"Barnabas" misquotes Scripture repeatedly in that work. He attributes a passage from Daniel to Enoch. He quotes things as Scripture out of ignorance that are nowhere found in the Scriptures. Whoever he was, he doesn't seem to be the Biblical Barnabas and certainly was not inspired by the Spirit.
@AgApE010 that's not true. i have a lost work of Enoch which fits the reference of Barnabas exactly. its called "the Vision of Enoch" and its in Armenian collection of ancient writings. I have also identified some of his quotations as they come from various apocrypha such as 2 Esdras and one comes from one of the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "Apocryphon" of Ezekiel.
@AgApE010 furthermore not all manuscripts say "Enoch" there but some say "daniel". you are to quick to reject God's word. the bible also has many manuscripts differences, so how come you ignored the manuscript differences of the Epistle of Barnabas?
I'm not quick to reject God's word. You're begging the question by assuming it IS God's word. But this is precisely what you're supposed to prove first.
There are still many places where "Barnabas" thinks he's quoting Scripture from words that are not found anywhere in Scripture. Other places he quotes Scripture so inaccurately that it takes effort to see from where he is trying quote. It simply does not seem to be the work of a man inspired by God.
You don't seem to know what it means to beg the question. Don't make hasty replies.
And no, the canonical books do not erroneously quote the OT. "Barnabas" makes wild, free quotes attributing them to Scripture. You've yet to answer this problem, sir.
@AgApE010 no i do know what it means; and i used it in the same way you did.
i was referring to the NT canonical books. context is everything. dont misinterpret my statements.
Barnabas does not make free quotes of Scripture. you just have the wrong Scriptures. Barnabas' canon is much larger and uses different manuscripts than what you have. the Deuteronomy in all Bibles is a joke compared to the original one that Barnabas used.
@AgApE010 furthermore the 66 have the same socalled errors. you also assume the 66 are Scripture without sufficient justification. what is the basis for your canon?
I also believe that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha should be canon and included in every Holy Bible. Similar to an Ethiopian Orthodox bible or the Dead Sea scrolls.
Actually, Barnabas is very misunderstood, just like Paul. And you are saying that it is not in the Bible because God did not want it that way? When you say its not in "the" bible, how do we know what it is? just because someone believes something does not make it true. you say its not in the BIble, but that's only your belief. The definition of Bible is simply Scripture. Scripture is Scripture even if no one thinks it is Scripture.
i address your claim in argument two of this series.
The reason Barnabas is not in the Canon bible is because God did not want it that way. Let me explain. Barnabas blows the doors of the "veil". It explains too bluntly the spiritual side of things. Where as St. Paul writes with a very spiritual meaning. God must open peoples eyes to the "Canon" bible! Each person must ask God for the understanding of the word. Remember how Jesus spoke in parables? Well, Paul continues in this way as he writes with a heavy a spiritual meaning. It's often twisted.
"Barnabas" misquotes Scripture repeatedly in that work. He attributes a passage from Daniel to Enoch. He quotes things as Scripture out of ignorance that are nowhere found in the Scriptures. Whoever he was, he doesn't seem to be the Biblical Barnabas and certainly was not inspired by the Spirit.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 that's not true. i have a lost work of Enoch which fits the reference of Barnabas exactly. its called "the Vision of Enoch" and its in Armenian collection of ancient writings. I have also identified some of his quotations as they come from various apocrypha such as 2 Esdras and one comes from one of the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "Apocryphon" of Ezekiel.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@AgApE010 furthermore not all manuscripts say "Enoch" there but some say "daniel". you are to quick to reject God's word. the bible also has many manuscripts differences, so how come you ignored the manuscript differences of the Epistle of Barnabas?
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@carlsonap16
I'm not quick to reject God's word. You're begging the question by assuming it IS God's word. But this is precisely what you're supposed to prove first.
There are still many places where "Barnabas" thinks he's quoting Scripture from words that are not found anywhere in Scripture. Other places he quotes Scripture so inaccurately that it takes effort to see from where he is trying quote. It simply does not seem to be the work of a man inspired by God.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 you are begging the question by assuming its not
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@carlsonap16
You don't seem to know what it means to beg the question. Don't make hasty replies.
And no, the canonical books do not erroneously quote the OT. "Barnabas" makes wild, free quotes attributing them to Scripture. You've yet to answer this problem, sir.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 no i do know what it means; and i used it in the same way you did.
i was referring to the NT canonical books. context is everything. dont misinterpret my statements.
Barnabas does not make free quotes of Scripture. you just have the wrong Scriptures. Barnabas' canon is much larger and uses different manuscripts than what you have. the Deuteronomy in all Bibles is a joke compared to the original one that Barnabas used.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@AgApE010 furthermore the 66 have the same socalled errors. you also assume the 66 are Scripture without sufficient justification. what is the basis for your canon?
carlsonap16 2 months ago
Have you checked out Bercot's site yet?
realirishdude 8 months ago
@realirishdude no i haven't. lol, i totally forgot about this. thanks for the reminder =D
carlsonap16 8 months ago
I completely recommend Bercot's material.
chaadash777 8 months ago
I also believe that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha should be canon and included in every Holy Bible. Similar to an Ethiopian Orthodox bible or the Dead Sea scrolls.
Minotaurus2 1 year ago
Have you come across Bercot's materials?
realirishdude 1 year ago
@realirishdude no i haven't yet. what kind of cool things does he talk about that you have in mind?
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 ScrollPublishing (dot)com will answer your question. Sorry for taking 11 months to reply!
realirishdude 1 year ago
@realirishdude =D
carlsonap16 1 year ago
I take the position the late John A.T. Robinson took, that the Epistle of Barnabas was written 85AD approximately by Barnabas.
Under most definitions of "scripture", I would call it scripture.
From a strict conservative definition which most Christian scholars use, this book contains inspiration but is not scripture.
It is very useful and I would love to see this put in appendix like it is in Codex Sinaitticus.
It is not theopneustos, but a lovely book which all Christians need to read.
smartwarlord 2 years ago
why do you reject it as Scripture if you believe it was apostolic? It sure passes the criteria for Scripture.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't want it going after Hebrews in my Bible if that is what you are asking.
With that said, I find no fault in this text and I do see inspiration and the same Biblical theme running through it as present in both OT and NT.
I'm not a revisionist though, what was put in the ground stays in the ground.
I definitely want this in Modern Bibles as an Appendixed book. I'm just not ready for it after Hebrews.
Perhaps ill change my mind :)
smartwarlord 2 years ago
i can accept that for now =).
carlsonap16 2 years ago
Actually, Barnabas is very misunderstood, just like Paul. And you are saying that it is not in the Bible because God did not want it that way? When you say its not in "the" bible, how do we know what it is? just because someone believes something does not make it true. you say its not in the BIble, but that's only your belief. The definition of Bible is simply Scripture. Scripture is Scripture even if no one thinks it is Scripture.
i address your claim in argument two of this series.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
The reason Barnabas is not in the Canon bible is because God did not want it that way. Let me explain. Barnabas blows the doors of the "veil". It explains too bluntly the spiritual side of things. Where as St. Paul writes with a very spiritual meaning. God must open peoples eyes to the "Canon" bible! Each person must ask God for the understanding of the word. Remember how Jesus spoke in parables? Well, Paul continues in this way as he writes with a heavy a spiritual meaning. It's often twisted.
1260days 2 years ago