Go back
Dependencies for 'Chrisitan' salvation

Dependencies for 'Chrisitan' salvation

Spirituality

1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
So you reject the Gospels of Mark and Matthew on this matter?
No I don't.

"It is said in Matthew and Mark that the thieves, even they that were crucified with him, reviled him, which some think is by a figure put for one of them, but others think that they both reviled him at first, till the heart of one of them was wonderfully changed..."


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
As Matthew Henry says:
Mr Henry offers a lot of fanciful ideology-driven waffle which is not supported by the Gospels.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
"It is said in Matthew and Mark that the thieves, even they that were crucified with him, reviled him, which some think is by a figure put for one of them, but others think that they both reviled him at first, till the heart of one of them was wonderfully changed..."
Huh? Matthew and Mark say absolutely nothing about anybody being "wonderfully changed". You're making stuff up.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Huh? Matthew and Mark say absolutely nothing about anybody being "wonderfully changed". You're making stuff up.
Luke's account is clear enough for me.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Luke's account is clear enough for me.
Luke's account illustrates what Mark and Matthew's accounts tell us. John presumably chose to go nowhere near the ugly incident. .. which was a couple of thieves mocking a rabbi who was being executed for blasphemy.


Originally posted by FMF
Mr Henry offers a lot of fanciful ideology-driven waffle which is not supported by the Gospels.
So you want me to believe that your interpretation of the gospels is right and Luke's account and all the Bible scholars are wrong?

1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
Luke's account illustrates what Mark and Matthew's accounts tell us. John presumably chose to go nowhere near the ugly incident. .. which was a couple of thieves mocking a rabbi who was being executed for blasphemy.
Yes indeed, in your eyes he was simply a rabbi, nothing else. I get that you want everyone else to believe that.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you want me to believe that your interpretation of the gospels is right and Luke's account and all the Bible scholars are wrong?
I'm saying that your interpretation doesn't add up and is not backed up by the Gospels and i don't think some copy-pasted appeal to authority and/or argumentum ad populam is going to make your glaring inability to substantiate what you said to me go away.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes indeed, in your eyes he was simply a rabbi, nothing else. I get that you want everyone to believe that.
I'm not particularly concerned with what "everyone" believes. I am more interested in how you made claims that you can't justify, even with reference to your own preferred scripture. I asked you about Mark and Matthew's account and you waffled on about somebody being "wonderfully changed". It's nonsense.


Originally posted by FMF
I'm saying that your interpretation doesn't add up and is not backed up by the Gospels and i don't think some copy-pasted appeal to authority and/or argumentum ad populam is going to make your glaring inability to substantiate what you said to me go away.
Sorry but your interpretation of Luke's account makes no sense at all.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes indeed, in your eyes he was simply a rabbi, nothing else. I get that you want everyone else to believe that.
The fact that you think he was more than "simply a rabbi" does not entitle you to just make stuff up, regardless of how sincere or convinced you might happen to be .


Originally posted by FMF
The fact that you think he was more than "simply a rabbi" does not entitle you to just make stuff up, regardless of how sincere or convinced you might happen to be .
Ok according to Luke, one of the thieves made it to Heaven. If you read Luke's account, why do you think he made it to Heaven? Tell me honestly.


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Sorry but your interpretation of Luke's account makes no sense at all.
It's an account if the mockery of the dying Jesus presumably on account of what were seen as being his delusions of divinity. Mark and Matthew confirm that mockery is what the thieves were up to.

1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
It's an account if the mockery of the dying Jesus presumably on account of what were seen as being his delusions of divinity. Mark and Matthew confirm that mockery is what the thieves were up to.
And what does Luke's account tell you? Do you accept Luke's account as it is?


Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No I don't.

"It is said in Matthew and Mark that the thieves, even they that were crucified with him, reviled him, which some think is by a figure put for one of them, but others think that they both reviled him at first, till the heart of one of them was wonderfully changed..."
You need to provide your source when you copy such quotes here, especially when what is quoted is not biblically supported.