In Luke chapter 23, there is an interaction between Jesus and two thieves on the cross. One of the thieves mocks the Savior, telling him to save himself. The other thief rebukes the first, and confesses that he deserves to be on the cross, but Jesus doesn't: > “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, > If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. > > “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear > God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. > > “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy > kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39–43, KJV ). This passage is frequently referenced (sometimes along with others) as evidence that baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. However, it's not clear to me how this passage can be used to make that assertion. What evidence is there that the penitent thief was not baptized? (He already knew who the Savior was, so it would make sense that he had followed him at some point during his ministry.)

Two thing stick out to me in the gospel accounts of Jesus on the Cross: > Mark 15:27-32 > They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him. > > Luke 23:39-43 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” 1. Were those that were crucified with him 'rebels' or 'criminals'? 1. Why does Mark mention that there were two rebels, both of whom were presumably insulting him "Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him", whereas Luke has one criminal insulting him and the other recognizing his innocence and mission?

During yesterday's sermon, the pastor mentioned the theory that the thieves crucified next to Jesus likely weren't simple thieves to warrant such a sentence, but were probably "thieves with a cause." He suggested today they would likely have been considered religious or political zealots, or "terrorists." The pastor's suggestion seems a *little* far-fetched to me, based on how the thieves responded to Jesus: One mocking him, the other asking pardon. These don't seem like the sorts of attitudes that religious or political zealots sentenced to death are likely to exhibit. I would expect "terrorists" to more closely identify with their cause. Do we have enough information, historically or textually, to draw any conclusions about these thieves' crimes? Was crucifixion used to punish "simple thieves?"

Jesus says to the thief on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). What does this mean? Did the thief go straight to heaven when he died? Did he get to skip purgatory? If so, why? It would seem that he did no or minimal good works, and it's most likely that he wasn't baptised. Ideas that bubble to mind include perfect contrition, baptism of desire/baptism of blood, and also the idea that God is not bound by his sacraments, so this guy was a special case who received extrasacramental grace direct from Jesus. I'm not sure how to put it all together though.

The reading of Luke 23:43 differs depending on how we punctuate it: >And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Or >And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise. It seems that in fact the repentant thief was granted salvation by Jesus Christ but does not seem possible that before sundown on Nisan 14 both Jesus and the thief were together in heaven since after Jesus resurection he told Mary Magdalene "I have not yet ascended...." Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus and the repentant thief were resurrected to heaven on the same day they died?

At his crucifixion Jesus told the repentant evildoer, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). As that grueling day drew to a close, the legs of the two evildoers were broken to hasten their death. Of course, when the soldiers got to Jesus they found him to be already dead, and did not break a bone in his body. My question is: According to Catholic doctrine, if the evildoer had passed away before Jesus died, would that evildoer have been saved by the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Or would he have had to wait for his reward like other faithful men of old, such as David?

During the Easter sermon our priest told a small story. It goes somewhat like this: > 'When Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt, on the way there was a little boy who was given the task of searching (by Herod) the women for a small child(baby Jesus). And when he did see Him the boy smiled at Jesus and said "Remember me" and let them go. And years later when Christ was being crucified it was the same boy who was crucified on the right side of Christ. The little boy was the penitent thief who repented on the cross.' Now after this I came home and did a lot of searching on the net but nowhere did I come across such a story. My question is simple: Did these events actually happen or was this meant only as an inspiration for the gathering?