SHLAMA, MILTHA

7. True or not, the Gospel of Barnabas is the gospel that 'original' rather than the four Gospels (the Gospels of the New Testament)?
This question was obviously not true, and contains elements ‘nonsense’! How Canonical Gospels be compared 'just' with 'gospel' of the XVI century (that is, if forced to call it gospel!). OK, fine, we just replied : Christians didn't know about the Gospel of Barnabas tuch, beside that the speaking Italian gospel ‘suddenly’ appeared sixteenth century it is clear not recognized by any Christian, even by those non-Christians are honest and sincere will admit that ‘suddenly gospel’ this is a forgery. One example, in Article 3 of the gospel of Barnabas about the birth of Jesus is said that Jesus was born at the time of Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was the governor. Well, ‘the nonsense’looks very clear khan? How can be Pilate was a governor at the time of the birth of Jesus, according to the history books new Pilate served prefect or governor in the region with the assumption that the earliest start of the year 20 AD until 37 AD Lha, the birth of Jesus then what year? And it was Herod the Great died in 4 BC. This is called 'keliru ing pandum' (wrong in what is a part). One more thing, mentioned also that when Jesus was born, Annas and Caiaphas the high priest was so, so when the high priest Annas 6-15 years AD, was Caiaphas who succeeded under Emperor Tiberius and appointed by Valerius Gratus, officials before Pontius Pilate.
Barnabas Gospel writers seem very impatient or even less well understood Bible verses and the Islamic faith itself. In the chapter of this false gospel 220:20 says, “Will come prophet named Muhammad. And this will go on until the coming of Muhammad Rasul Allah that when he arrived to unload his deceit for those who believe in the Law of God.” From the verse is clear that the author of the gospel of Barnabas go beyond the ethical prophecy, where the prophecy is more emphasis on certain characteristics or a certain time and not vulgar in the name. Ibn Ishaq (VIII century AD) is believed to be the first to cite the Gospel of John in the Palestinian Syriac dialect of 'The Other Helper' was interpreted prophecies concerning the presence of Muhammad from a word that does not directly spoken name of Muhammad but Parakletos although the matching with Ahmad / Muhammad is Periklitos not Parakletos). From this verse we can also see other irregularities when the writers 'gospel' of Barnabas states “... Muhammad Messenger of Allah when it comes to dismantling the falsity ini ...”. If it's false gospel was written by the Apostle Barnabas (I or II century AD), why should you wait for the arrival of the Prophet, Arabic (VII century AD), when writers 'gospel' Barnabas had already revealed the falsehood that there are deviations and teachings of Christ are happened at that time. Christians do not have to wait until 6 centuries later because of the Gospel of Barnabas is a very complete to overcome the false teachings of Paul and the disciples of Jesus more.
Barnabas was a man who became a friend of Paul's ministry. He comes from a Jewish family living in Cyprus. Barnabas as well as with Paul, including the new converts so as not included in the number of 12 apostles chosen directly by Jesus Christ. So my personal opinion, rather odd to say that Jesus also was believed that the density of Barnabas 'vent' to Barnabas even to cry lamenting the fate of his teaching that students diverted him. If Jesus was so close to Barnabas, surely He will put the numbers 12 apostles, or even he would make the beloved disciple. But it did not have the facts. Barnabas does not include numbers 12 apostles.
Some claimed that Paul also did not include numbers 12 apostles. Yes, Paul is also not in the first 12 apostles of Jesus, thus he is also the same as Barnabas did not receive direct instruction from Jesus Christ, apart from the 'vision of Damascus'. Instead of a standard is the teaching of Jesus to the 12 apostles of Jesus this option. Anyone who later in life should remain in the 'tracks' teachings received 12 first Apostles of Jesus from the mouth of the Messiah himself, anyone including Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, the evangelists Mark, Luke, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Anthiokia and people who called by the mediation of Jesus teaching the disciples.
If it is true Barnabas writes his own 'gospel', is very unnatural if he writes things that are contrasting or contrary to what was written by disciples of others. Even 2 of the four canonical gospels attributed to Matthew and John's name (which is clearly included 12 directly elected student Jesus) was the very opposite of what is called a 'gospel' Barnabas. Mark also wrote his gospel according to what he receives from the teaching of the Apostle Peter, also contrary to the 'gospel' of Barnabas (although it is clear that the Apostle Peter had been with Jesus Christ since the beginning of the proclamation of His gospel). Of course, for Christians is difficult to accept something so different / contrary to the gospel that has been acknowledged by all Christians as Jesus' teaching the disciples received Jesus and passed on to Christians all ages through the preaching of Jesus disciples.
Kif there is a non-Christian people who receive it as an original 'gospel', yes that's fine. Like the Apostle Paul's message to the church at Corinth, “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Cor 11:4)