-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
DailyMail: A new discovered bible.
- Thread starter mohammed_beiruti
- Start date
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This article is very misleading. From what I have seen, it isn't a Bible that was discovered. Instead, it was probably copy of the Gospel of Barnabas.
Now, if it does deny the crucifixion, then it is really of no use in historical Jesus research. And it it mentions Muhammad, there is no way it was from the time it is being said to have come from.
The main thing though is that this is not a Bible.
Now, if it does deny the crucifixion, then it is really of no use in historical Jesus research. And it it mentions Muhammad, there is no way it was from the time it is being said to have come from.
The main thing though is that this is not a Bible.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I would say deliberately deceptive and sensationalist.
The tip-off is that if you look very closely, my picture is in it.
The caption says something about "end of days".
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
The Daily Mail is nearly useful for one thing. But it's too scratchy.
It never bothered my parakeets.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
As much as I disagree with fallingblood's analysis that it cannot be authentic simply because it denies Christian dogma, I will agree that it's nothing of religious significance. First, the source. Daily Mail? Does anyone really take them seriously? Second, the Gospel of Barnabas was written in the 16th century. There's no way that it dates any sooner than that. This was a time when there was a lot of debate between Christians and Muslims. Third, I always found it odd that Muslims would even accept the gospel of Barnabas, seeing as how it teaches things that Muslims wouldn't even agree with, like Mohammed, and not Jesus, being the Messiah, when the Qur'an is clear that it's Jesus that is the Messiah.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
... and, perhaps, lucrative. :yes:
There are already gnostic type books out there that go against mainstream christianity. A book of Barnabas surfacing that denies christian dogma isn't a surprise. It is also no surprise that the book doesn't date far back enough and a valid source can't be authenticated. The book being gold lettered is pretty cool though, snazzy.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
If its not another "Gospel of Barnabas" which muslims seem to keep getting mixed up with the 'Epistle of Barnabas" and fail to recognize scholarship which has shown that its a fraud from the late 16th century, then its just another of its kind. 
'd at the link somewhere in the middle that says Dawkins is "actually an agnostic."
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Lol @ Dawkins being agnostic. They must have their Dawkins's mixed up.
No, they had their terminology simply wrong. They considered Dawkins making the comment that he can't absolutely know there is no god to be indicative of being an agnostic, as if he somehow wouldn't be an atheist.
It just goes back to the widespread semantic issues behind the word. I'm so tired of it that I've just started calling myself a non-theist sometimes to spare myself the 5 minutes of explanation it always takes to people who are unfamiliar with the philosophical (as opposed to layperson) use of the terms.
I don't know whether or not he's an agnostic in the Huxley sense; but I was facepalming because the article implied that agnosticism is mutually exclusive with atheism.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Not because it is 500 years after Jesus was alive. If it was a Bible, from 500 years after Jesus was alive, it would be immensely useful. It would be a huge find simply because it would give us earlier manuscripts.
If it proves to be a gospel or the like from 500 years after the time Jesus was alive, it would be useful in showing what Christians believed during that time (as well as earlier, as it would probably be a copy of an earlier work).
So not really worthless. Just most likely worthless when it comes to historical Jesus research.
Wakeup
Reject Superstition
In "The God Delusion" I remember reading he gave himself a 9.5 out of 10 on a scale where 1 there may be a god, and 10 there is 100% no god...in so many words
