Irenaeus about Bar-Abbas "taken away when He was brought before Pilate"

[Giuseppe]

They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances, — of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103107.htm

Nota bene: this is not a spiritual Christ abandoning Jesus on the cross, but this is a spiritual Christ abandoning Jesus when Jesus "was brought before Pilate".

I know only a parody of this same Christ escaping both Jesus and Pilate in the same moment. This parody is named: "Jesus Bar-Abbas" ("Jesus Son of Father").

Hence, this is further evidence that Couchoud/Stahl are correct to define the Barabbas episode as a Judaizing parody addressed against the Gnostic separationism.

[Joseph D. L.]

Nota bene: this is not a spiritual Christ abandoning Jesus on the cross, but this is a spiritual Christ abandoning Jesus when Jesus "was brought before Pilate".

So how is this any different than what I have been telling you for almost a year? That Barabbas is an allegory for the transmigration of the Christ Spirit.

What's more, both Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene are based on historical figures (bar Kochba and Lukuas). The fact that Barabbas is treated as he is (the Jews accepting a murderous rabble rouser) proves that, even if he was a parody, he was a parody of Jews, just as John described them as being sons of the devil/Barabbas.

Even when you're wrong, you're doubly wrong.

Go distant! Any who doesn't accept this reading is idiot maximum!

[Giuseppe]

So how is this any different than what I have been telling you for almost a year? That Barabbas is an allegory for the transmigration of the Christ Spirit.

Barabbas, a bastard criminal and robber, an "allegory for the transmigration of the Christ Spirit", really???

Is the "Christ spirit" a bastard criminal and robber for his same adorers??? Really???

Idiocy!

Forgive me if I don't believe minimally in your equation, but at contrary I consider it basically a pure idiocy.

What's more, both Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene are based on historical figures (bar Kochba and Lukuas).

Robert M. Price about the Cyrenaic as a Judaizing parody of Simon Magus:

What Basilides noticed was that the last proper name before "that crucified him" (Mark 15:24) is not Jesus but Simon of Cyrene. Simon of Cyrene is easily identities with/as Simon Magus. The latter was also called "Simon of Gitta". Gitta (= Gath) was one of the five Philistine city states. The Philistines and Phoenicians were the "Sea Peoples", the Kittim, which equates to "Gitta". North African Cyrene was a Phoenician city. It is all comes to the same thing. So I think Mark 15:21's snippet about Simon is a sanitized version of the story told by "heretics" that Simon Magus was crucified in the place and semblance of the Son. Guess what, folks? It's not a piece of history.

(Holy fable, vol. 2, p. 98, my bold)

[Joseph D. L.]

Yes, Barabbas fulfills the role of the transmigration of Christ, just as Epistle of Barnabas proves, and Origen a century later would attest, and AND YOU YOUSELF JUST FUCKING ADMITTED, THAT BARABBAS parodies SYMBOLIZES THIS VERY TRANSMIGRATION AS ESCAPING CRUCIFIXION.

The Jews accept Barabbas; Marcionites reject Barabbas as a false messiah. Any attempt to argue otherwise is a sign of mental retardation. And lo, here you are.

You are a blithering moron.

Simon of Cyrene is Lukuas. Both are from Cyrene, both come to Judea, fleeing from Egypt/coming from the country; both are crucified, one allegorically and the other literally; and Simon has a duplicate in Simeon of Jerusalem, who was crucified by some estimations during the Kitos revolt.

I don't have to consider Price. Simon Magus is not Simon of Cyrene, but Aquila/Paul, who attempted to co-opt the Nazarenes, those who followed Julian and Pappus, by saying that Hadrian was the messiah and not Lukuas.

[Giuseppe]

AND YOU YOUSELF JUST FUCKING ADMITTED, THAT BARABBAS parodies SYMBOLIZES THIS VERY TRANSMIGRATION AS ESCAPING CRUCIFIXION.

not Barabbas, but the entity of which Barabbas is the caustic parody invented against the adorers of that same entity.

Dialogue between Joseph D.L. and a Jewish-Christian:

Joseph D.L.: I know Barabbas. He is allegory of the spiritual Christ etc etc

The Jewish-Christian: you are a damned blasphemous, vade retro Satana! The spiritual Christ can't never be a bastard criminal and robber. He can't even be allegorized by a bastard criminal and robber. Go distant.

by saying that Hadrian was the messiah

your hidden agenda seems to be too much visible from your admiration for the pedophile Adrian.