Muslims believe the Original bible of Barnbas, (Barnbas) being an actual companion of christ to be the most correct version.. With christianity as it should be. Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)
'I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)[1]1]. Hence every one of the famous twelve disciples of Jesus was an Israelite Jew. The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.
whereas prophet Mohammed SAS was sent to all of man-kind!
anyhow I have extracted these from another forum, as I am not in the mood for a long winded debate and believe both are exquisite and do a fine job
cheers
Purest, I believe we have a good relationship, so I hope you understand it isn't personal but simply a question of scholarship when I say that I have to take exception with some of what you have presented as facts here.
First, I don't have any idea what original Bible of Barnabas you are talking about. Perhaps you are referring to the
Epistle of Barnabas, an early document (probably early second century), probably not written by the Barnabas mentioned in scripture, but still a respected letter circulated among the early church and accepted by a few as worthy of inclusion in the New Testament canon? Perhaps you are referring to the supposed Gospel of Barnabas? According to western scholarship, it is a fourteenth-century forgery, extant now only in Spanish and Italian manuscripts, though I will admit that even among scholars there is disagreement as to whether or not some some of the material contained in the book is older. Still, there is no support for it being old enough to have been considered the authentic work of any 1st century Jew. It is very interesting that a first century book, in telling the story of Adam would basically have Adam say that "Muhammad is Messenger ;of God." That alone makes it sound like a book written much later in time. And while there are many heretical books that have surviced from the first couple of centuries of the early church, why is this one the only one to even mention Muhammad's name if it was known to such a key figure as the genuine Barnabas and threrefore assumedly taught by all of the first generation of Apostles? For me, a much more rational answer is that this book simply was written later, after the time of Muhammad.
Second, I also am surprised that you think it is correct in any way, for some of the things that it teaches are very much contrary to not just to what I think is true of Christianity, but what Muslims say is supposed to have been the original teachings of Christ. For instance, this supposed Gospel, puts in the mouth of Jesus the following declaration: "I am not the Messiah." Do you really think that is correct? This supposed Gospel also affirms that God is to be known as "the Father". I know you don't think that is correct? In fact, there is a lot of this document this is incorrect by both Muslim and Christian understanding. I personally think that whole thing is a fraud.
Third you asserted: "Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)." And while I agree that Jesus himself was sent to the Jews, that does not mean that it substantiates the other half of your statement -- that Jesus never wanted Christianity for mankind. In fact, not is there the biblical passage you recognized where Jesus sent his disciples to "Go and preach unto all nations" (Matthew 28:19), but there is also Acts 1:8 in which Jesus told his disciples "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
I don't know where you get your information that Matthew 28:19 is not found in any pre-16th century manuscripts. But according to the Greek New Testament I have in my hand, that passage is found in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts which date to the 4th century. There are no textual variants cited for that particular portion of it either. And it is quoted by Chysostom who lived from 347 to 407. And the passage from Acts is also found in these 4th century codexes. These documents are even now in the process of being photographed for wide distribution on the web.
That, by the way, doesn't mean that the author of Matthew or some copyist between the time of the Gospel's writing and the production of these codexes couldn't have themselves inserted the Trinitarian formula and put it on Jesus' lips even if Jesus never said such a thing. But here are two early sources not one that have Jesus sending his disciples out to all men. And the second of them has nothing to do with promoting some theological construct.
Later you quote another source with the following statement:
a gospel about the real Jesus of Nazareth without all the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus. So, in 325 of our common era, at the Council of Nicene banned the Gospel of Barnabas
I fear that your source has confused the supposed
Gospel of Barnabas with the
Epistle of Barnabas. As I said above, for a time some thought that the
Epistle of Barnabas should have been included as part of the New Testament canon. Indeed it is actually a part of the Codex Sinaiticus that I mention above. But by the time of the Council of Nicea it was not generally thought of this way, and the existing canon was affirmed by the council. Nonetheless this
Epistle and another called the Shepherd of Hermas both were part of some copies made after Nicea. However, the supposed
Gospel of Barnabas was not even known of by the Council, so they couldn't very well ban it.
The Islamic website
http://barnabas.net/ (I call it Islamic because it says this it is "brought to by the Sabr Foundation") claims that this Gospel of Barnabas was quoted by "Iranaeus". I assume they meant Irenaeus, but their carelessness with regard to the spelling of such an influential church leader and one who would be key for their case leaves me questioning whether they have the rest of their facts straight, especially as I have seen nothing in Irenaeus that would lead me to that conclusion. The only things in Irenaeus that are also in the Gospel of Barnabas are passages that the Gospel of Barnabas shares in common with the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- at least not that I have picked up on. If they would care to cite what they claim are said quotations I and others would, I am sure, be glad to examine them. But they only make the assertion without giving any actual examples. Now I can understand that for a brief summary page online, but there is also no link to other references which would be nice for a claim of that nature.
I really don't mind your critique of Matthew for the Trinitarian formulary is in some sense just a little too convenient. But if that is true for Matthew, and it's authenticity is cast in doubt for such reasons, what hope can there be for the integrity of the supposed Gospel of Barnabas? It is as if was written by someone trying to integrate Islam and Christianity into one teaching. Yet if this were so, how is it the only such available? And how is it that not even one such as Arius refers to Muhammad or the teachings found in this work in his arguments with Athanasius? I believe it stretches creduality to believe it to be anything other than a medieval creation.
You say:
there is a consensus among scholars and historians with academic integrity, that the church only kept with its old tricks of burning books that don't agree with its Grecian fairy tales...
Yes it did do that at times. Don't Muslims burn any imperfect copy of the Qur'an? The principle is the same. That which is believed to be true is kept; that which is believe to be imperfect is burned to keep from being in circulation. However, obviously the Church didn't do a very good or consistent job of burning as there are many surviving documents aside from the canonical ones.
Finally, you have said before that you have an old Aramaic/Arabic Bible. I'm guessing you mean a copy, not the original manuscript. But can you tell me how old is the manuscript that it is based on. From my information, the earliest syriac versions of the Bible were translation from Greek to syriac (some call this Aramaic) in the fourth through seventh centuries. Then there are those like this group --
Syriac Orthodox Resources which suggest it might have been earlier, but still speak of it as a translation from Greek to Aramaic. I know that some like to cite the Peshi-tta and the Peshi-tto as having been originally written in Aramaic and not Greek. But looking them up online, every translation I found had the line about "going to all nations" in it. So I am curious as to the manuscript's name and its dating for the Bible you are referring to.
