Stephen

I'm not the one using vulgarities and capital letters and exclamation marks.

The angel said he didPinocchio. That was the indication.

 Yet you accept the part of the bible's account that he asked a question, but not the part where the angel says he doubted. 

Who was he punished by?

You called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer. 

So what?

So your judgement disagrees with God. So what?

Sometimes they were.[punished]

I am not annoyed at all.

Why should we takeyour story on face value?

I would be a completeidiot to give your version any respect.

You, Mr. Nobody, comeson to say, he did not doubt, and should not have been punished.

And we should go,"Oh yes! God was mistaken, and you are right Stephen. God is wrong."

If that is what youexpect,

Because perhaps you are unable to read between the lines.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.Matthew 10:34   (KJV)

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36(KJV)

 “And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.And he said unto them, It is enough”.

“he [Jesus] commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and fifties”. Mark 6:39-40.

“This he said, not that he [Judas] cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.” John 12: 6 KJV

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

the word in the greek is the wordhapto.  It actually has the meaning to anoint.At times it is also translated cling, grasp,touch, or  light.

In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you're using, it is translated as touch.

you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas.

 I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. KJV

Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: “ let Mary leave us, for woman are not worthy of life”.

  Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.  

John 20:16  Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And yet you said he did not doubt. You said there was no indication in the passage that he doubted. You were wrong.

Yes I did, And there isn't.  He simply asked a question, you and the angle say he doubted. and for this perceived doubt on the angels part, he was punished by being struck dumb.

Yo called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer. 

 perhaps you areunable to read between the lines.

Devils/demons don't just pop in and out of people,

Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover,was approaching, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus.Luke 22: 1-4

And After the sop Satan Entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him [Judas],That thou doest, do quickly. John 13:27

they have to be given access.

they can be forced out temporarily but Judas basically made a deal with the devil as they say.

Yep, but IMO he wasn't created the"devil".....

 whenPGA 2.0, for example,showed him point blank that he was wrong when he claimedthat John's father did not doubt,

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. Luke1:5-25. KJV.

He simply stopped talking to him. 

And after the sop Satan Entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him [Judas], That thou doest, do quickly. John 13:27

No matter how obtuse you pretend to be, scriptures show you to be ignorant. We all see it.

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, Luke 1:20 

One dayJesus called together his twelve disciples[a] and gave them power and authority to cast out alldemons and to heal all diseases. Luke 9.

And the seventy [disciples]returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto usthrough thy name. Luke 10:17.

“Then Satanentered Judas, surnamed Iscariot how he might betray Him” Luke 22:3.

“And afterthe sop (dipped bread)Satan entered into him”.John 13:27.

You are getting sick of medisagreeing with you.

 But you are clearly wrong.

You selectively read Zechariah's account and interpret it to mean no unfaithfulness and then suggest that the angel who was there at the time was wrong when he said that Zechariah Disbelieved him. 

My other views on the touching andclinging too are solid and based in good grounded rhetoric.

 - your view has been soundly refuted asignorant and self serving. 

Granted the text is rather quick and to the point, but why should we assume that Jesus never talked with them and that they followed Him like zombies put under a spell lol?

Perhaps...... Perhaps.

What was the role of the apostles? well on one level the same role we all need to play in our own lives, which is to put therole of the "spiritual" in perspective, learn greater priorities. On Another level they were used to help spread the Gospel.

For example, most people think Jesus Commanded everyone to sell all they have and give it to the poor.

We are not told of any punishment for Thomas,

so what,

therefore it is reasonable to believe God was gracious to him,

So Mark doesn't mean mark wrote em 

Getting strangers to drop everything and follow him in  trancelike wonder doesn't really stand out to me. 

“Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon andAndrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus saidunto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.  And straightway they forsook their nets, and followedhim. And when he had gone a little farther thence, he sawJames the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the shipmending their nets. And straightway he called them: and they left theirfather Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him”. Mark1:16-20.

Stephen, this is not circular.

It is quite clear.

Jesus did not forbid Mary from touching him.

He forbid Mary from clinging to him and not letting him go.

These are quite different things. Your literalistic sticking to your own version is what is circular, nothing else.

There is no contradiction here. 

Summary

• The Messiah will be purely human - not God;
  

• Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic requirements;
  

• Jesus did not fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies;
  

• Jesus led people away from the Torah instead of towards it; and
  

• The concept of the Trinity is completely foreign to Judaism.
  

Yes, he doubted the Resurrection. Show me He doubted that Jesus was the Messiah. Thomas had seen Jesus crucified and put to death.

How could he believe that a man who had been put to such an excruciating death would be alive and walking around after just three days?  I know this is why he “doubted” and this is why the story is legendary as the story of Doubting Thomas. He wanted proof that He had risen from the dead by Jesus appearing to him. 

Show me where the text states that Thomas doubted Jesus was the Messiah. Where is it stated?

He had no faith that the lord his god Jesus had risen or it appears, in the resurrection.

See, you'd be better off reading these scriptures without the goal of trying to disprove them or tearing them apart.

the words in greek is the word for cling not merely touch. Not that it matters.  She was touching him and she did not wish to let go.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17 

As I look at the passage - it does not have to be seen as a punishment -

but even if it was - the angel clearly says that Zechariah did not believe his words.

As I said I think he probably knew Jesus - but not as the messiah until his baptism. 

 I reject your view about it being a powerplay. But what is your evidence for such a statement.

He certainly was fulfilling the prophecies of the OT.

He certainly wanted to see God's Kingdom come in.

He did not think that he himself was the messiah.

He was waiting for the one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit and who was greater than him.

That John's confidence was shaken when he was put in prison is not unreasonable. You seem to think he must have been superman or something.

 I don't know why you think he must divest himself of his disciples.

We don't know how long they had been with him. We don't know what their relationship was with him. 

Just because the messiah had arrived was not a signal that he to stop doing his ministry of preparing people for the coming messiah. 

John was in the old covenant - hencewith an understanding prior to the coming of the messiah.

 We live in the time since then with the benefit of the Messiah's wisdom and Spirit. 

I never said John was a high priest.I said he was a levite and the son of Zechariah who was at one time high priest.

Actually I am not sure he was high priest although he certainly was appointed to enter the holy of holies in that particular year.

Jewish children were not illiterate.

Both Mary and the disciples wereallowed to touch Jesus.

So now you slide to Jesus not allowing Mary to detain Him as He did the disciples, as if detention is some moral rightMary had.

Even Castin, who is not even a Christian, was able to understand the passage and find a resolution.

 But you, our supposed biblical scholar, was mired in stupidity.

Please, tell us you're pretending.

I assume you realise that Luke andJohn were written by different people. And to different audiences. 

you seem to have difficulty withJohn's rendition of the events surrounding Mary and then Thomas.

Firstly Jesus says don't touch -actually he says "don't hold onto me" for "I have not returnedto my father" .

and then in v 27 he says to Thomas"put your finger here". I think you are suggesting that Jesus isinconsistent about whether he can be touched or not and that he is beinginconsistent and John in fact is contradicting himself. 

 note however, Jesus never said toMary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me.

 This was not a simple touching - it was a fullon significant hug of some description. In the second place - despite Jesus'suggestion to Thomas, there is no evidence that Thomas ever actually touchedJesus.

Jesus' words were more of arhetorical sense once Thomas had actually seen him in the flesh.

  the words do not describe a simple touch but aclinging a holding a not wanting to let him go sense.

 He tells her to stop- in other words therewill be other opportunities for her to see him before he goes to his father.

 perhaps she was clinging to him in a sensethat her clinging might prevent him from going.

. Jesus simply tells her to getserious. she cannot stop what is happening. 

 Remember they were in a land captured by Romans and probably needed consent to go from one place to another. 

John wasat the river for more than one day. the gospels clearly give the idea that all of the Jerusalem and Judea went out to him to be baptised. This would have taken more than one day to do - especially given that many people would have had jobs and the Pharisees and the soldiers are not going to appear after one day. 

I think John probably did know Jesus - but that does not mean he knew Jesus was the messiah.

This may never have occurred to him until this moment when he came to be baptised.

 And at Jesus's baptism this was evident in the way he spoke to Jesus and by the confirmation of God the Father and the Spirit of God at that time.

Later on when John was in prison - John sent his disciples to ask the question about whether Jesus really was the messiah or not.

I am not sure that at this time John was so confident about Jesus. 

Jesus didnot seem to the messiah he was imagining.

The Pharisees, and Israel and by extension John probably believed the messiah was going to come and rescue Israel from the Romans. 

It is oneas you proclaimed when you baptised me - as the lamb of God, dying for the sins of his people to bring reconciliation between God and man and his kingdom was going to be a spiritual one. 

I am of the view that John had along with everyone else of his generation completely missed how God's messiah was going to set  up his kingdom.

So I don't think that John had any more problems than most people did at the time including Jesus' own disciples.

 We Want a god who will turn up like superman and save us - rather than a saviour who wants to deal with our hearts. We want a god after our hearts - not one who's going to fix our heart and transform it. 

He was struck dumb for not believing the angel.

 He was an old man and his wife was barren. Helike Abraham and Sarah many years prior did not have faith at the time that God Would keep his promise. 

Of course Zechariah like most of us would have been skeptical if someone promised us the same even if we did believe in God. 

John the Baptist is an interesting story - but quite profound once you look into it further.

 Not only was he a prophet,he was a Levite priest. 

How do we know this?

Because his father was a high priest.

I can't help finding the whole thing rather dubious, interesting or not. Even if I'd read "go up to my Father" instead of "ascend", I still wouldn't have gotten "go up to the temple" out of that. Not that I'm any scholar on the subject. It's just you'd think it would've been spelled out more clearly if Jesus was doing such an important ritual at the temple. 

Her [Mary's] act supposed a condition which had not yet been accomplished. He had not returned to earth to abide permanently with His disciples in the presence of the Paraclete (comp. John 14:18), for He had not yet ascended to the Father. 

It is definitely a translation issue. First point.

No we don't. Mopac isright. Jesus was saying, "do not detain me". 

> @Mopac
Theword that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the originalgreek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simplepoking.......
So in other words, it is a problemthat arises because of translation

He wanted to see the evidence himselfto believe it.

 Show me somewhere where he denies having faithin Jesus.

 He did not have faith that Jesus rose from the dead.

 There is a difference/distinction.

Jesus was gracious toThomas like He is graceful  to all those who come to faith in Him.

The punishment Zacharias received was a CONFIRMATION that what the angel told him was true.

 He doubted the words given the angel were from God thus calling into question that God is true to what He says

He was filled with theSpirit for a purpose, to announce the coming of the Lord. Later he doubted and Jesus said that John was the least in the kingdom because of that doubt, yet by God's grace John was still saved.

is it not possible that that reason no longer applied hours later when He met the disciples?

It certainly does answer your question. Did you ignore my answer?

Not at all.  You say it may be down to translation. Ok. You then say it was to mean

 in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.

OK. So Jesus according to you, said to Mary do not "cling" for I have not ascended. But this then does not alter the fact that "this god" then in the same text encourages another person to "Cling",  "touch", "put his fingers inside his wounds" or even  "poke him". You see what you have done is attempted to change the whole verse of "doubting Thomas" and that of the Magdalene. It doesn't work.

 It hasn't explained away why this "god" would deny one person to touch/cling to him and encourage another to do the opposite. 

The word that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.......

So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation

John 21:24-28 is a different situation, different circumstances, yet Thomas believed once He saw Jesus alive again after death. His doubt was returned to trust by Jesus. 

Scripture is its own interpreter. God answers the questions of Scripture with other Scripture. His word bears witness to itself. 

You made a claim and I challenged it. Thus, you need to respond instead of putting up many other smokescreens to deflect from that argument.  

You do what JW's do. You change the subject by issuing forth other Scripture that has nothing to do with the original subject matter. That diverges from the topic

 concerning post 13. I have nothing to respond to. You gave an explanation, which I do not agree with. I have said I don't agree. I believe your answer to why Zacharias  is nonsense. 

I am not avoiding or evading a single thing. I simply do not believe OR accept your answer. Zacharias wasn't warned about doubting in that verse as you claim. that is simply a lie, isn't it.  He was just issued a punishment for asking a simple question that any mortal being would have asked.

 Sarah and Abraham were not punished for "doubting" were they?  "Doubting Thomas" wasn't punished for doubting  the lord had risen, either was he?
And John the Baptist wasn't punished for doubting that Jesus was "the one to come". And after all his crying and wailing in the wilderness and identifying this "lamb of god" and the descending dove confirming Jesus as the  saviour of mankind, either was he. Do you not see how silly your claim looks in the light of these other scripture observation? 

You can't ultimately make senseof anything unless you first presuppose such a Being. 

Your beliefs are your own privatebusiness. I CAN'T change those beliefs. They are ingrained in your nature.

It is when you state things that areuntrue on a public forum that I object.

I do not care that you hold thosebeliefs/claims.

You are free to believe/claimwhatever you like.

It is your loss if you haven'tinvestigated your worldview enough to know what holds it together and howrational and logical it is or is not.

I care about truth and I see youmisrepresenting it.

You are free to claim whateveryou want. When you have nothing but assertions and private belief to back upyour claims I choose to expose those beliefs on the grounds of lack ofreasonable evidence.

Your beliefs do not affect me inwhat I believe.

What matters is not your claimbut whether it is true or not. Anyone can claim anything. 

I don't care that you can claimsomething. I care when your ideas bring others into a false view of reality.

The word that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.

This is consistent with what Jesus says earlier that is is necessary that he goes away(the Son of man Jesus) so that his disciples would be granted The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth 

The idea here is that they are not supposed to be clinging to this human from.

Indeed, Christians are not supposed to worship a man as God. Otherwise, why is it written in Romans..

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"?

So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation.

Rightly understandingthe author's meaning is call exegesis. 

what you consideranomalies and enigmatic verses have REASONABLE explanations.

I address yourquestions and your thread because I care about truth,

Still waiting for ananswer to post #13.

PGA2.0“Because they trusted Him to death and many had wanted Jesus dead. They risked their lives as His followers. Here,in these passages, He conveys an important message to them about resurrection and trusting in Him”.

Who cares what you CLAIM. 

You do. You have spent enough time trying to explain away some of these anomalies and enigmatic verses with the excuse that a supernatural being is the answer to everything. 

I simply don't accept that. 
 

And I don't care what you "accept".

You could have fooled me. But that is your right and prerogative, ethang5