DM: Secret £14million Bible in which 'Jesus predicts coming of Prophet Muhammad' unearthed in Turkey

[LadySkinsFan]

Really, all three religions, Christian, Jewish, and Islam are all descended from Abraham, thus they are the Abrahamic religions. All three are bloodthirsty and cruel. Only Jesus preached love, but that has been perverted over the years by organized religion.

[Jumbo]

Excuse me,my cab is here. Talk to you all later.

[skins_fan1982]

Was a date given?

[Larry]

Was a date given?

2012

[Guest Spearfeather]

Only Jesus preached love, but that has been perverted over the years by organized religion.

As opposed to unorganized religion.

Service will start at .... let's say around ..... oh, 7 ish, but 8:00 or 8:30 is good too ..... you know ..... whenever.

[twa]

extremist group to use this as evidence for the need of jihad in 3...2...1........

I don't see the issue, my Bible predicted the coming of Mo and others like him....I'll sell it for only $100 w/free s&h

[Jumbo]

I don't see the issue, my Bible predicted the coming of Mo and others like him....I'll sell it for only $100 w/free s&h

While I remain in possession of the only authenticated copy of The Gospel According To Curly, which will cost any interested party a cool 10mil. :cool:

You also get an acolyte's account, etched in amber, of The Miracles of Shemp.

[elkabong82]

It depends on what you consider "Many." 30-75 years after Christ's death is the period where most texts are placed, but it's important to remember that we don't have original manuscripts or copyright dates for any. Of course, there's also the (unconfirmed but very strongly-believed in by many scholars) Q material from which portions of the gospel were supposedly taken. Q would have necessarily predated the gospels, and most conservative scholars believe that the collection that became Q came about very shortly after Christ's death.

That's right, thank you. It's been a while since I took New Testament in college. I seem to remember some believing Q may not have existed at all, but is rather just a natural set of inconsistencies that could have derived naturally from human error in oral stories being passed down and then texts being "over-translated." But with how long ago it was the existence of Q certainly is possible.

Now, as far as this story, sure it seems conspicuous on the surface. But I like to question these things, so for anyone who wants to help me out:

1) Was Christianity and Jesus large enough by 500 AD to merit using it in Islamic text to give merit to Mohammed as a prophet? Wouldn't this have been mentioned in other texts of the time and subsequently if the claim, at that time, would have been widely viewed as given further merit to Mohammad as the prophet (and I realize that question could be used the other way to cast further doubt upon the claim as well)?

2) Weren't there Christian texts that found their way to the Middle East after Jesus' death as well?

I'm interested in the conversation, not trying to prove this story as true or untrue.

[techboy]

1) Was Christianity and Jesus large enough by 500 AD to merit using it in Islamic text to give merit to Mohammed as a prophet?

Given that the Prophet Mohammed wasn't even born until 570 CE, I'm going to have to say no.

[Hubbs]

Weren't several books in the New Testament about Jesus' teachings etc. written many years after his death?

It depends on what you consider "Many." 30-75 years after Christ's death is the period where most texts are placed, but it's important to remember that we don't have original manuscripts or copyright dates for any. Of course, there's also the (unconfirmed but very strongly-believed in by many scholars) Q material from which portions of the gospel were supposedly taken. Q would have necessarily predated the gospels, and most conservative scholars believe that the collection that became Q came about very shortly after Christ's death.

This document would certainly appear to be an old forgery which tried to legitimize Muhammad by linking him with Jesus, which Muhammad himself tried to do, the apparent theology expressed would indicate as much too. Since by 325 AD the church had already settled upon the Nicene Creed which states very clearly in the belief in the divinity of Jesus which this document reportedly denies, some 175 years later.

Yes, but all of the books of the New Testament were written within the first century, the latest being written circa 90 AD (Revelation), and attributed to the original apostles or students of the apostles themselves.

Wait, wait, what? I thought prevailing theory said that multiple Gospels were written in the 2nd century, and even perhaps the 3rd. Do most Christian thinkers now agree that they were all written in the first century?

[PeterMP]

Wait, wait, what? I thought prevailing theory said that multiple Gospels were written in the 2nd century, and even perhaps the 3rd. Do most Christian thinkers now agree that they were all written in the first century?

Yes, for the most part. Of the Gosples, John is considered the most recent is generally considered to have beeen written AT LEAST in the 2nd half of the first century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

[techboy]

Wait, wait, what? I thought prevailing theory said that multiple Gospels were written in the 2nd century, and even perhaps the 3rd. Do most Christian thinkers now agree that they were all written in the first century?

Even the most skeptical scholars agree that all of the texts in the New Testament were written in the 1st century.

[Guest Spearfeather]

Wait, wait, what? I thought prevailing theory said that multiple Gospels were written in the 2nd century, and even perhaps the 3rd. Do most Christian thinkers now agree that they were all written in the first century?

The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the "synoptic gospels," because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story. Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

[techboy]

What a shock. Not-a-1500 Year Old Bible in Turkey

Seems this stuff comes up every week, but this picture is apparently that of an alleged 1500 year old Bible that is now being kept in Ankara. The story is that Turkish police seized it in an anti-smuggling operation in 2000. It is only now coming to light because the Vatican is asking for it. It apparently contains the Gospel of Barnabas, which scholars almost unanimously date to the 16th century as a late pseudo-gospel that was written to give the impression that it was the work of Barnabas. Why is this gospel so potentially valuable to Turkey? It contains within it some material that seems to predict the coming of Mohammed, and generally follows the standard Muslim account of early Christianity. So if Turkey can prove it is from 500 AD it obviously scores a huge point since Mohammed doesn’t come until the end of that century, and thus the book would clearly be a prophecy about his coming. Lots at stake then, and no surprise the Turkish authorities are not so readily handing it over to the Vatican and are instead keeping it under military control.

I just spoke with my colleague about this, and after both of us have had the chance to look at it we concur it is impossible this is a 1500 year old Bible. What could be really funny is that at the bottom it appears to read something like 1500 AD. It is admittedly tough to read, but it would quite a mistake to claim it is 1500 years old when it was produced in 1500. This date would also conform to what most scholarship believes anyway, that this gospel was produced around this time.

Oops.

The author's bio, for those that wonder...

I am a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Oriental Studies in the University of Oxford where I teach Hebrew & Jewish Studies, and very occasionally Eastern Christianity. My research to date has been focused on the textual history of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, specifically that of the Septuagint and later Jewish and Christian revisions. I am now also working on biblical and theological perspectives on social ethics. My primary concerns are politics, immigration and asylum, economics, and hip hop music.

So he probably has some idea of which he speaks.

[Thiebear]

Why would we care either way?

If Jesus predicted the Prophet Muhammad and he is correct (as it would seem) you should say "Well Duh" he's God! thats cheating as he could predict i was going to type this 'now'.

[AsburySkinsFan]

All three are bloodthirsty and cruel.

This is where I stopped reading.

---------- Post added February-28th-2012 at 08:35 PM ----------

Wait, wait, what? I thought prevailing theory said that multiple Gospels were written in the 2nd century, and even perhaps the 3rd. Do most Christian thinkers now agree that they were all written in the first century?

Most credible scholars unserstand that the all ofthe NT was written between 36 AD and 90 AD.

[Jumbo]

So he probably has some idea of which he speaks.

Well, obviously,..."hip-hop music."

[CrypticVillain]

I would like to thank all who posted in this thread. I got some good laughs and learned some things. Can't ask for more from an ES Tailgate thread. :applause:

[Hubbs]

Yes, for the most part. Of the Gosples, John is considered the most recent is generally considered to have beeen written AT LEAST in the 2nd half of the first century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

Even the most skeptical scholars agree that all of the texts in the New Testament were written in the 1st century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Most credible scholars unserstand that the all ofthe NT was written between 36 AD and 90 AD.

Cool beans. Yet another thing I learned in the Tailgate.

[Corcaigh]

So he probably has some idea of which he speaks.

I'm not buying it. Just look at the courses he teaches:

• Elementary Hebrew
  
• Biblical Hebrew Prose
  
• Biblical Hebrew Poetry
  
• Psalms
  
• Latin Vulgate
  
• Septuagint texts
  
• Cyril of Jerusalem (Greek reading class)
  
• Beginner's and Intermediate Syriac
  
• Formation of Rabbinic Judaism
  
• Varieties of Second Temple Judaism
  

Until I hear from someone who teaches Advanced Cyriac I'm going to believe an English tabloid newspaper, even if they were required to pay £47,500 to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

[nonniey]

Your eloquent post is certainly not in any form a negation of the mathematical error to which I referred in my previous posting. What is even more curious is that the dating of this manuscript, which has yet to be authenticated, coincides with the rise of Islam, circa 1,500 CE. As such the claim of this document is even more dubious as being anything other than an Islamic text which tried use the authority of Jesus to validate Muhammad. Furthermore, in my previous post I was in no way attempting to write in proper English grammar, but instead I chose to employ a common form of internet slang in order to make a specific point regarding the dating of the material in question.

I had heard about this a year or so ago but can't find where or what I read. It is more likely Christian writing as it is supposedly very negative toward Islam. Not sure though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I had heard about this a year or so ago but can't find where or what I read. It is more likely Christian writing as it is supposedly very negative toward Islam. Not sure though.

Doesn't make sense though considering it denies the divinity of Jesus which by 500 AD was well established in the Chrisitan church, and I'm finding it difficult to rationalize why a Christian would write that Jesus was prophesying the arrival of Muhammad thus legitimizing his message. Just seems very odd, and what seems much more reasonable is that it was written by a Muslim to legitimize Muhammad in the eyes of people who understood Christianity as a legitimate religion.

[skins_fan1982]

2012

Welp, we are all done for. We're all gonna die.

[Barney B]

Welp, we are all done for. We're all gonna die.

Another prophesy! Praise be to Curly.

[PokerPacker]

Another prophesy! Praise be to Curly.

Bah, Curley's prophesies are built off the foundation laid by Larry.