(April 29, 2014 at 2:59 am)BlackSwordsman Wrote:

(April 28, 2014 at 8:30 pm)psychoslice Wrote: The believers will only say that the book was there to test the faithful, you just can't beat them.

I have learned that you cannot argue with a christian.

Anyone who can throw the word "MAGIC" around cannot be reasoned with. Like muttering to a brick wall, it will get you no where :thinking:

(April 28, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ok, pigeons, here comes the cat...

Quote:Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later.

Quote:The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together, with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.

This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be late and pseudepigraphical;[1] however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic,[2] Ebionite[3] or Diatessaronic[4]), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.

This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas

Quote:This work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahadah (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet and not the son of God,[37] while Paul is called "the deceived." Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven, while Judas Iscariot the traitor was crucified in his place. These beliefs—in particular, that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified—conform to or resemble Islamic teachings which say that Jesus is a major prophet who did not die on the cross but was taken alive by angels to God (Allah).

Quote:THE extant Gospel of Barnabas, often classified among the "modern apocrypha," survives in Italian and Spanish versions and is, no doubt, the product of the late Middle Ages.1 There is, however, a Gospel of Barnabas mentioned in earlier Christian history and it is fairly safe to assume that the medieval book of the same name is intended by its author to be the same work. In the Preface to the Spanish text of the medieval Barnabas we are told that an employee of the Inquisition, a "Brother Marino" encountered a reference to an early Gospel of Barnabas in the writings of Irenaeus. Then, some time later, by a happy accident, he found a copy of the same early gospel in the library of Pope Sixtus V. Neither the known text of Irenaeus' Adversus haereses nor any existing fragments from Irenaeus' writings mention a Gospel of Barnabas as the Preface claims, but two other works do: a gospel of that name is mentioned in two lists of books "received and not received" by orthodox Christianity, the so-called Gelasian Decree and the so-called List of Sixty Books. The later of these two references is dated to the seventh century CE 2 after which a "Gospel according to Barnabas" is never heard of again until the medieval work appeared. It is widely assumed that this is the historical opportunity seized upon by the author of the medieval work: knowing, through Irenaeus, the lists, or some other source, that there had once been a Gospel of Barnabas but that it was no longer extant provided the medieval author with a perfect situation in which to place his forgery

(April 28, 2014 at 8:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What's that? A contradictory account of god's word?

(April 28, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 1500 Year Old Bible Confirms That Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified – Vatican In Awe

Quote: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 – 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.

A report by The National Turk says that the Bible was seized from a gang of smugglers in a Mediterranean-area operation. The report states the gang was charged with smuggling antiquities, illegal excavations, and the possession of explosives. The books itself is valued as high as 40 Million Turkish Liras (approx. 28 mil. Dollars). Man, where is the Thieves Guild, when you need them?

Ok, pigeons, here comes the cat...

Quote:In February 2012, it was confirmed by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism that a 52-page biblical manuscript in Syriac had been deposited in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara.[59] Newspaper reports in Turkey claimed that the manuscript had been found in Cyprus in 2000, in an operation conducted by police against smugglers, and had been kept in a police repository since then;[60] and further speculated that the text of the manuscript could be that of the Gospel of Barnabas. No subsequent confirmation has been made, either as to the contents of the Ankara manuscript, or as to any findings of scientific tests for its age and authenticity.[59]

Quote:But alas, this extraordinary discovery is probably a hoax, the work of a forger who, according to some, could have been a European Jewish scholar from the Middle Ages. The most factual criticisms have come from the Syriacs. Indeed, anyone who speaks modern Assyrian (also known as neo-Aramaic) will find the inscription on the so-called ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ easy to read. However errors are just as easy to make out. Apparently, the main inscription, in a modern transliteration, reads: ‘b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b'sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran’. This apparently means: ‘In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord.’


Today, a fair number of newspapers and media organisations in Muslim Countries have picked up the news, saying that ‘an ancient, 1500-year-old bible predicted the coming of Muhammad.’ Apart from the obvious age confusion between the 1500 years attributed by the media and the date of 1500 AD written in the book’s main inscription, it is clear that predicting in 1500 AD something that occurred in 630 AD is no great prophecy.

Quote:Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century

(April 29, 2014 at 11:54 am)truthmatters Wrote: There more manuscript evidence for the New Testament and Jesus and his crucified then any ancient book or person. There are thousands and thousands of New Testament Greek manuscripts more than any other ancient writing.

---

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure..The Historical Evidence.The Vatican lolol dear one Catholicism is not even christian they follow themselves and think good works merit them salvation .The bible say the opposite of what the Vatican ideology says .
#1. Eyewitness Sources Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor who reigned during Jesus’ ministry, has 10 authors who mention his existence within 150 years of his life. These include: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum, and Luke.2 If one removes Luke, since he is a New Testament source, there are 9 secular non-Christian sources. This means that there are just as many non-Christian sources for Jesus’ existence as there are for Tiberius Caesar’s! And, to compare, the total number of sources between Jesus and Tiberius Caesar are 42:10. Therefore, there are over four times as many sources for Jesus’ life and deeds than for Tiberius Caesar’s.
There are many evidences from which one can argue for the historicity of Christ’s death by crucifixion, of which I will use only a few. The first evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion is from the testimony of eyewitness sources. Many groups like Muslims do not believe there is eyewitness material in the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. In fact, one Muslim claims that “Not a single one of the Christians was a witness with them [the Jews]. Rather the apostles kept a distance through fear, and not one of them witnessed the crucifixion.”
This argument is largely based upon Matthew 26:56 which says, “Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” Though the disciples forsook Jesus, some of them were still witnesses from a distance (Mark 14:54). Also, there was an anonymous disciple whom Jesus, while on the cross, commanded to take care of Mary (John 19:26-27). The Gospel of Luke reports that while Jesus was carrying the cross, “. . . there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him (Luke 23:27, emphasis mine).” In addition to these people already mentioned the Gospels are scattered with references to Jewish leaders (Mt. 27:41; Mk. 15:31), Roman centurion (Mt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47) and soldiers (Mt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:35; and John 19:18, 23) who all witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion. For Muslims to argue that the crucifixion is not historical simply does not square with the historical data because there were multitudes of witnesses to the fact that the Romans crucified Jesus.
#2. Medical Evidence
In light of the eyewitness evidence from the gospels, there is strong medical evidence that confirms the historicity of Christ’s death as presented in the Gospels. Before examining the medical evidence, as a general point the Romans knew how to crucify their victims. To suppose that the Romans would have allowed Jesus to escape the cross, is nonsensical. The Romans knew how to kill someone and they knew when someone was dead.
Concerning the specific medical evidence, the gospels report specific conditions that a crucified victim would have experienced. First, in Jesus’ pre-crucifixion experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus sweated “great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). According to Alexander Metherell an M.D. and Ph.D., “This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis.” He later acknowledges that tremendous stress like the kind that Jesus suffered could have produced this effect.
Second, Jesus’ desire, while on the cross, to receive a drink confirms the fact that he likely was experiencing another known medical condition called hypovolemic shock, which would have been caused by his beating. According to Metherell, hypovolemic schock “. . . does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn’t there; second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse; third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left; and fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume.”
Third, the evidence from the spear thrust confirms the idea that Jesus did indeed die on the cross. Concerning this Matherell states that hypovolemic shock causes a rapid heart beat which results in fluid around the heart called a pericardial effusion. The Gospel of John testifies to this fact in John 19:34 which says, “. . . one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” Metherell continues, “The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid – the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion – came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid like water.” Therefore, given the above specific medical evidence, the Journal of the American Medical Association is justified to conclude, “. . . interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”
#3. Early Statements of Belief
In addition to the medical evidence for the historicity of the gospel accounts, there is evidence from early Christian creeds which are located in various places in the New Testament including Luke 24:34, parts of Philippians 2, and 1 Corinthians 15.11 The creed that provides the strongest evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus is from 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which says, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” These few verses are just a sample of a much longer statement by Paul on the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Verses 6-8 go on to describe 500 people, James, the apostles, and Paul himself. Some scholars doubt the fact that the creed continues past verse 5; however, as Gary Habermas notes, “. . . it is agreed by virtually all scholars that the creed includes at least verses, 3, 4, and 5.” 12

Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a creed for a number of reasons. First, there are certain words in the text that indicate someone was passing on tradition. William Lane Craig notes that the three fold use of “and that” in the passage show that someone is passing on tradition. Other words also indicate the delivering of tradition such as the words “delivered” and “received.” Second, there are many non-Pauline words in the text such as “for our sins,” “according to the scriptures,” “he has been raised,” “third day,” “he was seen,” and “the twelve,” that indicate Paul probably did not compose this text on his own. These are just some of the reasons why scholars think that this text is a creed and “. . . numerous critical theologians date it from three to eight years after Jesus’ crucifixion.”

Though there is strong evidence that 1 Corinthians contains an early creed, yet the question arises: How do scholars find the date of the creed? Scholars generally start from the crucifixion of Jesus which is dated at 30 A.D. and then move to the fact of Paul’s conversion which took place around 33-35 A.D. They then proceed to Paul’s own testimony, in Galatians 1. In this passage Paul states, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” By the simple fact that Paul tells the time when he went to see Peter, one can date this event to around 36-38 A.D. Yet, while at Jerusalem, Paul probably received the creed included in 1 Corinthians. Habermas agrees, “. . . the presence of both Peter and James in the list of appearances (1 Cor. 15:5, 7) indicates the probability that Paul received this creed from the apostles when he visited Jerusalem. Therefore, given the above evidence, the creed of 1 Corinthians is from within eight years of Jesus’ crucifixion. On top of that if one adds to the idea that Peter had the creed for a while before delivering it to Paul, one has to acknowledge that it goes back practically to the events themselves.”

In addition to the fact that this creed is early, the evidence from the creed points to eyewitness accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Verse 5 states, “. . . he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” This verse implies that the disciples saw Jesus collectively. Habermas states, “. . . even if we take the shorter creed and quit at verse 5, we still have an eyewitness report of a collective experience – an appearance to the twelve.” Therefore, this is strong evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Not only is the creed early, but it likely contains eyewitness accounts. Furthermore, the fact that the creed acknowledges Jesus’ death and resurrection is strong evidence for the death of Jesus by crucifixion. Since the material is undeniably early it shows the fact that the followers of Jesus believes that Jesus died very early in Christianity. In light of this early testimony to the resurrection of Jesus this points to a death of some sort. Without the death of Christ, there is no resurrection of Christ and a resurrection presupposes a death of some sort. Therefore, the resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 provide strong evidence that Jesus really died by crucifixion.

Along with the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, there is also early preaching material which attests to the crucifixion of Jesus in the book of Acts. In his summary of the creeds in the New Testament, Habermas mentions five specific places in the book of Acts that mention the crucifixion. Concerning some of these passages in Acts, John Drane states, “. . . there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.” These several verses in addition to the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, provide specific evidence for Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Among the many reason that scholars believe these are creeds, is the undeveloped theology in them. In Acts 2:23 Peter states, “Him [Jesus], being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Peter again makes his point in Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all of the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Therefore, not only is there early testimony that hints at the crucifixion, but from the preaching of the apostles, we have clear references to Jesus’ crucifixion.
#4. Transformation of the Disciples and Emergence of the Church
Another strong evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is from the transformation of the disciples and the emergence of the early church. It is a historical fact that the Christian Church originated in the first century. This is something which Christians and Muslims can agree. However, the hypothesis that Jesus never really died on the cross does not account for this phenomenon. As has been shown, there were many people who witnessed Christ’s death, but if the disciples began preaching a crucified and risen Messiah like Acts suggests, these witnesses could have produced Jesus’ body if he was not dead. James Packer rightly states, “. . . how could Jesus’ resurrection have been successfully proclaimed in Jerusalem if his body could be produced?” Thus any non-crucifixion theory just does not make sense.
#5. Failure of Alternate Theories to the Crucifixion
In conclusion, the naturalistic theories simply do not adequately account for the above evidence. For Muslims to believe that Jesus did not really die on a cross does not explain well the emergence of the Christian Church. It has been shown that the Christians preached the death and resurrection extremely early in the history of the church and many of them died for their beliefs. To suppose that the disciples did not know that Jesus really died on the cross and arose from the dead, does not go well with the fact that there is extremely early eyewitness creedal material that indicates Jesus died and arose from the dead. Second, to suppose that the disciples knew Jesus did not die on the cross and then boldly proclaimed that it happened is simply absurd. People certainly die for things that they believe to be true, but for them to die for something they know to be false is beyond credulity. Thus, due to the eyewitness testimony, the medical evidence, the appearances of Jesus, and the emergence of the early church, this makes the historicity of the crucifixion a historical fact that every person and those Muslim needs to consider.critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing.

---

It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.

Quote: These include: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum,

Quote:The letters, however, are clear fiction, obviously intended to enlist the prestige and authority of the philosopher in support of the Christian faith.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:54 am)truthmatters Wrote: There more manuscript evidence for the New Testament and Jesus and his crucified then any ancient book or person.