Vatican: Bible Confirms Jesus Was Not Crucified

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Date of composition is the main factor in determining genuine vs not and Homilies and Recognitions haa as great a claim to Antiquity as the New Testament in MS form too, it's oldest MS. is as old as the oldest New Testament and better, one version is the oldest dated MS in the world and in Syriac, "Christian Aramaic", giving it even greater authority as Hebrew Aramaic was the spoken language of Yeshua

You make no sense whatsoever. The estimated date of a written literature tells only of that particular literature and not necessarily the autograph of that literature. Without confirmation of the creation of the autograph all you are doing is spinning your wheels. You have no idea of the language or the date of the autograph of Barnabas. It is impossible because it does not exist to us this day. The same applies to all of the NT as well as the OT.

Quote
Aramaic and Hebrew
Biblical Hebrew is the main language of the Hebrew Bible. Aramaic accounts for only about 250 verses out of a total of over 23,000. Biblical Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew, as both are in the Northwest Semitic language family.
Unquote
Source Wikipedia

Hebrew Aramaic and Christian Aramaic does not exist just as most of your tall tales do not exist.

originally posted by: Seede
1Corinthians 15:3-8 --- Written from Philippi by Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timotheus -- Paul did not pen the letters to Corinthians. He said vs he said.

This is wrong and deceptive.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Ancient Greek: Α΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους), usually referred to simply as First Corinthians and often written 1 Corinthians, is one of the Pauline epistles of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The epistle says that Paul the Apostle and "Sosthenes our brother" wrote it to "the church of God which is at Corinth" 1Cor.1:1–2 although the scholarly consensus holds that Sosthenes was the amanuensis who wrote down the text of the letter at Paul's direction.[1]

It was either written by Paul or dictated to a scribe by Paul. Either way it's from Paul, not Jesus and that was his point.

There are no writings by Jesus that exist. There are no scriptures in the NT that verify the Quran's claim that Jesus did not die.

There are no scriptures in the Quaran that verify the NT's claim that Jesus did die. Who cares? It's obvious that you won't see conflicting scriptures in the same religious book that's primarily based on that. That doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: Barcs

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Ancient Greek: Α΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους), usually referred to simply as First Corinthians and often written 1 Corinthians, is one of the Pauline epistles of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The epistle says that Paul the Apostle and "Sosthenes our brother" wrote it to "the church of God which is at Corinth" 1Cor.1:1–2 although the scholarly consensus holds that Sosthenes was the amanuensis who wrote down the text of the letter at Paul's direction.[1]

You fall into the same assumption as most other critics do. Neither 1st or 2nd Corinthians are letters penned by Paul. They are both Pseudepigraphal Cepher letters of various authors. . When reading the very first three chapters it is plain that the author comes to say

1Corinthians 3:4,5
(4) For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
(5) Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Are you then saying that Paul penned his letter as the author in the second and third party sense? Nonsense, that is senseless and untrue. You have no understanding of literature if that is your contention.

CEPHER QORINTIYM SHENY - The Second Pseudepigraphal Cepher To The Corinthians was penned from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.
You seem not to understand that Paul would not speak of himself as the second or third party if he were the author.

There are no scriptures in the Quaran that verify the NT's claim that Jesus did die. Who cares? It's obvious that you won't see conflicting scriptures in the same religious book that's primarily based on that. That doesn't prove anything.

The Quran teaches that Jesus did not die but ascended to His kingdom while alive. That is the teaching of Islam. Now if one cares to believe that then that is fine with me but then those who believe this offer no foundation for that belief whereas the Christian NT has ample literary evidence of various sources as their foundation. This includes Jews as well as Romans. You need not argue but show your Islamic evidence.

a reply to: Seede

I'm just telling you what the biblical scholars that have studied the texts extensively based on literary styles and penmanship have determined. Somebody else was writing it for him, there's a difference. Either way, the point was that it didn't come from Jesus, and writing in the 3rd person doesn't necessarily prove anything. Authors do this. Oddly enough there are plenty of Jesus quotes that refer to himself in the 3rd person. Does that indicate to you that he never said those quotes? Because that's basically the same justification you are using to deny Paul's texts.

"Now if one cares to believe that then that is fine with me but then those who believe this offer no foundation for that belief whereas the Christian NT has ample literary evidence of various sources as their foundation. "

What do you mean they offer no foundation? It's in their holy texts. Christian NT has no evidence for any of the supernatural claims, and neither does the Quaran. They both have no foundation aside from the scriptures. Claiming the NT counts as literary evidence but the Quaran does not, is a bit biased, they are both texts written by man claiming to be inspired by god. They are both believed out of faith, it's not like you can trace back in history and find historical records and references to the resurrection of Jesus outside of the bible. You just have claims based on hearsay, just like the Quaran.

a reply to: onehuman

Why should i trust the Vatican? Just a question that popped into my mind when i saw this thread.

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: onehuman

Why should i trust the Vatican? Just a question that popped into my mind when i saw this thread.

Exactly, the Vatican has held the knowledge manipulated, edited and erased large amounts of text from the Bible. Then spoon fed the diluted left overs to the masses.

a reply to: onehuman

Gospel of Barnabas was a hoax during its time, and still is. So, nothing news here - for past 2000 years

Correct me if I'm wrong but Muslims only recognize Jesus as a prophet not THE prophet nor the son of God. If that's the case then this entire Turkey version of the Bible smells real fishy.
Agenda much?

a reply to: Zeta Reticuli

Supposedly the Muslim tradition relies upon the Gospel of Barnabas regarding the crucifixion. How Jesus didn't get crucified and or that either Peter of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot were hanged instead of Jesus.

a reply to: deckdel
It's an excellent book.

Have you bothered? It's not like anyone thinks it's actually a first century text, you are hyping it up like it's Canonical to some.

Literary wise it's far superior to the Canonical Gospel. Fictitious is fictitious, from whatever century, I would not be surprised if Barnabas represented 1AD Judea bettet realistically speaking.

The Canonical Gospels are the joke. Whats that tell you?

a reply to: Barcs

I'm just telling you what the biblical scholars that have studied the texts extensively based on literary styles and penmanship have determined. Somebody else was writing it for him, there's a difference.

I truly do not understand your point. You are now saying exactly what I have tried to tell you with the exception that Paul need not have been beside the authors telling them what to write about himself. Paul was quite capable of writing his own letters as we have literary evidence that he did indeed write seven of his own. He would have no need of other scribes when in fact he was one himself. That makes no sense whatsoever. I gave you the places and names of the authors of the two Corinthian letters and if you reject them then remain ignorant but it certainly was not Paul that penned either one.

You have no literary evidence that Paul was dictating Corinthians to any scribes whatsoever. You need to show your sources before making a claim such s that. I have heard the very same about Luke as he also penned much about Paul. It simply is your own opinion which is not well founded at all.

Now by foundation, I wrote "literary foundation" and by that I mean that the entire Christian bible far exceeds the Quran with nearly 6000 MSS available and the DSS to verify many of the Hebrew prophets and Torah. The Quran has very little to offer in that respect and requires the Christian Bible to reference their theology. That is the reason so many Muslims use the Christian bible to bolster their lack of education.

a reply to: Seede



I believe he is telling you what scholars know.

Of the Pauline epistles, all but 4 are forgeries and the 4 are written by one hand, probably Paul, no guarantees.

It's rather simple if that's what he's saying.

That Paul's epistles are forged is a recognized fact for all but max 7, most say 4, is a theologically known fact to people who care about facts of scholarship.

It is entirely possible to determine that a different author wrote in another's name through exegesis and analysis and it's almost unanimously agreed upon that at least MOST are forged.

Gospels anonymous too. You aren't going to get angry about that too are you?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Barcs

I'm just telling you what the biblical scholars that have studied the texts extensively based on literary styles and penmanship have determined. Somebody else was writing it for him, there's a difference.

I truly do not understand your point. You are now saying exactly what I have tried to tell you with the exception that Paul need not have been beside the authors telling them what to write about himself. Paul was quite capable of writing his own letters as we have literary evidence that he did indeed write seven of his own. He would have no need of other scribes when in fact he was one himself. That makes no sense whatsoever. I gave you the places and names of the authors of the two Corinthian letters and if you reject them then remain ignorant but it certainly was not Paul that penned either one.

You have no literary evidence that Paul was dictating Corinthians to any scribes whatsoever. You need to show your sources before making a claim such s that. I have heard the very same about Luke as he also penned much about Paul. It simply is your own opinion which is not well founded at all.

Now by foundation, I wrote "literary foundation" and by that I mean that the entire Christian bible far exceeds the Quran with nearly 6000 MSS available and the DSS to verify many of the Hebrew prophets and Torah. The Quran has very little to offer in that respect and requires the Christian Bible to reference their theology. That is the reason so many Muslims use the Christian bible to bolster their lack of education.

You have no evidence Paul was a recognized apostle because no apostle confirmed it.

That you care about dictation is absurd in the face of forgery, obviously he didn't dictate OR write.

Amazing is you find a way to blame Muslims!

What is rotten about Christianity and not the fault (how, who knows?) of Muslims in your irrational mindset?

A lot is rotten. None our fault

Keep pointing the finger and ignoring that massive eye plank because you have a splinter.

So because the Bible is seriously corrupted and Muslims know it, I think your refusal to acknowledge it is proof of your lack of education, but I will not insult the entirety of Christians because you are an angry fool.

That's your job, everything exposed about the fraud of the Bible is Muslims fault.

How do you bolster a lack of education?

Muslims use the Bible to show Christians we know your book better and our religion is closer to the Gospels than pagan Trinitarian heresy is, idolatry of worship other than God.

And that you have no reason to even believe in Trinity, that Jesus (p) DENIED BEING GOD.

"Of my own power I can do nothing."

Whoever reads that and still says, "He is God" doesn't have anything on Islam but embarrassed anger due to your lack of comprehension of God and the number 1.

But yes we are the idiots! And a great case have you made!

For why Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth!!!!

a reply to: Seede


So if the Bible "Bolsters lack of education" i.e. makes you dumber, yet we aren't dumb enough to believe in it but YOU are, how are we uneducated?

You don't even know where Europeans learned almost all science from do you?

Muslims!!! Historical fact, science came into Latin via translation FROM Arabic and waa taught by Muslims.

The reason for the Crusades was Europe was poor and dirty, almost 3rd world.

And the Muslim Ummah was the most advanced on earth at the time.

You make this fun! I don't know about bolstering a lack of education, but if you believe in it I agree the Bible will make you stupid and evil and have no idea, think everyone else is.

a reply to: Zeta Reticuli

Correct me if I'm wrong but Muslims only recognize Jesus as a prophet not THE prophet nor the son of God. If that's the case then this entire Turkey version of the Bible smells real fishy. Agenda much?

The Turkey version is based upon the teachings of "The Gospel of Barnabas" which is the corrupt text of unknown origin. It has been altered to suite Muhammad's corrupt theology.

Then we have the "Epistle of Barnabas" which was accepted and taught by the early church of the second century. Most people do not know that there are two distinct and different Barnabas teachings.

The following is but one of the many lies in the Gospel of Barnabas -------------------------

a/ The Messiah. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, and it never teaches that Muhammad is the Messiah:

Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary (Qur'an 3:45, Pickthall).

However, the Gospel of Barnabas denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and instead says Muhammad is the Messiah:

Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah". (chap. 42). Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" ... (Jesus answered) "Muhammed is his blessed name" (chap. 97

As you can see the Gospel of Barnabas will outright lie and yet Islam embraces portions of it that state Jesus did not die. This is but one example that would discredit any literature as being authentic.

a reply to: Seede



You have seen the Turkish MS?

Last I heard you had to pay a crazy sum for a facsimile so you are as usual talking about things you have no knowledge regarding.

Why are you so aggressive with pretending to know things you don't?

Do I have to remind you that you thought James the Just was a Prince/Nasi of the Sanhedrin who ordered his (own if what you erroneously thought was true, was true) death?

I just did!

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Zeta Reticuli

Correct me if I'm wrong but Muslims only recognize Jesus as a prophet not THE prophet nor the son of God. If that's the case then this entire Turkey version of the Bible smells real fishy. Agenda much?

The Turkey version is based upon the teachings of "The Gospel of Barnabas" which is the corrupt text of unknown origin. It has been altered to suite Muhammad's corrupt theology.

What's corrupt about God's Word? You call it "Mohammed's (saw) theology" but it's God's, but tell me the corrupt content of Qur'an if you think it is. I doubt you KNOW Muslim theology to be able to criticize, if you did you would not.

If our theology is corrupt yours is Satans himself by comparison, as Satan makes men worship men and trinities.

Then we have the "Epistle of Barnabas" which was accepted and taught by the early church of the second century. Most people do not know that there are two distinct and different Barnabas teachings.

The following is but one of the many lies in the Gospel of Barnabas -------------------------

a/ The Messiah. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, and it never teaches that Muhammad is the Messiah:

Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary (Qur'an 3:45, Pickthall).

However, the Gospel of Barnabas denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and instead says Muhammad is the Messiah:

Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah". (chap. 42). Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called?" ... (Jesus answered) "Muhammed is his blessed name" (chap. 97

As you can see the Gospel of Barnabas will outright lie and yet Islam embraces portions of it that state Jesus did not die. This is but one example that would discredit any literature as being authentic.

Everything you say is from anger and you are so quick and proud about slandering Islam and Mohammed (saw) like a Pharisee regarding Issa(p).

But what makes you THINK our theology is corrupt is the corruption CORRECTED by Mohammed (saw) via the Will of God.

The Qur'an has remained unchanged in Arabic since it was SPOKEN, written in the time of Abu Bakr al Sadiq (p).

The Bible is in an unoriginal language, and not the real Torah or Gospels.

I wonder if you know what corrupt means?

Certainly Issa (p) didn't say "Slander everyone's religous figures if they tell the truth about me "

Muslims don't insult Prophets of ANY religion if they preached about THE God.

Christians get off on it because it's your only recourse to redemption from paganism to lie about everyone else who isn't.

Or is but in a different way.

Anyway, our theology is pure Monotheism and worship of Abraham's God.

You worship a Prophet, the Messiah AS GOD!

When said Prophet spoke thus:

"OUR God is ONE God."

"Worship HIM."

Ok. I said your theology is corrupt and proved it.

You can't do it to mine.

That should tell you something.

a reply to: Seede



Jesus (p) theology was the same as Mohammed (saw), "God is ONE, worship HIM with ALL your heart."

No god but God...

Mohammed (saw) and all Prophets are but Messengers of God.

If you show me where in the Canonical Gospels, Issa (p) says:

"I am God, you should worship me."

I will convert back to Xtianity.

That's how confident I am that Issa p NEVER claimed to be God.

"Only (God) the Father knows, not even the son..." (Figurative son)."

" Of my own power I can do NOTHING!"

I am afraid you worship a man who did everything possible to prevent his being deified, admitted without God he is powerless.

And obviously isn't God.

To believe otherwise is to corrupt his teachings, your theology is a corrupt version of q corrupt version of Nazarene Judaism.

I suppose Islam is responsible for pagan Romans deifying Jesus (p) and it's our fault you are angered at how much you are decieved regarding the FACT that Jesus (p) said he wasn't God or equal.

That no MS older than 4th century exists.

No Aramaic period, though once did, and that Greek and Latin weren't the original language but nevertheless the best you can produce.

Must have really been important to not preserve the Gospel of the Hebrews for the Romans.

I wonder why???

a reply to: Disturbinatti

What's corrupt about God's Word? You call it "Mohammed's (saw) theology" but it's God's, but tell me the corrupt content of Qur'an if you think it is. I doubt you KNOW Muslim theology to be able to criticize, if you did you would not.

Are you addressing my post to Zeta Reticuli which was on target with the thread? Noting that your usual tactic is revealed once again in not one response to my sources and trying to divert the thread with more personal insults and angry spiels of hate.

Are you denying that what I posted is not written in both the Quran and the Gospel of Barnabas as I have shown? If you need more, then I have much more to show you. You need not think that you can deride Christianity without the same disrespect that you have bantered about for a great many threads of your own.

The Bible is in an unoriginal language, and not the real Torah or Gospels.

Your statement is stupid and also not related to the thread at all. More diversion from my post to cover your ignorance.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Disturbinatti

What's corrupt about God's Word? You call it "Mohammed's (saw) theology" but it's God's, but tell me the corrupt content of Qur'an if you think it is. I doubt you KNOW Muslim theology to be able to criticize, if you did you would not.

Are you addressing my post to Zeta Reticuli which was on target with the thread? Noting that your usual tactic is revealed once again in not one response to my sources and trying to divert the thread with more personal insults and angry spiels of hate.

Are you denying that what I posted is not written in both the Quran and the Gospel of Barnabas as I have shown? If you need more, then I have much more to show you. You need not think that you can deride Christianity without the same disrespect that you have bantered about for a great many threads of your own.

The Bible is in an unoriginal language, and not the real Torah or Gospels.

Your statement is stupid and also not related to the thread at all. More diversion from my post to cover your ignorance.

I am addressing what I quoted.

Respond appropriately.

Because you didn't address the fact that you worship someone who said "God is ONE God" AS GOD even though he was not talking about himself as being God.

And denied it, and that that makes Christian theology corrupt.

Conveniently you feigned confusion. To sn extent anyway. I believe you really are confused.