High Five

[duxrow]

Five chapters in Lamentations, and five books in the New Testament that begin with the letter "T" ..

324

Weve had this before, RAM, but thought this might help you see where I'm coming from..? :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Five chapters in Lamentations, and five books in the New Testament that begin with the letter "T" ..

324

Weve had this before, RAM, but thought this might help you see where I'm coming from..? :yo:
Hey there duxrow,

Yes, I recall our discussion. I think I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think there is any legitimate reason to believe Jesus was crucifed between four others. Your arguments based on minor word variations between the four Gospels cannot be valid or we would have to believe that Christ was born twice and crucified four times.

All the best,

Richard

[duxrow]

Don't see why your assumption of double death or resurrection has to follow -- doesn't make any sense to me that way at all. Previously I hadn't noticed the FIVE "T" Books, and now they seem to me to add logic to the Calvary five. A thief (leste) is not the same as malefactor (kakourgai), so why not two of each? "By two it's established", Gen41:32, is a foundational theme IMO. :signthankspin:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Don't see why your assumption of double death or resurrection has to follow -- doesn't make any sense to me that way at all. Previously I hadn't noticed the FIVE "T" Books, and now they seem to me to add logic to the Calvary five. A thief (leste) is not the same as malefactor (kakourgai), so why not two of each? "By two it's established", Gen41:32, is a foundational theme IMO. :signthankspin:
My logic is simple. If the use of different words implies different events (thief vs. malefactor) then the same logic implies that the different details of the crucifixion must refer to different events too. Else we are being inconsistent.

It doubles or quadruples everything since every parallel passage with minor differences must refer to separate events. This seems to be the logic you are using to establish your "five crosses" theory.

[duxrow]

I give up. Bullinger wrote about the five in his Companion Bible, so it doesn''t originate with me, but does make sense to me -- maybe you suppose that one of the thieves changed his mind about reviling Jesus, but that isn't confirmed by scripture anywhere.. this subject seems similar to why 3 of the gospels speak of the first cockcrowing, but Mark's Gospel speaks of the 2nd cockcrowing!:p

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I give up. Bullinger wrote about the five in his Companion Bible, so it doesn''t originate with me, but does make sense to me -- maybe you suppose that one of the thieves changed his mind about reviling Jesus, but that isn't confirmed by scripture anywhere.. this subject seems similar to why 3 of the gospels speak of the first cockcrowing, but Mark's Gospel speaks of the 2nd cockcrowing!:p
Don't give up! I'm a reasonable man. I was only sharing with you what seems to me to be the obvious implications of the theory you are supporting. Your example of the different accounts of the cockcrowing only proves my point. If we demand that minor differences are speaking of different events, then there we must conclude that there was one event when the cockcrowed twice and another event when it crowed thrice. If you are willing to make up reasons to explain why these two different events refer to the same event, then there is no reason why you should not be willing to conclude that the words "thiefs" and "malefactors" refer to the same two criminals.

[duxrow]

The fiery finger of GOD wrote The Law in the tablets of stone,
And once a year the blood of a goat did for their sin atone. That Old Covenant was forthe purpose of teaching a lesson,
and now we have a better deal,
cause the blood is real, and we're no longer guessin'!
The gentle finger of Jesus wrote the Law of Love in the dust on the ground.
His forgiveness of the woman adulteress
was an act of this truth so profound.
He was the one who became the goat for us, and also the ram in the thicket..
"He is the Lamb that covers our sin, and gives righteousness to the wicked.
The literal truth comes first, and leads to the abstract truth of the poet, And the things recorded in His Book have a deeper meaning: Don't you know it?
It may not be just what you think, because the language was once confounded, But it will surely enlighten your eyes,
if your brain hasn't been impounded. :eek:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The fiery finger of GOD wrote The Law in the tablets of stone,
And once a year the blood of a goat did for their sin atone. That Old Covenant was forthe purpose of teaching a lesson,
and now we have a better deal,
cause the blood is real, and we're no longer guessin'!
The gentle finger of Jesus wrote the Law of Love in the dust on the ground.
His forgiveness of the woman adulteress
was an act of this truth so profound.
He was the one who became the goat for us, and also the ram in the thicket..
"He is the Lamb that covers our sin, and gives righteousness to the wicked.
The literal truth comes first, and leads to the abstract truth of the poet, And the things recorded in His Book have a deeper meaning: Don't you know it?
It may not be just what you think, because the language was once confounded, But it will surely enlighten your eyes,
if your brain hasn't been impounded. :eek:
Nice poem Bob.

I especially like the reference to "abstract turth." That's what I see going on in the Bible - evolution from a very primitive blood-sacrficial cult religion into more abstract and universal religion of love. I hope the evolution continues until the religion dissolves into the light of day.

[duxrow]

OK RAM, whaddya think of the five books in the NT which begin with the letter"T" (english, that is) -- 1,2 Thes plus 1,2 Tim, plus Titus -- all in a nice neat row and no other books beginning with t that I can think of. Thinking also of the 5 chapters in Lamentations (acrostic book). Do you make anything diff in those with Hebrew or Greek?

1Cor1:25 "The foolishness of God" ?? maybe?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

OK RAM, whaddya think of the five books in the NT which begin with the letter"T" (english, that is) -- 1,2 Thes plus 1,2 Tim, plus Titus -- all in a nice neat row and no other books beginning with t that I can think of. Thinking also of the 5 chapters in Lamentations (acrostic book). Do you make anything diff in those with Hebrew or Greek?

1Cor1:25 "The foolishness of God" ?? maybe?
Well, technically, the names of those books start with numbers. But ignoring that, the pattern doesn't work in Greek because Thesalonians begins with a Theta whereas Timothy and Titus begin with Tau. If the Latin alphabet had different letters for Th and T we wouldn't see the pattern in English. So it looks like just a coincidence that happens to be seen in English. And more significantly, what do those books have to do with the theory that there were five crosses?

As for the 5 chapters of Lamentations - only the first four are accrostic. And what does the number of chapters in Lamentations have to do with your theory?

[duxrow]

Well, technically, the names of those books start with numbers. But ignoring that, the pattern doesn't work in Greek because Thesalonians begins with a Theta whereas Timothy and Titus begin with Tau. If the Latin alphabet had different letters for Th and T we wouldn't see the pattern in English. So it looks like just a coincidence that happens to be seen in English. And more significantly, what do those books have to do with the theory that there were five crosses?

As for the 5 chapters of Lamentations - only the first four are accrostic. And what does the number of chapters in Lamentations have to do with your theory?

Roger the numbers... and no significance; just a parallel to the number five.. like the 5 damsels of Abigail or the 5 foolish virgins... ha.

Samo, samo, for Lamentations: similar to the human hand with the thumb as chapt. 5. Middle finger would be the 66 verses in chapt. 3. :eek:!!
Thanks for your input. Blessings!