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

[Joseph D. L.]

John/Ur-John is completely in keeping with the Old Testament motif of YHWH rejecting his people, punishing them for turning their back on him, and turning to strange gods. "Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here." It doesn't get any more blatant than that.

Why doesn't Jesus tell the Jews about this other god? How are they supposed to know of him when Jesus never tells them what he is and what he wants? Because Jesus is speaking of YHWH, Jesus comes from YHWH, whom the Jews have once again turned away from.

But you're such an antisemite to understand that.

[Giuseppe]

Nor is Jesus anti-YHWH in John, but anti-Jew. YHWH is the God that Jesus speaks on behalf of.

I consider the evidence as we have it enough probative of the fact that in proto-John, Jesus is anti-YHWH. Period.

From that assumption it descends my thesis on Barabbas.

If you want to prove that I am fool, you should show that one who shares my view on proto-John, he/she doesn't arrive to share my views about Barabbas. If you show the existence of one such, then I can concede you that I am fool.

[Joseph D. L.]

I consider the evidence as we have it enough probative of the fact that in proto-John, Jesus is anti-YHWH. Period.

There is no evidence. You don't provide any evidence. You're just making assumptions, then calling those assumptions evidence.

From that assumption it descends my thesis on Barabbas.

Which every scholar I have sourced, including Richard Carrier, refutes you entirely.

If you want to prove that I am fool, you should show that one who shares my view on proto-John, he/she doesn't arrive to share my views about Barabbas. If you show the existence of one such, then I can concede you that I am fool.

Yeah, Richard Carrier.

[Joseph D. L.]

You are the very example of conformation bias.

[Giuseppe]

Carrier agrees with you about John.

But Stuart agrees with me about proto-John (relatively to his Jesus being anti-YHWH).

[Joseph D. L.]

Carrier agrees with you about John.

So I met your standard and proved you to be a fool.

Thank you for admitting it.

But Stuart agrees with me about proto-John (relatively to his Jesus being anti-YHWH).

So you were just being disingenuous.

I think it's pretty ironic that your idol Carrier sides with me, and you are forced to use someone who thinks you're a retard, Stuart, as a shield.

You're a sniveling little weasel.

[Giuseppe]

I think it's pretty ironic that your idol Carrier sides with me, and you are forced to use someone who thinks you're a retard, Stuart, as a shield.

Carrier is based on Doherty, and Doherty is based on Couchoud, and Couchoud has written the article with Stahl about Barabbas criminalization of the Gnostic Jesus. Who is the best according to you?

Stuart doesn't think that I am retard. Only a bit intemperate.

[Joseph D. L.]

I think it's pretty ironic that your idol Carrier sides with me, and you are forced to use someone who thinks you're a retard, Stuart, as a shield.

Carrier is based on Doherty, and Doherty is based on Couchoud, and Couchoud has written the article with Stahl about Barabbas criminalization of the Gnostic Jesus. Who is the best according to you?

None. Carrier is a fraud, Doherty is a sensationalist muckraker, Couchoud was a philosopher with no qualifications in Biblical studies, and Stahl might as well not even exist. How does this reductionist help you, when Carrier still sides with me about Barabbas?

Stuart doesn't think that I am retard. Only a bit intemperate.

Let's see Stuart's opinion of you:

As for Giuseppe, I think he makes a mess of this, as his English translation of the Greek is way off (Jesus asks, "Are you still sleeping and resting?") and does not look at the scene in it's entirety from 14:38-52 (all in the same setting/stage, the last two verses perhaps a bit of quick comedy). In general it's pretty clear Giuseppe's English is not strong enough, and he should probably make his case in Italian, or run that parallel since what we get are poorly constructed questions like this thread. His question comes across as an Emily LItella argument for Violins on television (now I'm dating myself with an original SNL cast sketch). #NeverMind

This looks like a vague assertion without much evidence. As much of a mess a Giuseppe's thoughts are, he at least throws his evidence out for all to see before falling down with logical errors...

or the record, the verse is most definitely not Marcionite, but an expansion upon and response to the Marcionite in Luke 12:4-5. Giuseppe has managed to get it all backwards (again).

And so on and so forth. Stuart has no high opinion of you, thinks you're a fool easily swayed by weak arguments and stunned by the brilliance of your own genius. Not "a bit" but in whole, an obstinate imbecile.

I occasionally like to read what others have said about you. You're an embarrassment to this forum.

[Joseph D. L.]

Also, didn't Stuart have to call you out because you deliberately misrepresented his position to help your case?

Yes, he did.

So you using Stuart as a shield is just another example of weak you actually are.

[Giuseppe]

The points criticized by Stuart are points where I admit easily the error and my folly. But as I have often said in this forum, about two thinks I have no doubt but absolute certainty:

• 1) A celestial crucifixion in Paul and Hebrews

• 2) Barabbas is the Gnostic Jesus criminalized by the Judaizers

I add in this thread the fact that Irenaeus gives further evidence about the last point.

I add in this thread that who denies the point 2 is for me really, sincerely, frankly, candidly, a colossal amazing idiot.