The Gospel Of Barnabas -A review / Critique

F

Faithfully

Guest
Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim; In The Name Of The One And Only GOD. Salaam / Peace, everyone; what do we really know about The Gospel Of Barnabas? All that I have heard, seemingly forever, is that it is a forgery, medieval fake, etc.. I say prove it! I have found much truth in this gospel. There are discrepancies, also. But the truth, far outweighs the fallacies. This is the real gospel, of Prophet, Messiah 'Isa [Jesus, PBUH]. I found this site while searching google, for Barnabas' gospel. I haven't been able to find the page that I was previously led to -- which displayed all 222, Chapters of the gospel -- so I thought I would express my views here. That page's exposition of The Gospel Of Barnabas, wasn't too kind. So in order to test the fairness of Comparative Religion.com, I will direct (link) those of you with an interest, to learn the truth concerning this issue (forgery, medieval fake, etc.) to a Muslim / Christian forum, where you can read a (lengthy) review / Critique, of The Gospel Of Barnabas. If this is not permitted by admin., mods., then this post will (I can assume) be deleted: [link removed] ~ Salaam. Faithfully

PBUH= may the Peace and Blessings of THE ONE GOD; Allaah, be upon Him.

[EDIT by I, Brian - link removed for spamming]
 
And Peace be with you ...

It would seem that this document is a fabrication, a quick look round the internet and both Muslim and Christian scholars seem in agreement on this fact.

"The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé 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. 64

At the present time, I would prefer to concentrate on the guidance and admonition given in this gospel as much as possible, and leave the discrepancies aside (excepting exigencies) until I (and or others) are able to dig, into them as they do complicate matters

The question of truth within the text is of course, a matter of opinion with regard to particular aspects; but suffice to say the author of the GoB had Christian, Islamic and many other texts from which to draw 'inspiration'.

When faced with overwhelming evidence of fabrication (anachronisms, notably) one must consider the intent of the author, and it is this that will determine the value of the work.

In American legal jargon, I believe the phrase used is 'fruit of the poison vine'

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
And Peace be with you ...

In American legal jargon, I believe the phrase used is 'fruit of the poison vine'

Thomas
Click to expand...

Quite correct. And any evidence linked after such would be considered tainted and inadmissable in a court of law.

v/r

Q
 
Muslims are haunted by their search of the "true" Gospel of Jesus which, they say, are not the corrupted Gospels you find in the New Testament.
That explains the constant reference to the Gospel of Barnabas. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing of the quality of the NT Gospels around.
 
Removed link as the poster is simply trying to promote Islam, not dialogue. Also moved to the Abrahamic Religions board.
 
mansio said:
Muslims are haunted by their search of the "true" Gospel of Jesus which, they say, are not the corrupted Gospels you find in the New Testament.
That explains the constant reference to the Gospel of Barnabas. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing of the quality of the NT Gospels around.
Click to expand...
Muslims are not haunted by this search. Why would they be when they have the Final Testament?;)
 
I correct myself: not Muslims, but Muslims on comparative religion forums. See the one who started the thread.
 
Salaam/peace.

I don't think Muslims are haunted by the search of proof that NT/Bible is corrupted, because the book has obviously been tampered with. One obvious one is the fact that the Christians believe in 'triune' God and Jews believe in One God. The two do not go along, despite the Christians' efforts to convince Jews that they believe in the same God.

Secondly, majority, if not all, of the authors of the current version of the Bible are anonymous. Certain books of the Bible are assigned names but some of them with assigned names to a person begin in third person not in a first person statements. A person writing a book would say, for example: "I John, discpile of Jesus," etc instead of, for instance, "There was a man named Job..." etc.Imagine someone writing this post, replying in my name, Amica: "There is a person called Amica who does not think Muslims are haunted..." :)

The first five books of the OT were considered to be written by Prophet Moses pbuh, but recently it is found that they were written by more authors and most likely not by Moses himself. So obviously that is one way of tampering with the text since it did not come from the original person who was credited for the books (Moses).

Christians around the globe do not have all the same NT Bible versions. Some sects have different books included and others exclude them. So what is then acceptable 'version'? And what about apochrypha? How much of the books are actually possibly true yet are never preached? Some books of Peter were excluded from the NT by the Church because they failed to mention crucifixion scene.

One of the main arguments that Jews use against Christians is the 'divinity' of Jesus. Perhaps if Christians would to understand the humanity of the Prophet Jesus pbuh, Jews would have a more difficult case to prove the Christians wrong about our Messiah Jesus, son of Mary.

Etc. Many other examples of how the Holy Bible has been corrupted. Keep in mind that Muslims believe the Bible to be Word of God, Holy Book, but that humans have changed certain statements in the Bible to suit their own desires/purposes. God in the Qur'an reminds Muslims not to do the same and those who could try to do so, just like some did with the Bible, are bound to experience great displeasure with God.
 
Perhaps that is due to the fact that the Bible is not about the individual author, but about the life and times of the Man called Jesus, as well as the life before Jesus. How I wish I were alive at that time with the limited knowlege I have today...so many pieces of the puzzle would fall into place.

The Apocripha is dicussed at length on another thread, hence no need to start again here.

If this infact true (Moses' Pentatuch being written elsewhere), then Islam is in trouble as well as Christianity and Judeasm...think about that one.

Some Christians are not, and follow a different code, same could be said for some Muslims...

The apocrypha were ommited from the Bible for reasons no one truly understand. That was over 1700 years ago...about 100 years before the birth of Islam.

"A prophet is revered everywhere but in his own home"...Jesus

You just made a profound statement. Muslims would accept the Bible, but for the perceived errors within? And by your very statement, the "Qu'ran" is second fiddle to the OT Bible?

The term is "Trinity" of God. Christians (most anyway), believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of God. One God, three manifestations of that God.

I find the irony of your particular disdain for the Judeo/Christian Bible, rather austentatious (considering the probablility that you've never read it cover to cover, yet are so quick to dispell, or condemn it as so much rhetoric.

Not quite fair.

But then, I'm not within my "realm".

v/r

Q
 
Amica

because the book has obviously been tampered with.
Click to expand...

Your sentence doesn't mean anything unless you give details on what you understand by "tampered with".
That argument is of no value to Christians as they think God is able to protect his revelation, and has supervised every "tampering" when they occurred.
Muslims have the same faith in the Quran when they believe Uthman's recension corresponds exactly to what has been transmitted by Muhammad.

Of course there is a huge difference between God as seen by the Jews and as seen by Christians.

Just in case by "tampered with" you include an influence from pagan religions, may I remind you that the "virgin birth" is one of those influences and it has made its way into the Quran.
 
What I find odd is how some Muslims delight in trying to throw stones at other religions - but never dare question the actions at their founding.
 
I said:
What I find odd is how some Muslims delight in trying to throw stones at other religions - but never dare question the actions at their founding.
Click to expand...
I don't find that trait mutually exclusive to any religion...there are many in each that find fault with every other religion, and their very faith depends on the absolute truth that their way is the one and only way.

I find it odd when anyone can not openly question and discuss the nuances, errors, ommissions in their own texts. To me that allows faith and understanding to grow stronger. A little self inspection is always good...
 
What I find great with Christians is that they have a very critical insight of their own scriptures and are quick to accept all the discoveries that scholars and linguists have found. They even turn those critical views into an advantage by showing that their religion easily resists them.
On the other hand Muslims are prisoners of their "the Quran is verbatim the word of God" dogma, so they cannot accept the least scholarly inquiry in their scripture.
 
mansio said:
What I find great with Christians is that they have a very critical insight of their own scriptures and are quick to accept all the discoveries that scholars and linguists have found.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)
:confused: You're kidding, right? Some Christians may do that, but certainly not all. Your location is listed as France; maybe all French Christians are like that; I don't know. I can say with certainty that the majority of Christians I have known, in every country I have been privileged to live in, are NOT like that. And I'm not even thinking of the (stereo)typical American Christian fundamentalist. I know and have known Christians for whom your statement is true, but in my experience, they're very much in the minority.

I agree with wil - refusal to look at the possible faults or discrepancies of your own faith is not exclusive to any one religion.
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
(emphasis mine)
:confused: You're kidding, right? Some Christians may do that, but certainly not all. Your location is listed as France; maybe all French Christians are like that; I don't know. I can say with certainty that the majority of Christians I have known, in every country I have been privileged to live in, are NOT like that. And I'm not even thinking of the (stereo)typical American Christian fundamentalist. I know and have known Christians for whom your statement is true, but in my experience, they're very much in the minority.

I agree with wil - refusal to look at the possible faults or discrepancies of your own faith is not exclusive to any one religion.
Click to expand...

Oy, the stereotypical American Christian is a "fundementalist"? :eek:

Say it isn't so! The "Evangelical" may be very vocal, but is not the majority of American Christians, Scarlet. Honest to Betsy...;)

v/r

Q
 
What's the Gospel of Barnabus about, anyway?

This is the first that I've heard of it.
 
truthseeker said:
What's the Gospel of Barnabus about, anyway?

This is the first that I've heard of it.
Click to expand...

Here you go...;) courtesy of Wikipedia...

The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam, perhaps Gnostic (Cirillo, Ragg) or Ebionite (Pines) or Diatessaronic (Joosten), and some Muslim scholars consider it genuine. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; Islamic views are treated below.
 
Interesting, interesting. Thanks, Q. I was not aware of the Islamic view of Jesus. Your post said quite a bit.
 
Quahom1 said:
Oy, the stereotypical American Christian is a "fundementalist"? :eek:
Click to expand...

No, no, no, you misunderstand me! :) I meant the stereotype of the American Christian fundamentalist, I wasn't trying to say that most American Christians are fundamentalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top