Paul's "other gospel"

[Angelos]

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.

Where is it written that Paul & Barnabas started to preach a different philosophy after this incident? How do you infer this? Let me help you give the sincere answer: because your clerics and theologians teach you to jump into that conclusion!

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?

I admire this indeed! You are good at working out a lot of similar questions from a basic Islamic presumption and wishful thinking. :clapping:

Irini passi
ANgelos N (ex-Muslim)

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,

Therefore I doubt that Barnabas differed from the Gospel of Mark.

 

[hamba2han]

I think that I’m done discussing this topic.

Like I mentioned, I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and so, while I am mildly interested in it’s history and contents, I do not really have that much enthusiasm for the subject.

However, for those who wish to know more about the Muslim perspective on this Gospel of Barnabas, perhaps the following might help:

understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=174

 

[Montalban]

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.

But were they preaching two different dogmas?

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

No* one *person has infallibility, not in Orthodoxy, anyway

And the answer… why Paul of course.

Who’s they?

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

Well, Paul himself said so.

Given that’s not the argument I made, I don’t know whom you’re arguing against.

 

[Montalban]

I think that I’m done discussing this topic.

But why go now? Just because you’re wrong!

 

[adrift]

But why go now? Just because you’re wrong!

 

[Montalban]

I know it sounds ungracious, but I don’t like it when someone comes onto the forum with some anti-Christian stuff and then goes without even acknowledging it was wrong

There’s no ‘secret gospel’ Paul is mentioning here. The facts have been presented by several posters.

I had hoped that this would be acknowledged

 

[Montalban]

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.

The so-called *Gospel of Barnabas *is a Medieval fraud

 

[kellie]

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 .

Are you truly trying to find what we believe and what the Bible teaches?

It has been stated many times on this thread, but you don’t seem to understand.

You are defining “other gospel” as “a written book like the Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, the Gospel according to Luke, the Gospel according to John”.

And you are asking why we believe the “gospel” that Paul was preaching is true, and this “other gospel”, that he warns the Galatians about, is false.

The simple fact is, Paul is defining “other gospel” to simply mean “other teachings”.

Lots and lots of people hear use the term “gospel” to label someone’s speeches they vehemently follow, e.g a football coach’s way of coaching may be considered “gospel” to his supporters. It is much like when people refer to a reference book of their interest as their “bible”.

Paul was warning the Galatians not to listen to this other gospel, but to listen to the gospel of Jesus.

And the reason we believe in Paul is because he preached everything that Jesus did. Paul converted people to the church that Jesus left Paul and the other Apostles in charge of.
There are no inconsistencies with what Paul preached and to what Jesus preached.

Our Traditions have proven that Paul is to be believed.

Please please please tell me you understand how Catholics think on this matter now, and that you were wrong in inferring that the “other gospel” is a written book.

 

[Angelos]

btw: I have just finished my analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas with many interesting study notes. I am ready to share the outcome of my studies with whoever asks for it.

Peace,

Angelos N (ex-Muslim)

 

[exoflare]

Please please please tell me you understand how Catholics think on this matter now, and that you were wrong in inferring that the “other gospel” is a written book.

Somehow I don’t think he was ever truly interested in an open dialogue…

 

[exoflare]

btw: I have just finished my analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas with many interesting study notes. I am ready to share the outcome of my studies with whoever asks for it.

Peace,

Angelos N (ex-Muslim)

Well start a thread on it then, why don’cha?? :bounce:

 

[exoflare]

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.

And how do Christians determine what constitutes the truth?

Read answer above.

Well tell the Vatican to stop the presses, we had it all wrong for 2000 years and counting. True Christians were really supposed to listen to the infallible word of PAUL!!

Thank you, anonymous Muslim poster guy, for showing us all what real Christians believe. I don’t care if history or several hundred years of oral and written tradition tell me otherwise… If they go against YOU, they must be completely false.

 

[hamba2han]

You are defining “other gospel” as “a written book like the Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, the Gospel according to Luke, the Gospel according to John”.

It is known that besides being an apostle, Barnabas was also a scholarly person as well.

In the eleven or so years from the time he parted company with Paul till his death, is there a reason why he should not have written a gospel like what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did?

Furthermore, allow me to quote something from the link that I posted:

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38] It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

It seems to me that there is a lot more evidence to show that there really existed a written Gospel of Barnabas in history than not.

 

[adrift]

I found the following a motive for what hamba2han posts.

The Gospel of Barnabas is a work purporting to be a depiction of the life of Jesus by his disciple Barnabas. The two earliest known manuscripts have been dated to the late sixteenth century, and are written respectively in Italian and in Spanish; although the Spanish version survives now only in an eighteenth century copy. It is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters); with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus’ ministry, much of it harmonised from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some, but not all, respects it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins; and consequently its authorship and textual history remain the subject of continued controversy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

A “Gospel according to Barnabas” is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum Gelasianum (no later than the 6th century), as well as a 7th-century List of the Sixty Books [1]. These lists are independent witnesses, but in neither case is it sure that the compiler had actually seen all the listed works. Furthermore, these lists provide no details about the contents of the work, and there is no reason to assume that the text of the 6th-7th century Gospel of Barnabas was the same as this one. M. R. James, New Testament Apocrypha (1924) disputed whether the work mentioned in those lists ever existed.

Christians under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit recognizes that is not inspires. So it did not exist in early years of Christianity but even if it did Christians under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit recognizes that it is not inspired.

 

[LSK]

.

That in a nutshell, is the whole basis of Christian belief i.e. because Paul said so and therefore it must be the gospel truth…

 

[Angelos]

It is known that besides being an apostle, Barnabas was also a scholarly person as well.

In the eleven or so years from the time he parted company with Paul till his death, is there a reason why he should not have written a gospel like what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did?

Let me answer you with a similar question to show how shallow your reasoning is:

Why shouldn’t Peter, James, Andrew, Thomas, Bartholomeos, Philippus, or the other apostles have written a Gospel, being chosen directly by Christ? The same question can be applied to Paul too! Be sure that being an apostle and/or a scholarly person were not considered in the early Church the only criteria set for the Evangelists.

Furthermore, allow me to quote something from the link that I posted:

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38] It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

It seems to me that there is a lot more evidence to show that there really existed a written Gospel of Barnabas in history than not.

Who tells you that the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas in question was the same as the medieval Gospel we have now? Nothing to prove it. You seem to forget that it is natural for two documents to have nothing in common except for their title. Consider the Gospel of Matthew. We have two Gospels with the same name, but we know which one is the Canonical and which is the apocryphal one.

Finally, do not disregard the apocryphal epistle attributed to Barnabas (Letter of Barnabas) by many Christians in the early second century! Interestingly, that apocryphal epistle is Islamic neither in form nor in content! Time to open your eyes to reality and stop dreaming

Peace,
ANgelos N (ex-Muslim)

 

[kellie]

It is known that besides being an apostle, Barnabas was also a scholarly person as well.

In the eleven or so years from the time he parted company with Paul till his death, is there a reason why he should not have written a gospel like what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did?

Furthermore, allow me to quote something from the link that I posted:

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38] It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

It seems to me that there is a lot more evidence to show that there really existed a written Gospel of Barnabas in history than not.

Re-read my post. I have never said there is no such thing as the Gospel according to Barnabas.
My post explained that this gospel is not the one that Paul is speaking about.

 

[Montalban]

It is known that besides being an apostle, Barnabas was also a scholarly person as well.

Thomas was a nice person too. But simply because Moselms invent a text centuries later and ascribe it to someone doesn’t mean that there’s a connection with the person.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38] It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.
It seems to me that there is a lot more evidence to show that there really existed a written Gospel of Barnabas in history than not.

And this assumes that any gospel you have in your hand called “The Gospel of Barnabas” is the same as that book you claim existed back then

 

[Montalban]

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
Some readers have noted that the Gospel of Barnabas contains a number of apparent anachronisms and historical incongruities:
It has Jesus sailing across the Sea of Galilee to Nazareth - which is actually inland; and from thence going “up” to Capernaum - which is actually on the lakeside (chapters 20-21); though this is contested by Blackhirst, who says that the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable).

This is a sign that it was written by someone not familiar with the terrain

Here’s more…

Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26.
Barnabas appears not to realize that ‘Christ’ and ‘Messiah’ are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as “Jesus Christ” yet claiming that ‘Jesus confessed and said the truth, “I am not the Messiah”’ (ch. 42).
There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.
Adam and Eve eat an apple (ch. 40); whereas the traditional association of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil (Genesis: 2) with the apple, rests on the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, where both ‘apple’ and ‘evil’ are rendered as ‘malum’.
The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,
In Chapter 91, the “Forty Days” is referred to as an annual fast. This corresponds to the Christian tradition of fasting for forty days in Lent; a practice that is not witnessed earlier than the Council of Nicaea (325). Nor is there a forty days fast in Judaism of the period (see Mishnah, Tractate: Taanith “Days of Fasting”)
Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
Ch. 91 records three contending Jewish armies 200,000 strong at Mizpeh, totalling 600,000 men, at a time when the Roman army across the entire Empire had a total strength estimated as 300,000.