Thief On The Cross

[padredurand]

As I've mentioned in a few other threads - this OP seems bent on stirring up angst, and for everyone on the board to eat out of the palm of his hand.

If everyone here were begging the OP to enlighten us with his infinite wisdom, he would probably say that were are not able to receive it.

IF a position were stated, and exposition given, a statement containing any substance, then an honest dialogue could ensue. This would be much more noble than the ambiguity with which he travels from thread to thread.

But, since the aim appears to be nothing more than to mock, ridicule, pepper with incessant and meaningless questions and vague statements, I am convinced that OP desires only to sow confusion and discord.

That's staying on top of it JamesL! :thumbs: It happens here quite often. A new guy will come on and post a handful of vague questions, declares every answer as inadequate and goes on to pontificate some obtuse concept that can only come from an unmedicated mind. They'll proclaim us all hellbound and get banned clearing space for the next one.

 

[kyredneck]

Yea, some takes a little longer than others to find them out.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

As I've mentioned in a few other threads - this OP seems bent on stirring up angst, and for everyone on the board to eat out of the palm of his hand.

If everyone here were begging the OP to enlighten us with his infinite wisdom, he would probably say that were are not able to receive it.

IF a position were stated, and exposition given, a statement containing any substance, then an honest dialogue could ensue. This would be much more noble than the ambiguity with which he travels from thread to thread.

But, since the aim appears to be nothing more than to mock, ridicule, pepper with incessant and meaningless questions and vague statements, I am convinced that OP desires only to sow confusion and discord.

That's staying on top of it JamesL! :thumbs: It happens here quite often. A new guy will come on and post a handful of vague questions, declares every answer as inadequate and goes on to pontificate some obtuse concept that can only come from an unmedicated mind. They'll proclaim us all hellbound and get banned clearing space for the next one.

I would like to point out that the OP is engaging in conversation in the cal/arm section, in a thread he started regarding "free-will".

 

[JamesL]

I would like to point out that the OP is engaging in conversation in the cal/arm section, in a thread he started regarding "free-will".

And if you go look at the substance of his "interaction" you see exactly what I described. Meaningless questions, vague statements, etc.

His replies:
Do you believe this?
Do you believe this?
Do you believe this?
You all are wrong
I don't need to define anything
That was predestined
Thanks, that's predestination
Thanks for the feedback, it was predestined

Then, in post #33 I wrote:

It was predestined that predestination is predestined. And a discussion of predestination was predestined, as was the predestined definition of predestination was predestined. And predestined predestination was predestined as a part of predestination

I think that about sums up the original poster's predestined thoughts on predestination

Gobbledygook

At about post # 40 or so, the OP declared that he does not believe free will exists, the same that he does not believe atheism exists.

And then nothing since then, up to about 80 posts over there now.

That's hardly interaction.

Meanwhile, he left a trail of dust that hasn't settled yet. People arguing left and right over something which was asked with no real intention of closure

 

[JamesL]

That's staying on top of it JamesL! :thumbs: It happens here quite often. A new guy will come on and post a handful of vague questions, declares every answer as inadequate and goes on to pontificate some obtuse concept that can only come from an unmedicated mind. They'll proclaim us all hellbound and get banned clearing space for the next one.

Thanks, Padre.

I take a really strong stand against anyone who aims only to confuse and disorient the saints. That doesn't mean I think everyone's going to agree, and I have my fair share of beliefs that make people say "HUH?"

But it is not without explanation, scripture references, etc to where people know exactly where I'm coming from. And I accept correction when it is appropriate.

This OP claimed in a different thread that he is separating the wheat from the chaff. I told him that he is neither called, nor equipped, for such a task. He also asked me if it makes me angry, to which I replied:

As a matter of fact, it does. I get pretty angry when imposters try to bring confusion into the midst of saints.

Not everyone is equipped with the discernment necessary to protect the flock from ravenous wolves. For those of us who do, it is our duty

 

[Florida Believer]

Which Version

They both are correct. It's called 'Parallel Passages' which many of the gospels have different versions of the same event. In this one, Matthew was inspired to write the details he wrote and Luke was inspired to write many of the same details, but included the conversion of the sinner.

There really is nothing to suggest there were 2 seperate groups of 2 men on each side.

But we do see all throughout the scriptures symbolism in numbers. And a pattern of the number 3 is all throughout the word, not just the trinity. The thief (malefactor) that rejected grace and the thief that accepted grace is also symbolic of the love of Christ even as he is being humiliated before all mankind.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

They both are correct. It's called 'Parallel Passages' which many of the gospels have different versions of the same event. In this one, Matthew was inspired to write the details he wrote and Luke was inspired to write many of the same details, but included the conversion of the sinner.

There really is nothing to suggest there were 2 seperate groups of 2 men on each side.

But we do see all throughout the scriptures symbolism in numbers. And a pattern of the number 3 is all throughout the word, not just the trinity. The thief (malefactor) that rejected grace and the thief that accepted grace is also symbolic of the love of Christ even as he is being humiliated before all mankind.

Welcome to BB!

 

[Florida Believer]

Thanks Jacob

 

[Yeshua1]

Which version is the correct
account of what really happened
at the cross?

A.
Matthew 27
38Then were there two thieves crucified with him,
one on the right hand, and another on the left.
39And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their
heads,
40And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and
buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the
Son of God, come down from the cross.
41Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the
scribes and elders, said,
42He saved others; himself he cannot save.
If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down
from the cross, and we will believe him.
43He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he
will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
44The thieves also, which were crucified with him,
cast the same in his teeth.

B.
Luke 23
33And when they were come to the place, which is
called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors,
one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not
what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
35And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them
derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself,
if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
36And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering
him vinegar,
37And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38And a superscription also was written over him in letters
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him,
saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou
fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our
deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest
into thy kingdom.
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt
thou be with me in paradise.

BIOTH were true, as one recorded the scene in the beginning, otherlater on intime!