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

[jrtrent]

I’ve been feeling that since page one. Interesting to see, after my time away, that underhanded questions towards non-Catholics continue in this part of the forum. If one is going to ignore everything said to them and keep repeating questions ad nauseum, why bother entering beginning discussion?

I’ve very much appreciated your knowledgable, well-written posts and am both humbled and challenged by the level of scholarship you evidently have. I look forward to seeing more.

Since you quoted part of my response to joe370, let me add that I’ve found him a very pleasant person to bounce ideas against. I’m pretty sure I know what kind of answer he was looking for from me, and just wanted the fun of avoiding it while answering his question in a literal way.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are various ways, which include mostly internal and external evidence. For example, if, through internal evidence, we find something portrays a form of theology that did not exist until much later than the time of the apostles (ie., Valentinian Gnosticism), then clearly it did not come from an inspired source. Also, if through external evidence, we find that early Christians outside the apostolic church identified the writings as part of a later teaching or a source outside of inspired sources (ie., Valentinian Gnostics), then clearly it is not inspired. The Gospel of Barnabas, for reasons I explained earlier, is one other example of this application. These certainly aren’t the only applications, but they are part of the identification.

There are writings that are dated to the Apostolic period and attributed to individuals that have solid credentials…Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, for example.

Clement was mentioned by Paul in one of the his epistles, and no one denies that Clement actually wrote the letter.

Since the authorship and dating are certain and there is nothing unorthodox about the theology of the book, how do you discern that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians is not inspired?

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10183001]Some specifics might be helpful, and I find your terminology a bit odd, as well. By that I mean that in the Protestant churches I’ve attended that give credence to the early councils (typically the first three or four ecumenical councils), these have not been considered decisions of the Roman Catholic Church (which is commonly what is referred to in these forums as the CC), but of the early, undivided church.

OK. Let’s assume you are right and the RCC was a church started by someone else, as opposed to Jesus, after those ecumenical councils. My sister would agree. LOL…Where is that one undivided church in history, nominally speaking, and where is that one undivided church (that was responsible for the first three or four ecumenical councils) in the world today? Again, let’s for the sake of argument, leave the RCC and all PCs out of it for the moment.

 

[joe370]

Protestants are usually careful to state that it is the errors of Romanism, typically doctrines that have been added, that they were protesting and trying to correct by saying that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Whatever differences Protestants may have on the usefulness of early church writings, I know of none that considers the early, undivided church to be what is now known as the Catholic Church.

That’s cool; to each their own.

 

[adrift]

I’ve been feeling that since page one. Interesting to see, after my time away, that underhanded questions towards non-Catholics continue in this part of the forum. If one is going to ignore everything said to them and keep repeating questions ad nauseum, why bother entering beginning discussion?

Are you referring to the starting of this thread to be underhanded? I know I did not articulate well the purpose of this thread but you should realize that the request to start this thread came from Radical a non-catholic. Post 39 better articulates the discussion.

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

Maybe this has been discussed before so has many questions that Non-Catholics post as you say ad nauseum. You may think it has been answered if so point out the answers. They sometimes get lost. So by all means point me to the answer either in this thread or in others.
FYI

Depending on your setting of how many post per page, will result in different pages for members. For instance mine is set at the highest amount, which results in this thread only being one page at the moment.

 

[PRmerger]

As I mentioned before, if it was about authority then there wouldn’t be any other category other than authority. If authority says something is, then that is what that something is. The Fathers did not say, “we are bishops and therefore this is what we say the canon is.” They based the canon on already accepted Christian tradition of the time.

I think you are operating from a misinformed notion of what authority is, at least as it apples to ecclesial matters.

The Church’s authority comes only from God. Thus, she is bound to only discern the Truth, not to declare the Truth.

That is why Adam and Eve were told they could not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They wanted the authority to declare what is Good and what is Evil. God said, “No, that is for God Alone to declare. You have been given the authority to discern Good and Evil.”

So the Church’s authority to discern the canon comes from God.

And each and every time you quote from the NT, and declare that what you are quoting from is, indeed, the Word of God, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

 

[Radical]

There are writings that are dated to the Apostolic period and attributed to individuals that have solid credentials…Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, for example.

Clement was mentioned by Paul in one of the his epistles, and no one denies that Clement actually wrote the letter.

Since the authorship and dating are certain and there is nothing unorthodox about the theology of the book, how do you discern that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians is not inspired?

have you read the bit about the phoenix?..do you think it inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

have you read the bit about the phoenix?..do you think it inspired?

So here is where you reasoning gets circular. “I know it’s not inspired because it contains non-inspired things!” and “I know it contains non-inspired things, therefore it is not inspired!”

 

[PRmerger]

have you read the bit about the phoenix?..do you think it inspired?

Incidentally, that calls to mind some arguments I’ve heard from atheists regarding the Gospels: “Have you read the bit about the dead guy rising after 3 days? Do you think it is inspired?”

You can’t reject something as not being inspired based on credibility, Radical.

Else you have to dismiss the entirety of Christianity, which is a religion based on the most incredible of claims: a dead guy rose after being buried for 3 days.

That’s my question to you on this thread: please list your cirteria for determining inspiration.

And you will have to be able to ensure that these criteria include books like Titus, Philemon, 1,2, 3 John but exclude books like the Shepherd of Hermas, 1, 2 Clement, The Gospel of Barnabas…

This is a challenge you will not be able to meet, for I guarantee you that whatever criteria you list, we will be able to offer either:

-then why isn’t [insert spocryphyal book here] inspired?
or
-then why is [insert NT book here] not inspired?

 

[Radical]

My specific question, as a segue from another discussion with Radical, was this:

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

who says that it is? If no one of any importance is making the claim, then I see no need to consider the matter

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

by faith…faith in God intervening and ensuring that the early church didn’t make a mistake (as opposed to your faith, which I presume is faith in God intervening and creating and sustaining an infallible teaching Magisterium and thereby ensuring that the early church didn’t make a mistake)

What criteria are used to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not?

well, when I looked at Joseph Smith’s claim wrt scriptures (and in particular the Book of Abraham) I looked at the Egyptian scrolls, the “translation”, the notes and drawings produced in the translaation process, the LDS explanations wrt the obvious discrepancies and it was very easy to find that JS was a fraud and that he had merely pretended to translate an Egyptian funerary text. I would tend to approach each work on a case by case basis.

Remember, these criteria need to be able to include:

Philemon
Titus
1,2, 3 John
Hebrews
Jude
Revelation

since I don’t view any effort by man as foolproof…I would be prepared to revisit the inclusion of these books within the canon of the NT…feel free to make your case…I think the best case probably is wrt the exclusion of Revelation.

while also excluding:

the Didache,
Shepherd of Hermas
Gospel of Barnabas
1, 2 Clement.

again feel free to make a good case for any of these works.

 

[Randy_Carson]

have you read the bit about the phoenix?..do you think it inspired?

I have read nothing of it, and I do not think it is inspired because the Church founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Holy Spirit has not determined that it is.

But you didn’t answer the question. Nor do you need to since it was not addressed to you.

 

[PRmerger]

How can we POSSIBLY KNOW which are inspired and which not?

Then you cannot possibly know that Jesus is God, that Jesus is your savior, that Jesus forgives your sins…

Unless you are going to tell us some OTHER way you can know this without the Scriptures or Tradition?

 

[PRmerger]

who says that it is? If no one of any importance is making the claim, then I see no need to consider the matter

Well, don’t you want to consider something written by an apostle as inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

again feel free to make a good case for any of these works.

My case is the same as yours, Radical: because the Catholic Church discerned this for you and me.

That’s our point. You argue against the authority of the CC, yet each and every time you quote from the NT you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

 

[Radical]

Incidentally, that calls to mind some arguments I’ve heard from atheists regarding the Gospels: “Have you read the bit about the dead guy rising after 3 days? Do you think it is inspired?”

and that isn’t an invalid argument on their part…one better have some basis for that belief or one should openly admit that it is a matter of faith…and then it comes down to what type of faith: is it a blind unquestioning faith or is it a very sound reasonable faith or is it something in between.

You can’t reject something as not being inspired based on credibility, Radical.

can too…but feel free to make a case for seeing the phoenix story as inspired

That’s my question to you on this thread: please list your cirteria for determining inspiration.

what sort of inspiration are you talking about? absolutely inerrant? doctrinally inerrant? historically inerrant? reliably preserving Christ’s good news w/o significant distortion? please identify the animal in question so that I can determine whether I think that the thing even exists…and if so, then I’ll be able to consider criteria

This is a challenge you will not be able to meet, for I guarantee you that whatever criteria you list, we will be able to offer either:

-then why isn’t [insert spocryphyal book here] inspired?
or
-then why is [insert NT book here] not inspired?

perhaps that is true…we’ll see

 

[PRmerger]

and that isn’t an invalid argument on their part…

The invalid part is the part where they say “The Bible is myth because it claims fanciful things” and “I don’t believe in the fanciful things in the Bible because the Bible is a myth.”

That’s the same thing you’re doing with Clement’s letter.

 

[adf417]

who says that it is? If no one of any importance is making the claim, then I see no need to consider the matter.

Was not this and/or other non-canonical writings being used in the 1st couple centuries? Would this not be the reason why there needed to be a definitive canon?

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

.but feel free to make a case for seeing the phoenix story as inspired

Again, my case is the same as yours: it is not inspired because the CC examined its text and rejected it.

Miraculous events are not a cause for rejection of Christian texts.

Else, you will have to reject the Gospels.

Remember, Radical, whatever reason you give to reject a particular document will result in your rejection of a NT book.

And whatever reason you give for accepting a NT book will result in acceptance of an apocryphal book (and perhaps even a rejection of another NT book.)

Unless, of course, you come to an honest appraisal of your reasoning for acceptance of the NT canon: because the CC said so.

 

[PRmerger]

perhaps that is true…we’ll see

List of criteria for how a Christian is to know that NT books are inspired, ok?

 

[benjohnson]

I know the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired because the undivided catholic church said so.

Then, to my dismay, history got messy.

While our Catholic friends would like for us to draw the conclusion that their church is the sole heir to the undivided catholic legacy that discerned the bible, we Lutherans make the claim that we’re a valid continuation of the western church so sadly this argument isn’t quite effective with us.