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

[Giuseppe]

Charles, Barabbas is based on the scapegoat of Leviticus 16

great error, because the goat candidate to represent Barabbas:

but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

...is pure, beautiful and innocent (in Barnabas) as the other goat allegorizing, for Barnabas, Jesus called king of Jews.

Contra factum that Barabbas is criminalized in the Gospel. That he is not beautiful, not innocent, not pure.

I am "done with you", as you say.

[Joseph D. L.]

Barnabas doesn’t say any such thing. He says that both goats are to be of goodly aspects.

And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

Barabbas is a murderer and robber, thereby taking on the inequities of the Jews, who demand Christ’s blood, the goat sacrificed on the alter.

Barnabas unambiguously calls the goat that is sacrificed Christ, and then he calls the scapegoat a Christ of another aspect. In short, Jesus and Barabbas are symbolic of the sacrificial statute of Leviticus 16.

Anything else you’d like to add? you blithely nincompoop.

[Giuseppe]

He says that both goats are to be of goodly aspects.

precisely. I don't see that Jesus is criminal as Barabbas. I don't see that Barabbas is innocent as Jesus. That moral difference is fatal against your (and Barnabas's) argument. You are a Judaizer just as Barnabas, insofar you consider the Barabbas episode a midrash of Leviticus 16 and not a parody addressed against Gnostics.

It is enough. Give me this last word and then open other threads on other topics.

[Joseph D. L.]

You have zero textual support for your claim. Meanwhile I have textual support, and scholarly support for my claim, so much so that even your idol, Richard Carrier, supports the interpretation that Jesus and Barabbas are symbolic of the Yom Kippur ritual.

The moral difference is irrelevant. Why you keep bringing it up is a testament to how much of a dishonest imbecile you are, as the moral would be how evil the Jews are in demanding Barabbas go free while an innocent man is killed, yet you think the whole thing is a charade against Gnostics!!!

No, I won't let you have the last word anymore.

[Joseph D. L.]

However, what distinguishes your View from Giuseppe's? If it comes down to a choice of Metaphysics, one view is as good as another. So, what recommends your position?

What distinguishes my view from Giuseppe's is that I am going off of tangible evidence while Giuseppe is more interested in abstract concepts that he can never prove.

[Giuseppe]

What distinguishes my view from Giuseppe's is that I am going off of tangible evidence

This is a total falsity. Leviticus 16 and Barnabas are not tangible evidence for your interpretation of Barabbas episode. The moral difference is relevant, here, since the Christians, even today, are strongly embarrassed for having the criminal Barabbas named even 'Jesus Barabbas'. No midrash from OT would justify a such blasphemy.

Only strong sectarian rivarly could justify a similar apparent blasphemy: the name of Jesus Son of Father given to a bastard criminal.

The first implication is that the separationism is the oldest Christology appearing in a Gospel. I know already the origin of that separationism (allusion to role of separator of the celestial cross), but I should inquiry now how Paul is related with that separationism: was he against it or not ?

Stantibus rebus, I give up to discuss with a polemicist as you. I consider you sympathetic for the insults you give, as nincopompon, etc. But I think that you are wasting your time here.

[perseusomega9]

I like nincopompon

[Joseph D. L.]

What distinguishes my view from Giuseppe's is that I am going off of tangible evidence

This is a total falsity. Leviticus 16 and Barnabas are not tangible evidence for your interpretation of Barabbas episode. The moral difference is relevant, here, since the Christians, even today, are strongly embarrassed for having the criminal Barabbas named even 'Jesus Barabbas'. No midrash from OT would justify a such blasphemy.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Or ... frontcover

We do, however, know that Barabbas was presented as a perfect twin to Jesus, since he was seen fit at least to fill the predetermined role of the Yom Kippur scapegoat.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

Here, both Jesus and Barabbas are compared to the two goats of the atoning rite.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pa ... frontcover

Frederick Niedner has argued that the reference to blood should be read in the context of the choice which Pilate offers between Jesus and Barabbas. Niedner believes that the atonement ritual prescribed in Leviticus 16 is the interpretive key for this choice.

How can you even say "Christians, even today, are strongly embarrassed for having the criminal Barabbas named even 'Jesus Barabbas'", when the majority of Christians don't even know Barabbas was called Jesus in a very marginal textual tradition? This is further evidence that you are just making up excuses to justify your false beliefs.

Only strong sectarian rivarly could justify a similar apparent blasphemy: the name of Jesus Son of Father given to a bastard criminal.

Then show us this secterian rivalry. Where is it? Why is there no evidence of it, except for the most tenuous and obscure references only you can see?

The first implication is that the separationism is the oldest Christology appearing in a Gospel. I know already the origin of that separationism (allusion to role of separator of the celestial cross), but I should inquiry now how Paul is related with that separationism: was he against it or not ?

And Barabbas satisfies this by being the Jesus that escapes, and the Epistle of Barnabas proves conclusively that this was the view of Christians. Your theory proposes that Barabbas was a later addition to the narrative, which 1) would disprove your idea that Separationism was the original strata, and 2) is not proved in anyway by textual or written sources.

Stantibus rebus, I give up to discuss with a polemicist as you. I consider you sympathetic for the insults you give, as nincopompon, etc. But I think that you are wasting your time here.

At least you admit that you are a waste of time.

[Joseph D. L.]

I have textual evidence, and scholarly support on my side Giuseppe. What do you have? Nothing. No written source for your theory, no Christian witness of your theory, and no evidence that Barabbas was an insertion into the text.

You are wasting everyone's time.

[Giuseppe]

Then show us this secterian rivalry. Where is it?

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

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

• Gospel of Thomas 15

Who ignores this evidence is an idiot. Period.