No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Joseph D. L. »

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

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

And just as a middle finger to G., his idol, Paul-Louis Couchoud, is actually closer to me than he is to him:

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_1.pdf
The name Barabbas is an odd one; it means the son of the father, or the son
of his father. It seems to have been made up in allusion to Bar-cocheba, the
Jewish Christ who raised a rebellion against the Romans, whose hands were
stained with the blood of his uncle, and who was preferred by the Jews to
Christ Jesus.
Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas, I can safely say that G. is making this up all on his own as there is nothing in that article to suggest even a tenth of what he is preaching.

G. is a cautionary tale of when hubris and fanaticism eclipses critical thinking, scepticism and mutual respect of others.

He is the idiot par excellence.

And that is my final word on him.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:52 pm Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas, I can safely say that G. is making this up all on his own as there is nothing in that article to suggest even a tenth of what he is preaching.
Evidently you have not read the article, because otherwise never and then never you would have written these stupid words.

But I see a slight progress, now. You call me as G.

This makes me a stone guest, in this thread. Well.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:52 pm
http://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_1.pdf
The name Barabbas is an odd one; it means the son of the father, or the son
of his father. It seems to have been made up in allusion to Bar-cocheba, the
Jewish Christ who raised a rebellion against the Romans, whose hands were
stained with the blood of his uncle, and who was preferred by the Jews to
Christ Jesus.
The Jews may not have been aware they had a preference, especially if Jesus had not existed until then or after, either in reality or as a literary figure.

Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas ...
What essay is this? Who wrote it?
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Joseph D. L. »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:26 pm
Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas ...
What essay is this? Who wrote it?
Couchoud’s essay Jesus Barabbas. G. uses this as a foundation for him calling Barabbas a parody of Marcionism, when Couchoud says no such thing. G. is only projecting his own ignorance onto the text.

Meanwhile, Couchoud said Barabbas is likely a proxy for bar Kochba, which is something I suggested to G. not too long ago.

And even if Couchoud did say Barabbas was a parody of Marcion, he would still be wrong. That’s why G. has to literally invent imaginary scenarios and motivations for his posts. I’m not even calling it a theory anymore, because there is nothing theoretical or scientific about what he writes. It is the mad scribblings of an insane person, who probably has an Oedipus complex and wants to have sex with his mother.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Joseph D. L. »

And when Couchoud writes “... who was preferred by the Jews to Christ Jesus,” is Couchoud saying Barabbas was a proxy for the Jews who rejected the Christ Jesus of the Marcionites.

Rest in peace, G. You will not be missed.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:54 pm Couchoud’s essay Jesus Barabbas
ah, ok https://philpapers.org/rec/COUJB. Cheers.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Stuart »

“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by lsayre »

Stuart wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:39 am http://radikalkritik.de/geschichte/paul-louis-couchoud

It's in French
Right click in Chromium and hit "translate" and it is transformed into amazingly readable English.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: No evidence to support G.'s theory about Barabbas

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Here is a link to the English translation:

https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... r_engl.pdf
Post Reply