righteous thief?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why are you choosing to be such an idiot?

It's like you have never heard of the principle of the process of elimination. We don't need to know what Jesus's motivation was for saving the thief as long as we know that it wasn't because he had lived a righteous life performing works according to the Law.

That fact alone is enough.

It's beside ...[text shortened]... lind yourself to a truth that is right in front of you. You see what you choose to see.

To set the record straight once again:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

As I also said earlier:

There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified. In fact, that he accepts that he is being justly punished and points out that Jesus is not, may be indicators that he had.

No matter how adamant you remain, the above will not change.

You truly have remarkably low powers of reason.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
To set the record straight once again:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

As I also said earlier:
[quote]
There is nothing in the story o ...[text shortened]... you remain, the above will not change.

You truly have remarkably low powers of reason.

So the thief became one with God because he accepted he deserved punishment and asked Jesus to remember him? He just had to talk to Jesus and show humility.

This logically implies that he did not actually have to do anything or display or evidence his righteousness to anyone - Jesus must have known that in his heart he had changed and become "one with God" because the thief never got the chance to evidence his transformation.


Question-

So how is that much different from receiving Christ via faith in a Christian church and believing one is saved?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So the thief became one with God because he accepted he deserved punishment and asked Jesus to remember him? He just had to talk to Jesus and show humility.

This logically implies that he did not actually have to do anything or display or evidence his righteousness to anyone - Jesus must have known that in his heart he had changed and become "one ch different from receiving Christ via faith in a Christian church and believing one is saved?

So the thief became one with God because he accepted he deserved punishment and asked Jesus to remember him? He just had to talk to Jesus and show humility.


You continue to seem to be unable to comprehend the following:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified. In fact, that he accepts that he is being justly punished and points out that Jesus is not, may be indicators that he had.

You don't know the motivation of Jesus.

You don't know the criteria Jesus used for His judgment.

You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]So the thief became one with God because he accepted he deserved punishment and asked Jesus to remember him? He just had to talk to Jesus and show humility.


You continue to seem to be unable to comprehend the following:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become ...[text shortened]... ed for His judgment.

You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief.

[/b]

You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief.

-------------ToOne----------------------

I think we can logically extrapolate that Jesus must have known the condition of the thief's heart and whether he was sincere or not. Surely Jesus would not let an insincere man into paradise? So it then follows logically that the thief was also sincere when he professed that he was deserving of the punishment he was receiving - thereby admitting his guilt. Therefore , he cannot have been 100% sin free (unless he was lying) - but if he was lying then Jesus let a liar into heaven. Duh?

There are certain things we have to logically extrapolate and interpret otherwise we would never get anywhere with the Gospels. You yourself do this all the time. Nowhere does Jesus say explicitly what the "mininmum requirement" is for salvation. He just talks about "slaves to sin" and "the truth will set you free" or "the Son sets you free" - but he never explicitly makes the connections for us.

You do that bit in your mind.

The way his stories and messages are constructed there is an intent to leave things open to the listener to interpret. More than half of what he said was metaphorical and symbolic.

You say "You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief. "

I could equally argue " you don't even know what Jesus meant when he said the truth will set you free". OR "you don't know his motivation for saying that"

But the fact that it works both ways seems to be beyond you because you're not interested in fairness or objectivity.

You need to do some reading on the Psychology of selective perception.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief.

-------------ToOne----------------------

I think we can logically extrapolate that Jesus must have known the condition of the thief's heart and whether he was sincere or not. Surely Jesus would not let an insincere man into paradise? So it then follows logically that the thief was also sincer .

You need to do some reading on the Psychology of selective perception.

So it then follows logically that the thief was also sincere when he professed that he was deserving of the punishment he was receiving - thereby admitting his guilt. Therefore , he cannot have been 100% sin free (unless he was lying) - but if he was lying then Jesus let a liar into heaven.

And again:

You continue to seem to be unable to comprehend the following:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified. In fact, that he accepts that he is being justly punished and points out that Jesus is not, may be indicators that he had.

You don't know the motivation of Jesus.

You don't know the criteria Jesus used for His judgment.

You don't even know what Jesus knew about the thief.

What's remarkable isn't so much that you're so dim, it's that you seem to have absolutely no clue just how dim you are.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]So it then follows logically that the thief was also sincere when he professed that he was deserving of the punishment he was receiving - thereby admitting his guilt. Therefore , he cannot have been 100% sin free (unless he was lying) - but if he was lying then Jesus let a liar into heaven.

And again:

You continue to seem to be unable to co you're so dim, it's that you seem to have absolutely no clue just how dim you are.[/b]

There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified.

--------------------ToOne---------------

Oh, but there is I'm afraid.

If he was righteous then he did not deserve to be punished - only the unrighteous deserve punishment - however , he says that he deserves to be there on the cross. He confesses with his own mouth that he deserves to be punished.

This leaves us with a puzzling paradox. Either he was pretending to be unrighteous and undeserving (which would be both bizarre and disingenuous) or he was deluded or deluding others or both(and therefore did not know his own mind).

Either way the thief then starts to look a very strange fellow , because he would either be lying about his deserved puinishment or have some kind of neurotic condition. Neither of these really sound like a man who is righteous and "at one with God".

Clearly you have chosen to not think this through because it creates problems for you.

How is it that you are too narrow minded to realise this? I think that you are too afraid and closed minded to consider other ideas.

You decide what you want to be true first and then take it from there. Get some self awareness quick!

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified.

--------------------ToOne---------------

Oh, but there is I'm afraid.

If he was righteous then he did not deserve to be punished - only the unrighteous deserve punishment - h ...[text shortened]... what you want to be true first and then take it from there. Get some self awareness quick!

lol. Are you trying to set an new low for dim?

Seriously try to comprehend the sentence:
"There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified. In fact, that he accepts that he is being justly punished and points out that Jesus is not, may be indicators that he had."

He committed the crime and therefore is willing to accept the punishment.

That does not preclude the idea of him having become righteous sometime after he committed the crime.

If anything, the fact that he accepts his just punishment and defends someone who is not being justly punished may be indicators that he has become righteous.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Are you trying to set an new low for dim?

Seriously try to comprehend the sentence:
"There is nothing in the story of the thief that precludes the idea of him having become righteous between the time of his criminal offense to the time he was crucified. In fact, that he accepts that he is being justly punished and points out that Jesus is not, ma ...[text shortened]... fends someone who is not being justly punished may be indicators that he has become righteous.

If anything, the fact that he accepts his just punishment and defends someone who is not being justly punished may be indicators that he has become righteous.
-----------------ToOne-----------------

But can his punishment really be "just" if he is actually righteous?

You claim that in order to be righteous one "must become one with God" just as Jesus is "at one with God". You claim that the thief must have achieved this to be allowed into paradise.

So it logically follows that you must believe that this thief was as righteous as Jesus because both Jesus and the thief were "at one with God". ie BOTH righteous.

Therefore , it cannot follow that Jesus (being righteous and at one with God) is NOT deserving of punishment but the thief IS deserving (being righteous and at one with God).

In any case , if the thief was "at one with God" he would have no need to cry out to Jesus and ask him to remember him because he would have known that his place in heaevn was assured already (being at one with God).

Are there different levels of righteousness in your theology or something ?

What's clear to anyone is that the way the story is portrayed it simply does not sound as if the thief thought of himself as righteous. It's a big leap to think that he did.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If anything, the fact that he accepts his just punishment and defends someone who is not being justly punished may be indicators that he has become righteous.
-----------------ToOne-----------------

But can his punishment really be "just" if he is actually righteous?

You claim that in order to be righteous one "must become one with God" just as if the thief thought of himself as righteous. It's a big leap to think that he did.

Are you really that dim or do you only pretend to be so that later you can complain that I "drop out of discussions when questions become difficult" or some such nonsense? It's hard to believe that you are really as dim as you make yourself out to be. However, it is something you do often.

Maybe you should start another thread to ask someone to explain what you don't understand here.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you really that dim or do you only pretend to be so that later you can complain that I "drop out of discussions when questions become difficult" or some such nonsense? It's hard to believe that you are really as dim as you make yourself out to be. However, it is something you do often.

Maybe you should start another thread to ask someone to explain what you don't understand here.

I'm sorry , was there some actual content in your post? I'm not sure , I'll look again.

(5 minutes later)

No. It's not there. No logical argument put forward to counter what I said.

Oh well , I should have expected as much.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm sorry , was there some actual content in your post? I'm not sure , I'll look again.

(5 minutes later)

No. It's not there. No logical argument put forward to counter what I said.

Oh well , I should have expected as much.

Evidently you really are that dim.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you really are that dim.

Evidently you are unable to back up your statement with logical argument.

If I am that dim prove it!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you really are that dim.

Don't worry, TOO said I was not the "sharpest knife" in another thread.

You know, this style of debate grows wearisome.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't worry, TOO said I was not the "sharpest knife" in another thread.

You know, this style of debate grows wearisome.

There is an emerging pattern.

Agree with ToOne OR be called dim, a liar , stalker , dishonest , a child , a bigot etc etc etc etc.

Whatever Christian messed with his head had a lot to answer for.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is an emerging pattern.

Agree with ToOne OR be called dim, a liar , stalker , dishonest , a child , a bigot etc etc etc etc.

Whatever Christian messed with his head had a lot to answer for.

I've called you "dim, a liar , stalker , dishonest , a child" because you have repeatedly shown yourself to be all these things. You have admitted at times to being the middle three at times and if you can be honest with yourself you'll know the other two are true as well.

I've called W a "bigot" because he has repeatedly shown himself to be one. You've acknowledged his bigotry toward homosexuals yourself in the past.

For you to try to represent this as being because people disagree is dishonest in itself. There are plenty that disagree with me but don't exhibit the above behaviors and I've not said they were. Somewhere deep down, you know this too. Try to grow that little seed of a conscience you must have.