yet another article on tongues
-
yes.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:iS there a third epistle?
not accepted as canonical. -
There are some debate and speculation that 2 Corinthian was originally wriiten as two letters instead of one. This is by noting a change of tone from being previously harmonious to bitterly reproach in 2 Corinthians 10-13. This has led many to speculate that these chapters form another letter which were in some way tagged on to Paul's main letter (ie. third epistle?)Originally posted by Icemoon:yes.
not accepted as canonical.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_to_the_CorinthiansOriginally posted by vince69:There are some debate and speculation that 2 Corinthian was originally wriiten as two letters instead of one. This is by noting a change of tone from being previously harmonious to bitterly reproach in 2 Corinthians 10-13. This has led many to speculate that these chapters form another letter which were in some way tagged on to Paul's main letter (ie. third epistle?) The Third Epistle to the Corinthians is believed to be a pseudepigraphical text under the name of Paul of Tarsus. It originally formed part of the Acts of Paul, from which it was later detached, and was framed as Paul's response to the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul.
In the West it was not considered canonical in the 4th century AD, becoming part of the New Testament apocrypha. In the East, Ephraem of Syria apparently accepted it as canonical, for he wrote a commentary on it, and the Doctrine of Addai includes it, however it was not included in the Syriac Peshitta translation of the Bible (but nor were 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation, which are almost universally recognized as canonical). Although part of the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666, it is not found in the Zohrab Armenian Bible of 1805 which follows the Vulgate canon and it is not currently considered part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament [1]. 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 [2]. In 2000, Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian, Pastor of the Armenian Church of Holy Martyrs in Bayside, New York, published his Fordham University Ph.D. dissertation as Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy, ISBN 0-8204-4527-4.
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. -
I see.... learn something new today, was not aware of this, I had always thought the so called 3rd Corinthian is merged inside as part of 2nd Corinthian, haha ...Originally posted by Icemoon:
Thank you for pointing this out to me ...
cheers... -
haha...
Crazy to re-explain....
-
Actually you are 1/2 correct.Originally posted by vince69:I see.... learn something new today, was not aware of this, I had always thought the so called 3rd Corinthian is merged inside as part of 2nd Corinthian, haha ...
'cos it is merged inside another work - the Acts of Paul. -
ok ...Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually you are 1/2 correct.
'cos it is merged inside another work - the Acts of Paul.
wonder why in the books of Acts which is normally referred to as 'The Acts of the Apostles', reputed to be written by Luke (a constant travel companion of Paul) who was also reputed to have written the book 'The Gospel according to St Luke'. -
vince .. what are you talking about? haha.
-
Yes Luke wrote both books. haha.Originally posted by vince69:ok ...
wonder why in the books of Acts which is normally referred to as 'The Acts of the Apostles', reputed to be written by Luke (a constant travel companion of Paul) who was also reputed to have written the book 'The Gospel according to St Luke'. -
just wonder why put Paul's letter into Acts (susposely written by Luke) instead of one of the many other letters written by Paul himselfOriginally posted by Icemoon:vince .. what are you talking about? haha.
-
when did Paul's letter land up in Acts?Originally posted by vince69:just wonder why put Paul's letter into Acts (susposely written by Luke) instead of one of the many other letters written by Paul himself -
confused?Originally posted by Icemoon:when did Paul's letter land up in Acts?
can sign off for the night and go celebrate liao ... managed to confuse Icemoon (not an easy task, you know) ....
*Hint : "The Acts of the Apostles" vs "The Acts of the Apostle Paul" -
....hai.
-
... haiOriginally posted by M©+square:....hai. -
But those are two different books rite?Originally posted by vince69:confused?
can sign off for the night and go celebrate liao ... managed to confuse Icemoon (not an easy task, you know) ....
*Hint : "The Acts of the Apostles" vs "The Acts of the Apostle Paul"