The Repenting Thief and Christ's statement to Mary

[Stravinsk]

I'll preface this question with a statement about my position so the question doesn't appear to be insincerely asked:

I do not accept that the Gospel of Luke is without error or necessarily inspired in some of it's account.

That said, I'm curious how others (who do believe Luke is inspired) answer this.

According to the story of the thief on the across - one of the thieves repented, acknowledged his crimes, declared Yeshua innocent and asked Him to "remember me when you come into your Kingdom", to which Yeshua replied "I tell you the truth today you will be with me in paradise". (Luke 23:39-43)

This is a popular story that I have often heard repeated by Pastors and is often featured in popular films about Messiah. It is also often used to bolster the idea of grace through faith alone and cited as an evidence of the mercy of God.

So, for those of you who accept this account of the thieves is true, a supplementary to Matthew's and John's account who have neither of the thieves repenting:

If the thief was in Paradise with the son of God that day, how then do you reconcile that, according to John 20:16-17, 3 days later, Christ cautions Mary not to hold on to him (take hold of him/touch him - the Greek word used is the same as the word used by the bleeding woman who touched Christ to be healed)...because He had "Not yet ascended to the Father"?

 

[Alithis]

firstly you limit God in order to even come up with the question .

GOD who can be all places at all times and with whom nothing is impossible . if you believe that he is God then the two statements need no reconciling .

 

[Stravinsk]

firstly you limit God in order to even come up with the question .

GOD who can be all places at all times and with whom nothing is impossible . if you believe that he is God then the two statements need no reconciling .

Would you seriously argue that if one Gospel had Christ rising on the 1st day and another on the 3rd, that it is no problem since God is omnipresent? If that were the case, why even state 3 days and 3 nights or reference the Prophet Jonah?

"Please listen to me - I'll be in the tomb 3 days"
"Please listen to me - I'll be in the tomb 1 day"

Please listen to me - "It doesn't matter because since I'm everywhere, I'm both in the tomb and out of the tomb on the first day and the 3rd day".

Thanks for replying, I'll see if someone has a better apologetic.

 

[Lamb]

God is one...three in one, yet still one. It is true that God can be in more than one place at a time so Bill's theology is spot on

I would like to ask if you've heard about the comma and how there was no punctuation in the original Greek and that is something else that people tend to bring up concerning this piece of scripture.

 

[Stravinsk]

God is one...three in one, yet still one. It is true that God can be in more than one place at a time so Bill's theology is spot on

I would like to ask if you've heard about the comma and how there was no punctuation in the original Greek and that is something else that people tend to bring up concerning this piece of scripture.

Yes, I understand that in Koine Greek no breath marks or other such indications were used ie:

"I tell you the truth, Today you will be with me in Paradise"

vs

"I tell you the truth Today, you will be with me in Paradise"

The latter version, is without any equal or precedent to my knowledge.

Be that as it may, I cannot agree with the argument that somehow the whole sign of Jonah is done away with - making it not a sign at all! - by this reckoning that it means nothing because "God is omnipresent". One might as well say that Christ was only joshing when placing importance upon a time period for being in the tomb, and giving only 1 sign which is rendered meaningless by this very argument.

Even if the true punctuation is the latter quote, with the comma after "Today" instead of before it - then the verse and it's meaning and import has been widely misused by ministers over many generations to convey something else entirely - death bed conversions which suits unrepentant sinners and the institutionalized church being the largest beneficiary of the inheritances passed on to them!

 

[Josiah]

I simply googled the question, and the very first thing I got with this: http://www.gotquestions.org/today-paradise.html

My FIRST thought was that you are simply placing too much restriction on "today" - insisting He meant that as a specific limit of hours ending at sundown (perhaps an hour or two or three after He said this).... But yes, I recall that punctuation is not original so this article may have a solid point.

I have no idea what your point is about "clinging"




.

 

[Brighten04]

I don't understand the preoccupation with the when in this passage. Whether it was meant as ,I tell you the truth today, or ,I tell you the truth, today. Both men died on the same day. We split hairs over things like this, but, imho this is unnecessary. We know that there is an afterlife after death. We read in scripture of a place called Abraham's bosom where dead Lazarus went after death. Most people see that passage as a parable, but, I don't.So the thief will be with Jesus in the afterlife, regardless of time. I am a person who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. If there is any part that I cannot accept as unadulterated truth, then I would have to cast the whole thing aside and the whole thing is untrustworthy.If I cannot reconcile something in my mind and heart, about scripture, then it is I who am ignorant, not the Word of God.

 

[Alithis]

Would you seriously argue that if one Gospel had Christ rising on the 1st day and another on the 3rd, that it is no problem since God is omnipresent? If that were the case, why even state 3 days and 3 nights or reference the Prophet Jonah?

"Please listen to me - I'll be in the tomb 3 days"
"Please listen to me - I'll be in the tomb 1 day"

Please listen to me - "It doesn't matter because since I'm everywhere, I'm both in the tomb and out of the tomb on the first day and the 3rd day".

Thanks for replying, I'll see if someone has a better apologetic.

by the tomb he refers to the place of his Body which lay in the ground 3 days and nights . So again. there is nothing to be reconciled .
you're simply trying to fit God into your carnal understanding and it is creating dilemmas for you which do not in truth exists . it is very easy for his body to lay dead in the tomb and for him to be in paradise while is lays there (and not only paradise but also conquering hell ,taking the keys of death back , preaching to the souls -he was and is quite busy ). He came to us in the form of flesh ,but he himself has no such limitations .

so again -to even come up with the question you must first limit God- and that is nothing more then unbelief . many do wrestle with unbelief on their way to salvation . but it is those who consistently believe ,repent and obey . that are saved , not those who live in doubt .

 

[Stravinsk]

by the tomb he refers to the place of his Body which lay in the ground 3 days and nights . So again. there is nothing to be reconciled .
you're simply trying to fit God into your carnal understanding and it is creating dilemmas for you which do not in truth exists . it is very easy for his body to lay dead in the tomb and for him to be in paradise while is lays there (and not only paradise but also conquering hell ,taking the keys of death back , preaching to the souls -he was and is quite busy ). He came to us in the form of flesh ,but he himself has no such limitations .

so again -to even come up with the question you must first limit God- and that is nothing more then unbelief . many do wrestle with unbelief on their way to salvation . but it is those who consistently believe ,repent and obey . that are saved , not those who live in doubt .

Lol. First, sir, I really don't care what you think are the criteria for being saved. Those are criteria that, according Matthew 7, God will hold you to, if you hold others to them. So good luck with that, especially holding blatant contradictions in your mind with regards to stuff like this. I understand, in order to accept everything in the new testament one must practice certain mental gymnastics and selectively apply standards.

To wit, I'll lay it out for you plain:

John 20: 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

If this is true, and "Paradise" means the abode of God, heaven, etc - to which, Christ, according to this verse had NOT yet ascended...

Then this:

Luke 23: 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Cannot be.

 

[Stravinsk]

I simply googled the question, and the very first thing I got with this: http://www.gotquestions.org/today-paradise.html

My FIRST thought was that you are simply placing too much restriction on "today" - insisting He meant that as a specific limit of hours ending at sundown (perhaps an hour or two or three after He said this).... But yes, I recall that punctuation is not original so this article may have a solid point.

I have no idea what your point is about "clinging"




.

If the comma were placed after "Today", it would make it unique in the linguistics of Christ throughout the Gospels. But I digress, that is a small point.

Both Matthew and John completely omit the repentance of the thief, and according to Matthew, BOTH thieves are mocking Christ. If one accepts Matthew is true and Luke's account is true, then one of the thieves, after spewing vile insults and mockery at Messiah while hanging on a cross waiting to die, somehow has a complete and utter change of heart in the space of a few hours, rebukes the other thief and slides his way into God's good graces.

An amazing story that has been repeated and emphasized very often for generations, making it an interwoven part of Christianity's story and theology - and yet - it is completely missed by the two hand-picked disciples of Messiah in their accounts (Matthew, John).

 

[Alithis]

Lol. First, sir, I really don't care what you think are the criteria for being saved. Those are criteria that, according Matthew 7, God will hold you to, if you hold others to them. So good luck with that, especially holding blatant contradictions in your mind with regards to stuff like this. I understand, in order to accept everything in the new testament one must practice certain mental gymnastics and selectively apply standards.

To wit, I'll lay it out for you plain:

John 20: 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

If this is true, and "Paradise" means the abode of God, heaven, etc - to which, Christ, according to this verse had NOT yet ascended...

Then this:

Luke 23: 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Cannot be.

you are making the assumption that his spirit remained in his body in the grave for three days ..
but that is not so anymore then the spirit of the thief on the cross remained in is body after he died .

methinks you are similar to a christadelphian or such like .
it takes no mental gymnastics what so ever .

to ask the question in your OP . you must first DISbelieve that GOD is GOD .
for the god your refering to is limited by "you"

so it canot be the same God we speak of .

 

[Stravinsk]

you are making the assumption that his spirit remained in his body in the grave for three days ..
but that is not so anymore then the spirit of the thief on the cross remained in is body after he died .

No assumption required. According to the Gospel of John Christ states that after His resurrection, 3 days later, He had NOT ascended to the Father. In case you are unclear as to what this means - He had not yet gone to the abode of the father, heaven, or paradise. He even tells Mary to the tell the disciples that He is *going to go* - that is - He hasn't yet when he is speaking to her. Here's a refresher:

John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Obviously you disbelieve this. Actually, no, you'd say you believe it, but must tack on a special interpretation that basically renders Messiah's words a lie.

methinks you are similar to a christadelphian or such like .
it takes no mental gymnastics what so ever .

Reconciling Luke with John and Matthew takes a great deal of mental gymnastics, and not just on this issue. It is Luke's version that contradicts Yeshua's hand picked disciples John and Matthew on numerous issues.

to ask the question in your OP . you must first DISbelieve that GOD is GOD .
for the god your refering to is limited by "you"

so it canot be the same God we speak of .

Mmm hmm. It seems to me that it is you who are the unbeliever. You read John 20:17 and think Messiah doesn't mean what He plainly says. If what you say is correct, there would really be no point to his instructions to Mary at all.

 

[Lamb]

Even though the Gospels are inspired by God, they are still the accounts from the men who lived during that time and so when a group of men give accounts of a life you will have different things added in that another version might not include. To discount one Gospel because an incident was not related in the others does not that take that into account.

 

[psalms 91]

Even though the Gospels are inspired by God, they are still the accounts from the men who lived during that time and so when a group of men give accounts of a life you will have different things added in that another version might not include. To discount one Gospel because an incident was not related in the others does not that take that into account.

Exactly

 

[Stravinsk]

Even though the Gospels are inspired by God, they are still the accounts from the men who lived during that time and so when a group of men give accounts of a life you will have different things added in that another version might not include. To discount one Gospel because an incident was not related in the others does not that take that into account.

It is not simply a case of omission of things supplemented in another or other's accounts. That is not an issue. It's where the addition of information in one account contradicts another account.

For example, in John's Gospel some of Messiah's last words on the cross are to his mother.

None of the other Gospels contain it. This is not an issue, because it is simply more information -details- of a dialogue that happened at a certain place and a certain time that contradicts nothing else.

Where Gospel accounts contradict and reconciling them require vast amounts of spiritually sounding imaginative mysticism is where I have something of an issue.

 

[Josiah]

If the comma were placed after "Today", it would make it unique in the linguistics of Christ throughout the Gospels. But I digress, that is a small point.

It seemed to be your point.... Again, the punctuation we have is not original. In this case, where the comma is ADDED could change the meaning.

I think you are simply "reading" the text in a too-technical, too-modern of a way - tripping up yourself in the process.

Both Matthew and John completely omit the repentance of the thief, and according to Matthew, BOTH thieves are mocking Christ. If one accepts Matthew is true and Luke's account is true, then one of the thieves, after spewing vile insults and mockery at Messiah while hanging on a cross waiting to die, somehow has a complete and utter change of heart in the space of a few hours, rebukes the other thief and slides his way into God's good graces.

Let's assume your assumptions are correct...... so what? It COULD be the 4 Gospel accounts are (even together) not relating every DETAIL.... I can't see why it matters. And remember, they are GOSPELS and not biographies; we should think of them as sermons rather than the modern, technical biographies you might be more use to. They were written to inspire faith in Christ, not as a modern biography, not to simply relate millions of tidbits of historic details (although we find a FEW examples of that). If I wanted you to appreciate the new Mazda Miata, I might give you 600 pages of detailed, engineering data .... or I might give you something very different. IF I were to relate to you my love for my wife, I might give you 600 pages of techical details about her - including results of her last blood work, the grades she got in the Second Grade but I probably would not. Now, I see your point: IF there was a clear CONTRADICTION in a technical detail - that might be a problem, but you haven't presented any: simply that we have DIFFERENT accounts.

Now, to what MAY be a secondary point of yours - preachers make a point the text doesn't EXACTLY FULLY substantiate - yup. Happens. I agree: this text probably cannot be used to DOGMATICALLY state that Jesus' assumption into Heaven happened before Sundown of His crucifixion (so that "today" refers to the remaining sunlight of that calendar day)..... but then I've never heard that point DOGMATICALLY made (maybe you have.... I would not challenge any claim you might make that such has been heard by you). I agree: some times when we look carefully at the text, it at times "proves" less than statements made based on it (and it CAN - at times - be helpful to note that: especially in terms of Dogma), but that's a whole other enchilada than claiming SCRIPTURE specially contradicts itself, IMO, it likely only means those speaking BASED on Scripture at times say more than the text (which I would not deny.... if they said no more than Scripture, all they'd do is read the Hebrew and Greek of the text without speech inflections that might indicate punctuation).




- Josiah

 

[TurtleHare]

I gotta chime in with the others that you need to remember we are talking God talk and He doesn't have limits except any He places on himself so when he says he hasn't ascended it's bodily ascension yet earlier we read he gave up his spirit.

[
QUOTE=Stravinsk;28005]No assumption required. According to the Gospel of John Christ states that after His resurrection, 3 days later, He had NOT ascended to the Father. In case you are unclear as to what this means - He had not yet gone to the abode of the father, heaven, or paradise. He even tells Mary to the tell the disciples that He is *going to go* - that is - He hasn't yet when he is speaking to her. Here's a refresher:
John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Obviously you disbelieve this. Actually, no, you'd say you believe it, but must tack on a special interpretation that basically renders Messiah's words a lie.



Reconciling Luke with John and Matthew takes a great deal of mental gymnastics, and not just on this issue. It is Luke's version that contradicts Yeshua's hand picked disciples John and Matthew on numerous issues.



Mmm hmm. It seems to me that it is you who are the unbeliever. You read John 20:17 and think Messiah doesn't mean what He plainly says. If what you say is correct, there would really be no point to his instructions to Mary at all.[/QUOTE]

 

[Alithis]

No assumption required. According to the Gospel of John Christ states that after His resurrection, 3 days later, He had NOT ascended to the Father. In case you are unclear as to what this means - He had not yet gone to the abode of the father, heaven, or paradise. He even tells Mary to the tell the disciples that He is *going to go* - that is - He hasn't yet when he is speaking to her. Here's a refresher:

John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Obviously you disbelieve this. Actually, no, you'd say you believe it, but must tack on a special interpretation that basically renders Messiah's words a lie.



Reconciling Luke with John and Matthew takes a great deal of mental gymnastics, and not just on this issue. It is Luke's version that contradicts Yeshua's hand picked disciples John and Matthew on numerous issues.



Mmm hmm. It seems to me that it is you who are the unbeliever. You read John 20:17 and think Messiah doesn't mean what He plainly says. If what you say is correct, there would really be no point to his instructions to Mary at all.

i know the lord JEsus means exactly what he says . unlike others here i believe his word to be absolute in truth . i also understand that he refers to his body form when he says i have not yet ascended to the father i also understand that"paradise " is a part of the heavens and not the "throne "

so no matter which way you twist it in your unbelief (and you are a theist -one who does not believe that God involves himself in his creation and so does not believe in the bible in the first place ) it remains true that when the lord jesus said ..this day shall you be with "me " .. he being the" I am " . that s exactly what he meant .
there is no contradiction there is no error .just because you personally do not understand a thing does not make it false .

 

[psalms 91]

i know the lord JEsus means exactly what he says . unlike others here i believe his word to be absolute in truth . i also understand that he refers to his body form when he says i have not yet ascended to the father i also understand that"paradise " is a part of the heavens and not the "throne "

so no matter which way you twist it in your unbelief (and you are a theist -one who does not believe that God involves himself in his creation and so does not believe in the bible in the first place ) it remains true that when the lord jesus said ..this day shall you be with "me " .. he being the" I am " . that s exactly what he meant .
there is no contradiction there is no error .just because you personally do not understand a thing does not make it false .

His statement I have not ascended to the Father yet, touch me not. Touch me not is the same thing the high priest says as he is taking the sacrifice to be offered so in the Jewish context His statement takes on a richer meaning and points to exactly what He meant

 

[Stravinsk]

It seemed to be your point.... Again, the punctuation we have is not original. In this case, where the comma is ADDED could change the meaning.

I think you are simply "reading" the text in a too-technical, too-modern of a way - tripping up yourself in the process.








Let's assume your assumptions are correct...... so what? It COULD be the 4 Gospel accounts are (even together) not relating every DETAIL.... I can't see why it matters. And remember, they are GOSPELS and not biographies; we should think of them as sermons rather than the modern, technical biographies you might be more use to. They were written to inspire faith in Christ, not as a modern biography, not to simply relate millions of tidbits of historic details (although we find a FEW examples of that). If I wanted you to appreciate the new Mazda Miata, I might give you 600 pages of detailed, engineering data .... or I might give you something very different. IF I were to relate to you my love for my wife, I might give you 600 pages of techical details about her - including results of her last blood work, the grades she got in the Second Grade but I probably would not. Now, I see your point: IF there was a clear CONTRADICTION in a technical detail - that might be a problem, but you haven't presented any: simply that we have DIFFERENT accounts.

This isn't about tidbits of information, it is about a contradiction in the text that, so far has been largely defended by pulling out the Jesus-Mystic-can-be-anywhere-in-spirit card. I didn't think I'd get something more than that, but I thought I'd put it out there and see anyway. I noticed you mentioned Biography - well despite negations that it isn't, both Matthew and Luke have a genealogy account of Messiah which go to arguing that to a certain extent, it is a biography. Those accounts also contradict one another.

Someone is not telling the truth. I believe the person lying or in error is Luke. That isn't to say there aren't worthy things written in Luke's account, because there are, just as there are some good sayings in the writings of Saul/Paul. Just that they are mixed in with untruths.

Now, to what MAY be a secondary point of yours - preachers make a point the text doesn't EXACTLY FULLY substantiate - yup. Happens. I agree: this text probably cannot be used to DOGMATICALLY state that Jesus' assumption into Heaven happened before Sundown of His crucifixion (so that "today" refers to the remaining sunlight of that calendar day)..... but then I've never heard that point DOGMATICALLY made (maybe you have.... I would not challenge any claim you might make that such has been heard by you). I agree: some times when we look carefully at the text, it at times "proves" less than statements made based on it (and it CAN - at times - be helpful to note that: especially in terms of Dogma), but that's a whole other enchilada than claiming SCRIPTURE specially contradicts itself, IMO, it likely only means those speaking BASED on Scripture at times say more than the text (which I would not deny.... if they said no more than Scripture, all they'd do is read the Hebrew and Greek of the text without speech inflections that might indicate punctuation). - Josiah

Dogmatic or not, specifically emphasized or not, that is how most Pastors and other Christian speakers present the topic and that is the impression given to the those who hear it.