Gospel of Barnabas, ever herd of it?

[muslim]

Hey, is it? If not, than who accepts it? Meaning which sect?

[The One X]

Many have heard of it but very few have ever read it because the only copy I know of is kept in the vatican and isn't released to the people.

[+Link of Hyrule]

^Umm, a quick search found me an online text of the gospel of Barnabas, not to mention that we do have the earliest texts......

And to answer the question, most CHristians do not accept the gospel of Barnabas. The earliest copy of this text we have dates to the 16th Century. Adding on that the earliest textual reference to this text is the 6th Century AD, the conclusion by the vast majority of scholars is that it's a late apocryphal work........

Edited December 11, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[muslim]

So it was written in the 6th century? Do you know by which group of people? Greek, Romans, Arabs? And, sorry i know ive bothered u with my questions but which sect in Christianity follows this gospel today?

[GoddessWhispers]

Before one declares the gospel of Barnabas is not accepted by "most" christians one has to perhaps understand why. Though such a declaratory statement is bold in that it seeks to speak for most of a population to which one is an opinionated individual.

The gospel of Barnabas spoke of unitarianism. That god is one and only one, rather than the triune aspect accepted by many mainstream religions. Furthermore one should take into account the definition of, "Canon", when they read that the gospel of B. was precluded from being included in the canon's of the bible.

If indeed a bible is the "inspired word of god" , is it not blasphemy of a sorts for mortal men to orchestrate a meeting and declare what inspired words the believer public are entitled to read and believe!? I think it is. And in that there is a vast history of such glaring omissions of holy writ, or inspired words, largely in part due to the declarations afforded by the council of Nicea and Carthage, one may consider what religious people ascribe to their articles of faith is what they are permitted to believe of that alleged holy scripture. Thanks, in very large part, to the declaration of an ecclesiastical authoritarian body comprised of mortal men.

It's frightening to think that people believe what has been prescribed for them to consider and accept as articles of faith, by people no better than they. People that determined they were invested with an authority to declare what was acceptable for the publics consideration, in inspired godly words, to be published under the cover of a holy text. All of which, given just that example of the unitarianism espoused in the Book of B. , is invested in insuring that ecclesiastical authority to be above reproach as they declare themselves authorities in the flesh, over all matters of translation of the spirit. In effect, insuring a totalitarian dictatorship, in robes.

[Leonardo]

Goddess,

I don't understand. If the bible is the word of God, the inspiration of those who have been touched by God put down in writing, then how can a group of men decide what is and isn't such an inspiration? That almost seems like a conspiracy to me

[GoddessWhispers]

Goddess,

I don't understand. If the bible is the word of God, the inspiration of those who have been touched by God put down in writing, then how can a group of men decide what is and isn't such an inspiration? That almost seems like a conspiracy to me

Almost a conspiracy!? Or rather, is the evidence of a conspiracy!? As the implementation and affection of monotheism is also representative of having a history of terrorism. As the history of the inquisition, crusades, and even the "holy" war between the jews and muslims in Israel impart to this day.

"We don't thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.” Golda Meir (1898-1978) Former Prime Minister Israel.

[+Link of Hyrule]

So it was written in the 6th century? Do you know by which group of people? Greek, Romans, Arabs? And, sorry i know ive bothered u with my questions but which sect in Christianity follows this gospel today?

It wasn't necessarily written in the 6th century. That's just the earliest mention of the text taht we have. It's not known who wrote it (except that it wasn't Barnabas), though if I'm understanding correctly, most scholars and theologians (and going on what I know of the text, I tend to agree with them - though my knowledge is fairly limited, I admit) believe it to be written by muslims in support of that ideology. As for what sects actually follow the text, I honestly don't know any group taht does use it, though I'm sure there are some smaller sects out there that may follow various books of the apocrypha. Edited December 11, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[Something Like Laughter]

Before one declares the gospel of Barnabas is not accepted by "most" christians one has to perhaps understand why. Though such a declaratory statement is bold in that it seeks to speak for most of a population to which one is an opinionated individual.

The gospel of Barnabas spoke of unitarianism. That god is one and only one, rather than the triune aspect accepted by many mainstream religions. Furthermore one should take into account the definition of, "Canon", when they read that the gospel of B. was precluded from being included in the canon's of the bible.

If indeed a bible is the "inspired word of god" , is it not blasphemy of a sorts for mortal men to orchestrate a meeting and declare what inspired words the believer public are entitled to read and believe!? I think it is. And in that there is a vast history of such glaring omissions of holy writ, or inspired words, largely in part due to the declarations afforded by the council of Nicea and Carthage, one may consider what religious people ascribe to their articles of faith is what they are permitted to believe of that alleged holy scripture. Thanks, in very large part, to the declaration of an ecclesiastical authoritarian body comprised of mortal men.

It's frightening to think that people believe what has been prescribed for them to consider and accept as articles of faith, by people no better than they. People that determined they were invested with an authority to declare what was acceptable for the publics consideration, in inspired godly words, to be published under the cover of a holy text. All of which, given just that example of the unitarianism espoused in the Book of B. , is invested in insuring that ecclesiastical authority to be above reproach as they declare themselves authorities in the flesh, over all matters of translation of the spirit. In effect, insuring a totalitarian dictatorship, in robes.

Council of Nicaea had nothing do the New Testament canon. Third Synod of Carthage did. Also, the ecumenical councils weren't worth anything until the laity accepted them. Twice, IIRC, when bishops returned from a council, they found that most had all lost their position.

[hadeka]

Actually ... I have a copy of this gospel in Arabic ... i have read it ... It is not accepted by the Vatican because it supports Muslims' beliefs ... It says that Jesus is only a prophet from god, and he is not a divine ....

It talks about Muhammad as a prophet from god ...

[GoddessWhispers]

Council of Nicaea had nothing do the New Testament canon. Third Synod of Carthage did.

I take your word for it. I did not differentiate which council had what to do with the canonizations. I mentioned NIcaea and Carthage is all.