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

some say he was killed on a state rather then a cross, not impaled, but hung to die on a stake, the idea of a cross cam many many years after his death....

.

 

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=94;t=000922;p=1

 

Catholics say it is a fake.

They say the origins of the fakery are Muslims.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/why-the-‘gospel-of-barnabas’-is-a-medieval-fake

 

The Bible says that Jesus was hanged from a tree. When a person is hanged it generally means that he had a rope tied around his neck.

The stories that I mentioned about being impaled means that a sharp-pointed stick is rammed up a person's bottom into his torso. It was a popular means of execution among some groups in the Bible. That's what I meant by Jesus on a stick.

In the Babylonian Talmud the Jews boast about killing Jesus using five (5) different methods.

 

These documents are on display for you to go and see. I've told you where. None of them are in 'Modern' formatt. The article you quoted earlier agrees that the Siniaticus is from early times. Like all documents errors have been overwritten etc. There were no computers to correct errors.

You're beginning to assume the mantle of another poster who has written his own history book.

Christianity may not be logical/rational but that does not make these books any the less real. They were written by people who believed in the faith. Your Marvel magazines were never intended to be real nor were they taken as reality - except by some children who grew out of it as they grew older.

In all the denial of the reality of these ancient documents, and the sincerity of the people who wrote them, you've only demonstrated your reluctance to accept that these documents/books exist in reality, not the rationality of any fairytale.

 

The Romans used 5 different types of crosses for executions. None involved sharp sticks up the bottom. And crucifixion had been around for centuries, it wasn't a Roman invention.

 

I understood what you meant, I was just saying some believed he was hung on a stake, not a cross

 

A bible was found from before there was a standard Christian teaching. So of course the book will be rejected by its believers.

And in the end it might turn out to be the real deal, just not cannon. Awkward!

Wow! I'm so glad I got out from under Christianity a long time ago.

 

It's pretty damn close to accurate and perfect. It differs little from the Bibles of the Catholics, or the Orthodoxies, in the many languages. It's only difference is it omits some books that the Catholics include and makes a reasonably well argued reason as to why it does so.

- - - Updated - - -

Your statement makes no sense.

How is a person's book "the real deal" but "not cannon"? If his statements don't match the eye-witness statements of more authoritative texts, then it can't even be "the real deal". It's just another book from that time period.

 

The Church decided what's cannon and what isn't. There are books that were rejected for inclusion in the Bible.

If it's not in the Bible it's not cannon.

But it might be a real first century bible used by Christians of the day.

 

What was decided as canon and what was not canon is not some "super big conspiracy". For (*)(*)(*)(*) sake they included all the "left-outs" in a book called "Apocrypha" so you could read how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid they are for yourself.

Things like "Jesus spitting on the ground and creating a dove from clay". That's just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid fairy-tale (*)(*)(*)(*) that has no point.

People who say "well the church decided what was canon or not" obviously have never read the dumb bull(*)(*)(*)(*) gnostic bible crap that was circulating at the time and left out.

And so my rant is not just a rant...it wasn't just that the Apocrypha were stupid. The Council chose those epistles and gospels that were known to be written closest to the time of Christ. They excluded those books that were farther removed, and contradicted themselves, or other books, or contradicted the known oldest manuscripts. There was a VERY EDUCATED PROCESS in getting rid of that apocrypha trash from the real Bible.

 

Just to touch up on my point:

The books that did not make it into the Bible are as obviously non-Biblical as "Heaven is for Real" written by a ghost writer on behalf of a 5 year old.

Or stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) like Joel Osteen Self-help books.

That have no place in the Bible.

Next you'd be asking they included the story of Hercules into the Bible cuz...why not?

 

What you view to be junk might be the entire Bible for a first century Christian.

 

Wrong, try reading that junk. Some of it is grammatically incorrect for the contemporary authors, written by people who barely understood the languages they were writing in.

It was pulp fiction hitching on the rising tide of Christianity, and finally the Bishops got together and threw it into a single volume called "Apocrypha" where it belongs.

One of the most powerful way to determine if a story is real or fake is to add-up ALL THE NAMES and compare it with cemeteries of the time period and compare the name distributions to see if they are accurate.

If I want to write a story about 14th Century France, I better know how many people were named Francois and Joan, and accurately portray that in my story, or else my story will OBVIOUSLY be a fiction and not a retelling of actual events and persons.

The canonical Gospel and Epistles have an accurate name distribution for their localities and times.

The Apocrypha do not.

Would you like to say "Please sir may I have another"?

 

Nevertheless an earlier script is closer to the originals than the manuscripts that are used for today's Bibles.

 

No one was named "Joan" in 14th Century France because the name didn't exist at that time.

 

I'm not saying that it did, I'm saying that such things occur in works of fiction. People usually select names that are common to them, or contemporary to their geographical location.

The Bible doesn't do that, it is proven through extensive archeology that the names in the Bible match the time periods and localities where the books were written.

The Apocrypha fit the trend for "fantasy novels". Made-up names, or poorly matching name distributions.

The sample size in the Gospels alone are over 300+ persons by name, so the sample size is not indecent and matches well to the turn of the century Roman province of Palestine/Judea.

The Epistles has even a larger name list with a larger geographic distribution and still manages to match cemeteries of those times and places!

 

"fantasy novels". Made-up names, or poorly matching name distributions. = Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Adam, Eve, Abel, David, Thomas.

 

I personally couldn't care less whether a fictional character was crucified or not.

I have more concern why so many people want to worship a religion that glorifies an evil monster for as deity.

Catholicism is like a religion that's been created to worship a tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

It's just a zombie who wants people to eat it and drink its blood.