By RalRey
92 days ago

The first, the other and Jesus

.
For me one of the greatest delights I can have is, for obvious reasons, to read, study and share the Scriptures.

In my short stay in this wonderful virtual community called Tuetego, I have delivered two publications in which I have tried to give a bit of what I have received from the Scriptures, and with the guidance of the studies conducted by Dr. Víctor Paul Wierwille, on the subject of the crosses of Calvary, as a matter that proves that the Scriptures do not contradict; and that if we read and study it, we discover that an apparent contradiction is due to our understanding or to the translation we have of the Scriptures.

The Scriptures are not of private interpretation, but they interpret themselves. In the case we are seeing, it interprets itself in the matter of "narrative development" which is that the scriptures that relate to a given theme can not contradict one another.

We advance by quoting verse 32 of chapter 19 of the Gospel of John: "So the men of the army came, and the legs of the first were broken and then of the other who was put to death on the cross with Jesus:”

Religious tradition has taught us badly about this matter. They made us believe that when the soldiers proceeded to break the legs of the so-called two thieves: the soldiers broke the first thief's legs, then, without going through Jesus, they walked around his cross (which was actually a tree), reaching where the second "thief". And then, when the soldiers returned to where Jesus was, they realized that he was already dead, so there was no need to break his legs.

But this routine is not reasonable, and it does not make sense. The correct thing, the exact thing of the Word is that the soldiers broke the legs of the first (robador) and the next (malefactor) and advancing in the line they came to Jesus in third place, finding that he was already dead.

"The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and also of the other who had been crucified with him." Luke said that when they took Jesus out of Jerusalem, they took two malefactors with him. "The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and also the other who had been crucified with him," who was the malefactor.

As I do not want to bother you with a lot of information at once, I leave pending for the next installment the necessary explanation of the word "other" in verse 32 of chapter 19 already quoted, "and to the other who had been crucified with him", that It is another key to add to the proof that four men were crucified with Jesus.

More images

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92d
soncee Interesting artikle
Reply
92d
92d
Violeta Very nice article
Reply
92d
92d
indexer As you know, I find all this to be utterly weird and unsupported by the vast majority of theologians. I fear that what you have done is take the word of a few oddballs and believed them utterly.

The original oddball who propounded this theory was a chap called E W Bullinger, an English clergyman and theologian who lived in the 19th/20th centuries. He had a number of views that were roundly condemned by fellow theologians who largely disowned him - and these were views on a number of subjects that had nothing to do with the question raised by your articles.

He also refused to believe in Evolution and maintained that the Earth was flat!

Your attitude on this matter is similar to that of those people who refuse to believe in global warming on the grounds that there are a very few scientists who do not do so, despite the vast majority who do.

Reply
92d
92d
Justin Very interesting dear
Reply
92d
92d
carmen3521 Very interesting dear
Reply
92d
92d
RalRey @indexer With all due respect to your person, let me tell you this, dear gentleman: I am not an academic like you, maybe it is, I am not a lawyer, I am not a theologian, but I am not stupid as you wish. insinuate. I am a simple man, yes, of faith, yes, who has decided to believe in God and believe in His Word. I do not believe everything that others say. The Word of God contained in the Bible has changed my life for the better. And of that Word I have no doubts, I believe it completely and I testify of it and of the Gospel, without being ashamed "For I have no feeling of shame about the good news, because it is the power of God giving salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first, and then to the Greek" (Romans 1:16).

I read and study the Scriptures every day and that is good for me. She tells me what to do, how to act, what I should believe and that I should not believe what others say. That is how simple and clear my faith in God and His Word is. Certainly, from time to time I also read and listen with attention and respect to what the theologians and others say, but I do not believe it completely, there are some things that I believe and others that I do not believe. The same Word tells me to seek everything and accept the good and reject the bad:
Let all things be tested; keep to what is good; Keep from every form of evil.
(I Thessalonians 5:21-22)

The "great majority" does not always have the truth or the reason.
Reply
92d
91d
indexer With all due respect - if I may follow your trend - you cannot have it both ways! You claim on the one hand to be "guided by the Spirit" and to have a simple faith - which is absolutely fine - but you also want in indulge in defending an abstruse point of Biblical exegesis that requires close analysis of texts and interpretations offered by various theologians.

The point you raise can be argued - and has been in the past - but by argument is meant proper examination of various aspects of the matter. You will never persuade others of the truth of your assertion by retreating into "faith" - how could you possibly imagine that you could?

I would be very worried by supposing that the Bible tells people that they "should not believe what others say". The world's Christian clergy is devoted to helping their flocks to understand what the Bible means - and you surely cannot deny that people down the centuries have interpreted certain passages in different ways. Are you supposed not to believe what any clergyman says if their interpretation differs from yours?

I am reminded of the quotation that says: "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." It may not surprise you to learn that my first degree was in Philosophy!
Reply
91d
91d
RalRey @indexer But, it is the opposite of what you think, and what dictates your degree in Philosophy (which does not surprise me at all), for me, and for a large part of humanity, the Bible is not a book of religion, much less philosophical. The Bible for me is a manual of life and a book that gives me testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not defend a religion called Christianity, catholic religion or evangelical religion, nor any other as philosophy or science. I am sharing what I learned by studying the Bible. All the time, if you have noticed, I have spoken about the Scriptures, the Word of God and the Bible.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone, I should not, I do not want to and I can not. What I do want is to present the Scriptures to people for the sole purpose of believing in the Father God and His son Jesus Christ so that he can be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth, which is the Will of YHWH God.

The Bible tells people, basically, that the Scriptures, all Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instructing in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully prepared. for all good work.

I am willing to believe what people say, you, a clergyman, my little brother in the faith, if what they say is in accordance with what the Word of God says, it is in accordance with his will.

And to break a bit with the tension of this interesting talk, I allow myself to throw a joke: You may not be surprised to learn that my first grade was in the vocal letters and consonants, words, stripes, spots and children's games!
Reply
91d