14 replies to this topic

[Zinix]

 

Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place.

 

http://www.themindaw...sus-christ.html

 

 

Well this is certainly interesting. 

[Big Boss]

Huh that's actually pretty interesting

[Kardibask]

That is very interesting.

[grahamf]

Yeah it's pretty interesting. Theimplications are pretty major

[3Dude]

It also says to make 3dude nachos.

[DANT3]

That's actually pretty cool. It'll certainly be worth keeping an eye on to see what becomes of this.

[Raiden]

Jesus also was not white nor did he want religion. But doesn't matter religions won't change what they teach people and people won't change what they believe.

[Chaos]

That's pretty cool actually. Even though I'm not big on religion, it's still cool to learn about this kind of stuff. XD

[magiciandude]

https://en.wikipedia...pel_of_Barnabas

 

[Portal]

So, one out of five is "wrong?" Interesting, but I don't see a point. Honestly makes me think more of Islam with Jesus also being a prophet.

[Mahmoodinho98]

the real truth is that jesus first died and then was taken to heaven as the verse in quran says (translated) (oh jesus , iam to let you experince death and then I will raise you to heaven)

[Kokirii]

This has been around for a while now.  If you are just now hearing about it (especially from random blogs with obvious biases), it just shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scholarly issues involved and should just move along so as not to get confused.  

Edited by Kokirii, 07 May 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Ledo Jaeger]

Barnabas was not a disciple. He was part of the early Church post-Christ and helped convince the others that Saul, a previous persecutor of the church, had truly been converted.

 

So the authorship right from the get-go is fraudulent and Barnabas being a disciple - which this article states as fact from the start - isn't even a thing.

 

It is also extreme exaggeration to suggest it's '1500-2000 years old', since the authorship and content reveals a much later date. Even wikipedia will tell you it's not mentioned for sure until 1634, by proponents of Islam. The content of the text is far more the Islamic re-imagining of Jesus's life and of Islamic themes, totally contradicting entire crucial Christian doctrine. It was not seen and rejected by the council that assembled the Biblical canon.

 

Also in the work Jesus constantly denies his own deity and is a flat-out reversal of the gospels.

 

 

Gospel of Barnabas: "Jesus answered: "And you; what say you that I am?" Peter answered: "You are Christ, son of God". Then was Jesus angry, and with

anger rebuked him, saying: "Begone and depart from me, because you are the devil and seek to cause me offenses.""

 

Gospel of Mark: "And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again."

 

 

Now, whether you're a Christian or not, anyone looking at the facts can recognize the straight-up bogus. Did I mention that Barnabas wasn't a disciple? The implications of the actual gospel are the ones that are pretty major. Instead, we hear articles like this and happily accept their shallow factuality, and a chorus of 'wow, how interesting! How cool!' rings through the halls. This is rooted in no facts of Christianity, whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Jesus also was not white nor did he want religion. But doesn't matter religions won't change what they teach people and people won't change what they believe.

Very few churches believe Jesus is white any more. No one "teaches" that he was white either. Jesus was depicted as white because in Europe, where Christianity became most prevalent they were racist and believed that anyone important had to be white. People obviously don't believe this as much any more and so now those images only continue to be prevalent because that's what they're used to.

 

Also what Kokirii said. This has been around for a while, the issue is currently under heavy debate and scrutiny, just like the several other false preaching gospels that have been brought u in the past. 99% chance this is actually pretty unimportant and won't actually mean anything. 

[Socalmuscle]

So about the same age as the Quran which also tries to deny Jesus was God, relegating Him to prophet status instead and the Quran also confuses Isaac and Ishmael over who the promised son was. Isaac born of two married people and Ishmael born of adultery, which is sin. So prob not Ishmael...

In other words this is a book that had stuff written in it that aimed to discredit what even secular historians of the time knew yo be true. Jesus was crucified. Kind of like the apocrypha books you find in the Catholic Bible which get historical facts wrong including the names of nations like Assyria versus Babylon.

Nothing really new about this. Just another fictional work.

As far as the age... Wonder how they were able to ascertain that since there are various factors in aging.

Also, that writing looks a bit "off" from what I've seen of the Dead Sea scrolls with my own eyes. That "bible" is also tiny. The Dead Sea scrolls had to be pieced back together after cutting in order to preserve the text since unrolling would have shattered them. "Unrolled, the scrolls are ginormous.

Interestingly, this "discovery was made in a Muslim country. And the similarities to Jesus not being God but yet a prophet fit too closely with the Quran.

What's hilarious is this bible uses gold as ink.

Anyone with any knowledge of ancient biblical scribe practices knows that that would never take place. Why? Because the scribes had a practice of completely trashing their work if they made a single mistake-so as to improve the care they took over every painstaking letter. To make sure there were no mistakes. And there are many manuscripts.

Then you have this. Lol. Gold "ink" on leather. Not parchment. Right...

Almost sounds joseph smith worthy in its fictional splendor.

Obvious fake.

A good read here

http://www.aina.org/...12022916569.htm

Edited by Socalmuscle, 14 May 2014 - 12:37 AM.