McKay Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 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. Given the history of the bible is pretty shady, edited by Kings and Emperors, new parts added and others removed etc. Do you think it could be real? http://higherperspective.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ-crucified-vatican-awe.html?utm_source=HP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
episode Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 There was a vote on who would be the 'Son of god'. So yes, probably true. Thief000 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 It's about religion. Since it contradicts current beliefs, it is untrue, even if it is.. Kinda like science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Azeroth's story is more believable than this ######. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I love how people are so willing to accept ANY alternative gospel. No one considers the council of Nicea to be a peer reviewing of religious texts, no, they were simply there to make a hatchet job of the Bible and cover up the "truth". Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript No one wants to accept what the Bible says, so as soon as someone comes along and says "hey guys, here's a single copy of a single manuscript that contradicts every other account we have" people fall over themselves to espouse it. Sad really. If you don't want to believe the Bible, that's fine. Don't sit there and tell me that you know "the truth" about it. Da Vinci code was fiction. SMELTN, Dick Montage, +devHead and 6 others 9 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limok Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Similar to the Islamic belief about Jesus AsherGZ 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I love how people are so willing to accept ANY alternative gospel. No one considers the council of Nicea to be a peer reviewing of religious texts, no, they were simply there to make a hatchet job of the Bible and cover up the "truth". Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript No one wants to accept what the Bible says, so as soon as someone comes along and says "hey guys, here's a single copy of a single manuscript that contradicts every other account we have" people fall over themselves to espouse it. Sad really. If you don't want to believe the Bible, that's fine. Don't sit there and tell me that you know "the truth" about it. Da Vinci code was fiction. There's no proof of any event in any version of the bible, so I'd say it's pretty understandable for people to nitpick discrepancies between versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 There's no proof of any event in any version of the bible, so I'd say it's pretty understandable for people to nitpick discrepancies between versions. That's not even at issue here. This isn't nitpicking differences, this is "HEY YOU GUYS THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED OH WE'RE MORE ENLIGHTENED THAN THOSE FUN-DIES!" If you want to talk about the historicity of the Bible, let's talk that, instead of this drivel. DConnell and Dick Montage 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 I love how people are so willing to accept ANY alternative gospel. No one considers the council of Nicea to be a peer reviewing of religious texts, no, they were simply there to make a hatchet job of the Bible and cover up the "truth". Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript No one wants to accept what the Bible says, so as soon as someone comes along and says "hey guys, here's a single copy of a single manuscript that contradicts every other account we have" people fall over themselves to espouse it. Sad really. If you don't want to believe the Bible, that's fine. Don't sit there and tell me that you know "the truth" about it. Da Vinci code was fiction. That council was a bunch of Christians deciding which stories written by thousand year old goat herders were "true" and which weren't? Why so quick to dismiss something that old that is just as valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted May 5, 2014 Subscriber² Share Posted May 5, 2014 Some made up book trying to discredit another made up book, sounds about as real as you can get... astropheed, Tigurinn, basques and 6 others 9 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 That council was a bunch of Christians deciding which stories written by thousand year old goat herders were "true" and which weren't? Why so quick to dismiss something that old that is just as valid? The Council of Nicea took place 325ish AD, just a few hundred years after the fact, just pointing that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 That council was a bunch of Christians deciding which stories written by thousand year old goat herders were "true" and which weren't? Why so quick to dismiss something that old that is just as valid? You're just showing your own ignorance on the subject when you talk like this. Do some damn research (actual research, don't just leech off the top posts on /r/atheism) I feel like most people don't actually care (if they did, there'd be more than just "hurr durr goat herders"), they just like to knock down other people's beliefs. Find a new hobby. DConnell, replicom, Praetor and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 That's not even at issue here. This isn't nitpicking differences, this is "HEY YOU GUYS THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED OH WE'RE MORE ENLIGHTENED THAN THOSE FUN-DIES!" If you want to talk about the historicity of the Bible, let's talk that, instead of this drivel. What are you talking about? This is exactly the issue... This particular story differs from one of the most significant stories in the "accepted" version of bible. Key word here is "STORY". If there weren't so many conflicting details between versions, stuff like this wouldn't ever be a big deal. You're making a huge fuss over this for absolute no reason. Nobody is claiming that this discovery is changing anything. It's simply a source of interest. Settle down... Stoffel 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The Council of Nicea took place 325ish AD, just a few hundred years after the fact, just pointing that out. Don't even bother man, even all the books were written on the same day and the council canonized them within 24 hours, these people still wouldn't accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCKX Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. These dudes found a Qu'Ran and are all dramatic about something that's normal there. xrobwx71 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Wasn't the Barnadas gospel already account for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tews Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Yes it was, and was considered heresy, so it shouldn't surprise any one that the counsel rejected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrave Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 The Council of Nicea took place 325ish AD, just a few hundred years after the fact, just pointing that out. And even to this day we constantly misinterpret and mess up stories that only happened 250 years ago, they're still just going to be sifting through stories written hundreds of years ago and deciding which ones were "true". I don't understand how they can be an authority on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 You're just showing your own ignorance on the subject when you talk like this. Do some damn research (actual research, don't just leech off the top posts on /r/atheism) I feel like most people don't actually care (if they did, there'd be more than just "hurr durr goat herders"), they just like to knock down other people's beliefs. Find a new hobby. I'm not attacking Christianity, I was asking questions, and you respond by attacking me? Astra.Xtreme 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I'm not attacking Christianity, I was asking questions, and you respond by attacking me? The fact that you consider this to be "just as valid" as the actual Biblical texts tells me you're not interested in actual discourse :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 The fact that you consider this to be "just as valid" as the actual Biblical texts tells me you're not interested in actual discourse :) Why is it not? The bible is a collection of stories, put together hundreds of years after they were written. This is another ancient story that might have simply gotten lost. Why do you automatically dismiss this? Im not saying this is fact, does the fact I put this in "It's a Conspiracy!" not give you a hint of that? Wyn6 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Why is it not? The bible is a collection of stories, put together hundreds of years after they were written. This is another ancient story that might have simply gotten lost. Why do you automatically dismiss this? Im not saying this is fact, does the fact I put this in "It's a Conspiracy!" not give you a hint of that? Because it's already been dismissed. Check the Wikipedia entry on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted May 5, 2014 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2014 It's unclear where the source article gets its claims that "The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament?s teachings of Christianity. Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later." The actual source it refers to mentions nothing of the sort. Anyway, the dating appears extremely vague, spanning 500 years, so it could easily have been written after the Council of Nicea. If it mentions Muhammad then it's likely to have been written after Muhammad even. Also, the article dates from 2012 so I don't understand why it is resurfacing as news today. This is what Wikipedia has to state on the topic: In February 2012, it was confirmed by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism that a 52-page biblical manuscript in Syriac had been deposited in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara.[59] Newspaper reports in Turkey claimed that the manuscript had been found in Cyprus in 2000, in an operation conducted by police against smugglers, and had been kept in a police repository since then;[60] and further speculated that the text of the manuscript could be that of the Gospel of Barnabas. No subsequent confirmation has been made, either as to the contents of the Ankara manuscript, or as to any findings of scientific tests for its age and authenticity.[59] In March 2012 Dr Assad Sauma, an expert in medieval Syriac texts, reported that the manuscript deposited in the Ethonography Museum could be identified with one for which he had formerly undertaken a partial analysis. He stated that the portions of text that the had examined had consisted of random gospel verses and quotations; and also that he had been unable to find any correspondence between them and the text of the Gospel of Barnabas. (in Arabic) Based on that it's likely to be some late muslim take on the Gospel. By the way, the jumping to conclusions and irrelevant mockery displayed in both the original article and this thread is very perplexing. It seems like anytime the Bible mentioned, people are in a lot more hurry to display their ignorant, derogatory opinions than trying to understand what is actually being talked about. Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astropheed Veteran Posted May 5, 2014 Veteran Share Posted May 5, 2014 Because it's already been dismissed. Check the Wikipedia entry on it. That just makes me want to believe it more! :crazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts