Shroud of Turin Discussion

[Osiris-RA]

You mean back then, Jews were more Mid-eastern? I guess we're used to the watered-down, European-looking Jesus, but in reality, Jews and Arabs are related, both being Semitic peoples, and true Jews, not the ones mixed with European blood, tend to be dark-skinned and look similar to Arabs. Is that what you're referring to?

Yeah, exactly. I knew somebody knew it too.

[Osiris-RA]

Ummm....hold on. First, you told us in the Creation Theory thread about how you believed that the Genesis account of Creation literally took place within a period of seven 24-hour days....and now you try to tell us that you don't even believe that Christ's death as accounted in the Gospels was real? We know that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and executed as a common criminal....the apostle and biblical author John himself was an eyewitness to this event. I'm really confused here, O-Ra....so what do you believe?

The creation myth and Jesus are two different discussions here. Secondly, the Bible has been worked over by men who themselves speculated and knew zip about it because, for one, they weren't there. I wasn't there, you weren't there. They can say "John said" till they're blue in the face. The true gospel, is, IMO, the Gospel of Barnabas. Why do I believe this? Because, and mostly because of this, neither the Pope nor any Catholic of Christian of any kind that I have ever met has acknowledged that book. What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? It is, in fact, a sin in the Catholic religion to read the book. I don't trust the Papacy. I want to know what they don't want me to know, and that book is very interesting.

"Speculated date"? We already know that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, and around the time when the Roman governor Quirinus took a census in Judea. These two events together place his birth at somewhere around 7-4 BC. (Not to mention the Star of Bethlehem, which was almost definitely the triple planetary conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in the night sky around this exact same time period....an extremely rare event that the religiously star-gazing Magi surely would have noticed.) And we know that Pontius Pilate ruled as the Roman governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD. So I think it's definitely safe to say that Jesus of Nazareth lived somewhere within this time period. (But what did this have to do the with the Shroud of Turin, again?)

Did you know that the egyptian god Osiris is associated with that very Star of Bethlehem, AKA, Sothis. Did you know that the Egyptian god Osiris' birthday is the exact same date as Jesus's birthday, December 25th? The very word, "Christ" refers to the swaddled body of Osiris. It is called the "Karast". Did you know that the Christian belief in Christmas, is (And this is freaky) based on the Egyptian Myth of creation and the life of Osiris, right down from his birth to his death to our symbolism of the Christmas tree, which is what Osiris is often pictured as symbolically. See Gerald Massey's Book of Beginning's, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...013794-1109758 , and Natural Genesis http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books. BTW, Carl Jung's sytem of archetypes is based on this book.
Carbon dating has proved that the shroud is no older than the 13th century. The Catholic Church themselves had the thing tested and proved it themselves. You might want to watch "The DaVinci Code" for further entertainment. I say speculated because there is no hard scientific data that proves that Jesus even existed.

Considering how I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever to either support or refute your claim about Jewish ethnic features (primarily because no one else I can find really seems to either care or consider it a valid argument), this is the only related comment that I could find on this subject....for now:
"There have also been many who do not believe that Christ could look like this because to their opinion this portrait looks more like a European man than an Arab or Middle Easterner. Even though I am not particularly interested in making a big deal over the physical features of Christ, it should be noted that Jesus was a Jew. According to anthropologists, Jews belong to the Caucasian race, which includes all those throughout Europe, the Middle East, and north of the Sahara. What some commonly call the Jewish, Arab, or European race is really a misnomer. Those would be ethnic groups within the same race, thus they may share similar features. In fact, sometimes, a person within an ethnic group may be mistaken as being part of another ethnic group." --Tom Brown

"The Bible Said.."(I'm using the usual source of info here, I'm simply showing how the Bible and so called Bible reader's contradict themselves) That the Jews belong to Shem. There were the sons of Noah: Ham, Japeth and Shem. Ham symbolizes Black, Japeth symbolizes Caucasian, Shem symbolizes the Semites. Semites include the Arabs, Ethiopians and the Ancient Hebrews.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...sm/ejhist.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falasha
Just as an extra, You don't have to buy it ... but it's very interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846
I suppose I should also mention that the Caucasian Jews use the Talmud, while the Falasha use the Torah, and, it is believed and investigated to death by Graham Hancock, that the Christian Falasha are in possesion of... the Ark of the Covenant. Here is the video.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[puddlejumper747]

The creation myth and Jesus are two different discussions here.

Yes, but I was simply pointing out here how you so selectively choose to take one thing in the Bible completely literally, and then later on decide to just go ahead and ignore the rest because you don't want to believe it.

I wasn't there, you weren't there.

Oh my, what an undeniably logical argument you've found. I wonder why I never thought of that one before?
But you want to know something, O-Ra?....JOHN THE APOSTLE REALLY WAS THERE!!!

The true gospel, is, IMO, the Gospel of Barnabas. Why do I believe this? Because, and mostly because of this, neither the Pope nor any Catholic of Christian of any kind that I have ever met has acknowledged that book. What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

::sigh:: Absolutely nothing!!! No one ever talks about it because it's so dead wrong. And you want to know something else? I don't even need to try arguing this one with you from a Christian prespective. Because the Moslems I have here and here have already completely demolished the book for me. Sorry, O-Ra....but there's absolutely nothing here that any Christians or Catholics are "hiding" about the gospel of Barnabas. It's just already been so completely and utterly proved as invalid garbage that no serious historical or religious scholars out there even think of considering it worth mentioning.

It is, in fact, a sin in the Catholic religion to read the book. I don't trust the Papacy. I want to know what they don't want me to know, and that book is very interesting.

No, it is not a sin in the Catholic religion to simply read this book....that's entirely absurd. But other than you comment about "I don't trust the Papacy" (which is, in and of itself, another completely ridiculous argument), why on Earth would you even want to read it? It is (quite literally) a whole bunch of religious and historical garbage. The point that the Catholic Church is trying to make here is that this book literally cannot co-exist with the essential and most basic beliefs of Christianity. You cannot seriously read this book, believe what it says, and still call yourself a Christian. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. No massive religious conspiracies here.

Did you know that the Egyptian god Osiris' birthday is the exact same date as Jesus's birthday, December 25th?

No. But did you know that we already know for a fact that Jesus Christ wasn't even born on December 25th?

Carbon dating has proved that the shroud is no older than the 13th century.

You know what? Now I know that you're not listening to a word I say. Because those carbon dating tests have already been refuted. We just recently found out that they were actually dating an expertly rewoven patch in the Shroud. You yourself even provided a link to that exact same article (which I posted as the first article in the first post of this thread) in your previous post!!! The actual Shroud is much, much older than those carbon dating tests previously indicated. (Which is something that we already knew for a fact 20 years ago, but couldn't quite prove until now.)

You might want to watch "The DaVinci Code" for further entertainment.

And you might be interested in watching the recent History Channel special "Beyond the DaVinci Code".
Until then, please feel free to go and check out some of the cold hard facts on this topic presented here....

I say speculated because there is no hard scientific data that proves that Jesus even existed.

Besides the fact that that can can also be said about hundreds of thousands of other famous people who have ever lived throughout the history of the world....you're still ignoring the fact that we have the Shroud of Turin and the four Evangelical Gospels. With huge amounts of both scientific and historical evidence in favor of both.

[LordAnubis]

NOTE about race and Judiasm. O-Ra was trying to say that in many "modern" physical portrayals of Jesus, he is often portrayed as looking very European: blue eyes, light to medium brown hair, fair skin. The fact is, back then, Jews had not left the Middle East and had not entered Europe. Some were citizens of Rome and Greece, but Jesus was not and from what I know, he and his family (at least his mother's side ) never left Israel/Judea.

The point is, Jews at that time were purely semitic, like modern Arabs. It's true that Semites are considered a sub-branch of the Caucasian racial group, but among Caucasians, there are notable differences. Namely: skin colour, facial/body hair distribution, facial features, eye colour, hair colour, etc. Jesus should have looked very similar to a modern Arab: dark hair, dark eyes, lots of facial hair, and darker skin.

However, I don't think you can tell any of these things from the imprints found on the Shroud. Based on the facial imprints found the Shroud, what you can tell is the shape of the face, size of the nose, and some general facial features. Based on this, I don't think any physical anthropologist could reasonably make a statement that the Shroud imprints appear to be a European looking man. Like I said, for the most part, it's the eye colour, hair colour, facial hair distribution, etc. that would be most noticeable. Semites still have basic Caucasian features, so I don't think a facial imprint would necessarily prove that the person was a European or Middle Eastern person.

If the person were from Africa (as in black) or Asia, you would definitely be able to discern non-Caucasian features, but Arabs and pre-European Jews have essentially "white" features since they are part of the white racial group in general.

Modern Jews look European because for centuries they have blended with the peoples of Europe. Many Jews settled in Slavic countries, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Italy, Russia, Holland, etc. Jews have every eye colour, hair colour, etc. Typically, most Jewish people have dark hair and dark eyes, but I've seen some who look German with blond hair and blue eyes. They have a huge admixure of different blood in their gene pool now due to migration.

[Madeleine]

... In fact, I would still like to hear someone present me with any piece of valid scientific evidence that would suggest otherwise [than that it is the burial cloth of Christ].

i'm a Christian and a believer in the truth of the account of His death in the Gospels. I don't believe that the Shroud is His. It's something about which I'll never have enough facts to have beliefs either way, I suspect.

I don't need to produce evidence that it's not Christ's burial cloth, for me it's enough to be able to say: "Can you give me any evidence that it wasn't the winding sheet of *another* c1st inhabitany of Palestine who was executed by the Romans?"

You have a heck of a lot of good circumstantial evidence though.

[Osiris-RA]

I think Lord Anubis nicely made some nice points.

Because the Moslems I have here and here have already completely demolished the book for me.

PJ, I'm very sorry you were lured into those links of "moslems" refuting the Gospel of Barnabas, but have you ever heard of something called subterfuge? Trickery? The muslims can't refute because it basically says what they believe anyway. That would just be silly to refute the book when they're probably the only ones who bother to crack it open. Those articles were written by Non-muslims, guaranteed. How do I know this? Have you heard of a book published recently (By WinePress, no less) refuting the Quran, called, "The True Furqan"? Amazon.com it if you doubt. Yes, it's a shocker, but some Christians and others will go so far as to plant false evidence. Who knew?

BTW, the Gospel of Barnabas came out of the Pope's library. Interesting reading.

It is (quite literally) a whole bunch of religious and historical garbage. The point that the Catholic Church is trying to make here is that this book literally cannot co-exist with the essential and most basic beliefs of Christianity. You cannot seriously read this book, believe what it says, and still call yourself a Christian. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. No massive religious conspiracies here.

The info I got of the reading to the Gospel of Barnabas being a sin in Catholisim came from straight from the source, a devout Catholic!! I'm sorry you think it's garbage, but really, tell me the truth, how can you make that assumption when you haven't even read it? I can assure you, it makes a whole lot more sense than the Four Gospels which you hold so dear. I have read the Bible. Have you read the Gospel of Barnabas yet? At least pander to me.

PJ, all I can tell you is, save up some money, read some books, go to the library if you must, but please, do some research before you post another flustered response.


BTW

Yes, but I was simply pointing out here how you so selectively choose to take one thing in the Bible completely literally, and then later on decide to just go ahead and ignore the rest because you don't want to believe it.

I, Ignore? What have you been doing?

"Knowledge is within you, Seek it."

[LordAnubis]

The thing is, religion, like politics, is often debated by people with very strong beliefs on both sides of the fence. There are those who take the Bible as absolute truth: the word of God, whereas others see it a guidebook to living a good life. Others, like me, are somewhere in between. No different than politics: right, moderate, left, non-believer/apathetic.

Facts are facts. What makes a fact a truth is our level of understanding and acceptance of scientific proofs. Carbon dating, for example, is a fairly exact science. I know many Christians who use it to cite the validity of certain Biblical texts, scrolls, and even the Shroud. However, many of those same Christians will tell you that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that evidence to the contrary is flawed and defective. So, in other words, scientific proofs of dating are okay to prove a certain viewpoint, but flawed to prove an alternative or inconsistent viewpoint.

The question remains: what makes a fact a fact? I hate to sound un-Christian, but if we accept everything the Bible says as fact, much of our science is flawed and/or irrelevant. If we accept science as the only truth in the universe, how do we account for so many miracles and spiritual mysteries? It's like so many people out there are staunchly Christian or supremely secular. I maintain that fact, or absolute truth, whether scientific or spiritual, is a blending of Christianity with science.

There are those who so desparately want the Shroud to be connected with Jesus that they discount evidence that it is not. There are those who think it's nothing more than an old piece of linen. If it is Jesus' burial shroud, and I do think it very well might be, the real question is: so? It's a huge piece of our history, but will owning it make you invincible? Can you walk on water if you put it on? Will you be able to transport to Heaven if you wear it? Jesus was not about the Shroud that he was buried in; he was much more than that. Would Jesus really want us spending so much time and effort on ascertaining the authenticity of his burial shroud? I don't think so. His death and sacrifice was testament to humanity, what he was buried in is irrelevant.

The Shroud is more symbolism than it is relevant. His Shroud memorializes Jesus' sacrifice for us; he died on the Cross for all of us, and that is what the Shroud symbolizes. I think we should keep that in mind.

The Bible is similar to statistics. One scholar can throw numbers at you and tell you that 47.74% of all college-aged females have attitude problems, whereas another imminent sociologist can tell you 99.21 % of all colleged-aged women have no attitude problem and are superior to males of the same age (of course, these scholars are female). One theologian can tell you the Bible references dinosaurs living alongside man, when another can tell you the Aramaic word for God was Giants. The truth might lie somewhere in the middle. In life, reality often lies in the gray areas, not the black areas or white areas.

[Osiris-RA]

Facts are facts. What makes a fact a truth is our level of understanding and acceptance of scientific proofs. Carbon dating, for example, is a fairly exact science. I know many Christians who use it to cite the validity of certain Biblical texts, scrolls, and even the Shroud. However, many of those same Christians will tell you that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that evidence to the contrary is flawed and defective. So, in other words, scientific proofs of dating are okay to prove a certain viewpoint, but flawed to prove an alternative or inconsistent viewpoint.

The question remains: what makes a fact a fact? I hate to sound un-Christian, but if we accept everything the Bible says as fact, much of our science is flawed and/or irrelevant. If we accept science as the only truth in the universe, how do we account for so many miracles and spiritual mysteries? It's like so many people out there are staunchly Christian or supremely secular. I maintain that fact, or absolute truth, whether scientific or spiritual, is a blending of Christianity with science.

Wise words. It doesn't sound Un-Christian, it sounds like a person talking with a mind that is not withheld by the laws of science. It's the sometimes shockingly hard truth, Science can't explain everything.

There are those who so desparately want the Shroud to be connected with Jesus that they discount evidence that it is not. There are those who think it's nothing more than an old piece of linen. If it is Jesus' burial shroud, and I do think it very well might be, the real question is: so? It's a huge piece of our history, but will owning it make you invincible? Can you walk on water if you put it on? Will you be able to transport to Heaven if you wear it? Jesus was not about the Shroud that he was buried in; he was much more than that. Would Jesus really want us spending so much time and effort on ascertaining the authenticity of his burial shroud? I don't think so. His death and sacrifice was testament to humanity, what he was buried in is irrelevant.

The Shroud is more symbolism than it is relevant. His Shroud memorializes Jesus' sacrifice for us; he died on the Cross for all of us, and that is what the Shroud symbolizes. I think we should keep that in mind.

I agree that it is more symbolic than relevent, I don't really agree that he was crucified, but then that's my belief. I do think, though, that it is best to keep it as what it is, a symbol of a religion. It may not be what it is said to be, but if some people want to think it is, who am I to stop them?

The Bible is similar to statistics. One scholar can throw numbers at you and tell you that 47.74% of all college-aged females have attitude problems, whereas another imminent sociologist can tell you 99.21 % of all colleged-aged women have no attitude problem and are superior to males of the same age (of course, these scholars are female). One theologian can tell you the Bible references dinosaurs living alongside man, when another can tell you the Aramaic word for God was Giants. The truth might lie somewhere in the middle. In life, reality often lies in the gray areas, not the black areas or white areas.

Okay, getting off track, are we Mr. Anubis? Those scholars may be female, but I've read some pretty darn facinating books by male "scholars" who shockingly know zip about their own gender, (such as the claim that while girls mature faster, boys are still growing by the age of 15. Ha! And the toys girls play with symbolize thier mental wishs when they grow up, such as the facination with toy houses and barbie dolls leading to the usual female position of being a housewife and doing stuff in the home. Whilst boys enjoys rock'emsock'em robots and plastic weaponry. I played with tinkertoys for the first half of my kid-hood. Does that make me an architect?)

*Ahem* But the point is, Some things in the Four Gospels are true because we see the same things in books such as the Gospel of Barnabas, and the Torah and The Quran. My belief is we can't have an answer for everything. We can only read our scriptures (and pray the Man hasn't messed them up) and try to do good. Our history has been jacked up something horrible. The truth is still out there, no matter how much they try to cover it up. Not the Presidents, nor the Popes, not the Catholic church, nor the Scientists and Archeologists can stop the truth from being heard. It's time stop taking their word as spoken Gospel (forgive the pun) and figure these things out for ourselves.

In some ways, the TV has been both a blessing and a curse.

[puddlejumper747]

I maintain that fact, or absolute truth, whether scientific or spiritual, is a blending of Christianity with science.

Absolutely true.

However, I don't think you can tell any of these things from the imprints found on the Shroud. Based on the facial imprints found the Shroud, what you can tell is the shape of the face, size of the nose, and some general facial features. Based on this, I don't think any physical anthropologist could reasonably make a statement that the Shroud imprints appear to be a European looking man. Like I said, for the most part, it's the eye colour, hair colour, facial hair distribution, etc. that would be most noticeable. Semites still have basic Caucasian features, so I don't think a facial imprint would necessarily prove that the person was a European or Middle Eastern person.

Very good points, LordAnubis. Thank you.

for me it's enough to be able to say: "Can you give me any evidence that it wasn't the winding sheet of *another* c1st inhabitant of Palestine who was executed by the Romans?"
You have a heck of a lot of good circumstantial evidence though.

I understand your position, Madeleine. But the question then becomes: How do you account for the fact that the man in this image just so happens to have wounds from a crown of thorns on his head and a spear thrust into his side during his crucifixion? And what about this? (I posted it earlier, although I do understand how you might have missed it)....

From The Shroud of Turin: Proof of the Resurrection: The latest and most dramatic discoveries concern a piece of writing on the Shroud itself. For years, people had been asking why below and to the sides of the chin there are three clear and regular lines where no imprint is present. The Paris-based organisation CIERT (Centre International d’Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, The international centre of studies on the Shroud of Turin), which I represent in Italy, has conducted studies in the most advanced institute in Europe for image analysis via computer, the Institut Optique d’Orsay, whose director is Professor André Marion. All official photographs of the Shroud were divided into tens of thousands of squares which were then given a corresponding optical density and transferred onto a visualisation programme. By means of an extremely advanced programme, some letters gradually began to emerge, in Latin and in Greek: under the chin, we find written ‘Jesus’ and on one side, ‘Nazarene’. What is the explanation for this? The ‘exactor mortis’ the centurion charged with ensuring the execution of the condemned, had drawn strips of ‘glue’ onto the cloth on which he would write the name of the deceased with a red liquid. Where these strips were drawn, the cloth was impermeable and would not, therefore, be subject to the chemical process which subsequently formed the imprint.

I mean seriously....what are the odds that all of this is just one big series of unrelated coincidences? And let me ask you another question: Just how much circumstantial evidence do you really need on something like this before you can begin to consider it as something more than just another a personal opinion? How many "pieces of the puzzle" do we really need to find in our research before we begin to consider something as true? Because it seems to me, that in this case, although each and every small piece of evidence alone may certainly not be enough to prove anything for sure, the combined amount of all of the circumstantial evidence that we find here supporting the Shroud's authenticity is almost overwhelmingly obvious.

If it is Jesus' burial shroud....the real question is: so?

Because of how important such a discovery like this would be. Just think of how much information you will have to explain to people when something like this wonderful little argument comes up: "....there is no hard scientific data that proves that Jesus even existed." Because not only does the Shroud almost undeniably prove the existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but it even begins to provide us with some potential circumstantial scientific evidence for His resurrection. But then again, I suppose that there really are a whole lot of people out there who simply wouldn't like to hear something like that, huh?

[puddlejumper747]

PJ, all I can tell you is, read some books, go to the library if you must, but please, do some research before you post another response.

Alright, O-Ra. Your wish is my command. But now the question is: are you ready to hear it?

The info I got of the reading to the Gospel of Barnabas being a sin in Catholisim came from straight from the source, a devout Catholic!!

Obviously not. Because I'm telling you for a fact right here and now that your source is wrong (....or, at the very least, slightly confused about this situation). There is absolutely nothing intrinsically evil or disordered about simply reading an apocryphal book that was not included in the bible. The true problem here (which may or may not have been what your source was actually trying to tell you) is that you cannot read this book, honestly believe it, and then still consider yourself to be a Christian. Keep on reading....

Facts:
---The Gospel of Barnabas document is not accepted as being authentic by reputable historians.
---There is not a single sect of the Christian church that has believed the Gospel of Barnabas to be inspired by God.
---No church father, no historian, and no church leader from the 1st through the 7th centuries ever quoted from, or made reference to any part of its text.
---The oldest copies of Barnabas are in Italian, dated from the 16th century, and contain many references to medieval life; which did not exist until many centuries after Jesus.
--- The author of this book uses strong language to denounce the teaching of Paul in particular, especially regarding circumcision; the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus; and the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God.

Mistakes and Contradictions:
--- In the Gospel of Barnabas we read that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea both at the time of the birth of Jesus and during the time of his ministry thirty years later. Palestine was a particularly difficult trouble-spot for the Romans and no governor was sent there for long - let alone thirty years. We know from history in any event that Pilate was only appointed governor in 27 AD - more than a generation after the birth of Jesus.

--- Accordingly the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has had to omit the person and ministry of John from his book altogether. But the clear and consistent account of John's ministry in the Bible (see particularly Matthew chapter 3, John chapters 1 and 3) and the plain endorsement in the Qur'an of the ministry of John the Baptist as a herald of Jesus (Surah 3.39) both expose the deceitfulness of the author of the Gospel of Barnabas. It is certain that the real Barnabas, who was a "good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11.24), would never have resorted to such falsehood in the cause of truth to which he was so dedicated throughout his life.

--- Whether Jesus ever predicted the coming of Muhammad or not is not at issue here. What is obvious, however, to anyone who has read the life of Jesus in the Bible, is that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has tried to make Jesus a herald of the coming of Muhammad in the very mould of John the Baptist who was a herald of the coming of Jesus, and to achieve this he has put Jesus in the shoes of John and has made him say of Muhammad what John really said of him!

--- Two points from within the Gospel of Barnabas also show that the author could not be the real Apostle Barnabas. Firstly, this book makes Jesus constantly deny that he is the Messiah (further treatment of this subject follows later in this booklet) and yet the same book calls Jesus himself the "Christ" (p.2). Now any man with a basic knowledge of Greek knows that "Christos" is the Greek translation of Messiah (a Hebrew word) and that "Jesus Christ" is an anglicised form of the Greek "Iesous Christos", meaning "Jesus the Messiah". The very real contradiction that exists here in the Gospel of Barnabas is further evidence that the author was not Barnabas himself. He came from Cyprus, an island where Greek was the common tongue, and Greek would have been his home language. The real Barnabas would never have made such a mistake as to call Jesus the Christ and deny that he was the Messiah!

--- Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes his first serious blunder for he suggests throughout his book, not only that Barnabas was actually one of the twelve disciples of Jesus during his ministry on earth, but also that he was known by this name "Barnabas" throughout that period of ministry. On more than one occasion in the book we find that Jesus allegedly addressed him by name and the first occasion, which comes particularly early in the book, is this one: “Jesus answered: 'Be not sore grieved, Barnabas; for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish' “(The Gospel of Barnabas, p.21). Now we have here a patent anachronism which destroys the possibility that this book was really written by the Apostle Barnabas. The apostles only gave him the name "Barnabas" (Son of encouragement) after the ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had heartened the spirits of the early Christians. But the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus call him by this name some three years before he ascended to heaven. This is a serious - in our view fatal - objection to the claim that this book was written by the Apostle Barnabas.

Logical Conclusions:
--- Any Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God must reject the Gospel of Barnabas as a hybrid composition of no literary or religious value at all.
--- No one knows who actually wrote the Gospel of Barnabas but what is known, without shadow of doubt, is that whoever it was, it most certainly was not the Apostle Barnabas.
--- But as it so hopelessly contradicts both the Qur'an and the Bible on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and does this so often and so consistently, it must be rejected as a forgery by Christian and Muslim alike. There is no room here for apologetics or efforts to reconcile this book with the Qur'an or the Bible. It is a counterfeit.

More Information Sources:
Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas
Reasons why the Gospel Of Barnabas is a 16th Century Forgery

I can assure you, it makes a whole lot more sense than the Four Gospels which you hold so dear.

*cough*

Yes, it's a shocker, but some Christians and others will go so far as to plant false evidence. Who knew?

I don't find that shocking in the least bit. Christians (along with everyone else) have certainly done a lot of stupid things in the past. But that doesn't mean that the truths which they stand for are any less true. They're simply setting a bad example of their faith to the rest of the world. Unfortunate? Yes. Sad? Certainly. But not shocking.

BTW, the Gospel of Barnabas came out of the Pope's library. Interesting reading.

You know what? I really don't care if that statement is true or not. Because that still doesn't change anything to make the Gospel of Barnabas any more valid. The fact still stands that this book simply cannot co-exist with even the most basic and essential foundations of Christianity.

Because I believe that Jesus was not killed on the cross.

I'm quoting you on this one again simply because of how clear of a position statement you made for yourself here. And because not only do you lack any serious scholarly work to back it up, but you also fail to understand that you cannot honestly believe something like that and still consider yourself a Christian at the same time. If Christ never died for our sins on the cross, then Christianity is simply nothing more than a hollow shell of a religion. But, luckily for us, we have all of the evidence we need to support the validity of our faith. Starting with the four Inspired Evangelical Gospels.

Some things in the Four Gospels are true because we see the same things in books such as the Gospel of Barnabas, and the Torah and The Quran.

On the contrary. The Four Gospels are true. Period. And we know for a fact that they were all written by faithful apostles and disciples within living memory of Jesus Christ. If other religious books out there agree with the Four Gospels, that's great, but the world isn't going to end if they don't. Because no one can stop the truth from being heard. Not even you impostor "Barnabas".

[Easter Lily]

What an interesting discussion... and like all matters relating to Christianity and the Bible, it seems to have far-reaching consequences.

I've read some material on the Shroud of Turin in the past and to be honest I've never been too concerned about its authenticity or lack of... it is rather similar to that stuff about the Bible code too...
On this point I definitely agree with Madeline in that our faith should not stand or fall based on these religious artifacts or on so-called miraculous signs... it should be much more substantial. I agree with those who have said that Christianity stands and falls on the authenticity of the Bible though I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions Paul said in Romans that "if Christ has not risen from the dead, we are men most miserable..." Our faith must be based on the person of Jesus Christ.

When I come across such stories... I think of what Jesus said in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus when the rich man begged Abraham for the opportunity to return to his brothers and warn them of what hell is like... Jesus made an amazing statement... He said, "'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

I was quite struck by what Lord Anubis said about wishing he had more faith... it's quite interesting and it probably reflects what a lot of people think about faith. They think that faith is about finding something inside yourself and then pushing yourself to a point of belief. But the Bible teaches something quite different... the Bible says that "Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God." I blame the existentialists for confusing us about faith but as far as the Bible is concerned we need the information first. We cannot believe or disbelieve something if we don't know what it is we don't believe but when we exercise faith, all we do is take a small step of trust.
I have a stool... I tell you that it is a great little stool... it's got strong legs, made from the best wood in the world etc etc... I give you the facts... but faith comes in when you believe what I say and sit on it... that's all it is... there is nothing mystical or airy-fairy about it... In fact, we exercise faith all the time.
Anybody can have faith but I think the issue as far Biblical Christianity is concerned, it is not how much faith you have but WHAT or WHO we put our faith... ie the object of our faith. We can have faith in anybody but are they worthy of our faith?
The Shroud could be authentic... I really don't know... (and I'm sure it makes for great conversation, PJ )but Christianity has survived the centuries (despite the blundering of Christians) without knowing its authenticity because fundamentally it is about a relationship with God based on knowing who he is and trusting him at his word.

[They call me Tim]

Long story short...I have done my fair share of research too and if you go by what you hear on the History Channel for anything let alone this as your only source of knowledge then wake up...in my research and that of others there are too many things that cant be explained that lead me to believe that this shroud is in fact that of Jesus' Christ...however, like another poster I dont need it to be to believe for that is the purpose of faith...and I stopped reading after a while because it veered off topic a bit but many Christians know and understand that Christ was not born in December but that date was chosen to combat the believers of Mithrasism and the pagan attributes came later...many have been touched by the shroud including NASA scientists who have studied it and they themselves found Christ because of the shroud's nudge in their hearts...and it that respect it is very "real" if even later proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be not genuine

[eleut]

What an interesting discussion... and like all matters relating to Christianity and the Bible, it seems to have far-reaching consequences.
...

Anybody can have faith but I think the issue as far Biblical Christianity is concerned, it is not how much faith you have but WHAT or WHO we put our faith... ie the object of our faith. We can have faith in anybody but are they worthy of our faith?

...

The Shroud could be authentic... I really don't know... (and I'm sure it makes for great conversation, PJ )but Christianity has survived the centuries (despite the blundering of Christians) without knowing its authenticity because fundamentally it is about a relationship with God based on knowing who he is and trusting him at his word.

It would seem to me important to keep that viewpoint... that it is fundamentally a relationship with God based on knowing who he is and trusting him at his word (specifically that word about Christ)...

to return to Turin... it would seem that regardless of whether or not it is actually a burial shroud used momentarily by Jesus, that many people believe that it is. What is crucial then is what they do with that belief. Does the shroud become a relic, worshiped (effectively) by those who believe it contains the blood of God, or, given that the Bible makes clear that God is to be worshiped, not an object. To express that more clearly, in Moses' day, the nation of Israel rebelled against God, so, in keeping with the bilateral covenant they had made with him, God sent a plague of poisonous snakes on them, only relieving it when they, in faith, looked at a bronze snake God had Moses set on a pole (it later became the symbol in Greece for medicine after Jews migrated there and is now seen often today in relation to medicine). This object of faith in God quickly became and object of faith in itself. A later king of Israel had to destroy the thing to refocus people on God rather than pretty metal snakes.

People throughout history have done this. Ask many a Catholic today (not all mind you, not trying to Catholic-bash), and you will find that the prayers they make to saints are in fact worship. The iconoclast movement in the early church became such a great controversy (for some viewed the making of images to be worship, some a symbol of encouragement, and others a bad idea that could lead to worship (and I expect some who just thought art was cool)), that it was one of the reasons for the schism between east and west

The object of faith needs to remain God, with things alongside that encouraging that faith where valid or causing the faith to be evaluated further where not.

[puddlejumper747]

Ask many a Catholic today (not all mind you, not trying to Catholic-bash), and you will find that the prayers they make to saints are in fact worship.

Note: If many Catholics today truly do believe that (and you're not just somehow misunderstanding their inability to explain it to you properly), then that really is sad. They obviously don't know their faith very well, because if they did they would know that that is most absolutely not what the Catholic Church teaches. Worship is a virtue that is due to God alone. We pray through the Saints, and ask them to pray for us to God on our behalf. We also focus a great deal of praying directly to God, but praying to Him through the Saints still accomplishes the exact same thing, plus it gains for us an additional intercessor who is already in Heaven. We also have a devotion to the Saints because we study their lives in order to learn how we could better live our lives in imitation of them -- who themselves were ultimately living their lives in imitation of Christ, and succeeded.