It Was Barabbas!

Elsewhere, M*W claimed

That wasn't Yeshua hanging there, it was Barabbas.​

and, when asked for substantiation, crawled back onto the shadows, no doubt hoping that the question would just go away. Since the assertion so clearly typifies M*W, I remain curious as to its justification. M*W?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sometimes people ask if Jesus would die for a murderer.

Forgetting that he did.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The common answer she gives is that Bar'abbas means "son of the father" and from there it follows logically that he was crucified instead of Jesus. But seriously, as far as I can see it's an embellishment of a certain Islamic belief that Jesus was substituted on the cross, also without justification.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: FYI, I have been in Philadelphia and have not crawled back into any shadows, and I certainly hope no questions will ever go away, for they all STILL need to be proven. I do not have my references with me, but I assure you that when I return home in two months, I will cite resources. My point is that when Pilate asked the crowd who they wanted him to RELEASE, they all said "Bar Abbas," "Son of the Father" or "Son of God." That is when Jesus was RELEASED and avoided crucifiction.

It is obvious that you don't read anything beyond the parameters of your narrow mind, and, therefore, you should refrain from commenting on that which you know nothing of.

 

How convenient for you. By the way, I'm not at all interested in your resources except to the extent that they can provide verifiable evidence. As for the rest, you can keep your brain-dead speculations to yourself.

 

My point is that when Pilate asked the crowd who they wanted him to RELEASE, they all said "Bar Abbas," "Son of the Father" or "Son of God." That is when Jesus was RELEASED and avoided crucifiction.
So why does this mean that he actually released him?

 

*************
M*W: Personally, I don't care what you are interested in. I don't feel the need to justify anything to you. There is nothing you can do or say to to make me change my beliefs. There is nothing I will say or do to change yours, because I simply don't give a rat's ass about you. You're are a sad, pathetic and spiritless creature. You are certainly in no position to discredit anyone on this forum. You claim to be an atheist Jew. What kind of intelligent message could you possibly offer? Why do you even bother reading what I post? I certainly don't have you in mind when I write them. You need to find someone with whom you could have intellectual conversation, but I don't think you're capable of it.

 

KalvinB is here.....................hahahahaha

 

Of course it does. It has witnesses to His trial, witnesses identifying Jesus on the road to Golgotha (Matt.27:31-32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), on the cross (Matt.27:39; John 19, etc.), people identifying Him after He died and after His resurrection.

Matt. 27:42
"He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'

 

No. It has a culled subset of latter day stories crafted by Christian apologists purporting all manner of silliness in a world where magic was deemed common enough to warrant little or no comment.

 

Hiya CA,

What evidence have you got for your judgement here?

Dave

 

Only someone wholly ignorant of the process of Canonization of the Tanach and NT would question it being a culled subset.

One would need to be even more ignorant, and absurdly naive to boot, to challenge the judgement of these folks as Christian apologists.

So, I think you'll agree, the only part warranting evidence would be "purporting all manner of silliness in a world where magic was deemed common enough to warrant little or no comment".

Let me begin by offering Luke 13:10-17, not to mention 6-winged seraphims, nephalim, global floods, unevidenced conquests, fortuitous whales, virgin births, suicidal pigs, cursed fig trees, fish picnics, and zombies strolling the streets of Jerusalem.

 

Hiya CA,

Only someone wholly ignorant of the process of Canonization of the Tanach and NT would question it being a culled subset.

One would need to be even more ignorant, and absurdly naive to boot, to challenge the judgement of these folks as Christian apologists.

I am somewhat ignorant of the process of Canonization, but basically what you’re saying here is that you cannot rely on the NT for a truthful witness to the life of Jesus for example. This is based on your somewhat cynical opinion and no evidence. Ignorant or naïve has nothing to do with it, faith that the NT is inspired by God does. What did these people who canonized the NT have to gain from making up a fairy tale? I am genuinely interested in your opinion here.

Also, are there any major differences between the Tanach and the Old Testament? If not then why wasn’t the Old Testament corrupted along with the NT?

So, I think you'll agree, the only part warranting evidence would be "purporting all manner of silliness in a world where magic was deemed common enough to warrant little or no comment".

I don’t agree actually. I fail to see the motives for corruption here, I am however all ears.

Let me begin by offering Luke 13:10-17, not to mention 6-winged seraphims, nephalim, global floods, unevidenced conquests, fortuitous whales, virgin births, suicidal pigs, cursed fig trees, fish picnics, and zombies strolling the streets of Jerusalem.

Well, in the mixer you’ve provided, there are miracles, demons etc. All of which are too ridiculous to believe if you don’t believe in God, so I hear you.

Dave

 

Good morning, dw4 ...

It is unfortunate that you would claim the results of a process about which you are ignorant as "truthful witness". The first couple of centuries gave witness to a number of compeating nascent Chrstianities. Predictably enough, a Gentile variant emerged victorious over its Jewish counterparts (e.g., Ebionites) just as the Roman empire emerged victorious over a shattered 2nd Temple Period Israel. The victors authored and, in more than a few cases, massaged the test that supported their position while rejecting as heretical the textual variants of their opponents. I doubt that you will find any peer reviewed biblical scholar who would argue this.

First of all, Dave, the same question can be asked of the variant and excluded narratives. Why would the authors of the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James write what they wrote? What about the Gospels of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, or the Gospel of Mary?

In all cases, I suspect that the general answer is likely much the same, and involves (1) the general process of folklore development (2) merged with (refracted thru?) a form of exegesis known as Midrash, and (3) later polished in the course of sectarian squabbles. Urban legends happen.

I'm not too sure what you're asking here. The Tanach is Jewish Canon and, for our purposes here, essentially the same as the OT. Assuming that you are using the term 'corrupted' in its formal sense, the answer to your question is clearly 'yes'. There are differences between the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch, the proto-Masoretic text, and the LXX. Deuteronomy 32:8 is almost certainly an example or harmonization. And, of course, there are the deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphical texts such as Baruch and Enoch.

It is, in truth, a remarkable failure. While the existence of motive is not, in and of itself, evidence of culpability, if you see no motive in embellishing ones cult leader in contradisticting with competing ones, nothing I say will convince you. In all honesty, I do not believe that you are "all ears". On the contrary, such a comment in inconceivable except from someone walking around with "eyes wide shut".

But, Dave, it goes beyond a laundry-list of supernatural events. Let's assume, for the moment, that your Jesus was more or less as portrayed. Do you really find Luke 13, authored some 5 to 10 decades later by someone who was an eye witness to absolutely nothing of relevance, at all credible?

Here we are. Today is Shabbat and you and I, both learned and observan Jews, are in the synagogue studying Torah. Of course we know the old woman over there. Poor thing, she's been bent and twisted like that for the past 18 years. How good that she comes the the synagogue. I wonder what Yeshua is doing with her?

Hey Dave, look. He cured her. Now why would that upstart do something like that on Shabbas? ....​

That's it. No surprise. No amazement. No awe. No fear. Not even polite applause. The act of magic was taken as a matter of course, and all we have left is some banter about Halakhah - about Jewish law.

And, even here, Luke gets it wrong. There are any number of things that are prohibited on Shabbat. None include healing someone by touching them (unless done for wages). Furthermore, had her infirmity been acute rather than chronic, healing her (be it Shabbas or not) would have been mandated. The leader of the synagogue simply would have had no basis for saying what he is purported to have said.

The story is devoid of credibility, obviously written by someone every bit as superstitious as his peers and demonstrably ignorant of Halakhah and ritual observances. It is most easily understood as a sloppy effort aimed at denigrating the second most powerful enemy of nascent Christianity, Pharisaic Judaism.

Shabbat Shalom

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hiya CA,

First off, thanks for your in depth view here.

It is unfortunate that you would claim the results of a process about which you are ignorant as "truthful witness".

I suppose we call it faith, maybe I have too much sometimes.

The first couple of centuries gave witness to a number of compeating nascent Chrstianities. Predictably enough, a Gentile variant emerged victorious over its Jewish counterparts (e.g., Ebionites) just as the Roman empire emerged victorious over a shattered 2nd Temple Period Israel. The victors authored and, in more than a few cases, massaged the test that supported their position while rejecting as heretical the textual variants of their opponents. I doubt that you will find any peer reviewed biblical scholar who would argue this.

Well this is certainly one area that I will explore in more detail at some stage soon. Do you have any links or books you’d recommend?

As you are probably aware, Christians today accept that the people involved in the canonization of the Bible were, how shall I put it, inspired by God’s very own Holy Spirit.

First of all, Dave, the same question can be asked of the variant and excluded narratives. Why would the authors of the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James write what they wrote? What about the Gospels of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, or the Gospel of Mary?

In all cases, I suspect that the general answer is likely much the same, and involves (1) the general process of folklore development (2) merged with (refracted thru?) a form of exegesis known as Midrash, and (3) later polished in the course of sectarian squabbles. Urban legends happen.

CA, I will have to partially answer this from my perspective. You are correct about your anticipated answer. But I believe in the Holy Spirit and I believe it was involved somewhat in the canonization process, I mean I have too because I don’t have enough faith in man. In Christianity there is also antichrist spirits that are in the world, they may well have played a role somewhere down the line. I cannot prove any of this; it is just what I currently base my faith in this area on, in fact my whole faith is essentially based on this. I want to strengthen my position by rationalising how the canonization process was in fact inspired. One point is that there are various references to the OT in the NT regarding Jesus in particular, or vice versa if you like. Now I ask myself could this canonization process actually cover all these corners if it wasn’t divinely inspired and the scriptures used, those of people who did actually walk with Jesus.

I'm not too sure what you're asking here. The Tanach is Jewish Canon and, for our purposes here, essentially the same as the OT. Assuming that you are using the term 'corrupted' in its formal sense, the answer to your question is clearly 'yes'. There are differences between the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch, the proto-Masoretic text, and the LXX. Deuteronomy 32:8 is almost certainly an example or harmonization. And, of course, there are the deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphical texts such as Baruch and Enoch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes my questions were put to you confusingly, apologies. Could you please show me the example of this harmonization? I don’t have any Jewish scriptures yet.

It is, in truth, a remarkable failure. While the existence of motive is not, in and of itself, evidence of culpability, if you see no motive in embellishing ones cult leader in contradisticting with competing ones, nothing I say will convince you. In all honesty, I do not believe that you are "all ears".

Oh but don’t be so quick to judge, I am all ears, honest

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On the contrary, such a comment in inconceivable except from someone walking around with "eyes wide shut".

LOL

My eyes are open but I haven’t seen anything yet to condemn the early church leaders, but I don’t stop looking, I just have loads of other things on my plate at the moment.

Can you give me a clue to aid my work?


But, Dave, it goes beyond a laundry-list of supernatural events. Let's assume, for the moment, that your Jesus was more or less as portrayed. Do you really find Luke 13, authored some 5 to 10 decades later by someone who was an eye witness to absolutely nothing of relevance, at all credible?

Here we are. Today is Shabbat and you and I, both learned and observan Jews, are in the synagogue studying Torah. Of course we know the old woman over there. Poor thing, she's been bent and twisted like that for the past 18 years. How good that she comes the the synagogue. I wonder what Yeshua is doing with her?

Hey Dave, look. He cured her. Now why would that upstart do something like that on Shabbas? .... That's it. No surprise. No amazement. No awe. No fear. Not even polite applause. The act of magic was taken as a matter of course, and all we have left is some banter about Halakhah - about Jewish law.


This is a very interesting perspective, one I’m sure I wouldn’t get from a Christian site. This is the sort of insight I’m after, you’ve basically visualised the scene from a Jewish perspective at that point in time. Is there mention of Rabbi’s healing around the time of Jesus in any Jewish scripture?

And, even here, Luke gets it wrong. There are any number of things that are prohibited on Shabbat. None include healing someone by touching them (unless done for wages). Furthermore, had her infirmity been acute rather than chronic, healing her (be it Shabbas or not) would have been mandated. The leader of the synagogue simply would have had no basis for saying what he is purported to have said.

I hear what you’re saying. After your previous point I think I’ll remain silent on your assessment now, but may bring it back up later.

The story is devoid of credibility, obviously written by someone every bit as superstitious as his peers and demonstrably ignorant of Halakhah and ritual observances. It is most easily understood as a sloppy effort aimed at denigrating the second most powerful enemy of nascent Christianity, Pharisaic Judaism.

On the basis of what you have outlined, there does seem to be some sort of prejudicial intent. Do you have examples that weaken any of the other Gospels from the Jewish perspective?

Farewell for now.

Dave

 

CA, I don't think there is enough evidence to support your claims. All writings that name the Nazarenes and Ebionites came considerably after Jesus' death, and while there is evidence in the bible that there were Ebionites who still obliged gentiles to follow Jewish customs, they were not united under the twelve Apostles or Paul.

As for the gospel of the Nazarenes, I believe you are referring to the hebrew(or aramaic) copy of Matthew that Jerome found. If this is the gospel you are referring to, then you should know that Jerome only recorded a small number of variations that did not affect the orthodoxy of the writing.

I'm not even going to try to debate the gospel of Mary magdalene with you. Any unbiased, cursory reading of that writing would come to the conclusion that it's a non-jewish writing not authored by Mary Magdalene.

Obviously not. Jesus was not denying the power of the Sabath but only effecting the true Sabath which is supposed to be healing.

 

Respectfully, you clearly haven't a clue as to what this discussion is all about. I suggest that you carefully reread the thread.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

Perhaps the question is not whether or not you have too much faith in God, but whether or not you have too much faith in Timothy.

Yes.

• The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
• The Formation of Christian Biblical Canon
• Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age

Yes, Dave, and often this acceptance is based on 2 Timothy 3:16. I have never really understood how the faithful can be satisfied with such circular reasoning: the Bible is true because the Bible says so. I find the argument underwhelming.

I respect your belief and wish you well.

I know of no reasonable examples of the Tanach referencing Jesus. There appears to be, however, more than a few instances where the authors referenced well known stories from the Tanach to lend credence to their stories.

Deuteronomy 32:8.

Read the history.

Noting the underwhelming response to the miracle found in Luke is hardly "the Jewish perspective".