You made "the movie" for me! 🎉 By the way, I don't know any Greek. Only that the Armenian Acts of Paul included the epistle. However, thanks for elaborating on the Armenian church. Why do you cite Gregory as the founder of the Armenian church, when we have such an early apocryphal attestation of the presence of the church beforehand? Perhaps you can qualify it for clarity sake. I'm still listening, but does this speak more specifically why the Acts should be invalidated? Also, concerning Thecla (as controversial a figure as that may be), which was a highly esteemed figure in the church. Another question. Concerning Ephrem the Syrian. He wrote, or at least has been pseudonomously attributed, a great abundance of writings. It does seem that he draws upon an abundance of apocryphal and Rabbinic sources. Does that validate these writings, by way of having discernment? Whatever the case, enjoying the presentation thus far.
Hi LoudCry. Glad you liked it... Assuming those claims are true, here are my responses: "Armenian Christianity predates St. Gregory..." 1) St. Gregory caused the nation to accept Christianity, and had a huge influence on the Church there. So, its like, there were people in America before the founding-fathers, but you cannot say there was a nation there until the founding-fathers appear and do what they do. Consider that analogy. "Should the Acts of Paul be invalidated?... What about Thecla?" 2) I'm not making an argument for or against the Acts of Paul. You can put that issue aside for the time being. You don't need to accept it to accept Third Corinthians. And this goes both ways. You don't need to accept Third Corinthians to accept the Acts of Paul, either. Third Corinthians is a completely separate composition that is only associated with those Acts at a later date. Whether or not you want to accept the Acts of Paul is a separate issue entirely. That's the point. People are confusing two separate questions into one. It would be like me writing a book about Philemon, and a later editor of my book includes the whole book of Philemon in my bigger book about it. You don't have to accept my bigger book to accept Philemon. Nor do you have to accept Philemon per se to accept my bigger book. These are two separate issues. But people have completely erred. Because for many people, due to lack of good research, I think, assume the Acts of Paul and Third Corinthians are one. This is simply not true. It's simply incorrect... Let me state it more clearly for anyone else reading these comments: It is an error to assume Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul are one. A later editor of the Acts of Paul inserted Third Corinthians into those Acts. It is a false association. "St. Ephrem draws from some questionable stuff though." 3) Paul quotes pagan poets. But you and I both know Jude quoting 1 Enoch in the way he does means 1 Enoch is Scripture. The point is *how* the author is using the source. St. Ephrem treats Third Corinthians like the rest of the New Testament. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis. There isn't a sweeping generalization that works for anything, if you want to be accurate. I hope that helps. Would you provide some references to pre-St. Gregory Christianity in Armenia? And some references to St. Ephrem referencing rabbinical literature and apocryphal texts you think we should disagree with? I would be very interested to see that. Thanks for the comment brother. Hope all is well over there. Peace.
Or another more radical (but still analogous) example might be, imagine someone made an edition of Shakespeare and combined it with the Gospels... Do you have to accept Shakespeare to accept the Gospels? Do you have to accept the Gospels to accept the Shakespeare? The answer is certainly "no" to both questions. For my purposes here, it is irrelevant to ask if we should accept Acts of Paul or not. I do think it is a good question. But I don't want it to be a hindrance to people coming to Third Corinthians as the truth. It is a good question. And I will do more with it in the future.
You made "the movie" for me! 🎉 By the way, I don't know any Greek. Only that the Armenian Acts of Paul included the epistle. However, thanks for elaborating on the Armenian church. Why do you cite Gregory as the founder of the Armenian church, when we have such an early apocryphal attestation of the presence of the church beforehand? Perhaps you can qualify it for clarity sake.
I'm still listening, but does this speak more specifically why the Acts should be invalidated? Also, concerning Thecla (as controversial a figure as that may be), which was a highly esteemed figure in the church.
Another question. Concerning Ephrem the Syrian. He wrote, or at least has been pseudonomously attributed, a great abundance of writings. It does seem that he draws upon an abundance of apocryphal and Rabbinic sources. Does that validate these writings, by way of having discernment?
Whatever the case, enjoying the presentation thus far.
Hi LoudCry. Glad you liked it...
Assuming those claims are true, here are my responses:
"Armenian Christianity predates St. Gregory..."
1) St. Gregory caused the nation to accept Christianity, and had a huge influence on the Church there. So, its like, there were people in America before the founding-fathers, but you cannot say there was a nation there until the founding-fathers appear and do what they do. Consider that analogy.
"Should the Acts of Paul be invalidated?... What about Thecla?"
2) I'm not making an argument for or against the Acts of Paul. You can put that issue aside for the time being. You don't need to accept it to accept Third Corinthians. And this goes both ways. You don't need to accept Third Corinthians to accept the Acts of Paul, either. Third Corinthians is a completely separate composition that is only associated with those Acts at a later date. Whether or not you want to accept the Acts of Paul is a separate issue entirely. That's the point. People are confusing two separate questions into one.
It would be like me writing a book about Philemon, and a later editor of my book includes the whole book of Philemon in my bigger book about it. You don't have to accept my bigger book to accept Philemon. Nor do you have to accept Philemon per se to accept my bigger book. These are two separate issues.
But people have completely erred. Because for many people, due to lack of good research, I think, assume the Acts of Paul and Third Corinthians are one. This is simply not true. It's simply incorrect...
Let me state it more clearly for anyone else reading these comments: It is an error to assume Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul are one. A later editor of the Acts of Paul inserted Third Corinthians into those Acts. It is a false association.
"St. Ephrem draws from some questionable stuff though."
3) Paul quotes pagan poets. But you and I both know Jude quoting 1 Enoch in the way he does means 1 Enoch is Scripture. The point is *how* the author is using the source. St. Ephrem treats Third Corinthians like the rest of the New Testament. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis. There isn't a sweeping generalization that works for anything, if you want to be accurate.
I hope that helps. Would you provide some references to pre-St. Gregory Christianity in Armenia? And some references to St. Ephrem referencing rabbinical literature and apocryphal texts you think we should disagree with? I would be very interested to see that.
Thanks for the comment brother. Hope all is well over there. Peace.
Or another more radical (but still analogous) example might be, imagine someone made an edition of Shakespeare and combined it with the Gospels... Do you have to accept Shakespeare to accept the Gospels? Do you have to accept the Gospels to accept the Shakespeare? The answer is certainly "no" to both questions. For my purposes here, it is irrelevant to ask if we should accept Acts of Paul or not. I do think it is a good question. But I don't want it to be a hindrance to people coming to Third Corinthians as the truth. It is a good question. And I will do more with it in the future.
Cool!
Thanks Jimmy. lol