the OTHERS crucified with Christ

[BlindSeeker]

. . . . 38) Then [after all that] were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Much, if not all of the theory of there being 4 others crucified with Christ seems to hinge upon the verbiage of verse 38 in Mathew.

Is Matthew saying that after Jesus was nailed to the cross they

[Kabowd]

Oh yay, another wise newcomer has come to enlighten us all and shed light on our wretched blindness to the truth! lol....oi vey.

[apothanein kerdos]

These verses are quoted from the KJV. The KJV was translated from the Stephens Greek Text. There are Greek-English Interlinear Books of the NT on the market that show the Greek on one line and the corresponding English words on another line. This is the English part of Interlinear.

John 19: 18

where him they crucified, and with him, others two on this side and on that side [one], and in the middle Jesus.

Notice that the word "one" is in brackets. In the interlinear there is a corresponding Greek word for all the English words EXCEPT the word "one". When there is no corresponding Greek word, the english word is put in brackets to indicate that the translators added the word "one".

It says "kai entuethen"....that means "and the one on each side" or close to that effect.

It does NOT say "one". The English word "one" is in [brackets] meaning it has been added - that's what the [brackets] mean. It has been put in [brackets] to show that it has been added because it has is no corresponding Greek Word.

"enteuthen kai enteuthen" means "on either side."

duo means "two."

The text actually says, "duo enteuthen kai enteuthen" which means "two on either side."

VFT

mate, I read, speak, and write Koine Greek...you couldn't be further off.

opou auton estaurosan kai met autou allous duo enteuthen kai entueuthen meson de ton iesous

The part you're ignoring is the "allous duo" which, when translated, means "and two others." So yes we see that duo is used, but it doesn't mean anything w hen put in context. Looking to "enteuthen kai enteuthen then means nothing either, in Greek it's VERY common for a word to be repeated just to add effect. This is the same case. If not, then there would be a contradiction within the sentence.

Not a big deal, but this is how false doctrines start.

[ValiantForTruth]

. . . . 38) Then [after all that] were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Much, if not all of the theory of there being 4 others crucified with Christ seems to hinge upon the verbiage of verse 38 in Mathew.

Is Matthew saying that after Jesus was nailed to the cross they

[ValiantForTruth]

mate, I read, speak, and write Koine Greek...you couldn't be further off.

opou auton estaurosan kai met autou allous duo enteuthen kai entueuthen meson de ton iesous

The part you're ignoring is the "allous duo" which, when translated, means "and two others." So yes we see that duo is used, but it doesn't mean anything w hen put in context.

With all due respect, why then is it in their if it means nothing?

Looking to "enteuthen kai enteuthen then means nothing either,

This means "nothing" too?

..in Greek it's VERY common for a word to be repeated just to add effect. This is the same case. If not, then there would be a contradiction within the sentence.

Not a big deal, but this is how false doctrines start.

Since you disagree with every Gk-Interlinear, I'm guessing you are writing your own? I've looked at several and they all say the same thing. I guess if these Greek words and phrases mean "nothing" it would stand to reason that it's "not a big deal" - sorry you feel that way.

But a false doctrine? I'm not asking anyone to quit reading their Bibles. I'm not asking anyone to rail on Jesus, or denounce him. I'm not promoting "another Jesus". What qualifies this as a "false doctrine"? It certainly cannot be because it is not Biblically based.

Happy New Year!

VFT

[Ovedya]

Why argue? What's the point?

Perhaps more importantly....who cares?

...let it go.

[apothanein kerdos]

With all due respect, why then is it in their if it means nothing?

I'm saying your argument means nothing when we look at the Greek in context.

This means "nothing" too?

Right, as I explained, it lends nothing to your point.

Since you disagree with every Gk-Interlinear, I'm guessing you are writing your own?

I'm merely reading out of the Textus Receptus, I am not using any other aid. I fail to see how I am contradicting anything. I am merely pointing out you read it all wrong...you're using an interlinear...which doesn't do a thing for you unless you understand Greek. It's like reading a Bible that's half English and half Chinese....if you don't know Chinese, then so what?

But a false doctrine? I'm not asking anyone to quit reading their Bibles. I'm not asking anyone to rail on Jesus, or denounce him. I'm not promoting "another Jesus". What qualifies this as a "false doctrine"? It certainly cannot be because it is not Biblically based.

I didn't say this was a false doctrine. What I was advocating is this is how false doctrines begin...people reading the Bible, ignoring all tradition on the interpretation of a passage, ignoring the Greek, not knowing the Greek, ignoring the commentaries, etc. I'm pointing out it's not a valid way of interpretation.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Why argue? What's the point?

Perhaps more importantly....who cares?

...let it go.

Exactly.

VFT,

As far as getting at the Truth?

The Truth is quite plain. Plain enough for a 3 year old to understand. You say you are in an effort to makethe Truth plain. The Truth is plain.

My question is to what end is the Doctrine of more than 2 being Crucified alongside Jesus?

What Truth and enlightenment will be made upon this revelation. It seems that you are making another set of Crucified alongside the two who you say cast their teeth against the Lord. So the other two didn't?

That's my question to you.

Is there a logical reason behind the other two, or six, or ten? Is there someone who hasn't caste their teeth against Jesus or railed against Him? That didn't have to witness the Christ and come to the conclussion that He indeed was God. Thus arriving at the Gospel.

I guess I just don't understand what the logical end of this debate or introspection is.

My bet with folks like "The Way" is that it is in effect a Doctrine that has been formed by their own minds in an effort to make Jesus fit into their logical conclussions. We just cannot put Him into a box though. He just doesn't fit neatly into our sinful mind.

I am not accusing you of being a member of this group. However this is where this Doctrine has come from. It started with a man denying the Truth, not seeking a deeper understanding of it.

The Lord Bless your seeking dear brother.

If we wish to to Save the Lost? We must simply lift High the name of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It simply isn't about us.

Look at Paul here;

Php

Edited January 2, 2006 by Dr. Luke

[BlindSeeker]

You, blindseeker, of all people, I would have expected to be able to follow this study. I am simply applying the same Bible Study technique that you used in your study of the "visits to the tomb", ie. considering different books of the Bible, or passages on the same subject, as overlays, as used showing the human body skeleton, then the organs, then the muscles, etc.

If THIS technique is acceptable for the study of one topic, why not others?

VFT, first, I am appreciative of your respect and aware of your jealousy for the truth. Certainly, the technique is acceptable if it does indeed lend clarity to a tenant of the Christian faith. My question is, as echoed by the beloved Brother Dr. Luke,

[ValiantForTruth]