Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

"The oneness of husband and wife is different than the oneness of God." So you say, but where does scripture say so? Where does scripture define what this oneness means so we can distinguish it from a different oneness? As you post, there is little scripture on the Trinity.

So why do churches feel compelled to adopt a creed that inculcates with so much verbiage not present in scripture and attach a damnation clause to it?

With the damnation clause it transitions from a creed/statement of man's belief to being a claimed statement of God. There is no more clear example of dogma in existence in the Christian community.

I commend MoreCoffee for his defense of his "dogma" in the RCC. At least he does not state damnation for one that does not believe as he does.

By participating in threads within the Theology forum one is implying that one accepts the Nicene Creed as expressing one's own faith in God.

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

Or perhaps the extra books explain why so many inexplicable dogmas exist among the people with them.

 

[Rick Otto]

Keeps one earth bound. Not a good thing to be in spiritual matters.

I agree. Luxury keeps one earthbound.

 

[SpyderByte]

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

Hardly since even past popes and ecf's from your own denomination rejected those extra books as heretical and apocryphal, but hey! They prop up the man made traditions of the rcc, so later councils said "keep 'em!"

 

[MoreCoffee]

No doubt some bishop or cardinal may have entertained thoughts of rejection because of the habit of Rabbinic Judaism in isolating books composed in Hebrew and Aramaic and rejecting Jesus Christ and the testament to his words and deeds that Christians accept. Such corruptions are apt to seep in from the outside and contaminate those who allow it. But is it not true that some among the leaders of the reformation sought to reject the books of James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the second and third letters of saint John as well as saint Jude's short letter? Shall I suppose as they did, and as you may well do if you follow their example SpyderByte, that these books are wrongly included in your bible?

Once one starts cutting away canonical holy scripture it is hard to justify stopping at any specific place. Some in very ancient times wanted only to retain some of saint Paul's letters and some of saint Luke's gospel while rejecting all the rest of canonical holy scripture; what arguments would you give against that expedient?

 

[Standing Up]

No doubt some bishop or cardinal may have entertained thoughts of rejection because of the habit of Rabbinic Judaism in isolating books composed in Hebrew and Aramaic and rejecting Jesus Christ and the testament to his words and deeds that Christians accept. Such corruptions are apt to seep in from the outside and contaminate those who allow it. But is it not true that some among the leaders of the reformation sought to reject the books of James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the second and third letters of saint John as well as saint Jude's short letter? Shall I suppose as they did, and as you may well do if you follow their example SpyderByte, that these books are wrongly included in your bible?

Once one starts cutting away canonical holy scripture it is hard to justify stopping at any specific place. Some in very ancient times wanted only to retain some of saint Paul's letters and some of saint Luke's gospel while rejecting all the rest of canonical holy scripture; what arguments would you give against that expedient?

Adding or subtracting is frowned upon.

The base line is scripture authored by either prophets (or writers of their time) or apostles (or writers of their time). Beyond that is opinion, as Peter and Paul warned us. (See 1 Maccabbees because it agrees with this, and thus excludes itself from true and valid canon.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Adding or subtracting is frowned upon.

The base line is scripture authored by either prophets (or writers of their time) or apostles (or writers of their time). Beyond that is opinion, as Peter and Paul warned us. (See 1 Maccabbees because it agrees with this, and thus excludes itself from true and valid canon.)

Pardon me for saying this but I am not persuaded that those here in christian forums are competent to set the criteria for what is canonical holy scripture. Surely this task requires scholarship, holiness, and authority within the church. Have any here these attributes in greater quantity and quality than the men who sat in council to decide the canon of holy scripture in ancient times and those who ratified their decisions in later times?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

Of course, the individual RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Bible - and always has had.... NONE accepts or follows the RC Denomination on this point - and never has. It is yet another issue in which the singular, individual, exclusive RC Denomination is in disunity with all. If you want to start a thread about this thing that bothers you, go ahead: "Why Does the Individual RC Denomination Have a UNIQUE Bible - and ALWAYS Has Had? Why is It in Disunity with All on This, Too?" Start that thread, I'll post in it.

But not, that's not what this thread is about. NONE of the dogmas this thread is about come from ANY Scripture - which is the point, they come from this mysterious phantom of Dogmas Jesus, the 12-14 Apostles and the First Century Christians taught/believed that the Holy Spirit forgot to teach in ANY Scripture - indeed, in ANY writing of the First Century.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[fhansen]

Hardly since even past popes and ecf's from your own denomination rejected those extra books as heretical and apocryphal, but hey! They prop up the man made traditions of the rcc, so later councils said "keep 'em!"

And many early believers, priests and bishops included, were Arians. But when the Church finally sat at council to decide on the issue, Arianism decidedly lost.

 

[SpyderByte]

And many early believers, priests and bishops included, were Arians. But when the Church finally sat at council to decide on the issue, Arianism decidedly lost.

Actually no, it didn't. Nicea called it heresy, then another council called Nicea heresy, and eventually Athanasius fought and lost his see 5 times but proved from the scriptures that arianism was the real heresy. It wasn't a nice neat cut and dry occurrence like you think it was.

 

[Standing Up]

Of course, the individual RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Bible - and always has had.... NONE accepts or follows the RC Denomination on this point - and never has. It is yet another issue in which the singular, individual, exclusive RC Denomination is in disunity with all. If you want to start a thread about this thing that bothers you, go ahead: "Why Does the Individual RC Denomination Have a UNIQUE Bible - and ALWAYS Has Had? Why is It in Disunity with All on This, Too?" Start that thread, I'll post in it.

But not, that's not what this thread is about. NONE of the dogmas this thread is about come from ANY Scripture - which is the point, they come from this mysterious phantom of Dogmas Jesus, the 12-14 Apostles and the First Century Christians taught/believed that the Holy Spirit forgot to teach in ANY Scripture - indeed, in ANY writing of the First Century.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Well, not to muddy too much, but the idea of Mary as ever-virgin certainly traces to Protoevangelium of James (Origen) that claims to be written by James (step-brother of Jesus), first bishop of Jerusalem.

Some treat that book as scripture/tradition and hence, believe that dogma sources to apostolic scripture/tradition.

The problem is PoJ contradicts true scripture/tradition (Christ born normally with afterbirth (blood and water)).

 

[fhansen]

Actually no, it didn't. Nicea called it heresy, then another council called Nicea heresy, and eventually Athanasius fought and lost his see 5 times but proved from the scriptures that arianism was the real heresy. It wasn't a nice neat cut and dry occurrence like you think it was.

It's nearly always a messy affair-and it's well known that the heresy, itself, persisted for many years later-it still does in some forms today. But the decision was made and the Christian church is Trinitarian today because she's held to the decrees of that council.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

I'm wondering if this ^ is merely meant as bait since every church knows what's in those uninspired books. It's not as though the users of the standard Bible have no access to "Suzanna and the Elders: A Tale" or the rest of these writings.

Indeed, a large percentage of Protestant Christianity (the Lutheran and Anglican churches) affirms that the Apocrypha is to be read, and does read from these books during worship. They're just not made to be more than they are--morality tales--and they don't contain any doctrines, anyway.

We're not talking about some secret knowledge that only the Catholic churches know exists. And then we have the fact that the RCC threw some of this material out of its own Bible in the 16th century, following the lead of the Protestant Reformers.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm wondering if this ^ is merely meant as bait since everyone knows what's in those uninspired books. It's not as though the users of the standard Bible have no access to "Suzanna and the Elders: A Tale" or the rest of these writings.

Indeed, a large percentage of Protestant Christianity (the Lutheran and Anglican churches) affirms that the Apocrypha is to be read, and does read from these books during worship. They're just not made to be more than they are--morality tales--and they don't contain any doctrines, anyway. It's not as though we're talking about some secret knowledge or material that only the Catholic churches know anything about.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm wondering if this ^ is merely meant as bait since every church knows what's in those uninspired books. ...

What you say may be so for some in the denominations who reject the holy Catholic church because such persons reject the canonical holy scriptures that their own denomination has not sanctioned. Some among the Anglican communion do have a low regard for the books that they call apocrypha. Nevertheless it is no bait to report the truth about the differences between the canonical holy scriptures and the smaller set of books one finds in bibles such as the NASB. Sixty six books do not constitute the full canon of holy scripture despite the views of many denominations to the contrary.

 

[BobRyan]

What you say may be so for some in the denominations who reject the holy Catholic church because such persons reject the canonical holy scriptures that their own denomination has not sanctioned.

1. I thought that was the rule the Catholic church recommended - don't accept any text your church magisterium rejects. Now you object to it??

2. What specific doctrine in the Catholic church would test as valid if only some more books of the Bible were added?? (So then not valid with the 66 but then valid with the Apocrypha.)

Some among the Anglican communion do have a low regard for the books that they call apocrypha. Nevertheless it is no bait to report the truth about the differences between the canonical holy scriptures and the smaller set of books one finds in bibles such as the NASB.

Sixty six books do constitute the full canon of holy scripture despite the views of a few denominations (or is it just 1?) to the contrary.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm wondering if this ^ is merely meant as bait since every church knows what's in those uninspired books. It's not as though the users of the standard Bible have no access to "Suzanna and the Elders: A Tale" or the rest of these writings.

Indeed, a large percentage of Protestant Christianity (the Lutheran and Anglican churches) affirms that the Apocrypha is to be read, and does read from these books during worship. They're just not made to be more than they are--morality tales--and they don't contain any doctrines, anyway.

We're not talking about some secret knowledge that only the Catholic churches know exists. And then we have the fact that the RCC threw some of this material out of its own Bible in the 16th century, following the lead of the Protestant Reformers.

There are "some" who regard Genesis as "myth" a kind of fiction - a "mere morality tale" - so then why complain when the Apocrypha is viewed that way?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

BobRyan, a multitude of denominations affirming 66 books means only that those who affirm 66 books have separated one from another until there are many. The Catholic church is one church but has many more members than all of the the many 66 book affirming denominations put together. Numbers do not prove a case but numbers such as these do help to give context to the argument that you put; namely that just one church accepts the full canon of holy scripture while many denominations accept only 66 books.

 

[Albion]

There are "some" who regard Genesis as "myth" a kind of fiction - a "mere morality tale" - so then why complain when the Apocrypha is viewed that way?

in Christ,

Bob

Two reasons: The Hebrew Bible included the Book of Genesis and all Jews accepted it as scriptural. Not so the Apocrypha. Second, Genesis does teach very important doctrinal material. Again, that's not so with the Apocrypha.

The fact that "some people" are mistaken about this is hardly any different from saying that there are "some people" who are wrong about virtually any Christian belief or practice that can be named--and this certainly is not a reason in itself for affording their misconceptions any credibility.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BobRyan, a multitude of denominations affirming 66 books means only that those who affirm 66 books have separated one from another until there are many.

The individual RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Bible - a unique canon, a unique understanding of what is and is not Scripture. On this TOO it stands in complete disunity with all. And it ALWAYS has - for centuries before the Reformation and for centuries since. NO other affirms or follows the individual RC Denomination on this. We all know that. And yes, Catholics KEEP bringing this up - it seems to trouble them enormously. But friend, that's NOT the issue of this thread. If you want to start at thread on that, please do - just entitled it, "Why Does the Individual RC Denomination Have a UNIQUE Bible - and Always Has? Why Is It in Disunity with All on This, Too - and Always Has Been?" I'll post in it.

But this thread is not about what IS recorded by the Holy Spirit in books of the First Century, it is NOT about Dogmas taught by the Holy Spirit in Scriptures unique to the singular RC Denomination. Read the opening post. It's not about Dogmas taught in Psalm 151 or the Epistle to the Leodiceans.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah