So, what really happened in jerusalem?

Looks like Barabbas got schwifty

...

Mój kraj taki piękny

noice

Because there was Jesus, and then there was Barabbas.

In reference to the picture? Well, the earliest manuscripts of Mark mention a "Jesus Barrabas", and Barrabas is Aramaic for "son of the Father".

It seems very likely that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barrabas were in fact the same person, and the invention of the Passover pardon (which is found nowhere other than the gospels), as well as the extremely minor role the Roman authorities play in this despite what they "should" have been doing, make it seem likely that this is a conscious revision to shift blame away from the Roman state and onto the local Jewish authorities.

Let me see your lamb, Schlomo. Oh, my, this won't do at all. It has a little lump here on its back leg. You must travel 89 miles back to your home and find a perfect one and bring it back today.

Or, of course, you can buy a pre-approved lamb from my cousin Hechachach over there, for the mere price of a thousand shekels.

Your choice. But of course if you don't make it, you're cut off from Israel forever.

What's that? You only have dinarius? That's fine, we'll change them for you. 20 to 1? Oh, my, no, that's way to high. We will give you 12 to 1.

On your way now!

Yes, makes total sense.

Which one shall I release? Jesus? Or this rebel murderer Barabbas!

Ha, just kidding! Totally the same guy! Because Barabbas, Son of the Father, isn't a fake name this zealot gave himself to protect his family at all! It's the same guy! So which one should I release?

Tell me something. Can you name anyone other than Barrabas who got released in this "custom" of a Passover Pardon?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,"

Bar abbas means "son of the father".

The question is simple: were there two men on the stand that day?

Different user here, but how much archaeological data do you think has survived from Antiquity? The figure I've heard before is 2% so it really isn't so shocking that we haven't uncovered non-biblical evidence for this local custom in an area that would have been considered a backwater at the time.

Another question, how come there is no rabbinical literature from the period objecting to the existence of this custom? If the custom didn't exist, why didn't the rabbis who would do anything to discredit Christianity pounce on this opportunity?

>It seems very likely that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barrabas were in fact the same person

This statement gets more kooky when you really understand christianity.

Jesus bar abbas (son of the father) was pardoned.

When we hear paul in galatians 2:20, we can understand this.

>I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

It is not jesus who is in the grave. Rather, it is man's sin which is "crucified with christ". The new man in us who comes forth through the christian life is who was pardoned -- that is, jesus bar abbas. He lives still through us. Pardoned.

Holy shit
Unironically made me think

deepest lore

>Different user here, but how much archaeological data do you think has survived from Antiquity?
Why would you be looking at archeological data for something like a prisoner being released? How would you even tell something like that existed?
>The figure I've heard before is 2% so it really isn't so shocking that we haven't uncovered non-biblical evidence for this local custom in an area that would have been considered a backwater at the time.
We're using historical data, not archoelogical data, and despite being a "backwater" we have several non-Gospel writers writing extensively about Judea, Pilate, and the Romans, guys like Philo and Josephus. I've never once heard of any mention of a passover pardon outside the Gospels.

>Another question, how come there is no rabbinical literature from the period objecting to the existence of this custom?
It's just not mentioned at all. And why would they object?

> If the custom didn't exist, why didn't the rabbis who would do anything to discredit Christianity pounce on this opportunity?
You're going to have to first prove that. Disparaging it and "doing anything to discredit it" are two separate things, and while I'll readily agree to the former, I'd hardly call for the latter. Hell, most of the Tannaic texts, the closest "Rabbinical" sources to Christianity, don't even mention it at all, and when they do, it's a very offhand dismissal, usually lumping them in with other minor heresies that aren't really that important.

Well, what do you think this is?

his flesh, broken for you. A new covenant poured out for you for the forgiveness of sin.

You are what you eat...

If youre familiar with deeper elder scrolls lore: christianity is a religion founded on the participant aiming to mantle christ, while believing that christ crucified, as an infinite being, mantled all of mankind when he died.

Holy... Paise Jesus
Continue to post mind blowing Christian deepest lore

the reason I think he was arrested for disrupting the money changers was that first off its one of the few parts of the story mentioned in the four canon gospels, and second the sanhedrin and the romans had standing orders for dealing with zealots that jesus' execution fits into. Just as how today you have an uptick in Islamic terrorism during ramadan, prior to the first jewish-roman war there was always an uptick in zealot activity during passover.

Its unfortunate that there aren't any primary sources about Jesus that still exist though, so all we can do is guess.

The entire gospel of john is deeper than anything ive said, and obvious if you have ears to hear. As it's written in john 14:20

>In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

This is why nestorians and arians cannot be accepted.

My point is that those who act like the fact that we don't have extra-Biblical sources corroborating the existence of the Passover Pardon custom is some kind of smoking gun against the validity of the Gospels are grasping at straws because the vast majority of information about the customs of that period are lost/destroyed. It isn't surprising that we don't have data about the local customs of a backwater like Roman Palestine because we hardly have any data at all. I brought up the rabbis to drive home the fact that even the contemporaries who were hostile to Christianity didn't object to the existence of the Passover Pardon and it's only modern scholars who have tried to turn this into an issue.

I love the gospel of john, but it can hardly be taken as historical.

This is too good.

>Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously -- that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less -- what did it matter? . . . The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value -- and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?"

Well, they were asking for deepest lore, not historicity.

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

>It isn't surprising that we don't have data about the local customs of a backwater like Roman Palestine because we hardly have any data at all.
Except this is wrong. We DO have data about local customs in Palestine, from things like what was acceptable food, how to wash your hands before eating a formal meal, that Pilate tried to put roman emblems in the Temple but eventually backed down, and that the main Roman presence wasn't in Jerusalem, but in Caesaria. There is no mention of a Passover pardon.

>I brought up the rabbis to drive home the fact that even the contemporaries who were hostile to Christianity didn't object to the existence of the Passover Pardon
And again, the writings of the closest rabbis to the time period at hand do not seem particularly hostile to it; in fact, they barely acknowledge it at all. Even if you expand it to the Talmud in whole, the outlook on Jesus while generally negative, is not wholly so. For instance, Hullin 2:22f, Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3), Avodah Zarah 27b, all mention him as a healer, and Avodah Zarah 17a mentions him as a torah scholar.'

So your statements are resting on some really shaky foundations as to what is actually contained in the historical record.

I've said repeatedly that we do have SOME data but to act like what we do have is exhaustive is intellectually dishonest; you cannot in good faith argue that just because we don't have a record of something it means that it never occurred. Then again, arguing in good faith isn't something that you're interested in anyway so I digress. Case in point is you responding to my claim that the rabbinical literature doesn't object to the Passover Pardon is irrelevant because there are some statements about Jesus in the Talmud that could be interpreted positively. You're trying to create the impression that Judaism hasn't always been hostile to Jesus which is patently false and had there been an obvious error in the Gospels, such as the non-existence of the Passover Pardon, they certainly would have exploited it.

>I've said repeatedly that we do have SOME data but to act like what we do have is exhaustive is intellectually dishonest; you cannot in good faith argue that just because we don't have a record of something it means that it never occurred
Unless we do have enough information that should it have existed, it would be mentioned. Since we already have quite a bit on the subject of Roman Jewish relations, ti would be odd in the extreme to have it exist and not be mentioned.

>. Case in point is you responding to my claim that the rabbinical literature doesn't object to the Passover Pardon is irrelevant because there are some statements about Jesus in the Talmud that could be interpreted positively.
How is that not arguing in good faith? You've claimed here that
> If the custom didn't exist, why didn't the rabbis who would do anything to discredit Christianity pounce on this opportunity?
Without demonstrating that the Rabbis "would do anything to discredit Christianity".

>You're trying to create the impression that Judaism hasn't always been hostile to Jesus which is patently false
No, it isn't. As I've said before, it was mostly ignored in the Tannatic period. Go on, show me a single reference to Christianity at all in the Mishnah. Or in the Braita. Even the Tosefta only has one that I'm aware of, and that's one of those annoying "oh well he wasn't so bad" mentions.

>and had there been an obvious error in the Gospels,
Have you ever noticed how Jewish polemics against Christianity display virtually no knowledge of the Gospels? They mostly just make up new stuff to throw around at Christainity, like how he burned food in a pagan sacrifice, or how he was stoned for apostasy. In fact, outside of disputing the claims of virgin birth, I'm not aware of any Talmudic statements that specifically attempts to contest claims made in the Gospels, nor any real evidence that the various authors of the Talmud were aware of the inns and outs of it.

We don't have anything close to approaching an exhaustive account of Roman/Jewish relations from the first century but you continue to insist that what we do have should be enough to tell us everything because you refuse to acknowledge the vast amount information that hasn't survived the past two millennia. Furthermore we know that the Jewish community actively persecuted the early church so for you to ask me to "prove" that the rabbis wanted to discredit Christianity is facetious at best.

>We don't have anything close to approaching an exhaustive account of Roman/Jewish relations from the first century
Neither do we have tiny, sparse, fragmentary records. We know about Pilate's effigy posting and about the robbing of the temple funds to build an aqueduct, both one off events, and ultimately fairly minor ones. Why do these things get mentioned but not the supposed existence of the passover pardon?

>Furthermore we know that the Jewish community actively persecuted the early church so for you to ask me to "prove" that the rabbis wanted to discredit Christianity is facetious at best.
So, in other words, you have no actual data, and can't support your point. I thought as much. Remember, you claimed, and I quote

>why didn't the rabbis who would DO ANYTHING to discredit Christianity pounce on this opportunity?
While presenting no such information to that effect. Why are the earliest Tannaitic writings abuout Jesus postive, by the way? Or are there more hostile ones that just tragically didn't survive the passage of time?

Wait, doesn't that mean that fucking Luther was the second coming of Jesus?

The information that survives from the first century IS tiny and sparse relative to how much has been lost. Your (((argument))) amounts to kvetching about how if archaeologists discovered Pilate's sandals but didn't find his toga this proves that Pilate never wore a toga! Also the Talmud isn't the only source of rabbinical writings and didn't even exist in the first century so the fact you keep bringing it up if further evidence of your dishonesty or ignorance (probably both).

woah

>Your (((argument))) amounts to kvetching about how if archaeologists discovered Pilate's sandals but didn't find his toga this proves that Pilate never wore a toga!
No, it isn't, but nice strawman you have there. The ad hominem is good too. It's so good to see arguments in good faith, which you're so keen upon. My actual argument is that given the information we DO have, it would be profoundly unlikely that guys like Josephus and Philo would fail to mention such a custom if it in fact existed, because they wrote very extensively, and about far more minute topics, than a regular roman practice to let dissidents back into the hands of the Judean populace. Since they did not mention them, that is pretty significant evidence that said custom did not in fact exist.

>Also the Talmud isn't the only source of rabbinical writings
Well then, please, show me some that pre-date the Taanaitic stuff. Preferably with an anti-Jesus bent, of course, but at this point, I'll be amazed if you can find anything, since the institution of a "Rabbinate" is pretty much a Taanaitic invention.

What we DO have is next to nothing compared to how much has been lost and again your entire position is based off an argument from silence which by its very nature cannot be conclusive and is widely considered to be a fallacy anyway. As far as pre-talmudic rabbinical writings, you mentioned Philo yourself and his works date from the first century. Or are you going to try and claim Philo wasn't a rabbi?

>we DO have is next to nothing compared to how much has been lost
How do you know that? Oh right, from pulling a bunch of assumptions out of your ass
>your entire position is based off an argument from silence which by its very nature cannot be conclusive and is widely considered to be a fallacy anyway.
Not when it's being used to posit an author's ignorance of a subject. Which would lead us to the conclusion that both Philo and Josephus are ignorant of said custom, which raises a very uncomfortable question of why would they be ignorant of it.

>As far as pre-talmudic rabbinical writings, you mentioned Philo yourself
Who is not a Rabbi and not writing as a religious authority. You do know what "Rabbinic writing" is, right?

>Or are you going to try and claim Philo wasn't a rabbi?
Yes. He's a syncretic Hellenist. You may as well say the Pauline epistles are Rabbinic writing at that point.

It's common knowledge that the majority of ancient works have not survived and I figured anyone browsing a history board would know that. Of course I forgot about dishonest cretins so here's a citation for you:

roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/10/26/reference-for-the-claim-that-only-1-of-ancient-literature-survives/

And before you nitpick the URL he cites the academic source where he gets that figure from.

Rabbi just means teacher in Hebrew so "Rabbinic literature" in the most basic sense covers a lot of material. I wouldn't call Paul's works rabbinical though because he wasn't writing about Judaism whereas Philo was.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZlD4wY_yhck
Watch this video, it's only three minutes

if you don't: the TLDR is that
>bar abbas means "son of the father" and christ meant "annointed"
>there are many 'annointeds' (annointed was like a surname which also means blessed) so that name is nothing special
>but there's only one "son of god" which is exclusive to jesus
In other words, Jesus pulled the old switcharoo and he didn't get crucified

NOW WAIT, THERES MORE
Son of god, does not mean literally son of god, it's title for holy people during that era.

>jesus is not the son of god but he's still holy
>he also was not crucified

gg islam won.

Why is academic scholarship good in your position, but not in mine? After all, you're very critical of the claims of later day academics and their influence on "what we really know" up here >Ignoring the point about why would Philo and Josephus be ignorant of a prominent custom
>Ignoring the previous point about how we don't actually have hostile rabbinic writing about Jesus until the Amoratic period.

> I wouldn't call Paul's works rabbinical though because he wasn't writing about Judaism whereas Philo was.
To Paul, Christianity WAS the proper form of Judaism. Hell, that's why he's all about showing how Christ is revealed in the Old Testament. Why does that disqualify him but not Josephus, who also preached a form of Judaism that would be considered eccentric at best, if not outright heresy, in Judea, being very much tied into Alexandrian Hellenism?

About the only difference between the two is that Christianity became a big thing on its own, while syncretic Hellenist-Judaism pretty much died out. But they're both somewhat educatedJewish writers without any evidence of holding a religious Jewish office giving their opinions on things. Either they're both Rabbis or neither are, I would think.

>Jesus bar abbas

It's still two different people. Jesus was a common name at the time. Bar Abbas (son of father) is like the Arabic kunya. Some kunya have some depth, others are pretty generic or don't have some deeper meaning. Bar Abba was named that way probably because it sounded cool or was unique.

>It is not jesus who is in the grave. Rather, it is man's sin which is "crucified with christ". The new man in us who comes forth through the christian life is who was pardoned -- that is, jesus bar abbas. He lives still through us. Pardoned.

That's not what the text says. "I" doesn't translate into "man's sin". I is a pronoun referring to a person. A sin is not a person.

Something that justifies the persecution of Jews until the end of time.

Actually, I wrote but except for the last part of my post, I'll look further into the first part.

Son of the Father can either mean something that doesn't have much if any depth, like how a lot of people name themselves everywhere today. In this region it's more akin to the kunya Arabs do. So it's like son of X. Barabbas may be a different person whose father was actually named father in the literal sense. Of course that begs the question was "father" a common name but I'd argue it doesn't have to be. Weird people exist all the time. Of course he does have a common name (Jesus) but weird people/families don't have to be consistent.

But there is also the claim that Father means God in the literal or figurative sense. The explanation in that video can be hardened much more if there is good evidence of Father referring to God before the time of Jesus Christ. It doesn't have to be 1000 or 500 years. Just a few decades to 50 years before the time Jesus was supposedly where one seens Father being used to refer to God (either literally or figuratively) would be evidence to suggest that Barbabbas may be Jesus.

Of course this ignores the possibility that Barabbas was an imposter who called himself son of Father to steal some fame from Jesus. Or maybe it's the other way around. Jesus, as is traditionally and usually still understood by Christians, is the impostor. And Barabbas is actually the legitimate Christ who was significant in spreading some sort of new movement but was challenged by an impostor competing for influence who died.

Of course in both latter cases, it begs the question: Why didn't this religious movement kick off? I don't think an answer is necessary. Religious movements or insurrections not kicking off is normal. There are probably somewhere between a few thousand to a million newly introduced different religions/cults in the span of few hundreds of years at any given time in history. The movement simply died.

>But there is also the claim that Father means God in the literal or figurative sense. The explanation in that video can be hardened much more if there is good evidence of Father referring to God before the time of Jesus Christ. It doesn't have to be 1000 or 500 years. Just a few decades to 50 years before the time Jesus was supposedly where one seens Father being used to refer to God (either literally or figuratively) would be evidence to suggest that Barbabbas may be Jesus.

And to be more specific, the evidence for the word Father meaning God, in either literal sense or figurative, should be about its use in Palestine of course, before the time of Jesus Christ.

Simply because academics are wrong some of the time it does not follow that they are wrong all of the time. As for Philo and Josephus we do not even know if we have everything they ever wrote and in fact it is highly probable that we do not. The same applies for the rabbinical writing about Jesus. Also no, Paul did not see being a Christ follower as the proper form of Judaism because for one he would have been unfamiliar with that word and two (2) he was emphatic about the desolation the Hebrews had brought upon themselves for rejecting the messiah thereby forfeiting their inheritance which was then given to faithful gentiles.

Or until they repent.

>Simply because academics are wrong some of the time it does not follow that they are wrong all of the time
Which is irrelevant to the point at hand. Why is citing to academic consensus applicable for your argument but not mine? Surely the odds of the academic consensus being wrong are more or less equally applicable to the two claims?

>As for Philo and Josephus we do not even know if we have everything they ever wrote and in fact it is highly probable that we do not.
So what? In the stuff that we DO have, we have a lot of time and space devoted to the minutiae of local customs and Roman-Judean relations. Why isn't it mentioned when it has every cause to be so, unless of course, they aren't familiar with it?

>The same applies for the rabbinical writing about Jesus
Turning your argument around, we can say the same for positive rabbinical writing about Jesus. Hell, there's even more of a reason to destroy or otherwise cover it up as the two religions diverged.

> Also no, Paul did not see being a Christ follower as the proper form of Judaism because for one he would have been unfamiliar with that word
He would have been unfamilair with every English word, user. Why are you playing bullshit games like this? He was familiar with a ethno-linguistic-religious group that lived in Judea and had a number of practices, to which he thought the proper culmination of that religion and tradition was Christianity.

You can say the same for Philo and his own beliefs.

Actually thinking about this more, it seems more likely that Barabbas is Jesus!

So my previous demand of Father refering to God literaly or figuratively (in this case it's figurative) was easily solved. In Judaism, Father is used for prayers. Done, easy, solved.

So to summerize:
>Bar : Son
>Abbas: Of Father
>One figure is Jesus the annointed (The Christ) ( Messiah a fairly common title in the Hebrew Old Testament that later found its way as a foreign loanword in Greek).
>The other figure is Jesus Barabbas, Jesus son of Father

It's pretty clear whose who. It's one thing to claim to be the Christ which undoubtedly many would claim since messiah was prophetizied in Judaism, i.e many would try to be that role. But only one claims to be son of Father. And that is Jesus Barabbas who was released.

right, doesn't Islam believe Jesus did a switcharoo and escaped crucifixion?

Truth claims should be judged on their own merits and not by consensus. As for the argument from silence that you keep repeating over and over it is not persuasive because at best all it can do is cast doubt on the claim without ever refuting it. Also Paul understood that God was putting new wine into new wineskins and that the old wineskins needed to be thrown in the garbage and in case you need it spelled out for you I'm saying Judaism is an old wineskin.

And relating to the comparison to Kunya (which is found in the Arab world), Barabbas can still be a Kunya. But since no human is documented to name themselves Father, as a common name. Then it is clear Barabbas, even if seen as a kunya, is a title meant to be taken seriously.

No, Islam believes God did so. In Islam, Jesus and God are not the same entity.

FUCK brb reciting shahadah.

Holy god

>Truth claims should be judged on their own merits
Then on the merits, it seems vastly more likely that the passover pardon was made up than it was extant. The first only requires one more inaccuracy about life in Judea when the gospels are already riddled with them, in order to make up a story that paints the Roman authorities in a more sympathetic light; a motivation that has immediate ability to suit the needs of the nascent Christian community. The latter requires what knowledge we do have to be woefully incompletely in a subject matter addressed on those specific points, without any clear reason why they would omit it.

> As for the argument from silence that you keep repeating over and over it is not persuasive because at best all it can do is cast doubt on the claim without ever refuting it
It is considered very persuasive when it comes to pointing towards the knowledge of a writer. For that matter, the notion that just because something was written about meaning that IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED is not persuasive in the slightest, especially when the said writer has a self-interested reason for putting a false claim in.

>Ignoring the other salient points.

>Also Paul understood that God was putting new wine into new wineskins and that the old wineskins needed to be thrown in the garbage and in case you need it spelled out for you I'm saying Judaism is an old wineskin.
Which is of course why he includes little asides to "those who know the Law", and talks incessently how you can come to Jesus through studying of the Old Testament.

You are mistaken because the Gospels are contemporary sources and carry more weight than your accusations of perjury. Also yes Paul often targeted the Hebrews specifically because he was one of them and used his knowledge of their language and culture to exhort them toward repentance.

>that pic
Even if true it's not relevant. First, Ancient Greeks are gone. No one to few inconsequential people believe in Greek mythology. It's not relevant if Homer wrote the Lilia or who even was Homer (bunch of people or one guy). The importance is what is written from a literary point of view.

When it comes to philosophy, the same goes. The importance is the arguments used and the supposed impact it had on various people and civilizations.

The NT is not reliable as a historical document; anonymous authors, written decades after the events, claims of supernatural events, etc... It can be a nice book to read for enjoyment but it isn't a historical source for anything except for the impact it had on people in the following centuries.

Oops. Meant for

>No, Islam believes God did so. In Islam, Jesus and God are not the same entity.
Nope, it just says jesus was saved "miraculously"