For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[roger1440]

If he was an insurrectionist, he would surely deserve death according to Roman Law.

J.R. Briggs » the Ironies of the Easter Story » Attempting to behold the miracle long enough without falling asleep



The translation of "Criminal" is not necessarily correct, otherwise Barabbas was just a petty criminal too, right?

How the thief got himself on the cross is of little or no importance to the story. What happens to the thief after his crucifixion is of great importance to the story. It is also the message of the entire Gospel of Luke. Immediately after the thief had accepted Jesus the thief was giving access to “paradise”. The focal point of these few verses is the word “paradise”. The word is first used in the Book of Geneses. It is used interchangeably for the Garden of Eden. While Adam and Eve were in the Garden they were in the presence of God. It is no mere coincidence Luke chose the word “paradise”. When we connect the dots we see Luke’s Jesus leads his followers back to the Garden or “paradise”.

"…Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

 

[Shermana]

And who might that be exactly? You or the other Jews here?

Anyone reading.

This fact was never in dispute. You are once again attacking the straw man! I said that faith means something different than OBEDIENCE. You said it meant the same thing!

Faith would involve obedience. If you claim to have faith but don't actually act on it, is it real faith? If someone says "Drink this and you'll be cured" but you don't drink it when you're sick, do you have faith?

Wrong. I do believe in what he taught.

Apparently not the parts where he says the Law is forever binding.

Yes. Because that would be the Christian interpretation (you know, the people who actually believe in Christ)!

See Bryce, again, you think only your interpretation is the right one, which I suppose is fine, because I'm the same way. My personal interpretation is that only those who believe in Christ see it the way I do. So we're at an impasse.

I'll just make is simpler altogether by highlighting the relevant portion of your statement: "failing can in fact be a symptom of lost faith depending on what you are being disobedient about"

That still doesn't really explain to me what your objection is.

Rebelliousness isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not one who is rebellious has lost faith. Rebellion isn't always the result of losing faith; it is most often the result of putting your own selfish desires ahead of God (in spite of one's faith).

Putting your own selfish desires ahead of God is rebelliousness, how is it not?

Yes it does. You see, your argument is that sin is the result of lost faith. I've just shown you that sin is the result of our own nature. It has nothing to do with faith because everyone is guilty of sin. We are REDEEMED from our sins because of our faith, but faith doesn't erase our sinful nature. That's why we must still die and be reborn. Only then will we no longer have a sinful nature!

You've shown nothing. Sin is the result of putting your selfish desires ahead of God indeed....WHICH IS REBELLIOUSNESS. HOW IS IT NOT?? Telling me that you are "redeemed through faith", whatever that means (buzzwords and slogans, meaningless in application the way you use it) does not address what I said.

I believe I just did here. But let me know if you still don't understand something. You're welcome!

Try again, I don't think anyone reading objectively would understand. You're just word hashing without getting specific, and I think my definition stands unopposed.

 

[Shermana]

How the thief got himself on the cross is of little or no importance to the story. What happens to the thief after his crucifixion is of great importance to the story. It is also the message of the entire Gospel of Luke. Immediately after the thief had accepted Jesus the thief was giving access to “paradise”. The focal point of these few verses is the word “paradise”. The word is first used in the Book of Geneses. It is used interchangeably for the Garden of Eden. While Adam and Eve were in the Garden they were in the presence of God. It is no mere coincidence Luke chose the word “paradise”. When we connect the dots we see Luke’s Jesus leads his followers back to the Garden or “paradise”.

"…Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

That's an interesting way of looking it, and I have indeed thought that the Garden is a representation of sorts of the "Paradise" to come, HOWEVER, the issue of the Thief on the Cross and how he got there is EXTREMELY important for those pushing a few particular theologies, such as antinomianism and "saved-by-grace". The idea is that if the Thief was a sinner, all he had to do was believe in Jesus to be saved, right? Well, it's not that simple, much to the dismay of those looking for a nice and easy convenience.

 

[captainbryce]

Irrelevant. We don't know if he meant "I deserve death" according to Roman or Jewish Law.

Let's just use some common sense, LOGIC here for a moment. If the criminal was an observant Jew, why would he be commenting about the morality of Roman law, let alone comment on that to another observant Jew? And if he was a Roman, then he's obviously not an observant Jew. So either way, your interpretation doesn't make sense and requires stretching!

I understand you want to brush aside substantiated, well-founded and well supported ideas like that the crime was for being an insurrectionist

Well supported by WHAT/WHOM exactly? It's not supported by scripture, therefore I'm not giving it any consideration. I'm only debating what scripture actually says here, not someone else's interpretation of it.

and totally ignore my links as if your answer is the only one that's valid,

Your links were not relevant to the discussion. Why people were executed by Romans is irrelevant to the topic. It doesn't matter that they viewed insurrection as a death penalty crime, what matters is whether or not there is biblical evidence that the "thief on the cross" was A) actually a thief, B) an insurrectionist, or C) a person who's crime cannot be determined by scripture, but one that he himself believed was worthy of death.

As Grant says in the above, he was most likely a Zealot.

Fine, if that's what you want to believe. Again, I won't debate someone else's interpretation.

Out of curiosity, do you accept the possibility that maybe some of the links I post are right and that if you disagree you should actually go over them and point out where they are wrong?

Of course I do. The criminal on the cross may very well have been a zealot. My point is that WE DON'T KNOW. It's all guesses because the scripture doesn't say! And the reality is, the only reason I even got involved in that conversation was to correct that misnomer of "thief on the cross". I don't really care what his true crime was, only that people understand it most likely wasn't "theft".

Do you acknowledge at the very least that they most definitely weren't "thieves" since theft was not a death penalty crime or is that asking too much from you?

No, that's not asking too much. And yes, I do acknowledge that. Actually, that was my point all along!

So do I get the last word this time or do you feel posessed to deny me what you granted again?

Very well, you win on this point. The "thief on the cross" was not a thief and may have been a zealot. I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that idea. But if it'll make you feel better, point taken! You win.

 

[captainbryce]

How the thief got himself on the cross is of little or no importance to the story. What happens to the thief after his crucifixion is of great importance to the story.

:yes:

Thank you!

 

[captainbryce]

HOWEVER, the issue of the Thief on the Cross and how he got there is EXTREMELY important for those pushing a few particular theologies, such as antinomianism and "saved-by-grace". The idea is that if the Thief was a sinner, all he had to do was believe in Jesus to be saved, right? Well, it's not that simple, much to the dismay of those looking for a nice and easy convenience.

How is it not that simple? What difference does it make HOW he got on the cross?

 

[Shermana]

How is it not that simple? What difference does it make HOW he got on the cross?

Why would the issue even be brought up if it wasn't of pertinence to this issue? Many Christians cite the Thief on the Cross for the idea that you don't have to do anything but "believe in Jesus" (whatever "Believe" actually means).

 

[Shermana]

Very well, you win on this point. The "thief on the cross" was not a thief and may have been a zealot. I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that idea. But if it'll make you feel better, point taken! You win.

Okay now that you have admitted that you may be wrong on something as well, my patience is completely regenerated!

 

[roger1440]

That's an interesting way of looking it, and I have indeed thought that the Garden is a representation of sorts of the "Paradise" to come, HOWEVER, the issue of the Thief on the Cross and how he got there is EXTREMELY important for those pushing a few particular theologies, such as antinomianism and "saved-by-grace". The idea is that if the Thief was a sinner, all he had to do was believe in Jesus to be saved, right? Well, it's not that simple, much to the dismay of those looking for a nice and easy convenience.

Believing in the existence of Jesus isn’t sufficient. Remember, even Satan believed in the existence of Jesus.

 

[roger1440]

Maybe Luke forgot to mention how the thief got on the cross, yeah, that's what happened, LOL. :yes:

 

[captainbryce]

Faith would involve obedience. If you claim to have faith but don't actually act on it, is it real faith?

Maybe, maybe not. Like you said before IT DEPENDS! I agree that faith USUALLY involves obedience, but sometimes people will not comply with something even if they believe in. It's called WEAKNESS! I believe in the local speed limit, and I usually obey it. But sometimes (if I'm late) I break it. I know it's wrong, and I'm aware that I may be punished (by the police) because of it. Usually, that faith is enough to compel me to obey it; but sometimes it isn't! Again, faith and obedience are two different things. We are human beings and we have a sinful nature. That is something that can only be overcome with DEATH. No matter how much faith you have, you will still be a sinner - until you die!

If someone says "Drink this and you'll be cured" but you don't drink it when you're sick, do you have faith?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Because if I had previously drank it, and was cured because of it, then I would know that it worked. Why would I refuse to drink it at that point (unless it was just really nasty). I might regret that decision later, but it isn't because I didn't have faith that it would work; it's because it was nasty and I chose not to drink it.

I believe in God and I believe that Jesus Christ is the redeemer, so I already know that he atones for my sins. Usually that is enough to compel me to obey him, but sometimes my sinful nature compels me not to. It doesn't mean that I've lost faith, it just means that I'm a weak sinner (like everyone else).

Apparently not the parts where he says the Law is forever binding.

Well, we've already been down that road. He DIDN'T say that! He said until the law was fulfilled (which he did). Moreover, his apostles (whom I also believe in) said that the law doesn't save us, faith does.

My personal interpretation is that only those who believe in Christ see it the way I do.

How do you arrive at that conclusion when YOU don't even believe in Christ?

That still doesn't really explain to me what your objection is.

Nevermind, I've already covered the explanation in this post. If you still don't understand, then I don't know what to tell you.

Putting your own selfish desires ahead of God is rebelliousness, how is it not?

I didn't say it wasn't rebelliousness. I said that it wasn't necessarily the result of "lost faith". You don't seem to be listening to me.

You've shown nothing. Sin is the result of putting your selfish desires ahead of God indeed....WHICH IS REBELLIOUSNESS. HOW IS IT NOT??

See above!

Try again, I don't think anyone reading objectively would understand. You're just word hashing without getting specific, and I think my definition stands unopposed.

You're entitled to think that. I think anyone reading objectively WOULD understand, because I don't think what I said was as confusing as you are making it out to be.

 

[captainbryce]

Why would the issue even be brought up if it wasn't of pertinence to this issue? Many Christians cite the Thief on the Cross for the idea that you don't have to do anything but "believe in Jesus" (whatever "Believe" actually means).

Correct. I still don't understand why this makes the thief's crime relevant. He was a criminal sentenced to die, he accepted Christ as his savior, and Jesus forgave his sins. What's so hard about that to understand? What difference does the crime he committed make?

Okay now that you have admitted that you may be wrong on something as well, my patience is completely regenerated!

But what was I wrong about? I never said that the thief on the cross was a thief.

 

[Shermana]

How do you arrive at that conclusion when YOU don't even believe in Christ?

Bryce, I'm not tolerating this kind of attitude any longer where if I disagree with your fallacious interpretations that it means I don't believe in Christ, whereas it is you who has a misplaced and wrongful interpretation of what Christ taught, and what it means for him to fulfill the Law, Christ was clear about those like you in Matt 7:22-23, you have insulted me enough, so I'll let you have the final word, and may God deal with you as he sees fit.

 

[captainbryce]

Bryce, I'm not tolerating this kind of attitude any longer where if I disagree with your fallacious interpretations that it means I don't believe in Christ,

I'm not concerned about your level of tolerance, or your opinion about my "attitude". I'm only interested in what you are in fact claiming to be right now. Because up until now, you've given us no indication of a "Christian" identity since you reject most of what the New Testament says. But now it sounds like you're saying that you DO in fact believe in Christ? Are you a Chrsitian, a Jew, both, or neither? Why can't you just provide a simple, straight answer to this question?

whereas it is you who has a misplaced and wrongful interpretation of what Christ taught, and what it means for him to fulfill the Law, Christ was clear about those like you

I'm not here to debate whose interpretation is correct or not. That is a futile argument to begin with. I'm simply here to see whether you can justify your interpretation with scripture, rather than the interpretation of extra-biblical sources (as you have a tendency to do). Your penchant for avoiding questions never ceases to amaze me. Nevertheless, you're entitled to your opinion and I can agree to disagree. Once again, I suggest that dial down your emotions. I'm not injured by your insults (hypocrisy notwithstanding). So why are you injured by my comments (which weren't even intended as an insult)?

you have insulted me enough, so I'll let you have the final word, and may God deal with you as he sees fit.

Spare me your self righteous comments about God. Either answer the questions or the final word here is that "you have no case"!

 

[roger1440]

The story of the Garden of Eden tells us how mankind was evicted from paradise. The story of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke tells us how to get back to the Garden or “paradise”. A common demonstrator with both stories is the obedience to God. The canonical gospels were written for Jews not Gentiles. The Jews of the first century would have known what was meant by “paradise”. These gospels are a sort of Midrash. Each Gospel takes the entire Jewish bible and condenses it to a very small book. As I had said before, “Jesus is Israel.”

 

[captainbryce]

The story of the Garden of Eden tells us how mankind was evicted from paradise. The story of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke tells us how to get back to the Garden or “paradise”. A common demonstrator with both stories is the obedience to God. The canonical gospels were written for Jews not Gentiles. The Jews of the first century would have known what was meant by “paradise”. These gospels are a sort of Midrash. Each Gospel takes the entire Jewish bible and condenses it to a very small book. As I had said before, “Jesus is Israel.”

Well, when it comes to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, then I'd agree. But surely, John was written with Gentiles in mind. Do you disagree?

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/john.asp

 

[Shermana]

I'm not concerned about your level of tolerance, or your opinion about my "attitude". I'm only interested in what you are in fact claiming to be right now. Because up until now, you've given us no indication of a "Christian" identity since you reject most of what the New Testament says. But now it sounds like you're saying that you DO in fact believe in Christ? Are you a Chrsitian, a Jew, both, or neither? Why can't you just provide a simple, straight answer to this question?

Forum rules prohibit from saying what I would like to say to you, just as you are not concerned about my tolerance or opinion about your attitude, I don't care whether you think I have an indication of being a "Christian". With that said, you are certainly giving the indication that you are a doer of Lawlessness and you shall be justly sentenced and rejected along with all others who think they are Christians but are in reality doers of lawlessness. I DO Believe in Christ. I just have a different belief than you.

What do you think Messianic Jews are in general?

I'm not here to debate whose interpretation is correct or not.

You could have fooled me!

That is a futile argument to begin with.

Especially with people like you.

I'm simply here to see whether you can justify your interpretation with scripture, rather than the interpretation of extra-biblical sources (as you have a tendency to do).

I do in fact use extra-biblical sources, because the "Bible" is not necessarily as "Holy" and "Infallible" as you'd like it to be. And I can in fact justify everything I say with scripture. The issue is your dogged refusal to accept interpretations that differ from your own. I don't accept them either but I think my rebuttals and defenses are actually solid unlike yours.

Your penchant for avoiding questions never ceases to amaze me.

I barely avoid any questions unless I get sick and tired of dealing with the person, whereas you brush off my questions as "red herrings" when they are in fact very pertinent. You are becoming very annoying.

Nevertheless, you're entitled to your opinion and I can agree to disagree.

I wouldn't mind if you disagreed civily and didn't make this a personal issue each and very post, but even then, I wish you would disagree without brushing aside my interpretations and then knocking over the pieces and crapping over the board like an angry pigeon.l

Once again, I suggest that dial down your emotions.

I suggest you dial down your ego.

I'm not injured by your insults (hypocrisy notwithstanding). So why are you injured by my comments (which weren't even intended as an insult)?

I'm not injured whatsoever. Your personal comments and attitude do no damage to me. What they damage is my patience. For a second I was willing to forgive you but now I'm back to wanting to see judgment inflicted upon you. I like seeing such ballooned egos get popped.

Spare me your self righteous comments about God.

I won't even spare you in my prayers tonight.

Either answer the questions or the final word here is that "you have no case"!

What questions are you even referring to in your last post anyway? The only question mark I see is the one you quoted when you accused me of not being a believer in Christ.

 

[dantech]

Maybe, maybe not. Like you said before IT DEPENDS! I agree that faith USUALLY involves obedience, but sometimes people will not comply with something even if they believe in. It's called WEAKNESS! I believe in the local speed limit, and I usually obey it. But sometimes (if I'm late) I break it. I know it's wrong, and I'm aware that I may be punished (by the police) because of it. Usually, that faith is enough to compel me to obey it; but sometimes it isn't! Again, faith and obedience are two different things. We are human beings and we have a sinful nature. That is something that can only be overcome with DEATH. No matter how much faith you have, you will still be a sinner - until you die!

Your analogy and explanation makes no sense in this particular argument. It's not like you subscribe to the law but sometimes sin because of weakness... if so, then we're somewhat on the same page. However, from what I've read until now, you don't even feel that the law applies to you, as a Christian. So your analogy is flawed, or perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying...

 

[Pegg]

That's sort of true. He commanded Noah to build an ark, that was specifically directed at Noah.

However, the 613 laws were directed at all jews, and the 7 laws of Noach are directed at all non jews.

so do you agree then that the mosiac law is not necessary for non jews to adhere to?

 

[Pegg]

The Torah does allow for divorce. In fact, G-D specifically gives laws dealing with divorce.

Yes it does.

Yet Jesus outlawed divorce except for the circumstance where one or the other commits adultery.

A man who divorces a faithful wife, and who marries another, is an adulterer.

Hence Jesus laws are different to the mosaic laws. And considering Jesus told his followers to obey his teachings, then it stands to reason that they cannot at the same time follow the mosaic laws which allow a man to marry multiple wives which, in the christian view, would constitute him an adulterer.