Bar- Abbas

[Almighty's humble servant]

Bar Abbas
Son of God.

So who was this guy the crowd was shouting for Pilate to free??????

 

[branchofthevine]

since when is "abbas" used to denote God?

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

since when is "abbas" used to denote God?

Mean "The Father"....

Isnt that what Jesus commonly referred to God as, Abba/Abbas, Father God?

bar, meaning son of, abbas, the Father.

So.....what do we know about the "rebel" known as Bar Abbas.

 

[branchofthevine]

Mean "The Father"....

Isnt that what Jesus commonly referred to God as, Abba/Abbas, Father God?

bar, meaning son of, abbas, the Father.

So.....what do we know about the "rebel" known as Bar Abbas.

His name is certainly son of father. It is a weird name, but it doesn't explicitly hold any reference to God. As father probably just means the convention father of a family.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

What i am searching for here is some historical perspective on Bar Abbas, or some historical perspective on the crowd Pilate let inside to judge Jesus and the rebel.

I havent delved into the historical texts or the gnostic gospels, and I was wondering if any of them have more to say on these "subjects".

I never even considered the Aramaic language spoken and the modern translation until I found a small MISSING word from John 1....the small "word" being of....

And Word was "OF" God. As in given from, or apart of. Meaning Jesus was given from God or apart of God, imho.

This question I ask about Bar Abbas is not to create a defensive posture on the part of of family here on CF, but rather just wondering if anyone has insight into this man or the crowd shouting to set "Son of the Father" free.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I thought he was a rebel fighter against the roman state vs israel. Which explains why the Jews choose him over Jesus, as many didn't see Jesus as the messiah as he wants fighting for their freedom with the sword as they thought..like ole' Barny was.

 

[NannaNae]

My understanding and I don't remember where I got it.. was he was promising to do everything they wanted Jesus to do. and the ways Jesus won't do it.
SO even A robin hood like , steal from the rich ......and by force. and making promises to
"share the wealth" concepts... that theives use?

but he did it in all the human logical ways,
things Jesus wouldn't have any part of. and Judas must have respected.
My guess is he was like first run at a Mohammed character. taking what he wanted by force with a kind of spiritualistic twist.
Like Mohammed did it and not like robin-hood.

I believe maybe he is claiming to be a
"Son of God " maybe Nephilim or ET even . some ancient cultures had gods or sons of the sun.
so maybe he is claiming rights to something like that , but I think he thinks he deserves something and he just takes it , molests it . Like Mohammed did.


since most of these ideas are born OF men and men like them, men like force..unless it is them being forced..

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

My understanding and I don't remember where I got it.. was he was promising to do everything they wanted Jesus to do. and the ways Jesus won't do it.
SO even A robin hood like , steal from the rich ......and by force. and making promises to
"share the wealth" concepts... that theives use?

but he did it in all the human logical ways,
things Jesus wouldn't have any part of. and Judas must have respected.
My guess is he was like first run at a Mohammed character. taking what he wanted by force with a kind of spiritualistic twist.
Like Mohammed did it and not like robin-hood.

I believe maybe he is claiming to be a
"Son of God " maybe Nephilim or ET even . some ancient cultures had gods or sons of the sun.
so maybe he is claiming rights to something like that , but I think he thinks he deserves something and he just takes it , molests it . Like Mohammed did.


since most of these ideas are born OF men and men like them, men like force..unless it is them being forced..

Yes, the Bible doesnt specifically mention these things, although Pilate does refer to his crimes.

Im wondering if any of the gnostic gospels, banned by the Catholic Church have anything else to add about this man.

 

[NannaNae]

no not that Iknow of
but maybe there is alot we can gleen from gnostics/ templars and the whole concepts of the daughter of christ and king of the jews / Jesus blood line and marriage etc.. and such and stuff .. just might have been Bar Abbas story kind of all slurred into the kind of goofy that only man can create between his ears.... maybe?

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

no not that Iknow of
but maybe there is alot we can gleen from gnostics/ templars and the whole concepts of the daughter of christ and king of the jews / Jesus blood line and marriage etc.. and such and stuff .. just might have been Bar Abbas story kind of all slurred into the kind of goofy that only man can create between his ears.... maybe?

Yeah, I see what your'e alluding to....that much of the stuff in the gnostic gospels is heresy.

But "SOME" of it is referred to in the works of Iraneus, Hyppolytus, and even in Scripture.

I believe in testing the spirit of the works....Im not going to spend $600 bucks on an incomplete copy of the psuedopegrapha, but I'd sure like to discern for myself what is and isnt written in those works.

 

[NannaNae]

well if I hear of anything about it in my wonderings I will sure let you know.
I assumed he was the jesus that people wanted, not the one they got.
I mean isn't mankind always building a golden one they like at the real ones feet , it seems every generation does it .

today I was all down and mad because of sciencetism just decided that the Paracas skulls aren't humans but aliens or nephilim .. ohhhhhhh .. boy if man can puff and stuff up then they sure do. what a mess.

Now if they can't tell races by mtdna or Y how come they think they can tell sub races ?

what a joke humanity is .

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

well if I hear of anything about it in my wonderings I will sure let you know.
I assumed he was the jesus that people wanted, not the one they got.
I mean isn't mankind always building a golden one they like at the real ones feet , it seems every generation does it .

today I was all down and mad because of sciencetism just decided that the Paracas skulls aren't humans but aliens or nephilim .. ohhhhhhh .. boy if man can puff and stuff up then they sure do. what a mess.

Now if they can't tell races by mtdna or Y how come they think they can tell sub races ?

what a joke humanity is .

I feel your pain.

 

[pshun2404]

His name is certainly son of father. It is a weird name, but it doesn't explicitly hold any reference to God. As father probably just means the convention father of a family.

His actual name was Jesus Barabbas

 

[NannaNae]

His actual name was Jesus Barabbas

and yes I am quite sure it was him who had a daughter and a wife and maybe male lover or whatever and whatever...... like that scientism and the worldly keeps proclaiming is my Lord.. and we know they are ..

 

[pshun2404]

that would splain all that mess...

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

and yes I am quite sure it was him who had a daughter and a wife and maybe male lover or whatever and whatever...... like that scientism and the worldly keeps proclaiming is my Lord.. and we know they are ..

Glad someone mentioned that. IRT Jesus Barabbas.....

And yeah, it would explain where some of the wild stories arise.

I suppose that MANY families kept written birth and life accounts for a number of reasons. And any with His name, or ties to His life would be scrutinized and exploited.

 

[Coponius]

"If anything at all is certain about the earthly life of Jesus, it is that he was a Jew who expressed original and disturbing conceptions of what Judaism ought to mean, and was executed on the orders of a Roman praefectus who had little or no concept of what Judaism meant." *

* Fergus Millar - 'Reflections on the Trials of Jesus'
reprinted in 'Rome the Greek World and the East' volume (3) UNC press 2006 pp.139 - 163.

The historical background of the New Testament and in particular the relationship between Judaism and the contemporary Graeco-Roman world, must be considered here. Judaea, now under direct Roman rule and Galilee, an internally autonomous client kingdom ruled by Herod Antipas, were seething with poverty, discontent and rebellion.This situation is inadequately reflected in the gospel narratives which are not strictly historical records, but convey interpretations of Jesus' life, written under later theological influence, to disseminate the preaching and teaching of early Christian communities outside of Palestine. Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew not a "Christian".

The theory that Jesus of Nazareth was actually one and the same person as Jesus Barabbas is perhaps not quite so ridiculous when you realise that the gospel narratives were devised to convey specific theological viewpoints. The disparate accounts of the trial and execution of Jesus must be subjected to strict critical scrutiny if any valid information is to be obtained from them.They do not stand up very well to this test, when set against what we know of the actual historical and political situation existing at this time in Judaea.

Jesus of Nazareth was charged with sedition against Rome, for claiming to be King of the Jews. He had committed no serious offence against existing Jewish religious law. The reason for his condemnation was solely political. The Barabbas - Passover amnesty incident was almost certainly, an invention of the Gospel writers It was the apologetical purpose of the authors, to exonerate the Roman authorities and lay the responsibility for the execution of Jesus on the Jewish people. Moreover, such a custom is unknown from any extraneous historical source including (most surprisingly) Josephus and is somewhat absurd when viewed against the contemporary turbulent and violent social conditions and the Roman military situation then prevailing in Judaea.

The figure of the incumbent Roman governor, Pontius Pilatus - portrayed in the gospels as a weak vacillating character - is a literary caricature. We know from the external sources (Josephus and Philo) that he was "naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless" and was accused of "acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the (Jewish) people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery." *

* Letter from king Agrippa I to the emperor Gaius, quoted in Philo: 'Legatio ad Gaium' (38: 302)

What remains evident however, is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth as a Jew of his time could not have been unaware of the current political situation and accepted the justice of his nations' cause against Roman domination. To what extent he personally identified himself with an active policy to secure political freedom for Israel must remain uncertain, but the probability remains that he did.

Behind these literary attempts at redefinition, is the underlying fear and acute embarrassment felt by the early Christians after the defeat of the Jewish insurgents and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. The eponymous author of the new cult, Christ, had been executed, during the reign of Tiberius, for sedition against Rome and many other Jews had suffered a similar fate during the brutal five year long conflict with the forces of Vespasian and Titus. The spoils of the temple had been paraded along with many Jewish captives (including the surviving rebel leader Simon bar Giora) through the streets of Rome in Vespasian and Titus’ triumphal celebration in 71 CE.

The Christian community was in imminent danger and individuals actually feared for their lives. After all, these people were vulnerable human beings men, women and children. Imagine the social and political situation prevailing at Rome in 71 CE, for the members of a relatively new, semi-clandestine and commonly despised foreign cult with known Jewish antecedents.
It should be remembered that the systematic persecution of Christians in the imperial capital, by Nero in 64 CE, had taken place merely seven years earlier.

The earliest synoptic gospel, that of Mark, attempts to counter this current dangerous situation for Christians living in Rome by distancing them from the rebellious Jews and portraying Jesus as pacific and wholly non-political. The Roman authorities are, to all extent and purpose, absolved from any responsibility for the crucifixion and blame is transferred instead to the Jewish leaders and their violent, vociferous mob of supporters.

Later gospel writers, notably Matthew, elaborate this scenario and the defamatory declaration, “His blood be on us and our children,” (Matt. 27: 25) put into the mouths of all the assembled (Jewish) people [πας ό λαος] has tragically echoed down the centuries in violent, Christian anti-Semitic prejudice and persecution.

 

[NannaNae]

sad

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"If anything at all is certain about the earthly life of Jesus, it is that he was a Jew who expressed original and disturbing conceptions of what Judaism ought to mean, and was executed on the orders of a Roman praefectus who had little or no concept of what Judaism meant." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fergus Millar - 'Reflections on the Trials of Jesus'[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]reprinted in 'Rome the Greek World and the East' volume (3) UNC press 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]pp.139 - 163.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The historical background of the New Testament and in particular the relationship between Judaism and the contemporary Graeco-Roman world, must be considered here. Judaea, now under direct Roman rule and Galilee, an internally autonomous client kingdom ruled by Herod Antipas, were seething with poverty, discontent and rebellion.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This situation is inadequately reflected in the gospel narratives which are not strictly historical records, but convey interpretations of Jesus' life, written under later theological influence, to disseminate the preaching and teaching of early Christian communities outside of Palestine. Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Galilean Jew not a "Christian".[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The theory that Jesus of Nazareth was actually one and the same person as Jesus Barabbas is perhaps not quite so ridiculous when you realise that the gospel narratives were devised to convey specific theological viewpoints. The disparate accounts of the trial and execution of Jesus must be subjected to strict critical scrutiny if any valid information is to be obtained from them.They do not stand up very well to this test, when set against what we know of the actual historical and political situation existing at this time in Judaea. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Jesus of Nazareth was charged with sedition against Rome, for claiming to be King of the Jews. He had committed no serious offence against existing Jewish religious law. The reason for his condemnation was solely political. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Barabbas - Passover amnesty incident was almost certainly, an invention of the Gospel writers It was the apologetical purpose of the authors, to exonerate the Roman authorities and lay the responsibility for the execution of Jesus on the Jewish people. Moreover, such a custom is unknown from any extraneous historical source including (most surprisingly) Josephus and is somewhat absurd when viewed against the contemporary turbulent and violent social conditions and the Roman military situation then prevailing in Judaea. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The figure of the incumbent Roman governor, Pontius Pilatus - portrayed in the gospels as a weak vacillating character - is a literary caricature. We know from the external sources (Josephus and Philo) that he was "naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless" and was accused of "acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the (Jewish) people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Letter from king Agrippa I to the emperor Gaius, quoted in Philo: 'Legatio ad Gaium' (38: 302)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What remains evident however, is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth as a Jew of his time could not have been unaware of the current political situation and accepted the justice of his nations' cause against Roman domination. To what extent he personally identified himself with an active policy to secure political freedom for Israel must remain uncertain, but the probability remains that he did.[/FONT]


Behind these literary attempts at redefinition, is the underlying fear and acute embarrassment felt by the early Christians after the defeat of the Jewish insurgents and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. The eponymous author of the new cult, Christ, had been executed, during the reign of Tiberius, for sedition against Rome and many other Jews had suffered a similar fate during the brutal five year long conflict with the forces of Vespasian and Titus. The spoils of the temple had been paraded along with many Jewish captives (including the surviving rebel leader Simon bar Giora) through the streets of Rome in Vespasian and Titus’ triumphal celebration in 71 CE.


The Christian community was in imminent danger and individuals actually feared for their lives. After all, these people were vulnerable human beings men, women and children. Imagine the social and political situation prevailing at Rome in 71 CE, for the members of a relatively new, semi-clandestine and commonly despised foreign cult with known Jewish antecedents.
It should be remembered that the systematic persecution of Christians in the imperial capital, by Nero in 64 CE, had taken place merely seven years earlier.

The earliest synoptic gospel, that of Mark, attempts to counter this current dangerous situation for Christians living in Rome by distancing them from the rebellious Jews and portraying Jesus as pacific and wholly non-political. The Roman authorities are, to all extent and purpose, absolved from any responsibility for the crucifixion and blame is transferred instead to the Jewish leaders and their violent, vociferous mob of supporters.

Later gospel writers, notably Matthew, elaborate this scenario and the defamatory declaration, “His blood be on us and our children,” (Matt. 27: 25) put into the mouths of all the assembled (Jewish) people [πας ό λαος] has tragically echoed down the centuries in violent, Christian anti-Semitic prejudice and persecution.

I understand how historical ASSUMPTIONS can be drawn, but they are just that....assumptions.

Assuming something to be true, and having faith in the truth are different.

As Christians, we KNOW the Gospels to be true and correct both historically, and faithfully in line with the OT writings, and in line with God's plan from the fall of man.

While I appreciate your input into the conversation, I can't say I buy into any of it.

Jesus was a very popular name at the time, and families kept written birth and life records. While I am assuming several men named Jesus, or Son of the Father had recorded life information by family, it is far more convincing than thinking the Gospels are inaccurate forgeries cowering from Rome, while at the same time, criminalizing, the Jewish authorities who don't need our help in do so......just get a look at the Talmud. They don't need our indictments to convict them.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Servant, your question is based on incomplete information.

"Abbas" is what appears to be the plural form of the Hebrew (cognate in Aramaic) language word for 'fathers'. As a proper name, it is not unheard of. "Abram" means 'exalted father' and "Abraham" means 'father of a multitude' (check Strong's Lexicon). So using the noun 'father' as a proper name was familiar to those using Semitic languages.

The phrase "Father" was NOT commonly used by the Hebrews as a euphemism for Almighty God. The usage only occurs a few times in the Old Testament, mostly in the prophets and in the context of a future time. The normal title for Almighty God was 'Lord' (adon) or 'my Lord' (adoni).

So your original post is not very solid in terms of assumptions.

The Bible accounts pretty much explain WHY the accusing Jewish leaders selected Jesus Bar-Abbas instead of Jesus the Christ. Their whole point of bring Jesus to trial was to kill Him. To remove the percieved threat to their authority by Jesus claim to Deity. Pilate tried to free Jesus, albeit in a half-hearted way. Pilate thought he had the answer, to offer to free a prisoner, Pilate forced the crowd into choosing one of two prisoners, either the Jesus Pilate wanted to free, or Bar-Abbas. In our day, the choice would be between Jesus or Richard Speck. Pilate reasonably thought no one in their right mind would select Bar-Abbas to free.

He was wrong.