1500 Year Old Bible Found, nobody want's to know - Could be real deal

This is an article I did on my own page a while ago, thought I would share here.

If this is true and NOBODY can say it is not. All I ever hear from religion is "There is proof" So here you are, 'Proof' A book, pre-dates already to 500AD. If this book is real then it changes religion. But like ANY bible it will be scrutinised and called wrong and blasphemous. I am saying, if the Bibles of today are real, then this is real. If this new book is fake, they are all fake. I dislike what religion does to this planet. So for me I know it will hurt friends and family, but to all religious people reading this, you can't have your cake and eat it. This is either real or fake. I can hear it already "MUSLIM LIES" If this book is real, millions of people have been living a blind lie. But if this book is wrong, well I don't know how that can be. The Vatican have requested to see it. I will keep you updated. From my understanding carbon dating has been done a few times, and 1,500 years old.

The real question would be the agenda if it's fake.

Why would someone create this work, the time and energy if not for a reason? It's no small effort. Also, is it leather or human skin? That might give answers as to who created it and/or why.

Islam or Christian or? Whoever it was we won't know until a full scale deciphering is complete which should reveal certain leaning/direction/message and thus give a clearer understanding of who had the reason.

Peace

I would say that I would be suspicious until it's confirmed. Everyone was all afire for the Gospel that purported to show Jesus married with two kids too ... until it was shown to be fake. It was also dated reliably ... until it wasn't.

a reply to: jude11

To further the cause of Islam in the world? For the same reason that anyone fakes something related to two major religions. Let's be clear, both Christianity and Islam will be affected by this if it is genuine. Two possible agendas at work here.

a reply to: shauny

A few things...

First of all... It is not thought that the council of Nicaea had anything to do with the compilation of the bible...

This is something that has been circulated by people who read Dan Brown as historical fact... Or in other words, people who actually don't know the truth of the matter... (most of the Christian world apparently)

Nicaea had nothing to do with what is in the bible

Second... The dead sea scrolls didn't contain gnostic gospels... You're thinking of Nag Hammadi

Other then that, this is an interesting find...

1500 years old is still a few years shy of the oldest bible we have I believe... but if this one calls Paul the Imposter, this might be something to look into


S&F

a reply to: jude11

Exactly, they didn't have book binding factories like we do today. Making books was a long process and a lot of talent and skill went into each finished product.

I can't imagine this was made for fraudulent purposes, unlike the Bibles of today. If it takes you hours upon hours just to ornately write the text, you'll most likely record only the most pertinent information.

OT but imo the Roman Catholic Church is just evil and is the reason why many turned from Christ, because they created the image of pure evil with the Inquisition and the crimes against humanity. I think there's very few churches today that truly speak of the real faith, that the Vatican helped bring the evil into the world deliberately. God bless or God mess depending on your views

Very interesting.

How did they come up with the date it was made though? Is it a rough assumption or have they conducted testing to prove this claim?

Recent reports have revealed the discovery of a 1500-year-old bible in Turkey. The bible was reportedly retrieved over 14 years ago in 2000, when it was seized from smugglers in the Mediterranean area and held in a Turkish courthouse until safe transfer to the Ethnography Museum of Ankara could be arranged. The holy book allegedly contains the Gospel of Barnabas, who was a disciple of Jesus, in the work, claims that Jesus was not crucified, instead it says he ascended to heaven alive and Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place. Furthermore, the 1500-year-old bible states that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, but simply a prophet who passed on the word of God.

Link

An old topic and many threads already on ATS.

I don't know if it was ever officially proven fake or not. I know many people have already made up their minds, regardless. Who do you trust? There's liars in every corner.

a reply to: shauny

This has been circulating since it was found in 2012.

It contradicts Christianity as well as Islam. In fact what I was able to see is a lot of thinking that it's a tool to promote Islam (no offence to such members, I'm simply restating what I kept coming across). And the Vatican has called it a hoax, I just went online and from what I can see is enough to prove that it's not the written word of God (my personal conclusion).
The Bible is the inspired word of God by the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't change my viewpoint of the Bible. When you look at James, Matthew, Luke and John these are 4 separate books by 4 separate writers and the word matches up with each other. And if you look at the Bible as a whole the stories line up.

In my opinion this is nothing but a fake. As well Satan is busy copying God in his every moments and why wouldn't he twist the words of God by having someone mess with the Bible. What a great way to create doubt and division in believers and show non believers that the Bible is nothing but messed up stories. What a great way for Satan to say Jesus was a nobody who wasn't the son of God and we don't have to believe him.

a reply to: shauny

I've got nothing to add, but very interesting for sure.

Interesting, of course, but hardly a deal-breaker in any sense of the term. 1500 years ago is still 500 years shy of the New Testament events. There are any number of documents, all of which purport to shed some "new light" on Christianity by pushing a particular point of view. And a lot of the Gnostic texts are far older.

A book written/assembled 500 years after the fact is not going to be blowing anything wide open.

a reply to: shauny

Of course, it first has to be scientifically dated. Even if it is 1500 years old, that doesn't mean that it's factual. According to you, it talks about Jesus, Paul, etc.. The author(s) were not alive when Jesus allegedly lived and Paul did live so none of it is based on first-hand witness accounts of those two people. Of course, the Bible (the official holy canon in all its versions) has the same problem when it comes to Jesus. Not a word of it was written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived nor witnessed him saying a word.

Still, it's a very interesting find.

A few things.

First of all, there are copies of New Testament texts from the first century that are still extant. 500AD is a huge leap from those documents, not to mention the thousands of references to Scripture in OTHER texts during that time period.

Second, you state:

A Bible which is reported to be at least 1500 years old was discovered in Turkey and inside it there is a Gospel of Barnabas. The book was moved by Turkish government to one of their museums by way of police escort. Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and in the Gospel of Barnabas, it states that Christ was never crucified.

...if you're going to write commentary about Biblical texts, it's probably worth actually getting your facts straight.
Barnabus was NOT one of the disciples.
Barnabus WAS the companion Paul took with him on several of his missionary journeys.

Now, if you've ever studied religious texts, you'll know that it was not at all uncommon for people to attempt to lend credibility to their own creations using the names of well-known 'heroes of the faith' (e.g. The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, arguably The Gospel of Thomas), and that's most likely precisely what this is.

Given, in particular, that Barnabus undoubtedly spent time with Paul in Corinth, where Paul had "resolved to preach nothing but Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), it seems unlikely that he'd write a text in which the crucifixion did not appear.

Chalk this one up as another gnostic gospel.

the timing is imperative .
sarcasm .
the claim is nonsense .
the entire claim is a hoax .
looks like a book was written and soaked in oil .
makes Don't harm the oil sound comical .

originally posted by: ccseagull
a reply to: shauny



It doesn't change my viewpoint of the Bible. When you look at James, Matthew, Luke and John these are 4 separate books by 4 separate writers and the word matches up with each other. And if you look at the Bible as a whole the stories line up.

In my opinion this is nothing but a fake. As well Satan is busy copying God in his every moments and why wouldn't he twist the words of God by having someone mess with the Bible. What a great way to create doubt and division in believers and show non believers that the Bible is nothing but messed up stories. What a great way for Satan to say Jesus was a nobody who wasn't the son of God and we don't have to believe him.

Actually, the four gospels don't match up but that's somewhat irrelevant because they were written (not by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, by the way) by people who didn't live when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed the events described nor heard Jesus say anything.

I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: shauny

Of course, the Bible (the official holy canon in all its versions) has the same problem when it comes to Jesus. Not a word of it was written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived nor witnessed him saying a word.

...care to substantiate that?
Obviously the Bible is 66 books, not just one - and written over 2500 years, so... no, none of the Old Testament was written by contemporaries of Jesus. Really, you're only talking about the gospels, of whom the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, ALL of whom were contemporaries of Jesus. In fact, each of these books was in circulation prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD, which absolutely places both them and the authors "when Jesus allegedly lived".

If you want to continue to talk about the epistles, both Gentile (written predominantly by Paul) and Hebrew (Peter, John, Jude), then you're STILL talking about Jesus' contemporaries. At the time of Stephen's stoning (around 34ad), Paul was already a Pharisee, meaning that he must have been at least 33 years old - which in turn means that he was probably born around the same time as Jesus, give or take a year or two, and was most likely alive for Jesus' entire lifespan.

Seriously, this stuff is pretty basic. I'll never understand why people keep trotting out the same misinformation time and time again.

a reply to: Awen24

there are copies of New Testament texts from the first century that are still extant.

Well if that is the case you must be hiding them yourself...

Perhaps you might want to show these texts to the scholars of the bible all over the world because none of them know of such things...

there isn't a single original text from the NT in existence from the 1st century...

the earliest fragment we have is a piece of the gospel of john which is about the size of a credit card... and its from the early second century...

so it would be wise to take your own advice... get your facts straight

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

originally posted by: Awen24
...
Now, if you've ever studied religious texts, you'll know that it was not at all uncommon for people to attempt to lend credibility to their own creations using the names of well-known 'heroes of the faith' (e.g. The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, arguably The Gospel of Thomas), and that's most likely precisely what this is.
...

Yes, that's exactly what was done when a second century Bishop named the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John despite the fact that they could not possibly have written them.

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

You must be confused about the meaning of the word contemporaneous. That means that the source must have existed at the same time as Jesus and claimed to have witnessed him living. All the gospels were written two or more generations after Jesus allegedly lived and none were written by anyone who could have witnessed Jesus living.