*raised hand* Just one question..

[history_geek]

This has bothered me for some time now, so could someone explain this one thing to me? I don't know if I just haven't "got it", or maybe I fell asleep during that part back in elementary theology class (yes, we had those. Creatonists and co. BIG HINT! for you "creatonism" and "inteligent design" humbug "science"...), but why are the letters aledgedly written by the apostols (the corinth, the roman etc. etc.) considered "the word of God" along with the rest of the bible? I mean with remarks such as the one about "long hair on men is an abomination" or something to that effect (*place ANY picture of Jesus here*), and of course you get the ones about homosexuality from there too, so why aren't these just the personal opinnions of these apostols? Why are they considered equally important to the word of God or Jesus? Or am I missing something here? It's just that usually when a fundie takes a quote from the bible against gays or what not, low and behold, it from one of the letters.

So, in three letters: WTF!?

Also, I just found this excelent video about "intelligent design" (those without the sense of humour or who simply dislike mr. Williams, do not bother):

[youtube:2kvg775z]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytTVFwoTZHY[/youtube:2kvg775z]

  Amen.

[LegendarySandwich]

Because they're in the Bible, obviously.

I'm sure Achronos will try to give a more in-depth reason, but I think this is what it ultimately comes down to.

[Achronos]

So what is your one question? Are you questioning the authoriship of the Epistles done by St. Paul? I apologize but I need some clarification.

[LegendarySandwich]

So what is your one question? Are you questioning the authoriship of the Epistles done by St. Paul? I apologize but I need some clarification.

I'm pretty sure that's what he's doing, yep.

[history_geek]

So what is your one question? Are you questioning the authoriship of the Epistles done by St. Paul? I apologize but I need some clarification.

Oh no, my finger is pointed at someone totally different, name a certain guy who had the "briliant" idea of making christianity Rome's state church...

What my question was supposed to be, was about why do these letters have the same autority as the rest of it, as if they just as "divenly inspired" as the rest of bible. If the bible is supposed to be the word of God, why add those in there? Especially if you are trying to interpite the book in a fundametalist way, doesn't it strike at these people as odd that the "infallible word of God" has letters written by humans, apostoles thought they may have been, to their fellow early christians, where they obviosly experess their own opinnions? At that point my head goes: does not compute :hide:

[Thumpalumpacus]

So what is your one question? Are you questioning the authoriship of the Epistles done by St. Paul? I apologize but I need some clarification.

Oh no, my finger is pointed at someone totally different, name a certain guy who had the "briliant" idea of making christianity Rome's state church...

What my question was supposed to be, was about why do these letters have the same autority as the rest of it, as if they just as "divenly inspired" as the rest of bible. If the bible is supposed to be the word of God, why add those in there? Especially if you are trying to interpite the book in a fundametalist way, doesn't it strike at these people as odd that the "infallible word of God" has letters written by humans, apostoles thought they may have been, to their fellow early christians, where they obviosly experess their own opinnions? At that point my head goes: does not compute :hide:

Well, obviously, by the late third century CE, the various churches scattered around the Mediterranean arrived at a rough canon, which was in essence rubber-stamped by human votes at the Council of Nicaea.  And it's obvious that the Church fathers were inerrant, therefore, Paul was speaking for God, and those letters are the Word of God.  QED.

[Achronos]

Oh no, my finger is pointed at someone totally different, name a certain guy who had the "briliant" idea of making christianity Rome's state church...

What guy? And are you referring to the schism which occured in 1054 AD?

What my question was supposed to be, was about why do these letters have the same autority as the rest of it, as if they just as "divenly inspired" as the rest of bible. If the bible is supposed to be the word of God, why add those in there? Especially if you are trying to interpite the book in a fundametalist way, doesn't it strike at these people as odd that the "infallible word of God" has letters written by humans, apostoles thought they may have been, to their fellow early christians, where they obviosly experess their own opinnions? At that point my head goes: does not compute :hide:

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

Also that Robin Williams video had me rolling.

[DJAkuma]

I shouldn't have watched that video at work, I may have peed a little.

[Achronos]

I shouldn't have watched that video at work, I may have peed a little.

Indeed. I'm still laughing at it.

[history_geek]

Oh no, my finger is pointed at someone totally different, name a certain guy who had the "briliant" idea of making christianity Rome's state church...

What guy? And are you referring to the schism which occured in 1054 AD?

Nope, I meant Constantine who not only claimed a miracle victory over his enemies thanks to the christian God, organized the whole First Council of Nicaea and made christianty from a hunted outcast religion in to the only religion in the Empire. And I'm "pointing the finger", because I think he along with rest of rotten carcass that was the Roman Empire made a very good job on warping christianity and the catholic church especially in its own image...

What my question was supposed to be, was about why do these letters have the same autority as the rest of it, as if they just as "divenly inspired" as the rest of bible. If the bible is supposed to be the word of God, why add those in there? Especially if you are trying to interpite the book in a fundametalist way, doesn't it strike at these people as odd that the "infallible word of God" has letters written by humans, apostoles thought they may have been, to their fellow early christians, where they obviosly experess their own opinnions? At that point my head goes: does not compute :hide:

Well if you are looking for a fundamentalist answer, you'll have to wait for AnimatedDirt or gsaint to respond; that's not in my realm to discuss.

Also that Robin Williams video had me rolling.

Yes, that bit was really good, but the one about Viagra in the same live show (Weapons of Self Destruction) almost had me fall from my chair. Simple because I almost passed out after laughing so hard that I couldn't breath.  :yay:

[Achronos]

Oh no, my finger is pointed at someone totally different, name a certain guy who had the "briliant" idea of making christianity Rome's state church...

What guy? And are you referring to the schism which occured in 1054 AD?

Nope, I meant Constantine who not only claimed a miracle victory over his enemies thanks to the christian God, organized the whole First Council of Nicaea and made christianty from a hunted outcast religion in to the only religion in the Empire. And I'm "pointing the finger", because I think he along with rest of rotten carcass that was the Roman Empire made a very good job on warping christianity and the catholic church especially in its own image...

Well actually Constantine legalized Christianity in the Empire, not declare it as the only religion. He protected the Christians from being persecuted and all other religions that worshipped a deity. I'm not sure where you get the idea he was a playing in "warping christianity", that seems rather odd because of him bringing the bishops together for the first council of Nicea to discuss the heresy of Arianism.

[history_geek]

Well actually Constantine legalized Christianity in the Empire, not declare it as the only religion. He protected the Christians from being persecuted and all other religions that worshipped a deity. I'm not sure where you get the idea he was a playing in "warping christianity", that seems rather odd because of him bringing the bishops together for the first council of Nicea to discuss the heresy of Arianism.

Hmm, I was sure it was Constantine who made christianity into the only religion...well, I apoligize if I rememberd wrongly.

Bringing the bishops together was exactly how he warped it. He made the ground work for christianitys change from a religious sect into a political tool (among other things), for his own gain, and beyond...

[Recusant]

Well, obviously, by the late third century CE, the various churches scattered around the Mediterranean arrived at a rough canon, which was in essence rubber-stamped by human votes at the Council of Nicaea. And it's obvious that the Church fathers were inerrant, therefore, Paul was speaking for God, and those letters are the Word of God. QED.

I'm a little hesitant about this, because I think I already managed to kill off one thread with my pedantry on this topic  (I may go back one day and try to necro that thread, it calls to me in the wee hours of the morning sometimes)...

There is no evidence that the canon was discussed at all at the Council of Nicea (325), which was essentially convened to deal with the Arian heresy.  The first document which gives what would become the official canon was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria's Easter Letter (Festal Letter 39) of 367.  Then in 382, the Council of Rome met and formally agreed upon the official canon of the Bible.  Later, the Council of Carthage in 397 also issued an official canon.

Of course these were not the first canons.  Irenaeus had condemned certain gnostic writings and promoted what he thought were "true" books earlier, and indeed Constantine commissioned a version of the Bible in the same era as the Council of Nicea. Some think that the Codex Vaticanus is one of those Bibles, but the evidence is not conclusive. I'm not sure where the idea that the Council of Nicea issued an official canon of the Bible first arose, but it was widely spread by that impeccable scholar Dan Brown.  One can read a brief breakdown of what Mr. Brown got right and what he didn't regarding the Council of Nicea here.  

Sorry for being such a hairsplitter; my excuse is that this thread was started by a person going by the name of history_geek.  Speaking of which, hello and welcome to HAF, history_geek.  Thank you for that Robin Williams video.  

[history_geek]

Well, obviously, by the late third century CE, the various churches scattered around the Mediterranean arrived at a rough canon, which was in essence rubber-stamped by human votes at the Council of Nicaea. And it's obvious that the Church fathers were inerrant, therefore, Paul was speaking for God, and those letters are the Word of God. QED.

I'm a little hesitant about this, because I think I already managed to kill off one thread with my pedantry on this topic  (I may go back one day and try to necro that thread, it calls to me in the wee hours of the morning sometimes)...

There is no evidence that the canon was discussed at all at the Council of Nicea (325), which was essentially convened to deal with the Arian heresy.  The first document which gives what would become the official canon was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria's Easter Letter (Festal Letter 39) of 367.  Then in 382, the Council of Rome met and formally agreed upon the official canon of the Bible.  Later, the Council of Carthage in 397 also issued an official canon.

Of course these were not the first canons.  Irenaeus had condemned certain gnostic writings and promoted what he thought were "true" books earlier, and indeed Constantine commissioned a version of the Bible in the same era as the Council of Nicea. Some think that the Codex Vaticanus is one of those Bibles, but the evidence is not conclusive. I'm not sure where the idea that the Council of Nicea issued an official canon of the Bible first arose, but it was widely spread by that impeccable scholar Dan Brown.  One can read a brief breakdown of what Mr. Brown got right and what he didn't regarding the Council of Nicea here.  

Sorry for being such a hairsplitter; my excuse is that this thread was started by a person going by the name of history_geek.  Speaking of which, hello and welcome to HAF, history_geek.  Thank you for that Robin Williams video.  

And yes, I spent last night watching the whole show, and as soon as I saw that part, I knew I'd have to post it. It's just so perfect  

Also, thanks for the facts and the link. Most interesting reads.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, obviously, by the late third century CE, the various churches scattered around the Mediterranean arrived at a rough canon, which was in essence rubber-stamped by human votes at the Council of Nicaea. And it's obvious that the Church fathers were inerrant, therefore, Paul was speaking for God, and those letters are the Word of God. QED.

I'm a little hesitant about this, because I think I already managed to kill off one thread with my pedantry on this topic  (I may go back one day and try to necro that thread, it calls to me in the wee hours of the morning sometimes)...

There is no evidence that the canon was discussed at all at the Council of Nicea (325), which was essentially convened to deal with the Arian heresy.  The first document which gives what would become the official canon was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria's Easter Letter (Festal Letter 39) of 367.  Then in 382, the Council of Rome met and formally agreed upon the official canon of the Bible.  Later, the Council of Carthage in 397 also issued an official canon.

Of course these were not the first canons.  Irenaeus had condemned certain gnostic writings and promoted what he thought were "true" books earlier, and indeed Constantine commissioned a version of the Bible in the same era as the Council of Nicea. Some think that the Codex Vaticanus is one of those Bibles, but the evidence is not conclusive. I'm not sure where the idea that the Council of Nicea issued an official canon of the Bible first arose, but it was widely spread by that impeccable scholar Dan Brown.  One can read a brief breakdown of what Mr. Brown got right and what he didn't regarding the Council of Nicea here.  

Sorry for being such a hairsplitter; my excuse is that this thread was started by a person going by the name of history_geek.  Speaking of which, hello and welcome to HAF, history_geek.  Thank you for that Robin Williams video.  

I stand corrected, thanks.  The point that the canon was assembled by men still stands, though.