Paul's "other gospel"

[hamba2han]

To all who question whether this “other gospel” is really the Gospel of Barnabas, actually I do not think that it is really the issue here.

The fact of the matter is that Paul has branded this “other gospel” to be a perversion of the gospel of Christ.

And so, it does not matter what Muslims believe what this “other gospel” is, the real question for Christians would have to be – Why do you choose to believe in Paul and not the preacher of this “other gospel” that he warned about in Galatians, whoever he may be?

As for me, I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and so I have no desire to defend either it’s authenticity or it’s accuracy.

Christians on the other hand, do indeed place their faith in the teachings of Paul and therefore, they do need to defend both the authenticity and the accuracy of his writings .

 

[JonathanKinsman]

hamba2han;

1. Moslems follow a book that was never given to Mohammed by an Angel.
2. The “book” was really a Syrio-Coptic Lectionary of (present day Iraq) Catholics of an Eastern Rite: the Coptics.
3. Arabic at the time of Mohammed was strictly an oral language.
4. When the Caliph Uthman “transcribed” the Koran over a HUNDRED years after Mohammed’s death, the diacritical marks used for the vowels were Arabic, not Syrio-Coptic.
5. That is why the Koran is contradictory, full of evil sayings and wrongly held in esteem as a revelation from Al-lah, one of the names of gods of tribal Arab paganism.
6. To justify these crazy beliefs, other, prior religions with better claims to authenticiy and revelation must be attacked and ridiculed in order to build up Islam as the True Faith.
7. That is why Moslems today, like the Protestants of today, come up with oxymoronic theories to support their view of what “God wants” and not what God had spoken through the prophets of the ancient Hebrews and ancient Jews and through His Son, Jesus the Messiah for all nations.
8. Finally, that is why we have ding-a-lings putting forth cockamamie ideas about “the lost gospel” and (in the case of that idiot filmmaker Cameron) finding the bones of Jesus and His “family.”

 

[BrianH]

1. That is why Moslems today, like the Protestants of today, come up with oxymoronic theories to support their view of what “God wants” and not what God had spoken through the prophets of the ancient Hebrews and ancient Jews and through His Son, Jesus the Messiah for all nations.

 

[exoflare]

1. Arabic at the time of Mohammed was strictly an oral language.

Are you sure??

 

[Bushmaster]

Are you sure??

Samuel Hugh Moffett writes in his A HISTORY OF Christianity in Asia that the Bible was not available in Arabic to Muhammad. Would this mean that it was not penned down in Arabic due to that reason mentioned above?

 

[Angelos]

To all who question whether this “other gospel” is really the Gospel of Barnabas, actually I do not think that it is really the issue here.

The fact of the matter is that Paul has branded this “other gospel” to be a perversion of the gospel of Christ.

And so, it does not matter what Muslims believe what this “other gospel” is, the real question for Christians would have to be – Why do you choose to believe in Paul and not the preacher of this “other gospel” that he warned about in Galatians, whoever he may be?

As for me, I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and so I have no desire to defend either it’s authenticity or it’s accuracy.

Christians on the other hand, do indeed place their faith in the teachings of Paul and therefore, they do need to defend both the authenticity and the accuracy of his writings .

Dear friend,

You either forgot what you had written in your OP or someone else stole your password and posted the comment below in your name

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.


Let me say for the 2nd second time: we know what that perverted Gospel Paul warned the believers in Galatia against was about! This is because we read the epistle in question in its entirety.

More, we prefer Paul’s teachings to an indefinite Gospel because we believe that Paul was chosen and authorized by Jesus. So did the other apostles and disciples endorse Paul and his epistles in the early Church. If you read the Gospels, you will see that Paul says nothing heretical! However, some people tried to lead early Christians astray by perverting the true message proclaimed by Jesus - this perversion was in the form of misinterpretations of some basic teachings in the canonical Gospels. Had there been a real threat to the Gospel of Christ in written form, Paul would have reiterated the same warning in all of his epistles and presented the major characteristics of that heresy in details.

Now I see that you are finally back to the question “who has authority in Christianity?” The answer is simple: The Church of Christ.
The answer to the question “who has authority in Islam?” is, however, the three Caliphs (mostly Omar and Othman, who revised the Koran by burning different versions)

Peace to you,
Angelos N (ex-Muslim)

 

[Bushmaster]

Why do we have to think that St. Paul was referring to a specific heretical work circulating around his time instead of any work that is in contrast to Gospels? To get the muslims, mormons, and all that off the hook?

 

[hamba2han]

Why do we have to think that St. Paul was referring to a specific heretical work circulating around his time instead of any work that is in contrast to Gospels? To get the muslims, mormons, and all that off the hook?

Because if you care to examine the verses in question in all versions of the Bible, you will see that not one of them is referring to a gospel i.e. just one and not plural as in ‘gospels’, in the future tense.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ… New International Bible

6 I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News
7 but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ… New Living Translation Bible

6 I am amazed. You are so quickly deserting the One who chose you because of the grace that Christ has provided. You are turning to a different “good news.”
7 What you are accepting is really not the good news at all. It seems that some people have gotten you all mixed up. They are trying to twist the good news about Christ… New International Readers Bible

All of these Bible versions are referring to the “other gospel” in Galatians in the present tense, not in the future tense.

This means that it must be referring to another gospel which was already in existence at the time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Galatians and to which many were turning to and which Paul has branded a perversion to the gospel of Christ.

It is clearly stated in the Bible and so it surely has to be true, don’t you agree?

 

[Angelos]

Because if you care to examine the verses in question in all versions of the Bible, you will see that not one of them is referring to a gospel i.e. just one and not plural as in ‘gospels’, in the future tense.

All of these Bible versions are referring to the “other gospel” in Galatians in the present tense, not in the future tense.

This means that it must be referring to another gospel which was already in existence at the time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Galatians and to which many were turning to and which Paul has branded a perversion to the gospel of Christ.

It is clearly stated in the Bible and so it surely has to be true, don’t you agree?

hamba2han, you must be kidding

I wonder why you ignore my posts.

Here I am posting your quotation

**I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ… **New International Bible

**One Gospel **that some people were trying to pervert! There is nothing implicit or explicit in Paul’s words to make one believe in the existence of a certain written Gospel at that time. Paul never claims - in any of his epistles - to have written a Gospel or see some other disciples write it. Accordingly, the Gospel of Christ was preached by the Church before it was written down by some disciples some years after Jesus’ ascension. This again proves that the Gospel was Jesus’ oral proclamation of the good news of salvation rather than a word-by-word dictation from heaven (as Muslims claim for their Scripture)

Salaam,
ANgelos N (ex-Muslim)

 

[hamba2han]

I wonder why you ignore my posts.

You keep going off-topic and talking about other things on this thread such as the Qur’an.

What has the Qur’an got to do with Paul’s lamentations about the “other gospel” in Galatians when it only came some 600 years after Paul?

**One Gospel **that some people were trying to pervert!

Wrong! … Paul is instead saying here that the people were turning to only ONE “different gospel” and not a few ‘different gospels’.

Paul never claims - in any of his epistles - to have written a Gospel or seen some other disciples write it.

Even if Paul never claims it, then it still does not prove a single thing except the fact that you have chosen to believe his every word and not the preacher of this “different gospel”.

What if it turns out that the preacher of this “other gospel” is right and Paul is wrong, then how are you going to distinguish between what is true and what is false?

Answer: … You refer to what Paul says in order to determine the gospel truth, correct?

 

[amoxoxoma]

Let us examine historical evidence in order to determine the answer to this question.

We know that the apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

What is the source of your bolded claim?

answering-islam.de/Main///Barnabas/index.html
“The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states:
As regards the “Gospel of Barnabas” itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery.”

And this: answering-islam.de/Main///Green/barnabas.htm
"I can remember well one of my first conversations with a Muslim. One of the first things he did was to accuse the Church of suppressing the Gospel of Barnabas. "

answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/barnabas.html
“The “Gospel of Barnabas” (G.o.B.) first appeared in Holland in 1709”

Truth or myth?: bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm

Read the whole so-called gospel
latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Entry.html

One wonders if hamba2han got his information here:
geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/barn.html
and here: muslimsonline.com/babri/barnabas.htm

Clearly he should have looked here: itl.org.uk/barnabas/index.html

 

[JoeyWarren]

At the time of the Galatians writing, the written Gospels had not be created yet. The only Gospels around were the verbal ones.

This other Gospel is nothing other than a “Rogue Disciple” ( a possible foreshadowing of a Protestant ) spreading verbally his own interpretation of what was told to him by an established Apostle.

Just my speculation.

 

[adrift]

We know that the apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

This is irritating. Why was it necessary to put in CE. When you write the date do you really write it 2007 CE? I doubt it. I would say more but that would be hijacking. The answer lays in what is meant by Gospel.

 

[Angelos]

You keep going off-topic and talking about other things on this thread such as the Qur’an.

What has the Qur’an got to do with Paul’s lamentations about the “other gospel” in Galatians when it only came some 600 years after Paul?

This is not the correct answer to my question, but anyway. I think I should not be pushing too hard on your statements.

The Koran has a lot to do with your objections to Paul’s apostolic authority if not with Paul’s lamentations. Now YOU are the one going off the topic again through a false analogy.

Wrong! … Paul is instead saying here that the people were turning to only ONE “different gospel” and not a few ‘different gospels’.

What does this indicate No one on this thread has claimed the opposite so far. Actually, we are doing our best to show you that Paul was talking about ONE Gospel of Christ, being in the oral form.

Even if Paul never claims it, then it still does not prove a single thing except the fact that you have chosen to believe his every word and not the preacher of this “different gospel”.

Of course! Paul is the one warning us against that perverted form of Christ’s Gospel. Thus, it is natural to believe in the word of a person that had authority in the past. Besides, the preacher of that other Gospel is not even known to us now, so how can you expect us to believe in the words of someone condemned by an apostle??? LOL It is similar to expecting a modern Muslim to believe in the words of a Meccan mushrik rather than the Muslims of that period

What if it turns out that the preacher of this “other gospel” is right and Paul is wrong, then how are you going to distinguish between what is true and what is false?

You refer to what Paul says in order to determine the gospel truth, correct?

Let me remind you the other part of the question: what if Paul is right and your scripture is a mere fantasy? Would you quit being a Muslim if Jesus appeared to you and condemned your religion as a heresy?

Referring to Paul in order to determine the gospel truth - you are exaggerating as usual! - is as natural as referring to Paul to prove the alleged distortion of the Bible!

Irini passi,
Angelos N. (ex-Muslim)

 

[Bushmaster]

When I first read this passage I immediately thought of Quran. Why? St. Paul is not specifically mentioning any heretical work of his time. The meaning is clear to my understanding that this “other gospel” should be taken as “anything NOT OF CHRIST”'s gospel (good news - message of salvation, etc) Anything that comes outside of the message of Christ would qualify as “a different message” of salvation. NOT OF CHRIST!

You shall know them by their fruits.

 

[Efrain]

When I first read this passage I immediately thought of Quran. Why? St. Paul is not specifically mentioning any heretical work of his time. The meaning is clear to my understanding that this “other gospel” should be taken as “anything NOT OF CHRIST”'s gospel (good news - message of salvation, etc) Anything that comes outside of the message of Christ would qualify as “a different message” of salvation. NOT OF CHRIST!

You shall know them by their fruits.

I second this notion. Any other gospel is anything other than the good news that the Lord Jesus Christ is the savior. Anything that teaches otherwise or distorts this truth is not true gospel. Already during the Apostles times there was false teachings (not unlike our own times) that Christ was not true God or the other extreme that He was not true man. Basically anything that denies that Jesus is not the Word incarnate is not true gospel.

 

[Montalban]

This raises the question as to how do Christians know that what Paul taught is correct and what is in the “other gospel” is wrong?

Those who acted as Apostles were hand-picked and taught through the Holy Spirit, which also is the guarantor of the Church - Jesus said the church would not fail.

The Apostles, coming together decided on what was always taught. Nothing new is added.

I agree completely that you do need an authority to tell you what the scriptures mean… and that authority is Jesus himself, not Paul and not the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

We are a living church and this involves being able to speak to people who through Apostolic Succession have right understanding (we hope) of the teachings of Christ.

Nothing new was taught at Nicea or subsequent Councils. All the Councils do is set out in writing what was always taught

We can come up with new ways of expressing old ideas but the dogma never changes

 

[Montalban]

I second this notion. Any other gospel is anything other than the good news that the Lord Jesus Christ is the savior. Anything that teaches otherwise or distorts this truth is not true gospel. Already during the Apostles times there was false teachings (not unlike our own times) that Christ was not true God or the other extreme that He was not true man. Basically anything that denies that Jesus is not the Word incarnate is not true gospel.

This is why I couldn’t accept Islam. It offers the idea that it ‘respects’ the Bible, yet it so contradicts it there is only the conclusion one can draw; the Koran is not from the same source as the Bible.

 

[hamba2han]

When I first read this passage I immediately thought of Quran. Why? St. Paul is not specifically mentioning any heretical work of his time. The meaning is clear to my understanding that this “other gospel” should be taken as “anything NOT OF CHRIST”'s gospel (good news - message of salvation, etc) Anything that comes outside of the message of Christ would qualify as “a different message” of salvation. NOT OF CHRIST!

And how do you determine what constitutes something which is NOT OF CHRIST?

Easy, all that Christians need to do is to refer to what Paul says about it.

Anything that teaches otherwise or distorts this truth is not true gospel.

And how do Christians determine what constitutes the truth?

Read answer above.

The Apostles, coming together decided on what was always taught. Nothing new is added.

The Bible states that Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement and went their separate ways.
**
36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches**… Acts 15:36-41, NIV

From that point on, both of them were preaching two different philosophies of ministry.

Well then, who between Paul and Barnabas was preaching the true gospel?

And the answer… why Paul of course.

And how do Christians know Paul’s ministry to be the true one?

Well, Paul himself said so.

 

[adrift]

36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches

… Acts 15:36-41, NIV

From that point on, both of them were preaching two different philosophies of ministry.

Well then, who between Paul and Barnabas was preaching the true gospel?

And the answer… why Paul of course.

And how do Christians know Paul’s ministry to be the true one?

Well, Paul himself said so.

What was the disagreement about?

Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work.

It was not about the Gospel nor teachings. It was that Mark had refused to go with them on their journey. Paul didn’t like that he deserted them and didn’t want to chance him deserting them again. So your argument is without merit.
How do we know the Gospel is correct? Because Jesus, said that it would be protected and not even the gates of Hades could prevail against it.