Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

18 views
The Forum - Debate Religion > What would non-Biblical belief's say to the thief on the Cross?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 56 (56 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Rod (last edited Feb 28, 2016 07:42AM) (new)

Rod Horncastle I think all of Christianity can be easily wrapped up in the simple and clear moment of Jesus and the thief on the cross. But what must other beliefs say about this little Biblical situation?

Here's the source:
Mark 15:32
Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

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

That's pretty much all we got to work with. (secretly I believe there is more. They were Jewish: so we have politics and a religious upbringing to consider.)

But what do Liberal Christians make of this discussion? Buddhists? Mormon's? Catholics? J.W.'s? Charismatics? Unitarians/Episcopal/United folks? Hindu's?


message 2: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Bible believing Christians state:
The thief found Jesus - therefore he found salvation. The thief also had an amazingly clear theology of who exactly Jesus was and how Cosmic Justice worked. The thief understood sin and repentance and Jesus' heavenly Kingdom and Kingship. He spoke out-loud defending Christ and choosing him.
Basically he is smarter and more educated than 90% of church goers on this planet.

Now comes the confusion of everybody else...


message 3: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments There are no "liberal" Christians. There are only Christian Christians.


message 4: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments Is it safe to say we are ignoring Matthew's version, where both thieves ridicule Jesus?

I think Luke's Jesus is telling the thief that he will have a happy afterlife. I don't see anything really deep or controversial to discuss.


message 5: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee, I assume Mark's comments would cover that mocking issue.

So how did the thief go from mocking to Salvation? The very hand of God (through the Holy Spirit of course). Not a contradiction - just timing.

Jesus was agreeing about a very real and immediately coming paradise. Now THAT is controversial to almost everyone. And the simple methods are blasphemous to most religious folks (except Bible believing Christians).


message 6: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments He went from mocking to paradise by waiting about 5 years for Luke's version to come along.

Rod, do you not consider it possible that Matthew was simply mistaken about them both mocking Jesus? Would that inaccuracy violate your beliefs about inerrancy?


message 7: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Matthew AND Mark being mistaken? Sure, maybe everything is mistaken. Maybe Jesus' real name was Scott O'Connor from New Mexico. Maybe Jesus really is Gandhi in a pastlife. Maybe Paul really is Paul McCartney.

So YES, I'm very willing to be an atheist when the Bible crumbles. But it sure hasn't yet - and it looks better every day. Your confusion and dubiousness Lee keeps me endlessly inspired and spiritually guided.

The one thing that would destroy my faith:
If the world read the Bible and agreed that it was a really nice book - but just wasn't true. I've read it cover to cover for 30 years. Mostly everyone else reads it and finds only confusion and rebelliousness and a reason to hate and distort. I find systematic theology at its finest.


message 8: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle My beliefs about inerrancy came OUT of the scriptures. It's not something I read into it.

To be fair: I totally understand how you are confused by the depths of the Biblical accounts. God gave you a simple challenge: and you failed. (I fail OTHER simple challenges, but not that one.)
You fail because you are desperate for your liberal scholastic Bible hating sources to be promoted above all historic Bible scholars of the last 1900 years.

Who needs the church councils - when we have the Jesus Seminar to tickle a young liberals ears and reinforce exactly what they want to hear. NO sin required anymore... god wasn't that specific, and the cross is just an outdated Peace Sign.

But Thankfully, The Bible was written by the very Holy Spirit of God. Nothing else could write a book that weird and strangely edited.


message 9: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments Rod, your habit is to take every contradiction in scripture and wiggle it you find a way to synchronize conflicting claims. If you can't think of a way, you look it up on the internet from some fundy group think tank. This you call "research" and criticize others who do don't "research" like you do.

But let's look at this logically. Suppose we take 50 supposed contradictions, and figure (quite generously) that each would have a 50% chance of reconciliation, both sides of the contradiction being wholly true. Then the odds that ALL 50 are true becomes less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. To overcome the odds, you invoke God: God wrote it, so it's all true.

This leads to the circular logic of God can be believed because there are no contradictions in his Bible, and there are no contradictions in the Bible because God wrote it.

Until you step back and see how unconvincing this logic is, there really is no way I can take anything you claim seriously.

So let's think logically, instead. You dearly love this story about the repentant thief on the cross, I can tell. Do you not think first-century followers would love it equally? Can you think of any reason at all that Matthew or Mark would not have told that story had they known it? Instead, they leave us with the horrible impression that both thieves were lost for eternity.

The gist of Luke's story is that only one thief is to be despised, and the other took Jesus's side. Luke never gives any hint that the second thief ever ridiculed Jesus. The gist of the Matthew/Mark version is that both thieves are incriminated. Can you not see how odd that would be had Matthew or Mark ever heard Luke's version of the story?


message 10: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee, OF COURSE you can't take anything I claim seriously. You can't sneak around Spiritual Blindness with liberal humanistic logic (the Bible even mentions this) You are doomed buddy! Until God helps you of course.

Lee you ACTUALLY demand that the 4 Gospels be 4 exact replicas of information? Because this is how perfect humans work??? Lee, God wants you to be a liberal --- He made the Bible the way it is so that Liberals, Muslims, Cults, Catholics, Atheists would hate it. It worked perfectly --- You have shown your true hearts desires. You have proven they AREN'T God's desires.

Remember how Jesus toyed with People:

Luke 18
18And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.”

And the always favorite: Matthew 15

22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

God isn't playing YOUR game Lee.

2 Timothy 4:
3For the time is coming when people will not endure sounda teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

The most horrifying bit of the Bible. Seekers shall not find...
Amos 8

11"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord GOD, "When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD. 12"People will stagger from sea to sea And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find it.

You may never find it Lee. And it's right in front of you.


message 11: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee comment:
" To overcome the odds, you invoke God: God wrote it, so it's all true."

Yes. The Bible is God's word. Edited just for Me...AND YOU!
________________________

Lee comment:
"Can you think of any reason at all that Matthew or Mark would not have told that story had they known it?"

There is much they don't need to tell. For many reasons - some to condemn, some to save.

Lee, the Bible isn't here to necessarily convince us. But to guide OR CONFUSE humans. And it works perfectly - Divinely even. God is Good.


message 12: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Just for fun:

John 16
12"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.…

Some things people simply can't bear. So be it.

John 21:
24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Lee, the Bible really is a useless dull tool to you isn't it? How sad. But thankfully you have ME to help you. :cD


message 13: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments The Bible came alive to me after I left behind fundamentalism. Suddenly, it all made sense.


message 14: by Rod (last edited Mar 03, 2016 05:01PM) (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee, there was nothing left of your Bible when you left fundamentalism (whatever kind you might have been in). You are trying to make sense of Cookie-Crumbs.

You should make a post about how exactly it failed you.


message 15: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments I've told my story here before, Rod, how I used to walk down the street looking into the eyes of people who were going to burn in hell for an eternity because their beliefs didn't match mine. Then I would go home and plead with God to not do such evil. Because I care about other people, your brand of Christianity led me into a deep depression for many years, Rod. Thank God it all turned out to be a lie. I am so thankful for those who taught me a new, healthy way to read the Bible.


message 16: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Thanks for sharing Lee. I love hearing about your life.

Lee, why were these people going to burn in hell? Or BE in hell (we need to be Biblically specific with a doctrine this dangerous and scary).

Good comment by Lee:
" Then I would go home and plead with God to not do such evil. "

Lee, why didn't you go to THESE PEOPLE and plead with THEM not to do such evil? You have it backwards. You've also chosen people who hate God over God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

Lee, you have no Bible left to read. Your just hanging desperately onto the colored maps in the back...you've thrown the rest out.


message 17: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee comment:
"... people who were going to burn in hell for an eternity because their beliefs didn't match mine"

Who cares about YOUR beliefs, or mine necessarily. People go to hell for not matching God's beliefs and requirements. And, since Jesus and God are in full agreement. You need to take that up with the Jesus of the Trinity.


message 18: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) | 2112 comments Rod said: Who cares about YOUR beliefs, or mine necessarily. People go to hell for not matching God's beliefs and requirements. And, since Jesus and God are in full agreement. You need to take that up with the Jesus of the Trinity.

I counted three of your beliefs in that paragraph. Like you said, who cares about your beliefs?


message 19: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle I simply get mine from the Bible. THAT we must care about.

Lee, where do yours come from?


message 20: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Lee, you need to lock yourself in a motel for a year with your Bible (the entire thing).
Not just the 10 page Jesus Seminar remains of a Bible.


message 21: by Rod (last edited Mar 08, 2016 09:19PM) (new)

Rod Horncastle Okay, back to the point of this thread:

"But what do Liberal Christians make of this discussion? Buddhists? Mormon's? Catholics? J.W.'s? Charismatics? Unitarians/Episcopal/United folks? Hindu's? "

So the thief on the Cross chats with Jesus and goes to Paradise. How many religious beliefs say this is possible?

Mormons: "NO WAY, it can't be that easy. You must have magic underwear, numerous spirit wives, an allegiance to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Nobody just chats with Jesus and goes to paradise... that's NOT fair."

Jehovah's Witness: "NO. Just no. Michael (who is really pretending to be a Jesus) does not have the authority to say the thief is going to paradise. He didn't even read any Watchtower newsletters. He should have at least knocked on a few doors first. It can't be that simple. And only a 144,000 can go... so no way is he more eligible than ME."

Liberal: "What's all this paradise and sin/judgement crap? My god would never do that."

Roman Catholic: "He wasn't Catholic, no way, off to purgatory with his soul. He's got a lot of sin to work off --- for Jesus!"

Just for Lee,
Conservative fundi: "Was he gay?"


message 22: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Baptists: "Unless he fell in some water while getting off the cross - he ain't going NOWHERE."

Episcopalian: "Who's Jesus?"


message 23: by Cay (new)

Cay Hasselmann | 60 comments Calvinist: "Only God can elect someone, Jesus as man cannot make that promise"

Lutheran: "Only a committee can determine this"

Charismatic: "Jesus should have first healed him or demonstrated his power in a viewable way"


message 24: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Awesome - thanks Cay.

I agree with the Calvinist one.


message 25: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Except : Jesus as the God/man can make that promise - He can see what faith the Father has given people.


message 26: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments 'Liberal: "What's all this paradise and sin/judgement crap? My god would never do that."'

'Episcopalian: "Who's Jesus?"'

Rod - I am an ordained minister in the Episcopal Church. Were you born offensive or did you work hard to get that way?


message 27: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle You're right:
Rather, it should be "What's a Jesus?"


message 28: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle This is exciting:
We should have a comically serious discussion about the immovable core doctrines of the Episcopal church.
All I've found so far is blah blah blah Liberal. Can that actually be accurate? Hmmm.


message 29: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments OK. First of all, are you Episcopalian? How much do you know about us? Secondly, what do you mean by "... immovable core doctrines ..." Finally, as a start, I refer you to The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, 1888, adopted by the House of Bishops, Chicago, 1886, and even at this, the meaning of our four "immovable core doctrines" can be, and are, debated. I also refer you to the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution II, with the same proviso.

I do not have time to debate for the mere sake of debating.


message 30: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle What solid doctrine Exactly? Still sounds like "blah blah blah Liberal".

You trust a Fundi to do all the research? Cool!!!


message 31: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle In just kidding - a wrong belief Moved is still a wrong belief. But a whole denomination founded on??? What exactly? The historical and factual truth of scripture as presented and preserved through the Holy Spirit?


message 32: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments Your self-righteous screed does not answer my questions.


message 33: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle I didn't think you actually wanted an answer John.

I was gonna start an Episcopalian thread tonight. It'll be fun to explore.


message 34: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments How dare you tell me what I do and do not want? What hubris! You are the one who made the comment about "immovable core doctrines of the Episcopal church." This is why I asked what I did. If we are going to discuss the Denomination I love, with its strengths and weaknesses, I need to have a baseline. Answer my questions.


message 35: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Hubris is a funny word.
What exactly do you love John? Jesus?


message 36: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Is your denomination more sacred than others? Why? Should I join it? Can I be your Pope?


message 37: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments Your questions are silly and beside the point. "Yes," to the first and, "No," to the second, "You probably shouldn't," to the third, and, "We don't have one,:" to the fourth.

Now, having answered your questions, will you PLEASE answer mine?


message 38: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle Thanks John.
Only short quippy comments from my phone. I'll give you much desired contents later.


message 39: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle I take it there'll be no complimentary Pope hat then. Much sadness.


message 40: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle I will desperately attempt to fully answer John's questions. Here goes:

"OK. First of all, (Rod) are you Episcopalian?

The Answer: "NO".


message 41: by John (new)

John Hanscom | 276 comments OK. Good start. On the "treat others as you would be treated" principle, I will re-enter for a little while. Here is what else I need to know for a meaningful discussion:

How much do you know about us? Secondly, what do you mean by "... immovable core doctrines ..." Finally, as a start, I refer you to The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, 1888, adopted by the House of Bishops, Chicago, 1886, and even at this, the meaning of our four "immovable core doctrines" can be, and are, debated. I also refer you to the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution II, with the same proviso.

Thanks for a partial, very limited answer. We can now use the other thread, should you wish, since we are veering from this one.


message 42: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle John, I barely know anything about you folks. Just a few articles and comments. That is why I ask questions - to clarify the confusion I have come across from Episcopalian members. (don't worry - Methodist members have just as much liberal Bible abuse. And I joyfully attend their church.)


message 43: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle At this point: I'm not convinced any church has immovable BIBLICAL core doctrines --- Like they should. Thankfully some are at least trying.


message 44: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments Rod wrote: "Matthew AND Mark being mistaken? Sure, maybe everything is mistaken. Maybe Jesus' real name was Scott O'Connor from New Mexico. Maybe Jesus really is Gandhi in a pastlife. Maybe Paul really is Paul..."
Waah Mr. Rod, You read bible for thirty years? Cover to cover? Were you thinking about cappuccino when reading? Look deep into those words, deeper, and you would see how marvelous a prodigy was Jesus while on earth. and each word of the master have umpteen messages.
And the thief on the cross is one of my subject. not the way you men perceive it to be though. He gave me ample room to prove my points.


message 45: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments It is sad that we fail to understand the immensity of the Holy Spirit and mock our ways through. Let me recap the quote from my book:
" Here we must pertinently note, the Holy Spirit inspires the person to perform the task expected of him, not dictate per se to execute it. If someone is bestowed with a certain gift, then it is left to the caliber of that person to accomplish and the perfection of the same depends solely on how he adapts to the situation. The characteristic of the Holy Spirit is not to dance with our fantasies neither confining him in the Eucharist, but to influence each of us to live in union with the Father and the Son".


message 46: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments Lee wrote: "I've told my story here before, Rod, how I used to walk down the street looking into the eyes of people who were going to burn in hell for an eternity because their beliefs didn't match mine. Then ..."

Mr. Lee, you are right to certain extent. But at the same time do not get excited at the idea of the other kind of believers getting that sordid burns either.
What matters to God is, the strength of belief in him and the righteousness of your heart. Nothing, nothing else.


message 47: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments Rod wrote: "At this point: I'm not convinced any church has immovable BIBLICAL core doctrines --- Like they should. Thankfully some are at least trying."

Well, this is a good thread. Immovable Biblical core doctrine. It sounds great.First time hear about it , otherwise I would have copied it into my book. BECAUSE: that exactly is what am going to present.


message 48: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle I'm starting to think you're another Deepak Chopra.


message 49: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments Rod wrote: "I'm starting to think you're another Deepak Chopra."

Though I heard a writer of that name, I do not know his writing stuff to compare with me.Shall I hope it is not anything adverse?


message 50: by UrumPen (new)

UrumPen | 48 comments To all my brethren at Goodreads,
Though I am here only for a few days,you have shown that fraternity to include me in the deliberations. Heartfelt thanks. My apology, especially to brother Robert if I infuriated you with my naive responses.I thoroughly enjoy Mr. Lee's thorough in subject and I love the puns of Mr. Rod.
In fact, my postings were a kind of test drive to analyze the general mood when they face bashful idioms.I got many lessons from the social media.
As I envisaged, now is the time for the real test. How inclusive the world would be for sudden changes to their imbibed minds.
The following is my personal invitation.
On 20th March I shall release the first chapter of the book,in itself a breath stricken story, through my website
piercedsouls.com prior to the unfolding of the manuscript on 27th. I chose these days prayerful.
Please be there to evaluate the content. I shall make sure that each of my brothers mentioned here shall get a copy on release which I am yet to decide how. Thank you all.
Please


« previous 1
back to top