JC wasn't crucified, says 1500-year-old bible

[Minimalist]

Assuming this is authentic,

But what does "authentic" even mean in this current context?

authentic
Use Authentic in a sentence
au·then·tic
[aw-then-tik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2.
having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3.
entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.

Going by #1 there is not a single, authentic, document for any of this jesus freak horseshit. Everything we have consists of later copies and, as Bart Ehrman has amply demonstrated, the copies are error-ridden and heavily edited pieces of shit.

The Pyramid Text, first inscribed into the tomb of the Fifth Dynasty Pharaoh, Unas, might be the earliest example of an "authentic" religious text we have.

The texts then describe several ways for the pharaoh to reach the heavens, and one of these is by climbing a ladder. In utterance 304 the king says:[4]

Hail, daughter of Anubis, above the hatches of heaven,
Comrade of Thoth, above the ladder's rails,
Open Unas's path, let Unas pass!

Another way is by ferry. If the boatman refuses to take him, the king has other plans:

If you fail to ferry Unas,
He will leap and sit on the wing of Thoth,
Then he will ferry Unas to that side!

Predates this jesus shit by 2400 years or so.

[Cinjin]

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 .

First of all, stop butchering the English language! Have the decency to keep your mouth shut if you don't have a working handle on the language.

Secondly, simply spewing out statements that you wish to be true does not make them actually true, and it sure as hell doesn't make them believable. It's called sourcing. You need documentation to back up the things you say. For instance, if I wrote the phrase "truthmatters is a gullible half-wit" I would need to offer some documentation for this assertion. Source: Please See Above.

[Cyberman]

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 .

Well done for parroting the party line, practically word for word.

There's far more manuscript evidence and eyewitness testimony that JC never walked the Earth than all of your New Testament manuscript evidence put together. Literally millions of Greek manuscripts attest to this fact, more than any other ancient writing.

And Catholicism is the only true xtian religion. The bible says the opposite of what the Vatican ideology says because the bible is the opposite of true xtianity.

See how easy it is to spout this stuff as fact when you don't have to present any evidence for any of it?

[Minimalist]

What is most amusing is this mantra about how many manuscripts there are. So what?

There is one story of the miracle-working godboy: What is conventionally known as gMark. All the rest of it is a thinly disguised copy or expansion of the original story.

What they have is one turd which other people came along and shit on to add to the pile.

[Zidneya]

And how do we know this isn't the true word of god?

How do we know there is a god in the first place?

---

It's not the "crucified" part that makes the who NT story stink to high heaven. It is the "ascended to heaven" part.

Yeah but getting rid of the whole he suffered in the cross for your sins would be a huge punch in christianity.

---

Now how do I subtly get this bit of information to Christian family members without me sending them the link. Need to shake things up a bit.

Simple you just open the website with your browser then you screenshot the page with the article to convert it into an image and send it.

[Justtristo]

deleted

[Lemonvariable72]

The only change this will make is more fuel.for Muslim apologists

[Confused Ape]

The only change this will make is more fuel.for Muslim apologists

This book won't make any changes to anything because the Gospel of Barnabas has been known about for years.

Gospel of Barnabas

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.

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.

After a bit of research I discovered that this particular copy isn't 1500 years old - there's an inscription which says it was written in the year 1500.

All the reports about it are from 2012 and nothing's been heard about it since. This indicates that it's only a few decades older than the manuscripts which scholars, including Muslims, already knew about.

[psychoslice]

The bible itself, that is the so called new testament is nothing but words thrown together, this is what Constantine wanted, it was called the good book back then, it went through years of changing and adding to the words, in the so called Councils, it then got to a stage where they couldn't get away with changing it, and so we have the book of the new testament. There were many books left out, they used all they could to form a story about a god-man who's name was picked to be Jesus, and old Constantine was happy, after all it was his project.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So is the manuscript written in numbered paragraphs with punctuation?