http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ammad-unearthed-Turkey.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Now, I realize many of you will say its a fake, and it could be, but what if it isn't? How would this change both the Islamic and Christian faiths, even the Jewish faith? This Bible names the Prophet SAW, by name, Muhammad. So, if it is true, it doesn't get more clearer than that. And of course, the ones who always call Muhammad SAW a "false Prophet", especially the Christians, well this would be too great. The Vatican wants to see it, if it suddenly dissapears that probably means it was real, right?
John 14:20 in that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you; 25`These things I have spoken to you, remaining with you, 26 and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you 27`Peace I leave to you; my peace I give to you, not according as the world doth give do I give to you; let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid; 28 ye heard that I said to you -- I go away, and I come unto you; if ye did love me, ye would have rejoiced that I said -- I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I. 29`And now I have said [it] to you before it come to pass, that when it may come to pass, ye may believe; 30 I will no more talk much with you, for the ruler of this world doth come, and in me he hath nothing He wasnt talking about Muhammad. he was talking about..... Rev 22:4 and they shall see His face, and His name [is] upon their foreheads, 5 and night shall not be there, and they have no need of a lamp and light of a sun, because the ....{blank}......doth give them light, and they shall reign -- to the ages of the ages. Only one with the 'name upon the head'................ boo
Well authentic is not the issue. Humans are the issue and we see with Christians, Jews and Muslims that the majority bend faith to their will.
Where do we see that? If it is proven to be authentic, regardless of what the Pope or anybody tries to do, it will have a very interesting impact on the two faiths and since the majority of the world practices them, it will change the world.
If it were not so there would be no Sunni or Shiite Muslim and no Catholic or protestant or Orthodox (Greek or Russian). No sub sects within each; such as the Episcopalian or Baptist. The world at large accepts that there is a God but we seem to want him to be what we want and not what he wants us to be.
Most all of christianity know that 'another' is coming. Heck, the jewish folk, already know that jesus was not 'the' guy (messiah, per se). And EVERYONE knows that muhammad was not that HIM. Your thread is not rendering that muhammad is the one to bring 'world peace' or the revealing. it is a thread rendering that jesus 'said' (per se) that another is coming and anyone can see that in the bible already but the wingnuts have changed the concepts of jesus teachings to mean that jesus himself is 'coming back' (returning).
Who's everyone? This Gospel apparently names the man, Muhammed, and also describes him as an Ishmaelite (Arab).
'said to be, thought to be, no one has seen it, unlikely'. you're making me laugh. and secondly it's not even a new find. Someone just wanting to manipulate huimanity. Here: The gospel of Barnabas, however, has absolutely no apostolic support and was written 1400 years after the time of Barnabas. This is evidenced by the fact that it was never quoted by any church father or church historian before the 16th century! By contrast, the books of the New Testament were all written early (before A.D. 100) and by eyewitnesses, or by those who interviewed the eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus (1 John 1:1-5; Luke 1:1-4). The four Gospels found in the New Testament were never questioned as to their authenticity. Even had the gospel of Barnabas been written during the time of the Apostles, it still would have never attained canonical status due to the historical and doctrinal errors it contains. For example, the gospel of Barnabas purports that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah (see Matthew 26:63-64). The gospel of Barnabas also says that Jesus was born when Pilate was governor (but history records Pilate becoming governor in A.D. 26 or 27). Furthermore, the gospel of Barnabas keeps some strange company, for it’s a favorite among Muslims as it teaches a Jesus consistent with the Koran. The gospel of Barnabas claims that Jesus did not die on the cross, as does the Koran in Sura 4:157. Historians are unanimous that the gospel of Barnabas was written in the 15th-16th century A.D., most likely by Muslims seeking to discredit the Biblical message regarding Jesus. just as a note: There is an epistle of barnabas and the gospel of barnabas. Two different things.
There is NO mention of Muhammed in Scripture.. and the Gospel of Barnabas is called the Muslim Gospel. Further, yu can read about Barnabas in the Bible. in the Book of Acts I believe. This is probably a fake, OJLeb.
OJLeb: The Gospel of Barnabas is full of anachronisms and the directions and locations are all wrong.. as if the writer had NEVER set foot in Palestine.
I think it is important to acknowledge what the new testament canon is. They are the collected works that most accurately describe the life and teachings of Jesus. There are other gospels, but, for a variety of reasons, they were deemed inauthentic, these are the gnostic and heretical gospels. These are not secret, but no one treats them as anything other than a curiosity.
Well, that would seem to be indicative of: A. That the message is inauthentic. B. That it is not a secret.
If the gospels were written some 70 yrs after jesus died, how are they from eyewitnesses? Many of those witnesses would be dead
The numbers I have seen were 50 years after the crucifixion.. and let's assume that the Disciples were young, unmarried men..
Most were written within 50 years of the crucifixion. Some within 30 to 35. The book of the Revelation of John was considered the last one written around 70 years after the crucifixion.
But Jesus or any of the versions of any of them books, still does not make muhammad the 'name' holder. I like the idea of reading that muhammad could have been predicted as well that jesus was not 'christ' like he charged in Matt 16 but the world aint gonna change because of that. Really think about it, would you want a bunch of irresponsible pigs now claiming they are muslims? Could you imagine evangelical muslims? i have read quran and as much as i like personal responsibility, give yourself a break............ islam aint the last word!
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Sorry, prophets are judged by that, and MoHamMad failed misserably. Any prophecy that is too specific is false on its face, as anyone could adapt to fit or be groomed to fit. Just because Obama was thought to be a Muslim named Barry, decided at the Million Man March of his buddy Nation of Islam Louis Farakhan do get into politics, and The Great Seal of Obamaland fits with Obamanation, does not make him the Obamanation of Desolation, thereby fitting with Black Stone Idolaters talking to rocks and trees to find Joos to kill for judgment day. Simply put a person who is groomed to fit a prophecy could exist: "In 1995, along with other prominent black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, Farrakhan helped lead the Million Man March on Washington. A second march, called the Millions More Movement, took place in 2005." http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 "The African-American Democrat is being groomed for national leadership. His speech at the Democratic convention, a homily on hard work, individual responsibility and the American dream, would have been well received at a Republican convention not so many years ago. But in 2004, Obama is passed off as a 'progressive' politician." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml If being groomed to fit can happen, it would not make it the true manifestation of prophecy. True prophecy has to be hard to interpret for a reason, otherwise someone could be groomed for it. We learned that in the Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa. Obama is not the Anti-Christ and MoHamMad was a false prophet. {period} The former will be proven, when the world does not come to an end, and the later is still waiting for your kind to understand the truth about what makes a prophet.
Still puts them around 70 yrs old. Highly unlikely they lived that long in that era. 50yrs old was pushing it.
that would make the inquisitions, hitler, and ted haggard as the proof that christianity is a 'corrupt tree' likewise, the concentration camp (gaza) and the last 70yrs of zionist terrorism, is evidence of a 'corrupt tree' Sorry, prophets are judged by that..., Any prophecy that is too specific is false on its face, as anyone could adapt to fit or be groomed to fit. .., thereby fitting people with crosses, talking to gods and angels to find Joos to kill for judgment day, like the crusaders and hitler did are all wrong but the prick that can enable mankind to comprehend what life itself is and has the 'name' of existence itself (god), could be the only idiot that fits the prophecies of all the religions but if the idiot himself figured out what makes the 'last word' to all arguments as being in fact the 'name of god' then it makes sense that it is so unique!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ Jesus is somewhere between 30-40 when he is cruxified. The Passion narrative comes out within years of his death, and the majority of the gospels are written within a few decades after the cruxification of Jesus. Indeed, the life span of Paul dies in 67AD, and the Pauline Epistles, his letters cannot have been written after his death. These are simple facts.
