You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
CrusaderPepe on scored.co
1 hour ago0 points(+0/-0)
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.
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.