Drifting wrote:We weren't talking about proving Christ existed.
just provided as an example of how inadequate your "exception" was
Drifting wrote:Pure speculation, still no evidence.
a pretty good assumption on your part, especially considering that i have always claimed it as being a "reasonable conclusion"
Drifting wrote:What information shows the availability the thief had to John the Baptist (who could well have been dead long before the thief entered the area)?
Well, the Romans never crucified a Roman citizen except for desertion from the army...so likely that coupled with the reference "thief" leads to the reasonable conclusion that the thief was not a roman citizen....but was obviously subject to Roman prosecution.
Now, crucifixion was not just any old execution, it was often reserved for those being made an "example" or that were deserving a more horrific death. (Cicero called it a most cruel and horrible penalty, Paulus considered it the worse of the capital punishments, even worse than being burned alive) - Being a thief would qualify for such a punishment and so we can affirm that he likely was a thief as stated, especially in that area where "stealing" was an especially bad transgression - some people have thought that the "thou shalt not steal"(the only non-capital crime in Decalogue) command is actually a reference to kidnapping - nevertheless personal property likely of high value.
Roman law was largely a private vehicle..meaning that one could confess a crime in front of a judge, but without charges from a citizen the judge could not prosecute. So, it is reasonable that the thief was charged by a local from where the thief was tried and punished. This likely means the crime was local...and a local is more likely to have been the offender...yes, it is possible that a foreigner was the offender, but it is more reasonable to conclude that the thief was a "local".
That being said, the thief has already a greater possibility of being "available" for Baptism...especially in light of the reference i gave above for Matthew 28:19. This provides more opportunity for the thief's baptism with/without a living John the Baptist....However given the relatively small time between John's death and Jesus's death it is a more reasonable conclusion that the thief was baptized, either by John or another.
That being said, the thief being baptized or not is meaningless with regards to the original discussion since the New Covenant was not in effect, and therefore the thief die under the old law...a law which no one has still yet to confirm was "appealed", which means the 10 commandments are no longer influential towards salvation.