Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-26-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Earlier occurrences of a Gospel of Barnabas

A "Gospel according to Barnabas" is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Latin Decretum Gelasianum[2] (6th century), as well as a 7th-century Greek List of the Sixty Books. These lists are independent witnesses. In 1698 John Ernest Grabe found an otherwise unreported saying of Jesus,[7] attributed to the Apostle Barnabas, amongst the Greek manuscripts in the Baroccian collection in the Bodleian Library; which he speculated might be a quotation from this lost gospel; and John Toland claimed to have identified a corresponding phrase when he examined the surviving Italian manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas in Amsterdam before 1709. Subsequent scholars examining the Italian and Spanish texts have been unable, however, to confirm Toland's observation.

Analysis

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,[31] 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).

Other passages, however, conflict with the teachings of the Qur'an—as, for instance, in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain[32] or as in Jesus's ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy[33]—though the Qur'an acknowledges each prophet had a set of their own laws that might differ in some aspects from each other. Other examples include that hell will only be for the committers of the seven deadly sins (Barnabas: 4-44/135), anyone who refuses to be circumcised will not enter paradise (Barnabas 17/23), that God has a soul (Barnabas 6/82), that there are 9 heavens (Barnabas 3/105).

mountainman · 05-27-2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

.....text was written in the 5th or 6th century

Might evidence something about the development of Islam, or 5th or 6th century christianity, but can do nothing to validate the christans mythological claims.

Unless there is anyone here who thinks this text prophecized the appearance of Muhammad, the resolution to the Muhammad references in this Gospel must have been inserted after the life of Muhammad (c. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632). The mention of this text in the Decretum Gelasianum suggests it was extant at least by 492–496 CE, and had been classified by the heresiologists as another one of those anathemetized writings of the vile heretics. In its original state, it would not have mentioned Muhammad, but would still have denounced and ridiculed the tradition orthodox centralised monotheistic canonical christianity.

None of these gnostic gospels and acts, as they are discovered, validate the christans mythological claims. The texts contradict the orthodoxy. The received tradition that they were authored by "gnostic christians" is not the only option. We could be looking at the last of the Greek RESISTANCE against the NT.

sotto voce · 05-27-2012, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

It would be interesting to C14-date the pages and the ink -- what is their real age?

I would not be surprised if its supposed Mohammed prophecy was something vague and general.

As to whether it will make Xians want to convert en masse to Islam, I doubt it. Muslims already believe that Mohammed is Jesus Christ's successor, and that has not exactly provoked a lot of conversions.

But I think that Muslims could pull off some "Xians for Mohammed" scam in the fashion of "Jews for Jesus".

That used to be expressed as Jesus for Jews- which was the original idea. Muslims would have to accept a crucified Jesus if they were to do as 'Jews for Jesus' does.

Shafeesthoughts · 05-27-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

It would be interesting to C14-date the pages and the ink -- what is their real age?

I would not be surprised if its supposed Mohammed prophecy was something vague and general.

As to whether it will make Xians want to convert en masse to Islam, I doubt it. Muslims already believe that Mohammed is Jesus Christ's successor, and that has not exactly provoked a lot of conversions.

But I think that Muslims could pull off some "Xians for Mohammed" scam in the fashion of "Jews for Jesus".

As to prophesies about Muhammad (saw), Muslims believe that every Prophet that came mentioned him. But not by name but by characteristic.

Jesus (as) went one further and mentioned him by irrefutable act :

http://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.com/...of-of.html?m=1

lpetrich · 05-27-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

As to prophesies about Muhammad (saw), Muslims believe that every Prophet that came mentioned him. But not by name but by characteristic.

Like...

Quote:

Jesus (as) went one further and mentioned him by irrefutable act :

http://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.com/...of-of.html?m=1

John 16:7:

Quote:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (KJV)

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. (NASB)

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (NIV)

The capitalized word is a translation of

Paraclete. Your friendly neighborhood Xian apologist would likely rebut such claims with "We already know who the Paraclete is. It's the Holy Spirit, not some Johnny-come-lately prophet wannabe named Mohammed."

Joan of Bark · 05-28-2012, 11:04 PM

"Destroy Christianity"; *sigh* what a lovely hope. Unfortunately, Islam replacing it would be worse.

braces_for_impact · 05-29-2012, 12:07 AM

The pious fraud never really ends.

Shafeesthoughts · 05-29-2012, 01:47 AM

I doubt anybody really intends to destroy it, even that is the Iranians.

With so much ambiguity surrounding its formative years, it should be quite clear to most, that

"Tho the stone be ground down, the moss continues to grow and roll."

It has it's own momentum.

The one thing that is left to ponder is
1-can the science of gross but beautiful slow that roll
2-can Christianity harness science to it's own ends as it may have done with Greek thought.

Are the two compatible,
And if not then are they mutually exclusive enough to allow.

I talk not of Islam, for with that there is no predicament. All knowledge is holy, but the scripture is foremost.

sotto voce · 05-29-2012, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

2-can Christianity harness science to it's own ends as it may have done with Greek thought.

It was vice versa (beginning before Christ).

Quote:

Are the two compatible

They had better be. Michael Faraday, whose experimental work formed the basis of electromagnetic theory, and James Clark Maxwell, whose theoretical genius developed that theory, were both firm believers in the inspired nature of the Bible. Without the work of Faraday and Maxwell (both of whom Einstein hung portraits in his study, incidentally), Muslims (and of course others) would not be able to post versus Christianity!

And, before there is a descent into fundie mode, Darwin wrote that 'Science has nothing to do with Christ.'

If Islam is to even begin to dent the hull of the Christian ark, it must marshal relevant facts, rather than re-circulate myths.

mountainman · 06-01-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If Islam is to even begin to dent the hull of the Christian ark, it must marshal relevant facts, rather than re-circulate myths.

We have a Muslim cleric (amidst others) writing about the questionable historicity of Muhammad. My bet is both Muhammad and Jesus were fabricated for the glory of the centralised monotheistic state and its most holy bullshit writ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2012, 11:04 PM	#26
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	"Destroy Christianity"; sigh what a lovely hope. Unfortunately, Islam replacing it would be worse.

05-29-2012, 12:07 AM	#27
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	The pious fraud never really ends.

05-29-2012, 01:47 AM	#28
Shafeesthoughts Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: London Posts: 379	I doubt anybody really intends to destroy it, even that is the Iranians. With so much ambiguity surrounding its formative years, it should be quite clear to most, that "Tho the stone be ground down, the moss continues to grow and roll." It has it's own momentum. The one thing that is left to ponder is 1-can the science of gross but beautiful slow that roll 2-can Christianity harness science to it's own ends as it may have done with Greek thought. Are the two compatible, And if not then are they mutually exclusive enough to allow. I talk not of Islam, for with that there is no predicament. All knowledge is holy, but the scripture is foremost.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.