Kinachoendelea Syria, Mungu haoni?

[mgen]

Father of Lies?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

– 2 Timothy 3.16.



"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

– 2 Thessalonians 2.11

dawa ni kwenda tohara

utakuwa poa kiakili, kimwili, nafsi na Roho kisha utamjua Muumba wako na Kumtumikia

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 721265 dawa ni kwenda tohara View attachment 721272 utakuwa poa kiakili, kimwili, nafsi na Roho kisha utamjua Muumba wako na Kumtumikia

NAWEKA VIFAA HAPA VYA HIYO SHUGHULI , TULIA TUNAANZA NA DAAWA KIJANA

Fact and Fancy


Today, New Testament scholars steer a course between two worlds, one in which a theological Jesus ("divine son of God") holds centre stage – but this Jesus, of course, is acknowledged to be a matter of faith;

and the other, "the world of a historical Jesus".

Detailed, often meticulous, investigation of the history, culture and politics of Palestine in the second temple period creates a historically authoritative background.

Against this background, a wafer thin construct of "Jesus" makes his spectral appearance.

But it is the historical context itself which allows this phantom saviour to "live", "die" and "resurrect" and thereby cast its false shadow back upon history.

"We're certain that Jerusalem existed, Herod, Pharisees and Romans, why not a Jesus?" Cue the Discovery Channel documentary:

"These are the type of sandals Jesus would have worn.This is the type of tree he would have rested under."

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 721265 dawa ni kwenda tohara View attachment 721272 utakuwa poa kiakili, kimwili, nafsi na Roho kisha utamjua Muumba wako na Kumtumikia

Father of Lies?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

– 2 Timothy 3.16.



"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

– 2 Thessalonians 2.11

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 721265 dawa ni kwenda tohara View attachment 721272 utakuwa poa kiakili, kimwili, nafsi na Roho kisha utamjua Muumba wako na Kumtumikia

Salvation by Reason

Ironically, it was the work of a number of liberal theologians, rather than freethinkers, who first fractured that glorious fabrication Jesus, Son of God, Saviour of the World.

The "received wisdom" of the Church was first challenged during the European Reformation, which gave legitimacy to criticism of the papal system.

Having opened the flood gates, all religious authorities and scripture itself were called into question and Protestantism emerged in myriad disparate sects.

But after a thousand years of Church-enforced ignorance "school men" had but a small stock of real knowledge. As sinecured churchmen, these scholars struggled to use the rediscovered tools of logic to defend the dogmas of Christianity, whether of the Roman Catholic or new "pure" reformed variety.

But after two centuries, as the Enlightenment unfolded, brave theologians began to draw attention to the obvious errors andincongruities in accepted scripture.

Why, they asked, was the New Testament silent about most of Jesus’ life? Why did Paul say almost nothing about the life of Jesus?

During the American and French Revolutions freethinkers went much further, questioning the veracity of the entire Bible and denouncing Christianity as a bogus superstition and an instrument of oppression.

A new minimalist faith was born, "deism", in which a creator god played no direct role in human affairs.

 

[mgen]

Salvation by Reason

Ironically, it was the work of a number of liberal theologians, rather than freethinkers, who first fractured that glorious fabrication Jesus, Son of God, Saviour of the World.

The "received wisdom" of the Church was first challenged during the European Reformation, which gave legitimacy to criticism of the papal system.

Having opened the flood gates, all religious authorities and scripture itself were called into question and Protestantism emerged in myriad disparate sects.

But after a thousand years of Church-enforced ignorance "school men" had but a small stock of real knowledge. As sinecured churchmen, these scholars struggled to use the rediscovered tools of logic to defend the dogmas of Christianity, whether of the Roman Catholic or new "pure" reformed variety.

But after two centuries, as the Enlightenment unfolded, brave theologians began to draw attention to the obvious errors andincongruities in accepted scripture.

Why, they asked, was the New Testament silent about most of Jesus’ life? Why did Paul say almost nothing about the life of Jesus?

During the American and French Revolutions freethinkers went much further, questioning the veracity of the entire Bible and denouncing Christianity as a bogus superstition and an instrument of oppression.

A new minimalist faith was born, "deism", in which a creator god played no direct role in human affairs.

Father of Lies?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

– 2 Timothy 3.16.



"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

– 2 Thessalonians 2.11

Bila

kuona Raha ya kuwa mfuasi wa Yesu

 

[Gavana]

Bila View attachment 721414 kuona Raha ya kuwa mfuasi wa Yesu View attachment 721411

Operation ya kuitoa foreskin ya kwenye heart yako inaendelea , Tulia upate daawa kijana


Higher Criticism

In the century that followed a radical minority – notably, scholars of the Tübingen School in mid-19th century Germany and Dutch Radicalcritics of the late-19th/early 20th centuries – continued to press the case that the Christian Lord and Savior was a pious fabrication, his whole "life", trial and crucifixion a pastiche of verses from Jewish scripture.

To those who looked beyond the blinkered vision of Christianity it was very apparent that much of the Jesus tale had parallels in much older fables, which had identical principal and supporting characters, identical story lines, and identical moral purpose. Christianity, it was clear, had not fallen from heaven but was a man-made production.

During the 20th century, rationalism, archaeology, and new techniques of scientific investigation forced a retrenchment upon defenders of the faith, despite the periodic upsurges in religious fervour. To accommodate the accumulating and undeniable evidence of biblical error, variegated "lives" of Jesus proliferated like algae on a sun-soaked pond.

"Mainstream" New Testament scholars, many of them committed Christians, had found a new home. A shadowy “Jesus of history” was now held to have existed beneath the admitted accumulated layers of faith-based fabrication.

Fearful to acknowledge that both their faith and careers were built on a monumental misconception they speculated on any number of fanciful ideas – a radical rabbi Jesus, a Mediterranean peasant Jesus, a Jesus with wife and family, a Jesus who travelled to England, India or Japan, a Stoic or Cynic philosopher Jesus – a Jesus for all seasons and all tastes.

A hundred or more possible "biographies" for the godman contended, each contriving to avoid the obvious truth that no genuine reality underpinned the sacred fable.

 

[mgen]

Operation ya kuitoa foreskin ya kwenye heart yako inaendelea , Tulia upate daawa kijana


Higher Criticism

In the century that followed a radical minority – notably, scholars of the Tübingen School in mid-19th century Germany and Dutch Radicalcritics of the late-19th/early 20th centuries – continued to press the case that the Christian Lord and Savior was a pious fabrication, his whole "life", trial and crucifixion a pastiche of verses from Jewish scripture.

To those who looked beyond the blinkered vision of Christianity it was very apparent that much of the Jesus tale had parallels in much older fables, which had identical principal and supporting characters, identical story lines, and identical moral purpose. Christianity, it was clear, had not fallen from heaven but was a man-made production.

During the 20th century, rationalism, archaeology, and new techniques of scientific investigation forced a retrenchment upon defenders of the faith, despite the periodic upsurges in religious fervour. To accommodate the accumulating and undeniable evidence of biblical error, variegated "lives" of Jesus proliferated like algae on a sun-soaked pond.

"Mainstream" New Testament scholars, many of them committed Christians, had found a new home. A shadowy “Jesus of history” was now held to have existed beneath the admitted accumulated layers of faith-based fabrication.

Fearful to acknowledge that both their faith and careers were built on a monumental misconception they speculated on any number of fanciful ideas – a radical rabbi Jesus, a Mediterranean peasant Jesus, a Jesus with wife and family, a Jesus who travelled to England, India or Japan, a Stoic or Cynic philosopher Jesus – a Jesus for all seasons and all tastes.

A hundred or more possible "biographies" for the godman contended, each contriving to avoid the obvious truth that no genuine reality underpinned the sacred fable.

fanya maskhara dogo usije ukasema sijaambiwa...kumbe kila siku mgen anakutahandarisha usije ukafa nalo kwa kibri chako tu

ondoa hiyo kitu uwe tohara

ondoa hiyo kitu

 

[Gavana]

fanya maskhara dogo usije ukasema sijaambiwa...kumbe kila siku mgen anakutahandarisha usije ukafa nalo kwa kibri chako tu View attachment 721601 ondoa hiyo kitu uwe tohara View attachment 721600 ondoa hiyo kitu

Fanya maskhara dogo

usije ukasema sijaambiwa...kumbe kila siku mgen anakutahandarisha usije ukafa nalo kwa kibri chako tu

---maneno haya jiambie mwenyewe na huko kujitia pamba masikioni

Operation inaendelea , Tulia upate daawa







The "Word" made "Flesh"

When the works of Philo were studied by early Christian theorists (the Alexandrian school of Clement, Origen, etc.) not just the construct of the Logosbut the "allegorical method" proved a godsend: the Old Testament presaged not merely Greek wisdom but the Christian godman himself! Thus the scripture of the Jews could be scoured for subtle clues supposedly prophesying a saviour in human form.

Again, Philo pointed the way:

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."

– Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," (146)


Philo was himself undoubtedly influenced by ancient notions of Hermes Trismegistos ('thrice greatest' Hermes), a Hellenized version of the Egyptian god Thoth – a god of wisdom and a guide to the afterlife.

Philo knew nothing of Jesus but when, a century after Philo's death, the Christians were historicizing their godman from preconceived notions of what the Saviour should be, they borrowed freely from Philo's work. Thus the Christian apologist Justin Martyr multiplexed "divine reason" into the myriad forms that populate the landscape of Christian theology:

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos."

– Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, LXI – ("Wisdom is begotten of the father, as fire from fire.")


About the same time that Justin was finessing "God's Wisdom" into human form, the author of John's Gospel combined the opening phrase of Genesiswith the speculations of Philo's logos to produce the famous opening verse of his gospel.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." – John, 1.1.

 

[Gavana]

fanya maskhara dogo usije ukasema sijaambiwa...kumbe kila siku mgen anakutahandarisha usije ukafa nalo kwa kibri chako tu View attachment 721601 ondoa hiyo kitu uwe tohara View attachment 721600 ondoa hiyo kitu

Off with his head?

The hapless apostle James the Greater is dispatched in a single verse (Acts 12.2) – but then he has only a walk-on part in the whole melodrama, ever a shadow of his more illustrious younger brother John.

In stark contrast, the apostle Paul supposedly survived no fewer than FIVE murder plots and his adventures fill a third of the whole New Testament.


Acts 9.23,25: Paul escapes from murderous Syrian Jews by going over the wall in a basket!

Acts 9.29: Paul escapes from murderous Greek Jews with help of the brethren.

Acts 14.19,20: Murderous Iconium Jews stone Paul and dump his "dead body" outside the city of Lystra. Paul "rises up", and next day goes off to Derbe to preach and ordain elders!

Acts 21.27,32: Paul is set upon by a "whole crowd" and the "whole city" of Jerusalem. Nonetheless he survives long enough to be rescued by Roman troops.

Acts 23.12,23: More than 40 oath taking Jews swear to kill Paul but this time no fewer than 470 Roman troops arrive to take him to safety!


What ripping fun! What nonsense!

 

[mgen]

Off with his head?

The hapless apostle James the Greater is dispatched in a single verse (Acts 12.2) – but then he has only a walk-on part in the whole melodrama, ever a shadow of his more illustrious younger brother John.

In stark contrast, the apostle Paul supposedly survived no fewer than FIVE murder plots and his adventures fill a third of the whole New Testament.


Acts 9.23,25: Paul escapes from murderous Syrian Jews by going over the wall in a basket!

Acts 9.29: Paul escapes from murderous Greek Jews with help of the brethren.

Acts 14.19,20: Murderous Iconium Jews stone Paul and dump his "dead body" outside the city of Lystra. Paul "rises up", and next day goes off to Derbe to preach and ordain elders!

Acts 21.27,32: Paul is set upon by a "whole crowd" and the "whole city" of Jerusalem. Nonetheless he survives long enough to be rescued by Roman troops.

Acts 23.12,23: More than 40 oath taking Jews swear to kill Paul but this time no fewer than 470 Roman troops arrive to take him to safety!


What ripping fun! What nonsense!

kwa hiyo haya yoote aliyokuagiza allah

ni nonsense utakufuru sana licha ya kusujudu na uambulie

kama huyu

 

[Rasputin]

Mungu hayupo.

Kama yupo haingilii maisha ya kila siku ya watu. Kwamba baada ya kuumba kanuni za kuongoza Ulimwengu, alijitenga na kuacha Dunia ijiendeshe yenyewe.

Haya mambo mengine ni kupeana moyo tu.

Sio kajitenga... ndio maana binadamu kapewa kitu kinaitwa Free will, uwezo wa kutambua jema na baya so kaz kwako!!

 

[Rasputin]

Nani kasema washambuliaji wanafata maagizo ya Mungu ??.

Unajua maana ya ufunuo ??. Sasa ufunuo ni maono yamambo yatakayokua yanatokea either nimazur au mabaya.

Kasome kitabu cha Isaya ..utajua kwann syria ,iran,misri ,tunisia,libya, n.k kwann zimekua ivi zilivyo ?.

Mimi sio theologian ila naamin wakati mwingine mambo haya yanatokea sawa sawa na maandiko kwasababu Mungu anataka watu wamjue.. Ukiingia ndani sanaaaaaaaaaaa utagundua mambo haya yanatokea ili kuhakikisha UKRISTO unaingia ktk nchi za Kiarabu.

Ukifatilia sanaaaaaa utagundua Mzozo wa mashariki ya kati SIO kitu bali ni mzozo wa DINI TU.

True mzee, ndio maana hawatakuja kupatana maisha yote, hiyo ilianzia kipindi cha akina Musa huko!!!

 

[Gavana]

kwa hiyo haya yoote aliyokuagiza allah View attachment 721846View attachment 721847 ni nonsense

utakufuru sana licha ya kusujudu na uambulie

View attachment 721848 kama huyu

View attachment 721849

Promises, promises

"All things are possible for one who believes."

– Mark 9.23.


Trials and Errors

The SIX trials of Jesus

Theology as drama, masquerading as history!

1. Night "trial" by the Sanhedrin (Mark)

2. Morning "trial" by the Sanhedrin (Mark, Matthew, Luke)

3. "Trial" by Pilate (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)

4. Night "trial" by Annas (John)

5. "Trial" by Herod Antipas (Luke)

6. Second "trial" by Pilate, after Jesus was sent back by Herod (Luke)

All between nightfall and noon the following day!

To add dramatic tension, the trial sequence was interwoven with a different sort of trial, that of Peter's "denial of Jesus" and also with the farcical Barabbas "Passover pardon" episode.

More theatre.

 

[mgen]

Promises, promises

"All things are possible for one who believes."

– Mark 9.23.


Trials and Errors

The SIX trials of Jesus

Theology as drama, masquerading as history!

1. Night "trial" by the Sanhedrin (Mark)

2. Morning "trial" by the Sanhedrin (Mark, Matthew, Luke)

3. "Trial" by Pilate (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)

4. Night "trial" by Annas (John)

5. "Trial" by Herod Antipas (Luke)

6. Second "trial" by Pilate, after Jesus was sent back by Herod (Luke)

All between nightfall and noon the following day!

To add dramatic tension, the trial sequence was interwoven with a different sort of trial, that of Peter's "denial of Jesus" and also with the farcical Barabbas "Passover pardon" episode.

More theatre.

 

[Gavana]

The Gospel of Mark's "two stage" trial of Jesus – first, condemnation by the Jewish council, on the charge of blasphemy, followed by the Roman governor's crowd-pleasing order for his crucifixion – is an instructive example of gospel economy: the text is terse, almost cryptic, with barely enough words for even a skeleton of narrative to hold together.

In Mark, the trial of Jesus is reported in just two paragraphs, barely twenty sentences or three-hundred and sixty words. In fact, there is no genuine trial at all. The council had already decided Jesus must die, prior to his arrest. In contrast, the Roman governor almost immediately concluded that Jesus was innocent and should be set free!

To make a coherent narrative, the faithful draw on the later – and quite different – accounts of the other evangelists, versions based upon Mark's text which add a detail here, an explanation there.
But the combined narrative is overloaded with far too much coming and going and blatant contradiction and what amounts to six "trials" between nightfall and noon the following day!

The story is wholly unconvincing to the rational mind, that reads not history, faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, but a contrived dramatization of a theological agenda, rife with inconsistency.

Yet, as ever, the believer selects his own narrative from the plethora of conflicting testimony, the imagination of faith resolving all difficulties and supplying from his own mind what is lacking in the texts.

 

[Gavana]

Mark: The King must Die!

Mark wrote a consoling story in which the death of Jesus atoned for the sins of Israel. Through him, all might rise again. For Mark the "trial" of Jesus was the final, pre-crucifixion scene of his drama, when Jesus faced his detractors. It is nothing more than a theatrical charade: the dramatization of a fictional event that could have only one – a theological – outcome: The king must die.

That was the divine plan. God himself, in the form of his own son, made an atoning sacrifice, a death that redeemed mankind. The betrayal of Jesus by one of his chosen intimates was itself part of the divine plan. Things could not have "gone another way." Mark wrote not of "historic" events that could have unfolded as the chance outcome of human choices and venal motive. The humiliation of the saviour and his terrible sentence had been preordained by God, the sacrifice had been long foretold in scripture and remained imperative for mankind's salvation.

Evidence of "testimony" or even the semblance of a regular trial were quite unnecessary. All that was necessary – and the only reason for a trial at all – was that the real guilty ones must implicate themselves by pronouncing sentence on the Just One. And who are the real guilty ones? Mark made that abundantly clear, despite the brevity of his story: the Jewish priesthood – and the mob influenced by them.

"The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him." – Mark 14.1.

"The chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death." – Mark 14.55.

"The crowd shouted all the more, "Crucify him." – Mark 15.14.


At the same time, Rome – in the personification of the governor Pilate – would judge Jesus innocent and Rome would be exonerated, even though it acted as the instrument of God's will. Pilate, intimidated by the baying Jewish mob, "delivers up" Jesus for crucifixion. But those culpable for the death of Jesus are clearly the Jewish leadership and the Jews who follow them..

 

[mgen]

The Gospel of Mark's "two stage" trial of Jesus – first, condemnation by the Jewish council, on the charge of blasphemy, followed by the Roman governor's crowd-pleasing order for his crucifixion – is an instructive example of gospel economy: the text is terse, almost cryptic, with barely enough words for even a skeleton of narrative to hold together.

In Mark, the trial of Jesus is reported in just two paragraphs, barely twenty sentences or three-hundred and sixty words. In fact, there is no genuine trial at all. The council had already decided Jesus must die, prior to his arrest. In contrast, the Roman governor almost immediately concluded that Jesus was innocent and should be set free!

To make a coherent narrative, the faithful draw on the later – and quite different – accounts of the other evangelists, versions based upon Mark's text which add a detail here, an explanation there.
But the combined narrative is overloaded with far too much coming and going and blatant contradiction and what amounts to six "trials" between nightfall and noon the following day!

The story is wholly unconvincing to the rational mind, that reads not history, faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, but a contrived dramatization of a theological agenda, rife with inconsistency.

Yet, as ever, the believer selects his own narrative from the plethora of conflicting testimony, the imagination of faith resolving all difficulties and supplying from his own mind what is lacking in the texts.

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 722535

Before the Sanhedrin

"The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death ... And they laid their hands on him, and took him ... and led Jesus away to the high priest and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes ...." – Mark 14.1, 53.

Mark's courthouse micro-drama begins with Jesus arraigned before the whole of the Jewish council.
Yet bizarrely, it is far into the night on the eve of the Passover festival (aka the first day the Feast of Unleavened Bread).

Why has the council left the seizure of Jesus so ridiculously late?

In fact, several dayshave passed since the supposed disruption of the temple traders by Jesus and the resolve of the priests to destroy him.

Why the delay? Mark himself anticipated this awkward question and he has Jesus himself verbalise an answer: "Let the scriptures be fulfilled" (Mark 14.49)!

Mark's nocturnal kangaroo court – no legitimate capital trial could have taken place at night – had Jesus standing before an unnamed high priest, all the chief priests, the elders and the scribes.

They are the spiritual and social leadership of the Jews. The whole council, emphasises Mark, had already determined to put Jesus to death and merely "sought testimony against him."

How did Mark know this? Only because he was the author of the tale.

The sentence upon Jesus was certain but the precise nature of the charges remained unclear.

No witnesses for the defence were called and the "false witnesses" floundered by disagreeing with each other.

Yet even so, "some" of those witnesses were able to agree something that accorded reasonably well with earlier dialogue voiced by Jesus: several references to "rising in three days" (comments that had puzzled his listeners at the time); and words spoken by Jesus in his "Olivet discourse" only shortly before:

"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" – Mark 14.58

"Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." – Mark 13.2


False witnesses or not, the high priest referred to their testimony, and asked Jesus to respond to the statement given by "these men".

The author of Mark gave no impressive response from Jesus – but why would he want to? His template at this point is Isaiah:

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgement he was taken away. " (53.7,8)


Thus Mark's Son of Man "made no answer" at his judgement.

In this ersatz trial, threats of destroying the temple were forgotten. Instead, Mark had the high priest pose the pivotal question: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

The Jewish priest was here used to articulate a later Christian statement of faith because claiming to be the messiah was not of itself blasphemous. Nor was it blasphemy for a Jew to claim to be "a son of God" – they were all sons of God, made in his own image! But the two epithets presented together as a claim to be the unique "messianic son of God" could be construed as blasphemous. Even so, Jesus hadn't "cursed God", which the law required for capital punishment (Leviticus 24.15-16, death by stoning).

Jesus barely moved his lips to confirm the charge: "I am." A short scriptural quote followed ("sitting on the right hand of power" derived from Psalm 110.1 "Yahweh said to my lord, sit at my right hand") and "son of man coming in the clouds of heaven", copied from Daniel 7.13 "With clouds of heaven came one like a son of man.")

With the apparent confession by Jesus of his blasphemy, "they all" condemned him as "deserving death" and some members of the Sanhedrin even struck and spat on him (all unlawful acts).

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 722535

Before Pilate

Having described a very problematic night-time "blasphemy trial", Mark moved the story on to the next morning when "the whole council consulted" and then sent Jesus, a bound prisoner, on to the Roman governor for a second, "civil trial". Why a second trial was necessary Mark does not explain, though the assumption is that the Sanhedrin did not have the authority for capital punishment. This restraint was made overt only in the later gospel of John (18.31).

The hearing before the council had been brief – but the morning interview before Pilate was even briefer. Supposedly, the accusations made by the chief priests before the governor were "many" (15.3) although Mark failed to mention a single one! Instead, the trial hinges on a single question from Pilate himself, and not one raised in the earlier trial: "Are you the King of the Jews?" This straightforward question from the Roman elicits a terse and evasive response from Jesus: "You have said so."

The reader is left to imagine that the Jewish priests, in private consultations with Pilate, have emphasised that a claimant to messiahship, ipso facto, was a would-be king, and therefore a political threat to Rome. But Pilate was not so easily persuaded. At first, he merely "wondered" (15.4) and later "he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." (15.10). This "perception of envy" was the peg on which Mark would absolve the Roman. So reluctant was Pilate to find Jesus guilty that the prefect argued repeatedly with a Jewish mob baying for Jesus's crucifixion. But at length Pilate gave into the mob, delivered up Jesus for crucifixion and released a known "rebel, insurrectionist and murderer" called Barabbas.

As if!

 

[Gavana]

View attachment 722535

Barabbas

Mark's use of the word "insurrectionist" is highly significant, made clearer in the original Greek:

ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.

There was moreover the [one] called Barabbas with the rebels having been bound, who in the insurrection murder had committed.


Matthew, when he came to copying this passage from Mark, substituted "notorious prisoner" for insurrectionist, without further detail; Luke wrestled with Mark's original text and subtly weakened its force: "a man who had been thrown into prison for a certain sedition started in the city, and for murder." John substituted the innocuous "robber".

Why on earth did the later evangelists disguise in various ways Mark's original contention that Barabbas was a rebel, who had committed murder in the insurrection? Because it was an unwelcome indication of when Mark had authored his story: the insurrection was the great revolt otherwise known as the War of the Jews, which ended with the calamity in AD 70!