• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

does anyone know about paul's 3rd

Muffled

Jesus in me
what about he parts that are not truth and known mythology :facepalm:


does anyone have the right to question what many percieve as fiction and fantasy??

That isn't so difficult. When it is fantasy it says so. Pharaoh had dreams. The images may have represented a real future but they were not real images. How do we know? Because the Bible tells us they are dreams.

Jesus spoke in parables. The events did not actually happen but were made up stories by Jesus.
 

Shermana

Heretic
It should be noted, there were "early church fathers" who did think it was authentic and had some canonicity in some churches until even the early renaissance, the arguments against it I think are mainly from the idea that the arguments it refutes are later than the 1st century. But the same argument could be applied to the Epistles of John that they attack early Docetists. There's little reason to believe that such proto-Gnostic ideas didn't exist back then, since there are hints of references to the ideas of such "heresies" in even Paul's epistles it seems.

In the West it was not considered canonical in the 4th century AD, becoming part of the New Testament apocrypha. In the East, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphrahat (c. 340) treated it as canonical and Ephraem of Syria (d. 373) apparently accepted it as canonical,[1] for he wrote a commentary on it. The Doctrine of Addai includes it, however it was not included in the Syriac Pe****ta translation of the Bible (but nor were 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation, which are almost universally recognized as canonical, see also Antilegomena). Although part of the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666, it was in an Appendix to the Zohrab Armenian Bible of 1805 which follows the Vulgate canon, and it is not currently considered part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament.[2] It was not part of the canon list of Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century but is part of the canon lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank` in the 13th and Gregory Tat`ew in the 14th.[3]
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
thanks Shermana,

in the same link...

The text is structured as an attempt to correct alleged misinterpretations of the earlier First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians of which the author (usually called "pseudo-Paul") has become aware due to the (similarly dubious) Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. According to the preceding part of the Acts of Paul, when the letter was written Paul was in prison, on account of Stratonice, the wife of Apollophanes. In particular the epistle seeks to correct the interpretation of the phrase "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" by which some taught that the resurrection of the dead could not be physical.

Gnostics were known for quoting this part of 1 Corinthians, infuriating Christians such as Irenaeus who wished to claim that the dead were physically, rather than spiritually, resurrected. Irenaeus remarked "All heretics always quote this passage". It is thought that the argument of the Gnostics won so much ground that some orthodox Christians felt the need to forge 3 Corinthians to counter them.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The ancient Syrian (Edessene) Church revered as canonical a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which is accompanied by a letter from the pastors of that Church, to which it is an answer. But about the beginning of the fifth century the Syrian Church fell under the influence of the Greek, and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status. It was taken up by the neighbouring Armenians and for centuries has formed a part of the Armenian New Testament. Latin and Greek writers are completely silent about this pseudograph, although Greek and Latin copies have been found. It was obviously suggested by the lost genuine Pauline letter referred to in I Cor. v, 9; vii, 1. It was composed by a presbyter about 160-170, and is a disguised attack on some of the leading errors of Gnosticism. This correspondence long had an independent circulation, but recently it has been proved that the document was incorporated into the Acts of St. Paul (q.v.).
 

Shermana

Heretic
As you can see, the arguments against it are just as dubious as they claim the epistle to be. There's a reason that the "Greek and Latin writers" have "remained silent". They realize that there's no concrete evidence either way. It's an example of total arbitrariness on the part of the canonizers. The same arguments can be applied to other epistles like 1-3 John.

Don't get me wrong, I totally think Ephesians, 1+2 Timothy and Titus are fabricated but the reasoning on them is very solid, for instance the use of the word "Deacon" is much different than its used in other epistles. Ephesians didn't even originally say "To the Church in Ephesus".
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
As you can see, the arguments against it are just as dubious as they claim the epistle to be. There's a reason that the "Greek and Latin writers" have "remained silent". They realize that there's no concrete evidence either way. It's an example of total arbitrariness on the part of the canonizers. The same arguments can be applied to other epistles like 1-3 John.

Don't get me wrong, I totally think Ephesians, 1+2 Timothy and Titus are fabricated but the reasoning on them is very solid, for instance the use of the word "Deacon" is much different than its used in other epistles. Ephesians didn't even originally say "To the Church in Ephesus".

i agree...
 
Top