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

originally posted by: Shiloh7
I suspect the most reliable scrolls we have are the Nag Hmmadi ones because they haven't been decided for us by the early church fathers who had their own political agenda, that of recognition and authority given to themn by the emporer.

From those documents we learn that Christ was a gnostic and didn't consider himself to be 'the son of god' he called himself 'the son of man'. He also stated that any man who followed the 'law' he would call brother.

Reliable in what sense? They may more accurately record the BELIEFS of the time they were written but they still can not be regarded as proof of anything that actually happened regarding Jesus, including whether he existed.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine

Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime, and he mentions in his writings meeting with Peter personally. Some of Paul's earliest writings can be dated to around 50AD (not even 20 years after the crucifixion). Surely Peter would have mentioned it to Paul if Jesus had not actually been crucified? Further, Tacitus (a roman historian and senator) writing in 116 AD, mentions the crucifixion and even goes so far as to mention Pilate, further corroborating the New Testament narrative. Archaeological discoveries in the 60's further proved Pilate's existence. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, I don't think you can claim it's a toss up when all the earliest writings agree that Jesus was crucified, including non christian sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Josephus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

So not only do you have the original gospels which confirm the crucifixion, but Paul's epistles, 2 non Christian historians, and a number of gnostic gospels written later.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living nor heard him say anything. Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Surely, it is not too difficult to grasp, is it, that one has to actually witness someone living to document their existence and actually has to hear them say something to document their words?

Not one word was written about Jesus by anyone who lived when he allegedly lived and witnessed him living.

originally posted by: ccseagull
a reply to: Tangerine

Hey Tangerine.

Well of course anything I write when expressing my opinion are based on my beliefs. That goes without saying. I'm talking from the viewpoint as a Christian and how the Christian community views who inspired the Bible. The whole point of me saying that I can't prove Jesus existed would lead anyone with common sense to realize that it goes without saying that I also can't prove the Holy Spirit exists. So you can say whatever you wish to push the issue more but we'd just be going in circles.

And in response to your second paragraph of suggesting I use words like, "I believe" or "in my opinion" perhaps if you go back to my very first answer. You might have missed it. I actually was bright enough to use it when saying that this newly discovered Bible is fake. Here you go: In my opinion this is nothing but a fake.

If I ever claim something as fact I would actually say so and then back it up. In this case it's a conversation of one believer to whoever else I'm addressing my comments to.

I appreciate your response. However, it's essential each time you make a statement to indicate that it is a belief (if it is). Otherwise, the natural assumption is that it is a claim of fact because it is worded as a claim of fact.

originally posted by: sglewis

If this book is real then it changes religion

That statement is absurd, in the same way that the 232 results found from an Amazon search for 'moon landing hoax', or the existence of the Flat Earth Society, or Holocaust deniers don't AUTOMATICALLY change or invalidate those events. It's worthy of investigation, as frankly, any sufficiently old text is regardless of topic, but it hardly erases Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God.

You're correct, of course, that denying the Holocaust doesn't prove that it didn't happen. Much contemporaneous documentation proves that it did happen. However, when it comes to major Biblical claims, not much has been proven. Therefore, this book, if not exposed as an outright hoax, falls into the same category as the Bible: a collection of myths.

It's funny so many people keep talking about facts concerning religion, ignoring the belif aspect of it.

I don't care about organized religion, but I saw its benefits many times living in oklahoma, anyone that says it's pure evil etc is pretty short sighted.

But back to my original point, belif does not have to be supported by facts, I have no facts that can change your mind, and I would not change your mind because finding belif is an individual journey.

I only ask that I be afforded the same respect as I give to you.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
It's funny so many people keep talking about facts concerning religion, ignoring the belif aspect of it.

I don't care about organized religion, but I saw its benefits many times living in oklahoma, anyone that says it's pure evil etc is pretty short sighted.

But back to my original point, belif does not have to be supported by facts, I have no facts that can change your mind, and I would not change your mind because finding belif is an individual journey.

I only ask that I be afforded the same respect as I give to you.

You're absolutely right that beliefs don't have to be supported with facts (if they were, they wouldn't be beliefs; they'd be facts!) but, at the same time, you don't get to claim that something is a fact simply because you believe it is a fact. Belief is based on faith. Facts are based on testable evidence only.

a reply to: Awen24

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.

Let me stop you there.

First there are no copies of the NT of any use other than being able to verify those gospels existed at that time from the first century. No New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete they mainly consist only of a single fragmented page. Sources of the NT almost always have less than 20 copies each and are usually dated from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work, scholars are more likely to find incomplete, and at times conflicting, segments of manuscripts than complete and largely consistent works.

The Codex Sinaiticus is about 1600 years old and is the oldest most complete manuscript of the NT. It wasn't until 4th-century parchment (also called vellum) began to be a common medium for New Testament manuscripts and as I said there are no papyrus manuscripts that are complete the oldest confirmed fragment of the NT is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 it contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 this is it on display and that is dated approximately 100AD but some have placed into the middle of the 2nd century. Any parchment will have a 30 to 50-year window of when it was created because the style of writing will continue in a person's lifetime.



So if this 1500 year old bible is real it will be one of the oldest complete manuscripts in the world.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the history of their own religion. The average 10-year-old girl knows more about the "history" of Hogwarts.

originally posted by: shauny

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.

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. It reads instead that he rose to heaven while alive and Judas was the one crucified instead. Additionally, this ancient Bible declares that Jesus was not the Son of God, but only a prophet who spoke the word of God. The book also calls the Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. In a press release that was sent out by the Turkish government, it said that the Bible was snatched from a mob of smugglers in a Mediterranean region operation. The report explained that the group was accused of trafficking antique relics, performing illegal archaeological digs, and being in the possession of explosives. The book itself is believed to be valued as high as $28 million.

According to religious experts and specialists located in Tehram, they believe the Bible is an original. It is written in gold letters, against loosely bound blackened leather in Aramaic, which is the language that Jesus would have spoken. It is thought that during the Council of Nicea that the Catholic Church chose which Gospels that appear in the regular Bible as it is known today. They would have tossed out the Gospel of Barnabas along with many others in favor of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There have been numerous supposed Biblical texts which have come to light over time, including the Dead Sea Gnostic Gospels. However this ancient Bible has especially seemed to brought worry to the Vatican.

What would something like this mean to any Christian based religions and their believers? It would cause a very tight spot. The Vatican has requested the Turkish authorities to let them look at the inside of the book within the Church. Now that the ancient Bible has been found and the contents released to the public, what will the Catholic church have to say about it? To believers of the Christian faith, this book will be considered a fraud and a fake, something to be ignored and forgotten about. To atheists, agnostics or people who are secular thinkers, they may wonder if the text is real or not. More than likely they will not even care.

As was mentioned above, the Vatican has made an authorized request to the Turkish government to have a look at the book. It was reportedly penned in Aramaic, which is a nearly dead language. It is only spoken in the modern world in a tiny village located near Damascus. It has been reported to the media that mere photocopies of the ancient Bible’s pages are being retailed for nearly $2 million. Along with that, the age, flawless construction, and the contents inside the ancient Bible are what make it so valuable. Repeating: 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

www.latintimes.com...

www.breathecast.com...[/ur l]

[url]http://sonsonthepyre.com/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-vatican-in-awe/

www.newsforage.com...

The Crucifixion pre-dated Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-dated the Crucifixion, so a Dead Sea Gnostic Gospel?

Nah.

a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism predates the Crucifixion my friend...

And Jesus' in general... Christian Gnosticism came from his time though

Obviously....

a reply to: Akragon

but if this one calls Paul the Imposter, this might be something to look into

True, but one can reach the conclusion of Paul being an imposter without any new finds.
It be interesting how far they go with this

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Grimpachi

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the history of their own religion. The average 10-year-old girl knows more about the "history" of Hogwarts.

I think it is because most are primarily concerned with reaffirming their faith and not historical accuracy.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
It's funny so many people keep talking about facts concerning religion, ignoring the belif aspect of it.

I don't care about organized religion, but I saw its benefits many times living in oklahoma, anyone that says it's pure evil etc is pretty short sighted.

But back to my original point, belif does not have to be supported by facts, I have no facts that can change your mind, and I would not change your mind because finding belif is an individual journey.

I only ask that I be afforded the same respect as I give to you.

It IS actually Pure and Simple Evil, in a sense.

It defends the entire system that enslaves us all, makes people think a certain way, and also tells them that they have no control or choice to defeat EVIL but to grin and bear it and only wait for your judgment and to do your best.

It is actually worse in a sense that it ensures a slow death, while proclaiming victory over imaginary built in shackles it installed in the first place.

It is so pervasive and deeply rooted it can masquerade and hold itself over other things, and yet never solve them.

Anyone who gets close to freeing themselves must be brought before the so-called JUST GOD, and recognize that NOTHING they do can free them, except to do bizarre rituals that are not natural, to them.

Many things our bodies and minds are capable of, and mantras chanted can have effects....a great many do not realize the freedom and rush they get when accepting Jesus is just a small snippet of what could be, but they are bound to believe this is the end all be all, and therefore continue the cycle of SOMETHING that desperately wants to make sure we do not fully realize ourselves or anything else.... and is set as Gatekeeper to make sure you stop right there.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Grimpachi

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the history of their own religion. The average 10-year-old girl knows more about the "history" of Hogwarts.

I think it is because most are primarily concerned with reaffirming their faith and not historical accuracy.

I find that comment interesting coming from someone who doesn't seem to know a lot about the subject themselves, but always seems to find a place in every anti-christian thread on ATS.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Akragon

but if this one calls Paul the Imposter, this might be something to look into

True, but one can reach the conclusion of Paul being an imposter without any new finds.
It be interesting how far they go with this

Quite true, but that would require reading the NT...

not something that is a popular past time for Christians and non Christians alike...

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine

Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime, and he mentions in his writings meeting with Peter personally. Some of Paul's earliest writings can be dated to around 50AD (not even 20 years after the crucifixion). Surely Peter would have mentioned it to Paul if Jesus had not actually been crucified? Further, Tacitus (a roman historian and senator) writing in 116 AD, mentions the crucifixion and even goes so far as to mention Pilate, further corroborating the New Testament narrative. Archaeological discoveries in the 60's further proved Pilate's existence. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, I don't think you can claim it's a toss up when all the earliest writings agree that Jesus was crucified, including non christian sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Josephus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

So not only do you have the original gospels which confirm the crucifixion, but Paul's epistles, 2 non Christian historians, and a number of gnostic gospels written later.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living nor heard him say anything. Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Surely, it is not too difficult to grasp, is it, that one has to actually witness someone living to document their existence and actually has to hear them say something to document their words?

Not one word was written about Jesus by anyone who lived when he allegedly lived and witnessed him living.

So we should completely disregard everything the earliest documents say about the individual in favor of a document authored 500 years later? Ok.

As for your last sentence, I already illustrated why that is completely false.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I find it interesting that you avoided the factual information of my previous post then claim I lack knowledge on the subject.

I can source everything I posted on the subject do you care to dispute any of it or are you just attacking the messenger?

a reply to: ccseagull

not the written word of God (my personal conclusion).
The Bible is the inspired word of God by the Holy Spirit.

So the compilers of whatever bible you hold dear were writers or inspired by god?
Did God write your bible or did he inspire it by the HS?
Cant seem to be clear on that can you?

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

Satan so busy and powerful...
Could he have infiltrated the Councils?
Could he still be around today waking us up from the slumber of disease of the Abrahamaic faiths.
Nah my god gave me gnosis a brain and reasoning to walk away from CHristianity a long time ago

a reply to: shauny Has anyone ever noticed the N. T. was written to keep the priests in power? The only way to get to heaven was through the "holy" men who talked to God for us? I certainly BELIEVE in God, but religion? I don't believe any other holy books either that assumes a class of people have superiority over other people. One of the things that make me doubt any of it is the same ones who want to hold sway over the common men are the ones who put this amazing book together. Pedophiles, manipulators, and liars. I personally think organized religion might have been an invention of the Devil.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism predates the Crucifixion my friend...

And Jesus' in general... Christian Gnosticism came from his time though

Obviously....

How exactly does Christian Gnosticism predate the crucifixion when the earliest known Gnostic text is thought to have been written in the 2nd century (AFTER Tacitus wrote about it), and Jesus is thought to have been executed around 32 or 33 AD?