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

[Joseph D. L.]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ma ... frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ma ... frontcover

[Joseph D. L.]

The Barabbas episode is based on the scapegoat of Leviticus 16

It is a parable for the transmigration of the Christ Spirit, just as Simon of Cyrene was a parable to the death of Jesus to Basilides

It was never used to mock or parody Gnostics, but was used for centuries to cast hate upon Jews (and I wonder if Giuseppe is merely being an apologist for antisemitism by re-visioning history. He has shown contempt for Jews in the past)

The evidence for this is overwhelming, so much so that I can spend all day sourcing scholars and books who share this interpretation

Giuseppe can offer nothing of substance, of value, accept hypothetical scenarios that he can never prove

That is that. Giuseppe has lost for everyone to see.

You're done.

Here lies Giuseppe's theory. May it rest in peace.

[Charles Wilson]

Moreover, the only thing that distinguishes Christianity as a distinct sect is its ability to abandon temple cult, which required a messianic sacrifice or equivalent to replace the temple role in Passover and especially Yom Kippur (just as Hebrews 9 explains).

Josephus, War..., 7, 1, 3:

Hereupon Titus ordered those whose business it was to read the list of all that had performed great exploits in this war, whom he called to him by their names, and commended them before the company, and rejoiced in them in the same manner as a man would have rejoiced in his own exploits. He also put on their heads crowns of gold, and golden ornaments about their necks, and gave them long spears of gold,. and ensigns that were made of silver, and removed every one of them to a higher rank; and besides this, he plentifully distributed among them, out of the spoils, and the other prey they had taken, silver, and gold, and garments. So when they had all these honors bestowed on them, according to his own appointment made to every one, and he had wished all sorts of happiness to the whole army, he came down, among the great acclamations which were made to him, and then betook himself to offer thank-offerings [to the gods], and at once sacrificed a vast number of oxen, that stood ready at the altars, and distributed them among the army to feast on. And when he had staid three days among the principal commanders, and so long feasted with them, he sent away the rest of his army to the several places where they would be every one best situated; but permitted the tenth legion to stay, as a guard at Jerusalem, and did not send them away beyond Euphrates, where they had been before..."

[Side Note: Note the Tenth Legion, Julius Caesar's Favorite, dba the Disciple who reclined on "Jesus'" chest...]

[Giuseppe]

It was never used to mock or parody Gnostics, but was used for centuries to cast hate upon Jews (and I wonder if Giuseppe is merely being an apologist for antisemitism by re-visioning history. He has shown contempt for Jews in the past)

is Couchoud/Stahl's article anti-Semite? Really? When Tertullian accused Marcion - HIS Marcion hater of YHWH - as secretly allied with the Jews?

So now it becomes clear the agenda of Joseph D.L. He insists on Barabbas explained by Leviticus 16 because he believes that my alternative is "anti-...".

Your stupid midrash on Leviticus 16 is not even able to explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas, in addition to not explain why Barabbas is criminal. Couchoud/Stahl can explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas. Their thesis is even able to explain why Abba in Barabbas has to be unknown (the father of the bastards is always unknown, and the supreme god of Marcion was the Unknown par excellence).

Occam is with me, here. Your appeal ad consensus proves only the extreme reluctance of the consensus itself to accept the great influence of the marcionite threat in the formation of the Gospels.

I remember, for the readers, that Joseph D.L. doesn't like to answer to this post:

Since you are eager to move the discussion on the personal, without knowing nothing about me and even so abusing continually my patience, I will address you towards another user of this forum who shares with me the view that proto-John is evidence - I point out, for you: EVIDENCE - of the following:

In surveying the content of the Gospel of John today with knowledge of the second century controversies, I am struck by the consistent and blunt repudiation of the Jewish God as the father of Christ, and more generally its opposition against every Jewish Christian theological point we find presented in the rest of the New Testament. It is truly a wonder this book, even with redaction, ever made it into canon.

(my bold, source)

These words in bold are not equivocal. Prof Bultmann could very well subscribe these words in bold.

And if you are not satisfied, prof. April DeConick can very well subscribe to these words, also: The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John.

Once accepted proto-John as evidence of a Gospel tradition about a Jesus of which the Father is an unknown deity enemy of YHWH, one is obliged to follow the extreme implication: Barabbas is a criminalization and a parody of that Jesus who said (10:8):

"All those who came before me are robbers and thieves"

Turnel comments:

He says "all"; he doesn't exempt persons, not even the prophets, not even Moses. Terrified by this act of accusation, the Fathers, the apologists, the critics did there what firefighters do in the presence of a fire. They endeavored to isolate it.

(my bold)

You, Joseph_D_L, are doing after 2000 years what the Fathers and the apologists did: you're trying to isolate the fire.

Jorge da Burgos, aka Joseph D.L.:

[Joseph D. L.]

Couchoud/Stahl's article anti-Semite? Really? When Tertullian accused Marcion - HIS Marcion hater of YHWH - as secretly allied with the Jews?

Did I say Couchoud and Stalh were antisemitic? No. I said you are.

What's more, why should anyone take what Couchoud and Stahl as anything more than their own personal interpretation? You take everything you read and just run with.

So now it becomes clear the agenda of Joseph D.L. He insists on Barabbas explained by Leviticus 16 because he believes that my alternative is "anti-...".

No. Because that interpretation is supported by the evidence and scholarly consensus. All you have is the belief of two men who are not qualified in the relevant field. Couchoud wasn't a Biblical scholar, had no training in the field, and Stalh was a nobody, literally, there is nothing about who this man was thus no way to know his expertise in this field. I dismiss both as useless mythicist charlatans.

Your stupid midrash on Leviticus 16 is not even able to explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas, in addition to not explain why Barabbas is criminal. Couchoud/Stahl can explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas. Their thesis is even able to explain why Abba in Barabbas has to be unknown (the father of the bastards is always unknown, and the supreme god of Marcion was the Unknown par excellence).

Two things, Giuseppe:

1) You do know that "bar Abbas" was an actual name used in first and second century Jewish communities? You do also know that "son of the father' does not indicate at all that the father is unknown? What an absurd position to hold.

2) Matthew has Joseph ready to divorce Mary because he thinks she has slept with another man, thus making Jesus a bastard, and this was the common view of Jews in the rabbinical period, that Jesus was a bastard son of a man named Panterah.

Occam is with me, here. Your appeal ad consensus proves only the extreme reluctance of the consensus itself to accept the great influence of the marcionite threat in the formation of the Gospels.

How is it a threat when Barabbas was present in the Marcionite Gospel?

All you can do is rave about some hypothetical proto-Gospel, which you cannot produce or show even existed, let alone that the Church fathers knew about it.

It's always the same with you Giuseppe.

I remember, for the readers, that Joseph D.L. doesn't like to answer to this post:

Since you are eager to move the discussion on the personal, without knowing nothing about me and even so abusing continually my patience, I will address you towards another user of this forum who shares with me the view that proto-John is evidence - I point out, for you: EVIDENCE - of the following:

In surveying the content of the Gospel of John today with knowledge of the second century controversies, I am struck by the consistent and blunt repudiation of the Jewish God as the father of Christ, and more generally its opposition against every Jewish Christian theological point we find presented in the rest of the New Testament. It is truly a wonder this book, even with redaction, ever made it into canon.

(my bold, source)

These words in bold are not equivocal. Prof Bultmann could very well subscribe these words in bold.

And if you are not satisfied, prof. April DeConick can very well subscribe to these words, also: The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John.

Once accepted proto-John as evidence of a Gospel tradition about a Jesus of which the Father is an unknown deity enemy of YHWH, one is obliged to follow the extreme implication: Barabbas is a criminalization and a parody of that Jesus who said (10:8):

"All those who came before me are robbers and thieves"

Turnel comments:

He says "all"; he doesn't exempt persons, not even the prophets, not even Moses. Terrified by this act of accusation, the Fathers, the apologists, the critics did there what firefighters do in the presence of a fire. They endeavored to isolate it.

(my bold)

You, Joseph_D_L, are doing after 2000 years what the Fathers and the apologists did: you're trying to isolate the fire.

Jorge da Burgos, aka Joseph D.L.:

What am I supposed to respond to? There was absolutely nothing about Barabbas in the above articles. I'm not interested in your pet theories. Unless you have hard evidence, stop wasting my time.

[Giuseppe]

Did I say Couchoud and Stalh were antisemitic? No. I said you are.

if I was one, you would be even more idiot to discuss with me.

What's more, why should anyone take what Couchoud and Stahl as anything more than their own personal interpretation?

that proto-John has the Devil=YHWH is a FACT.

What am I supposed to respond to? There was absolutely nothing about Barabbas in the above articles. I'm not interested in your pet theories. Unless you have hard evidence, stop wasting my time.

Barabbas, for your knowledge, means "Son of Father", and the Jesus of proto-John is known to do a lot of references to his divine and unknown "Father".

“Where is your father?” they asked. Jesus answered, “Since you don't know who I am, you don't know who my Father

(8:19)

I am not learning nothing in this discussion by you. You are a mere modern ideologist, one of many who abound in this time. Probably for you some statue has to be thrown down. There is some insane connection between your ideology and your bad treatment of me and my views. In your hostility against Couchoud/Stahl I see the typical a priori hostility of the so-called "wake movement" against the past not in virtue of some rational motive, but only because it seems, and only seems, to be definitely "past".

Puah. Go distant.

[Joseph D. L.]

Did I say Couchoud and Stalh were antisemitic? No. I said you are.

if I was one, you would be even more idiot to discuss with me.

That doesn't even make sense.

that proto-John has the Devil=YHWH is a FACT.

Show me the verse. Show me the passage. Show me the ms. for proto-John. And while you're doing that, show me the evidence for your Barabbas claims.

You can't because they doesn't exist.

Barabbas, for your knowledge, means "Son of Father", and the Jesus of proto-John is known to do a lot of references to his divine and unknown "Father".

“Where is your father?” they asked. Jesus answered, “Since you don't know who I am, you don't know who my Father

(8:19)

That's not proto-John. That's regular John.

Nor does it in any prove your point. The Jews said Jesus was a bastard, and this is proved in in Matthew 1:18-19:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Meanwhile, Barabbas, bar abba, doesn't mean in any way imaginable, that the father is unknown. Nor can you point to any extra Christian writing that makes that connection. These are just more of your conspiracy theories.

I am not learning nothing in this discussion by you. You are a mere modern ideologist, one of many who abound in this time. Probably for you some statue has to be thrown down. There is some insane connection between your ideology and your bad treatment of me and my views. In your hostility against Couchoud/Stahl I see the typical a priori hostility of the so-called "wake movement" against the past not in virtue of some rational motive, but only because it seems, and only seems, to be definitely "past".

Such ridiculous ad hominems does not make me obligated to accept your claims. Evidence, or shut the fuck up.

Puah. Go distant.

Vai a scopare la tua famiglia morta Giuseppe. Spero che tu abbia una vita breve. And I mean that.

[Giuseppe]

that proto-John has the Devil=YHWH is a FACT.

Show me the verse. Show me the passage. Show me the ms. for proto-John.

The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John

Vai a scopare la tua famiglia morta Giuseppe. Spero che tu abbia una vita breve. And I mean that.

you have serious problems to reduce you to this low level. The term "idiot" I have used often is not meant to be so "strange" as this your claim in Italian. Your ideologism explains all this.

[Joseph D. L.]

that proto-John has the Devil=YHWH is a FACT.

Show me the verse. Show me the passage. Show me the ms. for proto-John.

The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John

This isn't evidence. I'm not interested in personal interpretations. Show me the material manuscript, or get lost.

you have serious problems to reduce you to this low level. The term "idiot" I have used often is not meant to be so "strange" as this your claim in Italian. Your ideologism explains all this.

God your English is terrible.

[Joseph D. L.]

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Jesus isn't equating YHWH with the devil you moron. Nor is Jesus anti-YHWH in John, but anti-Jew. YHWH is the God that Jesus speaks on behalf of.

Idiota!!!