Did Jesus Lie?

[Kenny]

*SIGH*
​

You said

Now... answer my questions:
"How do you know this to be false?"
"How do you know this to be false?"
​

Not certain what your "this" referred to in your questions here, I asked

What? That your statement here may all be a lie, and that you're just joshing me?
​

Assuming this is what you were referring to I then commented:

I don't[know it to be false], but then I wouldn't assert it as a fact. I regard its (your statement above) truth---you actually believe and mean what you've written here---as more likely than not.​

If you still fail to understand, I suggest asking someone else to explain.

In that we started on a wrong foot and, it would appear by your statements, that we have not understood each other, let's start again.

I have certain positions of belief as you would have yours. As I state my positions, I am neither lying nor joshing. Could I be in error at times? Absolutely, in as much as I am not God neither do I know all things. But an error wouldn't be lying or joshing. I continue to grow in my understanding.

I do believe that the prophets wrote by inspiration of God. The reason I believe this is because what they wrote came to pass.

Hope this is a good start. Not saying you have to follow what I believe, each person's has their journey.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Where does the Bible mention the Catholic church as the true church Jesus started? The Catholic church is much more like the pagan Babylonian mystery religion. Many of the teachings are almost identical. I think Jesus would establish a church that was much different from a pagan religion.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Until you come to know your Lord in a more intimate and compelling certainty, you will likely continue to think those little “difficulties” are actual reasons demonstrating this God cannot be real.

I'm quite content to set these "little difficulties" aside for the moment, as I don't believe that they're anything more than icing on the cake. Even without them, the existence of a god or gods still hasn't been demonstrated.

You are relying on only one interpretation and quite often superficial.

Doesn't each Christian denomination represent a single (and quite often superficial) interpretation?

Setting aside the fact it is an English translation

As opposed to what? A Latin translation?

Oh ... for those good old days when only the right sort of people had access to the word of God! If only we could somehow exhume Tyndale and Wycliffe and burn them both all over again in a fit of pique for the unforgivable act of daring to translate the Bible into English! If only!

you still cannot tell me what is meant by heaven or paradise or other afterworld descriptions.

It isn't up to me to explain what is meant by heaven or paradise or "other afterworld descriptions" because I'm not claiming that any such things exist. The most I'd venture is that some people claim that these places exist ... although they certainly cannot agree over the properties of these alleged locales.

Allow me to add this at this time: Who told you the Bible is the final authority?

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." ~ Proverbs 30:5-6

Before you object, I know: Citing the Bible as evidence for the claims made in the Bible is circular.

Who told you if you can find something disingenuous in Scripture you have found something disingenuous in God? No doubt some protestant you are using for a resource.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

That would seem to suggest that any irregularities in the word trace back to irregularities with God. Of course, there are centuries of human fingerprints all over the evidence ... so who can tell?

And was John a Protestant?

So you ask, What does one do when the Bible contradicts itself? You mean “allegedly?” Answer is you make your appeal to the Catholic Church.

I'd declare that a fallacious appeal to authority, but I think we'd both be obliged to agree that the Catholic Church is only one interpretation out of … how many again? There are thousands of differing Christian denominations today. So whatever claims the Catholic Church had to primacy went out the window centuries ago.

They have been granted the authority by Jesus Christ to rule.

Granted where? In a book? Allow me to ask you your own question: Who told anyone that the Bible is the final authority?

That is, if you dare trust what the Bible says, because the Bible says that the Church has the answers and "the keys of the kingdom."

The Church has the answers because the Church says the Bible says the Church has the answers? Is that a fair summary of your position on this issue?

>>Despite all those different translations of the Bible, just remember that God is not the author of confusion. Let that be (y)our mantra. Simply repeat it until whatever the original inquiry was has been totally forgotten.<<

Well that does not mean that you are not confused. Clearly, you are. What care I about all the different translations of the Bible?

Again ... isn't the Catholic interpretation just one of these different translations of the Bible?

You are so poorly educated on the Christian faith it allows you to come so many faulty conclusions. IMO.

Given that the many differing and often contradictory claims made by the sundry proponents of the Christian faith haven't been demonstrated to be true, isn't it rather absurd to state that any of them can be utilized to reach valid conclusions?

(One contradiction or paradox is all apparently needed to remain content on the outside looking in. Meanwhile, John Cardinal Henry Newman says “a thousand difficulties does not make for one doubt.”)

>>He must have been speaking for himself, no?<<

Himself and myself and a thousand saints and millions of souls and the Catholic Church.

Emptily insisting that a thousand difficulties do not make for one doubt somehow fails to convince.

Again, you have the wrong foundation or starting point.

Which is? Wait. Let me guess: Suspending my disbelief and buying into the fairy tale without question?

Not only that, you have an agenda and end, in search of only those means that will support it.

Who doesn't have an agenda? Certainly, theists have an agenda. They're all the time busily defending their claim that God has an agenda.

You see, Cardinal Newman went about it piously, humble and properly.

By issuing blanket statements on behalf of himself, you, a thousand saints and millions of "souls?" Your definition of "humble" must be a unique one.

“God reveals Himself to those who keep the demands of His covenant.”

Instead of simply revealing himself to everyone, correct? You know, it's almost as if this god wishes to remain anonymous.

Cardinal Newman has been gifted with knowledge and graces that far surpass your present state.

Undoubtedly.

And his burden of proof also exceeds my own. As does his responsibility to answer for all the misdeeds of his church.

He knows God exists

How?

and who God is from the revelations and reasons before Him.

Personal revelations or scriptural revelations? And who told him that the Bible was the final authority?

Therefore, if your little difficulties or puzzles are presented in order to try to disprove the existence of God, you got it all wrong. Because God is already known.

Known? How exactly? I mean aside from subjective claims of personal revelation or appeals to a book that is one grand, unsubstantiated claim of divine revelation?

So even a thousand of your difficulties cannot cast the slightest doubt upon the reality of God and Jesus Christ as the divine One.

There's really only one "little difficulty," which is that God's existence hasn't been substantiated. We're still just dealing with assertions of varying degrees of windiness.

Jesus knew denials and refusals such as this would come even in his time, which is why He said --- “If you will not believe in me then put faith in the works that I do.”

Is that also why he said: "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." ~ Luke 21:32 It seems that regarding this verse, there are two possibilities: 1.) That generation passed away thousands of years ago before all those things happened. 2.) That generation has not passed away (despite the intervening centuries) and is still waiting around for those things to happen.

I am not about to research this one for you. There are many different understandings of this passage and, again, many things Jesus said had more than one meaning or reference or purpose. This is most likely but another example of that.

You don't need to research it for me anyway. You are free to dispense with the excuse-making.

It is too bad you demand God speak on your terms

On what other terms are you suggesting that God should (or even could) speak to us?

>>Especially if God is actively manipulating the results: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:11 <<

Yes, and who is Paul speaking of? If you included the previous verse it is those God allows to be deceived ...

Does God allow some to be deceived, or are these people victims of the delusion sent by God himself?

You want to live your life pompously

Presumptive and unsubstantiated.

and filled with self indulgence

Presumptive and unsubstantiated.

and the stop but for a moment to address some beggar to say --- “Who is this God you speak of? What proof have you of him?” Yes, such bravado because you can find contradictions in the Word or you can address the claims of Christians on the street with your own clever rejoinders.

Yes. It's too bad that the scriptures were translated into English. Too bad.

Are you following? It is you Paul speaks of. You have not opened your heart to wanting to know the truth in order to be saved.

I cannot believe that which is unbelievable. Sorry.

You want to live a life of lust and pleasure

Presumptive and unsubstantiated.

until someone proves you wrong or until God strikes you with lightning. It won’t happen.

Well, it does appear that you're not proving anything. About the lightning? Who knows?

You must first humble yourself and then “the delusion” will fade away.

Unsubstantiated.

1 Timothy 6: "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth…”

How convenient that the Bible should come equipped with passages aimed at anyone who'd disagree with it?

I mean, seriously, what is it you are trying to get at because to me this is all stupid?

Is that a question or a statement?

I suspect what you are trying get at is to make the claim the Bible was nothing more than a bunch of lowly Jews concocting some story to create a divinity and they carelessly made some errors in their inerrant word?

That's one theory, I suppose.

Either that, or maybe you are trying to tell me there might be a God but he is not all that impressive because look at the contradictions he put in his word. Like I said, whatever you or the other guy are trying to tell me totally escapes me. I told you if God can listen to 100 million prayers at once He surely can be in more than one place at once.

Why stop at 100 million?

Too bad you consider God to be no more wiser than yourself.

I don't believe that God's existence has been demonstrated, so to attribute wisdom to such an entity would be absurd.

Too bad you demand a sign and when a sign is given

What was this alleged sign again?

you squirm out of it by providing counter-explanations that would make an 8th grader blush.

Aren't Catholics best advised to avoid making open references to inducing blushes in eighth-graders?

Too bad I might be right when I suggested you have a sluggish heart.

The operative word there is "might."

I do not wish ill will upon you or anyone, but nor do I think my telling “Jesus loves you just as you are, kneel down and ask him into your heart” is going to be the answer you are looking for.

You might be right about that as well. But if Jesus loves me just as I am ... why would any of the earthly claptrap and window dressing be required?

But if you do make that prayer (sincerely), I do not think you will get a “cursory No.”

I don't believe that there's anything to pray to, so any prayer that I might offer up would (by definition) be insincere.

 

[Nada]

The Bible says in Luke 23:43 that Jesus told the thief on the cross that they would be together in paradise that same day. However, three days later Jesus told Mary in John 20:17 that He had not yet ascended to Heaven. So did He lie to the thief? Or did He lie to Mary? Was He in Heaven with the thief on Friday evening or had He not yet gone to Heaven on Sunday morning? It does not seem possible for both to be true so He either lied or somehow made a mistake.

It was not heaven Jesus was speaking about.Many assume this but one must be born again from water and spirit.You are correct,Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection.Jesus was not lying.It is a misunderstanding on the part of many who do not yet have an accurate knowledge of the truth.Here is something that explains it better.

"Was Jesus promising that the man would enter into heaven? No. The man had not been “born again” from water and spirit, which was a prerequisite for entering the Kingdom of the heavens. (John 3:3-6) Rather, Jesus was promising that the criminal would live again, in Paradise. Being a Jew, the man was likely familiar with the earthly Paradise—the garden of Eden—described in the first book of the Bible. (Genesis 2:8) Jesus’ promise gave him the assured hope of a resurrection to Paradise when it is reestablished on earth."

What Hope for My Ancestors? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[thau]

I'm quite content to set these "little difficulties" aside for the moment, as I don't believe that they're anything more than icing on the cake. Even without them, the existence of a god or gods still hasn't been demonstrated.



Doesn't each Christian denomination represent a single (and quite often superficial) interpretation?



As opposed to what? A Latin translation?

Oh ... for those good old days when only the right sort of people had access to the word of God! If only we could somehow exhume Tyndale and Wycliffe and burn them both all over again in a fit of pique for the unforgivable act of daring to translate the Bible into English! If only!



It isn't up to me to explain what is meant by heaven or paradise or "other afterworld descriptions" because I'm not claiming that any such things exist. The most I'd venture is that some people claim that these places exist ... although they certainly cannot agree over the properties of these alleged locales.



"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." ~ Proverbs 30:5-6

Before you object, I know: Citing the Bible as evidence for the claims made in the Bible is circular.



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

That would seem to suggest that any irregularities in the word trace back to irregularities with God. Of course, there are centuries of human fingerprints all over the evidence ... so who can tell?

And was John a Protestant?



I'd declare that a fallacious appeal to authority, but I think we'd both be obliged to agree that the Catholic Church is only one interpretation out of … how many again? There are thousands of differing Christian denominations today. So whatever claims the Catholic Church had to primacy went out the window centuries ago.



Granted where? In a book? Allow me to ask you your own question: Who told anyone that the Bible is the final authority?



The Church has the answers because the Church says the Bible says the Church has the answers? Is that a fair summary of your position on this issue?



Again ... isn't the Catholic interpretation just one of these different translations of the Bible?



Given that the many differing and often contradictory claims made by the sundry proponents of the Christian faith haven't been demonstrated to be true, isn't it rather absurd to state that any of them can be utilized to reach valid conclusions?



Emptily insisting that a thousand difficulties do not make for one doubt somehow fails to convince.



Which is? Wait. Let me guess: Suspending my disbelief and buying into the fairy tale without question?



Who doesn't have an agenda? Certainly, theists have an agenda. They're all the time busily defending their claim that God has an agenda.



By issuing blanket statements on behalf of himself, you, a thousand saints and millions of "souls?" Your definition of "humble" must be a unique one.



Instead of simply revealing himself to everyone, correct? You know, it's almost as if this god wishes to remain anonymous.



Undoubtedly.

And his burden of proof also exceeds my own. As does his responsibility to answer for all the misdeeds of his church.



How?



Personal revelations or scriptural revelations? And who told him that the Bible was the final authority?



Known? How exactly? I mean aside from subjective claims of personal revelation or appeals to a book that is one grand, unsubstantiated claim of divine revelation?



There's really only one "little difficulty," which is that God's existence hasn't been substantiated. We're still just dealing with assertions of varying degrees of windiness.



You don't need to research it for me anyway. You are free to dispense with the excuse-making.



On what other terms are you suggesting that God should (or even could) speak to us?



Does God allow some to be deceived, or are these people victims of the delusion sent by God himself?



Presumptive and unsubstantiated.



Presumptive and unsubstantiated.



Yes. It's too bad that the scriptures were translated into English. Too bad.



I cannot believe that which is unbelievable. Sorry.



Presumptive and unsubstantiated.



Well, it does appear that you're not proving anything. About the lightning? Who knows?



Unsubstantiated.



How convenient that the Bible should come equipped with passages aimed at anyone who'd disagree with it?



Is that a question or a statement?



That's one theory, I suppose.



Why stop at 100 million?



I don't believe that God's existence has been demonstrated, so to attribute wisdom to such an entity would be absurd.



What was this alleged sign again?



Aren't Catholics best advised to avoid making open references to inducing blushes in eighth-graders?



The operative word there is "might."



You might be right about that as well. But if Jesus loves me just as I am ... why would any of the earthly claptrap and window dressing be required?



I don't believe that there's anything to pray to, so any prayer that I might offer up would (by definition) be insincere.

You vex me nullius… only because I do not have the luxury to properly address you. My accountant resigned suddenly and she will not even remain a consultant. I am doomed. I may say a few words here but my liberty to spend time here appears limited, that is, if I am wise enough to now be spending my time on my duties and not on my frivolity. What is it that Ecclesiastes says?.... “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” I had better pay heed.


Tyndale was burned at the stake by the King of England, not by the Catholic Church. Wycliffe died of a stroke, was not executed. Yes, true, the Catholic Church did vilify them, but like I said, no time to expound.


You say that the Catholic Church interpretation of Scripture is no more worthy than that of a hundred other denominations own interpretations. That would be so, if Jesus had bestowed upon those “other denominations” the keys of the kingdom, or the authority to make declarations that would be bound in heaven, and so on. Once you honestly address who is the Church Jesus established and made Peter its first head in the Bible, then we can talk about what “the others” think or have to say.


The Bible is not really the final authority... the Church is. After all, the Church gave us the Bible and not vice versa.


Canonized saints are God’s prophets. They have been so recognized by the Church because of their holy lives, their holy words, their revelations and insights, and the miracles that were attested to by those that surrounded them. This is God speaking to His creation. You dismiss them as though they were just another televangelist looking for money or a career or the praise of men as his objective. You are simply far too cavalier and superficial about it all. It will haunt you.


God has been proven as fact as far as I am concerned, as far as millions of others are concerned. Just because Ali says Muhammed has the truest message from God matters not. You are claiming that because so many religions claim to know that no one can know, and hence in following, no one can be proved to be right. That statement is false and has no bearing on the truth. God has revealed Himself via signs and wonders of supernatural origin and far, far, far greater in the world of Catholicism than any possible miracle occurring in the Hindu faith (of which I know of a few) or of the Islamic faith (of which I know of maybe one) or of the occult (of which are many but obviously malevolent). This is where you fall far short, imo. I can prove God through Fatima and so many other miracles, but I cannot take the time to debate you or anyone else at this time. They are the signs an evil age demands yet refuses to believe.


What you retort as “presumptive and unsubstantiated” I cannot prove otherwise. But as a man of honor, you could have accepted the challenge and admitted “yea or nay” instead of pleading the 5th like Lois Lerner. Your choice.



[my Biblical reference for you] >> 1 Timothy 6: "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth…”

[your response]>> How convenient that the Bible should come equipped with passages aimed at anyone who'd disagree with it?

Not just anyone… but those of your ilk. Yes, it is convenient isn’t it? Appears to be speaking of those who allege to be seeking the truth yet are really only looking for "particulars" to dethrone their creator and justify their wanton ways. (while ignoring so much else)

There I go again, presumptive and unsubstantiated. So sorry. Hope to see you around.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Tyndale was burned at the stake by the King of England, not by the Catholic Church.

I'm calling BS on that, and here is why:

1.) Recall please that in 1534, Henry VIII had declared himself the head of the Church of England.

2.) In 1535, Tyndale was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year. In 1536 he was convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation, after which his body was burnt at the stake.

3.) Brussels was not ruled by the English in the 1530s. It was (more or less) controlled by The Holy Roman Empire.

Are you trying to imply the Tyndale was condemned as a heretic by The Church of England? Would you have me believe that the authorities in Brussels were acting on the direct orders of the King of England?

...

While it does appear to be true that an Englishman was directly involved in betraying Tyndale to the authorities in Brussels, that's not going to get us any closer to your assertion that Tyndale was burnt by the King of England. Sorry. The historical record doesn't support your claim on this item. You'll need to offer some evidence to support your assertion. Please.

In any event, by 1539, Henry VIII required every parish church in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners. Tyndale's last wish was granted, it appears.

Wycliffe died of a stroke, was not executed. Yes, true, the Catholic Church did vilify them, but like I said, no time to expound.

The Catholic Church did much more than merely vilify him ... it had his dead body exhumed and the remains burnt. It's worth noting that Wycliffe died on December 28th, 1384 and the church didn't get around to their act of desecration until 1428.

And you claim that this is the business of Christ's church? Exhuming and burning corpses 40-odd years after the fact? From what chapter and verse of scripture is that grisly practice derived?

And if it isn't derived from scripture, aren't we obliged to conclude that it's a human addition? We've already covered the Bible's position on this matter::

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." ~ Proverbs 30:5-6

You say that the Catholic Church interpretation of Scripture is no more worthy than that of a hundred other denominations own interpretations.

It'd be more accurate to say that I do not accept the Bible itself (in any of its sundry permutations) as divinely inspired. It follows then that any and all claims that depend upon the Bible find themselves bereft of that particular fig leaf of legitimacy.

That would be so, if Jesus had bestowed upon those “other denominations” the keys of the kingdom, or the authority to make declarations that would be bound in heaven, and so on.

The "keys to the kingdom" that you're referring to aren't even a consistent element in the Christian gospels. So even if we grant that the events described in the gospels more or less happened as described (and you certainly haven't demonstrated that this is so), we're still left with the inescapable conclusion that the Catholic Church's assertions of primacy are founded on less-than-universal scriptural evidence.

Once you honestly address who is the Church Jesus established and made Peter its first head in the Bible, then we can talk about what “the others” think or have to say.

Actually, once Christians get their collective act together and decide for themselves what the correct version of events was, they might eventually reach a consensus on the proper interpretation of those events ... and then it'll finally be time to hash all of this out. Until that time arrives, there isn't really even a cohesive Christian faith to discuss.

Ultimately, the internecine squabbles of the theistically deluded are no concern of mine.

The Bible is not really the final authority... the Church is. After all, the Church gave us the Bible and not vice versa.

Are you seriously asserting that? Didn't you just finish citing scripture as the justification for the Church?

Canonized saints are God’s prophets.

Unsubstantiated claim.

They have been so recognized by the Church because of their holy lives, their holy words, their revelations and insights, and the miracles that were attested to by those that surrounded them.

So what?

This is God speaking to His creation.

Unsubstantiated claim.

You dismiss them as though they were just another televangelist looking for money or a career or the praise of men as his objective.

Catholic saints and televangelists are both founded on unsubstantiated claims. And tithing appears to be a universally accepted Christian doctrine. Is it the only universally accepted Christian doctrine?

You are simply far too cavalier and superficial about it all. It will haunt you.

No it won't. I assure you.

God has been proven as fact as far as I am concerned

I'm certainly not arguing that point. Neither would I argue that the lunatic who truly believes that he's Napoleon doesn't regard his belief as factual.

as far as millions of others are concerned.

So truth is a popularity contest?

Just because Ali says Muhammed has the truest message from God matters not.

You see? That's exactly how I feel about the claims you're making. This shouldn't be so difficult. We're generally of like mind when it comes to dismissing theistic truth claims. Apparently, you're just incapable of applying that same level of skepticism to your own unsubstantiated religious claims.

You are claiming that because so many religions claim to know that no one can know, and hence in following, no one can be proved to be right. That statement is false and has no bearing on the truth.

That religions tend to make mutually contradictory truth claims has no bearing on the truth? I'm inclined to disagree and to remind you that they cannot all be true. Given that, it seems much more likely that all false.

God has revealed Himself via signs and wonders of supernatural origin

Unsubstantiated claim.

and far, far, far greater in the world of Catholicism than any possible miracle occurring in the Hindu faith (of which I know of a few) or of the Islamic faith (of which I know of maybe one) or of the occult (of which are many but obviously malevolent).

Does this speak to the legitimacy of Catholicism, or the gullibility of the Catholic flock?

This is where you fall far short, imo. I can prove God through Fatima and so many other miracles, but I cannot take the time to debate you or anyone else at this time.

How convenient.

What you retort as “presumptive and unsubstantiated” I cannot prove otherwise.

Thank you. Your honesty on this item is duly noted and appreciated.

 

[029b10]

Like a quote from Thomas Paine , "if Jesus died he could not be God, and if he was not God he could not save."

Jesus could not be eternal if he born of flesh or Spirit since the eternal is neither born nor dies, does it change since it
always was and always will be the same.

Since the scriptures hold that Jesus was concieved of the Holy Ghost, .so was John the Baptist who was born before Jesus as written in Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

 

[crazyrussian]

The Bible says in Luke 23:43 that Jesus told the thief on the cross that they would be together in paradise that same day. However, three days later Jesus told Mary in John 20:17 that He had not yet ascended to Heaven. So did He lie to the thief? Or did He lie to Mary? Was He in Heaven with the thief on Friday evening or had He not yet gone to Heaven on Sunday morning? It does not seem possible for both to be true so He either lied or somehow made a mistake.

There is a punctuation Error in the text.
Verily I say unto thee, today you will be with me in paradise.
Verily I say unto thee today, you will be with me in paradise.

Jesus was actually referring to a future date in which the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in paradise. This of course could not happen the same day Jesus died especially since the thief did not even die the same day as Jesus. The two thieves had their legs broken and removed from the cross for the Passover high day. Once the Passover ended, they would have been placed back on the cross to die.

What is more important to note, is that the thief had to experience spiritual re-birth before he could enter heaven. This would not even have been possible in his current life cycle. It's a little known fact to Christians that Jesus was actually a Jew who taught re-incarnation. The thief on the cross would have his opportunity to receive the gospel (spiritual re-birth) in a later life cycle.

The below is from an ancient text which details Jesus teaching on this matter

The Regeneration Of The Soul


1. JESUS sat in the porch of the Temple, and some came to learn his doctrine, and one

said unto him, Master, what teachest thou concerning life?

2. And he said unto them, Blessed are they who suffer many experiences, for they shall

be made perfect through suffering: they shall be as the angels of God in Heaven and shall

die no more, neither shall they be born any more, for death and birth have no more

dominion over them.

3. They who have suffered and overcome shall be made Pillars in the Temple of my God,

and they shall go out no more. Verily I say unto you, except ye be born again of water

and of fire, ye cannot see the kingdom of God.

4. And a certain Rabbi (Nicodemus) came unto him by night for fear of the Jews, and

said unto him. How can a man be born again when he is old? can he enter a second time

into his mother's womb and be born again ?

5. Jesus answered, Verily I say unto you except a man be born again of flesh and of spirit,

he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and ye hear

the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth.

6. The light shineth from the East even unto the West; out of the darkness, the Sun ariseth

and goeth down into darkness again; so is it with man, from the ages unto the ages.

7. When it cometh from the darkness, it is that he hath lived before, and when it goeth

down again into darkness, it is that he may rest for a little, and thereafter again exist.

8. So through many changes must ye be made perfect, as it is written in the book of Job, I

am a wanderer, changing place after place and house after house, until I come unto the

City and Mansion which is eternal.

9. And Nicodemus said unto him, How can these things be? And Jesus answered and said

unto him, Art thou a teacher in Israel, and understandeth not these things? Verily we

speak that which we do know, and bear witness to that which we have seen, and ye

receive not our witness.

10. If I have told you of earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell

you of Heavenly things? No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that descended out of

Heaven, even the Son-Daughter of man which is in Heaven.