1500 year old bible claims Jesus was not crucified Watch

WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
https://topinfopost.com/2014/06/02/1...-not-crucified

there is a lot of posts on this topic. If anyone thinks the site isn't credible, then google it and read it off another site. Controversial topic.
Discuss
0
reply
Hertz
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by WASG)
https://topinfopost.com/2014/06/02/1...-not-crucified

there is a lot of posts on this topic. If anyone thinks the site isn't credible, then google it and read it off another site. Controversial topic.
Discuss
As it is closer to Jesus himself, it is more accurate and less corrupted than modern versions, therefore I find this true as it is also confirmed in a 1400 year old book, the Qumran. That bible also strips Jesus of his Godly status and predicts Muhammad's arrival. There is an extended article on it somewhere if you Google it you should find it. Also whats weird is that the Pope went to visit it and read it, he stepped down as pope a few months later.
0
reply
WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Hertz)
As it is closer to Jesus himself, it is more accurate and less corrupted than modern versions, therefore I find this true as it is also confirmed in a 1400 year old book, the Qumran. That bible also strips Jesus of his Godly status and predicts Muhammad's arrival. There is an extended article on it somewhere if you Google it you should find it. Also whats weird is that the Pope went to visit it and read it, he stepped down as pope a few months later.
REALLY??? is this the real reason for the pope retiring when no other pope had ever done? they said it was because of health issues or something like that.
0
reply
Hertz
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by WASG)
REALLY??? is this the real reason for the pope retiring when no other pope had ever done? they said it was because of health issues or something like that.
Its not official. But just months after he read it he stepped down. SO yeah a bit fishy
1
reply
WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
Oh right. Still. I want to see some christian views on this. As a Muslim, it's easy for me to just believe this. Need to see what excuse Christians have for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
+ polarity -
Badges: 21
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
>Gospel of Barnabas (who was Barnabas??)
>Paul "The Impostor"
>Docetism, something rejected outright in the 4th Century


just lol
0
reply
WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by + polarity -)
>Gospel of Barnabas (who was Barnabas??)
>Paul "The Impostor"
>Docetism, something rejected outright in the 4th Century


just lol
Explain.
And the fact that you don't know who Barnabus was shows how much you know about Christianity.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
+ polarity -
Badges: 21
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by WASG)
Explain.
And the fact that you don't know who Barnabus was shows how much you know about Christianity.
you just activated my trap card

If he travelled with Paul, why would he suddenly turn round and start calling him an "impostor"? And why is it the case that this book is so at odds with the entire New Testament? How many copies of this account of Jesus' 'death' are there, hmm?
1
reply
WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by + polarity -)
you just activated my trap card

If he travelled with Paul, why would he suddenly turn round and start calling him an "impostor"? And why is it the case that this book is so at odds with the entire New Testament? How many copies of this account of Jesus' 'death' are there, hmm?
Where does it say in this text he travelled with Paul? Also if it says Barnabus travelled with Paul in the bible then remember that this 1500 year old book is making a different claim so don't use that as proof as it is not. Hope you understand this my argument isn't very clear. Also your last question is pointless. The Quran and Hadith both show this copy of Jesus' death as well as this book. Surely even a christian can see that a book written 1500 years ago is much more reliable as a source then a book that was changed and written later. (New Testament)


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
RoyalBlue7
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
RoyalBlue7
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by + polarity -)
you just activated my trap card

If he travelled with Paul, why would he suddenly turn round and start calling him an "impostor"? And why is it the case that this book is so at odds with the entire New Testament? How many copies of this account of Jesus' 'death' are there, hmm?
Acts 15

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.....


36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they PARTED COMPANY. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.


If you read the Gnostic Gospels you'll see that even Mary Magdalena was against the most of the apostles who claimed that Jesus loved them more.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
AntisthenesDogger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
The "gospel" of Barnabas is a 16th century apocryphal work. Most theologians of worth, Christian or not deny it as pseudepigraphical. End of.
3
reply
WASG
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
The "gospel" of Barnabas is a 16th century apocryphal work. Most theologians of worth, Christian or not deny it as pseudepigraphical. End of.
Well It really isn't if the claims made are correct and they say that it is over 1500 years old.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
AntisthenesDogger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by WASG)
Well It really isn't if the claims made are correct and they say that it is over 1500 years old.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Except it's not. Look at the scholarship of the article for one, and then the extant knowledge we have, from the Orthodox histoire based around Nikaea and Ephesus.

Not to mention the jingoism-esque Sunni adherence developing in Turkey, as opposed to it's traditional Alevi roots. This really is a fake, sorry.

That all seemed vague unless you have a knowledge on the leuteotropic development in Anatolia right now. Hmm. Basically they want to discredit Christianity, specifically the claim of the Patriarchate. This is opposed by the less fanatical forms of Sunni and Twelvers in Anatolia. If you look at christian theology and semiotics, it's also a fake as it was openly declared to be created in Spain and Italia around the late 15th century. The epistle of barnabas is the only extant and noteworthy piece of christology to exist (if any partial group were allowed to date, or even study this then perhaps it could be proven true, but that's never going to happen - ergo denying even the already sound arguments, one must conclude it's a ploy)
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by WASG)
Oh right. Still. I want to see some christian views on this. As a Muslim, it's easy for me to just believe this. Need to see what excuse Christians have for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Well no because this Bible isn't part of the current christian canon therefore it is not recognised as truth. It seems the only reason you agree with it is because it agrees with what it says in the Quran. The second they find anything in it or a different bible which refutes the Quran I don't think you'll believe in it either...:holmes:
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Hertz)
As it is closer to Jesus himself, it is more accurate and less corrupted than modern versions, therefore I find this true as it is also confirmed in a 1400 year old book, the Qumran. That bible also strips Jesus of his Godly status and predicts Muhammad's arrival. There is an extended article on it somewhere if you Google it you should find it.
I'm not a Christian, but your reasoning is flawed. Just because it's earlier than some other Bibles does not necessarily mean it must therefore be more true. In fact. there may be non-Biblical, non-Christian and even earlier sources that indicate Jesus was crucified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifi...and_references

I find the Bible to be a collection of mildly interested folk tales and moral missives of a Bronze Age society and a mix of fact and fiction, but that does not make it any less credible than a 1400 Bible which is in itself a mixture of fact and fiction.

Also whats weird is that the Pope went to visit it and read it, he stepped down as pope a few months later.
Correlation =! causation. He resigned, but remains a committed Christian. I suspect his resignation can be deduced by Occam's Razor, i.e. that he was too old.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Hertz)
predicts Muhammad'.
No it doesn't.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Hertz)
As it is closer to Jesus himself, it is more accurate and less corrupted than modern versions, therefore I find this true as it is also confirmed in a 1400 year old book, the Qumran. That bible also strips Jesus of his Godly status and predicts Muhammad's arrival. There is an extended article on it somewhere if you Google it you should find it. Also whats weird is that the Pope went to visit it and read it, he stepped down as pope a few months later.
Rubbish. Just because something's older, doesn't necessarily mean it's more likely to be true.
0
reply
Hertz
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Rubbish. Just because something's older, doesn't necessarily mean it's more likely to be true.
My point is that it's closer to Jesus and his time itself. So it has had less time to have changed and altered. It still has in a degree but not as much. It's like a painting being passed around and copied or Chinese whispers. The closer it is to the creator the more accurate it is.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by WASG)
https://topinfopost.com/2014/06/02/1...-not-crucified

there is a lot of posts on this topic. If anyone thinks the site isn't credible, then google it and read it off another site. Controversial topic.
Discuss
i think the site isn't credible
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (128)
18.23%
It's just nice to be back! (192)
27.35%
Not great so far... (251)
35.75%
I want to drop out! (131)
18.66%

Watched Threads

View All