The Truth About Third Corinthians | The Movie

In this movie PhillipOnWater (Phillip Lebsack) and his co-host PremodernMind (James Dolemen) expose the truth about Paul's lost letter to the Corinthians known as Third Corinthians.
In this movie, Phillip and Dolemen present the evidence from the Early Church about Third Corinthians, including references from early Church fathers, manuscripts, and ancient Syriac Orthodox traditions, among others. They also talk about common misconceptions about the text, and present their new updated English translation of Third Corinthians from the Greek, from their new book on the letter.
0:00 Introduction
1:45 The Acts of Paul
7:25 Evidence for 3rd Corinthians
8:20 St. Ephrem the Syrian
11:00 The modern agenda
12:00 Myth of modernity
13:00 Canon vs. apocrypha
15:00 Armenian Church, St. Gregory the Illuminator
17:25 Why 3rd Corinthians was moved to the appendix
22:10 Ecumenical movement, Different traditions
25:40 Seeing things historically, more on divine providence and "accept everything"
27:30 Bodmer Miscellaneous Papyrus
30:20 The book
33:30 The provenance of the Bodmer Papyrus, St. Pachomius the Great
34:45 Monasticism in Orthodoxy, Monks
38:10 The "Pillars" of evidence
38:50 The Greek text
43:25 Our book as a teaching tool
46:00 Three reasons for writing our book
46:20 Patreon Plug: (The Apostolic Greek Bible project)
50:05 Translation into english
56:20 Dolemen's insights from writing the commentary, why Stephen's letter is Apostolic Scripture
59:40 Paul's use of "flesh," and on wrong assumptions
1:02:50 How Paul establishes Apostolic tradition, Mariology
1:06:05 3rd Corinthians is very "Pauline," more on wrong assumptions
1:10:00 3rd Corinthians is in line with Paul's personality
1:12:15 Paul's amanuenses, private letters, four letters to Corinth, Laodiceans
1:14:30 Why 3rd Corinthians seems "rough"
1:15:50 The flaw of the statistical argument, more on Paul's amanuenses
1:18:48 Refuting Bart Ehrman's criticism of 3rd Corinthians
1:33:10 Adding books to the Bible? Or Protestant canon removing them?
1:34:45 Conclusion
1:36:00 After-thought, 3rd Cor. in early canon-lists
1:36:55 How to support us
1:37:25 End
Please like, subscribe, and share for more content. Help me get to 1000 subscribers. =)
My links:
● Patreon (become a member to see the movie early): / philliponwater
● My books (including 3rd Corinthians): www.lulu.com/search?contribut...
● The Orthodox Understanding Ebook (free): heyzine.com/flip-book/33be7ac...
● Spotify: open.spotify.com/user/31zcpsn...
● Learn Greek/Hebrew with Phill: www.fiverr.com/protagonistp?u...

[@ChineseOrthodoxReading]

Cool!

[@PhillipOnWater]

Thanks Jimmy. lol

[@LoudCry]

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.

[@PhillipOnWater]

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.

[@PhillipOnWater]

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.