The "gospel" of Barnabas

[pianistclare]

Faith:

You say you are terrified of something trying to derail your faith, yet you continually seek out these things that you perceive are “problems” with the Church.

Just stop it. You are permitting the prince of LIES to mess with your head.
If I were you, I would be far more terrified of THAT.

YOU are the one looking for this nonsense.
Only YOU can stop it, through the sincere and direct dialog with your confessor.

Listen to him. He said it was a fake. Why in the world would he lie to you?
And why would the Church falsify its’ documents? Just to confound you?
What’s in it for the Church?
Common sense, Faith. If you have no faith, at the very least, use common sense .

The internet is not a place where you will see much that will help you.
Stop going to sites that are not pre-approved by your confessor.
Ask him for resources and use them **only. **

Don’t let the evil one invade your life. Don’t do it.
What is the devil’s sole purpose?
TO REMOVE YOU FROM THE FACE OF GOD.
TO HURT YOU, TO HURT GOD.
TO CONFUSE AND CONFOUND UNTIL YOU HAVE NOTHING LEFT IN YOUR SOUL.

I’m using caps because it’s THAT IMPORTANT.
PLEASE.

Make this a resolution.
Turn toward Christ, and away from untruths.

I hope you have a renewal of faith at Easter. I really do

peace

 

[porthos11]

I don’t know. I have OCD and my faith is SO important to me and I’m terrified something will take it away from me.

Having said that, I don’t want this to derail the thread.

Then I’m going to warn you.

You’re in danger of incurring sin, specifically against the First Commandment.

The First Commandment prohibits the reading of material that is dangerous to one’s faith. Since you admit to having OCD, and that this shakes you, and since it doesn’t take much smarts to see your posting pattern, this prohibition clearly applies to you.

Therefore, for the sake of your soul, stay away from this material. It is more than likely sinful for YOU to do so.

You’ve been warned.

 

[Faith1960]

Then I’m going to warn you.

You’re in danger of incurring sin, specifically against the First Commandment.

The First Commandment prohibits the reading of material that is dangerous to one’s faith. Since you admit to having OCD, and that this shakes you, and since it doesn’t take much smarts to see your posting pattern, this prohibition clearly applies to you.

Therefore, for the sake of your soul, stay away from this material. It is more than likely sinful for YOU to do so.

You’ve been warned.

Let’s get back on track, and discuss if and why this is a fake. K?

 

[porthos11]

Let’s get back on track, and discuss if and why this is a fake. K?

Actually, in light of what I just said, it’s probably a good idea to let this die right here, right now, for your own sake.

And that no further questions like these from you, for your own sake, be entertained in the future.

 

[coco2]

There are many other books and “gospels” that were not chosen to be a part of the Bible and other ones found at a later date than when the books of the Bible were chosen. So, they are interesting to read,but keep in mind they are not part of Holy Scripture. If you have scruples and cannot tell the difference or will worry about whether that book should have been in the Bible, then don’t read it. If you can easily think of as an historical artifact, but not part of Holy Scripture, then go ahead and read it. I personally, like to read them so if someone starts talking about it, I can talk with them and tell them why it isn’t part of Holy Scripture (usually there are some very different things in these accounts, not found in any of the other Gospels, for example, the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[coco2]

Check out what Crusaderbear posted. Good info there. Anything saying Mohammad was more important than Christ came from a Muslim, no doubt about it, since they believe Christ was a prophet, but not THE prophet. Anything written by Barnabas or someone under the tutelage of Barnabas would be writing that Christ is the Savior, and not even mentioning Mohammed.

 

[coco2]

There are many other books and “gospels” that were not chosen to be a part of the Bible and other ones found at a later date than when the books of the Bible were chosen. So, they are interesting to read,but keep in mind they are not part of Holy Scripture. If you have scruples and cannot tell the difference or will worry about whether that book should have been in the Bible, then don’t read it. If you can easily think of as an historical artifact, but not part of Holy Scripture, then go ahead and read it. I personally, like to read them so if someone starts talking about it, I can talk with them and tell them why it isn’t part of Holy Scripture (usually there are some very different things in these accounts, not found in any of the other Gospels, for example, the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[jlhargus]

Last night I accidentally stumbled on a website which led to reading MANY websites about the “gospel” of Barnabas, found in the year 2000. I’ll try to link some sites later but don’t know how to do it on my phone.

My priest, who’d never heard of it before said it was fake. I’d like some more help with this. I don’t want it to crumble my faith.

Is it fake? How do we know?

We know its fake without a doubt because, one it was not even mentioned as being considered for canonization when the canon was formed. Two it disagrees with the known infallibly recognized books of the bible. That alone is enough evidence its fake.

Which would you prefer? Remove the books now in the bible that are in disagreement with it. Replacing them with this so called gospel of Barnabas. What early father even mentioned it? Common sense should tell you what the Church has preached for two thousand years is the inspired canon otherwise how do we know any book is inspired?

Is the Vatican concerned about it like the articles say?

What possible reason would the Vatican have to be concerned?

 

[Faith1960]

Try this for info on why its fake:

bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm

Offered as a possible source, I don’t have the theological background to say. But it seems every bit as valid as your initial offered reference.

I read in an article that carbon dating confirms that this “bible” is at least 1500 years old. Your link says it was written in medieval times. Does at least 1500 years old fit the medieval timeline?

 

[Faith1960]

Try this for info on why its fake:

bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm

Offered as a possible source, I don’t have the theological background to say. But it seems every bit as valid as your initial offered reference.

I read in an artical that carbon dating confirms that this “bible” is at least 1500 years old. Your link says it was written in medieval times. Does at least 1500 years old fit the medieval timeline?

 

[Faith1960]

I read only one or two articles that said carbon dating has been done. Has it?

 

[pablope]

Let’s get back on track, and discuss if and why this is a fake. K?

It is a fake since the G of B mentions the name of Muhammad…this is a giveaway that it is fake…since Muhammad and the muslim faith did not appear till about 600 AD or so…

Most suspicious of course, is any mentioning of the name of Muhammad. (In Chapters 44, 54, 112, 97 and 163, etc.) It is particularly suspicious, since all the other evidence points to the fact that the whole of the G.o.B is a Medieval forgery. But other Islamic thought is also reflected in the G.o.B.
In Chapter 54, the Italian text mentions a denarius, which is made up of 60 minuti. These gold coins were used only in Spain under Khalif Abdul Malik (in 685 A.D.)

Enough said…Faith1960…these two reasons are enough to say without a doubt that is is a fake…

 

[Faith1960]

When I’m talking about the G o B, I mean the “secret bible” containing the G o B.

 

[Faith1960]

It is a fake since the G of B mentions the name of Muhammad…this is a giveaway that it is fake…since Muhammad and the muslim faith did not appear till about 600 AD or so…

Most suspicious of course, is any mentioning of the name of Muhammad. (In Chapters 44, 54, 112, 97 and 163, etc.) It is particularly suspicious, since all the other evidence points to the fact that the whole of the G.o.B is a Medieval forgery. But other Islamic thought is also reflected in the G.o.B.
In Chapter 54, the Italian text mentions a denarius, which is made up of 60 minuti. These gold coins were used only in Spain under Khalif Abdul Malik (in 685 A.D.)

Enough said…Faith1960…these two reasons are enough to say without a doubt that is is a fake…

Does anyone know if this “bible” was carbon dated? Out of the tons of articles I read on this subject, I read only two which suggested it was. They said it was approx. 1500 years old. Other articles said it could be 1500 - 2000 years old, which would put it at the time of Christ.

 

[thistle]

Does anyone know if this “bible” was carbon dated? Out of the tons of articles I read on this subject, I read only two which suggested it was. They said it was approx. 1500 years old. Other articles said it could be 1500 - 2000 years old, which would put it at the time of Christ.

Why won’t you accept what everyone is telling you. Its a fake!! Ignore it and move on.

 

[Faith1960]

Why won’t you accept what everyone is telling you. Its a fake!! Ignore it and move on.

I wonder how many people chiming in have done any research on this vs just dismissing it out of hand?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I read only one or two articles that said carbon dating has been done. Has it?

Research C 14 dating for paper or whatever material this writing is in.

Questions to ask,

Would carbon dating be possible
How accurate would it be
What then , would be the error in years, in this dating method
What contamination is posdible
How would that contamination effect the dating procedure and results.

 

[porthos11]

I wonder how many people chiming in have done any research on this vs just dismissing it out of hand?

Look, if YOU want the answer so badly, why are you imposing the burden of research on other people? Other people rightly dismiss it out of hand because it’s not worth their time and energy. If it’s worth yours, then you do the legwork.

Why don’t YOU do the research then share it?

 

[Faith1960]

Look, if YOU want the answer so badly, why are you imposing the burden of research on other people? Other people rightly dismiss it out of hand because it’s not worth their time and energy. If it’s worth yours, then you do the legwork.

Why don’t YOU do the research then share it?

You’ve GOT to be KIDDING. I have.

 

[porthos11]

You’ve GOT to be KIDDING. I have.

And? Why then is the question being asked in the first place if you indeed have? You shouldn’t then have to ask “Is it fake?” because if you REALLY had, you would have come to a conclusion.

If you indeed have, you would already have the answers and not demanding other people do their research too.