does anyone know about paul's 3rd

[sincerly]

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.

Hi Shermana, your link to the wikipedia didn't copy.
I don't know why you think that site is any better than the comments seen on these forums. Those "editors" are from the same varied make-up of beliefs as is seen here. As far as being an "editor" for that site, one has to comply to the WP_RULES.
I'll stick to Isa.8:20 verifying truth from error.

Personally, The Scriptures prophesied the "falling away from the truth and the teachings" of the Jesus Christ by those who claimed to believe The Messages given/taught. ---Those very same "early church fathers".

I believe that the Holy Spirit lead in the final complilation of all the Sciritual writings from GOD into one book---the Bible.

A 3rd epistle apparently would not give any other princples than those which the Holy spirit inspired anyway. (The complete plan of salvation is seen and understood by the 66 books included in the Bible presently).

The argument over what GOD has said has been from the entrance of that snake/Satan into the Garden----and will continue to the end of time.

All will accept or deny GOD'S Principles just as Adam and Eve did. That freedom of Choice will continue to the end of time----even with the threat of death.

 

[NIX]

Paul's 3rd? :flirt: It's so scandalous they burried it.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, your link to the wikipedia didn't copy.
I don't know why you think that site is any better than the comments seen on these forums. Those "editors" are from the same varied make-up of beliefs as is seen here. As far as being an "editor" for that site, one has to comply to the WP_RULES.
I'll stick to Isa.8:20 verifying truth from error.

Personally, The Scriptures prophesied the "falling away from the truth and the teachings" of the Jesus Christ by those who claimed to believe The Messages given/taught. ---Those very same "early church fathers".

I believe that the Holy Spirit lead in the final complilation of all the Sciritual writings from GOD into one book---the Bible.

A 3rd epistle apparently would not give any other princples than those which the Holy spirit inspired anyway. (The complete plan of salvation is seen and understood by the 66 books included in the Bible presently).

The argument over what GOD has said has been from the entrance of that snake/Satan into the Garden----and will continue to the end of time.

All will accept or deny GOD'S Principles just as Adam and Eve did. That freedom of Choice will continue to the end of time----even with the threat of death.

I admit that Wikipedia doesn't always present an accurate and unbiased account by any stretch, especially on touchy Religious issues of which some pages are well known for the talk pages that are vastly longer than the article itself, in this case, it is the general opinion and a good summation of what is said about it.

With that said, how does anything you said in any way prove a concrete answer as to why the Armenians and such were wrong in including it as canon? You might want to consider basing your argument that they are wrong and the original canon authors were right with logic. Furthermore, I don't agree that the entire Canon had the Spirit inspiring it.

As it stands, the reasons for excluding 3 Corinthians are shoddy and can apply to much of the NT.

Going by Isaiah 8:20, you should exclude all of Paul's works (according to your interpretation of them), since they don't agree with the Law and the Testimony.

 

[sincerly]

I admit that Wikipedia doesn't always present an accurate and unbiased account by any stretch, especially on touchy Religious issues of which some pages are well known for the talk pages that are vastly longer than the article itself, in this case, it is the general opinion and a good summation of what is said about it.

With that said, how does anything you said in any way prove a concrete answer as to why the Armenians and such were wrong in including it as canon? You might want to consider basing your argument that they are wrong and the original canon authors were right with logic. Furthermore, I don't agree that the entire Canon had the Spirit inspiring it.

Hi Shermana, Where to start answering this post---we both agree that Wikipedia is "not quite true"--to put it mildly. Sure on non-controversial matters there is that which the "editors" would seem to be portraying as the entire scope of the "SITE". However, On the things people question, there is that covering which is used "Symbolic Narrative".

"With this case" you want an exception,...that their argument just might be correct in having a valid third letter that should be included in the Canon.
However, that argument COULD BE used to insert erroneous teachings into GOD'S HOLY WORD AS TRUTH.
Have you seen the teachings of the Armenians? I Haven't. But, I assure you that since they aren't included, It was the Holy Spirit's inspiration that prevented the inclusion. Just as with the books of Gad and Nathan.(Which were true).

As it stands, the reasons for excluding 3 Corinthians are shoddy and can apply to much of the NT.

Going by Isaiah 8:20, you should exclude all of Paul's works (according to your interpretation of them), since they don't agree with the Law and the Testimony.

Are you saying that it was "shoddy" of GOD(The Holy Spirit) not to include all of those prophets who were mentioned, but not included in the OT writings??

Sorry! But Paul was writing and teaching the things of the "Law and Testimonies" as the test of truth. On his way to prison and death, Paul made this statement: Acts24:14, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets":

And Acts17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
That was the OT Scriptures which were searched----and verified as true teachings.