How many were crucified with Yeshua?

[shnarkle]

I know the mainstream teaching of there being one on each side of our Savior as He was crucified. However, I remember reading some time ago a very intriguing thesis explaining that there were five crosses on that hill.
i can’t remember the author’s name but I found the thesis to be credible and intriguing. My hope is that someone may be familiar with the author and/or the thesis.

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that there were two on either side of Christ. In fact, skeptics use the texts themselves to claim that there is a discrepancy or contradiction when they point out that one of the synoptics claims that there were two who were crucified with him, while the other text claims they were crucified after a period of time while the soldiers cast lots for his clothing etc. and then two were crucified.

John's gospel says there were "two on this side and the other". Translators ADD the word "one" (e.g. two, one on this side and that") to make it fit their understanding.

There was a movie that relied upon John's gospel which says, "and having come to Jesus and seeing him dead, they....etc." This was after breaking the legs of the first two. Because of the way this sentence was constructed, the director placed Jesus on the end rather than in between the first two because John's gospel doesn't lend itself to the idea of passing Jesus' cross and then returning to it.

When one pays close attention to what the texts actually state, there is no way to view there being less than five crosses; two on each side of Christ.

 

[Hawkeye]

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that there were two on either side of Christ. In fact, skeptics use the texts themselves to claim that there is a discrepancy or contradiction when they point out that one of the synoptics claims that there were two who were crucified with him, while the other text claims they were crucified after a period of time while the soldiers cast lots for his clothing etc. and then two were crucified.

John's gospel says there were "two on this side and the other". Translators ADD the word "one" (e.g. two, one on this side and that") to make it fit their understanding.

There was a movie that relied upon John's gospel which says, "and having come to Jesus and seeing him dead, they....etc." This was after breaking the legs of the first two. Because of the way this sentence was constructed, the director placed Jesus on the end rather than in between the first two because John's gospel doesn't lend itself to the idea of passing Jesus' cross and then returning to it.

When one pays close attention to what the texts actually state, there is no way to view there being less than five crosses; two on each side of Christ.

This has always been the problem.....mankind tweaking the inspired word to make it fit the tradition.

Many traditions were recognized as false during the reformation and brought about a much greater understanding of the word. Greek is very precise and almost impossible to translate incorrectly.....but man has always found a way when it didn't ft the narrative......generally by adding (or subtracting) words from the original manuscripts.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Greek word for robber (IESTES) in [Matthew 27:38] and [Mark 15:27] but then Luke tells us that two criminals (KAKOURGOS) were crucified. [II Timothy 2:15] instructs us to "rightly divide the word" and by ignoring this possible discrepancy we are failing in our study. Are they the same......or are they different folks?

Is this just nit picking.....or should we wonder about it and look further? There is great value in knowing the truth and Christianity has been advertised as "Three Crosses on a Hill" so if they are different folks then Satan has had a field day in confusing us.

I believe that Yahweh wants us to examine His inspired word diligently.....knowing that His word will never contradict.

 

[organgrinder]

This has always been the problem.....mankind tweaking the inspired word to make it fit the tradition.

Many traditions were recognized as false during the reformation and brought about a much greater understanding of the word. Greek is very precise and almost impossible to translate incorrectly.....but man has always found a way when it didn't ft the narrative......generally by adding (or subtracting) words from the original manuscripts.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Greek word for robber (IESTES) in [Matthew 27:38] and [Mark 15:27] but then Luke tells us that two criminals (KAKOURGOS) were crucified. [II Timothy 2:15] instructs us to "rightly divide the word" and by ignoring this possible discrepancy we are failing in our study. Are they the same......or are they different folks?

Is this just nit picking.....or should we wonder about it and look further? There is great value in knowing the truth and Christianity has been advertised as "Three Crosses on a Hill" so if they are different folks then Satan has had a field day in confusing us.

I believe that Yahweh wants us to examine His inspired word diligently.....knowing that His word will never contradict.

Aren't robbers criminals?

 

[Hawkeye]

Aren't robbers criminals?

They could be…….but then again…….the Spirit may have inspired the two different words for a reason.

There are other discrepancies between the Synoptics and John which lend much credence to the possibility of five crosses.

 

[organgrinder]

They could be…….but then again…….the Spirit may have inspired the two different words for a reason.

There are other discrepancies between the Synoptics and John which lend much credence to the possibility of five crosses.

I would suggest criminals is more generic and robbers more specific. I know it is immaterial in the scheme of salvation.

 

[SeventhDay]

I know the mainstream teaching of there being one on each side of our Savior as He was crucified. However, I remember reading some time ago a very intriguing thesis explaining that there were five crosses on that hill.
i can’t remember the author’s name but I found the thesis to be credible and intriguing. My hope is that someone may be familiar with the author and/or the thesis.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

That is the understanding that we must come to because Jesus death on the cross is the crucifixion of the old man.

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

God bless you.