Two on both sides of Jesus
.
Four inmates: two thieves and two malefactors (III)
According to the exact Word of God we have two malefactors plus two thieves, four people, were crucified with Jesus. It has been falsely taught that Jesus was on the cross at the center with one on the right and the other on the left. And this happens because instead of reading the Word we prefer to believe the paintings we have seen. But if we go to Word of God without prejudice, with an open mind, ready to receive the truth, and we see the narrative development of Matthew and Luke in an identical situation, we see clearly that there were four crucified with Jesus.
The Word is not of private interpretation, but rather it interprets itself in the narrative or biblical development. The case we are seeing is an example of this.
By observing the time and place where the events presented occurred, we realize that one Scripture says some details and another presents other details; and these Scriptures do not contradict, one does not contradict what the other Scripture says, but complements it. I already presented what Matthew, Mark and Luke say, that there were four men crucified with Jesus.
We have to consider John's statement. Mateo, Marcos and Lucas were specifically interested in when the events occurred while Juan was interested in the place where the actions were carried out.
John 19:18
and there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in middle.
Mateo informed us that there were two crucified robbers; Lucas informed us that there were two malefactors, which makes a total of four men. But John says: "And there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side". If there was only one on each side, one plus one is two. Here we have an apparent discrepancy.
When there is an apparent discrepancy, the first place where we have to look is in our mind. We must ask ourselves if we understand what is written, and if so, as it should be in this case based on the basis given to us by Matthew and Luke, then the error can only be in another place and it is in the translation, because the real Word of God can not contradict itself.
John tells us, according to the Reina-Valera: "And there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the middle". There is no Greek word corresponding to "one". The translators of the Reina-Valera added the word "one". If the word "one" is not in the Greek critical texts, why is it in the Reina-Valera? Because by the year 1569 the Western world had been so indoctrinated by a painting that showed Jesus on a cross with a malefactor on either side of him, that when the translators were translating this particular verse from the nineteenth chapter of John, they inserted the word "one"
We remove the commas and the word "one" to read the verse again: "And there they crucified him and with him two others on each side and Jesus in the middle". The same words, 'enteuthen kai enteuthen', are used in Revelation 22: 2.
In the middle of the street of the city, and on either side of the river ...
'Enteuthen kai enteuthen' is translated "on both sides". These are the same words that are used in the gospels, with the exception that John has the word 'duo'. 'Duo enteuthen kai enteuthen' is equal to "two on this side and two on the other side and Jesus in the middle".
The Word of God is exact and does not contradict itself!
Note: The photo illustrating this publication was taken from the website "Trip Suggest.com" and presents the stone monument called The Five Crosses or Les Cinq Croix located at Calvario in Ploubezere, near Lannion, Côtes-du-Nord, in Brittany, France. The photo "Bretagne Calvaire de Ploubezre" has been uploaded by the user Ludwig-Mau
According to the exact Word of God we have two malefactors plus two thieves, four people, were crucified with Jesus. It has been falsely taught that Jesus was on the cross at the center with one on the right and the other on the left. And this happens because instead of reading the Word we prefer to believe the paintings we have seen. But if we go to Word of God without prejudice, with an open mind, ready to receive the truth, and we see the narrative development of Matthew and Luke in an identical situation, we see clearly that there were four crucified with Jesus.
The Word is not of private interpretation, but rather it interprets itself in the narrative or biblical development. The case we are seeing is an example of this.
By observing the time and place where the events presented occurred, we realize that one Scripture says some details and another presents other details; and these Scriptures do not contradict, one does not contradict what the other Scripture says, but complements it. I already presented what Matthew, Mark and Luke say, that there were four men crucified with Jesus.
We have to consider John's statement. Mateo, Marcos and Lucas were specifically interested in when the events occurred while Juan was interested in the place where the actions were carried out.
John 19:18
and there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in middle.
Mateo informed us that there were two crucified robbers; Lucas informed us that there were two malefactors, which makes a total of four men. But John says: "And there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side". If there was only one on each side, one plus one is two. Here we have an apparent discrepancy.
When there is an apparent discrepancy, the first place where we have to look is in our mind. We must ask ourselves if we understand what is written, and if so, as it should be in this case based on the basis given to us by Matthew and Luke, then the error can only be in another place and it is in the translation, because the real Word of God can not contradict itself.
John tells us, according to the Reina-Valera: "And there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the middle". There is no Greek word corresponding to "one". The translators of the Reina-Valera added the word "one". If the word "one" is not in the Greek critical texts, why is it in the Reina-Valera? Because by the year 1569 the Western world had been so indoctrinated by a painting that showed Jesus on a cross with a malefactor on either side of him, that when the translators were translating this particular verse from the nineteenth chapter of John, they inserted the word "one"
We remove the commas and the word "one" to read the verse again: "And there they crucified him and with him two others on each side and Jesus in the middle". The same words, 'enteuthen kai enteuthen', are used in Revelation 22: 2.
In the middle of the street of the city, and on either side of the river ...
'Enteuthen kai enteuthen' is translated "on both sides". These are the same words that are used in the gospels, with the exception that John has the word 'duo'. 'Duo enteuthen kai enteuthen' is equal to "two on this side and two on the other side and Jesus in the middle".
The Word of God is exact and does not contradict itself!
Note: The photo illustrating this publication was taken from the website "Trip Suggest.com" and presents the stone monument called The Five Crosses or Les Cinq Croix located at Calvario in Ploubezere, near Lannion, Côtes-du-Nord, in Brittany, France. The photo "Bretagne Calvaire de Ploubezre" has been uploaded by the user Ludwig-Mau
birjudanak › Amen
Justin › Amen
soncee › Great artikle ! Thanks!
indexer › I would like to see your evidence that the Ancient Greeks had no word for "one". The fact is that they did - they used the letter alpha to represent one, beta for two, etc. What they did not have in their mathematics was a zero, and neither did the Romans.
indexer › If you are going to use this argument, then you must use it consistently. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Matthew says that Jesus found the disciples asleep three times. Luke only mentions one such occasion. Applying your argument, the Word of God is that the disciples fell asleep four times. Is that what you mean to say?
indexer › Are you certain that there are no contradictions in the Bible? Let me give you one very simple and clear example. Matthew (1:16) says that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) was Jacob. Luke (3:23) says that Heli was Joseph's father. How can both statements be correct, and how is this not a contradiction?
RalRey › @indexer There are among many others perhaps, two ways of approaching the Scriptures, one clothed with humility, to find the Truth of YHVH God and thus answers to our doubts; and another with a breastplate of arrogance, to question it, and find contradictions that make us doubt the Truth. In 1 Peter, the apostle quoting from Proverbs 3.34 says "... because: God resists the proud, and gives thanks to the humble" (1 Peter 5: 5)
How I wish I could show you the evidence you want, but unfortunately it is not possible for me, and not because there is no such evidence, but simply because, for the moment, they are not within my reach. But I think you can not show me evidence that the ancient Greeks had that word for "one." His weak argument, which is already known, is that the Greeks used the alpha letter to represent it, etc.
Dr. V.P. Wierwille affirms that an introduction of the text of Esteban, from which the Reina-Valera Version was translated, says in John 19:18: "and with him, two others on this side and on that side". The word "one" is not in the Greek critical texts.
How I wish I could show you the evidence you want, but unfortunately it is not possible for me, and not because there is no such evidence, but simply because, for the moment, they are not within my reach. But I think you can not show me evidence that the ancient Greeks had that word for "one." His weak argument, which is already known, is that the Greeks used the alpha letter to represent it, etc.
Dr. V.P. Wierwille affirms that an introduction of the text of Esteban, from which the Reina-Valera Version was translated, says in John 19:18: "and with him, two others on this side and on that side". The word "one" is not in the Greek critical texts.
RalRey › @indexer The argument that is not an argument but a way of showing that the Scriptures are not of private interpretation but that they interpret themselves in harmony with themselves, is in the theme of "narrative development" in which the scriptures that are related to a certain theme can not contradict itself, does not apply to the narrative of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, nor does it apply to the narrative of Jesus and the legion of demons of Gadara, where Matthew says "two demon possessed," Mark says "a man with an unclean spirit" and Luke says "a man possessed by a demon"
RalRey › @indexer I am sure that, as a man of faith, who believes in YHVH God, that his Word does not contradict itself, I am more than sure of being convinced. And that if there is a contradiction in the Bible, it is due to one of two things or to both: 1. Understanding and / or 2. Translation. You, in your position as an unbelieving carnal man, opposed to The Word of God and His Truth, expose "let me give you a very simple and clear example" and that is precisely a simple and clear example that the Scriptures do not contradict. I explain it simply in a simple and clear way and without extending too much: Luke's narrative was "according to the law" (literal translation of "as was believed" in Luke 3:23), which indicates that Joseph was not really the son of Heli (or Eli), but according to the law was counted as a son. José was son-in-law of Heli (Elí), the father of María. This possibly has a biblical basis in Nm 27 and 36.
indexer › @RalRey There are certainly plenty of places where the same thing is said in different ways in the different gospels, which does not imply contradiction, but there are other places where one has to say that two or more accounts cannot all be correct, and that does mean contradiction.
Not only that, but to pretend otherwise overlooks the fact that the various gospel writers had different purposes and had different audiences - because they did not write with the knowledge of each other's work, except to the extent that both Matthew and Luke used large portions of Mark's gospel and another source (generally known as Q) and copied them with only minor changes.
As for the genealogies, there are differences all down the line, with hardly any of the "begats" being the same. Admittedly, it is not easy to compare the lists because Matthew starts at the beginning (actually with Abraham) and Luke starts at the end and works backwards.
I can recommend a book that makes a lot of these points far better than I can. This is "The Bible for Grown-Ups" by Simon Loveday. If you can get hold of a copy you might find it worth your while.
Not only that, but to pretend otherwise overlooks the fact that the various gospel writers had different purposes and had different audiences - because they did not write with the knowledge of each other's work, except to the extent that both Matthew and Luke used large portions of Mark's gospel and another source (generally known as Q) and copied them with only minor changes.
As for the genealogies, there are differences all down the line, with hardly any of the "begats" being the same. Admittedly, it is not easy to compare the lists because Matthew starts at the beginning (actually with Abraham) and Luke starts at the end and works backwards.
I can recommend a book that makes a lot of these points far better than I can. This is "The Bible for Grown-Ups" by Simon Loveday. If you can get hold of a copy you might find it worth your while.
