Matthew 27:46 and Islam

[ryanoneil]

Sorry Montalban! I accidentally hit submit.

I’ve already conceded that God is not lacking anything. God doesn’t need to punish/reward for lack of anything. We can only describe God in human terms. When you say “He is love” your right, but you are using an attribute we use to describe God. That saying limits Him, because he is infinately more than love.

When I use the word need I’m talking about something being necessary. When we say God is love, is it fair to say God needs to love in order to not contradict Himself. For His nature to remain perfect.

So, in the case of Abraham, God wasn’t dealing or making a pact with him, He was making a covenant. (Gen 17:2) God said “kings shall stem from you”. (Gen 17:5) Abraham didn’t need to understand it all. When God speaks, it happens. It is necessary, or needs to happen. God doesn’t contradict Himself.

So, going all the way back to God’s needing satisfaction. He doesn’t lack or need anthing. It’s another way we describe God, like saying he is love. Jesus said repent, so we do. They did penance in the Old Testament and so do we.

Maybe we should start a seperate thread on this topic? To get some more imput.

 

[MMLJ]

Except that you assume that 'cause I don’t agree with your concept, I’m ignorant of it.

There you go again! I AM A TRINITARIAN CHRISTIAN!

I have nothing further to say to you. I don’t think you can help yourself.

I know exactly where you are coming from, as I have experienced the similar difficulty with this member.

 

[HailMary]

A far more pertinent question for Christians is:

Someone who would utter those words at that particular moment and situation would surely have no clue at all that he would be the blood atonement for the sins of humankind, would he?

Unless that person was God-Incarnate, which Jesus is.
Good point thou.

 

[Montalban]

I’ve already conceded that God is not lacking anything. God doesn’t need to punish/reward for lack of anything. We can only describe God in human terms. When you say “He is love” your right, but you are using an attribute we use to describe God. That saying limits Him, because he is infinately more than love.

I agree with you up till now.

When I use the word need I’m talking about something being necessary. When we say God is love, is it fair to say God needs to love in order to not contradict Himself. For His nature to remain perfect.

I don’t agree. This is in fact a refutation of your own ideas about God being described, because what you offer here is a ‘logic’ ploy based on our limited understanding of God to prove that God *needs *for or to do something.

Yes, it makes for human logic to come up with such a device - ‘God needs to in order not to contradict himself’ but that’s just a human attempt to understand God - and we know God does not ‘need’ or else he’d not be perfect.

So, in the case of Abraham, God wasn’t dealing or making a pact with him, He was making a covenant. (Gen 17:2) God said “kings shall stem from you”. (Gen 17:5) Abraham didn’t need to understand it all. When God speaks, it happens. It is necessary, or needs to happen. God doesn’t contradict Himself.

I believe when we read that “God made a pact” it’s still human understanding of how God is interacting with people. You seem to think it must be a literal pact like God came and negotiated or something.

So, going all the way back to God’s needing satisfaction. He doesn’t lack or need anthing.

I agree, therefore any attempt to portray him as ‘needing’ Satisfaction must therefore be limited.

It’s another way we describe God, like saying he is love. Jesus said repent, so we do. They did penance in the Old Testament and so do we.

But Catholicsm’s built a whole system based on a belief that God needs satisfaction

You have Jesus paying a ‘price’ for God’s anger
You have pennance in which you can work off the debt you own God, etc.
Purgatory as a place to help pay off, or serve out your punishment.

It’s all based on a very limited understanding of God.

Maybe we should start a seperate thread on this topic? To get some more imput.

Where to put it?

 

[Montalban]

I know exactly where you are coming from, as I have experienced the similar difficulty with this member.

He seems to confuse ‘acceptence’ with ‘understanding’. That is, if I don’t accept his point its only because I don’t understand it!

Which is actually quite Islamic judging by Moslem posters here, so I was taken aback to find that kind of reaction here.

 

[swariffin]

BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION

The man in the YouTube video says that Jesus wasn’t crucified on the cross, that it was made to appear that he was. Then he makes a refernce to the gospel of Barnabass. So, does anyone know what this gospel reference says, exactly? Why did the prophet Muhammed use this gospel?

Dear ryanoneil, if memory serves, the story begin at the moment prior to the last supper. At that time, Jesus said to Judas “Do what you have to do” (John 13:27). According to the “gospel” (I put parenthesis because Barnabas gospel in not a gospel at all), Judas left the room. But, Jesus kept looking toward Judas through the window. At a certain moment, Judas looked back to the upper window of that house. During that time, suddenly there was a certain “transfer of being” in which Jesus’ body were occupied by Judas’ soul and the vice versa. And the story continued according to the bible we know today.

Off course, that is ridiculous. How could Judas capable of saying “Forgive them since they know not what they do”, and all of the 7 last words (or sentences may be) from the cross. Such 7 words from the cross, definitely will not come from any human being except Jesus, neither from the old days nor today nor the days yet to come. Besides, it is also ridiculous to imagine that Jesus hang himself together with the 30 silver coins collected by Judas as a reward for his betrayal. I can not imagine logically either that anybody could come out with the idea of Jesus ever survive from the cross and escaped away to India and lived happily ever after. This Barnabas story already contradicted to the story brought up by Paarsurrey. (I do not mean to attack anybody personally, I am just comparing two different ideas).

BTW, I can not answer your question why Muhammed cited this “gospel”. I am just afraid of being unable to control myself from making accusations.

 

[Verisimilitude]

But Catholicsm’s built a whole system based on a belief that God needs satisfaction

You have Jesus paying a ‘price’ for God’s anger
You have pennance in which you can work off the debt you own God, etc.
Purgatory as a place to help pay off, or serve out your punishment.

It’s all based on a very limited understanding of God.

I suppose if you look at it that way you might conclude that, but I do not see it as such. Nor does the Church as far as I can tell.

The price Christ paid was to remove the impediment our sin creates between us and God, not to assuage Gods anger.

Penance is a physical and mental exercise to spiritual cleansing. The act of contrition is for our benefit- to bolster our resolve not to sin anymore. God does not gain anything but our obedience to which He is rightfully due.

Purgatory is a bit more complicated than that but in short I think it is a state we put ourselves in spiritually. Though Christ has paid for all our sin- the stain of that sin remains on our souls, and it is us who remain in such a state because we are not yet ready to re-join God.

A crude example: A man may cheat on his wife and she has forgiven him. If he is a man of integrity he may well feel unworthy of her forgiveness and keep himself away from rejoining her in their home. Maybe he needs to prove to himslef he is once again worthy of her love and trust. In this example it is not the wife who ‘forces’ him to stay away, in fact she forgave him and has invited him back. He has done it himself.

The reason I believe these things- along with what the CC has stated and is in the Catechism are along these lines:

Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

Who/what if not the CC has the greatest understanding of God?

 

[Montalban]

I suppose if you look at it that way you might conclude that, but I do not see it as such. Nor does the Church as far as I can tell.

The price Christ paid was to remove the impediment our sin creates between us and God, not to assuage Gods anger.

Penance is a physical and mental exercise to spiritual cleansing. The act of contrition is for our benefit- to bolster our resolve not to sin anymore. God does not gain anything but our obedience to which He is rightfully due.

Purgatory is a bit more complicated than that but in short I think it is a state we put ourselves in spiritually. Though Christ has paid for all our sin- the stain of that sin remains on our souls, and it is us who remain in such a state because we are not yet ready to re-join God.

A crude example: A man may cheat on his wife and she has forgiven him. If he is a man of integrity he may well feel unworthy of her forgiveness and keep himself away from rejoining her in their home. Maybe he needs to prove to himslef he is once again worthy of her love and trust. In this example it is not the wife who ‘forces’ him to stay away, in fact she forgave him and has invited him back. He has done it himself.

The reason I believe these things- along with what the CC has stated and is in the Catechism are along these lines:

I cited the Catechism earlier, serval times. And, the Catholic Encylopedia.

Penance comes from the word to punish.

Who/what if not the CC has the greatest understanding of God?

Orthodoxy

 

[paarsurrey]

I can not imagine logically either that anybody could come out with the idea of Jesus ever survive from the cross and escaped away to India and lived happily ever after…

Hi

Quran gives full respect to Jesus, Mary and Jesus’ Apostles. Quran’s view is very charitable about them. It is NTBible that mentions first the betrayal of the Apostles. If my Catholic friends think a little, they would realize that since Quran maintains that killing on Cross was disrespectful to Jesus, so it is in line to restore Jesus’ honor that Quran mentions that GodAllahYHWH gave Jesus and his mother Mary a refuge in a peaceful mountainous resort full of fountains (where he died and is buried there i.e. Kashmir, India).

This may be investigated by my Catholic friends here with an open heart. The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 has mentioned many arguments in his book “Jesus in India”, please have a look into it, it starts: alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html

Let it be noted that though Christians believe that Jesus (peace be on him) after his arrest through the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, and crucifixion – and resurrection – went to heaven, yet, from the Holy Bible, it appears that this belief of theirs is altogether wrong. Matthew (chapter 12, verse 40) says that just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth. Now it is clear that Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish; the utmost that happened was that he was in a swoon or a fit of fainting.

The holy books of God bear witness that Jonah, by the grace of God, remained alive in the belly of the fish, and came out alive; and his people ultimately accepted him. If then Jesus (on whom be peace) had died in the belly of the ‘fish’, what resemblance could there be between a dead man and the one who was alive, and how could a living one be compared with one dead?

The truth rather is, that as Jesus was a true prophet and as he knew that God, whose beloved he was, would save him from an accursed death, he made a prophecy in the form of a parable, revealed to him by God, in which he hinted that he would not die on the Cross, nor would he give up the ghost on the accursed wood; on the contrary, like the prophet Jonah, he would only pass through a state of swoon. In the parable he had also hinted that he would come out of the bowels of the earth and would then join the people and, like Jonah, would be honoured by them.

So this prophecy too was fulfilled; for Jesus, coming out of the bowels of the earth, went to his tribes who lived in the eastern countries, Kashmir and Tibet, etc. viz. the ten tribes of the Israelites who 721 years before Jesus, had been taken prisoner from Samaria by Shalmaneser, King of Assur, and had been taken away by him. Ultimately, these tribes came to India and settled in various parts of that country.

Jesus at all events must have made this journey; for the divine object underlying his advent was that he should meet the lost Jews who had settled in different parts of India; the reason being that these in fact were the lost sheep of Israel who had given up even their ancestral faith in these countries, and most of whom had adopted Buddhism, relapsing, gradually into idolatry. Dr. Bernier, on the authority of a number of learned people, states in his Travels that the Kashmiris in reality are Jews who in the time of the dispersal in the days of the King of Assur had migrated to this country.

Unquote

I think it is reasonable.

Thanks

 

[Montalban]

Let’s not forget that the Koran also has the mistake that Christians worship Mary as part of the Trinity.

 

[ryanoneil]

If you’d like to continue discussing penance and God ]needing anything, I started a thread called “Does God require penance from us?” in apologetics. Please go there instead of posting here.

 

[ryanoneil]

Dear ryanoneil, if memory serves, the story begin at the moment prior to the last supper. At that time, Jesus said to Judas “Do what you have to do” (John 13:27). According to the “gospel” (I put parenthesis because Barnabas gospel in not a gospel at all), Judas left the room. But, Jesus kept looking toward Judas through the window. At a certain moment, Judas looked back to the upper window of that house. During that time, suddenly there was a certain “transfer of being” in which Jesus’ body were occupied by Judas’ soul and the vice versa. And the story continued according to the bible we know today.

Thank you swariffin, that is helpful. I can only conclude that Muhammed used Matt 27:46 to discredit the idea that Jesus died and was resurrected. (or was divine)

Was Muhammed using our Gospels for reference?
If he was, he certainly forgot to read the resurrection story.

The whole idea of Jesus not being divine sounds more gnostic to me. Is that what Barnabas is?

 

[hamba2han]

The whole idea of Jesus not being divine sounds more gnostic to me. Is that what Barnabas is?

What is the name of this “other gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in these verses from the Bible?

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

Let us examine historical evidence in order to determine the answer to this question.

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

The Epistle to the Galatians was not written before 54 to 58 CE and considering that no other gospel was in existence at this time and since it is also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians.

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

 

[Montalban]

What is the name of this “other gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in these verses from the Bible?

Gospel means the *teachings of *Jesus and it doesn’t mean it has to be written down.
Thus…
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It comes from the term good news (in Greek)

As to Barnabas, the ‘widely believed’ means amongst Moslems. You’re probably confused here between the so-called *Gospel of Barnabas *and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (here)

*The Gospel of Barnabas *is a known fake, clearly shown by the many geographical and other mistakes in it - that is, clearly showing that the author had little idea about the area he was writing about.

Thus the warning is not necessarily about a written Gospel

Secondly there’s no dating evidence that shows the so-called Barnabas Gospel was written BEFORE Paul. You’ve not presented any yourself -just your hunch… based as it is on several false assumptions

 

[hamba2han]

Gospel means the *teachings of *Jesus and it doesn’t mean it has to be written down.
Thus…
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It comes from the term good news (in Greek)

As to Barnabas, the ‘widely believed’ means amongst Moslems. You’re probably confused here between the so-called *Gospel of Barnabas *and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (here)

*The Gospel of Barnabas *is a known fake, clearly shown by the many geographical and other mistakes in it - that is, clearly showing that the author had little idea about the area he was writing about.

Thus the warning is not necessarily about a written Gospel

Secondly there’s no dating evidence that shows the so-called Barnabas Gospel was written BEFORE Paul. You’ve not presented any yourself -just your hunch… based as it is on several false assumptions

Since Paul was writing a letter to the Galatians and naming it ‘Epistle to the Galatians’, then for what reason should he clearly call the Epistle of Barnabas a gospel again and again in the verses of his Epistle to the Galatians?

A gospel is NOT an epistle and Paul of all people would certainly know this difference and he would surely not call an epistle as the “other gospel” repeatedly.

And why do Christians believe that Paul’s gospel as being true and that the "other gospel’ that he warned about to be not true?

Well… because Paul said so.

 

[dessert]

Since Paul was writing a letter to the Galatians and naming it ‘Epistle to the Galatians’, then for what reason should he clearly call the Epistle of Barnabas a gospel again and again in the verses of his Epistle to the Galatians?

A gospel is NOT an epistle and Paul of all people would certainly know this difference and he would surely not call an epistle as the “other gospel” **(Ever since Adam man has had this flaw to turn his ear away from God)**repeatedly.

And why do Christians believe that Paul’s gospel (**Because he preached Christ)**as being true and that the "other gospel’ other than Christthat he warned about to be not true?

Well… because Paul said so.

There is only one gospel, that of Jesus Christ crucified, died and was buried, rose again and ascended into heaven.
Any other gospel is a false gospel, this is what he warned about.
Mark (Mark 1; 1)said so and Luke said so Matthew said so and Peter said so and John said so and sent Paul out as an evangelist to say so, and start churches, and so the books of the NT.

Mark 4; 14-15
" The sower sows the word and thses are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts."

D.

 

[ryanoneil]

also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians.

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

Thanks for posting hamba2han. I’m really no biblical scholar, so maybe you, or someone else, could answer these questions for me. I remember Paul and Barnabas traveling and preaching together throughout Acts.

1 Were they preaching the same message while together?
( I would guess yes)

2 Does it say when/why they parted in the Bible?

3 If the answer to 1 is yes, who’s message changed?

Thank You

 

[Montalban]

Since Paul was writing a letter to the Galatians and naming it ‘Epistle to the Galatians’, then for what reason should he clearly call the Epistle of Barnabas a gospel again and again in the verses of his Epistle to the Galatians?

He didn’t name it the Epistle to the Galatians. He wrote a letter to the Galatians which we call “The Letter of Paul to the Galatians”

I noted that the ‘earlier’ Gospel was probably that not written down -but spoken - but that gets in the way of your theory, so instead of addressing it, you make up some weird thing about who named what what.

A gospel is NOT an epistle

An Epistle can be a gospel. An Epistle simply means ‘letter’. Gospel means ‘message’. A letter can be a message.

and Paul of all people would certainly know this difference and he would surely not call an epistle as the “other gospel” repeatedly.

Obviously you’re not reading what’s written by me

And why do Christians believe that Paul’s gospel as being true and that the "other gospel’ that he warned about to be not true?

Because that ‘other’ gospel disagrees with what Christ taught.

Well… because Paul said so.

No. The message was know to all 12 Apostles. If Paul went around teaching something contrary he’d have been rebuked.

Simon Magus went around trying to teach a false message, and was rebuked.

But you’re happy in confusion about what’s called what.

 

[swariffin]

Thank you Montalban, for your comments. I would like to add two things. First, a gospel is a “message”, but by the standard I heard from a Catholic Priest, a “gospel” is called a gospel if it covers the entire life of Jesus from the beginning (not necessarily means humanly birth), untill Jesus either resurrected or ascended into heaven. Other “gospels” such as Barnabas, Magdalene, Thomas, or even Pilate gospel (yes there is), do not tell the entire life of Jesus. I have not read them all, but I know some quotations. Also, in accordance to Christian teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, and some Christian denominations), all gospels, infact all Christian writings such as Pauline letters, must meet the Apostle’s Creed criteria.

Second, regarding who quoting what, it is not necessarily true that a later writing is more right to the previous one. In fact, the later must be justified against the previous one. If I take an example, supposed an archeologist 1000 years from now discovers the “Satanic Verses” written by Salman Rusdhie. Can he make a conclusion that Rusdhie’s writting is more correct compared to Quran in describing Islam? because it is written after the Quran? Can not be that way, am I right?

 

[Montalban]

Thank you Montalban, for your comments. I would like to add two things. First, a gospel is a “message”, but by the standard I heard from a Catholic Priest, a “gospel” is called a gospel if it covers the entire life of Jesus from the beginning (not necessarily means humanly birth), untill Jesus either resurrected or ascended into heaven. Other “gospels” such as Barnabas, Magdalene, Thomas, or even Pilate gospel (yes there is), do not tell the entire life of Jesus. I have not read them all, but I know some quotations. Also, in accordance to Christian teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, and some Christian denominations), all gospels, infact all Christian writings such as Pauline letters, must meet the Apostle’s Creed criteria.

Second, regarding who quoting what, it is not necessarily true that a later writing is more right to the previous one. In fact, the later must be justified against the previous one. If I take an example, supposed an archeologist 1000 years from now discovers the “Satanic Verses” written by Salman Rusdhie. Can he make a conclusion that Rusdhie’s writting is more correct compared to Quran in describing Islam? because it is written after the Quran? Can not be that way, am I right?

The problem with the so-called Gospel of Barabas is it’s a clear fake - mistakes in geography alone show that the author hadn’t any idea about what he was talking about.
* 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).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_barnabas#Prediction_of_Muhammad

Reading further, it is a pointer to Muhammed, so it’s a Moslem fake.
“Jesus answered: The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.' Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: O God, send us thy messenger: O Admirable One, come quickly for the salvation of the world!’” Barnabas 97:9-10