There is more than one set of apocryphas.

[BreadOfLife]

The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, the Didache, written in the first century quotes it.

Although the Didache is a wonderful extrabiblical and historical reference for information about the Early Church - it is NOT inspired Scripture. The fact that something is quoted in it doesn't make is Scripture.

The Didache corroborates the teachings of Scripture and Sacred Tradition but is not itself, Scripture.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Although the Didache is a wonderful extrabiblical and historical reference for information about the Early Church - it is NOT inspired Scripture. The fact that something is quoted in it doesn't make is Scripture.

The Didache corroborates the teachings of Scripture and Sacred Tradition but is not itself, Scripture.

The Didache contains the teachings of apostles who wrote the scriptures. But I see you are not interested in reading ALL of God's words. I am.

 

[farouk]

The Didache contains the teachings of apostles who wrote the scriptures. But I see you are not interested in reading ALL of God's words. I am.

The question arises whether writings are part of Spirit-inspired Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Didache contains the teachings of apostles who wrote the scriptures. But I see you are not interested in reading ALL of God's words. I am.

Wrong.
I believe the Didache to be a truthful and helpful extrabiblical aid in our faith. It is useful for helping us to understand how the Early Church operated, how the Sacraments were conferred, useful instructions on Baptism and other aspects of the Christian life.

In fact - I would venture to say that NOBODY on this forum quotes OR refers to the Didache more than me.
However - it is NOT inspired Scripture.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The question arises whether writings are part of Spirit-inspired Scripture.

Are there any writings of Paul, Peter or John that are not scripture? They received all their teachings from the Holy Spirit. If the Epistle of Barnabas was actually written by Barnabas as the Didiche would presume, then it is scripture. He was an apostle.

 

[farouk]

Are there any writings of Paul, Peter or John that are not scripture? They received all their teachings from the Holy Spirit. If the Epistle of Barnabas was actually written by Barnabas as the Didiche would presume, then it is scripture. He was an apostle.

They do not automatically become Scripture if the Holy Spirit has not used them in inspiration; those men were not infallible.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Wrong.
I believe the Didache to be a truthful and helpful extrabiblical aid in our faith. It is useful for helping us to understand how the Early Church operated, how the Sacraments were conferred, useful instructions on Baptism and other aspects of the Christian life.

In fact - I would venture to say that NOBODY on this forum quotes OR refers to the Didache more than me.
However - it is NOT inspired Scripture.

ROFL! I never said the Didache was scripture. I said it quotes scripture.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

They do not automatically become Scripture if the Holy Spirit has not used them in inspiration; those men were not infallible.

You can remain closed to the idea, Farouk. But I'm not Catholic and assume they were led by God to chose all of His Word. They believe they are infallible.

 

[farouk]

You can remain closed to the idea, Farouk. But I'm not Catholic and assume they were led by God to chose all of His Word. They believe they are infallible.

I'm not Roman Catholic, either. Bible believing Christians have not usually held that every single pronouncement of the Apostles was infallible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ROFL! I never said the Didache was scripture. I said it quotes scripture.

You said the the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture because it was quoted in the Didache.
Are you now recanting that claim??

 

[1stCenturyLady]

You said the the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture because it was quoted in the Didache.
Are you now recanting that claim??

No. You were saying that the Didache, itself, wasn't scripture, as if I did. You're hysterical!

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. You were saying that the Didache, itself, wasn't scripture, as if I did. You're hysterical!

And YOU'VE either got a short memory - or you're simply dishonest . . .
Anyway - it's NOT Scripture - and neither is the Epistle of Barnabas.

In post #297 - I asked YOU why you considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be inspired Scripture.

In post #300 - YOU stated that it was because it was "quoted in the Didache." That's when I informed you that neither was the Didache considered inspired Scripture.

NOT sure where you think you get the Authority to declare what is inspired and what is not - but the Bible doesn't give YOU the individual that Authority. That belongs to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

Looks like you have some very WRONG ideas about Authority to go along with your very short memory of this conversation . . .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

That belongs to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

So you believe the Roman church was guided by the Holy Spirit? That was during a period in church history that they were adding paganism to attract pagans. As I said, I'm not Roman Catholic so don't use them as my guide to what is scripture and what isn't. You believe what you want. It doesn't seem you are very hungry to receive EVERY Word of God, and more interested in saving the face of the Catholic church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you believe the Roman church was guided by the Holy Spirit? That was during a period in church history that they were adding paganism to attract pagans. As I said, I'm not Roman Catholic so don't use them as my guide to what is scripture and what isn't. You believe what you want. It doesn't seem you are very hungry to receive EVERY Word of God, and more interested in saving the face of the Catholic church.

So, once again I ask you.
On WHAT do you base the idea that the Epistle of Barnabas is inspired Scripture.

Pretty simple question . . .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

So, once again I ask you.
On WHAT do you base the idea that the Epistle of Barnabas is inspired Scripture.

Pretty simple question . . .

In the 1990's, I read a book on the history of the canon. I discovered that the EoB was nominated and appeared on 6!!! official lists of books before the final selection was made. I was intrigued to read it myself and perhaps discern why it was not ultimately chosen. So I bought it and read it. Instead, I was amazed at the holes in our Bible that were closed up, making the knowledge of the whole Word of God complete. The fact that the Didache quotes it makes me realize that it was believed to be canonical very early on as it was read in all the early churches, so why should I deny it, especially since it was a fallen church that refused it?

I have also been baptized with the Spirit since 1977 and was given faith to believe this book IS indeed inspired. I am lead by the Spirit, and was even shown why they chose to deny it. It contains an end time prophecy that couldn't come to pass for a very long time (over a thousand years), but the timing for it to come to pass is NOW! That is why God preserved it and revealed it at a later time more appropriate. It also contains a commandment against abortion that our Bible doesn't have, thus today's confusion. I don't need to convince you, as you answer to God, not me. Only the Spirit can convince someone.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I read a book on the history of the canon. I discovered that the EoB was nominated and appeared on 6 official lists of books before the final selection was made. I was intrigued to read it myself and perhaps discern why it was not ultimately chosen. So I bought it and read it. Instead, I was amazed at the holes in our Bible that were closed up, making the knowledge of the whole Word of God complete. The fact that the Didache quotes it makes me realize that it was believed to be canonical very early on as it was read in all the early churches, so why should I deny it, especially since it was a fallen church that refused it?

I have also been baptized with the Spirit since 1977 and was given faith to believe this book IS indeed inspired. I don't need to convince you, as you answer to God, not me. If you want to continue the contempt, have at it. I won't respond again to you.

No need to get so defensive - I have no "contempt" for you.
I don't even know you.

I DO know that Christ's Church was given the guarantee that it would be guided to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) and NOT the individual. I ALSO know that Christ told the leaders of His Church that if people refuse to listen to His Church they refuse to listen to HIM (Luke 10:16). In other words - it's not up to YOU to decide the Canon of Scripture.

The Epistle of Barnabas was NOT the only Book that was included in many unofficial canons before the official Canon was declared by Christ's Church. The Shepherd of Hermas was another as was the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and others.

The fact remains that just because something is mentioned in an extrabiblical source does NOT make it "inspired Scripture" . . .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

No need to get so defensive - I have no "contempt" for you.
I don't even know you.

Yes, I deleted that because the Spirit checked my spirit. Sorry. I had hoped I could delete it before you saw that. LOL

You also missed my comment that only the Spirit could convince you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, I deleted that because the Spirit checked my spirit. Sorry. I had hoped I could delete it before you saw that. LOL

You also missed my comment that only the Spirit could convince you.

The Holy Spirit HAS convinced me.

He has convinced me that the Scriptures are TRUE:
- That Christ's CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - NOT the individual . . .
- That Christ's CHURCH is the FULLNESS of Him (Eph. 1:22-23) - NOT the individual . . .
- That Christ equates His very SELF with His CHURCH (Acts 9:4-5), which is His Body - NOT the individual . . .
- To listen to HIM is to listen to His CHURCH (Luke 10:16).
- That WHATEVER His CHURCH ordains on earth is also ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) . . .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The Holy Spirit HAS convinced me.

He has convinced me that the Scriptures are TRUE:
- That Christ's CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - NOT the individual . . .
- That Christ's CHURCH is the FULLNESS of Him (Eph. 1:22-23) - NOT the individual . . .
- That Christ equates His very SELF with His CHURCH (Acts 9:4-5), which is His Body - NOT the individual . . .
- To listen to HIM is to listen to His CHURCH (Luke 10:16).
- That WHATEVER His CHURCH ordains on earth is also ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) . . .

Yes, I too believe the Scriptures are true - all of them. I assume you've read the EoB, so what did you see that you object to?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, I too believe the Scriptures are true - all of them. I assume you've read the EoB, so what did you see that you object to?

I don't "object" to the Epistle of Barnabas. I don't "object" to the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas.
I also don't "object" to the U.S. Constitution - but NONE of these are inspired Scripture.

As I pointed out in my prior post - as an individual, I don't have the Authority to declare what is inspired and what is not. Jesus gave that Authority to the Leaders of His Church at large (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:18, John 16:12-15, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

As Augustine so wisely and faithfully put it:
"Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so".

Christ out His CHURCH in charge - NOT the individual believer.
I's not Scripture just because YOU believe it to be so . . .