Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
RedneckOne

Gospel of Batholomew and Apocrypha

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you not know that the name of the anti-Christ is in the new testament?
Ralph
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tubal-Cain

 

 

You can find it by reading the Gospel of Bartholomew and then reading 2 Corinthians. Study to show thyself approved, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedneckOne said:
You can find it by reading the Gospel of Bartholomew and then reading 2 Corinthians.

The Gospel of Bartholomew, that is where 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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 up with a somewhat complete text. In certain cases 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the antichrist.

 

Questions of Bartholomew 4:17:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

 

Quote
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)

 

Quote
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)

 

Quote
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)

 

Quote
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)

 

Quote
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing but I was not about to let RNO's claim go unchallenged.

 

I see your point, though it might have been better to start a new topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Study for yourself. Read the Gospel of Bartholomew and second Corinthians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedneckOne said:
Study for yourself. Read the Gospel of Bartholomew and second Corinthians.

Yes @Knotical by all means that is what you should do. But just don't read the so-called Gospel of Bartholomew study the history and theology of the text and ask yourself some key questions.

 

Is there any evidence this work was written by Bartholomew?

 

Is there any evidence this work was written in the 1st century?

 

Is there any evidence this work was known and accepted by the early church?

 

Does the theology found in this work contradict the teachings found in the N.T.?

 

Given the very limited manuscript evidence, and the fact there is no complete text of this work, and the fact that all three version often differ from one another substantially, which one (if any) is the correct text?

 

Also ask yourself why, for what reason, should anyone accept this work over all the other pseudepigraphal texts?

 

And lastly, ask yourself why RNO did not address my posts and what that means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

lol What fact? You have not supported your claim in any way.

Just because a book is not in the canon, does not mean that it is not scriptural, or the information therein is not useful to further your understanding of God. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." John 21:25 KJV. How many books were in the King James Version of the Bible prior to the 1880's (83), how many there today(66). Do you think they were taken out to keep us ignorant? Here is a list of the books that were taken out of the canon in the 1880's; Tobit; Judith; 1/2/3/4 Maccabees; Additions to Ester; 1/2 Esdras(Ezra); Letter of Jeremiah; Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three Jews; Susanna; Bel and the Dragon; Prayer of Manasseh; Psalm 151; Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach(Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. Don't worry I have a 1854 King James Version of the Bible with these now so called Apocrypha books in it. Yes, Beliar/Belial is the name of the anti-Christ, you may find the name in 2 Corinthians 6:15 (or Christ with anti-Christ, or a believer with an unbeliever), and Moses is the man of sin. If you want an example of an pseudepigraphal book in the canon look to Romans. Still, the name of the anti-Christ is in the NT, so is: "now that the dead are raised", "the gospel which ye have heard and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven", "In the last day", "the graves where opened"; "and he died for ALL"; Yeah, I have nothing, but the inspired word of God to back up my claims. "For he is before all things and by him all things consist". Have a blessed day, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a book is not in the canon, does not mean that it is not scriptural
Even if that were the case (which it is not), nothing you have said proves it is and all the evidence thus far proves it is not.

 

or the information therein is not useful to further your understanding of God. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." John 21:25 KJV.
Now all you have to do is prove the events in Bartholomew are some of those events.

 

How many books were in the King James Version of the Bible prior to the 1880's (83), how many there today(66).
I do not care what was in the KJV prior to 1880. The KJV is a translation and nothing more. But for your information the translators of the KJV never believed the Apocrypha to be Scripture. Moreover, no matter what the KJV translators believed or did not believe, that does nothing to prove that Bartholomew is.

 

Yes, Beliar/Belial is the name of the anti-Christ, you may find the name in 2 Corinthians 6:15, and Moses is the man of sin.
So say you and Bartholomew. The problem is the N.T. says no such thing and I will take the Word of God over you and Bartholomew any day.

 

If you want an example of an pseudepigraphal book in the canon look to Romans.
Why should I? It is your claim prove it.

 

Yeah, I have nothing, but the inspired word of God to back up my claims.
You mean Bartholomew? Don't make me laugh. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if that were the case, nothing you have said proves it is and all the evidence thus far proves it is not.

 

Now all you have to do is prove the events in Bartholomew are some of those events.

 

I do not care what was in the KJV prior to 1880. The KJV is a translation and nothing more. But for your information the translators of the KJV never believed the Apocrypha were Scripture. Moreover that does nothing to prove that Bartholomew is.

 

So say you and Bartholomew. The problem is the N.T. says no such thing and I will take the word of God over you and Bartholomew any day.

 

Why should I? It is your claim prove it.

 

You mean Bartholomew? Don't make me laugh.

 

Brother, are you a sinner? If you are then that will answer why you have such a hard time understanding God's word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Brother, are you a sinner? If you are then that will answer why you have such a hard time understanding God's word.

 

RedNeckOne,

 

Keep your responses on topic with the OP in mind, and do not resort to personal attacks.

 

You already stated that you believe everyone is saved, so it really shouldn't matter to you as to whether Origen is a sinner, believes, or understands God's word. But that conversation can be continued in the heretical sub-forum: https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...l/universalism

 

This thread is in the Bible inspiration and translation sub-forum. Each response should have something to do with that and should pertain to this thread's topic.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RedNeckOne,

 

Keep your responses on topic according to the OP, and do not resort to personal attacks.

 

You already stated that you believe everyone is saved, so it really doesn't matter whether Origen is a sinner. But that conversation can be continued in the heretical sub-forum: https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...l/universalism

 

This thread is in the Bible inspiration and translation sub-forum. Each response should have something to do with that pertaining to this thread's topic.

 

God bless,

William

 

That was not a personal attack, just a question that one should ask their self. For if one is a sinner they have never seen nor known Christ- 1 John 3:6 that they are of the devil- 1 John 3:8. Sinners are self condemned- Titus 3:11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was not a personal attack, just a question that one should ask their self. For if one is a sinner they have never seen nor known Christ- 1 John 3:6 that they are of the devil- 1 John 3:8. Sinners are self condemned- Titus 3:11.

 

By your admission, you having suggested that everyone is saved, it really doesn't matter whether he is of the devil, understands scripture, knows Christ, or is a sinner etc. It is not your place to ask that question as you just stated, and really he shouldn't have to care because he is saved. If you cannot address his points in your response then do not respond to Origen.

 

I already split the previous thread and closed it because it has been derailed into three threads. If you want me to split that thread further and continue your points in the Universalism sub-forum I'll be more than happy to.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother, are you a sinner? If you are then that will answer why you have such a hard time understanding God's word.
lol No, it tells me that you cannot defend your claims and you must resort to such tactics because you have no answers.

 

Now if you are done with that. Answer this question. What is the evidence this work was written by Bartholomew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy