“Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

[Secret Alias]

Here's another 'divine Son of the Heavenly Father' in the Talmud:

Says R. Amram, the son of R. Simeon bar Aba, R. Chanina said, Jerusalem was not destroyed, but because they did not reprove one another, as it is said, Lam 1:6

and another:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Aba said: Therefore, it is forbidden to greet (lit. to ask about the shalom, well-being) of someone in a polluted place

and another

Rav Mari son of Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yirmiyah Bar Aba said that Rabbi Yochanan said that if one makes a mistake and doesn’t pray Ma’ariv, he should pray Shacharit twice

Your problem Giuseppe is that you don't know things. That allows you to take the nonsense that develops between your ears seriously. I would argue that 'barabbas' probably means 'proselyte.' It makes better sense given the context especially the known association between proselytes and revolutionary activities. I don't have a 'proof' for this. I don't claim it is 'proven fact.' It might mean 'son of someone named Aba' it might mean 'son of someone named Abraham' it might mean 'son of a great figure.' But a better argument can be made for the term to denote a proselyte than 'son of (the) father' let alone the monstrous theory you are promoting.

[Giuseppe]

It is a your problem. What you should explain is not only simply a name (Barabbas) but also a list of other surprising coincidences:
1) the guy is not crucified
2) the guy is a robber
3) the other guy is called obsessively "King of Jews" during the choice
4) the revolt during which the guy is captured
5) the 'as a robber' episode at Getsemani

Well: Only Couchoud 's hypothesis explains perfectly all these 'coincidences'.

[Giuseppe]

Couchoud is to my knowledge the only scholar who has examined any other hypothesis to explain Barabbas (even the Zealot hypothesis) by listing the relative flaws and why his view is better in comparison.

http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf

[Secret Alias]

What you should explain is not only simply a name (Barabbas) but also a list of other surprising coincidences:
1) the guy is not crucified
2) the guy is a robber
3) the other guy is called obsessively "King of Jews" during the choice
4) the revolt during which the guy is captured
5) the 'as a robber' episode at Getsemani

Well: Only Couchoud 's hypothesis explains perfectly all these 'coincidences'.

This is not the way that a serious scholar or even an intelligent person goes about trying to 'solve problems.'

1) the guy isn't crucified because he is released. The traditional way of understanding this is that the Jews as bad people chose a bad guy.
2) baraba meaning 'son of Abraham' and thus a proselyte better explains why he is involved in an insurgency. Sorry Giuseppe. The evidence from Josephus and various other sources shows that there was a direct relationship between Jewish proselytes and revolutionary activity. Even the Talmud says "The proselytes, says the Talmud, were the cause that the Jews made the golden calf, and inaugurated the rebellion"
3. the leader of a revolt would likely identify himself as a king in this period
4. revolts often failed
5. not sure what the fuck you are talking about here.

But you can't speak of 'perfection' with respect to your explanations. Religious apologists speak this way. We are really only weighing better and worse with regards to our theories. Not 'perfection.'

[Secret Alias]

And my point was your theory is fucking madness. I don't care if you came up with this nonsense or Couchoud. You have even told me anything about these 'dualist Gentiles' let alone how they converted to Pauline thought. What did they call themselves? Where is there evidence for this culture? Where did they live? Were they rural or urban, Greek speaking or another language? It's just made up shit that you believe in like a religion but the reality is it's all made up.

[Giuseppe]

I am sorry but your hypothesis doesn't work. The evidence is too much supportive For Couchoud's explanation:

1) the guy is not crucified against Marcion who insisted that His Christ was crucified (just as the Cyrenaic was inserted against Basilides who claimed that Simon was crucified)

2) Barabbas means Son of Father and the gnostic Proto-John had Jesus calling himself so again and again.

3) the Jesus who was crucified is called King OF THE JEWS against Marcion who insisted who His Son of Father (notoriously not the son of the creator) was crucified

4) in the slovenic Josephus Jesus is captured during THE revolt raised by who believed wrongly that Jesus was the King OF THE JEWS.

5) Jesus said : Are you taking me 'as a robber' ? In the Getsemani episode to point out the difference between him and the robber Barabbas (Son of Father)

6) Judas is the only person who is able to recognize Jesus in the middle of the night because Jesus is OF THE JEWS.

[Giuseppe]

And my point was your theory is fucking madness. I don't care if you came up with this nonsense or Couchoud. You have even told me anything about these 'dualist Gentiles' let alone how they converted to Pauline thought. What did they call themselves? Where is there evidence for this culture? Where did they live? Were they rural or urban, Greek speaking or another language? It's just made up shit that you believe in like a religion but the reality is it's all made up.

there is a lot of scholars who advance a lot of theories to explain the gnostic dualism from Second Century and it doesn't seem that they are mad. I am only saying that there was a Gnostic hand in the euhemerization of Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

1) the guy is not crucified against Marcion who insisted that His Christ was crucified (just as the Cyrenaic was inserted against Basilides who claimed that Simon was crucified)

Don't have a clue what this means. It's Giuseppe-babble.

2) Barabbas means Son of Father and the gnostic Proto-John had Jesus calling himself so again and again.

Oh cunning linguist Giuseppe with your vast knowledge of Aramaic. Please tell me how this is settled. It's settled! It mean 'son of father.' Pray cite a source to prove that this is 'settled.'

3) the Jesus who was crucified is called King OF THE JEWS against Marcion who insisted who His Son of Father (notoriously not the son of the creator) was crucified

Presumably there was an insurrection and Jesus was taken to be the leader of this insurrection. The idea is clearly that the 'barabbas' figure was actually involved in the fight rather than Jesus. Not sure what the rest of this Giuseppe-babble is trying to say.

4) in the slovenic Josephus Jesus is captured during THE revolt raised by who believed wrongly that Jesus was the King OF THE JEWS.

Are you presuming the gospel author read old Russian and had access to a time machine?

5) Jesus said : Are you taking me 'as a robber' ? In the Getsemani episode to point out the difference between him and the robber Barabbas (Son of Father)

6) Judas is the only person who is able to recognize Jesus in the middle of the night because Jesus is OF THE JEWS.

These are PROOFS are they for your 'perfect thesis' that 'dualist Gentiles' (whatever the fuck that means) converted to Pauline Christianity and knew that two words for Father designated two different gods even though one of those names - abba - doesn't appear in the gospel? You are such an idiot. It's like I've met a vagrant at a subway station babbling about the world as if it's Lord of the Rings and he's Gollum and I have to convince him he's not Gollum and its not Lord of the Rings.

[Giuseppe]

The difference that explains why I am right and you wrong:

The evidence from Josephus and various other sources shows that there was a direct relationship between Jewish proselytes and revolutionary activity.

Just as proto-John shows a Jesus who calls himself Son of Father.

So I can give external evidence of gnostic dualist Christians adoring a Jesus Son of Father while Secret Alias is not able to give evidence of a link between Zealot rebels and Christians.

Don't be sorry for this. Not even Brandon was able to find your "evidence".

[Giuseppe]

And that proto-John had readers who read in a dualist sense his Jesus Son of Father (as not son of the creator) is a simple FACT.

See April DeConick, please: https://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-devil ... l-of-john/

While that there are Zealot clues in the Gospel is not a fact.