The Calvary "5"..

[duxrow]

Are the 4 gospels in the proper sequence?

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. m + m
23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. t m + m t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
27:36 And sitting down they watched him there; t m + m t
27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A malefactor (Gr. kakourgai) is an evil-doer (criminal of some sort), whereas a thief (lestai) is someone who steals. There's a difference!
The Book of Lamentations may be an illustration. The five chapters are: 22 22 66 22 22 and remember that 22 is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (aleph to tav), known as acrostics. Psalm 119 a primary example.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are the 4 gospels in the proper sequence?

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. m + m
23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. t m + m t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
27:36 And sitting down they watched him there; t m + m t
27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A malefactor (Gr. kakourgai) is an evil-doer (criminal of some sort), whereas a thief (lestai) is someone who steals. There's a difference!
The Book of Lamentations may be an illustration. The five chapters are: 22 22 66 22 22 and remember that 22 is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (aleph to tav), known as acrostics. Psalm 119 a primary example.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm guessing that the "m + m" is supposed to indicate the two malefactors on ether side of the cross, but then the "t m + m t" seems to suggest that there were ALSO two thieves on either side of the malefactors. Is this what you are trying to communicate? And then I am guessing that you think the is supposed to indicate the order of the Gospels because in Greek "malefactor" starts with a Kappa and "thief" starts with a Lamda which follows Kappa in the alphabet. Is this what you are getting at? A little explanation might help.

[NumberX]

I don't understand it either. I think duxrow is another one who is copy/pasting something from another website, maybe changes it a little and dumps it here.

[duxrow]

Your guessing is right, Ram. This is another of Bullinger's appendixes to the Companion Bible (the KJV w notes) -- he believes there were 5 at Calvary (as I do now..). But, No, I wouldn't argue for changing the order of the Gospels.
Thought maybe someone here might contribute something to this study -- my Heb or Greek isn't really up to it..

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your guessing is right, Ram. This is another of Bullinger's appendixes to the Companion Bible (the KJV w notes) -- he believes there were 5 at Calvary (as I do now..). But, No, I wouldn't argue for changing the order of the Gospels.
Thought maybe someone here might contribute something to this study -- my Heb or Greek isn't really up to it..
I don't have Bullinger's Companion so I can't help with that, but off the top of my head, I would say it is absurd to base the idea that there were 5 at Calvary on the use of synonyms in the synoptic Gospels. Almost all the common events recorded in the Gospels use different words, so if we fallowed that kind of logic we'd have to believe that Jesus was crucified four times because the four Gospel give different accounts. This is the kind of distortion that is caused by a literal interpretation of the Bible coupled with the doctrine that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." It forces people to make up utterly unbelievable scenarios to "harmonize" the contradictions. It short-circuits the brain.

[duxrow]

I don't understand it either. I think duxrow is another one who is copy/pasting something from another website, maybe changes it a little and dumps it here.
Sometimes I do that from my own website, but not from others, and not this time at all. :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sometimes I do that from my own website, but not from others, and not this time at all. :yo:
It's fine if you copy/paste from websites if you put a link to the source. And there's some copyright rules about how much you copy. Usually don't have to worry much about that if you only copy enough to support the point you are trying to make (fair use).

[NumberX]

Sometimes I do that from my own website, but not from others, and not this time at all. :yo:

Ah, I just visited your website and read about ANGELS :winking0071: :winking0071: :signthankspin:

[duxrow]

Ah, I just visited your website and read about ANGELS :winking0071: :winking0071: :signthankspin:

That's great. Maybe they're laughing themselves silly over the antics of these earthbound homo sapiens? :lol:

What do you think -- were there two on either side of Jesus at Calvary? Have you read the accounts closely, or just assumed an authority had it correct from the git-go? :winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's great. Maybe they're laughing themselves silly over the antics of these earthbound homo sapiens? :lol:

What do you think -- were there two on either side of Jesus at Calvary? Have you read the accounts closely, or just assumed an authority had it correct from the git-go? :winking0071:
OK then! Let's do a careful reading, and let us ask three questions:

A) How many people does each Gospel mention being crucified with Christ?

B) How many people are crucified to the right of Christ?

C) How many people are crucified to the left of Christ?

Matt 27:38: "Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another [one] on the left."

Mark 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other [one] on his left.

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other [one] on the left.

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

Thus we have an absolutely uniform testimony with exactly the same answers to all three questions in the four Gospels:

A) Each Gospel states that two people were crucified with Jesus.

B) Each Gospel states that of those two, one was on the right

C) Each Gospel states that of those two, one was on the left.

So why would anyone think that there were really FOUR people crucified with Jesus, two on the right and two on the left? It seems that the only reason to even introduce such an idea would be because Luke referred to the two thieves as two "malefactors." But that seems pretty absurd since thieves are malefactors, so there is no need to invent and insert two additional characters into the story on that account. And besides, if we insist that there must be four merely because a different word was used in one Gospel, the we would also have to conclude that Jesus was really crucified four times because each Gospel describes that event with different words. The whole idea seems pretty silly to me.

[kathryn]

That's great. Maybe they're laughing themselves silly over the antics of these earthbound homo sapiens? :lol:

What do you think -- were there two on either side of Jesus at Calvary? Have you read the accounts closely, or just assumed an authority had it correct from the git-go? :winking0071:

Hi Duxrow...In studying out types in Scripture, the concept of two on either side runs deeply from Genesis through to Revelation. The "two" begin with the male/female aspect of God's likeness and image, which is separated when Eve is taken out of Adam. The twinned tablets of the Law aren't given gender because, their fulfillment is the engraving on the "tables" of the heart of male and female.

Christ in between the two...or in their "midst" is seen in the picture of Moses carrying them down Mt. Sinai.
They are seen in the pillars of the Temple, which is female. Although Boaz and Jachin are used to symbolize their meaning, again, they transfer into the male/female merge into One, in redemption. (and of course, it is from the Holy of Holies through which man, male/female emerges.

This also applies to the "two witnesses" ...who are another picture of the two "thieves" on either side of Jesus. The "two on either side" are simply a picture of the leavened Body or ecclesia(sp?), or the two "leavened loaves" which were separated by gender in the garden, and merge back into One, in redemption.

The "four" can also be used, (or any number for that matter)...as the four HEAD waters/rivers from the ONE river flowing out of Eden. 4 is the number of God moving into His creation. (4 creatures around the throne, etc.)

Christ shown in the midst of the 7 candlesticks a picture, as you know, of the Divine moved fully into the heart of the Church. It is the meaning of the number and their placement that decodes what stage the "two on either side" are in.

[kathryn]

correction above...not UNleavened ..but leavened.

[duxrow]

Roger the 'Leaven', Kathryn, so we who are One Bread will RISE and meet the Lord in the air. Right? Did I mention how the Book of Lamentations with its five chapters can be seen as a type of Calvary? 22 22 66 22 22, like t m + m t
You're making some connections that are new to me....love it!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Roger the 'Leaven', Kathryn, so we who are One Bread will RISE and meet the Lord in the air. Right? Did I mention how the Book of Lamentations with its five chapters can be seen as a type of Calvary? 22 22 66 22 22, like t m + m t
You're making some connections that are new to me....love it!
That would be a neat connection if we had any reason to believe that there really were two people crucified on each side of Jesus. But that's not what the Bible says, is it?

Did you deliberately italicize the final 22? That would make sense since it is different than the preceding four chapters since it is not alphabetically structured. It's really odd - the other four have 22 or 3 x 22 verses because they are based on the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but the final chapter is not.

[kathryn]

Roger the 'Leaven', Kathryn, so we who are One Bread will RISE and meet the Lord in the air. Right? Did I mention how the Book of Lamentations with its five chapters can be seen as a type of Calvary? 22 22 66 22 22, like t m + m t
You're making some connections that are new to me....love it!

Yes!! (I'll be eternally grateful for your bread metaphors. They opened a huge door in the grey matter, for me!)
And no...I have never seen Golgotha in the chapters of Lamentations. (I like to use Golgotha..because of the gal/gol/skull/mind/rolling connection)
That is wonderful Duxrow! Have you studied gematria? The Bible Wheel data base is a veritable feast, isn't it! Love that "22"...and doubled on either side of the "66", it gives me little pings down my neck!:rolleyes:

Another picture of Christ in the "midst", between the two, which is related to this...with 22 as revelation/light...is the verse about Jesus , during the Feast of Dedication or Lights. He is described as..walking on Solomon's porch in winter. It says nothing about the pillars there...but as soon as I read it, after becoming aware of this concept...I saw Him between the two pillars.
(why do you suppose winter is specifically mentioned? I think it portrays the winter phase of His Body, who still hasn't come into much Light.(which is why He is portrayed as "walking". Even though the written word is corrupted at the human level, I don't think one word is wasted)

[kathryn]

That would be a neat connection if we had any reason to believe that there really were two people crucified on each side of Jesus. But that's not what the Bible says, is it?

Did you deliberately italicize the final 22? That would make sense since it is different than the preceding four chapters since it is not alphabetically structured. It's really odd - the other four have 22 or 3 x 22 verses because they are based on the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but the final chapter is not.

Hi Richard...Your "two" above must be a typo , yes? I went back and re-read your previous posts, and it would appear that you are saying there were 2.
Duxrow seemed to agree with my response about the "2", so I think he's in agreement with that too.

If you did indeed mean to say 4...It is still a "neat" connection as I believe the doubled 22 on either side is indicating the double annointing or double fruitfullnes...or double witness. (Elijah passing to Elisha in type) Whenever the concept of the "midst" is indicated , either with Christ in the middle...or a sole number...I have found that it is always showing the phase of the "two" on either side.

The "midst" , in every example I have found, is always Christ/Head...and the "two on either side", the Body. The Body can also be in doubled numbers...or, different numbers describing where they are in redemption. The two numbers on either side are always twinned however.
In other words...it is telling us the condition or our heart (the midst)as we move through redemption.

[duxrow]

Yes, I italisized the last chapt. cause it isn't acrostic--meaning chapters 1,2,4 add up to yet another "66"!
I don't believe the two lestai (thief) are the same as the two kakourgai (malefactor), so YES, my read is there were four (4) with Jesus, and according to John that "first would have been one of the thieves, and then one of the malefactors. John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Just another case, IMO, where history has distorted the accurate reading of God's Word. :-)

[kathryn]

Yes, I italisized the last chapt. cause it isn't acrostic--meaning chapters 1,2,4 add up to yet another "66"!
I don't believe the two lestai (thief) are the same as the two kakourgai (malefactor), so YES, my read is there were four (4) with Jesus, and according to John that "first would have been one of the thieves, and then one of the malefactors. John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Just another case, IMO, where history has distorted the accurate reading of God's Word. :-)

Hi Dux...How you are deciding what is distoriton and what is accurate? Please 'splain.
Also...we know the end, from the beginning according to scripture, yes? The type and shadow for these 4, would be in the Genesis account , wouldn't you think...(and in my experience, they carry right through to the Book of Revelation). Given that their deaths occur at THE very hub , this would particularly apply. And...what would be your understanding, of why the category of theif and malefactor would be divided. I'm very interested in how you are seeing this!

[duxrow]

Kathryn, I read FOR MYSELF the Bible, and ignore the "distortions of history". Suppose they did their best, but now we have modern study aids: computers, inter-linears, etc. and aren't dealing only with scrolls. Basically I see it as conflict between 'Grandma' and the Bible!
Really doesn't seem important to me whether 2 or 4 crucified w Jesus, and sure don't want to "beat a dead horse", but still rankles when they speak about how "the thief on the cross would be in paradise w/o being baptized" -- when its the MALEFACTOR of Luke they're really talking about..

[kathryn]

There are NO dead horses in this Dux! I am genuinely interested. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I hate debates. Just want to enlarge my own understanding.
I appreciate the brevity of your posts. They are tantalizingly short, leaving a whiff of a concept. Sometimes though, we are left to guess. Please enlarge on the malefactor theme. I'm still not "getting" it..
Grandma:p

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That would be a neat connection if we had any reason to believe that there really were two people crucified on each side of Jesus. But that's not what the Bible says, is it?

Hi Richard...Your "two" above must be a typo , yes? I went back and re-read your previous posts, and it would appear that you are saying there were 2.

No, it wasn't a typo. English can be notoriously ambiguous at times. I wrote "two people crucified on each side of Jesus" to mean two on the right, and two on the left, for a total of four.



Duxrow seemed to agree with my response about the "2", so I think he's in agreement with that too.

If you did indeed mean to say 4...It is still a "neat" connection as I believe the doubled 22 on either side is indicating the double annointing or double fruitfullnes...or double witness. (Elijah passing to Elisha in type) Whenever the concept of the "midst" is indicated , either with Christ in the middle...or a sole number...I have found that it is always showing the phase of the "two" on either side.

Your mention of Elijah reminds me about the other reason a total of "two" seems to match the general pattern, since there were two (one on either side) of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration - Moses and Elijah. And what did they represent? The Law and the Prophets bearing witness to Christ just like Paul said: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21). And this coheres with the repeated teaching that there must be a minimum of two witnesses to "establish every word" as well as the 70 being sent out in pairs.

[duxrow]

:winking0071:
Numbers 26:33 And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. :lol:
In the pedigree of Mary's husband there's a Joanna, and that's probably a male: confusion over names and copy-cat names is a favorite study of mine.
Liked your "two" of the witnesses and the transfiguration scene, but continue to see two malefactors that were crucified WITH Jesus, and two thieves who weren't crucified till after the billboard was put up. Nothing that I read says one of the thieves changed his mind and decided to befriend Jesus.
The Virgin Mary is a type of Zelophehad in that she had no brothers, so HER GENERATION is represented by herself #65. Her father #64 and her grandfather Jacob-II being #63. Kapish? Glory!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Liked your "two" of the witnesses and the transfiguration scene, but continue to see two malefactors that were crucified WITH Jesus, and two thieves who weren't crucified till after the billboard was put up. Nothing that I read says one of the thieves changed his mind and decided to befriend Jesus.

Your logic is faulty. The Bible says that the thieves/malefactors were crucified with him, so the idea that they were "with him" says nothing about when they crucified with him (before or after). Furthermore, the Bible does not say that the malefactors were crucified before the billboard was put up, so your argument fails completely.


Matt 27:38: "Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another [one] on the left."
Mark 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other [one] on his left.
Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other [one] on the left.

I am stunned that you would distort the Bible by making up stuff like this just so you can prove that "history has distorted the accurate reading of God's Word." What irony! You are distorting the Bible to prove that it was distorted by others???

If "history" had interpreted the Bible as you do, there would be a million more confusions than there already are.

I have explained why your presumption is false, but you have not responded. Let me try again. You are inventing and inserting two new characters into the Bible with absolutely no evidence other than a difference of nomenclature in otherwise obviously parallel accounts. And worse, your theory directly contradicts the uniform testimony of all for Gospels that says that A) there were two, not four, people crucified with Jesus, B) one (not two) on the right, and C) one (not two) on the left. Therefore, your "picking at words" is totally inconsistent. And if you did this consistently throughout the Gospels you would have to have Jesus crucified four times! And you would have him repeating the whole story of his life, doing and saying almost identical things over and over in the most unbelievable fashion merely because the different Gospel writers used slightly different words when describing the same event. This is an utterly ridiculous approach to the Bible. It destroys the meaning of the text and any possibility of it being believed as an accurate historical record. Or that's how it seems to me anyway! :p

[kathryn]

:winking0071:
Numbers 26:33 And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. :lol:
In the pedigree of Mary's husband there's a Joanna, and that's probably a male: confusion over names and copy-cat names is a favorite study of mine.
Liked your "two" of the witnesses and the transfiguration scene, but continue to see two malefactors that were crucified WITH Jesus, and two thieves who weren't crucified till after the billboard was put up. Nothing that I read says one of the thieves changed his mind and decided to befriend Jesus.
The Virgin Mary is a type of Zelophehad in that she had no brothers, so HER GENERATION is represented by herself #65. Her father #64 and her grandfather Jacob-II being #63. Kapish? Glory!

Hi Dux...first I have to tell you that I have a learning disability..so when you are the slightest bit "cryptic" about something...such as the names above, I am not following and won't until you enlarge the picture a bit for me to see. Sorry...I don't want to force you out of your natural rhythm of communicating. Only do so if you really want to.:)

On the malefactor/thieve theme, what do you think of this possibility: In essence, Adam/Eve were the first thieves, as they took something that didn't belong to them, when they partook of the fruit of the forbidden tree. However...all sin is reckoned as debt in scripture, which is why the kinsman redeemer came and "paid their debt note."

We are all TWO "men" in one body...carnal and divine. The carnal or old man, is the malefactor who had to crucified at the cross. The carnal man can never change his mind. (repent) He has to be be-headed. (hung) The other is redeemed, as the one thief...or the donkey is redeemed by the Lamb.

[duxrow]

Kathryn; Sorry, but I don't associate Adam and Eve with the crucifixion scene in any way, and am sorry to have brought in the Zelophehad idea, knowing how its very unfamilar to most. If someone, like Ram, prefers thinking of 3 at Calvary, so be it, 'cause I doubt it will have any eternal ramifications (love that word?).
Ram, maybe your parachute is fouled.. Matthew 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc20.htm

[kathryn]

I didnt explain that very clearly. Basically...there are two carnal men which are absent in body, and the two physical men they represent, as thieves. Still two...but the types demonstrate what is occurring. Does that make sense?

[kathryn]

Kathryn; Sorry, but I don't associate Adam and Eve with the crucifixion scene in any way, and am sorry to have brought in the Zelophehad idea, knowing how its very unfamilar to most. If someone, like Ram, prefers thinking of 3 at Calvary, so be it, 'cause I doubt it will have any eternal ramifications (love that word?).
Ram, maybe your parachute is fouled.. Matthew 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc20.htm

Ok...but I don't see how you cannot associate the cross with Adam/Eve. It was the reversal of their curse. Jesus time in Gesthemane(sp?) was in the garden. It was the "threshing floor" of Eden. Jesus was the Word made Flesh. Adam/Eve were in Him when He was crucified. They have to be in there somewhere don't they?
Please don't drop the subject Zelophehad ESPECIALLY being that it is unfamiliar!! I am a hungry, ruthless woman who likes to eat the unfamiliar for breakfast, lunch and dinner. (snort):winking0071:

[kathryn]

Kathryn; Sorry, but I don't associate Adam and Eve with the crucifixion scene in any way, and am sorry to have brought in the Zelophehad idea, knowing how its very unfamilar to most. If someone, like Ram, prefers thinking of 3 at Calvary, so be it, 'cause I doubt it will have any eternal ramifications (love that word?).
Ram, maybe your parachute is fouled.. Matthew 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc20.htm

Dux...the way I see it...the time sequence isn't being highlighted with the order of the sign/thieves, so much as the proclamation of Kingship.
Anyway...as you say...no eternal ramifications:). We can agree to disagree. You keep me thinking and that's all that matters:D

PS...another weird scripture is the one that implies that Jesus rode both the mother and the colt. It is only in one of the gospels I believe. Probably John, as most of the deeper revelation of the Bride is in there. It drove me crazy, until I realized that in He does ride both mother and colt, in one phase of our refining process.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If someone, like Ram, prefers thinking of 3 at Calvary, so be it, 'cause I doubt it will have any eternal ramifications (love that word?).
Ram, maybe your parachute is fouled.. Matthew 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc20.htm (http://www.cswnet.com/%7Eduxrow/webdoc20.htm)
Hey there duxrow,

I don't "prefer" 3 over 5 - I simply "prefer" logic, truth, and reality. I really don't like folks making up stuff about the Bible. That's what's made the whole study of the Bible an exercise in futility. Folks ignore what it plainly says and insist on things it doesn't say. So what's the point? It becomes garbage.

I saw the word "then." That's why I wrote a bunch of extra words, because I knew you were confused by it. It doesn't prove your case because all it means is that the two were crucified after the sign was put up. Didn't you read what I wrote? Let me repeat it in red bold:

The Bible says that the thieves/malefactors were crucified with him, so the idea that they were "with him" says nothing about when they crucified with him (before or after). Furthermore, the Bible does not say that the malefactors were crucified before the billboard was put up, so your argument fails completely.
Do you understand what I am saying? The Bible does not say that the malefactors were crucified before the sign was put up. Therefore, the malefactors could have been the same people as the thieves. If you disagree, please deal with what I wrote.

Thanks! :yo:

[duxrow]

Yes, Kathryn, I DO understand how Jesus on the Cross was God's Plan for reversing the Adam/Eve situation, just don't see a 'numbers' connection there.
Not much to say about Zelophehad (love to say that word..) who HAD 5 daughers, but NO Sons! So Numbers 26 and 36 speak of how the inheritance is passed on when there are no sons. No reference to the Virgin Mary is ever made, but because she had no brothers, and her father/grandfather were named Joseph/Jacob, seems more than coincidence to me. What do you think? :-)

[duxrow]

Hey Ram: We'll never agree as long as you put "thief/malefactor" together as though they were one, because I believe them to be different. So should we "agree to disagree"? :confused:
there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Maybe Luke messed up by not saying whether they were murderer's like Barabus, or drunks like Noah? :thumb:

[duxrow]

A Bone for the Dogs

The Children's Bread shouldn't go to the dogs!
So a Bone-of-Contention's been thrown..
Religious factions all over the world
are claiming it now for their own.

The Gentiles are fighting over the bone,
and from place to place it gets carried,
but they haven't got all the meat off this bone,
and it's a bone that won't stay buried!

..

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Ram: We'll never agree as long as you put "thief/malefactor" together as though they were one, because I believe them to be different. So should we "agree to disagree"? :confused:
there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Maybe Luke messed up by not saying whether they were murderer's like Barabus, or drunks like Noah? :thumb:
Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I am disappointed to see that you have chosen to ignore my arguments (without any attempt to refute them) and to believe things contrary to logic and the facts of what is actually written in the Bible. But if that's your position, then fine. So be it!

All the best. :yo:

[kathryn]

Hey Ram: We'll never agree as long as you put "thief/malefactor" together as though they were one, because I believe them to be different. So should we "agree to disagree"? :confused:
there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Maybe Luke messed up by not saying whether they were murderer's like Barabus, or drunks like Noah? :thumb:

Hey Duxrow, (is this really "ducks in row?)"
I am still trying to "tune our instruments" in this. I'm not following what you mean about the "numbers" lining up, so you have to be patient with me because I'll knaw at you until I get it.:D:D
In the meantime, I think I just saw something. I had always wondered about the "parting" of the raiment. It sounds much like the parting of the waters, doesn't it? Or the rending of the curtain/veil.

If it is related, it shows us another picture of the "midst"(between the veil/garment) and what is occuring in Divine purpose at the midst or heart of the Body, or the "two on either side".

Being that Jesus Christ is the 2nd Adam, this could also represent the Fig Leaf(covering for sin) garment of the 1st Adam, being exchanged for the Robe of Robe of Righteousness. It would also demonstrate the curse Jesus earlier put on the fig tree, taking an interesting turn. Adam tried to cover his sin by using a fig leaf to cover himself. Jesus had cursed the fig tree for not producing sustenance. By becoming Adam's curse, He replaces it on the Cross, as the 1st Goat of the Atonement sacrifice, which in turn, provides the covering of the Robe of Righteousness for Adam/man...as he now begins his trek through the wilderness as the 2nd goat.

That seems to add a piccolo or two to the chorus, wouldn't you think:D Wouldn't this then strengthen the thought that we have two malefactors within the two thieves; or two thieves and their carnal Adamic natures, rather than 4 men? We would now have 2 men, 2 natures, 2 garments , picturing the Atonement sacrifice in the 2 goats.) :pop2::pray:

PS...Just saw something else in the "midst" concept, with the raiment parting. It is also the raiment of the King of the Jews. Genesis 49 states that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes. So...it would also show the dividing of Judah for Shiloh to emerge; the dominion for the birthright (Adam's FULL inheritance) 2nd Adam/Bridegroom for Bride (Adam/Eve in redemption). That's another 2 + 2 + 2. Gosh! That adds to 14 ! Passover, the event itself! So we have 2 2 2 2 2 2 2...just like little ducks in a row! (ok..I'm leaving, I'm leaving)

Its also an illustration of our caterpillar shedding its old skin , attached to the stem! (the caterpillar with the butterfly "within" , the anti-type of the thief/malefactor :-))))) By the way...I'm heading off to do some camping . Just in case you wanted to pursue this topic with me, I'll be back on Sunday.

[kathryn]

One other little thing I just thought of as I was signing out. As I have been coming into deeper understanding of this "midst" concept, I have seen more clearly, the separation from the holy and the profane. It begins quite gradually in the types until we see in Zechariah, the picture of wickedness being lifted up into the midst(midair) and completely removed to Shinar (babylon).

I have been meditating on this 4/2 "fuzzyness" in scripture, with the thief/malefactor because, while I don't understand yet why, you wouldn't feel so strongly about it unless you had a substantial reason to believe it.

I do believe however, that it is simply showing the separation occuring in the nature(s) of the thieves. Scripture has an equally obscure way, as I showed you in the illustration of Jesus seemingly riding both the mother AND colt, in demonstrating the merger of "mother" into "colt". Another example, although not so obscure, is the merger of the Elijah and Elisha types or the single/double annointing. In the OT they are a generation apart. Elijah is a father figure to Elisha. In the NT, we see Mary move into Elisabeth's house for 3 months, and the two are communicating in the Spirit, while they're still in the womb!

(I bet you wish you never brought this up..yes?:pray::pop2:)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have been meditating on this 4/2 "fuzzyness" in scripture, with the thief/malefactor because, while I don't understand yet why, you wouldn't feel so strongly about it unless you had a substantial reason to believe it.

Fuzziness? I don't see any fuzziness at all. The Bible is perfectly clear without a hint of ambiguity on this point. All four Gospels say that there were two people crucified with Christ. All four Gospels say that there was one person crucified on the left, and one on the right. It's a rare case of perfect agreement amongst all four Gospels. The only variation is that Luke refers to the thieves as "malefactors" which they were. If anyone insists that this indicates there were four people crucified with Christ, then the same logic would imply that many other events, such as the crucifixion, actually happened multiple times because of differences in the words used to describe that one event. It is really quite absurd, IMHO. :yo:

[kathryn]

Well...I wouldn't nor do have any problem with it either. I didn't notice any fuzzynes; in fact I didn't notice the separation into thief and malefactor, until Dux pointed it out. What I'm trying to understand here, is how and why it caused him to have another look. I appreciate his perspective and how his radar picks up the "ping" :rolleyes: as it has opened some doors and improved mine. The digging is never futile:winking0071:

[duxrow]

Well...I wouldn't nor do have any problem with it either. I didn't notice any fuzzynes; in fact I didn't notice the separation into thief and malefactor, until Dux pointed it out. What I'm trying to understand here, is how and why it caused him to have another look. I appreciate his perspective and how his radar picks up the "ping" :rolleyes: as it has opened some doors and improved mine. The digging is never futile:winking0071:

Tks Kathryn, but credit goes to Bullinger for alerting me and when I began to try and harmonize those events is when the fuzzy began.. Spoke with a Greek friend who read John19:18 from his own Bible "two on either side one, and he told me the 'one' wasn't there in the Greek.
Tried (in vain) to have that "one" put in italics as it should be, but no success. :mad:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well...I wouldn't nor do have any problem with it either. I didn't notice any fuzzynes; in fact I didn't notice the separation into thief and malefactor, until Dux pointed it out. What I'm trying to understand here, is how and why it caused him to have another look. I appreciate his perspective and how his radar picks up the "ping" :rolleyes: as it has opened some doors and improved mine. The digging is never futile:winking0071:
I agree ... the digging is usually fruitful. And enjoyable. But I am also glad when the vision is clear rather than "fuzzy" which seems to be the case in this case.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Tks Kathryn, but credit goes to Bullinger for alerting me and when I began to try and harmonize those events is when the fuzzy began.. Spoke with a Greek friend who read John19:18 from his own Bible "two on either side one, and he told me the 'one' wasn't there in the Greek.
Tried (in vain) to have that "one" put in italics as it should be, but no success. :mad:
The KJV is not the best translation. Young's Literal Translation is word for word accurate:

YLT John 19:18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst.

How many others does John say were crucified with Christ? Two.
How many others does Luke say were crucified with Christ? Two.
How many others does Mark say were crucified with Christ? Two.
How many others does Matt say were crucified with Christ? Two.

How many others does Bob say were crucified with Christ? FOUR??? What's up with that?

[duxrow]

Don't recall checking YLT, but that's the one which leaves out the "one" -- and seeing Jesus "in the midst" of the four Gospels is another way of looking at it..
Left off this subject earlier 'cause I don't see it as really important -- neither the denials of Peter (3 before the first cockcrew, and 3 more (IMO) before the 2nd cockcrew in Mark's Gospel). My wife said she was going to scream if she heard any more about that rooster crowing! ha.
Understanding how the "cockcrow" was a way of describing that a new shift should report for duty.. (only saying what I've heard or read.. how 'bout you?)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Don't recall checking YLT, but that's the one which leaves out the "one" -- and seeing Jesus "in the midst" of the four Gospels is another way of looking at it..
Left off this subject earlier 'cause I don't see it as really important -- neither the denials of Peter (3 before the first cockcrew, and 3 more (IMO) before the 2nd cockcrew in Mark's Gospel). My wife said she was going to scream if she heard any more about that rooster crowing! ha.
Understanding how the "cockcrow" was a way of describing that a new shift should report for duty.. (only saying what I've heard or read.. how 'bout you?)
The cock crow contradictions look like a simple mistake. Do you think they have some hidden meaning?

[duxrow]

Could be simple mistake, but I prefer to see how it "fits the facts" and credits Peter with at least six denials -- after all, even Weiner stuck to his story as long as he could; so why should Peter be different?

Don't see any hidden message in it, unless we 'learn' how incredibly accurate it really is. Even so, the two(2) pair of father-son "Salathiel-Zorobabel" (sp?) listed in Matt1 & Luke3 are a type of 'two' situations that seem to fit the style of Our Ghostwriter. hmmm?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Could be simple mistake, but I prefer to see how it "fits the facts" and credits Peter with at least six denials -- after all, even Weiner stuck to his story as long as he could; so why should Peter be different?

Don't see any hidden message in it, unless we 'learn' how incredibly accurate it really is. Even so, the two(2) pair of father-son "Salathiel-Zorobabel" (sp?) listed in Matt1 & Luke3 are a type of 'two' situations that seem to fit the style of Our Ghostwriter. hmmm?
SIX DENIALS? Wow ... it sounds like you are "solving" on the contradictions between the Gospels by assuming that every difference, no matter how slight, represents an entirely separate event. If we follow your logic, should we conclude that Christ was crucified four times? If not, why not?

[duxrow]

SIX DENIALS? Wow ... it sounds like you are "solving" on the contradictions between the Gospels by assuming that every difference, no matter how slight, represents an entirely separate event. If we follow your logic, should we conclude that Christ was crucified four times? If not, why not?

:hangman: Far out! Nope, as I've said b4, there are places where a glitch CANNOT be rationalized, but when there's a way; that's MY WILL. :thumb:
The 6 (or more) denials of Peter, and 4 (or more) crucified with Jesus, aren't that hard to reconcile [ever study the 'harmonies' of the Gospels?], and I'm not claiming credit for being the first to discover (as I am the cryptogram), but Jesus is called "The Truth" and "The Word" (lots more, too)
and it may be as hard to swallow as the Whale episode.
The "triple acrostic" supporting the 66 books led me to this site -- still surprises me your perspective denies the hidden truths.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:hangman: Far out! Nope, as I've said b4, there are places where a glitch CANNOT be rationalized, but when there's a way; that's MY WILL. :thumb:
The 6 (or more) denials of Peter, and 4 (or more) crucified with Jesus, aren't that hard to reconcile [ever study the 'harmonies' of the Gospels?], and I'm not claiming credit for being the first to discover (as I am the cryptogram), but Jesus is called "The Truth" and "The Word" (lots more, too)
and it may be as hard to swallow as the Whale episode.
The "triple acrostic" supporting the 66 books led me to this site -- still surprises me your perspective denies the hidden truths.
I don't have any trouble seeing many "hidden truths" but I have a distaste for making up stuff that 1) is not well-founded logically, 2) probably isn't true, and 3) is contrary to the the most likely solution, and 4) can't be proven with any certainty. But hey! If it floats your boat, more power to you!

[duxrow]

I don't have any trouble seeing many "hidden truths" but I have a distaste for making up stuff that 1) is not well-founded logically, 2) probably isn't true, and 3) is contrary to the the most likely solution, and 4) can't be proven with any certainty. But hey! If it floats your boat, more power to you!

Roger that -- am bailing as fast as I can. :) I look for 'glitches', things that look out of line, and keep pursuing them. For example: are you really happy that you understand the three columns of 14 in Matthew 1:16?
Sometimes I say there's no such thing as trivia in the 66 books -- on the other hand, not every subject is IMO as great as "God's Truth".
As Bill O'Reilly would say "Give you the last word".. nice chatting for sure.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Roger that -- am bailing as fast as I can. :) I look for 'glitches', things that look out of line, and keep pursuing them. For example: are you really happy that you understand the three columns of 14 in Matthew 1:16?
Sometimes I say there's no such thing as trivia in the 66 books -- on the other hand, not every subject is IMO as great as "God's Truth".
As Bill O'Reilly would say "Give you the last word".. nice chatting for sure.
I'm fine taking the "last word" in this thread since I think we've pretty much exhausted the possibilities, but I hope I never have the "last word" on this forum! :winking0071:

The problem with the "last word" is the deafening silence that follows it. :(