Who killed Jesus (Catholic's G-d)?

[karens1234]

I believe that Jesus may be Barabbas, and that Barabbas was the character of a different charge against Jesus.

Perhaps God gave Jesus one last temptation to avoid martyrdom and take a plea deal.

1. Plead guilty as Barabbas a nut and be set free, but then discredited among men forevermore.
2. Plead guilty as Jesus the Messiah and die, but trust God to come through to raise you in glory.

So Jesus trusted God and chose #2 and God came through for him.

Also that would solve the mystery of the “Jewish tradition” of setting prisoners free. It was no strange tradition, just a common plea bargain like we have today.

Your above assumptions/theory can be understood more correctly, if it is revealed what was actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean by going/looking into most ancient manuscripts, (not todays’ deliberately mistranslated versions of NT).

So my question, again to the learned Catholics is, as per your oldest versions of Catholic Bible, what was the actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Your above assumptions/theory can be understood more correctly, if it is revealed what was actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean by going/looking into most ancient manuscripts, (not todays’ deliberately mistranslated versions of NT).

So my question, again to the leared Catholics is, as per your oldest versions of Catholic Bible, what was the actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean?

Bar Son Of, Abba God.

 

[karens1234]

Bar Son Of, Abba God.

And what was Barabbas’ first name?

 

[juliamajor]

I think what we’re seeing is a number of people attempting to reinterpret Holy Scripture in such a way as to make it more suitable and acceptable for the times we live in. So by the same token, if we should ignore what the Gospels tell us regarding who was responsible for calling for the crucifixion of Jesus, because that leads to anti-Semitism, perhaps we should also ignore those passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, because afterall that so called demonising of people leads to violence against homosexuals. And maybe we should ignore those passages that tell wives to obey their husbands since that kind of thinking may lead to spousal abuse, and then their’s the passages about witches the occult etc that some believe have led to a history of persecution of Wiccans, so those may nead to be ignored as well.

Oh please - Don’t pull that nonsense- it doesn’t go over with me- I suggest you start reading the CCC .Jesus’ redemption is being trivialized by your and your foolish reading of scripture. Please stop your private interpretation and get with the program. Whipping scripture into fitting into your fancies is anything but healthy.And besides does scripture give you the right to hate or denigrate people?We evangelize with love not with personal prejudices. -or reinterpretation of scripture… Oh yeah and I love you bringing up the wives obeying their husbands too bad you don’t bring up the other part about loving their wives like Jesus loves His church- something you conveniently forgot!

 

[FaithofAbraham]

And what was Barabbas’ first name?

Jesus bar-Abbas, Son of the Father. Which is why I believe that was actually the name of a plea bargain Jesus could have taken to be set free. But then of course being a joke and shame to all humanity, rather than glorious Messiah.

 

[karens1234]

Jesus bar-Abbas, Son of the Father. Which is why I believe that was actually the name of a plea bargain Jesus could have taken to be set free. But then of course being a joke and shame to all humanity, rather than glorious Messiah.

I just check, a Catholic Bible, and it says:

13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?”
14 But he did not answer him one word, so that the governor was greatly amazed.
15 8 Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished.
16 9 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called (Jesus) Barabbas.
17 So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Which one do you want me to release to you, (Jesus) Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?”
18 10 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had handed him over.

Unlike other Bibles, in this particular Catholic Bible, though the first name of Barabbas is mentioned but in brackets. And the reason for bracketing is given as:

9 [16-17] [Jesus] Barabbas: it is possible that the double name is the original reading; Jesus was a common Jewish name; see the note on Matthew 1:21. This reading is found in only a few textual witnesses, although its absence in the majority can be explained as an omission of Jesus made for reverential reasons. That name is bracketed because of its uncertain textual attestation. The Aramaic name Barabbas means “son of the father”; the irony of the choice offered between him and Jesus, the true son of the Father, would be evident to those addressees of Matthew who knew that.

The New American Bible
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew27.htm#foot9

In other words the person who inspired Matthew to write a gospel was not sure thus in doubt, hence this Catholic Bible’s translators put Barabbas’ first name in the brackets because to them it’s textual attestation (even after approximately two thousand years) is still UNCERTAIN.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

In other words the person who inspired Matthew to write a gospel was not sure thus in doubt, hence this Catholic Bible’s translators put Barabbas’ first name in the brackets because to them it’s textual attestation (even after approximately two thousand years) is still UNCERTAIN.

I’m pretty sure it was part of a plea bargain since no one can find anything historical regarding a Roman Passover custom to release one Jewish prisoner. Whereas plea bargaining is at least as old as Abraham bargaining with God over Sodom.

 

[anthony022071]

Acts 2: (Peter speaking)

22
You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
23
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.

 

[paarsurrey]

And this is to paarsurrey:
I greatly admire your search for truth and your receptivity to conversation about these questions. But I have a question: which account of Jesus’ life do you find to be accurate, the New Testament’s or the Quran’s? It seems that you believe the Quran, but I want to be sure before continuing the discussion - I don’t want to make any false assumptions. Thanks a lot.

Hi

Please don’t mind. I want that others should also share my response of your PM.

1. We Muslim believe in Moses, OTBible, Jesus, NTBible, Mary and the Twelve only because that Quran/Islam/Muhammad has mentioned about them respectfully and lovingly. If you say say that Quran is not from GodAllahYHWH then the above personalities never existed and are absolutely irrelevent to us. Till a few centuries back, most part of the world hardly knew about Jesus and it did not matter to them even now.
2. It is only the Catholic religious history which mentions about details of the event of Crucifixion. There is little in the secular or neutral history about this event or its witnessings.
3. The Gospel were said to have existed without even names of the compilers and were posthumously attributed to Matthew, Mark, John, Luke so their testimony is of no historic value of the events.
4. When committed to writing in Greek (if they would have been original, they would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic) at Rome their contents were influenced by Paul and his associates or the Catholic Church in existence.

I think you please look into the above points, and then we proceed further.

Thanks

 

[anthony022071]

Oh yeah- I sure there is at least one. IF Somebody "murdered " Jesus that means he didn’t do it freely - if he didn’t do it freely-then his suffering meant nothing- If his suffering meant nothing then we can’t be redeemed if we’re not redeemed- oh hell- you know where that leads us to!

The fact that Jesus gave up his life freely does not exclude or diminish that fact that he was killed and that it was a sin committed by the Jews who handed him over to be killed.
That Jesus acted according to the Father’s will did not prevent the Jews from acting according to their own free will.

 

[anthony022071]

Jesus bar-Abbas, Son of the Father. Which is why I believe that was actually the name of a plea bargain Jesus could have taken to be set free. But then of course being a joke and shame to all humanity, rather than glorious Messiah.

Barabbas was a political messiah,a revolutionary,and so he would have been more forgivable to the Jews than Jesus could ever be.
Jesus was not what most of the the Jews expected or wanted in a messiah.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Barabbas was a political messiah,a revolutionary,and so he would have been more forgivable to the Jews than Jesus could ever be.
Jesus was not what most of the the Jews expected or wanted in a messiah.

Or it could have been the role they offered to let Jesus be in exchange for freedom. Especially since there is no record of any custom of releasing Jews on Passover.

 

[juliamajor]

The fact that Jesus gave up his life freely does not exclude or diminish that fact that he was killed and that it was a sin committed by the Jews who handed him over to be killed.
That Jesus acted according to the Father’s will did not prevent the Jews from acting according to their own free will.

That’s not the problem if it means those Judeans at that time period and some of them believed that it would be better for one man to suffer then impact the whole jewish nation. .Theologically you
have to include the whole of humanity and not single out any individuals-it wouldn’t be salvic.

 

[paarsurrey]

It would not be strange if Jesus while alive travelled. But to say God rescued him from the cross is a more rational belief than he was ressurected, I do not agree with. Both require Divine intervention and therefore both beliefs are just as rational as the other

Hi

I think if I say that Jesus escaped death on Cross (now I don’t mention name of God, that He saved him), was delivered from it near-dead, people thought he was dead but he was not. He went to Galilee and from there to far off places where 10 lost tribes of Israel were settled. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why, please?

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m supposing that they are East of the Euphrates, whoever they are.

Revelation 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

Hi

Yes, they were in the East, several of them.
I mention here tale of one such tribe here:

"There are also historical pointers to this claim. Zaithanchhungi, a scholar who has been studying the Mizo claim to Israeli ancestry for over 20 years, is convinced that all Mizos are descendants of the Menashe. “The Menashe were enslaved by the Assyrians and taken there [Assyria] when Jerusalem fell,” she says. “From there they migrated to the Afghanistan region. During Alexander?s invasion they were driven further on to Mongolia through the Kashmir region and Tibet plateau, and they settled in the Chhinlung region of China. They entered Mizoram about 300 years ago from Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Burma.”[The new Jerusalem via Indian Archaeology]

For more detail:
varnam.org/blog/archives/2004/09/
The Israeli Connection

Thanks

 

[Righteousone]

Your above assumptions/theory can be understood more correctly, if it is revealed what was actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean by going/looking into most ancient manuscripts, (not todays’ deliberately mistranslated versions of NT).

So my question, again to the learned Catholics is, as per your oldest versions of Catholic Bible, what was the actual name of Barabbas and what does Barabbas mean?

Why are you so hung up on the name Barrabbas, AND NOT THE ACT??? What are you looking for exactly? And what’s with this “Catholic God” stuff? There is only one God.

 

[Righteousone]

Hi

Please don’t mind. I want that others should also share my response of your PM.

1. We Muslim believe in Moses, OTBible, Jesus, NTBible, Mary and the Twelve only because that Quran/Islam/Muhammad has mentioned about them respectfully and lovingly. If you say say that Quran is not from GodAllahYHWH then the above personalities never existed and are absolutely irrelevent to us. Till a few centuries back, most part of the world hardly knew about Jesus and it did not matter to them even now.
2. It is only the Catholic religious history which mentions about details of the event of Crucifixion. There is little in the secular or neutral history about this event or its witnessings.
3. The Gospel were said to have existed without even names of the compilers and were posthumously attributed to Matthew, Mark, John, Luke so their testimony is of no historic value of the events.
4. When committed to writing in Greek (if they would have been original, they would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic) at Rome their contents were influenced by Paul and his associates or the Catholic Church in existence.

I think you please look into the above points, and then we proceed further.

Thanks

Says you…

 

[cradlecathlic26]

Watched some of the passion of the Christ last night. Jesus says that noone has the power to take his life, only he does. Jesus did give his life, not saying that whoever those guys were that wanted him dead are not innocent. Who were they anyhow? Jews or Roman authority?

 

[Valke2]

Hi

I think if I say that Jesus escaped death on Cross (now I don’t mention name of God, that He saved him), was delivered from it near-dead, people thought he was dead but he was not. He went to Galilee and from there to far off places where 10 lost tribes of Israel were settled. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why, please?

Thanks

Well, I’m the wrong guy to ask. THat is as acceptable to me as the traditional christian belief. As I am sure you know, Jesus, his life and his death are not elements that concern Judaism. I do have a few problems with such a belief as yours however.

If you believe Jesus was a man and that he was not truly killed on the cross, you have to believe that he survived not only the torture of the crucifixion but the torture that led up to the crucificion – the scourging. This might be possible. But then I would have to believe that he was able to survive to such an extent as to be able to travel outside the land. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the injuries would have killed him? If not on the cross, than shortly thereafter?

In the end, there’s no point in arguing this point, as you are asking christians to abandon the central/foundation of their entire religion. Ask yourself how likely it is that Christians here will be successful in any of their posts in convincing you that Mohammed (pbuh) was not a prophet? And then ask yourself how likely it is that you can convince anyone that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not resurrected.

 

[anthony022071]

That’s not the problem if it means those Judeans at that time period and some of them believed that it would be better for one man to suffer then impact the whole jewish nation. .Theologically you
have to include the whole of humanity and not single out any individuals-it wouldn’t be salvic.

The fact that Jesus died for the salvation of humanity as a whole doesn’t mean that humanity as a whole killed him. We inherited original sin from Adam because we were all in Adam when he sinned – but we don’t inherit the guilt of killing Jesus,because that was not all of humanity’s doing.