So, Barabbas literally means "Son of the Father", and ancient manuscripts tells us that his first name was "Jesus"...

It could just be a coincidence and not proof of some stupid theory about how this was a made up thing to reflect the duality of man or whatever you dorks think

>i-it's just a coinicident! any other explanation is fucking stupid lol

>Yeshua Christos, Im SPQR

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all Latinized versions of Koine Greek names. Almost everyone living in the Roman Levant would have had a Greek version of their name seeing that Koine was the lingua franca of the region.

Wow, really good catch. it's not like two people in the same room ever have the same name today.

I've never been in the same room with someone who shares my name. I live in Denver though.

t. nombre es jesus

jesus' (the nice one) name wasn't barabas

(you)

Yeah, I've never been in the same room with someone who shares my name and my title as the son of God.

Jesus is on trial for what is basically treason and conspiracy to gather up a resistance force. He's called himself a king and has been talking a lot about the the Jewish messiah, maybe he's even claiming to be him. The Jewish messiah is supposed to a warlord that leads a bloody campaign against the Jew's enemies and basically enslaves them.

Also just recently the Roman empire had to stomp out another guy who claimed to be the messiah and lead an army of peasents numbering in the 6 digit range trying to break off from the rest of the Roman empire.

You're a 1st centuary Christian writer trying to make this religion appealing to Romans...Romans that think the type of shit I described is not cool and anyone that sympathizes with it should be crucified.

So your story has Jesus's one who is the bad guy doing all that anti-government stuff and the other who is a sweet little lamb who didido nuffin.. In other words Barbaras was made up entirly and the entire court scene probably went completly different from how the writers want you to think....either that or there are two different messiahs with the same name being accused of the same crime with trials on the same day. One hell of a coincidence!

That's preposterous and retarded if you have the slightiest knowledge of early Christianity, anything about Paul, or even the Jewish concept of sacrifice.

Yeah let me just turn this historical reccount of the most importaint moment in my religion's founders life into a reference to some obscure passage by introducing a fictional character who's existence completly changes the nature of the historical trial.....that totally doesn't sound like the dumbest idea ever!

Yeah and the are both accused of the same crime on the same fucking court day! That happens all the time!

youtube.com/watch?v=RwX_EpNR4CA

if it wasn't made up how do you explain there being absolutely zero evidence for the tradition of paschal pardoning outside the gospels

To be honest there's no reason a Roman governor would even ask a bunch of smelly Jews (who aren't even citizens) their opinion on who should die

>both accused of the same crime
Wrong.

> on the same fucking court day
Barabbas was previously trialed.

>my title as the son of God.
"Son of the father" is not "son of God". Plus, there are more grandiose Hebrew names than that one. Meanwhile, there's Divi Filus hanging back in Rome.

Pretty much. The Jews had no power over the governor who could have just roughed them up if he wanted. The whole Pilate scene reeks of historical revisionism. Two things are for certain. First that the trial actually happened, since it's a huge embarrassment and so they would not have made it up. Second that he was guilty (why else would Pilate give the death sentence?).

Barbarass is made up, that's my point. He's a fictional character that exists to absorb everything negative about the historical Jesus and than to associate that negativity with the Jewish sects that would be rivals to the 1st century Christians writing it. By negative I mean that he was sewing seeds of dissonance between the Jews and the their Roman rulers.

Jesus calling himself "king of the Jews" is borderline treason in of itself. He's basically saying the current Cesar is not the legitimate ruler of these people and that he is.

The reason the Christians would want to slander those particular Jesus sects is because it's a priesthood rivalry. The Pharisee and the Sadducee were the biggest opponent's to 1st century Christians.

Barbarass is basically up there for starting a rebellion. Jesus is on trial for claiming to be a king (in all 4 gospels Pilate asks him if he claims to be the king of the Jews, that's preciously what he is accused of). The Christian idea is that Jesus is on trial for violating some sort of Jewish law....and Pilate for some reason is enforcing this. Which is nonsense.

>"Son of the father" is not "son of God"
Doesn't Jesus repeatably give his deity the title "father"?

Pilate sentenced Jesus to avoid a Jewish rebellion and to avoid appearing to tolerate a man who is directly opposing the Imperial Cult by claiming to be divine king on earth.

That doesn't really answer the question of why he'd ask a bunch of non-citizens their worthless opinion on the matter and potentially risk them saying Jesus should go free, he'd have them both killed

>why he'd ask a bunch of non-citizens their worthless opinion
To placate them.

>Doesn't Jesus repeatably give his deity the title "father"?
So? Having "father", or even "god", as a root word within your name isn't rare among Jews.

>The Christian idea is that Jesus is on trial for violating some sort of Jewish law....and Pilate for some reason is enforcing this

>From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”
>“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
>“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
>Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

Yeah. The governer of the district, the guy that has a small army at his disposal, that has sworn by his life to carry out Roman law is suddenly going to start carrying about Jewish law and give into the demands of a mob of second class citizens!

Also for some reason other Gospels have Pilate being pissed and saying Jesus is guilty! Those also happen to be the older Gospels!

I just demonstrated to you that it's more than Jewish law. If someone is claiming to be a divine king, he's opposing the Imperial Cult of the Roman Empire.

And killing one Jew is sure simpler than killing potential thousands.

Vivec wrote this

Jesus and the lot are Greek names. His actual name would have been something like Joshua bar Josef.

t.retard who’s never read the New Testement but probably atheist memes

Stop teasing us without a timestamp.

dude
it was a tradition for the jewish pesach to let an indicted man free. It's written right in the gospel. Read it.

Jesus was NOT on trial the same day as Barabbas. Jesus was on trial and Barabbas was already locked up and waiting for execution.

Also, I want source on Barabbas' first name being Jesus.

there are literally 0 proofs that "paschal pardon" was a real tradition.

Can you point to a single time elsehwere it happened. Name one prisoner besides Barrabas who went free because of it? Why do zero Jewish or Roman sources mention such a thing?

>Also, I want source on Barabbas' first name being Jesus.
classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mat&chapter=27&verse=16

>1 tc Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to the Caesarean text (Θ Ë1 700* pc sys), the omission of the Lord’s name in apposition to “Barabbas” is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original. There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Ihsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Criston, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in v. 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called “Jesus” (otherwise, a mere “Jesus” would have been a sufficient appellation to distinguish the two).

bump