt that or even question the announcement? it seems to me if an angel appeared to someone with a word that would allow for faith to be applied no? before I would be questioning the word, I would be questioning the appearance lol. TBH it was a small punishment of what should have been an obvious acceptance. But then again this is if we are taking it literally. 
#11
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
I am unable to post. It keeps saying I have exceeded my 15,000 character limit. This seems highly unlikely. Anyone have any suggestions?

#12
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
@ Stephen

You said: "Occasionally the New Testament often expects its readers to suspend the laws of nature and expects its readers to accept without question what is being conveyed and the conception of John the Baptist is yet another one of those occasions."

Logically, because the NT claims SUPERNATURAL origin. So God reveals a message to Zacharias through the angel Gabriel. You, just like Zacharias, question the authority of this God; you question His truthfulness. The difference between you and Zacharias is that you are an unbeliever. Zacharias, for the most part, was a faithful follower of the OT God. He, like the rest of Mosaic Covenant Israel, was expecting that one day their promised Messiah would come to Israel.  

Peter

#13
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
@ Stephen:

You said: "Where does Zacharias once call this messenger a liar? he doesn't.  Where does this poor priest even doubt this messenger? he doesn't. Where does he even dispute this miraculous event? he doesn't."

He doubts the CERTAINTY of the message from the messenger: Zacharias said to the angel, "How will I know this for certain?"

Gabriel makes known to Zacharias that to doubt what he says as a certainty is to doubt God, therefore, to confirm the message is from God Gabriel gives Zacharias a sign to confirm to him: "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you....you shall be silent...because you did not BELIEVE my words...
 
The very text you say does not call into question Zacharias' moral character shows he doubted God. He called into question the truthfulness of the message sent from God, to speak to him. That makes God out to be a liar.

Peter
#14
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
@ Stephen:

Post 3: "The gospel writer here has indeed re-hashed an Old Testament story, something they do often...I do agree though, that New Testament writers just love reaching for their trusty Old Testament for stories to rehash and bring into their own present time. Sometimes they didn't stop as simply rehashing these stories, they would go all the way and recreate them."

What you fail to realize (as an unbeliever) is those historic events in the OT convey greater spiritual truths that are brought to light in the NT. 

There is a mirroring or shadowing between the OT and NT; between the physical and spiritual realms/realities. The OT always points forward to the greater reality. One covenant is put in place by Moses, the other by the greater Moses - Jesus. (see 1 Corinthians 2:13; 9:11; 15:46; Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5)

As you have Elijah in the OT so you have the Elijah to come, the one who comes in the spirit of Elijah - John the Baptist. 


Topic's author
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
ethang5 "If you don't accept the Christian definition of God, your entire argument become nonsense"
 
But I don’t do I.
ethang5  "Then there was no Zack. No birth. No Elizabeth, no questions, no punishment, and no God. Your post is nonsense".


Again you are resorting to bending my words. I have clearly stated I do not believe Jesus was a god. 

I have said I believe that jesus believed he was rightful heir to the throne of jerusalem i.e. King of the Jews.

I have said I believe Jesus was a priest.

 I have said the word "god" is a word of Greek origin. And that it has no resemblance whatsoever to the original meaning of the word "Lord" as in the original mesopotamian definition. mesopotamian scriptures out date the bible by thousands of years and all of the 'higher being' were simply referred to as lords, not gods. You and other earlier christian writers have named them god in the supernatural sense of the word. The mesopotamians simply have their lords down as beings of  high intellect and technology. I.E. highly educated much more above themselves.  

 I have believed that the characters in the OT and NT existed. 

But what seems to be getting up your pompous hooter is the fact that  I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN UNDERLINING STORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE GOSPEL WRITERS ARE DESPERATE TO HIDE.   One only has to scratch the surface of these vague and anomalous, sometimes enigmatic half told stories and one finds a much fuller and sometimes intriguing story altogether that leaves myself and many questioning the validity.   And saying god used his supernatural powers just doesn't answer it for me.

   In other words Ethan5 I see and read the New Testament different to you. I am ONLY giving MY understanding of the scripture. 

I will capitalise my next sentence so you clearly understand and cannot misinterpret what I am statening.
 
I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT MY INTERPRETATION, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.

BUT PLEASE RECOGNISE MY RIGHT TO MY OPINION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THESE  BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES.

 I will repeat my stance here, capitalised, in bold and underlined:.>>

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN UNDERLINING STORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE GOSPEL WRITERS ARE DESPERATE TO HIDE.

You do not have to respond to my thread. 


#16
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
@ Stephen

And what do you believe this underlying story is?
Again, what EVIDENCE do you have?

What you have done is precisely what everyone who doubts the Scriptures do. You READ INTO it things it does not say or teach and then you come up with a bizarre, esoteric interpretation that is not reasonable or logical. What you do is make yourself an authority above that of Scripture. You judge it rather than it judging you.

As a relative, subjective, limited human being why is your authority any better than any other relative, subjective, limited human being?

If you do not take the Bible for what it claims to be you, the final, ultimate authority, then you place another authority as that authority. Unless there is an ultimate authority the question becomes why yours is any better than any other, IF what the Bible claims is reasonable and logical to believe. It demonstrates it is reasonable.

 What you do without any final, ultimate, absolute authority is make yourself that authority.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Why would you ever believe in God unless you believed He existed?
Why would you believe the Bible unless you trusted in His word as true?

So ultimately, if you do not place your faith in God you place it, and your authority, in something else. But I challenge you to show your faith, your authority is reasonable and logical or even has what is NECESSARY for it to be that way. 

Peter

#17
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Again you are resorting to bending my words. I have clearly stated I do not believe Jesus was a god. 
Jesus is God. Not a God. There is only one God. I don't care what you believe, I care about what is.

I have said I believe that jesus believed he was rightful heir to the throne of jerusalem i.e. King of the Jews.
Why do you believe this? Its from the Bible. Why believe the bible saying Jesus believed he was rightful heir to the throne of jerusalem i.e. King of the Jews, but not believe the same passage saying Jesus was the Son of God? Cherry pick much?

 I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN UNDERLINING STORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE GOSPEL WRITERS ARE DESPERATE TO HIDE.
You believe this stupidity because you have a reading comprehension problem and are basically ignorant of history. You have no logical reason for believing this. You just do because it fits your delusion.

You do not have to respond to my thread. 
No, I don't. But I can if I want to. Someone has to tell you that you're being illogical. You're welcome.
Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
IF what the Bibleclaims is reasonable and logical to believe.
“IF” But what  I am saying is,  as it is written and conveyed by these gospellers it is not believable to me.
 
What you do without any final, ultimate, absolute authority is make yourself that authority.
Oh stop it! I am only sharing my beliefs. I have stated I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don’t claim authority. I claim the bible is ambiguous, puzzling,vague and enigmatic. It tells half stories. It hides details. It is hypocritical and at times clearly and simply unbelievable. And it has sinister undertones. 

So ultimately, if you do not place your faith in God you place it, and your authority, in something else. 

Oh Stop being silly. I have no religious faith at all. That is a GIANT assumption on your part and you have no evidence at all to back up that GIANT assumption.  You are suggesting that, to not believe, is to have a faith and authority in something else and of its own. You cannot even begin to prove that of me.  
 

 
Stop assuming things about me you don’t know. If you have a counter argument, please share your opinions and theories as I have and am entitled to do.
 
This is a religious sub forum. To discuss religion.  It is NOT  for the religious ONLY.


 "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and  therefore mighty works do show in him"


Answer me this:.>



How could  Herod claim Jesus was John resurrected "risen from the DEAD" WHEN THEY HAD BOTH BEEN ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME!!!!?
#19
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
John was not live at the time jethro. The passage says John had been "beheaded". That is past tense, meaning it had already happened. You cannot win an argument by being obtuse and silly, or by repeating questions already shown to be moronic.
#20
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
test
#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
STEPHEN: “IF” But what  I am saying is,  as it is written and conveyed by these gospellers it is not believable to me.

A belief is not worth its weight if it cannot be rationally justified. I claim the Bible can. I claim that those who do not believe it run into a slew of problems when they go against its truth claims.

STEPHEN: Oh stop it! I am only sharing my beliefs. I have stated I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don’t claim authority. I claim the bible is ambiguous, puzzling, vague and enigmatic. It tells half stories. It hides details. It is hypocritical and at times clearly and simply unbelievable. And it has sinister undertones. 

I'm questioning the truthfulness of your belief claims/system of thought, nothing else. That is what debate forums do; they exchange views and ask for rational justification of propositions and worldviews that run counter to other beliefs.

Peter



#22
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
STEPHEN: Oh Stop being silly. I have no religious faith at all. That is a GIANT assumption on your part and you have no evidence at all to back up that GIANT assumption.  You are suggesting that,
to
not believe, is to have a faith and authority in something else and of its own. You cannot even begin to prove that of me.  
 
If you have any system of belief at all you have faith in that system, or else you would not believe what you do. Ideas are not formed in a vacuum. They build, one on another, from core/foundational starting points. The question becomes can you justify that system of thought from your starting point(s)?





#23
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
I am suggesting that, just like any religious belief, your belief system has the same focus. You try to answer the same foundational questions that any religion would, thus making your worldview a religious one.

Some of those foundational questions that ANY religion and worldview attempts to answer are:
1) Why am I here?
2) What am I?
3) Who am I?
4) What difference does it make?
5) What happens to me when I die?

Please list the verse you referenced.
You have not replied to my defense of the first charges you made regarding John and Zacharias.
 
Peter
Topic's author
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I am suggesting that, just likeany religious belief, your belief system has the same focus. You try to answerthe same foundational questions that any religion would, thus making yourworldview a religious one.
In youropinion.
 
 
1) Why amI here?

2) Whatam I?
3) Who amI?
4) Whatdifference does it make?
5) Whathappens to me when I die?
 
 
Some ofthose foundational questions that ANY religion and worldview attempts to answerare:

 
In youropinion. They are not necessarily questions I have asked since I was a childand one doesn't have to be "religious" Or follow a faith to ask thoseso obvious fundamental questions that children usually ask.
If you have any system of beliefat all you have faith in that system,
Wherehave is once said my opinions and or observations are in any way true orcorrect. I am now getting sick of telling you the same thing over and over. Ihave  read the scriptures and I claim the bible is ambiguous, puzzling,vague and enigmatic. It tells half stories. It hides details. It ishypocritical and at times clearly and simply unbelievable. And it has sinisterundertones, which to me, makes the story that these 4 gospellers are telling  unreliable at least and a pack of lies at worse.

THAT ISTHE WAY I READ IT. But it doesn't make my findings any truer than your mindreading, heart reading omnipotent so called god any more real.
Using a so called all powerful  super being to explain away all the anomaliesand enigmatic verses in these gospels doesn't work for me as I am sure it isn'tgood enough for millions of others in the 21st century.
 
Youobviously do not take my personal opinions or findings as I  read them andsimply dismiss them . So exactly what is your problem? 
 
What Ibelieve and or suggest about these unreliable gospels doesn't affect you in anyway, does it. 
 Andlet me just remind you again: this sub forum is titled - Religion!
 
It is not titled Religion for believers ONLY. And it is not titled Religion for the faithful ONLY, either. It is for anyone todiscuss religion and not for the religious to have a monopoly and use it foryour own religious propaganda. 
It is not compulsory for you to address my questions or opinions.
 

 
"Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him."

In the verse above tell me, why would these other followers want to "die" along with Lazarus? 
Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Then you don't know your scripture and you don't understand the question.
Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
How many people do you reckon witnessed John baptising Jesus? keeping in mind that Jesus appeared amongst a crowd of people who were being baptised by John  at the time of Jesus' appearance? 
#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Then you don't know your scripture and you don't understand the question. 
I understand English. Herod said, "It may be a resurrected John whom I beheaded." You think this means John was alive. As they say, you can't fix stupid.

How many people do you reckon witnessed John baptising Jesus?
Very many people.

keeping in mind that Jesus appeared amongst a crowd of people who were being baptised by John  at the time of Jesus' appearance? 
Jesus was not yet famous at the time, and it was after this that John was beheaded.

No amount of silly reading incomprehension will change that. The passage is simple and not even equivocal. I have never met anyone with as poor comprehension as you, or who didn't understand the passage.

You have what you want to believe. You are free to believe any nonsense you dream up, but what happens in your head has no effect on reality. Things do not become true just because you believe them.
#28
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
I understand English. Herod said, "It may be a resurrected John whom I beheaded." You think this means John was alive. As they say, you can't fix stupid.

Is a claim made by whoever wrote the story, we can call him Mike if you like, and later in his story has Herod demanding the beheading of John in present tense. Is this Mike unaware of tenses in language, or is it you?
Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
How many people do you reckonwitnessed John baptising Jesus?
ethang5 >> "Very many people".
 
 
So then, here we have the prophesied about and expected messiah appearing to the masses AND JOHN. And of course among this multitude of people who knew of John and the content of his preaching of were Priests.  We know this simply because Jesus had questioned these priests about John.
 
Interestingly Herod knew of John too didn’t he? The evidence for this when scrutinised appears to show they were almost bosom buddies.
 
Herod thought highly of the Baptist although at times he is said to have “feared John” and knew him to be “holy AND just” and here is the interesting part ;> Herod liked to visit John often in his incarceration because enjoyed conversing with John and he also enjoyed listening to him. What ever were they discussing ? It couldn't have been Herods marital situation because Herod had heard all that before. Would Herod go visit John just to hear his remonstrations over and over again? hardly likely is it.
 
"For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly". Mark 6:20.KJV.
 
And of course Herod feared John because John had a massive following  his own and enough to cause a rebellion.
 
But you want all those reading here to believe that, not once did John the Baptist mention the fact that he had actually baptised the "one to come", the messiah, Jesus, the one believed to have been prophesied about in the OT , who would force Herod to vacate the throne and free the Jews from the Roman yoke.?

 And are you telling us that NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE of those priests would have tipped off Herod about the threat to his throne that Jesus posed? 

 

#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
It's neither. It's just your ignorance.

If you're going to change your name, don't then moot the change by doing your jackas....ahem, donkey bray. Everyone knows you by your stupid posts and jackas....s'cuse me, donkey braying.

Welcome back. How was your ban? Learn anything?