Christians: The thief on the cross

[Clear]

james2kO;

To simply claim all christians were heretics after John died, (i.e. all of their texts reflect heresy) is a huge cop-out. Your implication that all christians and jewish writings were proven to be gnostic (especially before the gnostics existed) is another cop-out. To claim that your interpretation ITSELF, is proof that it was the historical interpretation will leave historians rolling their eyes. James2Ko, this is simple : we are not establishing doctrine by looking at early christianity and what they said, in this case we're simply seeing if your interpretation of doctrine even existed in early Judao-christian circles. IF your interpretation existed, THEN we can look at it more closely to see if it was orthodox doctrine, if it was heresy, and if it existed at all, it's source and usage, etc.

At this point, I'd simply like to know if your specific interpretation even EXISTED anciently. This is very, very simple.

If you're claiming that you recently developed your personal interpretation of what happened to the thief on the cross, then this is not a historical claim. However, IF you are claiming a HISTORICAL basis and existence for your claim, then one is allowed to ask WHEN your method of interpretation developed. However, IF you are claiming that your personal method of interpretation existed historically, or was used by any Judao-christians of any note or for any length of time, there should be historical evidence of this. I'm simply asking if you are aware of any historical evidence where someone, ANYONE, actually USED your interpretation anciently. Do you understand how simple this is?


Do you want to change the basis of your interpretation from a historical basis, to a different basis? For example, if you had a dream/revelation that allows you to claim your interpretation is more valid than another interpretation, it could be valid, but not historical. If you simply are claiming superior intellect or a philosophical basis, these are different bases than a historical basis. Do you see the difference?

Do any of the early christian diaries describe your interpretation as orthodox?
Do any early christian diaries use your interpretation?
Do any early Hymns or Odes represent your interpretation in their texts?
Do any of the early Liturgies represent your interpretation in their texts?
Do any of the mishnas speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)?
Do any of the earliest christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? If they speak of it, do they describe it as a heresy, or as a valid interpretation?
Do any of the apostolic fathers who knew the apostles speak of your interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy?

My point is, that if your interpretation IS representative of authentic early Christianity, then we should find it or some representation of it in the early christian writings (especially in the vast amount of "non-gnostic" writing if your second historical claim is correct).

Do you have ANY historical data whatsoever other than simply offering examples of how your interpretation might work?

Clear
sedrsehh

 

[james2ko]

james2kO;

To simply claim all christians were heretics after John died, (i.e. all of their texts reflect heresy) is a huge cop-out. Your implication that all christians and jewish writings were proven to be gnostic (especially before the gnostics existed) is another cop-out. To claim that your interpretation ITSELF, is proof that it was the historical interpretation will leave historians rolling their eyes. James2Ko, this is simple : we are not establishing doctrine by looking at early christianity and what they said, in this case we're simply seeing if your interpretation of doctrine even existed in early Judao-christian circles. IF your interpretation existed, THEN we can look at it more closely to see if it was orthodox doctrine, if it was heresy, and if it existed at all, it's source and usage, etc.

At this point, I'd simply like to know if your specific interpretation even EXISTED anciently. This is very, very simple.

If you're claiming that you recently developed your personal interpretation of what happened to the thief on the cross, then this is not a historical claim. However, IF you are claiming a HISTORICAL basis and existence for your claim, then one is allowed to ask WHEN your method of interpretation developed. However, IF you are claiming that your personal method of interpretation existed historically, or was used by any Judao-christians of any note or for any length of time, there should be historical evidence of this. I'm simply asking if you are aware of any historical evidence where someone, ANYONE, actually USED your interpretation anciently. Do you understand how simple this is?


Do you want to change the basis of your interpretation from a historical basis, to a different basis? For example, if you had a dream/revelation that allows you to claim your interpretation is more valid than another interpretation, it could be valid, but not historical. If you simply are claiming superior intellect or a philosophical basis, these are different bases than a historical basis. Do you see the difference?

Do any of the early christian diaries describe your interpretation as orthodox?
Do any early christian diaries use your interpretation?
Do any early Hymns or Odes represent your interpretation in their texts?
Do any of the early Liturgies represent your interpretation in their texts?
Do any of the mishnas speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)?
Do any of the earliest christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? If they speak of it, do they describe it as a heresy, or as a valid interpretation?
Do any of the apostolic fathers who knew the apostles speak of your interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy?

My point is, that if your interpretation IS representative of authentic early Christianity, then we should find it or some representation of it in the early christian writings (especially in the vast amount of "non-gnostic" writing if your second historical claim is correct).

Do you have ANY historical data whatsoever other than simply offering examples of how your interpretation might work?

Clear
sedrsehh

I'll take that as a very long-winded no..

 

[Thief]

This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

The 'baptism' is a baptism of fire.
That is to say....spiritual transformation.

And water is required?

 

[Clear]

Hi James2KO, in post #62, you answered a series of questions I asked with a "no".

James2KO, regarding our examination of your specific interpretation of christs’ promise to the thief on the cross, when you say “no” to a series of questions without any other explanation, it remains unclear if you are saying “no” to all questions, or to some of them.

At this point, we are simply considering whether your specific interpretation even EXISTED anciently. This is very, very simple. Does your “no” mean that you realize your interpretation did not exist anciently?

After giving you at least 7 posts packed with the type of examples that one can offer to support the existence of an ancient doctrine, I then explained to that IF you are claiming that your personal method of interpretation existed historically, or was used by any Judao-christians of any note or for any length of time, there should be similar historical evidence of this. I'm simply asking if you are aware of any historical evidence where someone, ANYONE, actually USED your interpretation anciently. I then asked : “Do you understand how simple this is?” Does your answer “no” meant that you do not understand this principle?

I asked a series of questions meant to examine whether your interpretation existed anciently :

Do any of the early christian diaries describe your interpretation as orthodox? - Does your answer “no” mean that you realize your interpretation is not orthodox to early christians?

Do any early christian diaries use your interpretation? Does your answer “no” mean none of the early Christians used your interpretation in early diaries (or you are simply unaware of any diaries that even USE your interpretation)?

Do any early Hymns or Odes represent your interpretation in their texts? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that your interpretation was not described by nor represented in any early Judao-Christian Hymns or odes?

Do any of the early Liturgies represent your interpretation in their texts? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of the earliest liturgical texts represent your interpretation?

Do any of the mishnas speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that no mishna of any significance uses your interpretation, but uses other interpretations instead?

Do any of the earliest christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? If they speak of it, do they describe it as a heresy, or as a valid interpretation? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of the earliest Christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)?

Do any of the apostolic fathers who knew the apostles speak of your interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of those apostolic fathers, who knew the apostles, spoke of your specific interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy?

All of this was, in the context as I explained : "If your interpretation IS representative of authentic early Christianity, then we should find it or some representation of it in the early christian writings (especially in the vast amount of "non-gnostic" writing if your second historical claim is correct)."

I admit the post was a bit long winded, but since you are not a historian, I wanted to make sure you understood a few historical principles underlying a historical examination of your claim. As I explained, “this is simple : we are not establishing doctrine by looking at early christianity and what they said, in this case we're simply seeing if your interpretation of doctrine even existed in early Judao-christian circles. IF your interpretation existed, THEN we can look at it more closely to see if it was orthodox doctrine, if it was heresy, and if it existed at all, it's source and usage, etc.”

Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that your claim is not a claim that can be supported on a historical basis, but have made it based on another basis such as philology; or philosophy, or logic, or some other basis?

Clear
seacsiis

 

[james2ko]

Hi James2KO, in post #62, you answered a series of questions I asked with a "no".

James2KO, regarding our examination of your specific interpretation of christs’ promise to the thief on the cross, when you say “no” to a series of questions without any other explanation, it remains unclear if you are saying “no” to all questions, or to some of them.

At this point, we are simply considering whether your specific interpretation even EXISTED anciently. This is very, very simple. Does your “no” mean that you realize your interpretation did not exist anciently?

After giving you at least 7 posts packed with the type of examples that one can offer to support the existence of an ancient doctrine, I then explained to that IF you are claiming that your personal method of interpretation existed historically, or was used by any Judao-christians of any note or for any length of time, there should be similar historical evidence of this. I'm simply asking if you are aware of any historical evidence where someone, ANYONE, actually USED your interpretation anciently. I then asked : “Do you understand how simple this is?” Does your answer “no” meant that you do not understand this principle?

I asked a series of questions meant to examine whether your interpretation existed anciently :

Do any of the early christian diaries describe your interpretation as orthodox? - Does your answer “no” mean that you realize your interpretation is not orthodox to early christians?

Do any early christian diaries use your interpretation? Does your answer “no” mean none of the early Christians used your interpretation in early diaries (or you are simply unaware of any diaries that even USE your interpretation)?

Do any early Hymns or Odes represent your interpretation in their texts? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that your interpretation was not described by nor represented in any early Judao-Christian Hymns or odes?

Do any of the early Liturgies represent your interpretation in their texts? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of the earliest liturgical texts represent your interpretation?

Do any of the mishnas speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that no mishna of any significance uses your interpretation, but uses other interpretations instead?

Do any of the earliest christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)? If they speak of it, do they describe it as a heresy, or as a valid interpretation? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of the earliest Christian commentaries speak of your interpretation (other than as a heresy)?

Do any of the apostolic fathers who knew the apostles speak of your interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy? Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that none of those apostolic fathers, who knew the apostles, spoke of your specific interpretation other than to describe it as a heresy?

All of this was, in the context as I explained : "If your interpretation IS representative of authentic early Christianity, then we should find it or some representation of it in the early christian writings (especially in the vast amount of "non-gnostic" writing if your second historical claim is correct)."

I admit the post was a bit long winded, but since you are not a historian, I wanted to make sure you understood a few historical principles underlying a historical examination of your claim. As I explained, “this is simple : we are not establishing doctrine by looking at early christianity and what they said, in this case we're simply seeing if your interpretation of doctrine even existed in early Judao-christian circles. IF your interpretation existed, THEN we can look at it more closely to see if it was orthodox doctrine, if it was heresy, and if it existed at all, it's source and usage, etc.”

Does your answer “no” mean that you realize that your claim is not a claim that can be supported on a historical basis, but have made it based on another basis such as philology; or philosophy, or logic, or some other basis?

Clear
seacsiis

I guess your too busy typing that you missed my post. I implied in order for us to continue this discussion, we have to use the official biblical canon as proof of this doctrine. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Instead you publish a book without answering the request...

 

[Clear]

James2KO;


The discussion of whether your interpretation even existed historically will continue with or without you. At least until I am done making my points to the forum readers. I’d rather you have input if you have any historical data you can add to the discussion. And yes, my posts are longer than yours, but I also have a LOT more historical data than you, and, I am trying to compress that data into a small space. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, that I am not writing JUST for your benefit, but to help other readers who are following our discussion (regarding Jesus' promise to the thief on the Cross) to understand these important principles. I do want to give you a chance to tell us if you know of ANY significant historical support for your interpretation, but I did NOT automatically assume that you would be able to contribute anything significant to a HISTORICAL discussion.


1) THE LIMITED HISTORICAL VALUE OF NARROWING OUR HISTORY TO THE 70 YEARS COVERED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT :
Your attempt to limit the historical data we consider to the seventy or more years covered by the New Testament Texts simply allows you to show how you can make texts appear to support your personal interpretation. This is no different than most posters are doing in showing us how they also can make text appear equally consistent with THEIR interpretations (which may conflict with yours...). A LOT of posters can make the New Testament appear to support the varying points of view as the various forum arguments demonstrate. That approach to history simply allow us to see how good a poster is at rhetoric rather than allowing us to see an interpretations place in it's larger historical context (if it belongs there at all).


2) YOUR INTERPRETATION IS SIMPLY ONE, AMONG HUNDREDS OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS - HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ALLOW US TO SEPARATE AUTHENTIC FROM INAUTHENTIC
Malatesta’s catalogue of literature on the Fourth Gospel alone, along with the vast number of varying interpretations, came to 3,120 items in just the 45 years after 1920. Van Bells’s list for the next 19 years after 1965 lists 6,300 titles, along with an increasingly vast number of interpretations that your personal interpretation must compete with. All proponents of these various interpretations, attempt, like you, to show how their pet interpretations are supported by the New Testament Texts.

I don’t want to discount the importance with which you view your personal interpretive theory. We all feel our theories are important, but in reality, your interpretation is simply one of thousands of little fish that swim in a very large pond of other interpretations. And many other interpretations have much, much better historical support than yours. THEY are the “BIG FISH” that historians want to concentrate on because they have the best chance of being authentic.

No one has enough time in this life to study the thousands of possible interpretations in any depth (as their authors all want us to do). But instead, we must develop SOME method of screening out historically unauthentic interpretations of ancient Christianity from the potentially authentic ones. It is a version of “the game of 20 questions”. If YOUR interpretation has NO historical traces of note, then we can dismiss it as a NON-HISTORICAL invention of a later time period.


3) THE QUESTION OF WHETHER JAMES2KOs INTERPRETATION IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT OR HISTORICALLY INSIGNIFICANT TO AUTHENTIC ANCIENT JUDAO-CHRISTIANITY
If you synthesized your personal interpretation by a mixture of things you heard as a child; traditions of parents or friends; things you’ve read; teachings of your pastors, etc (as most of us do), it does not mean it is wrong, it simply means that it is NOT HISTORICAL. Actually, if you invented your interpretation 30 years ago, then it has a 30 year history... Not much compared to those interpretations that are 2000 years old and older.

James2KO, I honestly have not seen ANY Judao-Christian text of note that uses your interpretation, nor have I seen any early Judao-Christian textual tradition that uses YOUR interpretation. But rather than simply dismiss your interpretation or encouraging other forum readers to dismiss your interpretation as “non-historical” and “inauthentic”, I am giving you the opportunity to offer ANY data from early christian texts and traditions that show that ANY Christians of ANY note of ANY significant timer period actually USED your interpretation. I’m NOT trying to exclude you, but instead to include you IF you have any significant historical support to offer the forums readers.

Do you?

Clear
sieidrrd

 

[Mister Emu]

Why not. Jesus commanded us to be baptized. Why would you say it's unnecessary for us to keep one of His commandments?

I think the thief on the cross demonstrates the principle behind Jesus' statement "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

The sacraments were instituted to channel God's grace to men, not to with hold it.

It it is normatively necessary, but in special cases, like being in the process of dieing as you convert, it is not required.

That's the same line of thinking the religious leaders held in ancient Palestine which Jesus severely rebuked. They held in high esteem the opinion of their elder's interpretation of scripture without investigating what the scriptures actually said (Mat 12:1-7; 15:2-8). Based on your statement, not much has changed. Jesus taught truth can only be found in God's Word (Jn 17:17).

You have no Biblical basis for determining what is or is not scripture. You must, de facto, rely on some unBiblical source, in this case the tradition of canon which you adhere to(which started in the 15th or 16th century).

In any appeal to the 66 book Bible, you are appealing to the wisdom of your elders, above and beyond that of Jesus whose scripture would have included several of the books removed when the Bible was taken down to 66.

Also, the Bible itself calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." (Tim 3:15)

 

[Thief]

Nobody's thinking....

Picture the situation....
Some guy rips you off.
He gets caught and ends up on a cross.

Serves him right.....at least you think so.

Another convict....right beside him is heard to say....
'This day you walk with me in paradise.'

Do you scoff?...and walk away?
Or do you reconsider your sense of fair play?

And that thief could be standing over you....
when you lay down to surrender your last breathe.

And the Carpenter could be standing along side of him.

 

[james2ko]

James2KO;


The discussion of whether your interpretation even existed historically will continue with or without you. At least until I am done making my points to the forum readers. I’d rather you have input if you have any historical data you can add to the discussion. And yes, my posts are longer than yours, but I also have a LOT more historical data than you, and, I am trying to compress that data into a small space. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, that I am not writing JUST for your benefit, but to help other readers who are following our discussion (regarding Jesus' promise to the thief on the Cross) to understand these important principles. I do want to give you a chance to tell us if you know of ANY significant historical support for your interpretation, but I did NOT automatically assume that you would be able to contribute anything significant to a HISTORICAL discussion.


1) THE LIMITED HISTORICAL VALUE OF NARROWING OUR HISTORY TO THE 70 YEARS COVERED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT :
Your attempt to limit the historical data we consider to the seventy or more years covered by the New Testament Texts simply allows you to show how you can make texts appear to support your personal interpretation. This is no different than most posters are doing in showing us how they also can make text appear equally consistent with THEIR interpretations (which may conflict with yours...). A LOT of posters can make the New Testament appear to support the varying points of view as the various forum arguments demonstrate. That approach to history simply allow us to see how good a poster is at rhetoric rather than allowing us to see an interpretations place in it's larger historical context (if it belongs there at all).


2) YOUR INTERPRETATION IS SIMPLY ONE, AMONG HUNDREDS OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS - HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ALLOW US TO SEPARATE AUTHENTIC FROM INAUTHENTIC
Malatesta’s catalogue of literature on the Fourth Gospel alone, along with the vast number of varying interpretations, came to 3,120 items in just the 45 years after 1920. Van Bells’s list for the next 19 years after 1965 lists 6,300 titles, along with an increasingly vast number of interpretations that your personal interpretation must compete with. All proponents of these various interpretations, attempt, like you, to show how their pet interpretations are supported by the New Testament Texts.

I don’t want to discount the importance with which you view your personal interpretive theory. We all feel our theories are important, but in reality, your interpretation is simply one of thousands of little fish that swim in a very large pond of other interpretations. And many other interpretations have much, much better historical support than yours. THEY are the “BIG FISH” that historians want to concentrate on because they have the best chance of being authentic.

No one has enough time in this life to study the thousands of possible interpretations in any depth (as their authors all want us to do). But instead, we must develop SOME method of screening out historically unauthentic interpretations of ancient Christianity from the potentially authentic ones. It is a version of “the game of 20 questions”. If YOUR interpretation has NO historical traces of note, then we can dismiss it as a NON-HISTORICAL invention of a later time period.


3) THE QUESTION OF WHETHER JAMES2KOs INTERPRETATION IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT OR HISTORICALLY INSIGNIFICANT TO AUTHENTIC ANCIENT JUDAO-CHRISTIANITY
If you synthesized your personal interpretation by a mixture of things you heard as a child; traditions of parents or friends; things you’ve read; teachings of your pastors, etc (as most of us do), it does not mean it is wrong, it simply means that it is NOT HISTORICAL. Actually, if you invented your interpretation 30 years ago, then it has a 30 year history... Not much compared to those interpretations that are 2000 years old and older.

James2KO, I honestly have not seen ANY Judao-Christian text of note that uses your interpretation, nor have I seen any early Judao-Christian textual tradition that uses YOUR interpretation. But rather than simply dismiss your interpretation or encouraging other forum readers to dismiss your interpretation as “non-historical” and “inauthentic”, I am giving you the opportunity to offer ANY data from early christian texts and traditions that show that ANY Christians of ANY note of ANY significant timer period actually USED your interpretation. I’m NOT trying to exclude you, but instead to include you IF you have any significant historical support to offer the forums readers.

Do you?

I doubt if any one is reading the entirety of your posts. But the real question is do you or can you keep your post short? For example: Here is a nice simple short answer to your elaborate post:

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.' " [not every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of historians]​

I've done the research and have accepted, on faith, the official 66 books of the canon. You can type until your fingers fall off, nothing will ever change that.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO



To forum readers:


1) LIVING BY THE WORDS OF JESUS, ONLY

In order to justify limiting historical data, James2KO offers us : “Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.' " [not every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of historians]”

An attempt to use a scriptural interpretation to limit sources of knowledge is another example of how interpretation can be misused to accomplish a self-serving goal, and the interpretation is inconsistent with common sense. It would be a backward and inconvenient world if we limited all data and learning to the statements of Jesus and the apostles within a New Testament text and could not live by other sources of truths as well. We ALL hope our doctors will ”live by the words” of their very best instructors when diagnosing and treating our illnesses. We hope they “live by the words of their math teacher” when they determine dosing of potentially dangerous medicines by our weight. I hope I correctly “live by the words of my do-it yourself electricians handbook” when I’m re-wiring my basement. Wives constantly wish husbands would “live by the data on a city map” when they drive around in a strange city or country. The words of the Lord and the apostles will not help me wire my basement correctly.

I did not create the frustrating fact that James2KOs interpretation did not exist anciently. I merely pointed it out. The fact that no ancient orthodox Judao-Christians used Jame’s interpretation does not mean it isn’t correct, it simply means none of the ancients of any record or import believed in and used his interpretation of scripture and that his specific theory of interpretation is a more modern invention. However, the suggestion that one returns to the millstone of argument over a very limited objective data set by using competing over-interpretations that end up being inconclusive is foolish. The simplest historical answer is to ASK THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS how THEY interpreted Jesus promise to dymas, the thief. There is no other group that had closer proximity to the apostles; the earliest texts AND the earliest and most authentic interpretations.


2) INTERPRETATIONS AND SECRET DECODER RINGS
Hengel’s study at Tubingen extimates 15,000 items written since 1920 just regarding the gospel of John and it’s meaning. These differing texts with their differing interpretative theories reveal James2KOs to be simply one interpretation among thousands. The question among historians is NOT : “what possible meanings can we create out of the words Jesus said”. For historians the question is “what did JESUS MEAN by the words he said”. It is a search for THE ONE interpretation among thousands of competing interpretations. The hundreds of competing interpretations suggested by individuals are a lot like the “secret decoder rings” we got in our cereal as children. The ring was accompanied by a card which reassigned the standard alphabet letters so as to mean something else. Perhaps the code was simply a reversal of the alphabet where the letter “A” now means “Z”. B, now means Y and so forth.

Often Re-interpretations such as Jame2kOs involve reassignment of definitions where “paradise” is redefined to mean “resurrection” Admittedly, there is a fair amount of ambivalence in translations and actual usage, but in the case of the thief on the cross, the earliest texts confirm that “paradise” meant “paradise” in this case. Paradise did not mean “resurrection”.


For examples:

A) Consider the ancient origin and definition of “paradise” did not mean resurrection.
Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief) was NOT that Dymas would be with Jesus in the “resurrection “ that day”, but rather, Dymas was promised to be “μετ εμου εν τω παραδεισω” (with me in “PARADISE&#8221 that day. The definition of παραδεισω (paradise) in the LXX, in Mac 7,25&26, in II Mac 5:17 and 7:12 and other places is that of a park, a garden (LXX), “an abode of the blessed dead”. Any new definitions to the old standard definitions should be explained and supported by new data.



B) Consider the ancient textual descriptions of the place where sprits of the dead go; and that Jesus and Dymas were there in that same day in ancient Christian doctrine :
In this ancient theology, all souls, including the Patriarchs, upon dying, have their spirits placed into this spirit world. Consider the earliest texts and their very, very clear descriptions.

Quote:
“do you not know that all those who (spring) from Adam and Eve die? And not one of the prophets escaped death and not one of those who reign has been immortal. Not one of the forefathers has escaped the mystery of death. All have died, all have departed into Hades, all have been gathered by the sickle of Death.” (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 8:9; 7)

Quote:
“ And Death said, “Hear, righteous Abraham, for seven ages I ravage the world and I lead everyone down into Hades – kings and rulers, rich and poor, slaves and free I send into the depth of Hades (T of Abr (rec A) 19:7) .
Quote:
“For Death deceived Abraham. And he kissed his hand and immediately his soul cleaved to the hand of Death....13...the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus : “Take, then my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones and (where) the mansions of my old ones, Isaac and jacob, are in his bosom... (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 20:9,13-15)

None of these references refer to the "Hell" that individuals may be sent to after the Judgment, but Hades was also used in translations as a name for this "spirit world"; the "place in the middle". Another point of confusion regarding the place in the middle (paradise, hades, sheol – whatever name is used in this context) is that the experience there is NOT the same for all individuals since individuals are divided according to their degree of righteousness. Thus it was often referred to as a "prison" of sorts.


In describing Sheol, Enoch is shown that it has separate “areas” for individuals to be “assigned to”. In his vision, The Old Testament Prophet Enoch asks the angel :
Quote:
.”For what reason is one separated from the other? And he replied and said unto me, “These three have been made in order that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And in the manner in which the souls of the righteous are separated (by) this spring of water with light upon it, in like manner the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime,... until the great day of judgment...They will bind them there forever–even from the beginning of the world. ....Such has been made for the souls of the people who are not righteous, but sinners and perfect criminals; they shall be together with (other) criminals who are like them. (1Enoch 22:9-13)
Since the righteous are with the righteous, they seem to adapt to a calm existence, the unrighteous, being grouped with others of their type and having increased awareness of the result of their moral choices become unhappy in their regrets and distress.


The descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts and they are very clear that Christ went to the world of spirits , to the place where dymas (the thief crucified beside jesus) went.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks he risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying :
Quote:
"I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)




POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOW

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO



The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection :
Quote:
“Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)


These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).


Quote:
“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)




I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel and many other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world. Though the complete Story of Dymas is incomplete, it is clear that Jesus’ Promise that he would be in this “paradise” with other spirits was fulfilled as the early Christian literature describes.

Speaking of these spirits in the middle, it is recorded that Dymas was given a cross and sent to “paradise” with the other spirits who were awaiting resurrection :
Quote:
While they were saying this there came another, a humble man, carrying a cross on his shoulder. The holy fathers asked him: “who are you, who have the appearance of a robber, and what is the cross you carry on your shoulder?” He answered: “I was, as you say, a robber and a thief in the world, and therefore the jews took me and delivered me to the death of the cross together with our Lord Jesus Christ. When, therefore, he hung on the cross, I saw the wonders which happened and believed in him. And I appealed to him and said: ‘Lord, when you reign as king, do nor forget me.’ And immediately he said to me: ‘Truly, truly, today, I say to you, you shall be with me in Paradise’ [Lk 23:43]. So I came into Paradise carrying my cross, and found Michael the archangel, and said to him: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified, has sent me here. Lead me, therefore, to the gate of Eden.’...Then the archangel said to me: ‘Wait a short while. For Adam also, the forefather of the race of men, comes with the righteous, that they also may enter in....(Ch XI> The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell)




The point of all this reference to early Judao-Christian texts is to confirm that the earliest Christians themselves believed that there was indeed a place of cognizant spirits between death and resurrection and Jesus promise to Dymas was fulfilled in this early Judao-Christian Context.


Clear
siacdrrr

 

[Thief]

This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

I'm posting the quote because this thread seems to be derailed.

It appeared at first to be a comparison between baptism.....and salvation.

The presence of God descending from heaven was noted....
when the Carpenter was baptized.
And many religions still contend the spirit does descend upon us...even today.

Pointing out the salvation of the the thief beside the Carpenter....
is interesting as it denotes salvation....and baptism not applied.

So are we discussing salvation?....or baptism?
Self direction and pledge?...or grace?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm posting the quote because this thread seems to be derailed.

That's par for the course.

So are we discussing salvation?....or baptism?
Self direction and pledge?...or grace?

See my post #6.

 

[Clear]

Hi thief. I apologize since I was one of those that took a tangent from the OP...

Thief in post #72 quotes the OP from Strength & Honor regarding Jesus Promise to the "thief" beside him while on the cross.

"This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved."

I do not think that Jesus promise to Dymas was a promise to "save" Dymas. If I am correct, then we are not dealing with "salvation" of the thief, but the promise of Jesus to Dymas referred to something besides salvation.

Clear
actwsell

 

[Thief]

That's par for the course.


See my post #6.

I reviewed it.

 

[Thief]

Hi thief. I apologize since I was one of those that took a tangent from the OP...

Thief in post #72 quotes the OP from Strength & Honor regarding Jesus Promise to the "thief" beside him while on the cross. I do not think that Jesus promise to Dymas was a promise to "save" Dymas. If I am correct, then we are not dealing with "salvation" of the thief, but the promise of Jesus to Dymas referred to something besides salvation.
(so close)

Clear
actwsell

This far and there seems a lack distinction.....

The life of Jesus would be the 'road to salvation'......

However...that Jesus did speak in the positive about baptism....
(but He....by His own hand.... did not do so)
And then ....the convict beside him walks into heaven right behind him....
are conflicting ideas.

There is a resolve.

Baptism is something you willfully perform.
And most congregations would have you do so under church authority.

Absolution can be dealt at the last moment.
But again...under someone else's hand.

What happened on the cross was neither.

The thief in question...realized the situation at hand.
A change came over him.
He spoke accordingly.
The Carpenter perceived the change and spoke accordingly.

Now what do you think really happened?

Careful.....
Your response will affect the rest of your ...believing.
the same way it did unto the thief.

 

[Katzpur]

I reviewed it.

Okay, so would you like to respond to it? What points would you like to debate? (Of any of the answers posted so far, I believe it ties most closely to the question posed in the OP.)

 

[Thief]

It's really pointless to try to debate whether the thief on the cross had been baptized or not. More than likely, he wasn't, but we really don't know for sure. After all, look at all of the baptized thieves are sitting in prisons across the U.S. today.

Secondly, Jesus promised him that He'd see him in paradise that day; He did not promise him salvation. Despite what most Christians today are willing to accept as fact, proxy baptisms performed by the living on behalf of someone who had died without having been baptized were being performed in the apostolic era (and for some years thereafter, judging from the fact that the Catholic Church did not formally put a stop to the practice until several hundred years later). Had the thief not been baptized but had been promised by Jesus Christ that he would be in paradise after his death, he could still have received baptism vicariously and would have needed to do so in order to ultimately receive the fullness of salvation after his resurrection.

If you insist....

But I think my last (previous) post covers it.

Baptism is not all that practitioners claim it to be.
And if anyone....including a dying thief....can enter heaven without it...
then what do you think baptism is?
Some kind of magic spell?

 

[Clear]

Hi Katzpur;

Katzpur responded to the OP in post #6 : Secondly, Jesus promised him that He'd see him in paradise that day; He did not promise him salvation. Despite what most Christians today are willing to accept as fact, proxy baptisms performed by the living on behalf of someone who had died without having been baptized were being performed in the apostolic era (and for some years thereafter, judging from the fact that the Catholic Church did not formally put a stop to the practice until several hundred years later). Had the thief not been baptized but had been promised by Jesus Christ that he would be in paradise after his death, he could still have received baptism vicariously and would have needed to do so in order to ultimately receive the fullness of salvation after his resurrection.

Hi Katzpur,

Regarding Dymas the "Thief" : I agree that the thief was not promised salvation but rather that he was promised that he would be in paradise with Jesus that day. The text is lacking in details so that it’s not clear what ULTIMATELY happened to Dymas (the thief). The early texts make clear the tradition that the promise of Jesus was fulfilled in that Dymas did go to "paradise" or the "spirit world" with all the other spirits of the dead (i.e. παραδισω or paradise), but we lose Dymas to Christian tradition not long thereafter.

For example, in the gospel of Nicodemus, after his death, the thief Dymas shows up in paradise, wanting to be lead “to the gate of Eden”, however Dymas is told by the archangel “ to

“Wait a short while. For Adam also, the forefather of the race of men, comes with the righteous, that they also may enter in....(Ch XI The Gospel of Nicodemus -Christ’s descent into hell)”

The context doesn’t seem to include Dymas “with the Righteous” and so even what little tradition we have, doesn’t (at this time), include Dymas with the righteous since it is specifically they who enter in and whom Dymas is told to wait for them (though not included with them in the context). The text doesn’t necessarily exclude Dymas from ultimate entry into heaven, but for some reason, Dymas must wait for the group the archangel called “the righteous” to enter.

Regarding Baptism: The very firm early Judao-Christian doctrine of the “spirit world” between death and resurrection is augmented by the tradition of those who converted to Christianity while in the spirit world (such as the sons of symeon), were told, after their resurrection (concurrent with Jesus resurrection) to be baptized at what seems to be their earliest opportunity (even before testifying of the resurrection of Jesus). This doctrine that even the non-baptized resurrected who came to believe in Jesus, were to become baptized indicates that baptism had great import in this christian context (Though the resurrected "unbaptized" converts had to be baptized, the text doesn't describe those who did not "convert" while awaiting resurrection - if there were any...)

The testimony of the sons of Rabbi Symeon who had died and were resurrected; At the end of the sons of Symeons' testimony regarding what happened to them in the spirit world, they say :

“All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the Passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here. And the love of God the Father and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell)

Still, we have no report whether Dymas was among them.

Dymas is simply lost to tradition at this point. (At least from the Early Judao-Christian traditions I am familiar with.) I do not know whether to assume Dymas, if he continued in his process of faith, was baptized with the rest or not and am reluctant to theorize beyond the data I have.

Clear
acsiviit

 

[Katzpur]

If you insist....

I don't insist at all, but I'll post some thoughts for you in case you're interested.

Baptism is not all that practitioners claim it to be.

I believe it is. It's a commandment, not a suggestion. It's the way a believer enters into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

And if anyone....including a dying thief....can enter heaven without it...
then what do you think baptism is?

Baptism is what I just said it is. It's the first ordinance of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for a dying thief getting into Heaven, Jesus never promised him Heaven. Paradise is not Heaven. The fact that Jesus told the thief they'd be together in Paradise that day, and yet come Easter morning, He told Mary He hadn't yet been to Heaven indicates that they are not one and the same. Besides, how do you know whether the thief was baptized or not? You don't. Check in at any federal prison anywhere in the U.S. and you'll find plenty of convicted felons who'd been baptized.

Some kind of magic spell?

Why on earth would I think that?