posted
We know that bibles were several, some say that there were tens of versions. When the emperors converted to Christianity,they orderd for global confrences to discuss several major issues, concerning God, the nature of Jesus Christ, Adam's sin and crossification. The church, for some reason,has adopted four of the bibles and throw the rest into garbage. Everyone is invited to read Barnaby bible. It might be the real one.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MR/ jebran actualy it`s a strange matter to know and read that the emperors ordered to conferance to decide the nature of their God !!!!!!!!!.are you sure ? or you are jocking! what you say mean that human decided his God`s nature after that most of people believed what human decided not what God order.it`s catastrophe .
-------------------- abu maryam Posts: 92 | From: egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abu maryam 76: MR/ jebran actualy it`s a strange matter to know and read that the emperors ordered to conferance to decide the nature of their God !!!!!!!!!.are you sure ? or you are jocking! what you say mean that human decided his God`s nature after that most of people believed what human decided not what God order.it`s catastrophe .
Yes Jerban is right. I heard from a coptic friend of mine that the church puts a certain criterias for accepting a book as a gospel. If the book fits within those criterias, then it's accepted as a gospel. If I remember correctly he told some of those criterias that book must discuss the baptism,crucifiction and resurrection of jesus, and that's wat happend with the gospel of judas. I actually heard on a show on discovery that the church eliminated like 92 other gospels cause they containted in their opinions wat appeared to be discrapancies in terms of their authorship and their chronological order.
Posts: 5 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abu maryam 76: MR/ jebran actualy it`s a strange matter to know and read that the emperors ordered to conferance to decide the nature of their God !!!!!!!!!.are you sure ? or you are jocking! what you say mean that human decided his God`s nature after that most of people believed what human decided not what God order.it`s catastrophe .
Yes Jerban is right. I heard from a coptic friend of mine that the church puts a certain criterias for accepting a book as a gospel. If the book fits within those criterias, then it's accepted as a gospel. If I remember correctly he told some of those criterias that book must discuss the baptism,crucifiction and resurrection of jesus, and that's wat happend with the gospel of judas. I actually heard on a show on discovery that the church eliminated like 92 other gospels cause they containted in their opinions wat appeared to be discrapancies in terms of their authorship and their chronological order.
92 other gospels are excluded, only 4 are accepted??? Don't they need to be studied?? Posts: 90 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think those rejected were because they prove Jesus was a man, an eating sleeping man. A prophet not a god. Most were written by people that were actually with him at the time, not that came along later. dont forget that Christianity didnt come along untill 325AD it wasnt there from day one or during the lifetime of Jesus
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: i think those rejected were because they prove Jesus was a man, an eating sleeping man. A prophet not a god. Most were written by people that were actually with him at the time, not that came along later. dont forget that Christianity didnt come along untill 325AD it wasnt there from day one or during the lifetime of Jesus
Excuse me what are you sources?
So according to your statement "Christianity didn't come along until 325AD", Christian faith was created out of mythology?
Sorry sister, but the Romans/Greeks didn't create Christianity.
Remember your neighbors in Luxor, the Copts? Do you think the Romans handed Christianity to the Copts?
I mean seriously now, are there any reverts who don't spread lies about their former faith?
Your post is an exhaustive illustration of how little Christian tradition/history is taught to Europeans/Brits... No wonder athiesm is an acceptable political party over there. Posts: 1765 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jebran: 92 other gospels are excluded, only 4 are accepted??? Don't they need to be studied??
Jebran,
At the time of Christ, the Jewish people had the 46 books we know as our Old Testament. The New Testament writings were completed by the year 100 at the latest and there is growing evidence that the completion date was closer to 70. In the early second century of Christianity, St. Irenaeus (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a student of St. John the Apostle), St. Justin the Martyr and Bishop Papias attested to the 27 books of our New Testament being used at Mass. The Muratorian Fragment (AD 155) lists the books of the New Testament and distinguished between those that were genuine to the apostolic faith and those that were heretical and forged, referring to gnostic writings. There were only four gospels, those attributed to St. Matthew, an apostle; St. Mark, a disciple of St. Peter; St. Luke a disciple of St. Paul and who knew our Blessed Mother; and St. John, an apostle. These four gospels were accepted because of their apostolic witness.
After the legalization of Christianity in AD 313, the Church was able to meet and to set officially the texts of Sacred Scripture. In AD 367, St. Athanasius listed the 27 books of the New Testament. When Pope St. Damasus instructed St. Jerome to translate the Sacred Scriptures into Latin in AD 382, producing the Vulgate Text, the canon of Sacred Scripture comprised 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament, as we have today and what the apostolic Church had accepted. This canon was again affirmed at the Council of Hippo in AD 393, the Council of III Carthage in AD 397, and in a letter of Pope Innocent I in AD 405. In AD 1441, the Council of Florence again defined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Church has had a definitive version of the Bible. The first person to tamper with the canon was Martin Luther in 1532 when he removed 7 books fo the Old Testament. What then are the gnostic gospels? They did not appear until about AD 150-200. The gnostics were a heretical sect that believed in a God and an equally powerful devil. First mistake! They thought everything material, including our person, was evil; everything spiritual was good. Our spirit was imprisoned in the body and only a special knowledge or gnosis would free us. Jesus, a spiritual creature (another mistake) only appeared human; he entered a human Jesus, because a spiritual being would not really become incarnated. He gave the gnosis. He then did not die on the cross; only the human Jesus did. Therefore, the gnostics did not believe in the incarnation. There was no redemption of us, body and soul. There were no sacraments because God would not channel grace through evil material things like bread and wine, water or oil. The gnostics did not believe in marriage or procreation, because no one would want to imprison another spirit in a body. Moreover, abortion, suicide, and infanticide were not uncommon among some of the gnostic sects, because these acts freed the spirit from the body. For good reason, the Church condemned gnosticism. The gnostics wrote “gospels” appending names like the “Gospel of St. Thomas” to lend credibility, but these were bogus. None of the gnostic gospels can be traced to apostolic origin, and for that reason plus their heretical teaching, they were condemned. http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/06ws/ws060608.htmPosts: 145 | From: offshore | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there were other writings about Jesus, these other “gospels” were written much later than the four traditional gospels, and most were never given even a hint of consideration by early Christians.
Mark, the earliest of the four biblical gospels, is usually dated to around 60 AD (60 years after the birth of Christ, 27 years after his death). By contrast, even the most liberal scholars date the two non-biblical gospels Teabing quotes from, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip to, at the earliest, at 120 AD and 180 AD respectively. Unlike the biblical gospels, of which we have literally thousands of early copies, most non-biblical gospels exist in only a few manuscripts. The Gospel of Philip, for example, exists in only one manuscript which is incomplete.
Why should we seriously consider writings that were not only written much later than the biblical gospels, but were also passed by as inaccurate by the people who lived closest to the time Jesus lived?
Posts: 145 | From: offshore | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone is invited to read Barnaby bible. It might be the real one.
Jebran, we have no authenticity of this alleged gospel. The earliest reference to it comes from a fifth-century work, Decretum Gelasianum (Gelasian Decree, by Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492-95). But even this reference is in doubt. However there is no original language manuscript evidence for its existence. By contrast, the New Testament books are verified by over 5,300 Greek manuscripts that begin in the second and third centuries A.D.
The earliest form of it known to us is in an Italian manuscript. This has been closely analyzed by scholars and is judged to belong to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, i.e., 1400 years after the time of Barnabas.'' Even Muslim defenders of it, like Muhammad ur-Rahim, admit that they have no manuscripts of it before the 1500s. There is no reference to it by any Muslim writer before the fifteenth or sixteenth century. But surely they would have used it if it had been in existence. The Muslim use of The Gospel of Barnabas to support their teaching is devoid of evidence to support it. Its teachings even contradict the Quran. This work, far from being an authentic first-century account of the facts about Jesus, is actually a late medieval fabrication. The only authentic first-century records we have of the life of Christ are found in the New Testament, and it categorically contradicts the teaching of the Gospel of Barnabas.
Posts: 145 | From: offshore | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:92 other gospels are excluded, only 4 are accepted??? [Confused] Don't they need to be studied?? [Roll Eyes]
Of course they were studied! And there are reasons why they were excluded. I'm gonna try to explain why Gospel of Barnabas was excluded as an example.
quote:Yes Jerban is right. I heard from a coptic friend of mine that the church puts a certain criterias for accepting a book as a gospel. If the book fits within those criterias, then it's accepted as a gospel. If I remember correctly he told some of those criterias that book must discuss the baptism,crucifiction and resurrection of jesus, and that's wat happend with the gospel of judas. I actually heard on a show on discovery that the church eliminated like 92 other gospels cause they containted in their opinions wat appeared to be discrapancies in terms of their authorship and their chronological order.
That is soooo not true I've never heard anything like that before... If some writings are found nowadays, and are claimed to be written by people who lived some 2000 years ago, there has to be a proof for that for people to accept it. If there isn't, and these writings are historically flawed, they are excluded!
Now regarding Barnabas Gospel.. The story of this Gospel, as narrated by Dr. Khalil Saada the translator of this gospel into arabic, started when a latin Monk found a message by Erianus disagreeing with Apostle Paul of some stuff and using this Gospel as reference. So the monk prayed that God will lead him to this Gospel mentioned. And then while the pope was absent, the monk searched in his library, hid the gospel in his clothes and was convinced by it!
And the reasons why this gospel is unaccepted: Firstly, the story of its discovery. Writings of Erianus are present till now, and there are no disagreements between him and Aspostle Paul.. He actually takes a lot from Paul's messages and the four gospels.
Secondly, the only copy found is in Italian (besides another one in Spanish, translated frm the Italian one, and was later lost). There aren't any Greek copies of it, which is the language of the New Testemant.
Thirdly, the only copy present hardly goes back to the 15th century.
Forthly, this gospel wasn't mentioned in the lists that go back to the second century. Wasn't mentioned in summaries of the New testemants or by any of the early christians.
Fifthly, when it was translated into arabic, even non christians rejected it.. including the translator (Dr. Khalil Saada) and Abaas AlAkaad.
And lastly, there are the cumerous mistakes.. and I think those are the most important!
Historical mistakes & Geographical mistakes: there are, don't worry! I just don't know the translation of names n'stuff in English. I'll try to post them later on..
Theological mistakes: It says that whoever doesn't pray is more evil than Satan!(2:36) Who could be more evil than Satan??! And Satan doesn't pray!
Spiritual mistakes: It forbids all kinds of love, like love of a father to his son (99:10-14), love of a mother to her daughter(18:220). And from the spirituals of this gospel is glorifying dirt (57:14,19)
I dunno what is (yobeel) in English, but anyway.. Yobeel was made 100 years by Pope Boneevas the eighth in 1300 AD, before that the yobeel was 50 years. The gospel says it is 100 years and from that we concule that it was written after 1300 AD. (Excuse me for the names here )
There are really numerous mistakes in this so-called gospel! If that didn't convince you, please tell me and I'll post the rest..
Jerban, I suggest you try reading it first before you invite others to do so!
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
If your gonna debate, be sharp. You didn't know that Iman Ali's edition of the Koran was rejected? Why was it rejected, huh?????
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Don't they need to be studied?? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I've never heard anything like that before... If some writings are found nowadays, and are claimed to be written by people who lived some 2000 years ago, there has to be a proof for that for people to accept it. If there isn't, and these writings are historically flawed, they are excluded!
Printer-friendly view of this topic