For those not familiar:
The Gospel of Barnabas is falsely equated in the zotted post with the Epistle of Barnabas, and hence steals the marginal credit given to that Epistle. This is not an error, but a deceit, for no-one can seriously confuse the two. The Epistle was widely accepted in certain regions of the Church which had also accepted, more strongly, the letters of Paul and Acts. Yet the pseudo-Gospel starts off with a long discourse on how the Church has been dominated by Satan in that it has preached such things as a renunciation of circumcision.
This is no mere apparent quabble like Paul's emphasis on faith vs. James' emphasis on works: "...many, being deceived of Satan, under presence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived..." What deranged lunatic could possible treat both this statement and Paul's corpus and Acts as being truthful?
The Satanic Diatribe of the Pig-spawned of the Black Prophet, known as the Gospel of Barnabas, was by every wording plainly a late-medieval text, an obscene forgery by the Moors and Turks waging war against Christianity, seeking to sew confusion in the lands of the Reconquistadoras.
(The reference to the Black Prophet is that of Revelations.)
Excellent debunking! Concise and to the point.
Exactly, because if anyone has ever read it, you can see that it closely resembles the Koran in that it says that Jesus is not the Son of God, that He wasn't crucified, depicts Jesus at age 30 receiving the gospel from the angel Gabriel on the Mount of Olives. Muslims claim Muhammad received his revelation from Allah on Hera Mountain from Gabriel. It's got to be a forgery written by followers of Muhammad.