Historically, is she correct?

WE WUZ JAYSUS

>applying concepts made after and event to the event itself

this is how you sound

you can not call ancient socities "people of color" because that concept didn't exist...they didn't refer to them as that, and that was never in their framework or mindset

the Germans tried to racialize the Greeks in the 18th and 19th century and that was wrong....

African Americans do it today with Ancient Egyptians

>of color

Anachronistic. Nothing approaching race ideology existed in his time period.

>wrongfully

Treason is a crime.

WE WUZ THE SON OF GOD N SHIET

>man of color in a country of nothing but people of color, who was accused and had his fate sealed by other people of color

Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus. He tried 3 times to avoid execution, saying repeatedly he had found no evidence to support the allegations of treason. The Jewish leaders goaded him into it.

>wrongfully charged

Is anyone surprised by this? Christianity is the moral root of self-loathing white liberal guilt. Of course these faggots would idolize a religion that destroyed the greatest Empire in the history of the world.

>muh Gibbon

ERE survived a thousand years longer than the West and was much more Christian.

It was not religion that destroyed Rome.

>he WAS wrongfully charged

He was charged by the Romans, not the Jews. The Jews wouldn't have cared about some preacher: there were many apocalyptic preachers roaming Judea at that point in time, a dime a dozen. Second, the Jewish High Priesthood had been stripped of many of its powers by ~30 CE. It didn't have the authority to condemn anyone to death, legally, even if vigilantism probably was the rule.

>He was charged by the Romans, not the Jews

What are you going on about mate?

Luke 23: 1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him

The Biblical account isn't the most adequate source if you're looking for actual historical reliability. In fact, I wouldn't trust it.

Modern scholarship holds that there's good reason to believe the Jews may have been accused of the death of Jesus - rather than the Romans - in order to avoid charges of treason, at the time. Over the years, this misplaced blame would evolve into blood libel and blood curse legends.

And as I said, we know for a fact there were many Messiah claimants wandering around Judea in the 1st Century. and so common were they that the Jewish authorities did not bother themselves with them. Rather, it was the Romans, who interpreted their Messianic claims as instigating rebellion against Rome.

Grow the fuck up.

"His blood be upon us, and our children."

Desu.

>"His blood be upon us, and our children."

I am exceedingly glad you brought up that passage. That's the narrative where the Jews call for Barabbas to be released to them right?

The 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 likely either a mistranslation, or a bit of interpolation. For one, 'Barabbas' is not a proper name: it merely means 'son of the father', which was a common epiphet applied to Jewish religious figures/leaders. Even more telling, the oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark have Jesus being explicitly referred to as 'Yeshua Barabbas'. Lastly, there is no evidence that any sort of "Passover Pardon" tradition existed.

In reality, it seems the character of Barabbas the murderer was invented by someone who - when transcribing the text - did not understand 'Yeshua Barabbas' referred to one person, but mistook them to be the separate names of two individuals. Or perhaps it was on purpose, a story to shift blame from the Romans to the Jews. Like I said earlier: it would not have been politically expedient to blame the Romans for the death of their saviour figure. That would have been treason, and would have alienated converts.

more like
>applying 21st century American identity politic jargon to 1st century events occurring across one ocean and a sea on a separate continent in a vastly different society

>applying concepts made after and event to the event itself
doesn't always work. How about 'applying modern day military deployment tactics to the battlefields of Ancient Mesopotamia'. Are you seriously going to assert that modern air support, artillery, naval shelling, drone-striking tactics have any bearing or meaning in the context of a society whose newest tech is the wheel?

Similarly, applying the idea that American, modern-day non-whites are unfairly treated by American, modern-day law enforcement to a time when the government and the cultural divisions at play were vastly different is incredibly, boundless, hilariously stupid.

“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.

They all answered, “Crucify him!”

“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Desu.

Where do you get all of this? You're making controversial claims and the burden of proof is on you, else all that is meaningless conjecture.

Not the guy you're replying to. I know next to nothing about this, so I'm not trying to CALL YOU THE FUCK OUT, but I'd really like to see citations on all of that.

>You're making controversial claims

Common knowledge, that Bar-abbas means son of the father.

"...ancient manuscripts of Matthew 27:16–17 have the full name of Barabbas as "Jesus Barabbas" and this was probably the name as originally written in the text.[12] Early church father Origen was troubled by the fact that his copies of the gospels gave Barabbas' name as "Jesus Barabbas" and declared that since it was impossible he could have had such a holy name, "Jesus" must have been added to Barabbas' name by a heretic.[13] It is possible that later scribes, copying the passage, removed the name "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" to avoid dishonour to the name of Jesus the Messiah."

From Wikipedia, all sourced.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

>unjust
She was doing well until this happened.

You are probably a jew, and are trying to change the facts, because the truth is the jews killed Jesus.

Rome being in Judea was just & legal in all accounts.

The Herodians wanted them to be fucking be there ever since that war with Seleucus.

>resorting to ad hominems and buzzwords

Not an argument, buddy.

No because he never existed

>wrongfully charged
By no means whatsoever
>unarmed
Depends on whether of not you consider ideology a weapon, but technically yes
>man of color
The greatest fabrication of modern times
>unjust militarized state
Neither the Romans nor the Jews were "unjust", by the measure of their time or any other. Jesus was a social renegade who's only claim to authority was claiming to be the son of God.

Did you honestly expect someone who says "person of color" unironically to actually know anything about history?

What he is saying his hardly controversial except maybe among Christians. These are pretty common views among scholars.

Having done some digging, you're presenting one hypothesis -- granted, an interesting one that many respected scholars find credible, but not one that's by any means universally accepted -- as though it's well-established consensus (and giving a slightly skewed presentation of the evidence that supports it). Please don't do that.

To be clear, I'm talking about the claim that, "in reality," the character of Barabbas was a deliberate invention or the result of a transcription error, not that his name means "son of the father" (though you left out the possibility that it was a patronymic).

I have no dog in this fight, I'm not interested in blaming "the Jews" for killing Jesus like that other asshole, but it's not cool to act like your favorite theory has the weight of scholarly consensus behind it when, near as I can tell, it's one of several possibilities, all of which are taken seriously. It's especially not cool on a history board. But thanks for bringing it up anyway -- I learned something today.

The Bible is the best record we have of Jesus, it says the jews killed him. It's not being an asshole or edgy saying otherwise is historical revisionism.

Italians arent white

I like how she omitted he was charged by his fellow "pocs" and the local administrator of the "militarized state" attempted to free him.

>pretty common views among scholars.
>when someone claiming to be the authority commits a argumentative fallacy

You're claiming that the shortening of Jesus Barabbas to simply Barabbas entails that Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are the same person- based upon them coincidentally sharing the same name. Thats akin to two men with the same first name being executed on the same day- and then some scholar 2,000 years later assuming it was a mistake or misquoting and that only one man was executed.
>his blood shall be on our hands!" is likely either a mistranslation, or a bit of interpolation.
Thank you for that baseless assumption. Nothing is worse than a psuedo-scholar attempting to rewrite history for some relevancy.
> ke I said earlier: it would not have been politically expedient to blame the Romans for the death of their saviour figure.
Why? The Roman government for the next 200 years would be persecuting Christians, Fox's book of Martyrs list the first Christians as killed by Romans.
None of what you typed makes sense.