Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

Once more, let God be true even if it means that every man is a liar with logic or without it.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Once more, let God be true even if it means that every man is a liar with logic or without it.

And once more, Amen to that.

What does the body of Christ taste like? Does it taste like flesh or like a wafer?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

What's the end of the process.. where does the Eucharist end up?

You've all just finished eating the body of Christ, it's in your belly.

Then what?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The pagans mocked Christians for eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The pagans called Christians cannibals. How like the pagans these objections are.

Let God be true even though the pagans rage against him.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Could you actually quote the Athanasian Creed and show me where the problem is? Because this statement:



makes no sense.

You summarized the Athanasian Creed with "one essence, three persons".

As an analogy I say a married man and woman are said to be one flesh in scripture but clearly two persons. If you can't see the similarity in your statement to mine, than there is no hope for this discussion.

Further you ignore the differences between how we came up with the Nicene Creed as opposed to the Athanasian Creed.

 

[Rick Otto]

The pagans mocked Christians for eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The pagans called Christians cannibals. How like the pagans these objections are.

Let God be true even though the pagans rage against him.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

I think the rage was not against God. I think it was against stubborn imbecility.
The objection is about your confusing what is truly spiritual with what is truly physical.

 

[Rick Otto]

Once more, let God be true even if it means that every man is a liar with logic or without it.

With AND without it.

 

[barryatlake]

That True Light,

johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

click on Eucharist

 

[SpyderByte]

When the Priest presents it.. doesn't he say that it is the body of Christ?

Which is Christ's church, right? So he is presenting Christ's church to Christ's church?

Just thinking out loud here.

Not only that, but the believe they're pulling Christ down from His throne in heaven, to be presented on the alter.

When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

-John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions

 

[concretecamper]

Ok, where to begin, where to begin...

Sheer eisegesis. Iirc, the direct translation is actually better stated "I am not knowing a man" as in she wasn't currently having sexual relations, because she wasn't married yet. Also, did the angel put a time frame on the conception? You have to read into it, that she took a vow of virginity. I would think such a vow, of a supposedly sinless woman, would be rather important, and be more explicit than the possible tense of a single word.



The RCC disagrees with you: scripture. The above is the only explanation given of Revelation 12:1, and also note they mention she gives birth in pain. For that to be true would indicate a natural birth, thus negating the ever virginity.


This is utter hogwash. The doctrine of the Trinity is shown throughout scripture, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, but easily found.


Start with the 2 natures:
John 1:1,14
Col. 2:9
Hebrews 1:3
There are many more especially when you start putting together the verses where one says He is man, while another in another book says He is God, but don't expressly say them together.
Trinity:
Matt 28:19
1 Cor. 12:4-6
2 Cor. 13:14
Again there are others, but you get the drift. So again, outside of eisegesis, there is zero evidence of those Marian dogmas. I appreciate the attempt though. It was more than your fellow Catholics were willing to do.

Trinity:

Mat 28:19 So there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All Christians believe that. If this is your idea of the Trinity, you have got a lot of studying to complete.
1 Cor 12:4-6: you are getting warm, but still far short of the doctrine of the Trinity.
2 Cor 13:14: You must be adding to the Bible!


2 Nature of Christ

John 1:1-14: Nothing about Hypostatic Union or the doctrine on the 2 natures of Christ
Col 2:9 : Nothing about Hypostatic Union or the doctrine on the 2 natures of Christ
Hebrews 1:3 : Nothing about Hypostatic Union or the doctrine on the 2 natures of Christ

thank you for providing scripture references that tell us Christ is God.



And you're criticizing me on my lack of scripture?....LOL

Nice attempt, so the next time you criticize Catholics for scripture references on the Assumption and perpetual virginity, remember this failed attempt to provide scriptural examples about 2 topics most Christians accept as Truth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is the holy eucharist one of the missing dogmas?

 

[SpyderByte]

Trinity:

Mat 28:19 So there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All Christians believe that. If this is your idea of the Trinity, you have got a lot of studying to complete.
1 Cor 12:4-6: you are getting warm, but still far short of the doctrine of the Trinity.
2 Cor 13:14: You must be adding to the Bible!

2 Nature of Christ

John 1:1-14: Nothing about Hypostatic Union
Col 2:9 : Nothing about the 2 natures of Christ
Hebrews 1:3 : Nothing about the 2 natures of Christ

And you're criticizing me on my lack of scripture?....LOL

Nice attempt, so the next time you criticize Catholics for scripture references on the Assumption and perpetual virginity, remember this failed attempt to provide scriptural examples about 2 topics most Christians accept as Truth.

You can hand wave away the scriptures without proof. Try again. If you need to I can post each of those scriptures here so you can read them for yourself. So far you've refuted nothing,and ignored the fact that your own church disagrees with you on Mary and Rev 12:1.

Eta, even catholic.com agrees with my verses: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You summarized the Athanasian Creed with "one essence, three persons".

As an analogy I say a married man and woman are said to be one flesh in scripture but clearly two persons. If you can't see the similarity in your statement to mine, than there is no hope for this discussion.

Further you ignore the differences between how we came up with the Nicene Creed as opposed to the Athanasian Creed.

I see the similarity, but they're not the same thing. The one flesh shared between husband and wife is not the same as the oneness between the three members of the Trinity. Husband and wife are still two humans; the three members of the Trinity are truly and actually one God.

And honestly, we know a lot more about the Athanasian Creed than you think. It may have been anonymously written, but it was almost certainly composed in order to combat the Arianism of the Visigoths in the context of sixth century Spain. The same Arianism that the Nicene Creed was written to condemn.

 

[SpyderByte]

Trinity:

Mat 28:19 So there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All Christians believe that. If this is your idea of the Trinity, you have got a lot of studying to complete.

Funny, I'm quite the sure the Trinity does indeed consist of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hmmm, did I forget to put Mary as the 3a, you know as co-redemptrix? I'm sure that must have been what made you so upset as to ignore and hand wave away the evidence rather than give counter exegesis as to what those passages are actually saying. Oh, sorry! I forgot! You're not allowed to by you church! If it hasn't been infallibly defined by them, then it doesn't count right?

 

[concretecamper]

You can hand wave away the scriptures without proof. Try again. If you need to I can post each of those scriptures here so you can read them for yourself. So far you've refuted nothing,and ignored the fact that your own church disagrees with you on Mary and Rev 12:1.

We all must believe you because of the reason YOU SAID IT? HAHA...and people wonder why there are so many denominations.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm sure that must have been what made you so upset as to ignore and hand wave away the evidence rather than give counter exegesis as to what those passages are actually saying.

I missed the part where you provided an exegesis of the scripture passages you provided for me to counter. I suspect it is because you can't?

 

[Kristos]

I think there are really questions here - first - within the context of the Church, are there any Christian dogmas that are not contained in Scripture: I would have to say no, with the caveat that some might be more clear than others, but when scripture is rightly divided within the context of the Church (aka Tradition) then the dogmas are all there in one form or another.

The second part of the question then is what if you try to divide scripture outside the context of Tradition - can you still find all dogmas within? Or, if taken to the logical extent - could someone, given a copy of the Bible, reproduce all of the Christian dogmas directly from Scripture? I would have to say not very likely - nearly impossible. Scripture alone does not provide the context necessary to rightly divide itself.

So the net would be you really need both the written word (scripture) AND the Holy Spirit working in the context of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in order to discern Christian dogma.

 

[SpyderByte]

We all must believe you because of the reason YOU SAID IT? HAHA...and people wonder why there are so many denominations.

I missed the part where you provided an exegesis of the scripture passages you provided. I suspect it is because you can't?

Funny, you didn't ask for exegesis, you asked for verses that show Jesus Christ's 2 natures and the Trinity. I not only provided both (which you hand waved) but also a link to Catholic.com that agrees with me, and you ignore it and continue to hand wave. The onus is now on you to disagree with your church and provide the interpretation that says they don't show the Trinity and 2 natures. At least try.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is the holy eucharist one of the missing dogmas?

Some would opinion that the new, unique, RCC Dogma of Transubstantiation/Accidents is. But this thread is not about specific, unique
Dogmas of any particular, individual denomination/sect/cult/group - it's about the claim noted in the opening post.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Belief that the bread and the wine after the giving of thanks are in truth the body and the blood as well as the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is the teaching of Christ and the apostles and has been taught in the church and believed by the faithful from the beginning. That is why the gospels contain these passages.

• And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:26-29)
• And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. (Mark 14:22-25)
• And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:14-20)

You seem to be confusing two entirely different dogmas: Real Presence and Transubstantiation/Accidents (the later being the unique, new, Dogma of the singular, individual RC Denomination). But friend, this thread is not about this new, unique Dogma of your singular denomination. Read the opening post.

Now IF you claim that Transubstantiation/Accidents was a Dogma taught by Jesus and thus by the 12-14 Apostles and thus believed by all Christians in the First Century but is obviously missing in the Holy Scirptures because, well, God forgot - then list it as an example of what this thread is about.




Thank you.


pax


- Josiah