1500-Year-Old Bible Discovered In Turkey Indicates Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified

In the 3rd-4th century CE parchment was use for writing. Pages were bound together like a modern book. Codex Siniaticus circa 4-500CE and Codex Vaticanus

What is the Codex Sinaiticus? Circa 400CE
The literal meaning of 'Codex Sinaiticus' is the Sinai Book. The word 'Sinaiticus' derives from the fact that the Codex was preserved for many centuries at St Catherine's Monastery near the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt.

The Codex is the remains of a huge hand-written book that contained all the Christian scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, together with two late first-century Christian texts, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. This book was made up of over 1,460 pages, each of which measured approximately 41cm tall and 36cm wide.

Just over half of the original book has survived, now dispersed between four institutions: St Catherine's Monastery, the British Library, Leipzig University Library (Germany), and the National Library of Russia in St Petersburg. At the British Library the largest surviving portion - 347 leaves, or 694 pages - includes the whole of the New Testament.

 

How many labs have dated the material?

 

They did...Baal worship. Canaanites were corrupt and wicked people who had plenty of warning to turn their people around.

 

I'd like to read that.

 

You think that 3 reputable Libraries would not have checked their authencity. For goodness sake, is somone going to spend years writing 759 vellum pages of the Vaticanus in the uncial style of writing, palaeographically dated to the 4th century just to fool people. Same for the Siniaticus. Some of it is usually on display in the British Library. Worth a look if you're English and in London. Check first though as things change.

Surely you can come up with something better to dispute their authenticity?

There is no doubt in scholars minds.

Part is usually on display in the British Library if you're ever in London.l Worth a look

 

An English committee wrote the Bible around 700 AD. Of course they would support fakes that can be used to validate their own creation.

 

Do you have any proof for your rather robust conspiracy theory? How do you explain the existence of pre-English Bibles?

 

My first thought on reading this story was, "Why is a report from 2 years ago being posted as if this a new thing?". So I dug a little bit into this and found that not only is this story at least 2 years old .. it's actually much older:

"In 1985, it was briefly claimed that an early Syriac copy of this gospel had been found near Hakkari in eastern Turkey. However, it has since been demonstrated that this manuscript actually contains the canonical Bible. In February 2012, it was confirmed by the Turkish Ministery of Culture and Tourism that a 52-page biblical manuscript in Syriac writing had been deposited in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara. Newspaper reports in Turkey claimed that the manuscript had been found in Cyprus in 2000, in an operation conducted by police against smugglers, and had been kept in a police repository since then; and further speculated that the text of the manuscript could be that of the Gospel of Barnabas.

No subsequent confirmation has been made, either as to the contents of the Ankara manuscript, or as to any findings of scientific tests for its age and authenticity. In March 2012 Dr. Assad Sauma, an expert in medieval Syriac texts, reported that the manuscript deposited in the Ethnography Museum could be identified with one for which he had formerly undertaken a partial analysis. He stated that the ten pages of text that he had examined had consisted of apparently random verses and quotations from the canonical gospels, together with (largely unrelated) painted miniatures; and also that he had been unable to find any correspondence between them and the text of the Italian/Spanish Gospel of Barnabas."
​

This document has been largely debunked and at any rate, has never been submitted for any dating. The Gospel of Barnabas has also been largely dismissed as a likely forgery in that it has many anachronistic references. Note: 'Forgery' in this sense does not mean that someone forged it in modern times like they would a $20 bill. It just means that it is NOT an actual transcription of previous documents. The issues with the anachronisms can be seen with more detail HERE.

 

http://www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/
There's a reason the earth cracked open.
The earth split open so the blood and water could fall on the mercy seat.
God fulfilled his obligations at that point.
Jesus was the lamb of god.
He is still living.

 

Can you produce a legitimate copy of the Bible before the year 700AD when the Codex Amiatinus was written? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

Sure, there might have been bits and pieces of various ragged manuscripts floating around but they were not in a book. You also have to consider history. Uthman had had a committee write the fairy tale about Mohammed around 640 AD. The Christians soon found out about it and knew that they had to have their own book to counter the Koran. So they started looking for some great story tellers and writers. An English group got the job and it produced three fancy copies as a gift to Pope Gregory II.

Have you ever seen a copy of a pre-English Bible? I have never been able to find a visible copy of one. Maybe you can produce a link?

 

That doesn't answer my question. Where is your proof for your conspiracy theory? Where is there even one academic historian who backs your claims? It would have to be more than just the Bible itself -- every single piece of writing that references one of the books of the Bible before 700 AD would have to be faked. All of the pre-English manuscripts, likewise would have had to been faked, and all historians on the subject would have to be part of the conspiracy.

You made the claim, so where is your poof? Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't going to fly.

 

I asked if you had a link to a copy of a pre-English Bible. You either have one or you don't. That's not related to my "conspiracy". As for me I haven't been able to find one. Maybe someone else and, if so, we can add it to our collective knowledge base.

Now, as for my "conspiracy theory" consider world events at the time. Before the year 600 Christianity and paganism were the two main choices in the Mediterranean area. Neither was particularly warlike, going around forcing people to convert. Then something unexpected happened that upset the peace. The Arabs got the idea for Islam. It doesn't matter how they got it but suddenly there was a major threat to peace sweeping out of Arabia with a mean attitude that wanted to convert everyone it came into contact with to Islam.

The Christians had been laid back. They had a ton of oral stories but they didn't have them documented in a standard format for all of the congregations to use. The muslims put their new fairy tale into a standard format and forced everyone to use it. The Christians were at a major disadvantage when they found that out and they were in a panic.

So the bigwigs in Rome decided that they needed a book of their own. They put out feelers to see who could write their stories into a single book. The English were great story tellers and writers so they got the job. They even raised a herd of live stock for the vellum material. The committee got busy and produced some big beautiful copies of their fairy tale, called the Bible. It didn't exist before they wrote it and it wouldn't exist now if the Arabs hadn't started a competitive religion that they wrote in a book.

Now here's the ultimate kicker. The English were so influential that once they reformatted the Bible into chapters and numbered verses they did the same thing to the Koran. That's why you will never, ever, see a copy of a pre-700 AD Bible or an original Koran. It's hilarious to see muslim clerics cite chapter and verse from the Koran because Uthman's committee never wrote it that way. The Koran was reformatted to copy the reformatted Bible which was originally written in response to the Koran.

 

Nonsense. The tanakh of the Jews was canonized 135 AD. The Old Testament of the bible is the tanakh - only the positions of the canonized books are different. The bible (OT+NT) was canonized in the second century. In the bible lots of authors and coauthors report about god and his people and children.

The Quran is completly different and has not only a little similarity with the bible. The Quran was canonized from the third Calif Uthman ibn Affan (also known under the name "Osman") 644-656. The Quran are sentences of Mohammed without concrete context. It's a summary of abstracta.

 

Pe(*)(*)(*)(*)ta Text dated circa 5th cent. in the British Library

As to the Amiatinus being written to combat Islam's Qu'ran - please. If Ceolfrid, living in Northumbria, had even heard of Islam I should be surprised. Uthman was Caliph from 644-656
so it must have been around 650 before he had destroyed the differing Qu'ran's and compiled one in the original tongue of Mohammed.

I quite enjoyed your fairy story about the writing of the Bible by a committee

P.E.R.S.H.I.T.T.A text

 

I asked you for proof of your conspiracy. You either have it or you don't.

Then you haven't really tried much searching. Try the Codex Sinaiticus, for starters..

Christian and Pagan emperors in Rome both forced their religion on others.

There had been attempts by both Christians and Jews to develop a canon well before the dates in question.

Greek bibles were already available and were already in use. The Romans didn't turn to the English. When the Romans felt that Greek was no longer adequate, they had Jerome do a Latin translation, not an English one.

I'd love to see your poof. Let me know when you have some available.

Even the Latin Vulgate had chapter and verse enumeration; you are barking up the wrong tree. Muslims did not invent the concept of adding enumeration to long works.

I understand that this myth is the basis for your conspiracy, but it is severely lacking in proof and in historical literacy.

Again, based on a myth.

 

this has been known for awhile, Christians stole the cross idea from Pagans

http://answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/cross_pagan_origins.htm

even the cross was Pagan before it was claimed to be christian

"The cross is a pagan symbol that was adored in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus was born. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the cross symbol at least 600 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Even the early Christians of North Africa rejected the wooden cross after Tertullian condemned it.

Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross. "

 

a real man... yes.. just like most martyrs... ironically though... he never went by the name Jesus while alive, we changed his name to make it less middle eastern

some say he wasn't even killed and that they killed someone else by mistake

.

 

So you seriously think that various guys throughout the centuries in the Middle East wrote down long stories with detailed dialogue. And not only that but they did it in such a way that each story merged seamlessly into the following story written decades or centuries later by another guy in another location. And then presto! Magic happens. Despite all of the wars, upheavals, disasters and so forth all of those written stories flew in on a breeze and landed in front of a guy who assembled them into a comprehensive book.

Great zombies and ghosts. That's some powerful magic!

 

You've been shown what you asked for. If you don't accept these early manuscripts and books, that's up to you.

 

I can show you some early Tarzan books and movies but that won't make the story true. The fact is that you have nothing in the way of evidence. All of your material is in modern format. You mentioned some documents but you never posted any links that support your claim. I've demonstrated how illogical the fairy tale is. The fairy tale is simply not rational.

 

The whole pagan crucified god thing is 99.99% bunk. There are no pre-Christian myths of these gods being crucifies.

 

so is the Christian bible myths, but many still believe it, funny no one wrote the story of Jesus while Jesus was alive.... the myth was created many many years after death

.

 

True but I'm talking about the whole concept that pre-Christian pagans believed in crucifiec gods in the first place, not whether or not their beliefs were true. Horus, going with a popular example, was never held to be a crucified figure by pagans, same for Osiris, Dionysus, Krishna and other figures who Victorian poets chose to reimagine as Cruvified figures.

 

I suppose being crucified is better than being impaled alive. It makes a better idol anyway. Image if Jesus had been impaled like the chief baker or like Haman was impaled on a 75 foot tall pole. People would be wearing Jesus on a stick.