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

[Joseph D. L.]

Then show us this secterian rivalry. Where is it?

• Proto-John, where Jesus the Son of Father is enemy of YHWH (so Turmel)

So a hypothetical text whose existence is not at all certain and whose contents cannot be reconstructed accurately.

• Eusebius's quote in the first post of this thread

Ireaneus, and he doesn't say any such thing. He even says that the spirit that calls itself "Son of the Father" is female, and Barabbas is not a female, unless you want to say they were very progressive back then.

• Gospel of Thomas 15

Jesus says:

“When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your face (and) worship him. That one is your Father.”

How does that prove anything?

Who ignores this evidence is an idiot. Period.

This is no evidence at all.

[Joseph D. L.]

Barabbas is present in all of the Gospels, including John and Marcion. The only Gospels he is not present in, are Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of the Hebrews, and it is this later fact that puts the final nail in your coffin. If Barabass was a Judiazer proxy/parody of the Marcionite/Gnostic Christ then this is where he would show up. And yet he doesn't. He appears in the Marcionite and Gnostic Gospels. So anything you can think of to ad hoc your way through this is thus render absolutely void.

You lose again, Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

Tsk, tsk. Your is not evidence. You are unable to read entirely Couchoud/Stahl's article about Barabbas. Irenaeus's quote proves definitely that point. One would have imagined abracadabra et similia as magical formula to evade the Archons in the air. Not just "I am the Son of the Father ". This is too much to be a coincidence. And if you consider it only a mere stupid coincidence, then you are an idiot, as I have already said.

[Joseph D. L.]

I didn't ask for Couchoud or Stalh. I asked for evidence, which would exist independently of Couchoud and Stahl. What you provided is not evidence if anything. There is no coincidence. That is you turning anthills into a mountain.

You're no better than a Christian apologist.

[Giuseppe]

There is no coincidence.

precisely. I am to say so, not you. You are obliged to consider the presence of "I am the Son of Father" in the magical formula to evade the demons, as reported by Irenaeus, as a mere coincidence with the fact that a "Barabbas" can evade prison in the Gospel. For me, it is clearly evidently absolutely not a coincidence. And you have to read Couchoud/Stahl's article in Barabbas to know why it is not a coincidence.

The fact that you have answered so:

There is no coincidence.

...proves definitely that you are an idiot in my eyes.

[Joseph D. L.]

There isn't a coincidence because ancient Christians writers made it clear how the Barabbas episode was interpenetrated, and this is subsidized by the scholars who say that it was based on the scapegoat rite from Leviticus 16.

What ancient Christian witness or text can you point to support your claim? I don't want modern commentators, pseudoscholars, or your own personal interpretation. I want an unambiguous, black and white, empirical ancient Christian witness that supports you. Just one.

I'll be waiting.

[Joseph D. L.]

A theory is only as good as its predictive power. If something is not obvious or intuitive, then it is incorrect.

I have satisfied the conditions for honest discussion. I have provided primary sources for my claim, as well as supportive scholarly consensus for it as well.

You have provided nothing. Nothing, except that obscure and ambiguous interpretation of two men who are not credentialed in the relevant field of study, and your own misuse and abuse of sources.

You are a joke. You deserve no respect. You are a waste of my time and everyone's time on here.

[Giuseppe]

There isn't a coincidence because ancient Christians writers made it clear how the Barabbas episode was interpenetrated,

The problem is that some of these same ancient Christian writers show embarrassment about Barabbas being named "Jesus", too. Hence they want to rationalize the case by appealing to Leviticus 16.

You have to explain why:

• Gnostic Christians escape Archons in air by identifying themselves as "Sons of Father"

• Barabbas escapes death in virtue only of his being named "Son of Father".

Your false assumptions make you unable to explain WHY.

My assumptions can explain WHY, at contrary.

[Joseph D. L.]

Still waiting for that source.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm still waiting for that source. I want a source from ad 100-400 that says that Barabbas was emblematic of the Gnostics. I don't want vague "Son of the Father" references. And I don't want it filtered through some nonsensical interpretation.