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.
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".
This is a bit of a stretch. There are 66 books in the Bible - 27 of these comprise the New Testament. The crucifixion of Jesus is described in only 4 of these. So maybe a better approach is to say that the crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely central to Christian belief. In other words, there would be an unacceptably high cost to reject the belief that Jesus was crucified. I'm not sure what to think about this approach.
Interestingly, I came across this wikipedia article linked here which I will quote below:
Many modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.
Of course, this sort of evidence I would take as unavailable to a Scripture-based epistemic system. But it's still pretty interesting.
But you read the winning side. How many books are butied in the vatican libraries? How many scripts been set in fire for being "wrong and evil"? Entire religious group being killed and all of there books and costumes gone with the wind. Maybe your "christianity" is just the "winning christianity"?
It seems a straightforward matter to say, "Look, this text completely contradicts our already-accepted texts so it's obviously false."
Except that, to all accounts, it doesn't. Apparently, the bible in question was not found to contain any part of the gospel according to Barnabus.
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.
I think this is less a matter of which is justified and more of which pertains to Christianity. Both the Quran and the Talmud can be considered holy scriptures, but they are not Christian scriptures. The same goes for the Barnabus text.
But you read the winning side. How many books are butied in the vatican libraries? How many scripts been set in fire for being "wrong and evil"? Entire religious group being killed and all of there books and costumes gone with the wind. Maybe your "christianity" is just the "winning christianity"?
It doesn't really matter in this instance, because any religion that identifies Jesus as "just a prophet" is not Christianity. Your statement also directly contradicts what you said here:
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.
I'm rather skeptical of the authenticity of this book, particularly given the form it takes. Far as I can tell this style of book didn't exist in the time frame this article gives. The oldest known bound books that I can find use Coptic binding, which used wood covers and papyrus. Those would date to around the time frame given here.
But you read the winning side. How many books are butied in the vatican libraries? How many scripts been set in fire for being "wrong and evil"? Entire religious group being killed and all of there books and costumes gone with the wind. Maybe your "christianity" is just the "winning christianity"?
And maybe your "Judaism" is the "winning Judaism", eh?
This most likely a hoax, just like the pig bones found in Africa that we are never allowed to examine and that are supposedly the remains of our supposed ape-like ancestors.
This most likely a hoax, just like the pig bones found in Africa that we are never allowed to examine and that are supposedly the remains of our supposed ape-like ancestors.
1 What ape-like? Humans are apes. Why is this so hard to understand? 2 Why do you keep trying to segue unrelated topics into these threads?
This most likely a hoax, just like the pig bones found in Africa that we are never allowed to examine and that are supposedly the remains of our supposed ape-like ancestors.
No the hoax of the pig teeth is not the supporting evidence that has humans related to other primates.
