Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:06 am

Now, Bar-Abbas, as "Son of Father", is the Christ of Marcion, the enemy of YHWH bastard demiurge etc.

But the same Barabbas, as Bar-Rabbas, is the "Son of Rabbi", i.e. "Jesus" aka John the son of the Pharisee Judas the Galilean (notoriously a pharisee, therefore a Rabbi of his own right).

Who came first, the Zealot son of Rabbi or the mythological deity Son of the Alien Father (enemy of YHWH) ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:36 am

A clue for the anwer may be found in Mcn aka proto-Luke:

But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!”

(Luke 23:18)

The crowd would have rejected the man, i.e. the Catholic incarnation, and they would have preferred the Marcion's deity, Jesus Son of Father.

Apparently the death is a reason to be prideful about the victim.


If we remove from the Fourth Gospel the mentions of the two verses: 18:39-40 about Barabbas, the narration hardly suffers by it, despite the fact that there seems to be an interpolation with repetition of the words "again" (18:38 and 40, and 19:4) and undoubtedly a reworking of the text, because what the Jews cry again cannot be: "Not him, but Barabbas", since they have not yet cried it

These two verses were added on proto-John, corrupting it. In this case, the author of Mark would probably be the first to have introduced in the Gospels the episode of Barabbas and this episode would be related with the death of Jesus called Christ.

But then, if in the previous story the hero of the story was John and not Jesus, the man called "king of Jews" was John and not Jesus, accordingly.

Hence the crowd had to choose between the Son of Father and the mere messianist John called "king of Jews".

The crowd would have cried:

Away with this man (John)! Release the Son of Father to us!”

Precisely the words given to the crowd by the Revelation of Peter:

"Is the living savior, the one they took and released ... What they released was my immaterial body ..."

Hence, the "living savior", the true hero, was the Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas").

But the true victim was not the true hero of the Judaizers & Catholics (adorers of YHWH).

The true victim was not even John son of Judas, or better, he could even be John son of Judas. But his role was totally in function of the spiritual Marcion's Christ. He worked as the "immaterial body" of the spiritual "Son of Father", a mere involucre, an ologram used for the occasion. He is not even the "king of Jews" stricto sensu. He is only the so-called "king of Jews", to remark his ontological inconsistance. In a certain sense, it is still Bar-Abbas who is killed in him, since he is only the involucre who hides the true Christ (Barabbas).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:45 am

bar, in Aramaic, is the son. But this Aramaic word is itself taken from the Hebrew, where bar means "seed", "germ".

Hence Bar-Abbas means: seed of the Father.

Jesus said: Look, the sower went out, he filled his hand (and) cast (the seed). Some fell upon the road; the birds came, they gathered them. Others fell upon the rock, and struck no root in the ground, nor did they produce any ears. And others fell on the thorns; they choked the seed and the worm ate them. And others fell on the good earth, and it produced good fruit; it yielded sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure.

(Logion 9, Gospel of Thomas)

Barabbas is the seed of the Father who has to die to rise and to appear as Bar-Barabbas, prisonner only for a short time in the body of a criminal Zealot, John son of Judas.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:05 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:45 am
bar, in Aramaic, is the son. But this Aramaic word is itself taken from the Hebrew, where bar means "seed", "germ".

Hence Bar-Abbas means: seed of the Father.

Jesus said: Look, the sower went out, he filled his hand (and) cast (the seed). Some fell upon the road; the birds came, they gathered them. Others fell upon the rock, and struck no root in the ground, nor did they produce any ears. And others fell on the thorns; they choked the seed and the worm ate them. And others fell on the good earth, and it produced good fruit; it yielded sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure.

(Logion 9, Gospel of Thomas)

Barabbas is the seed of the Father who has to die to rise and to appear as Bar-Barabbas, prisonner only for a short time in the body of a criminal Zealot, John son of Judas.

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.

(1 Corinthians 15:36-38)

To Barabbas, the Son/Seed of the Father, the Father himself gave a carnal involucre who died in his place: the body of John son of the Rabbi (= Judas the Galilean).

By calling Barabbas a Robber and a Killer, the Judaizers make him the criminal (against Marcion) and not the man who died in his place.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7873
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:02 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:45 am
bar, in Aramaic, is the son. But this Aramaic word is itself taken from the Hebrew, where bar means "seed", "germ".

Hence Bar-Abbas means: seed of the Father.
Giuseppe, in Italian, is a proper name. But this Italian name is itself taken from the Hebrew and means "he will add."

Hence Giuseppe means: "he will add layers of meaning to the text which were never intended."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:55 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:02 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:45 am
bar, in Aramaic, is the son. But this Aramaic word is itself taken from the Hebrew, where bar means "seed", "germ".

Hence Bar-Abbas means: seed of the Father.
Giuseppe, in Italian, is a proper name. But this Italian name is itself taken from the Hebrew and means "he will add."

Hence Giuseppe means: "he will add layers of meaning to the text which were never intended."
are you meaning that "Bar" can't mean also "germ", "seed"? Usually you post in a thread to signal errors of that kind.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:08 pm

The evidence that in the earliest gospel (proto-John) Bar-Abbas was a positive character is given by the evident interpolation in red in 18:40:

They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber

By adding the interpolation that Barabbas was a robber, he is made to become ipso facto a negative character.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:24 am

I am correct:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1250.htm

Original Word: בָּר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: bar
Phonetic Spelling: (bawr)
Definition: grain, corn
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7873
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:19 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:55 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:02 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:45 am
bar, in Aramaic, is the son. But this Aramaic word is itself taken from the Hebrew, where bar means "seed", "germ".

Hence Bar-Abbas means: seed of the Father.
Giuseppe, in Italian, is a proper name. But this Italian name is itself taken from the Hebrew and means "he will add."

Hence Giuseppe means: "he will add layers of meaning to the text which were never intended."
are you meaning that "Bar" can't mean also "germ", "seed"? Usually you post in a thread to signal errors of that kind.
Partly I was pointing out that the ultimate etymology of a word only rarely matters for the immediate context. Mostly I was making a joke. YMMV.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Martin Klatt » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:49 am

Last edited by Martin Klatt on Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Post Reply