1500 year old bible confirms that jesus christ was not crucified

Feb 2013
1,702
French Republic
#1
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?

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.
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#3
Wow some random guy on the internet has posted an unsourced fluff piece that will destroy much of the Christian belief system.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm convinced.
 

veka

Ad Honorem
Dec 2008
2,559
Finland
#4
The Gospel of Barnabas belongs to the post-NT Christian apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature.

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.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas"]Gospel of Barnabas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
#5
I liked the 1500-2000 year old bit. If you take the upper range, then it could be a text written soon after Jesus' death.

Alternatively the text could be over a century after the Council of Nicea :zany:

Even assuming the information is correct, it could be authentic gospel or a post-nicean forgery. Bit hard to believe it'll overturn Christian theology. Certainly don't see why the Vatican would be upset. Call it 1500 years old and denounce it as a forgery - job done
 
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
#6
I liked the 1500-2000 year old bit. If you take the upper range, then it could be a text written soon after Jesus' death.

Alternatively the text could be over a century after the Council of Nicea :zany:
I took that as the age of the bible itself, not of the contents. If it was 2,000 years old it would have been written when JC was a teenager, right?
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
#7
I took that as the age of the bible itself, not of the contents. If it was 2,000 years old it would have been written when JC was a teenager, right?
Or in his early twenties.

But i got the impression that the OP is arguing that the manuscript is 1500-2000 years old
 
Jun 2014
117
Florida
#8
The bottom line is that we have not been told the truth for hundreds of years. The best source for the truth is the Sumerian and Assyrian texts. Which have been translated over the last 20-30 years and shows what really happened in our past.
 
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
#10
The bottom line is that we have not been told the truth for hundreds of years. The best source for the truth is the Sumerian and Assyrian texts. Which have been translated over the last 20-30 years and shows what really happened in our past.
You want to start a thread on that? Shouldn't derail this thread.
 

Similar History Discussions