Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

1500 Year old bible found in Turkey claim's that Jesus Christ was not crucified.

Posted May 6, '14 at 1:56am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

[url=http://mcfriction.blogspot.com/2014/04/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus.html]

1500 Year Old Bible Confirms That Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified â�" Vatican In Awe

Much to the dismay of the Vatican, an approx. 1500-2000 year old bible was found in Turkey, in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara. Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas â�" a disciple of Christ â�" which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul â��The Impostorâ��. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place.

Since this bible is at least 1500-2000 year's old then that mean's that its one of the earliest Bible's Written and so that would* mean that its True since in the Holy Quran it say's that Hazrat Isa (pbuh) wasn't crucified but before he was .God ascended him to Heaven alive and replaced him with Judas Ascariot.

It was also said in the Holy Quran that the point of the Holy Quran was to be the last and perfect Revelation's since all of the Holy books were in time Corrupted by Humans and this is the case with the Christians Since Hazrat Isa (pbuh) himself said that he was not God but his Prophet and people believed him but over team the Holy Bible got corrupted and so Allah decided to Appoint another Prophet who would be the last one and give him the Holy Quran.

Authenticity
According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament�s teachings of Christianity. Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later.
It is believed that, during the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many biblical texts have begun to surface over time, including those of the Dead Sea and Gnostic Gospels; but this book especially, seems to worry the Vatican.

Discuss


last edited May 06 2014 01:57 am by mbbs112
 

Posted May 6, '14 at 2:02am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

there are other links as well if you want just ask

 

Posted May 6, '14 at 2:47am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

From what I've found, there's no actual dating that has been done on the book as of yet. Religious experts (I presume muslims) believe it to be genuine and that's the only word. It's suspicious that they supposedly got the book from smugglers...why would they have it and how did they get it?

Since this bible is at least 1500-2000 year's old then that mean's that its one of the earliest Bible's Written


I'm still wondering where this 1500-2000 range is coming from. There have been no datings done as of yet afaik.

so that would* mean that its True


Er, no. That's not how proof works. All it would mean if that's actually how old it is, is that that's how old it is. Nothing is affirmed or disproved either way.
 

Posted May 6, '14 at 3:08am

Jacen96

Jacen96

3,175 posts

First off: Learn to Link

Secondly: The Catholic Church, and by extension all the Protestant churches, have already decided a set of books as Divinely Inspired (written while under inspiration from God) iirc. Therefore, the chance of an alleged book that may or may not even be accurate having an impact on anyone's belief, that weren't already unsure of themselves and/or gullible, is pretty much nonexistent..

also, it kinda sounds like Propaganda, don't know why.

~~~Darth Caedus


last edited May 06 2014 03:10 am by Jacen96
 

Posted May 6, '14 at 3:15am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,593 posts

Knight

What this shows is what we already knew: there is not one christianity and one islam. There was likely a multitude of different versions, cults and holy scriptures at that time, we even know there are gospels not included in the "official" bible(s) (the gospel of Judas, for example).

But if this new bible is genuine and as old as they claim, that would definitely be a very interesting find that might shed more light on the history of religions in that time.

 

Posted May 6, '14 at 2:47pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,048 posts

[...] the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas â�" a disciple of Christ â�" which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul â��The Impostorâ��. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place.


The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament�s teachings of Christianity.


This only means that it is not a bible.

Since this bible is at least 1500-2000 year's old then that mean's that its one of the earliest Bible's Written and so that would* mean that its True [...]


Because old = true, right?

It was also said in the Holy Quran that the point of the Holy Quran was to be the last and perfect Revelation's since all of the Holy books were in time Corrupted by Humans and this is the case with the Christians Since Hazrat Isa (pbuh) himself said that he was not God but his Prophet and people believed him but over team the Holy Bible got corrupted and so Allah decided to Appoint another Prophet who would be the last one and give him the Holy Quran.


According to the Immutable Omnexicon, this is not true, and the Omnexicon predates the Quran by more than 10 billion years. Therefore, you are mistaken.
 

Posted May 6, '14 at 4:59pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

This only means that it is not a bible.

Well, it is a bible, not the bible.
 

Posted May 7, '14 at 2:05am

Ernie15

Ernie15

13,538 posts

Knight

1500-2000 year old


This is the part that I have a problem with. Let's assume for a moment that these religious experts are correct and the book really is 1500-2000 years old. That's a pretty wide range of years in which the book could have been written. A 2000-year-old Bible could be argued as credible, but how authentic can a book be if it's written 500 years after the events it supposedly depicted? Even if it was written "1500-2000 years ago", just the fact that they can't determine exactly when it was written keeps the piece of literature from being credible.

I looked up the Gospel of Barnabus, and I found this part to be especially interesting regarding this topic, particularly this passage about the "1500-year-old Bible":

In March 2012 Dr Assad Sauma, an expert in medieval Syriac texts, reported that the manuscript deposited in the Ethonography Museum could be identified with one for which he had formerly undertaken a partial analysis. He stated that the portions of text that the had examined had consisted of random gospel verses and quotations; and also that he had been unable to find any correspondence between them and the text of the Gospel of Barnabas.

This certainly raises a few more questions about the authenticity of the document.

The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.


First, Aramaic doesn't necessarily mean it was the same Aramaic that Jesus spoke.

Second, the document is written in Syriac, which is a Middle Aramaic language that wasn't widely used until the 4th century.
 

Posted May 7, '14 at 3:32am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,593 posts

Knight

Well, it is a bible, not the bible.

All bibles are/were the bible to someone.
 

Posted May 7, '14 at 9:46am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,530 posts

Let us assume that if nothing else, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by disciples of Christ. They affirm Christ to be the Son of God, born of a virgin, who was crucified, etc etc. I believe you have this backwards. As this gospel attempts to debunk the basis of Christianity, along with prophesies of Mohammed (never once mentioned in the New Testament), the four other gospels disprove this one, rather than this one disproving the four (and the rest of the New Testament for that matter, since Peter wrote several books and Paul claimed to have seen Christ alive).

Regardless of whether you believe that any of the gospels are true or not, or if Christ was ever who he said he was (I am aware that many of you are atheists and doubt the credibility of the Bible), it's ridiculous to believe that a single book on supernatural material that runs completely contrary to 27 other books on supernatural material should be taken seriously.


last edited May 07 2014 09:47 am by MattEmAngel
 
Reply to 1500 Year old bible found in Turkey claim's that Jesus Christ was not crucified.

You must be logged in to post a reply!