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

[adf417]

I’m confused how you would know that an ancient text needs to be discarded as heretical, or included as canonical?

Certainly, if it’s in the Bible, then it’s not heretical.

But how do you know that it doesn’t belong in the Bible? Because it teaches something heretical?

But how do you know it’s heresy?

Because it teaches something that’s not in the Bible?

Do you see how circular this is?

Thank you PR for clarifying my point. I struggle with that and because of it I usually do not post.

I have seen what would be considered good arguments from non-Catholics on the one side of this argument explaining this issue as Byzantine_Wolf has but haven’t seen any refutation to the opposite side of the argument - as to the declaration on which books will no longer be used or not to be canonical.

Peace!!!

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Any works the church was using legitimate or heretical. Why did they stop using any of them?

Let’s make up a scenario. Let’s say you have a work called the Gospel of Nathaniel. It claims to come from the apostolic period and to have been written by the apostle Nathaniel. Upon closer inspection, however, you find many problems. For one, the theology displayed in the text is not Second Temple Judaism or any form of theology that first century Jews would have been familiar with - in fact, it bears all the marks of Dingleberry Gnosticism, which didn’t come about until the late second century AD. Here have two immediate problems which tell us it cannot be inspired scripture: 1) the theology is not in line with the theology Christ and the apostles would have been familiar with; 2) the theology itself comes from a mindset that did not exist until 100+ years after the time of Christ, therefore it could not come from an apostolic or inspired source. This tells us it wasn’t inspired. All this isn’t circular by any means - it’s how critical study of ancient texts is done.

Now what of more legitimate documents? The standards we used before can apply, but are not always mandatory. If they come from an apostle, we can safely consider them inspired, given that the apostles functioned in a similar fashion to prophets in the Old Testament, and were personally assigned as his spokespersons. Yet what of those who were not apostles, such as Mark or Luke? In some cases, if another work of scripture identifies it as scripture (as Paul does with Luke), we have little reason to doubt. With Mark, the tradition is that Mark wrote the gospel under the guidance of Peter, who did indeed identify Mark as his son (1 Pe 5:13), and therefore it comes from inspired sources, one reason it was accepted as scripture since the earliest days of the church.

Now, as I said countless times in past posts (and which often got ignored), this is but a sampling (READ: examples) of the methods we can use to examine the ancient texts. I can only cover the surface in a post limited to 6000 characters. I encourage everyone to study this deeper, as there are plenty of resources out there that go into greater discussion on this.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll admit to have not read the entire thread, but from the little I’ve read (about 4 pages) I didn’t see the most critical question.

Where are the originals?

Since we don’t have the originals the only way to validate these New Testament writings is through the witness (Since the Word became flesh to the present day) of the Catholic Church, who obtained the full deposit of faith once and for all and the pillar and ground of truth.

Anything else is to complicate matters and a moot point.

 

[PRmerger]

1. the theology is not in line with the theology Christ and the apostles would have been familiar with;

2 points that are very important:

-again, it appears as if you are saying, “It doesn’t match what is in the Bible, so it doesn’t belong in the Bible” and “I know what belongs in the Bible because it matches what’s in the Bible.” Clearly circular. You have to have the canon, or measuring stick first, in order to discern whether a text is consonant with this canon.

Which segues nicely to my 2nd point:

-the “theology” to which you are referring, BW, is, of course nothing more (and nothing less!) than Sacred Tradition. That is the measuring stick by which the bishops discerned whether a “gospel” was* theopneustos. *

The testimony of the apostles, and their successors is exactly what is Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s make up a scenario. Let’s say you have a work called the Gospel of Nathaniel. It claims to come from the apostolic period and to have been written by the apostle Nathaniel. Upon closer inspection, however, you find many problems.

Trenchant question arises: what authority do you have to declare this gospel narrative theopneustos, were it to meet your “internal and external evidence” criteria?

And if you claim this authority for yourself, do you also allow any other inspector of ancient texts to declare something to be theopneustos?

What if she examines the Gospel of Nathaniel and declares, based on her examination of the “internal and external evidence” that it meets the criteria.

Does she get to say that it’s inspired for her and not for you?

And how did you apply your “internal and external evidence” criteria to all of the NT texts? How does 3 John and Philemon fit into this?

 

[Darryl1958]

Why in the world would anyone consider this book either inspired or apostolic in the first place? There is nothing about it that would suggest either.

 

[Patavium]

Why in the world would anyone consider this book either inspired or apostolic in the first place? There is nothing about it that would suggest either.

Darryl, the point is that we know it is not inspired because the Catholic Church decided on it many years ago. We KNOW the Catholic Church compiled the Holy Bible through many councils, and guided by the Holy Spirit. The point of this thread is for Non-Catholics to explain how they know a book is inspired or not. So far, we have seen in their responses two sides: We agree the Early Church compiled it, but this is not the Catholic Church (this answer is historically inaccurate); and We know it is inspired, because it is inspired (this is circular reasoning).

I have yet to read a good response by non-catholics.

 

[Darryl1958]

Darryl, the point is that we know it is not inspired because the Catholic Church decided on it many years ago. We KNOW the Catholic Church compiled the Holy Bible through many councils, and guided by the Holy Spirit. The point of this thread is for Non-Catholics to explain how they know a book is inspired or not. So far, we have seen in their responses two sides: We agree the Early Church compiled it, but this is not the Catholic Church (this answer is historically inaccurate); and We know it is inspired, because it is inspired (this is circular reasoning).

I have yet to read a good response by non-catholics.

There is no indication whatsoever that the Gospel of Barnabas was compiled by an early apostle of the Church. There is every indication that it is not.

An apostolic church based in evangelization of an historical event, namely the biography of Christ, requires that the testimony set forth for the faith is an eye witness account of that event.

It does not take faith in the church to deem that the Gospel of Barnabus is not such a book.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is not a case of the book not being inspired because the Catholic Church says that it is not.
It is a case that the Catholic Church says it is not because it does not meet the criteria necessary to be considered an inspired or apostolic book.
Being derived from the hands of an apostle, or at least from the community with first hand knowledge of that apostle, widespread acceptance from a broad swath of the early church communities over a wide geography, fidelity of the message to what other apostles testify to, and decisions pondered over through a deep reverential attitude of prayers and supplications for divine guidance is how these decisions were historically made.

 

[jrtrent]

It is not a case of the book not being inspired because the Catholic Church says that it is not.
It is a case that the Catholic Church says it is not because it does not meet the criteria necessary to be considered an inspired or apostolic book.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no indication whatsoever that the Gospel of Barnabas was compiled by an early apostle of the Church. There is every indication that it is not.

Firstly, who says that an ancient text must be written by an apostle to be considered inspired?

Is there a scripture verse that says this?

Or is it an outside entity that sets this criterion up?

Secondly? What apostle wrote the letter to the Hebrews?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Firstly, who says that an ancient text must be written by an apostle to be considered inspired?

Is there a scripture verse that says this?

Or is it an outside entity that sets this criterion up?

Secondly? What apostle wrote the letter to the Hebrews?

I think he meant apostolic in nature.

 

[jrtrent]

Firstly, who says that an ancient text must be written by an apostle to be considered inspired?

Is there a scripture verse that says this?

Or is it an outside entity that sets this criterion up?

Secondly? What apostle wrote the letter to the Hebrews?

If you don’t find Darryl1958’s list of criteria accurate, what criteria do you think was used? At one Catholic site, they said this:

Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included. They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

According to an earlier thread on the subject, the Council of Trent said that the book of Hebrews is one of the 14 epistles written by Paul the apostle. Who do you think wrote it?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Darryl, the point is that we know it is not inspired because the Catholic Church decided on it many years ago. We KNOW the Catholic Church compiled the Holy Bible through many councils, and guided by the Holy Spirit. The point of this thread is for Non-Catholics to explain how they know a book is inspired or not. So far, we have seen in their responses two sides: We agree the Early Church compiled it, but this is not the Catholic Church (this answer is historically inaccurate); and We know it is inspired, because it is inspired (this is circular reasoning).

I haven’t seen anyone argue that something is inspired because it’s inspired. I argued earlier that a canon of God is a canon of God as soon as He writes it, not hundreds of years later when a group of people says He wrote it. That isn’t saying it’s inspired because it’s inspired, that’s just affirming Author’s Canon 101. The minute Machiavelli wrote The Prince, it was part of the Machiavelli canon; the minute Stephen King wrote Carrie, it was part of the Stephen King canon; the minute God inspired Luke to write his gospel, it was part of God’s canon. An author is not dependent upon a body of men to affirm his canon - his canon is simply a reality.

What I also discussed was the study of ancient texts, and was met, by and large, with some people simply closing their ears and saying, “I can’t hear you. I’m just gonna keep saying you don’t know the books of the Bible without the Roman Catholic Church.” Something clearly contradicted by the First Vatican Council:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. [First Vatican Council, Session 3, Ch. 2, 7; emphasis mine]

Which is why I was very happy to see Darryl1958’s post:

It is not a case of the book not being inspired because the Catholic Church says that it is not.
It is a case that the Catholic Church says it is not because it does not meet the criteria necessary to be considered an inspired or apostolic book.

That is what I have been discussing this whole time. Any Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc., can study and see why the Gospel of Barnabas is not an inspired book, let alone why we can’t say it came from the apostolic era.

Now does part of this involve what the early church felt? Yes, but it’s more than that, and I’ll explain again a bit for those who might be coming to this thread for the first time or haven’t read back. I mentioned earlier that even early Christian enemies such as Celcus identified the gospels as four, and identified them by the authors they’re named after (Matthew, Mark, etc.). That’s very strong historical evidence against atheists, Muslims, etc., especially those who would argue that the early church only gave credence to the names so they had some kind of authority over and against the Gnostic texts. I also brought up the theology shown by the work: for example, if it displays theology that comes from a later time period, then clearly it couldn’t have been written in the time it claims. If it represents something such as Second Temple Judaism (as the letters of Paul do), then it must come from the first century, aka the era the apostolic church was in. This was erroneously called “holy tradition” earlier in the thread, but, as I pointed out then, I don’t see how something that existed before the time of Christ and believed even by Caiaphas and Annas, who nailed Jesus to the cross and persecuted the early Christians, could be considered a Christian tradition - one might as well call rabbinical Judaism holy tradition.

Again, these two are just examples of what we can look for inside a text to know if the beliefs around its authorship are sincere. It’s an interesting subject that is worth studying because it will grow your faith in what books belong in the Bible, and how we know they come from where they say they come from, and aren’t just accepted on blind faith.

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

So, if all the Bible (including the NT) is inspired, how comes there are contradictions in it? How can the four Gospels be inspired if John disagrees many times with the other Gospels?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, if all the Bible (including the NT) is inspired, how comes there are contradictions in it? How can the four Gospels be inspired if John disagrees many times with the other Gospels?

1st of many contraditions?

1. _____________________.

 

[adrift]

So, if all the Bible (including the NT) is inspired, how comes there are contradictions in it? How can the four Gospels be inspired if John disagrees many times with the other Gospels?

I too am interested in you listing these contradictions and John’s disagreement?

 

[PRmerger]

I think he meant apostolic in nature.

What does that mean?

 

[PRmerger]

If you don’t find Darryl1958’s list of criteria accurate, what criteria do you think was used?

The ONLY criteria that anyone defers to, tacitly or explicitly, are the criteria discerned by the Catholic Church.

So anyone who claims that Hebrews is inspired is giving tacit or explicit submission to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

IAt one Catholic site, they said this:

Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included. They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

Amen!

Again, a testament to the authority of the CC, and to the use of Sacred Tradition as one of the channels of the Word of God.

Anyone who quotes from the NT is giving their approval of a multitude of things:

-the authority of the Catholic Church
-the use of Sacred Tradition as a channel for God’s Word
-the charism of infallibility
-a rejection of Sola Scriptura–for here the Bible is NOT the final authority.

According to an earlier thread on the subject, the Council of Trent said that the book of Hebrews is one of the 14 epistles written by Paul the apostle. Who do you think wrote it?

I have no idea. I defer to the Church to discern for me why it’s theopneustos.

The Bible doesn’t say who wrote Hebrews, does it?

So anyone who quotes from Hebrews has to be acknowledging that he submits to the authority of someone else (that is, something OTHER THAN the Bible).