It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barrabus: Revolutionary or criminal

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I’m sure arguably everyone knows atleast somewhat the story of the crucifixion and how Ponchus Pilat gave the Jewish people the choice of whether to pardon Jesus or a murderer named Barrabus.


The pop culture version of the story makes it just an insane choice...

On one hand you have a vicious criminal, but o the other you have a nonviolent rabbi with a new brand of religious doctrine..

So how could the Jewish people choose Barrabus over jesus?!?! Seems like an easy answer to the modern POV, even if your not a believer personally.


However, like many things in modern doctrine the nuance behind that decision is COMPLETELY lost.



Matthew refers to Barabbas only as a "notorious prisoner".[8] Mark and Luke further refer to Barabbas as one involved in a στάσις (stasis, a riot), probably "one of the numerous insurrections against the Roman power" [9] who had committed murder.[10] Robert Eisenman states that John 18:40 refers to Barabbas as a λῃστής (lēstēs, "bandit"), "the word Josephus always employs when talking about Revolutionaries".[11]




In a nut shell it was because he wasn’t a murder in the traditional sense.. He was a revolutionary.. from the Jewish POV he was basically John brown of civil war fame/infamy..

He was a pro-Jewish anti-Roman activist that had killed a man in an earlier uprising..


Not some bandit who killed people for drinking money..


The earlier gospels (Luke and mark) are telling their stories from a Jewish converts POV. So Rome is the bad guy and the Jewish people made the wrong choice (in marks pov) but an understandable one. It would be the choice that hurt their overlords , Rome the most..


So the choice the crowd was really making was the difference between a violent rebellion and a nonviolent one.


The Jewish people wanted their warrior king messiah to throw off the yoke of Rome.. well Barrabus is WAY closer to a messiah than jesus was. So they backed him.. not that they thought Barrabus was the messiah, but just closer to what they wanted , to expel Rome from Judea, rather than some poor carpenter saying turn the other cheek.


By the time John is written Christianity no longer has a majority of Jewish converts. It is primarily Roman converts. So from the author of Johns gospel. Murder in a failed rebellion to Rome was still just plain old murder.

So the fact Barrabus was a freedom fighter gets omitted and he becomes just a common criminal murderer..


Which just paid dividends when demonizing Jews over the next almost 2000 years.




posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I don't know where you've been, but the fact that Barabas was a revolutionary has been common knowledge for a very long time. This is old news.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Other than the simple an obvious conclusion that the Jews incited the people to hate on Jesus
It was political, the Pharisees stacked the deck



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Want a real "woah" moment? Origen's writings of the time indicate that Barabbas name was "Jesus bar Abbas" or "Jesus, Son of the Father." Jesus was a common name in the era, but the symbolism of one being "Son of the Father" mortal, released to the people with no real benefit to them taking place and the other "Son of the Father" triune God, executed and in doing so providing the road for salvation and forgiveness of sins.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
This double post brought to you by Barabbas.
edit on 25-4-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Fair enough. I’m just now finding out lol..



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

They wouldn’t have needed to if (fromthe crowds POV) it was a freedom fighter vs a collaborator.. or atleast someone preaching collaboration.

Americans would make the same choice to say if they were under the yoke of some forign entity.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Maybe..

The tale really doesn’t work in the real world because Pilate wouldn’t have pardoned someone guilty of killing a Roman soldier during an uprising.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   


We are Barabbas. It even literally means, son of Father. Bar = son, Abba = Father.
edit on 25/4/18 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Maybe..

The tale really doesn’t work in the real world because Pilate wouldn’t have pardoned someone guilty of killing a Roman soldier during an uprising.


Sure he would have, assuming the Pharisees were involved. The Romans frequently showed deference to the Pharisees' wishes (so long as the overall cost was low and the common Jew didn't benefit) because they kept the rabble in line. Christ questioned the Pharisees at every turn, making him a greater threat to the Pharisees than Barabbas was to Rome, regardless of Barabbas' crimes.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Assuming that any of this actually happened at all. Seems like a stretch to even assume, given the fallibility of the source material in regards to It's reliability.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
What baffle me most is the Jewish crowd reaction. They wanted Jesus death so badly. Even Pontius Pilate was puzzled, "What evil has this man done to you?"

Jesus gave two thousand people food, heal the sicks and blind, resurrected Lazarus and show compassion wherever he goes. Didn't any of this count to all these Jewish people?

I'm not sure if this story was just a myth, but if it was real, then thousand Jewish death in first Jewish-Roman war was justified. They deserved for everything they did to innocent man. It's a pity, they dragged innocent children to their death too.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow

A) it’s almost certainly a myth. It doesn’t fit any of Roman customs. .

I don’t think Pilate would even consider releasing someone convicted of murder through insurrection.... and that goes for jesus and Barrabus.

B) it is too beneficial to the Roman Christians who had become the dominant faction. They wanted to own Christianity as it’s own unique thing rather than just a Jewish sect.

So that story provides forgivness, separation and validation for the newly converted Roman citizens.

The Jews were no longer gods chosen. Now the Christians were and the Jews were the enemies of god.


C) from the pov of the crowd, if we assume it is all true, Barrabus was a freedom fighter willing to die and kill for the Jewish people. While jesus was some hippo teaching “turn the other cheek”. If your people are enslaved would you want to hear “turn the other cheek” or “let’s violemtly expel our oppressors”?



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The Jewish people wanted their warrior king messiah to throw off the yoke of Rome.. well Barrabus is WAY closer to a messiah than jesus was. So they backed him.. not that they thought Barrabus was the messiah, but just closer to what they wanted , to expel Rome from Judea, rather than some poor carpenter saying turn the other cheek.

You are completely lost in your reasoning. You must remember that it was the chief priest(s) who instigated this entire event but you must also realize that this was not the lawful chief priest of the Aaronic priesthood. In days past when the priesthood was of God it was ordained through God and not man. The priesthood was given charge to the Levites and the sons of Aaron by The Most High El.

Why does this matter? Because in this day of Roman domination, the priesthood was appointed to the highest bidder to enrich Rome with as much tribute as possible without revolution. That bid went to the house of Caiaphus the Sadducee. Not to the Levitical tribe or house of Aaron but to the son in law of Caiaphus named Annas. The laws of Moses were not taught by the Sadducee's and had they been in the days of Aaron then Barabbas would certainly not have been in a prison but would have been put to death.

But as the Sadducee's had little or no respect for the Laws of Moses, they played their money game with out the belief of any sort of afterlife whatsoever. Sadducee's were the governing power in this day and had most of the wealth of the Jewish nation. They believed that when one dies then the entire personage is annihilated. This life is all there is. That was their belief and in believing this they were free to break all Torah law including theft and murder. That is if it pertained to them as the offenders.

What did this have to do with Barabbas? The mob rule was instigated to erase this Jesus movement which was in direct opposition to Rome and the Roman appointment of Jewish priests. The Jesus movement was taking the wealth away from the Temple money changing scam as well the Torah laws. This was actually costing the house of Caiaphus and Rome a great loss. Jesus must be either controlled or die. Barabbas was but a tool in this scheme to get rid of Jesus. It satisfied the Sadducee unbelief in an afterlife and reinstated the money changing.

You must consider that the average Jew in this day of Jesus could not read, write or even speak Hebrew. The doctrine of Jesus was new and revealing to them. Mob rule is generally financed by the political party who wants both power and money and at this time it was the Sadducee's who were at fault. The only interest that Rome had with the Jews was tribute and keeping peace and order. The Sadducee's influenced the majority of the nation and set their Judaic laws with the approval of Rome. They had no belief of a punishment after death. What could they lose? They used Rome and Rome used them.




top topics



 
2

log in

join