VATICAN IN AWE: 1500 Year Old Bible Confirms that Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified

http://natives-today.com/2017/03/21...confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified/

 

You should read
www.thomastwin.com/

if you would like to see how the death burial and resurrection of Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus was not only a Passover event.....
but also a Yom Kippur event......

There is more to the Scapegoat / 'goat for Azazel" than Bar Abbas / Barabbas.

 

that's not old enough to be credible anyway.

 

Where I am sceptical is it's looks like a lot like muslim propaganda.
What quran says :
Jesus is not killed, replaced by Juda during his death and a prophet.

 

I love how conveniently this comes out so soon before Easter. Is there a movie in the works or is this just another Palestinians hate Jews and Jesus thread?

 

One thing all of those fakes have in common is poor images so that the reader can't examine them.

 

Interesting.. Could the Muslims be right? This Bible is older than Islam.

 

But alas, this extraordinary discovery is probably a hoax, the work of a forger who, according to some, could have been a European Jewish scholar from the Middle Ages.

The most factual criticisms have come from the Syriacs. Indeed, anyone who speaks modern Assyrian (also known as neo-Aramaic) will find the inscription on the so-called ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ easy to read. However errors are just as easy to make out. Apparently, the main inscription, in a modern transliteration, reads: ‘b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b'sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran’.

This apparently means: ‘In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord.’ There is not enough space here to go through the grammatical and conceptual errors in detail, but experts in modern Assyrian assure us that they are obvious and quite significant. Apart from anything else, the inscription says ‘book’, but one never refers to a bible in Assyrian with the word ‘book’.

The Bible is either referred to as New or Old Testament, or Holy Book. It is quite unlikely that monks could have made such obvious mistakes.

However these are not the only issues in a case that raises interesting points – both at the time of its creation and now – only when considered in the light of a rather hostile attitude towards Christians. Today, a fair number of newspapers and media organisations in Muslim Countries have picked up the news, saying that ‘an ancient, 1500-year-old bible predicted the coming of Muhammad.’

Apart from the obvious age confusion between the 1500 years attributed by the media and the date of 1500 AD written in the book’s main inscription, it is clear that predicting in 1500 AD something that occurred in 630 AD is no great prophecy.

So we have to ask ourselves why the Islamic media is so ready to approve what seems to be a glaring mistake whatever way you look at it, a mistake which however appeals to followers of Islam, who have always claimed that Jesus, ‘Issa’, was the predecessor of ‘the Seal of the Prophets’.

More at the link..

http://www.lastampa.it/2012/03/04/v...nabas-hoax-dmytRSmf9UhiPZJZJx60SL/pagina.html

Looks like a hoax.