Gospel of Judah & Gospel of Barnabas

[north_malaysian]

Can anybody explain about those two gospels and it legitimacy in Christianity?:?

[Muslim Knight]

Can anybody explain about those two gospels and it legitimacy in Christianity?:?

I recently read a book entitled the Gospel of Barnabas. Published by Sabaa Islamic Media. Haven't finished though.

[Al-Mu'min]

Salaams.

Read this brother:
http://www.barnabas.net/Barnabas%20Readers/verify1.htm

For complete info on the Gospel of barnabas read this:
http://www.barnabas.net/

For the whole book (222 chapters) read:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/barnabas.htm

Salaams out.

[north_malaysian]

Sorry, mispelling ... it should be Gospel of Judas. I also have a copy of Gospel of Barnabas published by Saba Islamic Media (it's cover is purple isnt it?). It like a biography book of Jesus, different than Koran.

But it's sooooooooo Islamic. What would Christians say about both Gospels?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muslim Soldier]

Most of it is the orignal christianity and hence they dont accpet it.
Did you know that it is not even published as part of the bible and is ommiited?

[PrIM3]

Most of it is the orignal christianity and hence they dont accpet it.
Did you know that it is not even published as part of the bible and is ommiited?

why do you say that its the original christianity?

[Muslim Soldier]

forget what I said.
Whu do you ommit its publication?

[Trumble]

Whu do you ommit its publication?

Erm.. it might just have something to do with the fact that it is only now, in recent history anyway, that a partial copy has been found and reconstructed.

There are are several such 'gospels' and apocrypha, none represent 'original' Christianity more than anything else, and they were usually acknowledged (and probably authored) within Christian populations some distance from Rome. The Gospel of Judas seems to have been written rather later than the biblical gospels, but rather before some of the other 'lost' gospels, at around 180 CE.

The 'official' Church doctrine, and content of the Bible, was established by the famous conference of Nicea in 326. As to whether they got it 'right' or not, who knows?

[Trumble]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[Mohsin]

why do you say that its the original christianity?

He says it because it fits more with the islamic ideology, and so it must be true as we believe Jesus PBUH was a muslim.
But yeah, why do you choose to ommit it, or rather not acknowledge it

[nimrod]

Moss, I am not trying to pick a fight or an argument.

One of the things that have really surprised me, not only about this site (Not trying to imply that this site is non-religious in any way) but others that are non religion or even anti Christian, is that folks will question why certain texts were canonized and others were not.
The questioning seems to be along one of two lines of thought.

#1. The men doing the work had an agenda and therefore they left anything out that didn’t fit that agenda. (That school of thought needs to believe that all the men doing the work were sinister and that more righteous men would have not seen what was done and objected to it and left a record of that objection.)

#2. That men today have access to the exact same information that the men doing the work had. (It would be a bad assumption, imo, to believe that the men doing the work of canonizing didn’t have better access to manuscripts and writings, than what we have access to today.)

Thanks
Nimrod

[*Hana*]

Moss, I am not trying to pick a fight or an argument.

One of the things that have really surprised me, not only about this site (Not trying to imply that this site is non-religious in any way) but others that are non religion or even anti Christian, is that folks will question why certain texts were canonized and others were not.
The questioning seems to be along one of two lines of thought.

#1. The men doing the work had an agenda and therefore they left anything out that didn’t fit that agenda. (That school of thought needs to believe that all the men doing the work were sinister and that more righteous men would have not seen what was done and objected to it and left a record of that objection.)

#2. That men today have access to the exact same information that the men doing the work had. (It would be a bad assumption, imo, to believe that the men doing the work of canonizing didn’t have better access to manuscripts and writings, than what we have access to today.)

Thanks
Nimrod

Salam Alaikum and Peace:

There are many reasons why some works were canonized and others not. Many "Fathers of Christianity" worked diligently to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of manuscripts to the best of their ability. However, to say there were not political influences in that day would not be true. No one could write anything without approval of leadership. (the council of Nicea is the perfect example of that). Many authentic copies of originals were hidden and not available at that time as well. It's not like they were mass produced and hundreds of copies were available.


The authenticity of The Book of Barnabus is an area of HUGE debate. Personally, I do believe there was an authentic Book of Barnabus, but from the little reading I've done (admittedly very little), I don't think the one they have is authentic.

The Book of Judas is rather new and it won't be accepted immediately as authentic by anyone for quite some time. My understanding is that it is very anti-Jewish which is causing some concern over its authenticity. Not to mention the fact that it would change the way Christians have always thought about the crucifixion and betrayal.

Anyway, just my 2-cents. :)

Wasalam and Peace,
Hana

[nimrod]

Thanks for the in-put Hana_Aku.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Mohsin]

:sl:

Can anyone give me a brief history about these two gospels. From what i understand they have only recently een discovered. Why's that? Where were they before?

[north_malaysian]

:sl:

Can anyone give me a brief history about these two gospels. From what i understand they have only recently een discovered. Why's that? Where were they before?

Yeah! Good question. :clever:

[PrIM3]

I think the gospel of Judas goes along with the teachings of the Bible... and that is don't sell out your friends no matter what...

[*Hana*]

I think the gospel of Judas goes along with the teachings of the Bible... and that is don't sell out your friends no matter what...

Peace PrIM3:

Although I haven't read this Gospel in full detail...I'm thinking from what I read, that's not what it said. :rollseyes

It says quite the opposite, that Judas didn't betray Jesus, pbuh, and that he in fact, was doing what Jesus, pbuh, asked him to do. That's one reason the authenticity of it is in hot debate amongst Christians.

Peace,
Hana