The Trinity is a Pagan Doctrine. |
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Author | |
Suleyman
Senior Member Joined: 10 March 2003 Location: Turkey Status: Offline Points: 3324 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dear Patty,i wonder what do you know about Barnabas and about His Gospel,if you will have any time to write i will eagerly wait to read...thx...
Edited by Suleyman |
|
Angela
Senior Member Joined: 11 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You know, I wonder about the Gospel of Barnabas and how it actually contradicts the Quran and has a number of other errors. Its suspect as much as any of the texts. But, Brother Suleyman, you and I have already discussed that one over IM. |
|
Suleyman
Senior Member Joined: 10 March 2003 Location: Turkey Status: Offline Points: 3324 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yep,it was an great honor
|
|
AnnieTwo
Senior Member Joined: 26 May 2006 Status: Offline Points: 281 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The 'gospel' you speak of is a 15th century forgery. Barnabas did not write it. It contradicts the Qur'an and the New Testament. Whoever wrote it didn't know much about Islam or Christianity, not to mention geography. Annie |
|
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4
|
|
Patty
Senior Member Joined: 14 September 2001 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2382 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dear Suleyman, I am responding to your questions regarding the Gospel of Barnabas. It is considered a medieval forgery in my Church. And it certainly shouldn't be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas. It actually contradicts Muslim beliefs and the Qu'ran. The Gospel of Barnabas (GB) is a well known late-medieval forgery (most likely 15th or 16th Century Spain) which purports to be a lost or suppressed gospel by the apostle Barnabas. Blessings to you. Edited by Patty |
|
Patty
I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future. |
|
Suleyman
Senior Member Joined: 10 March 2003 Location: Turkey Status: Offline Points: 3324 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you very much for your kind explanations Dear Patty,i have always appreciated your sincere concerns on to the board issues proving how can a satisfied soul should be with divine,i represent my best regards to you for your addings to the world peace,to your positive energy inspires us Jesus(a.s.) that some of our Muslim friends may take consider from your good examples as in behaviors, Dear Patty,i avoid to discuss on some of the issues with my absent English for not causing some misunderstandings.This is why i only read in the board or just make some fun with cute ones... If you have time to consider,i want to show some of the writings about Barnabas and about his Gospel.I have been reading the life of the last prophet from a three volume set written by Maulana Maududi,it is in Turkish and really give some good examples about Barnabas and his Gospel,i should find a English translation of his three volume set of the life of the last prophet for copying his writings about Barnabas but i can't bcs not available,Maulana Maududi is one of my favorite scholar who is also well known as the father of North American Muslims,he gave so much efforts for improving their knowledges,for example Jamal Badawi is from his school... Dear Patty here are some pages may be a example of the writings of Maulana Maududi,with your words above you have said it contradicts with qur'an but in some of the cases it is like from the mouth of Qur'an.Could you please analyze for me if you have time and will not mind. Best regards,Suleyman to be continued....
|
|
Suleyman
Senior Member Joined: 10 March 2003 Location: Turkey Status: Offline Points: 3324 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
GOSPEL OF BARNABAS/WIKIPEDIAAnalysisThis work bears strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahada (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet and not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor � miraculously transformed � was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs. Other passages however conflict with the text/teachings of the Qur'an; as for instance in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain; or as in Jesus's ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy. Narrative themes, and some highly distinctive phraseology, are shared with the Divine Comedy of Dante (Ragg). If (as most students surmise) the Gospel of Barnabas is seen as an attempted synthesis of elements from both Christianity and Islam, then sixteenth and seventeenth century parallels can be suggested in Morisco and anti-Trinitarian writings; but there are no known earlier precursors. The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text. [edit]
Religious themesThe Gospel of Barnabas was little known outside academic circles until recent times, when a number of Muslims have taken to publishing it in order to argue against the orthodox Christian conception of Jesus. It resonates better with existing Muslim views than with Christianity in several respects: it foretells the coming of Muhammad by name; rather than describing the crucifixion of Jesus, it describes him being raised up into heaven, similar to the description of Elijah in 2 Kings, Chapter 2; and it calls Jesus a "prophet" whose mission was restricted to the "house of Israel". However, it differs from Islamic conceptions in at least two important respects; it reports that Muhammad, not Jesus, was the Messiah, whereas the Qur'an and Hadith both describe Jesus as the Messiah, and no orthodox variety of Islam calls Muhammad the Messiah. In addition, it explictly denies the Islamic (and Christian) doctrines of God's absolute judgment and foreknowledge � in asserting that, in the matter of salvation: "Our God waits for man to be penitent" (Chapter 114); such that the souls of the wicked in Hell could nevertheless be saved at the end times, if they become converted to penitence (Chapter 113); whereas the righteous �even the saints and prophets� cannot be safe from the fear of damnation; as the possibility cannot be excluded that they might at some future time, through over-confidence in their own righteousness, fall into pride (Chapter 112). It contains an extended polemic against the doctrine of predestination (Chapter 164), and in favour of justification by faith; arguing that the eternal destination of the soul to Heaven or Hell is neither pre-determined by God's grace (as in Calvinism), nor the judgement of God, in his mercy, on the faith of believers on Earth (as in orthodox Islam). Instead it states that all those condemned at the last judgment, but who subsequently respond in faith, who demonstrate unfeigned penitence, and who make a free choice of blessedness, will eventually be offered salvation (Chapter 137). Only those whose persistent pride prevents them from sincere repentance will remain forever in Hell. Such radically Pelagian beliefs in the sixteenth century were found amongst the anti-Trinitarian Protestant traditions later denoted as Unitarianism. Some sixteenth century anti-Trinitarian divines sought to reconcile Christianity, Islam and Judaism; on the basis of very similar arguments to those presented in the Gospel of Barnabas, arguing that if salvation remains unresolved until the end times, then any one of the three religions could be a valid path to heaven for their own believers. The Spaniard, Michael Servetus denounced the orthodox Christian formulation of the Trinity (demonstrating the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament to be a later interpolation); and hoped thereby to bridge the doctrinal divide between Christianity and Islam. In 1553 he was executed in Geneva under the authority of John Calvin, but his teachings remained very influential amongst Italian Protestant exiles. In the late sixteenth century many anti-Trinitarians, persecuted both by Calvinists and by the Inquisition, sought refuge in Transylvania; then under Turkish overlordship and with close links to Istanbul. (Christopher J. Burchill:The Heidelberg Antitrinitarians Bibliotheca Dissidentium: vol XI, Baden-Baden 1989,308p). Included in chapter 145 is "The little book of Elijah"; which sets out instructions for a righteous life of ascetisim and eremetic spirituality. Over the succeeding 47 chapters, Jesus is recorded as developing the theme that the ancient prophets, specifically Obadiah, Haggai and Hosea, were holy hermits following this religious rule; and contrasting their followers - termed "true Pharisees" - with the "false Pharisees" who lived in the world, and who constituted his chief opponents. The "true Pharisees" are said to congregate on Mount Carmel. This accords with the teaching of the medieval Carmelites, who lived as an eremetic congregation on Carmel in the 13th century; but who claimed (without any evidence) to be direct successors of Elijah and the Old Testament prophets. In 1291 the Mamluk advance into Syria compelled the friars on Carmel to abandon their monastery; but on dispersing through Western Europe they found that Western Carmelite congregations - especially in Italy - had largely abandoned the eremetic and ascetic ideal, adopting instead the conventual life and mission of the other Mendicant orders. Some students consider that the ensuing 14th-16th century controversies can be found reflected in the text of the Gospel of Barnabas. The Gospel also takes a strongly anti-Pauline tone at times, saying in the Italian version's beginning: "many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived." [edit]
Prediction of MuhammadThe Gospel of Barnabas claims that Jesus predicted the advent of Muhammad, thus conforming with the Qur'an which mentions:
(Ahmad is another name of Muhammad.) More traditionally, Muslim scholars regard the New Testament's mentions of the Paraclete (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) as referring to Muhammad. The Greek word "paraclete" is translated "Counsellor" and refers to the Holy Spirit. This similar to the Greek "periklutos" which can be translated as "admirable one"; or in Arabic, "Ahmad". The name of "Muhammad" is frequently mentioned verbatim in the Gospel of Barnabas, as in the following quote:
However, while there are many passages where the Gospel of Barnabas sets out alternative readings to parallel pericopes found in the canonical gospels, none of the references to Muhammad by name occurs in such a synoptic passage; and in particular, none of the "Muhammad" references in Barnabas corresponds to a "Paraclete" reference in canonical John. There is only one instance where the Gospel of Barnabas might be understood as "correcting" a known canonical pericope, so as to record a prophecy by Jesus of the (unnamed) Messenger of God:
This passage corresponds closely with the canonical John 1:19-30, except that in that passage, the words are spoken by John the Baptist (in the Qur'an; Yahya ibn Zakariya) and refer to Jesus. [edit]
Muhammad as the MessiahAccording to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas:
and
As mentioned above, these pronouncements appear to contradict Islamic belief. However, the well-known Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat argues that, since "Messiah" merely means "anointed", it can be attributed to any prophet, and Jesus would have meant Muhammad was anointed by God. However, regarding messiah as synonymous with anointed is inconsistent with the complex connotations of messiah by the Jews of the first century. See Messiah. Messiah referred to an individual; two people could not both be the Messiah. The Messiah would be a Jewish leader, fighting with the Jews to restore them to a secure nation. Islam does not attribute any of this to Muhammad. If the author of the Gospel of Barnabas had experience in a Christian community, he would understand the meaning of messiah differently. In Christendom, it has taken the connotation of a prophecied ruler who saves believers from damnation. This description fits well with Muslims' view of Muhammad. (Note that Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a savior the way Christians believe Jesus to be; Muhammad reveals the Qur'an which allows Muslims to escape hell.) [edit]
Ishmaelite MessiahAccording to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming rather that the Messiah would be Ishmaelite (ie Arab):
Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:
According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was the "son" (descendant) of David; thus, Hajj Sayed argues that this statement confirms the Gospel of Barnabas' point. The idea of the Messiah as an Arab is also found in another chapter of Gospel of Barnabas:
Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad). [edit]
Jesus not God or Son of GodAccording to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification:
This conforms entirely with Muslim belief, according to which Jesus is a prophet and will come back to earth in the future and declare to the world that he is "a Servant of God". According to Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki in his audio lessons Lives of the Prophets, the first thing that prophet Jesus said when he was in the cradle "I am a servant of God", and the first thing that Jesus will say when he will come back to earth will be the same "I am a servant of God". According to the Qur'an:
[edit]
Paul and BarnabasHajj Sayed argues that Galatians's description of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas supports the idea that the Gospel of Barnabas existed at the time of Paul. Blackhirst has suggested, by contrast, that Galatian's account of this argument could be the reason the gospel's writer attributed it to Barnabas.[5] Paul writes in (Galatians Chapter 2):
Paul was attacking Peter and Barnabas for "trying to satisfy the Jews" by sticking to their laws, such as circumcision. This shows that, at that point, Barnabas was following Peter and disagreeing with Paul. Some feel it also suggests that the inhabitants of Galatia at his time were using a gospel or gospels disagreeing with Paul's beliefs, which Gospel of Barnabas could be one of them (although the Gospel of Peter would seem a more natural candidate, as in the light of the second letter.) To Galatian's account we may compare the Introductory Chapter of Gospel of Barnabas, where we read:
In this context, supporters also note that Peter was from the original 12 disciples of Jesus, and Barnabas was one of the early disciples of Jesus, while Paul, a Roman, hadn't lived with Jesus, and had been accustomed to persecute his followers before his conversion.
From the previous passages, we can also infer that in the beginning, Paul and Barnabas were getting along with each other; however, at the end, they started to depart in their beliefs. In conclusion, some Muslim scholars believe that those differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and the belief of Paul might be the reason that the Gospel of Barnabas and other gospels were not added to the New Testament. [edit]
Other non-canonical differences
[edit]
AnachronismsSome readers have noted that the Gospel of Barnabas contains a number of apparent anachronisms and historical incongruities:
Other readers point out that the four gospel texts recognised as canonical are themselves not without anachronisms (as in Luke 2:3, where Quirinius's governorship of Syria overlaps unhistorically with the reign of Herod the Great); nor are they without comparable incongruities (as in the account of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which both state this as taking place - unhistorically - on the night of the Passover festival). [edit]
Islamic perspectivesSome Islamic organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; in particular, the noted Muslim thinkers Rashid Rida in Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan have given it qualified acceptance (though the latter rejects its naming of Muhammad as an interpolation). While some Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time, others believe that Barnabas himself wrote the Gospel, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by followers of Paul long after the events they describe, and that therefore the Gospel of Barnabas is more authentic than the other Gospels. Some Muslims take a position between these poles, suggesting that, while the work contains "Muslim interpolations"[6], it nonetheless consists mainly of early material that contradicts Christian traditions and confirms Muslim beliefs. Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as evidence of the genuineness of the gospel by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas are signs of textual corruption (which Muslims already ascribe for a majority of the Bible.) The difference is that the Gospel of Barnabas is not as corrupt as other religious works, and still maintains the truth about Jesus not being crucified and not being God or son of God. |
|
AnnieTwo
Senior Member Joined: 26 May 2006 Status: Offline Points: 281 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Suleyman,
Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as evidence of the genuineness of the gospel by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas are signs of textual corruption (which Muslims already ascribe for a majority of the Bible.) The difference is that the Gospel of Barnabas is not as corrupt as other religious works, and still maintains the truth about Jesus not being crucified and not being God or son of God. You are not dealing with the facts. The Muslim scholar Cyril Glass� states: As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64Take a look at these discrepancies: 1. In the Gospel of Barnabas (Chapter 1) "Barnabas" is called
an Apostle. This is not correct in its implication. Although Barnabas is
referred to as an Apostle (Acts 14:4,14), the Gospel of Barnabas concept is
quite different. It says in the
introduction that Barnabas was one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus
and he was not. Why would Muslims need a forgery? Isn't the Qur'an enough? Patty is right. The publishers of
this book are trying to fool Muslims into thinking that the 'Gospel' of
Barnabas is the Epistle of Barnabas. It was the Epistle of
Barnabas that almost made it into the canon. They are two
entirely different books. Annie Edited by AnnieTwo |
|
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |