Francine
Well-Known Member
May our points of agreement grow up to become healthy frubals someday.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was the Good Thief a Disciple of Jesus?
- Thread starter Francine
- Start date
May our points of agreement grow up to become healthy frubals someday.
RossRonin
Member
I think the thief that defended Jesus was a genuinely bad dude, an incorrigible career criminal. Just think about it. Who is most likely to have wanted to hear Jesus preach, and who would most likely be interested in Jesus' message about repentance and judgment and heaven and hell? A petty sinner (like most religious folks) who feels complacent and self-righteous about his status with God? Or a repeat offender who knows he's no good, knows he needs salvation, and makes absolutely no pretense to righteousness?
Well, if Luke was in the habit of embellishing stuff, we really shouldn't take his description of the day of Pentecost seriously, or consider the whole book of Acts anything more than fiction. That's not really "embellishing" when you fabricate a historical anecdote: it's willful deception. Little kids living in their imaginary words are often found embellishing the truth, but if you find Paul's "beloved physician" doing it then we ought to call it what it is. Lying.
But if Luke is telling us the truth, then we have to assume both he and Matthew are just describing different parts of the same emotionally-charged scene. The first thief rails on Jesus, and the second thief is caught up the heat of the moment. Then after feeling guilty he relents, rebukes his fellow prisoner, and asks Jesus to remember him for good. People change their minds all the time.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Sure, people can change their mind, but be realistic, RossRonin.
You just making excuses, which actually has no basis, except these are your opinion.
Are you right? Maybe but we'll never know what happened out there.
But you are being apologist here, trying to connect 4 different gospel, where one actually diverge from the rest in details.
Both robbers were taunting Jesus in the other gospels, and only Luke's version saying that one robber rebuke the other.
Luke has contradicted the others. The chances of your claim that one robber had changed his mind, which other authors say nothing of the kind, make your claim baseless.
If Luke was indeed the author of this gospel, and is indeed Paul's companion and disciple, I would not take Luke's version seriously, because the 3-to-one majority say the contrary.
Second, Luke was never there at the crucifixion, and neither was Paul, so what or better yet, who was Luke's source(s)?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yes, of course he was.
Mountain_Climber
Active Member
The answer to that question is obvious by the very definition of the word. "disciple."
from dictionary .search.yahoo.com
n. noun
1. One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.
2. An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.
3. One of the original followers of Jesus
If this man had embraced and assisted in spreading of the gospel he would have not stolen anything. He could not have been an adherent to what he did not adhere to.
An adherent is something which bonds things together. To claim he was just weakly bonded and so yet walked in other ways would be a contradiction of thought. One is either bonded to something or they are not. To say he may have been a want to be disciple is a similar contradiction of thoughts. One is either a disciple and bonded to the teachings of his teacher or he is not. The though of bonding is two items made to become one. If it breaks away it was never really bonded. It never really became as one with what it was joined with.
It seems rather obvious that the thief was one of those described in Matthew 13:22 "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."
Thus the thief never became a disciple of Jesus though he basically did understand the message Jesus spoke.
But it also seems from what that repentant thief said to the unrepentant criminal, that the repentant thief knew the unrepentant criminal had also heard, thus making it seem likely that the unrepentant criminal was like those described at Matthew 13:19 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side."
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
We will never know and you cannot base anything on the gospels authors account of what was said or not said. The authors were no witnesses to any event in the mans life.
I see them as other Zealots or insurrectionist who caused trouble, but it sonly an educated guess at best. We just don't know either way..
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The two so called thieves were actually more than thieves, they were revolutionaries.
By the way, around that time, 100,000 Jews were crucified, putting it into perspective. Jesus was just one of many. Also consider that less than 40 years later, the Romans killed about 1,000,000 Jews in their war against Jerusalem. Rome didn't care for Jews so much, it seems.
By the way, around that time, 100,000 Jews were crucified, putting it into perspective. Jesus was just one of many. Also consider that less than 40 years later, the Romans killed about 1,000,000 Jews in their war against Jerusalem. Rome didn't care for Jews so much, it seems.
You resurrect a year-old thread in order to post baseless speculation as fact.
I think the evidence suggests otherwise. Matthew 27:44 says both robbers began reproaching Christ. Apparently, one had a change of heart. The account in Luke says this robber admitted to wrongdoing, and that his execution was just. (Luke 23:40,41) So it is highly unlikely, IMO, that he was converted before his arrest. He certainly may have heard of Jesus.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So are you suggesting that "having heard of Jesus" would be reason enough for someone who refer to Him as "Lord"?
gnostic
The Lost One
I have forgotten that I have contributed in this topic, Jayhawker,You resurrect a year-old thread in order to post baseless speculation as fact.
but I am very happy to receive frubals today for my old posts from Kelly of the Phoenix... Thank you, Kelly.
Yes, as well as the circumstances of his execution, and the miracles surrounding that event. (Matthew 27:45, John 19:19)
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
"He became sin who knew no sin that we might become the righteousness of God"
Corinthians
The thief (who believed) did believe in elements of the gospel
- Jesus would have a kingdom
- Jesus would overcome death
- Jesus was innocent and he (the thief) was sinful and deserving of death
very gospel like
Disciple?
That is from learner and dicipline
- for the time he was on the cross the thief began cursing Jesus with the other theif
- he did learn and changed his attitude
- he had a new faith
- for those 6 hours he was disciple like
and frankly we don't know what else Jesus conveyed to him verbally or otherwise
Corinthians
The thief (who believed) did believe in elements of the gospel
- Jesus would have a kingdom
- Jesus would overcome death
- Jesus was innocent and he (the thief) was sinful and deserving of death
very gospel like
Disciple?
That is from learner and dicipline
- for the time he was on the cross the thief began cursing Jesus with the other theif
- he did learn and changed his attitude
- he had a new faith
- for those 6 hours he was disciple like
and frankly we don't know what else Jesus conveyed to him verbally or otherwise