Why didn't Jesus die for the other thief?

[Josiah]

To teach

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that states this. Everyone knows this.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.

 

[1689Dave]

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that states this. Everyone knows this.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.

You defy the scriptural reason behind creation assuming what you say is true.

 

[Josiah]

You

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that states this. Everyone knows this.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.



.

 

[1689Dave]

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that states this. Everyone knows this.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.



.

You cannot know God apart from him damning sinners to hell according to His will, not theirs.

 

[Josiah]

Dave, you just keep PROVING to everyone here, you just don't care about truth or Scripture. You made this enormous claim that Jesus died for ONLY one of the thieves.... you've proved you have nothing in Scripture that supports it.... EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT, INCLUDING YOU.... but you just don't care. You don't give a rip. This is the only thing you've confirmed.

 

[1689Dave]

Dave, you just keep PROVING to everyone here, you just don't care about truth or Scripture. You made this enormous claim.... you have nothing in Scripture that supports it.... EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT, INCLUDING YOU.... but you just don't care. You don't give a rip. This is the only thing you've confirmed.

Universal atonement destroys God's revelation of himself. The purpose of Creation. But then He blinds people so they cannot be saved.

 

[Josiah]

. But He blinds people so they cannot be saved.

Well, now you add red herrings; CHANGING the subject to something you CAN support in acknowledgment that you CANNOT support the claim here.

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that affirms this. Everyone knows this. Including you.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.



.

 

[1689Dave]

Well, now you add red herrings; CHANGING the subject to something you CAN support in acknowledgment that you CANNOT support the claim here.

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that affirms this. Everyone knows this. Including you.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.

Does God blind people so they cannot be saved? Prove he doesn't

 

[Josiah]

Does

Well, now you add red herrings; CHANGING the subject to something you CAN support in acknowledgment that you CANNOT support the claim here.

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that affirms this. Everyone knows this. Including you.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.



.

 

[1689Dave]

Well, now you add red herrings; CHANGING the subject to something you CAN support in acknowledgment that you CANNOT support the claim here.

All you CAN do is evade your claim. You claimed that Jesus died for ONE and ONLY ONE of the two thieves dying with Jesus. "All Scripture affirms this" you stated. But you can't find even one Scripture that affirms this. Everyone knows this. Including you.

Not that you give a rip.
You just don't care about truth or Scripture.



.

Why didn't Jesus die for the Pharisees in Jn 10?

 

[Albion]

The only explanation I've heard that might seem plausible on the surface is this:

"I tell you the truth Today, you shall be with me in paradise" ...as opposed to....
"I tell you the truth, Today you shall be with me in paradise"

The missing punctuation making the difference. The problem with this apologetic is that it would make it unique and stand out in how Christ used language.

In any case, I've never heard a pastor use the first tense, only the second.

It's generally recognized that the wording can be taken in two different ways, but it's the second one that is normally considered the more plausible, considering that both of them died on the day that Christ spoke these words.

For myself, I have never thought that it makes much difference. Yes, the placement of the comma changes the meaning somewhat, but in either case it's saying that the Good Thief will be with Christ in Paradise, which is not a reference to Heaven.

 

[Albion]

Why didn't Jesus die for the Pharisees in Jn 10?

Not a problem.

This is just one more example of you placing your own interpretation over the actual one. So, it doesn't actually raise any theological difficulties.

 

[Josiah]

Not a problem.

This is just one more example of you placing your own interpretation over the actual one. So, it doesn't actually raise any theological difficulties.

... and his need to change the subject, anything to evade his claim. Does he have any credibility left with any here?

He seems to have proven he cares little to nothing about truth or Scripture.



.

 

[Stravinsk]

It's generally recognized that the wording can be taken in two different ways, but it's the second one that is normally considered the more plausible, considering that both of them died on the day that Christ spoke these words.

Except that both Matthew and Mark have both the thieves reviling Christ and John only mentions the thieves. I think it's much more plausible that Matthew, Mark and John are in agreement (with John just leaving out any interchange between the thief and Christ) and Luke the odd one out - because his version contradicts Matthew and Mark. One has to assume something happened and the thief had a complete change of heart - something that both Matthew and Mark missed. I find that quite implausible.

For myself, I have never thought that it makes much difference. Yes, the placement of the comma changes the meaning somewhat, but in either case it's saying that the Good Thief will be with Christ in Paradise, which is not a reference to Heaven.

If "paradise" is not a reference to heaven, then Christ is not answering the thief's request, ie: "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom".

If you maintain that it's that day, then Christ is somehow in His Kingdom that day, comes back on the 3rd day to present Himself to the disciples but also tells Mary in John that He has "not yet ascended to the Father". Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Albion]

If "paradise" is not a reference to heaven, then Christ is not answering the thief's request, ie: "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom".

It's not Heaven. That's usually understood. This is the "place" in the afterlife otherwise called Abraham's Bosom, and its role has been discussed here before. So, the question isn't whether or not such a place existed but how Christ's reference to Paradise makes sense when he makes his famous reply to the thief.

While the popular wisdom is that Christ is assuring him, in response to his somewhat guarded profession of faith in Christ, that he will be with Christ in heaven that very day, Paradise is what is mentioned, not heaven, so another explanation is in order. This is that Christ is saying that the two of them will be done with their suffering that very day and will both pass into a better situation in the (non-physical) afterlife. That's entirely in accord with the exchange between the two of them.

If you maintain that it's that day, then Christ is somehow in His Kingdom that day, comes back on the 3rd day to present Himself to the disciples but also tells Mary in John that He has "not yet ascended to the Father". Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

But if we DO NOT make Jesus say that he is indeed going to come into his kingdom that very day, etc., it makes sense. Promising salvation or heaven to the thief isn't actually a part of what Jesus said there, even if it is part of what was said to him by the thief.

 

[1689Dave]

Not a problem.

This is just one more example of you placing your own interpretation over the actual one. So, it doesn't actually raise any theological difficulties.

John 10 shows that Jesus did not die for the Pharisees in his audience and that is why they did not believe.

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11 (KJV 1900)


“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” John 10:26 (KJV 1900)

So, the reason the Pharisees did not believe, is because Jesus did not die for them.

 

[Stravinsk]

It's not Paradise. That's usually understood. This is the "place" in the afterlife otherwise called Abraham's Bosom, and its role has been discussed here before. So, the question isn't whether or not such a place existed but how Christ's reference to Paradise makes sense when he makes his famous reply to the thief.

While the popular wisdom is that Christ is assuring him, in response to his somewhat guarded profession of faith in Christ, that he will be with Christ in heaven that very day, Paradise is what is mentioned, not heaven, so another explanation is in order. This is that Christ is saying that the two of them will be done with their suffering that very day and will both pass into a better situation in the (non-physical) afterlife. That's entirely in accord with the exchange between the two of them.

Let me get my head around this. The word used is "Paradise" but you say it's not. Can you prove that? The Greek word used here - paradisos - is the same one used in Revelation 2:7 - "the paradise of God". Just because it's been discussed here doesn't lend weight to this line of view.

"Paradise is what is mentioned, not heaven". So what's the "paradise" in Revelation 2:7?

Can you just face that there are multiple problems here? The thief doesn't repent according to Matthew and Mark. The usage of "Paradise" is pretty sparse, most people understand it to be heaven, and that's how it's used in Revelation 2:7. The other big problem is this, according to Revelation 20, the dead aren't raised until the Judgement. Also John 5:29. In other words, the dead have to wait. Until Judgement day.

But if we DO NOT make Jesus say that he is indeed going to come into his kingdom that very day, etc., it makes sense. Promising salvation or heaven to the thief isn't actually a part of what Jesus said there, even if it is part of what was said to him by the thief.

It still doesn't make sense in light of Matthew and Mark's crucifixion accounts. They make no mention of any repentant thief. One would think this would be sort of important because it got a response from Christ...but nope, it's totally absent.

Again, in Luke's version the thief asks to be remembered when Christ comes into his Kingdom. That certainly couldn't be that day, or even the 3rd day. It has to be on Judgement day, because that is what is taught, and "Paradise" means paradise (heaven/kingdom of God etc) according to the regular usage of the word in the Greek.

 

[Albion]

Let me get my head around this. The word used is "Paradise" but you say it's not. Can you prove that?

I'm sorry about that. I began my reply intent upon explaining the meaning of Paradise and accidentally typed that word where I meant to write the word Heaven!

I edited that slip-up, but it looks like I somehow failed to get the computer to cooperate.

If you read as far as the second paragraph, you saw that the same information is referred to and that Paradise and Heaven are correctly and unambiguously treated there. You recognized this in your reply post #74, so apparently you already did "get (your) head around this."

 

[Albion]

It still doesn't make sense in light of Matthew and Mark's crucifixion accounts. They make no mention of any repentant thief. One would think this would be sort of important because it got a response from Christ...but nope, it's totally absent.

There is nothing unusual about that. A number of details about events occurring during the life of Jesus are recorded in one or perhaps more of the Gospels but not in all of them.

If this exchange between the thief and Jesus were critical to understanding the cause, meaning, and so on of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, you might have a stronger argument, but it still doesn't change the fact that all sorts of Biblical information is found in one or several of the Gospels but not all of them.

Again, in Luke's version the thief asks to be remembered when Christ comes into his Kingdom. That certainly couldn't be that day, or even the 3rd day.

I already commented on that. While the thief spoke of Jesus' Kingdom, Jesus did not respond by saying to him that they both would be in the "Kingdom" that day.