How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to admit that while I’m coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake that the typical English protestant bible is a bit truncated, I’ve never had anybody grab me by the lapels, look me straight in the eyes, and say “You must read Tobit!”
 
benjohnson said:
I have to admit that while I’m coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake that the typical English protestant bible is a bit truncated, I’ve never had anybody grab me by the lapels, look me straight in the eyes, and say “You must read Tobit!”
Click to expand...
In terms of their ability to set the tone and direction of entire societies and cultures, while all books are equally inspired, suffice it to say that some books are more equal than others.
 
Would the fact that the gospel of Barnabas says Jesus sailed across dry land be enough to know it’s not divinely inspired? It says that Jesus got on a boat on the shore of the sea of Galilee and sailed to Nazareth. Obviously the writer didn’t know that Nazareth is at least 50 miles in land.
 
East_Anglican said:
Would the fact that the gospel of Barnabas says Jesus sailed across dry land be enough to know it’s not divinely inspired? It says that Jesus got on a boat on the shore of the sea of Galilee and sailed to Nazareth. Obviously the writer didn’t know that Nazareth is at least 50 miles in land.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. However, someone, today, could say that they flew to a city, but actually drove the remaining 30 miles. Of course I see where you are going…Perhaps the list of books that comprise the Bible will better illustrate the point of the thread:

During Jesus’ time there were two Old Testament canons in use: Palestinian canon, which is identical to the Protestant OT, and the Alexandrian canon (Septuagint) which is identical to the Catholic OT. Fact: the Apostles and the early Church used the Septuagint.

With that said: how is that a non-catholic (sola scriptura advocate, or otherwise) knows that the Alexandrian canon (Septuagint) is not inspired? Where does scripture alone (or scripture + something else other than the CC magisterium) answer this important question?
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Some books listed by Athanasius specifically as not being canon are listed as canon, while others not even mentioned by Athanasius are listed as canon.
Click to expand...
Still Athanasius has the NT correct, a point no-one denies. Nevertheless this period brings a few others with the Bible, Pope Damasus addressed the issue here.

crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/12/st-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html

Augustine also at Carthage goes into accurate detail, recorded in his letters, Christian Instruction.

Anyway the point still is, who has the authority to discern what is significant, what is gospel, what is included in NT, what is apocrypha, and what in fact should be in the Bible?

Much the same holds true with other works still highly regarded, not in the Bible. What do we say about the Gospel of James in light of the Early Church Fathers?
 
East_Anglican said:
Would the fact that the gospel of Barnabas says Jesus sailed across dry land be enough to know it’s not divinely inspired? It says that Jesus got on a boat on the shore of the sea of Galilee and sailed to Nazareth. Obviously the writer didn’t know that Nazareth is at least 50 miles in land.
Click to expand...
East,

The gospels say Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, made blind people see, caused paralytics to get up and walk…these are included as Scripture.
 
benjohnson said:
I have to admit that while I’m coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake that the typical English protestant bible is a bit truncated, I’ve never had anybody grab me by the lapels, look me straight in the eyes, and say “You must read Tobit!”
Click to expand...
Ben,

I might put a gentle hand on your shoulder, look you straight in the eye, if I could and say…

Did you know that you fail to read all of Revealed truth, in books that Protestants wrongly removed from the Protocanonicals, that would include Tobit…

if you told me I was crazy

Then I might grab you by the lapels and say you must read Tobit…

all depends on you…🙂
 
GaryTaylor said:
Still Athanasius has the NT correct, a point no-one denies
Click to expand...
That much is certainly true.
GaryTaylor said:
Anyway the point still is, who has the authority to discern what is significant, what is gospel, what is included in NT, what is apocrypha, and what in fact should be in the Bible?
Click to expand...
As the methodology for this discernment is not secluded to any one singular authority or person, that question presumes an answer. The question must instead be: upon what methodology do we begin to discern what is apostolic in origin, what is apocryphal, and what can we know is inspired? That has been discussed in detail throughout this thread.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
As the methodology for this discernment is not secluded to any one singular authority or person, that question presumes an answer.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely INCORRECT.

There was only a single authority which discerned the canon of the NT.

If this were not the case then there would be dispute between your denomination and the CC about whether Revelation, Hebrews, Titus, 3 John, etc is theopneustos..

As there is no dispute, reason dictates that there was, indeed, a single authority which declared this canon for us.
 
PRmerger said:
If this were not the case then there would be dispute between your denomination and the CC about whether Revelation, Hebrews, Titus, 3 John, etc is theopneustos..

As there is no dispute, reason dictates that there was, indeed, a single authority which declared this canon for us.
Click to expand...
As has been discussed in detail throughout this thread.👍
 
adf417 said:
As has been discussed in detail throughout this thread.👍
Click to expand...
And which has been responded to, throughout this thread.

In any case, no one church has a monopoly on the methodology for determining what is a legitimate work from the apostolic period, as even other Roman Catholics in this thread have recognized. Ignoring this fact and repeating popular apologetic responses doesn’t deny its existence.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
The question must instead be: upon what methodology do we begin to discern what is apostolic in origin, what is apocryphal, and what can we know is inspired? That has been discussed in detail throughout this thread.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean - The question must instead be…again? And in another 500 years do it yet again? and again?.. How do you know once this question has been answered you will have answered it for generations to come?

Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Don’t you mean - The question must instead be…again? And in another 500 years do it yet again? and again?.. How do you know once this question has been answered you will have answered it for generations to come?
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure I understand the question, in relation to what I said in the post you quoted.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
The question must instead be: upon what methodology do we begin to discern what is apostolic in origin, what is apocryphal, and what can we know is inspired?
Click to expand...
jrtrent said:
Nicely put!
Click to expand...
It appears as if you are proclaiming that each Christian may use a particular methodology to discern what is theopneustos and what is not.

And what do you propose will be the solution when 2 Christians disagree about what is inspired?

For clearly, given the fallibility of the human person, disagreements, even using the same methodology, will occur.

Who will be the final arbiter, in this paradigm?
 
PRmerger said:
It appears as if you are proclaiming that each Christian may use a particular methodology to discern what is theopneustos and what is not.

And what do you propose will be the solution when 2 Christians disagree about what is inspired?

For clearly, given the fallibility of the human person, disagreements, even using the same methodology, will occur.

Who will be the final arbiter, in this paradigm?
Click to expand...
:whackadoo: I know :whackadoo: I know

😃
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I’m not quite sure I understand the question, in relation to what I said in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...
Greetings BW
You said:
The question must instead be: upon what methodology do we begin to discern what is apostolic in origin, what is apocryphal, and what can we know is inspired? That has been discussed in detail throughout this thread.
Click to expand...
My question was somewhat rhetorical but really - Do you think these questions have never been asked and answered? Maybe by the 2nd century? Maybe by the 4th century? 16th? Or is it that the answers to these questions haven’t fit your methodology? Who’s methodology will be the one we should hold to and will this methodology be sufficient 500 years from now? How will this methodology be carried through to generations to come?

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top