Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.

Moderator: Maria

d9popov
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Thu 26 April 2018 1:42 am

THE FOUR AUTHENTIC GOSPELS:
THE WITNESS OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA


CLEMENT (circa A.D. 150 to circa A.D. 215)
Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis, quoted in Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.14.5-7, http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-pr ... nt-of.html:

[6.14.5] But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders about the disposition of the gospels, in the following manner: He said that those gospels with genealogies were openly published, [6.14.6] but Mark had this procedure: when Peter was in Rome preaching in public the word and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but after he composed the gospels, he shared it with anyone who wanted it [6.14.7] when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel.

[6.14.5] Αὖθις δ' ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων τέθειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον· προγεγράφθαι ἔλεγεν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας, [6.14.6] τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μάρκον ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οἰκονομίαν. τοῦ πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ρώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μάρκον, ὡς ἂν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα· ποιήσαντα δέ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ·[6.14.7] ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι. τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον, συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπο τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον.

ORIGEN (circa A.D.182 to A.D. 251)
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 1, quoted in Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.25.3-6, http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-pr ... rigen.html:

[6.25.3] Now he puts these things in the previously mentioned work; but in the first [book] of his [commentary] on Matthew, defending the Church canon, he testifies of knowing only four gospels, writing something like this: [6.25.4] as learned by tradition about the four gospels, which alone are incontested in the Church of God under heaven, that, first, written was Matthew, once a publican but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters; [6.25.5] but second, Mark, who composed as Peter led him, whom he avowed as son in the catholic epistle, saying as follows: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark" [1 Pet. 5:17]. [6.25.6] And third, Luke, who has composed for those from the Gentiles the gospel praised by Paul. And, after all of them, John.

[6.25.3] Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐν τῷ προειρημένῳ τίθησι συγγράμματι· ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον, τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα, μόνα τεσσάρα εἰδέναι εὐαγγέλια μαρτύρεται, ὧδέ πως γράφων· [6.25.4] ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθὼν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματθαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασιν, γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον· [6.25.5] δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων ὡμολόγησεν φάσκων, Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς βαβυλῶνι συνελεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου· [1 Pet. 5:17] [6.25.6] καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πεποιηκότα· ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Mon 7 May 2018 11:28 pm

"THE CHURCH OF GOD ACCEPTS ONLY THE FOUR"

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa AD 182–251)
But the Church of God accepts only the four
Tà dè téssera móna prokrínei hē toû Theoû Ekklēsía
(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Luke, 1, ed. Rauer, GCS 49, trans. Orchard 1987: 137, modified)


SAINT IRENAEUS (writing circa AD 180)
[2] Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. [3] After their deaths, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things that Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel that Paul had preached. [4] Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.
[2] ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. [3] μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν· καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ’ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βίβλῳ κατέθετο. [4] ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης, ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων.
(Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1, in Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, History of the Church, 5.8.2–4, ed. http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/indiv ... &links=tlg, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/indiv ... &links=tlg, trans. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm, modified)

User avatar
RaphaCam
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 27 July 2016 4:28 am
Faith: not Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Contact:

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby RaphaCam » Thu 10 May 2018 1:43 am

St. Barnabas never wrote this, it's a very late sectarian work, chronologically much nearer to us than to St. Barnabas, do not be deceived.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Wed 20 June 2018 1:53 am

MORE ON THE FOUR CANONICAL GOSPELS AND THE NON-CANONICAL GOSPELS

In “marketing” the non-canonical gospels to a general audience, both academics and news media often fail to state clearly several points up front — points that need to be honestly emphasized up front. None of the non-canonical Gospels are actually written or dictated by the apostles to whom they are often attributed. Probably none of the non-canonical gospels that survive were written in the first century of Christianity. Often, the only thing that is claimed is that a hypothetical “earlier version” of the non-canonical gospel might go back to the first century. John Dominic Crossan’s unlikely theory that the non-canonical Gospel of Peter was based on a much-earlier “Cross Gospel” has not been accepted by most scholars. Some “lost and found gospels” are simply a tiny fragment (Papyrus Egerton 2), so even if it did come from the first century (very unlikely!) it would still not have much importance. Even those scholars who were the greatest champions of non-canonical gospels (for example, Helmut Koester of Harvard) conclude that these gospels have hardly any material that goes back to the historical Jesus that is not in the four Gospels. Theories that the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas might go back to the first century are rebutted as more and more scholarship on that text is published (see Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole). The Holy Fathers said that the Gospel of Thomas was “corrupted by Manichees/Manichaeans” (that is, dualists, Gnostics, etc.), so, even if there was an earlier document, what we have now has been corrupted. If the Gospel of Thomas has a few authentic sayings of Christ, almost all of those are already present in one or more of the four canonical Gospels.

Many of the non-canonical gospels, acts, epistles/letters, and revelations/apocalypses are indeed Gnostic or heretical in some way. It can be misleading to call Gnosticism a “Christian heresy.” There were pagan, “Jewish” (non-Christian), and “Christian” varieties of Gnosticism, with numerous contradictions. All were syncretistic (trying to reconcile or combine incompatible systems). Several forms of Gnosticism were anti-monotheist. They rejected the fundamental faith in only one God. They should be considered “anti-Jewish Gnosticism” and “anti-Christian Gnosticism.” Gnostic doctrines were often the polar opposite of Old Testament and Christian teaching on other teachings. The Old Testament and Christianity teach that the creation was “very good” and that the Creator is Goodness Himself, whereas some Gnostics believed that the creator and creation were evil. Even the word “gnostic” (he who knows) was falsely appropriated by these often anti-Christian sectarians. Saint Irenaeus’s book _Against Heresies_ is also titled _Detection and Overthrown of the Falsely-Named Gnosis/Knowledge._ As Saint Maximus the Confessor makes clear in his _Gnostic Chapters_, the true “gnostic” (one who knows) is a Christian who adheres to divine revelation as passed down through holy Orthodox tradition.

The _Proto-Gospel (Infancy Gospel) of James_ does have some material that is accepted in the Orthodox Church, but even that text was not close to being received into the canonical New Testament. The _First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians_, the _Shepherd of Hermas_, and the so-called _Letter of Barnabas_ were probably the three texts most closely associated with the New Testament, but even they were not accepted into the canon. _1 Clement_ (its short name) is probably the most important of these, but it is from the first generation after the apostles, not the apostolic generation itself. It is rightly categorized as coming from among the “Apostolic Men” (an ancient patristic term) or “Apostolic Fathers” (a modern term) as opposed to “Apostles” in the strict sense.

The so-called “Q Gospel” is a hypothesis and it may not have ever existed in historical reality. Bishop Papias of Hierapolis may have referred around AD 110 to something like a Q Gospel, but his words are interpreted in contradictory ways. Many Church Fathers refer to an Aramaic/Hebrew/Semitic Gospel, often associated in some way with the Apostle Matthew, but this has not survived. Scholars who research about a possible “Q Gospel” or “Aramaic/Hebrew/Semitic Gospel” often do not closely examine the patristic testimony to the four Gospels and other gospels.

The estimated dates that are attributed by scholars to non-canonical gospels, acts, epistles/letters, and revelations/apocalypses are almost always much later than the New Testament Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Revelation. The following dates (taken from Charles E. Hill’s _Who Chose the Gospels?_) may be too early, but I reproduce those estimated dates (even if the estimates are too early) to show the late character of the non-canonical writings:

Gospel of the Ebionites (circa AD 125?)
Gospel of the Egyptians (circa AD 125?)
Gospel of the Hebrews (circa AD 125?)
Gospel of the Nazoreans (circa AD 125?)
Gospel of Thomas (circa AD 140?)
Gospel of Peter (circa AD 150?)
Gospel of Judas (circa AD 170?)

I can list more in a latter posting.

The late dates should cause one to doubt whether such materials have authentic historical material from eyewitnesses. Most importantly, the Church has frequently affirmed that only the four holy Gospels are trustworthy. Later materials from later bishops are also trustworthy, but these materials follow the New Testament faithfully. The non-canonical gospels, acts, letters, and revelations --- to the extent that they frequently and massively contradict the four authentic, first-century Gospels of the New Testament --- cannot be trusted. Later patristic materials are trusted specifically because they follow the New Testament and oral traditions that are compatible with (not contradictory to) the New Testament. The non-canonical materials do massively contradict the New Testament.

It is neither Orthodox Christian nor scholarly to give much credence to most of these non-canonical materials. Occasionally they may contain some genuine traditions (like the Proto-Gospel of James), but overwhelmingly they do not.

Lastly some of these non-canonical materials are complete frauds, forgeries, or hoaxes from the twentieth or twenty-first century, such as the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark and the so-called Gospel of Jesus’ Wife. The Secret Gospel of Mark was forged by (or under the direction of) Columbia University Professor Morton Smith around 1958. Unfortunately, the influential Harvard gospels scholar Helmut Koester was deceived by the hoax. The so-called Gospel of Jesus’ Wife was a tiny Coptic fragment that was crudely forged by former Egyptology student Walter Fritz (or someone associated with Walter Fritz) prior to 2012. For well over a year this obvious forgery was defended by Harvard professor Karen King.

On the positive side, there are a few scholars today who are producing useful scholarship on how the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony and on how the bishops and writers of the second century Church had access to authentic historical traditions coming from the Apostles and those who knew the Apostles, called the "Apostolic Men." Clement, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenaeus provide crucial historical testimony to the continuity within the Church from the first to the second century. People should read these authentic late first and second century sources, not the untrustworthy non-canonical materials.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Wed 20 June 2018 6:56 pm

Saint Sophronius I the Sophist, Patriarch of Jerusalem (634–638), is not the most ancient witness to the authorship of the four Gospels, but his words have often been printed in modern Orthodox editions of the Gospels in Greek, Slavonic, and Georgian. Here are some excerpts only. A fuller text can be found at the link at the end.

[Begin quotation]

Matthew, also known as Levi, tax collector turned apostle, was the first to compose the Gospel of Christ, in Judea in the Hebrew language for those of the circumcision who believed. It is unknown by whom it was later translated into Greek.… he does not follow the authority of the Seventy (i.e. The Septuagint), but of the Hebrew text.…

Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and, at the urging of the brethren in Rome, Mark wrote his short Gospel, following exactly what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter saw it, he gave it his approval, and directed that it be read in the Church, as Clement says in Book 6 of his Outline. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, makes mention of this same Mark. Peter, in his first Epistle, refers to Rome metaphorically by the name “Babylon”: “The church that is at Babylon, chosen together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son” (1 Peter 5:13). Taking with him the Gospel that he himself had written, Mark went to Egypt, and was the first to preach Jesus Christ in Alexandria, where he established the Church.… Mark reposed in the eighth year of Nero’s reign [AD 63]. He was buried in Alexandria, where Ananias succeeded him as bishop.…

Luke, a physician of Antioch … was a companion of the Apostle Paul and followed him in all his journeys to foreign lands… in his [Paul's] letter to the Colossians he says, “Luke, the beloved physician, greets you” (Colossians 4:14). And to Timothy he says, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11).… Luke wrote another excellent book entitled the Acts of the Apostles, a history that ends with Paul’s two-year stay in Rome, that is, in the fourth year of Nero’s reign. This leads us to believe that the Acts of the Apostles was written in Rome.… Luke learned the Gospel not only from the Apostle Paul, who was not with the Lord in the body at that time, but from the other Apostles as well. He himself clearly states this at the beginning of his work, saying, “even as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.” Therefore he wrote the Gospel as he had heard it. But he wrote Acts based on what he himself had experienced.…

John, the beloved disciple [John 13:23], was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James, who was beheaded by Herod [Herod Agrippa] after the Passion of the Lord [Acts 12:1-2]. John was the last of the Evangelists to write a Gospel. At the request of the bishops of Asia, he wrote his Gospel to combat the teachings of Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially the newly appeared doctrine of the Ebionites, who claimed that Christ did not exist until Mary gave birth to Him. This prompted John to expound on Christ’s divine generation. There is another reason why he wrote. After examining the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke from beginning to end, John confirmed that they had recorded the truth. Then he composed his own Gospel, focusing on the final year of the Lord’s earthly ministry and on His Passion. John omitted most of the events of the previous two years because these had already been faithfully recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.… John also wrote a letter that begins, “That which was from the beginning.” This letter is accepted as John’s by all ecclesiastical and scholarly authorities. The other two letters bearing his name — the first, beginning, “The elder to the elect lady”; and the second, “The elder to the well-beloved Gaius” — are considered by some to be the work of a certain John the Elder, whose tomb (one of two bearing the name John) still exists in Ephesus to this day. Others, however, maintain that these two letters are also the work of John the Evangelist.… In the fourteenth year of his reign, the emperor Domitian initiated the second major persecution of Christians (Nero’s persecution was the first). John was banished to the island of Patmos and there wrote Revelation.… After Dometian was murdered, his decrees were annulled by the Senate on account of their inhuman cruelty. Nerva ascended the throne, and John was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived until [AD 101, the fourth year of] Trajan’s reign. During this time, John founded and built up churches throughout Asia. In the sixty-eighth year after the Passion of the Lord, John reposed in great old age near Ephesus.

[End quotation]

Adapted from https://www.chrysostompress.org/the_fou ... lists.html.

**

Other authorities write that the Apostle John also composed his Gospel to include events from early on in Christ's ministry, such as the wedding in Cana. John's chronology of events is sometimes more detailed than the other three, since he mentions Jewish feasts more often, and mentions more than one trip to Jerusalem. John may also have written to clarify certain things in which a few people may have misunderstood the other Gospels, for example, he makes it clear that Christ carried His own cross, not just Simon of Cyrene.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Sun 24 June 2018 11:27 pm

GOSPELS AND THE AMERICAN MEDIA

In the 1980s, there were some respectful articles about the reliability of the Bible in _U.S. News and World Report._ But things got much worse in the 1990s and subsequently in the U.S. media, with their coverage of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Gnostic gospels, _The Da Vinci Code_, TV specials on Christian origins, the recently-forged "Gospel of Jesus' Wife," etc., etc. The scholarship that the media highlighted was not even mainstream, but was considered radical even within the liberal field of biblical studies. Sometimes the scholarly methodology was not that scholarly at all. John Dominic Crossan was truly bizarre in the way that he asserted early dates for non-canonical materials and asserted late dates for canonical scriptures. He was severely criticized for it at that time, but the media did not emphasize that point. Today, hardly anyone (except a few hippy relics) accepts his dating of documents. At the same time, we should not dismiss all these scholars' talk about hypothetical sources. Saint Luke says clearly that there were "many" Gospels before his. And the Holy Fathers admit that they do not know the history of how Saint Matthew's Semitic Gospel came to be translated into the canonical Greek Gospel that we have today. So there definitely were some pre-canonical Gospel sources, both oral and written, that go back to the AD 30s, 40s, and 50s. This is another reason to believe that the four canonical Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony to the teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection of the the Lord Jesus Christ, including the 500 witnesses mentioned by Saint Paul, and including the very family and relatives of the Lord (the desposynoi, "kinsmen of the Lord"). The first two bishops of Jerusalem, James and Simeon, were indeed kinsmen of the Lord. Saint Mark's Gospel is based on the eyewitness teaching of Saint Peter himself, the Lord's chief disciple. Saint John the Evangelist lived until around AD 100, and Saint Polycarp and Bishop Papias learned from him. Saint Irenaeus, in turn, knew Polycarp and read Papias. So, we have many direct links from the first century church through the second century into the third century. Even secular historians, if they look objectively, see this evidence of continuity in the "great church" (that is, the orthodox catholic church) and they will also see that the Gnostics and other sects were clearly different from the "great church" that existed from Lyon in the West to Asia in the East and from today's Bosnia in the North to Southern Egypt. These important cities and towns of Christianity were historically aware of their foundations from the apostles and, ultimately, from Christ Himself. Much of this is documented in Eusebius's _Church History._ It is very unfortunate that some scholars who have the ear of the media choose to ignore the actual historical documentation and substitute unscholarly conspiracy theories about hidden Gnostic gospels. Many of these scholars do not actually take these gospels seriously as historical sources, but they allow the media to write misrepresentations without the scholar speaking up clearly to refute the sensationalism and misrepresentations. Once again, the fact that Harvard's Helmut Koester fell for the "Secret Gospel of Mark" hoax tells us something. The fact that Harvard's Karen King fell for the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" forgery --- a very obvious forgery --- tells us something. Jacob Neusner said that this scholarly field had been "marred by fraud" and John Dominic Crossan famously called his own field of study "a scholarly bad joke." Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, Crossan's "Jesus books" were unscholarly on many levels. (His 2018 book on Orthodox iconography of the Resurrection, however, has some very useful material, which I hope to post on.) Even still, there are some responsible scholars, who use secular methods, who nonetheless document the continuity from Christ to the Apostles to the Fathers. We have nothing to fear from real historical research. We know our historical origins in the Apostles, and ultimately, in Christ Himself, the God-Man. The secret or hidden gospels are bizarre and embarrassingly stupid, and serious people should not take them to be serious historical sources about Christ and apostolic Christianity. They obviously are not. So, we should not be distracted from our Christian life by these false gospels. But we should know just enough about them to be able to tell our children with knowledge and with confidence that there is no real history there. The secret gospels have no real history in them. The four canonical Gospels do. In the second century the four Gospels reigned supreme in the "great church," despite what individuals and sects did. In Western Europe, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, the great church was reading the same four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and mostly the same epistles in their liturgies. The bishops exchanged letters with one another and were in Eucharistic communion with one another. The bishops and the people were one "great church" with four and only four canonical Gospels. The same four Gospels that most scholars today use for historical information on the Lord Jesus Christ.

User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 11:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby Cyprian » Wed 4 July 2018 10:05 pm

d9popov wrote:You may want to consult Father John Romanides's book The Ancestral Sin, not because it is perfect, but as a first step towards patristic sources on the Fall.

No, people should not waste their time reading Romanides' controversial The Ancestral Sin. I recommend people avoid all of John Romanides' writings. There is much more harmful in them than any good one might happen upon. Better to read approved saints of the Church, and not this New-Calendarist heretic. Why are you always promoting this modernist schismatic and heretic? Can't you recommend any recognized or approved writings that have been long held as edifying by the Church?

Take the issue of what "day" means. If I start out a story saying "Back in the day when the internet had not been invented, we used to always have to ... ... ," the word "day" is understood by everyone as an "era," actually a long era, not a 24-hour period. Similarly, the word "day" is the correct translation for the Old Testament word, but the word "day" sometimes means a 24-hour period and sometimes an era. I read that Church Fathers say we are still living in the "Seventh Day" today and that eternity is the "Eighth Day." Also, I have read that some Church Fathers consider the first six days to be "ages/eons."

You have read this where, and from whom? Not any of the saints. I challenge you here and now to produce authoritative saints who taught that the first six days of creation were "ages/eons". Produce for us the exact citations, or withdraw your spurious claim.


Return to “Inquiring into Orthodoxy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest