That's a good question. I don't, but it's highly suggested from the context that he wasn't.
You'll need to infer the meaning from the context since it's not spelled out directly. We don't know the criminal's crime. It could be anything, but since the criminal says, "we are receiving the due reward for our deeds", we can assume his crime was serious. This is why I don't think he was a follower of Jesus and thus not baptized. Also, Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise", which means the criminal has been absolved of his sins.
That's true and perhaps this is a one-off incident, but keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of Jesus' followers are watching this. Surely at least some of them will infer the same thing I have. Jesus would have known this and if his words could be so easily misconstrued, I doubt he would have uttered them. Perhaps Luke got it wrong? In that case we're saying the Bible is fallible.
You're free to think anything you like from this. I won't argue the point any further but I do ask you give it consideration.
That's a good question. I don't, but it's highly suggested from the context that he wasn't.
You'll need to infer the meaning from the context since it's not spelled out directly. We don't know the criminal's crime. It could be anything, but since the criminal says, "we are receiving the due reward for our deeds", we can assume his crime was serious. This is why I don't think he was a follower of Jesus and thus not baptized. Also, Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise", which means the criminal has been absolved of his sins.
That's true and perhaps this is a one-off incident, but keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of Jesus' followers are watching this. Surely at least some of them will infer the same thing I have. Jesus would have known this and if his words could be so easily misconstrued, I doubt he would have uttered them. Perhaps Luke got it wrong? In that case we're saying the Bible is fallible.
You're free to think anything you like from this. I won't argue the point any further but I do ask you give it consideration.
Second, they violate the fundamental principle of Bible interpretation that states when Scripture is silent, we must be silent. That is, when there is no biblical support for a statement, then we are wise if we do not claim that something happened. Why? Because Only Scripture is the absolute authority, not our guesses or wishes. Therefore, since there is no biblical support that the thief on the cross was baptized, those who would teach that he was baptized should be silent and correct their false teaching OR accept the logical common sense understanding that he died on the cross without being baptized but went to heaven because water baptism is not an essential to salvation.
Those who appeal to Mark 16:16 as proof that the thief on the cross had to be baptized have missed two important points.
#1. They cannot prove the thief was ever baptized. It does not exist. Mark 16:16 does not prove their claim.
#2. They purposely distort the last part of Mark 16:16 which says anyone who does not believe is condemned. That is, they are going to hell. Here is the verse,
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16).
Now, why is the last part of the verse important?
Notice that if baptism is required for salvation, then the last part of the verse should say. . .
"he who has disbelieved or has not been baptized shall be condemned.”
That is, the verse only says people are condemned if they do not believe. It never says the absence of baptism condemns anyone. Faith and only faith saves an individual. Baptism is simply a symbolic act of an inward change of heart and transformation brought by the Holy Spirit.
I say this to you but I am actually speaking beyond you to those who read what we post and do not know the correct, fundamentls of Bible truth.
That's a good question. I don't, but it's highly suggested from the context that he wasn't.
You'll need to infer the meaning from the context since it's not spelled out directly. We don't know the criminal's crime. It could be anything, but since the criminal says, "we are receiving the due reward for our deeds", we can assume his crime was serious. This is why I don't think he was a follower of Jesus and thus not baptized. Also, Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise", which means the criminal has been absolved of his sins.
That's true and perhaps this is a one-off incident, but keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of Jesus' followers are watching this. Surely at least some of them will infer the same thing I have. Jesus would have known this and if his words could be so easily misconstrued, I doubt he would have uttered them. Perhaps Luke got it wrong? In that case we're saying the Bible is fallible.
You're free to think anything you like from this. I won't argue the point any further but I do ask you give it consideration.
That's a good question. I don't, but it's highly suggested from the context that he wasn't.
You'll need to infer the meaning from the context since it's not spelled out directly. We don't know the criminal's crime. It could be anything, but since the criminal says, "we are receiving the due reward for our deeds", we can assume his crime was serious. This is why I don't think he was a follower of Jesus and thus not baptized. Also, Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise", which means the criminal has been absolved of his sins.
That's true and perhaps this is a one-off incident, but keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of Jesus' followers are watching this. Surely at least some of them will infer the same thing I have. Jesus would have known this and if his words could be so easily misconstrued, I doubt he would have uttered them. Perhaps Luke got it wrong? In that case we're saying the Bible is fallible.
You're free to think anything you like from this. I won't argue the point any further but I do ask you give it consideration.
Learningtoletgo,That's a good question. I don't, but it's highly suggested from the context that he wasn't.
You'll need to infer the meaning from the context since it's not spelled out directly. We don't know the criminal's crime. It could be anything, but since the criminal says, "we are receiving the due reward for our deeds", we can assume his crime was serious. This is why I don't think he was a follower of Jesus and thus not baptized. Also, Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise", which means the criminal has been absolved of his sins.
That's true and perhaps this is a one-off incident, but keep in mind that hundreds if not thousands of Jesus' followers are watching this. Surely at least some of them will infer the same thing I have. Jesus would have known this and if his words could be so easily misconstrued, I doubt he would have uttered them. Perhaps Luke got it wrong? In that case we're saying the Bible is fallible.
You're free to think anything you like from this. I won't argue the point any further but I do ask you give it consideration.
I did ... but, it doesn't fit.
It is dangerous to accept inference to establish fact...and certainly not..... in relation to..... God's word.
Measure inferences vs......."Repent and be baptized......"{et al}. That establishes fact.
