Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

[Giuseppe]

Meanwhile, we have enough of Peter and Hebrews to know Barabbas was never in them. Your explanation for this?

you are so idiot that you don't realize that you are doing my same argument: it's sufficient the existence of only a gospel without Barabbas to prove my point (that the Barabbas episode was a late addition as fruit of the anti-Gnostic polemic).

[Joseph D. L.]

Weird. It says Giuseppe replied to me, yet I see nothing here.

Oh well.

[Joseph D. L.]

Meanwhile, we have enough of Peter and Hebrews to know Barabbas was never in them. Your explanation for this?

you are so idiot that you don't realize that you are doing my same argument: it's sufficient the existence of only a gospel without Barabbas to prove my point (that the Barabbas episode was a late addition as fruit of the anti-Gnostic polemic).

How do you figure? I never said Barabbas wasn't a later story inserted into the Gospel narrative, only that 1) it wasn't a polemic against Gnostics, and 2) it wasn't created by Judiazers.

As it stands you need the Barabbas episode in a Jewish Gospel to prove your argument, and you need an ancient Christian witness to succinctly prove that your interpretation was at least one such view. As it stands, you have neither and thus no one is obligated to believe or entertain your pet theory.

[Joseph D. L.]

And because Couchoud, Stahl and Turmel believed it, is irrelevant. They were not authorities on such matters and their own personal interpretations is not evidence.

[Giuseppe]

How do you figure? I never said Barabbas wasn't a later story inserted into the Gospel narrative, only that 1) it wasn't a polemic against Gnostics, and 2) it wasn't created by Judiazers.

As it stands you need the Barabbas episode in a Jewish Gospel to prove your argument,

Barabbas is not there because Pilate is not there (Herod kills Jesus in GPeter and Pilate is there to see), but my point is that the absence of Barabbas in proto-John proves virtually that Barabbas in John was the correction of the Jesus of proto-John (hence: a Judaizing parody).

You have to persuade me why in our John the author has ignored (verse 9) to say that Jesus returns in the palace contra factum that in all the other times he has specified the movement of both Pilate and Jesus inside and out the palace.

It is evident that the presence of only Jesus and Pilate in the palace serves to have them in intimacy sufficient to make the Jews outsiders and Pilate an insider. In other terms, the intimacy between Jesus and Pilate serves a theological point: the gentile knows more Jesus than the Jews.

Stantibus sic rebus, why should the original author break his construction by having magically Jesus inside the palace when just before he was out ?

Joseph D.L. can't answer.

Hence the Barabbas episode is an interpolation in the fourth gospel. It was introduced to prove that Pilate had yes intimacy with Jesus, but with the Jewish Jesus (son of YHWH), not with the alien Jesus Son of Father ("Bar-abbas").

Who disagrees with me on this is a total idiot. And to put it more clearly, Joseph D.L., I am ready to insult any user of this forum as IDIOT, even the admin himself, if he/she writes that he/she disagrees with me on Barabbas.

[Joseph D. L.]

Barabbas is not there because Pilate is not there (Herod kills Jesus in GPeter and Pilate is there to see), but my point is that the absence of Barabbas in proto-John proves virtually that Barabbas in John was the correction of the Jesus of proto-John (hence: a Judaizing parody).

Since you cannot produce nor recreate proto-John to substantiate your arguments, your evidence amounts to nothing.

You can make the same argument for the Synoptics, Marcion, and yes, even John. And it's a point that you have adamantly refused to address. PILATE DOES NOT WISH TO KILL JESUS. PERIOD Yet Barabbas is there, seemingly to fulfill some custom that was never apart of the Passover ritual (and this adds further proof that was based on the Yom Kippur rite).

You have to persuade me why in our John the author has ignored (verse 9) to say that Jesus returns in the palace contra factum that in all the other times he has specified the movement of both Pilate and Jesus inside and out the palace.

Can you get inside the head of an author who lived 2000 years ago? Why did Kafka have Josef K. arrested for seemingly no reason? Why didn't Rowling just have Voldemort shot with a gun? Why did Tolstoy have Pierre keep a journal that was there for two chapters and then disappears having served absolutely no function to the story? È perché lo è.

It is evident that the presence of only Jesus and Pilate in the palace serves to have them in intimacy sufficient to make the Jews outsiders and Pilate an insider. In other terms, the intimacy between Jesus and Pilate serves a theological point: the gentile knows more Jesus than the Jews.

You are overthinking everything. Hell I even grant that Pilate is instrumental in the gentile and Marcionite Christianities, because he is a proxy for Marcion/Paul himself. But what is your point? There is no greater theological exegesis at work.

Stantibus sic rebus, why should the original author break his construction by having magically Jesus inside the palace when just before he was out ?

You're asking for a solution to a problem that isn't there.

Joseph D.L. can't answer.

Because there isn't a question.

Hence the Barabbas episode is an interpolation in the fourth gospel. It was introduced to prove that Pilate had yes intimacy with Jesus, but with the Jewish Jesus (son of YHWH), not with the alien Jesus Son of Father ("Bar-abbas").

Why is it an interpolation in the fourth Gospel and not the Synoptics? Where did it come from? It's even in Marcion so it absolutely cannot have been the product of Judiazers satirizing Marcionites, interpolation or not.

Who disagrees with me on this is a total idiot. And to put it more clearly, Joseph D.L., I am ready to insult any user of this forum as IDIOT, even the admin himself, if he/she writes that he/she disagrees with me on Barabbas.

Call Peter Kirby an idiot to his face.



I don't agree, I think you're absolutely fucking wrong, and I think you're il supremo idiota.

No one cares what you think and no one cares about you.

[Giuseppe]

But what is your point?

You are disturbing me for so much pages, and still do you ignore my point, here? Even if I can't have proto-John in my hands, I have just proved for you that proto-John existed as John minus the Barabbas episode, since the Barabbas episode breaks bluntly the correct sequence of movements of both Pilate and Jesus out and inside the praetorium. Which is in evidence and you should recognize its being really in evidence and give me the victory in the discussion.

Hence I am done with you, as with anyone in this forum who would agree tacitly with you, assuming there is someone here (which is very doubt) who agrees with your strange way of posting in this forum and your indeed kafkian "logic".

Note that Turmel did this argument against the Barabbas episode well before the article of Couchoud/Stahl was written. This is evidence that he had no interest in proving my point but even so, he arrived independently from Couchoud/Stahl in the recognition of the interpolated nature of the Barabbas epidode in John.

That is how the real science procedes.

[Joseph D. L.]

You are disturbing me for so much pages, and still do you ignore my point, here? Even if I can't have proto-John in my hands, I have just proved for you that proto-John existed as John minus the Barabbas episode, since the Barabbas episode breaks bluntly the correct sequence of movements of both Pilate and Jesus out and inside the praetorium. Which is in evidence and you should recognize its being really in evidence and give me the victory in the discussion.

There isn't evidence. Interpolations are not decided based on your own bias towards the text.

Hence I am done with you, as with anyone in this forum who would agree tacitly with you, assuming there is someone here (which is very doubt) who agrees with your strange way of posting in this forum and your indeed kafkian "logic".

Which I find hilarious as absolutely no one on this forum thinks of you as anything more than a troll who has no understanding of the things he talks about or interest in honest discussion. Your inference of "Kafkaesque" logic is absurd as you seem to live in a world devoid of any logic.

Notice that I'm the only one wasting time here, Giuseppe. No one gives a fuck about you or your nonsensical ideals.

Note that Turmel did this argument against the Barabbas episode well before the article of Couchoud/Stahl was written. This is evidence that he had no interest in proving my point but even so, he arrived independently from Couchoud/Stahl in the recognition of the interpolated nature of the Barabbas epidode in John.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if two or more people come to similar conclusions independent of one another. And wasn't Couchoud aware of Turmel? So how can you say Couchoud was independent of him?

That is how the real science procedes.

Real science is based on evidence and logical evaluations of the data that can fit a usable theory. Not your own prejudice.

[Giuseppe]

You are disturbing me for so much pages, and still do you ignore my point, here? Even if I can't have proto-John in my hands, I have just proved for you that proto-John existed as John minus the Barabbas episode, since the Barabbas episode breaks bluntly the correct sequence of movements of both Pilate and Jesus out and inside the praetorium. Which is in evidence and you should recognize its being really in evidence and give me the victory in the discussion.

There isn't evidence.

If you believe that it is not evidence, then you have to explain why, in a chapter

• where the author gives so much attention in pointing out if Pilate and Jesus are inside or out,

• and where we already agree that all these details serve to have Pilate in privileged intimacy with Jesus

...the author, surprisingly (=inexpectedly, = improbably), ceases to be so precise, having in verse 9 a Jesus inside the palace who only shortly before was specified EXPLICITLY as being out.

The onus probandi is on you to prove this drastic anomaly.

Bit you clearly can't, because you are the anomaly, here. And I am sure that at least an user would agree with me but, like Nicodemus, fears your disturbing aggressitivity and so he allows my continue verbal "crucifixion" by you.

But I am not a man who leaves himself nailed.

[Joseph D. L.]

What took you so long?