Vatican Very Concerned About The 1500-year-old Bible

a reply to: Triton1128

I love that painting.

ET

Did I somehow miss where the Vatican is shaking in it's boots over this 15 year old find? Could you link to their spokesperson stating as much please?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Kapusta

This is the rightful understanding of the trinity

But thats (the trinity) not even in the conventional bible now is it?

It does not specifically state they are trinity but bible study will lead you to that conclusion if you really seriously study it.

Clearly one of the many reasons Barnabus was not included as one of the chosen and suitable gospels for the bible.

The creed says 'he ascended into heaven' and the vatican could have argued prophets don't usually ascend ergo he was the son of god.

As we all have the life spark within us when alive atheists can rebuff the vatican by saying everyone is a son of god because they are alive due to having the holy spirit animate their bodies within them.

Then we can argue about what exactly the holy spirit is - that one has kept the papal hierarchy in luxury living off the poor, upward networkers of the time and the ignorant for a very long time.

Nice sensationalist thread title. This has been posted on ATS before and addressed ad nauseum. But hey, sweet star bait bro.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Kapusta

This is the rightful understanding of the trinity

But thats (the trinity) not even in the conventional bible now is it?

huh ? the words "trinity" no I don't believe so , however the understanding is in their

a reply to: Triton1128

I am interested in this because it also goes hand to hand with some research ive been doing. And by chance i arrived at a piece of information about jesus christ. The source of mine told me something very similar to what this bible version mentions.


Now, about paul the imposter, I will say this. The beatles know something especially in their hit song "Paul is Dead" which ironically displayed Aleister Crowley in the background of that album. Bunch of creepy stuff on there may make you weary on what the apostle paul really was.

From my source I was told the following. :

The word "Christ" was meant to be a joke and it became a cosmic supreme insult to name a man God. However, Jesus was a man OF God, and what he spoke had a great deal of importance. (The Gospels the Good News). But those in power and the church turned him into the "anointed one".

However anointed or not, jesus was a very important prophet and what he had to say caused those in power to become nervous. Why? This is the question I have. Yet I may know the answer but deny it.

yes Jesus is the way, in the sense that he spoke about the Golden Rule and the Natural laws. To be compassion or teach the value of care. To treat one another as we would ourselves.

But to name a man God, is probably the biggest insult.

I do suggest the movie or books from frank herbert. Dune, Dune Messiah, and children of Dune. They can give you an allegory or metaphor on what is really going on.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

for Christ's sake dude... the "gospel" in question was written 500 or so years after the time of Christ, and right around the time Islam was on the rise. Gee...do you think there might be a connection?

NAAAAH.

The bible is bull# and lets sensationalize headlines.

This site has become a joke.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

History is not what it seems, and most bibles have been corrupted to suit an agenda. Note: I am not religious of any kind, and i am as skeptic as you are when it comes to these things. However, when something makes the Vatican worry, I go for the source of that worry and look into the reasons.

Because if it was nothing, they would probably just ignore it. But it has their attention, so best look into it before they grab hold of them and corrupt it. Don't you agree?

Just so you know, I am anti-cults. I simply share what I find to contribute to the puzzle. Only one way to get the puzzle together and that is to gather all the pieces no matter how absurd it may be, because chances are, and time has proven many things to me, that in the long run things eventually make sense.


I would remain open minded if i were you.

originally posted by: LeslieD

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
you guys...here's some actual from the Bible.
Jesus....is God....the heir, and get this one from the old half.....of the book....He's the mighty right arm of God that reaches down from heaven in the affairs of man. ( why He sits at the right hand )
this seems to be important in the devil's bargain....like in the song by Joni M...important enough to attack that fact at every turn by any bend of friggin logic possible.
Paul was approved I guess, one more thing to quit early....which book has the track record we would look for in one's search for truth....track record in prophecies....like the one from long, long ago......we saw it come to pass......

You believe something that has been written - translated - re-written - translated again and again...edited by the Council of Nicaea and then again by King James?

I'm really tired of translation arguments. My family is from Israel, and there is no translation involved reading Hebrew. This is an American thing. It is a stupid argument.

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Kapusta
a reply to: yuppa

This is incorrect. The idea of Jesus being the "son" of god is an Idea that started as differing sects started to emerge in Christianity .

If Jesus was the "son of god" then who is Adam ? who is eve? Who are we ? in relation to god ?

The correct understanding of Jesus roll is that he was an extension of god himself . This is the rightful understanding of the trinity .

Example , you have the "god head" then you Have a left and right extension of that , The holy spirit and Jesus. Both of whom are a part of god and representatives of god.

Well actually we ALL are sons and daughters of God. Same principle applies to Jesus except he was not conceived by sex though. ALso in that BArnabus claim it also calls Adam Muhammed correct? Adam and eve were who they were. God wanted them to multiply and eventually populate this world. Im sure God could also see their futures as well laid out before him as a book. H eknew their decendants would be mary and joseph one day.
As for Jesus was blessed with the holy spirit correct? Why coudnt he also be as you say as well? HE was both man and extension of God right?

I have never heard such a claim as adam being referred to as Muhammad.

According to christian doctrine jesus was man and an exstention of god him self .

My belief is simple really, is that jesus uptaind prophethood. After all he was a representitive of God.

I went back to get the page i saw the Claim of muhammed being adam basically. Im thinking this is off bu till let you see it so you can comment and or clarify ok?

Link to sketchy claim

Still though i think"baranabus" is a forgery. Its almost the same in his description of muhammed being crucified but not to explain his resurrection. On that.. why would Muhammed had deliberatly fooled his own followers to him being crucified?

I cannot confirm this to be true ,even as a Muslim my self I haven't herd of this . If this were it would contradict the Qur'an ( which is the word of god) and it would contradict Christianity .

Muhammad's body still exists today in a grave in Saudi Arabia, so do his belongings , Muslims did a very goo job of recording his life and preserving him and his companions even after death.

This means his birth was recorded and his death was recorded . Muhammad, in full Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (born 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina), founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God.


He was not crucified he died from being poisoned by a jew.

go figure eh ? jews tried to kill jesus and Muhammad both of whom were prophets of god.

Fail.

Muhammed didn't exist as a person, and Islam should not get protection, and hide, through the word "religion".

' And thus Spiderman of the New York Cities ascended atop the highest edifice in the land - the great Trump Tower - and broke open the seal of cobwebby Rapture, and with much vengeance and furious anger, raineth wormwood upon the turpitudinous godtards and their prostrating idolatry.' (Marvel 3:16)

originally posted by: yuppa
Considering the romans kept execution records that contradicts barabus.

They do? There aren't even execution records of Jesus, how can they conflict with this account?

a reply to: Triton1128

Why do people believe crap like this but not the actual book written hundreds of years prior? Some of you just baffle me....

I believe it was Judas that was put on the Cross. The Koran states that it was the lookalike of Jesus that was crucified in his place. Jesus arose bodily into the heavens in a whirlwind (UFO). The white horse that he will return on is a craft of some design. I don't think he's coming back alone either.

originally posted by: Oannes
I believe it was Judas that was put on the Cross. The Koran states that it was the lookalike of Jesus that was crucified in his place. Jesus arose bodily into the heavens in a whirlwind (UFO). The white horse that he will return on is a craft of some design. I don't think he's coming back alone either.

What would make you believe that? Jesus an alien as well? You people have some creative minds.....You know we can't find any aliens/UFO's ANYWHERE....We are all over the galaxy and NOTHING.....Let me guess, he got picked up by a UFO hit hyperspeed into a black hole and will come back when he is ready?

No, he didn't DIE for the sins of MAN.....You guys....

originally posted by: ketsuko


However, Christ was very much alive and in the same body he was crucified in when he ascended to Heaven.

That is incorrect Jesus was resurrected not back to human flesh but as a spirit, he could materialize and dematerialize a human body at will, why was it that his disciples couldn't recognize him at first ?

And the bible says flesh cannot inherit the the heavenly Kingdom of God, he was a spirit when the apostles watched him ascend to heaven the very last day he spoke to them.

a reply to: Triton1128

This bible has been proven to be a hoax

a reply to: Triton1128

And how many decades old is this news again? And how many centuries have we known about the Barnabas gospel? Muhammed references the Barnabas gospel in the crucifixion narrative in the Koran I think, or it may be in some other holy book of Islam, I'm not sure. Anyway, my point is this book is not hot news, it's quite old, and I think there are a few threads about it here already. It may seem to have just now popped up from the ground, but it has been known for a long time. I think this book is written in some Syriac script, which is far more interesting, a lovely language we know many of the early Christians read and wrote. Hopefully more of these well preserved time-colourites will reach us in the time to come, but the sad truth of it, is that these kinds of discoveries are pretty rare, for many of these documents end up to dissolve in bank deposit boxes or stacked away by black market traders waiting for the right price.

Jesus got beamed up by Scotty after violating the Prime Directive.

Toward incredulity at the whole issue ... how is it that none of you realize that "Jesus of Nazareth" is at best a demi-god that was the product of illicit impregnation of a young Jewish girl by YHVH in one of His many guises (aka quote Holy Spirit unquote)?

What level of cognitive dissonance do you all have to be experiencing to ignore that "fact" (fact if these were anything but myths)?

Not to mention ritual cannibalism and zombification.

Of course a perfectly reasonable "account" sounds heretical to you (and I'm making no claims for the "authenticity" of Barnabas here because, well, myths written down in 3000 BCE or 500 CE are still myths.)

EDIT: Not to mention, most of the extant "copies" of the Bible only date to the 1400-1500s.