Gospel of Batholomew and Apocrypha

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gospel of Batholomew and Apocrypha

    Originally posted by William View Post
    Then I am inclined to believe that you think even the Anti-Christ is saved
    Did you not know that the name of the anti-Christ is in the new testament? God bless you also.

  • #2
    Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
    Did you not know that the name of the anti-Christ is in the new testament?
    Ralph
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Origen View Post
      Ralph
      No, it wasn't Ralph. Blessings to you.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
        No, it wasn't Ralph. Blessings to you.
        Gertrude

        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Origen View Post
          Gertrude
          Is the name Gertrude in the NT?
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
            Is the name Gertrude in the NT?
            Tubal-Cain

            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Origen View Post
              Tubal-Cain
              You can find it by reading the Gospel of Bartholomew and then reading 2 Corinthians. Study to show thyself approved, brother.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
                You can find it by reading the Gospel of Bartholomew and then reading 2 Corinthians.
                The Gospel of Bartholomew, that is were you got it. lol A pseudepigraphal and apocryphal work that was never part of the canon, nor recognized by the early church, and is filled with heretical teachings, no thanks. I prefer the Scriptures not some false gospel.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Origen View Post
                  The Gospel of Bartholomew, that is were you got it. lol A pseudepigraphal and apocryphal work that was never part of the canon, nor recognized by the early church, and is filled with heretical teachings, no thanks. I prefer the Scriptures not some false gospel.
                  Okay, remain ignorant. That still does not change the fact that the name of the anti-Christ is in the NT, now does it?
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post

                    Okay, remain ignorant. That still does not change the fact that the name of the anti-Christ is in the NT, now does it?
                    Where, oh pray tell, is this name of which you speak? I do not recall any specific name mention in conjunction with The anti-Christ.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
                      Okay, remain ignorant.
                      Brilliant rebuttal. No doubt that is your very best. If that is all you have, and I am sure it is, then you have nothing. You have given no evidence to prove your claim nor any reason why anyone should accept\trust the Gospel of Bartholomew as authentic.

                      Originally posted by RedneckOne View Post
                      That still does not change the fact that the name of the anti-Christ is in the NT, now does it?
                      lol What fact? You have not supported your claim in any way.
                      Last edited by Origen; 09-29-2016, 02:37 PM.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Before RNO posts one of his cryptic and uninformative answers let's get some background that will prove helpful to all (maybe even to RNO).

                        There are at least two documents that content for the title the Gospel of Bartholomew.

                        The first is Questions of Bartholomew. The text is found in 2 Greek, 2 Latin, and 5 Slavonic manuscripts. Each manuscript varies considerably from the others and none are complete. Thus scholars have to cobble together all three (i.e. the Greek, Latin, and Slavonic) together in order to come of with a some what complete text. In certain case the differences are so great it is necessary to indicate which manuscript is being followed.

                        The second is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ supposedly by Bartholomew. This text is in Coptic and has no relationship with the above Questions of Bartholomew. There are three partial manuscripts and a few fragments.

                        Jerome in his commentary on Matthew refers to a Gospel of Bartholomew (and rejected it as not authentic) but there is no way to link either of the above to Jerome's reference. In fact no early church father quotes or refers to a Gospel of Bartholomew.

                        So what is the evidence that either of these documents written by Bartholomew or even date to the 1st century? NONE!
                        Last edited by Origen; 09-29-2016, 02:38 PM.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          The next point has to do with the name of the antichrist. However before we start some background information is necessary . The word Belial (or Beliar) comes from a Hebrew word meaning "worthlessness" (i.e. בְּלִיַּעַל). During the Second Temple period the word comes to refer to the Devil\Satan. In the Pseudepigrapha literature it is some what of a mixed bag. More often than not it is a name for the Devil\Satan, sometimes it refers to a fallen angel who followed Satan, and in a few cases antichrist.

                          Questions of Bartholomew 4:17:
                          And Barthololmew feared, and raised his voice and said: Blessed be the name of thine immortal kingdom from henceforth even for ever. And when he had spoken, Jesus permitted him, saying: Go and tread upon the neck of Beliar: and Bartholomew ran quickly upon him and trode upon his neck: and Beliar trembled. (For this verse the Vienna MS. has: And Bartholomew raised his voice and said thus: O womb more spacious than a city, wider than the spreading of the heavens, that contained him whom the seven heavens contain not, but thou without pain didst contain sanctified in thy bosom, &c.: evidently out of place. Latin 1 has only: Then did Antichrist tremble and was filled with fury.)
                          Here Beliar is identified with the antichrist. But also note that identification is only in the Latin 1 manuscript.

                          Questions of Bartholomew 4:37-42:
                          37 Bartholomew saith unto him: Flow chastisest thou the souls of men?

                          38 Beliar saith unto him: Wilt thou that I declare unto thee the punishment of the hypocrites, of the back-biters, of the jesters, of the idolaters, and the covetous, and the adulterers, and the wizards, and the diviners, and of them that believe in us, and of all whom I look upon (deceive?)?

                          (38 Lat. 2: When I will show any illusion by them. But they that do these things, and they that consent unto them or follow them, do perish with me.

                          39 Bartholomew said unto him: Declare quickly how thou persuadest men not to follow God and thine evil arts, that are slippery and dark, that they should leave the straight and shining paths of the Lord.)

                          39 Bartholomew saith unto him: I will that thou declare it in few words.

                          40 And he smote his teeth together, gnashing them, and there came up out of the bottomless pit a wheel having a sword flashing with fire, and in the sword were pipes.

                          41 And I (he) asked him, saying: What is this sword?

                          42 And he said: This sword is the sword of the gluttonous: for into this pipe are sent they that through their gluttony devise all manner of sin; into the second pipe are sent the backbiters which backbite their neighbour secretly; into the third pipe are sent the hypocrites and the rest whom I overthrow by my contrivance.

                          (Lat. 2:40 And Antichrist said: I will tell thee. And a wheel came up out of the abyss, having seven fiery knives. The first knife hath twelve pipes (canales) . . .

                          42 Antichrist answered: The pipe of fire in the first knife, in it are put the casters of lots and diviners and enchanters, and they that believe in them or have sought them, because in the iniquity of their heart they have invented false divinations. In the second pipe of fire are first the blasphemers ... suicides ... idolaters.... In the rest are first perjurers . . . (long enumeration).)
                          As anyone can see there is some confusion as to the correct reading in many of these verse. Nevertheless Beliar does appear to be identified as the antichrist.

                          However that is not the end of the matter. In the Questions of Bartholomew Beliar is also identified as Satan\Devil.
                          Beliar answered and said: If thou wilt know my name, at the first I was called Satanael, which is interpreted a messenger of God, but when I rejected the image of God my name was called Satanas, that is, an angel that keepeth hell (Tartarus) (4:25).
                          And Satan said: If I were able to go forth by myself, I would have destroyed the whole world in three days: but neither I nor any of the six hundred go forth. (4:44)
                          And Bartholomew raised up Satan and said unto him: Go unto thy place, with thine angels, but the Lord hath mercy upon all his world. (4:51)
                          But the devil answered and said: Submit not thyself, O Hades, but be strong: for God himself hath not descended upon the earth. (1:14)
                          Slavonic text: And the devil said unto Hades: Why affrightest thou me, Hades? it is a prophet, and he hath made himself like unto God: this prophet will we take and bring him hither unto those that think to ascend into heaven. (1:16)

                          Greek text: And Beliar said unto Hades: Look carefully who it is that , for it is Elias, or Enoch, or one of the prophets that this man seemeth to me to be. (1:16)
                          But the devil said: Suffer me, and I will tell thee how I was cast down into this place and how the Lord did make man. (4:52)
                          Beliar is identified as the devil\Satan and as the antichrist. Yet the N.T. does not identified the antichrist as the devil\Satan himself. Moreover referring to Satan\Beliar as antichrist does not in and of itself identify him as THE antichrist. There is also the problem of why should anyone accept this document and not some other Pseudepigraphal text. There are other texts with a much better pedigree. The manuscripts evidence for this text is extremely lacking making it difficult to even come up with a coherent text.
                          Last edited by Origen; 12-22-2016, 01:27 PM.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Ok, I must have missed something as this thread developed. What in the world does the "Gospel of Bartholomew" have to do with the OP being accused of being a pedophile?
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Knotical View Post
                              Ok, I must have missed something as this thread developed. What in the world does the "Gospel of Bartholomew" have to do with the OP being accused of being a pedophile?
                              Nothing but I was not about to let RNO's claim go unchallenged.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap