Thief on the cross - forgiven how?

You haven't actually demonstrated that you're right about this.
Yachid is ordinal one.
Echad is a community of one.
Community is multiple parties.
One family
One people
One God.
Multiple members.
I have. I gave you a sample of verses. I even gave you verses on yachid. You didn't bother studying the Hebrew roots, did you?


What does echad mean above, SteveB?

I also challenged you to find a plural usage of "bad" used for God alone, but to date you've stayed silent. Why is that SteveB?

And yet you have nothing to corroborate your opinions....
No, you just haven't looked at what you've been given. 44 years, right?
 
Last edited:
As Matthew was a Hebrew, the history that I've read is that it was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.
Perhaps. But NO Hebrew manuscript of Matthew exists anymore. What you quoted in your post was not some original manuscript, but a translation from the Greek.

Let's face it. The only ancient manuscripts you guys have of Matthew are Greek ones.

What surprised me is that you quoted in Hebrew extensively, even though this is an English speaking forum. Why would you do that?
You're indeed entitled to your own opinions. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that demonstrates that.
You've repeatedly failed to do this, and @Jewjitzu hasn't come to your deliverance.



But you've never actually provided me with any evidence that corroborates your beliefs.
I've gone over it in detail in the opening post for why Jews will never accept Jesus. I refer you to that post.
Quite frankly I'm surprised.
It's my understanding that the entire collection of the mishna, midrash, and other commentaries exist, dating back to Babylon, up through to at least Maimonides.
I'd have thought you would have studied these extensively by now.
They are after all the only support for your beliefs.
I am not a Talmud head. I spent most of my life as a Christian. Even during the teaching years when I was converting to Judaism and after, I didn't go into the Talmud. It's not that women can't study the Talmud, but it is not our purview. The emphasis in my studies was keeping a kosher home, a shomer Shabbat home, a hospitable home. I know some Talmud, of course. I'm just saying that it has not been the subject of extensive study by me.

And it's not necessary for me to have done so to soundly defeat you in this debate. The problems with the New Testament have nothing to do with the Talmud. They have everything to do with their poor presentation of prophecy (even to the point of making one up), going contrary to the teaching of God in the Torah, and encouraging people to worship a mere man. That's quite enough.

Anyhow, I suggest, if you want the details, to go read that opening post. I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said.
 
NeoJudaism? You're confused with what you and Paul practice.
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent. You had nothing left of the religious practices that Moses had instructed you in. You either had to sacrifice on every high hill or under every green tree...or you had to create a system for remission of sin that no longer required anything at all, beyond repetition of words and incantations. Neojudaism. New and far more convenient. Not the practice nor the traditions of your fathers. Even Abraham sacrificed.

I said this before. I really don't care what you think. One who worships a created man should keep silent.
Funny I agree with that. If the Word was not with the Father in the beginning, He would not be worshipped. And, for what its worth, since you insist on reiterating your own, the disdain is becoming mutual. I'm not really impressed by redundant pontificating that pays no attention at all to the counterpoint.

Israel has been around since the 2nd temple and before, Jeremiah 33:17-26.
I'm thinking Israel has been around since Rebecka gave birth...and you did miss the point entirely.
 
Wow, you can't handle prophecy? It's clear the 3rd temple and sacrifices come back with Messiah prince offering sacrifices for himself.
What's clear is you have no idea. I'm sure you're looking forward to the return of twelve distinguishable tribes...and the redistribution of land according to Ezekiel's design. All the way from Dan to Gad. I could convince myself you even foresee that day and truly believe it. I rather think your own claim to acceptance is your willingness to subjectively uphold your choice of traditions, some of which even date back almost as much as two thousand years..

Marred lamb? That would be Jesus who was beaten up, or was he the goat?
Do you really think being obtuse helps establish your credibility? It only serves to make you look desperate. Just saying. Marred lamb would be what you are sacrificing now...that you have substituted for a lamb without blemish.

As for your question, which is interesting despite your own lack of interest in the answer...Jesus is depicted as both the lamb without blemish, and the scapegoat taken outside the city...where he was crucified, as Caiaphas prophesied, one for the sake of a nation.

Never said otherwise that murder doesn't pollute the land.
Something we agree on...and which actually predicts what is about to happen. Never in the history of the world has more innocent blood been shed more callously, due to pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and a total disregard for the poor and the needy.
Actually, we found Jesus' tomb. So much for his resurrection.
Actually...you've been egregiously duped!

What a miracle: When the entire Jewish religion was being rocked with claims to a resurrection, your folks were able to hide a family tomb within a sabbath day's journey...and continue to fill the place as one by one, Jesus disciples died.

We're so much smarter today than they were, when an entire empire was being persuaded to the truth by signs, wonders and repeated miracles...without once raising a sword against that empire, yet with the constant threat of the sword to each disciple.

This argument is the silliest of your repertoire.

Aaah, there were several animals that could be offered, besides doves, and flour cakes, etc.
Yes...each had it's purpose...each did not always offer an alternative. Where blood was to be shed, it was never "...or a loaf of bread will be fine..." And all that, notwithstanding, you've abrogated the entire system today, and blamed Paul for abrogation! Jesus made the system obsolete, but not unnecessary. He is the only new system. As you said...the Prince will be the system.


In what way? Don't you teach one blood sacrifice does it all though Torah says nothing of this?
How is what I teach relevant to your claims? What does it matter what I teach, when you've abrogated the entire system without a substitute.


Your words are rejected.
And the responsibility is now yours. I've done Ezekiel's watchman thing. I'm not responsible...your blood's now on your hands.
 
We refer to the People of Israel, also known as Hebrews and Jews. No one was talking politics. The context was clear.
If the context were clear, I would not have asked. Jewjitzu's response does not agree with yours...

...and I presume that you are including yourself in the definition. Am I right?
 
I certainly don't. I didn't argue for that. I was saying that the standard Christian understanding (and I am not a Christian) is that Jesus' death ended the Sinai covenant, but that it was in full force before that.
You have heard strange teaching...Jesus' death fulfilled the Mosaic covenant, and perfected the sacrifice once and for all. Rejecting His sacrifice, there is no possible way the Law of Leviticus can be abrogated. You still are without excuse or hope...bot for the hope you've invented to replace the requirements you cannot fulfill.
 
It's a little disconcerting how you make assertions, and avoid responding to my answers.

I'd like your response to this, where you said:
Actually, quite funny given that you have no support in Torah for human sacrifice as a means of atonement.
And I said, "Really? Shall we talk about Achan and his whole family, then? Or ignore it altogether? Want to talk about Uzzah? Or shall we talk about the plague on Israel because of Saul's sin against the Gibeonites that was mitigated by sacrificing seven of his descendants? Hmm?"

To which you responded:
Actually, we found Jesus' tomb. So much for his resurrection.
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? What does that have to do with the examples of human sacrifice in Torah...very clear...and which I pointed out?

The requisite lamb of the sacrifice was always, only, and every a temporary substitute...a proxy for the Pure and Spotless...whose unblemished death was able to make full and complete atonement to which the resurrection gives full and complete testimony...Jesus IS the FIRSTBORN of many brethren.
 
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent.
Not really. It was not the first time the Temple had been destroyed. What do you think Jews did in Babylon? Do you not realize that Daniel's prayers three times a day were substitutes for the sacrifices?
 
If the context were clear, I would not have asked. Jewjitzu's response does not agree with yours...

...and I presume that you are including yourself in the definition. Am I right?
Jewjitzu and I both agree with Jewish law -- a Jew is one born of a Jewish mom or who has had a lawful conversion.
 
You have heard strange teaching...Jesus' death fulfilled the Mosaic covenant, and perfected the sacrifice once and for all. Rejecting His sacrifice, there is no possible way the Law of Leviticus can be abrogated. You still are without excuse or hope...bot for the hope you've invented to replace the requirements you cannot fulfill.
It is NOT my teaching. It is the teaching of standard mainstream Christianity, a fact that you seemed to miss. I however, am not a Christian of any sort, standard or otherwise. I have moved on. I am a Jew, observing the Jewish covenant.

Jews keep our covenant all the time. God says it is easy to keep it. Who are you to contradict God?

What do you think Daniel did in Babylon? Do you think he was lost because he had no temple? No. Hosea teaches us that "the words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Daniel prayed three times a day -- each prayer was said at the time of one of the three daily sacrifices.

This does not "abrogate" the commandment for sacrifice. It is still a good commandment. But we cannot keep it if there is no temple. Someday the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will resume.
 
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent.
Invent? No. Try reading Deut 17:8-13. The trinity is an invention.

You had nothing left of the religious practices that Moses had instructed you in. You either had to sacrifice on every high hill or under every green tree...or you had to create a system for remission of sin that no longer required anything at all, beyond repetition of words and incantations. Neojudaism. New and far more convenient. Not the practice nor the traditions of your fathers. Even Abraham sacrificed.
See above. We didn't invent the pagan Christian system you adhere to.

Funny I agree with that. If the Word was not with the Father in the beginning, He would not be worshipped.
And he wasn't. Your word worships my God.

And, for what its worth, since you insist on reiterating your own, the disdain is becoming mutual. I'm not really impressed by redundant pontificating that pays no attention at all to the counterpoint.
Ok.

I'm thinking Israel has been around since Rebecka gave birth...and you did miss the point entirely.
And your point is wrong.
 
What's clear is you have no idea. I'm sure you're looking forward to the return of twelve distinguishable tribes...and the redistribution of land according to Ezekiel's design. All the way from Dan to Gad. I could convince myself you even foresee that day and truly believe it. I rather think your own claim to acceptance is your willingness to subjectively uphold your choice of traditions, some of which even date back almost as much as two thousand years..
Again, the prophecies say all these will return. Your point is meaningless.

Do you really think being obtuse helps establish your credibility? It only serves to make you look desperate. Just saying. Marred lamb would be what you are sacrificing now...that you have substituted for a lamb without blemish.
No, that would have been Jesus. Not only beaten, but with sins as well, like all men.

As for your question, which is interesting despite your own lack of interest in the answer...Jesus is depicted as both the lamb without blemish, and the scapegoat taken outside the city...where he was crucified, as Caiaphas prophesied, one for the sake of a nation.
See above.

Something we agree on...and which actually predicts what is about to happen. Never in the history of the world has more innocent blood been shed more callously, due to pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and a total disregard for the poor and the needy.
Actually...you've been egregiously duped!
See above.

What a miracle: When the entire Jewish religion was being rocked with claims to a resurrection, your folks were able to hide a family tomb within a sabbath day's journey...and continue to fill the place as one by one, Jesus disciples died.
And Jesus died and was buried too. In Talpiot.

We're so much smarter today than they were, when an entire empire was being persuaded to the truth by signs, wonders and repeated miracles...without once raising a sword against that empire, yet with the constant threat of the sword to each disciple.
I'm teary eyed.

This argument is the silliest of your repertoire.
Am I'm supposed to care what you think? I don't.

Yes...each had it's purpose...each did not always offer an alternative. Where blood was to be shed, it was never "...or a loaf of bread will be fine..." And all that, notwithstanding, you've abrogated the entire system today, and blamed Paul for abrogation! Jesus made the system obsolete, but not unnecessary. He is the only new system. As you said...the Prince will be the system.
The only abrogation is what Christianity has become.

How is what I teach relevant to your claims? What does it matter what I teach, when you've abrogated the entire system without a substitute.
See above.

And the responsibility is now yours. I've done Ezekiel's watchman thing. I'm not responsible...your blood's now on your hands.
I never said I cared about your words, nor needed your help.
 
It's a little disconcerting how you make assertions, and avoid responding to my answers.
Let's see.

I'd like your response to this, where you said:
Ok.

And I said, "Really? Shall we talk about Achan and his whole family, then? Or ignore it altogether? Want to talk about Uzzah? Or shall we talk about the plague on Israel because of Saul's sin against the Gibeonites that was mitigated by sacrificing seven of his descendants? Hmm?"
Ugh, I said in Torah. Where is the commandment calling out the need or requirement for a human sacrifice for atonement?

To which you responded:
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? What does that have to do with the examples of human sacrifice in Torah...very clear...and which I pointed out?
See above.

The requisite lamb of the sacrifice was always, only, and every a temporary substitute...a proxy for the Pure and Spotless...whose unblemished death was able to make full and complete atonement to which the resurrection gives full and complete testimony...Jesus IS the FIRSTBORN of many brethren.
And Ezkiel 37-45 proves differently.
 
When the thief on the cross died, how were his sins forgiven prior to his death?
Addressing the OP, Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."

BINGO, confession, and this is why he Jesus went into hell and preached to the spirits in prison, but the theif said this, "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom". now read Acts chapter 10... (smile) .... oh that term "remember" it's something else.

PICJAG.101G.
 
Addressing the OP, Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."
He never mentioned the name.

BINGO, confession, and this is why he Jesus went into hell and preached to the spirits in prison, but the theif said this, "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom". now read Acts chapter 10... (smile) .... oh that term "remember" it's something else.

PICJAG.101G.
Oh, I believe Jesus is still there...
 
When the thief on the cross died, how were his sins forgiven prior to his death?

The sins of the thief on the cross were forgiven because he had faith in the Messiah (Jesus)....

Daniel 9:24-25... Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Can you tell me, according to Judaism...

1) How were the sins of Jews forgiven in AD 69?

2) How were the sins of Jews forgiven in AD 71?
 
The sins of the thief on the cross were forgiven because he had faith in the Messiah (Jesus)....
No, nothing in Tanakh supports that thinking. Besides, he was still under the law.

But, if you want to play that way, then Jews are forgiven by having faith in God, which trumps your man.

Daniel 9:24-25... Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Yep, 2 anointed. 1 after 7 weeks, one after 69 weeks.

You do know that mashiach just means anointed? The Hebrew root is used in at least 39 places in Tanakh.

Can you tell me, according to Judaism...

1) How were the sins of Jews forgiven in AD 69?
The same way they were while sacrifices were available, and prayer.

2) How were the sins of Jews forgiven in AD 71?
The same way they were when Daniel was in exile.
 
He never mentioned the name.
are you sure? lets see, Luke 23:39 "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
Luke 23:40 "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
Luke 23:41 "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."
Luke 23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Lord? Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."

as the WHO, the WHO? as the LORD hath said. NOW brother Jewjitzu, did you read ACTS chapter 10 and understood what the Thief ment when he said, "remember me" .... (smile), probably not., :eek: YIKES!..... that one thief had more insight on God than the scholars and the supposed law keepers of the day. Go thief.... I like this thief, now watch what he said, two things, Luke 23:40 "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?" and this, Luke 23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." the THIEF IS NOT BLIND AS MANY OTHER WAS. Oh the beauty of God's salvation. revealed to the Theif, but most of Israel still blind, even unto this day, glory to God, the Lord Jesus.

PS Oh one more, Luke 23:41. man oh man all there verses loaded in SALVATION.

Oh, I believe Jesus is still there...
well then you believe a LIE.... :eek: YIKES,
John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

1 Corinthians 15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
1 Corinthians 15:4 "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (READ THAT AGAIN).
1 Corinthians 15:5 "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:"
1 Corinthians 15:6 "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
1 Corinthians 15:7 "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."
1 Corinthians 15:8 "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

Oh what a stunning rebuke of disinformation.... (smile). did you see where the Lord Jesus said that ... "HE" will RAISE up his OWN BODY...

we have more witness than ... Y ...O ...U...... :eek: YIKES!.

we Just Love it ... rebuking false deceptions.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
Addressing the OP, Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."

BINGO, confession, and this is why he Jesus went into hell and preached to the spirits in prison, but the theif said this, "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom". now read Acts chapter 10... (smile) .... oh that term "remember" it's something else.

PICJAG.101G.
But he did not call on the LORD. He talked to Jesus.
 
Back
Top