The thief on the cross.

[Bluedragon]

3 hours ago, grahampaul said:

ok,so in.
Mathew 27v38 and Mark 15v27, both say there were two thieves."duo lestai" in greek=two robbers
Luke states there were two malefactors."duo kakoorgoi"
Two differant types of people.
In mathew 17v44 and mark 15v32 both thieves revilled Jesus.
In luke23v39an40 only one malefactor railed on him the other belived Jesus to be Lord.
In Luke 23 the two malefactors were led with him to be put to death and when they got there they crucified Him and the malefactors one on the right hand and one on the left.
however in Mathew27  it states that after the roman soldiers had crucified Him and parted his garments Then there were two thieves crucified with him.
So i find two sets of people crucified with him.
The KJV says thieves,this is incorrect,the greek words used is" Duo Listai" (two robbers) not duo kleptes "two thieves)

Not a salvational issue, but interesting.

and please dot smear me with cultish liberal leanings, if we have a problem take it scripture.

As I stated. The translation is the flaw. The difference between thief and robber doesn't exist. Liberal theologians go to great strides to fill in blanks that don't exist. The typical location for crucifixion would have numerous uprights in place. In that manner you would be correct, in multiple uprights at the location. However, every statement in every verse points to two thieves and not multiples. Luke 23 expresses this perfectly. Mathew 27 does not add two more. Had there been more than three Mathew and Luke would stated such. In other words, you read someone's attempt to add people not there, went to the scripture and said "Yup, he's right." 

That doesn't come close to making this factual. After the earthquake, storm and darkness, the Roman soldiers dispatched two thieves by breaking their legs. John 19:32 explicitly says that the legs of one thief were broken then the other. When studying scripture it's best to take the entire sequence in play other than piece meal it all together.  All scripture concerning the situation must be considered. The scripture simply doesn't support the addition of two more crucifixions on that day. 

You should take this to scripture. I'll apologize for the smear tactic ....

[grahampaul]

2 hours ago, Bluedragon said:

As I stated. The translation is the flaw. The difference between thief and robber doesn't exist. Liberal theologians go to great strides to fill in blanks that don't exist. The typical location for crucifixion would have numerous uprights in place. In that manner you would be correct, in multiple uprights at the location. However, every statement in every verse points to two thieves and not multiples. Luke 23 expresses this perfectly. Mathew 27 does not add two more. Had there been more than three Mathew and Luke would stated such. In other words, you read someone's attempt to add people not there, went to the scripture and said "Yup, he's right." 

That doesn't come close to making this factual. After the earthquake, storm and darkness, the Roman soldiers dispatched two thieves by breaking their legs. John 19:32 explicitly says that the legs of one thief were broken then the other. When studying scripture it's best to take the entire sequence in play other than piece meal it all together.  All scripture concerning the situation must be considered. The scripture simply doesn't support the addition of two more crucifixions on that day. 

You should take this to scripture. I'll apologize for the smear tactic ....

 Firstly,you havant realy adressed any thing i have raised as in the apparant contradictions in Luke.How do you explain them.as in-
In mathew and Mark it is written both of the robbers reviled Christ.
In Luke only one,a malefactor does.
So, i see it as first.
In Luke the two malefaactors were taken with Christ and crucified at the same time.
then.
In Mathew and mark after His garments had been divided two robbers are then crucified
.
I see four,two crucified with and two after.
may be wrong, open to scriptual corection..

[Dan Knight]

1 hour ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

You stated: 

"Abel was a Christian?

How can he be a follower of Christ (definition of Christian) if Christ had not been born yet?"

Christ is the Everlasting Father.

Χριστιανός (cf. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 16 note), Χριστιανου, ὁ (Χριστός), a Christian, a follower of Christ: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles, but from the second century (Justin Martyr (e. g. Apology 1, 4, p. 55 a.; dialog contra Trypho, § 35; cf. 'Teaching etc. 12, 4 [ET])) onward accepted by them as a title of honor. CL Lipsius, Ueber Ursprung u. ältesten Gebrauch des Christennamens. 4to, pp. 20, Jen. 1873. (CL Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word, 2; Farrar in Alex.'s Kitto, under the word; on the 'Titles of Believers in the N. T.' see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 125f; cf. Dict. of Chris. Antiqq., under the word 'Faithful'.)

[Dan Knight]

3 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

Spiritually speaking. Their sins were paid for through Jesus just as "christians" are. 

 

3 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

Spiritually speaking. Their sins were paid for through Jesus just as "christians" are. 

Therein lies the vague area where presumptions are made. Per your statement above,  there is no actions needed by folks in pre-NT times , however scripture requires repentance and belief on our part. Faith without works is dead. Jesus requires us to follow Him, to worship Him. To accept His sacrifice.  This requires the need to be informed about Him, else how can we decide? 

  The problem lies in what one understands about "surely die". About the second death. About the penalty of sin which is to be un-existed.  God isn't the liar, the devil is. So if humans are eternal beings, as the devil said we were, all else must be found3d on that foundation, hence the various beliefs trying to make sense of all else.

[Prycejosh1987]

People say the bible is man made or that its way back when theologically, but this isnt true. Alot of people got saved near the end of their lives. Alot of people confess Christ and become a follower near death. Spirituality is consistent. Its risky to wait to near death when coming to Christ. The thief did that. But the best thing that will happen is salvation, but no reward. We want eternity to be completely blessed, doing a "thief on the cross thing" is risky.