Gospel of Barnabas proves modern Christianity Wrong

[WildBlueYonder]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I just want to say that it is somewhat satisfying to see

I guess I got on your nerve Marlin? your starting to be a smelly Mackerel, you gonna follow me around & harass me now?

you're here to say what? what is your point, if any?

I bet you love the Gospel of Barnabas, anything to cast aspersions on true Christianity, since you belong to a cult, that can not exist without that little seed of doubt

 

[WildBlueYonder]

just shut up now.

got on your nerves, did I? lucky for me, I live in a free non-muslim country, where I can say the truth, my opinion, or whatever I want without having the mullahs send the religious goon squads after me, ala Iran

it must hurt your "superior islamic ego" terribly, no?

If you think names are important, good for you. I'll let the readers decide. As I told you Islam allows people to change or NOT to change there name. Your name could be Alex and be a Muslim!!!!! That is why name with "ullah" or whatever isn't important.

if that is true, so, why aren't any muslims named "Isaiah", "Jeremiah" or "Jesus", it can't be because its illegal in islam to name yourself after a prophet, is it? you know, like "Mohammad"?

Go back and read your statements in all your hateful threads you have created, and see how many times have you actually proven something which is not based on your own statements filled with hate.

& you're all peace, love, right?

Peace be with you

stop saying this, if you really don't mean it, its hypocrisy then, or worst yet, a ritual formula

 

[Marlin]

I guess I got on your nerve Marlin? your starting to be a smelly Mackerel, you gonna follow me around & harass me now?

you're here to say what? what is your point, if any?

I'm sorry, I just couldn't refrain from commenting, based on your frequent vapid insults that my religion is a "cult" and that I was "hemming and hawing" whenever I defended it.

I bet you love the Gospel of Barnabas, anything to cast aspersions on true Christianity, since you belong to a cult, that can not exist without that little seed of doubt

Actually, I know next to hothing about the gospel of Barnabus, and have never read it, so I cannot love or hate it. But true Christianity is Mormonism, and Mormonism is true Christianity.

 

[johnahmed]

im sick of the J sickness in christiantiy,no prophetic name began with "J" christ was never "jesus" infact christians are ashamed of the real prophetic names of biblical prophets,they would'nt dream of calling them selves yeremiah,Esua/yeheshua,Yousef (joseph)

 

[johnahmed]

if that is true, so, why aren't any muslims named "Isaiah", "Jeremiah" or "Jesus", it can't be because its illegal in islam to name yourself after a prophet, is it? you know,
**************************
im sick of the J sickness in christiantiy,no prophetic name began with "J" christ was never "jesus" infact christians are ashamed of the real prophetic names of biblical prophets,they would'nt dream of calling them selves yeremiah,Esua/yeheshua,Yousef (joseph)

 

[Russ723]

Silly me Here I thought silly things like carbon dating proved Christianity wrong.

 

[witnessjudgejury]

The bible states that no man is without sin. Jesus was a man, so how could he have been without sin.

 

[786]

got on your nerves, did I? lucky for me, I live in a free non-muslim country, where I can say the truth, my opinion, or whatever I want without having the mullahs send the religious goon squads after me, ala Iran

it must hurt your "superior islamic ego" terribly, no?
if that is true, so, why aren't any muslims named "Isaiah", "Jeremiah" or "Jesus", it can't be because its illegal in islam to name yourself after a prophet, is it? you know, like "Mohammad"?
& you're all peace, love, right?
stop saying this, if you really don't mean it, its hypocrisy then, or worst yet, a ritual formula

Not really, you didn't get on my nerves, it just you are repeating a stupid argument on names.

Now you made another stupid comment and said "why aren't any muslims named Isaiah", "Jeremiah" or "Jesus", it can't be because its illegal in islam to name yourself after a prophet, is it? you know, like "Mohammad"?

This just shows your ignorance and stupidity to the HIGHEST LEVEL.

First of all there are MANY, probably in THOUSANDS of MUSLIMS whose name is Mohammad!!!!! A popular example, Muhammad Ali. And the founder of Pakistan: Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Even my cousins name is Muhammad!!!!!! STOP making stupid crap and statements which you just blurt out with no proof.

As for "Jeremiah" or "Jesus". "Jesus" in our is Isa, and there are many Isa's in the muslim world. I don't know what "Jeremiah" is in our so can't really say yeah or no. And Moses is Musa, which there are many. Just do a google search I'm sure you will find many.

But Muhammad there are many, so stop your stupidity.

Yeah Randolfo I'm all for peace. You check all my post and threads. My threads incourage dialogue NOT hatred. I ask questions such as "Did Jesus claim, himself, to be God?" we Muslims and Chrisitians alike can discuss the matter and come to common terms so we can put our hatred for each other aside.

Your threads are like "Muslims terrorist did this and did that......all statements which will do no good.

And I do mean peace be unto you, so don't jump to conclusion that I don't mean it.

Peace be unto you

 

[Marlin]

WBY says to me:

I guess I got on your nerve Marlin?

And to 786:

got on your nerves, did I?

This guy appears to be the epitome of a troll, just stirring the pot hoping to "get on people's nerves." DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Trolls).

 

[WildBlueYonder]

WBY says to me:
And to 786:
This guy appears to be the epitome of a troll, just stirring the pot hoping to "get on people's nerves." DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Trolls).

troll?, just who followed me here? just who added pertenant info to this discussion?

if you are accusing me of repeating myself, look back on your own posts"Mr. Original Thinker", aka troll

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Not really, you didn't get on my nerves, it just you are repeating a stupid argument on names.

not stupid, just goes to show, what muslims really believe

Now you made another stupid comment and said "why aren't any muslims named Isaiah", "Jeremiah" or "Jesus", it can't be because its illegal in islam to name yourself after a prophet, is it? you know, like "Mohammad"?

This just shows your ignorance and stupidity to the HIGHEST LEVEL.

First of all there are MANY, probably in THOUSANDS of MUSLIMS whose name is Mohammad!!!!! A popular example, Muhammad Ali. And the founder of Pakistan: Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Even my cousins name is Muhammad!!!!!! STOP making stupid crap and statements which you just blurt out with no proof.

sorry, I did not know that you do not understand English well enough to get it, I was being 'sarcastic', knowing full well that "Mohammad" is the name of more males than any other in the world, & commenting, that if muslims really respected Jesus & the other Jewish prophets, they would have named some of their children those names too, but it didn't happen, why not?

And I do mean peace be unto you, so don't jump to conclusion that I don't mean it.

Peace be unto you

funny, for some reason, you don't sound like you mean it

 

[WildBlueYonder]

I'm sorry, I just couldn't refrain from commenting, based on your frequent vapid insults that my religion is a "cult" and that I was "hemming and hawing" whenever I defended it.

apology accepted, I know you can't help yourself

Actually, I know next to hothing about the gospel of Barnabus, and have never read it, so I cannot love or hate it.

then its time you read it, it an early attempt at forging a new 'gospel' by a person that wanted to add to christianity, ala Joe Smith & the BoM, you should study it for insights into the origins of mormonism

But true Christianity is Mormonism, and Mormonism is true Christianity.

wishfull thinking, what would Jesus say?

 

[Marlin]

DNFTT.

 

[786]

not stupid, just goes to show, what muslims really believe

sorry, I did not know that you do not understand English well enough to get it, I was being 'sarcastic', knowing full well that "Mohammad" is the name of more males than any other in the world, & commenting, that if muslims really respected Jesus & the other Jewish prophets, they would have named some of their children those names too, but it didn't happen, why not?
funny, for some reason, you don't sound like you mean it

Well it may be that now you are trying to say that it was sarcastic because the comment was stupid, but maybe not, whocares.

As for Jesus and other jewish prophets..... Well I'm sure there aren't as many of those as Muhammad's but that doesn't matter. People name whatever they like. My name is Fahad, doesn't mean my parents doesn't mean my parents hated Muhammad (pbuh), so if you are trying to say why aren't there people named Jesus and stuff, then I think it is stupid, but I'll let other readers decide because to you nothing is stupid whatever you say.

Now you answered your own accusation or question, I don't know. You said "they would have named some of their children those names" meaning Jesus and stuff. I'll repeat Jesus is Isa in Arabic for us Muslims. So you should ask if there are any Muslims named Isa. Here i'll give you an example.

Check out this article for my proof ok.

http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=1&ArticleId=53845

Now it says His Majesty the King, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa

Now the King's name is not Isa (Jesus) but his father's name was. How I know that? Cuz "bin" is "son of" so basically in "pure" English it is Hamad the son of Isa Al Khalifa. So there is 1 Isa (Jesus). So there are "some" named after other prophets ok. But still it doesn't matter how many. If you think it matters good for you, I'll again let the readers decide.

Well if you think I don't mean Peace then good for you, I really don't care if you believe me or not. I just get my views out, with proof.

Peace be unto you

 

[one_raven]

Back to the point...
I think it's funny that people who question the validity of the Bible, claiming there is no proof, would actually have the gall to claim that a text whose source is even more vague and uncertain proves the Bible wrong without requiring any shred of evidence supporting the validity of the dissenting document.
Does truth and honesty matter at all? Or is the only point walking away feeling like you won an argument regardless of the methods and supposed facts utilized to make your case?

The one thing I respect most about Islam is that -according to doctrine, anyway- nothing is more important than truth.
Seems to me that someone who claims to be a Muslim should hold himself up to the same standards of integrity.

 

[786]

Back to the point...
I think it's funny that people who question the validity of the Bible, claiming there is no proof, would actually have the gall to claim that a text whose source is even more vague and uncertain proves the Bible wrong without requiring any shred of evidence supporting the validity of the dissenting document.
Does truth and honesty matter at all? Or is the only point walking away feeling like you won an argument regardless of the methods and supposed facts utilized to make your case?

The one thing I respect most about Islam is that -according to doctrine, anyway- nothing is more important than truth.
Seems to me that someone who claims to be a Muslim should hold himself up to the same standards of integrity.

I don't know if it was meant for me or not. But I must agree that I named the thread wrong. It should've been named something like Gospel of Barnabas Contradicts the Bible or something like that. Because the current title is literally meaning that Bible has been proven wrong which is really not the case.

So I'm sorry for that to everyone.

As for the Bible and the Gospel of Barnabas. My piont of making this thread was to really talk about how can we know the current Bible is right and not this new found Gospel of Barnabas. Because as we know the "ORIGINAL" Bible doesn't exist. The scholars just look at the manuscripts available and try to get close to what they "THINK" is the message of Christianity. Obviously this goes GOB goes against the most common views of Christianity, thus will never be accepted like the other gospels such the Gospel of Thomas, and others.

Peace be unto you

 

[one_raven]

I don't know if it was meant for me or not.

It was.
Thank you for clarifying and I agree with what you are saying.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

DNFTT.

YAAT, as proved by your behavior.
but lets get back to the point, the origin of the "Gospel of Barnabas"

Funny, you should follow me here, Mr. Mormon, because there are some similarities between the BoM & the GoB; the other coincidence is that both have proponents that share similarities, namely a polygamous prophet, so-called visitation by angelic, godly or somesuch beings, a spurious correction of the Bible, belief that they are the ‘true religion’ & a set of followers that claim ‘ultimate truth’.
Here’s a little more info:

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/barn.shtml

Introduction
When analyzing a particular problem, it is often helpful to approach the situation from an alternate, but related perspective. For example, LDS scholars are often unable to accept textual arguments against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because of an emotional attachment to the Book. These scholars generally are unable to be objective, because their faith requires them to protect the reputation of their Prophet, no matter what the cost.
...
The Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval document claiming to be an account of the life of Jesus. It displays a distinctly Muslim bias, and purports to show that Jesus was not the Son of God, nor the Messiah. The document is generally regarded by most scholars as a forgery. The reasons that these scholars give for rejecting the Gospel of Barnabas are instructive, because the Book of Mormon displays many of the same problems.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/bom1.shtml

Let me stop there before this turns into a novel. I'll close by saying that I demand the same level of proof for the Book of Mormon as I do for any other document that claims to be of ancient origin. An excellent example is the so-called 'Gospel of Barnabus', a life of Christ that turned up in Spain about 400 years ago. Most unbiased scholars rejected the document as spurious, for reasons not very different than I have advanced for the Book of Mormon. One such reason that I can recall is that the Gospel used the word 'barrel' long before such containers had been invented. It is instructive to note that the people who defended the Gospel were those who had a vested interest in it. The Gospel of Barnabus presents a life of Christ closer to that recorded in the Quran, and was (and, in fact, still is) defended by some Muslims who see it as independent confirmation of their Holy Book. The implications of this for the Book of Mormon are left as an exercise to the reader.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/curt_heuvel/bom_bible.html

The problems with this solution are, in fact, legion. It has yet to be demonstrated that such a phenomenon has occurred before. In the real world, whenever one document closely quotes another, this is evidence either of one document using the other as a source (such as a research paper, or the New Testament quoting the Old), or of outright plagiarism (such as the Gospel of Barnabus using Dante's Inferno). This necessarily means that the document that uses the former as a source must have originated later. In the case of the Book of Mormon, which contains copious quotes from the New Testament, the implication is that the book actually originated after the formation of the Christian scriptures. Further research will show that the Book of Mormon relies on a specific version of the New Testament, namely the King James Version.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

As for the Bible and the Gospel of Barnabas. My piont of making this thread was to really talk about how can we know the current Bible is right and not this new found Gospel of Barnabas. Because as we know the "ORIGINAL" Bible doesn't exist. The scholars just look at the manuscripts available and try to get close to what they "THINK" is the message of Christianity. Obviously this goes GOB goes against the most common views of Christianity, thus will never be accepted like the other gospels such the Gospel of Thomas, and others.

Peace be unto you

Here is a quick intro into the origin of the so-called ‘Gospel of Barnabas’

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm

Throughout the centuries this command was observed and the Roman Catholic Church eventually took it over into the Christian faith. About 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth gave a decree that the jubilee should be observed once every hundred years. This is the only occasion in all history that the jubilee year was made to be only once every hundred years. After the death of Boniface, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed in 1343 AD that the jubilee year should revert to once every fifty years as it was observed by the Jews after the time of Moses. Now we find in the Gospel of Barnabas that Jesus is alleged to have said:
'And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place.' (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.104).
Only one solution can account for this remarkable coincidence. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have quoted Jesus as speaking of the year of jubilee as coming "every hundred years" if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. But how could he know of this decree unless he lived at the same time as the Pope or sometime afterwards? This is a clear anachronism which compels us to conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth century AD.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm#4

The Italian version divides the golden "denarius" into sixty "minuti". These coins were actually of Spanish origin during the pre-Islamic Visigothic period and openly betray a Spanish background to the original Gospel of Barnabas.
No one knows who actually wrote the Gospel of Barnabas but what is known, without shadow of doubt, is that whoever it was, it most certainly was not the Apostle Barnabas. It was most probably a Muslim in Spain who, possibly the victim of the reconquest of his country, decided to take private revenge by composing a false Gospel under the assumed name of Barnabas to give his obnoxious forgery some measure of apparent authenticity. He probably first composed the Italian script to maintain this appearance of genuineness but simultaneously composed (or arranged for such a translation) a Spanish version for distribution in his own country. He may well have been the notorious Fra Marine or he may have been the translator Mustafa de Aranda, or indeed he may well have been both - using the two names for the same expedient ends as those he sought to achieve through using the name of Barnabas as the author of his book. He most certainly was someone far more at home in Spain in the Middle Ages rather than in Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ.

 

[Marlin]

Quote all the anti-Mormon websites you want, WBY. They are biased and untruthful for the most part. I'll take my God-given testimony that Mormonism is true over some self-styled, slick anti-Mormon propaganda any day.

Ya freakin' troll.