1500 Year Old Bible Confims that Jesus was not Crucified

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by roadbloc, Nov 13, 2014.

  1. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    http://www.wisethinks.com/2014/10/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus.html?m=1

    What do y'all think? This sounds pretty big to the world of religion to me, but there is a chance they'll probably just ignore it and continue doing what they do regardless.
     
  2. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    Potatoe, potaatoe, SoG, Profit, whatever makes us feel good. :D it will be fun to see how the Vatican spins it. The Book of Barabus is probably one of those pesky, against the grain, purged books that did not fit the agenda. :)
     
  3. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #3
    For the religious, aren't we all the sons and daughters of God? I always wondered if that is all that was meant by the term.


    *Keeping the "virgin" Mary out of the equation.



    *Note I am agnostic.
     
  4. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    Whether to believe a 1500-year-old book of myths and superstitions over the modern version...that's a tough choice.

    I'll take door #3: they're both filled with B.S.
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    "They" chose to ignore that book 2,000 years ago.

    I doubt they'll change their mind about it today.
     
  6. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #6
    So, this Gospel of Barnabus contradicts the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John yet it confirms that Jesus was not crucified?
     
  7. NickG420 macrumors regular

    NickG420

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Location:
    In Wayne Gacey's Basement
    #7
  8. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    since the book claims
    does that mean that non believers will see Jesus as GOD? or are they going to be just like most Christians & cherry pick what suits them?
     
  9. Mousse, Nov 13, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014

    Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #9
    There was a Barnabas who was Paul's sidekick in Acts of the Apostle. I wonder if it could be THAT Barnabas. If it is, it might be sour grapes him calling Paul an imposter. Robin resents Batman for the colorful outfit that draws all the attention of the henchmen. All the while Batman, in his dark outfit, hides in the all concealing shadows.:D POW! SOCK! BAM!

    It can't be THAT Barnabas if the gospel is 1500 years old, unless Barney is really long lived...like nearly 480+ years old.:eek:

    They did have a falling out in Acts 15, because Paul didn't think Mark (the guy who eventually wrote the Gospel of Mark) wasn't fit for service. Uncle Barney thought otherwise.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    The scholarly experts will deem it deviant, a fraud, or say that this book was previously considered by the Church and dismissed as "factually in error".

    This is an interesting article: History of the Bible on a site labeled "Evidence for God". The dates and sources are enlightening and seem reasonable. But here is the rub:

    In other words this info not only gives confidence in the sources, but more importantly, the truth of the sources. Why is that exactly? :confused:
     
  11. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #11
    That sounds about as credible as this story except for the fact that it's easier to prove white America's inherent racism than it is to prove any truth in any mythology.
     
  12. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
  13. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #13
    If memory serves me, those four books have more than enough disagreement between them already. Perhaps they excluded ol' Barney because things were just getting too unbelievable?

    ----------

    All of the Gospels according to who's-it or what's-it were written long after who's-it or what's-it kicked it.
     
  14. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #14
    I think your source is suspect.

    McAfee that corporate forces on us blocks:
     
  15. sjinsjca macrumors 68000

    sjinsjca

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #16
    Where did you get this idea from? Mark was Barnabas' nephew and his gospel was dated to 60AD which means Mark was in his late 40's early 50's when he wrote his gospel. Luke, like Mark, was a student of Paul. Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts (Gospel according to Luke Part II;)) in sometime between his 60's and 90's. John wrote his gospel in his 90's. The powers that be claim it was written by John the Apostle, but I find it hard to believe. The powers that be finds my lack of faith...disturbing.:p

    You're correct about Matthew. It was written about the same time as Luke's except it wasn't authored by Matthew. Ditto with Gospel of Peter. Lots of folks don't know about The Rock's gospel. Or Judas Iscariot's gospel.

    The odd thing about Barney's gospel is it was written in Aramic. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek.
     
  17. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #17
    If it bashes mainstream, white-washed Christianity then it must be true!

    Says the mainstream, whitewashed atheist.

    But in all seriousness, they found it and waited 14 years? Not to mention that there are probably a hundred books that to some degree or another say the same thing.

    Hell, there's 30 different perspectives and articles for every fart Obama squeezed out.
     
  18. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #18
    Yet they all agree on Jesus being crucified. And then this Gospel of Barnabas comes along and people claim this as proof that Jesus was not crucified.:rolleyes:
     
  19. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #19
    Right, did people even live that long back then :rolleyes:
     
  20. Hugh macrumors 6502a

    Hugh

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Erie, PA
    #20

    In their gospel might be wrong. A person that lived to his 90'? The average life span back was late 30' pushing at 40-45. So I want what their drinking.

    It just some things in the black book, like rite now there lived to the 90's

    Hugh
     
  21. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #21

    That's assuming that any of them actually wrote their own gospels, which there is little to no evidence for it. Iv often heard many historians don't believe they even wrote them.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    People are recorded as having lived well into their eighties in the Classical period. The average life expectancy of those whose lives were recorded was 72 years.
     
  23. Huntn, Nov 19, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #23
    I also have the impression that many of the testaments were handed down verbally and were later written, sometimes hundreds of years after the events they purport to describe. My understanding is that Jesus was a common man with common followers and it's unlikely that any of them could read or write, but I can't say for sure.

    So while these might be representations of truth, the cynic would say that these stories are the equivalent of folk tales or the creation of a legend for the purpose of power and control. I recently watched the Book of Eli, the bad guy was desperately seeking "The Book" because if he used the right words, "they will follow".

    If you look at the New Testiment section of this link: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html, what they have is 125 A.D. or newer.
     
  24. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    And not much more than that. The accounts of what happened after that are so divergent as to be all but irreconcilable.

    No one actually saw jesus rise from the dead, the tomb was already empty when whoever (it varies) arrived there.

    The reunion accounts are all drastically dissimilar.

    Most importantly, though, only Mark and Luke speak of an asscension; Matthew ends quite abruptly with jesus issuing the charge to spread the cult far'n'wide; and of particular note, John says that jesus hung around for a good while and did lots of other stuff, more than he could record (kind of as though it was written by C. S. Lewis as a children's fairy tale).

    So, I guess if you want to buy that bridge, that is up to you, if you can figure out where it is coming from and where it leads.
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    ...and the Kashmiris say that he and his mum ended up in their neck of the woods doing good stuff for many years, and both dying there, with tombs to prove it.
     

Share This Page