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.
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.
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.
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.
[...] 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.
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.
For me, I have a hard time taking it seriously because, it was discovered in a nation that is part of an area long considered "Muslim" (afaik), and from what the op's link says, just conveniently says everything about Christianity is wrong and Islam is right.
Matt, the problme with what you say is that there was no room for a frienly competition in christianity along the years. What we know now as christianity is just the dominante one which labeled all the other branches as heathens and wrong. For example,for a north korean, USA aim at korea war was to slaughter everyone for fun. If north korea will suddenly win and become the ruler of the world, that will become the"truth". There will be evidence for korea war, but not about the motives and reasons and small details. Modern christianity is based on saint Peter. It is well known that early christians ate kosher food a nd celebrated the jewish holidays, up until the major branch was the pagan one instead of the jewish one, in order to attract as many belivers a possible.What if the mainstream story was curropted by Peter (not neccesery in a purpouse), and jesus did held snakes or wanted peoples to eat kosher and so on?
I may confused some goospels. Peter was the first pope right? Who lived a large period of time after the others? My point was that christianity is not a "writen in stone" religion. Its support learning and researching of context and relics. So this book shouldnt be considered as a threat, but as a tool to keep learning on your origins and belifs.
Denying the deity of Christ and claiming Judas was crucified in his place is hardly "friendly competition." It directly contradicts multiple chapters of text in multiple books.
This is an excellent way of explaining the tension here, as well as a plausible response to this text that would preserve the core beliefs of Christianity as a whole. It seems a straightforward matter to say, "Look, this text completely contradicts our already-accepted texts so it's obviously false."
But this line of thought brings with it a serious worry that has to do with disagreement. We can find an excellent example of this sort of disagreement in the the dispute between Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine. The general thought here is that each was operating from a different epistemic system. Galileo was using science to justify his beliefs, whilst the Church relied on Scripture to justify their beliefs. One response to this scenario is to say that there are no facts of the matter about what evidence justifies what belief (this is called epistemic relativism).
In short, the only way to resolve a disagreement would be to convince the other person you're right. But you can only give him reasons or evidence that count as evidence in your own epistemic system. In short, each of you would be talking past one another.
But here, we have a disagreement within the same epistemic system, which we'll just call Holy Scripture (HS). According to HS, Scripture is appropriate evidence for justifying beliefs. So the question is, why does this piece of Scripture not justify certain beliefs? Here are some possible responses, none of which I find all that attractive.
1) This isn't Scripture because it's not part of the Holy Bible.
This is an interesting response, but it looks like it just moves the question back in a historical sense. The current Holy Bible is an amalgamation of a subset of many texts. In other words, some texts were added and others were rejected. So this response seems to question how the epistemic system HS formed in the first place!
2) It contradicts already-held beliefs that are properly justified.
The worry here is that the justificatory status of the already-held beliefs becomes suspect. Certainly it should be the case that we should avoid, when possible, believing two contradictory pieces of information (though Christianity, as a whole, is certainly no stranger to outright contradictions). But we would have to give some story as to why we would reject the Barnabus set of beliefs rather than the currently held ones. After all, when we get new information that contradicts currently held beliefs, we often revise our beliefs to match the new information. So what's going on here that we can reject this text outright?
There are other neat responses out there, but I feel like this post is getting too long, so I'll leave it at this for now.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that one version of a bible that was found to contradict just about all other books in the bible to be the presumed "truth". Unless you are saying that there are other sources beside this that backed this and they are either undiscovered or blocked from the knowledge of the general public ( very unlikely), i just can't accept this bible. There are bibles that say Judas was asked by Jesus to sold Him out ( a.k.a the whole "martyrdom" of Jesus was purposely planned by Himself ), but that doesn't mean that is the truth, when you have like a dozen of other bible depicting the event in an otherwise manner.
