Create Your Account and begin asking questions today, for free! Or you can login if you already have an account.
Who is the messiah, M-d or Jesus
Extra Question Details:
Having read chapter 53 of the gospel of Barnabas, I am now not so sure. I would like to think that Jesus is the Son of God becuase this is what I believe. What should I make of what I read in lesser known Gospels?
Bible Answers to this Question
Below are Biblically Researched Bible Answers
Community Answers
basically my dillema is that
chapter 53 of the gospel of barnabas says"Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God."
But then John 14:6 says "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
"Cursed be everyone who shall insert into my saying that I am the Son of God" - is a lie from the pit of hell! Don't you realise that Satan doesn't want people to know that Jesus is the Son of God? And he seems to be succeeding too. It's as simple as that! He is the deceiver of the world. To be under a curse is basically living apart from God, away from His presence, in other words someone cursed has been given a death sentence - yet Jesus arose from the dead! God Himself declared Jesus to be His Son: Matt 3:16,17; Mark 9:7; John 3:16 are a few examples. There are a lot more Scriptures in the Bible that exalt Jesus as the Son. He is the Son of God and do not let the true Gospel that has been planted in you be snatched away from you by the birds! Gal 1:8 - This is the real curse! Beware of the false gospels. If you're faith is shaky, then I strongly advise you don't go reading false doctrines to explore demonic territory. Where there is confusion and chaos it is not of God; He never contradicts Himself!
thats because jesus is god. you can only get to him through him
I understnad that because this is what I believed, but when I read one of the lost Gospels I had second thoughts as to whether Jesus is God.
oooooooooo are you talking about the dead sea scrolls? or the books that were mentioned by eusebius? if you are there is a reason why they are not in the bible. read john 1:1 in the bible.
all the other books were never seriously concidered for inclusion. though there are dozens of books bearing names like "the gospel of thomas", "the gospel of peter", and "the acts of pilate", none of them met the criteria to be included in the new testament. these books were written well past the apostolic age (some as late as the middle ages) also there is no ancient writings arguing for the acceptance of these books.
for example: AT ONE TIME the acts of paul is a work often refrenced by early christian writers, and is concidered to contain much accurate infromation about pauls history. HOWEVER, tertullian, a priest at carthage at the end of the second centry, writes that an elder at carthage wrote the book out of a great admiration for paul and wanted to increase his fame, because the book is a forgery, the elder who wrote it was removed from office and the book was disqualified for the inclusion of the canon.
Hi can I please request you to use caps when writing 'God' and 'Jesus'. Please don't dilute their names. Thanks!
sorry in just a crappy typer. i just type what i am thinkin. i dont stop to think about grammer. but i will try my best to do that. thank you for helping in giving out answers to the many questions. concidering there are only about 5 of us that actually stick to answering. im just trying to help others. so please forgive my grammer. god bless.
There was a reason why these lesser known Gospels were not included in the canon. they did not line up with the teachings in the main Gospels written by those close to Jesus or his Apostles
good answer, this hit the nail on the head of my misunderstanding, i think the others sort of missed that. But I still dont see how some accounts of Jesus can even suggest that he was not the son of God. i mean all the canonical gospels were written something like 50 years after the events, if i am correct. and st paul basically spread christianity to the gentiles when it may have been intended to be a reformed judaism, exclusive to israel. as he did not know christ personally and began to find disagreement theologically with other followers like Barnabas, who recorded sayings in his gospel of Jesus saying that he was not the son of God;and Barnabas knew Jesus whereas Paul did not.
some people think that in the gospels jesus is said to be seprate from god. BUT if you read (John 1:1) you will see that he is god. some of the verses that separate him as the son are showing him doing some thing like being baptized. in this case he is showing what he wants us to do. he set the example for our lives. as for the Epistle of Barnabas (i think thats what you are talking about) it dates from late in the first century or early second centry. nothing in its content is out of line with orthodoxy. HOWEVER, the authorship of this book (it is not actually a letter) was thought to have been an EARLY CHURCH FATHER AND NOT PAUL'S MISSIONARY PARTNER Barnabas. so, it did not meet the criteria set forth for the canon.
the Shepherd of Hermans is an early second centry writing. it contains a series of visions received by a shephard named hermans. like the Epistle of Barnabas, this leter contained nothing suspect. BUT is author was most likely a church father and not an apostle.
the Apocalypse of peter is a book well known for its graphic depictions of heaven and hell. BUT it was found to be written some time in the first half of the second century, FAR TOO LATE TO CONNECT IT TO PETER HIMSELF.
please remember. the bible is the living word of god. (Hebrews 4:12) it is not wrong to search for the truth.
This is a real simple answer. The Earliest found manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas are dated to the late 16th century. They were not even part of what is known as the Gnostic Gospels, which predated the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
The other Gospels were excluded, because they were in large part, written by the sects of Unitarists and Gnostics, based completely on ignorance of what the Trinity Doctrine meant.
Their main source of contention, was that they misunderstood the true belief in a monotheistic God (meaning that God is one) and sought to exclude the concept of the Trinity. Meaning that God is one BEING, made up of three distinct and co-equal PERSONS.
The Gospel of Barnabas was later injected (no doubt with Islamic Influence) to add not only disagreement with the belief in the Trinity, but also to state that Barnabas himself, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah or Son of God.
These text were derived from Spain, which of course, had several hundred years of Muslim occupation.
Barnabas was certainly a fully devoted follower of the way and suffered many times for it and believed completely and entirely, that Jesus Christ was in fact the son of God.
This Gospel is a complete deception, meant to to steer people away from the one true God. Period, end of the matter my friend. Do not let satan's lies outwit you as the truth is in your heart, by way of the Holy Spirit.
Peace In Christ