Epistle of Barnabas

[Lex]

I highly recommend everyone to read the Epistle of Barnabas. It was written between 70-132 AD and was attributed by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 - ca. 215) and Origen (ca. 184 - ca. 253) to Barnabas, the companion of the apostle Paul. Clement quotes it with phrases such as "the apostle Barnabas says". Origen speaks of it as "the general epistle of Barnabas".

I highly recommend this epistle to you because truly this epistle demolishes Dispensationalism/Religious Zionism. This epistle clearly teaches replacement theology (Matt 21:43), which means that the church has replaced Israel and that Israel has lost its status as the people of God. According to this epistle, Christians today are the true Israel, the true Jews. But this epistle also says something else, namely that the land of Israel here in this world is not the true land of Israel, but that Jesus Christ is the true land of Israel. Today, however, many so-called Christians still claim that the land of Israel here in this world is "the holy land". This epistle teaches typology, which means that the people of Israel and the land of Israel (and other) were only shadows pointing to Christianity, which means Christianity is the reality of God's plan, the true goal of God. This all agrees with the Bible, because according to the Bible the Christians are the true Israel (Gal 6:16), the true Jews (Rom 2:28-29), the true chosen nation (1Pet 2:9-10), the true temple of God (1Cor 3:16) and Jesus is the true land of Israel (Acts 17:28) and His word is the true honey (Psalm 119:103).

Here you can read it: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... tfoot.html
Romans 11: Israel is still God's people?: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6594

[Josh]

I thought you didn’t like apocryphal books?

[Lex]

I thought you didn’t like apocryphal books?

It isn't an apocryphal book

[Soloist]

I thought you didn’t like apocryphal books?

It isn't an apocryphal book

pseudepigraphical If you prefer the correct term.

Based off of more modern views in it such as common dogma of Muslims about Jesus and claiming Mohammad is a prophet to come… I wouldn’t see it as worth reading.

[Lex]

I thought you didn’t like apocryphal books?

It isn't an apocryphal book

pseudepigraphical If you prefer the correct term.

Based off of more modern views in it such as common dogma of Muslims about Jesus and claiming Mohammad is a prophet to come… I wouldn’t see it as worth reading.

You are confusing the Barnabas Epistle with the Barnabas Gospel. The Barnabas Epistle has nothing to do with the Barnabas Gospel.

[Soloist]

It isn't an apocryphal book

pseudepigraphical If you prefer the correct term.

Based off of more modern views in it such as common dogma of Muslims about Jesus and claiming Mohammad is a prophet to come… I wouldn’t see it as worth reading.

You are confusing the Barnabas Epistle with the Barnabas Gospel. The Barnabas Epistle has nothing to do with the Barnabas Gospel.

You are correct. That being said, it doesn’t appear that any main Christian groups accept it. The Apocrypha has better claim on it by that logic. The Jews reject the Barnabas epistle.

[Lex]

pseudepigraphical If you prefer the correct term.

Based off of more modern views in it such as common dogma of Muslims about Jesus and claiming Mohammad is a prophet to come… I wouldn’t see it as worth reading.

You are confusing the Barnabas Epistle with the Barnabas Gospel. The Barnabas Epistle has nothing to do with the Barnabas Gospel.

You are correct. That being said, it doesn’t appear that any main Christian groups accept it. The Apocrypha has better claim on it by that logic. The Jews reject the Barnabas epistle.

The Jews reject the whole New Testament. So why does it matter when they reject the Barnabas Epistle? And the Barnabas Epistle is not an apocryphe. It is just an epistle from a Christian of the first or second century, while some church fathers claim it was written by Barnabas. Also, many early Christians must have accepted the epistle of Barnabas, since it is in the Codex Sinaiticus.

[Soloist]

The Jews reject the whole New Testament. So why does it matter when they reject the Barnabas Epistle? And the Barnabas Epistle is not an apocryphe. It is just an epistle from a Christian of the first or second century, while some church fathers claim it was written by Barnabas. Also, many early Christians must have accepted the epistle of Barnabas, since it is in the Codex Sinaiticus.

Your logic breaks down. The early Christians accepted the apocryphal writings too.

[Bootstrap]

And the Barnabas Epistle is not an apocryphe.

In this context, the word "Apocrypha" means quite literally "biblical or related writings that are not part of the accepted canon of Scripture".

Some books are accepted by some churches but not others. Barnabas is not included in any church's canon of Scripture.

[Bootstrap]

The Jews reject the whole New Testament. So why does it matter when they reject the Barnabas Epistle? And the Barnabas Epistle is not an apocryphe. It is just an epistle from a Christian of the first or second century, while some church fathers claim it was written by Barnabas. Also, many early Christians must have accepted the epistle of Barnabas, since it is in the Codex Sinaiticus.

Your logic breaks down. The early Christians accepted the apocryphal writings too.

Well, sort of.

The churches that consider these writings to be Scripture do not call them Apocrypha. They don't like it if you call these books Apocrypha. Protestants may put these books in a separate section called The Apocrypha, but Catholics, Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc. do not.