Dead Sea Scrolls-anybody studying them?

[HelenaMT]

I found this passage on the internet, supposedly from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I had heard that the Scrolls DON’T mention Jesus at all, and yet this passage was attributed to Him. Anybody ever heard of it, or of anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls referring to Jesus or His works or words? I think this may be a hoax, but I’m not knowledgable enough to know for sure. Here’s the quote:

From Cave #7 Scroll #1 (Section One)

Section Three

“The time will come when man’s human intelligence will cease and will look to himself in order to solve the problems of the day. This time will come when mankind will excel in intelligence just as the Words of My Prophet Daniel warned.” “His knowledge shall increase and will seek to rule not only this Earth but also the moon and other heavenly bodies which I have also created. When that day comes, many of you will look upon their works with great dismay. You will see how far they have departed from My Word and from My Love.”

Thanks for any and all replies.

 

[FightingFat]

I’m no expert, but the reference seems hokey. The ususal way of reffering to Qumran documents is 1QS6 or 4Q285.

I’m always confused about the difference between the Nag Hammadi library (which holds the Gnostic Gospels) and was discovered in 1945 and the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1945.

To my mind, the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they contain ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible which has allowed us to check the veracity of our own modern translations and has shown them to be very accurate. I think I would be correct in saying that the community at Qumran were Essenes-- a seperatist Jewish sect who had left Jerusalem, city of the ‘polluted sanctuary’ and endeavoured to form the ‘Community of the New Covenant’. This shows that they aspired to be the embodiment of the people of God in the Messianic age, along with several other groups including the Pharisees. Jesus was the antithesis of all these groups; they tried to seperate themselves from the mass of the people who, through ignorance of the Law (John 7:49) lay under God’s curse. Jesus, of course, gathered all these ‘cursed people’ around him and roused the wrath of the religious leaders by declaring war on the Pharisaic community of the holy remnant. (For more on this try Joachim Jeremias’ book The Parables of Jesus, SCM Press, 2003 p.223). The point of this is of course, it seems unlikely that a group with such distinctly seperate views to Christ would hold a record of His teachings!

This article is interesting at EWTN: -

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEADSEA.htm

I hope I have been of some help! Sorry I could not address your question more directly!

 

[swariffin]

I found this passage on the internet, supposedly from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I had heard that the Scrolls DON’T mention Jesus at all, and yet this passage was attributed to Him. Anybody ever heard of it, or of anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls referring to Jesus or His works or words? I think this may be a hoax, but I’m not knowledgable enough to know for sure. Here’s the quote:

From Cave #7 Scroll #1 (Section One)

Section Three

“The time will come when man’s human intelligence will cease and will look to himself in order to solve the problems of the day. This time will come when mankind will excel in intelligence just as the Words of My Prophet Daniel warned.” “His knowledge shall increase and will seek to rule not only this Earth but also the moon and other heavenly bodies which I have also created. When that day comes, many of you will look upon their works with great dismay. You will see how far they have departed from My Word and from My Love.”

Thanks for any and all replies.

Dear Helena,

It is supposed to be no surprise, as the Dead Sea Scroll does not have anything of the New Testament. The Qumran society (who left the Dead Sea Scrolls) was dwelt by the Esseni (One community existed during the life of Jesus). They live isolated for not wanting to get involved with daily activities among the Jews. They were Jews anyway, and what they have was the Thorah, some of the books of the Prophets, and a guideline of living in the community. They were destroyed by the Romans, soon after Jerusalem was taken over around 70AD.

 

[Sam_777]

From Cave #7 Scroll #1 (Section One)

Section Three

“The time will come when man’s human intelligence will cease and will look to himself in order to solve the problems of the day. This time will come when mankind will excel in intelligence just as the Words of My Prophet Daniel warned.” “His knowledge shall increase and will seek to rule not only this Earth but also the moon and other heavenly bodies which I have also created. When that day comes, many of you will look upon their works with great dismay. You will see how far they have departed from My Word and from My Love.”

Interesting indeed, since we humans have recently reached the Moon & Mars, and yes many people & nations nowadays are far from implementing Lord Jesus words and teachings.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I found this passage on the internet, supposedly from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I had heard that the Scrolls DON’T mention Jesus at all, and yet this passage was attributed to Him. Anybody ever heard of it, or of anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls referring to Jesus or His works or words? I think this may be a hoax, but I’m not knowledgable enough to know for sure. Here’s the quote:

From Cave #7 Scroll #1 (Section One)

Section Three

“The time will come when man’s human intelligence will cease and will look to himself in order to solve the problems of the day. This time will come when mankind will excel in intelligence just as the Words of My Prophet Daniel warned.” “His knowledge shall increase and will seek to rule not only this Earth but also the moon and other heavenly bodies which I have also created. When that day comes, many of you will look upon their works with great dismay. You will see how far they have departed from My Word and from My Love.”

Thanks for any and all replies.

The DSS do not mention Jesus. There are a few people who contend some passages from certain scrolls do but they would be a small minority.

 

[hamba2han]

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention not one but rather of two messiahs to come, the first would be a priestly messiah whereas the second would be a temporal messiah.

There can be little doubt of course that Jesus (pbuh) is the priestly messiah… but who do Christians think is the temporal or kingly messiah to come that the Dead Sea Scrolls also foretold?

Actually, the prophecy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that there will be two messiahs to come ties in rather nicely with what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in the Gospel of Barnabas.

When we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (pbuh) whether he is “the messiah” he replies that he is not “the messiah” that they are expecting.

This is because he understood their question. They were not asking him for his title, rather, they wanted to know whether he was the one who would finally fulfill all of their prophesies of leadership, power, and grandeur that they had been waiting for so many centuries. For this reason, he told them that he was not “the messiah”, but that “the Messiah” they were waiting for would not come until later. He was referring to the SECOND messiah in their prophesies. (the Jews had expectations of three prophecies to be fulfilled)

In the Bible we read of the test that the Jews applied to Jesus (pbuh) in order to ascertain his truthfulness. The Jews had a prophecy that required Elias to come before Jesus (pbuh): “Elias verily cometh first” (Mark 9:12). They had not seen Elias yet so there was still doubt as to Jesus (pbuh) being the Messiah. Jesus, however, responded to them that Elias had already come but that they did not recognize him.

In Matthew 17:12-13 we read: “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not…Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist”.

John, however DENIES the claims of Jesus (pbuh). This is one of the Christian’s “dark sayings of Jesus” that their scholars have yet to reconcile and we will leave this matter for them to work out among themselves.

In John 1:19-21 we read **"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who art thou?. And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the christ. And they asked him, What then? ART THOU ELIAS? And he saith, I am not. ART THOU THAT PROPHET? And he answered, No”. **

We notice that there are three distinct prophecies here:
Elias, … Messiah, … That prophet.

The Jews were therefore not waiting for two prophecies, but three and this can be further clarified by reading John 1:25:

**“And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be:
a) not the Christ,
b) nor Elias,
c) neither that Prophet?” **

“That prophet” could not be Jesus (pbuh), because that would make the third question in both verses redundant; nor can we believe that “that prophet” is the holy ghost, did John look like a ghost? Further, we must remember that “that prophet” can not apply to any prophet before the time of Jesus (pbuh) because at the time of Jesus (pbuh) the Jews were still waiting for all three.

Notice how when we let the Bible speak for itself, without forcing the holy spirit or other supernatural meanings on it in the commentary, or forcing three questions to be only two, how clear these verses become.

It is quite obvious from the above verses that the followers of Jesus (pbuh) recognized that the Jews were waiting for three prophesies to be fulfilled.

The Bible, to one degree or another, confirms that both the first and second prophesies were fulfilled. However, it provides no logical explanation for the third prophesy.

And so, what this means is that when Jesus (pbuh) says that he is not the “messiah” in the Gospel of Barnabas, this does not at all diminish the verisimilitude of the Gospel of Barnabas since the Dead Sea Scrolls does indeed mention that there will be two messiahs to come.

 

[swariffin]

Actually, the prophecy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that there will be two messiahs to come ties in rather nicely with what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in the Gospel of Barnabas.

When we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (pbuh) whether he is “the messiah” he replies that he is not “the messiah” that they are expecting.

Dear Hamba2han

Why we believe that Gospel of Barnabas is wrong :

1. Gospel of Barnabas has so many errors in describing geographical places of the land of Judea.
2. Gospel of Barnabas was written around the 3rd century and written not in Hebrew nor Greek, but rather in Ancient Italian.

Cleary Gospel of Barnabas was written by a man/more who does not know the geography of the land of Judea, and knew nothing about Jews tradition. Therefore, the writer of Gospel of Barnabas was/were unrelated to the teaching of the Apostle. Anyone using the Gospel of Barnabas trying to understand Christianity is just the same as people using the Satanic Verses trying to understand Islam, which is Wrong. So, you may keep your Gospel of Barnabas as a bed time story, only.

The Dead Dea Scrolls has 3 items : (a) Copy of the Thorah, (b) Copy of the books of Prophets (from the Old testament) and (c) the rules of living in the Esseni community. The first two was clearly written by the respective prophets, not the Esseni people. The last item c, was written by them, but it has nothing to do with the works and the prophesy of the existing Prophets.

The Esseni community was raided by the Romans right after they raided Jerusalem and destroy the Jewish Temple at around 70AD. After 70AD, practically no community of Esseni people left.

So, your conclusion to relate the DSS to Mohammad has no ground at all. Besides, Quran does not mentioned anything about the DSS nor the existence of the Esseni at all.

 

[sambos671]

I’m reading through some material on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s pretty facinating. I’m reading a translation of some of the scrolls and Flussers book regarding it. This is what I’ve come accross so far. The Essenese are a community primarily responsible for the deposit of the scrolls in Qumran. Though there is a belief that they are not the only ones. There was a Jewish community in Antioch that seems to have been displaced back to Qumran. The Essenses were a sect of Judaism that wanted to really adhere to the laws and submit to an extreme life style in the desert. They had strong messianic literature but do not name Jesus specifically. They also were very predestination oriented and saw the world in a dichotomy of Dark and Light. (seems to influence the writer of Barnabas) Most were pacifist though near the end some became combative. Though they had precident with the war scroll. The thing about them is that they took Torah and the prophets seriously and messianic prophesy seriously. They did indeed have a consept of two messiahs. And it seems they had a strong influence on Judaism of Jesus day as well as early christians. Keep in mind that they were Jews not christians but really looked forward for God’s vindication with the arrival of the messiahs. Does that help?

 

[hamba2han]

Dear Hamba2han

Why we believe that Gospel of Barnabas is wrong :

1. Gospel of Barnabas has so many errors in describing geographical places of the land of Judea.
2. Gospel of Barnabas was written around the 3rd century and written not in Hebrew nor Greek, but rather in Ancient Italian.

Cleary Gospel of Barnabas was written by a man/more who does not know the geography of the land of Judea, and knew nothing about Jews tradition. Therefore, the writer of Gospel of Barnabas was/were unrelated to the teaching of the Apostle. Anyone using the Gospel of Barnabas trying to understand Christianity is just the same as people using the Satanic Verses trying to understand Islam, which is Wrong. So, you may keep your Gospel of Barnabas as a bed time story, only …

I would say that the weight of evidence is a great deal more on the side of the argument that says that the Gospel of Barnabas is in fact authentic and that the original or at least significant portions of it has survived and been recovered.

Here is a link concerning the Gospel of Barnabas of which the following is an excerpt:.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24. It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this “Gospel of Barnabas” until George Sale (CE 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur’an (CE 1734), named “Alkoran of Mohammed”. Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it: simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam by his very name in unequivocal terms. There might be some later alterations, adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge.

This is another excerpt from the article:

As regards his Gospel, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church asserts:

Gospel of Barnabas was declared a rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96]. According to E. Von Dobschutz, it is a private compilation which was composed in Italy (but not at Rome) in the early sixth century.

It is strange that a book which is claimed to be ‘composed in Italy in the early sixth century’ had been declared a ‘rejected book’ in the fifth century. So the observation of E. Von Dobschutz, if it has been truly attributed to him, is absurd and baseless and may be rejected outright. It is thus clear that “the Gospel of Barnabas” had already been existing when Pope Gelasius declared it ‘a rejected book’ in fifth century more than a hundred years earlier than the advent of Islam.

Are Christians disputing the truth of this or indeed of any of the things which has been stated in the article the link refers to?

If not, then I would think that Christians really do need to seriously examine the Gospel of Barnabas because it is no less “authentic” than the four canonical gospels of the New Testament.

And here is another link for anyone who wishes to learn a bit more and actually read the Gospel of Barnabas.

 

[Angelos]

I would say that the weight of evidence is a great deal more on the side of the argument that says that the Gospel of Barnabas is in fact authentic and that the original or at least significant portions of it has survived and been recovered.

Strikingly, the Gospel of Barnabas is NOT exempt from the Islamic allegations of textual corruption, for it is possible to infer from this argument that it survived only in PORTIONS. What enables Muslims to determine which portion of the Gospel is authentic is based on the arbitrary and subjective value judgments of Muslims. Consequently, this is but an allegation with no evidence like many other baseless Islamic assumptions concerning other faiths than Islam.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24. It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

The existence of the Gospel of Barnabas on the list of “25 apocryphal books” cannot be used in favour of the Islamic assertions unless historians prove that the book on the list was identical with the Gospel of Barnabas in content! It is most likely and plausible that any two books in the world bear the same name but be completely different in content. It is not uncommon in Christian history to find two Gospels having different teachings despite the same name. For instance, there are two Gospels of Matthew, one of which is considered canonical, the other being named “Pseudo” Gospel of Matthew and considered apocryphal.

More, where is it written in that canon that ONLY and specifically the Gospel of Barnabas was banned purposefully?

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this “Gospel of Barnabas” until George Sale (CE 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur’an (CE 1734), named “Alkoran of Mohammed”. Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

This is a totally fallacious argument leading us to erroneous conclusions in all directions! First, how the discovery and publication of this Gospel by Christians can prove that it was not written by a Muslim is a mystery to every rational person.

Second, this argument expects us to believe that no Muslim can write a book without the knowledge and consent of all the other Muslims, which is irrational and wrong.

Third, the last section of this argument contradicts itself by underlining the fact that the Muslim circles were unaware of this Gospel until its publication in the last century. However, this confession implies that the Gospel of Barnabas did not exist prior to Mohammad, who would have definitely talked of it to Muslims if such a text had existed in his time.

 

[Angelos]

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it: simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam by his very name in unequivocal terms.

Why Muslims consider the spurious Gospel of Barnabas authentic despite its many parts contradicting certain tenets in the Koran?: simply because it is the ONLY Gospel announcing Mohammad’s name and overtly denying basic Christian tenets. This Gospel gives Muslims the first and last chance to show the world that Islam - supposedly - has a witness other than its own scripture.

There might be some later alterations, adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge.

First, the owner of this argument compels oneself to ignore the excessive number of cultural/historical mistakes and odd examples of anachronism in this fake Gospel.

Second, the Gospel of Barnabas is apparently a fake Gospel derived from the texts of the four Canonical Gospels and (surprisingly!) of Acts. The author of this apocryphal Gospel uncannily endeavours to work all the material found in the first five books of the New Testament into a single text. For instance, both narratives of the angel’s annunciation to Jacob (Matthew) and Mary (Luke) are incorporated into this forgery.

Thrid, Muslim scholars demonstrate their talents for hypocricy when they remark that the admitted mistakes/discrepancies in the Gospel cannot rebut the (suppposed) fact that the writer is apostle Barnabas! Nevertheless, those same Muslim scholars do not reiterate the same statement about the writers of the canonical Gospels, all of which are perfect in historical accuracy unlike the Gospel of Barnabas.

Finally, Muslim scholars cannot answer how come the specific parts of the Gospel of Barnabas which allegedly underwent textual alterations or distortion resulted in the misrepresentation of the Islamic tenets rather than Christian ones. In other words, Muslim scholars subjectively and arbitrarily claim that the significant discrepancies between this Gospel and the Islamic scripture point out the possibility of textual corruption. However, Muslims close their eyes to the fact that there would have been no Islamic Gospel of Barnabas today if the text had been tampered by Christians!

 

[Angelos]

This is another excerpt from the article:

As regards his Gospel, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church asserts:

**Gospel of Barnabas was declared a rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96]. According to E. Von Dobschutz, it is a private compilation which was composed in Italy (but not at Rome) in the early sixth century.
**

It is strange that a book which is claimed to be ‘composed in Italy in the early sixth century’ had been declared a ‘rejected book’ in the fifth century. So the observation of E. Von Dobschutz, if it has been truly attributed to him, is absurd and baseless and may be rejected outright. It is thus clear that “the Gospel of Barnabas” had already been existing when Pope Gelasius declared it ‘a rejected book’ in fifth century more than a hundred years earlier than the advent of Islam.

Are Christians disputing the truth of this or indeed of any of the things which has been stated in the article the link refers to?

If not, then I would think that Christians really do need to seriously examine the Gospel of Barnabas because it is no less “authentic” than the four canonical gospels of the New Testament.

It is NOT true that there has been only ONE Gospel of Barnabas throughout Christian history. Some people used the same name of certain apostles/disciples while devising different fake texts.

Nothing in the New Testament or other Christian writings talk of Islam prior to Mohammad, for Islam came to existence in the 7th century! Besides, neither Mohammad nor other Muslims of his period mentioned a Gospel with this name, which also proves that the Islamic Gospel of Barnabas had not existed before Mohammad devised the Koran.

The Gospel of Barnabas is the ONLY apocryphal that speaks in favour of essential Islamic teachings. Nevertheless, the author of this Gospel somehow forgets to add Mecca and the Islamic idol (Cube) into his forgery, which is most likely his weakest point that indicates his limited knowledge about Islam.

 

[Angelos]

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention not one but rather of two messiahs to come, the first would be a priestly messiah whereas the second would be a temporal messiah.

There can be little doubt of course that Jesus (pbuh) is the priestly messiah… but who do Christians think is the temporal or kingly messiah to come that the Dead Sea Scrolls also foretold?

Actually, the prophecy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that there will be two messiahs to come ties in rather nicely with what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in the Gospel of Barnabas.

When we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (pbuh) whether he is “the messiah” he replies that he is not “the messiah” that they are expecting.

This is because he understood their question. They were not asking him for his title, rather, they wanted to know whether he was the one who would finally fulfill all of their prophesies of leadership, power, and grandeur that they had been waiting for so many centuries. For this reason, he told them that he was not “the messiah”, but that “the Messiah” they were waiting for would not come until later. He was referring to the SECOND messiah in their prophesies. (the Jews had expectations of three prophecies to be fulfilled)

In the Bible we read of the test that the Jews applied to Jesus (pbuh) in order to ascertain his truthfulness. The Jews had a prophecy that required Elias to come before Jesus (pbuh): “Elias verily cometh first” (Mark 9:12). They had not seen Elias yet so there was still doubt as to Jesus (pbuh) being the Messiah. Jesus, however, responded to them that Elias had already come but that they did not recognize him.

In Matthew 17:12-13 we read: “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not…Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist”.

John, however DENIES the claims of Jesus (pbuh). This is one of the Christian’s “dark sayings of Jesus” that their scholars have yet to reconcile and we will leave this matter for them to work out among themselves.

In John 1:19-21 we read **"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who art thou?. And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the christ. And they asked him, What then? ART THOU ELIAS? And he saith, I am not. ART THOU THAT PROPHET? And he answered, No”. **

We notice that there are three distinct prophecies here:
Elias, … Messiah, … That prophet.

The Jews were therefore not waiting for two prophecies, but three and this can be further clarified by reading John 1:25:

**“And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be:
a) not the Christ,
b) nor Elias,
c) neither that Prophet?” **

“That prophet” could not be Jesus (pbuh), because that would make the third question in both verses redundant; nor can we believe that “that prophet” is the holy ghost, did John look like a ghost? Further, we must remember that “that prophet” can not apply to any prophet before the time of Jesus (pbuh) because at the time of Jesus (pbuh) the Jews were still waiting for all three.

Notice how when we let the Bible speak for itself, without forcing the holy spirit or other supernatural meanings on it in the commentary, or forcing three questions to be only two, how clear these verses become.

It is quite obvious from the above verses that the followers of Jesus (pbuh) recognized that the Jews were waiting for three prophesies to be fulfilled.

The Bible, to one degree or another, confirms that both the first and second prophesies were fulfilled. However, it provides no logical explanation for the third prophesy.

And so, what this means is that when Jesus (pbuh) says that he is not the “messiah” in the Gospel of Barnabas, this does not at all diminish the verisimilitude of the Gospel of Barnabas since the Dead Sea Scrolls does indeed mention that there will be two messiahs to come.

YET both Allah and Mohammad were unaware of these teachings, for the Koran refers ONE historical Messiah, which is ONLY Jesus!

 

[swariffin]

Dear Hamba2han,

Please answer my question. Do you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas? Perhaps partially, in which there is a similarity with Quran such as the story that Judas was crucified instead of Jesus. In that case, why don’t you include that parts into your Quran?

The funny thing is, you tried to justify Christianity based on things that is not accepted, and yet you argued that it should. Now, what if I justify Islam using the satanic verses, and argue that it should?

 

[swariffin]

I’m reading through some material on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s pretty facinating. I’m reading a translation of some of the scrolls and Flussers book regarding it. This is what I’ve come accross so far. The Essenese are a community primarily responsible for the deposit of the scrolls in Qumran. Though there is a belief that they are not the only ones. There was a Jewish community in Antioch that seems to have been displaced back to Qumran. The Essenses were a sect of Judaism that wanted to really adhere to the laws and submit to an extreme life style in the desert. They had strong messianic literature but do not name Jesus specifically. They also were very predestination oriented and saw the world in a dichotomy of Dark and Light. (seems to influence the writer of Barnabas) Most were pacifist though near the end some became combative. Though they had precident with the war scroll. The thing about them is that they took Torah and the prophets seriously and messianic prophesy seriously. They did indeed have a consept of two messiahs. And it seems they had a strong influence on Judaism of Jesus day as well as early christians. Keep in mind that they were Jews not christians but really looked forward for God’s vindication with the arrival of the messiahs. Does that help?

Yes it help. But still the script who mentioned two Messiahs was not written by the Prophets.

 

[Angelos]

Dear Hamba2han,

Please answer my question. Do you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas? Perhaps partially, in which there is a similarity with Quran such as the story that Judas was crucified instead of Jesus. In that case, why don’t you include that parts into your Quran?

Another interesting point is that the Koran dissents from the Gospel of Barnabas about the identity of the person supposedly crucified in Jesus’ stead. Although the Koran denies Jesus’ crucifixion and tries to explain its undeniable existence in “secular” history through claims of illusion, it never implicitly or explicitly endorses that one of Jesus’ apostles betrayed Him and sold Him out to Jewish authorities. The Koran always talks of Jesus’ apostles collectively as a certain group of believers that supports Jesus against all His adversaries.

Consequently, it is evident that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas wrote his fake text by solely adapting the purely Christian view and presentation of Judas Iscariot in the canonical Gospels to the Islamic denial of crucifixion in the Koran.

 

[Cathdefender]

Thanks Angelos for all that information. Love to learn about things every day…BTW, I wouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet as the truth…

 

[Angelos]

Thanks Angelos for all that information. Love to learn about things every day…BTW, I wouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet as the truth…

You are welcome. Peace to you.

 

[hamba2han]

Do Muslims believe in the Gospel of Barnabas or the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Muslims regard the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of Barnabas as definitely NOT “scriptures” to place our faith in because we just do not know who wrote them.

And how do Muslims know which portions of other “scriptures” are likely to be true and which are not?

This really is not difficult at all because the Qur’an actually introduces itself as Furqan which means ‘the criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood’ and Sura 25 is named Al-Furqan.

Blessed is He Who hath revealed unto His slave the Criterion (of right and wrong), that he may be a warner to the peoples. … (Al-Qur’an, 25:1)

In short, anything which is agreeable with the Qur’an is acceptable to Muslims and everything else which contradicts it is discarded.

Do Muslims believe that it was Judas who was crucified on the cross as stated in the Gospel of Barnabas?

Muslims do not consider it important to know whether or not someone else was substituted in place of Prophet Jesus (pbuh)… and when you think of it, it really does not matter one way or the other as far as our faith is concerned, does it now?

Christians on the other hand seem to consider this to be a vitally important issue… but the question they should really ask themselves is – Why the need to know??

In the event that Jesus (pbuh) did not die to atone for their sins, then I would think that the question of who the substitute was should be the least of their concerns.

On the Day of Judgment, they will not be questioned as to the identity of the one on the cross… but they will certainly need to answer why they had willingly CHOSEN to believe that their Creator could have a son and thereby associate partners with Him.

 

[inJESUS]

This really is not difficult at all because the Qur’an actually introduces itself as Furqan