Talk to a JW: Idolatry/crosses/saints

[Mike]

Was Jesus dead for five days and five nights?

LOL, more for the conspiracy theorists! Just kidding MM.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Free: "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."


Hi Free

No, these verses do not support one who just repented of mocking Jesus !

These verses support one malefactor rebuking the other malefactor that was hanging on the cross that did mock Jesus.

You do yourself an injustice when changing the actual meaning of scripture.

 

[Mysteryman]

Was Jesus dead for five days and five nights?




Hi Free:

The question should be, "Was Jesus dead for three days ?" And the answer should be, no he wasn't ! He was dead for three days and three nights.

 

[Mysteryman]

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.

Hi Mike:

I am sure you know what I mean when I say -- The traditions of men.

I grew up celebrating christmas with the tree and all the toys and etc, etc.

After I became 25 years of age, I no longer did any of the traditions of men. No more celebrating christmas and trees and gifts . It is the foolishness of man and the traditions that some want to keep going and keeping alive the traditions of men. Some say it reminds them of ------

It is the same with a cross -- It reminds them of ------

It is the same with a communion service -- It reminds them of ------

Do these types of people have dementia ?

Mike, it is very possible to read the bible without bias. Read it, study it, study it again and again, then accept what it says. If it means you need to change your way of thinking, then by all means change. I did !! And you can as well !!

Spiritual growth demands that you change. Just read the 7 church epistles and you will notice time and time again the message that Paul gives about growth and change.

 

[Mohrb]

I definitely have seen the three crosses being used to signify the trinity, but not so much the three "wise men" (astrologers, which is a form of mysticism, which is a sin, btw). I think the number 3 comes from the three gifts. People assume each one brought one gift. There could have been two that brought 3 total gifts, or there could have been many that collectively brought the gifts.

 

[Nick]

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.

I was thinking about what my reply to Mysteryman would be, and then I saw this post and thought I could not post better, so I'm just going to say that I fully support this post Free.

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 !

I quoted many other versions, even the KJV and they all suggest the same to me (at the very least in this instance, I could not find any discrepencies). I am interested as to why you are so anti-NIV. Let me guess - you are a KJV-only person?

 

[jasoncran]

the niv is evil! :D

 

[Nick]

the niv is evil! :D

 

[Mysteryman]

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.

I was thinking about what my reply to Mysteryman would be, and then I saw this post and thought I could not post better, so I'm just going to say that I fully support this post Free.

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 !

I quoted many other versions, even the KJV and they all suggest the same to me (at the very least in this instance, I could not find any discrepencies). I am interested as to why you are so anti-NIV. Let me guess - you are a KJV-only person?

Hi Nick

Would you please give me your rendition of the braking of the legs, using scripture ? Or anyone else who has been following this thread.

 

[Free]

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.

No, these verses do not support one who just repented of mocking Jesus !

These verses support one malefactor rebuking the other malefactor that was hanging on the cross that did mock Jesus.

You do yourself an injustice when changing the actual meaning of scripture.

I haven't changed anything and I think my position has much more support than yours.

Was Jesus dead for five days and five nights?

Free:

The question should be, "Was Jesus dead for three days ?" And the answer should be, no he wasn't ! He was dead for three days and three nights.

My point was that the number 3 turns up in Scripture apart from any reference to the Trinity, so there is no point in trying to say there were more than 3 persons crucified simply out of disdain for the Trinity.

 

[Mike]

Hi Nick

Would you please give me your rendition of the braking of the legs, using scripture ? Or anyone else who has been following this thread.

I thought I did, and questioned how you can conclude that, in breaking the legs of the two thieves and coming upon Jesus, you count to 5.

1, 2, 5??? I'm glad you aren't my accountant! ;)

I definitely have seen the three crosses being used to signify the trinity, but not so much the three "wise men" (astrologers, which is a form of mysticism, which is a sin, btw). I think the number 3 comes from the three gifts. People assume each one brought one gift. There could have been two that brought 3 total gifts, or there could have been many that collectively brought the gifts.

Chris, this is a serious question, because as you'd assume, I haven't read the NWT all the way through to know where we have agreement. What about other uses of the number 3? Three days/three nights, for example. Do you see a concerted effort to promote the Trinity in that number whenever it is used. I realize you don't see the 3 wise men as an example. What about the 3 gifts?

Other 3's:
Peter's denial
Jesus praying the "cup" be passed in the garden
Jesus crucified on the 3rd hour
Darkness over the earth for 3 hours
Jonah in the belly of the whale

Are these agreed upon in the NWT? Do you see a method to purposefully "write the Trinity in"?

 

[Nick]

Would you please give me your rendition of the braking of the legs, using scripture ?

Sure. Using John 19. And to make you happy I'll use the KJV.

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:

My interpretation of these verses is that because it was the day of preparation, the Jews believed that the bodies should not stay on the cross, and the requested to Pilate that the bodies' legs be broken.

So here come the soliders. They break the legs of the first. Then they break the legs of the second, then they come to Jesus.

I just don't see any Biblical support for five people getting crucified - only three. There are only three mentioned in all the texts I have read. You are actualy the first person i have come accross that has this ++ Y ++ theory.

Also, notice in v32 that after breaking the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. The text does not say one of the others but says the other. This more than suggests to me that there were only two others crucified with Christ, not four.

 

[Mysteryman]

Would you please give me your rendition of the braking of the legs, using scripture ?

Sure. Using John 19. And to make you happy I'll use the KJV.

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:

My interpretation of these verses is that because it was the day of preparation, the Jews believed that the bodies should not stay on the cross, and the requested to Pilate that the bodies' legs be broken.

So here come the soliders. They break the legs of the first. Then they break the legs of the second, then they come to Jesus.

I just don't see any Biblical support for five people getting crucified - only three. There are only three mentioned in all the texts I have read. You are actualy the first person i have come accross that has this ++ Y ++ theory.

Also, notice in v32 that after breaking the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. The text does not say one of the others but says the other. This more than suggests to me that there were only two others crucified with Christ, not four.

Hi Nick

Thanks for your effort, but I am going to be honest with you. Your explanation falls short, using scripture as it is written.

I am sure you would think of me much less, if I was not totally honest with you.

Lets look at the verse again, shall we. You seem to be looking at a single word, instead of what is written. Even within translation into the English language, we must not change the structure of the comment that was made, correct ?

First, Jesus was in the midst = middle


They came and brake the legs of the first, then the other, then when they came to Jesus he was already dead.

How can there be only three and the structure of the comment not be compromised ?

I know I have already given this example twice before. In order for the comment made about the braking of the legs, not being compromised. There had to be more than three and the soldiers (plural) starting braking the legs from the outside working their way towards the center. And, there had to be five (5) not three, in order for the comment not to be compromised !

If Jesus is in the midst, my example here is the only one that carries any validity !

In your explanation, you tend to forget that Jesus was in the midst, and the fact, that there were soldiers braking legs, not just one soldier. Here is the picture that perfectly lines up with the structure of the comment about braking the legs --- > ++ + ++ <

Here I will use numbers according to the comment made about the braking of the legs ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + <<<<<<<<<<<
1st --- 2nd (other) + (Christ) --- 2nd (other) --- 1st - - They came and brake the legs of the first, then the other, then whey they came to Christ he was already dead.

Bless

 

[Mike]

MM, where do you get 5, though. Why not 4, or 6 or more? Why can't you just take Matthew and the other writers at their word?

Mat 27:38 "Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left."

Why read anything more into it than what they plainly say, unless you are concerned that this lends credence to the Trinity and have personal motivation? As I said, 3 all together doesn't have any connection to the Trinity. The fact that one was told he would see Jesus in paradise and nothing of the other, alone, would dispel this notion, IMO.

 

[Mysteryman]

MM, where do you get 5, though. Why not 4, or 6 or more? Why can't you just take Matthew and the other writers at their word?

Mat 27:38 "Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left."

Why read anything more into it than what they plainly say, unless you are concerned that this lends credence to the Trinity and have personal motivation? As I said, 3 all together doesn't have any connection to the Trinity. The fact that one was told he would see Jesus in paradise and nothing of the other, alone, would dispel this notion, IMO.

Hi Mike:

That is my very question I have posed to you and Nick. "Why can't you just take all of the gospel records at their word ?

Why omit and change what is written ?

Could it be, that that trinity doctrine has blinded you so much, that you just can not see what is written ? Or, is it a lack of desire for what is written ?

There were two thieves and two malefactors = 4

Three railed and mocked Jesus, and one did not < FACT !

Then you have the braking of the legs. Another FACT !

Even if you do not want to argue if the trinity had or has anything to do with it. Why not just read what is written and leave it at that ?

Why do you and the others here have a need to change what is written, in order that your theory of there only being two crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) as being true, and there being four (4) crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) = 5 being untrue, be such a threat to you ?

Something is causing you and the others to deny these facts. What do you suppose that would be ?

 

[Mike]

Hi Mike:

That is my very question I have posed to you and Nick. "Why can't you just take all of the gospel records at their word ?

Why omit and change what is written ?

Could it be, that that trinity doctrine has blinded you so much, that you just can not see what is written ? Or, is it a lack of desire for what is written ?

There were two thieves and two malefactors = 4

Three railed and mocked Jesus, and one did not < FACT !

Then you have the braking of the legs. Another FACT !

Even if you do not want to argue if the trinity had or has anything to do with it. Why not just read what is written and leave it at that ?

Why do you and the others here have a need to change what is written, in order that your theory of there only being two crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) as being true, and there being four (4) crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) = 5 being untrue, be such a threat to you ?

Something is causing you and the others to deny these facts. What do you suppose that would be ?

I know you want to have an NIV burning party, but that's what I use. Other versions are consistent with it, but the KJV uses different words in referring to the thieves. You shouldn't assume because in the KJV, one writer refers to them as "malfactors" while the others refer to them as thieves, they were referring to two different sets of people. It's more reasonable to suggest they are referring to the same two people rather than to suggest they are each acknowledging only 2 of 4 people, ignoring the other 2. Why wouldn't they just say there were 4 others if there were? They each independently said there were two others besides Christ.

As I said, I see no connection to anything more significant than seeking the Truth. So it's of no consequence to me and not a threat of any kind. But you said you see a connection to the doctrine of the Trinity, so who has the motive? I don't see a reason to capture this field. It's broadly believe that there were 2 others hung with Jesus, because that's what the accounts say. This has really become a circular argument.

 

[Mysteryman]

Malefactor -- Greek word -- "kakourgos" <- Evil worker <- wide range

Thieves --- Greek word --- "lestes" <- robber <- specific

 

[Free]

That is my very question I have posed to you and Nick. "Why can't you just take all of the gospel records at their word ?

Why omit and change what is written ?

Could it be, that that trinity doctrine has blinded you so much, that you just can not see what is written ? Or, is it a lack of desire for what is written ?

There were two thieves and two malefactors = 4

Three railed and mocked Jesus, and one did not < FACT !

Then you have the braking of the legs. Another FACT !

Even if you do not want to argue if the trinity had or has anything to do with it. Why not just read what is written and leave it at that ?

Why do you and the others here have a need to change what is written, in order that your theory of there only being two crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) as being true, and there being four (4) crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) = 5 being untrue, be such a threat to you ?

Something is causing you and the others to deny these facts. What do you suppose that would be ?

Here is the problem Mysteryman, a problem which has consistently been in your posts: you accuse others of changing Scripture when it is clearly you that is doing so with your numerous unsupported assumptions.

Since you haven't adequately addressed my previous post, I'll respond to this and re-post the relevant information:

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, with which every gospel agrees. Never at any time is it hinted there were more than two.

The number 3 turns up in Scripture apart from any reference to the Trinity, so there is no point in trying to say there were more than 3 persons crucified simply out of disdain for the Trinity. You might disagree with the Trinity but do not go about forcing your erroneous interpretation on Scripture, despite all biblical evidence to the contrary, merely out of spite.

 

[Mysteryman]

That is my very question I have posed to you and Nick. "Why can't you just take all of the gospel records at their word ?

Why omit and change what is written ?

Could it be, that that trinity doctrine has blinded you so much, that you just can not see what is written ? Or, is it a lack of desire for what is written ?

There were two thieves and two malefactors = 4

Three railed and mocked Jesus, and one did not < FACT !

Then you have the braking of the legs. Another FACT !

Even if you do not want to argue if the trinity had or has anything to do with it. Why not just read what is written and leave it at that ?

Why do you and the others here have a need to change what is written, in order that your theory of there only being two crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) as being true, and there being four (4) crucified with Christ and Christ in the midst (middle) = 5 being untrue, be such a threat to you ?

Something is causing you and the others to deny these facts. What do you suppose that would be ?

Here is the problem Mysteryman, a problem which has consistently been in your posts: you accuse others of changing Scripture when it is clearly you that is doing so with your numerous unsupported assumptions.

Since you haven't adequately addressed my previous post, I'll respond to this and re-post the relevant information:

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, with which every gospel agrees. Never at any time is it hinted there were more than two.

The number 3 turns up in Scripture apart from any reference to the Trinity, so there is no point in trying to say there were more than 3 persons crucified simply out of disdain for the Trinity. You might disagree with the Trinity but do not go about forcing your erroneous interpretation on Scripture, despite all biblical evidence to the contrary, merely out of spite.

Hi Free

Yes, Two robbers and Two others who were criminals = 4, were crucified with him ( 1 ) = 5 < Simple isn't it ?

KJV - John 19:18 - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst"

Notice with the KJV where they put the comma ! Now take all punctuation marks out of your translations, because they were additions by man/men.

Now study the word "one" in verse 18 and you will find that it does not belong there, because it was added. Even the strongs Concordance does not recognize this word "one" as being there. It shows it, but gives a rendition that does not mean "one".

The Strongs recognizes this word as the word -- "also" and not the word "one".

It should read such -- John 19:18 - "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side also, and Jesus in the midst (middle)"

 

[Free]

Yes, Two robbers and Two others who were criminals = 4, were crucified with him ( 1 ) = 5 < Simple isn't it ?

It is simple but you're still wrong. The 2 criminals=the 2 robbers+Christ=3. There were only three, on this all the gospels agree. Just because one of the gospels uses the general term "criminals" rather than the specific "robbers," doesn't mean that there were 4 (who would all be properly called criminals) who were crucified with Christ.