Thief on the Cross

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

Kim82

Guest
The thief was too late to be saved by the old testament, since his conversion came just as he was about to die, and he was too early to be saved by the new testament which came into effect after Christ death. Indeed how then was he saved?
 
K

Kim82

Guest
Everyone can agree that he is saved since Jesus says so, but how? No one seems to have an answer for that one.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
2,745
627
113
Yes.

Paul told them HOW they got saved. Just like Jesus told us who is not condemned vs who is condemned. And they agree completely

They also in turn Told us how WE got saved.

So why do you think we get saved a different way?
Peter's instructions were to believe, repent, and get water baptized in Jesus' name, and those that did would receive the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Paul stated that the Ephesians received and were obedient to the word of truth given by Peter and in doing so they were sealed with the Holy Ghost just as the Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, Paul himself, and the disciples of Ephesus were as recorded in the Book of Acts.
 
Mar 14, 2011
76,404
17,677
113
God's Word will never contradict itself.
Hey we agree

And it does not

What paul said in Eph 1 is true. Nothing can contradict that! If it does, or seems to. We need to check out interpretation of those passages. And it is not just this passage in eph, there are many all over the NT which say the same thing.
 
Mar 14, 2011
76,404
17,677
113
Peter's instructions were to believe, repent, and get water baptized in Jesus' name, and those that did would receive the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
No it was not, You have been shown this false interpretation so many times, it is really getting old. Peter did not contradict Jesus, or Paul or other people.

Paul stated that the Ephesians received and were obedient to the word of truth given by Peter and in doing so they were sealed with the Holy Ghost just as the Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, Paul himself, and the disciples of Ephesus were as recorded in the Book of Acts.
Paul stated a fact. AFTER you heard the word, and then AFTER you had faith, you were given the HS of promise

No baptism, No church membership No speaking in tongues, He said the same thing Jesus said in John 3. WHoever BELIEVES in him WILL NEVER DIE, but HAS eternal life. WHoever believes is NOT condemned, whoever does NOT BELIEVE is CONDEMNED already, because he HAS NOT BELIEVED

Paul and Jesus are in agreement, So is Peter. Because peter did not say what you THINK he said. The origional text does not allow it.
 
Mar 14, 2011
76,404
17,677
113
The thief was too late to be saved by the old testament, since his conversion came just as he was about to die, and he was too early to be saved by the new testament which came into effect after Christ death. Indeed how then was he saved?
The same way Abraham, David, moses and all other people who have been and will ever be saved,

Grace through faith.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
2,745
627
113
Hey we agree

And it does not

What paul said in Eph 1 is true. Nothing can contradict that! If it does, or seems to. We need to check out interpretation of those passages. And it is not just this passage in eph, there are many all over the NT which say the same thing.
C
No it was not, You have been shown this false interpretation so many times, it is really getting old. Peter did not contradict Jesus, or Paul or other people.

Paul stated a fact. AFTER you heard the word, and then AFTER you had faith, you were given the HS of promise

No baptism, No church membership No speaking in tongues, He said the same thing Jesus said in John 3. WHoever BELIEVES in him WILL NEVER DIE, but HAS eternal life. WHoever believes is NOT condemned, whoever does NOT BELIEVE is CONDEMNED already, because he HAS NOT BELIEVED

Paul and Jesus are in agreement, So is Peter. Because peter did not say what you THINK he said. The origional text does not allow it.
We were discussing how one receives the Holy Ghost as witnessed in the Word and I asked for scripture that showed how the Holy Ghost was received in a different way.

You stated in your post #99 that Ephesians 1 was evidence that the Holy Ghost was received in a different way. You now contend that Paul's comments in Ephesians don't contradict Peter's instructions in Acts.

You should make up your mind.

Truth can only be established through the witness of at least 2-3 scriptures stating the same thing. In each of the following records the people submitted to water baptism and received the Holy Ghost as instructed by Peter (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)
 
Mar 14, 2011
76,404
17,677
113
Everyone can agree that he is saved since Jesus says so, but how? No one seems to have an answer for that one.
He was saved because his faith has made him whole.
C
We were discussing how one receives the Holy Ghost as witnessed in the Word and I asked for scripture that showed how the Holy Ghost was received in a different way.

You stated in your post #99 that Ephesians 1 was evidence that the Holy Ghost was received in a different way. You now contend that Paul's comments in Ephesians don't contradict Peter's instructions in Acts.

You should make up your mind.

Truth can only be established through the witness of at least 2-3 scriptures stating the same thing. In each of the following records the people submitted to water baptism and received the Holy Ghost as instructed by Peter (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)
It don’t Nor does it Jesus

The passages you quote. Showes they recieved the GIFTING which is given when one recieves the spirit. Not the actual time they received him or how.

Your interpretation of peter in acts is WRONG!!

Peter only told those who had repented and RECIEVED the gift of the spirit to be baptized.

But trying to see what the true word actually says I guess is not one of your top priorities.

Either way. You want to work to earn your salvation, Feel free. That makes you no better than pharisee though so good luck with that.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
2,745
627
113
Only the uncircumcised men had to get cut off. You said "person", which might imply women had to be circumcised, but that isn't true. Also, they only had to circumcise the foreskin, which again of necessity exempts women.

So who didn't get circumcised, and who was God going to kill? Was Moses uncircumcised, or his son? It was his son who was uncircumcised, but Moses was going to get killed for it. So this doesn't align exactly with the Genesis passage, but does align with the passage where Abraham was made righteous by faith, before his circumcision. In Moses' case, it was Moses who lacked the faith, and therefore was guilty (and going to die), not his son, who was uncircumcised.
I realize OT circumcision was of course only required of men. And, scripture does indicate it was commanded as man's responsibility for entering into covenant with God:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen 17:14

Also, I find your comments interesting. First, Moses' lack of faith. Is it possible that this event is recorded as further evidence that indwelling faith will indeed be recognized by one's actions or lack thereof? If so, the two, faith and action are tied together.
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:18-20

Secondly, God's intention to actually kill Moses points to the critical importance of his son's need for circumcision. According to scripture, without circumcision, Moses' son would definitely have been excluded from being in covenant with God.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,003
760
113
36
Australia
How great is the mercy of God, Jesus didn't reply, "Sorry thief but it is too late for you."

My Nana is bed bound with dimensia. She was a catholic all her life. She the least gave me grief when I became a Christian in all the family. I don't know her faith in God but the other week I felt to tell her, "Jesus loves you. Nothing else matters now Nana, you can forgive everyone. It doesn't matter if you can't speak but you can tell Jesus in your heart that you believe in Him and that He died to save your sins. Thats all you have to do now. He knows"

And you shouldve seen her eyes light up, it was quite a moment. I don't know what came of it and I probably won't know until I die.
 
Mar 21, 2019
487
163
43
I realize OT circumcision was of course only required of men. And, scripture does indicate it was commanded as man's responsibility for entering into covenant with God:

"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen 17:14
But who circumcises the men children? At 8 days, they are too young to circumcise themselves, so it has to be their parents.

Genesis 17:10-12 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

So even though it was the males who were circumcised, it was the community's ("me and you and thy seed after thee") responsibility to ensure the (baby) males were circumcised. (See how the community gathered for the circumcision of John the Baptist).

Luke 1:58-59 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Remember also that Abraham was credited with righteousness before he was circumcised. So although I agree that uncircumcised males were breaking the covenant, what is most important to God is faith. If an uncircumcised male had faith in God, it would only be a matter of time before he got circumcised (i.e. when he came to an age of understanding, he would act in obedience), despite his parents' lack of faith in not circumcising him. But time and again, it was the (physically) circumcised men who broke God's covenant (but not by uncircumcision), irrespective of the token of their covenant, due to lack of faith.

Also, I find your comments interesting. First, Moses' lack of faith. Is it possible that this event is recorded as further evidence that indwelling faith will indeed be recognized by one's actions or lack thereof? If so, the two, faith and action are tied together.
I think this event gives a number of lessons. First, that even "great" men can have lack of faith (which results in disobedience). Second, that the weaker and obscure (e.g. Zipporah) can have the faith that "great" men lack (evidenced by obedience). Third, that God is merciful in His judgements - so even though the son was in breach of the covenant, this was through no fault of his own, and God held Moses accountable, not the helpless child. Fourth, that God means what he says (Zipporah knew she had to circumcise, even if she didn't like the blood, or Moses would die).

I also think it shows the circumcision covenant wasn't just for males - it was for the community, and a female household head (e.g. a widow) might have just as much responsibility to ensure her males were circumcised as anyone else.

For this particular occassion, one of the extra biblical books indicates Moses made some strange agreement with Jethro (his father-in-law) about not circumcising his first-born (so he could marry Zipporah). While this book is not scripture, it would explain why Zipporah only needed to circumcise one son, why circumcision seemed to wait until after the eighth day (only when they left Jethro) and why Zipporah didn't hesitate to circumcise, but was upset with Moses (because he didn't do it).

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:18-20
I think the passage is a good example of this. Zipporah showed faith that Moses lacked.

Secondly, God's intention to actually kill Moses points to the critical importance of his son's need for circumcision. According to scripture, without circumcision, Moses' son would definitely have been excluded from being in covenant with God.
I agree, but I also believe God is merciful (remember Abraham, saved while still uncircumcised). And if an uncircumcised man with faith in God came to an understanding of God's requirements, he would quickly get circumcised (remember, Abraham was circumcised on the same day God commanded it). It was the faith that was important to God, the excess skin circumcised was just a reminder or token of this faith.
 
Jan 17, 2013
612
18
18
God is not handcuffed by His sacraments.
Also, the so-called "good thief" repented and expressed in the hour of his death his fear of God.
He was converted in the hour of his death while hanging on his cross next to our crucified Lord.

My $.02

Peace
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
2,745
627
113
Thief was under Old Testament. God did not require those in the Old Testament to do what He commanded of those in the NT.

Good video on the topic:

 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,526
113
Thief was under Old Testament. God did not require those in the Old Testament to do what He commanded of those in the NT.

Good video on the topic:

The requiremmt for mankind is to believe God not seen when they hear his voice. It has nothing to do with comparing the new testament old testament .It has to do with the hearing of faith .The same hearing that is applied to any new creature beginning with it (hearing God) and ending with it as it I written .I beleive.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith (Christ's' the faith of God ), according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

The thief believed God who looks upon the heart. Sign and wonder seekers seek after more than what the heart performs (belief)

.The faith of God comes from hearing him. which is the baptism of the unseen Holy Spirit. We walk by faith not by getting wet.

Water baptism has foundation in old testament in ceremonial laws that was used when a new Priest desired to enter the ministry. It is still used today in respect to a whole kingdom of priest, Jew and gentile, male and female alike as a Kingdom of prophets and priests

No such thing as "sign gift" . . . (doing something to be seen of men) called the witness of men to confirm something. Believing God is the confirming witnes.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

No such thing as a sign gift. Spiritual gift not seen, yes. Signs as wonders, no.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,760
376
83
God's Word will never contradict itself.
Since God's word will never contradicts itself, tell us all here did the thief on that cross with Jesus enter Paradise with Jesus on that very day? If not, why? If yes, how? :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
2,745
627
113
Since God's word will never contradicts itself, tell us all here did the thief on that cross with Jesus enter Paradise with Jesus on that very day? If not, why? If yes, how? :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Did you check out the video in post 115?
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,665
9,378
113
Did Jesus lie when He told the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise"??