May 24, 2012

"The discovery of the original Barnabas Bible will now undermine the Christian Church and its authority and will revolutionize the religion in the world."

"The most significant fact, though, is that this Bible has predicted the coming of Prophet Mohammad and in itself has verified the religion of Islam, and this alone will unbalance the powers of the world and create instability in the Christian world."

So reports Iran's Basji Press, referring to a leather-bound text, written on animal hide, confiscated by Turkish authorities in 2000.

57 comments:

edutcher said...

She's a Birther!!! She's linking to WND!!!!

PS Since no Christian sect follows the Gospel of Barnabas, the Dinner Jacket and the rest of the crazies can claim anything they want.

jimspice said...

Yes, the impeccable logic that God would have not allowed a legitimate book to be excluded makes this impossible.

Maguro said...

Is this some kind of cult that worships Buddy Ebsen?

Michael K said...

They never give up. The recent books suggesting that Mohammed never lived couldn't possibly have anything to do with this.

And Elizabeth Warren is an Indian princess.

Brent said...

yawn

(smack, smack)

(lick lips slowly all the way around. Twice.)

Yawn, this time really long and loud.

Stretch arms overhead.

Scratch side just under arm pit.

Smack lips twice more.




Now, what were we talking ab . . .

Oh Yeah.


yawn,

chickelit said...

Is this some kind of cult that worships Buddy Ebsen?

It could also all just be battlespace preparation for the remake of Barnabas Collins

Darrell said...

And since it's printed on a
LaserWriter, it has to be believed.

Paddy O said...

Well, the Catholics aren't worried. Constantine wrote a document that gives all of Rome and much of Western Europe to the Church, so there will always be a Christian holdout against such incontrovertible proof.

Rob said...

Thanks, Iran, but the Christian Church doesn't need your help to undermine its authority. It's been doing a good job of that all by itself.

kimsch said...

Buddy Ebsen was Barnaby Jones, Jonathan Frid was Barnabas Collins. Oh, and also Johnny Depp more recently.

wv: pupdanc sectarr

traditionalguy said...

Barnabas was a Jewish companion who took in Saul of Tarsus in Syran Antioch and vouched for him later in Jerusalem.
That all happened by 50 AD. Barnabas was not around to write a Gospel500 years later.

This is the Standard Issue Moslem story which is that 1) Jesus was not the son of God( God has no need of a son,) and 2) Jesus was a major prophet born of a virgin, but He was taken down alive off of the cross...so there was no death and ressurrection atonement, and 3) Mohammed's angel speaking to him in a cave about 580 was the last revelation, and therefore the people of the book (Jews and Christians) must either pay a tax or convert. AND any Bible possessed by or religious speech made by a Christian is blasphemy from a mind that must be beheaded without mercy. This is so Mohammed's insane religion that causes only misery and legalism is not laughed at.

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse can link to WND if she wants to, but not me. (With friends like WND, who needs enemies? Way too close to the black-helicopter fringe for my taste.)

Amartel said...

To quote from the Gospel of The Church Lady,
Well, then, isn't that special. How convenient. We like ourselves, don't we?

Andy Freeman said...

The virgin stuff is complicated.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/virgin/index.htm

"Mary is like Christ in all things except His Divinity."

"Since Christ has a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth, Mary must also have a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth."

However, Mary had an older sister, so her virgin birth is different.

(1) Christ is Divine, whereas Mary is merely human. Thus, Christ's conception was an Incarnation, whereas Mary's conception was not an Incarnation.
(2) Mary was conceived, virginally and miraculously, of both her parents (St. Joachim and St. Ann). Christ was conceived, virginally and miraculously, of only one human parent (the Virgin Mary). This difference indicates that Christ is Divine, with God alone as His Father, whereas Mary is merely human.
(3) Christ was conceived, virginally and miraculously, of a perfect Virgin. Mary was conceived, virginally and miraculously, of Joachim and Ann, who were not virgins. Joachim and Ann conceived a child years earlier, the older sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25).

Bob Ellison said...

Maguro, if you want to win the thread, you've got to be a little bit more pop. Throw some J-Lo in there; pretend to be anti-Islam or something.

MnMark said...

Way too close to the black-helicopter fringe for my taste.)

Once when I was driving by myself in Wyoming in a remote area with nothing but occasional oil derricks and slightly rolling landscape, a black helicopter came up from behind a rise about a half mile away, hovered and turned towards me, then slowly went down out of sight behind the rise. This was barren land - I don't know where it came from or where it went to. It was a matte black evil-looking thing.

Since then I've never thought the black helicopter thing was that crazy.

William said...

That part that contains a biblical injunction against Mormonism makes me doubt its provenance.

Don Singleton said...

See don.donsingleton.org/?p=54

Lyle said...

Ha.

commoncents said...

43 Catholic Organizations bring lawsuit against Obamacare. 19 seconds of Press Coverage

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/05/43-catholic-organizations-lawsuit.html

Carl Vero said...

I'm waiting for the White House website to publish the text foretelling the coming (or at least the leaving) of Obama; until then I'll presume it's a fake.

Quaestor said...

Why all this hubbub about a pseudepigraph apparently written by a vampire?

Here's my hagiography of St. Barnabas.

Simon said...

I can see how this could be a difficult for those Protestants who scrupulously avoid thinking about whence the Biblical canon--and thus "the Bible" as a unity--came. Catholics, Orthodox, and protestants who haven't been afraid to confront the central question posed by the central tenet of their difference with Rome will shrug and continue as per normal.

frank said...

The White House recently released the 'Story of Julia'. She gave virgin birth to a child named BO. Bo, a mere child, mutiplied the loaves and fishes while turning water into wine thus providing for the least amongst us by taking from the money changers in the Temple on Wall Street. This is as it is written by the teachers at the place of knowledge and learning who chase butterfly farts in MADTOWN.

Pogo said...

Islam was created to assign the "chosen people" from the Jews or Christians to the Arabs. Their hatred of the world stems from this lie. It does not hold up to scrutiny, and this causes a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A. Shmendrik said...

I didn't even know it was lost!

Bender said...

Um, Andy?

No. Not even close.

Having respect and devotion for Mary is to be commended, but non sequiturs are not.

paul a'barge said...

Mohammed is a fiction.

gadfly said...

Obviously the translating of the Barnabas Gospel was incorrect. It did not say that "Allah was the only God and Muhammad was his profit."

Since St. Barnabas assumed room temperature in 61 AD and Muhammad finally kicked the bucket in 632 AD, we have an authorship problem.

That leather-bound leather also needs to carbon-14 dated. What i really suspect is that the Iranians had a little problem with their French translation.

caplight45 said...

I read Bar-na-bas
Now I'm a believer!
There's not a trace
Of doubt in my mind.

It's not a crock.
I'm a believer.
Couldn't deceive me
If you tried.

David said...

The Muslims have been beating this horse for over 100 years. Spanish and Italian copies of this "gospel" have been around since the 1400's. They are the earliest known versions of the book. Since Barnabas died in Cyprus in the first century after Christ, these books (which deny the divinity of Christ and in some versions name Mohammed) are not useful unless they can be shown to have been written shortly after the time of Christ. There has been no such evidence to date, so apparently the Iranians are claiming that this new book somehow proves that Barnabas really wrote this gospel near the time of Christ and well before Mohammed.)

The first comprehensive English translation of the book was done in the early 20th century. Muslims have been claiming that the Gospel of Barnabas destroys Christianity for hundreds of years and the claim has intensified since publication of the English version.

Somehow Christianity has survived this onslaught before, so the Christians can probably weather this storm too.

The Muslims, on the other hand, are sure they are on to something. They are always sure they are on to something.

Bruce Hayden said...

They never give up. The recent books suggesting that Mohammed never lived couldn't possibly have anything to do with this.

Possibly, but probably not. I think that the Iranians would be doing this regardless in their quest for Islamic world domination.

The more I hear about the book(s), the more I am interested in reading such. The argument seems to be that Islam was a religion developed by combining Judaism, Christianity, and the beliefs of pagan Arabian nomads to justify the conquest of much of the middle east - but that it was developed well after the start of that conquest and the death of their supposed prophet.

Robin said...

Lemme guess, the Iranians have photoshopped a bible to go with their photoshopped anti-ship missiles and their photoshopped ballistic missles ...

Mr. T. said...

The same thing was said about the death knell of Christianty almost a decade ago when the Davinci Code came out. And of course it...has anyone heard anything about Dan Brown lately?

Bruce Hayden said...

The virgin stuff is complicated.

This is where you lose most of the Protestants. One and a half passages from the accepted New Testament cannons are leveraged into an entire story about people who weren't even mentioned in the Bible.

Let me suggest that probably the biggest difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics (and, to some extent, Orthodox, etc.) is that the former limit themselves to the text of the generally accepted Old and New Testaments, while the Roman Catholics throw in "Sacred Traditions" as well as the revelations of people whom their Pontiff has sanctified. And, the latter two the Protestants pretty much find suspect.

And, yes, Marian worship pretty much falls into that category (and, if you want to get even more heretical - the most active Mary in the New Testament was Mary Magdalene, esp. given her prominence at Jesus' death and resurrection).

The Protestant position is essentially that the educated clergy of the Roman (and, Orthodox) Church led an essentially illiterate flock for some 1500 years, and modified Christianity as they wished, often to their own advantage in building and maintaining temporal power, by being the gatekeepers to the Sacred Scriptures. Only, with the introduction of a printed Bible, combined with much increased literacy allowing the laity to read such, were these excursions from original intent and scripture revealed.

Not to get into a theological debate - esp. since Protestants, Roman Catholics, etc. have far more in common, esp. when contrasted with the other great religions of the world, and, in this case, Islam. Whether or not Jesus' mother was technically a virgin when giving birth to him (or, from a Protestant view, the far more absurd notion that she remained so while giving birth to four more boys and at least two girls...) and that her mother was also a virgin, but not quite the same type, since she did have a subsequent child, is irrelevant really, when dealing with the claim in this article that Jesus was actually rescued from the Cross, and so the entire Crucifixion and Resurrection are, according to the authors, bogus.

And, I guess from their point of view, the denial of the Divinity of Jesus is essential to their religion. Christianity was inserted almost seamlessly into the Judaism of the time, to the extent that Jesus' lineage was laid out in one of the Gospels, and early non-Jewish Christians had to essentially go through a Jewish conversion, including circumcision. But belief in Islam implicitly requires a repudiation of the basic foundations of Christianity, and, importantly here, the opposite - if Christians are correct in their religious beliefs, then Muslims must be in error.

The Crack Emcee said...

"This Bible has predicted the coming of Prophet Mohammad and in itself has verified the religion of Islam, and this alone will unbalance the powers of the world and create instability in the Christian world."

I can't wait. Man, religious people are stupid,...

chickelit said...

Much earlier Persian thoughts on Christianity and comparative religion as related by Marco Polo link

JAL said...

Think we've been around this mountain before.

No there there.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

It's hard now to imagine the fierceness of the divisions in Christianity which occurred as adherents went about deciding on what it meant that Christ was both God and man. The tradition established by the emperor Constantine in a Synod in Nicea is basically what survives in the West; Armenians continue to have a different view, Copts also. Armies raised by the eastern emperor were fought over the issue leading to weakness on both or multiple Christian sides, some of which barely survive and have for centuries, think Iraq Christians, which made them vulnerable to Muslim armies. I understand that a a significant part of the Koran may be prayers of one of the sects as missionaries. I see intellectually the Muslims involved in the controversy with their battle cry, 'There is but one God and he is Allah.'

Synova said...

"Yes, the impeccable logic that God would have not allowed a legitimate book to be excluded makes this impossible."

I'm not sure if this was supposed to be sarcastic but... yes.

The notion that yet another "book" is out there that "says stuff" is hardly going to upset anyone at all.

The knowledge that Catholics have extra books hasn't shaken my Protestant self yet. Nor, for that matter, did the Mars meteorite and possible proof of life on Mars lead to a global spiritual crisis, as the TV talking-heads were finding theology "experts" to agonize over.

It doesn't work that way.

Bender said...

Fewer Protestants would be lost with respect to Mary if they knew what the hell they were talking about, and if they likewise knew what exactly it was that the Catholic Church teaches, rather than glorifying in their ignorance on the subject.

(And on the matter of sola scriptura, you do know that it is Sacred Tradition that determined exactly what is scripture and what is not scripture. That is, the Church decided what the Bible is, the Bible did not decide that for itself. And then Luther came along and he unilaterally decided for himself what was and was not scripture.)

PatCA said...

Dan Rather could not be reached for comment.

Freeman Hunt said...

Evidence from the article:

In the Barnabas text held by Turkey, chapter 41 states: “God has hidden himself as Archangel Michael ran them (Adam and Eve) out of heaven, (and) when Adam turned, he noticed that at top of the gateway to heaven, it was written ‘La elah ela Allah, Mohamad rasool Allah,’” meaning Allah is the only God and Muhammad his prophet.

Heh.

DEEBEE said...

Rodney Dangerfield Islamists?

damikesc said...

But, if you criticize Islam, they get angry.

It's funny watching such ignorant hypocristy in action.

This is so Mohammed's insane religion that causes only misery and legalism is not laughed at.

It was impressive how often God ruled on issues between Mohammad and others --- and how he sided with Mohammad every single time.

Seems to have less intellectual rigor behind it than Mormonism.

ddh said...

All this from a regime that believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Michael K said...

The Muslims have trouble with the fact that their "accomplishments" , the translation movement, mathematics, modern numbers, medicine, were all actually the work of Jewish or Greek "converts." Arabs were pretty limited to murder and mayhem.

Astro said...

Whenever I have an invaluable, ancient religious artifact, I always give it to the Turkish Army, for safekeeping.

Astro said...

@ Michael K -
Actually, there were some very good Arabic mathematicians who contributed a lot to the growth and understanding of mathematics (which has its roots in ancient Babylon, btw.) In particular they were largely responsible for the development of Algebra (an Arabic word).
There were some very good Arabic astronomers, too.

Don Singleton said...

Bruce Hayden: You are close to correct. In the verse of the Qur'an written in Mecca, Muhammad was trying to convince the Jewish and Christian tribes that their holy books predicted him appearing as a prophet, and we were all Children of the Book. He even set the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) to point to Jerusalem. They did not buy that, so when he moved to Medina and began raising an army to conquer Mecca and then the rest of the Arabian Peninsula he changed the Qibla to point to the Kabba in Mecca. The Kabba was still the central shrine of the Arab pagan religion, full of idols (even though Islam was extremely monotheistic).

In pre-Islamic Arabia the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah. Notice the moon symbol in many Islamic flags. The Muslims insist Allah never had a son. They are correct. Allah and the female sun goddess had three daughters, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.

Allah is just not the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

Don Singleton said...

If you want more info, click on the Qibla link above

Alan said...

Well heck, anybody can write a diatribe and call it a "gospel." A text whose origins can't be tracked isn't going to have a lot of influence.

Jim S. said...

There were plenty of Arabic translations of the Injil ("Gospel" but it usually refers to the entire New Testament) at the time of Muhammad. The Qur'an and the Hadith refer to the Gospel Muhammad had between his hands, which would seem to contradict the claim that he was illiterate. Why don't they just widely publish throughout the Middle East the New Testaments that were available at the time of Muhammad?

Not that it would do any good. The main Muslim argument against the New Testament is that it was changed after the time of Muhammad. Prior to this, they allege, it actually was consonant with the Qur'an. Yet there are hundreds of copies of the New Testament that predate Muhammad and virtually all the translations we have today are based on these early copies.

Jim S. said...

The Muslims have trouble with the fact that their "accomplishments" , the translation movement, mathematics, modern numbers, medicine, were all actually the work of Jewish or Greek "converts."

This is an extreme exaggeration. A lot of the earlier work in the Islamic era was done by Nestorian Christians or those who had been forced to convert, but there was plenty of genuine advances in philosophy, mathematics, science (natural philosophy, etc., done by Muslims. It's a complicated story that can't be written off so quickly.

Don Singleton said...

Jim S said "The main Muslim argument against the New Testament is that it was changed after the time of Muhammad. Prior to this, they allege, it actually was consonant with the Qur'an."

Then why did the Christian tribes not see that Muhammad was prophicied in their texts. And the Qur'an itself says the Bible is not corrupt (2:87, 3.3, 4:163, 5:46) and cannot be altered: 6:34, 6:115, 10:64.

"A lot of the earlier work in the Islamic era was done by Nestorian Christians or those who had been forced to convert, but there was plenty of genuine advances in philosophy, mathematics, science (natural philosophy, etc., done by Muslims."

True much was done be dhimmis (second class treatment of Jews and Christians under Islam) or those forced to convert, but even if some was done by Muslims it was mainly Muslims in the early days, before war became all they focused on.

Online Koran said...



its an informative and usefull information .if you want to know about quran.
http://www.learningquranonline.com/quran-tajweed.htm

Online Koran said...

How can I believe on this. learningquranonline