Existence Assumed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Existence Assumed
(17-03-2015 11:28 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You know, in all seriousness, the whole "Jesus was two dudes" thing actually has some traction (in my mind).

Let me show you something that virtually no one is actually aware of due to intentional omissions of Gospel texts. This is in regards to Barabbas, the guy who was supposedly released to the crowd instead of Jesus when Pilate asked the crowd to choose which prisoner, Jesus or Barabbas, was to be freed.


"BARABBAS WAS A Jewish terrorist in the custody of the Roman police in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was arrested and tried for sedition.

It was customary at Passover that a prisoner be released by the Roman prelate. And since Pilate saw no valid capital guilt in Jesus, he offered to release him. At the instigation of Jesus' enemies among the Temple authorities, the crowds demanded Barabbas be freed instead. They got their wish. Pilate gave them Barabbas in place of Jesus of Nazareth.

There are two ironies in the story that don't appear on the surface of English Bibles.

The Missing Name

In this episode involving these two Jewish radicals there is a variant in several Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew. The traditional text of Matthew 27:16-17 reads as follows in the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas So when they the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"

Several manuscripts, however, name the terrorist "Jesus Barabbas" and have Pilate ask:

Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah? (v. 17)

Many textual scholars believe the double name "Jesus Barabbas" was the original reading. They suggest that "Jesus" was omitted from several Greek manuscripts of Matthew out of reverence. The church father Origen (d. 254) said, "In the whole range of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called] Jesus." [2]

Father's Son

The second and deeper irony in the reading "Jesus Barabbas" appears when we note that "Barabbas" (or "Bar Abbas") is the Hellenized form of the Aramaic name Bar Abba, meaning "son of the father." And the name "Jesus" (Greek, Yesous) is the Hellenized form of the Hebrew name Yeshua. [3]

Thus, in a seemingly inconsequential legal decision that still quakes through the centuries, Pilate was in essence asking the Jerusalem crowd:

"Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus son of the father, or Jesus son of the father, whom his followers call Messiah?"

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/ntst...-abba.html

This is all true. I have actually seen the ancient text that displays these names. "Bar Abbas" is a last name which means "Son of the Father", and the first name is missing from the current gospel manuscripts.

So ... two Jesus's? Two Jesus's who were each a Son of the Father?

Hmmmm ...

Dodgy

Who the fuck was actually crucified here?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
18-03-2015, 04:18 PM
RE: Existence Assumed
(17-03-2015 01:32 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  It would not matter if a man with that name existed. Still would not been born of a virgin, and still would not be a magic man, and still would not have survived rigor mortis, and no one has a magic bat phone to a cosmic security guard in any religion. IF that man existed(and he did not) he would have been simply another delusional man and or a con artist who managed to market a new religion.

Have you heard the good word of Our Lord, L. Ron Hubbard?

Το βάρος της απόδειξης βαρύνει αυτούς που κάνουν την αξίωση
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: