Talk to a JW: Idolatry/crosses/saints

[Mysteryman]

MM,

Good point about the stone. But then someone could say, well if you wear a stone, then how about a cross (or a Y, whatever you want to call it). I don't see a problem with either if they're not idolised.

I thought scripture clearly stated that there were two others apart from Jesus who were crucified. I have never heard of the 5. Can you provide scripture to support this?

Hi Nick

This post will be in two parts. The first is about the symbol by which people want to ascribe too. As you said, the cross should not be idolized. But many do idolize the cross in many ways. And I am sure that they do not use the symbol of the cross as a reminder. I believe when people say this, they use it as an excuse. Our memories are not that dull or short ! Close you eyes, and tell me by memory how many hands you have. Two , right ? The symbol of a cross being a reminder of what ? Some crosses have Christ still upon the cross they have. While other symbols of a cross , do not have Christ on the cross - empty cross. Which only represents that he had been taken down from the cross and put into a tomb. Everything in life represents something. Like the symbol of a fish. It could mean many things as a resemblance of. Most will say it resembles when Jesus fed the multitude with a few fish and a couple of loafs of bread. Or, it could mean , that Jesus told Peter to cast his net and the net became so full that it was about to break, which would imply abundance. And the fish could mean something else totally. It appears that people like items which reminds them of something. And they put their own spin on it, as to what it reminds them of. Are our memories that short, that we need symbols as a reminder ? Some say that the cross resembles our faith. Well, in a way that could be true, and in another way it could be construded as a lack of our faith. For we as Christians are suppose to walk by faith , and not by sight.

The second part:

How many were crucified with Christ ?

If one studies the scriptures , specifically the four gospels pertaining to the crucifixion. We can easily come to the realization = truth, that there were four crucified with Christ and not two.

There were two malefactors, and two thieves crucified with Christ. Two mocked Christ while on their own cross, and these were the two thieves. But the two malefactors who were also crucified with Christ. Only one malefactor mocked Christ, and the other malefactor reproved this other malefactor , stating that their judgement was justified ,and this same malefactor talked with Christ, asking him to remember him when he came into his kingdom. And the famous words by Jesus, "To-day" thou shalt be with me in paradise". Also, when they came to break the legs of those crucified with Christ. They came to the one and broke his legs, and to the other and broke his legs, but when they came to Christ, he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. In keeping this in order of the account given. It would be impossible to come to one and break his legs and then the other and break his legs if there was only two crucified with Christ, and then come to Jesus finding him dead. This would mean, that they would have to come by Jesus and pass him by, and go and break the legs of the other, then come back again to Jesus and find him already dead.

Here are the reference verses for you to look at --

Matthew 27:38 - Two thieves - One on the right hand, and another on the left

Matthew 27:44 - Both thieves cast the same in his teeth = Both mocked him

Mark 15:27 - again - Two thieves, one on the right the other on the left

Luke 23:39 and 40 - Two malefactors - in verse 39 - One of the malefactors railed (mocked) on Christ , and in verse 40 and 41 , the other malefactor rebukes the first malefactor. He was a God fearing man , this other malefactor. Then in verses 42 and 43 - "thou shalt be with me in paradise"

In the gospel of John we find the record of the breaking of the legs.

John 19:32 - 34

32) - "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucifed with him"

33) - "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs"

34) - "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"

Putting all the records together to get a complete picture, brings about truth.

In braking the legs , the picture looks like this -> ++ Y ++ , and when they came to Jesus, he was dead already. Now , it tells us that there were soldiers, not singular, but plural. One soldier on each side working towards the center. They brake the legs of the first = one on each side. Then the other, the next in line, still working their way towards the center. Then whey "they" , the soldiers, plural, came to Jesus, they found him dead already, and brake not his legs.

Now I will show you a bible translation discrepancy.

John 19:18 - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst". The word "one" was added !

This verse should read thus - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side, and Jesus in the midst".

Also, the word "midst" does mean - middle. But the greek word used here, indicates more than one, as this greek word is plural. So in John 19:18 there can be no word "one" in the verse !

This was a blantant addition to this verse, and can be easily seen by looking at all the scriptures pertaining to his crucifixion.

This is why the Word of God tells us, that the adversary of God will try by any means to deceive.

 

[micaela]

Do we really need an object to remind us of what Christ did for us?...

 

[Nick]

MM,

Thanks for your response. I will reply later today when I have more time. But I just want to ask what Bible versions are you using and referencing to? Thanks.

 

[Mysteryman]

MM,

Thanks for your response. I will reply later today when I have more time. But I just want to ask what Bible versions are you using and referencing to? Thanks.

Hi Nick

I am using the KJV

 

[jasoncran]

Do we really need an object to remind us of what Christ did for us?...

soldiers where the dead fellow soldiers dog tags in war even if bloodied, to remind them that the enemy is needed to be repaid for that friend's lost life

we do that to remind us that we are to be thankful for the death of christ.

 

[micaela]

Do we really need an object to remind us of what Christ did for us?...

soldiers where the dead fellow soldiers dog tags in war even if bloodied, to remind them that the enemy is needed to be repaid for that friend's lost life

we do that to remind us that we are to be thankful for the death of christ.

Goodness! Well, that doesn't sound very Christian to me.

 

[jasoncran]

because its a reminder to then that the enemy killed a person.

just like if you take a pic with to war. it reminds you why your are fighting and what you live for.
for that person.

and the enemy wants to take that from you!

 

[Nick]

The second part:

How many were crucified with Christ ?

If one studies the scriptures , specifically the four gospels pertaining to the crucifixion. We can easily come to the realization = truth, that there were four crucified with Christ and not two.

There were two malefactors, and two thieves crucified with Christ. Two mocked Christ while on their own cross, and these were the two thieves. But the two malefactors who were also crucified with Christ. Only one malefactor mocked Christ, and the other malefactor reproved this other malefactor , stating that their judgement was justified ,and this same malefactor talked with Christ, asking him to remember him when he came into his kingdom. And the famous words by Jesus, "To-day" thou shalt be with me in paradise". Also, when they came to break the legs of those crucified with Christ. They came to the one and broke his legs, and to the other and broke his legs, but when they came to Christ, he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. In keeping this in order of the account given. It would be impossible to come to one and break his legs and then the other and break his legs if there was only two crucified with Christ, and then come to Jesus finding him dead. This would mean, that they would have to come by Jesus and pass him by, and go and break the legs of the other, then come back again to Jesus and find him already dead.

Here are the reference verses for you to look at --

Matthew 27:38 - Two thieves - One on the right hand, and another on the left

Matthew 27:44 - Both thieves cast the same in his teeth = Both mocked him

Mark 15:27 - again - Two thieves, one on the right the other on the left

Luke 23:39 and 40 - Two malefactors - in verse 39 - One of the malefactors railed (mocked) on Christ , and in verse 40 and 41 , the other malefactor rebukes the first malefactor. He was a God fearing man , this other malefactor. Then in verses 42 and 43 - "thou shalt be with me in paradise"

In the gospel of John we find the record of the breaking of the legs.

John 19:32 - 34

32) - "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucifed with him"

33) - "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs"

34) - "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"

Putting all the records together to get a complete picture, brings about truth.

In braking the legs , the picture looks like this -> ++ Y ++ , and when they came to Jesus, he was dead already. Now , it tells us that there were soldiers, not singular, but plural. One soldier on each side working towards the center. They brake the legs of the first = one on each side. Then the other, the next in line, still working their way towards the center. Then whey "they" , the soldiers, plural, came to Jesus, they found him dead already, and brake not his legs.

Now I will show you a bible translation discrepancy.

John 19:18 - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst". The word "one" was added !

This verse should read thus - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side, and Jesus in the midst".

Also, the word "midst" does mean - middle. But the greek word used here, indicates more than one, as this greek word is plural. So in John 19:18 there can be no word "one" in the verse !

This was a blantant addition to this verse, and can be easily seen by looking at all the scriptures pertaining to his crucifixion.

This is why the Word of God tells us, that the adversary of God will try by any means to deceive.

Hi MM,

I'll post a short reply on how many were crucified with Christ, but I'm not completely sure how relevent to the topic this tangent is.

Anyway...

I am assuming that the key verse here is John 19:18. So using the KJV that you use, it reads:
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

The NIV, reads:
Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

The ESV:
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

ASV:
where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

NASB:
There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

The Message:
where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, Jesus in the middle.

They all seem to suggest to me that three people including Christ were crucified, and that Christ was in the middle. Are you suggesting that all these translations got it wrong? I have yet to come accross a translation of John 19:18 that omits the "one".

So my question is how do you know that there were five crucified, not three? If you have read the original texts and translated them yourself, then isn't that not as reliable as all the other versions?

Now there are some other related verses, and using the NASB here:

Luke 23:32:
Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him.

Matthew 27:38:
At that time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15:27:
They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

I don't really see where these other two 'missing' people that were crucified are, and I have never heard of them.

Interesting...

Perhaps this deserves a topic of its own.

 

[Mysteryman]

The second part:

How many were crucified with Christ ?

If one studies the scriptures , specifically the four gospels pertaining to the crucifixion. We can easily come to the realization = truth, that there were four crucified with Christ and not two.

There were two malefactors, and two thieves crucified with Christ. Two mocked Christ while on their own cross, and these were the two thieves. But the two malefactors who were also crucified with Christ. Only one malefactor mocked Christ, and the other malefactor reproved this other malefactor , stating that their judgement was justified ,and this same malefactor talked with Christ, asking him to remember him when he came into his kingdom. And the famous words by Jesus, "To-day" thou shalt be with me in paradise". Also, when they came to break the legs of those crucified with Christ. They came to the one and broke his legs, and to the other and broke his legs, but when they came to Christ, he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. In keeping this in order of the account given. It would be impossible to come to one and break his legs and then the other and break his legs if there was only two crucified with Christ, and then come to Jesus finding him dead. This would mean, that they would have to come by Jesus and pass him by, and go and break the legs of the other, then come back again to Jesus and find him already dead.

Here are the reference verses for you to look at --

Matthew 27:38 - Two thieves - One on the right hand, and another on the left

Matthew 27:44 - Both thieves cast the same in his teeth = Both mocked him

Mark 15:27 - again - Two thieves, one on the right the other on the left

Luke 23:39 and 40 - Two malefactors - in verse 39 - One of the malefactors railed (mocked) on Christ , and in verse 40 and 41 , the other malefactor rebukes the first malefactor. He was a God fearing man , this other malefactor. Then in verses 42 and 43 - "thou shalt be with me in paradise"

In the gospel of John we find the record of the breaking of the legs.

John 19:32 - 34

32) - "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucifed with him"

33) - "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs"

34) - "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"

Putting all the records together to get a complete picture, brings about truth.

In braking the legs , the picture looks like this -> ++ Y ++ , and when they came to Jesus, he was dead already. Now , it tells us that there were soldiers, not singular, but plural. One soldier on each side working towards the center. They brake the legs of the first = one on each side. Then the other, the next in line, still working their way towards the center. Then whey "they" , the soldiers, plural, came to Jesus, they found him dead already, and brake not his legs.

Now I will show you a bible translation discrepancy.

John 19:18 - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst". The word "one" was added !

This verse should read thus - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side, and Jesus in the midst".

Also, the word "midst" does mean - middle. But the greek word used here, indicates more than one, as this greek word is plural. So in John 19:18 there can be no word "one" in the verse !

This was a blantant addition to this verse, and can be easily seen by looking at all the scriptures pertaining to his crucifixion.

This is why the Word of God tells us, that the adversary of God will try by any means to deceive.

Hi MM,

I'll post a short reply on how many were crucified with Christ, but I'm not completely sure how relevent to the topic this tangent is.

Anyway...

I am assuming that the key verse here is John 19:18. So using the KJV that you use, it reads:
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

The NIV, reads:
Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

The ESV:
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

ASV:
where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

NASB:
There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

The Message:
where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, Jesus in the middle.

They all seem to suggest to me that three people including Christ were crucified, and that Christ was in the middle. Are you suggesting that all these translations got it wrong? I have yet to come accross a translation of John 19:18 that omits the "one".

So my question is how do you know that there were five crucified, not three? If you have read the original texts and translated them yourself, then isn't that not as reliable as all the other versions?

Now there are some other related verses, and using the NASB here:

Luke 23:32:
Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him.

Matthew 27:38:
At that time two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15:27:
They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

I don't really see where these other two 'missing' people that were crucified are, and I have never heard of them.

Interesting...

Perhaps this deserves a topic of its own.

Hi Nick

Actually all the verses are key, not just one verse.

In my explanation of the breaking of the legs this is more of a key verse, than John 19:18

In the braking of the legs, we get a much more vivid picture . The words within scripture about this event would not hold up in a court of law, if there were only three crucified.

Bless

 

[Nick]

MM,

Ok, the breaking of the legs - in John 19:31-38?

NIV:
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[c]
Now yes, I failed maths and dropped it last year, but I still count two others crucified.

The KJV reads:
31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

I still don't see these other two. .

 

[Mike]

Notice this ! +++ < Three crucified --- Many will want this picture in your mind, because of the trinity.

MM, in my life I have never thought of the three at the cross with any correlation to the Trinity. This almost sniffs of trinitiphobia. (and, yes, patent pending on the diagnosis)

I stepped back to watch as you brought this on, and it really seems like someone would have to be bent on something to make this an issue in the first place. Since you link it with the Trinity which you reject, could this be forcing the issue? Were there 3 wise men? No one knows. It's sort of built into the traditional picture, but it doesn't really matter. Unless someone feels they need to disprove it because it goes against their understanding of the Trinity. But the Gospels specifically speak to the number of those crucified with Christ.

I'm just sayin'...get your doctor to check that out. ;)

 

[Nick]

MM, in my life I have never thought of the three at the cross with any correlation to the Trinity.

Same here.

 

[Mysteryman]

Notice this ! +++ < Three crucified --- Many will want this picture in your mind, because of the trinity.

MM, in my life I have never thought of the three at the cross with any correlation to the Trinity. This almost sniffs of trinitiphobia. (and, yes, patent pending on the diagnosis)

I stepped back to watch as you brought this on, and it really seems like someone would have to be bent on something to make this an issue in the first place. Since you link it with the Trinity which you reject, could this be forcing the issue? Were there 3 wise men? No one knows. It's sort of built into the traditional picture, but it doesn't really matter. Unless someone feels they need to disprove it because it goes against their understanding of the Trinity. But the Gospels specifically speak to the number of those crucified with Christ.

I'm just sayin'...get your doctor to check that out. ;)

Hi Mike and Nick

The reason one never questions as to how many wise men there were, or how many were crucified with Christ, is because you were never given a reason to question the matter.

And Mike, this idea that in some way , you think I am going to disprove the trinity by making mention of the so called three wise men, would make me a very foolish person indeed. I mentioned this because of the trinity, not because it could disprove the trinity.

I am sure both you and Nick have heard the phrase -- Don't rock the boat . When you saw your first or 100th picture of there being three wise men. Did you ever question as to how many wise men there were, and why did your church denomination use three wise men in the picture or the christmas scene ?

I'll bet neither you nor Nick ever questioned it. Nor have either of you questioned as to how many were crucified with Christ. If someone says three, you both just accepted it without question. Am I correct ?

Well, for the first 25 years of my life, I didn't question any either. Then it dawned upon me one day. How many wise men are there, and how man were actually crucified with Christ. Why is three wise men portrayed ? Why not four or five or two ? Why ? Why three ? Simple, the doctrine of the trinity ! As it is true, that the Word of God does not tell us specifically how many wise men there were. Someone chose three for a reason. And it has become a tradition of men for hundreds of years.

And why only two crucifed with Christ, which gives you this picture -- ( +++ ) ? Why ? Why three ? Simple , the doctrine of the trinity !! And if one studies the scriptures to show yourself approved of God , rightly dividing the Word of truth. There is no doubt, that four were crucified with Christ , making it 5 total, and not 3 !

Does this disprove the trinity ? Of course not, that would be ridiculous to think that. But it does give the reason why they portray there being three wise men, when the Word of God does not tell us how many wise men there were !

Let me ask both of you a question, if you don't mind answering. Did either one of you know, and I mean absolutely know, that Matthew 28:19 is a man made addition and is not a part of the actual God breathed, inspired Word of God ? If I were a betting man, I would bet that neither one of you even quetstioned this verse and its authenticity. Because, if this verse were true , as written, then all of the disciples went about disobeying the words in this verse. I can confidently say, that no where in scripture does any of the disciples baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. < Nowhere ! And more than likely, neither one of you ever questioned this verse and its authenticity.

My point for bringing this up, is because of the lack of desire to extend one's self outside of your comfort boundries. Don't rock the boat mentality. Your comfort zone can not allow certain people to actually seek out the truth. Don't question, just go with the flow. What will others think of me, and or the question of how I would explain my change in my beliefs. All these question roled through my head, when I was tested by God. That is correct, tested by God. God still tests us, as he did Abraham.

Do you know why Matthew 28:19 is in our bibles ? Same answer -- The trinity ! Does this disprove the trinity, not even in the least ! What disproves the trinity is sanity , or as the Word of God puts it - sound mindedness.

There is no doubt in my mind and in my heart, that there were not three wise men, and that the total crucified on that day was 5 and not 3 ! The breaking of the legs proves this, unto those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Bless - in his service - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

MM,

Ok, the breaking of the legs - in John 19:31-38?

NIV:
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[c]
Now yes, I failed maths and dropped it last year, but I still count two others crucified.

The KJV reads:
31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

36For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

I still don't see these other two. .

Hi Nick

The NIV makes my skin crawl. I won't even read it. My suggestion, is to have a book burning starting with the NIV. My opinion !

Nick, the plural word is "soldiers" < Plural - Two or more solders would not brake the legs of one that was hung on the cross, then the other, and then when they came to Jesus they found him dead. They would have to pass by Jesus to get to the other to brake his legs. The Word states plainly, that "when" they came to Jesus, he was already dead. So there had to be at least two soldiers, that started from the far outside. And they brake the legs of the first moving from the outside towards the center - Like this > +++++ <. Then they brake the legs of the other, the next in line , moving from the outside towards the center. Then when - "they" came to Jesus , he was already dead.

Why is this so difficult to understand ?

Bless

 

[Mike]

Nick, the plural word is "soldiers" < Plural - Two or more solders would not brake the legs of one that was hung on the cross, then the other, and then when they came to Jesus they found him dead. They would have to pass by Jesus to get to the other to brake his legs. The Word states plainly, that "when" they came to Jesus, he was already dead. So there had to be at least two soldiers, that started from the far outside. And they brake the legs of the first moving from the outside towards the center - Like this > +++++ <. Then they brake the legs of the other, the next in line , moving from the outside towards the center. Then when - "they" came to Jesus , he was already dead.

MM, I read the same things you do and the only thing clear to me is that you are making a huge leap to conclude that there must have been 5 based on the fact that they would have needed to pass up Jesus, break the legs of the third and then turn to Him. I'm glad you brought this up. As with other posts, you gave me reason to look for something that I wouldn't have otherwise, and it can only be good to go deeper in to the Word. But everything that I've read, from all the accounts leads to there being 2 others crucified with Jesus. The only thing that I wonder about is Mat 27:44 where is says both robbers heaped insults on Him. There's pause to wonder why they both did, but then in other versus, we see the one rebuking the other. First, I would say Mat 27:44 doesn't say "two OF the robbers", it says "the robbers who were crucified with Him". It's directed AT the two, not two OF them. It's easier for me to reconcile this by suggesting that the one repented, than to make this leap you have made, convinced that there HAD to be 5.

It's interesting that you feel the need to fight this battle and "die on this sword". Yes, I'm being over-dramatic on that point, but why are you fixed on this? It suggests to me that you are implying that this misinterpretation is part of an over all "losing of our way" over the years, and to that end, it's important that you not concede this point.

And Mike, this idea that in some way , you think I am going to disprove the trinity by making mention of the so called three wise men, would make me a very foolish person indeed. I mentioned this because of the trinity, not because it could disprove the trinity.

I wasn't suggesting that you were trying to disprove the Trinity in making this point. That would be foolish of you to do and me to say. I meant that you appear to want to disprove where you see 3's, because in your mind, they lend support of the Trinity. In my mind, this example has nothing to do with the Trinity, so it neither supports it or detracts from it.

And then I guess I lead us down the road of the 3 wise men. Those who are in the Word, recognize how badly the account of His birth and events after are butchered by the secular world, and even when told through reenactments such as church plays. There has come to be a lot inferred that is never chronicled in the text. And Christianity does no service to Him by merging the wise men and the nativity for the sake of time. It's good to have a clear understanding of what actually is biblical, but again, you seem to be put off by the 3 wise men, when there's no reason to be.

Do you know why Matthew 28:19 is in our bibles ? Same answer -- The trinity ! Does this disprove the trinity, not even in the least ! What disproves the trinity is sanity , or as the Word of God puts it - sound mindedness.

Huh? How would this do anything to harm the Truth of the Trinity? Perhaps you meant your claim that it was stuck in the Bible to purposefully misguide people, and your stance harms it.

To support this (and I realize this is used to dispute the Trinity as well ), Mat 3:

"16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

How could you have Jesus, the Voice of God and the Spirit separate in the same place, and not find support of the Trinity?

Oh, gosh... I've gone way off topic. I was going to give more Trinity refs but I realize this isn't about the Trinity. We've gone way off topic of idolatry. But I've put some time into prepping for this post, and I didn't want to just erase it. :type

Mysteryman, you came out of no where to get fixated on the 3 or 5 crosses, but personally, you brought value to my studies and caused me to seek out the Truth, which I'm quite sure I have.

totopic

Be blessed,
Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Mike: ". First, I would say Mat 27:44 doesn't say "two OF the robbers", it says "the robbers who were crucified with Him". It's directed AT the two, not two OF them. It's easier for me to reconcile this by suggesting that the one repented, than to make this leap you have made,"


Hi Mike:

Idolatry comes in many forms my friend. Don't take it lightly, that we have strayed from the topic of this thread. I believe we are smack dead in the middle of the topic of this thread. And from my previous experiences on forums, I would say that there is much to talk about ,that might appear to stray from right believing verses wrong believing and if it touches idolatry in any way. I would not be so quick to dismiss the deceptiveness of the adversary of God.

You mention making a great leap. This is exactly what you have done here in this reply. Where in the Word does it say that one repented ? There is absolutely no mention of any of them repenting of their mocking Jesus.

And if you take the very words of the soldiers braking the legs of those crucified with Christ. You would have to twist scripture so erroneously , in order to make a claim that only two were crucified with Christ.

What did they do, close their eyes as to not think that they came to Jesus once, before braking the legs of one then the other and then came to Jesus ? Lets be honest here, shall we ? Take the trinity part totally out of this conversation for a moment. How else can you reconcile the words within scripture as to the braking of the legs ?

At least you are digging into the scriptures. Dig deeper ! :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Mike: "And then I guess I lead us down the road of the 3 wise men. Those who are in the Word, recognize how badly the account of His birth and events after are butchered by the secular world, and even when told through reenactments such as church plays. There has come to be a lot inferred that is never chronicled in the text. And Christianity does no service to Him by merging the wise men and the nativity for the sake of time. It's good to have a clear understanding of what actually is biblical, but again, you seem to be put off by the 3 wise men, when there's no reason to be. "


Hi Mike :

We are to worship God in Spirit and in truth. Either something is true or it is a lie. There is no two or three ways about it. It is either righteous or unrighteous. The Word of God does not allow for lukewarm ( a third way of thinking).

I am put off, as you put it, by someone claiming that there were three wise men, when scripture does not support there being three. My purpose was to help you or anyone else reading this thread, to the fact that the scriptures do not support there being three wise men. However, throughout the past hundreds of years, it has been portrayed in this way. The babes in the Word will just accept anything they are told or implied by others, because they do not have the ability to check the scriptures for themselves because of their inability to handle the scriptures. The Word tells us that a babe is unskilled in the scriptures. Thus leading them down the path of ignorance and unrighteous believing based upon this fact.

One who is unskilled in the scriptures, has never been shown how to approach the study of the scriptures without any bias. It is like saying -- Well, if Joe blow believes it , then its alright for me. Or another one is -- What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. Or a more modern approach would be -- My pastor says it, that settles it. Or -- If the Pope believes it, I must believe it. It all depends upon your background of faith. The Apostle Paul used the example of his day, and he said, if one says I am of Paul or Cephas or Apollos, are ye not yet carnal ?

We are not suppose to add to the scriptures , nor take away from them. And we then could build upon another foundation , other than Jesus Christ. This is where idolatry "could" come into play. Not always, and most of the time it does not mean idolatry. However, never underestimate that which can deceive one into idolatry .

There has to be a reason that three wise men are used and portrayed within the traditions of men , when looking at the wise men of the scriptures. Why three ? Someone had a purpose or goal when the suggestion was made, and then it stuck ! Why three ?


The same holds true with how many were crucified with Christ ! I am sure by now, you might be seeing the pattern here ? Why three ? Why ? When the scriptures do not support three !


Bless, in His service - MM

 

[Free]

MM, I read the same things you do and the only thing clear to me is that you are making a huge leap to conclude that there must have been 5 based on the fact that they would have needed to pass up Jesus, break the legs of the third and then turn to Him.

Correct. That is a huge leap, and one that is completely unsupported.

You mention making a great leap. This is exactly what you have done here in this reply. Where in the Word does it say that one repented ? There is absolutely no mention of any of them repenting of their mocking Jesus.

Luk 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
Luk 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
Luk 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

This certainly supports the idea that one repented as it seems he realizes who Jesus is and the purpose of Jesus' death. Indeed, if that is not the case, then Jesus' response makes no sense.

And if you take the very words of the soldiers braking the legs of those crucified with Christ. You would have to twist scripture so erroneously , in order to make a claim that only two were crucified with Christ.

Mat 27:38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. (ESV)

Mar 15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (ESV)

Luk 23:32 Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. (ESV)

Joh 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. (ESV)

Very clearly there were only two crucified with Christ.

I'm confused as what this has to do with the topic.

 

[Mike]

One who is unskilled in the scriptures, has never been shown how to approach the study of the scriptures without any bias.

MM, here's another fundamental difference in our opinions to this point. I thought for sure you chimed in, but in reviewing this thread again, I see that you didn't. This thread's only a few pages long, so when you have time, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. You'll need to read the whole thing, and not just the first few posts, because I clarify my statement. Another poster who replies, rejects my statement, but we resolved that we were not initially understanding each other. In the end, no one rejects the point of my OP.

My contention was that it is impossible for people, churches, denominations or any kind of group to read the bible without bias. By that I mean, our history, experience, period we grew up in, where they grew up, etc. collectively gives everyone a bias going into their reading of the Word. I won't repeat myself other than that. Given your comment, I'd wonder what you have to say.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=47284

As for the three magi, I know you've separated the Trinity implications of arbitrarily assuming 3, but it might have come about in harmony with the three gifts; not some conscious attempt to relate to the Trinity at all.

 

[Free]

Was Jesus dead for five days and five nights?