It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I agree, I have no doubt there is a lot more to the story, but we have such an incomplete view of history.

With the collapse of the roman empire and all the lost knowledge that went with it,we have very little context to go with the writings that survived that Era.

We are looking at screenshots trying to guess the plot of a movie.

And many people on both sides of this argument are making sweeping statements of fact with an incomplete pile of evidence.

If someone doesn't believe that's ok by me, I hope they have something in their live to bring them comfort when it feels like the world is against them.

Sorry started to ramble hope that made sense.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

I said imaginary persons... not imaginary deities... No people don't die for imaginary PEOPLE...

Yes quite recently there has been a few people who have put forth an effort to show that Jesus didn't ever exist, but you can almost always show that those people have an agenda... that being hatred for Christianity in general.

that I can understand, but ignoring the information available is not an excuse to claim he didn't exist...

James is considered by quite a few people to be the writer of "the book of James" within the NT... but there are some who disagree and say that the brother of Jesus was "James the just" who was mentioned in Thomas...

Jude was also a brother of Jesus...

Peter was a follower of Jesus... and the author of Mark, though not directly... it is thought that Mark was dictated by Peter...

Yes the existing copies of copies of copies of these letters are from the second century... but we don't know when the originals were written because we don't have any of them...

I mean... feel free to ignore the evidence if you will...

Hang your whole mission on the words contemporaneous documentation...

fortunately the weight of evidence is in favor of your opposition...



OK, let's start at the beginning. People have died for Jesus. If he never existed, and it's entirely possible, people died for an imaginary person.

Does the reason you believe or not believe someone lived have any affect on whether that person actually lived? I think not. You question the motives of people who claim that Jesus likely did not live. Why don't you question the motives of people who claim that Jesus did live? If I may use myself as an example, I have never claimed that Jesus did not live. I say that there is no contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that he lived and that is accurate. For a number of reasons, in addition to that, I think it is unlikely that he lived. However, if someone unearths contemporaneous documentation proving that he did live, it will not make a great deal of difference to me. Christianity would still have the burden of proving that Jesus is a supernatural deity and that God (whether you're one of the people who believes that Jesus is God or not is irrelevant here) exists.

I'm ignoring the evidence? What evidence? Second century letters? LMAO. There simply is not an iota of hard evidence that Jesus ever lived. You're welcome to believe that he did. I thought that faith was supposed to be a big deal with Christians. They're in real trouble if they need facts.


edit on 4-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: shauny

Nice! S&F. I believe it WAY more than the "Official" story..If ANY of it is true at all..Given the basis of stealing the "Christos" figure from other religions that pre-date Christianity.
edit on 2/4/2015 by DjembeJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
It sounds like a gnostic text. The early church had a problem with people writing heresy - the church was disorganized back then, not many bibles were written, not many people were educated and able to read and write at that time, and it was easy for someone to write down their own beliefs and pass it off as "gospel" and that is exactly what the gnostics did. If they believed child sacrifice was good, they would write that in a "gospel". If they didn't believe in Jesus Christ, they would write that in a "gospel". This is why the great library of alexandria had to be burned to the ground. The early church had no recourse but to violently destroy the heathen texts and those that followed them to preserve the integrity of the Holy Bible. I'm not surprised that some of the false texts survived. The gnostics were hunted down for centuries before they were finally eradicated.

If this bible is 1500 years old that puts it right at the cusp of the start of the Middle Ages. While the great library was burned in 391 AD which is towards the end of the Dark Ages, not all of the gnostics were eradicated in the Dark Ages. Some survived into the 5th century and so it's entirely possible that this text could be gnostic.

Keep in mind that the Catholic church was still growing during 5th and 6th century AD. There just weren't many people able to read and write at the time and there will still many pagan traditions that carried over from the fall of the Roman Empire, who were polytheistic. It wasn't until centuries later, when the Catholic church came to dominate nearly all of Europe that there was an established priesthood and the holy scriptures were duplicated and spread to nearly every town and city that it became hard for such heathen practices to survive in Christian communities.

This is why as a Christian the claim "Look! We found an early Bible and it claims something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!" doesn't even merit a blink from me. There were piles and piles of gnostic texts written in the Dark Ages before the church became well established. I feel bad that a lot of classical texts about history, engineering, day to day life that were lost when the great library was burned, but I also understand that it had to be done to purge the heretical texts. If the early church hadn't fought the gnostics as hard as they did, the holy scriptures might not have survived the Dark Ages intact. Without the Holy Bible, Europeans in the Middle Ages would have had very different moral values. Would the Renaissance have even happened? Remember the first printing press was built exclusively to manufacture Holy Bibles. (these bibles are called "Gutenberg Bibles" and are very valuable today)

In a way how the gnostics treated the holy scriptures back then isn't much different to how some people treat them today. The so-called "queen james" bible comes to mind. There are others. The bible explicitly states in Revelation chapter 22 verse 18 that anyone modifying the scriptures toward their own ends will be given every plague and pestilence described in the bible and will lose their place in heaven. Given that, I believe it was divine guidance that preserved the early church and guided them to victory over the gnostics. It was also part of God's plan that the bible and printing press would play it's part in the Renaissance.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Great isn't it, the same people who demand solid proof that this book is real take a huge leap of faith with no proof and believe in Christianity!



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

May I sig that?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: and14263

May I sig that?

No probs



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

do you really believe that`s what I said?

no, of course you don`t.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

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...


I need to touch that book,smell it and taste it. If by some miracle it heals me then yes it's authentic, if not well just another fake



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




"If Jesus didn't exist, his brother would probably know about it!" without reminding you that the brother of Jesus, if he ever lived, never documented the existence of Jesus!


He wrote the Book of James.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: flice
Doesnt change a damn thing..... Its still just a book, full of opinions and made up stories written either to profit from or to control people.

Just because something is written in a book doesnt make it true or real. Something all religious people need to wake up and understand.

Start believing in yourself instead of trying tl relieve yourself from responsibility of your own life!


If God exists and created you, wouldn't the purpose He created you for be the most important thing in your life?

Could there be a higher responsibility than ensuring you achieved your mission?



If Gandalf exists and created you, wouldn't the purpose for which he created you be the most important thing in your life? Maybe, but it's really moot until you can prove that Gandalf (or God, if you prefer) exists and created you--or me. Doesn't that seem logical to you?


Absolutely reasonable.

I know of several 'proofs' of the existence of God, some of which, you may disagree with on the basis of your beliefs, others are more empirical.

The thing is, that if you never apply your reason to consideration of those proofs, then you will draw no conclusions.

As Jesus said: "Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you" or, to paraphrase, "Deny Ignorance".



edit on 4/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: chr0naut

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....


I would only agree with that if it were supportable by an ancient text.

Name one pre-Christian Gnostic text.


That is a tough one unfortunately...

See most people believe Gnosticism was a religion like Christianity or Judaism, but that's not actually true... Gnostic's were basically unknown writers or writers that didn't get the publicity or attention of the church until their ideas became a threat... Gnostic writers borrow many of their ideas from Platonism and early greek mythology...

there just isn't any texts from the first century or before that time... at least from what has been found, but the same holds true with the New testament as well... Theres just nothing but copies of copies...

Perhaps this might be an example...

www.gnosis.org...

Gnostic writers were called that because of their stressing the idea that the "gnosis" (knowledge) was necessary to attain salvation... it wasn't that they considered themselves "gnostic".... In fact the term was only used by the opponents of these people's beliefs

So... gnostic beliefs were actually born from Plato, and early greek mythology...things like the "demiurge" and the archons or the hypostasis of the world were all borrowed... When Jesus arrived on the scene variations of his teachings were mixed into what would become Christian Gnosticism...

which still wasn't a religion... it was just another version of Christianity with roots stemming from earlier belief systems





Wouldn't those who had a leaning towards Gnostic ideas prior to Christianity be more accurately termed Hermeticists, Platonists or even, perhaps, Stoics?

The fully formed Gnostic belief did not arise till, perhaps, one hundred years after Christ but there were immature precursors (like the Nicolitans) mentioned in Paul and John's letters and the followers of Philo (mentioned by Josephus).

Despite this early rigor in identifying heretic movements, it wasn't until 100 years after Christ that we begin to hear of groups like the Simonians, Cerinthians, Valentinians, Basilidians and Menandrians.


edit on 4/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny




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.


We all have our likes and dislikes Shauny.
But I think I have a more pertinent question for you.




edit on Rpm20415v21201500000003 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny
I read through all your links but I still can't get a clear idea of what
this Bible has in it. It seems that the Bible is conventional
except that this Gospel of Barnabas is also included. Or is it
different in other ways?

Maybe this thread should be more about whether the
Gospel of Barnabas is legitimate. I don't believe this book
reflects the Bible that was in general use back then. It's
clearly the exception not the commonly accepted belief.

--TomS



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
You think anything in this "bible" will persuade any believer to doubt their teachings? No matter what it says, how old its scientifically proven to be or what historical or biblical blanks it may fill in...it simply does not matter. This book was obviously put here miraculously by God (or fiendishly by Satan) to test one's faith.

If anything it's existence proves that *fill in your religion here* is the one, true, undeniable truth!



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I love it when religion gets turned on its head.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ccseagull
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.


Did you mean Matthew, Mark[/I], Luke and John? Color me confused, because The Epistle of James is not a gospel. Furthermore, while the four gospels may have been written by four separate authors, to anyone who has actually studied these books and the differences and contradictions in them, you can not say "the word matches up with each other," because it differs on some pretty interesting points, and cause some of the stories not to line up at all.

This site does a decent example of laying out some of the contradictions within the gospels. It's worth looking at.



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.


You know, when you attribute everything that you believe to be a fake in your religion to it being 'the devil's work,' it's way too easy to dismiss things that could be accurate, even if they contradict your beliefs. Plus, you start sounding like Bobby Bucher's Momma in "The Waterboy," and that's never a good thing.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Nah im not gnostic, or Christian.... or anything... Im just me...

I base my life on the gospels, but there are certain things that I believe are true from gnostic writing, as well as from Buddhism, and Hinduism...

For example I most definitely believe the OT god was either a false god, or a fabrication of men with agendas...

the gnostic demiurge seems to fit perfectly... but I don't know for certain...

what I do know is that it wasn't God the Father of Jesus despite what Christianity teaches... and I believe one of the reasons the gnostic writers were exterminated was because they knew this and tried to expose it...




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Even if it is "real" and it very well may be...it was still written 500 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
It sounds like a gnostic text. The early church had a problem with people writing heresy - the church was disorganized back then, not many bibles were written, not many people were educated and able to read and write at that time, and it was easy for someone to write down their own beliefs and pass it off as "gospel" and that is exactly what the gnostics did. If they believed child sacrifice was good, they would write that in a "gospel". If they didn't believe in Jesus Christ, they would write that in a "gospel". This is why the great library of alexandria had to be burned to the ground. The early church had no recourse but to violently destroy the heathen texts and those that followed them to preserve the integrity of the Holy Bible. I'm not surprised that some of the false texts survived. The gnostics were hunted down for centuries before they were finally eradicated.



Has it ever even occurred to you that the gnostic texts are the real deal and the Bible as you know it is the heresy? If this hasn't occurred to you, why not?



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join