thank you. This is fascinating and very well researched

I read the book of Barnabas and some other manuscripts not included in the Bible several years ago. The only thing that stuck in my mind was a command to "not kill your offspring before or after they are born."

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! Indeed! I was surprised to find that abortion was a topic of discussion even during the Pre-Nicene period. Of course, it is no surprise that the early Christians were strongly opposed to that method of killing. God bless!

@mrjonnybravo21

2 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Hey am still on the edge with some of the books because I don't want to trespass again God and am still studying and growing in Christ I have a question what Pre-Nicene mean?

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrjonnybravo21 Thank you for asking. When I say Pre-Nicene, I mean the Christians and writings from before the Council of Nicaea, which was in 325 AD. God bless you on your journey on growing in Christ! May we all continue to grow and be more like Him.

@vecturhoff7502

Жыл бұрын

The Didache also say this

Thanks for your great work

Great introduction. Its good to know why these aren’t scripture. Keep up the good work

I can relate to Clement so much. Even my own mother calls me gullible. xP

@BobbyBowker

3 жыл бұрын

A trusting soul, nothing wrong with that brother.

I appreciate your Introduction to the Letter of Barnabas. I was actually listening to an audio version of it and got a little puzzled because the quotes seemed off. So I listened to your audio about it which cleared things up for me. God bless. :)

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for saying that. I am glad that this video on Barnabas was helpful. God bless you also!

QUESTION: What did Tertullian mean when he said, "that apocryphal 'Shepherd' of adulterers"? ANSWER: Later, I will post videos both on Tertullian and on the Shepherd of Hermas which will explain more details. Regarding Tertullian's quote, he wrote this later in his life after he had joined a Christian sect called the Montanists. This group believed that there was no repentance available for those who had committed adultery. The Shepherd teaches that if a spouse commits adultery and repents, they should be received back. So later in his life, Tertullian decided that he did not like this and spoke harsh words against the Shepherd of Hermas.

@globalimpactministries766

8 жыл бұрын

+Post-Apostolic Church I commend you for your fine work on the Letter of Barnabas. I have a question that has intrigued me for a while. Tertullian joined the Montanists but was diametrically opposed to the Modalism of Praxeus and the Roman Bishops. Yet all of the historical data I found indicates that Montanus and his followers were themselves Modalists. Under “Montantists” The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states that Jerome, “described them as Sabellians in their idea of the Trinity.”“It is interesting to take St. Jerome's account, written in 384, of the doctrines of Montanism as he believed them to be in his own time (Ep., xli). He describes them as Sabellians in their idea of the Trinity.” The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia also states that Montanus prophesied saying, "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," … (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11).” According to Montanus, “the Word, and the Spirit (Paraclete)” is “the Father” who has “come” to “descend into man.”Hippolytus in Book 5, “CHAP. XXII.--THE PHRYGIANS OR MONTANISTS - CONTINUED. “But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians, entertain similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of the Phrygians, and to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining to the Father of the entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy.” We know that Noetus (a prominent Modalistic Monarchian from Asia Minor) persuaded the Roman Bishop Eleutherius against receiving the Montanist prophecies because Noetus alleged that their prophecies were false. Hence, it was not the doctrine of the Montanists that Noetus was against, but their false prophesies.The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say,“Another Montanist (about 200), who seems to have separated from Proclus, was Æschines, who taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as a Monarchian of the type of Noetus or Sabellius. Tertullian became a Montantist but rejected Modalistic Monarchianism. Therefore it appears that Modalistic Monarchianism was so widespread that there were many Montantists who were Modalistic while others were not. Is there any record of other Montanists who also held Tertullian's Semi-Arian doctrine? Tertullian wrote in Against Hermogenes (chapter 3) that there was a time when there was "neither sin, nor a Son." This leads me to my second question.Have you found any early Christian writer who believed in a timeless Son before Origen of Alexandria? One more thing. I heard a scholar once say that Tertullian was once a Modalist before he became a Montantist. I'm going to look through all of the extant writings of Tertullian to see if there is any veracity to this statement. Perhaps you could help save me some time in this matter. Thanks!

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+Global Impact Ministries Thanks for the great information and questions. And thanks for commenting!! You bring up a lot of difficult things. I will do my best to answer whatever I can. I don't know enough about the Montanists right now to say whether they were Trinitarian or Monarchian. From what you shared from Jerome, Didymus the Blind, and Epiphanius... they are probably correct. At least, I'm not familiar with anything that disagrees with them, though they might be wrong. All of them were from the 4th century. Perhaps the Montanists later became Monarchians when the Sabellius showed up. Sorry, I don't know. In my studies, Tertullian's Against Hermogenes was written before he turned to Montanism. I read chapter 3 and found the phrase you mentioned. (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.iii.html) Now, at first glance, it does look like Tertullian is saying that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Tertullian might be saying just that, but I believe he is saying something else for two reasons. (1) Tertullian was so well-grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity that I do not believe he ever became Monarchian. After all, he helped coin the term "Trinity" and practically established the doctrine of the Trinity for the whole church. For someone so smart in this regard, it doesn't seem right that he would reject what he had pioneered for the church. As you said, perhaps he became a Trinitarian Montanist when there had also existed some Monarchian Montantists. (2) If you look at the context of this chapter, Tertullian is probably talking about TITLES. He makes the case that there was a time when God did not have the title of Lord because nothing existed (like matter) that God would be Lord of. The same is true with God as Judge. The title of Judge was not given to God until sin came into the world. In the same way, before Jesus was born of Mary or before God created mankind, God did not have the title Father. He cannot be a Father until He has a son (either mankind or Jesus). So when Tertullian said, "A time when neither sin existed with Him [God], nor the Son," he is talking about TITLES, not beings. After all, Tertullian's whole point is that God is everlasting and eternal. God doesn't change, but His titles have. Another is Redeemer. God could not have been the Redeemer of mankind until Christ made atonement for sins. In the same way, God was not the Father until He begat a son (Adam) or Son (Jesus). Anyway, I believe this is how we should understand Tertullian's writings in this chapter. I hope that somewhat answers your questions. As a side note, I have heard it the other way. What do we call Jesus before He was born of Mary? He wasn't the Son yet. Was He called the Christ before His birth? I have heard some people strongly say that before Jesus was born, He was only called the Logos. I believe this debate has no answer. Unlike Tertullian, I don't like fighting over such small details regarding the titles and names of God. Are there any early Christians who believed in a timeless Son before Origen? Yes, Clement of Alexandria (AD 195) said, "The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, is one with the Father by equality of substance. He is eternal and uncreated" (ANF, v2, p574). And I'm sure there are many more, but I don't have all my notes with me right now. Does that answer your question? No, I'm confident that Tertullian was not a Modalist before becoming a Montanist. And I'm fairly sure that he remained a Trinitarian after becoming Montanist also.

@globalimpactministries766

8 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Thanks for your honest comments. If Tertullian believed that the Son was not always a Son, how then could the Son have existed throughout eternity past? Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. II: The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1990) 326-327. …Tertullian could not shake off entirely the influence of subordinationism. The old distinction between the Logos endiathetos and the Logos prophorikos, the Word internal or immanent in God and the Word emitted or uttered by God…made him regard the divine generation as taking place gradually. Although Wisdom and Word are identical names for the second person in the Trinity, Tertullian distinguishes between a prior birth as Wisdom before the creation, and a nativitas perfecta at the moment of creation, when the Logos was sent forth and Wisdom became the Word: ‘Hence it was then that the Word itself received its manifestation and its completion, namely sound and voice, when God said: Let there be light. This is the perfect birth of the Word, when it proceeds from God. It was first produced by Him for thought under the name of Wisdom, The Lord established me as the beginning of his ways (Prov. 8, 22). Then he is generated for action: When he made the heavens, I was near Him (Prov. 8, 27). Consequently, making the one of whom He is the Son to be His Father by his procession, He became the first-born, as generated before all, as only Son, as solely generated by God’ (Adv. Prax. 7). Thus the Son as such is not eternal (Hermog. 3 EP 321)…The Father is the whole substance…while the Son is only an outflow and a portion of the whole, as He Himself professes, Because my Father is greater than I (John 14, 28). The analogies by which Tertullian tries to explain the Godhead also indicate his subordinationist tendencies, especially when he states that the Son goes out from the Father as the beam from the sun…(Adv. Prax. 8 ANF). Tertullian and other so called early Trinitarian writers of the first few centuries of the Christian era did not believe in the same Trinitarian theology that Catholics and Protestants hold today. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that Tertulian (credited for coining the word Trinity) denied the alleged eternality of the Son when he wrote, “There was a time when THERE WAS NO SON (Hermognes 3).” Again the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism (Arianism denies the full deity of Christ) the Church rejected as heretical.” Even some of the founding fathers of the Trinity believed that the only true God (the Father) pre-created all things through His own Word, Reason, and Intelligence which later became the Son. Tertullian wrote in AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 6 "Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and ALREADY MADE, so far forth as (they were) IN THE MIND AND INTELLIGENCE OF GOD." Tertullian himself admits that the Word (logos) was the Father's own Reason, Word, Mind, and Intelligence in which God the Father "ALREADY MADE" all things "THROUGH WHOM THEY HAD BEEN PLANNED." However, Tertullian wrote that the Son was formed as a pre-incarnate Son (Arianism) when God said, "Let there be light." Tertullian believed that the Word of God the Father assumed a form and voice when God said, "Let there be light in Genesis 1:3. AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7 Then, therefore, does THE WORD also Himself ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, WHEN GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT (Genesis 1:3) This is the perfect NATIVITY OF THE WORD, when He proceeds forth from God- FORMED BY HIM first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ... or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].” Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. "THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD." The definition of "Nativity" is "the occasion of a person's birth" as "the place of my nativity." Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son who's birth (nativity) occurred prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3. "God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.” Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son but became a Father when the Son was begotten. Tertullian used the analogy of a man's own word being the same thing as the Word which was with God from the beginning. Against Praxeus Chapter 5 "The Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason ... For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as HE SILENTLY PLANNED AND ARRANGED WITHIN HIMSELF EVERYTHING WHICH HE WAS AFTERWARDS ABOUT TO UTTER THROUGH HIS WORD. Now, while HE WAS THUS PLANNING AND ARRANGING WITH HIS OWN REASON ... And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE WORD IS A SECOND PERSON WITH YOU, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought." Since no sane individual can say that a second person exists within them, Tertullian's human analogy proves that the Word (logos = Reason, Mind, Thought, Speech) of God belongs to Himself just like the word of a man belongs to himself. Therefore Tertullian himself stated that God pre-created all things through His own Mind and Plan which later became the Son. This is exactly what I was saying in my debate with Mr. Burgos that God created all things through Christ in His LOGOS and THROUGH HIS LOGOS/WORD! TRINITARIAN DEFENSE FOR TERTULLIAN THE SON WAS BOTH MAN AND GOD: Tertullian wrote that the Son was "MAN AND GOD" because he believed that the pre-incarnate Word (logos) emanated from the Reason, Mind, Thought, and utterance of the only true God as an aspect of God Himself. Since Tertullian used the analogy of a man's own word being the same thing as the Word which was with God from the beginning, he believed that the Word was God Himself. Therefore Tertullian taught that Jesus was "begotten from the womb of the Father's heart when God said, let there be light" and then "begotten" again when he was born at Bethlehem. This is a form of Arianism and not Trinitarianism. For Trinitarianism teaches that the Son of God has always existed as an eternal Son throughout eternity past and not a lesser God who was formed later. TERTULLIAN TAUGHT THAT THE WORD, WISDOM, AND REASON OF GOD WERE NOT PERSONAL: Tertullian never taught that Word and Wisdom of God which he called God's own Reason and rational Thought was an actual second divine person until God the Father first spoke the Word, "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3. See above. Therefore Tertullian could not be called an orthodox Trinitarian. SUBSTANCE OF THE SON BOTH BORN AND NOT BORN: Tertullian wrote of the substances of the Son's origins as being both born and not born because he believed that the Son was born from the substance of the Father's own heart when God said, "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3. Thus Tertullian believed that the Word and Wisdom of God were the unborn aspects of God the Father's own heart but that Son was not actually born until the beginning of the creation week in Genesis 1:3. I also doubt that Tertullian was ever a Modalist, but a respected scholar said this so I'm going to keep reading.

@globalimpactministries766

8 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Many of the "Semi-Arians" taught that the word (logos) was uncreated because the logos is the Father's own expressed thought. Yet the Semi-Arians all stated that God begat the word as a living son at the beginning of creation. The Orthodox Wiki Encyclopedia accurately describes Clement of Alexandria’s theology. “Though the Logos is most closely one with the Father, whose powers he resumes in himself, to Clement both the Son and the Spirit are ‘first-born powers and first created;’ they form the highest stages in the scale of intelligent being, and Clement distinguishes the Son-Logos from the Logos who is immutably immanent in God. Because of this Photius would later charge that he ‘degraded the Son to the rank of a creature...’” In Patrology, Vol. 2, Pg. 17, Johannes Quasten cited Photius of Constantinople (a devout 9th Century Trinitarian), who “had still the entire text of Hypotyposeis (written by Clement) and he passes a severe judgment on it …” Photius wrote that Clement “… is carried away by strange and impious notions. He asserts the eternity of matter … and reduced the Son to a mere creature …” Quasten concludes, “… the heretical doctrines explain perhaps why the work is not preserved.” Clement wrote in Stramata, Book 5:14 “Well, they say that God pervades all being; while we call Him solely Maker, and MAKER BY THE WORD (LOGOS). They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: ‘He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;’ since they did not understand that this was said of WISDOM, which WAS THE FIRST OF THE CREATION OF GOD.” Notice how Clement tied the Word (Logos in Greek) with Wisdom “which was the FIRST OF THE CREATION OF GOD.” Although Clement of Alexandria (not the same person as Clement of Rome) also wrote that the Word is eternal (eternal before becoming a son); yet he still alleged that the Son had a time when he was created before the creation of everything else. Therefore Clement of Alexandria apparently believed that word (logos) of the Father was eternal before the word was created as a son. Jesus was therefore created to be eternal (as the eternal high priest) but the son as the son never existed from eternity past. Clement had alleged that the Son and Holy Spirit were “first born powers” that were “first created.” Two so called coequal and coeternal divine persons of a Trinity cannot be said to be “FIRST BORN” and “FIRST CREATED?” An Almighty God cannot be created and still be the Almighty God! Trinitarians who quote from Clement of Alexandria to prove that some of the early Christians believed in the Trinity doctrine will not usually tell you that Clement also embraced at least part of the Gnostic teaching that Jesus only appeared to suffer. “In regard to the Savior ... He ate, not for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power ... He was in general dispassionate and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain.” I have quotes from Trinitarian historians who affirm that Origen of Alexandria was the first early Christian writer on record to teach a timeless Son. The few passages that are often brought up before Origen show that the logos of the Father is timeless, but when we look at the whole corpus of writings by each early Christian writer we find that they taught that the son was created in time. In contradistinction, only the Modalists were teaching that Jesus is the Most High God before his birth and was therefore timeless. Mathetes to Diognetus 11, "He who is from everlasting IS TODAY CALLED THE SON". Mathetes wrote in Diognetus 9 that Jesus should be esteemed as "our Father." Ignatius wrote to Polycarp 3:2 "Look for Him who is above all time, the timeless, the invisible, who for our sake became visible ..." According to Ignatius, Christ pre-existed his birth as "the invisible" God. Yet I'm always hearing Trinitarians say that Jesus could be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures but the Father could not. But if Jesus was first invisible, but for our sake became visible", then Colossians 1:15 proves that the invisible Father became visible as "the image of the invisible God" - the Father. Melito of Sardis also called Jesus the Father but I will save that for another time. Thanks again for your honest responses. I'm open to learn from anyone whenever they say anything that is true.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+Global Impact Ministries How could the Son not always be the Son if He existed from eternity past? As I explained, I think Tertullian is talking about "Son" being a title. He always existed from eternity past, but He wasn't the Son until He was born/begot/fathered. What was Jesus called before they gave Him the name Jesus? What was the Son called before He was born? What was the Savior called before He saved mankind on the cross? John 1:1 calls Him the Logos. When He was born, He became the Son. When Mary and Joseph named Him, He became Jesus. When He died on the cross, He became Savior. When it comes to Tertullian's writings and the doctrine of the Trinity, I see no contradiction. Again, please stay tuned for my future video on what the early Christians believed about the nature of God. You bring up very good points about Clement of Alexandria. At times, Clement says the Wisdom of God was created. Other times, he says things like this... -Sounding like Trinitarianism: "The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere" (ANF, vol 2, page 220). -Sounding like Monarchianism: "[Give thanks may praise, and praising thank the Alone Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One" (ANF, vol 2, page 295). How are we to understand Clement if he is all over the place like this? I mean: How can each be one and also all be one? If all is one, then how can part of God be created? I believe the first question will be answered in my video. About being created, I believe this can be answered by what the early Christians mean when they say that Jesus was "begotten not made." As you know, discussing the nature of God is NOT an easy task? I mean, how are we supposed to understand the nature of a being so far above us? It is always worthwhile to discuss, but I'm not worried about not solidifying a definite answer.

As far as quotes I think it would be interesting to see what language it was written in originally and if it has been translated. For even translating from Hebrew to Greek can change some of the meanings slightly

@Smooth17727

Жыл бұрын

Some of the words can't be translated from what I understand but they give them the best shot at it.

Brother, you made a mistake with your 318 exposition in that tau (τ') is 300 in greek. τιη or as Barnabas expressed it from Genesis 17, Ιη' και τ' = 18 and 300 sigma is 200 and upsilon 400.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

KZread on-screen notes only appear on computers, so you might not have seen the note if you are on your phone. In the video, I was using Hebrew, but when one uses the Greek, then Barnabas' math works out perfectly. So you are correct!

In regard to the red cord/cloth that was tied to the Azazel goat, this is true and is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. The red cloth was expected to turn White as a sign their sins were forgiven. This is also the jewish interpretation of Isaiah when he says "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow." In fact, from 30 AD to the destruction of the Temple, it did NOT turn white, and was seen as a rejection of their sacrifice (presumably because Christ fulfilled it already. "Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ['For the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

Good video.

Very informative. It is very evident that the Letter of Barnabas was not written by the Barnabas of the Bible. I agree with the author that an Alexandrian Christian Jew by the name of Barnabas (a common Jewish Name), wrote this letter.

Some claim that the letter talks about a pre-tribulation rapture. I have read it and can't seem to find it...Does anyone know where or if this appears in the letter?

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. Yes, some have claimed that. I found a paper by Michael J Svigel that points to three sentences in the Letter of Barnabas. There is a problem with using Barnabas as a source for the timing of the rapture and tribulation. The problem is that none of the early Christians (75-325 AD) believed in a rapture or tribulation--as it is talked about today. The doctrines of the rapture and tribulation are only 150 years old at the most. God bless you!

what sign would be made with the tav? if not the cross at 400, then what sign would be made with 300?

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+Bradley Hauf After making this video, I added a KZread annotation that we should not use the Hebrew but the Greek. The Hebrew letter "Tav" (400) does not work. But the Greek letter "Tau" (300) does work. It makes sense to use the Greek letters instead of the Hebrew letters because Barnabas' letter was written in Greek.

@bradleyhauf2346

8 жыл бұрын

i understand the ponderance. i was wondering something else. i see, tav and tau are different letters with different values, but i wished to know what the symbol in hebrew would make. if the greek makes a symbol what does the hebrew make? and the entire hebrew alphabet is located within the star of david. the entire hebrew alphabet.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+Bradley Hauf Good question! Here are the answers: Hebrew: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria Greek: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy

No one had personal Bibles back then. To expect direct quotes as if he just had to look in his bible might be a bit unreasonable. Having the gist in his quotes should be more reasonably expected I think. Besides that, we dont even have OT as old as Clement's. At best, fragmented Dead Sea Scrolls that have lots of missing OT passages and we dont even know for sure who was the scribes of those, only conjecture. We have OTs 100 years later in Vaticanus, and less than a century later in Sinaiticus and a little later in Alexandrinus. Did you check each of those for the quotes?

@armymobilityofficer9099

3 жыл бұрын

If Barnabus the 1st Century Jew filled with the spirit wrote the text, it does seem reasonable that he would mistate verses and add unknown verses.

I know when I read Barnabas, specifically about the animal representations, I always think about Paul, seemingly out of nowhere, using the law of ox eating while pulling a plow as the reason we need to pay our preachers! All I can say is hummm:)

Is Barnabas one of the twelve "apostles of the lamb"? Will he sit on one of the twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel? I do not think so.

What does "ANF" stand for in your source references? Some very interesting Christian history. Thank you for your service. God bless

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for asking. ANF is the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It is a collection of volumes that contain the Pre-Nicene Christian writings. It was compiled and translated about 100 years ago. God bless you too!

Im liking the videos. New sub... * side note: why do you sound like casually explained?

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

HAHA! I have never heard of Casually Explained, so I had to Google it. You know what? I think he's got a good voice, so I'll take your comment as a compliment. I don't know why our voices might sound similar. Is it the accent? According to his KZread channel, Casually Explained is from Canada. As for me, I grew up in central Illinois. So I don't know. God bless you!

In the Clementine Homilies, Clement met Barnabas in Alexandria then traveled after him and with him, (Jerusalem) eventually meeting Peter. So it’s most likely the “real” Barnabus.

Can you do a video on the book of Jasher and how it relates or doesn't relate, to Gods Word?

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! That is a great idea. The Pre-Nicene Christians didn't talk about the book of Jasher--as if it did not exist in those centuries. Because of that, I don't have any plans to talk about it. But perhaps I should make a video on it. I'll add it to my list, but it will be lower priority to other videos. God bless!

12:54 Those are not the Latin letters I, H, and T. They are the greek letters iota (Ιι), eta (Ηη), and tau (Ττ). The letter eta, despite resembling an H, actually sounds like an E and therefore could not correspond to the Hebrew letter he (ה). The author is using Greek numerals, not Hebrew gematria. 318 in Greek numerals is ΤΙΗ.

Isn't that unknown quote of Jesus maybe from Paul & Barnabas in Acts 14:22? Also, why is it inconceivable for Barnabas to make mistakes?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting. Acts 14:22 does sound very much like what Barnabas wrote! But I don't see a connected between the two because Acts 14:22 isn't Jesus' words. If (big if) Barnabas was correct, then this would have been something Jesus said that wasn't written down by the apostles. And this is possible. It's fully possible that Barnabas made mistakes. This could be the case. Of course, if he did make a mistake in writing his letter, then his letter could never be Scripture. God bless!

Remember correctly she almost comes from a later time. Especially the way he broke is because of the new moons the new Sabbath and the gathering of a assemblies like Isaiah did in chapter one

The 10th chapter of Acts clearly identifies the unclean animals of Peters vision with Gentiles, verifying the meaning of them in Barnabas’ epistle. Amen !

I love these videos. There's really nothing like them on KZread, and may have been a huge blessing. But I feel like they end really abruptly. You might want to consider adding intro/outro music. Or just concluding thoughts. That way, listeners will know to anticipate pulling out their phones and going to the next video.

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Great idea. Unfortunately, I don't have the means or the time to make intros and outros. I'm sorry these videos are so informal. It is so wonderful to hear about how this channel has blessed you. Wonderful! God bless you.

Interesting

Well if you read Isaiah he's quoting him

maybe the different verses quoted even the same quote twice being different are due to it being translated into different languages and each quote being changed for each language it was translated into

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349

2 жыл бұрын

the gamatria in the epistle suggests a hebrew or aramaic origin

There is a theory bahakbar rebuilt the temple the third time. As per its image on his mint of Coins and the new size of the temple base on record

Greetings. You as so many, keep translating and talking about God as a person/s. This is a human perception. Elohim, is in plural yet The Almighty is Spirit. We cannot imagine this so it has been talked about as perceived in human thinking. Jesus, by the way, his name is Yeshua, reminded them, "is it not written you are gods?" Ask the wisdom to get the revelation. Blessings.

When you compared the quotes of Barnabas to scripture to what verson were you referencing? An English translation of the Masoretic? There are over 1000 differences between it and the Septuagint as well as the fact the original Hebrew version contained additional books; and for some strange reason we don't seen to have any copies of the Hebrew text that was used for the Septuagint. The concept of a canon was a bit more fluid amongst the Hebrews of the second temple period. Jesus also makes pronouncements that Roman Catholic dogma states are completely original. However since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now know he was actually quoting some of their sectarian literature. You're not suggesting we now edit those out? Given the likely date of the epistle and that there would not be an "official" canon for nearly 400 years how do you know what Barnabas was quoting was not recognized by the early Christians? We know there are epistles from Paul that are no long extant as well as other writings. Are you projecting back in time the canon and imposing that upon 1st Century Christians? I don't see the logic in that. Enoch is also extensively quoted but that is also not in the canon. For there to be some variants I don't see as much of a challenge; and to suggest that slightly different rendering is a fatal flaw is just silly. There may have been Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic versions floating around. If the essential message is correct only a modern Westerner with little understanding of the cultural development of scripture or even what the idea of "scripture" meant prior to the 5th Century. would point something like this out. Or one that believes The King James bible is all there is or ever was. The style and use of OT quotation in the epistle of Barnabas and that of Hebrews is actually very similar, the latter certainly not being the produce of Paul. You really think getting some zoological facts wrong is really that big a deal? You really want to open that can of worms regarding scientific facts contained in books that are part of the canon?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

I'll answer your questions as you asked them. I didn't use only one version of Scripture when comparing Barnabas. I consulted multiple versions. And in a number of those cases, I consulted the original Greek. In those cases when the Masoretic and Septuagint are different, when Barnabas quotes those verses, he most often quotes it from the Septuagint. What pronouncements did you have in mind that were taken from sectarian literature (shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls)? Are you asking me if I would edit out sectarian literature? Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph. How do we know that what Barnabas was quoting was recognized as canon by the early Christian? This is because the early Christian canon was the same canon as the Septuagint. Both Barnabas and the rest of the early Christians had the Septuagint as their Old Testament canon. What do you think I'm projecting on the 1st century Christians? A Biblical canon? I am not projecting a canon on the 1st century Christians. Enoch is quoted once in the New Testament. Enoch is quoted a few times in the Pre-Nicene Christian writings. But yes, from what I have seen, no one has considered Enoch to be canon--except for the Ethiopian Church. Yes, I believe that zoological facts are a big deal. Do I expect the Bible to be a science textbook in any way? No. But I do expect the Bible to be truth, whether divine or scientific. Thanks for commenting and having this discussion. God bless!

Not in the canon, but of Barnabas, I believe it's written by a Spirit filled Apostle.

10:50 well.. Seems more to be speaking of the complexity of how the female are in the position as the male yet the female also mates as a female and yet never is under a male as being in character "masculine" vs "feminine"

@TheLionFarm

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/gnZ3sLmmhZjHoKg.html

It is correct that the numerical value of the Hebrew letter tau is 400 but the numerical value of the Greek letter tau is 300.

The ideas about why certain animals are not kosher were popular around this time. The rabbis mention similar ideas in the Talmud and it seems that it was Greek influence.

I think you missed Barnabas' point about the Hyena changing sex in that it will have sex with it's own sex. And regarding the weasel it means oral sex. He was trying to be figurative?

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! I didn't think about those possibilities. I don't think it's likely that he meant those things. But you may be right. I really appreciate you sharing those thoughts! God bless!

I dont believe Barnabas made an error when he put in a reference to a weasel given birth with its mouth. That was a very popular belief at the time and the Bible has a tendency to,at times explain concepts in a way people living around that time period would understand it. This doesn't just happen in this Episle but also happens in the Book of Revelations multiple times. I mean John talks about the four corners of the Earth? You really think the Earth has four corners ? No Its a way of explaining what he means to his audience same as here.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+Unbound Knowledge I agree that the Bible tends to explain concepts in ways so that the people at that time will understand it. However, I do not believe God-breathed Scripture would entertain an error in order to illustrate something. If the Letter of Barnabas was inspired, I believe God (and Barnabas) would have chosen a different illustration than a weasel giving birth through its mouth. Regarding Revelation, John didn't write any errors either. Revelation is a completely different style of book and its images and symbolism are not to be taken literally. By saying "four corners of the Earth," John is not meaning that the earth has four corners. Instead, it was a common expression for the people at that time that means the ENTIRE world. For us today, we say "to the ends of the earth." Do we mean the earth has ends? Or, by four corners, John means "all directions," and the four corners are: north, south, east, and west. I know there are many people who believe Barnabas is inspired, and that's fine. After reading it and studying it in-depth, I do not believe it is.

@thepsion2827

8 жыл бұрын

Fine

@br.raphaelcallahan1451

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch THEN WHERE IS MY UNICORN! I WANT A UNICORN!

@noitnettaattention

4 жыл бұрын

@@br.raphaelcallahan1451 ...Which one you want? the 18-19th century European fairy tale books unicorn or fossils of real dinosaurs found in far east/Asia known as unicorns ?

I'm absolutely amazed more and more and the older I get, amazed even more, that the book of Hebrews is included in the Bible and we don't even know who wrote it. Now that's pretty amazing. Kind of crazy if you think about it, that this book, Hebrews, has no name given to it at all, and it's in the Bible. Here's the letter of Barnabas, at least there's a name. Hebrews has no name. Well, I don't know why that's okay, but apparently that's okay. A book of God-breathed words with no accountability to a writer's name. Idk, the older I get the more I can't see how this can be. Not that I'm judging the book of Hebrews, it's that I can't believe it was accepted without knowing who wrote it.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I completely get you! I think about the same being true for many of the books of the Old Testament, especially Genesis. It is only based on Traditions that Moses wrote it. Just like Hebrews, there is no internal evidence to the author. Like you, I also wish we had that information, but as it is, we just have to accept that the author is unknown. Deut 29:29. God bless you!

I dont know if a real Holy Spirit filled person would really phrase it like that: 'how the wretched Jews...' Would Paul phrase it like that?Or Jesus?

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Both Jesus and Paul had some harsh and true things they said about the Jews. And both of them were Jews! I don't know if Jesus or Paul would use that word, but I don't think Barnabas would be any less worthy of the Spirit. As Paul wrote in Rom 9-11, he talked about how God cut the Jews off from His favor because they rejected His Son. And though many Jews can come to God through Jesus Christ, those Jews who continue to reject Jesus as Christ are hardened against God. For example, Paul said this about the Jews as a kind of summary. Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of the patriarchs, since God’s gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable. As you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, resulting in mercy to you, so that they also now may receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all. Rom 11:28-32. In short, Barnabas' words might sound harsh, but his words in context (Barnabas chapter 16) make a valid point. Personally, I would want to call anyone wretched except myself (Rom 7:24-8:1). God bless!

@Ron-dv8jj

7 жыл бұрын

If it really is Barnabas the apostle of course. We dont know for sure,so we are looking for clues. One of the clues i would be looking at, is the language. I know both Paul as well as Jesus said harsh things about the Jews. But the way this Barnabas figure phrased it, it just gave me a strong vibe of 'roman catholic medieval crussader blame all on the Jews kinda vibe' . But thats just my opinion.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

And that can very well be the case. I am confident that this was not Barnabas the apostle.

@grimvaderdehoff8364

6 жыл бұрын

Aäron Zionism is a modern invention By Pope Charles Nelson Darby. And the Scofield felon bible. John Haggee and his ilk preach a very different gospel. While we are supposed to love everyone, those that bash and denigrate the Holy Name of JESUS should not get special treatment. I enjoyed this analysis of this text. While it’s got some great points I think it’s hard to assume how the scriptures were written then compared to now. What we know is protestant get there Old Testament from the Christ rejectors..who it can strongly be argued. Altered and even removed texts after JESUS to do there best to Unassociate them with Christ. 9-10 NT quotes agree with the LXX not the Assyrian Moses money Text. The Dead Sea scrolls only validate this fact more. So who is a liar? That being said while I like this Epistle I do not find it to be an inerrant and inspired text. A good read for sure though. Has it occurred to any of you that what we call modern hebrew is actually Assyrian script Chaldean? Paleo Hebrew has a direct ancestor which is Koine Greek not Aramaic and modern Biblical Hebrew by extension. So Tav Could very well have been 300 in ancient Hebrew Gamatria. We know based on the evidence that the Samekh/shin/sin/San is the most obscure letter of the abjad languages. Some groups never had a shin and some never had a San. It’s possible that Samechk was divided into two letters in some Phoenician groups while in others like Greek its S Sound remained without a SHH sound. The Greek Sigma/stigma and the Xi Sai Show this variation within the north eastern Semitic:Shemitic language families Jericho in Greek is Iero-Echo Or “Holy Sound” Check out Joseph Ben Yehudas Hebrew is Greek with a mask on.

Thank you for your great channel. Much work and research goes into producing your videos, and it is much appreciated. However, on the topic of was it the Apostle Barnabas that wrote the letter of Barnabas? The answer is that it most certainly was. And the reasons for this claim will not be found in the dissemination of known scripture. It would take a great deal of writing to comprehensively explain why it had to be Barnabas the Apostle, that wrote the letter. Unfortunately, this comment forum is not the way. I can say in short, it was Jesus himself, whilst still alive, and in the month following his resurrection, and no Roman governing body acting years later, that put an end to Mosaic practices that Apostle Barnabas speaks off in his letter. We must remember, that Barnabas is firstly appealing to Jews who were becoming, or had recently become Christians, and what it meant to become Christian - particularly in regards to a Hebraic mindset dropping long-held Mosaic traditions. and then of course, to anyone else willing to listen. By practical/cultural nature, and for the proper seeding of Christianity, this had to be addressed in the first decades, following the crucifixion of Jesus, and not one hundred or so years later, by another individual that also happened to be named, Barnabas. Finally, and with great respect for your great channel, a lot can go awry when weighing one word of scripture against another, when in fact, we must apply culture of the time - including politics, motivation of purpose, social inferences, and simply, essence of reason, before a truly valid conclusion may be found. I would suggest careful, reading of the Poem of the Man-God - at least three readings with a great deal of contemplation therein - even though much may affront, and also read the accompanying document: Divine Dictations / Note Books. Thank you, and please continue your great works.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting and for your encouraging words. I appreciate the things you shared. You have some good points. First, I would be interested in hearing more about why you think the Letter of Barnabas was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. God bless you!

Barabas is the one freed by Pontius Pilot. Barnibus is the man who invented the Barn.

What happened to your nose bro? It sounded like you have runny nose but it doesn't matter it is still clear. My apology you did a veey good job here with your videos. By the way I subscribed also. 🙏😊

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. You noticed how nasally I sounded too, huh? When I was recording these early videos, it was before I discovered that I am intolerant to cheese. When I cut a ton of cheese from my diet, it REALLY improved my sinuses. I wish I had discovered that earlier in life, haha. Thanks for the sub. God bless you!

Just heard it, to summarize a book of apostasy.

Eusebius records in his church history memoirs from Clement of Alexandria that he, upon conversion, traveled the ancient world receiving teaching from many direct disciples of Peter, Paul, James and John. That makes Clement's testimony solid wouldn't sound reason agree?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

I did not know that about Clement of Alexandria. I think that is really fantastic! But when it comes to the books that Clement calls Scripture, he is NOT in-line with the rest of the early Christian writers. More than any other writer, he was far too generous in "handing out inspiration" to many of the books he read. For example, Clement believed the Preaching of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of the Egyptians were inspired. No other early Christian writer approved of those books. Plus, Clement was the only one who approved of the Letter of Barnabas. Therefore, I do not think Clement's opinion of Biblical canon is reliable.

@jesusstudentbrett

5 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Hey brother, I think sometimes we use deductive reasoning when evaluating these things and say this or that as if it was the early writer when in fact it is or fallible inference. As to those three writings you mentioned, did Clement really ascribe inspiration to every one or did he use a statement from the writing that is just true, and nothing more, and from that someone interpreted that as him giving them canonicity? Bless you brother.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@jesusstudentbrett Thank you for challenging me on what Clement thought about those three Apocryphal books. Here is what I found. About the Preaching of Peter, Clement seems to refer to it as a source of authority. I don't think he explicitly states whether he thought it was Scripture or not. But again, he seems to be using it as a source of authority. Yes, it does appear that Clement believed The Preaching of Peter was inspired. In the paragraph that begins "David..." www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ii.xv.html www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.v.html In the paragraph that begins "So I think..." www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.vi.html In the paragraph that beings "But on the Scriptures being opened up..." www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html --- About the Gospel of the Hebrews, it does NOT look like Clement thought it was inspired. I was wrong in listing this book. Final paragraph. Clement refers to this work alongside works by Plato. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ii.ix.html #9 and #10. Here, Schaff refers to the Latin text from Clement, which I cannot read. Schaff says that Clement puts "merit" into the Gospel of the Hebrews. But because Clement's text is in Latin, I cannot comment any more on this. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.iii.i.html #40. There is a quote here, that is possible (not confirmed) that it came from the Gospel of the Hebrews. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.v.html --- About the Gospel to the Egyptians, Clement rejected it. I was wrong in listing this book. #14. Like before from the Latin text, Schaff explains what Clement believed. Clement REJECTED the Gospel to the Egyptians. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.iii.i.html

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Back to the question about whether the Letter of Barnabas should be considered canon, I disagree with Clement that it should be. He seems to have put it on the same level as the Preaching of Peter, which I have not read. I'm curious; have you read the Preaching of Peter?

There is ZERO evidence for the names of the gospel authors yet they are accepted and they misquote the OT all the time

Tau in greek is 300

Greetings. So God talked face to face with Moses! It is written no one can see God. ....

@Lutheranjenkins

3 жыл бұрын

John 1:18 tells us that no one has ever beheld God the Father, but the monogenēs God/Son is the One whom appears on the Father’s behalf. This tells us two things: 1) The Father hasn't been perceived by sinful eyes, but rather the Son. 2) The Son is both God and separate from God, therefore the one God has a distinction of Personages within His Being. Hope this helps!

Barnabus sounds philosophising

@lostspace5811

4 жыл бұрын

And Roman. Insinuating insult

Ha. Romans calling something barbaric. That's funny. You mention that because the letter appears to originate from Alexandria, it cannot be the apostle. Why? Was the apostle in some other location at that time? Who do you believe this Barnabas was? Any sign that he was a leader in the church?

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I do not believe that Barnabas (the same Barnabas in Acts) wrote this letter. I believe the letter was written by anonymous person or, coincidentally, by a different person named Barnabas. God bless you!

@cabarete2003

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Right, but you made it a point to say that because the letter originated from Alexandria that went into your analysis that it wasn' the apostle. I was just wondering what the significance of Alexandria was.

The gospel of Saint Barnabas is the most accurate, to learn more please read the Noble Quran.

@andywong9847

3 жыл бұрын

I listen to Christian Prince on KZread debating on Quran. So far, I have not heard anything on Barnabas. Most of my Muslim friends in my country don’t even read/understand Quran. Teach us then….

sounds pretty gnostic. i dont think this book should be taught as a valid source in christian docterin. but as an insight into what some of the people at that time believed and the beliefs and ideas that were floating around and what other peoples conclusions they came up with. this man prolly was into Christianity but it seems he was reaching for ideas and interpretations. some of his observations might be tru, but a lot seem to be misunderstandings and based on myths.

@kickpublishing

3 жыл бұрын

It reads like fan fiction, well intentioned but whacky in places.

@stevenmike1878

3 жыл бұрын

@@kickpublishing lol i agree, i use the word fan fiction a lot as well, to describe some of the books. a lot of the books in kabbalah have that feel, 600 b.c.when the jews came back to there home land there was a massive interest in the torah and books and there you see a ton of secret hidden extra books appear that border on fan fiction mythology and no way to verify them. it was a very lucrative business that people bought into.

Could the author just have been careless

Barnabas is not an apostle!

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. It's true that the Barnabas in the New Testament was not one of the Twelve Apostles. But he was one of others who were given the title of apostle (Acts 14:14). As for the Letter of Barnabas, it does not appear that the Barnabas in the New Testament is the author. God bless!

@alcobra8834

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch they had dispute with Paul, Barnabas is not God's chosen apostle just like Matthias! There are only 12 acceptable apostles together with 12tribes of Israel when judgement takes place!

@alcobra8834

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch He was only named apostle because at that time they have cooperation. Thats is in Acts 14 but in Acts 15 they separated.

Greetings! I completely agree with the points you make, however, consider the following? Paul's words to Timothy "Do not go beyond what is written", one would suppose he said the same to Barnabas, yet this book does no follow Pauls advice under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in fact, quite the opposite! If the book of Barnabas is not in the canon of Holy scripture. The answer is quite simple? Because Almighty God does not want it included in a book that bears his name and is a book of truth! For "God can not lie"! It seems to me that on one hand persons say how Almighty and powerful God is, yet when it comes to his word he is absolutely impotent to decide which books are in or out, and therefore leaves that entirely to the will of man whether they are guided by the Holy Spirit or Satan the Devil! God alone decides what goes into his word the Holy Bible! Period! Kindest Regard from the UK, may God bless us all in the Faith! Hope! and Love, in Christ Jesus. Love your excellent faith building work!

I disagree with reading it

I have no doubt that this epistle is inspired. The most important aspect of the epistle has to do with the number of Christ. For the number given for Christ and the formula Barnabas describes is very important. The reason we are given the number and the formula is so that we can apply the same formula to the number of the beast (666). This means the number 600 is looked at separately from the number 66, just as the number 300 is separate from the number 18, which gives us the first two letters of the name of the Messiah. And just as the number 300 denotes the way salvation will be had (the cross) the number 600 denotes the method by which the dragon will deceive the world. Given this knowledge, I suggest viewers do some research and see what the number 600 reveals about itself in the Greek alphabet using the same method Barnabas used. For it is the letter X. Now I invite viewers to research the significance of the letter X and how it symbolizes the method the dragon will use to deceive the world. Then consider the number 66 as a number separate from the number 600.

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting! I find numerology very interesting. If I were to do research into the meaning of 600 (X), what would I find?

@TrustinJC

9 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church There are several significant points regarding the passage relating to the number of Christ. The first is that Barnabas basically tells readers that if they only take one thing away from his letter, they must understand that this teaching regarding the number of Christ is important and is the truth. His exact words being: "I never taught to anyone a more certain truth." The second important fact is that Barnabas doesn't use the Hebrew alphabet and Gematria to determine the number of Christ, but rather the Greek alphabet and Isopsephy. So this new revelation and understanding of Christ (who is God) is given to us not through the old language of God (Hebrew) but rather through the language of the Gentiles. A third important fact is that the revelation of the number of Christ was given to Barnabas a few decades before Christ gave John the revelation of the number of the beast. Now in John's revelation we are told to decipher the meaning of the beast. Well, as it turns out, God gave us the formula for deciphering the number of the beast when He showed Barnabas the number of Christ. The problem, unfortunately, is that most Christians will not like what the formula reveals when we look at the number 600 separate from the number 66. For the number 600 is the letter X in the Greek Alphabet and is the symbol that represents the way in which the beast will deceive the world. now consider how prevalent the letter X is in Christianity. The Vatican has an X on the Vatican flag by way of two crossed keys. The short form for Christian is Xian. Then we also have Xmas. Constantine used an X on his banner. And it was Constantine that married Christianity with paganism. What this shows is that the dragon will deceive the world by appearing as a counterfeit Christ. And he will deceive the masses by way of the Christian faith. He will rise out of the apostate church that was established long ago, even prior to Constantine, but solidified by Constantine and the Catholic Church. Then there is the number 66, which is looked at separately from the number 600. The number 66 of course, being the number of books found in the protestant bible. Hmmmm.

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

TrustinJC I'm impressed! Your explanations is really insightful. I didn't think about interpreting Barnabas using the Greek. I only used the Hebrew because I'm familiar with Gamatria and had not known about Isopsephy. Thanks for sharing this! I will put an annotation in my video that will mention how Barnabas' numerology is correct when using the Greek. You make interesting predictions about 600 (X) and 66. It's strange that we don't know what 666 means. Irenaeus (AD 180, disciple of Polycarp who was disciple of the apostle John) wrote a few possibilities as to the name behind 666. He proposed: Evanthas, Lateinos (Latin man or Latin kingdom), and Teitan (Titan). He said Titan is most likely. He also said that it is impossible to know until the antichrist reveals himself. As to 66 meaning the number of books in the Protestant Bible, I believe that is just a coincidence. What do you identify yourself as: Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, something else? Lastly, you said, "he will rise out of the apostate church that was established long ago, even prior to Constantine, but solidified by Constantine and the Catholic Church." Will you explain more about this and what you mean?

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Also, you said that you believe this letter is inspired. If so, will you please explain why Barnabas incorrectly quote from the Ten Commandments? This seems like an error, which an inspired writer could not be guilty of. Secondly, do you believe that weasels conceive through their mouths?

@TrustinJC

9 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Regarding the ten commandments and the part in your video in which you talk about Barnabas using slightly different quotes, very different quotes, and things not found in scripture. We find this all throughout the new testament. But no one throws out new testament writings. The writings of Enoch, for example, are referenced or quoted more than 100 times by Jesus and the apostles. Jesus even quotes and references portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that are not found in the bible. As well, the Dead Sea Scrolls sometimes vary from what is found in the bible. Even among ancient manuscripts there are variances within bible text. did Paul, for example go to the third heaven, or did he only know of someone who went to the third heaven. It varies depending on which bible you read. And the different versions are based on different ancient manuscripts. The truth is, while you may not find the reference to any book found in the bible, Baranabas would have been referencing books that were deemed inspired to him. Something you might want to consider is what is written in 2 Esdras regarding scripture. For Ezra tells us there were a total of 94 books, according to the American Standard bible, or 204 books according to the KJV bible. Ezra further instructs in both versions that 70 books were to be given only to the initiate while the other books were for public use and for anyone and everyone. The Dead Sea Scrolls give similar instructions regarding some books being for the initiate only and tell us there were two books of law. My point being here, that there were many more books deemed inspired than what are found in any bible. Now the words by Barnabas concerning the Sabbath are not really that different from what is found in the bible pertaining to the ten commandments. And I would argue that his words are from a proper rendering of OT writings. Now regarding the words of Christ. John tells us that if all of Christ's teachings and all of the things he did were to be recorded there wouldn't be enough trees to supply the paper for it to be written on. So we know Jesus did a whole lot more and said a whole lot more than what is found in the bible. the gospel According to Thomas, for example, is full of the teachings and sayings of Christ. And many of them are not found in the bible. Regarding the weasel and the hyena. If you were to apply the same strict rule to all of the OT books in the bible, how many books would you then have to throw out? For there are similar examples found in the OT books. Atheists often use these examples to discredit the bible. But believers have no problem accepting the books as having been divinely inspired. So my question to you is, how many OT books have you thrown out for having similar errors?

First, thank you for the hard work you are doing on this channel as we are to live by EVERY Word of the Living God. However, the "errors" you have found in this epistle exemplify the spiritual famine that we currently exist in and that the work can begin to defeat. Accepting the canonical scriptures as perfect, which I do, you must come to terms with certain obvious "errors" that our carnal mind perceives within them. I believe that the incorrect gematria of the tav and the shin is basically delivering the same message as the incorrect reckoning of generations in the genealogy in Matthew. Indeed, all is finished, but all has not yet been revealed. I find it impossible to believe that the authors of either work made such a sloppy mistake. As far as the dietary laws, I believe the case is similar. Yes, he is saying avoid men, and even doctrines, that are like this. But on a higher level, that the entire basis that these men and false doctrines exist on is based on falsehood and human tradition. These traditions may exist because there is a spiritual truth in them, but don't get so caught up in the traditions that you lose sight of the Truth. I do believe the Bible is perfect, but it is also the unleavened bread. We certainly must test the spirit of the works that come before us, but on a spiritual level. Arguments about dates and true identities and various other facts are in line with the power of the pen ( though certainly God can speak through them.) The apocrpha is the yeast of God- it was not said there was no yeast, just to avoid the yeast of men. I find no contradiction between this work and the canon. The Truth of God is so inexpressible that two things that conflict in our carnal minds can be true in God. For example, it is in the complete surrender of our life that you truly find your life. When we get our answers only from the Shepherd, all the conflict dissolves. Thanks again. Keep em coming.

@PostApostolicChurch

10 жыл бұрын

LovinTheLight, thanks for commenting! What do you mean by the spiritual famine we are in? What do you mean by Matthew's genealogy being incorrect (as we read it)? I agree that absolute truth is not fully revealed yet. Human minds cannot understand the truth of who God is and the things that will be in eternity. So what do you think about what Barnabas said about the weasel? Do you believe weasels conceive through their mouths? Will you explain why Barnabas says tav is 300 when I said it was 400?

@LovinTheLight

10 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Sorry for the delay in responding. I actually found your channel while preparing for a video on the dietary laws as explained here by Barnabas. If you are interested, this would provide a more complete answer to your questions. In truth, there is one answer to them which is the essence of this epistle and an unseen truth of the Gospel. I will attempt to briefly address each one starting with the weasel. We are told that life and death are in the tongue ( along with many instructions on using it wisely) and that God created through speaking. The double edged sword is essentially the correction of the forked tongue of the serpent. This law is a warning not to take in the doctrines of those who lump word upon word creating their own vain truths instead of asking God. When god reveals the Truth, the explanation of the parables of the Word, they are absolute and there is no private interpretation or debate. Anything you see men divided over is based upon the words of a weasel. The weasel does, in fact, carry its newborns in its mouth so if you saw this, or were told, you could assume you are witnessing their birth (much like the hyena's sex) but it is simply not true. We can not just trust what we think we see, or worse what we are told we see. We must ask God. I did not say that the generations listed in Matthew are incorrect. I said the reckoning is. He states there are 14 generations from the exile to Christ but only lists 13. This is what Barnabas is showing with the shin and the tav. What we are seeing as the end is actually the refining fire. Look at the shin. We are only seeing the 3 crowns on the face, the right if you will. When we perceive the 4 hidden crowns, the left hand, then we do truly have the cross. This is the wide gate versus the narrow gate. This is why Christ's disciples do not recognize Him risen until they eat the meat- these buried scriptures that are now being resurrected by people such as yourself. This is why the clean animals are ruminant- taking it in at the physical but then following Christ to the spiritual understanding. It is said that the exile occurred because the Jews did not recognize the Sabbath- not that it didn't exist or that they didn't practice it in form. The 7th statement of Christ on the cross is that "It is finished" and truly it is, but we can not see it until we see that we thirst (6th statement). Again I applaud your work here as I see it as an avenue for the quenching of this thirst.

@PostApostolicChurch

10 жыл бұрын

Lovin TheLight Thanks for your continued comments and compliments! I saw your video where you discussed things with InHISWord2. I really enjoyed it. I like the way you think. The things you talked about is really exciting to me. I've been studying apocryphal books for a few years now. It was the Pre-Nicene Christian writings that open my horizons to more ancient writings. Stay tuned to my channel. Even though I plan to focus on the Pre-Nicene writings, maybe one day I will dive into the OT apocrypha. -- About the dietary laws, I also found them extremely enlightening. On the other hand, the part about the weasel is disturbing. Barnabas' spiritual points are all valid. But his knowledge of animals is in error. Although Barnabas goes into much more detail about dietary laws, did you know he learned much of this from the Letter of Aristeas? It is found in Aristeas 128-171. You can download it here: drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-itb1POnZDLamctdldMNGNRR0U&usp=sharing -- There are only 13 generations from the Exile to Christ? When I look at the list, I see 14: Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. -- What do you mean by the four hidden crowns and there being a right hand and left hand?

@LovinTheLight

10 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church I am glad you enjoyed the video and should have more coming. As for the weasel, I think that Barnabas did in fact know the scientific truth (as well as for the hyena) and certainly God does. The deeper point here is that even when men such as these appear to be able to demonstrate what they are showing do not accept it. Sometimes our eyes and ears are not valid witnesses. You must go to the source. As for Matthew, you are counting men, not generations. The generations are from one man to the next. Go back and look at all three and you will see what I mean. Again, this is making the same point as the shin, which can either be a refining fire or a destroyer ( and in a sense reflects back to the weasel as far as seeing only what certain men tell us we see). The front or face of the shin can be interpreted as the dominant right hand which the world sees. There are three crowns which tradition relates to the three patriarchs. The backside, however, the left hand if you will, has four crowns, traditionally relating to the four matriarchs. Doctrine holds that it our faith is all about the right hand of power. I do not believe that God has a bad side- 1st Timothy in fact tells us that the children are brought forth through the women. I am not suggesting we revert back to some form of goddess worship, but more to the Jewish idea of Shechinah. We are reaching for something but we are missing a step. When you see all seven (which are the whole of the twelve tribes), you will reach the tav. Finally, awesome resource on google drive. Thank you. As for the Letter of Aristeas, I will say that these men certainly learned from each other and that the true spiritual interpretations, the "keys" to the kingdom that were restored by Christ, were once common knowledge among true followers of the Way. Time, ravens, and weasels have done away with these keys. I am awestruck as I see God through the Holy Spirit restoring them again!

@LovinTheLight

10 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church Also, I apologize if this discussion of the shim is vague. What it is showing is so huge I can not explain it in a few lines. I am working on this.

What’s the friggin difference who or when a document was produced! What it says and any importance to yourself is all that is required. At least that’s how Lord Buddha sees it.

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. One reason why the author and the timeframe it was made is important because there are a lot of documents that claim to be one thing but are not being honest. It is important to see if the author or timeframe of a document fits with historical truth--especially when documents say talk about the importance of living out the spiritual life according to truth. God bless you!

ok let us slow down for a moment and ADD ARAB TO THIS TO WHO IS CURRENT TODAY.. AND PARADE AS WHITE EDOM...AND NOW BEGIN AGAIN.. LETTING GO OF TRADITION. AND WHAT MEN TEACH TODAY OF COURSE. SOME BARELY HOLD ON.

Anti-Semitic EoBar

There is evidence regarding the red wool being put on the head of the goat(Azazel). Can you verify this one? Thanks. “A detailed description of the ritual in the Second Temple is found in the Mishnah in the general description of the *avodah of the Day of Atonement: the high priest cast lots - upon one the word L-YHWH ("For the Lord") was written and upon the other La-ʿAzazel ("For Azazel"). Afterward he drew lots and on the head of *the goat chosen for Azazel he bound a thread of crimson wool* and stood the animal opposite the gate through which it would ultimately be taken (Yoma 4:1-2).” Source: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/azazel