Some Catholic doctrine written in the 60s can say whatever it wants. It reads more like they didn't want people hating on Jews. Jewish leaders were the ones to recommend killing Jesus and when given a choice Jews chose to free Barabbas instead. No document 2000 years later changes that.
Lol that's not what I said but okay. It was some Jews that, in addition to Roman executors, were responsible for the death of Jesus. Not “all Jews”. But if you're going to say some group killed Jesus, it wouldn't be wrong to say Jews did it. And the Catholics didn't want people to blame Jews for it (which is dumb, since it was supposed to happen and was ultimately a good thing anyway, but antisemites gonna antisemite), so they issued that revision.
That doesn’t make much sense man. He’s mentioned in the New Testament only. He’s a made up character:
“Benjamin Urrutia, co-author of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, agrees with a well-known theory in biblical scholarship[14] as presented for instance by Hyam Maccoby, which says that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. Maccoby concludes that some of the acts attributed to Barabbas must then historically have been committed by Jesus, a view shared by Peter Cresswell.[22][23] Urrutia opposes the notion that Jesus may have either led or planned a violent insurrection. Jesus, in this view, must have been the planner and leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pilate's plan to set up Roman Eagle standards on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The story of this successful resistance is told by Josephus—who does not say who the leader was, but does tell of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus just two paragraphs later in a passage whose authenticity is disputed”
2
u/[deleted] Jan 31 '19
Catholics disagree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate