Should the books of the bible been more like 77?

[Marymog]

I only think one is missing making the number divisible by 7. 28 And that is why I believe that the Epistle of Barnabas is the missing book for our time.

The Epistle of Barnabas was written to late (more than likely after the death of the last Apostle, John) and, from a literary point of view, has no merit.

So God guided the men of The Church to the correct 27 books but those same men didn't listen to God when he told them there needed to be a 28th book?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Did you write this, or did you find this somewhere. I have read it many times and do find it doctrinally sound. Barnabas was an apostle.

I did not write it. I have studied others who determined the history of how/why books of the bible were chosen and compiled the general consensus in my response.

Barnabas was an Apostle but the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by him which disqualifies it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The Epistle of Barnabas was written to late (more than likely after the death of the last Apostle, John) and, from a literary point of view, has no merit.

So God guided the men of The Church to the correct 27 books but those same men didn't listen to God when he told them there needed to be a 28th book?

Mary

You do know that was an opinion that it was written by Alexandrian Greeks. I don't agree. As far as the timing it was written after 70 A.D. It is only tradition that Barnabas was killed before that. Jesus told of the destruction of the temple not only as a prophecy but as a warning. Christians would have seen the warnings and left the area.

 

[Marymog]

I have read it many times and do find it doctrinally sound. Barnabas was an apostle.

The Epistle of Barnabas contains no clue to its author.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I did not write it. I have studied others who determined the history of how/why books of the bible were chosen and compiled the general consensus in my response.

Barnabas was an Apostle but the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by him which disqualifies it.

Call me crazy but I don't trust man's theories. That is also why I am not a denominationalist, but that's another topic. LOL

 

[ScottA]

I am sure every generation has had similar thoughts. But it is obvious to me that men carry the water during their time, but it is not men who actually choose what is included in the enduring, everlasting word, but rather God alone who is capable of transcending the times and efforts of men.

 

[Marymog]

You do know that was an opinion that it was written by Alexandrian Greeks. I don't agree. As far as the timing it was written after 70 A.D. It is only tradition that Barnabas was killed before that. Jesus told of the destruction of the temple not only as a prophecy but as a warning. Christians would have seen the warnings and left the area.

The earliest some experts date it is 80-120 AD. Some date it in the early 2nd Century.

Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrian were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honor of being publicly read. It was not read widely throughout Christianity which is one of the criteria for making it into the Bible. The history of the epistle confirms its Alexandrine origin.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The Epistle of Barnabas contains no clue to its author.

Nor does Hebrews. I think they were both written by the same person, who was close to Paul. That is also what the early church must have thought too to not question the name, The Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[Marymog]

Call me crazy but I don't trust man's theories. That is also why I am not a denominationalist, but that's another topic. LOL

The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by every one as an inspired writing. Do you trust the theory Clement and Origin, who lived during that time, over your theory?

 

[Marymog]

Nor does Hebrews....

Good point....I digress on that matter

 

[CharismaticLady]

The earliest some experts date it is 80-120 AD. Some date it in the early 2nd Century.

Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrian were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honor of being publicly read. It was not read widely throughout Christianity which is one of the criteria for making it into the Bible. The history of the epistle confirms its Alexandrine origin.

Rome was destroying everything Christian until Constantine, so I see reason for it or copies of it winding up in Alexandria, Greece. Rome is why we have no original parchments. As for the date, I've seen "scholars" say around 130 AD. Others say first century and that it was read in all the early churches and accepted as written by the apostle Barnabas, not a different teacher of that name or pseudonym.

The contents of the EoB is why I believe it is inspired, and must be canonical. And if inspired, then it was written earlier, rather than later.

 

[reformed1689]

So @CharismaticLady you don't follow man-made traditions, yet you hold that the Epistle of Barnabas was written by Barnabas which is, wait for it, A MAN-MADE TRADITION.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by every one as an inspired writing. Do you trust the theory Clement and Origin, who lived during that time, over your theory?

I do not like Origin's doctrines, and Clement wrote about the phoenix in one of his letters. I don't consider either one filled with the Spirit.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So @CharismaticLady you don't follow man-made traditions, yet you hold that the Epistle of Barnabas was written by Barnabas which is, wait for it, A MAN-MADE TRADITION.

I go by the content, and have decided for myself. I am also Spirit-filled and feel confident it was inspired and written by an apostle.

Man's carnal tradition is that it was not. Who do you trust more? The Spirit or carnal man?

 

[reformed1689]

I am also Spirit-filled and feel confident it was inspired and written by an apostle.

So God told you it was inspired? In other words you are saying, "I feel that it is true therefore I know that it is true." You realize that is the same logic of Mormons?

 

[Marymog]

Rome was destroying everything Christian until Constantine, so I see reason for it or copies of it winding up in Alexandria, Greece. Rome is why we have no original parchments. As for the date, I've seen "scholars" say around 130 AD. Others say first century and that it was read in all the early churches and accepted as written by the apostle Barnabas, not a different teacher of that name or pseudonym.

The contents of the EoB is why I believe it is inspired, and must be canonical. And if inspired, then it was written earlier, rather than later.

The Church obviously disagrees with you since they said it's not canonical. Either you believe the men of The Church were inspired by the Holy Spirit to get the 27 right or you don't believe they were inspired. The onerous is on you to explain why they didn't get this one right and they didn't listen to the Spirit.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I do not like Origin's doctrines, and Clement wrote about the phoenix in one of his letters. I don't consider either one filled with the Spirit.

Fascinating.....Soooo who gets to decide who is "filled with the Spirit"?

 

[Marymog]

I do not like Origin's doctrines, and Clement wrote about the phoenix in one of his letters. I don't consider either one filled with the Spirit.

Once again....FASCINATING!!

You don't like Origins doctrines sooooo you disregard EVERYTHING he wrote?

The letter in which Clement talks about the phoenix is often slighted but in Clement's day the Phoenix was a believable story. Personally, I cannot blame him for accepting the "science" of his day. That does not disqualify him from being filled with the Spirit. He was a student of the Apostles for crying out loud and his letters were WIDELY read in churches and considered inspired/canonical by MANY because he was a student of the Apostles.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Do you know his work? He proved that not just the thought was inspired, but ever letter.

Which is all well and good. But as to canonicity, that was something only the early Jews or the early Church could determine.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

That isn't true. There was the Roman Church, and the original church lead by the desposyni - relatives of Jesus.

Not sure what you are talking about here.

Stranger