What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Thief on cross

Corn Pop

Corn Pop

Member
As im a nit picker I find anything I can not to try discredit but for reason.

So my question is, and it dont have to be biblical as its the times and culture im talking,

What on earth was a thief doing on a cross?. A cross as far as I know was only for what was known as a severe crime and punishment only, not for some dude who stole his neighbours new rolex.
 
Last edited:
kiwidan said:
As im a nit picker I find anything I can not to try discredit but for reason.

So my question is, and it dont have to be biblical as its the times and culture im talking,

What on earth was a thief doing on a cross?. A cross as far as I know was only for what was known as a severe crime and punishment only, not for some dude who stole his neighbours new rolex.
Click to expand...

A thief in those times was quite often be a murderer as well as in the parable of the Good Samaritan in which the thieves beat the traveler and left him for dead. Murdering your victims avoids leaving anyone to make a complaint and it;s much easier to take the dude's Rolex if he isn't resisting because he's dead.

As a comparison; it wasn't too long ago when thieves were regularly hanged. In England and Wales from 1791 to 1892, there were 222 crimes which were punishable by death and more than 10,000 men, women and children heard the judge order that they be taken to a place of execution and 'be hanged by the neck until dead'. (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203828/The-222-Victorian-crimes-man-hanged.html#ixzz3uRltUMTE )

iakov th efool
:boing
 
kiwidan said:
As im a nit picker I find anything I can not to try discredit but for reason.

So my question is, and it dont have to be biblical as its the times and culture im talking,

What on earth was a thief doing on a cross?. A cross as far as I know was only for what was known as a severe crime and punishment only, not for some dude who stole his neighbours new rolex.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then Christ would not have been on the cross.
 
Douglas Summers said:
If that were true, then Christ would not have been on the cross.
Click to expand...

Pilate had reason to crucify Christ because of the accusation of the Jewish leaders that He claimed to be the king of the Jews. IF that were true then Jesus would have been deemed to have committed treason by declaring Himself to be a king when Caesar was the ruler of the Jews. (They were at that time without a King. Herod was the appointed tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.[Luke 3:1])

So, under Roman law, Jesus could be crucified for treason and that is the charge to which Pilate, the Roman governor, could use as an excuse to give in to the Jews' demand that Jesus be crucified. That is the charge that was nailed to a sign on His cross; "The King of the Jews."

iakov the fool
:boing
 
Interestingly, John doesn't mention the two thieves. However, the same G3027 word is used for thief and robber, and we know from the other Gospels that Barabbas was more than just a robber although that is the only way John describes him.

Jhn 18:40 - Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.​
 
kiwidan said:
Can you explain what you mean. If what was true?. I never said anything was true, I just asked a question.
Click to expand...
You asked why were the thiefs on the cross. You said you thought the cross was only for severe crimes. If that were so, then why was Christ on the cross? He did nothing.
 
Last edited:
Jim Parker said:
Pilate had reason to crucify Christ because of the accusation of the Jewish leaders that He claimed to be the king of the Jews. IF that were true then Jesus would have been deemed to have committed treason by declaring Himself to be a king when Caesar was the ruler of the Jews. (They were at that time without a King. Herod was the appointed tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.[Luke 3:1])

So, under Roman law, Jesus could be crucified for treason and that is the charge to which Pilate, the Roman governor, could use as an excuse to give in to the Jews' demand that Jesus be crucified. That is the charge that was nailed to a sign on His cross; "The King of the Jews."

iakov the fool
:boing
Click to expand...
Pilate washed his hands of the whole accusations against Christ, and said he could find nothing against this righteous man and turned it over to the Jew. (Matt. 27: 24-26)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top