re: The Gospel Of Barnabas
Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim. Salaam, All. I did find one point that I didn't cover in an older post. Concerning the article by Green:
b/ The Rulers of the 1st Century A.D. In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth: There reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor. This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37-4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26-36 A.D [3]. The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?
Reply: >>
First of all, according to 'history' Herod 'the great' had at least three son's.
A son, Herod antipas, ruled during the time of Prophet Jesus [PBUH]. So Green, is correct in stating that "The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate,"... as both Herod and Pilate, appear in the gospel, at the same time.
aineo stated: >>>
quote:
"You and the author of this site need to get your facts straight. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas are two different documents. There is no credible evidence the Gospel of Barnabas existed prior to the fifteenth or sixteen century."
Reply: >>
You need to re-read the article. The author states that the 'epistle of barnabas' is 'doubtful.' It may not be an epistle by barnabas. It certainly is not the same as 'The Gospel Of Barnabas':
http://www.understanding-islam.org/rela ... scatid=133
How could a book composed in the "sixth century," be rejected in the "fifth century?"
Salaam. EssentiallyIslam