1500 Year Old Bible Found, nobody want's to know - Could be real deal

a reply to: Tangerine

We will be free soon... Thanks

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

NASA said to get to the moon they need to get past the Va Allan Belts..
Check..

NASA on Mars, Van Allan Belts

a reply to: maxzen2004

Ditto
2nd

Who cares honestly.. religion is such brainwashing bs

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

You must be confused about the meaning of the word contemporaneous. That means that the source must have existed at the same time as Jesus and claimed to have witnessed him living. All the gospels were written two or more generations after Jesus allegedly lived and none were written by anyone who could have witnessed Jesus living.

Where did you learn this? (rhetorical). There is much less proof of this argument than any other making such claims. There are a number of these hollow comments on this thread.

Me thinks a bit of debunking might be useful here?

After reading the OP and plowing through all the pages of responses, I decided to do a little research of my own. Here's what I discovered:

1. My fist stop was snopes.com. Like them or hate them, they have a full explanation of this story which has been circulating the internet since 2000. If you scroll all the way down, you'll even note that the original rumor uses some of Shauny's same wording in the OP.

2. While the "Gospel of Barnabas" is considered by most scholars to be a medieval fake, the Epistle of Barnabas has been validated. You can read the Epistle Wiki here in case there's any confusion.

3. The actual text of The Gospel of Barnabas, as translated into English, can be read online here. However, I would like to quote an interesting part from the Introduction:

QUOTE

xii INTRODUCTION

for his authority, the Gospel of St. Barnabas, he became
exceeding desirous to find this Gospel ; and that GOD, of His
mercy, having made him very intimate with Pope Sixtus V,
one day, as they were together in that Pope s library, his
Holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching
down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved
to be the very gospel he wanted. Overjoyed at the discovery,
he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve ; and, on the
Pope s awaking, took leave of him, carrying with him that
celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert
to Mohammedanism/

UNQUOTE

4. Finally, here's a Wiki on The Gospel of Barnabas.

Hope you all find my research helpful. Have a great day!

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

No they are not, the earliest dates given by scholars is that they were written decades after Jesus, but even maybe 100 years later.

Thats a conundrum for me as well. If you try and re-constitute a story about an event, even 10 years old, the results are usually missing context and your mind will fill in the gaps, probably based upon what you believe. Take that to a few hundred years, and what remains are key pieces that survive that could be summarized in a bullet list on a page. This fosters all of the "read between the lines" diatribe, that is mostly conjecture, because many of the real facts, and the stories behind them are just plain lost. Push that into a millennium, and it is likely that we own 5% of the whole story.

Even with the tools we have today, archiving information goes through the bias filters of those that write it up.

The intent and root message is preserved, but the details are missing, yet there is so much debate and squabble over the meanings of "manufactured details" we fill into the gaps... replacements for the minutia that no longer exists.

This part of human nature needs to be understood and recognized immediately when we engage in debates about ancient written works.

What impresses me most about a website which has a motto as "Deny Ignorance" (is it still? or did ATS finally caved in and changed it to "In Marxism We Trust" which would be more in line with what it appears to be nowadays) is how some people here cling to completely false and debunked myths and post them as arguments over and over and over regardless of the fact that they were debunked many times over.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: shauny

Of course, it first has to be scientifically dated. Even if it is 1500 years old, that doesn't mean that it's factual. According to you, it talks about Jesus, Paul, etc.. The author(s) were not alive when Jesus allegedly lived and Paul did live so none of it is based on first-hand witness accounts of those two people. Of course, the Bible (the official holy canon in all its versions) has the same problem when it comes to Jesus. Not a word of it was written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived nor witnessed him saying a word.

Still, it's a very interesting find.

To put it bluntly, this is completely irrelevant. Basically almost all of written history was not written by someone that lived when the events happened, and until very recently, none of it was written by anyone that actually witnessed it. The "lack of contemporary sources" argument is thoroughly debunked by Tim O'Neill, which actually happen to be a historian and know what he is talking about, unlike most in ATS.

armariummagnus.blogspot.com.br...

I've come across many atheists who don't accept that a historical Jesus existed on the grounds that "there are no contemporary references to him and all references to him are later hearsay" or even that "there are no eyewitness accounts of his career". So they rule out any evidence we do have referring to him on the basis that it is not contemporary and/or from eyewitnesses. But if we ruled out any reference to an ancient, medieval or pre-modern person or event on these grounds, we'd effectively have to abandon the study of early history: we don't have contemporary evidence for most people and events in the ancient world, so this would make almost all of our sources invalid, which is clearly absurd.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

No they are not, the earliest dates given by scholars is that they were written decades after Jesus, but even maybe 100 years later.

Thats a conundrum for me as well. If you try and re-constitute a story about an event, even 10 years old, the results are usually missing context and your mind will fill in the gaps, probably based upon what you believe. Take that to a few hundred years, and what remains are key pieces that survive that could be summarized in a bullet list on a page. This fosters all of the "read between the lines" diatribe, that is mostly conjecture, because many of the real facts, and the stories behind them are just plain lost. Push that into a millennium, and it is likely that we own 5% of the whole story.

Even with the tools we have today, archiving information goes through the bias filters of those that write it up.

The intent and root message is preserved, but the details are missing, yet there is so much debate and squabble over the meanings of "manufactured details" we fill into the gaps... replacements for the minutia that no longer exists.

This part of human nature needs to be understood and recognized immediately when we engage in debates about ancient written works.

How do you know the intent and root message are preserved? How do you know they haven't been altered, too? After all,no original documents exist.

originally posted by: Leahn
What impresses me most about a website which has a motto as "Deny Ignorance" (is it still? or did ATS finally caved in and changed it to "In Marxism We Trust" which would be more in line with what it appears to be nowadays) is how some people here cling to completely false and debunked myths and post them as arguments over and over and over regardless of the fact that they were debunked many times over.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: shauny

Of course, it first has to be scientifically dated. Even if it is 1500 years old, that doesn't mean that it's factual. According to you, it talks about Jesus, Paul, etc.. The author(s) were not alive when Jesus allegedly lived and Paul did live so none of it is based on first-hand witness accounts of those two people. Of course, the Bible (the official holy canon in all its versions) has the same problem when it comes to Jesus. Not a word of it was written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived nor witnessed him saying a word.

Still, it's a very interesting find.

To put it bluntly, this is completely irrelevant. Basically almost all of written history was not written by someone that lived when the events happened, and until very recently, none of it was written by anyone that actually witnessed it. The "lack of contemporary sources" argument is thoroughly debunked by Tim O'Neill, which actually happen to be a historian and know what he is talking about, unlike most in ATS.

armariummagnus.blogspot.com.br...

I've come across many atheists who don't accept that a historical Jesus existed on the grounds that "there are no contemporary references to him and all references to him are later hearsay" or even that "there are no eyewitness accounts of his career". So they rule out any evidence we do have referring to him on the basis that it is not contemporary and/or from eyewitnesses. But if we ruled out any reference to an ancient, medieval or pre-modern person or event on these grounds, we'd effectively have to abandon the study of early history: we don't have contemporary evidence for most people and events in the ancient world, so this would make almost all of our sources invalid, which is clearly absurd.

It's irrelevant? In what way is it irrelevant that claims based on zero contemporaneous documentation are being passed off as historical fact?

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's irrelevant? In what way is it irrelevant that claims based on zero contemporaneous documentation are being passed off as historical fact?

Read what I wrote. Your answer is already on the post you replied to.

originally posted by: shauny
a reply to: Collateral
I respect anyone's views unless they are hateful or spiteful, but the question is being asked and must continue to be asked "Why is the World so messed up when 90%+ believe in God/Bible"

Can never get my head around this question

Cheers

Data from CIA World Factbook lists 33.39% of the world as Christian, 22.74% as Muslim and 0.22% as Jewish. So that's around 56% of world's population. Don't know where you got the 90% figure from, but it is incorrect AFAIK. All other estimates I found on a quick search were around the same ballpark. Anyway, your question is answered by Christian Theology. The world is in the hands of the Prince of Darkness.

www.cia.gov...

originally posted by: Tardacus
It`s no secret that the modern version of the bible that we have today is a product of editing, mistranslations, deletions etc, that were inspired by politics,deception,bribery,etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible is the most scrutinized book that exists. Present day translations attempt to use the most reliable (which usually means older) sources available. Save for a few troublesome passages, most modern day translators agree that what we have today is as close as the original sources as we can humanly get.

originally posted by: shauny
a reply to: Tangerine

What if James, Matthew, Luke and John were wrong, made up, false?
What if this book was the real deal?

We can NEVER know for sure.
Do we know for sure James, Matthew, Luke and John all REALLY wrote the bible? Can we be sure it is accurate?

Respect

Point is, we can be sure of nothing. The only things that can absolutely sure of are mathematical proofs. Everything else is open to doubt. At best, we can expect to demonstrate something beyond reasonable doubt, reasonable being the keyword here. The point is, when so many people accept it as true, why do you doubt? What evidence do you have to doubt it? Could you doubt be sensibly described as reasonable, or is it just hyper-skepticism disguised? What would take to convince you? Answering this question truthfully may reveal more about yourself than you would like to admit.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: jude11OT but imo the Roman Catholic Church is just evil and is the reason why many turned from Christ, because they created the image of pure evil with the Inquisition and the crimes against humanity.

I really would like you to elaborate on that, if at all possible. This seem to be one of those myths that refuse to die. Which crimes against humanity, exactly, and what is your problem with Inquisition, given its very limited scope?

originally posted by: Tangerine
Facts are based on testable evidence only.

Not at all. Many facts are completely untestable. In example, I was born in November, 27, 1981. This is a fact. How do you test it?

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's actually impossible to prove a negative. The onus is on the believers who claim that the New Testament (or any other book) is fact to prove that it is fact. You have not done so yet.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. If I make a claim that I am not Asian, or Black, and you insist that I am, I can prove the negative by showing you a picture of myself, or any other similar piece of evidence, or even showing myself in person to you. You are mistaken. It is just the non-existence of something that is impossible to be proven.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Cite the testable evidence proving that God exists. Why would I disagree with testable evidence that has withstood the scientific method? You suggest that I may disagree based on my beliefs. You misunderstand. Beliefs play no part in testing evidence via the scientific method.

Cite the testable evidence proving that you exist. Otherwise, you don't.

originally posted by: dasman888

With all due respect... how on earth do folks believe the Bible is "the Word of God"?

Read Genesis... "In the beginning was the word....etc... became flesh and dwelt among us." Almost suggests what Arius had suggested during the first Council at Nicaea, is accurate.

Just nitpicking, but this is actually John, not Genesis.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I haven't seen too much conversation on the possible implications if the Bible is verified to be the real thing.

What effects will be seen?

None, because this is not new. Even on the first pages people were already saying that this has been posted on ATS multiple times and was found to be a hoax already. A book splashed with oil and placed into an oven, it seems. Even if it was a real book from the 6th century, it proves nothing. People can bind a book with whatever they want. You could make a Bible yourself today that included every gnostic gospel out there, including the debunked ones, plus the Da Vince Code, and selected pieces from 50 Shades of Gray. What does it prove? Nothing. Will it prove anything more 1500 years from now? No.

originally posted by: soulfire
Well there is no part of the bible found that was written before or during the time of Jesus. That includes old testament new testament, lost books and gnostic gospels. The earliest book was written around 50 AD all the way to 300 AD so the age of this book isn't that far off. I don't think the question here is whether the book is real or fake but whether the bible itself is real or fake. Well obviously real as a book but are many of the stories fake, we know some are so which ones are which? You know Joseph Smith copied the story of Mohamed to create the morman religion and no one seems to see those similarities. See it doesn't matter if the book is real or fake the whole story of Jesus may very well be fake.

a reply to: shauny

Dude, the Septuagint predates Christ by two centuries.

a reply to: shauny

Ok shauny, lets find your plagiarism in this OP

originally posted by: charlyv
I believe that my shortage in religious history, other that the belief that it has caused extreme friction in the ability of mankind to evolve to a more peaceful existence, is not able to keep up with those that have committed them to their true belief system. But I do understand how that can happen.

That's interesting... You admit to not to know a lot about religious history and yet can speak with conviction about how it was harmful to mankind. Isn't this how prejudices come into being? I'll give you some food for thought. The word 'culture' starts with 'cult' and for a good reason.

originally posted by: shauny

This is an article I did on my own page a while ago, thought I would share here.

A Bible which is reported to be at least 1500 years old was discovered in Turkey and inside it there is a Gospel of Barnabas. The book was moved by Turkish government to one of their museums by way of police escort. Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and in the Gospel of Barnabas, it states that Christ was never crucified. It reads instead that he rose to heaven while alive and Judas was the one crucified instead. Additionally, this ancient Bible declares that Jesus was not the Son of God, but only a prophet who spoke the word of God. The book also calls the Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. In a press release that was sent out by the Turkish government, it said that the Bible was snatched from a mob of smugglers in a Mediterranean region operation. The report explained that the group was accused of trafficking antique relics, performing illegal archaeological digs, and being in the possession of explosives. The book itself is believed to be valued as high as $28 million.

According to religious experts and specialists located in Tehram, they believe the Bible is an original. It is written in gold letters, against loosely bound blackened leather in Aramaic, which is the language that Jesus would have spoken. It is thought that during the Council of Nicea that the Catholic Church chose which Gospels that appear in the regular Bible as it is known today. They would have tossed out the Gospel of Barnabas along with many others in favor of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There have been numerous supposed Biblical texts which have come to light over time, including the Dead Sea Gnostic Gospels. However this ancient Bible has especially seemed to brought worry to the Vatican.

What would something like this mean to any Christian based religions and their believers? It would cause a very tight spot. The Vatican has requested the Turkish authorities to let them look at the inside of the book within the Church. Now that the ancient Bible has been found and the contents released to the public, what will the Catholic church have to say about it? To believers of the Christian faith, this book will be considered a fraud and a fake, something to be ignored and forgotten about. To atheists, agnostics or people who are secular thinkers, they may wonder if the text is real or not. More than likely they will not even care.

As was mentioned above, the Vatican has made an authorized request to the Turkish government to have a look at the book. It was reportedly penned in Aramaic, which is a nearly dead language. It is only spoken in the modern world in a tiny village located near Damascus. It has been reported to the media that mere photocopies of the ancient Bible’s pages are being retailed for nearly $2 million. Along with that, the age, flawless construction, and the contents inside the ancient Bible are what make it so valuable. Repeating: a Bible which is reported to be at least 1500 years old was discovered in Turkey and inside it there is a Gospel of Barnabas. The book was moved by Turkish government to one of their museums by way of police escort. Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and in the Gospel of Barnabas, it states that Christ was never crucified

www.latintimes.com...

www.breathecast.com...[/ur l]

[url]http://sonsonthepyre.com/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-vatican-in-awe/

www.newsforage.com...

Just as I thought shauny, another PLAGIARISED thread.
And you even quote at the start,

This is an article I did on my own page a while ago, thought I would share here.

What crap, here is a link to the article you copy and pasted verbatim. You also used it on your shaunynews.com site as your own intellectual property.
newstrueforyou.blogspot.com...

It wont let me live link for some reason so copy and paste the link.

You did not use quote procedure AGAIN and did not link ANYWHERE to this original work!


This is the THIRD THREAD TODAY I have caught you in plagiarizing.

You are a liar and a fraud.

MODS: this thread has been front page for a while.

In fact shauny, I notice at your site shaunynews.com much of your "original" work is from other sites. And you claim it as your own. That is illegal you know, don't you?

2 threads of your fraud removed already, THIS thread better be removed soon.

I am contacting the original websites to inform them of your theft of intellectual property shauny.

65 flags and 34 stars for plagiarism. And for all future reference regarding this OP, the author is Kimberly Ruble

It appears Kimberly Ruble wrote this on May 8th, 2014.
guardianlv.com... ld-bible-claims-jesus-was-never-crucified/#uqefQtDs4o5XMOe5.99

Shauny posted his blog Aug 4th, 2014
shaunynews.com... year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-vatican-in-awe/

While he did list some 'sources' for HIS story, he never mentioned Kimberly Ruble or link HER story he STOLE.