Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haji 2003

Epistle Of Barnabas

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What is probably the oldest known bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

Other issues are:

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't they say it's fabricated by the Muslims?

That would be the so-called "Gospel of Barnabas", whose authorship is disputed (though it being an actual, ancient gospel, at least in its current form, is almost certainly not possible). The above is regarding the "Epistle of Barnabas" which is a completely separate tract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Barnabus. He's been accused of three different books and none of them jive.

According to the NT Barnabas is portrayed as below. Does this sound like any one of the Barnabas'z that wrote stuff?

Acts 11 says: 22Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. 23Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. 24For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. 25Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is probably the oldest known bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

'Whats left out?' This assumes there was an established canon before The Church actually spoke of an official canon. There wasn't.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

So...what? So does Matthew. And the Jews did kill Jesus...so?

Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

Matthew 27

24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

I hope you know the Codex Vaticanus isn't the only manuscripts we have.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

That is a textual variant. When did Christians ever assert the complete uniformity of its manuscripts? And how does this imply major doctrinal revision over the ages? How does this imply changes and more changes that eventually gave rise to the Trinity, The deity of Christ and the Apostleship of Paul?

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Old news.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

If this is the best any Muslim can do in regards to the wholesale corruption claims, then keep your day job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Whats left out?' This assumes there was an established canon before The Church actually spoke of an official canon. There wasn't.

So...what? So does Matthew. And the Jews did kill Jesus...so?

Matthew 27

24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

I hope you know the Codex Vaticanus isn't the only manuscripts we have.

That is a textual variant. When did Christians ever assert the complete uniformity of its manuscripts? And how does this imply major doctrinal revision over the ages? How does this imply changes and more changes that eventually gave rise to the Trinity, The deity of Christ and the Apostleship of Paul?

Old news.

If this is the best any Muslim can do in regards to the wholesale corruption claims, then keep your day job.

Once sober, one should reread this thread. In the mean time, one should be carefull not to fall off ones high horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once sober, one should reread this thread. In the mean time, one should be carefull not to fall off ones high horse.

More false piety. First your too incompetent to defend your heresy then attempt to attack me on the basis of my Biblical defense. If you want to condemn my conduct or attitude condemn it with scripture, not foolish opinion and irrational ethical basis that is formed by your poor unbiblical social contract - you call this Canada.

Edited by Maranatha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry man, but there is no past scripture for your present condition

I call this Shia Chat. It's a website, not a country. Canada is a country, I call it home.

As for your interpretation, I say "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!".

Aparantly he's called a Pastor in your part of the world, and he wants your tithe.

If you prayed, then met your elders as I did, you would start to see the flaws in the laminated version of their religious doctrines.

No Piety here, I'd kick your butt all the way to reading the Bible on your own, as it was originally ordained to do so if it were a help.

Honest Bro, I pray for your truthfull understanding of the scriptures. It's not easy to go outside of the church when it comes to what they decide to believe, but just read your bible as it is intended. If you honestly did so, I would not expect any further reproach from you. It's really up to you.

You can condemn me by what your church people say, or you can take it upon yourself to read what is written and act on it.

Do not expect church elders to agree. tithe, tithe, tithe.

Spend your time with those who need to know God, not with those who agree they know Him already. Do you have any idea how foolish it is to decide you know all of God already?

If you lead one person to Islam, how much better is that than to let him continue in his ignorance?

Your perfect knowledge needs to be backed up by real scripture, not doctrines, k.

In His Love...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Whats left out?' This assumes there was an established canon before The Church actually spoke of an official canon. There wasn't.

So...what? So does Matthew. And the Jews did kill Jesus...so?

Matthew 27

24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

I hope you know the Codex Vaticanus isn't the only manuscripts we have.

That is a textual variant. When did Christians ever assert the complete uniformity of its manuscripts? And how does this imply major doctrinal revision over the ages? How does this imply changes and more changes that eventually gave rise to the Trinity, The deity of Christ and the Apostleship of Paul?

Old news.

If this is the best any Muslim can do in regards to the wholesale corruption claims, then keep your day job.

Well if you didn't happen to know the Romans did kill Jesus. Pilate was notorious for crucifying Jews and probably would have crucified Jesus anyway if he thought that he upset the peace (not that it was exceptionally peaceful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you didn't happen to know the Romans did kill Jesus. Pilate was notorious for crucifying Jews and probably would have crucified Jesus anyway if he thought that he upset the peace (not that it was exceptionally peaceful).

It wasn't Romans only who killed Jesus. The Jews did also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't Romans only who killed Jesus. The Jews did also.

It's recorded that the Jews called for the crucificion of Jesus, the Romans carried out the orders.

As notorious as Pilate was..."Made sure that Pilate, washed his hands, and sealed His fate"

The Romans had many forms of "entertainment"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...