How many were crucified with Jesus?

I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

🙂

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

🙂

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

Of course this is information is deducted from text in the bible, of which we have no way of proving how accurate it is. Don't you find it odd that Jesus is traditionally put in the middle ? Statistically he would have a greater chance being in one of the other positions.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

🙂

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

Can you find an article that resolves the contradication regarding the number and type of people at the empty tomb?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

🙂

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

Here is the first problem:

This identifies the root of the problem: a lack of real faith in the integrity of the Word of God. Such faith leads to the indispensable conviction that the Word cannot contradict itself. When one is rooted and grounded in that premise, he has a basis from which to work out what seem to be apparent contradictions, of which there are many in the Bible.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

I've pointed our irrefutable contradictions on this site before which no literalist
(verbal acrobatics nonewithstanding) has been able to explain.

The second problem is that the site uses the King James translation which, although
by far the most elegant to read, is also woefully unreliable. If you are going to tackle
a passage, you should turn to the Greek.

Thirdly, the blithe disregard of tradition is a mistake. If we have records saying
2 people with Jesus going back to the early Christians, then what makes a person
think that 1900 years later we have a better answer?

The site misrepresents the interlinear translation of 'one' in their examination
of St John's Gospel -- the 'one' is implicit in the word form used. We encounter
this in many other languages (e.g., My father used to call his mother 'la vieja'
which means 'the old' but, implicitly, 'the old [one]'😉. So the out that they
leave themselves for a multiplicity of crucified folk is founded on sand.

Regarding the Greek, Sts Matthew and Mark report two 'robbers' and St Luke
reports two 'criminals.' These are synonyms. To try to reconcile the contradiction
(wherein Sts Matthew and Mark the criminals apparently both revile Him, in St
Luke one comes to God) by inventing a tradition is silliness.

Recall that none of the authors were present for the crucifixion, and so they were
relying on reports that they got. If you believe St Luke is a literal report, then
it is a simple matter of Sts Mark and Matthew not hearing about the story. But,
more likely, St Luke was embellishing upon the events at the crucifixion to make
a theological point: that one can truly come to God in their last moments, if they
act in sincerity.

To panic because of a literal contradiction is an expression of weakness of faith.
However, if you can look beyond the literalness of a text to see the greater theological
presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is the first problem:

To panic because of a literal contradiction is an expression of weakness of faith.
However, if you can look beyond the literalness of a text to see the greater theological
presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

Nemesio

Or a greater blindness

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is the first problem:

[i]This identifies the root of the problem: a lack of real faith in the integrity of the Word of God. Such faith leads to the indispensable conviction that the Word cannot contradict itself. When one is rooted and grounded in that premise, he has a basis from which to work out what seem to be apparent contradictions, of which th ...[text shortened]... greater theological
presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

Nemesio

Hmmmmmmmmm....good post. I'll have to think on this.
BTW. La vieja is also feminine.😉

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Hmmmmmmmmm....good post. I'll have to think on this.
BTW. La vieja is also feminine.😉

Yes. My father called his mother 'la vieja.'

It was a term of endearment. Literally translated, it means
'the old,' but implicitly it is 'the old [(female) one].'

I figured since it was his mother, her gender was self-evident.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Or a greater blindness

The person who needs the Bible to be literally true at all times is
by definition blinded to all other arguments.

I have no problem with any one part of the Bible's being true, or any one
part of its being false.

That is not blindness. That is opened-mindedness to revelation and Truth.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Of course this is information is deducted from text in the bible, of which we have no way of proving how accurate it is. Don't you find it odd that Jesus is traditionally put in the middle ? Statistically he would have a greater chance being in one of the other positions.

If all things were equal then this would be true; but who did everyone come to see get crucified?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
If all things were equal then this would be true; but who did everyone come to see get crucified?

This question presupposes that Jesus was a bigger concern to the
Romans than the other two criminals. This is not necessarily a
safe assumption; thousands of people were crucified in Jesus's
day. This was probably another day at the ranch for the soldiers.

I'm not saying that He wasn't in the center or that the Gospels are
wrong. But it's very likely that, if He was, it was a matter of
coincidence, not because the Romans regarded Him as special or
anything.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This question presupposes that Jesus was a bigger concern to the
Romans than the other two criminals. This is not necessarily a
safe assumption; thousands of people were crucified in Jesus's
day. This was probably another day at the ranch for the soldiers.

I'm not saying that He wasn't in the center or that the Gospels are
wrong. But it's ver ...[text shortened]... matter of
coincidence, not because the Romans regarded Him as special or
anything.

Nemesio

I disagree. The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees who both controlled the church that controlled the empire along with the holy emperor. There was no seperation between church and state back then.

Jesus performed miracles, had a following, and declared himself the son of God.

Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I disagree. The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees who both controlled the church that controlled the empire along with the holy emperor. There was no seperation between church and state back then.

Your understanding of history is skewed by the Gospels. There are records of
sedititious persons, for example Josephus. Jesus's entry is insignificant, just a
few lines on a page.

The Pharisees comprised a very, very small portion of the Jewish community --
at most, just a few percentages according to historians of the day. They were
not remarkably powerful, just remarkably corrupt which made them an easy
target for Jesus.

And, the Empire was Pagan. The Jews were a small minority with limited
power throughout the Empire. That's why the many revolts that occurred were
ultimately defeated with little difficulty. The Jews were an annoyance to the
Emperor, not much more than that. Whenever they got out of hand, they just
killed a bunch of leaders to keep them in line by fear.

Jesus performed miracles, had a following, and declared himself the son of God.

Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.

I'd hate to list all the people in and around Jesus's time that performed miracles.
You may think that Jesus was a main attraction (because, no doubt, He was the
star of the show in the Gospel accounts), but the fact of the matter is, he barely
registered on the radar for the Roman government.

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire.

Why would Pilate even consider letting him go if this was the case? Instead of washing his hands, he would have applied for medals.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes. My father called his mother 'la vieja.'

It was a term of endearment. Literally translated, it means
'the old,' but implicitly it is 'the old [(female) one].'

I figured since it was his mother, her gender was self-evident.

Nemesio

Ah..yes, but my mother called my father "el viejo", and was not always a term of endearment..LOL.

Originally posted by The Chess Express

Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.

Normally in society the main event is at the end, or if something is really important it is often done first. Two possible reasons to put the main attraction at either end instead of the middle.