Peace all
There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament which date from before A.D. 350. Not once in any of the manuscripts which contain these passages do we find the word "Periclytos" used. The word that we find used every time is "Paracletos." Thus, there is absolutely no textual evidence which would back up their contention that the text was corrupted.
I hear this nonsense a lot from Christians, that there are 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament, and non of them predicted the coming of Muhammad. First of all, where are those manuscripts, and how do you know they didn't predict the coming of Muhammad? What proofs do you have anyway? Did you read all of them?
Certainly the Gospel of Barnabas did predict Muhammad, and that is one of the main reasons why his Gospel is not accepted in the Bible community today. It's ironic that Christians don't accept his Gospel as a valid one and accept Paul's instead, when Paul never even met Jesus in person while Barnabas was one of Jesus' disciples.
Also, you just shot yourself in the foot! You further proved how corrupt your Bible really is! It's ridiculous that only 30 manuscripts out of the 24,000 represent the Bible's New Testament today. As you know, the New Testament consists of 30 or so letters.
My question to you here is: What divine authority did the Church have for discarding 23,970 manuscripts and choosing only 30 or so to form what is called today the "New Testament"? If you have the least of a brain, wouldn't this be enough for you to prove that your entire Bible is pathetic and doubtful, with all due respect?
It's funny how the Bible's own Historians and Theologians admit themselves that most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by MYSTERIOUS authors!