Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

[perseusomega9]

Barabbas refers polemically to the Son of Father of a totally different sect of Christians, i.e. gentile Christians who adored a Jesus who was not the son of YHWH and was rather an enemy of YHWH.

Unless of course Yahweh is the Son of El Elyon, in which case Jesus is a theophany of Yahweh

[Giuseppe]

Barabbas refers polemically to the Son of Father of a totally different sect of Christians, i.e. gentile Christians who adored a Jesus who was not the son of YHWH and was rather an enemy of YHWH.

Unless of course Yahweh is the Son of El Elyon, in which case Jesus is a theophany of Yahweh

of grace, how can you even raise that absurd possibility (at contrary of the my view that is the only possible and the only probable), since your hypothesis is totally unable to explain:

• 1) why a contrast is raised between two rival "Sons of Father" along uniquely the line that one of them is called Christ, while the other is not named Christ.

• 2) why one of them is legitimated by being crucified, the other is de-legitimated by being not-crucified.

Here I see how much perseusomega9 fails so poorly when he shows explicitly his views. Especially about a point where I and only I have the solution.

[Joseph D. L.]

Here I see how much perseusomega9 fails so poorly when he shows explicitly his views. Especially about a point where I and only I have the solution.

Your “solutions” will never be accepted and will die with you.

Note this, Giuseppe. Simon Magus was said to have possessed the Name of God. Who else possessed the Name of God? The Angel who led the Hebrews out of Egypt in a pillar of fire, during the theophany, and Jesus/God’s Salvation Christ. Even Isu is a derivative of Ishu, the Man, the name of the Angel who wrestled Jacob and transformed him into Israel.

You show your ignorance and have been explicitly and incontrovertibly proven wrong.

[Joseph D. L.]

Barabbas refers polemically to the Son of Father of a totally different sect of Christians, i.e. gentile Christians who adored a Jesus who was not the son of YHWH and was rather an enemy of YHWH.

Unless of course Yahweh is the Son of El Elyon, in which case Jesus is a theophany of Yahweh

Look up YHWH Hakatan. I think you’ll find it interesting.

[Giuseppe]

Joseph D.L. you continue to ignote totally, entirely and completely the my strongest argument about Barabbas (see above).

But while your ignorance of the point is not a novelty, I have fixed now the ignorance of perseusomega9 about the same point.

If you are able to prove me wrong about Barabbas, then I will become a judaizer, too. I throw the challenge.

[Giuseppe]

It is incredible how Joseph D.L. continues to talk obsessively about Jewish archangels without be able to explain the case Barabbas.

Barabbas is the only window we have to infer the identity of the enemies of our authors. Hardly we have something of more evident, as window of that kind, than Barabbas.

I am really sorry that the members of this forum have no better solution about Barabbas. I mean: really sorry.

[Giuseppe]

Note this, Giuseppe. Simon Magus was said to have possessed the Name of God. Who else possessed the Name of God? The Angel who led the Hebrews out of Egypt in a pillar of fire, during the theophany, and Jesus/God’s Salvation Christ. Even Isu is a derivative of Ishu, the Man, the name of the Angel who wrestled Jacob and transformed him into Israel.

can you explain me what devil (!!!) matters Simon Magus (sic) about the solution of the enigma called Barabbas???

Barabbas is the nail in the brain of Joseph D. L. and Perseusomega9 unless proven wrong.

[perseusomega9]

Barabbas refers polemically to the Son of Father of a totally different sect of Christians, i.e. gentile Christians who adored a Jesus who was not the son of YHWH and was rather an enemy of YHWH.

Unless of course Yahweh is the Son of El Elyon, in which case Jesus is a theophany of Yahweh

of grace, how can you even raise that absurd possibility (at contrary of the my view that is the only possible and the only probable), since your hypothesis is totally unable to explain:

• 1) why a contrast is raised between two rival "Sons of Father" along uniquely the line that one of them is called Christ, while the other is not named Christ.

• 2) why one of them is legitimated by being crucified, the other is de-legitimated by being not-crucified.

Here I see how much perseusomega9 fails so poorly when he shows explicitly his views. Especially about a point where I and only I have the solution.

ok boomer

[perseusomega9]

I mean boomer, I understand you're totally bat shit insane and ignorant of vast swaths of research

[Giuseppe]

All what you want. The evidence of an early resistance against the reduction of Jesus to a Jewish Christ is there, in the Barabbas episode. If you are so blind that you don't see it, then it is a your problem, not mine.

Your patripassianist hypothesis is very ridicolous.