You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
CrusaderPepe on scored.co
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
That's actually the point of the video. The Epistle of Barnabas is not presented as proof because it is inspired Scripture, nor because we know with certainty that the historical Barnabas wrote it.
The value of the document is historical. It shows what at least one prominent Christian teacher, writing roughly within a generation or two of the Apostles, believed about the covenant, the Law, the Temple, circumcision, and the Church.
You are free to disagree with Barnabas. But if someone claims that ideas like the Church as the heir of the covenant, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ, or the rejection of a continuing salvific Mosaic order are late medieval inventions, Barnabas is evidence that Christians were arguing those points extremely early.
The question is not "Is Barnabas infallible?" The question is "What does this document tell us about early Christian belief?" On that point, it is a very important witness.
There were other important proponents of that argument. The most important and the earliest was Marcion of Sinope, who compiled literally the first Bible, which comprised an early (which is to say, the original) version of what was later named the gospel of Luke and ten Pauline letters.
Marcion lived in Asia Minor and was a pagan before he converted to Christianity. He lived in a region that had very few jews and would not have converted if he thought he would have practice a version of "judaism light" to be a Christian. He read the Hebrew scriptures and concluded that Yahweh was not the true god but an angry and vengeful demiurge and not the God of love preached by Jesus. I believe he was correct.
There were many, many competing versions of Christianity in the first and second centuries, and it wasn't resolved until the establishment of the catholic (i.e., universal) Christian church that imposed orthodoxy and branded literally anything else as heresy. There were quite a number of early Christians who believed Christianity had nothing to do with jews and that jews were cursed by God for their faithlessness. Barnabas was just one of the earliest.
However, his epistle is still no proof that "the Church is the true heir of the Covenant". It's still all opinion and proves nothing.
The value of the document is historical. It shows what at least one prominent Christian teacher, writing roughly within a generation or two of the Apostles, believed about the covenant, the Law, the Temple, circumcision, and the Church.
You are free to disagree with Barnabas. But if someone claims that ideas like the Church as the heir of the covenant, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ, or the rejection of a continuing salvific Mosaic order are late medieval inventions, Barnabas is evidence that Christians were arguing those points extremely early.
The question is not "Is Barnabas infallible?" The question is "What does this document tell us about early Christian belief?" On that point, it is a very important witness.
Marcion lived in Asia Minor and was a pagan before he converted to Christianity. He lived in a region that had very few jews and would not have converted if he thought he would have practice a version of "judaism light" to be a Christian. He read the Hebrew scriptures and concluded that Yahweh was not the true god but an angry and vengeful demiurge and not the God of love preached by Jesus. I believe he was correct.
There were many, many competing versions of Christianity in the first and second centuries, and it wasn't resolved until the establishment of the catholic (i.e., universal) Christian church that imposed orthodoxy and branded literally anything else as heresy. There were quite a number of early Christians who believed Christianity had nothing to do with jews and that jews were cursed by God for their faithlessness. Barnabas was just one of the earliest.
However, his epistle is still no proof that "the Church is the true heir of the Covenant". It's still all opinion and proves nothing.