The Thief on the Cross

[cataway]

For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence [pa·rou·si′a] of the Son of man will be.”—Matthew 24:24,

 

[Thief]

For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence [pa·rou·si′a] of the Son of man will be.”—Matthew 24:24,

It appears you are losing focus of the topic.

So now I ask of you.....what was the saving grace of the Thief?

 

[1robin]

Apparently you haven't spotted an item I have to post repeatedly.

Rogue theologian....
No dogma....no religion...no ceremony....no recitals....no prayer in repetition....
no rugs....no rituals....
I have no dogmatic faith.

No one can rob God of anything.

And no one will get in the way if you are truly on your way to heaven.

If you enter heaven.....it's because you belong there.

Apparently the Thief belongs there.
The Carpenter saw that quality.
And said so.

Thief you never cease to amaze. You constantly repeat exactly what I claim but use it as a contention. I did not mean you can steal from God, I meant you deprive him and yourself of salvation when you chose a method he hasn't. As the verse I posted stated point blank there is NO remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

No dogma....no religion...no ceremony....no recitals....no prayer in repetition....
no rugs....no rituals....

I have said exactly this same thing over and over. It is on the basis of what Christ did that we are declared righteous (his shedding of blood on the cross). Not parables, not dogma, not baptism, not ceremony, not one thing beyond the merits of Christ and the sacrifice he performed.

I have also said over and over again that salvation is permanent as you have. You seem to state my case over and over but in the context of a rebuttal. I do not get it.

 

[Thief]

The gap (or distance) between us and God is infinite and no man can cross it. Manmade religions are efforts by man to reach God. Christianity is God's effort to reach man. However you rob it of its uniqueness and power then turn it into simply another man made dogma that never saved anyone. You thereby rob God of his ability to save you because in your arrogance you resolve to save yourself (which is impossible). You agree that he was forgiven. This verse should end the discussion if it was driven by theology and not preference. I imagine it will rage on. No fact or even divine word of God (apparently), can defeat preference.

New International Version (©2011)
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

And these would be your accusation of theft?

As if a Thief won't notice such words.

 

[Thief]

Thief you never cease to amaze. You constantly repeat exactly what I claim but use it as a contention. I did not mean you can steal from God, I meant you deprive him and yourself of salvation when you chose a method he hasn't. As the verse I posted stated point blank there is NO remission of sins without the shedding of blood.
I have said exactly this same thing over and over. It is on the basis of what Christ did that we are declared righteous (his shedding of blood on the cross). Not parables, not dogma, not baptism, not ceremony, not one thing beyond the merits of Christ and the sacrifice he performed.

I have also said over and over again that salvation is permanent as you have. You seem to state my case over and over but in the context of a rebuttal. I do not get it.

Shedding blood for the remission of sin is a ritual.
See Moses.

 

[1robin]

I was born again the moment I made a covenant with God through baptism.

This is what I thought. Let me first explain that there is no moral judgment in what I say and that no insult is intended. I, countless other Christians I have met, the stacks of books I have read on the subject (I spent three years researching only this issue), the Bible, and theological philosophy make it plain that being born again is a spiritual, radical, and unmistakable experience. It is not achieved by ceremony, is not a bargain, or even a commitment. It is the powerful and undeniable event of the Holy Spirit doing WORK on our soul. In every single case where a person defends water baptism I always sooner or later find out they never have been spiritually born again or mistake some mundane ceremony or emotion for it. My experience is within the typical (band width) of salvation experiences and I have looked into hundreds of them. When I was saved I literally thought I was dying and going to heaven that very moment. 27 years of guilt and depression (loss of my mother etc...) instantly disappeared, I suddenly knew things as absolute fact by revelation alone, habits I was powerless to break instantly loss all attraction. I am a veteran and raised to not show emotion yet I cried like a child. I spent three days in a kind of spiritual state no words exist to describe. I was very uneducated as a Christian and had never heard the term born again, yet they were the very words I used to describe what happened to me, to myself. People for days asked me what was different about me and I had little explanation. I normally never question a person’s status and have no way to be sure. However in a discussion about salvation the issue is vital. I never suggest degree to be determinative (I never suggest speaking in tongues or tongues of fire as goal posts), however one minute being a condemned sinner and the next having God come to live in your heart and forgiving years of guilt and healing loss and heartbreak is something that is unmistakable. Again this is not a moral judgment, it is a personal account among millions that testifies to what the Bible describes. IT IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL COMMITMENT. I also remind you that in virtually every case where someone seems to defend water baptism beyond reason they always have some non-Spiritual salvation experience that they mistake for being born again. As I have said it is like asking someone if they have ever truly been in love. If you have then you know and if you do not (since we all wish to believe we have been) we substitute something for being in love and claim that as the experience. After doing this for years the almost universal patterns are too consistent to deny, but if I am mistaken I apologize.

The main hole you and I stand on is whether or not the thief was baptized. You have no evidence saying he was not and I have no evidence saying he was, other than him going to paradise.

Nothing has zero persuasive power. I do have evidence he was not saved before the cross. He ridiculed Christ at one time. He had apparently committed recent crimes so bad he was condemned to death. You have no evidence I do. I however have no proof. I actually can argue against your core understanding of salvation at least a hundred ways. The thief just happened to be the subject of the thread. There are very few theological issues as easy to demonstrate as the sufficiency of the born again (grace) alone for salvation. Every competing method eventually ends in impossibility.

Now if you could share some examples of some other people who went to paradise without the ordinance of baptism that might be something.

There is no rolodex of statistics to access. I did however post another example from teh Bible where a man had every work he ever performed deemed unworthy and burned up, yet he was saved. I am sure there are more but how many are necessary?

I have claimed one possible scenario where the thief confessed his sins was baptized and was crucified for doing so.

An assertion with zero evidence is usually worse than nothing.

Another possible scenario is that the thief was baptized at an earlier time in his life and like the prodigal son walked away from the Kingdom of God and then before death realized his folly softened his heart and came unto Christ.

You do not make judgments where out eternal destiny on what is not impossible. The list of things that could have happened is infinite and meaningless.

This also would have granted access to paradise, yet it leaves unexplained the whole part of why he wanted to be remembered, without having done anything worthy of remembering.

That is a good point and consistent with my claims. My claims are short of demonstrable evidence but yours is inconsistent with many. In all cases it is the conclusion consistent with the most facts that should be adopted.

Now you say the hole in my argument was why did the thief mock Christ.
I would have you know that according to Luke, only one of the malefactors that were crucified railed on him, not both.

That is not the only reason your How many apostles must claim a thing for it to be true? Islam is completely based on one (very suspicious man's testimony). Are you saying that that Luke is claiming that the second did not mock him or is it the same as in many cases? The apostles gave varying details based on purpose and audience. Are you saying the other apostle lied?

Mark Mentioned the two malefactors, but never mentioned either of them railing on Christ

This is proof (not that any is needed) that the apostles recorded different aspects and level of details. You realize your claims rest on an apostle being wrong?

Matthew however mentioned the two malefactors and mentioned them saying through their teeth that if Christ could save himself then would they believe; however Matthew never said anything concerning the one turning to Christ and being promised admittance into paradise. Neither did John for that matter, all he said was that two other people were crucified with him.

See above.

It appears the only way you are getting a story of one thief repenting while on the cross and at the last second being born again in spirit is by mixing the account of Matthew and the Account of Luke. I feel it is clear that Luke was the one who was much more observant to the others who were being crucified with Christ.

That is the exact opposite of the case. The apostle who included additional detail is by necessity the most thorough. This happens with almost every story in the Gospels why is it a problem here? You are debating from silence and motivated by preference.

I find it unclear as to whether or not the one malefactor who plead for remembrance actually mocked Christ while he was on the cross. If you can tell me exactly how many angels were at Christ's tomb and exactly where they stood or sat when they spoke to Mary Madeline, then you might have something for each account stands as evidence of the incongruences between the accounts, showing evidence of inaccuracies and that it is very likely that the one thief never railed against Christ while on the cross.

Actually Gospel harmonies exist on countless sites and I have argued all the points you mention to a resolution in the past. I will post links if necessary. That is not to say there are not scribal errors (between 5% and .5%) but the massive textual tradition allows them to be known and all modern Bibles do so. The thief nor the angels at the tomb are errors in the text. They are errors in reading and interpretation.

 

[1robin]

And these would be your accusation of theft?

As if a Thief won't notice such words.

Actually you may apply what ever label you wish as long as the meaning of what I said is retained. MR THIEF.

 

[1robin]

Shedding blood for the remission of sin is a ritual.
See Moses.

Was it ritual that came out of the spear would in Jesus side? I do not know what you are running but it is amuck. You no sooner claim that ritual cannot save than you claim the opposite. How could any ceremony anyone ever performed forgive anything? If ceremony fixed things why did Christ offer his life? Substitute ritual in every verse that says blood and you will be left with a mess almost as incoherent as you claims. The Bible says.

Ephesians 2:8-9
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace (not ceremony) you have been saved, through faith (not ceremony) —and this is not from yourselves (no ceremony we do will help), it is the gift of God— (not from ceremony) 9 not by works (not ceremony) , so that no one can boast (of performing ceremonies).

What ceremony did Abraham do when he was declared righteous?
What ceremony did Paul do on the road to Damascus?
What ceremony did the thousands saved daily in Jerusalem?

AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thief]

Was it ritual that came out of the spear would in Jesus side? I do not know what you are running but it is amuck. You no sooner claim that ritual cannot save than you claim the opposite. How could any ceremony anyone ever performed forgive anything? If ceremony fixed things why did Christ offer his life? Substitute ritual in every verse that says blood and you will be left with a mess almost as incoherent as you claims. The Bible says.

Ephesians 2:8-9
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace (not ceremony) you have been saved, through faith (not ceremony) —and this is not from yourselves (no ceremony we do will help), it is the gift of God— (not from ceremony) 9 not by works (not ceremony) , so that no one can boast (of performing ceremonies).

What ceremony did Abraham do when he was declared righteous?
What ceremony did Paul do on the road to Damascus?
What ceremony did the thousands saved daily in Jerusalem?

AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you over look Moses on purpose?

In his day sin was treated as a tangible.....it could rub off.....literally!

So you bring your best animal to Moses....he lays his hand on your head.....
lays his hand on the animal....and the animal is led to the wilderness to die....
with your sin upon it.

Blood sacrifice is a ritual.
The rhetoric of such things now continues.
And it is no more than rhetoric.

The Life of the Carpenter saves all that keep His word.
Not His death....or His blood.

It's all in metaphor.
His Word is His blood.

Back to the Thief.
Not having been a follower...a disciple....would he know the Word?

Have we not conceded...the parables are not required?

What then (again)....was the saving grace?

 

[Tranquil Servant]

So you then contend.....the Thief is not a prodigal son?

I can see you are definitely rogue which makes me understand your username .
Anyways.....since you're not interested in delving into the topic of Jesus's divinity, the only thing I have to say concerning the Prodigal Son and the thief is, you would know the answer to your question if you read the link in my last post. Also, I am not a contentious person nor am I your contender; I'm a lover :group: :yes: not a fighter :ko: :no:.

 

[1robin]

Did you over look Moses on purpose?

I had no reason to, he agrees with me.

In his day sin was treated as a tangible.....it could rub off.....literally!

NO it could not, and no it cannot. Find me just a single major commentator who ever agreed with this.

So you bring your best animal to Moses....he lays his hand on your head.....
lays his hand on the animal....and the animal is led to the wilderness to die....
with your sin upon it.

I see the obviously symbolic has now become literal and vice versa.

Blood sacrifice is a ritual.

Then the OX and RAM unions should be filing suites. With something this obviously wrong any argument would be pointless.

The rhetoric of such things now continues.
And it is no more than rhetoric.

So Christ died for the sake of rhetoric.

The Life of the Carpenter saves all that keep His word.
Not His death....or His blood.

Then he should have called down the legions of angels to keep him off the cross.

It's all in metaphor.
His Word is His blood.

For goodness sakes they are two completely different words in all the languages on the Bible with completely different meanings. It is haima in kione Greek and means literal blood. In Hebrew it’s dam and means literal blood. Substitute “word” in the verse below and you SHOULD see how absurd this is.

11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[a]
</SPAN>

This is so ridiculous that I will simply let God and his redeemed sum it up.

New Living Translation (©2007)
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.


Specially of those that believe - What God intends for All, he actually gives to them that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault. http://www.godvine.com/bible/1-timothy/4-10

Romans 3:25

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564). Commentary on Romans (on 3:25), Grand Rapids, 1948. page 143.
"A propitiatory through faith in his blood, &c. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned "blood," because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. "

Until you form an entire denomination or publish your own works I am going with Calvin and every other commentator as to what the blood is.

Find me a single instance where blood was ever translated as the word in an accepted source.

BTW you have still not justified the use of carpenter and why it appears to be an unjustified obsession of yours.

 

[Thief]

I had no reason to, he agrees with me.
NO it could not, and no it cannot. Find me just a single major commentator who ever agreed with this.
I see the obviously symbolic has now become literal and vice versa.
Then the OX and RAM unions should be filing suites. With something this obviously wrong any argument would be pointless.
So Christ died for the sake of rhetoric.
Then he should have called down the legions of angels to keep him off the cross.
For goodness sakes they are two completely different words in all the languages on the Bible with completely different meanings. It is haima in kione Greek and means literal blood. In Hebrew it’s dam and means literal blood. Substitute “word” in the verse below and you SHOULD see how absurd this is.

11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[a]
</SPAN>

This is so ridiculous that I will simply let God and his redeemed sum it up.

New Living Translation (©2007)
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.


Specially of those that believe - What God intends for All, he actually gives to them that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault. http://www.godvine.com/bible/1-timothy/4-10

Romans 3:25

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564). Commentary on Romans (on 3:25), Grand Rapids, 1948. page 143.
"A propitiatory through faith in his blood, &c. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned "blood," because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. "

Until you form an entire denomination or publish your own works I am going with Calvin and every other commentator as to what the blood is.

Find me a single instance where blood was ever translated as the word in an accepted source.

BTW you have still not justified the use of carpenter and why it appears to be an unjustified obsession of yours.

If Moses agrees with you....then you agree with Moses.
And setting your sins unto something else....works.

And the popular notion....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ....means nothing.

I see you lean to Christian salvation rants about blood.

I don't think you will ever correctly answer....
what was the saving grace for the Thief?

It was not blood.

 

[1robin]

If Moses agrees with you....then you agree with Moses.
And setting your sins unto something else....works.

And the popular notion....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ....means nothing.

I see you lean to Christian salvation rants about blood.

I don't think you will ever correctly answer....
what was the saving grace for the Thief?

It was not blood.

I can't do this again. This would be the seventh time I answered the same question in addition to you answering it once which confirmed all previous six of my answers.

 

[Thief]

I can't do this again. This would be the seventh time I answered the same question in addition to you answering it once which confirmed all previous six of my answers.

So who is in denial?

The Thief came to a realization....on his own.
His request to be remembered flagged that event.

The Carpenter saw it.
His response was only acknowledgement.

Nothing more.

 

[1robin]

So who is in denial?

The Thief came to a realization....on his own.
His request to be remembered flagged that event.

The Carpenter saw it.
His response was only acknowledgement.

Nothing more.

Is that why not a single one of the accepted commentators agrees with your understanding of a single issue that you have claimed? I have never heard a sermon, read a book, talked to another Christian, or heard anyone anywhere claim what you have about the blood, the thief, or basically anything else. What more can be added? If you choose facts based of preference there is not much I can do with it.

 

[Thief]

Is that why not a single one of the accepted commentators agrees with your understanding of a single issue that you have claimed? I have never heard a sermon, read a book, talked to another Christian, or heard anyone anywhere claim what you have about the blood, the thief, or basically anything else. What more can be added? If you choose facts based of preference there is not much I can do with it.

So... 'go back to your scriptures...if you think there is life in them'.

And on the cross of a Thief.....find your self.