Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[Rick Otto]

No, it is an observation about bibles. The table of contents is not inspired yet it defines the limits of what is accounted to be the only inspired and infallible standard for doctrine for Christians. Thus the table of contents is not contained in the inspired scriptures yet it is a dogma defining the limits of inspired scripture.

...But of course, you acknowledge that some of us here claim grounds to make distinctions you don't acknowledge as legitimate ,... am I right?
(I'm recalling S'Up's "sons of thunder reference" and Maccabee's 'no prophet' condition...)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes.

No.

It is an observation about bibles. The table of contents is not inspired yet it defines the limits of what is accounted to be the only inspired and infallible standard for doctrine for Christians. Thus the table of contents is not contained in the inspired scriptures yet it is a dogma defining the limits of inspired scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...But of course, you acknowledge that some of us here claim grounds to make distinctions you don't acknowledge as legitimate ,... am I right?

(I'm recalling S'Up's "sons of thunder reference" and Maccabee's 'no prophet' condition...)

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[concretecamper]

You have a governing body, I get that, as pretty much every church does, but you cannot call it unity when that church's teachers (Priests, etc) teach exactly the opposite of what the governing body decrees. That means everyone they teach now believes opposite of what the church actually decrees. As a good analogy, take prohibition in the 1920's. The government declared alcohol illegal, and yet people went right on making and consuming it. Is that unity?

You a make it sound like all priests teach counter to the Church....all that from one YouTube video

Read the CCC...it's all there.

 

[Souldier]

No, it is an observation about bibles. The table of contents is not inspired yet it defines the limits of what is accounted to be the only inspired and infallible standard for doctrine for Christians. Thus the table of contents is not contained in the inspired scriptures yet it is a dogma defining the limits of inspired scripture.

The table of contents merely reflects the contents of the bible. Its not a dogma. However the dogma may be that those writings are the only universally accepted scriptures.

 

[Souldier]

Im still waiting to hear what these important dogmas are which are not found in scripture. Are there any? If not then we all acknowledge that the bible alone is sufficient. Lets answer that question.

 

[Souldier]

Let me rephrase. I'm waiting to hear what these dogmas are which are not found in the universally accepted 66 books of the bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The table of contents merely reflects the contents of the bible. Its not a dogma. However the dogma may be that those writings are the only universally accepted scriptures.

In The Westminster Confession of Faith and in The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion the table of contents is stated dogmatically. The canon of holy scripture is defined in the canons of the Council of Trent as dogma. I do not know what your church says on the matter but it appears that if one talks about scripture then some sort of definition of scripture is necessary. The table of contents in one's bible tells us what sort of definition of contents is operative in one's system of beliefs.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Im still waiting to hear what these important dogmas are which are not found in scripture. Are there any? If not then we all acknowledge that the bible alone is sufficient. Lets answer that question.

One important dogma which is not found in holy scripture is the dogma defining holy scripture.

 

[SpyderByte]

You a make it sound like all priests teach counter to the Church....all that from one YouTube video

Read the CCC...it's all there.

No, but I'm beginning to believe you're being deliberately obtuse. I can point to many instances of many priests teaching counter to the ccc. Will you answer my question or continue with the evasion?

You have a governing body, I get that, as pretty much every church does, but you cannot call it unity when that church's teachers (Priests, etc) teach exactly the opposite of what the governing body decrees. That means everyone they teach now believes opposite of what the church actually decrees. As a good analogy, take prohibition in the 1920's. The government declared alcohol illegal, and yet people went right on making and consuming it. Is that unity?

 

[SpyderByte]

One important dogma which is not found in holy scripture is the dogma defining holy scripture.

A go to straw man/red herring of the rcc. The canon of Scripture is part of its inspiration. Prove beyond "the church says so" that the apocrypha is inspired, then maybe the rcc would have a leg to stand on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A go to straw man of the rcc. The canon of Scripture is part of its inspiration. Prove beyond "the church says so" that the apocrypha is inspired, then maybe the rcc would have a leg to stand on.

It is not a dogma believed by Catholics alone, every Christian has a bible with a table of contents and every Christian regards the table of contents as setting the limits on what is really scripture. The holy scriptures do not contain the table of contents but the bibles we have do have one. It was defined by various churches and denominations. It is a dogma of the faith taught by each church and denomination and it is not contained in the holy scriptures.

 

[SpyderByte]

It is not a dogma believed by Catholics alone, every Christian has a bible with a table of contents and every Christian regards the table of contents as setting the limits on what is really scripture.

No, it sets the limits on what is on that particular book. As we know, yours is vastly different from the universally accepted 66. Here is a few articles for you:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/28/apocrypha-and-canon-in-early-christianity/
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=20

You can find many more here: http://michaeljkruger.com/articles/

 

[concretecamper]

No, but I'm beginning to believe you're being deliberately obtuse. I can point to many instances of many priests teaching counter to the ccc. Will you answer my question or continue with the evasion?

Lol...many instances...really. I'll wait for the "many". So far, you've posted 1 YouTube video....too funny. And if you pose a question, I'll answer it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, it sets the limits on what is on that particular book. As we know, yours is vastly different from the universally accepted 66. ...

Insofar as the 66 is a subset of the 73 that is in my bible and the larger number that is in my Orthodox Study Bible one can say that the 66 are accepted by christians in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. I am not sure that saying that means that the table of contents is not a dogma that is not found in holy scripture. It seems to say quite the opposite.

 

[concretecamper]

No, it sets the limits on what is on that particular book. As we know, yours is vastly different from the universally accepted 66

More Christians accept the Catholic Bible than the 66 book version.....so much for the universally adjective.

 

[Souldier]

In The Westminster Confession of Faith and in The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion the table of contents is stated dogmatically. The canon of holy scripture is defined in the canons of the Council of Trent as dogma. I do not know what your church says on the matter but it appears that if one talks about scripture then some sort of definition of scripture is necessary. The table of contents in one's bible tells us what sort of definition of contents is operative in one's system of beliefs.

I don't consider the table of contents at all. I look at whats inside. I see that Paul gives us his example and his teaching and tells us to follow him. Did Paul leave something out? No not in my opinion. He teaches the same things over and over. Paul is guided by the words of Christ and we have the Lords words as well. Its not complicated but is simple. Its just a matter of seeking the kingdom which is following holiness, and its about walking in love and faith. Paul teaches all these things, as does the Lord. The bible surely seems like its enough. I think adding other things to it only serves to become a distraction. Its better to follow a simple path in the spirit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't consider the table of contents at all. I look at whats inside. I see that Paul gives us his example and his teaching and tells us to follow him. Did Paul leave something out? No not in my opinion. He teaches the same things over and over. Paul is guided by the words of Christ and we have the Lords words as well. Its not complicated but is simple. Its just a matter of seeking the kingdom which is following holiness, and its about walking in love and faith. Paul teaches all these things, as does the Lord. The bible surely seems like its enough. I think adding other things to it only serves to become a distraction. Its better to follow a simple path in the spirit.

What is inside a bible is determined by the publisher and the publisher tells you what is inside the bible by means of the table of contents.

 

[Souldier]

What is inside a bible is determined by the publisher and the publisher tells you what is inside the bible by means of the table of contents.

What is in my heart is given by the Lord. Its found in His words and those of Paul. Am i missing anything? What is missing from the table of contents in my heart?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's return to the topic. Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

One dogma that is clearly missing from holy scripture is the table of contents. The holy scriptures do not contain a table of contents but Christians believe only certain books are genuinely inspired scripture. The table of contents tells one what books are included in the inspired scriptures.