>there are people on Veeky Forums who actually believe it was the Jews - not the Romans - who are to blame for the death of their Yeshua >there are people on Veeky Forums who actually believe blood libel accusations are true
The oldest manuscripts of Mark explicitly address Jesus as 'Yeshua Barabbas', with bar-Abbas simply meaning 'son of the father', which fits with what most historians agree concerning Jesus: that he was simply an apocalyptic preacher who claimed to be the Messiah (according to strictly Jewish ideas). In the famous incident when the crowd clamored for "Barabbas!" upon being (supposedly) asked by Pilate, they were explicitly referring to Yeshua, and not to some murderer/highway man.
The entire narrative of Jesus and Barabbas being presented to the crowd and Barabbas being chosen and the entire "his blood shall be on our hands!" is fictitious, and possibly invented for the sake of converting Romans/Hellenes as well as to prevent from attracting negative attention from the Imperial government. Some idiot scribe decided it would be convenient to take the 'Barabbas' epiphet and convert it into a separate character, to create a story of the Jews rejecting Jesus - possibly also a desire born from the desires of Pauline Christians to demonize Jewish-Christians following Paul's spats with the Jerusalem Church.
Yeshua was killed by the Roman authorities for his attempts to foment a rebellion; it is unlikely the Sanhedrin even took notice of him, considering that we know there were a great number of apocalyptic preachers and Messiah claimants among the Jews at the time.
In all likelihood, Jesus probably WAS Barrabas, and the completely uncorroborated story of a "passover pardon" is probably a memory of people demanding his release, extralegally.
The oldest manuscripts of Mark refer to him as "Jesus Barrabas" and it puts a lot of weight on poor coincidence to assume that there are two guys whose name means "Jesus, son of the father" around at the same time and place and they're completely unrelated.
Levi Hernandez
Matthew 27
Taking the Place of Barabbas
Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
Gee, seems like there were two men standing there.
Caleb Allen
In no likelihood, actually. None.
Jaxson Russell
>In all likelihood, Jesus probably WAS Barrabas
But user, that's what OP said.
Thomas Clark
Oh, you are relying on Mark alone? Gee, he says the same thing:
Mark 15 So Pilate, wanting to gratify the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he delivered Jesus, after he had scourged Him, to be crucified.
Justin Butler
>what is interpolation?
Nathan Clark
Mea culpa. I didn't read it carefully, I thought it was just another one of those "Jesus was just an apocalyptic preacher and it was the Romans, not the Jews who decided to off him" thing.
Alexander Jenkins
Even of the Jews were responsible, it would be the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. The Pharisees did nothing wrong
Andrew James
What is reading comprehension? Oh, my, look who I'm asking that question to.
Carson Baker
>Dey dindu nuffin
Matthew 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.
Gabriel Martin
If you want to let both the Jews and the Romans off the hook, all you have to do is know the truth.
You killed Jesus.
Evan Reyes
>You killed Jesus. How did that user survive 2000 years?
Brandon White
How is God bound by time?
Christian Clark
I'm not Tricky Bangbanggooberblatt. You have a case of mistaken identity, user.
Jacob Rodriguez
συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος Τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, > So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Βαραββᾶν (Barrabus) ἢ (or) Ἰησοῦν (Iesus) τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; (who is called the Christ)
Ethan Reyes
> The Biblical narrative of Jesus's death is a forgery > So don't get mad at the Jews!
Nigga if the Biblical account is a forgery then none of this matters. There is no Christianity without divine knowledge that we can learn from divinely-inspired books. Your claim of fraud undermines the whole faith and you're only using it to defend shills. This makes you a shill, a troll, or an idiot.
Also:
> Jesus attempted to foment rebellion > Sanhedrin didn't notice
Nigger if you think this is some normal rebellion how do you explain it taking over half the world? Where does the resurrection come in? Why did the Romans convert? Why was there a Paul at all if Jesus was just a man? You've opened so many holes that there's no way flesh-eating bacteria aren't probing the ones in your brain this very moment.
Hunter Rivera
I said that to say this.
If you were the only person on earth, Jesus would have died to save you.
Nobody killed Jesus.
Jesus released His spirit, and died. He could still be hanging on that same cross if He wanted to. He's God.
Jeremiah Edwards
I like the cut of your jib bro
Chase Parker
>There is no Christianity without divine knowledge that we can learn from divinely-inspired books
No, Tricky Bangbanggooberblatt killed him under the red sun, tore off his scalp, and tried (and failed) to use his powers.
I mean hell, Jesus could barely last 2 seconds against him. Part of that was his fighting with Hank, of course, but he was just outclassed. Face it, you worship an inferior, dickless god. It's really kind of sad.
Kayden Sanders
>Nigger if you think this is some normal rebellion how do you explain it taking over half the world?
By distorting it, for one? Yeshua was a preacher who taught doctrines that were well within the confines of Jewish orthodoxy at the time - at no time did he ever preach about his pre-existence, or about his being God, or about his 'sacrifice' to "redeem sin". These are Pauline additions, which are in turn derived from Greek pagan traditions.
>Why did the Romans convert?
They didn't. Only a few people ever did. All that it took was a few in power and with influence to force themselves upon the Empire, and they had to dedicate themselves to the wholesale aextermination of paganism to come close to accomplish this. The few Romans that actually converted before Constantine were attracted to Christianity only because Christianity was an exotic mystery cult from the East, a fad at the time. Also, it helped that Pauline Christianity adopted motifs and themes from neo-Platonism and Greek mystery religions, so as to make it more palatable to Romans. My question to you then is why didn't the Romans convert, if Jesus was truly their Messiah?
>Why was there a Paul at all if Jesus was just a man?
Why do people do what they do? Simply because we don't know Paul's motivations - which were probably less-than-noble, and more along the lines of wanting power, or perhaps even being mentally ill - does not mean your religion is real, anymore than it means that Muhammad is the real deal simply because people were willing to conquer in his name.
All your 'points' are trivial and stupid.
Jackson King
>My question to you then is why didn't the Romans convert, if Jesus was truly their Messiah?
