John the Baptist: You got'a go
Debate Rounds (3)
Opening Argument: Considered by many to be the last of the Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist like the rest of those Old Testament Prophets could not stand for very long in the presence of the King.
You also assert the argument that all Old Testament prophets could not stand long in the presence of the King. Well... That is pretty obvious. Every human being is corrupt in nature, and in the physical presence we live in the flesh and blood. But that is why we have a spiritual soul, in which is ether damned to hell or given eternal life through Jesus Christ. Even then, we are but a flea compared to God's faithfulness and awesomeness. But I still struggle to see why you would discredit the prophets of the Old Testament because they are sinners. God used these sinners to write His word. These were people who loved and followed The Lord.
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother"s wife. (Mark 6:18)
Will Con tell us two things?
1) Besides John the Baptist, who says it was unlawful for Herod to have his brother's wife?
2) What was John the Baptist trying to do by keeping company with Herod the then current legal king of Israel?
Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18 - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
You also ask the question; "What was John the Baptist trying to do by keeping company with Herod the then current legal king of Israel?" I advise you to actually read the Bible for yourself instead of asking foolish questions. Read it in context too, and learn for yourself why God had John go the path he did.
King Herod the Great would have first killed, (murdered really) Herod the Tetrarch's brother Philip then taken dead Philip's wife legally. All King Herod the Great would have had to do was to say that Philip was a traitor. That was all the excuse needed for 'The Great' to legally take Philip or anyone's wife. King Herod the Great actually killed, (murdered really) most of his family members who were in line to inherit King Herod the Great's throne.
Taking a dead brother's wife is not adultery in the eye's of the LAW. (What bible do you read there Con?) Herod the Tetrarch did not kill Philip this is true. Would it have made a difference to you and John the Baptist if Herod the Tetrarch would have first killed Philip?
Con and John the Baptist have not proved adultery. God allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Marriage was to be for life. Since divorce was not allowed the only solution was to liquidate the unwanted spouse in some way. Usually it would look like an accident. But accusations worthy of the death penalty were not uncommon. Then after the public stoning the surviving spouse was free to marry someone else. Two wrongs don't make for a right so God allowed, (God was actually forced) divorce. Yes God was forced to allow divorce because they were so very evil.
Now back to John the Baptist being shown the door-
Tell me Con that you have never read I Corinthians 13? You know, the love chapter. Well there ain't much love it that chapter for prophecy because verse 8 says that prophecy will cease. It isn't just John the Baptist. All the prophets are washed up. They are not going to remain in the Church. Now we can do it easy. And the 'prophets' can leave quietly. Or we can do it hard like cousin John the Baptist. Because although it was not unlawful for Herod to have his brother Philip's wife-
It is unlawful and illegal for John the Baptist to have his brother's wife.
And to make sure you understand-
John the Baptist's brother is Jesus of Nazareth. And Jesus' wife is the Church. And there are many false prophets, (any prophet is now a false prophet, Old Testament or New) who seem intent on having the wife of Christ. Yeah they got'a go.
1 Corinthians 13 states the following, "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." Do you have no idea what that means? That means that we DO prophesy in this day and age, but once we DIE and are IN HEAVEN, that is when our prophecy ends. You really are mistaken, aren't you?
"And there are many false prophets, (any prophet is now a false prophet')
WOW! What a bold and uneducated statement. First of all, Matthew 24:23-24 never stated that EVERY prophet in the latter days will be false prophets, it only states that there will be 'many.' So I don't know where you are getting your doctrines, but clearly you are following doctrines of men, not God.
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions"
That verse is speaking of the end times, and the end times obviously is at least present or the future, so you are false to claim that all prophesy is gone now.
What you are is a pharisee, you are outrightly judging John the Baptist because he ether said something you disagree with, or he personally made a mistake saying it. So who are you, as a sinner too, to judge whether or not John was a man of God or not. In fact, you are wrong, because Jesus made it pretty clear that John indeed was a prophet of God. Read Matthew 11:11 "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist" That is a pretty strong statement from The Lord Jesus, is it not?
Why is it that in the Bible Jesus had John baptise him? Why is it that God ordained John the Baptist to make way for Jesus. Jesus never said anything bad about John the Baptist concerning him being a prophet. In fact, what Jesus says about John the Baptist is pretty darn positive.
I also advise you to try to read more into the whole Herod marrying the wife thing, because you have no idea what you are talking about. You also speak heresy on the definition the Bible gives of remarrying. Answer: First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it is important to remember Malachi 2:16: "I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel." According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that since marriages involve two sinful human beings, divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people"s hearts, not because they were God"s desire (Matthew 19:8).
The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus" words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase "except for marital unfaithfulness" is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God"s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this "exception clause" as referring to "marital unfaithfulness" during the "betrothal" period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or "betrothed." According to this view, immorality during this "betrothal" period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce.
However, the Greek word translated "marital unfaithfulness" is a word which can mean any form of sexual immorality. It can mean fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations are an integral part of the marital bond: "the two will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, any breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce. If so, Jesus also has remarriage in mind in this passage. The phrase "and marries another" (Matthew 19:9) indicates that divorce and remarriage are allowed in an instance of the exception clause, whatever it is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although it is not stated in the text, the allowance for remarriage after a divorce is God"s mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the "guilty party" is allowed to remarry, but it is not taught in this text.
Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another "exception," allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage, but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave. Others claim that abuse (spousal or child) is a valid reason for divorce even though it is not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God.
Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that whatever "marital unfaithfulness" means, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Even when adultery is committed, a couple can, through God"s grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32). However, in many instances, a spouse is unrepentant and continues in sexual immorality. That is where Matthew 19:9 can possibly be applied. Many also look to quickly remarry after a divorce when God might desire them to remain single. God sometimes calls people to be single so that their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option.
So, in conclusion, if anybody must be a false prophet here, it is you. You speak not the word of God, but of ignorance. You are playing God as to define who John was outside what the Bible says John was.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really explained what he meant by John the Baptist "going"--does he mean "not being a prophet"? Is he defending JtB's death? The failure to really explain what the heck he's arguing *for* precisely makes this debate null to me, since I can't assess the resolution in terms of whether its BoP was fulfilled. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.