Why was the NT Zacharias "struck dumb"?

I said nothing about thrones. You said John was still alive. That was wrong. John was not alive. Whatever other delusions are running through your head are not my concern.

You're such a frightened little suckworm, why don't you respond to my post instead of running away as the coward you are?

You are not concerned by insults remember so do report me unless you want to prove that you are the pathetic hypocrite that you are.

I amdoing no such thing. I am trying to get to the bottom of this puzzling storyconcerning the life and death Of John the Baptist.

 
Yes I know. You have made yourposition quite clear on where you stand on that query, my 1st query concerningthis old couple’s punishment for doing nothing wrong which was my first question.You even said it wasn’t a punishment when it clearly IS! Zacharias simply askedwhat any normal human being would ask and your god should have accepted thatpoor old aged Zacharias was a simple mortal of his own creation.
 
Read for yourself. This messenger(angel) tells Zacharias what will happen to him and why he is being given suchover the top punishment for “doubting”.
 
"And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, untilthe day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not mywords, which shall be fulfilled in their season." Luke 1:20.
I cannot detect any doubt, connected to this simple question:>“Whereby shall I know this?” Luke 1:18.
 
You pointed out that Zacharias should have heeded Genesis 18:9-16 which was an identical story to that of Zacharias and his old barren wife Elisabeth.Why you did this is your concern but it didn’t “prove anything”  but proved my point perfectly, because  there had clearly been doubt and laughing atthe suggestion of such a “miracle birth” BUT NO PUNISHMENT. I won’t point outyour other silly errors.
So again, I dismiss your interpretation.
My second query was concerningthe chronology of events leading up to John’s death. Your excuse for that wasthe gospeller Mark was speaking in a “past tense”. I don’t accept that, I havetold you I do not accept that. And you have no way of proving that.
 
Mark 6 :16 has Herod saying  “it is John risen from the dead” . So we canonly assume that John is dead.
But when we read further we getto Herod’s birthday party when a dancing girl asks for the head of John.
 
“ the king sent anexecutioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheadedhim in the prison”
It is another of those anomaliesthat you have tried to explain away with nonsense such “past tense”. My querywas the chronology and not weather Mark was wrong or right or confused.
                    
                                                       
 
 
And you have totally ignored my post 29 why ?
You haven’t addressed thequestion above in post 29. Is it because I have pointed out yet another glaringanomaly that you cannot cope with and explain away?
 
Maybe PGA.2.0 can step in foryou.

The one that doesn't reside between your ears. Your original claim is dead. As such, I'm done with you. Have a wonderful day.

You mean you are a COWARD. Everybody sees it.

Just another non response cowardly response.

Raise your hands lying, hypocrite.......................hahahahahahahah

PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD WITH YOUR PERSONAL ARGUMENTS AND CLAPTRAP.

So the answer to that question is a definite yes.

The answer is that you are a coward, but insults mean nothing to you.

Please wake up!

I don't care about the other delusional things you are confused about. John was not alive at the time Herod speculated that Jesus might have been a resurrected John.

You were wrong. You still are wrong.

He's a troll who is trying to get banned. Be patient with him.

 ME: Some of those foundational questions that ANY religion and worldview attempt to answer are:
1) Why am I here?

An atheist answers all these questions. A Muslim answers all these questions. An agnostic answers all these questions. I bet you would too if I asked you.

What difference does it make is an axiology question?

Why am I here is a metaphysical question?

How do I know is an epistemic question?

Who am I is an ontological question?

Peter

ME: "If you have any system of belief at all you have faith in that system,"
YOU: "Where have [I] once said my opinions and or observations are in any way true or correct."

What does that have to do with you having faith in your system of belief?

You would be crazy to believe anything unless you at least thought it was true OR unless you wanted to justify to yourself what you were doing. Why would you want to believe a lie? Only because you enjoyed the lie.

YOU: "I am now getting sick of telling you the same thing over and over. I have read the scriptures and 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, which to me, makes the story that these 4 gospellers are telling  unreliable at least and a pack of lies at worse."

Who cares what you CLAIM. I like curry. Do you care? Back up your claims with evidence rather than feelings and preferences. 

The Bible is not ambiguous or vague when you understand its audience of address, its time references, the culture, the history of the times, its themes, its shadows, the passage in context, and how it relates to the greater context. 

It is not hypocritical, and the overtones are a judgment on sin by a sinless Being - the Creator. Does not the Creator not have a right to do with His creation as He sees fit?

The fact is that you choose not to believe in this SUPERNATURAL Being.

The gospels can be shown to be reasonable and logical in what these four writers convey. Prophecy is one evidence to verify this reason and logic. 

YOU: "THAT IS THE 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."

This is your problem in a nutshell - the way you see/read it. If you want to understand the authors meaning you must understand what the author is saying, to whom, and in what time frame. Rightly understanding the author's meaning is call exegesis. Reading into the Scriptures your meaning is called eisegesis. Proper hermeneutics is the key to understanding Scripture.

 

YOU: "Using a so-called all powerful super being to explain away all the anomalies and enigmatic verses in these gospels doesn't work for me as I am sure it isn't good enough for millions of others in the 21st century."

He provides the evidence and what you consider anomalies and enigmatic verses have REASONABLE explanations. Your analogy of Scripture has not made sense.

 

YOU: "You obviously do not take my personal opinions or findings as I read them and simply dismiss them. So exactly what is your problem?"

Personal opinions are a dime a dozen. I dismiss yours based on the Scriptures and how you read things into verses that are not conveyed or supported. Give me evidence that your personal opinions are true. 

 

YOU: "What I believe and or suggest about these unreliable gospels doesn't affect you in any way, does it."

No, because for one, the gospels are not unreliable and what you believe is your own business. What you believe affects you. I challenge you to discredit the gospels using proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

 YOU: "And let 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 to discuss religion and not for the religious to have a monopoly and use it for your own religious propaganda. 

It is not compulsory for you to address my questions or opinions."

I address your questions and your thread because I care about truth, and I want to push you to demonstrate that what I believe is wrong and unreasonable and what you believe is the truth. I am confident in Scripture and the Preterist interpretation enough to put the challenge to you. 

 YOU: "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?

***

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.

Still waiting for an answer to post #13.

1) Why am I here? Because I am here

 

LOOK!>>>>

We don't accept your excuses and imagination. You were here first trying to peddle your anomalies based on vapor.

There is no reason to accept your babblings.

YOU: 1) Why am I here? Because I am here

That is a tautology. Basically, you have said nothing. How did you, as a human being originate. What is the origin of life; its starting point in time? How did you get here? Was it by natural processes? 

You either are no more or physical death is not the end of you. Either this natural realm, this order is all there is or there is another realm/other realms.

You gamble that this is all there is.

YOU: "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." 

Okay, point taken.

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

Your beliefs are your own private business. I CAN'T change those beliefs. They are ingrained in your nature. It is when you state things that are untrue on a public forum that I object. I do not care that you hold those beliefs/claims. You are free to believe/claim whatever you like. It is your loss if you haven't investigated your worldview enough to know what holds it together and how rational and logical it is or is not.

I care about truth and I see you misrepresenting it. I don't care that you can claim something. I care when your ideas bring others into a false view of reality. You are free to claim whatever you want. When you have nothing but assertions and private belief to back up your claims I choose to expose those beliefs on the grounds of lack of reasonable evidence. Your beliefs do not affect me in what I believe. What matters is not your claim but whether it is true or not. Anyone can claim anything. 

YOU: 4) What difference does it make? None

ME: "So why are you making it as if it matters? Who cares if nothing matters?"

YOU: "That would be your problem not mine. I know that my life is only meaningful to me and those I love and I have no belief in my everlasting importance as you consider yours to be to defend. It would seem that you consider your existence to have a universal importance. Good luck."

I am pointing out the INCONSISTENCY of your worldview. If God did not exist you would be a by-product of blind, indifferent, impersonal chance happenstance where ultimately nothing really matters, yet you treat existence as if it does. You LOOK for MEANING (and find it). Why is that? Why do you borrow from my Christian worldview that says things do ultimately matter? If this life is all there is and you are a biological bag of atoms that react to your environment one way, and me another, why SHOULD you care, why should anyone? THERE IS NO REASON. REASON comes from mindful personal being. How can that happen in a mindless, indifferent universe? How do you get to "you" in such a mindless universe? You just presuppose it can and it makes no sense.