Nope, it does not and here is why. NEVER did God/Jesus save anyone who did not repent. It would not have been JUST for God to save one and not the other. And another question is why didn't Jesus tell both of them that they would be with Him in paradise IF grace is a free gift? Huh? That blows away Paul's whole gospel! It also tells us that Luke wrote what he was told to write without seeking help from true eye or ear witnesses.Quoted from apolgetics press-
“Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying,‘If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us’”(23:39), Matthew and Mark stated the following:
“Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him”(Matthew 27:44)
“Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him”(Mark 15:32)
The obvious question is, why did Matthew and Mark indicate the “thieves”(plural) reviled Jesus, while Luke mentioned only one who insulted Him?
First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short while later after receiving more information?
A second possible explanation for the minor differences in gospel accounts regarding the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as synecdoche. Merriam-Webster defines this term as “a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)”(italics. in orig.). Just as Bible writers frequently used figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, sarcasm, and metonymy, they also used synecdoche. As seen above (in the definition of synecdoche), this figure of speech can be used in a variety of ways (see also Dungan, 1888, pp. 300-309):
A whole can put for the part.
A part may be put for the whole.
Time might be put for part of a time.
The singular can be put for the plural.
And the plural can be put for the singular.
It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.
Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat, or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked,“Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word children.
We must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to an alleged contradiction; he need show only one or more possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. The skeptic cannot deny that both of the above options are plausible explanations to the question of why Matthew and Mark wrote of “thieves” reviling Christ, instead of “thief.”
Dungan, D.R.(1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), reprint.
Hope that answers your question.
#143 Jun 18, 2012
#144 Jun 18, 2012
Hey ACTS, where do you find that the bible is called "word"? Huh? You can't!
#145 Jun 18, 2012
Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 are the words of Jesus, so do you believe in these words Mr. 45? How about you Sister 23? If you do, then what do you suppose will happen if just ONE of those things that you now believe in is a lie when the time for judgment comes? What then? Are you going to say that it was impossible to know the truth regarding how salvation works? If you do this, are not you mocking the words of Jesus?
Did Jesus lie in Rev. 21:8 and 22:15? Do you believe what Jesus said was just a joke and that you will be saved by grace regardless of what you believe and practice?
Remember, Jesus gave this to John to write AFTER Paul wrote his words in the letters to the people who he first preached to and they were forsaking Paul's teaching because they saw that Paul was lying and teaching lawlessness. Right? Were not Paul's letters his attempt to defend himslef from these people who said he was lying?
Do you believe that Peter said that Paul was a 'spouter of lies'?
Well, think about it--either what Jesus said in Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 is the truth or being saved by grace regardless of what you believe and practice, is the truth. They both can't be the truth. So pick one. Please!
Add your comments below
|False Prophet Jeanine Sautron (Nov '08)||27 min||royallastgleam||445|
|iS IT WRONG TO WORSHIP GOD ON SUNDAY? (Mar '10)||31 min||Lay Worker||5,076|
|CAN Investigative Judgment be PROVEN (Jan '12)||34 min||Lay Worker||3,120|
|SUNDAY represents GOD who is LOVE (Aug '11)||37 min||Lay Worker||4,652|
|EXAMPLE of one in a CULT||1 hr||sitka happy||2,410|
|SDA main PILLAR coming DOWN! (May '14)||1 hr||sitka happy||3,540|
|The Investigative Judgement is False Doctrine||3 hr||Lay Worker||210|
|Holy Spirit changes lives? (Jul '14)||8 hr||Saved By Grace||65|
Find what you want!
Search Seventh-day Adventist Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC