14 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyThey're not intended as prophecies as they are descriptive of the supposed years when Barnabas lived.
My I was not clear,
I agree it might be forgery. I have no problem about that,
References to things in the middle ages, could prove it is forgery, and if you have faith it could be propheies 😀.
[b]More importantly, do YOU accept it?
For me it doesn't make a difference, and I'm a Muslim before I ever heard about it. I don't need to accept i ...[text shortened]... ly a word from GOD, and I don't have this prove for any Gospel today. So I don't accept it.[/b]
14 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaYou mean like refereing to Middle Age. No of course,
But there's no point if it's clearly a forgery. Is there?
If you think these elements of forgery are also present in the other Gospels, please present them.
But other elements yes.
My problem with Bernabas is the same with any other Gospel. There is no evidence that they are written by the authors they have their names on. And non of them are referenced to Jesus himself. So there is no way I can tell that they really give the word of GOD. That is the most important point, I can't accept any one right a book and say it is the word of GOD without a prove.
The second point they differ in many points in Jesus life, which makes me ask me which one is true , and which one is false. Examples the time when Jesus is Born, the satan trial and the crossification itself.
They don't match.
Edit: I can give you much details but it need sometimes.
But there's no point if it's clearly a forgery. Is there?
I think there still some point, I will get back to this point.
14 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you think these elements of forgery are also present in the other Gospels, please present them
But there's no point if it's clearly a forgery. Is there?
If you think these elements of forgery are also present in the other Gospels, please present them.
Other readers point out that the four gospel texts recognised as canonical are themselves not without anachronisms (as in Luke 2:3, where Quirinius's governorship of Syria overlaps unhistorically with the reign of Herod the Great); nor are they without comparable incongruities (as in the account of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which both state this as taking place - unhistorically - on the night of the Passover festival).
This paragraph is taken from the link I posted, as you can see, the four Gospels face the same problem.
15 Dec 06
There are a couple minor inconsistencies in some of the accepted Gospels. However, the mistakes are extremely minor compared to somthing such as the gospel of Barnabus that is obviously riddled with mistakes and written much later than the four Canon Gospels of Mark (65 A.D., Matthew and Luke 80 A.D.-85 A.D ish and John 90 A.D.)
The earliest copy known of the gospel of Barnubes is about 1500 A.D. A time when many made up church historical stuff was made
When you write a book on someone about forty plus years after they died, you will make a couple minor mistakes, especially when you live in a primitive society. Oral tradition was big back then and writing historical facts down was barely beginning.
If you rember a grandparent by stories told by your parents, the exact time of day somthing happened is not important and you may hear somthing that happened at morning that actually happened in the evening. WHat is important is the message or event that your grandparent did or said.
Find some real problems with the Gospels. Does the real identity of the author really matter? What matters is that the Gospel does not have a billion mistakes like the gospel of Barnabus. If you make a list of the historical discrepencies in the Gospels, you'll have a real short list compared to somthing like the gospel of Barnabus.
Do we trust a gospel riddled with mistakes or one with a couple extremely minor mistakes?
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Does the real identity of the author really matter?
There are a couple minor inconsistencies in some of the accepted Gospels. However, the mistakes are extremely minor compared to somthing such as the gospel of Barnabus that is obviously riddled with mistakes and written much later than the four Canon Gospels of Mark (65 A.D., Matthew and Luke 80 A.D.-85 A.D ish and John 90 A.D.)
The earliest copy ...[text shortened]... s.
Do we trust a gospel riddled with mistakes or one with a couple extremely minor mistakes?
What do you think? How can you build your faith on a book that you don't know who wrote it. What if he wrote the book to decieve you to belive with something that is not true (And that actually what happened).
What matters is that the Gospel does not have a billion mistakes like the gospel of Barnabus.
One mistake is the same as billion mistakes, it means that it is not the word of GOD becaue GOD doesn't make mistakes.
Do we trust a gospel riddled with mistakes or one with a couple extremely minor mistakes?
I don't trust both, both have mistakes, both can't be the word of GOD, and both can't be used as a source of faith.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWe discussed this before and you know it is not interpretation.
do you mean 'mistake' as in 'interpretation'?
as in the interpretation of the word 'day'?
And what we are talking about here is totaly different. And this thread is is not its right place. If you want open another thread, or there was a thread called "Quran" we can discuss this there if you want.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou are saying that the bible is totally wrong, and not the Word of God, because there are 'mistakes' in it. When someone points out that there are different ways of looking at the way words are used, you are getting very defensive. Why is that? Could it be because you KNOW you are being a tiny little bit biased?
We discussed this before and you know it is not interpretation.
And what we are talking about here is totaly different. And this thread is is not its right place. If you want open another thread, or there was a thread called "Quran" we can discuss this there if you want.
15 Dec 06
I can build my faith in a book even if I do not know the author.
Let's pretend the Gospels are a make-up story. What did the writer have to gain from it? Persecution? I don't think books sold back then like they do today. If someone did write it as a story it was very anti-climatic and should of been abandoned.
When someone tells you a story about your ancestors, do you get precise times when things happened?
If the Gospels have so many "problems." How come Christianity has thrived for two thousand years? Maybe because the time of Jesus's trial is not really important.
You are correct. Both cannot be the word of God. That is why the Catholic Church, the Church that originally got the Bible together, does not view the gospel of Barnabus as a true gospel.
I cannot prove in court that God exists or the legitimacy of these Gospels. For those who need die-hard proof, you'll never get it.
The Gospels are a faith testimonial. Not a factual account. I don't think you should be picky about the time of a trial when it was written decades after Jesus died when records and recollections about events faded.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI'm not defensive or biased. I told you we can discuss it if you want , and If you prove your point I have no problem. But that is not what I'm talking about here.
You are saying that the bible is totally wrong, and not the Word of God, because there are 'mistakes' in it. When someone points out that there are different ways of looking at the way words are used, you are getting very defensive. Why is that? Could it be because you KNOW you are being a tiny little bit biased?
Here I'm not talking about Interpretation, I'm talking about mistakes. That the Book say something that is not correct.
And I didn't talk here about the complete Bible, I'm talking about the Gospels. All the Gospels are written years after Jesus, and all facing the same problems. Although some accepted and some rejected.
And the reason appears to me for accepting them is that they have less number of Mistakes. Or they the ones that close to what Christians belive, because even the four accepted Gospels doesn't directly match the Christians faith.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou replied earlier
I'm not defensive or biased. I told you we can discuss it if you want , and If you prove your point I have no problem. But that is not what I'm talking about here.
Here I'm not talking about Interpretation, I'm talking about mistakes. That the Book say something that is not correct.
And I didn't talk here about the complete Bible, I'm talking about th ...[text shortened]... live, because even the four accepted Gospels doesn't directly match the Christians faith.
'One mistake is the same as billion mistakes, it means that it is not the word of GOD becaue GOD doesn't make mistakes.
Do we trust a gospel riddled with mistakes or one with a couple extremely minor mistakes?
I don't trust both, both have mistakes, both can't be the word of GOD, and both can't be used as a source of faith.'
Perhaps I misunderstood you, and you were talking only about some of the books of the New Testament, but my point stands. There are different ways to interpret or understand the meaning of these books. Perhaps I am wrong again, and you could correct me, but there are different sects of Muslims, eg Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufis, Kahrijites, Wahhabis, Ismailis, Zaidis, Fatimids, Nizari, Alawis, Druze and Baha'I. Are you telling me they all see the Quran the same way, interpret or understand the meaning exactly the same way? Using the same reasoning it is possible to look at other historical texts and form your own opinion, please understand that opinion is not fact.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by eagleeye222001I can build my faith in a book even if I do not know the author.
I can build my faith in a book even if I do not know the author.
Let's pretend the Gospels are a make-up story. What did the writer have to gain from it? Persecution? I don't think books sold back then like they do today. If someone did write it as a story it was very anti-climatic and should of been abandoned.
When someone tells you a story ...[text shortened]... t was written decades after Jesus died when records and recollections about events faded.
Of course it is up to you, but do you think that what GOD wants from you. To belive what any one say to you.
Let's pretend the Gospels are a make-up story. What did the writer have to gain from it? Persecution?
It doesn't matter what is his purpos. The real problem is what if it is realy make-up story. How can you make sure it is not.
I don't think books sold back then like they do today. If someone did write it as a story it was very anti-climatic and should of been abandoned.
You know exactly how these books are choosen, and when. So their existance today doesn't prove anything.
When someone tells you a story about your ancestors, do you get precise times when things happened?
It is not a story, it is faith. You belive that Jesus is GOD. And it is based on these Gospels. If they are not correct. How do you make sure of you faith.
If the Gospels have so many "problems." How come Christianity has thrived for two thousand years? Maybe because the time of Jesus's trial is not really important.
You know how Christianity thrived for two thousand years. you know that the Bible was not allowed for public untill recent. You know that the Church was the only source of information for Christians and Christians were not allowed to know exactly the source for their faith. You know when Christians start reading the Bible many of them became atheist.
You are correct. Both cannot be the word of God. That is why the Catholic Church, the Church that originally got the Bible together, does not view the gospel of Barnabus as a true gospel.
If they are both not the word of God , then how do you take your faith from them. You know Jesus through them, if they are not the word of GOD then why belive in them. And why the Catholic Church accepted the other Gosbels. And why rejected other Gospels other than Barnubus.
The Gospels are a faith testimonial. Not a factual account. I don't think you should be picky about the time of a trial when it was written decades after Jesus died when records and recollections about events faded.
If they are wrong about the time of the trial, what make me sure that they are right about everything else.
And the trial is not the only thing. Look at the Crusification details , it is different. I will give an example: Who was carrying the Cross of Jesus? Jesus himself or someone else.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOk , that is what I said:
You replied earlier
'One mistake is the same as billion mistakes, it means that it is not the word of GOD becaue GOD doesn't make mistakes.
Do we trust a gospel riddled with mistakes or one with a couple extremely minor mistakes?
I don't trust both, both have mistakes, both can't be the word of GOD, and both can't be used as a source of ...[text shortened]... historical texts and form your own opinion, please understand that opinion is not fact.
I can't accept a book that has mistakes as a word of GOD becuase GOD doesn't make mistakes.
Lets compare that to what you say, you are talking about different interpretation of Quran from different people. But here are you talking about Mistakes in Quran or Mistakes in interpretation. If you are talking about Mistakes in interpretation then you are talking about something different. Suna ,Shea and all other Groups has different interpretations of Quran. But if their intepretation is not correct does this mean Quran is wrong. No Muslim say that Quran is wrong, but say other group interpretation is not correct.
I really don't understand you point.
In the Gospels case it is not a miss interpretation. It is a difference between the four Gospels, which make one of them is correct and the other wrong. They can't be both correct at the same time. Do you understand what I mean not.