1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified – Vatican In Awe

I apologize if a thread has already been made about this because of the discovery being back in 2000. I tried doing a search but I didn't turn anything up.

1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified – Vatican In Awe

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.

According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.

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.

To many, this book is a beacon of hope, that believers soon realize that the object of their adoration is arbitrary; and that all text, especially religious text, is subject to interpretation.

What does this mean to atheists/agnostics/secular thinkers? Is the text real? Fake? Does it matter? Hopefully, this news inspires the religious to ask questions, instead of pointing fingers or believing anything blindly.

It would be crazy if this bible was accurate. That Jesus wasn't crucified & Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God. Plus I believe the whole "man shall not lay with another man like he lies with a woman" crap is in the book of Paul & if Paul was full of #, that means that he could have been lying about homosexuality being a sin. I've always thought that whomever put that in the bible, probably had a bad experience like being raped by a guy or something & therefore wanted to say it was a sin.

I personally don't believe in the bible for the fact that
A) It has been translated a zillion times
B) It is more of a story book that teaches you morals than an actual book of events that happened.
C) The scriptures that went into the bible were hand picked & some didn't make it in, even though this is allegedly a book written the way God/Holy Spirit wants it.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

So this happened in 2000.
I assume the Vatican found a way to discredit it,or deem it fake.
Otherwise we'd be saying prophet Jesus today.

The bible has gone through a lot of change/edits.
I'd take it with a grain of salt.

I especially remember reading 1 story in the children's bible when I was a child. It was about a man living in a whale for 3 days. I was only 8 years old and knew already that I was reading fiction.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for sharing.

personally, i think jesus was the last pharaoh of egypt, and son of cleopatra, who's egyptian name was isa. he was a descendant of king david via the ptolemy line of cleo. when julius caesar was killed, cleopatra sent isa on the silk route to escape the roman assassins, who knew he was the next heir to the throne of the roman empire and a threat to their plans. this made him the rightful heir to the throne of the egyptian empire, the roman empire and the throne of israel. he had it all going on, and had a huge target painted on him. i think after his escape, she faked her own death, and met the caravan in israel - its last stop on the silk route before egypt. it's my view that cleopatra was known as mary in israel. the actual story is much more interesting than what we are taught.

The gospel of Barnabas is known, there are newer copies, though incomplete.

Most scholars, Muslims and Christian alike view it as a later writing that may contain an parts from an older manuscript.

It contains parts that match the gospels, and parts that don't obviously.

It will be interesting to see the dating on this book, once its examined, at this point it could still be considered a later forgery (common for Gospel documents, especially around 15th century, etc)

Its important to note that the current gospel comes from a multitude of sources, Not just religious ones at that, One 1500 year old bible is not enough to out weight the preponderance of others.

As an example, jump 2000 years from now, someone could find a document from one of the MANY christian sects that exist TODAY.

Make the SAME claim about it, as people are making of this one, so until more original documents are found like this one that match, you really can't say more than some where, someone at the time believed this.

The article ultimately goes back to this article here:
Source
According to the comments on that page by some ppl that claim to be able to read the bottom line, its not a 1500 year old bible, rather, the bible was written in the year 1500ad

Also, no mention of differences like suggested in ops source...so gonna need citation for that one.

Ye' Olde bible worth 28m though...have that in your book collection and your doing alright for yourself.

From the OPs source -

According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.

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 Vatican isn't in 'awe'. It's more likely the Vatican is doing this - A story from the time period of Muhammad comes out and it mirrors what Muhammad pushed. Geee ... what are the odds? Either the author of the text got his stories from Muhammad, or Muhammad got his 'visions' from reading the stories in the Barnabas fiction. Either way .. the Vatican isn't in awe. That claim is just the author of the article being silly.

originally posted by: benrl
The gospel of Barnabas is known, there are newer copies, though incomplete.

Most scholars, Muslims and Christian alike view it as a later writing that may contain an parts from an older manuscript.

It contains parts that match the gospels, and parts that don't obviously.

It will be interesting to see the dating on this book, once its examined, at this point it could still be considered a later forgery (common for Gospel documents, especially around 15th century, etc)

Its important to note that the current gospel comes from a multitude of sources, Not just religious ones at that, One 1500 year old bible is not enough to out weight the preponderance of others.

As an example, jump 2000 years from now, someone could find a document from one of the MANY christian sects that exist TODAY.

Make the SAME claim about it, as people are making of this one, so until more original documents are found like this one that match, you really can't say more than some where, someone at the time believed this.

Its most likely just a simple medieval "artifact" like the rest of the stuff back then in the 1500s. still, nice find overall...a 500 year old forgery is still a neat thing to own.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

Its most likely just a simple medieval "artifact" like the rest of the stuff back then in the 1500s. still, nice find overall...a 500 year old forgery is still a neat thing to own.

Yea, the gold leaf is a tip off its not from the early church.

People see what they want, confirmation bias.

Interesting artifact, but thats all it is.

it appears others in the comments have chewed on the writing as well pointing out different attributes that didnt evolve in that writing style til the year 1200ad.

i wonder what they will think about us when they find some of our more "colorful" personalities writings.

The obfuscations never cease....everyone has gotten into the act over the centuries.....
The "bible" is a work of obfuscation not history.....it has been altered, many times.... to suit the empires that evolved based upon it.............

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: SaturnFX

Its most likely just a simple medieval "artifact" like the rest of the stuff back then in the 1500s. still, nice find overall...a 500 year old forgery is still a neat thing to own.

Yea, the gold leaf is a tip off its not from the early church.

People see what they want, confirmation bias.

Interesting artifact, but thats all it is.

How so? The process of Gilding has been traced back to 4th century B.C. That doesn't make this writing contained in this book to be from gold leaf but maybe an earlier process.

a reply to: undo

Wow, man...heck of a theory. That would be a better movie than most of the other biblical based films.

Why would anyone put "awe" in the article unless its shariah based propaganda? And stupid at that, they think we're 2 years and fooled, when the majority of peaceful equal people are light years over these dark siders heads, they're like demented little orcs or something in the really soiled diapers of controlling, dominating and harming others.

Gospel of Barnabas , muslim concept of Christ. Whoopee. Its not ours, thank you very much.

I wonder how much have religion been just a tool to control humanity and so our history. How much of natural knowledge/heritage have been denied and hidden from us. I dont know what to trust in this world and that alone tells me our world is full of corruption and truth is too painfull to find. Someday humans will get over their fears and they see all the chains over them, maybe that day truth will be the pain enought to free all of us.

Well have to get together to thump bibles sometime.....Yours or mine.....
Id as soon believe in Unicorns......

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: SaturnFX

Its most likely just a simple medieval "artifact" like the rest of the stuff back then in the 1500s. still, nice find overall...a 500 year old forgery is still a neat thing to own.

Yea, the gold leaf is a tip off its not from the early church.

People see what they want, confirmation bias.

Interesting artifact, but thats all it is.

How so? The process of Gilding has been traced back to 4th century B.C. That doesn't make this writing contained in this book to be from gold leaf but maybe an earlier process.

most of the gospels text have been found old enough to still use the Jewish method of writing on scrolls, once gilding and binding occurs you are out of early church documents and into re-written copies.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Yawn! really ... YAWN!

Just because you don't like christianity, doesn't mean you have to look for any or all idiotic statements out there and believe them.

I wonder where they found this rat-eaten papyrus perchment ... in someone fabricated mind.

If you aren't religious, or don't like one ... move on, get on with your lives ...

a reply to: benrl

Which is nothing short of nonsense ...

Anyone with a mind, should be able to decipher for themselves, that anything written on a skin scroll a few thousand years ago, or even if merely A thousand years ago, is long since rotten, and rat eaten to those rats hearts content.

All, and any such copies ... are copies, and like all copies, are altered ... in the heart of muhammed, or in the heart of the rabby ... or in the heart of anyone, with whatever reason they had to copy it. This of course, changed after Europe got in touch with China and learned to use paper ... but that was long long long long after Jesus died, and long long after muhammed died as well.

YAWN!

a reply to: bjarneorn Are you unfamiliar with the dead sea scrolls ?

originally posted by: stirling
The obfuscations never cease....everyone has gotten into the act over the centuries.....
The "bible" is a work of obfuscation not history.....it has been altered, many times.... to suit the empires that evolved based upon it.............

History itself is "a work of obfuscation not history......it has been altered, many times.... to suit the empires that evolved based upon it.............." so I guess the bible and what you call "history" are really just birds of a feather.

I would love to read this story just to try to get into the authors mind. For a second there I got confused between Barabas and Barnabas haha... I just saw a movie called Barabas with Anthony Quinn as Barabas. I thought this gospel was by him when I clicked the thread.

Flyers Fan may like to know this news article was most likely mis-translated and the book is really from 1500ad not 500ad. Not that it would change the conclusion but still the argument about it being from (before?) the time of Muhammad and pushing a pro Islam message is not applicable here.