ElectEngr

.

YES!...US 54 through Wichita, KS

Later,
ElectEngr

Asha'man

There are plenty of on-line bibles to take a peek at. One of the best is probably the Blue Letter Bible, since it includes multiple translations, the original language, and a nice concordance and search tool.

Well, I think it is simple common sense and logic. Since the two genealogies disagree so completely, both of them can’t be real. At least one must be a fabrication.

Why would someone make up a genealogy? Simple: the ancient prophecies require that the Jewish Messiah must be descended “by the flesh” from the line of David. The early preachers were working from the book of Mark, which didn’t mention anything about Jesus’ parentage, and some smart Jews in the crowd were probably pointing that out to the preacher and the crowd. To strengthen the preacher’s claim, a genealogy was required, so one was “added” to the beginning of a new gospel.

However, once you accept that one of the two is a fake, you have to look at the other one. Is there any reason why one is more likely to be true than the other? Has the motivation to invent a genealogy gone away? I don’t think so. Therefore, I conclude that both are fakes, and for the same reason. The authors of Luke and Matthew were both running into the same objections about their supposed Messiah, so they both resorted to the same solution.

Honestly, I’m not sure. It clearly was important for the kings and priests, but I don’t know about the more common people.

River

So then, Who killed Jesus?



And (on account of) their saying, "We killed the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Maryam, Messenger of Allah." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat an-Nisa': 157-158 Quran)

According to Gospel of Barnabus, Judas' face was transfigured into the likeness of Jesus as a punishment for betraying Jesus. Jesus ascended to heaven. Jesus' mission was interrupted and God saved him from the Cross.

Most Muslims are in agreement with the early Christian Gnostics who wrote the Gospel of Barnabus and Gospel of Thomas.

" Judas truly did nothing else but cry out " God , why hast thou forsaken me, seeing the malefactor hath escaped and I die unjustly?" ( Gospel of Barnabus)

also,

"Jesus replied embracing his mother, " Believe me, mother for verily I say thee that I have not been dead at all: for God hath reserved me till near the end of the world" (Gospel of Barnabus)

"And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Mohammed, the messenger of God, who, when he shall come shall reveal this deception to those who believe in God's law ( Gospel of Barnabus)

Gooch's dad

Sorry, River, but the "gospel of Barnabas" isn't an early Christian document, it is a medieval forgery. It is too full of anachronisms that date it to something like the 14th or 15th century. I gather that there are no references to this 'gospel' earlier than the 14th century, either. I'd be glad to look at any evidence you can provide that this writing is earlier, but I have yet to see any evidence for this.

River

Actually no one knows for sure that the Gospel of Barnabus was a hoax...for there were references to such a book long before it was alleged to be a forgery. And the rulers of time placed it on the "to be banned" lists. Obviously Christians will say that it is a forgery for it has very clear Islamic references...... The original Gospel of Barnabus doesnt exist..just translations found in Italy and Spain. So any anachronistic errors might have been made at the translational level (and probably not at the transcriptional level). Some errors include things like the 100 yr Jubilee, when the Jubilee was actually 50 years...and why use the name Muhammad...when Jesus called him by the name Ahmad?....but we will never know for sure....


The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.

In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698) . The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.


Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend, Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra Marino was interested because he had read the writings of Iranaeus where Barnabas had been profusely quoted. The Italian manuscript passed through different hands till it reached "a person of great name and authority" in Amsterdam, "who during his life time was often heard to put a high value to this piece". After his death it came in the possession of J. E. Cramer, a Councillor of the King of Prussia. In 1713 Cramer presented this manuscript to the famous connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 along with the library of the Prince it found its way into Hofbibliothek in Vienna. There it now rests.

Toland, in his "Miscellaneous Works" (published posthumously in 1747), in Vol. I, page 380, mentions that the Gospel of Barnabas was still extant. In Chapter XV he refers to the Glasian Decree of 496 C.E. where "Evangelium Barnabe" is included in the list of forbidden books. Prior to that it had been forbidden by Pope Innocent in 465 C.E. and by the Decree of the Western Churches in 382 C.E.

Barnabas is also mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus Serial No. 3, Epistle of Barnabas . . . Lines 1, 300.
Then again in the list of Sixty Books
Serial No. 17. Travels and teaching of the Apostles.
Serial No. 18. Epistle of Barnabas.
Serial No. 24. Gospel According to Barnabas.
A Greek version of the Gospel of Barnabas is also found in a solitary fragment. The rest is burnt.


The Latin text was translated into English by Mr. and Mrs. Ragg and was printed at the Clarendon Press in Oxford. It was published by the Oxford University Press in 1907. This English translation mysteriously disappeared from the market. Two copies of this translation are known to exist, one in the British Museum and the other in the Library of the Congress, Washington, DC. The first edition was from a micro-film copy of the book in the Library of the Congress, Washington, DC.

Gooch's dad

River, if you really want to get into the gospel of Barnabas, I suggest starting a new thread. And provide more references than a quote from a muslim apologists site.

There is no quote from any church fathers that corresponds to the document now known as the 'gospel of Barnabas'. As I said, it is widely dismissed as a medieval forgery. To claim that the anachronisms are just there due to translation errors is special pleading.