Islam Default 1500 Years Old Bible In Which 'Jesus Predictis Coming Of Muhammad'

[Auzer]

A secret Bible in which Jesus is believed to predict the coming of the Prophet Muhammad to Earth has sparked serious interest from the Vatican.

Pope Benedict XVI is claimed to want to see the 1,500-year-old book, which many say is the Gospel of Barnabas, that has been hidden by the Turkish state for the last 12 years.

The £14million handwritten gold lettered tome, penned in Jesus' native Aramaic language, is said to contain his early teachings and a prediction of the Prophet's coming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1nSY2LDa8

-------------------------------

If the age of the manuscripts are actually proven to be 1500 years old then this would be significant .Prophet Muhammad was born 100 years AFTER this book was (allegedly) written...So even 100 years before Prophet's birth , "Muhammad" was being discussed as the coming "Messiah/Prophet" in an non-Arab Christian culture ....wow!Historically , Muslims have maintain the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was mentioned in the previous scriptures too. Many early Muslims were actually Christian convert to Islam that recognized Muhammad as the last prophet to come that bible talks about . . . . Seems like things are becoming little clearer now.

Let the neutral experts date the manuscript and wait for the results. Many Christian friends of mine are already calling it "fake , Muslim forgery" even without recognizing the fact that this document is 100 years older than the Islam itself..How it can be a "Muslim forgery" ? lol

 

[Seeker9]

Well it must be true if it's in the Daily Mail...

Seriously though, it's not the first time contradictory texts have surfaced in the Christian canon, (e.g Dead Sea Scrolls, Judas Gospel etc) and I doubt it will be the last.

The influence of the Nicene & subsequent Councils on current accepted Christian doctrine cannot be ignored. They agreed an "official" version for key tenets of the Faith

What makes this latest text stand out though is the prediction of the future Messiah as Muhammed, so I will follow this story with great interest

 

[Archived_member15]

My dear brother Auzer kaurhug

I read this earlier on today in the Daily Mail and I truly am sorry to be a spoil-sport but this ancient 'Bible' is actually a copy of the Gospel according to Barnabus that was written - if the new evidence is true - in around the fifth or sixth century AD - making it later even than the Nag Hammadi Gospels which come from around the third and fourth centuries. It was then edited during the Islamic era. There is debate as too whether it was written solely in the Islamic period by Muslim scholars (ie in the Middle Ages) or in the sixth century and subsequently edited by Muslim scholars. The discovery of this 1,500 year old manuscript - if proven to be true - would thus place it more in the fifth/sixth century earlier dating.

The author of Barnabus does not understand the language, history or geography of the 1st century A.D., and there is no ancient evidence for the book. The internal evidence of the book suggests it was written in the 14th century, and there are Muslim scholars who agree with this dating. The book is a rewrite of the Biblical (canonical) Gospels most likely by a Muslim who wanted to portray Jesus as a Muslim who taught Islam and predicted the coming of Muhammad.

However this new evidence, if proven true (and not just Daily Mail hype as with the false Lead Codices fiasco of last year when the Mail published accounts of Codices about Jesus from the first century that were actually a forgery from the 20th century) then it supports those scholars who believe in the earlier fifth or sixth century dating. It thus makes it very historically interesting but not useful in constructing the life of the historical Jesus.

 

[Auzer]

My dear brother Auzer kaurhug

I read this earlier on today in the Daily Mail and I truly am sorry to be a spoil-sport but this ancient 'Bible' is actually a copy of the Gospel according to Barnabus that was written - if the new evidence is true - in around the fifth or sixth century AD - making it later even than the Nag Hammadi Gospels which come from around the third and fourth centuries. It was then edited during the Islamic era. There is debate as too whether it was written solely in the Islamic period by Muslim scholars (ie in the Middle Ages) or in the sixth century and subsequently edited by Muslim scholars. The discovery of this 1,500 year old manuscript - if proven to be true - would thus place it more in the fifth/sixth century earlier dating.

The author of Barnabus does not understand the language, history or geography of the 1st century A.D., and there is no ancient evidence for the book. The internal evidence of the book suggests it was written in the 14th century, and there are Muslim scholars who agree with this dating. The book is a rewrite of the Biblical (canonical) Gospels most likely by a Muslim who wanted to portray Jesus as a Muslim who taught Islam and predicted the coming of Muhammad.

However this new evidence, if proven true (and not just Daily Mail hype as with the false Lead Codices fiasco of last year when the Mail published accounts of Codices about Jesus from the first century that were actually a forgery from the 20th century) then it supports those scholars who believe in the earlier fifth or sixth century dating. It thus makes it very historically interesting but not useful in constructing the life of the historical Jesus.

Well brother I know ...probably it is a copy of Gospel of Barnabas but what if its not? The gospel of Barnabas was earlier believed to be a forgery from 15th century but this manuscript is from 6th century (Before the rise of Islam). Also , if this manuscript is "edited" by Muslims (which is improbable because 1st century Arabs didn't have any idea about Aramaic) then experts would know.Right now , there is absolutely no evidence that Muslims edited this bible. When experts will date this document , things will get more clearer because dating-experts and other archeological historians can tell what is fake and what is original. In any case , this news is interesting and I'll definitely follow the outcome of this news This news has even sparked the interest of Vatican.

 

[Luckysingh]

I think that the sparked interest from the vatican is more concerned with proving it's authenticity.

In terms of the life of Jesus based on what we know from the bible and gospels.
I'm not really convinced of how this seems to fit.
Then again, it's not the first time that such controversial ventures have suddenly surfaced.

 

[Seeker9]

I think that the sparked interest from the vatican is more concerned with proving it's authenticity.

In terms of the life of Jesus based on what we know from the bible and gospels.
I'm not really convinced of how this seems to fit.
Then again, it's not the first time that such controversial ventures have suddenly surfaced.

I would not wait for any update from the Vatican with baited breath....how long did it take them to grudgingly accept the Big Bang theory !!

And what can we really "know" about Jesus from Gospels which were first written decades after his death??

 

[Archived_member15]

I would not wait for any update from the Vatican with baited breath....how long did it take them to grudgingly accept the Big Bang theory !!

And what can we really "know" about Jesus from Gospels which were first written decades after his death??

My dear brother Seeker :grinningsingh:

The Catholic Church created the "Big Bang Theory".

http://www.decodedscience.com/georges-lemaitre-discovered-the-expansion-of-the-universe/5588

The "Father of the Big Bang Theory" was the Catholic priest Fr Georges Lamaitre. Check him up online (ie wikipedia!)

Excerpt:


"...Lemaître defended his views to other physicists with great conviction, but never sought personal fame. Nonetheless, he received recognition from his country, his church, and his colleagues. In 1934, Lemaître received the Francqui Prize, his country’s highest scientific honor. Pope Pius XI inducted him onto the Pontifical Academy of Science two years later. He was elected to the Belgian Royal Academy of Science and Arts in 1941, and was the first to receive the Eddington Medal in 1951.
Lemaître’s ideas were vindicated in 1964 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background – the residual radiation from the big bang. His assistant told him of this discovery in 1966 while Lemaître was in Hospital Saint Pierre suffering from a heart attack. The man called “the father of the big bang” died two weeks later at the age of seventy-one..."


Eisten originally said that Fr Lamaitre was wrong, and that the Universe had always existed and went through cycles. He was kinda embaressed when he had to admit that a Catholic priest was correct and he'd got something wrong (even Geniuses do - it gives us all hope!)

Much love winkingmunda

 

[Seeker9]

Dear Vouthon Ji

You are entirely correct. He did indeed kick it off in 1927 and further Scientists contributed their findings including Edwin Hubble for example and his Law of Expansion in 1929 as well to establish the current cosmological model. However, I think it is fair to say that some people in the Church have struggled with the concept which is why the Pope has to make specific declarations to that effect e.g Pope Pious XII in 1951 and the current Pope last year

I think if it was long accepted within the Catholic Church there would be no need for the Pope to stress that then and now....

 

[Awakeand Singh]

"... 1st century Arabs didn't have any idea about Aramaic"

@ Auzer Ji

Actually, Aramaic is spoken even today by thousands of Arabs in Syria, as well as by the original Jewish community of the Georgian Republic. The Arabs most certainly knew it back then.

 

[Archived_member15]

Dear Vouthon Ji

You are entirely correct. He did indeed kick it off in 1927 and further Scientists contributed their findings including Edwin Hubble for example and his Law of Expansion in 1929 as well to establish the current cosmological model. However, I think it is fair to say that some people in the Church have struggled with the concept which is why the Pope has to make specific declarations to that effect e.g Pope Pious XII in 1951 and the current Pope last year

I think if it was long accepted within the Catholic Church there would be no need for the Pope to stress that then and now....

My dear brother Seeker 0

I think that a lot of Christians in general found it difficult to accept scientific discoveries such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, yes indeed. People from all religions worldwide found it hard to stomach. That is human nature.

However the Catholic Church itself (as in the hierarchy with the notable exception of the Galileo affair), certainly more than other Christian denominations, has both helped foster and accomodate modern science. I don't know of any other Church that has its own science Academy run by Jesuits that attracts scientists from all around the world. Just two years back a massive conference was held in the Vatican on the possibility of alien life. Many atheist scientists spoke at it.

For example when Darwin first propounded his theory of evolution in "Origin of the Species" in 1859, the Catholic Cardinal Blessed John Henry Newman was supportive of his theory (which was brave at the time).

He wrote in 1868:


"...As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God..."

- Blessed John Henry Newman, 1868 (Catholic Cardinal and saint)


Popes don't usually comment on science because they can only speak on faith and morals. So the Church took no opinion on the subject of evolution until the 50s, leaving it as an "open" question for science and not religion to determine, neither supporting nor condemning it. Now that evolutionary theory is firmly backed up, the Church officially teaches theistic evolution.

Frighteningly enough there a large number of Evangelical Protestant Christians in America who still don't believe in EVOLUTION :11: