Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place.
A report by The National Turk says that the Bible was seized from a gang of smugglers in a Mediterranean-area operation. The report states the gang was charged with smuggling antiquities, illegal excavations, and the possession of explosives. The books itself is valued as high as 40 Million Turkish Liras (approx. 28 mil. Dollars). Man, where is the Thieves Guild, when you need them?
Authenticity
According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.
The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament’s teachings of Christianity. Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later.
It is believed that, during the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many biblical texts have begun to surface over time, including those of the Dead Sea and Gnostic Gospels; but this book especially, seems to worry the Vatican.


The Catholic Church wants in
What does this mean to Christian-derived religions and their followers? Quite a tight spot. The Vatican has asked Turkish authorities to let them examine the contents of the book within the Church. Now that the book has been found, will they come to accept the it and its evidence? Will they deny it altogether? Call it a “Muslim lie”, as did the “Truth” Magazine, in 2000?
To many, this book is a beacon of hope, that believers soon realize that the object of their adoration is arbitrary; and that all text, especially religious text, is subject to interpretation.
What does this mean to atheists/agnostics/secular thinkers? Is the text real? Fake? Does it matter? Hopefully, this news inspires the religious to ask questions, instead of pointing fingers or believing anything blindly.
Please, don’t go poking fun or tossing around the “I told you so!”s. The biggest danger of faith is when people believe what they want to believe, defending against any and all evidence; especially when that evidence revolutionizes their foundation from the ground up. And the biggest culprit to that danger is the ego trap: rejecting/criticizing others, for being unlike you.
For centuries, the “defense” of blind faith has driven nations to war, violence, discrimination, slavery and to become the society of automatons that we are today; and for just as long, it has been justified with lies. If you know better, act like it.

Read more at http://higherperspective.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ-crucified-vatican-awe.html#Y3B2mkWdSu1h6c2P.99

The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake work. The English version was translated in the early 1900's from the Italian version. The Italian translation could be as old as 1400 AD. No other copies exist, and there are no references of it from anyone before the 1500's AD.

This should not be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas which dates between 70 and 135 AD. The epistle may or may not have been written by the Barnabas of Acts, but it is quoted by early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, who about 170 AD, stated the epistle was authentic. The teachings in the Epistle of Barnabas agree completely with the Bible.

source - http://biblefacts.org/church/fake/gosbarn.html

The Muslim scholar Cyril Glass� states:

As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran.

source - http://www.answering-islam.org/Barnabas/

Few academics argue that the text, in its present form, dates back any earlier than the 14th–16th centuries; although a minority see it as containing portions of an earlier work, and almost all would detect the influence of earlier sources—over and above the Vulgate text of the Latin Bible. Consequently most researchers would concur with a stratification of the surviving text into at least three distinct layers of composition:[35]

an editorial layer dating from the late 16th century; and comprising, at the least, the Spanish preface and the Arabic annotations,
a layer of vernacular narrative composition, either in Spanish or Italian, and dating from no earlier than the mid-14th century,
a layer derived from earlier source materials, almost certainly transmitted to the vernacular author/translator in Latin; and comprising, at the least, those extensive passages in the Gospel of Barnabas that closely parallel pericopes in the canonical gospels; but whose underlying text appears markedly distinct from that of the late medieval Latin Vulgate[36] (as for instance in the alternative version of the Lord's Prayer in chapter 37, which includes a concluding doxology, contrary to the Vulgate text, but in accordance with the Diatessaron and many other early variant traditions);
Much of the controversy and dispute concerning the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas can be re-expressed as debating whether specific highly transgressive themes (from an orthodox Christian perspective) might already have been present in the source materials utilised by a 14th–16th-century vernacular author, whether they might be due to that author himself, or whether they might even have been interpolated by the subsequent editor. Those researchers who regard these particular themes as primitive, nevertheless do not generally dispute that other parts of the Gospel may be late and anachronistic; while those researchers who reject the authenticity of these particular themes do not generally dispute that other parts of the Gospel could be transmitting variant readings from antiquity.

I smell a rat.

As there is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist. And the original texts of most of the former divine Books were lost altogether, and only their translations exist today. The Qur’an, on the other hand, exists exactly as it had been revealed to the Prophet; not a word of it has been changed. It is available in its original text and the Word of God has been preserved for all times to come. So I think it is very useful to use Quran beside Bible when you discuss any religious fact.

Not

The source of all religions is God. Even trinity of God means three persons in one God. Adam is father of all. So, NOT for what?

You borrowed from the same sources the Bible did,namely Sumerian,then,like the Bible,you fancied it up!
Mixed Ancient Texts,Judaic Tradition,and a bit of Christianity from that Blacksmith the Prophet used to hang out with!

Islam,like any other Religion simply borrowed from its Predecessors!
To claim that Koran is the one and only Truth is as dis-ingenuous as the Claim by the Christians!

You two caused more Wars,Mischief,Death and Heartbreak than any of the other Religions combined.

Well first off, "Christ"ianity is centered around Jesus "Christ" So of course things from the new testament, the belief Christians follow only dates back to A.D. and not B.C. thus A.D. = After Death and B.C.= Before Christ.

So no "Christianity" caused absolutely no wars at all, for one simple fact

Luke 6:29
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

Matthew 5:39
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

"Christianity" or again the teachings of our "Christ" are totally and entirely passive.

Anything from old testament is not "Christ"ianity for it was not taught by our "Christ" for again there was no "Christ" until Jesus walked the face of this Earth in the flesh.

Christ was in the beginning before the world was made. He actually mad the earth John 1:1. John 1:14 He was also the god of the old testament who dealt with Israel 1 cor 10:4 No one has seen the father John 5:37 The god Moses saw Exodus 33:22 was Christ.

Amen, with the exception he wasn't "Jesus Christ" in the old testament. He was the Word. Please keep things in context. But nevertheless anything old testament is not "Christianity" for in the old testament there was no "Christ". There was no Christ till Jesus walked the Earth in the flesh and came to give us a new covenant and take our place in death to save our souls, thus why he's our "Christ" because he saves us. Before he walked the Earth in the flesh, there was no Christ.

Christ = The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Often used with the.

Foretold of in the Hebrew scriptures, the old covenant, the old testament. But there was not in fact a "Christ" for us yet, as it was being foretold of to come.

This is where a lot of people get confused. Christianity's Holy Scripture is actually the New Testament. While we do consider The Old Testament to be Holy Scripture, we are the wild branches that are grafted in to The Vine. We are to live by The New Testament.

Exactly, Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the old covenant/testament. And gave us a new in the process. That is why while Jesus was on the cross, he said "It's finished"

John 19:30
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

I see. So what made Yahshua sinless? The NT??

Jesus was sinless because he never broke a law. He never indulged in a sinful action. All his actions were pure and align with the laws.

And the new testament didn't "make" Jesus sinless. The new testament is the collection of books and epistles that are according to our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

so then just what does someone being an example mean to u?

Jesus is our example through what he did, not specifically cause of the new testament. The new testament is merely passed on knowledge of what has happened and what is yet to come. It's not a bedtime story written to read to children to make them go to sleep. That's how your statement makes it seem. Jesus was a real live breathing being in the flesh.