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

[perseusomega9]

ok boomer

[Giuseppe]

you can't hope to escape so easily from the discussion yourself have started.

I am curious: how can you harmonize what you have said about 'son of elyon' et similia with the Barabbas episode ?
Really, I am curious to see real serious alternatives, if they exist (and I doubt their existence) to the thesis that is for me absolutely proved about Barabbas.

The question is raised also to Joseph D. L. (so at least he will have something of interesting to say…)

[Charles Wilson]

Really, I am curious to see real serious alternatives, if they exist (and I doubt their existence) to the thesis that is for me absolutely proved about Barabbas.

Josephus, Antiquities..., 18, 2, 4:

"About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son, upon the occasion following: When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said, and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son; but still she saw that her endeavors would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates's legitimate sons [out of the kingdom;] so she persuaded him to send those his sons as pledges of his fidelity to Rome; and they were sent to Rome accordingly, because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father's donation [as his successor]; he therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother's assistance, with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices, while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother to be no way inferior to his parricide; and he was by them, in a sedition, expelled out of the country before he grew too great, and died. But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces, [nor did their law allow of any others; and they thought this kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue,] they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown]; for the multitude would not otherwise have borne them; and though he was accused of very great cruelty, and was of an untractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him, and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; (for it is the universal custom there to carry their swords with them;) but, as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome, and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges to be their king. Accordingly, Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them (for he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest kingdoms under the sun now offered him, his own and a foreign one). However, the barbarians soon changed their minds, they being naturally of a mutable disposition, upon the supposal that this man was not worthy to be their governor; for they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave, (for so they called those that had been hostages,) nor could they bear the ignominy of that name; and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a king set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complied with the offer that was made him, and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him; and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array; but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him; whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in, he retired to Ctesiphon with a great number of his people; and so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. But because Tiberius refused it him, and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian king threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded, and because he had no way to take to regain any other kingdom, (for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus,) he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria, who, out of regard to his education at Rome, kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons..."

This, Giuseppe, is a "real, serious alternative" to your Barrabas interpretation.

CW

[Joseph D. L.]

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

Because your "strongest argument" is weak and fraudulent.

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

Man shut up you insufferable disingenuous idiot.

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

Because Barabbas isn't about an archangel.

Doth does protest too much, Giuseppe.

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.

No, he isn't.

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

Kirby really needs to ban you. I mean: really needs too.

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

The point, which you unsurprisingly missed, was that the theophany involved the appearance of an angel who possessed the name of God, thus proving that Philippians 2:9, and Marcionism overall, was Jewish focused. It had nothing to do with Barabbas. It was a response to your ignorant comment to perseusomega9 regarding YHWH and El Elyon.

YHWH Hakatan disproves everything you've ever said. Even if I held the position, I could easily say that Barabbas represented YHWH Hakatan while Jesus was YHWH, and I would be MORE correct than you are

The question is raised also to Joseph D. L. (so at least he will have something of interesting to say…)

What are you asking me? To argue a position I don't believe? I'm not falling for your strrawman tactics.

I've already explained my / the correct, position on Barrabas. That you're too dumb to understand it is not my problem.

[Joseph D. L.]

This, Giuseppe, is a "real, serious alternative" to your Barrabas interpretation.

CW

No it isn't. The Jesus and Barrabas episode is just an example of the transmigration of the Christ spirit, in the same vain as Simon of Cyrene and Joseph of Arimathea. One is released, the other is condemned; the host dies, the new host buries him.

It's that simple people.

[Joseph D. L.]

Jiminy Cricket people, we already have confirmation in the Dead Sea Scrolls of this dual Messianic role, with one of the Messiahs even resurrecting the other!

[Giuseppe]

Even if I held the position, I could easily say that Barabbas represented YHWH Hakatan while Jesus was YHWH,

stop here please. It is sufficient to disprove any your credibility. Your "solution" has to explain why YHWH is called Christ while the "Father of YHWH" (Never heard about a so idiotic idea!) would have the only sin of not being the Christ


Come on. It is EVIDENT that the polemic is against adorers of a Jesus Son of Father who rejected the reduction of their Jesus to the status of a mere Jewish Messiah. If in the place of Jesus called Christ and Jesus Barabbas you would have St. Adolf of Osnabrück and Adolf Hitler, I challenge you to say that the two Adolphs have a dual role. Or, hear hear, a Ditheistic role.

No, when a criminal is put before an innocent, a rivalry is in view, not a secret alliance between the two.
Learn this, race of idiot!!!

[Joseph D. L.]

stop here please. It is sufficient to disprove any your credibility. Your "solution" has to explain why YHWH is called Christ while the "Father of YHWH" (Never heard about a so idiotic idea!) would have the only sin of not being the Christ

Of course I didn't say it was a position I hold, only that it would be better there your nonsense, Giuseppe, you cretinous imbecile.

You yourself never adequately explained why Barabbas was written by "Judiazers" while it simultaneously is used to refute them.

Barabbas, being a murderer and insurrectionist would be fitting of the role of YHWH Hakatan.

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

Or as another translation holds:

Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven

So even in Genesis there is a notion of two YHWHs, one who acts on behalf of the other.

Barabbas, or Jesus Barabbas, means in Aramaic Jesus, the Son of the Father (I'm explaining it to you because you do not know this).

And YHWH Hakatan means Jehovah the Lesser, an appropriate name or title for a son.

So there you are. Proven wrong even from a position I don't support.

Come on. It is EVIDENT that the polemic is against adorers of a Jesus Son of Father who rejected the reduction of their Jesus to the status of a mere Jewish Messiah.

Then you argue that this very same Barabbas was in fact a polemic against Marcion's own God, which it in no way in hell can be and is more applicable to YHWH because, according to the Orthodox, Marcion viewed YHWH as a villainous murderer.

You yourself have never given sufficient proofs or coherent arguments why Barabbas should be viewed as a polemic in the first place. You cannot point to a church father who knew of your view, and there are plenty of church writers and modern scholars who view Barabbas as a polemic against the Jews, not Marcion.

Everything you say Giuseppe is backyards. I don't even think you have a basic grasp on reality itself.

If in the place of Jesus called Christ and Jesus Barabbas you would have St. Adolf of Osnabrück and Adolf Hitler, I challenge you to say that the two Adolphs have a dual role. Or, hear hear, a Ditheistic role.

False equivocation. We're not talking about Hitler and St. Osnebruck. And Barabbas and Jesus were equated with each other. That's why they were given the same name you mentally incestuous neanderthal.

No, when a criminal is put before an innocent, a rivalry is in view, not a secret alliance between the two.

Jews worship a god who literally calls himself the Lord of War and enacts genocidal policies in their scripture. Innocence and guilt is a meaningless distinction here.

Learn this, race of idiot!!!

I think you mean race of the idiot Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

Of course I didn't say it was a position I hold, only that it would be better there your nonsense, Giuseppe, you cretinous imbecile.

For what I am interested, the notice fo you is that it is not better than my "nonsense". Sorry.

You yourself never adequately explained why Barabbas was written by "Judiazers" while it simultaneously is used to refute them.

what idiocy is this? Barabbas was invented by Judaizers against the adorers of the Jesus Son of Father who was enemy of Torah and of the god who gave the torah. Period.

Barabbas, being a murderer and insurrectionist would be fitting of the role of YHWH Hakatan.

So under the your hypothesis of demential ditheism, an adorer of YHWH reduced YHWh Hakatan (?) to the status of murderer and rebel. Really?

Advise me when a Catholic will reduce Saint Pius to a mere hallucinator.

So even in Genesis there is a notion of two YHWHs, one who acts on behalf of the other.

Really is Barabbas worthy of worship for you ? REALLY???!

It would be equivalent to adore Hitler.

I give you a notice: to call someone a rebel and insurrectionist in I CE is equivalent today to call someone an "Hitler".

[Giuseppe]

False equivocation. We're not talking about Hitler and St. Osnebruck. And Barabbas and Jesus were equated with each other.

no, they were only partially equated. Both the reader and the actors in the story, in primis Pilate, know that Barabbas is a moral monster who has to be absolutely NOT released because the security of Rome is in question here. Barabbas is as the nazi in a novel or in a movie: any reader knows in advance that he is the evil actor in the story.

That is the reason because the Barabbas episode can't be never counted as evidence of a secret cult of Jesus Barabbas: for a criminal is never adored, not even secretly. Only in a polemic a god can be reduced to a criminal. Read the Talmud about what it says on Jesus.