The Gospel of Barnabas: A Witness and a Victim (Page 2)

Rena787: you said the bible contains four Gospels

and those four writers ( Matthew,Mark,Luke and John )never met the person whom they writing about,i.e, Jesus (peace be upon him), the earliest of them wrote 40 years after Jesus.

and could u plz tell me their last names ?

oh_good_laughs: Rena, explaining anything to you is pointless, as all your doing is googling up whatever rebuttal you come across.

Here is the site for the last response you gave, http://barnabas.net/how-the-gospel-of-barnabas-survived.html..

Instead of arguing with you, i will just type questions in the google bar..

Rena787: Are you trying to avoid answering my question ?

Tink: Last names weren't used until around the 15th century, and then usually to denote a persons job (Smith,Baker,Miller) or where they lived. In the Middle East, people were usually differentiated by their fathers name (Jesus, son of Joseph, etc.)

SPIRIT-ONE: RISEN said :If not the gospel of Barnabas, where can you find the truth about Jesus? The Bible contains four Gospels that illustrate Christ from four divinely inspired perspectives. Evidence has consistently affirmed the Gospels as authentic and accurate.

BULL$HIT! pure unadultriated BULL$HIT ,the -4- gospels are the most confusing ,neither account coincides with each others 'supposed' eye wittness events ,all were written yrs after the fact ,and in some cases yrs after the authors death .

One says when Jes-s gave up the ghost on the cross ,'A VEIL COVERED THE TEMPLE ,THE EARTH SHOOK! AND ROCKS SPLIT! ' ,another says 'Nothing Happened'

I could go on but will save it for a future thread ,I am currently reading a book called PROOF OF PAGAN MYTHOLOGY and CONTRADICTIONS Inserted In The NEW TESTAMENT ,I printed excerpts from it on another thread called 'AN IMPOSSIBLE TRIAL'

Alina_Alexander: It has been mainstream scholarship that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written between AD 85 to AD 110. There is a term called "pseudepigraphical" which applies to unknown authors taking the names of known persons for the purpose of promoting their writings. Many early Christian writings and manuscripts have this identification. NO author of the New Testament EVER met Jesus in person. Paul was the earliest writer, ca. AD 60-65, but still, he never met Jesus. This is, as I state again, mainstream Biblical scholarship.

oh_good_laughs: Spirit, although some of what you said is debatable, responding with a rebuttal seems pointless..

This because, the way you worded your argument makes it inaccurate, indicating that you aren't really sure what your typing, you just came across 'this and that' in some points of your life, and are regurgitating it on this page. Which seems common.


Believe what you wish man, i don't have a desire to argue.

oh_good_laughs: Alina.. Do you know how many scholars there are with their own idea?.. Do you think these people are aware, that the more extreme their claim is the more attention they get?..

There are 4 accounts of Jesus' life, with differences only indicating that they were authentically written by 4 different people. Which allows us to assume with historic probability, that these people knew Jesus personally, that they spent much time with him, that they were, probable disciples. I think it is probable in context with the Bible to assume, that they wrote after they witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Alina_Alexander: One of my degrees is in Biblical Archaeology. You have to understand the culture at that time, inclusive of the historical events that were in play. "Oral Tradition" was a way of transmitting many stories. The authors Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were NOT written by these named authors. In the early development of Christianity Paul was the primary player - as example, Jesus was the product, and Paul marketed Jesus. Paul never (perhaps once or twice), discussed anything about the teachings of Jesus in these Gospels, his early childhood, the Sermon on the Mount, etc - Paul's primary emphasis was on the "Resurrection", and that is how he "marketed" Jesus. I speak of mainstream scholarship as an academic term of the general consensus of scholars within this field.

pugpeppers: what are your own truths about jesus then m'lady?

Alina_Alexander: The Gospels are all anonymous - they don't actually say who wrote them. But:
* The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were linked with them as their authors right from the very earliest days
* No other authors were ever suggested for them
* There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, and they all give them the same authors

If the names of these authors had only been connected with their Gospels in the second or third centuries, it's very unlikely that all the Greek manuscripts would give them the same authors. By then, these Gospels were being circulated very widely.
Together

The four Gospels may have been circulated together very soon after they were written. It could have been at this stage that the authors' names were attached to them, as a way of distinguishing them from each other.
Matthew and John

Matthew's Gospel is probably based on the testimony of Jesus's disciple Matthew, and John's Gospel on the testimony of the disciple John. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was Matthew and John who wrote them down in the final form they've come to us in. In fact, in the case of John's Gospel, there's internal evidence that this isn't what happened.
Mark

Matthew and John were among Jesus's disciples, but Mark wasn't - he was a comparatively unimportant player in the New Testament story. If you were going to make up someone to be the author of a Gospel, Mark probably wouldn't have been the first name to come to mind.

But there's a tradition going back to the church leader Papias, early in the second century, that Mark's Gospel is based on the testimony of Simon Peter, written down by Mark. If it is true, this would explain why the church accepted it as authoritative so quickly.
Luke

Almost all scholars today (whatever they believe about whether the Bible is historically reliable) think that Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts were written by the same person:

1. They are both addressed to the same person, Theophilus - see Luke chapter 1 verse 1 and Acts chapter 1 verse 1.
2. Acts chapter 1 verse 1 indicates that it is the sequel to a previous work, about 'everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he ascended to heaven' - which is what Luke's Gospel is about.
3. The language and style is very similar in Luke and Acts:

'Stylistically and structurally, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are so closely related that they have to be asssigned to the same author. This has been so extensively demonstrated by linguistic studies that it need not be elaborated here.' (Expositors' Bible Commentary volume 9 page 238)

Not only that, but there are some parts of the Book of Acts that are written in the first person - 'we did this,' 'we went there.' It's possible to identify the person making these statements as the Luke who accompanied the apostle Paul on some of his journeys.

This leaves two possibilities: either Luke genuinely wrote Acts, in which case he also genuinely wrote the Gospel that's named after him, or someone else forged Acts deliberately in such a way as to make it look like it was written by Luke. In which case, the same person forged Luke's Gospel. But the person who wrote Luke's Gospel claims to be concerned for historical accuracy and reliability, so there's a certain contradiction in this idea.

Although at this distance in time we can't be absolutely certain that the Bible Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really were based on the testimony of their named authors, this is a reasonable assumption, and it would account for why the early Christians accepted them so quickly.

My truths about Jesus? Yes, I do believe there was definitely a man called Jesus (Joshua - correct Hebrew) who lived at that time. Actually, we know more about Jesus TODAY, than any other time in history.

oh_good_laughs: Alina, you present your side as factual.. First thing of history, is there are no facts, only degrees of probability..

Ah, Paul was the one, the building block of Christianity you say?.. That sounds like a backroad scholar i researched one time, i think his name was A.N. Wilson (it's in some notes of mine somewhere, but i won't bother). He thought it was the evil Saul of Tarsus that created the version of Christianity we know today. And that Jesus was really a simple, easy going guy, that got thrown into the roll of savior well after his life.

The problem with Wilson's idea, as well as many critical scholars, is how little their accusations deal with history, and more rather what they enjoy believing.

duncan123: so you think those rotten eggs are part of a plage or augy?@alex

pugpeppers: f@%# this,i am pissed,i know i lay my mind at the feet of the all,but what am i supposed to do?

pugpeppers: i love truth

Alina_Alexander: No back road scholar my dear, only a known fact that Paul was a definite building block behind early Christianity. He was the one that helped solidify the early movement, clarify specific issues, and "sold" this concept based upon the resurrection of Jesus - that you didn't have to be a Jew first and then convert, but both Jew and Gentile were encouraged to join - that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and you shall have a place with him in heaven - that was his emphasis - in short terms. Paul was not interested in the early life of Jesus, or what he did or said - that just was not in the plan. Paul was certainly NOT evil, but a sincere man with a mission of what he believed in his heart to be true. Paul was the cornerstone of the early movements - through his letters, writings and travels.

SPIRIT-ONE: Paul [a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus [history paints him as an ugly little Jewish man]

Paul brought his new found belief from his studies in Greece [the crucified savior, man - god idea was popular with the Greeks]

We Yahwist call Paul what he is known as in the Dead Sea Scrolls ,'Master of lies'
Paul was kicked out of the Essenes of the Dead Sea Community at Qumran ,for trying to 'interpolate' his newfound belief in Jes-s ,into their belief .

We know Yahoshua the Messiah as Savior of Humanity [whom didn't die on any cross for anyones mistakes ]

Alina_Alexander: SPIRIT ONE
This may interest you. Opinion?

In one of the best books on early Christianity, Those Incredible Christians, Dr. Hugh Schonfield reports:

"For the Apostolic Church much that Paul taught was grievous error not at all in accord with the mind and message of the Messiah. The original Apostles could urge that the truth was known by them. But Paul had never companied with Jesus or heard what he said day after day [remember: Paul had never even met Jesus], and Paul's visions were the delusions of this own misguided mind....

"It was not only the teaching and activities of Paul which made him obnoxious to the Christian leaders: but their awareness that he set his revelations above their authority and claimed an intimacy with the mind of Jesus, greater than that of those who had companied with him on earth and had been chosen by him.... It was an abomination, especially as his ideas were so contrary to what they knew of Jesus, that he should pose as the embodiment of the Messiah 's will.... Paul was seen as the demon-driven enemy of the Messiah.... For the legitimate Church, Paul was a dangerous and disruptive influence, bent on enlisting a large following among the Gentiles in order to provide himself with a numerical superiority with the support of which he could set at defiance the Elders at Jerusalem. Paul had been the enemy from the beginning, and because he failed in his former open hostility he had craftily insinuated himself into the fold to destroy it from within."

satangel: Whenever a "name" that starts with "Bar" (Barabbas, Barnabas, Barsabbas etc) appears in the New Testament, it is a religious title and we have to do a little digging in alternative Hebrew literature, to find the real people behind these aliases.

The man that Acts 4:36 calls Barnabas - and correctly identifies as Joses ( in some editions translated to "Joseph" ), but falsely claims was born in Cyprus - was in fact none other than Jesus' younger brother. Several members of Jesus' extended family are mentioned in connection with Cyprus, so - one way or another - this Mediterranean island must have been more important to their ministry than what the Christian tradition so far has been willing to admit…

The Aramaic expression Barnabas can be divided into "bar" (son/assistant/replacement) and "nabas" (prophet). When Joses used this title, it was in the capacity as the assistant of the man that had assumed the title Nabas, i.e. the Disciple Matthew Annas ( sometimes called "Levi", another functional/religious title that explains why Joses is also called "a Levite" ), who by some scholars is credited with having written/supervised/approved the eponymous biblical gospel.

Barnabas/Joses spent some years in Britannia (Britain), where his descendants several generations later married into the royal dynasty, which already contained the blood of his brother James.

Wikipedia has the following to say: "The Gospel of Barnabas is a substantial book depicting the life of Jesus; and claiming to be by Jesus's disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late sixteenth century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish; although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial eighteenth-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters); with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonised from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be late and pseudepigraphical; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam, perhaps Gnostic or Ebionite or Diatessaronic. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus. This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas."

Now, back to my own research on the latter two manuscripts. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas is neither an epistle, nor written by Barnabas, but composed in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nerva around AD 97. The Acts of Barnabas tells about how Barnabas brought the Gospel of Matthew and a collection of "miracle doctrines" to Cyprus, where he began to read these documents to the Jews of Salamis with the help of an assistant. Joses/Barnabas allegedly also met his end while staying in Cyprus, where he was stoned to death, after having been subjected to false accusations in AD 79. George Jowett writes that he was buried by his cousin, the evangelist Mark, but this is impossible, since Mark had died as a martyr in Alexandria already 15 years earlier.

Squid_L1ps: Most muslims have never read the Qu'ran from beginning to end and the ones who have dont fully understand it. They have no idea what it means. They are illiterate about their holy book.

The kind of Arabic that the Qu'ran was writtin in is really, really old and significantly different from modern, everyday Arabic that is spoken today. Modern standardised Arabic, the grammar, idioms, colloquialisms, dialect etc differs enourmously from the ancient Arabic of the Qu'ran.

hope_joy80: Squid L1ps, your reply has nothing to do with Barnabas!

but I should correct your information after all.

We arabs cherish our language so much just like any other ppl.

The roots of my family belong to a great poet who lived before Islam.
named Hatim al-Tai.
I invite you to read about him > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatim_al-Tai

We are studing the ancient Arabic at schools,, as well as studing the Qurran starting from the age of seven.

we study the ancient Arabic poems the "poems before Islam" at schools.

There is no doubt that we educated about the Qurran and the ancient Arabic.

Squid_L1ps: So im presuming you have read the Qu'ran from cover to cover in its original classical Arabic? And fully understood what is written?

Then im sure ywou ill be fully aware of how modern Arabic translations of the Qur'an differ greatly from those of the orginal language of the Qu'ran.

'as well as studing the Qurran starting from the age of seven'

why would a seven year old child need to study the Qu'ran? is this a choice at the age of seven you made yourself?

Rena787: Squid_L1ps

listen, do not claim that you know about muslims if you don't

you said that "most" muslims never read the Qur'an.

Do you know that hundreds of millions have memorized the Quran from cover to cover males and females whether they are doctors, engineers, teachers, academics, farmres, or even illiterate people who can not read and write? Do you know that a many muslims read the whole Qur'an every day from the biginning to the end? Muslims recite the Qur'an every day in their 5 prayers. A lot of muslims have memorized the 6626 verses in the Qur'an like their names in the age of ten. Almost every muslim recites the whole Qur'an during the holy month of Ramadhan at least one time( some muslims recite it 2,3, and even 30 times in the thirty days of this month ).

You also said that muslims do not understand the Qur'an.

Do you know that there are many books have been written hundreds years ago pertaining the meanings, the theme, the explanation, and the reasons behind some chapters and verses and muslims read these books untill our day. Do you know that in almost every muslim country there are courses about reciting the Qur'an and the Tafsir of it in primary,elementary and secondary schools?

Finally, your reply has nothing to do with this thread and i didn't like to be off topic but i just wanted to show how ignorant you are.

Stop following this thread


Peace

duncan123: most pakistanis stoped islamic activities towards the end

i went to pakistan at work and asked at the brief how were they responding to the wars at the mosques and was told they were closed and not accessable. which was true.

paki means/ment country and people were paki by birth

the play on words ;read,have read and reading is nt a pleasant one

Squid_L1ps: Rena you misunderstood totally. Remove youself from ur religious, self-rightous fervour for just one second and read it again.