Gospel of Barnabas

1. 64

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   what are ur views on Gospel of Barnabas?

   replyreport
2. 68

   goldenpathposted 13 years ago

   Your thread.  What are yours?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      @goldenpath i was not even aware about this..but i found it be be quite different view than others.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Milla Mahnoposted 13 years ago

   Did not know it exists at all. Any link?

   replyreport
   1. 52

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friend Milla Mahno
      
      One may like to see following from the Wikipedia:
      
      The Gospel of Barnabas is a substantial book depicting the life of Jesus; and claiming to be by Jesus's disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late sixteenth century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish; although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial eighteenth-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters); with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonised from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
4. 52

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Hi friends
   
   I would like to quote here from “Jesus in India” a book, in which he mentions about the Gospel of Barnabas, written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah of the era or Messiah in Second Coming:
   
   Apart from this, it is not against usages of speech to describe the great calamity which had befallen Jesus as death. When a man, having passed through a life and death experience, is ultimately saved from it, the common speech of all peoples expresses the idea by the idiomatic expression -- 'he was given a new life', and no people to whatever country they may belong would demur at expressing that idea in this way.
   
   After all that has been stated, it should be kept in mind that in the gospel of Barnabas, which must be available in the British Museum, it is stated that Jesus was not crucified, not did he die on the Cross. Now we can very well say that though this book is not included in the gospels and has been rejected summarily, yet there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in which the other gospels were written.
   
   Is it not open to us to regard this ancient book as a book of history of ancient times and to make use of it as a book of history? Does it not follow from this book that at least at the time when the event of the Cross took place, people were not unanimous as to Jesus' dying on the Cross? Again, apart from this, when in the four gospels themselves there are such metaphors as the one about a dead person, that he is not dead but asleep, it is not beyond reason to suppose that a state of swoon might be described as a state of death.
   
   I have already stated that a prophet cannot lie. Jesus compared his three days' stay in the tomb to the three days of Jonah in the belly of the whale. This only shows that just as Jonah remained alive for three days in the belly of the whale, so did Jesus remain alive for three days in the tomb. The Jewish tombs of those days were not like the tombs of to-day; they were roomy and had an opening on one side, which was covered with a big stone. And, presently, I shall prove in due course that Jesus' tomb which has been recently discovered in Srinagar in Kashmir is of the same type as the one in which Jesus was placed in a state of swoon.
   
   In short, the verse I have just quoted shows that Jesus after coming out of the tomb went to Galilee. The gospel of St. Mark says that after coming out of the tomb he was seen going on the road to Galilee, and ultimately he met the eleven disciples when they were at their meal; he showed them his hands and feet which were wounded and they thought that he was perhaps a spirit.
   
   Then he said to them:
   Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have4
   He took from them boiled fish and a piece of honeycomb and ate them in their presence.5
   
   These verses show that it is certain that Jesus never went to heaven; rather, coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; -- like an ordinary man, in normal clothes, with a human body. If he had been resurrected after death, how was it that this body of spirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted upon him on the Cross? What need had he to eat? And if he required food then, he must be in need of food even now.
   
   http://www.alislam.org/library/books/je … a/ch1.html
   
   Thanks
   
   I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

   replyreport
   1. 54

      (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like you quote in every other thread?

      replyreport
      1. 52

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Gospel of Barnabas existed for a long time.
         
         Thanks

         replyreport