St. Zoticus, pray for him.
LOL... 614 posts and climbing.
Has a "zotted" thread ever gone this high?
jw
This is dumb even by ZOTtable standards. Even if this alleged "gospel" is one of the actual ancient documents that was seriously advanced (but ultimately rejected) as a sacred text, "Mohammad" was a fairly common Arab name even pre-Islam.
Is this crappola growing on trees these days?
bfl
Mohammed was in a Looney Tunes cartoon, too, you don't see me ranting and raving...You said: "What do you think?"
According to the New Testament, Barnabas was not present during the ministry of Jesus. He is first mentioned in Acts after the church was already established. He, like other disciples, sold his property to raise money for distribution to the poor (Acts 4). He was a Jew from Cyprus named Joseph whom the apostles called Bar-nabas, which means "son of encouragement". (Acts 4:36).
According to the document in question, however, Barnabas was an apostle of Jesus and known by this name throughout Jesus' ministry. On many occasions Jesus is reported to have called him Barnabas instead of Joseph. This weakens the credibility of this gospel because Barnabas was never called to be an apostle by Jesus, according to all the available lists in the other Gospels.
The Barnabas of this gospel rejects the deity of Christ. Jesus is alleged to have denied being equal with God and to have claimed that he was only a messenger and servant of God. However, in the New Testament in Acts, Barnabas was the one who introduced Paul to the apostles at Jerusalem and encouraged them to trust him. The first thing Paul had preached after his conversion was that Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 9:20) and no doubt Barnabas was well aware of it. If Paul was preaching something unacceptable would Barnabas not have called for him to be silenced rather than fighting for his acceptance as a preacher of God’s word?
http://islam.itl.org.uk/barnabas/writer.html
Do some research
Parakletos drinks toilet water.
Muslims are always going on about corrupted texts...and then attempt to cite a REAL corrupted text as support for their death cult. Why bother?
What do I think. This "Gospel" is such an obvious forgery that there is nothing to think about. There is no documentary evidence it even existed prior to the 15th cen.