Although not having a body himself, but only an etheral envelope, Jesus had certainly undergone on the cross an apparent death.
Tertullien, by which we know the doctrines of the Marcionites, is very affirmative on this point.
It is easy to understand with what indignation, what anger, the Christians attached to Messianic waiting and Jewish prophecies, the Christians who’s Apocalypse reveals us their state of mind, had to initially consider these people, enemies of the Christ of Israel and God of Israel, who forged a crucified Jesus, to which they allotted the strange name, of Son of the Father. One ridiculed this
name in the Aramaic form of Bar-Abbas. This son-of-Father who treats the old prophets as robbers and brigands, himself is treated as a brigand. The polemic against Jesus Bar-Abbas took the most popular and most effective form, that of the account. It was a
question of showing that only crucified, the only redeemer of the men, was as well the Christ of Israel, that even as announced the prophets. The Synoptic gospels, mainly Luke and Matthew, stuck to this demonstration. As of the birth of Jesus, an inspired prophet, Simeon, took Jesus in his arms and recognized in him the Christ, the salvation of God [Luke 2:20), light of the nations, glory of the people of Israel.
Matthew underlines of a feature supported twenty achievements of prophecies. In front of Pilate Jesus is formally accused of saying is Christ, a King (Luke 23:2), and when Pilate asks to him whether he is it, he does not contradict. Thus there is no doubt. The one crucified in truth is well Jesus the Christ.
As for Jesus Bar-Abbas, the brigand, he was not at all crucified. He was released. Here are where it is necessary to answer those which tell another thing of him. As for the circumstances of the release, they were invented and skilfully arranged in the account so
as to still prove another useful thing: the lack of responsibility by Pilate. Thus the episodes of Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene are of the same own way.
They are polemical accounts. The first is directed against the Gospel of John, the second against the Gospel of Basilides.
If our interpretation is valid, it should be proven, contrary to the current opinion, that the core of the Gospel of John is earlier than the Synoptic gospels. And to corroborate it, it would be necessary to show other cases of Synoptic polemic against John. We will make short remarks on these two points.
https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... r_engl.pdf
Now I have found the definitive evidence that their interpretation is absolutely correct.
Bar-Abbas was the Jewish name given to the bastards, i.e. the natural sons of unknown father, just as in the World of Westeros Snow is the name of the bastards.
This view is given without reference by Jean Radermakers, S. J., Au fil de l'Evangile selon saint Matthieu, 2, s° ed. p. 342.
Barabbas was the bastard, the natural son of an unknown father.
...Unknown father…
I know only a candidate for the role of who preached the Christ of an alien god, the Son of an Unknown Father, who revealed the existence of the his Father for the first time to the entire world only in recent times…
...Marcion of Sinope.