PDA

View Full Version : The truth about Isa(AS)---jesus



DAWUD_adnan
10-31-2006, 08:58 AM
hey i found this while i was going through wikipedia check it OUT

according to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification:

And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: "Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God" (53:6)

And having said this Jesus went out of the Temple. And the common people magnified him, for they brought all the sick folk whom they could gather together, and Jesus having made prayer gave to all their health: whereupon on that day in Jerusalem the Roman soldiery, by the working of Satan, began to stir up the common people, saying that Jesus was the God of Israel, who was come to visit his people." (69:6)

Jesus answered: "And you; what say you that I am?" Peter answered: "You are Christ, son of God". Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him, saying: "Begone and depart from me, because you are the devil and seek to cause me offences" (70:1)

Jesus said again: "I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries" (94:1)

Then answered the priest, with the governor and the king, saying: "Distress not yourself, O Jesus, holy one of God, because in our time shall not this sedition be any more, seeing that we will write to the sacred Roman senate in such wise that by imperial decree none shall any more call you God or son of God." Then Jesus said: "With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father."
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Umar001
10-31-2006, 09:06 AM
And what did wikipedia say about it?
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
10-31-2006, 09:06 AM
read above
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
10-31-2006, 09:08 AM
if you wanna read more just click on the link.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
north_malaysian
10-31-2006, 09:18 AM
When i was still a student, I bought Gospel of Barnabas and read it.

When my friend (ex Muslim converted to Christianity) saw me reading that, he said I'm reading a book written by Muslims in Andalucia, not the true gospel...
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
10-31-2006, 09:18 AM
but if you go to the wikipedia website it says different
Reply

north_malaysian
10-31-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
but if you go to the wikipedia website it says different
maybe you should read the Christian perspective sources cited in that wikipedia page...
Reply

A_Witness
10-31-2006, 09:39 AM
It is interesting to note that DAWUD_adnan has ommited the preface to this article. In particular:

"The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam, perhaps Gnostic (Cirillo, Ragg) or Ebionite (Pines) or Diatessaronic (Joosten); and some Muslim scholars consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; Islamic views are treated below."

Also ommitted "Some readers have noted that the Gospel of Barnabas contains a number of apparent anachronisms and historical incongruities:

* It has Jesus sailing across the Sea of Galilee to Nazareth - which is actually inland; and from thence going "up" to Capernaum - which is actually on the lakeside (chapters 20-21); though this is contested by Blackhirst, who says that the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable).

* Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26.

* Barnabas appears not to realize that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as "Jesus Christ" yet claiming that 'Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah"' (ch. 42).

* There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.

* Adam and Eve eat an apple (ch. 40); whereas the traditional association of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (Genesis: 2) with the apple, rests on the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, where both 'apple' and 'evil' are rendered as 'malum'.

* The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,

* In Chapter 91, the "Forty Days" is referred to as an annual fast. This corresponds to the Christian tradition of fasting for forty days in Lent; a practice that is not witnessed earlier than the Council of Nicaea (325). Nor is there a forty days fast in Judaism of the period (see Mishnah, Tractate: Taanith "Days of Fasting")

* Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

* Ch. 91 records three contending Jewish armies 200,000 strong at Mizpeh, totalling 600,000 men, at a time when the Roman army across the entire Empire had a total strength estimated as 300,000."

In defense of my faith (and by no means offense to yours) there is no shortage of people willing to corrupt the true meaning of our scriptures (The Bible and The Quran) to suit a particular agenda. Many believe in the west that the Quran teaches that the Islamic faith is to be spread at the point of the sword, although they cannot quote a single verse.

As long as there are believers who are willing to look past obvious discrepancies to support what they want to believe, the Truth will be attacked regardless of any merit or lack thereof in the argument.

Yahushua (or Jesus as transliterated) was crucified because he made the claim (which I believe) that he was the Son of God. Likewise, the twelve disciples suffered great persecution for their testimony of the same.

It is not credible to believe that they would have done so to perpetuate a lie.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-06-2006, 03:26 AM
A-Witness, I would guess that there were many books written about Jesus besides the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In addition to this supposed Gospel of Barnabbas, which I must say sounds like it must have been written much later based just on the things you pointed out that are within the text itself, I have heard of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. And from everything I have read it seems that these too were written much later after the apostles in whose names they were claimed to be written would have been dead.

I suppose it is just speculation, but why would so many of these "pious frauds", as you put it, appear in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
Reply

Umar001
11-06-2006, 03:30 AM
Hi,
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
A-Witness, I would guess that there were many books written about Jesus besides the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In addition to this supposed Gospel of Barnabbas, which I must say sounds like it must have been written much later based just on the things you pointed out that are within the text itself, I have heard of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. And from everything I have read it seems that these too were written much later after the apostles in whose names they were claimed to be written would have been dead.

I suppose it is just speculation, but why would so many of these "pious frauds", as you put it, appear in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
Much later being, what times?
Reply

Umar001
11-06-2006, 03:31 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
When i was still a student, I bought Gospel of Barnabas and read it.

When my friend (ex Muslim converted to Christianity) saw me reading that, he said I'm reading a book written by Muslims in Andalucia, not the true gospel...
Assalamu Aleykum,

You should have invited him here, i would love to read his reasons for leaving Islam.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-06-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
Hi,


Much later being, what times?
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, after the death of the Apostles and rest of the first generation of Christians.
Reply

A_Witness
11-07-2006, 01:02 AM
For the record, I simply posted portions of the wikipedia article which the original poster omitted. The comment about "pious frauds" was in the body of that article. I did embolden it however.

I have discovered that Islam is not without those who have attempted to subvert that faith by "apocryphal” writings. It's nice to know that there are similarities of all sorts between our faiths, even though some are related to attacks upon the purity of the teachings.

I have great respect for their prophet (which would no doubt be considered tantamount to heresy by my brethren), although I cannot yet come to terms with the idea that what he wrote in the Quran was inspired by God (perhaps because of a "faith related bias"), I cannot reject that notion out of hand either as what I have read of the teachings of Islam (mostly on this forum) is in line with what I have been taught in my Bible. I am yet afraid to say "peace be upon him" out of fear of going counter to my faith, although I may yet reconcile this.

I cannot but recognize that he was a wise man and humble before his God in a way which my Christian brethren (in my opinion) would do well to emulate. May my practice move closer in that direction, even though my belief varies slightly.

Truth is truth, regardless of the vessel through whom it comes.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-07-2006, 03:45 AM
A-Witness, I appreciate your response. I was thinking in terms of those writings that appear in the 2nd and 3rd centuries the were labelled "gospels", but obviously could not have been written by any of the original apostles that perhaps it was the work of well-meaning Christians who were trying to articulate some of their own personal beliefs. Some being congruent and some being divergent from that which was present in the church before it. Also, I understand that even as late as the 16th and 17th centuries people still would attribute the work of their writing to other famous people rather than sign their own name to it in order to give it a greater likelihood of acceptance. Whereas today our view on this is very much opposed to the practice, at that time it was not seen as wrong in anyway, and was in fact not only common, but even expected. Thus, it is not surprising that writers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the church might write documents that they would label as the Gospel of Barnabas or Gospel of Thomas, and yet they would not truly be authoritative. I believe I read somewhere that the early church wanted to have an apostolic connection for each of the books that they included in the Bible. Thus Mark was included because of the writer's connection with Peter and Luke was connected with Paul. And Paul, although he did not know Jesus personally during Jesus' earthly ministry, is reported to have had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. But the standard for acceptance was such that not all Christians writings, even if found to be of benefit to the church, would have been incorporated into the body of the Bible. These practices were established by the common practice of the churches across the board and the later councils (such as Nicea) met not to decide on which books to accept and which to reject, but to confirm that everyone was already basically in agreement.
Reply

Skillganon
11-08-2006, 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by A_Witness
For the record, I simply posted portions of the wikipedia article which the original poster omitted. The comment about "pious frauds" was in the body of that article. I did embolden it however.
.....

Truth is truth, regardless of the vessel through whom it comes.
@Muslim

I concur, their is a probability that the Gospel attributed to Barnabas could be a fake, and I implore muslim that not to use it in dicussion in favouring one's own belief, unless one is taking a scholarly discussion of the authenticity of the named gospel.

@Non-muslim

However please refrain from using the "Gospel of barnabas" as a platform to demonstrate that muslim use this to subvert truth, as this will be a sharp generalisation. It is endorsed by few people and taken up by some (less-aware, kids,) for debate, in their ignorance & by the very nature of the Scripture.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-08-2006, 04:25 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
@Muslim

I concur, their is a probability that the Gospel attributed to Barnabas could be a fake, and I implore muslim that not to use it in dicussion in favouring one's own belief, unless one is taking a scholarly discussion of the authenticity of the named gospel.

@Non-muslim

However please refrain from using the "Gospel of barnabas" as a platform to demonstrate that muslim use this to subvert truth, as this will be a sharp generalisation. It is endorsed by few people and taken up by some (less-aware, kids,) for debate, in their ignorance & by the very nature of the Scripture.


Thank-you for your own awareness. And thank-you for the other gentle reminder. Given how many supposedly "Christian" youth do not now their own scriptures and are often misled by things such as "The DaVinci Code", accepting all know to be fiction as if it were truth, it would seem unfair to expect a non-Christian to know the details regarding these scriptures unless they had become a student of their origins.

As you said, those who consider books such as the Gospel of Barnabbas as supposed to have ever been considered to be part of simply are showing their ignorance concerning this topic. One should not look too harshly on them.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!