Misled by tradition and ignorance of Scripture on the part of medieval painters it is the general belief that only two were crucified with the Lord.

But scripture does not say so. It states that there were two thieves (gr. lestai=robbers) and there were two malefactors.

It is also recorded that both the robbers reviled him while in Luke 23 vs 39 only one of the malefactors "railed on him" and "the other rebuked him" for so doing. If there were only two this is a real discrepancy and there is another for the two malefactors were led with him to be put to death and when they were come to Calvary "they" then and there "crucified him and the malefactors one on the right hand and the other on the left. "

But the other discrepancy is according to Matthew that after the parting of the garments and after "sitting down and watched him there", that "THEN were there two robbers crucified with him one on the right hand and the other on the left."
The two malefactors had already been "led with him" and were therefore "with him" before the deviding of the garments, and before the two robbers were brought.

The first two (malefactors) who were "led with him" one on either side. When the other two (robbers) were brought, much later, they were also placed one on either side, so that there were two (one of each) on either side, and Jesus in the middle. The malefactors were the nearer, and being on the inside, they could speak to eachother better, and the one with Jesus as recorded (Luke 23: 39:43).

John's record confirms this for he speaks of place, and not of time. He speaks generaly of the fact: "where they crucified him. and with him others, two on this side and that side, and Jesus in the middle".
In Rev. 22:2 we have the same greek words and expression (enteuthen kai enteuthn) which is acurately rendered "on either side.
So, it should be rendered here: "with him others, on either side".

BUT, John further states (19:32-33): "then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But whn they came (Gr.=having come) to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they break not his legs." Had there been only two (one on either side) the soldiers would not have come to Jesus, but would have passed him, and then turn back again. But they came to him after they broke the legs of the first two.

There are two words used of the "other" and "others" in John 19:32 and Luke 23:32.
In the former passage we read, "they broke the legs of the first and of the other." Here the Greek word is "allos", which is the other (the second) of two when there are more (see Matt. 10:23, 25:16,17,20, 27:61, :28:1 etc. etc.

In the latter passage (Luke 23:32) the word is "heteros"=different: "and others also, two, were being led with him." These were different from him with whom they were led, not different from one another; for they were "in the same condemnation", and "justly", while he had done nothing amiss" (v. 40, 41).

From this evidence, therefore, it is clear that there were four "others" crucified with Jesus; and thus on the one had, there are no "discrepencies" as alleged; while on the other hand, every word and every expression, in the Greek, gets (and gives) its own exact value, and its full significance. It impossible to misstranslate the Greek into english, unless it is done on purpose. Greek is like Latin. No two words have the same meaning.

To show that I am not without evidence, even from tradition, I can point to the sympbolic "Calvery" which can be seen at Ploubezere near Lannion, in the Cotes-du-Nord, England known as Les Cing Croix (The Five Crosses).
There is a high cross in the centre, with four lower ones, two on either side. There may be others throughout the world of which I have not heard or seen.

In the Roman Catholic Church...the altar slab or "table" alone is consecrated, and in sign of this are cut in its upper surface five Greek crosses...

Enjoy.
You may reproduce this post as you wish.



[This message has been edited by Lord Satan (edited April 10, 2001).]

Pardon my ignorance, but are you a Christian?

Ama I a "christian"?
Are you mad?
have you ever heard of sarcasim?