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

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

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Ho finito con te. Ti dedico alla distruzione. Quando muori non piangerò, ma farò il tifo. "Giuseppe è morto!"
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Then, according to Joseph Turmel, the following passage (in red) is a Judaizing anti-marcionite interpolation in the fourth Gospel:




38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.



39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

Jesus Sentenced to Be Crucified
19 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”

But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”


7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.


The reason, in the Turmel's words:

Interpretation based on synoptics and adapted to the primitive version that, leaving the Jews outside the Praetorium, forced Pilate to go out every time he wanted to talk to them.

Hence you have the absence of Barabbas just in.... ....proto-John!

Image

BY this STRONGEST EVIDENCE, I have won the idiot called Joseph_D_L on all fronts!!!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

What is this? Nothing. Pilate goes out to the forum, and the the writer narrates his going back into the chamber. In no way is that some smoking gun of a later insertion.

Gesù titty cazzo di Cristo! I even said that there were Gospels that didn't include the Barabbas episode, namely those of Peter and Hebrews. Your argument is that this was an invention of the Judiazers to parody the Gnostics and Marcionites, yet you never explain how it ended up in the Marcionite Gosple, and why it wasn't it the Petrine and Hebraic Gospels, where, vis a vis your theory, it most certainly would have appeared.

That is why your theory fails, because it presumes too much, explains too little, and has no evidence to support it beyond speculation. If you want to entertain it and argue it then that is your own business, but don't insult the intelligence of someone/everyone who rejects it. I don't call people idiots for rejecting my theories about Hadrian, because I realize I am fallible and not omniscient. You are not an authority, no one has to believe your word, and your sense of superiority is unfounded.

You're in need of sever psychological help.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:59 pm What is this? Nothing. Pilate goes out to the forum, and the the writer narrates his going back into the chamber. In no way is that some smoking gun of a later insertion.
no, it is a smoking gun. If you don't realize it, then you are an idiot, sic et simpliciter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

No it isn't a smoking gun. And you don't arbitrarily decide what is an interpolation because it is convenient for your argument.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

You are an idiot if you think that Jesus is magically inside the palace (verse 9) when it is said only that Pilate comes back inside the palace (verse 9), contra factum that in the interpolation both Jesus and Pilate are assumed to be out the palace. (vetse 5)

Probably the interpolator of the passage was a direct ancestor of Joseph D.L. to leave unexplained this detail that reveals his total idiocy.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:40 pm You are an idiot if you think that Jesus is magically inside the palace (verse 9) when it is said only that Pilate comes back inside the palace (verse 9), contra factum that in the interpolation both Jesus and Pilate are assumed to be out the palace. (vetse 5)

Probably the interpolator of the passage was a direct ancestor of Joseph D.L. to leave unexplained this detail that reveals his total idiocy.
No, it is you assuming you know the mechanisms behind the passage. The writer doesn't need to describe every single movement done. Jesus walks with Pilate back into the chambers, where Pilate asks where Jesus is from, to which Jesus doesn't answer, because he has just been flogged. Jesus then gives a veiled threat, again in response to just having been flogged.

Meanwhile you don't even touch Peter which didn't have the Barabbas episode, or the Hebrew Gospels, because your Judaizers didn't know of a Barabbas.

You're a delusional little nitwit.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:36 am The writer doesn't need to describe every single movement done.
Here I lose definitely you. How of grace can you claim something of similar?

See by yourself how many times the original author (and the interpolator himself) care to specify the coming out and back of Pilate and of Jesus:

  • 38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again
  • 4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you
  • 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”
  • 8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace.


It is evident the contrast between the choice of the interpolator and the choice of the original author:
  • the original author wanted Jesus always hidden in the palace, until the final release to death: the Jews have no way to see him during the entire defense by Pilate: their is total absence of Gnosis.
  • the interpolator wanted Jesus coming out to reveal his being THE Man before the Jews. To the Jews a chance is given: they COULD see, if only they wanted.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:36 am Meanwhile you don't even touch Peter which didn't have the Barabbas episode, or the Hebrew Gospels, because your Judaizers didn't know of a Barabbas.
Even a blind realizes that here you are idiot to disturb Hebrew Gospels and GPeter, since we are totally BLIND with these LOST gospels.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Even a blind realizes that here you are idiot to disturb Hebrew Gospels and GPeter, since we are totally BLIND with these LOST gospels.
And yet you act as if you know the contents of a hypothetical text, i.e. ur-John, which you can neither show was known among the church fathers or produce any manuscripts for.

Meanwhile, we have enough of Peter and Hebrews to know Barabbas was never in them. Your explanation for this?

Silence.

You're a joke. A blind fool groping about in the dark.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

The fact that you even used such an argument is an indictment of your dishonesty. You're a liar, a crook, and a thief. A typical antisemite.
Post Reply