does anyone know about paul's 3rd

[waitasec]

letter to corinthians? and why it wasn't included in the NT?

 

[fallingblood]

His third letter, or the one that is claimed to be his third letter, is agreed by scholars not to have been written by Paul, but instead someone using his name. One of the reasons this is known is because it is of a later date. It also does not agree with the authentic letters of Paul.

 

[waitasec]

thanks...is this agreement across the board or is there some sort of debate?

 

[Rocky S]

letter to corinthians? and why it wasn't included in the NT?

I agree with fallingblood and have read the pseudepigraphical book it is a refuting of gnosticism and defending the resurrection. Doctrinally it is not that off, for it testifies about the death burial and resurrection of Jesus, and the virgin birth. However it does not flow like paul's writings its like reading someone else's. So I can see why it was reject. But the theology of it, and doctrinally I don't have a problem with it. But it is so different then the way Paul wrote, I do not see his personality in it. I do know this "it was in the Armenian Orthodox Church's canon for a while, and it is an interesting piece of ancient literature!"

 

[fallingblood]

thanks...is this agreement across the board or is there some sort of debate?

I would say there is agreement across the board. I don't personally know of any scholar who would support its authenticity.

 

[waitasec]

thanks again fallingblood.
hey, have you read "the lost gospels" from ehrman?
i haven't...would you recommend it?

 

[fallingblood]

thanks again fallingblood.
hey, have you read "the lost gospels" from ehrman?
i haven't...would you recommend it?

I have. It is a pretty good book. Well worth the read.

 

[waitasec]

I have. It is a pretty good book. Well worth the read.

ok...i am going to amazon....

 

[sincerly]

I have. It is a pretty good book. Well worth the read.

Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?

 

[waitasec]

perhaps selective scholarship is something one should avoid.

 

[fallingblood]

Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?

Not at all as that is not what I attempt to do. Bart Ehrman is a recognized authority in his field and he writes books that are very accessible. And in many aspects, he says what many other scholars agree with.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?

Not at all as that is not what I attempt to do. Bart Ehrman is a recognized authority in his field and he writes books that are very accessible. And in many aspects, he says what many other scholars agree with.

Is that the reason Erhman decided on "agnosticism"? How is your answer different from that of "agreeing" with him?
Yes, Those "early church fathers" did use scripture to produce "traditions and decrees made by men", which are contrary to the Scriptures( which are still valid).

 

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?



Is that the reason Erhman decided on "agnosticism"? How is your answer different from that of "agreeing" with him?
Yes, Those "early church fathers" did use scripture to produce "traditions and decrees made by men", which are contrary to the Scriptures( which are still valid).

the truths of the bible are merely claims

 

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?



Is that the reason Erhman decided on "agnosticism"? How is your answer different from that of "agreeing" with him?
Yes, Those "early church fathers" did use scripture to produce "traditions and decrees made by men", which are contrary to the Scriptures( which are still valid).

I'm not even sure what you are saying here as it really just seems like an attempt to attack me instead of actually what is addressed in the thread. If that is all you have, please leave me out of it.

 

[sincerly]

the truths of the bible are merely claims

Yes, Claims with merit rather than the theories and opinions of so-called scholars.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, Claims with merit rather than the theories and opinions of so-called scholars.

same can be said about the quran...
the words of buddha
the four vedas of hinduism

and all of these:
Major Scriptures, Religious Texts and Influential Books

so really, what are your boasting about?

 

[sincerly]

same can be said about the quran...
the words of buddha
the four vedas of hinduism

and all of these:
Major Scriptures, Religious Texts and Influential Books

so really, what are your boasting about?

There is no boast in acknowledging that ALL that one sees was made by one Creator GOD. The claims of all others will be just that---unsubstantiated claims.

 

[sincerly]

I'm not even sure what you are saying here as it really just seems like an attempt to attack me instead of actually what is addressed in the thread. If that is all you have, please leave me out of it.

There is no attack to you. But trying to understand your posted reasoning.

 

[waitasec]

There is no attack to you. But trying to understand your posted reasoning.

it os an attack...it's as plain as day...perhaps you need glasses...here, i'll magnify where you just
:foot:

Why? Because you agree with his attempts to cause doubt in the truths of the Bible?

be careful with that axe eugene....

 

[fallingblood]

There is no attack to you. But trying to understand your posted reasoning.

I told you my reasoning. Bart Ehrman is a well respected scholar, and what he says in that book, most scholars, including Christian ones, agree with.