Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

Status :

Could this be true ? http://www.livebuddhism.com/2014/07/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ.html

HGL

"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."

Gospel of Barnabas has come up VERY recently if we go by referrings in other books.

Like 1500 AD around or so.

[I was corrected on this, see later on, rather 7th C AD]

As to Turkish scholarship, one leading Turk (Erdogan I think) said Turks had discovered America before Columbus (but after the Vikings, which he did not mention) and that Columbus found a Mosque on Cuba.

Something to think about before arguing the manuscript is 1500 years old!

The manuscript is pretty certainly NOT 2000 years old, since it is a codex, not a scroll. Codices re placed scrolls later and Jews still use scrolls in the ritual usage of holy texts.

[Earliest mention of codex form is actually by Martial, I C.]

BSS

The Gospel of Barnabas is an obvious forgery, no one ever considered it canonical in any major early church group, and it was likely written by the same group forging letters in Paul's name.

HGL

If the Gospel of Barnabas in the early lists of Apocrypha is identical to this one, that is. More likely it was lost and this is a later Muslim forgery using its title. There IS a "Gospel of Barnabas" in the old lists of Apocrypha, or not, by the way?

BSS

Oh wait, I'm thinking of the EPISTLE of Barnabas. Ima go read the Gospel of Barnabas, looks interesting!

How do we know its a Muslim forgery and not just written by Arians or such"

Jo H

yeah sure wasn't me and him hang at the bar and smoke a few joints on a regular basis.

HGL

1) first mention around 1500, 2) prophecy of Mohammed, 3) Arians were no docetists, did believe crucifixion.

LWh

Islamic fake

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Its a stupid lie !!!!!!!! Dont buy into it Jesus Christ our lord was crucified for us according to our sin !!!!! Dont listen to this Gospel of barnabas he wasnt even a diciple of Christ

BSS

" 1) first mention around 1500, " - The concept of the Gospel of Barnabas was first mentioned in the 7th century as far as we know, whether the current copy is a redacted Islamicized version or not is up to dispute. It could also have been written by Docetists initially.

HGL

7th C? By whom?

Barnabas was a disciple, posthumously at least, but not one of the twelve:

Wiki on St Barnabas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnabas

BSS

[Site on:] NTCanon : Sixty Canonical Books
http://www.ntcanon.org/Sixty_Canonical_Books.shtml

Mentioned in the list of Apocryphal books.

Well, Paul was not one of the original disciples either so...

HGL

But from Barnabas we possibly do have a real book in the Bible. Hebrews is either by Paul - or by Barnabas.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Give me scripture in the King James Version about barnabas being an diciple

HGL

Yes, indeed, the title as such is mentioned in Apocrypha list you gave as "The Gospel according to Barnabas". NOT sure if it is same as the examples we have.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Paul was chosen like the rest of them

BSS

Right, I agree that we don't know if its the same one or not. It probably is interpolated heavily.

HGL

Scripture, will acts from Douay Rheims version do?

Douay Rheims Bible Online : Acts, chapter 14
http://drbo.org/chapter/51014.htm

BSS

However, its arguable that the Docetist theme was picked up on by the Islamists because they agreed with it, and then added to it from there.

HGL

"And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker."

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Give me scripture !!!

BSS

What about it? You said Barnabas not being an original apostle meant something.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Nope just King James all the others are corrupt

HGL

I did [as to Scripture, not as to « only King James »]. Previous chapter we have:

Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Now, KJV onlyism is obviously a Protestant heresy.

DRB is older. It is Catholic. And Catholics unlike King James were not persecuting Baptists in 1600's.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Be not deceived this is all based on science once again and science loves to try to prove God wrong

HGL

Nope, science does not love that. Science falsely so called does it.

ATK

LOL I wonder when they'll start believing what the Qur'an has said..

HGL

ATK, I am never going to believe the Fifth Sourate. It contradicts Holy Gospel. Btw, this "Gospel of Barnabas" as here extant is probably a forgery by Muslims.

LWh

Muslims would love it to be real.

ATK

Lol! Did you actually listen to yourself clearly? HGL , you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning.

LL

Paul warned you about false books as early as second Thessalonians chapter 2. The Vatican was a takeover of the old Cesar Roman Empire. You wouldn't be surprise what you find in old Rome

HGL

ATK, I said that I would never believe the Fifth Sourate and you came up with: "you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning." ?

Gospels are written by two people who had followed Jesus, and two who had met such as had followed him. Quran (including Fifth Sourate) is about 600 years later. So, if they contradict each other about Jesus, I believe the Gospels. Common sense ; and not seeing that shows some stiff prejudice and preconditioning on your part.

Church has preserved the Four Gospels and authentified its authorship. The new find is on the contrary just a find. Can this manuscript be from the time when Jesus lived? No, not likely. Back then books were scrolls. This manuscript is a codex, like books are now. With a scroll you roll out lines 1 - 20, before you come to line 20 you roll in lines 1 - 15 and roll out lines so you have line 15 - 40 or whatever, as you can see Romans do in Asterix (yes, it is a comedy basically about our times, but details about Romans are usually accurate). In a codex you turn pages, like we do today.

[Scrolls were very rarely replaced by codices in Ist C, but it happened, but manuscript being a codex it is not very probable it is from 2000 years ago.]

HH

i see you have to been fooled by mans trickery

HGL

HH, how about telling us if you mean me or ATK or someone else?

ATK

The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet which is also found in the current bible of today, so your claims are pointless HGL

And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it.

HGL

ATK "The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet"

I am aware of the claim.

We Christians believe such a rectification was never ever necessary.

Christ promised us the contrary in Matthew 28.

So, even humanly speaking, if we were even just talking about a human person, we would still be wise to trust a writing from his own life time over a writing from 600 years later especially if the writing from his own life time was supported as genuine by a Church or society he had founded. Which is the case . Even humanly speaking therefore, we have a case for believing Christ was crucified. And that he was so for claiming to be the Son of God. And that He rose from the dead. Thereby showing He was not just a man, but also who He had said He was: God.

"And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it."

Sure. But Matthew was. He wrote the Gospel while Saint Paul was as yet no saint but an enemy of the Saints, of the Church. Later he converted and was ACCEPTED as an Apostle by those who HAD been along with Jesus. He and Barnabas were both disciples of Gamaliel. Barnabas was either already a disciple of Jesus Christ among the Seventy or converted soon after Pentecost. Either way he sold his property after Pentecost. And if Saint Paul died along with Saint Peter in Rome, Barnabas was the founder of the diocese of Bergamo, also in Italy.

So, no, we are not liable to have had all our theology changed by someone called Paul who had no connexion and then have had to wait another five hundred fifty years or so till Mohammed came along. There was never such a gap in the presence of the people of God on Earth.

ATK

The question you genuinely have to ask yourself is, is Paul a companion of Jesus? Has he ever met Jesus before in his lifetime? How did he came about collecting and compiling an original manuscript of Jesus?

And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul.

HGL

There is no original manuscript of Jesus.

[Unless angels have preserved miraculously what He wrote in the sand]

You are not in a position to tell me what questions I must ask myself.

You ignored the fact that St Matthew who WAS along with Jesus for most of the 3 and a half years wrote the words Christ said:

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Note that "all days" contradicts your supposed gap between Paul falsifying and Mohammed rectifying the message of Jesus.

"And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul."

Why should there be a preference when they do not contradict each other? Insofar as I have a personal one, it is not St Paul.

Sts Matthew and John who wrote two of the four Gospels come before St Paul in my affection.

ATK

Are you kidding me? HGL

Do you even know the native language of Jesus?

HGL

No, I am not.

Here is the Gospel text of St Matthew, last chapter:

DRBO / Gospel of St Matthew : chapter 28
http://drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

St Matthew wrote his Gospel Hebrew or Aramaic first, before translating to Greek, if that is what you mean.

ATK

Lol! It does speaks volume of you

His native language was Aramaic...

HGL

Sure, as St Matthew's, as St Pauls. All of them also spoke Greek.

ATK

Aramaic was the native language of Jesus

I'm not talking about Greek

LL

Second Thessalonians warns us about false books of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Jesus has to turn the woman into a man in order for her to inherit the kingdom of God. The book in the Vatican same type of garbage

[So the Nag Hammadi sect may, unlike Jesus Christ, have been disciples of Buddhists, directly or per intermediates : there are Buddhists who say a woman has to get reborn as a man before she can reach Nirvana.]

HGL

Yes, I just agreed on that point. [ATK’s on Aramaic mother language] I also just added that this is the case for Saint Matthew and Saint Paul as well.

As to your not talking about Greek, that is your problem. We all know it was more relevant in Roman Empire than Aramaic.

Sure, LL, and Gospel of Thomas falsely so called was much earlier mentioned in lists of books condemned by the Church than this one, "Gospel of Barnabas."

As to Gospel of Barnabas earliest mention is from 7th C. - i e after Hegira or shortly before.

ATK

I wish we still had the entire manuscript of the bible today in Aramaic, and guess what would've happened.

HGL

Entire Bibles in Aramaic do exist.

They are Christian Bibles.

ATK

Have you ever read the Qur'an from cover to cover before HGL

Here

I must confess he was giving his comments so rapidly I am not always answering the last one he gave just before my own.

HGL

Aramaic in this context = Syriac.

ATK

Ok can I have access to it?

HGL

[About having read Quran] No, but I know sufficiently of the Fifth Sourate not to want to. It contradicts all Four Gospels.

You access to Bible in Syriac? Ask Palestinian Christians.

ATK

I don't think it actually exist. If indeed it's in existence, we would've seen it

HGL

Or ask the Christians of Mosul.

ATK

What filth sourah [sic!] are you talking about?

HGL

They have it, University professors know it even here. You are not one.

I am talking of the Fifth Sourah where "Isa" is supposed to contradict Holy Trinity.

ATK

The fact that Mary the mother of Jesus had a complete chapter in the holy book?

HGL

I am talking of the passage in the Fifth Sourah where Isa is supposed to say things Christ very certainly never said.

ATK

I just wished you're a little bit open-minded to see things clearly and try to understand that particular verses.

HGL

We know from the Gospels what Christ said. And we know that none of them is by St Paul, two of his immediate followers over years, and that St Paul does not contradict them.

We know that Quran contradicts them.

And we know who wrote Gospels from the Catholic Church, just as you know Quran was given "through" (if it wasn't by) Mohammed Ayah by Ayah adding up to Sourah after Sourah through your Ummah

ATK

Has Jesus ever said he's God that you should worship him? Can you show me where in the bible did Jesus clearly state that I'm God so worship me.

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

Characteristics of Prophet Muhammad was explicitly stated in the bible in Deutronomy 18

HGL

What I say about Fifth Sourah refers to 5:72, 5:73 and 5:116.

What I say about Gospels refers to John 8, among other places:

Gospel according to St John : chapter 8
http://drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [59] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Notice: "before Abraham was made, I am." Christ was [is!] before He was made man.

Saint John was a disciple, this is not Saint Paul writing.

Book Of Deuteronomy : Chapter 18
http://drbo.org/chapter/05018.htm

Christ was and is God. He was also humanly speaking King, Priest and Prophet. Deuteronomy 18 speaks of Christ as prophet.

ATK

So what are you alluding by that verse?

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

HGL

I think it is very obvious. If Christ had only been man, he would not be able to say "before Abraham was made, I am".

Where exactly does the Bible say God is never man? He was not man from eternity, but made Himself Man.

It is contradicted by n o place in the Bible.

ATK

Jesus ate, drinks and defecates and these are human attributes but God isn't a man, so how come God eats and drinks?

Do you believe in the 10 commandments?

HGL

God becomes Man for our sake.

Yes.

As transmitted by the Church.

ATK

That's an utter lie. Stop lying lad...

[A bit thick to call me both liar and « lad » / roughly « boy », but in Scots]

Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. So where are you getting all these from?

HGL

Here, I have already elsewhere answered a Muslim who could not believe Christ is God, as for lying, that is not on my side:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..."
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/p/answering-muslim-who-asked-if-jesus-was.html

ATK

What's the first commandment?

HGL

"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange gods before me"

Now, my turn.

"Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. "

WHERE?

ATK

So does that sound like God is 3, 2 or only 1

HGL

As to the commandment, I said I accept and believe them as transmitted by the Church.

Here is Catholic [Trentine] and Orthodox [Philaret] catechism on the commandment:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : On the First Commandment. & On the Second Commandment./THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-first-commandment.html

And [as to his question] God is one God in Three Persons.

ATK

Numbers 23:19

HGL

Numbers 23:19?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?

[Book Of Numbers : Chapter 23
http://drbo.org/chapter/04023.htm]

God was not yet man, and when He became so, He became no liar.

His promises - whose certainty is ascertained in this verse - mean He had to later become Man

A royalty over Israel implies God and a Son of David are the same, since both eternally King of Israel. That Son of David was Jesus Christ.

ATK

Dude! Just accept and give credit to your Creator ok and not Jesus. He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. All the messengers and prophets of God came with one solid message, saying that Worship none but your Creator and do not associate any partners with Him, because if you do so, you'll never smell the fragrance of heaven. And that's exactly what Jesus p.b.u.h professed. He worshipped his Creator alone without associating any partners with him and taught us to do same. In contrast to that, I'll never worship any creation except the Creator, and Jesus as far as I'm concern is also part of God's creation. So think deeply my friend and take a decisive step to discovering all the truths.

HGL

Incarnation was also more directly prophecied.

Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another' s speech. [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

How could God go down if He was everywhere? He was going to become man.

"He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men."

Genesis 11, Baruch 3

[Book Of Genesis : Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

Prophecy Of Baruch : Chapter 3
http://drbo.org/chapter/30003.htm]

"He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. "

That is a lie and contradicts the Gospels.

ATK

http://quran.com/19

I want you to read this chapter carefully.

HGL

I do not believe Sourah 19 if I refuse to believe Sourah 5.

ATK

Lol! I thought you're open-minded and hopefully you might give it a go.

HGL

"And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree."

Wrong. She gave miraculously birth without pain.

If you still consider me "openminded" (I consider them empty minded), you are not very open to evidence.

ATK

Is your premise a verse that you quoted or it just popped up in your head?

HGL

What do you mean by that question? My premise for which of my conclusions?

There are lots of conclusions and to some of them (like seeing how "open minded" often means empty minded) my premise is NEITHER but common sense evidence and experience

ATK

"She gave birth miraculously without pain"

HGL

I skimmed over Sourah 19. Till I found the error.

ATK

I just wished you would complete it and stop the cherry-picking

HGL

That pain comes from childbirth is because children's flesh and bones are usually hard.

After Resurrection Christ walked through walls. While being born, He preserved His Holy Mother's Virginity. I e she gave birth miraculously.

I have this from Tradition, not from a verse directly.

I am not cherry picking about the Catholic Tradition, I accept it.

ATK

May the One that created you, guide you to the truth HGL

HGL

He already did.

ATK

Not when you blatantly worshipping His creation instead of Him alone.

HGL

I adore only God. Now God has made Himself part of His creation. Not in a way as to contradict Numbers 23:19. He made Himself "like unto us in all except sin" (this one is from Saint Paul) and He did that AFTER saying (through Balaam the gentile prophet) He was not - back then - "a man", but he added qualifications agreeing with the comment of St Paul "so as to lie".

Even more. Vulgate has for 23:19 of Numbers Non est Deus quasi homo ut mentiatur, nec ut filius hominis ut mutetur.

God is - both in His own nature and in the one He assumed through Incarnation - unlike men who are liars and changeful.