Yes, Jesus meant TODAY in his message to the thief on the cross

[Locust]

50 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

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

How would that read with something other than a cross?



4716 staurós – the crosspiece of a Roman cross; the cross-beam (Latin, patibulum) placed at the top of the vertical mhey get that ember to form a capital "T." "This transverse beam was the one carried by the criminal" Matthew 10:38 from biblehub

how did they get that up there?   

[Jaydub]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:58 PM, Locust said:

ah how ever ,Jesus did not go any where that day . he was dead . and would be dead for a few days . truly I tell you today, right now , what you want is not what you will get. Jesus had to be so dead that only the most high God could put life back into Jesus.

Jesus did not die and cease to exist. Jesus body died, but being God our creator, being eternal, Jesus did not die and cease to exist.

You said, Jesus had to be so dead that only the most high God could put life back into Jesus.

I agree, Jesus being our most high God, could put life back into his body                                                              John 10:17,18 

       17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.                                18 no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

who lays down his life and takes it up again?  Jesus                                                                                          who has authority to lay down his life and to raise it up again?   Jesus                   

 

 

 

 

[Michael37]

20 hours ago, Frits said:

You mean verse 19? Can you tell me what translation this is?

 

Yes. Verse 19. I'm not quoting the verse though, but referring to it. I made some earlier posts about it.

[Michael37]

21 hours ago, Frits said:

 

New King James Version

For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Hebr.2:16

Hold that thought . . .

1Pe 1:10-12  

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,  (11)  inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.  (12)  It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven,

things into which angels long to look.

 

 

[Your closest friendnt]

On 4/23/2025 at 6:05 PM, AdHoc said:

I more or less agree with what you have written. But there is a part you have left out.

1. Can a righteous God require that the innocent pay for the wicked.? It was the Father's will, but Jesus must decide

2. Hebrews 12:7 says: 

Hebrews 12:1–3 says;
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

The red indicates that a reward was set before Him - an incentive. That He was not in agreement with what lay before Him is clear from His words in Gethsemane. "IF IT BE POSSIBLE .... NEVERTHELESS ... and then He sweated blood for fear.

 

@AdHoc

This post is addressing question no 2.

I will address question no 1 on another post.

.....Only Jesus could provide the blood of the New Covenant and for that he had to die first. The New Covenant can only begin with the death of Jesus Christ. Scriptures from Mathew, Mark and Luke below. 

....We learn that in the New Covenant God provided forgiveness of sins for all the world in the blood of Jesus Christ.      The Heavenly Father had proposed to himself to have children sanctified and justified by the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ must die first. There couldn't be any one else.

Ephesians 1: 4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5. he  predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 

.....There are many other things in the New Covenant and all of them must have been prophesied. 

The New Covenant between Jesus Christ and the Heavenly Father. Which was ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the Cross and it is for the whole world. 

BEHOLD I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW, In Heaven above on the earth and in all things under the earth. 

In the Garden he prayed: Luke 22: 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Mathew 26: 39 Jesus prayed: 39 “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14:36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

......Mathew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 

......Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 

.....Luke22: 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Bible version NIV 

Edited April 25 by Your closest friendnt

[unworthyservant]

I am happy to say that I haven't got a dog in this fight (or debate), as I believe in worrying more about what Christ told us to do while we're on this Earth instead of what happens after we die. All I know is that if I do what Christ taught during this life, then I don't have to worry about when I might make it to Heaven, just that I will.

It's an age old debate of whether we sleep for awhile and then are resurrected, whether there's someplace called "Purgatory" or whether we go straight to Heaven.

I know that many use Christ's declaration to the thief on the cross (as in this discussion) to bolster the idea that one goes straight to Heaven. I don't buy it, simply based on that criteria. There's also the idea that, in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, found in Luke 16:19-31 and John 5:39-47, Lazarus is taken directly to "Abraham's bosom" and the rich man went directly to hell. That adds a little more credence to the argument. At any rate, I know that people can point to certain verses to bolster other claims and I say, since Christ never said we had to take a stand on the issue, I choose not to worry about it.

It's things like this that have led the "Christian Church" to be divided into an estimated 45,000 "denominations" based on differing opinions on subjects that most times have nothing to do with living our lives for Christ or worshiping God. I say that, as Christians, we should be spending the time and effort that is used on debating such matters in doing what Christ taught and helping our fellow man and those less fortunate than ourselves. 

 

[AdHoc]

On 4/25/2025 at 7:09 PM, Your closest friendnt said:

@AdHoc

This post is addressing question no 2.

I will address question no 1 on another post.

.....Only Jesus could provide the blood of the New Covenant and for that he had to die first. The New Covenant can only begin with the death of Jesus Christ. Scriptures from Mathew, Mark and Luke below. 

....We learn that in the New Covenant God provided forgiveness of sins for all the world in the blood of Jesus Christ.      The Heavenly Father had proposed to himself to have children sanctified and justified by the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ must die first. There couldn't be any one else.

Ephesians 1: 4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5. he  predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 

.....There are many other things in the New Covenant and all of them must have been prophesied. 

The New Covenant between Jesus Christ and the Heavenly Father. Which was ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the Cross and it is for the whole world. 

BEHOLD I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW, In Heaven above on the earth and in all things under the earth. 

In the Garden he prayed: Luke 22: 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Mathew 26: 39 Jesus prayed: 39 “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14:36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

......Mathew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 

......Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 

.....Luke22: 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Bible version NIV 

I appreciate your answer and the time and care you took. You have not said anything I contend with, but you did not address my position. Your posting is made of two sets of verses, one to show that the shedding of His blood was inevitable and another to show that it was fulfilled. Well, the prophecies of God are sure in His foreknowledge and come to pass as He reported them. The issue at hand was that Jesus was not obliged by any Law to die for criminals. He volunteered for it under protest.

That He would do it was known to God from all eternity, and that He did it is proof that prophecy is sure.

However, there is one great matter that came out in your answer that I wish to disagree with. The New Covenant is only for Israel, and, it is a Covenant of Law. Note the wording of Jeremiah 31:31-33; 

 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Notes on this passage:
1. The Church is not revealed to the prophets (Eph.3:5)
2. The House of Israel were the northern Tribes and the House of Judah the southern Tribes. They were separated after Solomon's reign and have quite a different history.
3. The are defined again by a Covenant made with them after they came out of Egypt
4. The Church has the Law crucified with Christ (Eph.2:15)- not written in their inward parts
5. "Fathers" (plural) is contrary to One Father.

The argument that Jesus called it the blood of the New Covenant at the last supper does not make it valid for the Church. The blood of Christ fulfills four of the five Offerings, is sprinkled in heaven, speaks better things that Abel's, ratifies the New Covenant, was sprinkled for sin (singular), was for the Sins (plural) and was for cleansing the flesh of Christians only. The sins of the world and the New Covenant are two different things just as "sin (singular) and "Trespasses" (plural) are two different things.

I have deviated from the theme of the thread - which I regret. So I don't expect, or require an answer Thanks.

God bless

 

[AdHoc]

On 4/26/2025 at 12:14 AM, unworthyservant said:

I am happy to say that I haven't got a dog in this fight (or debate), as I believe in worrying more about what Christ told us to do while we're on this Earth instead of what happens after we die. All I know is that if I do what Christ taught during this life, then I don't have to worry about when I might make it to Heaven, just that I will.

It's an age old debate of whether we sleep for awhile and then are resurrected, whether there's someplace called "Purgatory" or whether we go straight to Heaven.

I know that many use Christ's declaration to the thief on the cross (as in this discussion) to bolster the idea that one goes straight to Heaven. I don't buy it, simply based on that criteria. There's also the idea that, in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, found in Luke 16:19-31 and John 5:39-47, Lazarus is taken directly to "Abraham's bosom" and the rich man went directly to hell. That adds a little more credence to the argument. At any rate, I know that people can point to certain verses to bolster other claims and I say, since Christ never said we had to take a stand on the issue, I choose not to worry about it.

It's things like this that have led the "Christian Church" to be divided into an estimated 45,000 "denominations" based on differing opinions on subjects that most times have nothing to do with living our lives for Christ or worshiping God. I say that, as Christians, we should be spending the time and effort that is used on debating such matters in doing what Christ taught and helping our fellow man and those less fortunate than ourselves. 

 

I take your posting seriously and agree with it. But I had to smile at your signature statement. That's really taking an uncompromising stand. (smiley)

[Frits]

5 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The argument that Jesus called it the blood of the New Covenant at the last supper does not make it valid for the Church.

I'm sorry br. @AdHoc, but this is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard! How horrible that people would post something like this on a Christian forum.

[AdHoc]

16 hours ago, Frits said:

I'm sorry br. @AdHoc, but this is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard! How horrible that people would post something like this on a Christian forum.

I like to tell a hunting story to people like you. Many years ago I was hunting in northern South Africa. We had native trackers assigned to us and they were so good at tracking a wounded animal that you had to marvel. But none of them had had any kind of education as the farms are big and schools few and far between. On the last night of the hunt it was customary to invite all the trackers to our campfire and give them gifts and tips. My tracker was a wizened old man who could see a spot of blood on the reverse side of a blade of grass and could tell you where you'd hit the animal and how far he was likely to go. he was really that good but he had never been off the farm for a day's schooling.

While we sat around the campfire with the third brandy warming the bones, a jet liner, with navigation lights winking, coursed over our heads at probably 33,000 feet, also probably headed from Johannesburg to London. I told my tracker that that thing in the sky was nearly as long as a football field, weighed about the same as fifty tractors, carried 400 people in comfort at a speed of three football fields a second and did so for more than ten hours.

Well, he shuffled his gnarled bare feet in the sand, looked up and down a few times, and then in a most serious and polite tone, said that he was not able to believe me. When I wrote that posting that you deplore, I was thinking of you and predicted the same answer as my tracker. The reason is twofold.

You have shown that you do not take the Bible seriously, and you do not read the Bible or other men's writings slowly and accurately. If you did, you would have seen that each point I made was accurate and exactly what the Bible said. You have a good knowledge of the Bible but you should take time to see if the other man's argument has merit. The Bible is a big difficult Book, written by the greatest mind of the universe - by far, and written in a manner so that it explains itself.

There are some well trained theologians on this forum and they have disagreed with me. But they always read my argument and commented on it. I don't expect you to answer  honestly, but nevertheless I am going to challenge you to show me which point on that posting did not line up with the language of the verses I documented it with.

Like my tracker had never been to an International Airport, you have never sat down with Jeremiah 31:31-33 and read accurately what it says. Your handling of Ecclesiastes 3:21 show me that you are prejudiced. The Roman Church locked up the Bible for a thousand years and taught replacement theology. They "leavened" the whole lump. In this doctrine the promises to Israel must go to the Church. Otherwise God is found a liar. But if you take the Bible literally, Israel is Israel and they get a New Covenant which Hebrews tells us is "better".

The reason it is better is because man cannot keep the Law (Romans 7). The reason for this is because it is OUTSIDE of a man - on stone tablets. But if the man was given a new heart, and a new spirit, PLUS the Laws were written INSIDE of him, PLUS he had David and Jesus as his Kings, PLUS he was resurrected (Dan.12:2), he would be DISPOSITIONALY inclined to keep the Law.

Now, why don't you go back and read Jeremiah 31:31-33 slowly, deliberately and accurately, and see if you can deal with by arguments. If not, then at least answer this question. What Old Covenant of Law did the Church have that they need a New Covenant of Law.