Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "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.

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:

Quote from: "history_geek"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "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?

QuoteWhat 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.

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

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I shouldn't have watched that video at work, I may have peed a little.

Indeed. I'm still laughing at it.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "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...

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "history_geek"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:

Quote from: "history_geek"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "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...

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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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...

Quote from: ThumpalumpacusWell, 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 (http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm).  

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.  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm).  

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.  :P

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.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm).  

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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I stand corrected, thanks.  The point that the canon was assembled by men still stands, though.

There was a 60 year gap between the Synod of Laodicea and the Synod of Carthage. The Lacodicean Synod opened the canon and the finazlized canon wasn't closed until the Carthage Synod which took place in 419AD. The texts of the Holy Bible are ecclesiastic texts, not simple literary texts.

Regarding assmbled by men professor John Romanides explains: “From the Orthodox viewpoint, that which makes the text divinely inspired is not the original words themselves, but the interpretation of those words by those who have attained theosis; because, no matter how accurate the text may be to the original, in the hands of those without theosis and outside the Church, its interpretation will be worthless. Even if they were given the very manuscripts of the prophets and the apostles to read and to study, the grand mystery of piety will still remain concealed from them; this is because the text per se is not that which is divinely inspired. Only the author is divinely inspired, when having attained theosis; or, divinely inspired can be the writings pertaining to someone who attained theosis, provided these texts are interpreted by someone who has attained theosis."

OK, let's look at this issue.  Writing of the Council of Laodicea, bible-researcher.com (http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html) has this to say:

QuoteThe authenticity of paragraph 60 below has been doubted by many scholars because it is absent from various manuscripts containing the decrees of the regional (Galatian) Council of Laodicea. The list may have been added later. On the omission of Revelation see Cyril of Jerusalem (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html).

In any event, even if one accepts that the 60th canon issued by the Council of Laodicea is authentic, there is still a difference between it's list and the one produced by the Council of Rome, namely the 1st does not include the Apocalypse, the 2nd does.

Quote60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

QuoteFrom Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon (http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html):

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."

I note that the Protestants don't accept this canon as authoritative, preferring the one issued by the Council of Carthage. Maybe it's simply that they don't want to have something which had come from Rome (gasp!) dictating what is their official canon.  I'm wondering why you Achronos, who if I recall correctly, believes that the Apocalypse is canonical, would wish to accept the authority of the Council of Laodicea's list, with it's disputed authenticity, over that issued by the Council of Rome.

QuoteI was sure it was Constantine who made christianity into the only religion...

You can thank Theodosius for that. He made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE. He also was the one who ordered the massacre of 7,000 men, women, and children in Thessalonica in 390 CE and he banned the Olympic games in 393 CE because he considered them pagan. Great Emperor...  

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

This is based on...?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

This is based on...?

 Our Orthodox member got himself a week's vacation from this den of vipers for doing something similar in another thread.  Personally, from what you've written during your time here, AnimatedDirt, I wouldn't have said that you exhibited fundamentalist traits.  If I were asked to guess, I would have thought something more along the lines of United Methodist or possibly Episcopalian.  I'm not asking you to confirm or deny any affiliation; it's just a light-hearted guess, as I said. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

This is based on...?

 Our Orthodox member got himself a week's vacation from this den of vipers for doing something similar in another thread.  Personally, from what you've written during your time here, AnimatedDirt, I wouldn't have said that you exhibited fundamentalist traits.  If I were asked to guess, I would have thought something more along the lines of United Methodist or possibly Episcopalian.  I'm not asking you to confirm or deny any affiliation; it's just a light-hearted guess, as I said. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Fundamentalist Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity)

I've already discussed my specific belief system within Christianity...if you want to know, search the forum or simply ask Whitney.  One might conclude fundamentalism knowing this information.

Regardless of this, the connotation of "fundamentalist" has serious implications within and outside of Christianity given the above link.  I'm now having to wait on Achronos' reasoning.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I stand corrected, thanks.  The point that the canon was assembled by men still stands, though.

There was a 60 year gap between the Synod of Laodicea and the Synod of Carthage. The Lacodicean Synod opened the canon and the finazlized canon wasn't closed until the Carthage Synod which took place in 419AD. The texts of the Holy Bible are ecclesiastic texts, not simple literary texts.

Regarding assmbled by men professor John Romanides explains: “From the Orthodox viewpoint, that which makes the text divinely inspired is not the original words themselves, but the interpretation of those words by those who have attained theosis; because, no matter how accurate the text may be to the original, in the hands of those without theosis and outside the Church, its interpretation will be worthless. Even if they were given the very manuscripts of the prophets and the apostles to read and to study, the grand mystery of piety will still remain concealed from them; this is because the text per se is not that which is divinely inspired. Only the author is divinely inspired, when having attained theosis; or, divinely inspired can be the writings pertaining to someone who attained theosis, provided these texts are interpreted by someone who has attained theosis."

See, this is different from the view I was raised with, which was that the Bible, though written by men, was written under the guidance of the Spirit.

This view, by the way, is at the root of most American fundamentalism.

Quote from: "Recusant"OK, let's look at this issue.
I note that the Protestants don't accept this canon as authoritative, preferring the one issued by the Council of Carthage. Maybe it's simply that they don't want to have something which had come from Rome (gasp!) dictating what is their official canon.  I'm wondering why you Achronos, who if I recall correctly, believes that the Apocalypse is canonical, would wish to accept the authority of the Council of Laodicea's list, with it's disputed authenticity, over that issued by the Council of Rome.

Apocalypse of St John has always generated controversy, and it's something that the Orthodox Church does not use as part of the lectionary. The 60 year from the opening of Laodicea and the closure of Carthage was a time to assemble the Bible canoncially and seperate from the New Testament apocrypha.

There is no doubt that the Bishops who were assembled to have authority over what should be included in the Bible and not, knew the inconsistencies with the Gospels, Epistles of Paul etc. Like I quoted above, someone must be in that state of theosis for that interpretation to be consistent. If you want proof on how important that is, look at all the Protestant denominations who all hold to the Bible, yet have so many doctrinal disputes. The problem also comes with rationalizing and explaining away the obvious problems the New Testament has.

Good thing my faith isn't based on the Bible, otherwise I'd be in serious trouble.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

This is based on...?

Just a lighthearted jab, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

This is based on...?

Just a lighthearted jab, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Gotcha.