No three degrees of Glory in 1 Cor 15

[Guest]

We weren't talking about proving Christ existed.

just provided as an example of how inadequate your "exception" was

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"

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.

Talk about stringing speculations together...

[_Drifting]

Crucifixion was in use at a comparatively high rate among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD.

Not as uncommon as perhaps you suggest...

[_gdemetz]

The "thief" would not have to have been baptized to enter paradise since paradise is the abode of righteous, but not necessarily celestial spirits.

[_Mittens]

The "thief" would not have to have been baptized to enter paradise since paradise is the abode of righteous, but not necessarily celestial spirits.

Chapter and verse from Bible or Book of Mormon that agrees with your post

[_gdemetz]

Alma 40:9-14!

[_Drifting]

The "thief" would not have to have been baptized to enter paradise since paradise is the abode of righteous, but not necessarily celestial spirits.

Your reference suggests he would have to have been righteous though, not a common trait amongst thieves....

[_gdemetz]

You are right Drifting! Apparently Christ knew that he had sincerely repented, and his last recorded statements seem to indicate that.

[_Drifting]

You are right Drifting! Apparently Christ knew that he had sincerely repented, and his last recorded statements seem to indicate that.

Which you will reference along with answering Mittens above...right?

[_subgenius]

Talk about stringing speculations together...

difference is i never claimed otherwise...i always maintained that it was reasonable conclusion...at no time did i claim fact or otherwise.
You should try the same on occasion...it would prove to be less embarrassing for you i am sure.

[_subgenius]

Crucifixion was in use at a comparatively high rate among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD.

Not as uncommon as perhaps you suggest...

i never suggested it was uncommon...just referenced who was subject to it.