It must have been something quite serious if he's being crucified for it. And not wrongly crucified, mind you, since he accepts his punishment as completely just
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
8 comments:
In those days they'd torture and slaughter you for petty theft.
>since he accepts his punishment as completely just
Bingo.
This is why this man went to Heaven. His soul and heart were capable of guilt and self reflection. He saw himself correctly hung up with a man who did no wrong and felt torment in his conscious because of it. When the crowd cast ire at the innocent he was reminded of his own offense, and humbled himself even as he suffered. This is the character of a man whom God loves.
>since he accepts his punishment as completely just
Bingo.
This is why this man went to Heaven. His soul and heart were capable of guilt and self reflection. He saw himself correctly hung up with a man who did no wrong and felt torment in his conscious because of it. When the crowd cast ire at the innocent he was reminded of his own offense, and humbled himself even as he suffered. This is the character of a man whom God loves.
>In those days they'd torture and slaughter you for petty theft.
Im not disagreeing with your pount, but they didn't. Not normally. Don't look at your ancestors as despotic insane people that enacted sandnigger justice on everyone. This is a pop culture view. And this only really happened during famines, or on ships.
The Romans had a specific set of law and order. Minor crimes would usually have you lashed or publicly humiliated. Not crucified. If the thief were just a petty thief, at least if the romans *thought* he was, he wouldn't have been outright crucified. And Based off of all the unbiased information about him, Pilate was not an unreasonable despot who wanted to torture everyone.
Crucifixion was mainly reserved for people who committed political crimes or high treason. Or other egregious and outrageous offensive. Not "stealing food"
The fact that they crucified the 2 thieves, in particular the fact that they wrte crucified *with* Jesus, means that they probably thought that they were somehow connected to him. Thus being treasonous and deserving, in their eyes, of the penalty. How this hypothetically came about is unknown. Wrong place wrong time maybe. Maybe they pissed off the pharisees as well somehow.
If that's not it, it's possible that they *were* "just" thieves, but possibly ones who stole something of a great deal of importance.
Im not disagreeing with your pount, but they didn't. Not normally. Don't look at your ancestors as despotic insane people that enacted sandnigger justice on everyone. This is a pop culture view. And this only really happened during famines, or on ships.
The Romans had a specific set of law and order. Minor crimes would usually have you lashed or publicly humiliated. Not crucified. If the thief were just a petty thief, at least if the romans *thought* he was, he wouldn't have been outright crucified. And Based off of all the unbiased information about him, Pilate was not an unreasonable despot who wanted to torture everyone.
Crucifixion was mainly reserved for people who committed political crimes or high treason. Or other egregious and outrageous offensive. Not "stealing food"
The fact that they crucified the 2 thieves, in particular the fact that they wrte crucified *with* Jesus, means that they probably thought that they were somehow connected to him. Thus being treasonous and deserving, in their eyes, of the penalty. How this hypothetically came about is unknown. Wrong place wrong time maybe. Maybe they pissed off the pharisees as well somehow.
If that's not it, it's possible that they *were* "just" thieves, but possibly ones who stole something of a great deal of importance.
Families that fell on extremely rough times used to sell their daughters into sex slavery so that the daughters wouldn't starve to death. If stealing food was a simple lashing would that have been the case?
The end of your comment falls into the speculation category. By *not knowing* the situation, it is irresponsible to root doctrine in it by speculating what may or may not have been the case.
I will be transparent with what has been apparent to me regarding salvation. We live, we do bad and we do good. When we die we face judgement. Faith is the key to salvation. Through faith you receive grace. But faith is not a mere confession, rather it is the result of virtue. There is no easy method to salvation; this is reserved those babies who die in the womb or die before they become coherent, or to Heaven's Martyrs who are blessed with a quick death at the hands of the infidel. Otherwise you will face tribulation and tests and through these God Almighty will measure your faith.
The end of your comment falls into the speculation category. By *not knowing* the situation, it is irresponsible to root doctrine in it by speculating what may or may not have been the case.
I will be transparent with what has been apparent to me regarding salvation. We live, we do bad and we do good. When we die we face judgement. Faith is the key to salvation. Through faith you receive grace. But faith is not a mere confession, rather it is the result of virtue. There is no easy method to salvation; this is reserved those babies who die in the womb or die before they become coherent, or to Heaven's Martyrs who are blessed with a quick death at the hands of the infidel. Otherwise you will face tribulation and tests and through these God Almighty will measure your faith.
Toast message
...and went toe to toe with the top rung of society...