The Son is God. The Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father.

[attofishpi]

Were you ever a Christian?

The answer depends on how we define Christianity.

I consider most of the Bible to be a legitimate holy scripture, the most notable exception being the letters by Paul, which I consider to be merely Paul's questionable invention.

Whether or not you agree with what man has made up per later 'doctrine' is irrelevant to the question.

When I ask whether you were ever a Christian, I am asking whether you believe in the account of Christ dying on the crucifix and resurrecting, and that you believe in his words recorded within the Bible?

Forget "Christianity"..with regards to this question.

[godelian]

When I ask whether you were ever a Christian, I am asking whether you believe in the account of Christ dying on the crucifix and resurrecting, and that you believe in his words recorded within the Bible?

The temple police arrested two Jeshu(s) on that Passover night, one of whom was nicknamed "bar Abbah", i.e. the Son of an (unknown) Father.

One Jeshu was indeed crucified.

The other one, the Son of an (unknown) Man, was released. Just as the Son of (an unknown) Father had promised, he indeed came back three days later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

Barabbâs appears to derive ultimately from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: בּר אַבָּא , romanized: Bar ʾAbbā lit. 'Son of ʾAbbā/[the] father', a patronymic Aramaic name.

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.

The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name. These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.

Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.

It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.

So, the real question is actually:

Do I believe in Origen's forgery?

No, I don't.

I believe in the original version as narrated in the Codex Koridethi.

So, one of both Jeshu did indeed die at the cross, but it wasn't Christ. The Son of (an unknown) Father, Barabbas, was released:

Barabbas was, according to the New Testament, a prisoner who rebelled against the Roman occupying forces and who was chosen over (the other) Jesus by a crowd in Jerusalem to be pardoned and released by Roman governor Pontius Pilate at the Passover feast.

Of course, Christ came back three days later, as he had promised. I certainly believe that he did. Why wouldn't he? Any reason?

[attofishpi]

When I ask whether you were ever a Christian, I am asking whether you believe in the account of Christ dying on the crucifix and resurrecting, and that you believe in his words recorded within the Bible?

The temple police arrested two Jeshu(s) on that Passover night, one of whom was nicknamed "bar Abbah", i.e. the Son of an (unknown) Father.

One Jeshu was indeed crucified.

The other one, the Son of an (unknown) Man, was released. Just as the Son of (an unknown) Father had promised, he indeed came back three days later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

Barabbâs appears to derive ultimately from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: בּר אַבָּא , romanized: Bar ʾAbbā lit. 'Son of ʾAbbā/[the] father', a patronymic Aramaic name.

There exist several versions of this figure's name in gospel manuscripts, most commonly simply Biblical Greek: Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Barabbās without a first name. However the variations found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus.

The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name. These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.

Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.

It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.

So, the real question is actually:

Do I believe in Origen's forgery?

No, I don't.

I believe in the original version as narrated in the Codex Koridethi.

So, one of both Jeshu did indeed die at the cross, but it wasn't Christ. The Son of (an unknown) Father, Barabbas, was released:

Barabbas was, according to the New Testament, a prisoner who rebelled against the Roman occupying forces and who was chosen over (the other) Jesus by a crowd in Jerusalem to be pardoned and released by Roman governor Pontius Pilate at the Passover feast.

Of course, Christ came back three days later, as he had promised. I certainly believe that he did. Why wouldn't he? Any reason?

You've got no idea. You appear to have made a great deal of effort in every attempt to circumnavigate what is being simply provided in the Gospels - why? Perhaps you prefer to go with the dude that came along > 600 years later so that your misogyny is better supported.

GOD and I interact almost daily. The fact is, I guess Christ was telling the truth about to know GOD is through faith in him. Why you decide to go with the Quran nonsense rather than Christ is baffling, you appear occasionally to show some degree of intelligence.

[puto]

attofishpi

hope you like coffee beers?

[attofishpi]

attofishpi

hope you like coffee beers?

Coffee is a treat for me, I rarely drink it - I have to have sugar with it, and sometimes it makes me feel drained.

I am a tea drinker, love my tea. Yorkshire tea with very little milk no sugar or Early Grey with no milk and no sugar.

[godelian]

You appear to have made a great deal of effort in every attempt to circumnavigate what is being simply provided in the Gospels - why?

Because I do not believe in Origen's forgery. Why would I? By the way, "Jeshu" is not a given name. It is a Rabbinical designation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

Another explanation given is that the name "Yeshu" is actually an acronym for the formula ימח שמו וזכרו(נו)‎ (Yimach Shemo V'Zichro[no]), meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated".

It just means that the Rabbis did not like someone. It simply means "heretic". The term "Barabbah" is also a designation and not really a name. It means "Son of (an unknown) Father". So, it means "bastard". So, "Jeshu Barabbah" is Rabbinic language for "heretical bastard".

Did the Rabbis like Christ? Well, according to the Gospels, they wanted him dead asap.

Perhaps you prefer to go with the dude that came along > 600 years later so that your misogyny is better supported.

Christian marriage is trap. It is an ambush. It is a pig butchering scam. It is a divorce-rape festival. Seriously, I spit, pee, and shit on Christian marriage.

[attofishpi]

You appear to have made a great deal of effort in every attempt to circumnavigate what is being simply provided in the Gospels - why?

Because I do not believe in Origen's forgery. Why would I?

How ridiculous that you are on board with such nonsense thus discount for example the Gospel of Matthew.

Perhaps you prefer to go with the dude that came along > 600 years later so that your misogyny is better supported.

Christian marriage is trap. It is an ambush. It is a pig butchering scam. It is a divorce-rape festival. Seriously, I spit, pee, and shit on Christian marriage.

FFS. You are still going back to what the CHURCH has to say about such matters. I am talking as a Christian that believes in Christ, not the Church thus your statement is irrelevant.

[godelian]

How ridiculous that you are on board with such nonsense thus discount for example the Gospel of Matthew.

I do not discount the Gospel of Matthew. I simply believe that the original version of the Gospel of Matthew can be found in the Codex Koridethi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Koridethi

[attofishpi]

How ridiculous that you are on board with such nonsense thus discount for example the Gospel of Matthew.

I do not discount the Gospel of Matthew. I simply believe that the original version of the Gospel of Matthew can be found in the Codex Koridethi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Koridethi

Well here's what our mate ChatGPT had to say regarding that:

My prompt: Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, is the original version of the Gospel of Matthew found in the Codex Koridethi?

No, the Codex Koridethi (Θ, 038) does not contain the original version of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the Codex Koridethi?
The Codex Koridethi is a 9th-century Greek manuscript of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). It is written in uncial script and belongs primarily to the Byzantine text-type, but with some Caesarean text-type influence, especially in Mark. It is not an early witness to the original Gospel of Matthew but rather a later copy.

What About the Original Gospel of Matthew?
1. Papias' Testimony (2nd century AD) – The early Christian writer Papias (c. 100-130 AD) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic), though no such manuscript has survived.
2. Earliest Greek Manuscripts – The oldest surviving Greek manuscripts of Matthew include:
- Papyrus 104 (late 2nd century)
- Papyrus 1 (3rd century)
- Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
- Codex Sinaiticus (4th century)

The Codex Koridethi is much later (9th century) and does not represent the earliest or original form of the Gospel.

Did Origen Mention an Original Matthew?
Origen (c. 184–253 AD) referred to Matthew's Gospel but used Greek sources. There is no known direct connection between Origen and the Codex Koridethi, nor did he claim to possess an original Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew.

[godelian]

No, the Codex Koridethi (Θ, 038) does not contain the original version of the Gospel of Matthew.

The Codex Koridethi is the source that Wikipedia suggests. There are other sources:

ChatGPT: Which manuscripts mention the name "Jesus Barabbas"?

The name "Jesus Barabbas" appears in some early manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew (27:16-17). This variation suggests that Barabbas' full name might have originally been "Jesus Barabbas", but later scribes may have removed "Jesus" to avoid confusion with Jesus of Nazareth.

Manuscripts That Mention "Jesus Barabbas":

1. Codex Theta (Θ, 038)

2. Family 1 (f¹) manuscripts – a group of related Greek manuscripts

3. Some Old Syriac and Armenian manuscripts

4. Origen’s Commentary on Matthew – Early Church Father Origen (3rd century) mentions that some manuscripts contained the name "Jesus Barabbas," but he preferred the shorter version, thinking it was a scribal error.

Scholarly Debate:

Many scholars believe that "Jesus Barabbas" was the original reading and was later altered by Christian scribes to prevent readers from associating Jesus with a criminal. The name "Barabbas" means "son of the father" (Aramaic: Bar-Abba), which some see as an ironic contrast to Jesus of Nazareth, who was also called the Son of God.

Would you like more details on any specific manuscript?

The Christian scribes did not alter the manuscript to "prevent readers from associating Jesus with a criminal". They did not care about that at all.

The Christian scribes did it to spread the false idea that Christ had died at the cross and to turn the fact that he was seen alive three days later into a miracle.

[attofishpi]

The Christian scribes did it to spread the false idea that Christ had died at the cross and to turn the fact that he was seen alive three days later into a miracle.

Wow, it's rather terrible that you choose to take on that version of events. A version that permits you to believe in MorHamMad's version of the Christ story thus allowing his ego to reign supreme. All bow to his birthplace!

The > thousand year old sources that you choose to rely upon are nothing compared to my source - the primary source direct from GOD itself, over the past couple of years it has clearly stated to me that Christ DID what is stated within the Gospels, I particularly liked reading the book of Matthew. Christ DID get crucified and was resurrected.

You stick to the ego nonsense of a false profit, and I'll stick to the truth, issued directly to me from GOD.

[godelian]

[Christ DID get crucified

Jesus did get crucified. Nobody denies that. There were two Jesuses who were brought in front of the Roman governor. One Jesus got crucified and one Jesus was released.

and was resurrected.

Yes, one Jesus came back after three days, but he was not the Jesus who had died at the cross.

You stick to the ego nonsense of a false profit.

Moses, Buddha, and Muhammad have nothing to do with this.
Furthermore, they never said anything that did not add up. In fact, Christ also never said anything that did not add up.

The whole problem revolves around Origen and his instruction to falsify the original documents. As always, it is about the fabrications by the Christian clergy that do not add up.

[attofishpi]

[Christ DID get crucified

Jesus did get crucified. Nobody denies that. There were two Jesuses who were brought in front of the Roman governor. One Jesus got crucified and one Jesus was released.

and was resurrected.

Yes, one Jesus came back after three days, but he was not the Jesus who had died at the cross.

You stick to the ego nonsense of a false profit.

Moses, Buddha, and Muhammad have nothing to do with this.
Furthermore, they never said anything that did not add up. In fact, Christ also never said anything that did not add up.

The whole problem revolves around Origen and his instruction to falsify the original documents. As always, it is about the fabrications by the Christian clergy that do not add up.

Why you think I should evaluate your second hand ancient sources of nonsense rather than the primary source (GOD) that I have access to regarding Christ is beyond me.

[godelian]

Why you think I should evaluate your second hand ancient sources of nonsense

These ancient sources allow us to detect occurrences of Christian interpolation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpolation

In textual criticism, Christian interpolation generally refers to textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish and pagan source texts during Christian scribal transmission.

Christian documents are known for being full of fabrications and forgeries, including the Bible itself. Hence, the necessity to track down the numerous lies. The Christian clergy, including its scribes, have always been known for being highly unreliable. They are born liars. They don't have to tell the truth because their followers will happily swallow their lies anyway. If you point out a particular lie, these followers even get angry. They believe in lies because they want to.

[Alexiev]

Why you think I should evaluate your second hand ancient sources of nonsense

These ancient sources allow us to detect occurrences of Christian interpolation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpolation

In textual criticism, Christian interpolation generally refers to textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish and pagan source texts during Christian scribal transmission.

Christian documents are known for being full of fabrications and forgeries, including the Bible itself. Hence, the necessity to track down the numerous lies. The Christian clergy, including its scribes, have always been known for being highly unreliable. They are born liars. They don't have to tell the truth because their followers will happily swallow their lies anyway. If you point out a particular lie, these followers even get angry. They believe in lies because they want to.

Oh, my God! Thank you, godelian for enlightening us! Here, all along, I thought Christian clergy were taught to lie and deceive. But now i know I can't blame the faith. The poor clergymen were born that way. They can't help it. Bigmike is right!