waitasec
Veteran Member
No insinuation----as you have posted.
ignorance is bliss
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No insinuation----as you have posted.
ignorance is bliss
I'll take your word as someone who should know.
no one knows less than the one who knows it all...
:spit:
good.
now what were you saying?
what about he parts that are not truth and known mythology
does anyone have the right to question what many percieve as fiction and fantasy??
You said it all.
how do you know that?
Well, you may have more the say concerning the Topic---which I'm not.
huh???
except for one thing
question everything...
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
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".