I think there's fairly substantial evidence that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Mark wrote his writings from Peter's sermons. This seems probable to me because Peter says something like "we did not tell you vain stories" and Peter's active role in the parables Jesus told suggest that the emphasis in retelling was from his perspective.
Gospel of Barnabas
- Thread starter surenderer
- Start date
Fair enough. That means that God can also lead me in deciding what Jesus was talking about.
The presumption then, is ambiguity is something to be avoided, this is a subtle but vitally important decision. How was their authority greater than anyone elses? I think it was a succesfull attempt to unify the church as a political entity, but it also defined heresy. Many people died as a result of the council's decisions, people who's judgement about truth came presumably from the same God.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
No. The Gospel of Barnabas is likely forged.surenderer said:
The Gospel of Barnabas should not be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas.
Why do you persist in pretentiously flaunting your ignorance? The First Council of Nicea made no such decision. The list of canonical Bible texts was codified by Athanasius of Alexandria (367 CE), formalized at the Synod of Hippo (393 CE), and confirmed at the Synod of Carthage (397 CE).Medicine Woman said:
Appears to whom? You, who clearly know embarrassingly little yet deign to instruct others? UFO enthusiast Bellringer, who you quote uncritically and yet deny having read?Medicine Woman said:
There is more than enough real history, and real intrigue, in early Church history. The last thing that people need is your cult ramblings polluting the discussion. All you manage to "clearly discredit" is yourself.
This is senseless fringe babble and slimy insinuation for which you have zero evidence.Medicine Woman said:
The pseudepigraphic epistle of Barbabas is a late 1st century to early 2nd century apologetic which, as put by one author, "is often looked to as a source for some of the church's most virulent anti-Judaism". [ see The Ecole Initiative ]
It appears that way to you, which is entirely worthless. Barnabas means "son of exhortation", i.e., Barnebhuah.Medicine Woman said:
And this is a mind on drugs. For you, of all people, to instruct someone else to "do some research" hovers somewhere between the obscene and the psychotic. Where is the peer reviewed research to support any of this silly babble?Medicine Woman said:
How do you manage to hobble through discussions with both feet in your mouth - see Peter's Vision.Medicine Woman said:
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]You, who clearly know embarrassingly little yet deign to instruct others? UFO enthusiast Bellringer, who you quote uncritically and yet deny having read?
There is more than enough real history, and real intrigue, in early Church history. The last thing that people need is your cult ramblings polluting the discussion. All you manage to "clearly discredit" is yourself.
This is senseless fringe babble and slimy insinuation for which you have zero evidence.
The pseudepigraphic epistle of Barbabas is a late 1st century to early 2nd century apologetic which, as put by one author, "is often looked to as a source for some of the church's most virulent anti-Judaism". [ see The Ecole Initiative ]
ouch
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
It is sometimes referred to as a "schizophrenic word salad" ...
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
more on this in a minuteMedicine Woman said:
naughty, naughty
to quote 'you', "So why couldn't you just post that as a positive answer instead of having to be so hateful? I worry about you!"