Why is the Gospel of Barnabas not included in New Testment???

Question

Why is that even when Gospel of Paul is accepted, but Barnabas although being one of the 12 disciples of Christ, his Gospel rejected by Roman Catholics and all groups and sects succeeding from it??

I have considered various answers....

However I would have liked to ask, how do you know whether someone is "inspired" or not? Only Lord knows people's minds and what their hearts conceal..

To say someone is "inspired" and therefore I beleive, is like taking a 50/50 chance....

As a response, to other answers towards the end, how many people have died for what they have beleived, but which was later proved wrong. Therefore even if people were met with trails, it doesn't answer that one is credible over the other...

I am not trying to spread my Islamic views, I am trying to reason some concepts taken by Christianity...

Yes by the Gospel of Paul, I meant Paul's teachings and his letters as a whole....

I am not here to argue, if I say Barnabas was among the 12 disciples of Jesus, you would argue otherwise, and still I will argue that he is.....

But I would like to know, Paul was clearly not among the 12 disciples of Jesus, then how can his teachings become the platform on which the works written by others were to be judged???

Agreed Barnabas doesn't agree with Gospels accepted...

But does the teachings of Christianity accomodate the "Accepted Gospels" ??

"I am the Lord your God. Worship no God but Me. Do not make for yourself images of anything in heavens or on earth or in the water under the earth. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it. Because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals. I bring punishment on those who hate me, on their descendants, down to third and fourth generation.”
(Exodus 20:1-5)

From this how can Jesus be God??

If Jesus became God, whatever preached by the earlier prophets like Adam, Noah, Moses and so on would be incomplete...
Again Jesus states he has come to teach no new religion.....

Even if it is twisted to meet narrow ends, the question of salvation before Jesus Christ is another vast topic which is contradictory.....

Answer 1

Because they wrote many part of the other gospel such as john, Luke and Matthew based on that gospel, the Dadduce of James the just and the Gopel of Mark. . . The gospel of Mark is the most semitic gospel, and I felt strange why is it that damned short.....
easy and simple, They just want to cover up something. Actually 80 gospels are included to be proposed for the New Testament and sad to say only a few of them is booked while the rest of it is burned....

The Gospel of Barnabas could be a muslim frogery as what some people used to claimed, but however the interesting part is there is a "little book of elijah" and a "little book of Moses" which is nowhere found inside the new testament nor in any apocrypha nor in the Quran and this might prove that it might not possibly be a muslim frogery after all...

Answer 2

But why does the manuscript Codex Sinaiticus include after the book of Revelation the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Codex Alexandrinus add the two Clementine epistles? Many similar writings have been discovered recently claiming apostolic status, and among these the so-called Gospel of Thomas has evoked much discussion. Should some of these works be included in our Bible today?

The historian Eusebius, in summing up the position, sets out three categories of writings. First the acknowledged ones are enumerated and then the disputed ones, both classes being considered canonical. The third group, in which he names the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas and others, he calls spurious, although they were read in various congregations at times. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 110) The Muratorian fragment states that the Shepherd could be read but was never to the end of time to be recognized as canonical.4

When it was found that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly at the end of the second century, it was ordered to be rejected as false. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231) Tertullian tells us that the author of the “Acts of Paul” was punished for posing as a first-century writer. (De Baptismo 17) In a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as “the lying waters of which so many drank,”7 and the Muratorian list speaks of them as gall which should not be mixed with honey.4 So the Christian community was careful to protect the integrity of its writings.

It was often a matter of convenience to bind into a codex an apocryphal work, for it might be read by some, though they would have in mind the distinction shown by the fact that in the two codices cited (the Sinaitic and the Alexandrine) the apocryphal writings followed Revelation, the last of the canonical books. Or we might possess a manuscript today that belonged to an apostate congregation giving too much attention to such works, just as in the case that Serapion of Antioch discovered at the end of the second century.

Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.

Answer 3

The manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas date again to the center a while. The 2 manuscripts which the Gospel is written in is in Spanish and Italian. Seeing as there is not any Greek or Hebrew manuscript for the Gospel, what makes you feel that there used to be a duplicate of the Gospel on the Council of Nicaea? If there is not any manuscripts of the Gospel which date again to Jesus' time, then the Gospel loses it declare for authenticity. Proving that the four Gospels within the Bible are extra risk-free than this Gospel on the grounds that their manuscripts are the nearest to the time of Jesus. Also the Gospel claims Joseph as Mary's husband, at the same time within the Quran her husband isn't acknowledged and her handiest protector is Zechariah. Email me if in case you have any extra questions. I'll learn them the next day to come, Sholam!

Answer 4

At key points in early church history, church leaders met and tested the writings to determine which should be considered truly authoritative.
------------------------------------------
>Why is that even when Gospel of Paul is accepted,

In what version of the Bible do you find the "Gospel of Paul" included? There are Paul's letters; but not the so-called "Gospel of Paul".

>Barnabas although being one of the 12 disciples of Christ

Check again. There was a Barnabas who travelled on missionary journeys. But where do you find that he was one of the 12 Disciples?

>Barnabas' Gospel was rejected by all groups and sects ...

Maybe because the so0called "Gospel of Barnabas" was NOT written by Barnabas?

At key points in early church history, church leaders met and tested the writings to determine which should be considered truly authoritative.

These books came to be called canonical, from the Greek word for a measuring stick (kanon); they later became what we today know as the Bible.

Answer 5

Quite simply, anything that doesn't exhalt Christ in His true role of Deity, Immanuel, Savior through his atoning blood shed on Calvary when He died, his Resurrection, His role as High Priest who sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us, His role as Son whom the Father has given all power in heaven and earth, then it is AGAINST CHRIST and therefore of the ANTI-CHRIST SPIRIT AND A FAKE. Satan never has wasted time in mixing falsehoods with a bit of truth to cause doubt about Jesus, the Holy Ghost, God the Father and the Word. God didn't short us in giving us the Word of God in the Holy Bible (KJV for English).
Basically, Jesus wasn't Islamic and didn't teach it.

Answer 6

God came to earth in the form of a man. If everything He did was written there would not have enough books to contain it. It makes sense that people would write about this man who did miracles, seemed to know the Law and the Prophets better than the scribes and pharisees, taught with authority, and let people know He was the Son of God (this caused the Pharisees to determine to kill Him). His followers, friends, seekers, enemies, and doubters might all have written about Him. What a magnificent story! All these writings may have facts in them, some might be true, some might be purposely changed for the purpose of those who wrote them, some might be wrong, but only because the writer missed the truth. The canonical books were accepted by the testimony of the Holy Spirit (who inspired the writing) within the lives of believers in many places.
It just makes sense that people would write about Him, and just because it was about Him, it wouldn't make it true. The Apostles who wrote the canonical books had reason to know if theirs were true, and to prove they believed it by their suffering to death for it (OK, John wasn't killed, but he was exiled). Many die for things they believe to be true. Would anyone die for something they didn't believe in?

Answer 7

Because the earliest verion on record is 16th century and it is believed to be a false writing. Not actually written by Barnabas and inspired by God. There are some books which are in the Catholic bible which are not part of the Christian bible. Some are considered good books of history, but not inspired. Some are considered to be false teaching. To be in the bible they must be inspired by God not created by man.

Answer 8

1) Barnabus never wrote a gospel. This work was falsely attributed to him, by unknown sources, at a much later date.

2) The church never adopted this work, mainly because it was patently false, and anyone who knew the truth could see it in a second.

3) By the time the canon of scripture was determined officially by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, virtually all of the accepted works had been in constant use by the universal church for hundreds of years, their authorship had been proven to be apostolic, as had their truthfulness and doctrinal integrity.

The gospel of Barnabus clearly possessed none of these attributes.

Answer 9

Hi Hafeez,

There are hundreds of gospels, many of which did not fit the ethos of the proposed teachings when the bible was put together.
Society when the scriptures were put together was very different to society in the first century when they were mostly written. And Church and State were in bed together at the time.
If all gospels were included, we would have a very different bible today (and it'd be damned heavy).
There's more than enough good stories in there to indoctrinate, umm, I mean teach the masses.

Greenie

Answer 10

becuase it wasn't written in the "apostolic age" of jesus christ. the four christian gospels were written by his apostles or friends of the apostles within 50 years of Jesus' death, all the other "gospels" were written hundreds of years after Jesus by people who never met Jesus christ!!
(there is no gospel of paul, do you mean the his letters?)