Jesus wasn't crucified; states 1500 year-old bible

http://moorishharem.com/Culture-det...esus-christ-was-not-crucified-vatican-in-awe/

 

i contemplate what sort of book you will write . hmmm . the present
notion is an illustrated novelette - mythological , a trinity of conflicting
heroic characters , one of which may well be universal diversity ... Ud .

 

Could be an individual perspective from a guy with interesting thoughts 1500 years ago. It is amazing if it is really that old. It is amazing that someone wrote it down back then in the first place and it is amazing we are still able to take notice of what some guy thought of it back then (or perhaps what he wanted us to thought of it )

 

.

 

"Discovered and kept secret" sounds so conspiratorial. Who discovered it and kept it secret? Christians? No. The Turkish authorities. They discovered it in a raid to apprehend criminals who were trafficking in artifacts. They used it as evidence at the trial, and then hung onto it until 2012, when they was turned over to the Ethnography Museum. So if it was "kept secret", blame Turkish Law Enforcement, not the Vatican.

Most scholars consider it to be pseudographical--i.e., like most of the gospels of the period, written by somebody else than the alleged author. It supports the Muslim view of Jesus, and that might have been its purpose, which would mean that it's less than 1500 years old--some say no older than the middle ages. An interesting twist is the allegation that Jesus wasn't crucified because he substituted Judas in his place. Do you think that's plausible? This point of view was characteristic of Gnostics, who found it unthinkable that Jesus, the great prophet, could really be crucified as a common criminal. Some said he substituted somebody else (which seems like a rotten thing to do, even to Judas). Others said he didn't really die because his human body was an illusion, like a holographic projection. Comparing these theories to the standard Christian explanation that he really was crucified, which version do you think is the more fantastic? And Jesus proclaims Mohammed as the greater prophet. Was that psychic or what? Will you believe any fantastic claim if it puts down Christianity? Earlier versions of this gospel in Spanish and Italian translations were thought to be forgeries. What makes this find in Turkey important is that it's written in the Syriac dialect of Aramaic, which Jesus and his disciples spoke,(oddly, Barabas did not; he spoke and wrote in Greek) and written on animal skins. If authentic,this copy, supposedly 1500 years old, would have been written in the early 6th century--a little early for Islam but much later than the canonical gospels and several centuries after Jesus and Barnabas! We do have a letter from Barnabas, considered to beauthentic, written in the first century that speaks of Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord. There are lots of gospels that never made it into the canon. Why believe this one?

For other views challenging the authenticity of the "gospel", see:
www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_b.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm;
www.answering-islam.org/Barnabas C;
www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

See also the book by Ragg and Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas.

 

There were many "gospels" written, beside the four that were recognized as being scriptural by the early Councils which determined the composition of our Bible.

Do you suppose they weren't aware of this work, and didn't consider and reject it for inclusion in the biblical canon?

 

I suppose it was written long after the canon was established, and that it is a Muslim forgery and hoax. If it was written 1500 years ago, that would put it at early 5th century. The Christian canon was well-established by the end of the fourth century. And the fact that the alleged Barnabas gospel has Jesus prophesying the coming of Mohammed suggests that the manuscript in question is seventh century or later, unless Mohammed really is Allah's true prophet.

 

But did Mohammed preach Divine Law? He had dutiful Human Law for the righteous to "want".

 

And remind us all again who decided what made it into canon.

You only have to look at The book of Jubilees vs Genesis to see what deciding canon was all about, Jubilees is more detailed and accurate, but has all the crazy incest stuff left in it.

So in deciding canon it was just basically taking out whatever was too pro muslim, whatever was to 'redneck' at the time, ironically what was too hebrew, keeping in whatever was going to suit civilized rome at the time

 

It was the Light we are dim about in the present times. The dark ages began then because in the present times, for the data, the historical vision of the wicked still are seen at as such. The wicked have not yet been banished from the Earth. :sunny:

 

The Book of Barnabas isn't a "bible".

 

But a crucifixion was supposed to banish the wicked to hell. The paradox is from life on Earth, or into some other side of Hell. Muslim faith does not matter.

 

There were no Muslims at the time. That was my point. The canon was decided by councils of Christian leaders, and yes there was politics involved, etc, but that's a completely extraneous issue and beside the point. The manuscript in question wasn't included in the canon because the canon had already been established before it was written.