Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[SpyderByte]

Thank you. What we have here is a relatively developed doctrine which, although in a current process of redefinition by some individuals in the Catholic Church, does represent the traditional view. That said, the fully develop doctrine of Purgatory as expressed in the Catechism has an extremely weak basis in the DC.

Job offered sacrifices for his children while they were alive, not after they were dead.

Job 1:4 His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.

Exactly where in the DC does it state, "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."?

You'll probably get the story where the Jews offered prayers and alms for the idolatrous soldiers. Although idolatry is a mortal sin in the rcc anyway, so it doesn't really help their case.( 2 Maccabees 39-46)

 

[MoreCoffee]

You'll probably get the story where the Jews offered prayers and alms for the idolatrous soldiers. Although idolatry is a mortal sin in the rcc anyway, so it doesn't really help their case.( 2 Maccabees 39-46)

Is this a serious objection in your opinion?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Where does that say that Peter was the apostle ONLY to the circumcision? I don't see that as an exclusive reference at all.

Why twist my words, or the words of the holy scriptures?

The holy scriptures are perfectly clear in teaching us that God worked effectually in Peter for the Apostleship of the Circumcision, just as He worked mightily in Paul toward the Gentiles. (See Galatians 2:8)

His letters reflect this as well as he writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, because that is his ministry.

Also, why would the LORD raise up Paul to go to the Gentiles when He already had TWELVE Apostles of the Circumcision ready to go?

That's extra credit if you're up for it.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Rome's biggest fish to fry by far is their belief that they're now Israel and that this is the kingdom of God. Amillennialism will be their slow death as we see that day approaching.

It's that massive elephant in the room that many pretend isn't really there.

But believe me, any Christian with half an ounce of understanding knows better. and it's sad really that so many just blindly follow this billion dollar industry like it's the real wheat or something..?

Did I say that out loud?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Rome's biggest fish to fry by far is their belief that they're now Israel and that this is the kingdom of God. Amillennialism will be their slow death as we see that day approaching

That's not a Roman Catholic thing. That's a normative Christian thing. The same way most Christians believe in the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union--it's just what most Christians have always believed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ThatTrueLight]

it's just what most Christians have always believed.

-CryptoLutheran

How can you be so sure? Can you speak for all Christians and the beliefs which they hold to or not?

Sounds like you're the spokesman for all Christian belief here.

There's no doubt in my mind that the church of God isn't Israel and that this isn't the kingdom of God.

I got Paul's letter to the church in Rome, and believe what it says about Israel being blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in and how that they're enemies as concerning the gospel and beloved in God's election.

So in light of that simple truth, why would any Christian want to remain ignorant of this and become wise in their own conceits?

 

[ViaCrucis]

How can you be so sure? Can you speak for all Christians and the beliefs which they hold to or not?

Sounds like you're the spokesman for all Christian belief here.

I'm aware of what the Christian Church has taught consistently throughout the last two thousand years, which is why I can say what I said.

There's no doubt in my mind that the church of God isn't Israel and that this isn't the kingdom of God.

And there is no doubt in Scripture that in Christ Jew and Gentile are, together, one new people in Christ and that what God began with Abraham He fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That Christ preached not a Maccabean-style kingdom of power, but the reign of God that was breaking into the world through Christ healing the blind and the lame, and that when He ascended He took up His throne at the right hand of the Father where He now reigns until He comes again and hands all things over to the Father. On these matters Scripture is clear.

I got Paul's letter to the church in Rome, and believe what it says about Israel being blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in and how that they're enemies as concerning the gospel and beloved in God's election.

But you don't seem to believe what Paul says as it pertains to the universal mercy of God to Jew and Gentile equally (which is the whole point of Romans 11) and that it is Christ that matters, or what the Apostle has written elsewhere in his epistles concerning our unity in Christ. Christ is Abraham's Seed, and we in Christ are Abraham's offspring, and in Christ the Gentiles have been grafted into the tree which is Israel. All of this Paul says.

So in light of that simple truth, why would any Christian want to remain ignorant of this and become wise in their own conceits?

That is an excellent question. Given the simple truth of the Gospel, why would any Christian want to remain ignorant of what the Gospel means and says and believe something else entirely?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ThatTrueLight]

I'm aware of what the Christian Church has taught consistently throughout the last two thousand years, which is why I can say what I said.

Well if you'd like to believe that you can be the spokesman for the entire body of Christ then I guess it's not very surprising.

And there is no doubt in Scripture that in Christ Jew and Gentile are, together, one new people in Christ and that what God began with Abraham He fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

That's right, a new creation in Christ.. so how do you get Israelites out of that if there is neither Jew or Gentile in Christ?

That Christ preached not a Maccabean-style kingdom of power, but the reign of God that was breaking into the world through Christ healing the blind and the lame, and that when He ascended He took up His throne at the right hand of the Father where He now reigns until He comes again and hands all things over to the Father. On these matters Scripture is clear.

Like how it's clear in John 18 that His kingdom is not of this world? I know, you're going to make it say the exact opposite. I see it all the time.

But you don't seem to believe what Paul says as it pertains to the universal mercy of God to Jew and Gentile equally (which is the whole point of Romans 11) and that it is Christ that matters, or what the Apostle has written elsewhere in his epistles concerning our unity in Christ. Christ is Abraham's Seed, and we in Christ are Abraham's offspring, and in Christ the Gentiles have been grafted into the tree which is Israel. All of this Paul says.

Many people mistakenly believe that the church is grafted into Israel, although if you paid attention you'd remember that Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The church is in Christ, where there is neither Jew or Gentile. That's if you actually believe the word of God.

That is an excellent question. Given the simple truth of the Gospel, why would any Christian want to remain ignorant of what the Gospel means and says and believe something else entirely?

Because that's what the self proclaimed infallible ones teach to the masses. They don't know any better so they must believe what they say pretty much.

It's not complicated, Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in and they're enemies as concerning the gospel and beloved in God's elective purpose.

Of course ignoring this simple truth results in exactly what Paul says, that men will be becomes wise in their own conceits.

 

[Rick Otto]

That's not a Roman Catholic thing. That's a normative Christian thing. The same way most Christians believe in the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union--it's just what most Christians have always believed.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe you've over-generalized.
It took a considerable while for most Christians to form an opinion on the trinity, and come up with the term "hypostatic union".

 

[Albion]

I believe you've over-generalized.
It took a considerable while for most Christians to form an opinion on the trinity, and come up with the term "hypostatic union".

While Via Crucis is surely one of the best informed of the posters here, I too was surprised to read that misstatement and it almost jumped off the page at me .

 

[Rick Otto]

That is an excellent question. Given the simple truth of the Gospel, why would any Christian want to remain ignorant of what the Gospel means and says and believe something else entirely?

Because they already think that they know it all, and that they alone are annointed to do so?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Because they already think that they know it all, and that they alone are annointed to do so?

It could be the root of it so to speak; and the Apostle to the Gentiles does warn the church of God in Rome to not be ignorant (meaning to ignore something important usually, even willfully), of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits..

Isn't that serious to people who believe the word of God?

Is ignoring it going to somehow make it go away?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Rome's biggest fish to fry by far is their belief that they're now Israel and that this is the kingdom of God. Amillennialism will be their slow death as we see that day approaching

That's not a Roman Catholic thing. That's a normative Christian thing. The same way most Christians believe in the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union--it's just what most Christians have always believed.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe you've over-generalized.
It took a considerable while for most Christians to form an opinion on the trinity, and come up with the term "hypostatic union".

While Via Crucis is surely one of the best informed of the posters here, I too was surprised to read that misstatement and it almost jumped off the page at me .

I think ViaCrucis is right. It appears that denying what he has averred likely was a 19th century (maybe an 18th century) error that has spread among some denominations and independent groups.

The church as Israel is present in holy scripture, is it not?

For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision prevails in any way, but instead there is a new creature. And whoever follows this rule: may peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16)

 

[Rick Otto]

I think ViaCrucis is right. It appears that denying what he has averred likely was a 19th century (maybe an 18th century) error that has spread among some denominations and independent groups.

The church as Israel is present in holy scripture, is it not?

For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision prevails in any way, but instead there is a new creature. And whoever follows this rule: may peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16)

Not literally.
It isn't even possible for most Christians to have had universally uniform beliefs in especially the trinity, especially at the beginning.

I have to admit, though... it is a comforting myth.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On


This thread has undergone a cleanup. If your post is missing that is the reason. I remind everyone not to flame/goad each other. Address the post not the poster please. Thank you and play nice now.


Mod Hat Off
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
I have to admit, though... it is a comforting myth.

Some sceptics say that of the whole of Christianity.

 

[fhansen]

The basic Catholic teachings impress me from the get-go. Catholicism teaches that God, Who is love, loves man with an ineffable passion, and that He wants nothing less than sheer, boundless happiness for man, for all men. He wants us to share in His own beatitude-in His happiness, and He’s glorified as this happens, as we come into alignment with His will, which He nonetheless won’t force upon us. Unless the doctrines of a church or denomination teach this primary truth, they aren't even on first base; they fail to understand the basic nature and will of God to begin with. And yet, even with Scripture alone, some of these truths are missed, or not well understood.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some sceptics say that of the whole of Christianity.

I wouldn't want to deny comforting myths their appropriate value, but I wouldn't want my understanding of reality to remain limited by them.

I was thinking today about your not wanting to get into epistemology with me on one of the subject of knowing regarding one's election. I was willing to formulate an answer anchored to whatever you were willing to give me.

Bear with me,... these myths act to provide a bridge over troubling areas of whatever narrative we are believing. It's an observation of behaviour dynamics, not a value judgement I'm making. It doesn't discredit what's morally valuable about the narrative, even if it doesn't support a realistic assessment of historical facts.
But people commonly equate the historical reality of what they believe with the moral value of it. And while that distinction has significance on other levels, or in another sense (however we say it), the absoluteness of, the unchanging aspect of , the eternal thing about moral truth is... seen in the consistency of it operating in ceaselessly changing external circumstances.
This is what I meant by "The more things change, the more they remain the same". I think Solomon was saying basically the same when he said,'There's nothing new under the sun.'
Btw, thanks for the conversation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wouldn't want to deny comforting myths their appropriate value, but I wouldn't want my understanding of reality to remain limited by them.

I was thinking today about your not wanting to get into epistemology with me on one of the subject of knowing regarding one's election. I was willing to formulate an answer anchored to whatever you were willing to give me.

Bear with me,... these myths act to provide a bridge over troubling areas of whatever narrative we are believing. It's an observation of behaviour dynamics, not a value judgement I'm making. It doesn't discredit what's morally valuable about the narrative, even if it doesn't support a realistic assessment of historical facts.

But people commonly equate the historical reality of what they believe with the moral value of it. And while that distinction has significance on other levels, or in another sense (however we say it), the absoluteness of, the unchanging aspect of , the eternal thing about moral truth is... seen in the consistency of it operating in ceaselessly changing external circumstances.

This is what I meant by "The more things change, the more they remain the same". I think Solomon was saying basically the same when he said,'There's nothing new under the sun.'

Btw, thanks for the conversation.

I like to think of the stories in holy scripture and the narrative we create about church history as a perspective more than a myth but myth is not too objectionable a term. It's not always easy to know what is meant when somebody says "it is a comforting myth." Sometimes that means "it's a little childish" or something similar but now that you've explained your intended meaning it is better than saying that "it's childish".

By the way, the way inner narratives work seems to be first come the moral values and then come the narratives to reinforce it. I think that is at least partly true of religion and it certainly appears to be true of politics.

On history as fact I think it's important to admit that history isn't so much fact as an attempt to create a coherent explanation of the facts or some of the facts we possess about the past. In religion the facts are always mixed in with morals because religious history is so deeply intertwined with morality and values like truth and goodness that the facts are very difficult to extract from the moral-narrative that entangles them. For example, the gospels are sometimes presented as history when in fact they are more of a memoir that is intended to tell of the goodness of God and the wonder of Jesus Christ the Lord. And those who have tried to get to the "historical Jesus" allegedly behind the stories in the memoirs usually come off, in the eyes of those who read them critically, as sceptics or cynics.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The basic Catholic teachings impress me from the get-go. Catholicism teaches that God, Who is love, loves man with an ineffable passion, and that He wants nothing less than sheer, boundless happiness for man, for all men. He wants us to share in His own beatitude-in His happiness, and He’s glorified as this happens, as we come into alignment with His will, which He nonetheless won’t force upon us. Unless the doctrines of a church or denomination teach this primary truth, they aren't even on first base; they fail to understand the basic nature and will of God to begin with. And yet, even with Scripture alone, some of these truths are missed, or not well understood.

Does your understanding of God as described above mean that God is unable to save mankind or that he is merely unwilling to do so? Or do you believe that God will save all of mankind?